Climate change is not 100% man made, the earth's climate has never been stable, it is always changing. We do bear some responsibility, but it's not just us. It is also not just America either, a big part, but not all. However, we should look at legitimate alternatives for energy than seer attainable now, while researching cool stuff like cold fusion or antimatter reactors. What are your thoughts?
Disclaimer: these are my opinions only and do not reflect the position of my company, nor the other employees there.
This thread is doomed to go down in flames for the simple reason that everyone in the world assumes that their uninformed opinion on climate science represents incontrovertable fact. For lay people, this is a topic so dominated by the Dunning-Kruger Effect that there's no way to separate the signal from the noise.
Except for the whole bit about near-unanimous scientific consensus.
If this is in response to my post: are those scientists lay people? Answer: No, they are not, if they are actual climate scientists. (If they are not climate scientists -- a la the computer scientists who idiotically signed a "100 scientists who disagree with evolution" publicity stunt statement some time ago -- then their consensus doesn't count for much anyway.)
And does that effect mean that the general population should just shut up and allow politicians to make decisions based on lobbyist's input? It's not the companies with billions at stake are going to back off whatever the scientific reality is.
It means we should correct the abysmal failure of science education in this country so that the general populace is not so mired in total ignorance that they can't begin to understand what they read about it. An educated populace is essential to a successful democracy, which is why politicians in the service of corporate and/or government overlords are always talking about eliminating the Department of Education.
It's that consensus that I base my opinion on, despite not having more than a layman's understanding of the actual data & theory. Just throwing up my hands and saying it's beyond me isn't an option.
Those two sentences are identical -- by defaulting to consensus, you are saying that it's beyond you. And that's OK -- per Socrates, the beginning of wisdom is the realization of how little we know.
The advantage of better science education is not that everyone would become an expert on these issues (they obviously would not), but rather that people would be able to recognize the extent to which they don't understand an issue, and maybe have enough basic knowledge to read scientific literature, instead of just talking points from their favorite political source.
|
Kirth -- Have you taken a look at Super Freakonomics? Just kind of wondering what your take is on what they wrote about the global warming stuff.
Would love to see a single climate study with anything remotely resembling consensus.
Kirth -- Have you taken a look at Super Freakonomics? Just kind of wondering what your take is on what they wrote about the global warming stuff.
I haven't -- but thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
Kirth, what do you consider proper scientific literature for the purposes of this discussion? With an MS in Natural Resource Sciences, I've actually read some of the literature on climate change, including the IPCC 2007 report. I understand it, but my grasp of many nuances is limited despite having worked at it during my graduate studies. Science is highly specialized; I wouldn't even have wanted to try tackling the literature until near the end of my undergraduate program, it's so dense. Most people aren't going to be able to deal with scientific literature after earning a high school diploma, I fear; they lack the understanding of statistics that underlies much of it, let alone the language specific to a given field.
Examples of scientific literature (journals): Nature, Science, Ecology, Global Change Biology
Would love to see a single climate study with anything remotely resembling consensus.
In the scientific community, a statement of "I can't actually prove you're wrong, but I still think you are" is equivalent to very strong consensus, because the key to status is to successfully overturn someone else's hypothesis.
This thread is doomed to go down in flames for the simple reason that everyone in the world assumes that their uninformed opinion on climate science represents incontrovertable fact. For lay people, this is a topic so dominated by the Dunning-Kruger Effect that there's no way to separate the signal from the noise.
If we had better science education and more people recognized they didn't understand an issue, what should they do? Some might educate themselves on one or more issues to the point of actually understanding the science, but most won't be able to do so on more than a handful of topics. Should they then just remain silent?
The way things currently stand, if I can somehow convince a critical mass of media outlets to say the sky is yellow, then it becomes a lost cause to try and convince anyone otherwise (it currently makes little to no difference what the science or experts in the field actually say). If more people learned enough about science to at least gain a glimmer of the mind set ("Does that actually fit with what we know? Is anyone seriously studying this issue? Is this guy a quack?"), that wouldn't need to be the case anymore.
Simply repeating "the sky is yellow!" or "no it's not!" doesn't help anything. Every time a Republican says "I don't know nuthin', but it's a myth!" or a Democrat says, "I don't really understand it, but I'm sure it's the end of the world," we're a step away from facing it rationally and a step deeper into the current situation of viewing it as a purely political, rather than a scientific, issue.
|
|
Kirth -- Have you taken a look at Super Freakonomics? Just kind of wondering what your take is on what they wrote about the global warming stuff.I haven't -- but thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
Please do. If for no other reason than I'm curious to hear an "insider's" view of what they say. It makes sense to me -- but I really don't have much of a scientific background so I wouldn't expect me to catch problems with what was written. And it was written with (relatively) general lay persons in mind (and I know that). (The entire book would probably only take you a couple hours to read.)
