Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"  (Read 384518 times)

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #150 on: August 23, 2013, 12:34:43 AM »
JimD, thanks for your clear explanation of wbt. It is true that currently it is very rare that wbt exceeds 30 C. But that is just the point. We are moving into a different planet where such wbt's will become more and more common. When you point out, "We just won't live places that get like that in the future or we take the AC with us." That is certainly true by definition. But people will likely be dying in "places that get like that." In droves.

Note again that the locations predicted to reach these levels first include:

Eastern China (where nearly all the people live)
Most of India and Pakistan
Eastern US
Most of MENA
Much of south Europe
West Africa
Much of South America

And the many of the places where wbt is not this high will be extremely dry and will not be supporting much life of any sort.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #151 on: August 23, 2013, 12:49:58 AM »
JimD....

I think we are more in agreement than not. Surely the U.S. is better positioned than most to survive the failure of capitalism. There is no doubt we are food self sufficient and can remain a food exporter. We might even export food to Canada if they play nice.

Suffering, however, from the collapse of capitalism is a relative thing. For Americans, accustomed to the most affluent living in the world (our poor are better off than much of the rest of the world), we will witness a far faster and more profound shift in the quality of life. In fact the very nature, the details of daily life will transform dramatically. Suffering is in the eye of the beholder.

For the 10 million, primarily indigenous population of Bolivia with an infant mortality rate of 39/1000, a life expectancy of 65 years, a per capita income of $2600 and a GDP growth rate in 2012 of 0%, life will be as it always was, short, nasty and brutish. For the agricultural worker in the high Andes, life will shift imperceptibly. They will still go out daily and tend the potato fields.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 01:00:15 AM by Shared Humanity »

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #152 on: August 23, 2013, 01:16:20 AM »
One could make the case that for some 3rd world nations which often depend on food exports for exchange, driving a focus on mono-culture (coffee in Columbia) at the expense of local food needs, the diet of the local population may improve.

One of the fastest growing exports from Bolivia is organic quinoa as western consumers, primarily Americans, buy insatiable amounts due to the beneficial health effects. There have been studies documenting the impact on the health of Bolivians as they are priced out of the quinoa market. With the collapse of capitalism, that quinoa will revert back to be a main source of protein for Bolivians.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #153 on: August 23, 2013, 01:22:40 AM »
Wili

That's all true enough, but we have to keep the caveats and timeframes in mind as well.   The when it happens and for how long it happens makes a big difference.  Does it happen only on rare occasions for a limited number of hours or does it happen every day for 10 hours?  Do the people there have access to AC or not?  Even in places which have no AC one could survive via some clever adaptations as long as the duration of the high wet-bulb temperatures were not too long or frequent. 

What year in the future do we anticipate this happening.  If my memory of Dr. Hansen's paper on this issue is correct we are talking about this starting to happen when average global temperatures have gone up like 6 C.  He was talking about this happening when we had burnt most all of the fossil fuels was he not?

Your Purdue link indicates the wet-bulb issue will not manifest itself until temperatures have risen 12 F (6.7 C) so that is in line with Hansen.  Note the IPCC assuming BAU says we hit +7F in 2100.  When does 12 F happen?  And at that temperature we are still only talking about selected vulnerable areas.  It takes +21 F to get to all the places you listed.  If that even happens it would be a couple of centuries from now assuming no collapse and continued BAU.  If you think collapse and the big die-off are happening this century then the above will not happen.

Before we get to +7 F and a long time before we see 12 F I think we are far into collapse and the big die-off.  Our population could easily be down to 1-2 billion before we see the 12 F.  In that case I expect we could avoid those areas or as long as we were not one of the ones living there we would not care.  And the +21 F probably would never happen.

Note:  Guy McPherson is NOT a credible climate scientist.  He is not even a climate scientist.  Though I admit reading his stuff occasionally I do not accept anything he says as valid.  If I think it might be I go look it up via original sources.  I have found McPherson to be wildly inaccurate in his interpretations of other's work too many times to trust him on anything.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #154 on: August 23, 2013, 01:40:29 AM »
SH

....
Suffering, however, from the collapse of capitalism is a relative thing. For Americans, accustomed to the most affluent living in the world (our poor are better off than much of the rest of the world), we will witness a far faster and more profound shift in the quality of life. In fact the very nature, the details of daily life will transform dramatically. Suffering is in the eye of the beholder......

To be sure there will be a tough transition period for many Americans.  But I do not subscribe to the view that because of our relative affluence we are all a bunch of softies who will roll over when harder times come.  I have known too many Americans who are hard as nails tough or who can be vicious at the drop of a hat to think that.  (After all a lot of people in the world think we are a bunch of nasty a**holes)  People adapt quickly to changing circumstances and painful stress.  People everywhere are fundamentally alike.

I think perhaps the people in the world who will have the longest road to travel from affluence to our future world are the Northern Europeans.  While in America the poor, working class and, increasingly, the middle class are used to not being looked out for and being taken advantage of, the Europeans are just the opposite.  Their comprehensive social systems have protected them a lot more than we see in the US and when it all breaks down I expect it will be harder on them than us in the US.  But one's MMV on that opinion considering their behaviors in the 20th century.  I am sure they can adapt too. 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

deep octopus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #155 on: August 23, 2013, 01:44:15 AM »
Our future will challenge us to come to terms with what we value as individuals versus what we value as a society. As a society, one trend in cities across the U.S. has been and will likely continue to be that of a more urban, walkable, denser landscape of communities. This is appearing in the Washington metropolitan area, for instance, where traditionally car-dependent suburbs in Virginia and Maryland are retrofitting to allow for wider sidewalks, proximity to transit, diverse transit options, and an expansion of bike routes and bike lanes in urban areas. It's interesting to look at areas like Arlington, Virginia, and see how much it has evolved to a point where car traffic has declined dramatically and streets are converted to pedestrian paths, and the price for parking is set higher to encourage foot traffic. I don't mean to talk about it as a piecemeal attempt at climate change mitigation or reversal, but more just what I see as anecdotal evidence and hope will be part of a zeitgeist for 21st century.

