The environment thread

[Balta1701]

The 90's showed a clear warming trend -- FACT.

 

The 00's did not -- FACT.

 

You can twist this all you want with responses to questions that weren't asked, but those two facts remain.

Factually incorrect. You are hanging everything on the single year, 1998, El Nino year record which we're going to break this year or next year, and which I think was broken in 1 of the 3 main temperature recording models anyway.

 

On average, the 2000's were significantly warmer than the 1990's. 8 of the 9 warmest years in recorded history were from 2001-2008, the only other year near the top is 1998. The remaining years in the 1990's are in the next group.

[Balta1701]

That doesn't bother me as much as them looking at a very short time frame, and oh-by-the-way one which included major volcanic events like Pinatubo, Surtsey and St. Helen's. So, duh, the lower level atmosphere didn't warm.

 

Further, what the temperatures are doing at 30,000' or 60,000' or 100,000' may be interesting, but even if those altitudes are NOT warming, that doesn't undo what damage is being done closer to the surface. It may, possibly, help slow the warming process - that might be worth studying. But its the temps near the surface that effect us the most. That is where ice melts, where freezes change, etc.

Surtsey and St. Helens were not major volcanic events. Pinatubo really wasn't that big either.

[NorthSideSox72]

Surtsey and St. Helens were not major volcanic events. Pinatubo really wasn't that big either.

On a geological time scale? No. But for any given decade or two? Yes. And they all three effected the weather in a big way.

 

[Y2HH]

Factually incorrect. You are hanging everything on the single year, 1998, El Nino year record which we're going to break this year or next year, and which I think was broken in 1 of the 3 main temperature recording models anyway.

 

On average, the 2000's were significantly warmer than the 1990's. 8 of the 9 warmest years in recorded history were from 2001-2008, the only other year near the top is 1998. The remaining years in the 1990's are in the next group.

 

You must note I said "warming trend", that very data shows what I said was in fact, factually correct.

 

Based on the 1990's, as the years went on, the temp tended to rise -- peaking in the early 00's and going back down, hence why 2008 was ranked near the bottom since the early 90's.

 

I didn't say it wasn't hotter -- I said the trend of rising temps stopped, and it did. Cutting out 2005 and 1998, being odd years, the trend reverses itself, as shown by 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, being in order of decreases. If you look at the 90's data, they are almost always on the rise as the years progress.

[Balta1701]

You must note I said "warming trend", that very data shows what I said was in fact, factually correct.

 

Based on the 1990's, as the years went on, the temp tended to rise -- peaking in the early 00's and going back down, hence why 2008 was ranked near the bottom since the early 90's.

 

I didn't say it wasn't hotter -- I said the trend of rising temps stopped, and it did. Cutting out 2005 and 1998, being odd years, the trend reverses itself, as shown by 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, being in order of decreases. If you look at the 90's data, they are almost always on the rise as the years progress.

So you're actually attributing that much significance to individual years but you're ignoring the moving average?

[Balta1701]

On a geological time scale? No. But for any given decade or two? Yes. And they all three effected the weather in a big way.

IIRC the only one that really shows up in the climatic signal at all was Pinatubo.

[NorthSideSox72]

IIRC the only one that really shows up in the climatic signal at all was Pinatubo.

Were you old enough for St Helen's, to remember it? Because I do. It effected the weather in Chicago for weeks. I have no doubt that it effected the weather beyond just what I perceived as well.

 

[StrangeSox]

You must note I said "warming trend", that very data shows what I said was in fact, factually correct.

 

Based on the 1990's, as the years went on, the temp tended to rise -- peaking in the early 00's and going back down, hence why 2008 was ranked near the bottom since the early 90's.

 

I didn't say it wasn't hotter -- I said the trend of rising temps stopped, and it did. Cutting out 2005 and 1998, being odd years, the trend reverses itself, as shown by 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, being in order of decreases. If you look at the 90's data, they are almost always on the rise as the years progress.

