What Climate Wars Did To Science

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The people who deny climate change tend to deny all wrong doing we have influencing the environment. Showing we do impact it in other ways is important. We shouldn't marginalize the impacts we have done. 

Still, a majority of scientists believe that humans are the primary cause to climate change. A very high percent believe humans had some influence. I trust people who made science their career, who know more than me, than conservative politicians.

 

 

I don't deny climate change or the impact humans have on the planet and other living creatures, I just dispute the level of influence we have.  

For example, how many different species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish became extinct as a result of the ice age that occurred without any human interference?  Conversely we've made great efforts to eliminate roaches and rats from NY City and have been unsuccessful.  

I believe as humans we have a responsibility to not abuse the planet but we also should be more humble about our role and the impact we have on it's long term welfare.  

[Ernest Jones]

1 hour ago, Abu3baid said:

I really don't care one way or another at this moment in time

A tad short sighted I'd say...

[Abu3baid]

22 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

A tad short sighted I'd say...

Maybe it is.  But it's the truth, I have more important things to worry about now.  To my defense I did say right now, so that might change later on in life.

 

 

 

[phillyk]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I don't deny climate change or the impact humans have on the planet and other living creatures, I just dispute the level of influence we have.  

For example, how many different species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish became extinct as a result of the ice age that occurred without any human interference?  Conversely we've made great efforts to eliminate roaches and rats from NY City and have been unsuccessful.  

An ice age extinction event that took thousands of years to complete versus human cause which took a couple hundred years so far.

A great example of human impact, the Great Barrier Reef
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=376

On the flip side to that, I have former peers who are involved in efforts to restore reefs and preserve them as much as possible, but it's hard work.  There are many corals that can withstand certain chemical changes, but there are limits.

22 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I believe as humans we have a responsibility to not abuse the planet but we also should be more humble about our role and the impact we have on it's long term welfare.  

To predict long term health is very hard, I give you that.  We are in the beginning stage of some event and we won't be alive to see the end, if there is one.  Do we want to preserve what we can or destroy it and see what replaces it, if anything?

[JonMA1]

I'm convinced global warming is real. I'm convinced humans are at least to some degree part of the reason.

Serious question: What can I do individually to help? Keep in mind, I was brought up to use resources efficiently and not to waste, mainly from an economics point of view.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Additionally, what's the harm in polluting less? In doing things at an unnatural rate less? Contrary to what some people said on one of the sites you linked to, Abu, the environment cannot "heal itself." That may have been true when there were no cities, gas-guzzling cars, factories, etc. When the earth was basically 100% nature. Maybe. But it's not true now.

Right, there's no point in consuming more than you really need, and peoples perceptions on need should probably change to become more efficient. A large truck can be nice at times, but you don't need one to drive to the corner store to pick up a loaf of bread or something.

 

2 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

I would say that some who have lost their job due to companies moving out of the country (from stronger regulations) would say there is some harm in polluting less.

Especially when the polluting factory is still doing the same thing, just somewhere else in the world.

I agree that we should be drilling more and keeping the cost of fuel low enough for everyone to use and even enjoy.

 

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

This is where I'm at, we are putting coal miners out of work here in the US but China and India continue to build coal burning power plants.  

I fully support the use of solar and wind as alternative power sources but they're not ready to take over as primary power sources.  Nuclear remains the cleanest power we can produce but no one wants the plants in their home town, so it seems we're premature in calling for alternative power sources and shutting down coal mines when we don't have superior alternatives.  

Coal is being used for natural gas production as well.

We should be continuing to dig for coal where we already do, there's no point in saving land that already has been mined.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/jr2eih/picture23387535/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/13web_ENV-MINING_wide.source.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

 

1 hour ago, Abu3baid said:

That's interesting you say that, I think today there was a referendum in Switzerland to a proposal to fade out their 5 or 6 power plants.. they are one of the most competitive economies in the world and they voted to not phase out anything.  

I guess the plants are getting old, but the people don't care because they don't want to count their hens before the eggs hatch (ie the clean renewable energy sources)

Renewable energy is definitely something we should be exploring more of, but there is a great deal of research to get them as efficient as oil, natural gas and coal. There is a lot of technology that is much less efficient and more costly, because none of them can compare to the efficiency of traditional fuels.

For instance, solar panels will begin to deteriorate and have to be disposed of in the near future. Batteries for hybrids will need to be recycled. That's additional pollution, and possibly more than driving a 27mpg automobile for the same amount of time when you include all the processes that are required to do so.

There is no easy solution while we consume the same amount as we do now. The easiest thing is to just use less. . .which does not mean getting rid of your 12mpg truck or anything. Just make less trips or something.

