The environment thread

[Balta1701]

NOAA: 2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record

 

 

Nothing to see here, there is no such thing as global warming, move along people, move along...

It was also the wettest year on record.

According to the Global Historical Climatology Network, 2010 was the wettest year on record, in terms of global average precipitation. As with any year, precipitation patterns were highly variable from region to region.

[Y2HH]

NOAA: 2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record

 

 

Nothing to see here, there is no such thing as global warming, move along people, move along...

 

Nobody said there is no such thing as global warming...well, nobody with half a brain, anyway. The argument is that there are some that attribute it to industry/humans more so than any other factor, and then there are those that believe it happens in cycles whether humans interfere or not.

 

Truth is probably a mixture of both, to what degree, I have no idea, and don't really care. In the end, I'm not the least bit worried about it.

 

I'm an "Earther", which is nothing like being a "Birther". What we "Earthers" understand is that the Earth will be here long after we are...and it'll be fine without us. Nay, nay. It'll be even better off without us.

[Balta1701]

I'm an "Earther", which is nothing like being a "Birther". What we "Earthers" understand is that the Earth will be here long after we are...and it'll be fine without us. Nay, nay. It'll be even better off without us.

However, this is entirely beside the point. No one in their right mind thinks we're going to turn the Earth into Venus (By any means other than nuclear weapons).

 

The problem is...it can become a very unpleasant place for humanity.

[NorthSideSox72]

However, this is entirely beside the point. No one in their right mind thinks we're going to turn the Earth into Venus (By any means other than nuclear weapons).

 

The problem is...it can become a very unpleasant place for humanity.

Thank you. People who think we're destroying the earth, or think we're fine because the earth will be fine, are missing the point. Its not about protecting a rock in space, its about protecting ourselves from the backlash of our own actions.

 

[Y2HH]

Thank you. People who think we're destroying the earth, or think we're fine because the earth will be fine, are missing the point. Its not about protecting a rock in space, its about protecting ourselves from the backlash of our own actions.

 

I think everyone knows this is all about saving ourselves.

 

But I don't believe our "actions" are creating the devastating consequences many of you seem too. I DO think our contribution to climate change is having an effect/has had an effect, however, it's of my opinion that said effect is minimal at best, and it's our ego's that require and create the belief we are doing much more damage than we actually are.

 

Also, I think the steps we've taken (or have begun to take), albeit baby steps, are steps in the right direction to undo what little damage we've done. I also understand that the reality of modern life is that some destruction will be left in our wake, but again, aside from absolute nuclear devastation, I don't think what we've done thus far is the major factor for "modern climate change", I think most of it's natural, has happened before, and will happen again. That being said, if we can minimize our footprint, I'm all for it...unless it makes living modern life unbearable...I'm not interested in living as they did in the early 1900's just to be green. I want my electricity, and I want it now...and I want as much of it as I want.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Y2HH

[kapkomet]

We need a global plan to curb the population explosion. How we do that I have no idea.

 

 

Cut your balls off?

[Balta1701]

I think everyone knows this is all about saving ourselves.

 

But I don't believe our "actions" are creating the devastating consequences many of you seem too. I DO think our contribution to climate change is having an effect/has had an effect, however, it's of my opinion that said effect is minimal at best, and it's our ego's that require and create the belief we are doing much more damage than we actually are.

 

Also, I think the steps we've taken (or have begun to take), albeit baby steps, are steps in the right direction to undo what little damage we've done. I also understand that the reality of modern life is that some destruction will be left in our wake, but again, aside from absolute nuclear devastation, I don't think what we've done thus far is the major factor for "modern climate change", I think most of it's natural, has happened before, and will happen again. That being said, if we can minimize our footprint, I'm all for it...unless it makes living modern life unbearable...I'm not interested in living as they did in the early 1900's just to be green. I want my electricity, and I want it now...and I want as much of it as I want.

Yes, the climate has changed before, we'll all agree on that...but as a person working in Earth Science, I have to ask...what mechanism are you proposing which causes this modern climate shift other than what humans are doing? Science doesn't just let you say that things are cyclic or that thing change unless you postulate a mechanism by which that change happens.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think everyone knows this is all about saving ourselves.

 

But I don't believe our "actions" are creating the devastating consequences many of you seem too. I DO think our contribution to climate change is having an effect/has had an effect, however, it's of my opinion that said effect is minimal at best, and it's our ego's that require and create the belief we are doing much more damage than we actually are.

