faetal on 13/8/2012 at 19:29
The hope is that the curve which determines when the economical costs of climate change are high enough to warrant real action does not hit the critical point after the curve which determines the point where positive feedback has taken over. If we lose grip on the rate of climate change, no amount of action will do anything. We need to get emissions down to the point where the rate of change may start to level out and maybe even one day start to decrease. Some models are suggesting that it may even be too late to prevent the changes getting out of hand.
At the very least, you'd think we'd be erring on the side of caution. Better to lose out on some $$$ in the short term and find out we were all worried about nothing, than get loaded now in exchange for catastrophic effects to the carrying capacity of the biosphere. But no, it's still laissez-faire capitalism takes priority and envirofags can eat a dick.
LarryG on 13/8/2012 at 23:24
Humans are risk takers. This time the stakes are the whole world against some short term savings. But there is no single person playing the odds and making the bet. It is billions of people not caring about the odds and playing for their own personal quality of life. The concept of the planet is too big and they (we) are too focused on our own day to day. How can we structure economic incentives / disincentives to encourage those billions of daily decisions to go in the right direction?
Sg3 on 13/8/2012 at 23:47
Quote Posted by faetal
I don't think anyone is suggesting the planet is at risk, the planet will be just fine. Just like it was after the Permian mass extinction eradicated around 90% of all life on earth.
If this Permian mass extinction occurred "naturally," that is, without human interference, then I must conclude that human interference is not the primary factor in such an extinction. Which is not to say that humans cannot exacerbate the process, but it seems that the "we are killing our future!" reaction is more than a little misguided, since the planet's systems seemed to do just fine at massively exterminating life, millions and millions of years before we were even around to cause or exacerbate it. (Or so they say--I wasn't around at the time.)
That doesn't mean I'm opposed to reasonable measures to reduce emissions and stuff--I'm in agreement with the environazis that there's no good reason for millions of individuals to be driving around miniature tanks with only a single occupant in each. I myself would drive an electric automobile if it were viable (and I think that they are viable--I suspect that giants in the petroleum industry are behind the lack of interest in electric autos).
But, there's a big difference between "Oh noes we're killing the planet" and "guys, maybe we should be fighting this natural tendency towards world extinction instead of helping it along." (Not that I think that all life is inherently worthy of being propagated, but that's another story.)
Bluntly, I would blame the natural tendency of all life to profligately reproduce before I would blame the natural tendency of all life to consume, and last of all would I blame the natural tendency for humans to form civilizations. Again, there is evidence to suggest that such warming/cooling cycles can naturally devastate all life even without human presence.
P.S. Since I've used the word so many times in my post, I should point out that the word "natural" is a buzzword, and the concept is a bunch of bunk. For example, civilization cannot be unnatural, because there is a "natural" tendency for humans to form civilizations. The notions of natural, unnatural, and supernatural are, as far as I can tell, holdovers of medieval, pre-scientific thinking; humans themselves are natural creatures, and if human interference in an ecosystem is "unnatural," then so is a beaver's. The idea that humans and our machinations are not natural seems to have originated with religion, actually--the idea that humans were created more than mere animals, e.g. in Christianity.
LarryG on 13/8/2012 at 23:56
Quote Posted by Sg3
If this Permian mass extinction occurred "naturally," that is, without human interference, then I must conclude that human interference is not the primary factor in such an extinction.
Nope. That is false logic. Just because something happened without human interference does not mean that human interference cannot cause something equally bad or even worse.
What you can conclude from the extinction is that the earth itself will persist but that the potential is there to change the global environment such that life as we know it does not survive. From a human standpoint, the quality of life would suck big time. How easy or difficult it will be for humans to effect such a dramatic change no one knows, but all the signs are there that we aim to find out through shear neglect.
Sg3 on 14/8/2012 at 00:05
Quote Posted by LarryG
Just because something happened without human interference does not mean that human interference cannot cause something equally bad or even worse.
This works both ways--you cannot say with certainty that a current trend of global warming is caused by humans, since the evidence is present that a past trend of similar global warming occurred without humans present. I myself suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the two theories ("we're causing it" and "we're just along for the ride"). Both theories have a political agenda, and the proponents of each generally don't honestly examine the other at its apolitical core.