 

1 hour ago, phillyk said:

The first link isn't a climate change denier.  It's a "who cares" link.  There are a lot of people who admit climate change is real, even mad-made, but they don't care for whatever reason.  It could be that they believe the environment always changes and is doing so now (even for the better), but they don't take into account the rate of change.  A lot of people want to find renewable energy sources that are efficient and financially friendly and until that happens, don't want change.

More so, there are tons of studies on this, with few rebuttals.  I'm not talking about NASA's temperature readings.  I'm talking all the different sources of climate forcing and sinks, and the outcome, in nature, of these changes. But, as I said above, there are a lot of people who will still say "who cares".

There's no doubt that all the carefully taken minute measurements do indicate climate change due to humans. However, it's doubtful that anything we do now will alter the conditions. It's also possible that the earth is simply on a warming period and that all we did was trigger it a bit sooner.

We have no proof that  making much stricter EPA rules and regulations worldwide will do anything to halt the warming cycle.

I will note once again that consuming less is always good, but stopping industries from working and putting people out of work for a hypothesis*** and hope are not going to solve anything.

***Hypothesis being that stopping industry and putting people out of work could reverse the warming effect.

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

We definitely impact the environment, but the issues listed above aren't related to fossil fuels.  

No question that we do have an impact on our environment, it's just to what magnitude?

One volcanic eruption or giant meteorite can (and has) easily had magnitudes larger effects than all of our combined human history of polluting.

 

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

The people who deny climate change tend to deny all wrong doing we have influencing the environment. Showing we do impact it in other ways is important. We shouldn't marginalize the impacts we have done. 

Still, a majority of scientists believe that humans are the primary cause to climate change. A very high percent believe humans had some influence. I trust people who made science their career, who know more than me, than conservative politicians.

Not denying climate change. There should be no question that it has changed. What is being denied is that doing all the things we are doing in the EPA can reverse the warming effect.

First of all, I don't think the warming is all that bad. The last time the earth was really warm was when the Sahara was a forest. In the long run, it could be good. More vegetation. I doubt we will see "Waterworld" or other fantastic alternative scenarios. . .

[phillyk]

13 minutes ago, Lihu said:

One volcanic eruption or giant meteorite can (and has) easily have a magnitudes larger effect than all of our combined human history.

Can you explain the bold?  It's not CO2 emissions, and the blanket coverage of a massive volcano may interrupt weather patterns for a couple years, but not much more.  If there is a lava flow, that will sure destroy everything in its path, but the same stuff will grow on top of the cooled field.  Where as humans have been destroying a ton more than that with very little growth.  So what part of a volcanic eruption are you referring to?

[Lihu]

Just now, phillyk said:

Can you explain the bold?  It's not CO2 emissions, and the blanket coverage of a massive volcano may interrupt weather patterns for a couple years, but not much more.  If there is a lava flow, that will sure destroy everything in its path, but the same stuff will grow on top of the cooled field.  Where as humans have been destroying a ton more than that with very little growth.  So what part of a volcanic eruption are you referring to?

CO2 is just one gas, but here's an interesting article.

 

Quote

Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO₂ than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO₂ budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO₂ is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

There are 1500 active volcanoes according to USGS:

https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9819/2689

Simple math puts Volcanoes anywhere from  12M to 45M tonnes or up to about 25% of our daily output. Is the Kyoto Treaty going to put sanctions on volcanoes?

 

Volcanoes put other things into the air as well that can affect our mean temperature a lot more than CO2, though. Usually cooler, but who knows over time? The earth is a complicated system.

I doubt strongly that anything we do can change the environment in a manner we wish.

[phillyk]

34 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm convinced global warming is real. I'm convinced humans are at least to some degree part of the reason.

Serious question: What can I do individually to help? Keep in mind, I was brought up to use resources efficiently and not to waste, mainly from an economics point of view.

Adjust your footprint and push for others to do so as well.  If you are able, donate to research groups trying to find more efficient energy sources.  If you want, go political and push for funding or whatever, for this research.  

 

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

CO2 is just one gas, but here's an interesting article.

 

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

There are 1500 active volcanoes according to USGS:

https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9819/2689

Simple math puts Volcanoes anywhere from  12M to 45M tonnes or up to about 25% of our daily output. Is the Kyoto Treaty going to put sanctions on volcanoes?

 

Volcanoes put other things into the air as well that can affect our mean temperature a lot more than CO2, though. Usually cooler, but who knows over time? The earth is a complicated system.

I doubt strongly that anything we do can change the environment in a manner we wish.

