climate change times are a changin'

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Yes. They are called "plants." In particular, the variety of plant called "trees" remove CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the air and store it in the form of "wood."

obviously there aren't enough of them anymore so we need to create machines to do it so we can stop worrying about co2 emissions

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I am saying that human activity is only one possible driver of climate change and we need to tease out the incremental effects to understand how to make effective policy ....
It is an open question: if a change in human activity has very strong incremental effects, then we choose one course; if a change in human activity has minimal incremental effects, we choose a different course. Right now, the state of the "conversation" is that either you are 100% in one camp or 100% in the other camp, while it seems to me that we just don't know enough yet because we are not even examining the right questions.

In addition to periods of dramatic climate change, the historical record also shows periods of remarkable climate stability. How have you come to the conclusion that we are 100% definitely not in what would be a period of stability if not for human activity? I think it is very possible that all other effects could well be neutral, leaving human activity as the *sole* driver of the changes that we are seeing today.

It seems to me that we are pretty much in agreement here (~85% to ~90%) and merely have a few semantic quibbles around the edges so to speak.


It seems to me that, on the one had, it would strain credulity to claim that human activity has no effect whatsoever. We already learned that about the ozone hole.

On the other hand, the anthropogenic global warming zealots sound a lot like Thomas Malthus did back in his day, and those kinds of scare tactics have been discredited more than once (see also Paul Ehrlich).

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

obviously there aren't enough [plants] anymore so we need to create machines to do it so we can stop worrying about co2 emissions

yes. I think that the Arbor Day Foundation has a link to some other organization that issued a press release several years ago that claimed that if each of us planted ten trees we would totally offset our CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions deficit (though I don't remember if it was ten trees total or ten trees each year....)

The latter organization has a link that lets you calculate your carbon footprint.

While AGW might be controversial, I am pretty sure that we all can agree that planting more trees is a good thing overall.

 

[joecct]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Yes. They are called "plants." In particular, the variety of plant called "trees" remove CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the air and store it in the form of "wood."

A well known theory of Al J. Moss.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

obviously there aren't enough of them anymore so we need to create machines to do it so we can stop worrying about co2 emissions

There aren't. And there won't be. There's too much CO2 to remove, and not enough vegetation.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

A survey of various publications, articles, research findings, professional opinions by various experts, etc. can be found at this link.

Based on that survey, there is no widespread consensus about anything: while human activity has "some" influence on climate change, only a minority believe it is a "dangerous" influence.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

To me, this different issue is far more pressing and far more serious than the debate about how much of climate change is caused by human activity:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Species of plants and animals are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than they did before humans arrived on the scene, and the world is on the brink of a sixth great extinction, a new study says.

The study looks at past and present rates of extinction and finds a lower rate in the past than scientists had thought. Species are now disappearing from Earth about 10 times faster than biologists had believed, said study lead author noted biologist Stuart Pimm of Duke University.

"We are on the verge of the sixth extinction," Pimm said from research at the Dry Tortugas. "Whether we avoid it or not will depend on our actions."

The work, published Thursday by the journal Science, was hailed as a landmark study by outside experts.

Numerous factors are combining to make species disappear much faster than before, said Pimm and co-author Clinton Jenkins of the Institute of Ecological Research in Brazil. But the No. 1 issue is habitat loss. Species are finding no place to live as more places are built up and altered by humans.

Add to that invasive species crowding out native species, climate change affecting where species can survive, and overfishing, Pimm said.

Species diversity gives life more flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, and we are clearly going in the wrong direction here.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

This came up a bit ago. Scooby and I discussed whether extinction or economic collapse would get us first. He leaned toward the former, I the latter.

 

[joecct]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

This came up a bit ago. Scooby and I discussed whether extinction or economic collapse would get us first. He leaned toward the former, I the latter.

Economic collapse will not kill off entire populations - it will reduce the #, but it will not be an extinction level event.

Neither, IMO, will an ice age "get us". Humans adapt. We overcome the obstacles that nature sets before us. An dinosaur killer will, most probably, wipe us all out, unless we're no longer tied to this planet.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

More fun in the government screwing up the conversation...

http://io9.com/the-house-science-committee-declares-the-ipcc-report-is-1583909402

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Economic collapse will not kill off entire populations - it will reduce the #, but it will not be an extinction level event.

Neither, IMO, will an ice age "get us". Humans adapt. We overcome the obstacles that nature sets before us. An dinosaur killer will, most probably, wipe us all out, unless we're no longer tied to this planet.

I wasn't equating economic collapse as being the same as extinction. Just that either one would radically change our lives (and end our lives in one case).

 

[dxmnkd316]

I wasn't equating economic collapse as being the same as extinction. Just that either one would radically change our lives (and end our lives in one case).

So... Define radical? Are we talking a guy who weight 700 lbs and eats 20 Big Macs a day being asked to cull it down to say one Big Mac per day? Or a guy who weighs 200 lbs and eats two per day?