Would love to see a single climate study with anything remotely resembling consensus.In the scientific community, a statement of "I can't actually prove you're wrong, but I still think you are" is equivalent to very strong consensus, because the key to status is to successfully overturn someone else's hypothesis.
When 30 people stop looking at the same data and coming up with 30 different conclusions, I will start to believe some of the results.
Best I have seen is general consensus that the earth is warming. There is none over causes, or even if humans have a measurable effect.
When 30 people stop looking at the same data and coming up with 30 different conclusions, I will start to believe some of the results.Would love to see a single climate study with anything remotely resembling consensus.In the scientific community, a statement of "I can't actually prove you're wrong, but I still think you are" is equivalent to very strong consensus, because the key to status is to successfully overturn someone else's hypothesis.
If you have 30 scientists, you will always start with 30 different conclusions. That's the nature of the people who practice science (myself most definitely included). If you have 10,000 scientists, you'll start with 10,000 conclusions. Gradually, however, some of those conclusions are proven to be erroneous, and they drop out of the running. Eventually you're left with one or two that have successfully withstood everyone else's efforts to overturn them. There will still be disagreement, but you're narrowing in on how things actually work.
That's a strength of science, not a weakness. But it takes time and effort, and to people who don't understand what's involved in the process, it just looks like a bunch of people disagreeing with each other (which seems to be your viewpoint exactly).
When 30 people stop looking at the same data and coming up with 30 different conclusions, I will start to believe some of the results.Would love to see a single climate study with anything remotely resembling consensus.In the scientific community, a statement of "I can't actually prove you're wrong, but I still think you are" is equivalent to very strong consensus, because the key to status is to successfully overturn someone else's hypothesis.If you have 30 scientists, you will always start with 30 different conclusions. That's the nature of the people who practice science (myself most definitely included). If you have 10,000 scientists, you'll start with 10,000 conclusions. Gradually, however, some of those conclusions are proven to be erroneous, and they drop out of the running. Eventually you're left with one or two that have successfully withstood everyone else's efforts to overturn them. There will still be disagreement, but you're narrowing in on how things actually work.
That's a strength of science, not a weakness. But it takes time and effort, and to people who don't understand what's involved in the process, it just looks like a bunch of people disagreeing with each other (which seems to be your viewpoint exactly).
Oh, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, in the Climate Science field, we are still at the point where no scientists agree, except when they want federal funding because having a dissenting oppinion will cause them to lose all funding.
Unfortunately, in the Climate Science field, we are still at the point where no scientists agree, except when they want federal funding because having a dissenting opinion will cause them to lose all funding.
Not exactly. We now have a much better understanding of the feedback loops involved, both positive and negative (and there are a lot of them), and how they interact (which gets complicated). We pretty much all agree that the Earth's climate changes over time (there were no ice caps in the Eocene, for example); we pretty much all expect that natural warming trends generally take longer than cooling ones, and take longer than the one we're currently experiencing.
Regarding funding, the oil money being handed out by the Cato Institute for saying it's a hoax is far in excess of a reasonable government grant, so that's a non-starter.
Anyway, I think the whole debate is silly, because one of the things we all agree on is that petroleum is a finite resource (even if we disagree on the supply remaining). While the U.S. and the Middle East stubbornly stick with the mind-set that hydrocarbons are irreplacable, our global competetors are actively funding research on stuff that will replace them. We're bartering away our future, in a sense, by dwelling on the past.
|
...Unfortunately, in the Climate Science field, we are still at the point where no scientists agree, except when they want federal funding because having a dissenting opinion will cause them to lose all funding.
Oh, right, we're into the conspiracy theories already.
Yep. Thred is brokkedeebrokbrokbrokken.
Your certainty that each and every one of the world's elite scientific institutions are dangerously corrupt is laughable.
brokken beyond repair. We might as well get the smurfs out right now.
Don't they disagree on how much it will change not if there will be changes.
Also the rate it is changing is way above how it changed after industrialization. Climate changes naturally but slowly not at this rapid a pace.
What is there really to lose from developing alternative energy sources. Oil isn't going to last forever and neither is methane or coal we will need them eventually so why not get strated making better fuel sources now.
