4 ms·

How about: that the contribution by humans is unclear, that we may be able to resolve issues that do arise and/or that adaptation is a viable solution?

by pbreit 10y ago

coldpie 10y ago
The contribution by humans is unequivocal. If you would like to understand how we know that, take a couple hours and read the IPCC report Summary for Policymakers. It is a fascinating and relatively easy read. It also includes projections based on several different models and estimates the impact on society from those projections. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  Whether or not it's caused by humans isn't relevant. If it's a problem, regardless of the cause, we ought to be thinking about what we can do to avoid it or to adapt. So I don't understand why so much of the left chooses to frame the issue in such a way that makes it contingent on that cause.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    Understanding the cause is key to learning how to avoid it.
    - berkay 10y ago
      Is it really? Would it not be easier to find consensus (hence more productive) if we were to focus on whether the climate is changing (and not why)? Determine what the impact of the climate change will be and how we should address this problem?
      - coldpie 10y ago
        I have to admit I'm baffled by this line of thinking. Since coal-fired power plants are a primary driver of climate change, it makes sense to stop using them in order to help avoid further contribution to climate change. If they didn't contribute to climate change, then that incentive to stop using them would not be there. Understanding the causes of climate change directly impacts what policies we implement to mitigate it.
        CWuestefeld 10y ago
        If they didn't contribute to climate change I think here's where you're going wrong. There's a difference between "is caused by" and "contributes to". It would be internally consistent to form an argument that supposes an alternate root cause, e.g., solar activity cycles and cycles of the Earth's magnetic field. One can state that these natural problems are (hypothetically) the root cause, while still acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus decreasing our CO2 emissions - even if we weren't doing anything naughty on our own - might serve to mitigate the damage expected to be caused by those long-term natural cycles.
        coldpie 10y ago
        I... guess? That hypothesis conflicts with our best data and you end up at the same policy results anyway, so I'm not sure why one would prefer that roundabout method instead of simply agreeing with the scientific consensus.
        CWuestefeld 10y ago
        Conversely, why demand that people pay obeisance to your ideas? If you can just get them on board to do what's right, what's the difference?
        graeme 10y ago
        You switched topics. They were talking about contribution (albeit enough contribution to be the main cause), and you tried to make it as though they were saying causation (meaning no other causes).
- acqq 10y ago
  Also note that the different curves of the projections don't mean that the most probable is in the middle. The highest and the worst one is under the assumptions "if we don't do anything about it" which is exactly what was done up to now! The lowest one is "if we soon stop using the fossil fuels completely" which is not going to happen. And to those who don't believe: It is caused by humans: see the energy used in the last 200 years: https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-energy-consumption-by-source.png https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-ene... And see what it means that the "climate changed before": https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ The principle the warming works is the same why you wear a coat in the winter: the coat keeps the surface temperature of your body warmer, even if the coat itself doesn't produce a new heat. A thick coat keeps you warmer than a thin one. More CO2 does the same to the Earth surface. Without the greenhouse gases the average Earth temperature would be 0°F (or -18°C) and it is 59°F (15°C). And "a few degrees more" is really a lot and awfully fast, see the xkcd drawing again.
  - pbreit 10y ago
    The xkcd thing is compelling except not sure the data source and I've seen conflicting data. Rest of post not compelling.
    - acqq 10y ago
      > I've seen conflicting data That's called the "wishful thinking" fallacy, to which you cling to confirm your previous "investment." If we'd look at your sources of the apparent "conflicting" data, we'd be able to see that they are intentionally biased, fabricated, cherry picked or whatever. But I would be surprised that you accept that fact, on average it doesn't function that way psychologically. Which is how humans work, but not a scientific argument. Anyway, the natural processes, unless cataclysmic, don't make such rapid changes that we experience now. The speed of the change is orders of magnitude faster now than the non-cataclysmic natural ones. It is really going to be worse than most can even imagine. Our children or grandchildren are going to hate us for not doing enough. The politicians and lobbyists who only see their own benefit will be dead and won't care. To compare with the "good old times": the study of human DNA shows that 70000 years ago, only 2000 humans survived one extinction event: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm And then there was no civilization infrastructure to fail, just the hunter-gatherers, ready to move.
- pbreit 10y ago
  The warming part is much clearer than the anthropomorphic part.
  - acqq 10y ago
    Even if it's maybe not clear to you or to those you like to believe, it's still clear to the relevant scientists of the whole world. "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5" "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}" http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_... The politicians, lobbyists and the media aren't the same as the scientists.

