The Glade 4.0

Actually, I would say you're leaping a bit with that last point. I think what we have are:

A generalized agreement that the climate is changing.

A generalized agreement that human activity is contributing to changes in levels of certain atmospheric gasses, and

A generalized agreement that certain atmospheric gasses can contribute to climate change.

The causal link between point 2 and 3 isn't one on which there's a good agreement, or a sense of magnitude. There's not a great link between the degree of climate change and amounts of gasses in atmosphere, nor is a directional link solid- ie, do levels increase with a changing climate, or do increasing levels cause a climate change. Without a solid directional link, you can't say that we are contributing to climate change- you can just say we may be.

Smart scientists say we may be contributing to climate change by certain actions, but the link isn't solid, but that we should try to cut down on our fossil fuel consumption and gas excretion anyway, as the risks outweigh the costs (See Judith Curry).

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Where I call from, we call your conclusion post hoc ergo propter hoc.

_________________

I think the consensus view goes further than that, NephyrS. Following your and Taly's approach, I think we have:

1. A generalized agreement that the climate is changing;

2. A generalized agreement that human activity is adding massive quantities of certain atmospheric gasses at a rapid pace; and

3. A generalized agreement that such atmospheric gasses do contribute to climate change in the direction of increased warming.

The causal link between point 2 and 3 is actually quite clear. I would even go so far as to say it's basically undisputed. There's simply no doubt that CO2, CH4, etc. are greenhouse gases that have a positive forcing effect on temperature. The magnitude of the forcing can even be calculated to a pretty precise degree. Likewise, there is no doubt that increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases will, over time, result in a higher equilibrium temperature for the planet. What is unclear, however, is exactly how the interplay of various secondary effects and feedback mechanisms - e.g., increased cloud cover, changes in ocean currents, salinity and acidity, increased vegetation, loss of arctic sea ice, thawing of permafrost, etc. - will affect climate change in the near term (say, over the next century).

In short, there's no doubt that our having doubled or tripled the level of atmospheric carbon over the course of a century or two will result in a warmer global climate; we're just not sure exactly how long the warming will take or how smooth or choppy the transition will be.

So you are using a custom definition of Consensus to make it sound like it's legitimate science then?

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc silliness

All of this global climate change came after the invention of the electric light bulb. Ergo, Thomas Edison is at fault for all this. Think of all the pollution caused in order to power these devices, it is obvious.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

There has to be some balance here. Sure, we shouldn't drastically change the way we produce energy and damage our economy based on weak or inconclusive evidence. But some of you are implying that because we do not fully understand our climate and the effects of greenhouse gases on it, we shouldn't do anything. We don't need to fully understand a problem before we start addressing it. It makes me wonder what other areas of science and engineering would be like if they were held to the same standards of proof as climatology.

We know less about the human body and how it works than the climate. The brain in particular still holds many secrets, and we have more questions than answers at this point. That doesn't mean we can't try to address problems that occur.

For example, we don't know why people get depressed. We have some theories, and we've developed some drugs based on those theories that have shown some success, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in particular). But no one knows how SSRIs alleviate depression. We don't know why they work on some people and not others. We don't know why some SSRIs work better than others. Heck, there's another class of drugs that are selective serotonin reuptake enhancers (SSREs) which have the opposite effect of SSRIs, and these too have been shown to be effective in treating depression.

But we don't just throw our hands up in the air, say "We don't know enough," and not try to treat people who are depressed. We make the best of what we have. Medicine is full of examples like this.

Another example to consider is lead poisoning. In the early 20th century we had some idea that high levels of lead could be toxic, but it was far from clear. There definitely wasn't any consensus. But some countries banned leaded paint anyway, even though the dangers were not fully understood. In hindsight, this was a good move, as the evidence against lead's toxicity, especially among children, grew stronger throughout the century. By the 1940s, the evidence against lead was much clearer, but we still didn't understand how it happened, or at what levels lead was dangerous. And the US continued to ignore the issue. The US didn't ban lead paint until 1970, and leaded gasoline in 1990. Even then, we didn't have a complete understanding of the effects of lead on the body. We still don't. But almost everyone now agrees that banning lead in gasoline and paint was a good thing, and it probably should have been done sooner.

So, back to global warming. We don't know for sure what's causing climate change. We don't know what the consequences will be, how bad it will be, or even if we can stop it. But there's some pretty damn good evidence out there that human's are contributing to it, and there's good reason to believe the effects of it will be detrimental to humans. I'm not saying we need to implement sweeping reforms right now, but we should be doing something to address it. Anything. At least acknowledge that it's a problem.

But many in the US would rather cover their ears and shout "There's no consensus!" over and over again.

To make conclusions regarding global warming, one needs reliable data regarding the mean temperature of the Earth. If we assume satellites or it far enough away to read black body radiation (a shaky assumption, but let's use it anyway), that gives us approximately sixty years worth of data to work with. That's hardly sufficient to draw any conclusions about mankind's impact compared to Earth sans humans.

So, another method of determining a temperature must be used, which involves a calculation. Choosing an appropriate calculation is a large problem in and of itself.