You said ONE volcanic eruption, not 1500.  Otherwise yes, I agree.  But, the earth has had its fluctuations even with volcanoes before and it will continue to do so.  But history has never had a human factor that adds more to the total that the Earth must doing something with.  There are a lot of people who say that we are at a point of no return, so yeah I agree that changing it back to what it was is not possible at all.  But we should try to stop what can be stopped to slow the rate of change so that the environment can adjust in time.  

It's not that the levels we are at hasn't happened before.  It's that getting to these levels is happening 100 times faster, so far.

[Lihu]

12 minutes ago, phillyk said:

Adjust your footprint and push for others to do so as well.  If you are able, donate to research groups trying to find more efficient energy sources.  If you want, go political and push for funding or whatever, for this research.  

 

You said ONE volcanic eruption, not 1500.  Otherwise yes, I agree.  But, the earth has had its fluctuations even with volcanoes before and it will continue to do so.  But history has never had a human factor that adds more to the total that the Earth must doing something with.  There are a lot of people who say that we are at a point of no return, so yeah I agree that changing it back to what it was is not possible at all.  But we should try to stop what can be stopped to slow the rate of change so that the environment can adjust in time.  

It's not that the levels we are at hasn't happened before.  It's that getting to these levels is happening 100 times faster, so far.

I'm going to ask my oceanographer friend, but the figure is probably correct for one volcano. So, it's reasonable to ascertain that 1500 would be roughly 1500 times the average of one.

What my friend told me once is that there is a lot of volcanic activity underwater, and much of the CO2 is absorbed into the cold water. IDK how much is released into the atmosphere as bubbles or whatnot, because as you know, sea water is already saturated with salts and other chemicals?

Plus, they're absorbing some of our emissions as well.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/

Drilling and mining are not the culprits, the real culprit is excessive consumption. We should all use less, and do things smartly with what we have whether it be a hybrid or large truck or whatever else. Heat your house to 65F, drive less, walk more***, etc.

I still strongly disagree that putting people out of work will fix the environment to our liking. . .no one can answer that question.

 

***Get those hypocritical cyclists with their petroleum based jerseys and exotic composite $4000+ frames off the road for more pedestrians.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

Especially when the polluting factory is still doing the same thing, just somewhere else in the world.

Then that's not reducing pollution.

[phillyk]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I'm going to ask my oceanographer friend, but the figure is probably correct for one volcano. So, it's reasonable to ascertain that 1500 would be roughly 1500 times the average of one.

What my friend told me once is that there is a lot of volcanic activity underwater, and much of the CO2 is absorbed into the cold water. IDK how much is released into the atmosphere as bubbles or whatnot, because as you know, sea water is already saturated with salts and other chemicals?

Plus, they're absorbing some of our emissions as well.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/

Drilling and mining are not the culprits, the real culprit is excessive consumption. We should all use less, and do things smartly with what we have whether it be a hybrid or large truck or whatever else. Heat your house to 65F, drive less, walk more***, etc.

I still strongly disagree that putting people out of work will fix the environment to our liking. . .no one can answer that question.

 

***Get those hypocritical cyclists with their petroleum based jerseys and exotic composite $4000+ frames off the road for more pedestrians.

The field I would've gone into was dealing with hydrothermal vents and their ecosystems.  So I have some knowledge of this field.  I'm no expert and it's been a few years.  But yes, there was a small hiatus around 2010 due to the ocean circulation pumping more cold water than normal to the surface. And yes, a large percentage of atmospheric CO2 is gobbled up by the ocean each year.

These underwater volcanoes and similar activity emit lots of sulfides and methanes that are taking in by single celled organisms that then provide food for the ecosystems at the bottom of the ocean.  So, there are certainly lots of species and organisms that can take care of excessive CO2, but like I said, they've also been doing this forever with these naturally occurring systems.

As to your bold, I don't have an answer.  But I'd rather compromise than do nothing.

[Lihu]

Just now, phillyk said:

The field I would've gone into was dealing with hydrothermal vents and their ecosystems.  So I have some knowledge of this field.  I'm no expert and it's been a few years.  But yes, there was a small hiatus around 2010 due to the ocean circulation pumping more cold water than normal to the surface. And yes, a large percentage of atmospheric CO2 is gobbled up by the ocean each year.

These underwater volcanoes and similar activity emit lots of sulfides and methanes that are taking in by single celled organisms that then provide food for the ecosystems at the bottom of the ocean.  So, there are certainly lots of species and organisms that can take care of excessive CO2, but like I said, they've also been doing this forever with these naturally occurring systems.

