101–110 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notice that the last value in that graph is around 280 ppm, and that it doesn't exceed about 300 in the entire graph (about half a million years). Current CO2 levels recently broke 400 ppm and still rising. To represent the current situation, you'd need to add a spike at the end roughly double the height of that graph.
Does the temperature trend have a similar spike?
When speaking with people who do not agree with me on the correctness or urgency of global warming, this is the argument I traditionally make: let's examine the worst-case scenarios. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the science, taking it seriously is a logical choice. The plausible worst-case scenario of charging ahead with measures to combat climate change isn't actually that bad, not to mention the anci…
I absolutely don't believe that human-created CO2 emissions cause global warming. However, I consider myself a staunch environmentalist. I believe we should be doing whatever we can to control pollution. It sickens me that factories pump out pollution, that we can barely eat fish anymore because of all the garbage and poisons we pump into our oceans. I think we need very strict controls on every form of pollution as…
1. The data is crap. What you need is average temperatures and other data (humidity, pressure, cloud cover, albedo, etc.) over the entire Earth down to a fairly small scale. What we have is a mismash of horribly calibrated weather station data near cities combined with limited satellite data and various proxies, all of which has to be massaged a great deal to make it usable. Sea level data has the same sort of problems, nearly impossible to properly calibrate to sufficient precision. The fact that people have poured tons of effort into collecting and attempting to calibrate data doesn't mean the data is actually very good.
2. The models are also crap. A century ago Svante Arrhenius came up with the greenhouse effect theory and did some back of the envelope calculations on its magnitude, coming up with a figure of climate sensitivity of about 2 deg. C per CO2 doubling. Today all of our vaunted climate modelling hasn't managed to come up with a more accurate figure than that. Current estimates are still "maybe 2 deg. C per doubling, with some enormous error bars". Modern models have several problems. The conceit is that climate models are de novo elaborations from first principles and are as rock solid as our understanding of the laws of physics. In practice all climate models contain multiple "empirically determined" fudge factors. They fit the data, they don't predict it. And that's assuming we even had enough good data to really run good prediction checks, which is dubious at best.
3. The climatology scientific community is very problematic. There is little indication of sufficient rigor, and criticizing results is an easy way to get effectively excommunicated from the community. Take, for example, the famed "hockey stick" paper, which has now been thoroughly discredited, but all of the discrediting happened effectively "behind the scenes" and quietly. Science works best when it's open and boisterous. It's surprising that climatology isn't in even worse state given how insular and political it is.
4. Even if we assumed that man-made carbon emissions were going to cause a huge degree of global warming there is still a huge gap between that fact and figuring out what to do about it, which many folks simply skip over. The actual damage (to the biosphere and to human activities) is just as difficult to determine as the climate is to predict. The right course of action to take depends a great deal on lots of different factors: sociological, technological, and economic. Especially since a lot of the CO2 production of the 21st century will come from economies that are climbing out of poverty and into affluence. It may well be the smartest choice to simply continue polluting until the world is richer and more technologically advanced and then consider mitigation strategies.
4a. CO2 emissions may not be, and likely is not, the most important pollution issue everywhere in the world currently. But it gets the most attention and sometimes that makes it more difficult to get traction on other issues.
Meanwhile, there really are serious "climate change denialists" and some of the folks on that side are absolutely terrible. Canadian PM Harper banned government scientists from talking to the press, for example. But the answer to science being perverted for political reasons isn't to simply pervert it in the opposite direction to compensate.
It's just a complete shit-show across the board and I'm not happy with how any of it is being handled at either the level of scientific inquiry or public policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain your lack of belief when 97% of climate scientists (there's conflicting data on this; some reports show as high as 99%) agree that human activity is causing global warming? EDIT: That's not rhetorical. I'll entertain any logical reasoning you have as to why your reasoning is superior to those educated and practicing the subject daily.
I thought the 97% of climate scientists claim (based on Cook et al) was shown to be a really flawed study. In any event, Consensus does not equal science. I think given the broad definition of "human activity is causing global warming", you'd be hard pressed to find disagreement. If you refine it to "human activity is causing a majority of global warming and that warming is bad" there is a lot less agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point here is it's easier to control emissions at large-scale power generation plants than it is on millions of individual vehicles. How many cars would fail an inspection if exposed to one? The same cannot be said about power plants. There's also the renewable angle. Surplus wind power, as experienced in Spain, would basically provide free power for recharging vehicles overnight. You cannot do this with gasoline…
I don't dispute the electric cars are, overall, clean . Just that the image that Arnold is promoting with his "Gedankenexperiment", per my quote above (that electric cars are somehow 100% clean and environmentally harmless) is simply false, anti-intellectual, and unscientific.
Bit of a silly analogy though, as many are. Would not say that is 'anti-intellectual' though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain your lack of belief when 97% of climate scientists (there's conflicting data on this; some reports show as high as 99%) agree that human activity is causing global warming? EDIT: That's not rhetorical. I'll entertain any logical reasoning you have as to why your reasoning is superior to those educated and practicing the subject daily.
I suspect simply because the 1-3% who are skeptical are literally excommunicated from the scientific community. The problem is that it requires a belief. While we have evidence, there is no conclusive proof, since it's it is difficult to "test" in this field of science.
I absolutely don't believe that human-created CO2 emissions cause global warming. However, I consider myself a staunch environmentalist. I believe we should be doing whatever we can to control pollution. It sickens me that factories pump out pollution, that we can barely eat fish anymore because of all the garbage and poisons we pump into our oceans. I think we need very strict controls on every form of pollution as…
What if you're wrong? CO2 may lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, making the earth uninhabitable in the long run (turning it into a Venus look-alike). I don't think we can risk this outcome (and the extinction of our race) just because because a couple of people think CO2 may not cause global warming.
Not saying you're wrong, just that criticisms of Pascal's Wager have validity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming but I am 100% ok with our society pushing away from coal, gasoline and fracking.
"I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming" Honestly, how convinced you are about it is only relevant because economic interests have planted a seed of doubt about it. Your position to question the science on climate change is about as good as it is on a myriad other issues which no one seems keen on questioning. If there weren't a lobby doing it, your uncertainty would be as much as what qualified experts…
Let's not look at who is on what side of the fight when making these decisions. Both sides currently have entrenched economic interests, both sides are turning it from a practical issue to one that is moral and identity politics, ruining the conversation.
The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue. There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. If pollution was the prime focus from day one, then more push would have been given to renewable. Maybe, Arnold is able to bring more people to think in this direction.
I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming but I am 100% ok with our society pushing away from coal, gasoline and fracking.
It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.