In a way, progress can paradoxically mean looking to the past in the sense that we are accepting ourselves on a more minimal scale that is aware of our human body as we were evolved. In other words, more essentials, less excess: biking, walking, and socializing in close urban settings harken to our evolutionary past better than the culture that turns us passive consumers. Part of mitigation will mean reducing dependency. By taking a more minimal approach to living, we stress creation more than consumption. Creating allows us to exercise our internal locus, which makes us less dependent on external factors. Gardening, do-it-yourself projects, and taking energy off the grid are ideal norms, but maybe not something to everyone's capability. And even gardening, while supplemental, is hardly enough for subsistence. Community gardening is better. Yet, the kind of industrial agriculture that requires thousands of miles of travel, releasing massive carbon emissions, is just one substantial component of consumption in need of a paradigm shift. Taking a more thoughtful approach to consumption is my primary plead. Lower carbon emissions is absolutely essential; the mindset of consumption itself of things made in places we never learn by people whose names we don't know or whose livelihoods for whom we face no apparent consequences will have to change. Localizing consumption. As much as climate change is a problem of emissions, it is also in tandem with the environmental constraints that come with thoughtless consumption: overfishing, extraction of precious and rare metals in places where human rights aren't valued, palm oil in rainforests, deforestation for paper and furniture, etc.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #156 on: August 23, 2013, 05:53:16 AM »
JD wrote: "IPCC assuming BAU says we hit +7F in 2100."

The IPCC is notoriously conservative. Many other informed individuals and institutions are talking about at least 6 degrees C by at least 2100 under BAU. And if feedbacks kick in with the kind of ferocity that they seem to be kicking in, it could be that it will come faster than that.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #157 on: August 23, 2013, 04:57:14 PM »
SH

....
Suffering, however, from the collapse of capitalism is a relative thing. For Americans, accustomed to the most affluent living in the world (our poor are better off than much of the rest of the world), we will witness a far faster and more profound shift in the quality of life. In fact the very nature, the details of daily life will transform dramatically. Suffering is in the eye of the beholder......

To be sure there will be a tough transition period for many Americans.  But I do not subscribe to the view that because of our relative affluence we are all a bunch of softies who will roll over when harder times come.  I have known too many Americans who are hard as nails tough or who can be vicious at the drop of a hat to think that.  (After all a lot of people in the world think we are a bunch of nasty a**holes)  People adapt quickly to changing circumstances and painful stress.

I believe Americans, in fact, demonstrate a strength and resilience that no other developed country does. We have remade our economy several times since World War II. Companies, entire industries (steel, consumer electronics) have disappeared with entirely new industries taking their place.

This is not my point. My essential point is that countries like Bolivia will simply not be required to adapt as much. Being only marginally integrated with capitalism, the profound disruption that is likely to occur will simply not seriously impact a large majority of the citizens and what impacts occur will not be so fundamental to their daily lives.  More than 50% of Bolivia's population is rural, most employed directly in farming, various cottage industries and support services. Bolivia imports only 7% of its food while farm products represent their largest export, dwarfing food imports. The only other major exports are minerals, tin and lithium being the largest. This supports a mining industry that does employ a lot of Bolivians. It is ironic that a collapse or serious reduction of this trade will actually have the effect of eliminating the largest sources of environmental degradation.

The U.S. (any other developed country as well) is much more dependent on a fully functioning system of capitalism to maintain our current life style. The U.S. will certainly succeed in adapting to the changes but the amount of change required will fundamentally impact Americans daily life and leave an economy that, in some respects, will not be recognizable when compared to the economy of the last 70 years. Why 70 years? Post WWII has had the most rapid development of the world wide capitalistic system. World trade has expanded exponentially. Much of this will simply disappear. Another irony is that the significant reduction in world trade (critical items such as energy will remain intact) will have the effect of accelerating environmental degradation in the U.S. as we try to maintain our current lifestyle and the economy that supports it. The growth in world trade has allowed the U.S. to export much of the deleterious effects on the environment. Many of these will return home.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 05:15:36 PM by Shared Humanity »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25902
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #158 on: August 23, 2013, 05:02:46 PM »
John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli on why climate change seems to be humanity’s greatest-ever risk management failure.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25902
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #159 on: August 23, 2013, 05:06:24 PM »
And the New York Times opines on this generation’s Denial of Science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #160 on: August 23, 2013, 05:39:49 PM »
John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli on why climate change seems to be humanity’s greatest-ever risk management failure.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure

Nice article. Is it simply that we have not yet developed a sense of the personal impact of global warming and this causes us to downplay the risk? If I think the personal impact will be severe, I would buy insurance for my house but I am unwilling to buy flood insurance for that fool who has built on the flood plain.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #161 on: August 23, 2013, 06:27:12 PM »
JD wrote: "IPCC assuming BAU says we hit +7F in 2100."

The IPCC is notoriously conservative. Many other informed individuals and institutions are talking about at least 6 degrees C by at least 2100 under BAU. And if feedbacks kick in with the kind of ferocity that they seem to be kicking in, it could be that it will come faster than that.

Wili I am going to challenge you on your numbers.  Please provide links to credible studies and climate scientists who say that the minimum rise is 6 C by 2100.  I just spent some time reviewing the subject and am unable to find anyone among the generally recognized experts or prestigious institutions who are making statements that agree with your +6C by 2100 number.

Note also my point about collapse and quick population reductions.  If those events occur in roughly the timeframe we have been discussing they will be a big negative feedback on temperature rise projections due to a big drop in emissions which would likely accompany such events.

Could you also describe exactly which feedbacks you are referring to below?

Quote
And if feedbacks kick in with the kind of ferocity that they seem to be kicking in, it could be that it will come faster than that.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #162 on: August 23, 2013, 06:57:19 PM »
I don't have lot's of time right now. I thought these were common knowledge now. Check out Fatih Birol (head of International Energy Agency), James Hansen, Kevin Anderson (head of Tyndall Center), PriceWaterhouseCooper, recent MIT studies...I could probably track down some others if I had a bit more time today.

Here's a video of Anderson:

This guys a just a blogger, but a good one, very informed, and all claims on this short video are back up on his web site:

For feedbacks, I was thinking primarily of carbon feedbacks like permafrost and subsea clathrates and free methane. But there are lots of others that I could go into in excruciating detail at a later time if you wish.

Few models include carbon feedbacks. For one rare exception, see McDougal et alia http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html (see especially the first graph in the third figure that basically says that even if we immediately halted all further carbon emissions, atmospheric CO2 levels would remain at their current high levels for at least two centuries.)

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

domen_

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #163 on: August 23, 2013, 07:08:48 PM »
wili, depends on the date you're talking about: 2100 or 2300 (or so). It's true 6°C is well within reach by 2300 in many scenarios, but not so for 2100.

For IPCC, 6°C is on the very high end of uncertainty of A1FI and A2 until 2100.


A2 scenario 2.0 – 5.4
A1FI scenario 2.4 – 6.4
(1980-1999 baseline)
Fourth assesment report (page 24/1007 in pdf)

Note that our emission pathway is currently above A1FI and A2 scenario (not much though), but despite this, 6°C is still on the very upper end of uncertainty.