Kirth, you are right. We are learning a lot. I just don't like people making wild accusations like "Climate changes naturally but slowly not at this rapid a pace." or "Human emissions are the main driver of the overall warming trend." without any real evidence to back that up. The best study I have seen has shown human emmisions accounting for ~5% of global temperature increases. It was a theoretical model that took into account dozens of different sources of climate change. But I still see disputes about how to even measure the average temperature.
In the end, we are going to burn all the oil/coal/natural gas that is proffitable to extract from the earth, and then some. We will then have to rely on other fuels that are more sustainable. Those fuels will have a more stable CO2 signiture because they have to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, we are going to burn all the oil/coal/natural gas that is proffitable to extract from the earth, and then some. We will then have to rely on other fuels that are more sustainable. Those fuels will have a more stable CO2 signiture because they have to.
Exactly.
And personally, I'd like to see the U.S. be ahead of the curve when that time comes, instead of being woefully behind. Getting ahead means jumping on the alternatives now, rather than "pooh-poohing" them. To me, that's the real issue.
In the end, we are going to burn all the oil/coal/natural gas that is proffitable to extract from the earth, and then some. We will then have to rely on other fuels that are more sustainable. Those fuels will have a more stable CO2 signiture because they have to.Exactly.
And personally, I'd like to see the U.S. be ahead of the curve when that time comes, instead of being woefully behind. Getting ahead means jumping on the alternatives now, rather than "pooh-poohing" them. To me, that's the real issue.
My biggest issue is farm subsidies for corn. They artificially deflate the value of it, making ethanol production focusing on it more than other, more efficient, sources.
I think we should:
1. Invest in new infrastructure. New power line layout can greatly reduce power losses, but it is expensive to upgrade whole power grids.
2. Invest in economically viable alternate fuels. I'm not sure how much more hydro we can produce, but its worth the investment. Wind is next, but we have a lot of work we need to do here. Solar is far behind, only viable because of subsadies. Its too costly to produce for what you can get out of it, as you can see by some of the major players pulling out. Fusion and eventually Fission are the real places we should be investing in. Waste concerns on Fusion are all hype, and I think Fission is reasonable within our lifetimes.
3. Invest in a replacement for petrolium. Ethanol is sustainable, but we are screwing it up with corn subsadies. It also doesn't play well with a lot of our existing machinery (it eats rubber seals, among other things). We will always need a liquid combustable fuel source because the energy density is required for portable heavy equipment. Batteries just do not have the energy density needed, and their requirement on expensive heavy metals makes them a trap option.
There are others, but those are the big ones.
My biggest issue is farm subsidies for corn. They artificially deflate the value of it, making ethanol production focusing on it more than other, more efficient, sources.
I think we should:
1. Invest in new infrastructure. New power line layout can greatly reduce power losses, but it is expensive to upgrade whole power grids.2. Invest in economically viable alternate fuels. I'm not sure how much more hydro we can produce, but its worth the investment. Wind is next, but we have a lot of work we need to do here. Solar is far behind, only viable because of subsadies. Its too costly to produce for what you can get out of it, as you can see by some of the major players pulling out. Fusion and eventually Fission are the real places we should be investing in. Waste concerns on Fusion are all hype, and I think Fission is reasonable within our lifetimes.
3. Invest in a replacement for petrolium. Ethanol is sustainable, but we are screwing it up with corn subsadies. It also doesn't play well with a lot of our existing machinery (it eats rubber seals, among other things). We will always need a liquid combustable fuel source because the energy density is required for portable heavy equipment. Batteries just do not have the energy density needed, and their requirement on expensive heavy metals makes them a trap option.
There are others, but those are the big ones.
I personally can't help but think that, with the world population just having topped 7 billion, it's criminally short-sighted and absolutely dangerous to focus on putting our food into our gas tanks. The idiocy of where that potentially leaves us in, say, 2060 just boggles the imagination.
1. I agree; it seems like infrastructure has almost always been a good long-term investment for a nation to make.
2. My opinion is that nuclear energy will, like it or not, eventually have to be the primary contributor to domestic electricity. I wouldn't discount solar, but there's a lot of work to be done there, and I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Chinese government has invested in it far more heavily than any of our "toe-in-the-water" private domestic concerns, to the tune of something like $400 billion worth. They apparently figured the future was clear, and wanted to make sure they could handily outcompete us in that market in the future. We snoozed; we lose.
