More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Have a look here:

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) | Data | Table

(click on a year to sort by amount)

Per-capita the western countries produce around 5 times the CO2 of developing countries. This corresponds roughly with consumption, which can also be found on other tables on that site (left-hand selector). Fuel price tells the story of who's encouraging conservation and who's not.

Per capita emissions are misleading US pop. 313,000,000 China 1,344,000,000
If they both emitted equal Co2, China per capita easily much less. Even though we rate higher on this scale, it really doesn't reflect total emissions.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Per capita emissions are misleading US pop. 313,000,000 China 1,344,000,000
If they both emitted equal Co2, China per capita easily much less. Even though we rate higher on this scale, it really doesn't reflect total emissions.

OK then

Scanning through the amount of carbon dioxide that countries put into the atmosphere over the past century might seem even irrelevant to modern climate change debates.

But historical emissions, like per capita emissions, are a bone of contention in haggling between countries trying to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen this December. Developing countries argue that any CO2 cuts agreed by developed countries at Copenhagen should incorporate the principle of historical responsibility. In other words, the rich should pay in the near future for its considerable past contributions to global warming.

Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

It's also worth bearing in mind that many developed countries' share of emissions go back before this data begins. As the leader of the industrial revolution, the UK in particular was responsible for significant carbon emissions in the 19th century.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Troup Said: (An example earlier in the thread: a scientific paper talks of inaccurate data still being useful. A debunkalist from this forum climbs all over it, gleeful and triumphant.

That's right Troup it's not the accuracy of the data that matters, it's the seriousness of the the assumptions......

It's very encouraging that you consistently refrain from refuting, or even referring to, careful arguments.

Your answers suggest you don't even bother reading them, you just read the first part of the preamble (as quoted above), and you have all you need.

I hope your talents in this direction are not wasted.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by downunder

[B][I]

Scientists need to regularly get their message out to enable funding.

The deniers just need to go their friends at the Koch Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, etc..

[Andrew Troup]

I'll reframe the accuracy proposition, circa 1944:

"Mein Fuhrer: we must mount a counteroffensive! The Red Army have brought up several divisions of tanks in an area where our line is weak!"

"How many tanks, exactly ?"

"I regret I cannot say with certainty, mein Fuhrer: but it is at least two divisions"

"Dumkopf! How can I take you seriously when you have no idea what you are talking about. We will do no such thing. You are clearly hysterical and are hereby relieved of your command"

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

It's very encouraging that you consistently refrain from refuting, or even referring to, careful arguments.

Your answers suggest you don't even bother reading them, you just read the first part of the preamble (as quoted above), and you have all you need.

I hope your talents in this direction are not wasted.

Well who is using the pejorative in these "careful arguments"? Debunkalist?
Quibble while Rome burns?

I say inaccurate data does matter especially when doomsday assumptions are postulated/

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK then

JackDale Said:But historical emissions, like per capita emissions, are a bone of contention in haggling between countries trying to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen this December. Developing countries argue that any CO2 cuts agreed by developed countries at Copenhagen should incorporate the principle of historical responsibility. In other words, the rich should pay in the near future for its considerable past contributions to global warming.

And there is nub of this debate, built on inaccurate and doomsday assumptions.The political agenda of environmental justice and reparations. Good faith efforts to address environmental concerns, no matter the cost is not enough for the left. We have to go back in history and extract further reparations. It's nice to have cleared the air. It's not about tackling in good faith any current climate myth, it's about wealth redistribution. Glad we cleared the air about any pretense global warming is a central issue.

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

I'll reframe the accuracy proposition, circa 1944:

"Mein Fuhrer: we must mount a counteroffensive! The Red Army have brought up several divisions of tanks in an area where our line is weak!"

"How many tanks, exactly ?"

"I regret I cannot say with certainty, mein Fuhrer: but it is at least two divisions"

"Dumkopf! How can I take you seriously when you have no idea what you are talking about. We will do no such thing. You are clearly hysterical and are hereby relieved of your command"

Yes, and here we go with comparisons to Nazis. Next it will be the KKK>\

I am signing out of this discussion.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by downunder

....

No doubt in some overused tourist areas the corals are struggling....

That's an acknowledged supposition on your part, but it may be true.

However:

Scientific studies clearly indicate that isolated coral reefs far from direct human influence are showing a clear trend of recent decline.

I'm half sure at least one of these has been linked to, but certainly it has been referred to, earlier in this thread

Here's an unscientific anecdote:

A friend just back from a cruise to unfrequented parts of Vanuatu, the latest of many over the last decade, who is a very practical (and highly intelligent) farmer type, and a climate change sceptic, was pretty concerned that places he revisited this time had little or no live coral.

One of these places used to be the undiscovered jewel in Vanuatu's crown.