I think that currently we are on A1FI scenario (FI stands for fossil intensive). Fossil fuel use is still on the increase and doesn't seem to be stopping anywhere in the near future.

Sorry for being a little bit off topic.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #164 on: August 23, 2013, 07:13:13 PM »
Notice the date on your graph: 2007. And IPCC is drawn from a collection of date from previous years, so really, it's even more out of day--about ten years out of date. In the fast developing science of GW, that is and eternity. (And, again, even for that time, the IPCC was notoriously concervative.) That was before, for example, the Arctic showed clearly and unambiguously that it was in a very precipitous death spiral.

But, yes, we are indeed on A1 Fossil Intensive path. That is the main thing we should focus on, the main thing we need to change, whether the future it portends in the coming decades is absolutely catastrophic or merely catastrophic.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #165 on: August 23, 2013, 10:42:19 PM »
Wili

Quote
...I thought these were common knowledge now...

I would say definitely not.

I have checked most of the sources you listed and others.  That is why I asked for specific links as I don't think there are any credible sources for your number.  I think you may want to go back and research this subject again.  By the way, Dave Roberts is a blogger as you say, a very good one, but his education is an MA in Philosophy and his high tech experience was spending a few years working for dot.com companies in Seattle.  Then he became a journalist.  So, he is not by any definition an expert in climate science.  He is a reporter.

But if you go to the work of Hansen and other reputable climate scientists I don't think you can find numbers which fit what you wrote.  I am not trying to be a hard-ass but you need to indicate that your numbers are opinions of yours and not to attribute them to the climate scientists.  Sort of like my opinions on collapse and population reduction.  It is just speculation, not science.  Still is interesting though.

The methane/carbon feedbacks you mention are also just speculation as we know from all the discussions on methane hydrates/clathrates, emissions from the ESAS, the tundra and such.  There has not yet been a rapidly accelerating rise in emissions from these locations and exactly when such rapidly rising emissions are going to happen is still unknown.  There is no scientific consensus on this subject and not much data.  The MOST knowledgeable experts in the area are indicating that there is no reason they can think of that there will be huge massive releases of methane into the atmosphere for at least many decades.  I know there are lots of passionate postings on this subject here on the Forum and elsewhere and I am not trying to pick a fight about what people find really interesting.  I don't have an opinion on what is going to happen either way.  But I also recognize that they are speculating and have read enough to know that the experts do not agree with them.

 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #166 on: August 23, 2013, 11:41:57 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change

Quote
Anderson's presentation demonstrates reasons why a temperature rise of 4°C by 2060 is a likely outcome, given the record to date of action on climate, economic realities, and short window of time remaining for limiting the average surface temperature rise to 2°C or even 3°C. He also states that a 4°C rise would likely be an unstable state, leading to further increases in following decades regardless of mitigation measures that may be taken.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming

Quote
The problem is that our current global emissions trajectory already commits us to a 2C rise anyway. Papers published by the Royal Society in 2011 showed that emissions pledges would still put the world on track for warming anywhere between 2.5C and 5C - and that a failure to deliver these pledges could see global temperatures rise by 7C by 2100. Amongst them, a Met Office study concluded that strong amplifying feedbacks - such as the oceans' reduced ability to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide leading to further warming - could see us reach 4C as early as 2060.

But as Hansen explained in a recent interview:

    "Four degrees of warming would be enough to melt all the ice... you would have a tremendously chaotic situation as you moved away from our current climate towards another one. That's a different planet. You wouldn't recognise it... We are on the verge of creating climate chaos if we don't begin to reduce emissions rapidly."

After the last round of climate talks in Doha, a report by Climate Action Tracker concluded that the world is currently on path to see warming of 3C by 2040, triggering the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic permafrost.

This was corroborated last month by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which found that even with current climate policies in place, we are locked into a rise of between 2C and 5.3C. Two years ago, the IEA concluded that we had five years left to implement urgent energy reforms after which we would no longer be able to avoid dangerous climate change. We are now three years away from that point-of-no-return.

To make matters worse, the IEA's analysis is based on conventional models which do not fully account for amplifying feedbacks such as methane releases from permafrost thawing. The IPCC's forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, like its predecessors, will specifically exclude the permafrost carbon feedback from its projections.


http://www.iea.org/publications/worldenergyoutlook/pressmedia/quotes/7/

“With current policies in place, global temperatures are set to increase 6 degrees Celsius, which has catastrophic implications,” IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol

http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/energy-carbon-management/resources/world-heading-six-degrees-warming-says-pwc/

World heading for six degrees of warming, says PwC



These only took me a few minutes to track down, so presumably you could have easily found them yourself. But you seem to be committed to a "luke warmer" position, so far be it from me to dislodge you from that idee fixe; no amount of evidence is likely to convince you that these temperatures are possibility within this century--you'll surely find some reason to dislike this author, that organization, or the other website. I'll try not to disturb your world view any further with troublesome facts.

ETA: I'm glad we can at least agree on the (obvious) fact that David Roberts is a blogger (though currently on temporary hiatus). But, as I said, he backs up his claims with cited references on his blog. Here is the annotated version of his talk:

http://grist.org/climate-change/climate-change-is-simple-we-do-something-or-were-screwed/

I don't even know where to start with "carbon feedbacks are just speculation." Yes, there is some debate about exactly how rapidly seabed sources of carbon would be released, but, afaiks, it is pretty well established that terrestrial permafrost is melting and will soon become a net source of atmospheric carbon, if it hasn't already. Did you even look at the McDougal paper?

(Probably best not to bring up the whole clathrate thing, which would get us even more off topic, but let me just point out that you seem to have conveniently omitted scientists that have been working in the field for over a decade, such as Wadhams, Mann, Shakhova and Semiletov from your list of "MOST knowledgeble experts" in the field.)



« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 12:08:18 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25902
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #167 on: August 24, 2013, 12:46:55 AM »
John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli on why climate change seems to be humanity’s greatest-ever risk management failure.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure

Nice article. Is it simply that we have not yet developed a sense of the personal impact of global warming and this causes us to downplay the risk? If I think the personal impact will be severe, I would buy insurance for my house but I am unwilling to buy flood insurance for that fool who has built on the flood plain.

Shared Humanity,

I think it may be mostly a “guilt” thing that prevents us from seeing the danger: “If I acknowledge global warming is human-caused, then I also have to admit I’m part of the problem and I really shouldn’t have my big house and my SUV and my comfy lifestyle with all the gas and electric appliances.  But I couldn’t possibly do without them right now!  Maybe later.”

We can do the little things -- recycle, switch lightbulbs, get a smarter thermostat, buy renewable-energy offsets, and use cloth shopping bags -- to feel a better about ourselves, until we see other people doing more.   