 

Also, I think the steps we've taken (or have begun to take), albeit baby steps, are steps in the right direction to undo what little damage we've done. I also understand that the reality of modern life is that some destruction will be left in our wake, but again, aside from absolute nuclear devastation, I don't think what we've done thus far is the major factor for "modern climate change", I think most of it's natural, has happened before, and will happen again. That being said, if we can minimize our footprint, I'm all for it...unless it makes living modern life unbearable...I'm not interested in living as they did in the early 1900's just to be green. I want my electricity, and I want it now...and I want as much of it as I want.

I agree with your general points here - that climate change is surely partly anthropogenic, but that we don't know how much... that its likely not 100%... and that we are doing things to move in the right direction.

 

But really, no one is suggesting living in the early 20th century, and I'd contend that the scientific evidence says we're a significant part of the change in climate. And as for how much damage is in our wake, its not really about damage - its about effect. Look around you. Humans and their stuff are pretty much everywhere, and there is no way that doesn't have an effect - and thus countereffects from teh environment.

 

[Balta1701]

I agree with your general points here - that climate change is surely partly anthropogenic, but that we don't know how much... that its likely not 100%... and that we are doing things to move in the right direction.

Really, the idea that it's not 100% anthropogenic is the natural conservatism of the scientists writing the IPCC reports coming out. They can't establish firmly that it's 110% human fault, so they leave themselves a reasonable margin of error, and the mainstreaming of the results assumes that the conservative margin of error is the right one, not the alarmist side.

 

Reality is...for the last decade in particular, we should have gone the other way. We're right now coming out of the deepest solar minimum in a couple centuries. The last decade should have been one of the coldest in the last century. Instead, it was the opposite.

 

I can't establish to complete certainty that it's entirely anthropogenic, so don't mistake what I'm saying here...but I'd certainly disagree with a statement that it is "Likely" not 100% anthropogenic, because 100% of climate change being anthropogenic is certainly within reasonable margins of error.

[iamshack]

Really, the idea that it's not 100% anthropogenic is the natural conservatism of the scientists writing the IPCC reports coming out. They can't establish firmly that it's 110% human fault, so they leave themselves a reasonable margin of error, and the mainstreaming of the results assumes that the conservative margin of error is the right one, not the alarmist side.

 

Reality is...for the last decade in particular, we should have gone the other way. We're right now coming out of the deepest solar minimum in a couple centuries. The last decade should have been one of the coldest in the last century. Instead, it was the opposite.

 

I can't establish to complete certainty that it's entirely anthropogenic, so don't mistake what I'm saying here...but I'd certainly disagree with a statement that it is "Likely" not 100% anthropogenic, because 100% of climate change being anthropogenic is certainly within reasonable margins of error.

I get lost in all your brilliance here, Balta, and I mean that sincerely, but I think I understand what you are saying enough to be surprised that you feel this way.

 

I agree with Y2H...it seems like we are flattering ourselves quite a bit here...

[NorthSideSox72]

I get lost in all your brilliance here, Balta, and I mean that sincerely, but I think I understand what you are saying enough to be surprised that you feel this way.

 

I agree with Y2H...it seems like we are flattering ourselves quite a bit here...

I have a hard time with people on either extreme on this.

 

On the one hand, I think you'd have to be blind or in denial to not look around and realize that humanity has a significant impact on the environment. That combined with the great, great, great majority of science agreeing that there is at least some anthropogenic component, makes it quite clear to me.

 

On the other hand, how anyone can point to a system so incredibly complex as climate and the atmosphere and say with 100% certainty (or even 98% certainty) that the changes can only be human-caused, seems incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. There are just so many variables at play, and we can't possibly understand all of it at the same time to make a truly complete judgment.

 

That all said, we can only control our part, and I find it obvious that we should work on that part, to help protect ourselves in the ways we can.

 

[Balta1701]

I agree with Y2H...it seems like we are flattering ourselves quite a bit here...

Really, no, we're not.

 

The Earth's atmosphere and planetary energy budgets are very finely tuned nobs, and the amount of deposited carbon in the earth is very large compared to the size of those nobs.

