Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

ruining the planet for "cheap" energy is not cheap - it's stupid. and expensive to all in the intermediate and long term.

The rest of the comments are meaningless chaff and diversion.

Mind boggling, "cheap" means affordable. As if the cost of energy to the end user includes environmental impact. That's absurd. This is just handwaving in light of a very pressing issue, one that concerns billions of people.

(dodge noted)

 

[Mikemcc]

All of which can be mitigated, many of which benefit Canada. There's no need for Canadians to spend another dime until mitigation strategies have a demonstrable effect on climate change.

How do you develop mitigation strategies to the point that they are demonstrable without spending cash on the research?

 

[Furcifer]

Do you even understand the term mitigation??
And just what in that list, is of benefit to Canada...??

and lets hear how you "mitigate" sea level rise, acidification, loss of plant nutrients......

you want "mitigate" climate change.....!!!!????? and wait til you have "mitigation strategies" that will alter climate change



talk about floundering.....

Um, it's very simple. People move, land is fertilized and irrigated even transported if necessary. Walls are built, chemicals are added, trees are planted. Mitigation- To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate. That's exactly what will happen, when the time comes. Mitigation.
There's no floundering, this is a direct course of action. Identify the problem, moderate or alleviate it, and move one. Address each problem in step. Despite the alarmism climate change isn't happening that fast. It has all the momentum of a runaway sloth.

 

[Pixel42]

We are discussing the science. Namely the tendency for alarmists to cherry pick the extremes of possibility and exploit it for political means.

When discussing AGW on a less science-savvy board I often find people referring to alarmist predictions, which they think essentially boil down to "we're all going to die", yet they can never actually quote any reputable scientist or politician who has said this or anything approaching it.

Can you give me some actual examples of who you would consider an alarmist, or what you would consider an alarmist prediction? Is the IPCC prediction of (IIRC) an average temperature rise of between 2 and 5 degrees by the end of the century alarmist? Is Hansen (who considers runaway warming a small but definite possibility) an alarmist? Are any of the posts in this thread alarmist, and if so can you give examples?

Who specifically are the people who are "exploiting [AGW] for political means"?

I consider you the most sensible of the climate sceptics with whom I have discussed this topic, I'm genuinely trying to find out where you're coming from on this. For myself, I consider even the mid-range of predictions to be sufficiently concerning to warrant taking steps now in mitigation, even if it results in short term hardship for me (e.g. higher fuel prices, which as a pensioner I can ill afford) from which I will not live see the benefits. I think the worst case scenarios, even though less likely, are concerning enough to bring to the public's attention, and I would not brand anyone who does so (as long as they make it clear that these are less likely scenarios) alarmist.

 

[Trakar]

...Despite the alarmism climate change isn't happening that fast. It has all the momentum of a runaway sloth.

You were fine until the last sentence. Climate change is happening slow by human life span scales, but it is happening at an unprecedented geological rate. And the problem is that it has a momentum of planetary scale. The longer we wait to act, the more energy and expense it will take and the worse things will get before conditions stabilize,...beyond certain thresholds, we have no options. IMO, we are at, or have already exceeded those limits.

 

[CapelDodger]

Fine then, give me a breakdown of the money that's been spent, what's been accomplished, the effect that's it's had on the climate and what effect it will have 10, 25 and 50 years out.

I mean the science is solid right, so answer the question.

You're the one fixated on cost, so you answer the question.

Of course nothing that's been done is any more than token, and that won't change much for a while. No policy to mitigate AGW will have any short-term noticeable effect, which means they are only attractive to politicians if there's some other, more immediate element (such as directly creating jobs or promoting new industry). That's happened in Germany and China, and I gather Ontario is moving that way gradually.

At some point people will be demanding real action, at which point money gets thrown at the problem, probably not in the most effective way. That's life.

 

[Furcifer]

You were fine until the last sentence. Climate change is happening slow by human life span scales, but it is happening at an unprecedented geological rate. And the problem is that it has a momentum of planetary scale. The longer we wait to act, the more energy and expense it will take and the worse things will get before conditions stabilize,...beyond certain thresholds, we have no options. IMO, we are at, or have already exceeded those limits.

But that's exactly my point, this is a human thing. Anything we do as humans, burning fossil fuels, planting wheat, building shelters, all happens very quickly on the Earth's time scale. That's why it's a misrepresentation, it's a human problem and should be measured against that time scale and not the Earth's.

The fact that humans live longer with each generation could be seem as a harmful anomaly from the wrong perspective.

 

[Furcifer]

Who specifically are the people who are "exploiting [AGW] for political means"?

