What do you think of climate change?

[phaster]

Ender:

ZMystiCat:

Neither I nor, to my knowledge, the article I quoted ever claimed that humans are the primary cause, just a cause.

You should have read the article more carefully because that is exactly what it claimed, that man is responsible for global climate change, not that he has contributed some vague and undefined amount to the warming that has occurred. That is the entire purpose of those studies: to foster the belief that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that man is responsible for most of the the warming we have experienced.

This is what is claimed that 97% of climate scientists believe: “…humans are responsible for climate change.”

“snip OP text for brevity”

Does man pollute the environment? Yes or course.
Does climate change? Yes.
But the assertion is that mankind is primarily responsible for altering the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, and that government management of human activity is the answer to managing the weather.

This is NONSENSE, or worse, a deception. You see this nonsense on the mainstream news literally all the time now, where normal weather patterns are blamed on “global warming”. It’s an assertion with a rabid religious content, oddly enough. And human activity is the primary sin.

Summarizing “science” as viewed by disbelievers (for lack of a better term),… “the assertion is that mankind is primarily responsible for altering the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere,… is NONSENSE, or worse, a deception.”

FWIW read,…

This is where distrust of science really comes from — and it’s not just your politics

…In particular, being a biblical literalist — endorsing the statement, “The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” — was a much bigger factor than liberalism or conservatism in explaining why some people disagreed with the use of science in “concrete government policy decisions,” and also why they were against federal science funding.

www.washingtonpost[dot]com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/02/this-is-where-distrust-of-science-really-comes-from-and-its-not-just-your-politics/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4974d0beea2a

noticed this “distrust of science” first hand at the 2018 science and faith CA conference, when some attendies were asking the panal questions about “evolution”

FYI the basis that that mankind is primarily responsible for altering the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere,… actually is provable using science

on page eight of the PDF I’ve outlined what people need to know to grasp why scientists are pretty concerned

TinyURL[dot]com/HowBigIsTheEarth

you’ll see I’ve highlighted text that basically states,…

The CO2 increase in the atmosphere (almost entirely of the “Carbon 12” isotope) comes from [the chemical reaction of] burning fossil fuels.

(w/ in the highlight text in the PDF there is an easter-egg link to the chemical reaction of burning one gal of gasoline)

 

[phaster]

It’s a very real concern, but Havoc has yet to be shown.
The harm is predicted for the future.

And havoc projections sometimes change with more research
Pteropods counter mechanical damage and dissolution through extensive shell repair

of course there are going to be exceptions to the rule,… biological adaptations has happened in the past which is why extremophile exist in hostile environments

oceanservice[dot]noaa[dot]gov/facts/extremophile.html

and biological adaptations will happen durning climate change

BUT looking at the larger trends,… as I pointed out before, we still have to account for the fact

…that not many have thought of the various knock on effects in other realms,… case in point at the current time we have effects of “global dimming” which is an atmospheric feedback that actually is masking the full effects of the greenhouse IR effect of CO2

then for example w/ CO2 concentrations at currently 415+ ppm we should consider that between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years,… which then results w/ ocean acidification (i.e. a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time,…)

this in turn results in wreaking havoc on marine organisms that build their shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate AND since these creatures provide essential food and habitat for other ocean dwellers, the effects could ripple disastrously throughout the ocean,… trends indicate projected ocean acidification also most likely will take a heavy toll on tropical reef-building corals

basically “winners” are going to be very, vary, vary rare,… it would be sorta akin to investors who won big on credit default swaps back in the great recession

(this is the basic the situtation in “the big short” movie)

www.imdb[dot]com/title/tt1596363/

 

[phaster]

Scientists know how much CO2 is in the air. The technology exists to extract it. To bring it down to a certain PPM range. The problem? The world’s two biggest CO2 polluters are China and the United States. In China, right now, people can buy three different masks to filter the air they breathe. The third, and most expensive version, will trap fine particulate matter so it doesn’t end up in the lungs. The owners of smoke-belching industries who are worth billions of dollars don’t want to die. They will implement everything when the money situation is right. Right now, in the United States, the IRS is giving a tax credit to companies that will solve the problem. It will go down a bit next year and end at 10% in 2021. It’s all in place. The transition is happening now.