Also, the local media, and government, and NGO’s must take the risk seriously, and advertise that they do, so the risk feels up close and personal, rather than “somewhere else.”


We need to see the danger, and we need a strong, national/global motivation to make the sacrifices.  Too bad there’s no competition or prize for the most reduced carbon emissions, or the best coastal remediation.  We’d be good at that.

Perhaps also it’s because, rather than positive “wins,” climate change action seems to promise only “less bad losses.”  Doesn’t exactly energize the psyche, unless you're in immediate danger.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Vergent

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #168 on: August 24, 2013, 12:57:49 AM »
Quote
The methane/carbon feedbacks you mention are also just speculation



Jim,

We have 800,000 years if ice core showing a lock step between CO2, CH4, and temperature. Are you really saying this was just a coincidence? Or were you simply ignorant of the ice core data? Temperature rises, clathrates melt, CO2 and CH4 rise, temperature rises more. It's a feedback cycle with a 800,000 year history.

It's about as speculative as the "the sun will rise in the east theory" We only have a 5,000 year record of that. There are some people that think this sunrise thing is only 6,000 years old. They tend to ignore paleontology. Hmmm.

Vergent

 


domen_

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #169 on: August 24, 2013, 01:03:54 AM »
Methane clathrates is not the same phenomena as permafrost melting.

One should be clear when he's talking about feedbacks, there are a whole bunch of them.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #170 on: August 24, 2013, 01:54:47 AM »
"feedbacks, there are a whole bunch of them."

Yeah, ya think?

Here's a partial, abbreviated version of a list I have been collecting for a while. I have (often several) references at hand for most of them in the long version. Some of course are more certain than others. But together they make up a rather frightening sum, especially considering that each one reinforces all of the others, as well as itself:

“Positive”--exacerbating

charney = “fast” feedbacks:
--albedo change with loss of land and sea ice and snow (stops when all snow and ice gone)
--water vapor
--cloud (both ways?)
--“lapse rate”

non-charney “slow” feedbacks:
   carbon feedbacks
--forests, grasslands, peat dry up and burn/die>CO2
--“  “    get bugs/diseases, die>termites>methane; die>burn
--soils, already weakened from above, wash away with increasingly extreme downpours, leaving no medium for plant that could absorb CO2 to grow
--terrestrial soils dry up>CO2 methane “If the bank of carbon held in the world’s soils were to drop by just 0.3 percent, the release would equal a year’s worth of fossil fuel emissions”
--permafrost melts—release CO2&methane from new bacterial activity/ free methane from deeper reservoirs, starts to (net) release rather than absorb (sink) C
--melting Greenland and Antarctic icecap uncovers same
--feedback combo: Each extreme weather event leads to less CO2 absorption, leads to more warming, leads to more extreme weather events, leads to....
--sea bed permafrost, clathrates, free methane
--sea surface increased activity of methanogens
--newly flooded areas from sea level rise become new swamps—more methane
--as atmospheric humidity increases with global warming, the amount of high troposphere ice particles will increase, and as these ice particles generally serve to reduce the rate of methane oxidation; this implies that with increasing global warming, the global warming potential, GWP, of the methane in the atmosphere over the Antarctic will increase.
--Rising CO2 In Atmosphere Also Speeds Carbon Loss From Forest Soils
--newly ice-free Arctic ocean erodes islands and coastlines releasing carbon in soils
--warming ice encourages dark cryophilic bacteria which alters albedo
--Trees excude CO2 rather than taking it in
--Sudden switch from a three cell NoHem system to a one cell system because of loss of temp differential between equator and No Pole. One cell will transport heat from equator to pole much more efficiently.
-- Stripping of Oxygen from the Oceans


   Other:

--drought, an expected outcome of GW, can increase intensity of heatwaves
--end of change of state--when all ice gone in a region, no more heat sucked up by its melting
--newly open Arctic Ocean evaporates more H2O (a GHG) (but open ocean can also absorb more CO2)
--warmer ocean absorbs less CO2
--warmer oceans kill phytoplankton that otherwise sequester CO2
--melting permafrost releases NOX
--accelerating albedo shift with black carbon (soot) concentrating on surface as melt goes on
--accelerating albedo shift with more trees growing in the tundra; now happening faster than once thought, since many ‘shrubs’ native to and widespread throughout the tundra grow into trees as conditions warm
--uplift from isostatic rebound as Gr icesheet melts changes angle to greater slope down which ice slides faster
--similar activity could cause local earthquakes which may increase collapse of fragile ice
--Loss of GIS accelerating as highest areas melt down to lower, warmer areas, not only increasing sea level (see above), but also hastening the time when there will be no more ice cap to absorb hundreds of quintillions of joules of energy as it melts (see above)
--More wild fires also means more soot in the air which further changes albedo of ice and snow, leading further to the effects mentioned immediately above
-- Bigger storms from GW cause updrafts to carry moisture all the way into the stratosphere, reducing ozone and creating more ghg (water vapor) into part of the atmosphere that has very little of it.
--“ If the Hadley cells do shift so that air is being pulled along the earths surface from mid latitudes towards the Arctic, then one would expect that more soot and dust will accumulate on the remaining ice including on Greenland.”

--“ Reversal of the Polar Vortex
Putting together the above information, we see what powers the polar vortex.  As the Arctic air radiates heat into space, it sinks, sucking high altitude air toward the poles.  Coriolis effect skews this flow of air to the right so at high latitudes, on the surface of the earth there are North East winds (flowing towards the South West)    With more and more heat being absorbed by an ice free Arctic ocean and transmitted to the air, this circulation pattern should reverse.  This would be expected to bring a huge flux of warm air from the south which would exacerbate the effect and cause sudden extremely warmer conditions in the Arctic for the months in question. These will be South West winds (flowing toward the North East)”
--As beetles and other diseases move north aided by GW, the number of sick trees increases rapidly. The levels of methane these emit can be high enough to ignite
--if methane reaches a big enough level in the atmosphere, its average time aloft starts going up, because saturation point is reached to where there's not enough OH around in the atmosphere so that methane can be split apart that way
-- mixing has an immediate effect upon ice through churning rather than the longer term greenhouse effects” from bubbling methane, which of course opens up more water which, through albedo, warms up the water, which radiates down to liberate more methane…
--draw downs behind damns during (CC induced) droughts increases methane release

Human responses:
--war
--AC
--denial
--geo—engineering attempts gone bad
--meat based diets (more a forcing than a direct feedback)
--more and more people moving to avoid consequences of GW--refugees
--aerosol—see below
--rush to ever dirtier sources with lower EROEI—tar sands, low grade coal, deepwater oil…
--Rivers dry, barges can’t haul material—more sent by more ff intensive truck and rail
--newly ice-free Arctic leads/has lead to more ff extraction/burning as well as new oil spills, and perhaps activity that further accelerates methane hydrate (and other methane) release


« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 02:01:10 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

ivica

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1492
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #171 on: August 24, 2013, 02:13:36 PM »
How many of people (policy makers included) are in Denial because of their low level of stress tolerance ?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 02:34:19 PM by ivica »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25902
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #172 on: August 24, 2013, 07:27:54 PM »
<snip>
 If I think the personal impact will be severe, I would buy insurance for my house but I am unwilling to buy flood insurance for that fool who has built on the flood plain.

