Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[dvcochran]

I think it was the word “taming” (I’d probably choose “harnessing”) that threw me off.

Ah, the old semantics trap.

 

[Flying Crane]

You seem to be having an entirely different discussion than I am, DV. Several responses you've given don't seem to be related to the post you quote. You referred to taming nature, and I commented that it wasn't taming nature. In response you referred to Katrina, and I asked how that was related. So you posted a link explaining wave energy tech as if I'd asked what it was. So I asked again what that had to do with taming nature or hurricanes. Only then did you get around to explaining that you were saying the equipment would be at risk, as if that was something that wouldn't have been thought of.

Condescension (cookies on the low shelf) isn't pushing back. You can do better.

I’m not sure he can do better.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Ah, the old semantics trap.

Words have meanings. It's probably a good idea to make sure that what you say and what you mean match.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ah, the old semantics trap.

We fell into something I warn about when training on communication.

You think I heard what you said. I think you said what I heard. We might both be wrong.

 

[Flying Crane]

Thin skinned much? My position is what it always was. All the information from our discussion has been targeted at what we know with the short term information we have. I never, never said we should do nothing. I have said, repeatedly, what we do next is much more complex than you are willing to admit. It is irrational to think otherwise they way you are.

how do you know what any of us believe about the complexity of this? Nobody has put forth a comprehensive plan to fix anthropogenic climate change, so I don't see how you can in good faith, make such statements.

and since you keep fixating on the relatively short term during which climate data has been collected, what would you propose as the next course of action? Do you suggest we ought to collect data for another 50-100 years before we can consider implementing any mitigating policies? I am genuinely curious about this. I hope you can bring yourself to answer this question, unlike like the previous specific questions that were put to you by myself and a couple other members.

My business used to also deal with service calls and break downs. The call would come in something similar to "Ahh! the line is down! Sometimes this actually meant a real loss of over $10,000/minute just in material cost. My best trait, and what has made my business successful is I never panic. Dozens of people would literally be standing over me asking "when, when when, I never get emotional and just do the work. In high level meetings involving millions of dollars I never get emotional. I cannot or I may miss something. I learned early on that emotion and passion, while they have their place, can really get you in trouble, especially when you are unable to apply realism and understand everything that is influencing a problem.

how is this in any way remarkable? these are not special characteristics that you claim. Most people who are reasonably decent in their occupations can make similar claims. Do you believe that you are remarkable for this?

One consistent theme I see with the liberal mindset is that they often have never learned just because you want something doesn't mean you get it. You have to do the work.

why do you keep trying to turn this into a political debate? we are discussing anthropogenic climate change and you keep trying to turn it into a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. why do you keep doing that? and understand that political discussion is not allowed on Martialtalk. So why do you keep doing that?

 

[dvcochran]

Words have meanings. It's probably a good idea to make sure that what you say and what you mean match.

One of the realities of written communications. I feel certain I did say what I meant. Some people reading it obviously took it a different way. Perspective and all. Had the conversation taken place in person I sure if would have gone differently.

 

[hoshin1600]

Mmmmmm... no, I don't think so.
Government standards for fuel economy and safety were drastically increased, but since trucks, at the time, were considered work vehicles, many of the rules didn't apply, or were relaxed somewhat. In much the same way that things like seatbelt laws are not applied to school buses. So manufacturers started pushing trucks as every day drivers because they could make them cheaper and make more profit.
They didn't make trucks/SUVs because people loved them. They marketed the crap out of them and convinced people that they wanted them. CAFE standards, to this day, are far more lax when applied to the big trucks and SUVs that the manufacturers are, still, marketing the crap out of.

Have they leveled the standards for trucks and SUV's now that the consumer market is so much greater?

it is the difference in standards that is a major drive for GM to be eliminating their sedans in the coming years.

 

[hoshin1600]

i really hate the climate change debate. i personally am all for global warming. you see i live in an area of the world that has freezing temperatures more than half the year and a 50 or even a 40 degree winter would be wonderful.

but honestly the debate, in my view has a few flaws.