Scientists know how much CO2 is in the air. The technology exists to extract it. To bring it down to a certain PPM range. The problem?..

manmade (i.e. mechanical) CO2 scrubbing does not scale AND if it were somehow scaled up,… we don’t have enough money and energy to operate the device

 

[Theo520]

The number of winners and losers will be greatly impacted by the rate and degree of change.

If doubling CO2 warms us 4-9C by 2100, that’s bad news.
But if it’s only 1.5C, not so much. More gradual and time to adapt.

“global dimming”

This is yet another feedback that we don’t really understand yet. I don’t think it’s part of the climate models either.

 

[edwest211]

That is not the problem. The existing system is better than nothing and better than throwing up your hands and saying, We’re all gonna die. The very wealthy have figured out what to do and how to do it. They care about their beachfront property. They don’t want to see the value of their land assets decrease. The changeover has started. They are in control.

 

[phaster]

phaster:

at the 2018 faith and science conference , noticed there was great hesitation by some asking the panel questions, believing the science of evolution

I think the problem with things like evolution and climate change is that they are seen as “controversial” in a lot of religious spaces, and by “controversial”, I mean that a lot of people who have at best an amateur’s understanding of the science like debating it as if they were experts (again, lot’s of pride here). At the same time, there’s just not a lot of people who really understand it in Christianity, so any panelist who wants to defend it probably doesn’t want to go near an issue that they can’t discuss at a level any higher than those who would challenge them (i.e. an amateurish level where they can’t adequately present science and call out pseudoscience). This probably leads to the issue not getting a lot of attention.

Along with that, it doesn’t help that many who oppose the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a threat aren’t exactly…willing…to engage in discussion. They often claim you’re just speculating, which takes a lot of knowledge to prove wrong (far more than the average person who watched a documentary). Alternatively, they claim some mass conspiracy to silence legitimate dissent, making even expert opinions irrelevant to them. How do even have a discussion with that group?

But this still leaves open the question of why there aren’t that many experts as Christians. Most of that is probably due to the general lack of religious scientists, but I think scientists in groups like evolutionary biology and climatology might have a harder time because they’re not only given the impression that they must deny what they know to be true but are also attacked as part of some conspiracy to silence dissent. (Again, that’s just speculation.)

given human nature, people fall back upon gut instinct (i.e. “storytelling”) to make sense of the world around them,… when presented w/ evidence that indicates the story we tell ourselves is false,… psychology experts tell us,… there is cognitive dissonance AND as you mentioned “lot’s of old fashion human pride”

WRT anthropogenic climate change,… the problem again is basic human nature and the stories we tell our selves,… I’m guessing most everyone on this fourm is from the USA

I bring this point up because there is an american ethos (i.e. as american’s we all believe in rugged individualism, that we’re part of the middle class and have a god given right to live large)

unfortunately science indicates the american ethos is unsustainable given the finite amount of resources on the planet, so eventually something will have to give and when it does there is going to most likely be “biblical, fire and brimstone” havoc in the social realm

 

[phaster]

The number of winners and losers will be greatly impacted by the rate and degree of change.

If doubling CO2 warms us 4-9C by 2100, that’s bad news.
But if it’s only 1.5C, not so much. More gradual and time to adapt.

phaster:

“global dimming”

This is yet another feedback that we don’t really understand yet. I don’t think it’s part of the climate models either.

w/ climate change there are lot’s of unknowns,… risk analysis suggests the wise choice is to use "the precautionary principle,…"

Boeing should have used “the precautionary principle” w/ the 737 MAX design,… but bean counters, pushed so lots of people died and now I’d say the company is one step closer to the edge

 

[edwest211]

Boeing? Have you done the research?

 

[phaster]

Boeing? Have you done the research?

