6 ms·

It was never true that human industry was the main cause of co2 release into the atmosphere. Which is one of the reasons to doubt that all those climate accord

It was never true that human industry was the main cause of co2 release into the atmosphere. Which is one of the reasons to doubt that all those climate accords will have any influence on global warming at all. > "Sooner and worse than expected" is a phrase I expect to hear with increasing frequency. If you increase the input into self-reinforcing feedback loop that is exactly what you'd expect to happen. Not that at that point it makes a large difference, but it certainly makes some difference. Feedback loops are notoriously hard to mitigate.

cmurf 9y ago
This is idiocy. You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement. Not merely they're mistaken, not merely they have imperfect data, but intentionally deceiving with malice. That's how many scientists and how much data there is contravening your first statement, not least of which is Exxon - that liberal bastion of environmental preservation.
- topspin 9y ago
  "You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement" The first statement, that human industry is not "the main cause of co2 release," is undisputed fact. This is what the DOE says [1]: "Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere." and "Carbon dioxide comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources; natural sources are predominant." Your misunderstanding is apparently common enough that the last assertion is offered in the context of dispelling a myth. [1] https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon...
  - cmurf 9y ago
    That page says: Myth: Carbon dioxide comes only from anthropogenic sources, especially from the burning of fossil fuels. Jesus is a myth. The above statement is not something any thinking person has ever considered. You'd have to be a moron to think CO2 only comes from human source. Of course CO2 predates mankind, as well as mandkind's activities. Positioning something that no one is claiming as if it's something someone is claiming and then knocking it down, is known as a strawman, it is not a myth. But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier. The concern is not the source or reason for historic CO2 levels, it's the source and reason for increases above historic CO2 levels. Treating people as if they're too stupid to see through such transparent attempts at distraction should be a violation of the code of conduct, before name calling those who try to get away with shit like this.
    - topspin 9y ago
      "But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier." I assume you refer to Rick Perry. In point of fact the myth/reality portion of the page has been unchanged since at least September of 2015 [1], at which time Obama appointee Ernest Moniz was Secretary of Energy. Dr. Moniz has never denied the fact that the climate is changing, as far as I'm aware. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl....
  - lutorm 9y ago
    Sure, if you don't include the word "net". Natural processes account for the majority of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. They also account for the majority of the CO2 removed from the atmosphere, because there's an equilibrium flow. The important part is that anthropogenic sources are a significant contribution to the net imbalance of those flows, because it's all in one direction. It's like arguing that your spending, because is a small fraction of the amount of money you move between your checkings and savings accounts, won't make you run out of money...
castis 9y ago
What if it's all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
- jerf 9y ago
  Then trillions of dollars were extremely inefficiently allocated to the task of creating better worlds and a much better world could have been created with that money instead, costing lives in the process. Having noble goals doesn't immunize you from accounting.
  - castis 9y ago
    And none of it means anything if we all die because the planet cant sustain us any longer.
    - nyolfen 9y ago
      quite a nice little set of rhetorical positions you've constructed for yourself
    - sadfsafaasdfsa 9y ago
      S/He's responding to "What if it's all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" therefore in this scope there is no GW
  - alistproducer2 9y ago
    I recommend you read "Money: The Unauthorized Biography [0]" You'll never look at money the same way again. Money is not a commodity even though we treat it as such. It certainly is not a finite resource. Plenty of money gets created everyday for thing far more stupid than trying to save the world. Look at how much money has been created (and will be spent) for no good reason at all in the current cryptocoin bubble. The massive capital gains are going to be cashed out and spent somewhere, creating market distortions, making people who contribute nothing insanely wealthy. Money is not sacred. Better we use it to try and save the world than to treat it as if it (and the market) are some all-wise, ever-perfect allocator of human and natural resources. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F1W0DAO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F1W0DAO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
> Feedback loops are notoriously hard to mitigate. "Amplifiers that oscillate and oscillators that won't are the two great fears of analog designers."
- jacquesm 9y ago
  So you work hard to keep that feedback gain under '1' in an amplifier and over '1' in an oscillator. Technically an amplifier with a feedback mechanism can become an oscillator and if you break the feedback loop in an oscillator you end up with 'just' an amplifier. To make this even more interesting: a negative feedback element in an amplifier will greatly enhance the frequency response at the expense of amplification (and will vastly reduce the chances of that amplifier turning into an oscillator).
taberiand 9y ago
No, we started the avalanche with our carbon emissions.
graeme 9y ago
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you've been misunderstood. Are you saying: 1. Most CO2 release is natural 2. We increased CO2 through our own efforts as well 3. [implied statement you may agree with: this led to a feedback loop] 4. We now may be too late to stop it merely by reducing emissions, if planetary emissions of stored carbon take over and become the main source of CO2 emissions I think's actually fairly profound. We may have pushed the system towards a new equilibrium, and it's now moving itself faster than we are pushing it. The only way to stop it would be to invent something to suck carbon from the atmosphere on a massive scale. Is that what you were saying? You're getting downvotes because your first statement, while technically true, isn't very profound. Natural carbon emissions were counterbalanced by natural carbon storage. But that might not be true if our additional emissions have triggered enough feedback loops.
- cropsieboss 9y ago
  Most CO2 is indeed natural. We did increase the circulating amount by a very small margin. Large enough so that it accumulated over the years. This of course led to a feedback loop. Arctic ice has 1400Gt of carbon locked up as methane. [1] This is equivalent to 1400/10 = 140 years of human 2016 activity. [2] If ice starts to melt, we are doomed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions [2]: https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
  - specialist 9y ago
    I believe (but cannot prove, obviously) that we're way past the tipping point. Meaning simply reducing anthropocentric emissions, even down to zero, will not meaningfully impact atomspheric CO2, methane. For civilization to survive, we must adapt, mitigate, or both.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      The scientific consensus is that sea levels will rise by 1-2 meters over the course of 200 years. Thats the science. And it doesn't sound like extinction to me.
actsasbuffoon 9y ago
> It was never true that human industry was the main cause of co2 release into the atmosphere. This is technically true, but I think it misses the point. It's like complaining about Jeff Bezos being financially irresponsible because he bought a yacht. It might be financially irresponsible for you or me to buy a yacht, but Jeff Bezos's bank account is much bigger, and refills much more rapidly. It's true that the natural carbon cycle involves a lot of sequestered carbon being released into the air, but nature actually consumes a little bit more carbon than it emits. If we left the natural carbon cycle alone, atmospheric carbon would decline. Human industry is fundamentally the opposite. We emit CO2, but we don't sequester it in any significant way. Nature may pump more CO2 into the air than we do, but it also absorbs far more than we do. In fact, once nature consumes all of its own CO2, it consumes roughly 40% of what we put out there. The remaining 60% of our output is why atmospheric carbon keeps increasing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
specialist 9y ago
Industry? Not initially, no. Activity? Absolutely. One theory is that agriculture prevented another mini-ice age. I don't know where in the "believe, but cannot prove" spectrum this theory lies (a la http://edge.org http://edge.org). "Feedback loops are notoriously hard to mitigate." Complex adaptive systems. Disrupt a system's equilibrium and you get chaos. Hard to predict, mitigate.