 

Look at the 5 year moving average of Temperature Anomaly. It is clearly showing a warming trend in the 2000's. You are still factually incorrect.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Look at the 5 year moving average of Temperature Anomaly. It is clearly showing a warming trend in the 2000's. You are still factually incorrect.

 

 

Far be it from me, a lawyer, to talk science, but isn't it a little ridiculous to look at global temperature trends in a 120 year window? And even if you are, how sure are we about the guys from 1880 taking down an accurate temp?

[StrangeSox]

It's not ridiculous to look at a 120 year window if you want to examine what's happened since the global industrial revolution. Also, 1880 is typically the data cutoff for when there were enough meteorological stations around the world.

 

I don't think that we're any less sure about someone from 1880 taking down an accurate temp than we are about someone taking one today. Thermodynamics and temperature measurement were well-developed by then. We have data sets from all over the world to compile and given year; if someone from the 1880's was getting bad data, it would appear as an outlier to everyone else's.

[iamshack]

Far be it from me, a lawyer, to talk science, but isn't it a little ridiculous to look at global temperature trends in a 120 year window? And even if you are, how sure are we about the guys from 1880 taking down an accurate temp?

I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express (graduated from law school), and it seems odd to me as well.

 

The other thing that I keep coming back to is that all that has to happen is Mt. Vesuvius to erupt and all this is moot anyways.

 

I understand that we shouldn't just ignore global warming, but it is a incredibly humbling notion when you think that one natural disaster can produce far more damage to the earth in one second than we could ever dream of producing ourselves.

Edited December 16, 2009 by iamshack

[iamshack]

Are there solid studies available which measure the cost-benefits of only taking the least-expensive precautions available to prevent global warming, and funneling all the rest of the money into taking all precautionary measures available for what scientists are predicting the consequences of global warming will be?

[Balta1701]

Are there solid studies available which measure the cost-benefits of only taking the least-expensive precautions available to prevent global warming, and funneling all the rest of the money into taking all precautionary measures available for what scientists are predicting the consequences of global warming will be?

Yes. One of the things we've been saying is that it's really expensive to do what Jim Hansen says we need to do; actually somehow go back down to 350 ppm CO2, but it is really, really, really cheap to bring CO2 close to stability with time, because you get so much of the money back easily by doing things like increasing energy efficiency and building windmills instead of coal plants.

 

The real issue winds up being how you measure some of the benefits. How do you measure the benefit of cleaner air in general, including everything like lower health care costs that might result? How do you measure the benefit of not having to rely on the middle east for such a large fraction of our energy. How do you measure the potential costs of the worst case scenario, when the worst case scenario is a flooded seaboard.

[iamshack]

Yes. One of the things we've been saying is that it's really expensive to do what Jim Hansen says we need to do; actually somehow go back down to 350 ppm CO2, but it is really, really, really cheap to bring CO2 close to stability with time, because you get so much of the money back easily by doing things like increasing energy efficiency and building windmills instead of coal plants.

 

The real issue winds up being how you measure some of the benefits. How do you measure the benefit of cleaner air in general, including everything like lower health care costs that might result? How do you measure the benefit of not having to rely on the middle east for such a large fraction of our energy. How do you measure the potential costs of the worst case scenario, when the worst case scenario is a flooded seaboard.

Well that's good to know.

 

From my extremely uneducated perspective, it seems as though the best approach is some combination of cheap fixes that actually accomplish some kind of inroads, coupled with creating renewable energy systems focused on eliminating only the resources we are depleting most quickly (or with the shortest supply), and combine that with preparations for the consequences of rising sea levels, adverse weather patterns caused by changing ocean currents, etc., etc.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Balta, but say we throw all our resources at global warming over the next 50 years and somehow, through the grace of all that is good in this world, we get the situation under control to where the effects of global warming are not such that our modern way of living is too adversely changed....isn't there going to be some sort of natural phenomenon that wipes all this progress out eventually anyways? And when I say that, I mean with absolute certainty such an event will occur, and soon (within the next few hundred years most likely).

 

Would you agree with that assessment?