I’m not an “aero” guy, but have friends who are boeing drivers (aka “airline pilots”), as well as friends who are aeronautical engineers who have an inside track dealing w/ the disfunction boeing corp culture

common thread I pick up through the grape vine “chatter” is,… engineering is taking a back seat to the bean counter/profit before safety culture

yet another example of as they say,… the love of money is the root of all evil

 

[goout]

This is where distrust of science really comes from — and it’s not just your politics

…In particular, being a biblical literalist — endorsing the statement, “The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” — was a much bigger factor than liberalism or conservatism in explaining why some people disagreed with the use of science in “concrete government policy decisions,” and also why they were against federal science funding.

www.washingtonpost[dot]com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/02/this-is-where-distrust-of-science-really-comes-from-and-its-not-just-your-politics/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4974d0beea2a

noticed this “distrust of science” first hand at the 2018 science and faith CA conference, when some attendies were asking the panal questions about “evolution”

FYI the basis that that mankind is primarily responsible for altering the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere,… actually is provable using science

on page eight of the PDF I’ve outlined what people need to know to grasp why scientists are pretty concerned

TinyURL[dot]com/HowBigIsTheEarth

you’ll see I’ve highlighted text that basically states,…

The CO2 increase in the atmosphere (almost entirely of the “Carbon 12” isotope) comes from [the chemical reaction of] burning fossil fuels.

(w/ in the highlight text in the PDF there is an easter-egg link to the chemical reaction of burning one gal of gasoline)

Well, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
I reject biblical literalism with the Catholic Church.
I accept evolution as proven science, details still to be worked out.

Climate change is real. Temperature change is real. All observed by science.
Human beings pollute the environment, of course.

The idea that human beings are appreciably altering the temperature of the earth by human activity is not proven science. There is consensus among many scientists for it. There is also plenty of dissent.

In my opinion, with a geology background and given the large scale climate swings and huge time scales we are talking about…I think AGW is nonsense.

My opinion has ZERO to do with the bible. But it is handy for the AGW agenda to cast dissent as religous nut-jobbery (ironic for the religously fervored AGW movement)

 

[Ehnebic]

There are so many complicated levels to this question that could take several pages to tackle. Bottom line for me is that those who promote climate change are using it to promote depopulation and there are several other reasons why they have discredited themselves.

 

[PJH_74]

I never really get the tenacity of arguments against climate change. Why not free ourselves from foreign energy entanglements? We know oil extraction causes environmental damage by itself and why are we burning up our main sources of polymer chains?

Yes, electrical cars changed by fossil fuels are not net zero, but the energy is generated more efficiently. As an Electrical Engineer, I can tell you our electrical grid is in bad shape. Renewable energy sources need to be factored into the renewal of this grid. The big advantage of the distribution of small scale renewable energy sources is that the power can be distributed more efficiently. Why? Because it is not wasted as heat beginning transmitted over long distances, but rather is consumed locally. We also have an opportunity to avoid some of those expensive and unsightly high voltage power lines. Additionally there is also a chance for more reliability due to the distributed nature of power generation.

The final question remains for me. Would you rather look back and see that it wasn’t as bad as we thought or find out we made a huge, possibly irrecoverable mistake?

Bottom line for me is that those who promote climate change are using it to promote depopulation…

Those are not inextricable viewpoints. Indeed, if one is to promote population growth wouldn’t one want the cleanest, most stable Earth possible in order to support more life? It’s not any stretch to say pollution limits this.

 

[Ehnebic]

What do you mean by an argument against climate change? Seems like those two little words mean whatever people want them to mean. Unarguably earth has been through many climate changes. People suffered when the climate was cold and prospered when the climate was warm. We adapt as much as we can. There has to be a balance and a realization that there’s only so much we are in charge of. We didn’t create the earth after all. What we don’t do is kill our children or the old and infirm. Earth is made for people, not people for the earth. Let’s take care of each other as much as we can. The depopulate earth people have everything backwards.

If you’re advocating reducing pollution that’s an admirable goal. I’ve been a recycler since before it was called recycling. Unfortunately our consumer society encourages a waste of resources and then complains about it. It’s quite schizophrenic.

 

[Theo520]

w/ climate change there are lot’s of unknowns,… risk analysis suggests the wise choice is to use "the precautionary principle,…"

No it doesn’t

Better be safe than sorry fits with spending a little now so we can prevent a catastrophic future

HOWEVER

If the Precautionary cost is both massive and largely ineffective, the small/unknown risk of AGW doesn’t warrant it.

The Green New Deal will cost the US many TRILLIONS yet have little impact on Climate Change. Heck, the US could cut all CO2 emissions and barely impact global CO2 levels

If we can’t afford it for the US, how can the 3rd world afford to drop carbon fuels.