It seems the National Flood Insurance Program (US) now makes a bit more sense, per this NYT editorial:
Quote
Now homeowners who live in risk-prone areas are faced with an expensive predicament: they can either pay much higher insurance rates if they leave things the way they are or they can reconfigure their houses to prepare for the next disaster. Reconfiguring could mean raising the house on pylons above the high-water level, as predicted on the latest federal flood maps, a potentially expensive proposition.

This makes perfect sense, harsh as it sounds, though there should be some way to ease the blow for those who can’t afford either the insurance or the pylons. In the end, taxpayers should not be paying to rebuild and then re-rebuild as the sea level rises. Even those politicians who say they still don’t believe in climate change must see that the system needs fixing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/the-next-hurricane-and-the-next.html?_r=0
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #173 on: August 24, 2013, 08:09:43 PM »
Wili

Hmm it sure doesn't take much to get you to start throwing around insults and being rude and sarcastic.  You do that to everybody who asks you to back up your statements.

Lets look at some of your statements.  You said this (emphasis mine):

Quote
The IPCC is notoriously conservative. Many other informed individuals and institutions are talking about at least 6 degrees C by at least 2100 under BAU. And if feedbacks kick in with the kind of ferocity that they seem to be kicking in, it could be that it will come faster than that.

Then you say this from a quote from WIKI dated from a presentation given in Jul 2011.

Quote
Anderson's presentation demonstrates reasons why a temperature rise of 4°C by 2060 is a likely outcome, given the record to date of action on climate, economic realities, and short window of time remaining for limiting the average surface temperature rise to 2°C or even 3°C. He also states that a 4°C rise would likely be an unstable state, leading to further increases in following decades regardless of mitigation measures that may be taken.

But here is a actual quote from Anderson himself from Nov 2012 (emphasis mine):

Quote
It’s not just about our emissions now.  If you look at the emissions we’ve already put out into the atmosphere since the start of this century, and you look at what’s likely to be emitted over the next few years, then I think it tells a very different story.  It’s hard to imagine that, unless we have a radical sea-change in attitudes towards emissions, we will avoid heading towards a 6°C rise by the end of this century.

Note the difference.  Perhaps the person writing the Wiki page misinterpreted a bit.  But my main point is that you are attributing to Anderson a claim that the minimum temp in 2100 will be +6C.  That does not agree with what Anderson has actually said.

This quote of yours:

Quote
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming

Quote

The problem is that our current global emissions trajectory already commits us to a 2C rise anyway. Papers published by the Royal Society in 2011 showed that emissions pledges would still put the world on track for warming anywhere between 2.5C and 5C - and that a failure to deliver these pledges could see global temperatures rise by 7C by 2100. Amongst them, a Met Office study concluded that strong amplifying feedbacks - such as the oceans' reduced ability to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide leading to further warming - could see us reach 4C as early as 2060.

But as Hansen explained in a recent interview:

    "Four degrees of warming would be enough to melt all the ice... you would have a tremendously chaotic situation as you moved away from our current climate towards another one. That's a different planet. You wouldn't recognise it... We are on the verge of creating climate chaos if we don't begin to reduce emissions rapidly."

After the last round of climate talks in Doha, a report by Climate Action Tracker concluded that the world is currently on path to see warming of 3C by 2040, triggering the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic permafrost.

This was corroborated last month by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which found that even with current climate policies in place, we are locked into a rise of between 2C and 5.3C. Two years ago, the IEA concluded that we had five years left to implement urgent energy reforms after which we would no longer be able to avoid dangerous climate change. We are now three years away from that point-of-no-return.

To make matters worse, the IEA's analysis is based on conventional models which do not fully account for amplifying feedbacks such as methane releases from permafrost thawing. The IPCC's forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, like its predecessors, will specifically exclude the permafrost carbon feedback from its projections.

Implies that Hansen said we 'might' be in a 7C warming by 2100.  But Hansen did not say that.  If you read your link the 7C quote came from a different article than the one listed in the title.  Hansen's paper did not even discuss temps in 2100 (I read it btw).   The quote you have there is another version of the Anderson quote above.  Follow the links and that is where you arrive.

This quote of yours is by an 'economist' not a credible climate scientist and it does not say a minimum of +6C by 2100:

Quote
“With current policies in place, global temperatures are set to increase 6 degrees Celsius, which has catastrophic implications,” IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol

This quote of yours leads to another link from an economics company and what the link says still does not meet your criteria of a minimum of +6 C by 2100.

Quote
http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/energy-carbon-management/resources/world-heading-six-degrees-warming-says-pwc/

World heading for six degrees of warming, says PwC

You then follow all of these links with this comment just full of insults and sarcasm:

Quote
These only took me a few minutes to track down, so presumably you could have easily found them yourself. But you seem to be committed to a "luke warmer"  position, so far be it from me to dislodge you from that idee fixe; no amount of evidence  is likely to convince you that these temperatures are possibility within this century--you'll surely find some reason to dislike this author, that organization, or the other website. I'll try not to disturb your world view any further with troublesome facts.

I think we can see the results of a few minutes work.  None of your 'evidence' meets your own criteria (not mine your's).  Who here has the "idee fixe"?  Me or you?  Who is reading for comprehension and who is not?

I, like a lot of people, read everything I can get my hands on about this subject that I have time for.  I sometimes come to the wrong conclusion like everyone does.  I have no problem asking others to back up what they say nor do I have a problem with trying to back up what I say.  That is part of the process here.

I note your next message starts off with the same sarcastic crap.   All of the factors you list are supposed to be unknown to the climate scientists?  We only know about them here on the Forum?  In general I suspect they know far more about all of this stuff than the posters here on the Forum do.   Please describe your grand theorem on the conspiracy of the expert climate scientists to ignore or discount your feedback factors.   You might consider actually finding and reading the papers written by the various scientists you quote before attributing conclusions and statements to them.  Reporters frequently miss context and misunderstand what they are told, not to mention have agendas.  You are entitled to your opinion on what is going to happen with the methane and carbon emissions in the arctic.  But how is it that you cannot recognize that you are speculating on what might happen and not describing a conclusion that the data supports.     
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #174 on: August 24, 2013, 08:27:10 PM »
Quote
The methane/carbon feedbacks you mention are also just speculation
.....