1. what is the optimal temperature for the planet?
2. we assume the optimal temperature is what we have now,, why ? wouldnt plant life and crops grow better if the planet had a little more carbon dioxide in the air and was a little warmer?
3. it is proven science that the climate has had fluxuations far greater then the fractional deviation we have seen in the last 50 years.
4. what model has been accurate in predicting the future deviation?....none
5. we have made the assumption that all hell will break loose if the global temperature increases a single degree. where is the scientific data that shows the impact of such an increase?

the issue as i see it is that i have yet to see actual scientific data and explanations to back up the claims made by the dooms day predictions. the bigger problem is that we do not have a single accurate model to forecast future deviation even for a short time and this unreliability magnifies as you move forward in time. (envision a plane in boston aimed at sanfrancisco ..one degree off course will end up in washington state) if you try to predict out 50 years the error compounded will make it impossible to measure any positive or negative effects of what we do today. without the ability to predict and measure, we cannot know if our actions for prevention is actually working. how are you going to solve a problem when you cant even measure the effects of your actions?
on top of all that China and India have over a billion people that are an emerging market. how are you going to convince them that they need to stay a third world country so you all can have your i-phones and SUV vehicles to drive to work each day and live in a heated and air conditioned home? the global fossil fuel demand is projected to be 40% higher in 2035 then it was in 2010. India and China are non-OEDC countries that will undoubtedly burn coal for their energy needs. anything we do in the US and UK will be like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i really hate the climate change debate. i personally am all for global warming. you see i live in an area of the world that has freezing temperatures more than half the year and a 50 or even a 40 degree winter would be wonderful.

but honestly the debate, in my view has a few flaws.

1. what is the optimal temperature for the planet?
2. we assume the optimal temperature is what we have now,, why ? wouldnt plant life and crops grow better if the planet had a little more carbon dioxide in the air and was a little warmer?
3. it is proven science that the climate has had fluxuations far greater then the fractional deviation we have seen in the last 50 years.
4. what model has been accurate in predicting the future deviation?....none
5. we have made the assumption that all hell will break loose if the global temperature increases a single degree. where is the scientific data that shows the impact of such an increase?

the issue as i see it is that i have yet to see actual scientific data and explanations to back up the claims made by the dooms day predictions. the bigger problem is that we do not have a single accurate model to forecast future deviation even for a short time and this unreliability magnifies as you move forward in time. (envision a plane in boston aimed at sanfrancisco ..one degree off course will end up in washington state) if you try to predict out 50 years the error compounded will make it impossible to measure any positive or negative effects of what we do today. without the ability to predict and measure, we cannot know if our actions for prevention is actually working. how are you going to solve a problem when you cant even measure the effects of your actions?
on top of all that China and India have over a billion people that are an emerging market. how are you going to convince them that they need to stay a third world country so you all can have your i-phones and SUV vehicles to drive to work each day and live in a heated and air conditioned home? the global fossil fuel demand is projected to be 40% higher in 2035 then it was in 2010. India and China are non-OEDC countries that will undoubtedly burn coal for their energy needs. anything we do in the US and UK will be like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon.

There is no "optimal temperature" for the planet. For existing species, however, there's an optimal range. Species need time to change and adapt. Every species has either adapted to the climate in its location, or has migrated to a climate that matches its needs (the latter is very rare). It takes thousands of years for species to adapt to changes. So the issue is the speed of the changes we're experiencing.

And no, it's not impossible to predict with some realistic accuracy. The precision is low, but we know some things that will have impact in the necessary direction. There are complex models that have proven predictive capability for the complex system in question.

There are real questions about how to convince others to participate. But that's not a reasonable argument for not trying to solve the issue. There's a very real risk of mass extinctions, which would affect (and ultimately could potentially include) humans. We can't dismiss solutions because we think others won''t like them - we have to find solutions (there won't be one, but many) and work toward implementation where we can, while we work to make it feasible for others. It almost certainly requires some changes in first-world countries. We (US and Europe, especially the former) are higher consumers per capita by far than any second-world country. So real changes on our part, though it's a smaller population, actually has a real impact.

 

[Flying Crane]

There is no "optimal temperature" for the planet. For existing species, however, there's an optimal range. Species need time to change and adapt. Every species has either adapted to the climate in its location, or has migrated to a climate that matches its needs (the latter is very rare). It takes thousands of years for species to adapt to changes. So the issue is the speed of the changes we're experiencing.