It just so happens that measuring and recording temperature is something I have done professionally. It is an extremely finicky process, subject to numerous sources of error. An increase in temperature of one or two Kelvins over the course of decades is within the margin of error of instrumentation and the math used to calculate an average.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Anyone have a list of the things we can do to reduce greenhouse gasses that are simple enough and non life-changing enough to meet a wall of resistance?

Any we can convince China to try?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

No, actually, the custom definition is yours. Here's the definition of "consensus".



I'm sure you will agree that this definition does not support "science" in terms of demanding quantifiable, defendable conclusions. In other words, it's a bad term to be using for "science". Indeed, this thread shows that there's no consensus on how the term "consensus" should apply to the topic.

Now, I'm not one for getting into arguments over definitions. I'm simply pointing out that setting the standard at "the conclusions, and the data supporting them are conclusive and irrefutable" (whatever term you want to use for this) is not achievable for predictive modeling. Predictive modeling is never conclusive.

You use the phrase "make it sound like it's legitimate science". Predictive modeling is completely legit. It's done all the time, and extremely useful. The only concerns with it are related to misuse of the results. Like anything else, if you claim it tells you something it does not, or if you create the model with an eye on a particular outcome, then it's no longer of any benefit, and indeed can create harm.

Oh, and for the record, the entire debate over needing consensus seems irrelevant to me. Each scientist will look at the data, look at the models and develop a conclusion. This has (should have) nothing to do with the conclusions of other scientists, but will be based on the data and analysis conducted in front of him/her. If there's disagreement, he's not a wackjob or biased, he's just another piece of data in the overall picture.

Further, we don't lead by consensus. Those with the authority and responsibility to make decisions need only be convinced. They make a decision, and we all move forward. Consensus does not matter. If they reevaluate that decision, we may change direction. Again, consensus is irrelevant.

What happened to the glaciers?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Massive should be taken in perspective. In comparison to the volume of the atmosphere and oceans... Yeah. The link between anthropogenic sources and climate change is not as clear as you say.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

the thing is, look at the historic climate patterns:




Note that we should be about to enter a deep-freeze that would kill off 80% of humanity if it continues its normal pattern.

If we have the ability to change it, we cannot allow Earth to continue in its previous climate cycle. We are on the falling edge of a 150,000 year mostly-cold-but-occasionally-habitable cycle, and if Earth is allowed to follow its normal cycle, we'll all be frozen again in the near future. All of the recorded history of human civilization starts near the very peak of the most recent rise in temperatures. This is no coincidence. We rely on that temperate weather to flourish.

Now, I don't know how much control we have over this, but if we are going to continue to grow and advance as a civilization, the temperature has to be prevented from doing this again. This isn't some evil...nor is it driven by my quite reasonable desire to live in tropical conditions. It's about the survival of human civilization. I really hope we are influencing the earth as much as the worst-case scenarios say we are, because quite frankly, it's the only way any of our descendants will even be alive in several generations.

Just because it's earth's natural cycle, doesn't make it good. Nothing in nature is "good" or "evil." It just is. And most of it is threatening to kill us. Mother Nature is a *****. I am skeptical that we have the ability to even make her miss a step, yet, we are just not that significant a part of nature on this planet yet. But I'm hoping we do, and if we do, **** Mother Nature. Bend her over and nail her until she can't stand up. Because if we can, we're taking over.

(I suspect, however, that humanity are the ones that will end up being bent over, because we're not nearly as influential or important as people like to think we are.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Please cite sources. I've heard a number of presentations at conferences over the last couple of years that dispute your link, as well as your modifications to point 2.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

This won't stop politicians/governments from exploiting it for their empowerment (and our peril).

According to Wikipedia, "more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents—N2, O2, and Ar—are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation)". Further, "While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human activity. Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling them to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration."

In other words, most of the atmosphere is not involved in creating the greenhouse effect, and for atmospheric CO2, which is one of the key gases that is involved, humans are responsible for most of the increase.

But look, I can post some Wikipedia links in response to your point, and you or Khross or whoever can go find some counterpoints and link those, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. My overarching point is that it's a ludicrous exercise because none of us here have the breadth or depth of expertise to meaningfully evaluate the issue, and the people who do have that expertise, the people who spend their entire professional lives studying this ****, are mostly in agreement that HIGCC is happening and is a big friggin' deal. As far as I'm concerned, that's the ballgame.

Well, per my response to Mus, I don't see much value in yet another link war over this. I know that seems like a cop out, but it's just where my head's at these days. Out of curiosity, though, are you saying that these presentations have disputed (i) the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and increased temperatures or (ii) the link between human activities and the rising levels of greenhouse gases?

Umm. I do a fair amount of related work, so I wouldn't say I don't have the background to analyze the work being done. I also share research space with people very qualified to comment, and keep up as much as I can with the related works in the field.

That said, you keep acting like every reputable climate scientist agrees on the points you're making. And that's not really the case. And if you want to argue that they do, again, please cite sources (other than wikipedia). I'd gladly take any peer reviewed paper you wanted to throw my way, as others have in this very thread.