Jim,

We have 800,000 years if ice core showing a lock step between CO2, CH4, and temperature. Are you really saying this was just a coincidence? Or were you simply ignorant of the ice core data? Temperature rises, clathrates melt, CO2 and CH4 rise, temperature rises more. It's a feedback cycle with a 800,000 year history.

It's about as speculative as the "the sun will rise in the east theory" We only have a 5,000 year record of that. There are some people that think this sunrise thing is only 6,000 years old. They tend to ignore paleontology. Hmmm.

Vergent

Vergent you have misunderstood my what I was talking about.  I understand what is above and do not have any disagreements with what you posted.  My comment about speculation over methane emissions is directed at those like Guy McPherson who are claiming that in the next few years the ESAS is going to emit some 10's of Gtonnes of methane (50 is a number often used) that will spike temperatures to levels that result in the end of humanity and civilization in the 2030's (there are a number of people out there who seem to think that McPherson is a credible climate scientist -  NOT). 

Meanwhile, I have been reading comments and articles from all the credible climate scientists I can find on this subject.  Their work and statements clearly do NOT support the above claims.  They are fully aware of all the data and work done by Wadhams, Mann, Shakhova, Semiletov and others.  Plus they are just a 'little' more educated and experienced in this physics than we are. 

I find it very odd that some of the same people who get completely indignant about critiques of the work of climate scientists by the denier camp turn right around and go after them themselves if what they say does not fit what they want to hear.  They fall into the same trap.

Lacking anything else to go by I make the statement that the first paragraph approach is speculation not science.

Do you agree? 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #175 on: August 24, 2013, 11:25:25 PM »
JimD, first, I love posts that start with "Hmmm"  :)

Sorry to ruffle your feathers.

Let's see if I can come up with language that we can both agree on. How about: "Some major institutions and climate scientists have concluded that we could reach or approach approximately 6 degrees C global average temperature by around 2100."

I would note that the Birol is not just any old economist. He's the Chief Economist and Director of Global Energy Economics at the International Energy Agency. This is the agency that advises countries around the world on the future of energy. There is no institution better suited to predict how much carbon the world has committed itself to putting into the atmosphere based on current and committed/planned ff plants.

Here are some more links provided in hopes that our dialogue can result in some point of agreement:

http://grist.org/article/bau-fd/

Hadley Center study warns of ‘catastrophic’ 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/05/20/204131/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections-2/

M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Thawing-Permafrost-Climate-Predictions_UNEP.html

Thawing of Permafrost Expected to Cause Significant Additional Global Warming, Not yet Accounted for in Climate Predictions

And again: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/20-Sep-124-26-00PM.jpg


Have a good day.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 02:29:17 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #176 on: August 25, 2013, 06:39:50 AM »
Eight years ago a paper about the effects of pH change on sea urchin larvae set me on a mission to try to understand climate change. Shirayama, the author of the 2005 Ocean Acidification paper has just published a new paper that may show that sensitive species have already responded to the .1 pH drop over the last ~ 100 years. 

 
 

Effects of low pCO2 conditions on sea urchin larval size
Posted: 23 Aug 2013 12:46 AM PDT
Ocean acidification results from an increase in the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) impacts on marine calcifying species, which is predicted to become more pronounced in the future. By the end of this century, atmospheric pCO2 levels will have doubled relative to the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. However, the effects of pre-industrial pCO2 levels on marine organisms remain largely unknown. In this study, we investigated the effects of pre-industrial pCO2 conditions on the size of the pluteus larvae of sea urchins, which are known to be vulnerable to ocean acidification. The larval size of Hemicentrotus pulcherrimus significantly increased when reared at pre-industrial pCO2 level relative to the present one, and the size of Anthocidaris crassispina larvae decreased as the pCO2 levels increased from the pre-industrial level to the near future ones after 3 days’ exposure. In this study, it is suggested that echinoid larvae responded to pre-industrial pCO2 levels. Ocean acidification may be affecting some sensitive marine calcifiers even at the present pCO2 level.


Suwa R., Nojiri Y., Ono T. & Shirayama Y., in press. Effects of low pCO2 conditions on sea urchin larval size. Marine Ecology. Article (subscription required).

So there are things afoot that should challenge our sense of danger. How life responds to 2100 temps.  Is one stressor but changes in ocean pH, changes in humidity + temp.( wet bulb ) and projected drought  in some areas will  all combine to reduce species diversity. That drop will include extinctions. Some things we can't reduce to science aurguments some things just hurt.
I come to the forum because I value science and I value the advise of the ASIF in directing my search.   
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 06:52:55 AM by Bruce Steele »

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #177 on: August 25, 2013, 07:52:50 AM »
Why is it so hard to include the emotional side of climate change?  It's not just denial, it's fear.

ivica

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1492
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #178 on: August 25, 2013, 11:33:04 AM »
Why is it so hard to include the emotional side of climate change?  It's not just denial, it's fear.
Yes, scared soo much that thinking becomes contra-effective (better term needed, brain meltdown ? :) ).
Policy makers, how many of them are like captain of this.
Perhaps we should search for people which are more like astronauts, till it's not too late.



JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #179 on: August 25, 2013, 05:34:59 PM »
Why is it so hard to include the emotional side of climate change?  It's not just denial, it's fear.

Fear works both ways.  It is not just climate change deniers who's thinking is being warped by the fear of climate change, there are many people on the opposite pole who are having the same thing happen to them. 

Deniers for one reason or another refuse to accept the facts (or even acknowledge they exist) and thereby end up in all kinds of unsupportable positions.  Fear.

There is also a group of people who have more than accepted that AGW is happening, and they are making wild extrapolations and assumptions from the known facts and end up arriving in places which are not logically justified.  Fear.

Both of the above types of posters don't like me much.  On this forum I have had people beat me up for being a pessimistic doomer who sees no way out of our problems because my interpretation of the research, data, trends, etc seems to indicate an unavoidable civilizational collapse mid-century and a large rapid population reduction occurring in concert with that collapse.  I have also had people beat me up for being a warmista and a virtual denier because I ask for some kind of information to backup their contention that we are on a path to some kind of extinction in the next 20 years.  Happens on other forums as well.  This tells me that whatever my fears are at least I have them mostly under control.

I think we are screwed and it is our fault.  I don't think we are smart enough to figure our way out of the mess we have made.  But miracles (i.e. low probability events) happen on occasion and sometimes they actually break your way and you survive (but normally you die in the crash).  Whatever comes if you live a good meaningful life you can die with no regrets.