[Balta1701]

Well that's good to know.

 

From my extremely uneducated perspective, it seems as though the best approach is some combination of cheap fixes that actually accomplish some kind of inroads, coupled with creating renewable energy systems focused on eliminating only the resources we are depleting most quickly (or with the shortest supply), and combine that with preparations for the consequences of rising sea levels, adverse weather patterns caused by changing ocean currents, etc., etc.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Balta, but say we throw all our resources at global warming over the next 50 years and somehow, through the grace of all that is good in this world, we get the situation under control to where the effects of global warming are not such that our modern way of living is too adversely changed....isn't there going to be some sort of natural phenomenon that wipes all this progress out eventually anyways? And when I say that, I mean with absolute certainty such an event will occur, and soon (within the next few hundred years most likely).

 

Would you agree with that assessment?

It's actually fairly remarkable how stable the climate has been for the past 8000 years or so prior to the industrial revolution. The climate system actually probably has adapted in a way that humanity itself became a feedback for a large portion of human history; if humans burnt too many forests for agriculture, suddenly they'd wind up with a shift in weather that would kill a bunch of humans.

 

In terms of a natural phenomenon "Wiping out the progress" we'd make, to me, that means that we'd wind up having something that the earth does that drives CO2 back up rapidly despite us undertaking successful mitigation efforts. Based on everything we know currently about the climate and CO2 reservoirs on earth, there really isn't a way to do that.

 

The only ways that you can drive a large release of additional CO2 through a natural process is through warming; if you warm permafrost, it melts and releases a bunch of methane. Something like this may have happened a couple times in earth's history, but it happens on the order of once every 10-50 million years, not every few hundred, and it takes a major change to really make it happen.

 

There's really no volcanic means to do it, and in fact volcanoes usually go the other way and wind up being brief bursts of cooling. In 1816, there was the "Year without a summer", and that was caused by what was probably the largest volcanic eruption in the last 10,000+ years. You certainly can get larger eruptions, but they're much rarer.

 

My impression is that humanity has probably already stabilized the climate for the last 8000 years or so, and natural events that are plausible just aren't large enough to disrupt that for more than a year or two (yeah, those can be bad years, but then the planet recovers). The only thing that can really produce huge changes is what we're doing to atmospheric CO2 right now.

[iamshack]

Ok, well this is why I stay out of this thread for the most part.

 

I thought I saw something on the History Channel about Mt. Vesuvius releasing something like 30,000 times the CO2 into the atmosphere in one second that we have produced in the last 130 years. Apparently this would not have the same results as what we are currently causing, however.

 

My mistake.

[Balta1701]

Ok, well this is why I stay out of this thread for the most part.

 

I thought I saw something on the History Channel about Mt. Vesuvius releasing something like 30,000 times the CO2 into the atmosphere in one second that we have produced in the last 130 years. Apparently this would not have the same results as what we are currently causing, however.

 

My mistake.

You've actually got the right number you just have the sources backwards. Right now, human-related CO2 emissions are about 130 times the annual volcanic CO2 production rate. Sinngle eruptions usually don't change this flux all that much.

[iamshack]

You've actually got the right number you just have the sources backwards. Right now, human-related CO2 emissions are about 130 times the annual volcanic CO2 production rate. Sinngle eruptions usually don't change this flux all that much.

Right, but what if there was some monster eruption such as the one in AD 79?

[Balta1701]

Right, but what if there was some monster eruption such as the one in AD 79?

79 AD wasn't actually a monster eruption in terms of size. 1815 tambora was, at least on a scale of what humans have seen (largest in the last 10000 years. A reasonable estimate for Tambora's CO2 emissions in 1815 would be about 3000 MT of CO2. Human emissions annually are still 10 times that. Even if I'm off by a factor of 5, human CO2 emissions still are much, much larger.