 

I think this is the best way I can say it. The difference in atmospheric CO2 between an ice-age state and an interglacial state is the difference between 200 and 275 ppm CO2. We've got more than a few proxies that say that, including ice cores from both ice caps. 75 ppm CO2.

 

The amount of CO2 we've released in the atmosphere has been enough to go from 280 to 390. We've already released enough CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of a century to change the atmosphere by more than it changed when the last ice age ended. And right now, that number is going up by 2.5 ppm per year. It will take only a couple decades for humankind to double atmospheric CO2.

 

CO2 in the atmosphere is an incredibly powerful lever.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Really, no, we're not.

 

The Earth's atmosphere and planetary energy budgets are very finely tuned nobs, and the amount of deposited carbon in the earth is very large compared to the size of those nobs.

 

I think this is the best way I can say it. The difference in atmospheric CO2 between an ice-age state and an interglacial state is the difference between 200 and 275 ppm CO2. We've got more than a few proxies that say that, including ice cores from both ice caps. 75 ppm CO2.

 

The amount of CO2 we've released in the atmosphere has been enough to go from 280 to 390. We've already released enough CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of a century to change the atmosphere by more than it changed when the last ice age ended. And right now, that number is going up by 2.5 ppm per year. It will take only a couple decades for humankind to double atmospheric CO2.

 

CO2 in the atmosphere is an incredibly powerful lever.

I have little doubt that CO2 levels changing like that are anthropogenic, and I have little doubt that will have some negative effect. All the more reason to address the causes.

 

But what others are saying is, that is NOT the same as saying all the recent change in temperature, precipitation and other factors HAVE to be human-caused.

 

[Balta1701]

On the other hand, how anyone can point to a system so incredibly complex as climate and the atmosphere and say with 100% certainty (or even 98% certainty) that the changes can only be human-caused, seems incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. There are just so many variables at play, and we can't possibly understand all of it at the same time to make a truly complete judgment.

The arrogance to me is not in believing that humans are powerful enough to shape their environment. Humans have been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years, on massive scales (the area where you're currently sitting used to be a gigantic swamp, for example. For another, you don't have a sabre-toothed cat chasing you around).

 

If there is arrogance...I think you can find it in the assumption that everything will always come out ok...that we're always going to wind up on the happy side of the margin of error.

 

No good scientist is going to say that they can prove to 98% certainty that all of the changes currently happening in the environment are because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But no good scientist should say that they can prove that only 50% of it is, either, and if a margin of error is given on the numbers...you can't automatically assume that reality is on the safe side.

[NorthSideSox72]

The arrogance to me is not in believing that humans are powerful enough to shape their environment. Humans have been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years, on massive scales (the area where you're currently sitting used to be a gigantic swamp, for example. For another, you don't have a sabre-toothed cat chasing you around).

 

If there is arrogance...I think you can find it in the assumption that everything will always come out ok...that we're always going to wind up on the happy side of the margin of error.

 

No good scientist is going to say that they can prove to 98% certainty that all of the changes currently happening in the environment are because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But no good scientist should say that they can prove that only 50% of it is, either, and if a margin of error is given on the numbers...you can't automatically assume that reality is on the safe side.

Who you are talking about though, is not me, or iamshack, or Y2HH, all of whom agree we have an effect. You are really targeting the head-in-the-sand crowd, the hyper-conservatives who think global warming is some giant conspiracy, and they are so dolt-like they will use snow in DC to try to prove their point.

 

[Balta1701]

I have little doubt that CO2 levels changing like that are anthropogenic, and I have little doubt that will have some negative effect. All the more reason to address the causes.

 

But what others are saying is, that is NOT the same as saying all the recent change in temperature, precipitation and other factors HAVE to be human-caused.

What I'm stressing though is that there is zero reason to automatically assume that they aren't entirely human caused. Entirely human caused is fully reasonable within the current data, just as 50% human caused is.

 

The difference in my mind is that I have a set of mechanisms by which I can explain fully human caused...and every one who proposes that the changes happening globally right now are not human caused is out there struggling for a mechanism.

[NorthSideSox72]

What I'm stressing though is that there is zero reason to automatically assume that they aren't entirely human caused. Entirely human caused is fully reasonable within the current data, just as 50% human caused is.

 

The difference in my mind is that I have a set of mechanisms by which I can explain fully human caused...and every one who proposes that the changes happening globally right now are not human caused is out there struggling for a mechanism.

