The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Rate of change. Things are changing much quicker than in the past. Usually these changes take millenia, not a century.

[iamshack]

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.

I appreciate the offer Balta, but I'm just not scientifically talented enough to understand it thoroughly.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.)

Which gives me confidence that, probably, we have looked at most of the things that have at least some effect. That's all I'm saying - we can't know all, we can't know 100%, and I am highly skeptical of anyone who says we can.

 

To be clear, I'm generally on your side here - we are causing some bulk of the problem, and we can absolutely do many things to make it better.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

Well this is different. First of all, I think the answer definitely HAS to lie larger than 0%, and smaller than 100%. Second, this is a scientific situation, not a political argument (in terms of what is actually happening, not the policy decisions about it).

 

[StrangeSox]

Which gives me confidence that, probably, we have looked at most of the things that have at least some effect. That's all I'm saying - we can't know all, we can't know 100%, and I am highly skeptical of anyone who says we can.

 

To be clear, I'm generally on your side here - we are causing some bulk of the problem, and we can absolutely do many things to make it better.

 

I don't think you'll find any competent scientist making claims of absolute truth. It's always about confidence intervals, p-values and the null.

[iamshack]

I don't think you'll find any competent scientist making claims of absolute truth. It's always about confidence intervals, p-values and the null.

Yes, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

[StrangeSox]

Well this is different. First of all, I think the answer definitely HAS to lie larger than 0%, and smaller than 100%.

 

Well, sure, it all depends on how you're phrasing "the system" in question. Obviously, there's a lot of non-human inputs. The relevant question is "what portion of atypical warming are humans causing," and there's no reason it has to be smaller than 100%.

 

Second, this is a scientific situation, not a political argument (in terms of what is actually happening, not the policy decisions about it).

 

So? It's still an appeal to moderation to say "well, we're doing some damage, more than Group Denial is saying, but we just can't be doing as much as Group Professional Scientists says."

[Jenksismyhero]

I appreciate the offer Balta, but I'm just not scientifically talented enough to understand it thoroughly.

 

Same here, but from an outsiders perspective, all I hear from Balta and the like is "we know with near certainty how every mechanism of Earth works, and from that starting point we can deduce that humans are the cause of 100% or close to 100% of the problem."

 

I think the first statement is laughable.That's not a bury your head in the sand position either. Balta, SS - you guys come from this attitude like you are all knowing, when in fact history has shown that scientific knowledge is rarely, if ever, all knowing on a given topic. Why can't you temper your hypothesis a little? Don't you think that would help your cause for the average American who doesn't understand the science of what's going on, but can clearly recall periods that were warmer/colder and thus don't believe what you're preaching?

 

[StrangeSox]

Same here, but from an outsiders perspective, all I hear from Balta and the like is "we know with near certainty how every mechanism of Earth works, and from that starting point we can deduce that humans are the cause of 100% or close to 100% of the problem."

 

No one claims that.

 

Science is inductive, not deductive, anyway.

 

I think the first statement is laughable.That's not a bury your head in the sand position either. Balta, SS - you guys come from this attitude like you are all knowing, when in fact history has shown that scientific knowledge is rarely, if ever, all knowing on a given topic. Why can't you temper your hypothesis a little? Don't you think that would help your cause for the average American who doesn't understand the science of what's going on, but can clearly recall periods that were warmer/colder and thus don't believe what you're preaching?

 

Asimov -- The Relativity of Wrong

All scientific knowledge and truths are provisional. There may have been some more bombastic statements in the late 19th century, but the scientific community as a whole has recognized the universe is a whole lot weirder than we ever expected since then.

 

Tempering scientific hypotheses and conclusions based on research and data because of public ignorance sounds like a pretty terrible idea. It sounds like a call for better science education.

Edited January 13, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

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.

 

While I agree our impact is of some cause, of that there is no doubt, I think we love to pat ourselves on the back as to how much cause that is, not to even mention "lasting" cause.

 

Look at Chernobyl. Just a few decades ago it went through a nuclear f***ing meltdown and it's already WELL into natural recovery with plant life, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the few decades that passed are mere milliseconds to the Earth, and it didn't even blink at a nuclear disaster. As a matter of fact, it laughed...and I heard it laugh, while saying..."Wow...these arrogant pieces of garbage REALLY think they're powerful, don't they?"

 

We're not.

 

We just wish we were.

[Jenksismyhero]

No one claims that.