[iamshack]

79 AD wasn't actually a monster eruption in terms of size. 1815 tambora was, at least on a scale of what humans have seen (largest in the last 10000 years. A reasonable estimate for Tambora's CO2 emissions in 1815 would be about 3000 MT of CO2. Human emissions annually are still 10 times that. Even if I'm off by a factor of 5, human CO2 emissions still are much, much larger.

Wow. Good to know. I'm clueless.

Thanks Balta.

[kapkomet]

Quit breathing. That would solve the problem.

[Y2HH]

Yea, I have to say, the longer you guys drone on about this environment bulls*** the more I yawn.

 

It's the most hypocritical stupid crap I've EVER had to listen too.

 

Especially since it's all self-reassuring, "I'm better than you" and "I care more than you" bulls*** so many of you love to talk about but not actually do jack s*** about. Look around your desk right now -- that computer you're typing on -- you can't even imagine the amount of pollution that was caused just to get to where that computer is now in terms of speed, etc. And I'll guess it wasn't your first computer/cell phone/other crazy pollution causing device, either. That pen/paper/water bottle -- tons more. 99% of the garbage you don't need in your houses, but have and use every day...that's right...tons more. You b**** about it, you think we should do more about it...yet you set ZERO example of saving the trees and continue to consume the very things you supposedly hate, you continue to buy them, and you continue to fund this pollution crazy economy/world.

 

Ohhhhh, I'm so f***ing proud of you, you bought a hybrid car -- too bad the batteries in them are worse for the environment than the gas you saved. Oh, and those batteries HAVE TO BE REPLACED someday. That's an unfortunate side effect of batteries...someday, they will go into a landfill. Good job.

 

Ohhh, you installed mercury filled light bulbs in your houses to save energy...too bad when those do burn out you added a bunch of mercury content to the earth. Good job.

 

My point is, the small changes you think you've made have done nothing, because honestly, you don't really care...it's just another thing you can hang your hats on because you have nothing else to do.

 

Either shut off your computers, go live in the middle of no where in Alaska in a rustic shack without electricity or heat...or shut the f*** up and get off your high horses.

 

The real sacrifices we would have to make to TRULY make a dent...no American is going to make them. And that's a fact.

 

Every water bottle you guys don't use, I'm going to use 3 of from now on. Just to erase any difference you tried to make.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yea, I have to say, the longer you guys drone on about this environment bulls*** the more I yawn.

 

It's the most hypocritical stupid crap I've EVER had to listen too.

 

Especially since it's all self-reassuring, "I'm better than you" and "I care more than you" bulls*** so many of you love to talk about but not actually do jack s*** about. Look around your desk right now -- that computer you're typing on -- you can't even imagine the amount of pollution that was caused just to get to where that computer is now in terms of speed, etc. And I'll guess it wasn't your first computer/cell phone/other crazy pollution causing device, either. That pen/paper/water bottle -- tons more. 99% of the garbage you don't need in your houses, but have and use every day...that's right...tons more. You b**** about it, you think we should do more about it...yet you set ZERO example of saving the trees and continue to consume the very things you supposedly hate, you continue to buy them, and you continue to fund this pollution crazy economy/world.

 

Ohhhhh, I'm so f***ing proud of you, you bought a hybrid car -- too bad the batteries in them are worse for the environment than the gas you saved. Oh, and those batteries HAVE TO BE REPLACED someday. That's an unfortunate side effect of batteries...someday, they will go into a landfill. Good job.

 

Ohhh, you installed mercury filled light bulbs in your houses to save energy...too bad when those do burn out you added a bunch of mercury content to the earth. Good job.

 

My point is, the small changes you think you've made have done nothing, because honestly, you don't really care...it's just another thing you can hang your hats on because you have nothing else to do.

 

Either shut off your computers, go live in the middle of no where in Alaska in a rustic shack without electricity or heat...or shut the f*** up and get off your high horses.

 

The real sacrifices we would have to make to TRULY make a dent...no American is going to make them. And that's a fact.

 

Every water bottle you guys don't use, I'm going to use 3 of from now on. Just to erase any difference you tried to make.

 

That was an almost Kap-worthy rant - both in its grandeur, and its departure from reality.