 

[MPat]

Yes, electrical cars changed by fossil fuels are not net zero, but the energy is generated more efficiently.

That is pretty much impossible. For a “normal” car the chain is “Fuel → mechanical energy”. For an electrical car it is “Fuel → electrical energy in transmission lines → chemical energy in electrochemical cell → electrical energy in the car → mechanical energy”. It is very unlikely that the second process is going to be more efficient than the first one.

The final question remains for me. Would you rather look back and see that it wasn’t as bad as we thought or find out we made a huge, possibly irrecoverable mistake?

OK, that’s almost Pascal’s Wager. But Pascal’s Wager can avoid numbers because it is dealing with infinity. And here we have no infinities.

So, for your argument you do need the probability of great danger, cost of that great danger, cost of fighting that danger and the decrease of danger when it is being fought. In fact, things are a more complex, because there are different proposed levels of danger (with different probabilities) and different strategies of fighting those dangers.

Do you have any estimates of any those numbers?

And things look worse when some activists talk as if someone else will pay for fighting the danger, and the activists themselves will only be there to reap the benefits. That, among other things, makes it likely that the costs of fighting the danger are being underestimated, while the danger itself is being overestimated.

Not to mention the case when the activists like the solution they propose (costly to someone else) even without any danger…

 

[edwest211]

Your information is incomplete.

 

[virgin.most.chaste]

Your Right, we can never be as intelligent as those people but we should have common sense and try to change things the best we can, according to how much money we have. The problem is that the company that makes hybrid cars won’t sell cars for cheap. We do these companies want to profit from climate change, why? should it be cheaper so more people will buy the cars?

 

[Theo520]

Your information is incomplete.

BUT there is an argument.
You are encouraged to retort and show what I missed.

 

[ZMystiCat]

cause the planet to be uninhabitable.

Strawman. The closest you can get are concerns about mass extinctions and Earth not being able to sustain the current (or projected) human population, but those are far crys from “uninhabitable”.

that man is responsible for global climate change

There’s a difference between saying humans are responsible for global warming and saying humans are the primary cause of global warming, which is what I took issue with.

Um, how is someone who is not sufficiently competent to read papers on his own supposed to know that there is this “almost universal consensus among experts”?

For that matter, how do you personally know that? Did you actually read some scientific review paper? Or did you read a report by an activist or science populariser?

On a personal level, I’ve at least had an undergraduate-level exposure to it, but it isn’t exactly some hidden knowledge that required going to college to discover. Heck, even the existence of conspiracy theories about some attempted silencing of dissent is itself a testament to how near-universal the agreement on it is.

For that matter, scientists are not perfectly trustworthy.

This really just gets down to the same arrogance. If someone dismisses scientists as “just human”, they should recognize themselves as “just human”, albeit with far less knowledge of this than the scientists, making them an even less reliable source. Sure, there’s a point where skepticism is healthy, if it encourages genuine seeking of information (heck, that’s what drives scientists!), but it turns to arrogance when someone just dismisses the scientists off-hand because “they’re just human”, all while failing to recognize the irony of that statement.

Furthermore, I don’t see the average person questioning photosynthesis or the Earth rotating around the sun based on a “scientists are human” argument. It’s really only brought up in these cases where they might have a political (or in the case of evolution religious) reason for doing so. That makes me very skeptical that this is some genuine searching and not some politically-motivated skepticism.

 

[PJH_74]

That is pretty much impossible. For a “normal” car the chain is “Fuel → mechanical energy”. For an electrical car it is “Fuel → electrical energy in…

Fossil fuel plants 37 to 60% efficient.

Internal combustion engines are more like 20%.

This is also deceiving, because while electric motors convert about 90% of their energy to motion, they do so on a constant torque output from 0 RPM. They also don’t necessarily require a transmission.

Your car’s motor has a sweet spot often around 2000 RPM where it is most efficient and the transmission is geared for this. But this also not where maximum power is produced.

Even with coal and transmission losses, an electric motor is on par with the most efficient car engines in their small high efficiency sweet spot. Mind you this is through out the rev band and minimal to no drivetrain losses. Now you know why all modern locomotives are electric, even the “Diesel” ones.