The changes don't have to be radical to make an impact. One would involve investing in R&D to advance technology well beyond the rest the world.

And what's the worst that could happen investing in science and technology? That it's completely wasted? Who f*ing cares? If you buy into trickle down economics you'd love this. It creates high paying skilled jobs. Potentially all over the country. Hell, you could make an argument that this would just be making the rich richer because there aren't a lot of minimum wage research jobs out there.

What if global warming is a complete farce? So what? We now have a grid powered off of renewables and we can sell our gas and coal for whatever the f%*k we want.

What if it isn't a farce? We get ahead of china and the other major players when it comes to the technology and are able to sell it to other countries and force them out of the market. We corner the market before it even exists.

What if it isn't a farce and we do nothing? Well, then we all pay the ultimate consequence.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Resubscribed

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

So... Define radical? Are we talking a guy who weight 700 lbs and eats 20 Big Macs a day being asked to cull it down to say one Big Mac per day? Or a guy who weighs 200 lbs and eats two per day?

The changes don't have to be radical to make an impact. One would involve investing in R&D to advance technology well beyond the rest the world.

And what's the worst that could happen investing in science and technology? That it's completely wasted? Who f*ing cares? If you buy into trickle down economics you'd love this. It creates high paying skilled jobs. Potentially all over the country. Hell, you could make an argument that this would just be making the rich richer because there aren't a lot of minimum wage research jobs out there.

What if global warming is a complete farce? So what? We now have a grid powered off of renewables and we can sell our gas and coal for whatever the f%*k we want.

What if it isn't a farce? We get ahead of china and the other major players when it comes to the technology and are able to sell it to other countries and force them out of the market. We corner the market before it even exists.

What if it isn't a farce and we do nothing? Well, then we all pay the ultimate consequence.

In the context of this discussion an economic collapse or extinction are both pretty radical. Are you disagreeing that either of those events would radically impact our nation?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I'm disagreeing with your premise that those are the only two options.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I have not yet seen or heard any signals from poor people that they want their lives made even more miserable than they are in order to assuage a problem that may or may not even exist. It seems that those who are most vocal in their insistence that we "do something" about potential AGW are also those who are most insulated from the adverse economic consequences.

Perhaps if they also acknowledged how disruptive their proposals would be and offered some proactive ways to address the very real hardships and difficulties their regimen would impose, it might be easier to discuss the entire situation more holistically?

 

[unofan]

I have not yet seen or heard any signals from poor people...

No shiat, you'd have to actually talk to them first. Instead, you get your news from the WSJ where they apparently think people making $180,000 are poor.

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/wall-street-journal-fiscal-cliff-graphic-011613

This was a real graphic from the WSJ when discussing the fiscal cliff.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/944732/original.jpg

This was a real graphic from the WSJ when discussing the fiscal cliff.

Not that it's relevant to the topic at hand but good Lord, talk about out of touch with normal people...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I'm disagreeing with your premise that those are the only two options.

And who said there are only two options? Good heavens. You are arguing with yourself.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I have not yet seen or heard any signals from poor people that they want their lives made even more miserable than they are in order to assuage a problem that may or may not even exist.

I can't roll my eyes enough. Go ahead, keep your head in the sand. All over the belief in a political philosophy.

It seems that those who are most vocal in their insistence that we "do something" about potential AGW are also those who are most insulated from the adverse economic consequences.

Perhaps if they also acknowledged how disruptive their proposals would be and offered some proactive ways to address the very real hardships and difficulties their regimen would impose, it might be easier to discuss the entire situation more holistically?

I look at it this way: Let's ignore the fact that American industry benefits from focusing on cleaner energy to reduce emissions (developing and the leading the way with new technology has been very helpful for us historically) and just focus on the short term burden. What's the cost of doing nothing? Sure, there's no short-term overhead, but without course correction the impacts of greenhouse gasses (which are totally not within the bounds of the usual/natural cycles, BTW), we will absolutely pay in the long run. Whether it's the cost of increasingly extreme weather or eventually having to completely re-adapt our society to a world that is changing too quickly (just the cost of having to deal with several feet of rising ocean levels is enormous), it'll be huge and it'll plague societies around the world. Just look at what the Dept. of Defense had to say about it.

I work for a company where my job is all about engineering consulting for design automation. I sell services that help people take processes that currently take, say, a week, and can eventually bring them down to less than a business day, if not under an hour. Naturally, it doesn't always come cheap. Everyone I talk to looks at the cost of our software and my consulting recommendations, and they initially get sticker shock. But what they rarely realize (until I tell them) is that the cost of the status quo over the long term is greater than the short-term overhead of putting in place something more efficient (yes, it's just Return on Investment 101, but sometimes people need a reminder). From a business perspective, I live and die by pointing out the absurdity in this line of logic: http://bandlblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/wheel-barrel1.jpg

Letting a short term difficulty get in the way of a massive overhaul built around long term success is blindness.