Climate Change!

[George the original one]

I also think that diabetes is a better metaphor because it's nearly symptom free for many years and tends to kill/cut life short from a resulting side-effects rather than directly. Also, it's a permanent sentence. Nobody ever gets to declare themselves diabetes free once they've gotten it hard. Also in terms of treating it, the approach is to inject chemicals to restore a balance ... not to cut the problem away.

Type II diabetes is curable via diet/exercise. Yes, like many diseases, one is more susceptible to relapse after having it. Most people, however, will not change their lifestyle to achieve the cure and/or ignored the symptoms/diagnosis too long so they never dig their way out of the disease.

[steveo73]

I would like clear predictions of what could happen backed up with the available evidence.

Did you not pay attention to the arctic ice cover vanishing this year? Do you understand how much that affects heat absorption/reflection in a positive feedback loop?

Anyway, I can tell you directly how CC is currently affecting my life. Affecting my life TODAY, not in some theoretical future:

1) The positive feedback with the el nino cycle creates warmer ocean currents that are clobbering coho populations off the Oregon coast after two decades of positive population gains due to fisheries protection and significant habitat improvements. We've had el nino cycles in those past two decades, but the results have been no where near as bad as the past two years. Coho have a 3-4 year life cycle, so you might see the extinction of many fish runs (read: coho gene pools) if this doesn't improve in the next 3 years since we've now had 2 bad years of coho returns. Both wild and hatchery fish are affected, so there is no way to "bio-engineer" a solution.

2) Warmer ocean currents off the Oregon coast increases the occurrence of algae responsible for domoic acid. Domoic acid is a lethal poison for humans that prevent us from eating certain shellfish: pacific razor clams, dungoness crab, red rock crab. Closures are becoming more frequent (2nd year in a row that fall has been closed to harvesting these shellfish due to domoic acid; never used to happen!) and will likely become permanent if CC continues.

I just looked this up and tried to get a factual basis for discussion. From what I can tell we actually don't know what the effects will be. I did look at this site http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ but I think it's still hard to get good information on this topic.

I like the points that you made however I doubt that these have been confirmed via scientific analysis as being caused via AGW CC. Do you have any links to prove these comments ?

I'm starting to think though that there may actually be a problem however it's a really tough subject because the proof isn't clear cut (sites like Skeptical Science have actually done GW a massive disservice) but if there is a problem proving it is probably extremely hard and the potential impact although unclear may be significant.

I will try and find some clear cut rational arguments but what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

[BRUTE]

what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

that's the crux - if group A cannot convince group B that X is a terrible problem, then the only way to make group B comply/help is use of force. it does not matter that group B is "wrong" or "dumb" - if the argument isn't good enough, group B remains unconvinced and nothing happens.

[ducknalddon]

I'm starting to think though that there may actually be a problem however it's a really tough subject because the proof isn't clear cut (sites like Skeptical Science have actually done GW a massive disservice) but if there is a problem proving it is probably extremely hard and the potential impact although unclear may be significant.

Perhaps you need to examine what made you skeptical in the first place, maybe you have a bias that you aren't acknowledging.

[7Wannabe5]

In my limited,and not entirely successful, attempts to convert the deniers in my social circle, I have found that identifying the simple piece of science missing in the discussion has been most effective at resolution in the realm of pragmatism.

[black_son_of_gray]

@steveo73 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[steveo73]

what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

that's the crux - if group A cannot convince group B that X is a terrible problem, then the only way to make group B comply/help is use of force. it does not matter that group B is "wrong" or "dumb" - if the argument isn't good enough, group B remains unconvinced and nothing happens.

I'm starting to think though that there may actually be a problem however it's a really tough subject because the proof isn't clear cut (sites like Skeptical Science have actually done GW a massive disservice) but if there is a problem proving it is probably extremely hard and the potential impact although unclear may be significant.

Perhaps you need to examine what made you skeptical in the first place, maybe you have a bias that you aren't acknowledging.

This is where it gets tough because my opinion is that people have problems seeing reality and that could include myself. I don't think I had a bias when I initially studied this topic. I still try and get the facts and to me it's not clear cut but maybe it won't ever be clear cut. If you look at this thread for instance you hear about impending doom. No reasonable person will buy this line.

