West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[fishonjazz]

Is lograds stance that global warming/climate change isnt actually occuring?
Or does he acknowledge that it is happening but just doesnt think its a big deal?

 

[LogGrad98]

Is lograds stance that global warming/climate change isnt actually occuring?
Or does he acknowledge that it is happening but just doesnt think its a big deal?

Well the trend over the past 8 years or so has actually been relatively flat, and even a cooling trend. Of course the argument is that that is a normal part of the cycle, which is why it was changed from global warming to climate change. I dispute 2 things:

1) Man's actual contribution to the issue, and ability to reverse it.
2) That it is a catastrophe and can be seen in no other way.

#2 is a bigger issue for me. Most of the claims of catastrophe are panic mongering IMO. Any geological epoch with similar CO2 and temp levels were nearly always associates with explosions in life forms, both variety and quantity. Yet the argument is we supposedly need to cripple the economy to stop something that has not been proven to be within our control to stop in the first place, and has not been proven to be a species-ending catastrophe either.

There have been tons of threads on this topic. You can search out any of them and get everyone's opinion.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is disagreeing with somebody the mere requirement of labelling someone as dogmatic?

Getting so worked up over it that you turn a few specious comments into a full-blown argument almost entirely on your own is certainly symptomatic of being dogmatic.

 

[LogGrad98]

China is not at risk of flooding to the same extent as Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, and other islands spread throughout the Pacific. This isn't about India and China-- this is about the West casting a blind eye, as the West pioneered these technologies, the countries from the West are the ones abandoning the Kyoto protocol, and countries like Canada and the US are some of the biggest impediments to halting climate change. Every climate scientist is on my side.




You're speaking out of your ***-- pls show me the CO2 pollution rates of all of the countries most vulnerable to flooding. I'll give you a suggestion: don't bother, cuz it rears an ugly truth




I think you are underestimating how detrimental your nation's energy-using culture is, to third world nations around the world. I would highly recommend that you look into this.



You have an extremely narrow perception of the importance of an individual's culture.

Well now you're just being silly, especially with that last comment. You are saying that in the face of a TRUE SPECIES-DESTROYING EVENT, the culture of individuals should be considered equal with the SURVIVAL OF THE ENTIRE SPECIES AS A WHOLE? So we let our species go entirely EXTINCT if we cannot save it while guaranteeing that every single culture will also survive entirely intact? Ridiculous.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Well, we can't do anything about it until china and India actually establish standards so why should the USA even try?

Hate to burst your bubble, but we're way worse on CO2 emissions per capita than either of those counties. We're more than 3x worse than China, and more than 11x worse than India (link). Their emissions only seem worse than ours because they dwarf the rest of the world in total population... both have over 1.2 billion people, while we're a distant 3rd at 300 million. I'll grant you, Shanghai is a spectacular example, but numbers don't lie (well, yes they do, but you get the point).

 

[♪alt13]

Well the trend over the past 8 years or so has actually been relatively flat, and even a cooling trend. Of course the argument is that that is a normal part of the cycle, which is why it was changed from global warming to climate change. I dispute 2 things:

1) Man's actual contribution to the issue, and ability to reverse it.
2) That it is a catastrophe and can be seen in no other way.

#2 is a bigger issue for me. Most of the claims of catastrophe are panic mongering IMO. Any geological epoch with similar CO2 and temp levels were nearly always associates with explosions in life forms, both variety and quantity. Yet the argument is we supposedly need to cripple the economy to stop something that has not been proven to be within our control to stop in the first place, and has not been proven to be a species-ending catastrophe either.

There have been tons of threads on this topic. You can search out any of them and get everyone's opinion.

I wasn't being an alarmist. I actually to some level share your view. I'm a realist when it comes to global warming. It's going to happen. We are not replacing fossil fuels because they simply contain too much bang for the buck. If we gave up fossil fuels right now cold turkey I'm certain a billion people would starve. That being said I thought that the news that an ice sheet that is 3/4 of a million years old is going to melt within 200 years regardless of future co2 emissions was something worth pointing out.

