Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Eco-Guilt
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 61 of 67 (512944)
06-22-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
06-19-2009 8:17 PM


Correlation does not prove causation.
I've seen some scientists suggest that increased temperature is causing the increase in CO2, rather than the other way around. What evidence is there that the causation goes the direction you believe, beyond the correlation?
I'm fully aware that correlation does not prove causation. Just like the correlation between people standing in front of speeding semis and then being dead doesn't prove that standing in front of speeding semis causes death. However, until more information comes in, I'm going to try and get out of the way.
CO2 goes up when temperatures go up. CO2 has a well documented and understood mechanism for raising the temperature. Raising the temperature can also release more CO2 (or more probably, methane, which acts similarly). Our actions are adding CO2 (and methane) into the environment. Even with no other evidence, do I think we should try and reduce the CO2 and methane we're adding? Yes. Do I think the media is using extreme language to try and sell newspapers or commercials, yes. How is that different from everything else they report on? Does the fact that they find the loonies out there (on both sides of the issue) and have a "debate" mean that the whole thing is a joke and we shouldn't do anything? I don't think so.
As others have pointed out, it doesn't matter how much we're affecting the temperature. It seems very probable that we are, but even if we aren't, the benefits of "going green" would seem to be enough, even without bringing in the GW debate. I don't see why people would be against it, unless it's just because they don't like the hysteria that a very vocal minority employ to get their 15 minutes and some cash. If that's the whole reason, then it seems childish and petulant in the extreme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 06-19-2009 8:17 PM subbie has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 62 of 67 (512946)
06-22-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2009 8:31 PM


Re: All hail the prophet!
Well, to get this back on topic. Are there fear-mongers out there who are using the potential crisis to benefit themselves? Obviously. There always are. Should we disregard that entire side of the debate because a very vocal minority is behaving poorly? No. Attack the argument, not the argumenter.
As for carbon credits. I'm not sure which type you mean. If you mean, someone paying a company to plant X number of trees to offset their car driving, or whatever. I think it's more for their peace of mind rather than any actual benefit, but the benefit still exists. Even if nothing else, we get more trees, which are good.
If you mean the polluting companies buying credits from companies that pollute less. I think this is a good idea. The cap and trade system will benefit the companies that pollute less, force major offenders to reduce their pollution, and generally reduce pollution as the number of credits gets reduced.
Recycling is BIG business started off of a bald faced lie.
I don't know how you mean this. Recycling programs in my area are being reduced or eliminated all otgether because they LOSE money in the endeavor. The only thing that makes money for recyclers is aluminum. It's slowly trending towards the other end, where recycling can bring in a profit, but it's a slow march, and frankly, I will applaud the moment it becomes not only environmental but also economical to recycle. I fully admit that the hysteria of the 80s and 90s was perpetrated by a lie, but again, does that make the logic behind it now any less valid?
I agree that emissions should be controlled and monitored. I agree that it is good practice to conserve energy. I agree that it could be possible that global warming is directly attributed to mankind's lax attitude. What I don't agree with is the hysteria-induced mania, the fear mongering, the exaggerations, the guilt trips, and the outright lies.
Very true. Guilt-trips and lies are counterproductive and serve only to discredit a person's argument. The hysteria problem is one of a lack of evidence, as you suggest, but I think I know where it's coming from. If you had evidence that some time in the next 100 years, your body would be ripped apart via some new force. (Let's forget, for the sake of the story that you probably wouldn't believe any such prediction.) Would you just sit there and assume the time wouldn't happen until you're dead, or would you seek to find some way of stopping it, perhaps even hysterically, in case it comes to pass next Thursday?
People are getting hysterical because we think there could be a point at which it becomes impossible for us to do anything about the warming, but we're not exactly sure when that point is. We think we have a chance at reversing, or at least mitigating the damage until that point is reached, and some evidence, however scant, seems to indicate that tipping point is near. Should we wait until we have more evidence, possibly waiting until it's too late, or should we push ahead and try to do something that is good even outside the GW debate? If some get freaked out and hysterical, it's not that hard to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2009 8:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 63 of 67 (512974)
06-23-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
06-21-2009 9:38 PM