Someone PM'd me a link

http://www.green-agenda.com/

There are some pretty good examples there. This one from Christine Stewart:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

I can recall seeing this in the news and thinking, wow. I mean that kinda sums it up doesn't it, at least the difference between politics, where it's just a means of motivating people to do what you want them to do, and science.

That's why I hate the implication of statements like "Well the science is settled". If the science is settled then all that's left is the politics of what to do.

I'm not comfortable with the current accuracy of model predictions to turn over decisions to people who just see it as an opportunity to fullfill their own agenda. Even if it is about bringing justice and equality to the world. (Which I highly doubt, but I don't really know what Stewart's agenda or plan is)

 

[Furcifer]

Can you give me some actual examples of who you would consider an alarmist, or what you would consider an alarmist prediction? Is the IPCC prediction of (IIRC) an average temperature rise of between 2 and 5 degrees by the end of the century alarmist? Is Hansen (who considers runaway warming a small but definite possibility) an alarmist? Are any of the posts in this thread alarmist, and if so can you give examples?

I don't find the AR4 alarmist. Reading it it's a matter of fact, based on what we know. There are ranges of outcomes and they are given probabilities.

What's alarming is when people cherry pick data, misrepresent the outcomes as inevitable and then call for action.

"We've got to do anything and everything to stop this". Where exactly does the science say that? What's in the AR4 that says tripling the cost of electricity will stop hurricanes? And yet when people talk they seem to imply this will happen unless they do that. It's concerning.

For myself, I consider even the mid-range of predictions to be sufficiently concerning to warrant taking steps now in mitigation, even if it results in short term hardship for me (e.g. higher fuel prices, which as a pensioner I can ill afford) from which I will not live see the benefits.

I don't because I haven't been told what they outcome of my hardship will be. And the science hasn't proved that your hardship will have any effect. The steps taken at this point have some Return on Investment. Beyond that I don't feel it's warranted. Not while we have so many gaps to fill in our understanding of climate change.

I think the worst case scenarios, even though less likely, are concerning enough to bring to the public's attention, and I would not brand anyone who does so (as long as they make it clear that these are less likely scenarios) alarmist.

I would as well, but I also consider people claiming the science is settled alarmist. Sure, there may be 3000 scientists that agree on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, but how many agree carbon credits will have positive effects. How many agree on the effects of any proposed mitigation strategies beyond "yes, less is better"? Until the science confirms the effects of mitigation it really isn't settled.

 

[CapelDodger]

Despite the alarmism climate change isn't happening that fast.

It is. The tropics are expanding, sea-levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, deluges and droughts are reaching epidemic proportions. It's already having an effect on global agriculture. How fast does it need to be to present a problem in your eyes?

It has all the momentum of a runaway sloth.

AGW has enormous momentum, of course, and there's nothing much pushing back. Expect more of the same.

 

[Pixel42]

http://www.green-agenda.com/

The quote mining on that site is quite amusing in places (there are several which I'm pretty sure don't mean what the quoter thinks (or pretends to think) they mean) but the main thrust - that the things we need to do to mitigate AGW will have other benefits which would make them worth doing anyway, even if AGW wasn't true - seems a perfectly valid point to me. Unfortunately denier propaganda, by casting false doubt on the primary motivation for doing them, is ensuring almost none of them are being done.

Perhaps, instead of worrying about what a few largely powerless environmentalists are saying, you should be more concerned about the hidden agenda of those who are spreading the denier propaganda? Maybe they have their own reasons for not wanting the more just and equal society implementing AGW mitigation would help bring about? Something to think about.

I notice you have not given the examples of what you consider alarmists and alarmism I asked you for.

 

[DC]

Someone PM'd me a link

http://www.green-agenda.com/

There are some pretty good examples there. This one from Christine Stewart:



I can recall seeing this in the news and thinking, wow. I mean that kinda sums it up doesn't it, at least the difference between politics, where it's just a means of motivating people to do what you want them to do, and science.

That's why I hate the implication of statements like "Well the science is settled". If the science is settled then all that's left is the politics of what to do.

I'm not comfortable with the current accuracy of model predictions to turn over decisions to people who just see it as an opportunity to fullfill their own agenda. Even if it is about bringing justice and equality to the world. (Which I highly doubt, but I don't really know what Stewart's agenda or plan is)

 

[Pixel42]

I don't find the AR4 alarmist. Reading it it's a matter of fact, based on what we know. There are ranges of outcomes and they are given probabilities.

What's alarming is when people cherry pick data, misrepresent the outcomes as inevitable and then call for action.

