Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change • Hacker News Board

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#111

Post by pippy » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:01 PM UTC

I really enjoy when people take a fresh perspective on things. Climate change has been cited by Pew Research Center as the top greatest threat, and putting a different spin on things will always be nice to try and convince people.

The top reason to reduce carbon emissions is not to reduce global toxicity and prevent climate change. Saving the planet is a bonus. Energy independence creates a stable geo political environment, almost all wars have a root cause of fighting over resources. There's little point in saving the planet if we're going to kill ourselves by the time comes when need to save it.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#112

Post by guscost » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:03 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #38

steven2012 wrote: post #30

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…

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.

Cook should do surveys for these questions too (and include replies from more than 100 people):

If human activity is causing global warming, is that a good or bad thing?

If that is a bad thing, does it present an existential threat to our civilization?

If it presents an existential threat, is it the most significant existential threat our civilization currently faces?

If it presents an existential threat, can our civilization do anything about it?

Where does the danger of global warming rank compared to the danger of, say, population growth? Other pollution? Terrorism stuff? Nanobot grey goo?

If our civilization can do something about an existential threat from global warming, could a cap-and-trade or some other kind of government policy be a good solution?

If etc, could the dynamics of our culture, markets, or technology be a good solution?

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#113

Post by Jedd » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:06 PM UTC

rybosome wrote: post #65

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…

So, basically, the Precautionary Principle [1]

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action."

Perfectly sound, perfectly logical, and the basis of (much the same as you) the argument I present when I find people who either don't understand, or disagree with (a subset of not understanding?) the science.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#114

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:08 PM UTC

smalldataguy wrote: post #108

Tepix wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think an environmental Pascal's Wager is a strong position to base actions on. Reducing emissions will have a strong effect on our societies and people's lives (and global economics), so it's important to weight things properly. Not saying you're wrong, just that criticisms of Pascal's Wager have validity.

> Reducing emissions will have a strong effect on our societies and people's lives

Let's be a bit more concrete about this. In the near term, reducing emissions is going to reduce economic output. That is literally going to kill people. (The stress of poverty kills people. Lack of money to pay for food and healthcare kills people. So unless you've got a redistribution scheme that you can make actually happen in the real world, reducing economic output means killing people.)

That's the other side of this "Pascal's Wager". If we run off and cut emissions before we know how to do it without reducing economic output, more people that we would like are going to die. They're not going to make headlines, because they're going to be marginal people in marginal places... oh, yeah, the same kind of people who are going to die (first) from climate change.

It may be a net win to fight climate change. But don't act like it's completely one-sided.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#115

Post by rhino369 » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:08 PM UTC

metamet wrote: post #46

toomuchtodo wrote: post #38

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.

Maybe they forgot a keyword? It certainly isn't the sole cause of global warming/climate change, but it is real. CO2 in the atmosphere--what's historically known as the greenhouse effect--leads to earth's warming. CO2 emissions are also undeniably connected to the the greenhouse effect, which we clearly have a role to play in. That's science that no one disputes. But somehow people come out of the woodwork as climate…

There are serious skeptics. Like you say nobody really disagrees with 1) humans release more c02 and 2) more c02 = warming via greenhouse.

But that isn't the entire global warming theory.

There are many feedback effects that occur. Like warming -> melting ice -> water vapor from condensation -> water vapor is a greenhouse gas -> more heat

But there are negative feedback effects too. Like warming -> melting ice -> less reflection of sun -> less heat

So many people are pushing theories with high feedback multiples. Some people are pushing theories with high negative feedback.

Depending on how you model the feedbacks--Climate change can either be a small issue with a degrees or two warming or a mass extinction event with 5 degree C warming.

The problem is it is very hard to test the models.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#116

Post by dTal » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:10 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #93

dTal wrote: post #73

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?

Yes. It's not as far out of the historical norms as CO2 levels, but the gradient on it is astounding. It's taken us about 100 years for temperatures to rise beyond their last peak, which occurred about 7000 years ago [1]. Note that this is precisely coincident with the rise in CO2.

It's true that there's a historical feedback loop between CO2 and temperature, which operates in cycles. But we are now operating far beyond the usual range of that system, whatever it is, and nobody knows exactly what will happen next.

[1] https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_al...

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#117

Post by hackuser » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:11 PM UTC

nmridul wrote: post #12

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.

> There always will be a debate on global warming

As long as the denialists are well-funded:

Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing...

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#118

Post by 7952 » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:12 PM UTC

OniBait wrote: post #75

toomuchtodo wrote: post #38

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.

I have trouble taking either statement that seriously. We do not have a baseline to compare against as there is no spare earth available that is untouched by human hands.

The question has to be considered primarily from a qualitative point of view. The only reason people discuss the science so much is because they lack good instincts about the environment. It is so easy to believe that humans are an insignificant part of the environment when you entire world is made by man.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#119

Post by Gravityloss » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:14 PM UTC

redblacktree wrote: post #28

mmanfrin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal as a source of our electric power has plummeted in a decade, being taken up mostly by natural gas (but also in small part by solar/wind). Additionally, there is no change needed for an end consumer if the power they use is switched to a different source, whereas to switch a fuel for cars means switching cars. The drive to get people on electric cars means that switching everything off of fossil fuels is a matter…

I would be very interested in an all-electric minivan with enough range for my frequent 600-mile trips to my wife's home town. Sadly, this does not yet exist.

A plugin hybrid minivan would be perfect for you.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#120

Post by magicalist » Mon, Dec 07, 2015, 11:16 PM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #95

"California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country." California also has the second highest energy costs in the continental United States. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cf...

From that chart it appears a large reason for that is they charge Commercial customers the same rates as Residential ones, unlike most states.

Also worth considering is economic activity per unit energy, where California is placed third in efficiency, so it looks like those energy prices are doing fine.

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/pdf/...