LarryG on 14/8/2012 at 00:24
While I believe that we can and have already shown that human behaviors are the primary cause of the current global warming, that really is beside the point. Who cares? The need is to take positive actions to ensure that the environment that humans tend to favor does not go the way of the dodo bird, regardless of ultimate cause. We need a temperate planet. The planet does not need us. If the planet continues to heat up the way it is, the question will be moot because no one will survive to ask it or argue about it. First priority is to fix the problem. Way down at 99th priority is argue about who was at fault.
“The Buddha's Parable of the Burning House” by Bertolt Brecht
Quote:
Guatama the Buddha taught
The doctrine of greed's wheel to which we are bound, and advised
That we shed all craving and thus
Undesiring enter the nothingness that he called Nirvana.
Then one day his pupils asked him:
“What is it like, this nothingness, Master? Every one of us would
Shed all craving, as you advise, but tell us
Whether this nothingness which then we shall enter
Is perhaps like being at one with all creation,
When you lie in water, your body weightless, at noon,
Unthinking almost, lazily lie in the water, or drowse
Hardly knowing now that you straighten the blanket,
Going down fast -whether this nothingness, then,
Is a happy one of this kind, a pleasant nothingness, or
Whether this nothingness of yours is more nothing, cold, senseless and void.”
Long the Buddha was silent, then said nonchalantly:
“There is no answer to your question.”
But in the evening, when they had gone,
The Buddha still sat under the bread-fruit tree and to the others,
To those who had not asked, addressed this parable:
“Lately I saw a house. It was burning. The flame
Licked at its roof. I went up close and observed
That there were people still inside. I entered the doorway and called
Out to them that the roof was ablaze, so exhorting them
To leave at once. But those people
Seemed in no hurry. One of them,
While the heat was already scorching his eyebrows,
Asked me what it was like outside, whether there was
Another house for them, and more of this kind. Without answering
I went out again. These people here, I thought,
Must burn to death before they stop asking questions.
And truly friends,
Whoever does not yet feel such heat in the floor that he'll gladly
Exchange it for any other, rather than stay, to that man
I have nothing to say.” So Gautama the Buddha.
But we too, no longer concerned with the art of submission,
Rather with that of non-submission, and offering
Various proposals of an earthly nature, and beseeching men
To shake off their human tormentors, we too believe that to those
Who in face of the rising bomber squadrons of Capital go on asking too long
How we propose to do this, and how we envisage that,
And what will become of their savings and Sunday trousers after a revolution
We have nothing much to say.
heywood on 14/8/2012 at 08:23
Quote Posted by Vivian
So we're like 3 standard deviations below the average for the last 20 years (when a StDev is about 0.5 million km2), and we're following what looks like the same curve as five years ago. Nice. Be more conclusive to see it for the last 200 years/since serious anthropogenic carbon emissions, but I guess that data is unavailable?
edit: duh, like you said. long term. yeah.
You probably already realized this, but ice area is measured by processing satellite images, so the data is limited to the years when the satellite has been operational. But here's another graph from the site Jay linked. It shows an obvious declining trend from 1979 to 2012 in the northern hemisphere data:
(
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png) http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Quote Posted by demagogue
For the record, as I learned it, a really slam dunk piece of evidence for the link between carbon level & climate change was the experiments on bubbles in ice cores, because then then could correlate the level of carbon in the bubbles with the layering of the ice at that level, which was apparently a signal of snowfalls & temperature (sort of like tree rings)... But it was such a good piece of evidence because the correlation was a surprisingly 1:1 curve, and the cores went back for 1000s of years, over a really wide spread of carbon levels & temperatures, roughly maintaining that correlation throughout. I don't know that it's the best for the era of anthropomorphic emissions, but I can't think why it wouldn't be (edit: I mean, why it couldn't be extrapolated to that), and I was impressed when my prof walked through it all anyway.
Be careful with that argument because correlation isn't causation. Skeptics will jump all over it pointing out that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record. There's an inverse relationship between temperature and the solubility of CO2 in water, so changes in ocean surface temperature have a major effect on atmospheric CO2 flux. The lag in the ice core record doesn't invalidate the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 so it doesn't disprove anthropogenic warming, but it does suggest that post-glacial warming periods weren't initiated by CO2 release.