"We've got to do anything and everything to stop this". Where exactly does the science say that? What's in the AR4 that says tripling the cost of electricity will stop hurricanes? And yet when people talk they seem to imply this will happen unless they do that. It's concerning.

This reply hadn't appeared on the thread when I made my previous post, but my remark that you had not provided any examples of alarmism stands. Who, precisely has said "We've got to do anything and everything to stop this". Cite, please. Because I've been reading about and discussing this subject for several years now, and I've never seen any reputable scientist - or indeed any poster - say this, let alone claim that the science said it.

I don't because I haven't been told what they outcome of my hardship will be. And the science hasn't proved that your hardship will have any effect. The steps taken at this point have some Return on Investment. Beyond that I don't feel it's warranted. Not while we have so many gaps to fill in our understanding of climate change.

There's certainly plenty we still need to find out, particularly about the effects of AGW region by region, but we know enough to say that there are almost certainly going to be effects which warrant action now, even if we're not sure what that action is. Determining what needs to be done is very difficult, but that discussion needs to be happening. And as long as there are people who deny that the problem even exists, or even just manage to persuade enough of the public that there is more uncertainty than there actually is, that discussion won't even start.

I would as well, but I also consider people claiming the science is settled alarmist. Sure, there may be 3000 scientists that agree on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, but how many agree carbon credits will have positive effects. How many agree on the effects of any proposed mitigation strategies beyond "yes, less is better"? Until the science confirms the effects of mitigation it really isn't settled.

As long as there are people claiming that AGW isn't happening it's important to emphasise that that much of the science is settled. Doing so is not alarmist, even if what exactly is going to happen and what's the best thing to do about it is still uncertain.

 

[Furcifer]

The tropics are expanding,

You mean the tropics, the vacation destination. The place people work for years to get to for a single week of their measly existence? And there's more of it? Sweet.

sea-levels are rising,

I've been to the Bay of Fundy. Ever heard of the place? The sea level rises several meters every day. They manage.

glaciers are retreating,

Cowards.
Is "your" glacier gone? You know the glacier where you and your sweety spent that week of reckless abandonment, frolicking naked under the moon, snuggling under the covers to keep warm at night.

Why exactly do you care where the glaciers are or aren't rather? I just find it odd people attach some sort of sentiment to something they've never seen. Trying to make it seem like they're losing an old friend. They're hunks of frozen water in the middle of no where. I'm still more worried about the people that will starve to death because they can't afford the cost of transporting food to them. That's an immediate, pressing concern that people want to forget about, so they chose to worry about where the glaciers are.

deluges and droughts are reaching epidemic proportions.

Epidemic proportions? Isn't that what defines them? I mean if it doesn't rain for a few days it's not a drought. It's not a drought until it reaches epidemic proportions. They've been around for as long as humans can remember as we've survived. We're more prepared to deal with them than at any other time in history.

It's already having an effect on global agriculture.

What effect are you speaking of? These vague references are usually a clear sign that you don't know what you're talking about, you just have a feeling.

Some of the exotic fruit supplies might be affected, but as far as I know the staple crops wheat, soy, corn and potatoes haven't been affected. And as far as I know Canada throws away tons and tons of food every year because it costs too much to transport it. The issue of food and World hunger has very little to do with climate, unless we're talking about political climate.

How fast does it need to be to present a problem in your eyes?

Change is good. What's made us humans is our ability to deal and adapt to change. Climate change is what's made us into humans. Had the climate of early Africa stayed the same we'd probably be swinging from the trees to this day.

AGW has enormous momentum, of course, and there's nothing much pushing back. Expect more of the same.

Only in people's minds. We can adapt faster than the climate can change. That means everything.
Unfortunately some animals can't and that's sad. I'm more concerned about humans however than polar bears or ice bergs.

 

[Furcifer]

The quote mining on that site is quite amusing in places (there are several which I'm pretty sure don't mean what the quoter thinks (or pretends to think) they mean) but the main thrust - that the things we need to do to mitigate AGW will have other benefits which would make them worth doing anyway, even if AGW wasn't true - seems a perfectly valid point to me. Unfortunately denier propaganda, by casting false doubt on the primary motivation for doing them, is ensuring almost none of them are being done.

Well it's literally a quote mine. I agree however in reading them that they seem out of context and perhaps don't necessarily mean what they mean. That's somewhat the point though, that a lot of what's whispered is taken out of context and generalities abound. It's this general sense of "Let's not think, let's do" that's concerning. And that's what I think constitutes alarmism. Rushing into something without having all the data and knowing all the angles. It might be a speeding runaway freight train, but it's still a ways down the tracks. We're not sitting on our hands doing nothing anymore. There are initiatives and they're coming in stride with what we know will happen. Anything more than that would be foolish.