 

Science is inductive, not deductive, anyway.

 

 

 

Asimov -- The Relativity of Wrong

All scientific knowledge and truths are provisional. There may have been some more bombastic statements in the late 19th century, but the scientific community as a whole has recognized the universe is a whole lot weirder than we ever expected since then.

 

Tempering scientific hypotheses and conclusions based on research and data because of public ignorance sounds like a pretty terrible idea. It sounds like a call for better science education.

 

You say this but don't preach it, and that's the problem. You throw out theories as absolute truth, paint the argument as if it's absolute fact, and then expect people to just accept it without question. That's not ignorance, that's just recognizing that despite all that we have, we don't know/haven't uncovered every conceivable piece of information about how the world works. You guys are claiming that all non-human factors have been explored, assuming that what we know is all that we could ever know about how the world works.

[StrangeSox]

Radiation levels in and around the area are still abnormally high, as are cancer rates. No one expected it to be a barren wasteland of thousands of years, anyway.

 

The problem with analogies is that they can only be used to help illustrate an argument, not support or approve it. Even if scientists were spectacularly wrong about Chernobyl and the long-term impacts, it doesn't say anything about climate science or the conclusions in that field.

[southsider2k5]

While I agree our impact is of some cause, of that there is no doubt, I think we love to pat ourselves on the back as to how much cause that is, not to even mention "lasting" cause.

 

Look at Chernobyl. Just a few decades ago it went through a nuclear f***ing meltdown and it's already WELL into natural recovery with plant life, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the few decades that passed are mere milliseconds to the Earth, and it didn't even blink at a nuclear disaster. As a matter of fact, it laughed...and I heard it laugh, while saying..."Wow...these arrogant pieces of garbage REALLY think they're powerful, don't they?"

 

We're not.

 

We just wish we were.

 

Bikini Atoll was another interesting study in the same area. The land was still contaminated in the trees and ground, but the waters and the reefs were bleached clean.

[Y2HH]

Radiation levels in and around the area are still abnormally high, as are cancer rates. No one expected it to be a barren wasteland of thousands of years, anyway.

 

The problem with analogies is that they can only be used to help illustrate an argument, not support or approve it. Even if scientists were spectacularly wrong about Chernobyl and the long-term impacts, it doesn't say anything about climate science or the conclusions in that field.

 

It just goes to show you that as devastating as we love to believe we are...we aren't.

[StrangeSox]

You say this but don't preach it, and that's the problem. You throw out theories as absolute truth, paint the argument as if it's absolute fact, and then expect people to just accept it without question. That's not ignorance, that's just recognizing that despite all that we have, we don't know/haven't uncovered every conceivable piece of information about how the world works. You guys are claiming that all non-human factors have been explored, assuming that what we know is all that we could ever know about how the world works.

 

Bulls***. It's the general philosophy I go by. How many times have I said "confidence intervals" here? Has Balta or I claimed absolute knowledge on climate change and all causes? No. We've simply pointed out (me as a science junkie engineer, Balta as a professional geologist) that to the best of our knowledge and with reasonable certainty, the planet is heating and we're the cause. We currently have no good reason to doubt these conclusions, and a reasonable amount of data and analysis to support them. That's about as far as any scientific claim to truth will go once you're beyond statements like "gravity is an attractive force" or "like charges repel."

[StrangeSox]

It just goes to show you that as devastating as we love to believe we are...we aren't.

 

No, it doesn't. Can you show claims that the area would be a barren wasteland or incapable of recovery after a few decades? That would be pretty crucial to your analogy.

 

edit: If anything, it illustrates the chain "Humans do terrible, destructive things to the environment-->Environment destroyed, humans leave-->Environment recovers, eventually." Two differences with respect to AGW: we need to actually stop doing Step 1, and there's no outside environment to repopulate or cleanse. It's the whole planet, all at once.

Edited January 13, 2011 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

While I agree our impact is of some cause, of that there is no doubt, I think we love to pat ourselves on the back as to how much cause that is, not to even mention "lasting" cause.

 

Look at Chernobyl. Just a few decades ago it went through a nuclear f***ing meltdown and it's already WELL into natural recovery with plant life, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the few decades that passed are mere milliseconds to the Earth, and it didn't even blink at a nuclear disaster. As a matter of fact, it laughed...and I heard it laugh, while saying..."Wow...these arrogant pieces of garbage REALLY think they're powerful, don't they?"