The precautionary principle is an interesting one. I can see lots of dumb stuff happening because of that. I work as a project manager. You always have to assess the risk in tandem with the steps to be taken to mitigate against that risk.

[batbatmanne]

On what basis do you believe this ? Seriously what do you think is going to happen. The world ends ?

The basis on which I believe this is found in climate science, the details of which I am not an expert and don't want to get into. From what I can gather, we are optimistically going to be at RCP 4.5 and pessimistically RCP 8.5. RCP 8.5 is an extinction event. As far as the end of the world, it depends on what is meant by the end. Life will certainly go on. Even in the worst imaginable scenario where we burn through every hydrocarbon we can manage and end up in global nuclear war, there will be lifeforms on earth that will survive. Such lifeforms would evolve rapidly, filling in new niches in the environment that has been so rapidly altered. They have found, for example, organisms that can turn gamma radiation into usable chemical energy in Chernobyl. So I am certainly not worried that life on Earth will end.

At this point I don't think we can rule out worst case scenarios for both the climate change and the nuclear problems, and human extinction is in them. For climate change we have a classic game theory scenario that leads to the tragedy of the commons. Dealing with this kind of coordination problem is hard enough when everybody acknowledges that there is a problem, but climate change is such a delayed effect that we will have denialists for a long time to come, even as we encounter extreme climate events. The worst case scenarios where we continue to put our fingers in our ears and continue to increase fossil fuel consumption are more likely than the best case scenarios where we recognize the problem and solve it by immediately and significantly reducing emissions. Most likely, we only solve the problem when and to the extent that alternative energy sources become economically viable. That being said, I do not think that the most likely scenario(s) involves extinction but it does involve a lot of suffering.

[chenda]

Climate change denial should not really be surprising; numerous scientific breakthroughs have been met with bitter resistance in the face of ever increasing evidence. Cholora and contaminated water, continental drift, vaccinations, HIV... (and of course evolution, though that's perhaps a special case)

Deniers seem to consider themselves independent and free thinking, yet their following an old tradition which invariably leads to the dustbin of history.

[steveo73]

but climate change is such a delayed effect that we will have denialists for a long time to come, even as we encounter extreme climate events.

I'm still not buying the kool aid. I'm questioning myself but like you state the proof is somewhere in the future.

That being said, I do not think that the most likely scenario(s) involves extinction but it does involve a lot of suffering.

The thing is from what I can gather we simply don't know. Personally I think the whole world is mad in the way that we live and I'd like to see us live more in tune with our environment but that isn't a reason for everyone to calm down in their energy usage.

[BRUTE]

Deniers seem to consider themselves independent and free thinking, yet their following an old tradition which invariably leads to the dustbin of history.

that's exactly the attitude that turns brute away from CC alarmists.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy- ... 1480723518

[theanimal]

Interesting link.


Here's something also along those lines: Aliens Cause Global Warming

[steveo73]

Deniers seem to consider themselves independent and free thinking, yet their following an old tradition which invariably leads to the dustbin of history.

that's exactly the attitude that turns brute away from CC alarmists.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy- ... 1480723518

I agree with you Brute. The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning. It's not a debate about who is right. It should be science based. Empirical evidence, statistical proof, etc.

You look at this thread. It's Doomday hysteria with no facts. I'm thinking of changing my opinion on this topic but I want to see proof that my initial assessment which was probably correct at the time needs to be amended. That information doesn't appear to be available.

It's interesting that there are a lot of skeptics out there:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

[ducknalddon]

I agree with you Brute. The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning. It's not a debate about who is right. It should be science based. Empirical evidence, statistical proof, etc.

You look at this thread. It's Doomday hysteria with no facts. I'm thinking of changing my opinion on this topic but I want to see proof that my initial assessment which was probably correct at the time needs to be amended. That information doesn't appear to be available.

It's interesting that there are a lot of skeptics out there:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

Proof only exists in mathematics, there is no proof in science. There is a hypothesis first postulated over 100 years ago and data over that period that supports the hypothesis.

There is no shortage of data.

[black_son_of_gray]

The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning.