This is all like reading and discussing a good book.  But to me it is all of a sort of academic interest as I do not accept that humans are anything special in this universe and whether we make hay out of the opportunity of our existence or piss it away it doesn't really matter as there is probably some other smarter group of quadrupeds a few light years away that will figure things out.   Gaia (or Mother Nature) doesn't give a rats ass about us, the universe doesn't even know we are here and would not care if it did.  WE are not of significance to anyone or anything but ourselves.  That is why most people are scared to death all the time.

And you can always look on the bright side of things, in one of the other of Hawking's 10 to the 500th universes probability says we were smart enough to figure things out, just like you and I actually managed to hook up with that person with the hot bod who drove us insane in high school.  So we can take solace in that  :) 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #180 on: August 25, 2013, 06:23:19 PM »
"I do not accept that humans are anything special in this universe"

How then do you account for Fermi's paradox?
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #181 on: August 25, 2013, 07:36:37 PM »
"I do not accept that humans are anything special in this universe"

How then do you account for Fermi's paradox?

Well there are lots of critiques of this idea out there.

I suggest you go here and read the entire page as you can find a lot of reasons there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

I also would refer you to fact that Fermi did not live long enough to learn about the mulit-dimensionality that Hawking and others discuss.  If there are 10 to the 500th universes there is probabilistic certainty that there are literally billions of intelligent species somewhere.

But my point is philosophical more than anything.  To believe one is exceptional requires an hubris I refuse to accept.  We are bombarded with versions of human exceptionalness all the time; countries think they are exceptional, certain religions think they are exceptional, plenty of athletes and celebrities think they are exceptional, your boss probably thinks he is exceptional, etc.  I find this kind of arrogance revolting.  But YMMV. 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #182 on: August 25, 2013, 08:39:39 PM »
Thanks. I had a feeling that you had already thought deeply about this question and just wanted to see what your take was. I agree about human hubris. We don't have to go outside of our own planet to find some other pretty amazing organisms. But it does get us pretty far off the main topic of the thread.

Still hoping fora response from you on whether the language I proposed is something we could both agree on, but if you just want to drop, that's fine, too.

But let me add one more major organization that is looking at the probability of major warming in the next century or so (though it falls slightly short of the rather arbitrary exactly 6 degrees C by exactly 2100):

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/18/Climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-this-century

Climate Change Report Warns of Dramatically Warmer World This Century

Quote
New World Bank-commissioned report warns the world is on track to a “4°C world” marked by extreme heat-waves and life-threatening sea level rise...

The report, reviewed by some of the world’s top scientists, is being released ahead of the next comprehensive studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013/14
(My emphasis)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

jbg

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
  • Skeptic-Not troll (doesn't like term 'denialist')
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #183 on: August 25, 2013, 09:06:30 PM »
Deniers for one reason or another refuse to accept the facts (or even acknowledge they exist) and thereby end up in all kinds of unsupportable positions.  Fear.
Perhaps some people fear their middle-class lifestyle becoming financially unsupportable, or fear for their jobs, as a result of some of the hysterical restrictions being supported.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #184 on: August 25, 2013, 09:15:50 PM »
Denialist trolls being the most "hysterical" of all--they keep us all laughing. Please continue to keep us amused.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

jbg

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
  • Skeptic-Not troll (doesn't like term 'denialist')
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #185 on: August 25, 2013, 09:19:57 PM »
Denialist trolls being the most "hysterical" of all--they keep us all laughing. Please continue to keep us amused.
I will repeat.

I am not a troll. I am in severe disagreement with the premise of this thread, i.e. that GW is primarily man-made and that there is much that we as humans can do to stop it, short of creating disastrous consequences that our poor and middle class cannot afford.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #186 on: August 25, 2013, 09:27:56 PM »
 "I am in severe disagreement with the premise...GW is primarily man-made"

Hence the term denialist troll.

At least you are honest about your completely delusional, non-scientific position. That means that you are not a "concern" troll, pretending to agree with the essential truth, but pretending to have "concerns" about specific aspects of the positions. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concern_troll

You essentially want us to debate whether 1 + 1 = 2 while we are trying to do calculus. It only distracts and aggravates. Please take your ignorant denialist trolling elsewhere.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9503
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1336
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #187 on: August 25, 2013, 09:34:28 PM »
I am not a troll. I am in severe disagreement with the premise of this thread, i.e. that GW is primarily man-made and that there is much that we as humans can do to stop it, short of creating disastrous consequences that our poor and middle class cannot afford.

Don't forget the rich. I somehow believe they're also not that much into systemic changes of their business model of perpetually growing inequality.

There's no need to worry, especially if AGW is a hoax. All we need to do is shop and consume, and everyone will become a millionaire. All 10 billion of us. The more greenhouse gases we pump out the faster, the sooner those green commies will shown to be wrong. Smack 'em right in the face with that invisible hand.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #188 on: August 25, 2013, 10:00:28 PM »
Nicely put (as usual), Neven.

For those putting too much faith in IPCC charts, and even in typical stances of most scientists in the field, please see:

http://climatestate.com/2013/08/24/climate-change-alarm-is-needed-and-climate-scientists-arent-sounding-it-loud-enough/

(Thanks to prokaryotes at RC for this link, and for his excellent climate science blog.)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #189 on: August 25, 2013, 10:03:45 PM »
Denialist trolls being the most "hysterical" of all--they keep us all laughing. Please continue to keep us amused.

Actually, I think they're in the same category as holocaust deniers - sick and twisted individuals whose irrational persistence in ignorance makes them apologists (and to the extent that they influence society) enablers of the worst mass murder our species will likely ever commit.

As such, such individuals are the enemy of my and later generations, end of story (and I'm not using the word enemy lightly).

Still, I find this quote pertinent:

http://coolquotescollection.com/2214/never-argue-with-a-fool-they-will-drag-you-down-to-their-level-then-beat-you

deep octopus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #190 on: August 25, 2013, 10:08:13 PM »
I should let this go, but really, it's a creature of my habit to keep harping on this: It behooves repeating the fact that whether or not solutions to climate change serve to benefit a particular class or harm them (though arguments for climate change mitigation tend to suggest economic benefits to most of the lower classes than harm) is irrelevant to acknowledging climate change today (i.e. since pre-industrial) as driven mostly by anthropogenic forces. If one disagrees with the "mostly anthropogenic" angle, they should spell out what specific natural forces are responsible for 0.8 degree C warming since the 19th century. Yet it's a question that has been reviewed many times over in the last several decades. It's now known as a physical fact that climate change today is representative of the thickening of the atmosphere through greenhouse gases and the positive feedbacks that follow from the initial thickening. As carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, because the process of weathering is not apace with the rate of emissions, it increases the effective radiation height. This traps heat. The political and economic choices that follow from this physical fact are apart from the actual physics. To argue otherwise is a logical fallacy called "argument from adverse consequences."

jbg

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
  • Skeptic-Not troll (doesn't like term 'denialist')
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #191 on: August 25, 2013, 10:39:26 PM »
Denialist trolls being the most "hysterical" of all--they keep us all laughing. Please continue to keep us amused.