3. Agree on physical metal batteries being a trap. For vehicles, I'd personally like to see a LOT of money being pumped into making hydrogen a safer alternative. The electrolysis of water into H and O can be done relatively efficiently; the hydrogen itself is then your battery, essentially. It releases all that energy when combusted, producing pure water as a waste. The problem is that it's so highly combustive it tends to blow up -- witness the Hindenburg. Safety + efficient large-scale electrolysis using renewable resources (solar, etc.) would seem the way to go.
3. Agree on physical metal batteries being a trap. For vehicles, I'd personally like to see a LOT of money being pumped into making hydrogen a safer alternative. The electrolysis of water into H and O can be done relatively efficiently; the hydrogen itself is then your battery, essentially. It releases all that energy when combusted, producing pure water as a waste. The problem is that it's so highly combustive it tends to blow up -- witness the Hindenburg. Safety + efficient large-scale electrolysis using renewable resources (solar, etc.) would seem the way to go.
Hydrogen is a lot safer than you might think. Its really no more dangerous than gasoline at this point as far as explosions. The Hindenburg was an electrical short causing the liner to catch fire. There was several seconds before the helium caught, at which point it wouldn't have been able to hold any gas anyway. It would have gone down even if it was helium, just not as spectacularly.
We currently have the technology to safely store and use hydrogen in a vechicle. We have for at least 5 years now. Like nuclear, fear is a driving factor in not using it. I definetely see us moving that way with domestic transportation. Petrolium-like products will still be needed for heavier machinery though, much like diesel now. In the end, though, hydrogen cars are only batteries. The energy needs to be produced somewhere for the electrolisis, and currently in the US that is mostly fossil fuels. All hydrogen (and electric) cars will do right now is centralize the energy creation into our power plants. Hopefully that will increase efficiency, but with all the different areas for losses its hard to calculate.
The energy needs to be produced somewhere for the electrolisis, and currently in the US that is mostly fossil fuels. All hydrogen (and electric) cars will do right now is centralize the energy creation into our power plants.
Ideally, I'd like to see a scenario in which sunlight can be used directly for electrolysis of sea water on a massive industrial scale, rather than the solar -> electric -> hydrogen chain you're describing. That's some years off, I think, and infinitely far off if we don't bother with it. But imagine a situation in which every country with a coastline and a break in the clouds becomes a de facto member of the new OPEC!
The energy needs to be produced somewhere for the electrolisis, and currently in the US that is mostly fossil fuels. All hydrogen (and electric) cars will do right now is centralize the energy creation into our power plants.Ideally, I'd like to see a scenario in which sunlight can be used directly for electrolysis of sea water on a massive industrial scale, rather than the solar -> electric -> hydrogen chain you're describing. That's some years off, I think, and infinitely far off if we don't bother with it. But imagine a situation in which every country with a coastline and a break in the clouds becomes a de facto member of the new OPEC!
I think this could be awesome. I would worry about how it would affect ocean behavior though, and there is a lot we do not understand going on there (and it affects global warming!). Also, it is much cheaper to not transport water.
I think this could be awesome. I would worry about how it would affect ocean behavior though, and there is a lot we do not understand going on there (and it affects global warming!). Also, it is much cheaper to not transport water.
Absolutely, and when we get to the point where we've got serious debate about environmental catastrophe spurred by changes in ocean behavior, it'll be time to invest in new technology again -- maybe by then we'll understand how the hell a neutrino can move faster than light, and use some consequence of particle physics for energy. Who knows? But when that day comes, I'll be all in favor of getting a head start on the next promising option, rather than clinging to an obsolete one.
So I view the whole global climate change debate to be pointless. From an environmental standpoint, I guess the argument is that we need to cap carbon emissions to slow down the current warming trend. If you don't accept that, then look at it from a purely economic standpoint: we need to invest heavily in renewable resources and nuclear, in order to prevent China and Europe (look at Norway's massive research subsidies into renewables) from totally outcompeting us in the 21st century and rendering us an economically non-viable "has-been." That the renewables also reduce carbon emissions is icing on the cake. The only way to argue AGAINST all that is either out of pure laziness ("well, coal, oil, and gas were good enough for my grand-pappy, so they'll always be good enough for everyone!") or out of corporate loyalty ("well, Aramco paid me a stipend to try and keep their profits up.").
Anyway, I think the whole debate is silly, because one of the things we all agree on is that petroleum is a finite resource (even if we disagree on the supply remaining).
While I wish this where true, I am not entirely sure it is. There are at least some people who do not accept that oil is a finite, and fairly rapidly dwindling resource.