As for the deniers, I correct them, then ignore them. It is warming and it's due to CO2, the science on that is certain.

 

[Furcifer]

Who, precisely has said "We've got to do anything and everything to stop this". Cite, please.

First this:

The bulk of scientists are pretty straight about saying this is a probability distribution. And right now our best guess is that we're expecting warming on the order of a few degrees in the next century. It's our best guess. We do not rule out the catastrophic 5 degrees or the mild half or one degree. And the special interests, ..... from deep ecology groups grabbing the 5 degrees as if it's the truth, or the coal industry grabbing the half degree and saying, "Oh, we're going to end up with negligible change and CO2's a fertilizer," and then spinning that as if that's the whole story--that's the difference between what goes on in the scientific community and what goes on in the public debate.

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, PBS interview

I just thought I'd quote it because it's essentially what I've trying to express here. So it's not just me who feels this way.

I figured that was a good segway into this:

We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.
Arnold Schwarzenegger - Environmental - Global Warming - Power

Yah, it's Arnie, but he said it, and he's huge. But he had to hear it from somewhere right? (it's admittedly hard to find specific quotes, most of what you can find on the internet is from the big players, Cheney, Bush, Gore)

This is the general sentiment that's permeating through society because alarmists start talking about catastrophe and flooding of biblical proportions. There's a sense of reckless abandonment when the alarmists starting talking.

I still feel the most danger is coming from these groups, and not what you would call "deniers". The equivalent denier rhetoric would be "Buy an SUV and crank up the AC, it's all good". Nobody (except me perhaps) is calling for the return of the incandescent light bulb and 4 barrel V-8's.

I'll continue to look for more quotes that I find alarming.

 

[Furcifer]

China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Pakistan compromise 45.5% of the World's population, but only account for 30.94% of the carbon emissions.

We're just barking up the wrong tree. It's really about what these 5 countries can do to curb their emissions. Unless the entire EU and the US go to zero emissions, the only way to have any impact on a Global scale is to keep these 5 countries in abject poverty.

That's all I'm hearing when I listen to people discuss Global Warming. For those of us in Canada and the UK there's nothing we can do. We could throw tons of money at the problem, go to zero carbon emissions, and not have any effect

I don't see how we have any choice but to continue using the cheapest energy possible and wait to see what happens. You know if you can't get insurance, having cash in your pocket is essential.

 

[Trakar]

But that's exactly my point, this is a human thing. Anything we do as humans, burning fossil fuels, planting wheat, building shelters, all happens very quickly on the Earth's time scale. That's why it's a misrepresentation, it's a human problem and should be measured against that time scale and not the Earth's.

The fact that humans live longer with each generation could be seem as a harmful anomaly from the wrong perspective.

Then intelligence offers no long term evolutionary advantage. If we can only act upon what we feel and not upon what we know, then intellection is a mere distraction to occupy us when we are not fighting, feeding or procreating. The perception you are pushing, is the one that fosters the perspective you fear.

 

[Trakar]

It is. The tropics are expanding, sea-levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, deluges and droughts are reaching epidemic proportions. It's already having an effect on global agriculture. How fast does it need to be to present a problem in your eyes?



AGW has enormous momentum, of course, and there's nothing much pushing back. Expect more of the same.

The tropical temps and transitionally shifting rain belts are being pushed ahead of expanding desertification zones, we are not filling the world with tropical abundances, rather we are altering and changing the fundementals of what have traditionally been the definitions of these ecological/meteorological zones. The moisture and temperature is being pushed north. The main northern zone that is expanding is the lower sub-tropic, think cold, snowy, swamps that freeze in the winter and ooze bugs and methane in the short stormy, springs and summers.

 

[Halsu]

Yah, it's Arnie, but he said it, and he's huge. But he had to hear it from somewhere right? (it's admittedly hard to find specific quotes, most of what you can find on the internet is from the big players, Cheney, Bush, Gore)

The first one was a good explanation of the scientist's view, the second is a politician's interpretation of it. Simplified, yes, but i don't really see it as "alarmist" per se, he just leaved out some disclaimers to make a point. That's what politicians do, in all issues. Here's the same stuff, with the disclaimers in italics.

It's indeed true that the science is clear and that the scientific debate is over when it comes to the essentials, details will continue to be debated till the sun goes supernova, as always.

It's also true that we need to take action now, if we wish to slow down global warming before it's too late - unless we are very lucky, and the end result happens to be in the lowest end of the distribution.