Actually, I think they're in the same category as holocaust deniers - sick and twisted individuals whose irrational persistence in ignorance makes them apologists (and to the extent that they influence society) enablers of the worst mass murder our species will likely ever commit.

As such, such individuals are the enemy of my and later generations, end of story (and I'm not using the word enemy lightly).

That is a sick and twisted analogy, and a violation of Godwin's Law. 

I the Holocaust, the Nazis deliberately shot, overworked, or gassed 6,000,000 Jews.  It was the objective of the Nazis to kill Jews. 

People such as myself who do not believe in AGW don't want to hurt or kill anyone, and never have in our lives.  We simply want to go about our business, help a few people along the way, and go to sleep at night.

There is a huge difference.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9503
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1336
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #192 on: August 25, 2013, 11:01:31 PM »
But what if the way we all go about our business, is actually not helping other people, but resulting in the opposite? What do we do then?
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #193 on: August 25, 2013, 11:59:26 PM »
The Nazi's ideology only killed 6M Jews. The deniers ideology will kill orders of magnitude above that.
I hope that ccg's generation takes the time to sort out the wheat from the chaff when they come to the realization that my generation did them in.
Will there be Nuremberg style trials or concentration camps?
Terry

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #194 on: August 26, 2013, 12:14:19 AM »
Will there be Nuremberg style trials or concentration camps?
Terry

We won't need them but the mass cemeteries required will be impressive.

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #195 on: August 26, 2013, 12:45:19 AM »
People such as myself who do not believe in AGW don't want to hurt or kill anyone, and never have in our lives.  We simply want to go about our business, help a few people along the way, and go to sleep at night.

Which is exactly what the average German citizen might have said while the process was ongoing. It was only afterwards that the truth was brought out into the open in too direct and strong a manner to continue to deny that it had to be confronted (and even so, some continue to deny it).

If you don't want to hurt or kill my generation and future generations, then it's time to stop:
- treating a habitable ecosystem as a consumable resource
- consuming all the resources people may need later
- accumulating future consequences from industrial/personal pollution

And it's time to start:
- working towards contingency and continuity plans for collapse
- preparing the foundations of a sustainable civilisation
- teaching future generations basic social justice instead of consumerism

There is a huge difference.

A small group of ideologically minded people at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid acting in such a way as to compromise the well being of a much greater number of people? While the general population largely keeps their head down and nose to the grindstone ignoring everything that goes on around them?

Frankly it isn't necessary or relevant to dig into the analogy, my main point and my bottom line is I want it to be understood how I (and I suspect informed members of future generations) view what is happening and view those who continue to deny and obstruct the knowledge of what is being done to our and later generations. Not to mention a growing number of poor and vulnerable populations around the world in the current day, who are already increasingly being squozen by these issues (and who generally lack any means by which to represent themselves in our discussions!).

It's a pity those already starting to suffer from climate change related effects aren't more able to participate - I have a feeling it would sharpen the tone pretty fast.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #196 on: August 26, 2013, 01:50:31 AM »
"I think they're in the same category as holocaust deniers"

As Terry suggested, they are even worse, by orders of magnitude. I just consider them so far below contempt that utter ridicule is the only thing left for them. One must acknowledge that gbj and his/her ilk have been successful at helping delay meaningful action on CC to the point that we now face catastrophic consequences, pretty much no matter what we do going forward. One would think that this would be enough that they would rest on their laurels and let the rest of us figure out what's left of the shambles they helped create. But, no, they just keep spewing their lies shamelessly everywhere they are allowed to.

Mostly, though, neven's sites have been remarkably free of these types.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #197 on: August 26, 2013, 01:55:52 AM »
Having taken a potentially contentious and emotive stance, I thought it worth supporting it with something a little more solid than rhetoric - to build a case that the harmful behaviour of industrialised societies is already killing people (and has been for some time).

From a WHO report (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/):

Quote
Global warming that has occurred since the 1970s caused over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.

I would expect the WHO to take a pretty conservative stance and approach to measurement.

From http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1:

Quote
Climate change is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming.

Quote
Civil unrest may also increase because of weather-related events, the report says: "Four billion people are vulnerable now and 500m are now at extreme risk.

I suspect this next link is likely to be less conservative (and also it seems to include deaths resulting from other more immediate impacts of fossil fuel use, eg air pollution) - http://www.policymic.com/articles/21419/climate-change-kills-5-million-people-every-year-here-s-how

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html

Quote
It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

All in all I think there's a growing case that climate change as a result of carbon dioxide emissions is already hurting and killing large numbers of people, even if one sets aside the effects of particulate air pollution.

That's quite aside from the demonstrably poor outlook for younger and future generations looking ahead over coming decades.

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #198 on: August 26, 2013, 02:07:03 AM »
Ccg,   If I can make the transition into the post fossil fuel bonanza easier for the next generation or two I promise to do my best. I am not blameless but if any teacher I had in the 60's or 7O's said the arctic will melt out in my lifetime I can't remember it happening. We are living in the ether. Nothing we are experiencing was in forecast. Silent spring, the downwinders ( Utah, Montana, Nevada, Washington) pcb's, clear cutting , and ya overfishing ( I am a fisherman ) were all in the cards but the real skinny on how Co2 would wreak the planet, not so much. I have lived my life at sea but I have come to believe that in order to help the ocean I have to change what happens on land. A transition to sail is certainly possible but without a transition to zero carbon agriculture on land all efforts at sea will fail. The ocean will not simply transition to a 7.3 pH reality, it will rear up and smite us down. I will not cooperate in killing this planet. I shit you not I will fight. Not just for you but for everything in the river. All the critters I try to outwit but give fair space. I am a farmer, I have been a fisherman a lifetime, this is hard now , it will get harder. For what it's worth, on my word.  Bruce

jbg

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
  • Skeptic-Not troll (doesn't like term 'denialist')
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"
« Reply #199 on: August 26, 2013, 01:41:53 PM »
"I think they're in the same category as holocaust deniers"

As Terry suggested, they are even worse, by orders of magnitude.
Are you saying that holding an opinion on a future fact is worse than denying an obvious truth from the past? Mind you I am against laws punishing Holocaust denial.