How about: that the contribution by humans is unclear, that we may be able to resolve issues that do arise and/or that adaptation is a viable solution?

by pbreit 10y ago

How about: that the contribution by humans is unclear, that we may be able to resolve issues that do arise and/or that adaptation is a viable solution?

coldpie 10y ago

The contribution by humans is unequivocal. If you would like to understand how we know that, take a couple hours and read the IPCC report Summary for Policymakers. It is a fascinating and relatively easy read. It also includes projections based on several different models and estimates the impact on society from those projections. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...

CWuestefeld 10y ago
Whether or not it's caused by humans isn't relevant. If it's a problem, regardless of the cause, we ought to be thinking about what we can do to avoid it or to adapt. So I don't understand why so much of the left chooses to frame the issue in such a way that makes it contingent on that cause.
- coldpie 10y ago
  Understanding the cause is key to learning how to avoid it.
  - berkay 10y ago
    Is it really? Would it not be easier to find consensus (hence more productive) if we were to focus on whether the climate is changing (and not why)? Determine what the impact of the climate change will be and how we should address this problem?
    - coldpie 10y ago
      I have to admit I'm baffled by this line of thinking. Since coal-fired power plants are a primary driver of climate change, it makes sense to stop using them in order to help avoid further contribution to climate change. If they didn't contribute to climate change, then that incentive to stop using them would not be there. Understanding the causes of climate change directly impacts what policies we implement to mitigate it.
      - CWuestefeld 10y ago
        If they didn't contribute to climate change I think here's where you're going wrong. There's a difference between "is caused by" and "contributes to". It would be internally consistent to form an argument that supposes an alternate root cause, e.g., solar activity cycles and cycles of the Earth's magnetic field. One can state that these natural problems are (hypothetically) the root cause, while still acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus decreasing our CO2 emissions - even if we weren't doing anything naughty on our own - might serve to mitigate the damage expected to be caused by those long-term natural cycles.
        coldpie 10y ago
        I... guess? That hypothesis conflicts with our best data and you end up at the same policy results anyway, so I'm not sure why one would prefer that roundabout method instead of simply agreeing with the scientific consensus.
        CWuestefeld 10y ago
        Conversely, why demand that people pay obeisance to your ideas? If you can just get them on board to do what's right, what's the difference?
        graeme 10y ago
        You switched topics. They were talking about contribution (albeit enough contribution to be the main cause), and you tried to make it as though they were saying causation (meaning no other causes).
acqq 10y ago
Also note that the different curves of the projections don't mean that the most probable is in the middle. The highest and the worst one is under the assumptions "if we don't do anything about it" which is exactly what was done up to now! The lowest one is "if we soon stop using the fossil fuels completely" which is not going to happen. And to those who don't believe: It is caused by humans: see the energy used in the last 200 years: https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-energy-consumption-by-source.png https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-ene... And see what it means that the "climate changed before": https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ The principle the warming works is the same why you wear a coat in the winter: the coat keeps the surface temperature of your body warmer, even if the coat itself doesn't produce a new heat. A thick coat keeps you warmer than a thin one. More CO2 does the same to the Earth surface. Without the greenhouse gases the average Earth temperature would be 0°F (or -18°C) and it is 59°F (15°C). And "a few degrees more" is really a lot and awfully fast, see the xkcd drawing again.
- pbreit 10y ago
  The xkcd thing is compelling except not sure the data source and I've seen conflicting data. Rest of post not compelling.
  - acqq 10y ago
    > I've seen conflicting data That's called the "wishful thinking" fallacy, to which you cling to confirm your previous "investment." If we'd look at your sources of the apparent "conflicting" data, we'd be able to see that they are intentionally biased, fabricated, cherry picked or whatever. But I would be surprised that you accept that fact, on average it doesn't function that way psychologically. Which is how humans work, but not a scientific argument. Anyway, the natural processes, unless cataclysmic, don't make such rapid changes that we experience now. The speed of the change is orders of magnitude faster now than the non-cataclysmic natural ones. It is really going to be worse than most can even imagine. Our children or grandchildren are going to hate us for not doing enough. The politicians and lobbyists who only see their own benefit will be dead and won't care. To compare with the "good old times": the study of human DNA shows that 70000 years ago, only 2000 humans survived one extinction event: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm And then there was no civilization infrastructure to fail, just the hunter-gatherers, ready to move.
pbreit 10y ago
The warming part is much clearer than the anthropomorphic part.
- acqq 10y ago
  Even if it's maybe not clear to you or to those you like to believe, it's still clear to the relevant scientists of the whole world. "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5" "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}" http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_... The politicians, lobbyists and the media aren't the same as the scientists.