Re: eco-fascism in action!
I just knew it would turn in to a debate about global warming instead of what it was supposed to be about. So now I'm bored.
Well, to be fair, you did post a video in your opening post where P&T distort the solar data to make the viewers doubt the science of global warming. But if you want this thread to be about the guilt trips of the environmental left then that's fine, I will back off on/or hide my arguments about the mainstream global warming consensus when I find more time to get back to it.
edit: Can anyone remind my how I am supposed to hide text?
Edited by fgarb, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2009 9:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 64 of 67 (512975)
06-23-2009 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Michamus
06-22-2009 11:15 AM


Re: Interesting
Hi All, will hide this b/c off topic when I remember how, but I think it is still an important side-topic to discuss.
That would be quite coincidental for it to just happen to coincide with the time when we are producing enormous quantities of heat trapping gases.
Indeed. It could be a coincidence. (Though unlikely) How do we know it isn't? What data are you using to determine that this same domino effect hasn't occurred in the past, only to revert to cooling once more?
No one knows that this hasn't happened in the past. The scientific consensus is that it is just unlikely (also motivated by detailed scientific studies suggesting that this would not have happened), which is what I am arguing.
Indeed. The next question would be: "What is the quantity of CO2 and Methane that is released upon x temperature increase?"
...
I have tried to find hard (numerical/graph) data on this very thing, and have yet to do so.
How about this? The CO2 rises/falls in the past were clearly natural and were probably caused by the temperature increase releasing them from the oceans/reabsorbtion when the temp falls again. I suspect the methane plot would be much more dramatic, though it is still at the level of a trace gas. The far right of the plot is, of course, caused by humans, and is clearly only the beginning of the CO2 the humans are pumping into the atmosphere. Unfortunately there is no direct historical analogy we can look at to predict what will happen to global temperatures (or perhaps more dangerously, the ocean's acidity) as CO2 continues to rise. We have to take our best guesses on the proper response to this given the knowledge that we do have.
Source: United Nations Environment Program Global Outlook Report. The temperature plot looks a bit funny to me, so I suspect they have cherry picked data from particular temperature records to make it look more dramatic. But I see no reason to doubt the CO2 plot above - that's much harder to fudge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Michamus, posted 06-22-2009 11:15 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Michamus, posted 06-24-2009 11:28 AM fgarb has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 65 of 67 (513022)
06-24-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Nuggin
06-22-2009 11:41 AM


Re: Interesting
Nuggin writes:
So, what you have left is this: "We don't know if humans cause 1% of the CO2 or 99% of the CO2, therefore we should do nothing"
In your haste to make an enemy, you have failed to discern the true fact of the matter. Last time I checked, THAT is:
Nuggin writes:
RETARDED.
Perhaps you could have made an assessment on my stance on immediate action, if you had enough data to do so. Sadly you didn't, and this has led you to a FALSE CONCLUSION. This is an excellent example of what I was really talking about.
If we hastily make important decisions (and luckily, yours wasn't), we will suffer long term effects.
Nuggin writes:
If humans were responsible for .000000000000001% of the CO2 we should STILL stop releasing mercury vapors into the air. We should STILL stop stripmining the entire state of WV. We should STILL stop handing hundreds of billions of dollars over to terrorist nations. We should STILL strive to have cars that get more mpg. We should STILL find ways to make jet more effecient.
I don't think there is anyone on this planet that isn't interested in creating a cleaner, safer, and more efficient form of energy. We HAVE been making endeavors in Fusion, Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal, technology. For now the only alternative until these technologies become TRULY more cost effective (rather than subsidy dependent) is decreased energy usage. In developing countries, and the United States, this is easier said, than done. It is possible though.
Nuggin writes:
If humans are adding ANY CO2, and you KNOW that they are, to the system - then we should strive to reduce our input.
Perhaps we should. Obviously complete CO2 output removal would be impossible though, as I am sure you know.
Nuggin writes:
If humans are removing CO2 sinks FROM the system, and you KNOW that they are - then we should strive to replace them.
Again, perhaps we should.
Nuggin writes:
It's THAT simple. It doesn't matter if we're solely responsible or partially responsible, or simply exasperating the situation.
Is it really THAT simple? Your usage of 'thought ending statements' belies a lack of hard evidence in your court.
I would hardly consider a micro-climate, let alone the GLOBAL climate 'Simple'. My suggestion would be that we learn how negative, or even beneficial our actions may be for the impacted climate. I would say that to oversimplify the situation could very well create an even greater problem.
An excellent example would be using a "the sky is falling" technique, as some environmentalists do. What do you think will happen in 10 years if everyone looks around and sees very little different that day, than it was yesterday?
This event will obviously discredit the ENTIRE movement altogether within the general populace, who last I checked are running this country.
We should be more concerned about hard, compelling facts, than sensationalist efforts to cow the majority into bending to our whim. We should be more concerned with taking PERSONAL action in minimizing energy usage that relies on high pollutant fuels, such as oil, or coal. We should be more concerned about teaching our children how to think with their minds using deductive reasoning, instead of heading the fear in their hearts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Nuggin, posted 06-22-2009 11:41 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 66 of 67 (513040)
06-24-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by fgarb
06-23-2009 1:23 AM


