3 ms·

The idea of skepticism is all well and good, but think about this: which psychological force is more powerful, intellectual honesty or human laziness? How much

The idea of skepticism is all well and good, but think about this: which psychological force is more powerful, intellectual honesty or human laziness? How much work have you personally done to try to understand our climate? While you are being skeptical, are you living with less consumption than you had before the possibility was as public, staking a middle ground between two possibilities, or are you continuing on as usual? This is a global issue. You will find hyperbole and mistaken predictions, and yes, fraud, on both sides. Nature doesn't care. The question is: by how much can we alter the planet's ecosystem before it is unsafe? The IPCC's models predict about a 2C temperature rise in the 2090s from the 1990s if we have 450 ppm in the atmosphere. That temperature rise is further predicted to be the point we had better not go past, to avoid more severe damage. We are currently at 385 ppm, over 280 ppm from before the industrial revolution. That means we've used up 60% of the slack we had towards a pretty hard (and hardening) limit. Clearly, with the knowledge we have about the physics of greenhouse gases, there is some amount of CO2, some amount of radiative forcing, that is beyond what the world can handle without risking severe changes to the ecosystem and our way of life. It is not enough for skeptics to claim 'we don't know what that amount is, we have our doubts,' if it is followed by words or actions that support business as usual. There must be some agreement towards an acceptable limit to the dumping of a disruptive chemical, in massive quantities, into a finite atmosphere on a finite planet. For what it's worth, I think it's more likely that carbon reduction policies will create a positive, rather than negative, effect on the economy.

anamax 17y ago
> The question is: by how much can we alter the planet's ecosystem before it is unsafe? The IPCC's models predict about a 2C temperature rise in the 2090s from the 1990s if we have 450 ppm in the atmosphere. That temperature rise is further predicted to be the point we had better not go past, to avoid more severe damage. What definition of "unsafe" are we using? What effects are you assuming? (Ice has been growing in the artic since 2007.) (I can't find my reference to the non-existent sea-level increases....) As many have asked, what is the "correct" temperature? Is it the one during the medieval warming period? The one during the depths of the little ice age? Now? 1934? We know that Earth has had considerably higher CO2 concentrations in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide... (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology )
anamax 17y ago
> There must be some agreement towards an acceptable limit to the dumping of a disruptive chemical, in massive quantities, into a finite atmosphere on a finite planet. That doesn't tell us what said acceptable limit is.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  I recognize this. There are different answers for different people, too. The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Certain environmentalists want atmospheric CO2 at pre-industrial levels. Perhaps Alaskans have a different view? The point is that this is how to structure the debate. There are certain acceptable limits. They are different for every person. If we're to succeed, as a species, on a finite planet, we're going to need to figure out how to make democracy and diplomacy work for this, possibly grandest tragedy of the commons. Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? Right?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Do they? Or, do they want a given sea level? Note that sea level may well be independent of CO2. (That's part of why I mentioned artic ice, which has been increasing.) > There are certain acceptable limits. And you're assuming quite a bit about a lot of things, such as the relationship between CO2 and temperature and sea level. > Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? I don't know and that may not be the question. I've posted links showing CO2 levels several times what it is now. What was the temperature then? (Since those times were in the past, it's absurd to argue that whatever happens at those concentrations is irreversible.)
    - DaniFong 17y ago
      Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly. http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg But that's rather immaterial since it's land based ice, as in greenland and antarctica, that will influence sea levels. Greater fluctuations will cause more permanent loss of land based ice than sea based ice. But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a pretty clear temperature link. --- Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world. This is a separate question from the action of CO2 -- for example we already fix more nitrogen as all other life on this planet, and three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions. We have changed this planet. Are we to become conscious of this or are we to continue claiming innocence and practicing ignorance as we accelerate our ecological impact? A return to the atmospheric conditions of the Triassic might well be the best thing for the world, but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want, we will continue to argue about tiny details having little to nothing to do with the global atmospheric, ecological, biological climatic change that is taking place, and we will continue to be at odds as our actions annihilate biomes that we scarcely know about. I put the question back to you. What change in the world would be acceptable to you? If we have reconcilable goals for our shared planet, then at least the debate becomes on of science, of planning, of what must be done. If, however, like many seem to think, you too believe that the changes we are making to the world are ultimately inconsequential, the loss of biodiversity acceptable, and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial, then we are at odds that this conversation will not mend.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

anamax 17y ago

> The question is: by how much can we alter the planet's ecosystem before it is unsafe? The IPCC's models predict about a 2C temperature rise in the 2090s from the 1990s if we have 450 ppm in the atmosphere. That temperature rise is further predicted to be the point we had better not go past, to avoid more severe damage. What definition of "unsafe" are we using? What effects are you assuming? (Ice has been growing in the artic since 2007.) (I can't find my reference to the non-existent sea-level increases....) As many have asked, what is the "correct" temperature? Is it the one during the medieval warming period? The one during the depths of the little ice age? Now? 1934? We know that Earth has had considerably higher CO2 concentrations in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide... (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology )

anamax 17y ago

> There must be some agreement towards an acceptable limit to the dumping of a disruptive chemical, in massive quantities, into a finite atmosphere on a finite planet. That doesn't tell us what said acceptable limit is.

DaniFong 17y ago
I recognize this. There are different answers for different people, too. The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Certain environmentalists want atmospheric CO2 at pre-industrial levels. Perhaps Alaskans have a different view? The point is that this is how to structure the debate. There are certain acceptable limits. They are different for every person. If we're to succeed, as a species, on a finite planet, we're going to need to figure out how to make democracy and diplomacy work for this, possibly grandest tragedy of the commons. Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? Right?
- anamax 17y ago
  > The people of the Maldives want the temperature rise regulated below 1.5 C. Do they? Or, do they want a given sea level? Note that sea level may well be independent of CO2. (That's part of why I mentioned artic ice, which has been increasing.) > There are certain acceptable limits. And you're assuming quite a bit about a lot of things, such as the relationship between CO2 and temperature and sea level. > Surely we can't risk a global temperature rise of 10 C? I don't know and that may not be the question. I've posted links showing CO2 levels several times what it is now. What was the temperature then? (Since those times were in the past, it's absurd to argue that whatever happens at those concentrations is irreversible.)
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly. http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg But that's rather immaterial since it's land based ice, as in greenland and antarctica, that will influence sea levels. Greater fluctuations will cause more permanent loss of land based ice than sea based ice. But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a pretty clear temperature link. --- Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world. This is a separate question from the action of CO2 -- for example we already fix more nitrogen as all other life on this planet, and three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions. We have changed this planet. Are we to become conscious of this or are we to continue claiming innocence and practicing ignorance as we accelerate our ecological impact? A return to the atmospheric conditions of the Triassic might well be the best thing for the world, but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want, we will continue to argue about tiny details having little to nothing to do with the global atmospheric, ecological, biological climatic change that is taking place, and we will continue to be at odds as our actions annihilate biomes that we scarcely know about. I put the question back to you. What change in the world would be acceptable to you? If we have reconcilable goals for our shared planet, then at least the debate becomes on of science, of planning, of what must be done. If, however, like many seem to think, you too believe that the changes we are making to the world are ultimately inconsequential, the loss of biodiversity acceptable, and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial, then we are at odds that this conversation will not mend.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]