Quote Posted by faetal
The really good news is that reduction in ice coverage lowers the earth's albedo, meaning that less of the sun's light is reflected back out into space and ends up being absorbed and upping the heat, which means more rapid ice loss and so on and so forth. The real problem with anthropogenic climate change isn't the progressive trends we see from graphs like this, it is the tipping point we are going to cross at some stage past which the change goes into free-fall when the positive feedback mechanisms get going. Sub-oceanic methane clathrate stores being released is going to be the real killer. It was the release of sequestered methane which is thought to be responsible for the Permian mass extinction. To help us on the way though, we have ice albedo loss, release of methane from permafrost thaws and tundra warming up etc... There are a load of potential positive feedback mechanisms waiting to pass that crucial threshold.
Yeah, it could be really bad. But this tipping point is speculative. There are also multiple negative feedback mechanisms, and going back in history there have been multiple equilibrium points. We know we're in a period of rapid warming that's not associated with the end of an ice age and not explained by Milankovitch cycles or the solar cycle, and our atmospheric carbon emissions are a major positive if not the primary contributing factor. But we don't know nearly enough about the scale of and interactions between various positive and negative feedbacks to predict what the next equilibrium point will be or whether or when we'll reach it. A runaway scenario where the positive feedbacks dominate and result in a scorched Earth is just one possibility, and methane release is just one of many hypothesized causes of the Permian-Triassic extinction.
I think there's a danger in making bold predictions which later get revised or possibly even proven wrong. It can lead to Chicken Little (Henny Penny) syndrome where people tune out. I agree that we should be taking a conservative approach and erring on the side of caution, but not just with our emissions, also in how we present the science. For example, if I see one more climate prediction result without a PDF I'm going to scream.
Quote Posted by Sg3
This works both ways--you cannot say with certainty that a current trend of global warming is caused by humans, since the evidence is present that a past trend of similar global warming occurred without humans present. I myself suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the two theories ("we're causing it" and "we're just along for the ride"). Both theories have a political agenda, and the proponents of each generally don't honestly examine the other at its apolitical core.
I can't say with certainty that I'll be alive in 30 years, but I'm still going to plan for my retirement. :cheeky:
Politicization has been a problem, but it doesn't invalidate the science. It's sad that people are tuning out because of the political taint.
Quote Posted by LarryG
While I believe that we can and have already shown that human behaviors are the primary cause of the current global warming, that really is beside the point. Who cares? The need is to take positive actions to ensure that the environment that humans tend to favor does not go the way of the dodo bird, regardless of ultimate cause. We need a temperate planet. The planet does not need us. If the planet continues to heat up the way it is, the question will be moot because no one will survive to ask it or argue about it. First priority is to fix the problem. Way down at 99th priority is argue about who was at fault.
That's a very common sense view. But as Jay said, "with politics the way they are the US couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery".
faetal on 14/8/2012 at 09:08
Quote Posted by heywood
Yeah, it could be really bad. But this tipping point is speculative.
So the safest course of action is to err on the side of caution until it is no longer speculative, or the speculation predicts mostly good things.
Quote:
There are also multiple negative feedback mechanisms, and going back in history there have been multiple equilibrium points.
This just means there are more ways for bad outcomes to occur, and historical equilibria aren't comforting since the current trends are linked to industrial and agricultural gas emissions which haven't existed before, so precedents are no guarantee of anything.
Quote:
We know we're in a period of rapid warming that's not associated with the end of an ice age and not explained by Milankovitch cycles or the solar cycle, and our atmospheric carbon emissions are a major positive if not the primary contributing factor. But we don't know nearly enough about the scale of and interactions between various positive and negative feedbacks to predict what the next equilibrium point will be or whether or when we'll reach it.
So we should err on the side of caution until we know more. Better to over-react and turn out wrong than say "we'll leave it until we're sure" and end up fucked.
Quote:
A runaway scenario where the positive feedbacks dominate and result in a scorched Earth is just one possibility, and methane release is just one of many hypothesized causes of the Permian-Triassic extinction.
Sheet basalt activity and methane clathrate release is the best supported theory, so it makes sense to assume that until additional evidence tells us differently and, you know, take it as a warning.
