Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Yes of course.

I always tell my wife that psychology is not a real science.

As I wrote some pages ago, this here is a highly politicised, believe, and value based discussion, and only a pseudo-scientific based one. Yet it reflects the attitude of the general population to the subject.

No-one here can claim to have read even a small part of the 20,000 or so peer reviewed papers published in the field. (Impressive for a relative young field that needs more research.) The overall results and the conclusions so far are sound, non-biased and based on observational evidence. But as always in science, scientific process will improve even more the outcome of the field. Therefore more research is needed.

Now it is up to politicians to take the science into advice and weigh up the impact of the decisions they will make based on the data and conclusions of the scientists. You see Oil (politics) and water (science) do not mix well. But there is one thing politicians are good in: manipulating public opinion to bring the population in line with their ideology. And people who have already chosen a side, no matter if it is left or right, are easier to manipulate (there are enough examples in this thread)

What I do not understand is the need of many to align and identify themselves with a political ideology and fight for it like their life is depending on it; believers and deniers who are fighting each other by resorting to name calling and the futile attempt - by cherrypicking out of the 20,000 papers whatever suits them - to prove that the other side is full of morons, not realising that in realty everyone is fighting the mirror image of themselves on the other side, using exact the same strategy.

There is only one casualty in all of that: Science - And no winners at all.

Much truth in your post, although many would legitimately dispute whether the results of mainstream CC science thus far have been non-biased.

But here's a well-articulated view of why so much controversy has been generated around this issue (from the National Review link posted above) (emphasis mine):

Science is the language of facts, and when people pretend to be speaking it, they’re not only claiming that their preferences are more than mere opinions, they’re also insinuating that anyone who disagrees is a fool or a zealot for objecting to “settled science.” Put aside the fact that there is no such thing as settled science. Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does. All the great scientists of history are justly famous for overturning the assumptions of their fields.

The real problem is that in politics, invocations of science are very often marketing techniques masquerading as appeals to irrefutable authority. In an increasingly secular society, having science on your side is better than having God on your side – at least in an argument. I’m not saying that you can’t have science in your corner, or that lawmakers shouldn’t look to science when making policy. (Legislation that rejects the existence of gravity makes for very silly laws indeed.) But the real intent behind so many claims to “settled science” is to avoid having to make your case. It’s an undemocratic technique for delegitimizing opposing views and saying “shut up” to dissenters. For example, even if the existence of global warming is “settled,” the policies for how to best respond to it are not. But in the political debates about climate change, activists say that their climatological claims are irrefutable and so are their preferred remedies. Why are liberalism’s pet issues the lodestars of what constitutes scientific fact? If climate change is the threat they claim, I’d rather spend billions on geoengineering to fix it than trillions on impoverishing economic policies that at best slightly delay it."

Global Warming & Transgenders: Liberals Deny Science When It Suits Them | National Review

In my mind anyway, this helps explain why the debate has been so difficult & divisive. Unfortunately, it's not just about the science as your post suggests and we would all hope.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're confusing profiteering with adaptation at personal expense.

Every time you use Google or Apple products you allow Al Gore to profit from you.

[transmitterdan]

http://gizmodo.com/the-world-s-large...elf-1777767880

If you have ever driven by this facility when it is running you would wonder how they ever got a permit to turn it on. The air around the boiler literally glows blue/white hot. Any bird that gets too close would be instantly incinerated.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Exile

Much truth in your post, although many would legitimately dispute whether the results of mainstream CC science thus far have been non-biased. ...

I agree with your post. I guess you haven't seen the part I added to my above post.

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I give you an example: When did the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change (IPCC) which does not even hide in its name that it is a highly politised organisation, when did it become an authority on science and why? "Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved.". This is a very efficient way to generate consesus.

It's not the science which brings science in dispute, it is the way it is handled.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

There's actually a third camp. The one I belong in. My camp says, "ok, let's presume for a moment that the people who appear to be, and talk like, and employ logical fallacies just like politically motivated pseudo scientists are correct. What can we do about it?"

The answer to that question is that we can do f*** all, and what little we can do is so monumentally expensive that the waste of resources that could be used to cure cancer becomes a moral question. How do I know this? Because the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from natural causes is so enormous, and the amount of human emitted carbon that can be reduced without resorting to killing off 3/4 of the humans on the planet is so small that even the warmist models (which have all grossly overestimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2) tell us that the effect would be nearly zero.