The locals were still living much as they have always lived, and there are relatively few of them.

There was no foreign fishing pressure, no shipping, nothing else to suggest human-induced effects, other than those which apply at all scales: sea water temperature rise, and /or acidification.

Like your claim, this is just supposition. I'm not discounting the damage tourism and agriculture and fishing and outfalls can do, but there may also be an elephant in the room.

How long do we wait before we start taking this possibility seriously?

Please don't use the tabloid-like habits of the typical journalist or headline writer as an excuse to dismiss the message they're retelling:

They think they're adding value by talking of "plagues" but any astute person can see they're doing the exact opposite.

And the messenger is NOT the message.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Well who is using the pejorative in these "careful arguments"? Debunkalist?
Quibble while Rome burns?

I say inaccurate data does matter especially when doomsday assumptions are postulated/

Quibbling is hardly a pejorative when used to describe someone who uses unsubstantial methods of arguing.

And I'm not sure how you could possibly know whether "debunkalist" has a pejorative taint: I just Googled it, and found that it appears exactly once on the www: on this page. I would be happy to be called a debunkalist if I was engaged in trying to debunk a proposition (such as: global warming is a global conspiracy)

When I say "unsubstantial methods of arguing" I'm referring to things like making competing assertions

Such as the one quoted above, starting "I say....." , instead of refuting the contested point.

Or the guy in my first "inaccurate data" example, quibbling with his bank manager about the exact amount of his unarranged overdraft.

Or ..... bringing us RIGHT up to date: choosing to read selectively, in order to manufacture fake outrage.

Once again, if you'd got past the first line of my example on accuracy, you'd have worked out that the person representing the climate change believers was ALSO a Nazi, so the metaphor was neutral in regard to this argument. I chose the setting in the hope that for once you might actually read it. I guess it worked ! (in a very limited way, admittedly) I'd already made the same point with a more bland example.

Another quibble (from me, this time): Metaphor is not the same as comparison. It's a higher level of abstraction.


Actually, it's only recently I realised how useful fake outrage can be to exit an argument one has no prospect of continuing using valid and dispassionate means.

I don't have the stomach to use it, though...

[sabray]

Anyone know why my refrigerator is not making ice as well as it used to? I am blaming it on the fridge being to warm.
Why its to warm can be argued but if its not making ice can be seen as less ice.
It's warmer cause its warmer. I don't have ice cause its to warm. It used to make Ice now it doesn't. Something changed.
The climate in fridge is not what it was. It changed. I can verify that I have less ice in my freezer. Now I need to figure out how to fix it.
Get that my freezer had climate change and its caused by something.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Per capita emissions are misleading US pop. 313,000,000 China 1,344,000,000
If they both emitted equal Co2, China per capita easily much less. Even though we rate higher on this scale, it really doesn't reflect total emissions.

Per-capita is a very good measure of efficiency/waste.

But fair enough. Same site, different page:

Energy use (kt of oil equivalent) | Data | Table

domestic energy use, 2010
China (pop. 1,344,000,000) = 2,417,125.9 kt
US (pop. 313,000,000) = 2,216,324.0 kt


Top 3 CO2 emitters, 2009

China 7,687,114

United States
5,299,563

India
1,979,425

So what do propose we do?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So what do propose we do?

Stop pointing fingers and clean up our own house.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sabray

Anyone know why my refrigerator is not making ice as well as it used to? I am blaming it on the fridge being to warm.
Why its to warm can be argued but if its not making ice can be seen as less ice.
It's warmer cause its warmer. I don't have ice cause its to warm. It used to make Ice now it doesn't. Something changed.
The climate in fridge is not what it was. It changed. I can verify that I have less ice in my freezer. Now I need to figure out how to fix it.
Get that my freezer had climate change and its caused by something.

The CFCs leaked out?

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Per capita emissions are misleading

US pop. 313,000,000 China 1,344,000,000

If they both emitted equal Co2, China per capita easily much less.

Even though we rate higher on this scale, it really doesn't reflect total emissions.

Some of our politicians are fond of using the same twisted logic. (I come from a country with a very small population). It's frankly embarrassing.

They don't quite put it in the naked terms I'm going to use, but it's essentially their argument, and the flip side of yours:

"It doesn't matter how much fossil fuel each of us burns. There just aren't enough of us.

(Even if we each installed our own personal coal-fired power station)...

Our national "total emissions" will never amount to anything, viewed globally.

So we have a free pass. Emit at will "


See how it works? The real beauty of it is this: If you come from a really BIG country, you can still apply it:

You just have to think locally.

My county, my parish, my street, my house.

To remember this, just think "Me Me Me Me ME !"

- - - - - - -

We're all in this together, regardless of how you reconfigure the tortuous justifications for (big) business as usual.