I think I have even seen the view expressed here on the boards once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I think the whole debate is silly, because one of the things we all agree on is that petroleum is a finite resource (even if we disagree on the supply remaining).While I wish this where true, I am not entirely sure it is. There are at least some people who do not accept that oil is a finite, and fairly rapidly dwindling resource.
I think I have even seen the view expressed here on the boards once.
I meant "we all" in the sense of "most of us with some scientific training," not in the sense of "everyone, including the people with tinfoil hats who claim to have been abducted by aliens."
I don't know if our emissions are having an effect on the climate or not.
I do know that a few hundred years ago there was a lot less emissions than there are now.
I think we should at least try to get back to that while we figure out if it is hurting anything.
I think that about covers my stance on the issue. I also have not read much in the way of scientific literature on the issue, but it seems to me to be something to err on the side of caution with.
I meant "we all" in the sense of "most of us with some scientific training," not in the sense of "everyone, including the people with tinfoil hats who claim to have been abducted by aliens."
Anyway, I think the whole debate is silly, because one of the things we all agree on is that petroleum is a finite resource (even if we disagree on the supply remaining).While I wish this where true, I am not entirely sure it is. There are at least some people who do not accept that oil is a finite, and fairly rapidly dwindling resource.
I think I have even seen the view expressed here on the boards once.
Cool, cool.
The problem is that even the people wearing those tin foil hats get to lend their voice to the argument at the societal level.
If you successfully shift the argument away from climate change onto increasing oil scarcity, it may well become the new battle ground. And if the oil industry, via GCM, Cato and Heartland decide to generate controversy, we could just get stuck in another mire for a decade or two.
The problem is not that they get to lend their voice, it's that qualitative peer-reviewed scientific work is treated as nothing more as another set of opinions, that the word of "Joe the Plumber" is given equal weight to that of a trained scientist on matters that "Joe" has no expertise on whatsoever.I meant "we all" in the sense of "most of us with some scientific training," not in the sense of "everyone, including the people with tinfoil hats who claim to have been abducted by aliens."
Anyway, I think the whole debate is silly, because one of the things we all agree on is that petroleum is a finite resource (even if we disagree on the supply remaining).While I wish this where true, I am not entirely sure it is. There are at least some people who do not accept that oil is a finite, and fairly rapidly dwindling resource.
I think I have even seen the view expressed here on the boards once.
Cool, cool.
The problem is that even the people wearing those tin foil hats get to lend their voice to the argument at the societal level.
If you successfully shift the argument away from climate change onto increasing oil scarcity, it may well become the new battle ground. And if the oil industry, via GCM, Cato and Heartland decide to generate controversy, we could just get stuck in another mire for a decade or two.
Could not agree more.
People hate science because it 1) requires that they think 2) Means that they can be wrong.
Education in America has overreacted a little from the "this is the one true version of history/literary interpretation" of the 50's and slingshotted strait into the epistemic nihilism of " all views of history and literature are equally valid" Its annoying in history, but its absolutely nonsensical when you try to port that attitude to science.
People expect science to come up with a 100% neat and clean answer like the one in their old school text books: black and white, no messy data, just neat, clean facts. They forget that everything that's in the book was at one point argued , debated, discussed, dissected and torn apart. People thought galileo's observations of objects that didn't circle the earth were due to flaws in his telescope. People argued against erosion causing topography. People argued against glaciers covering continents. People argued over DNA being the carrier of genetic information. People forget all this, so when they see arguments in science, they think there MUST be something wrong with it, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing. Both sides of the argument must be equally valid: the alternative is saying that someone is objectively wrong, and that wouldn't be polite.
The entire point of science is that the universe 1)is too weird and too complicated to figure out while sitting on your keister trying to philosophize your way to the truth and 2) objectively exists and runs on rules that we can figure out.
Philosophizing your way to truth is just not going to happen. You need to gather facts, you need to gather evidence, THEN you generate ideas, and then (because your idea can be wrong) you TRY TO KILL THEM by proving them wrong. Then you invite everyone else to try to kill them and if it survives, THEN you know your idea has a good chance of being an accurate representation of how things really are: because there is an objective truth that exists independent of anyone's opinion.
Like the objections against evolution, none of the arguments against anthropocentric global warming hold up. Like the objections against evolution, there is a highly centralized attempt to discredit anthropocentric climate change because they have an agenda other than science: religious objections in the case of the creationists and wanting to keep people on their petroleum products in the case of the objections to global warming.
If there are specific arguments against anthropocentric climate change then bring them forward. "The scientists are fighting" is not an argument against it...especially considering the severe minority such scientists are in.