Personally, I think the negative feedbacks are far greater than warmists will acknowledge, but even if they are 100% correct and I am 100% wrong, their solutions are completely lunatic and worthy of derision. Which they deservedly get.

You've built this argument around two easily dismissed assertions:

the amount of human emitted carbon that can be reduced ... is so small that even the warmist models... tell us that the effect would be nearly zero.

The efforts to mitigate AGW are not about achieving some miniscule reduction. The CO2 concentrations will most certainly keep rising in the short term in any case. The goal is to put the brakes on what is currently an accelerating human CO2 output, so that the future warming is held down to something like 2 degrees Celsius max. Continued inaction of course makes that less and less likely. The difference won't be zero to your descendents.

what little we can do is so monumentally expensive

That's a misrepresentation too, for a number of reasons. Most important for you spendthrifts, concrete action does not require an immediate all-in, irreversible commitment of funds. Everything is incremental, and constantly revised as new information and new technology become available. Second, the majority of inputs are actually investments (eg like more reactors coming online, development of fusion, better wind and solar generation, better battery technology, greater overall efficiencies) and will soon become an active and profitable part of the economy.

btw, Bloomberg also has something to say about the cost of inaction on AGW.

re negative feedbacks - I hope for all our sakes you're right, but that's quite a risk to force onto everyone. Some experts have warned that this unnaturally-fast buildup of CO2 could overwhelm the normal regulating mechanisms and if some outcomes occur, like the thawing of great tracts of permafrost, the resulting methane release would produce a net positive feedback.

[jackdale]

Just about sums it up.



Of course, it should read climate denialist.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

There's actually a third camp. The one I belong in. My camp says, "ok, let's presume for a moment that the people who appear to be, and talk like, and employ logical fallacies just like politically motivated pseudo scientists are correct. What can we do about it?"

The answer to that question is that we can do f*** all, and what little we can do is so monumentally expensive that the waste of resources that could be used to cure cancer becomes a moral question. How do I know this? Because the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from natural causes is so enormous, and the amount of human emitted carbon that can be reduced without resorting to killing off 3/4 of the humans on the planet is so small that even the warmist models (which have all grossly overestimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2) tell us that the effect would be nearly zero.

Still on this claptrap? So you are willingly admitting that your camp is entirely founded on a false premise? Interesting.

Again, currently net natural emissions are negative.

Answer me this:

Currently live plants emit around 220,000 million metric tons CO2 each year. (Almost 10 times as much as humans.) Do live plants increase atmospheric CO2?

Are you suggesting we could reduce atmospheric CO2 by killing all the plants?

(Hint: live plants currently also absorb around 440,000 million metric tons CO2 each year, for a net removal of around 220,000 million metric tons of atmospheric CO2 annually.)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I agree with your post. I guess you haven't seen the part I added to my above post.



It's not the science which brings science in dispute, it is the way it is handled.

Agreed. Few with any insight would or have suggested that the scientists themselves -- working on either "side" of the issue -- are corrupt or part of some "conspiracy." The criticism instead is justifiably directed towards the corrupting influences of funding & politics on the scientific process itself. As you point out, it is science's credibility which will suffer, whichever way the CC debate pans out.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The criticism instead is justifiably directed towards the corrupting influences of funding & politics on the scientific process itself.

Who should fund climate science?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Still on this claptrap? So you are willingly admitting that your camp is entirely founded on a false premise? Interesting.

Again, currently net natural emissions are negative.

Answer me this:

Currently live plants emit around 220,000 million metric tons CO2 each year. (Almost 10 times as much as humans.) Do live plants increase atmospheric CO2?

Are you suggesting we could reduce atmospheric CO2 by killing all the plants?

(Hint: live plants currently also absorb around 440,000 million metric tons CO2 each year, for a net removal of around 220,000 million metric tons of atmospheric CO2 annually.)

Are you truly this ignorant? Don't answer, we know the answer.

Living plants decrease CO2, as any first year botanist could tell you. Dead plants increase CO2, as any first year chemist could tell you. Yes, natural sources of CO2 swamp human causes. So what is your point? What, for heavens sake are you going on about?

To answer your question, I'm suggesting that completely clueless posts like yours discredit the warmist meme because it is essentially incoherent. This is news?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You've built this argument around two easily dismissed assertions:

the amount of human emitted carbon that can be reduced ... is so small that even the warmist models... tell us that the effect would be nearly zero.