 

First, what is really "self-reassuring" as you put it, is the people who choose to believe they have no impact on their environment. They are then further reassured by politicians who make up all manner of ridiculous things to bolster this belief, because its the easier, lazier one to take. Its the one that says "no really, you can do whatever you want, without consequences". Its idiotic on its face to believe that humans don't effect their environment in a signficant way. And you cited a whole bunch of reasons for it in your own post.

 

Now, some people do actually live under an illusion of greendom, because they are misinformed - but they are at least aware of reality, and trying (though often failing) to act affirmatively to help things.

 

And your idea that little things don't help is patently absurd. Of course they help. This sort of absolutist, dismissive attitude you take on things like polls, or scientific data, is right out of the GOP playbook - lay waste to all data as subjective, thus allowing you to believe whatever you want, regardless of fact. Everything that is an action of CONSERVATION, helps (note: not the same as ENVIRONMENTALISM, though related). Keeping lights on less of the time, using a timed thermostat, recycling, using less plastic whenever possible, using CFL's (which have less and less mercury, and new ones have NONE)... all these things make a difference, and if everyone did them, it would make a HUGE difference. But, it makes everyone feel better to say, eh, since you cannot save the world youself, you might as well not bother trying.

 

Instead, what is true here, is that people don't necessarily see the full consequences of their actions. They see that a hybrid car uses less gas and pollutes less - which it does - but are blissfully unaware of the fact that the batteries in that car are more environmentally costly than normal ones. Now, I have read articles on this, and your statement that the batteries require more pollution than what you save in output from the car is bunk. For one thing, you cannot make a true apples-to-apples comparison anyway, since mining consequences are different than gaseous air pollution. But it also focuses on only one aspect of the positives of hybrid use - pollution. Using less gas, which means less oil, has additional positives - LOTS of them.

 

You want to make everything black and white. You have this odd belief that if you can't go all the way and save the world, then don't bother trying. That is utterly absurd logic. I'll keep doing the little things, because I know it makes a difference. You want to call that being on a high horse, fine, whatever makes you feel better. If you want to give up, that saddens me, but I can't stop you.

 

[Y2HH]

That was an almost Kap-worthy rant - both in its grandeur, and its departure from reality.

 

First, what is really "self-reassuring" as you put it, is the people who choose to believe they have no impact on their environment. They are then further reassured by politicians who make up all manner of ridiculous things to bolster this belief, because its the easier, lazier one to take. Its the one that says "no really, you can do whatever you want, without consequences". Its idiotic on its face to believe that humans don't effect their environment in a signficant way. And you cited a whole bunch of reasons for it in your own post.

 

Now, some people do actually live under an illusion of greendom, because they are misinformed - but they are at least aware of reality, and trying (though often failing) to act affirmatively to help things.

 

And your idea that little things don't help is patently absurd. Of course they help. This sort of absolutist, dismissive attitude you take on things like polls, or scientific data, is right out of the GOP playbook - lay waste to all data as subjective, thus allowing you to believe whatever you want, regardless of fact. Everything that is an action of CONSERVATION, helps (note: not the same as ENVIRONMENTALISM, though related). Keeping lights on less of the time, using a timed thermostat, recycling, using less plastic whenever possible, using CFL's (which have less and less mercury, and new ones have NONE)... all these things make a difference, and if everyone did them, it would make a HUGE difference. But, it makes everyone feel better to say, eh, since you cannot save the world youself, you might as well not bother trying.

 

Instead, what is true here, is that people don't necessarily see the full consequences of their actions. They see that a hybrid car uses less gas and pollutes less - which it does - but are blissfully unaware of the fact that the batteries in that car are more environmentally costly than normal ones. Now, I have read articles on this, and your statement that the batteries require more pollution than what you save in output from the car is bunk. For one thing, you cannot make a true apples-to-apples comparison anyway, since mining consequences are different than gaseous air pollution. But it also focuses on only one aspect of the positives of hybrid use - pollution. Using less gas, which means less oil, has additional positives - LOTS of them.