And no, it's not impossible to predict with some realistic accuracy. The precision is low, but we know some things that will have impact in the necessary direction. There are complex models that have proven predictive capability for the complex system in question.

There are real questions about how to convince others to participate. But that's not a reasonable argument for not trying to solve the issue. There's a very real risk of mass extinctions, which would affect (and ultimately could potentially include) humans. We can't dismiss solutions because we think others won''t like them - we have to find solutions (there won't be one, but many) and work toward implementation where we can, while we work to make it feasible for others. It almost certainly requires some changes in first-world countries. We (US and Europe, especially the former) are higher consumers per capita by far than any second-world country. So real changes on our part, though it's a smaller population, actually has a real impact.

Yeah, and some things are a no-brainers, like improving gas mileage in cars, and increasing use of renewable energy sources and reducing to (ideally) eliminating use of fossil fuels. There is no scenario to suggest those would not be good ideas.

 

[dvcochran]

it is the difference in standards that is a major drive for GM to be eliminating their sedans in the coming years.

I sounds like there is potential for GM to eliminate everything in the coming years. It would be very sad to see it happen.

 

[elder999]

Bumping this up as well, because @dvcochran likely doesn't have an answer that will satisfy me, particularly since this was the happier part of my field....

Three whole pages later, and still no reply.....not a "semantic trap,"..........
......just a lack of factual data one.

 

[hoshin1600]

There's a very real risk of mass extinctions, which would affect (and ultimately could potentially include) humans.

i think thats a bit of a stretch for a 1 dg F change globally over a 100 year time period.

There are real questions about how to convince others to participate. But that's not a reasonable argument for not trying to solve the issue.

its not so much about convincing as it is about magnitude. its a very complex subject matter and i really dont think many people can grasp the size of it. (which btw is the reason politicians can hijack the conversation and use it for their ulterior motives) people will suggest as has been done here in the thread that we "cut back" on our usage or use alternate sources. that is not going to work. here is a good challenge, for those who subscribe to this ....you care about climate change? turn your computer off and stop using it, stop using your cell phone, microwave oven, the heat or AC in your home are you going to stop traveling to work every day??? No , no one will do that. now think about the BILLIONS of people who are living in impoverished countries. they are not going to stop trying to feed their families and not dying. which BTW is a real problem, the average life expectancy in poor countries is in their 50"s and we are talking about BILLIONS of people that are increasing the demand. add to that the increase in population that will grow to 9.7 billion people by 2050. i mean just to keep up with the increased demand in the US over the next 30 years we would need a solar panel the size of the state of Montana. the Ford motor company has projected automobile sales over the next 50 years in the US to hit levels that will be unmanagable for our current infrastructure of road systems.
as a global problem we have gone past the point of critical mass and the increase cannot be balanced by "conservation".

And no, it's not impossible to predict with some realistic accuracy. The precision is low, but we know some things that will have impact in the necessary direction. There are complex models that have proven predictive capability for the complex system in question.

we will have to disagree on this one. while politicians would like to say "the science is in" every source i have looked at says the models do not work. perhaps its getting better or perhaps there are "corrections" I.E fudging the figures to get the data to show what they need to show in order to get their funding next year.
science with Governmental intervention is not science.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i think thats a bit of a stretch for a 1 dg F change globally over a 100 year time period.

Not really. There's ample evidence the rate of change is increasing. A change of a couple of degrees rapidly alters the rate of melting, which drastically alters some parts of the ecosystem. It's also altering weather patterns and generating more severe extremes. The actual number seems small, but that's only a tiny part of what's happening. To be specific with the number helps, though. It's a bit more than 1.33 degrees (as of 2008), and more than half of that (.72 degrees) has been since 1970 (again, as of 2008, so 60% of the change in 40% of the time).