Which came first?
Sorry for the late reply. I have an allotted time to utilize public computers still, as I am still en route home.
fgarb writes:
The scientific consensus is that it is just unlikely (also motivated by detailed scientific studies suggesting that this would not have happened), which is what I am arguing.
Glad we are agreed. I would also find it unlikely to be a coincidence when the available data appears to refute such a thing.
fgarb writes:
The CO2 rises/falls in the past were clearly natural and were probably caused by the temperature increase releasing them from the oceans/reabsorbtion when the temp falls again.
As would be expected.
fgarb writes:
The far right of the plot is, of course, caused by humans, and is clearly only the beginning of the CO2 the humans are pumping into the atmosphere.
The "catch" here is that the graph is relying on "Multiple proxy reconstructions" which is quite obviously unreliable once we reach the capability of precisely measuring and compiling data on global temperatures. The graph itself even shows dramatic temperature increases prior to the dramatic spike in CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
I also see that we haven't even approached the apex of prior global "high temperatures" recently. It would appear that we have about 3 degrees C before we reach the same apex as prior "Heat ages" (I don't know if this name is used by anyone else...)
fgarb writes:
But I see no reason to doubt the CO2 plot above - that's much harder to fudge.
You may be correct that some fudging has occurred. I don't know if I would go so far. If there is indeed cherry picked data here, I would imagine it would be a flaw in the process that was utilized to screen the relevant data.
I personally prefer to look at data in it's raw, uninterpreted form, so as to draw my own conclusions.
_____________________________
I wouldn't argue at all though that humans do not produce green house gases. Nor would I argue that no change in our environmental habits need occur.
I am just interested in whether humans really have the power to produce green house gases in enough abundance to actually dent the natural process we are surrounded by. I am interested in projections on HOW MUCH CO2 a 1 degree C change on a global scale transfers into the atmosphere. I am also interested in comparing that to how much CO2 humanity produces as a whole, and create a comparison.
To dismiss such a charge for data would be akin to saying: "whether a fly (or plane if we REALLY do produce that much)hitting a Boeing 777 in flight is capable of destroying the jet is not important."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by fgarb, posted 06-23-2009 1:23 AM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by fgarb, posted 06-24-2009 5:47 PM Michamus has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 67 of 67 (513076)
06-24-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Michamus
06-24-2009 11:28 AM


Re: Which came first?
Hi Michamus,
I keep intending to look into this in greater detail, but I've just run out of time and now I'm heading out for several days so I will have no internet access for a while. I'll leave a quick response though and if you or anyone else does respond I will have a look on Monday or Tuesday.
The "catch" here is that the graph is relying on "Multiple proxy reconstructions" which is quite obviously unreliable once we reach the capability of precisely measuring and compiling data on global temperatures. The graph itself even shows dramatic temperature increases prior to the dramatic spike in CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
This is what I would like to investigate. I would be very curious to learn about how this is done rather than trusting the scientists' word that they are not underestimating their uncertainties. Of course, that comes down to the time issue again.
I also see that we haven't even approached the apex of prior global "high temperatures" recently.
Yeah, but the last one I see on the plot was >100000 years ago. That makes the dawn of human civilization seem like yesterday. I personally don't find it reassuring to say "at least we aren't as hot as that".
You may be correct that some fudging has occurred. I don't know if I would go so far.
I take it back. Now that I am looking at it again I realize that it is consistent with the other plots I have seen, it just looked wierd because it covers such a long time line that the modern era is really squished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Michamus, posted 06-24-2009 11:28 AM Michamus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024