 

You want to make everything black and white. You have this odd belief that if you can't go all the way and save the world, then don't bother trying. That is utterly absurd logic. I'll keep doing the little things, because I know it makes a difference. You want to call that being on a high horse, fine, whatever makes you feel better. If you want to give up, that saddens me, but I can't stop you.

 

Like I said, note that I will use 3 water bottles for every 1 you save. I will heat my house to 100 degrees day and night. I will waste aerosol sprays, and do everything in my power to undo everything you try to conserve.

 

As for hybrids...LOL. Note there are many stories on this: http://www.caradvice.com.au/39714/hybrid-v...hortage-report/

 

Way to go...environmentalists! You traded one finite resource (oil) for a BUNCH of even MORE finite resources...a lot of which we have no idea what kind of damage they will even cause in the long run yet.

 

Oh, and Northside...I was only kidding with my rant. It's just that this back and fourth bickering is getting old now...so I had to say it.

[Jenksismyhero]

That was an almost Kap-worthy rant - both in its grandeur, and its departure from reality.

 

First, what is really "self-reassuring" as you put it, is the people who choose to believe they have no impact on their environment. They are then further reassured by politicians who make up all manner of ridiculous things to bolster this belief, because its the easier, lazier one to take. Its the one that says "no really, you can do whatever you want, without consequences". Its idiotic on its face to believe that humans don't effect their environment in a signficant way. And you cited a whole bunch of reasons for it in your own post.

 

Now, some people do actually live under an illusion of greendom, because they are misinformed - but they are at least aware of reality, and trying (though often failing) to act affirmatively to help things.

 

And your idea that little things don't help is patently absurd. Of course they help. This sort of absolutist, dismissive attitude you take on things like polls, or scientific data, is right out of the GOP playbook - lay waste to all data as subjective, thus allowing you to believe whatever you want, regardless of fact. Everything that is an action of CONSERVATION, helps (note: not the same as ENVIRONMENTALISM, though related). Keeping lights on less of the time, using a timed thermostat, recycling, using less plastic whenever possible, using CFL's (which have less and less mercury, and new ones have NONE)... all these things make a difference, and if everyone did them, it would make a HUGE difference. But, it makes everyone feel better to say, eh, since you cannot save the world youself, you might as well not bother trying.

 

Instead, what is true here, is that people don't necessarily see the full consequences of their actions. They see that a hybrid car uses less gas and pollutes less - which it does - but are blissfully unaware of the fact that the batteries in that car are more environmentally costly than normal ones. Now, I have read articles on this, and your statement that the batteries require more pollution than what you save in output from the car is bunk. For one thing, you cannot make a true apples-to-apples comparison anyway, since mining consequences are different than gaseous air pollution. But it also focuses on only one aspect of the positives of hybrid use - pollution. Using less gas, which means less oil, has additional positives - LOTS of them.

 

You want to make everything black and white. You have this odd belief that if you can't go all the way and save the world, then don't bother trying. That is utterly absurd logic. I'll keep doing the little things, because I know it makes a difference. You want to call that being on a high horse, fine, whatever makes you feel better. If you want to give up, that saddens me, but I can't stop you.

 

 

While I agree with all of this, don't you think the same can be said for liberals that want to make the environmental discussion into a do or die issue? The way some of these people (including people in this thread) speak, it's as if we're all going to die tomorrow if we don't change immediately. It's funny to me that liberals gave the GOP crap for "fear-mongering" us into a war that we didn't truly analyze before we started, but they use the same tactics to get the government to spend billions on actions that may or may not work.

 

At this point even if we all can agree that humans cause AN effect on the environment, we don't know the extent of it. We don't know what will happen. We have "models" and "theories" that are debunked annually (either positively or negatively). The fact of the matter is we don't have any idea what is going to happen, so the environmentalists need to stop leading the charge as if we do. That's not to say we shouldn't do ANYTHING, but as much as people on the one side might be purposefully blind to the issue, so is the other.