cmurf 9y ago

This is idiocy. You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement. Not merely they're mistaken, not merely they have imperfect data, but intentionally deceiving with malice. That's how many scientists and how much data there is contravening your first statement, not least of which is Exxon - that liberal bastion of environmental preservation.

topspin 9y ago
"You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement" The first statement, that human industry is not "the main cause of co2 release," is undisputed fact. This is what the DOE says [1]: "Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere." and "Carbon dioxide comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources; natural sources are predominant." Your misunderstanding is apparently common enough that the last assertion is offered in the context of dispelling a myth. [1] https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon...
- cmurf 9y ago
  That page says: Myth: Carbon dioxide comes only from anthropogenic sources, especially from the burning of fossil fuels. Jesus is a myth. The above statement is not something any thinking person has ever considered. You'd have to be a moron to think CO2 only comes from human source. Of course CO2 predates mankind, as well as mandkind's activities. Positioning something that no one is claiming as if it's something someone is claiming and then knocking it down, is known as a strawman, it is not a myth. But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier. The concern is not the source or reason for historic CO2 levels, it's the source and reason for increases above historic CO2 levels. Treating people as if they're too stupid to see through such transparent attempts at distraction should be a violation of the code of conduct, before name calling those who try to get away with shit like this.
  - topspin 9y ago
    "But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier." I assume you refer to Rick Perry. In point of fact the myth/reality portion of the page has been unchanged since at least September of 2015 [1], at which time Obama appointee Ernest Moniz was Secretary of Energy. Dr. Moniz has never denied the fact that the climate is changing, as far as I'm aware. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl....
- lutorm 9y ago
  Sure, if you don't include the word "net". Natural processes account for the majority of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. They also account for the majority of the CO2 removed from the atmosphere, because there's an equilibrium flow. The important part is that anthropogenic sources are a significant contribution to the net imbalance of those flows, because it's all in one direction. It's like arguing that your spending, because is a small fraction of the amount of money you move between your checkings and savings accounts, won't make you run out of money...