 

We're not.

 

We just wish we were.

Interesting side note on this. Back in the 80's, some scientists were looking at the land at and around the Trinity Site (site of the first atomic bomb test). That area has been unoccupied and for the most part, left alone, for the 40 years since the bomb. They found that the overall health of the plant and animal life there was in better shape than the land nearby, which had cattle running on it in those 40 years.

 

Not really making a point with this, other than, nature is complex.

 

[Y2HH]

No, it doesn't. Can you show claims that the area would be a barren wasteland or incapable of recovery after a few decades? That would be pretty crucial to your analogy.

 

edit: If anything, it illustrates the chain "Humans do terrible, destructive things to the environment-->Environment destroyed, humans leave-->Environment recovers, eventually." Two differences with respect to AGW: we need to actually stop doing Step 1, and there's no outside environment to repopulate or cleanse. It's the whole planet, all at once.

 

Seriously?

 

A nuclear meltdown is about as devastating as humans can get. The fact you're ignoring that is borderline ignorant. So I'm leaving this be, since you've made it obvious there is no point in having this discussion with you.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seriously?

 

A nuclear meltdown is about as devastating as humans can get. The fact you're ignoring that is borderline ignorant. So I'm leaving this be, since you've made it obvious there is no point in having this discussion with you.

Well, wait - see my post about cows versus nukes. Its not as simple as saying a nuclear event is the worst that can be done. Its probably the worst we can do (especially if you add the cobalt jackets - see Novaya Zemlya) for immediate impact, but some ongoing things are more devastating over time.

 

[Y2HH]

Well, wait - see my post about cows versus nukes. Its not as simple as saying a nuclear event is the worst that can be done. Its probably the worst we can do (especially if you add the cobalt jackets - see Novaya Zemlya) for immediate impact, but some ongoing things are more devastating over time.

 

That's entirely possible.

 

I don't really care for these discussions, because humankind has made GREAT strides in just the past 10 years to be cleaner (I don't like the term greener, it's a stupid marketing phrase), and we are starting to do what we can...it will get better...we just have to be patient. The world isn't ending tomorrow (hopefully)

[StrangeSox]

Seriously?

 

A nuclear meltdown is about as devastating as humans can get. The fact you're ignoring that is borderline ignorant. So I'm leaving this be, since you've made it obvious there is no point in having this discussion with you.

 

What relation does Chernobyl have to AGW? You've yet to explain that.

 

You've got an isolated incident that caused a lot of damage but has slowly recovered thanks to influx from outside ecological areas (though the reactor area itself is still barren). How is this similar to AGW? What is your point?

[Y2HH]

What relation does Chernobyl have to AGW? You've yet to explain that.

 

You've got an isolated incident that caused a lot of damage but has slowly recovered thanks to influx from outside ecological areas (though the reactor area itself is still barren). How is this similar to AGW? What is your point?

 

I have none, you're right, I'm wrong.

 

^^ I actually dislike when people do this, so I apologize for it, but I don't have time for this discussion, and it's not a very good online discussion IMO, too much back and fourth is necessary.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Well, wait - see my post about cows versus nukes. Its not as simple as saying a nuclear event is the worst that can be done. Its probably the worst we can do (especially if you add the cobalt jackets - see Novaya Zemlya) for immediate impact, but some ongoing things are more devastating over time.

 

If there was ever a regional nuclear conflict, let alone a large-scale conflict, we'd do a whole hell of a lot worse than Chernobyl.

 

Chernobyl was bad. A lot of people died or have had long-lasting damage. Many more plants and animals and other forms of life suffered. The area has begun to recover because it's been devoid of humans. There was a fantastic documentary on this I saw a few years ago.

 

But it's got nothing to do with AGW. "Chernobyl was bad but most of the area is pretty much recovering, therefore AGW can't be that bad" is a pretty terrible argument.

[StrangeSox]

I have none, you're right, I'm wrong.

 

^^ I actually dislike when people do this, so I apologize for it, but I don't have time for this discussion, and it's not a very good online discussion IMO, too much back and fourth is necessary.

 

I think your last point is good. Here's the documentary I saw a couple of years ago:

 

http://www.lifeinthedeadzone.com/

[StrangeSox]

Fall of the Roman Empire linked to wild climate shifts

 

It's a bit speculative and certainly doesn't show causation, but it's interesting. There's also the idea that the Black Plague may have led to the "Little Ice Age."