The efforts to mitigate AGW are not about achieving some miniscule reduction. The CO2 concentrations will most certainly keep rising in the short term in any case. The goal is to put the brakes on what is currently an accelerating human CO2 output, so that the future warming is held down to something like 2 degrees Celsius max. Continued inaction of course makes that less and less likely. The difference won't be zero to your descendents.

what little we can do is so monumentally expensive

That's a misrepresentation too, for a number of reasons. Most important for you spendthrifts, concrete action does not require an immediate all-in, irreversible commitment of funds. Everything is incremental, and constantly revised as new information and new technology become available. Second, the majority of inputs are actually investments (eg like more reactors coming online, development of fusion, better wind and solar generation, better battery technology, greater overall efficiencies) and will soon become an active and profitable part of the economy.

btw, Bloomberg also has something to say about the cost of inaction on AGW.

re negative feedbacks - I hope for all our sakes you're right, but that's quite a risk to force onto everyone. Some experts have warned that this unnaturally-fast buildup of CO2 could overwhelm the normal regulating mechanisms and if some outcomes occur, like the thawing of great tracts of permafrost, the resulting methane release would produce a net positive feedback.

Utter rubbish. If you take the amount of CO2 reduction that the Paris Accords say they will accomplish and input that value into the premier IPCC model the reduction in temperatures is a fraction of 1 degree over a century. In other words, regardless of what you want to believe, your own source of wisdom says you are a fool.

Regarding the cost of carbon sequestration, again, only a fool would presume that taxing carbon and subsidizing ridicuouly expensive 'green' alternatives that aren't alternatives at all is costless. Leftists always want to call their silly schemes 'investments' as you have. Just as Hugo Chavez explained that Venezuela's spending were 'investments' in social justice, and now people are starving.

I win this argument for the simple reason that reality confirms my point of view, and reality demonstrates that you are a complete loon. Sorry, but this is just the consequences of observations vs. wishful thinking.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Who should fund climate science?

Mr. Potato Head, if you ever answer a direct question and deal honestly with the topic at hand you will gain a lot of credibility. But you won't, so you won't.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Are you truly this ignorant? Don't answer, we know the answer.

Living plants decrease CO2, as any first year botanist could tell you. Dead plants increase CO2, as any first year chemist could tell you. Yes, natural sources of CO2 swamp human causes. So what is your point? What, for heavens sake are you going on about?

To answer your question, I'm suggesting that completely clueless posts like yours discredit the warmist meme because it is essentially incoherent. This is news?

But live plants emit nearly 10 times as much CO2 as we do. You logic says that means our emissions are very small compared to their emissions. Not mine. I have always stated that it is the net that matters. Plants live plants absorb around twice as much CO2 as they emit. The ocean also is currently absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting.

Out of curiosity, do you know what makes up the 770,000 million metric tons of CO2 you quoted? i.e. the amount that you used to calculate that we only account for 3% of total emissions.

I have given you the first part. Around 220,000 million metric tons out of that 770,000 is from autotrophic respiration, i.e. emitted by live plants.

How about you tell us what you think the rest is? I can fill in the blanks if you have trouble.

You have around 550,000 to go. Best to also include where that carbon came from. It is important.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

But they emit nearly 10 times as much CO2 as we do. That is your logic, not mine. I have always stated that it is the net that matters.

Out of curiosity, do you know what makes up the 770,000 million metric tons of CO2 you quoted? i.e. the amount that you used to calculate that we only account for 3% of total emissions.

I have given you the first part. Around 220,000 million metric tons out of that 770,000 is from autotrophic respiration, i.e. emitted by live plants.

How about you tell us what you think the rest is? I can fill in the blanks if you have trouble.

You have around 550,000 to go. Best to also include where that carbon came from. It is important.

Do try to keep up. The data showing human contributions of carbon vs. natural has been posted above about 4 times. Don't expect us to take charge of your education. Too big a job.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Do try to keep up. The data showing human contributions of carbon vs. natural has been posted above about 4 times. Don't expect us to take charge of your education. Too big a job.

Do you know what makes up that estimate of 770,000 million metric tons of natural CO2 emissions or not? (I do.)

Around 220,000 million metric tons out of that total is emitted by live plants via respiration.

So if you understand that live plants absorb atmospheric CO2 overall, why did you include that when you calculated our fraction of total emissions? What else did you get wrong? (I know. Do you?)