SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When it comes to purging fossil fuels from the global economy by mid-century—our only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change—it turns out that you can't get there from here without a good map.
That's the thinking behind detailed, long-term plans for switching from dirty to clean energy unveiled this week by the United States, Canada, Mexico and Germany at UN climate talks in Marrakesh.
Overcoming sharp internal debate, the German government led the way with sector-by-sector scenarios that would remove up to 95 percent of its CO2 emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.
Green groups said there were too many sops to big business, but it was a world-first.
The "three amigos" of North America jointly-released their blueprints on Wednesday, with the 100-page US "mid-century strategy" for the globe's largest economy taking centre stage.
If the US, Canada, and Mexico are the "three amigos," which one is Martin Short?
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:13AM
According to respected scientists, over geologic time, our planet has had long periods of being covered in oceans of lava [livescience.com] and long periods of being frozen in ice ages [scientificamerican.com]. Without "global warming," we'd still be in an ice age. Without "climate change," we'd be swimming in oceans of lava and burn cream would be a top selling product.
So, at least some "climate change" and "global warming" have been good, natural processes; processes that we are currently affecting to some degree. But is the effect we're having a "fine tuning" effect, making a minor contribution plus or minus, or a causative effect, replacing or reversing enormous natural forces over geologic time? I don't know the answer to that (though I can guess). But I know that the science isn't settled [netdna-cdn.com]. Science is never settled; it's a process that's always moving until we literally know everything (we don't yet). "Settled science" is simply dogma.
Which brings us back to "staving off catastrophic climate change." What evidence is there that if mankind suddenly tomorrow stopped emitting carbon [climatewarmingcentral.com] in any way other than respiration (or for that matter if all humans died or left the Earth for an alternate dimension or something), that our (constantly) changing climate would somehow not be all that changing anymore and would therefore not change in a way that alarmists would call "catastrophic"?
The article seems to assume that this would be the case. I'm not as easily confident of that, especially when it comes to what alarmists would say.
We should take care of our environment because it's our responsibility to take care of the environment; it's the right thing to do. That doesn't mean going all-in on dubious, expensive measures because some anxious alarmist(s) insist(s) that the sky is falling/failing to fall.
(Score: 3, Touché) by dlb on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:25AM
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:55AM
By examining available evidence on the rate at which mammalian species seem to be going extinct, your linked article concludes that there has been
And they cite evidence for this. Their proposed mitigation is that
(not spending gazillions of dollars on chasing carbon-free energy). I am with them so far... But they assert that the extinction phenomenon is
and I don't see any evidence cited for that.
You take that from "accelerated" to a full four-alarm
You yourself point out that
which refers to our knowledge that variations in the rate of extinction of species from "background" to "mass extinctions" is a natural process.
I understand that we interact with and influence our environment, but why the assumption that suddenly it's human-engineered armageddon when for billions of years of Earth's history as measured by scientists, this has been a normal and natural part of nature? Why the assumption that over the short-term we are more powerful than the scientists' billions of years of measured forces over Earth's geological history?
Like most people, it makes me sad when species go extinct, even though this is as natural a thing as any other life and death. But that doesn't make me a mankind-hating alarmist.
(Score: 2) by dlb on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:58PM
Like most people, it makes me sad when species go extinct, even though this is as natural a thing as any other life and death. But that doesn't make me a mankind-hating alarmist.
Okay, I see your point. And it's a view I also have. The point I was trying to make is that the species which very well could go extinct is us. Granted, in the context of planet earth's history, it would be "natural," but it wouldn't be something I'd want to have happen. I'm not trying to say how terrible we all are for not taking better care of the planet, or trying to shout "fire" when there isn't one. I'm trying to point out (as the science community is pointing out) that something's up, and that we are very likely causing that something, and it could very likely be really bad. It's like seeing a small smoke puff suddenly appear in one's basement. It's nothing that's going to hurt anyone, hardly a "four-alarm fire," but it's something important that had better be dealt with immediately. (BTW, excuse the analogy if it comes across as a bit simplistic!)
Getting back on track, evidence for the "accelerated modern human-induced species loss" is the human-induced climate changes that have indeed happened, and are happening. A smaller, less contentious example of this is our use of Freon that began taking out ozone in the upper atmosphere. When governments began to eliminate the chemical use, the ozone layer began regenerating, healing, if you would. The atmosphere is thin (compared to the earth) and fragile and would sicken or even extinct the human race if significantly altered, which we have demonstrated the capability to do so.