Back to the OP topic: I suppose the narrative will change if or when the things listed become too expensive with fossil fuels anyway (at least, to the average middle-class person). That could happen from an EROEI perspective, or it could happen from an economic perspective (e.g. the average person is just too poor to fly frequently). Both of those are linked anyway.

With isolationism rising in politics and many countries starting to think less highly of globalization, I wonder if that will grow into "regionalism" or "localism" ... obviously that could solve some problems but create many more.

[steveo73]

I agree with you Brute. The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning. It's not a debate about who is right. It should be science based. Empirical evidence, statistical proof, etc.

You look at this thread. It's Doomday hysteria with no facts. I'm thinking of changing my opinion on this topic but I want to see proof that my initial assessment which was probably correct at the time needs to be amended. That information doesn't appear to be available.

It's interesting that there are a lot of skeptics out there:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

Proof only exists in mathematics, there is no proof in science. There is a hypothesis first postulated over 100 years ago and data over that period that supports the hypothesis.

There is no shortage of data.

The scientific method though exists and I consider that proof or at least poof enough for me. So you have a theory and it gets backed up by data.

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

[steveo73]

The arguments for GW appear to be based upon non-scientific (at least in my opinion) reasoning.

Back to the OP topic: I suppose the narrative will change if or when the things listed become too expensive with fossil fuels anyway (at least, to the average middle-class person). That could happen from an EROEI perspective, or it could happen from an economic perspective (e.g. the average person is just too poor to fly frequently). Both of those are linked anyway.

With isolationism rising in politics and many countries starting to think less highly of globalization, I wonder if that will grow into "regionalism" or "localism" ... obviously that could solve some problems but create many more.

I studied this at university and this was my conclusion as well. The tipping point is more likely to be cost.

[stand@desk]

Here's a whole bunch of non-data minutae to throw into the discussion..

Another point to consider, that the "elites" will start taking climate change seriously when they no longer feel entitled to fly long distances (and leave a big carbon footprint) to meet to conference on climate change because doing so would be worse off for the climate and they would feel too guilty to do so. (And they actually go on record saying so in the press.)

Having said that, I wonder if the greatest proponenents for fighting climate change are also the greatest carbon emitters. (ie. a certain Revenant actor)

also,

"Most mistakes get worse when you try to correct them." Nassim Taleb aphorism

What action done thus far has made a measurable difference in the climate change fight? (We have done good work to mitigate acid rain and repair the ozone but that would be for a different discussion I'd submit) Or has all action been heavily overwhelmed by the status quo? Thus the action will always have the lower hand and never the upper..

[BRUTE]

I think that there is a shortage of data in this case.

for brute, it's not even the data. there probably is a lot of data supporting this, at least to a degree.

but to make the case for brute to become invested in climate change alarmism, the following needs to happen:

1)enough convincing, scientific data from unbiased studies is found (presumably this exists)
2)it must be packaged in a way that both conveys the information and seems reasonably trustworthy/verifiable (fail)
3)common questions/objections must be dealt with in informative, reasonable ways, no attacking the messenger (HUGE fail)
4)alternatives must be presented that seem to address the problems from 1) (fail)
5)the alternatives must not put unreasonable pain/cost on brute, and they must be clearly beneficial (HUGE fail)
6)it must be demonstrated how the alternative is better than what brute is already doing (fail)
7)the moral high ground cannot be claimed if asshole tactics are used at the same time to shame/defame/sink objective criticism "for the greater good" (HUGE fail)

in short, brute believes Climate Alarmism is probably scientifically true. but many/most of the proponents are being such assholes, so unreasonable, so unobjective, and their solutions so inane, that brute has no dog in this fight. fuck this planet, if those are the humans being saved, good riddance.

brute is a strong believer that it's impossible to achieve moral goals with immoral methods. this is exactly what climate alarmists are trying. this makes brute super suspicious of them and destroys any trust in their science.

[George the original one]

I will try and find some clear cut rational arguments but what if we have to wait and see what happens ? Is this a serious option at this point ?

When the train is coming, one should step off the tracks. CC is the train. The tracks are any low-elevation coastal residence. It is cheaper to move than to mitigate flooding.

Or do you not believe sea levels are rising?