I respected your knowledge even prior to this last post. I will note that there seems to be a lot more activity in the "Pacific Rim" than decades ago. That could also be a factor in more CO2?

There is no quick answer to what we should do to prevent global warming. However, I do know that hiring a someone into EPA like our last president has only lost people their jobs and done nothing to "combat" global warming.

 

Just now, phillyk said:

As to your bold, I don't have an answer.  But I'd rather compromise than do nothing.

Compromise, yes. Use less and convince others to do the same, but don't put other people out of work. At least that's my solution. Technology will improve things a little bit at a time, but you can't rush things artificially, as many politicians have tried the last 8 years. That generally leads to even bigger problems.

[phillyk]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

I respected your knowledge even prior to this last post. I will note that there seems to be a lot more activity in the "Pacific Rim" than decades ago. That could also be a factor in more CO2?

There is no quick answer to what we should do to prevent global warming. However, I do know that hiring a someone into EPA like our last president has only lost people their jobs and done nothing to "combat" global warming.

Compromise, yes. Use less and convince others to do the same, but don't put other people out of work. At least that's my solution. Technology will improve things a little bit at a time, but you can't rush things artificially, as many politicians have tried the last 8 years. That generally leads to even bigger problems.

I agree that some measures enacted by the EPA was wrong, and it will definitely take time for improvements to be made.  Overall, the EPA has always bugged me a bit.  It could be that the emotions get to us.  To see what has been happening to certain populations of polar bear, coral, etc.  It sucks, and a lot of us want to see that amended when it can't just happen by a snap of the fingers. So yeah, it will take time to create improvements.

[JonMA1]

11 minutes ago, phillyk said:

Adjust your footprint and push for others to do so as well.  If you are able, donate to research groups trying to find more efficient energy sources.  If you want, go political and push for funding or whatever, for this research.  

As far as adjusting my carbon footprint, there's little room for adjustment - without drastic changes in my life. But yes, I'll continue to look to make incremental ones.

"Pushing" for others... I'm more for calm discussion over trying to badger people into change. Human nature being what it is, that usually results in people doing just the opposite.

Donations aren't going to happen. There would have to be a much higher level of trust in those doing the research. That, and I'd have to be in less debt.

Politically, I have to assume some of my federal and state taxes go towards research and I'm ok with that. I hope it's being spent wisely.

[phillyk]

13 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

"Pushing" for others... I'm more for calm discussion over trying to badger people into change. Human nature being what it is, that usually results in people doing just the opposite.

I guess I don't mean push as much as educate others as you see fit.

[Strandly]

9 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Coal plants shutting down is more to do with natural gas generation. Gas prices are low. Coal is more expensive because of the human cost to mine and the clean coal initiatives. When a new power plant is open its a small gas plant open in a rural area on cheap land. Is there some money to be made on coal in China, sure. In the US, we are a Natural Gas generation country. Its doesn't look like it's slowing down anytime soon with fracking in the Midwest. 

To anybody who denies humans do not harm the environment look at the number of species that have gone extinct over the past century. Look at the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi drains at. Look at the drastic decrease in bees that will dramatically influence plant pollination. Look at the massive amount of plastic needs floating in the Pacific because exfoliation became popular in soaps. These are all human driven issues.  We have serious issues facing us in our lifetimes. 

This is our planet, and as of right now we are stuck here. We should be doing a lot more to develop as much environmentally safe practices as possible. Would you trash your home you live in? Well as a species we are doing it. 

This is precisely the kind of alarmist nonsense that drives me up a wall.

In order for the number of species gone extinct to mean anything you need to know how many total species are out there, which is probably not possible.  You also need to confirm the species is extinct, which poking around in the woods for a month or two does not necessarily confirm  And you need to know the turnover rate of old and new species to determine if the confirmed extinctions are deviating from the norm, which is also probably not possible.

But none of that really matters when you can get up on a soapbox and start shouting that a frog and beetle went extinct so that means we're all gonna die, right?

Edited November 28, 2016 by Strandly

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Strandly said:

But none of that really matters when you can get up on a soapbox and start shouting that a frog and beetle went extinct so that means we're all gonna die, right?

 

Sure it matters. The number of bees are going down. Guess what, they are the primary pollinators for flowers and plants. What if we don't get the amount of pollination we need, then some species of plants will go away. That all effects our ecosystem and its viability to sustain life. Everything is connected on this planet.  For as much as humans like to think we are in control, we are not. Mother nature will kick our ass every time. 

You might say, "Well they are just bees". Insects are very important. 

People are willing to downplay things until shit hits the fan. Maybe for once we should not wait till things get bad.