This graph makes it easier to see how it's accelerated:

its not so much about convincing as it is about magnitude. its a very complex subject matter and i really dont think many people can grasp the size of it. (which btw is the reason politicians can hijack the conversation and use it for their ulterior motives) people will suggest as has been done here in the thread that we "cut back" on our usage or use alternate sources. that is not going to work. here is a good challenge, for those who subscribe to this ....you care about climate change? turn your computer off and stop using it, stop using your cell phone, microwave oven, the heat or AC in your home are you going to stop traveling to work every day??? No , no one will do that. now think about the BILLIONS of people who are living in impoverished countries. they are not going to stop trying to feed their families and not dying. which BTW is a real problem, the average life expectancy in poor countries is in their 50"s and we are talking about BILLIONS of people that are increasing the demand. add to that the increase in population that will grow to 9.7 billion people by 2050. i mean just to keep up with the increased demand in the US over the next 30 years we would need a solar panel the size of the state of Montana. the Ford motor company has projected automobile sales over the next 50 years in the US to hit levels that will be unmanagable for our current infrastructure of road systems.
as a global problem we have gone past the point of critical mass and the increase cannot be balanced by "conservation".

While you are correct about the magnitude and complexity of the issue, conservation is absolutely part of the solution. And it's one part we can begin immediately - it doesn't take much engineering to start some parts of this. We don't need a complete solution before we start - indeed, we cannot afford to wait for anything approaching a complete solution. If we slow the rate of acceleration, we buy a little time. If we slow the actual rate of change, we buy more. What we're buying time for is finding a complex set of actions that will - as a whole - lead to a solution.

we will have to disagree on this one. while politicians would like to say "the science is in" every source i have looked at says the models do not work. perhaps its getting better or perhaps there are "corrections" I.E fudging the figures to get the data to show what they need to show in order to get their funding next year.
science with Governmental intervention is not science.

The models do not give precise answers. But the models have made predictions that are quite correct, though the precision was off. They predicted the acceleration of ice/snow melt. That has occurred, though faster than expected. They predicted the increased storm activity, which has actually been (as I understand it) about what they predicted. Are there areas they cannot yet predict? Yes. But the major predictions appear to mostly be going in the right direction, though with less precision than we'd like. That does present a complication: we can't yet accurately predict the magnitude of impact from various approaches to solving the problem. If anything, that argues for taking action more quickly, so we can start to get better input (the short-term results of some of those actions) to improve understanding and, thereby, the models.

 

[elder999]

. There have been way too many documented stories of wasted millions during the Obama administration and the green energy movement..

NAME TWO!!

 

[Flying Crane]

Scientists who have actual integrity will always concede that there are parts of the issue that are not fully understood. This is the nature of science: it is a process of discovery and understanding.

People who have an agenda to push or who simply lack integrity like to take a hold of that admitted uncertainty and inflate it and twist it into a message that the science is uncertain. This is a blatant lie, it is the opposite of what the scientists have been telling us for decades now.

The science is in. Anthropogenic climate change is real and it is already causing expensive and catastrophic changes in our climate. Every new layer of understanding that we gain shows it to be worse than we previously thought. We are already living the reality of it in the manifestations of more extreme weather patterns and it will continue to get worse, and the rate of deterioration is accelerating. The science around this is overwhelmingly accepted, within the scientific community.

The complexity of the issue in terms of how or if it can be fixed is another matter. Yes it is vastly complex. Yes it will be terribly expensive. But as l stated earlier, climate change will not stop just because we object to how expensive it is, or how complicated it will be to correct it. And again, how expensive and complicated will it be to move every coastal city in the world farther inland when the begin to become submerged? That ain’t gonna be cheap.

Whether or not we have already crossed a point-of-no-return, I don’t know but I too suspect it may be possible. However, I don’t see that as a reason to throw up our hands and decide to do nothing about it.