Quote:
I think there's a danger in making bold predictions which later get revised or possibly even proven wrong.
You've just described a major part of the scientific process.
Quote:
It can lead to Chicken Little (Henny Penny) syndrome where people tune out. I agree that we should be taking a conservative approach and erring on the side of caution, but not just with our emissions, also in how we present the science. For example, if I see one more climate prediction result without a PDF I'm going to scream.
This I can agree with, but science isn't much to blame for mis-representation - the mainstream media are the ones who sensationalise everything.
Sg3 - pretty much everything you've said....just no. The science behind anthropogenic climate change is pretty conclusive. The only people who refute it are <5% of qualified scientists (many of whom are funded by some pretty blatant vested interests), right-wing ideologues and those with insufficient information to properly comment, who instead rely on false syllogisms to refute, e.g. climate change and extinction can occur without humans, ergo humans can not cause climate change and mass extinction.
Muzman on 14/8/2012 at 09:08
Quote Posted by Sg3
This works both ways--you cannot say with certainty that a current trend of global warming is caused by humans, since the evidence is present that a past trend of similar global warming occurred without humans present. I myself suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the two theories ("we're causing it" and "we're just along for the ride"). Both theories have a political agenda, and the proponents of each generally don't honestly examine the other at its apolitical core.
Dreadful false equivalence here. The earth's atmospheric make up was considerably different 250 million years ago. You're talking as though an absence of absolute certainty means we can take almost any position and a 'neutral' one has a nice common sense ring to it. Only this pays no attention to the actual evidence, which tells us pretty clearly why one side is far more correct than the other. So suspect all you like based on political intuition and self assessed neutrality. You'll pretty much always be wrong with that approach.
The atmospheric CO2 content has about doubled in the last 100yrs or so. The make up of that CO2 is, in large part, originating in fossil fuels. There ain't no other way for it to get there but us. Sorry.
Climate has varied in the past, but traditionally CO2 rise has been a lot slower, has lagged temperature rise and then amplified it. But we have a pretty good idea about the relationship between older temperature rises and orbital factors or solar output, particularly those in the Holocene. Today those factors do not apply. We know this. CO2 is going up like never before. We know what it does and we know how it got there. The temperature is rising as expected. These are the facts. The only political agenda is the one designed to spread lies about this situation.
Sg3 on 14/8/2012 at 11:00
Quote Posted by faetal
those with insufficient information to properly comment, who instead rely on false syllogisms to refute, e.g. climate change and extinction can occur without humans, ergo humans can not cause climate change and mass extinction.
I don't believe I've either said or implied the latter--nowhere in any of my posts has there been anything to the effect of "humans cannot cause climate change." Since that remark was pretty clearly aimed at me, I can only assume that you've gone with the tired old "read something you don't like, skip the rest of the post, and fill in the blanks with incorrect assumptions about what the poster said and meant." [sigh]
Standard for an Internet discussion, I guess.
Quote Posted by Muzman
Only this pays no attention to the actual evidence, which tells us pretty clearly why one side is far more correct than the other. So suspect all you like based on political intuition and self assessed neutrality. You'll pretty much always be wrong with that approach.
Muz, one of my college courses took us through, in survey detail, both sides of the argument. There's some pretty good stuff on both sides--that you have only seen good arguments (or arguments which you consider good) on one side does not mean that it should be clear to all that "your" side is correct, nor that the other side has no good arguments.
In the end, it comes down to one side saying "the scientific evidence shows that X is true" and the other side saying "the scientific evidence shows that X is false." That is all, I'm afraid--none of you here espousing either side of the argument have done the requisite research (which would take a lifetime of dedication to perform--and even then the results should not be free from doubt, even to the one who performed the research), but you are instead relying entirely on hearsay, all of which is (unfortunately) very tainted by political motives.
I believe this should be my final post in this argument, because the past few posts have ignored critical points I have made, while jumping on and inflating others--and assuming wrongly about my beliefs and intentions. This sort of knee-jerk reactionary behavior is proof that nothing I say will be taken at face value, which renders discussion quite pointless. It is, indeed, only the purest optimism which occasioned the writing of this post itself--a foolish optimism, with a desire for a sense of clarification and closure.