I automatically assume nothing, as you will see in my statements. The non-human factors may be really, really small - you and I don't know. Of course you can explain fully human-caused because its studied factors with good data.

 

The reason I said it was arrogance to say they are 98%+ sure its 100% human-caused is not what they know, its what they can't possibly know but act like they do.

 

[Balta1701]

I automatically assume nothing, as you will see in my statements. The non-human factors may be really, really small - you and I don't know. Of course you can explain fully human-caused because its studied factors with good data.

I'd say that the non-human-caused ones have been researched quite thoroughly as well. Perhaps better than the human-caused ones...there's more money out there to research why it's not human-caused. That research is done quite thoroughly as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd say that the non-human-caused ones have been researched quite thoroughly as well. Perhaps better than the human-caused ones...there's more money out there to research why it's not human-caused. That research is done quite thoroughly as well.

This is the arrogance, right here.

 

No, they haven't been. SOME of them have been researched quite thoroughly, I am sure. You cannot possibly tell me that there is prolific research out there on every other possible natural factor - only the ones people have thought about.

 

Now I will give you that, in all likelihood, the remaining unknowns out there are small enough factors that they are probably not major players in the equations for global climate. Probably. But you do not know that. You can't possibly know that with full certainty.

 

[Balta1701]

This is the arrogance, right here.

 

No, they haven't been. SOME of them have been researched quite thoroughly, I am sure. You cannot possibly tell me that there is prolific research out there on every other possible natural factor - only the ones people have thought about.

 

Now I will give you that, in all likelihood, the remaining unknowns out there are small enough factors that they are probably not major players in the equations for global climate. Probably. But you do not know that. You can't possibly know that with full certainty.

This is why I'm saying they're hunting for a mechanism though. The atmosphere isn't some region which doesn't follow the rules of physics and chemistry. You really can figure out most of the climate change math with a few hours of work, starting from scratch. It falls out of the basic chemistry and physics rules which were ironed out in the early half of the 20th century...and those rules do a remarkably good job of making predictions about the geologic record as well.

 

If there is a mechanism out there which fits with the laws of physics that explains climate variability other than CO2, it's had enormous sums of money thrown at it. At this point, postulating some unknown mechanism is quite close to postulating new physics. We're throwing tens of millions of dollars right now at determining how interstellar neutrinos interact with clouds, just in case that happens to play a role.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is why I'm saying they're hunting for a mechanism though. The atmosphere isn't some region which doesn't follow the rules of physics and chemistry. You really can figure out most of the climate change math with a few hours of work, starting from scratch. It falls out of the basic chemistry and physics rules which were ironed out in the early half of the 20th century...and those rules do a remarkably good job of making predictions about the geologic record as well.

 

If there is a mechanism out there which fits with the laws of physics that explains climate variability other than CO2, it's had enormous sums of money thrown at it. At this point, postulating some unknown mechanism is quite close to postulating new physics. We're throwing tens of millions of dollars right now at determining how interstellar neutrinos interact with clouds, just in case that happens to play a role.

How about dung beetles? Have you checked them yet?

 

[StrangeSox]

NSS, this is that appeal to moderation I was referring to. The correct answer doesn't necessarily lay between "100% human or 0% human". We have every reason to believe, within the confidence intervals, that it really is 100% human or damn close to it.

[iamshack]

I'm not smart enough to really contribute much to this debate, but I do believe that there were enormous climactic changes before humans, and there will be again after humans. And there clearly are some while humans are here.

 

What we can do to change this is beyond the scope of my knowledge.

[Balta1701]

How about dung beetles? Have you checked them yet?

Frighteningly, yes. (They have a habit of dying in droughts, for example. They're a species that seems to adapt particularly slowly to changing precipitation conditions. You can treat some of their deaths as large scale climate experiments. Efforts to introduce them in African areas a few decades ago failed when the drought hit the Sahel region in the early 1980's.)

[Balta1701]

I'm not smart enough to really contribute much to this debate, but I do believe that there were enormous climactic changes before humans, and there will be again after humans. And there clearly are some while humans are here.

 

What we can do to change this is beyond the scope of my knowledge.

If you really want to understand this topic and take some time on it, I can put together a primer on it, at whatever depth you want. I've got 2 weeks of undergraduate class in late April that I'm teaching on Climate Change.

 

(Edit: might take a little time though)