 

[Flying Crane]

i think thats a bit of a stretch for a 1 dg F change globally over a 100 year time period.


its not so much about convincing as it is about magnitude. its a very complex subject matter and i really dont think many people can grasp the size of it. (which btw is the reason politicians can hijack the conversation and use it for their ulterior motives) people will suggest as has been done here in the thread that we "cut back" on our usage or use alternate sources. that is not going to work. here is a good challenge, for those who subscribe to this ....you care about climate change? turn your computer off and stop using it, stop using your cell phone, microwave oven, the heat or AC in your home are you going to stop traveling to work every day??? No , no one will do that. now think about the BILLIONS of people who are living in impoverished countries. they are not going to stop trying to feed their families and not dying. which BTW is a real problem, the average life expectancy in poor countries is in their 50"s and we are talking about BILLIONS of people that are increasing the demand. add to that the increase in population that will grow to 9.7 billion people by 2050. i mean just to keep up with the increased demand in the US over the next 30 years we would need a solar panel the size of the state of Montana. the Ford motor company has projected automobile sales over the next 50 years in the US to hit levels that will be unmanagable for our current infrastructure of road systems.
as a global problem we have gone past the point of critical mass and the increase cannot be balanced by "conservation".


we will have to disagree on this one. while politicians would like to say "the science is in" every source i have looked at says the models do not work. perhaps its getting better or perhaps there are "corrections" I.E fudging the figures to get the data to show what they need to show in order to get their funding next year.
science with Governmental intervention is not science.

We are not talking about one degree Fahrenheit. We are talking more like 3-6 degrees Celsius. That is an average global increase, which can manifest as much more extreme than that in various locations. In some places the average temp may actually drop, while in others it may go up significantly beyond the average change. This is climate change. It does not mean that everywhere just gets a little bit warmer. It means that we see more extremes.

This is plenty of change to cause serious disruptions in regions all over the globe. On such a quick timescale, the species of plants, animals, and microbes that have been accustomed to live in a particular region are unable to adapt nor relocate. So they die.

And humans are part of that web. We absolutely will be affected by it. We will suffer for it, as a species.

 

[hoshin1600]

We are not talking about one degree Fahrenheit. We are talking more like 3-6 degrees Celsius.

ok so what your saying is that the global temp increased 3.0 to 6.0 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years? am i understanding that correctly?

 

[Flying Crane]

ok so what your saying is that the global temp increased 3.0 to 6.0 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years? am i understanding that correctly?

No, I’m saying it is projected to make that change in the next century or so. I’ll look up some figures to double-check that.

If I recall, it seems the Paris climate accord was hoping to hold it to about 2-3 Celsius, but I think that is seen as unlikely.

 

[Flying Crane]

ok so what your saying is that the global temp increased 3.0 to 6.0 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years? am i understanding that correctly?

to better answer your questions, here is some information from NOAA: Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

some pertinent portions taken from that website:

first, to your point of one degree Fahrenheit in the last century, NOAA says:

Change over time
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. Since 1901, the planet’s surface has warmed by 0.7–0.9° Celsius (1.3–1.6° Fahrenheit) per century, but the rate of warming has nearly doubled since 1975 to 1.5–1.8° Celsius (2.7–3.2° Fahrenheit) per century, according to the international State of the Climate in 2017 report.

as far as predicting the average temperature increase in the next century, NOAA says (bolded by me):

By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows. This similarity in temperatures regardless of total emissions is a short-term phenomenon: it reflects the tremendous inertia of Earth's vast oceans. The high heat capacity of water means that ocean temperature doesn't react instantly to the increased heat being trapped by greenhouse gases. By 2030, however, the heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases begins to overcome the oceans' thermal inertia, and projected temperature pathways begin to diverge, with unchecked carbon dioxide emissions likely leading to several additional degrees of warming by the end of the century.

and keep in mind, when they are talking about degrees, they mean degrees Celsius, not degrees Fahrenheit. One degree Celsius is 9/5 of one degree Fahrenheit. So an increase in one degree Celsius is nearly double the increase in one degree Fahrenheit. so the way I read this is that by 2020 we can expect an increase of 0.5 degree C over the 1986-2005 average, but by the end of the century it could be "several additional degrees of warming" which is where I came up with 3-6 degrees Celsius. It could be more, as "several" is somewhat open to interpretation.

another interesting piece from the NOAA website:

From 1900 to 1980 a new temperature record was set on average every 13.5 years; however, since 1981 it has increased to every 3 years.

I hope this information is useful. I recommend reading the full content of the web page for a more complete understanding. I simply grabbed the bits that spoke most directly to the particular issue of the rate of average global temperature increase for the past century, as well as for the projected next century.