Also note that it doesn't really matter that CO2 is a large component of the atmosphere. It's really not that IR active, which means that even if you have a metric **** of it (yes, that is a scientific term) it will contribute less than a much smaller amount of, say, Methane.

So yes, we are contributing to increased levels of CO2. Your point 2, since you're basing off of mine, however, cite "certain atmospheric gasses" and you're assuming (I guess) that I'm referring to CO2 as the most important of those, and that CO2 has been shown to have a significant effect.

Heck, water vapor has a more substantial IR activity (by a lot) than CO2.

To your most recent post: You're arguing with someone who's citing a very well respected scientist in this field of research, disagreeing, and then saying it's not worth arguing with, well, facts. Just your general, admittedly non-technical understanding of the very politically restated media versions of some studies that have been done in the field.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

You keep trying to make this a two point issue.

There are links between both increased greenhouse gasses (hint: CO2 is not the most worrisome) and climate change and human activities and the rise of greenhouse gasses.

There isn't a great causal link between the greenhouse gasses humans are producing and climate change.

You keep saying something analogous to "B is linked to C, and G causes A, and A is kinda close to B, therefore G causes C", in my mind.

Thats why I keep stating 3 points where you try to condense it to 2- we honestly don't know enough to make the connections to condense it further, in my mind.

As to the earlier post that we know less about the brain than our atmosphere: link please. Cause I respectfully think we know a heck of a lot more about the brain and brain chemistry than we do about the atmosphere. And as a hint here, I work directly brain chemistry in at least one of my projects, so it's an area I'm pretty familiar with.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Yeah, yeah, third post in a row:

But I generally stay out of topics on which I do not consider myself well informed. I stay pretty well abreast of politics, but I'm not a lawyer. I dabble, I read what people who know more than I do have to say and try to listen.

Same thing with military strategy.

I am, however, a scientist, and I don't feel like people have a tendency to actually listen to scientists very often. They listen to what the media says scientists say, and they listen to spokespeople for scientific groups, or reporters talking about popular science, but they rarely listen to scientists or the actual science being done.

It's like listening to what CNN says about a supreme court decision vs. reading the decision itself.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

You're right Neph, it's not every reputable climate scientist. It's only 97% of them.

Hell, at this point I'm not even saying they are right. I'm just saying that 97% IS a consensus. Now, the consensus isn't always right but frankly even if they aren't right, and we could pollute the **** out of the earth and it wouldn't affect the temp a bit, the whole idea of trying to be less impactful on the environment is a good thing in general, even for businesses. BP figured that out when they were forced to clean up their act for environmental reasons and ended up actually SAVING millions of dollars because of all the inefficiencies they found by going through the process.

You wanna cite that 97% statistic for me?

Or are we just pulling numbers out of our asses? It's easy to make points by making up numbers. Actually showing them is harder.

Also, debating HIGW =/= saying we should stop polluting and coming up with alternative, more efficient uses of energy.

Again, have you read anything by Curry? She's probably greener by far than anyone on this board. By a lot.

But the focus on HIGW as the main source of "pollution" tends to wipe out focus on water pollution, air pollution, and other very pertinent concerns.

The media tends to "popularize" certain ways of being "green" (ie, paper cups over styrofoam, reusable cloth bags over plastic) that really aren't better or more efficient, and often cause more damage if you look at a cradle to grave analysis.

Solar energy is great, but not the way we currently do it. You'll get more toxic waste from the non-recyleable solar panels and batteries than we have anything good to do with. And it's very toxic waste.

Hydroelectric energy is great, but then you look at what it's doing not only to pollute the water directly, but also the major changes that happen to the coasts downstream of plants due to changes in natural sedimentation patterns.

We're doing a lot to pollute the earth, but all people seem focussed on is the thing that is actually probably least catastrophic for the earth: CO2. Global warming probably won't kill the earth, it will mostly hurt us. And that's why people care.

Screw the oceans, we don't use them. Overfishing? Who really cares. Migratory bird deaths due to wind farms? Meh.

Just a quick straw poll:

How many people here drink anything with semi-regularity from a non-reuseable bottle/can? How many people pay to have their batteries properly recycled instead of throwing them away? What about monitors and old computer parts, or old paints and oil?

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I suspect the answer to this will vary quite a bit depending on where you live and what kind of resources are available.

Where I live, our waste collection services are really good. Most of the stuff you mentioned they already have processes in place for this. We separate our compost from recycle from garbage. We also have free drop off areas for the electronics and toxic stuff (light bulbs, paints, batteries, cooking and used motor oils, and even mattresses and appliances).

You'd be amazed at how few people make use of those things even when they're free.

That said, I collect mine and drive them about an hour a few times a year to dispose of the above.

Also, the first part of the question stands almost entirely independent of where you live.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Scroll up. It's one of my first posts in this thread.



I use a re-useable water bottle.
Vehicle batteries I recycle. I hardly use smaller batteries but admittedly I don't typically recycle the 1 or 2 AAA I throw away a year.
Computer parts, paint, et. al I get recycled at the local city drop offs.