So the point I'm trying to make, is that while catastrophic climate swings are geologically "a natural process", they can be caused by humans, and are being initiated by humans. Evidence greatly supports the conclusion that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (which is a good thing...it makes life possible for us on earth). And, further, we humans are definitely producing it in the atmosphere at a rate which the evidence demonstrates will significantly warm the climate. And that's where the alarm needs to be set off because quickly it very well could be a full four-alarm fire. Like when a person sees that first puff of smoke in the basement.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:53PM
Okay, understatement: I don't want to see that either.
I think this is a very good analogy. A puff of smoke in the basement is 100% for sure the potential seed of a "very bad thing" leading to loss of life+house.
I guess my question is, where to find "evidence" (not passionate arguments) that this represents causation, and not just correlation?
Many of the global-warming-deniers seem to be nutjobs that have no (or little) interest in science, and while they present evidence frequently, it's selected for or influenced by their preconceived notions.
And... Many of the global-warming-alarmists seem to be nutjobs that have no (or little) interest in science except to the extent that it supports their position. They also present evidence in accordance with their preconceived notions.
(Feel free to substitute the words "climate change" for the word "warming" in the above, if you like.)
Neither camp is above outright lying to try to advance their "cause." I read here and there in the news about scientists being strongly encouraged by those above them to nudge their data/conclusions towards particular positions. The clearest thing I do see is the 100% failure so far of the dire, well-publicized predictions of the alarmist camp despite global average temperatures rising some.
In science articles/papers that I read that don't seem to read like nutjob denier/anxious alarmist propaganda, the conclusions frequently seem enigmatic or opaque; I don't know how much weight to give each bit of data or observation. The nutjobs on both sides of the "debate" are fervently working to screw it up for everyone else.
Bottom line question, where to look for good evidence not (very) influenced by the above? Does this evidence really justify throwing not just money, but entire economies full of money, at things that may or may not be the problem?
(Score: 3, Informative) by dlb on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:45PM
Bottom line question, where to look for good evidence not (very) influenced by the above?
Agreed! Far too many political discussions are not about using valid evidence to solidify their premises, but are about "destroying" their opponent. Your "bottom line question" nicely framed our discussion.
I read here and there in the news about scientists being strongly encouraged by those above them to nudge their data/conclusions towards particular positions.
Rather than reading here and there, go to reputable sources. The Internet is rife with false news stories. The references at the bottom of this Wikipedia article might be a good starting place, Surveys of scientists' views on climate change [wikipedia.org].
Another nice source is NASA: Climate change: How do we know? [nasa.gov]
And even this (should be "especially" this): Global Climate Change Indicators [noaa.gov]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:09PM
Thanks.
I still contend that saying flat-out "purging fossil fuels from the global economy by mid-century [is] our only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change" falls under "alarmist nutjob nonsense".
(Score: 2) by dlb on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:51PM
flat-out "purging fossil fuels from the global economy by mid-century [is] our only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change" falls under "alarmist nutjob nonsense"
Could well be. I'll grant you that. The nutjobs out there are sure adding a lot of noise to those trying to have an honest exchange of views about climate change. (Speaking of which, thank you for sharing your well-thought-out view points. It added to my morning's enjoyment!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:22PM
Getting back on track, evidence for the "accelerated modern human-induced species loss" is the human-induced climate changes that have indeed happened, and are happening.
Let us note that habitat destruction which is a widely ignored form of climate change is far more likely to result in species extinction than climate change from green house gases emissions. This is the the ill focus that ruins the climate change debate: citing the problems of global warming while completely ignoring bigger problems like habitat and arable land destruction, poverty, overpopulation, societal corruption, etc. Sure, things are made a little bit better by addressing global warming. Things are made vastly better by addressing these other matters, even if one ignores global warming outright.
(Score: 2) by dlb on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:51PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:48PM
I expect synergy: wildlife in isolated pockets will be hindered from migrating as the Earth heats up.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:10PM
xkcd's Earth Temperature Timeline [xkcd.com] illustrates the issue very clearly.
[sig redacted]