castis 9y ago

What if it's all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

jerf 9y ago
Then trillions of dollars were extremely inefficiently allocated to the task of creating better worlds and a much better world could have been created with that money instead, costing lives in the process. Having noble goals doesn't immunize you from accounting.
- castis 9y ago
  And none of it means anything if we all die because the planet cant sustain us any longer.
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    quite a nice little set of rhetorical positions you've constructed for yourself
  - sadfsafaasdfsa 9y ago
    S/He's responding to "What if it's all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" therefore in this scope there is no GW
- alistproducer2 9y ago
  I recommend you read "Money: The Unauthorized Biography [0]" You'll never look at money the same way again. Money is not a commodity even though we treat it as such. It certainly is not a finite resource. Plenty of money gets created everyday for thing far more stupid than trying to save the world. Look at how much money has been created (and will be spent) for no good reason at all in the current cryptocoin bubble. The massive capital gains are going to be cashed out and spent somewhere, creating market distortions, making people who contribute nothing insanely wealthy. Money is not sacred. Better we use it to try and save the world than to treat it as if it (and the market) are some all-wise, ever-perfect allocator of human and natural resources. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F1W0DAO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F1W0DAO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago

> Feedback loops are notoriously hard to mitigate. "Amplifiers that oscillate and oscillators that won't are the two great fears of analog designers."

jacquesm 9y ago
So you work hard to keep that feedback gain under '1' in an amplifier and over '1' in an oscillator. Technically an amplifier with a feedback mechanism can become an oscillator and if you break the feedback loop in an oscillator you end up with 'just' an amplifier. To make this even more interesting: a negative feedback element in an amplifier will greatly enhance the frequency response at the expense of amplification (and will vastly reduce the chances of that amplifier turning into an oscillator).

taberiand 9y ago

No, we started the avalanche with our carbon emissions.

graeme 9y ago

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you've been misunderstood. Are you saying: 1. Most CO2 release is natural 2. We increased CO2 through our own efforts as well 3. [implied statement you may agree with: this led to a feedback loop] 4. We now may be too late to stop it merely by reducing emissions, if planetary emissions of stored carbon take over and become the main source of CO2 emissions I think's actually fairly profound. We may have pushed the system towards a new equilibrium, and it's now moving itself faster than we are pushing it. The only way to stop it would be to invent something to suck carbon from the atmosphere on a massive scale. Is that what you were saying? You're getting downvotes because your first statement, while technically true, isn't very profound. Natural carbon emissions were counterbalanced by natural carbon storage. But that might not be true if our additional emissions have triggered enough feedback loops.

cropsieboss 9y ago
Most CO2 is indeed natural. We did increase the circulating amount by a very small margin. Large enough so that it accumulated over the years. This of course led to a feedback loop. Arctic ice has 1400Gt of carbon locked up as methane. [1] This is equivalent to 1400/10 = 140 years of human 2016 activity. [2] If ice starts to melt, we are doomed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions [2]: https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
- specialist 9y ago
  I believe (but cannot prove, obviously) that we're way past the tipping point. Meaning simply reducing anthropocentric emissions, even down to zero, will not meaningfully impact atomspheric CO2, methane. For civilization to survive, we must adapt, mitigate, or both.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    The scientific consensus is that sea levels will rise by 1-2 meters over the course of 200 years. Thats the science. And it doesn't sound like extinction to me.

actsasbuffoon 9y ago

> It was never true that human industry was the main cause of co2 release into the atmosphere. This is technically true, but I think it misses the point. It's like complaining about Jeff Bezos being financially irresponsible because he bought a yacht. It might be financially irresponsible for you or me to buy a yacht, but Jeff Bezos's bank account is much bigger, and refills much more rapidly. It's true that the natural carbon cycle involves a lot of sequestered carbon being released into the air, but nature actually consumes a little bit more carbon than it emits. If we left the natural carbon cycle alone, atmospheric carbon would decline. Human industry is fundamentally the opposite. We emit CO2, but we don't sequester it in any significant way. Nature may pump more CO2 into the air than we do, but it also absorbs far more than we do. In fact, once nature consumes all of its own CO2, it consumes roughly 40% of what we put out there. The remaining 60% of our output is why atmospheric carbon keeps increasing.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

specialist 9y ago

Industry? Not initially, no. Activity? Absolutely. One theory is that agriculture prevented another mini-ice age. I don't know where in the "believe, but cannot prove" spectrum this theory lies (a la http://edge.org http://edge.org). "Feedback loops are notoriously hard to mitigate." Complex adaptive systems. Disrupt a system's equilibrium and you get chaos. Hard to predict, mitigate.