For years we have been hearing about some distant tipping point. It seems that for the West Antarctic Ice shelf, and by extension the Great Barrier Reef, it is too late.

 

[One Brow]

Well if we go back to the same levels of CO2 from the heaviest known geological period, which was still several times the CO2 levels in the atmosphere now, we will see explosions in the development of life forms. At least that is what the fossil record says.

No, it doesn't. Any major change in the environment starts with a massive killing off of species. That killing off allows the remaining species more chances for diversification. For example, a massive increase in CO2 was one of the first stages of the Permian extinction.

 

[One Brow]

Well the trend over the past 8 years or so has actually been relatively flat, and even a cooling trend.

To the degree that you can measure a climate trend in 8 years (in reality, there is so much noise that this is really not possible), your statement is false, and based on an abnormally high 2005 temperature.

1) Man's actual contribution to the issue, and ability to reverse it.

On what do you base this doubt?

 

[LogGrad98]

On what do you base this doubt?

On data related to sun activity and climate change, as well as cyclical observations of climate data.

What proof do you offer that we unequivocally can reverse or stop climate change?

 

[LogGrad98]

To the degree that you can measure a climate trend in 8 years (in reality, there is so much noise that this is really not possible), your statement is false, and based on an abnormally high 2005 temperature.

So data that shows warming is occurring = good data, data that shows it may have flatlined = noise.

Cherry-pick away my friend.

 

[One Brow]

On data related to sun activity and climate change, as well as cyclical observations of climate data.

What proof do you offer that we unequivocally can reverse or stop climate change?

For the last 150 years, this cycle has been one of rapid rises followed by plateaus. If you actually believed in the cyclical data, you would accept that we will soon be entering (and may not be in) a period of rapid rise.

We can stop our contribution to the rising CO2 levels. We can't stop volcanic explosions. I'm not sure what you mean by "unequivocally" here; I don't think anyone believes we can stop volcanoes or instantly reverse prior damage. I don't understande why that means we should ignore the implications of future damage.

 

[One Brow]

So data that shows warming is occurring = good data, data that shows it may have flatlined = noise.

Cherry-pick away my friend.

Starting from the year 2005, as opposed to 2004 or 2006, is the definition of cherry-picking. If you start from 2004 or 2006, we have increased. However, I don't support starting from 2004, 2005, or 2006.

To avoid cherry picking, you need to look at a length of years long enough that the year-to-year variations get smoothed as statistical noise, and an overall trend can be seen. That takes about 20 years.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Hate to burst your bubble, but we're way worse on CO2 emissions per capita than either of those counties. We're more than 3x worse than China, and more than 11x worse than India (link). Their emissions only seem worse than ours because they dwarf the rest of the world in total population... both have over 1.2 billion people, while we're a distant 3rd at 300 million. I'll grant you, Shanghai is a spectacular example, but numbers don't lie (well, yes they do, but you get the point).

Yeah. The notion of third world countries causing their own environmental decline (as LogGrad mentioned, lmao) is a total farce, and wholly indicative of how unaware the typical North American is in the grand scheme of the environment, and their footprint on this planet.

I wasn't being an alarmist. I actually to some level share your view. I'm a realist when it comes to slavery. We are not replacing slavery because it simply contains too much bang for the buck. If we gave up slavery right now cold turkey I'm certain a billion people would starve.

Do you think an opinion like this wasn't commonplace in the mid 19th century?



I understand the preference for realism, but defeatism is quite frankly the worst thing that we could flock to in an instance like this. There are many, many ways to stymie our dependence on fossil fuels, and saying "well, we're ****ed" simply is not a solution.

 

[Deleted member 848]

It's also funny that people refuse to understand replaceable fossil fuels really are. The notion of a nation bankrupting after pursuing alternative energy resources is completely laughable

 

[Stoked]

Question for the dal/one brow side of the debate.

What steps would you recomend to decrease the CO2 output of the US?

No hidden agenda Brow, just curious.

 

[LogGrad98]

For the last 150 years, this cycle has been one of rapid rises followed by plateaus. If you actually believed in the cyclical data, you would accept that we will soon be entering (and may not be in) a period of rapid rise.

We can stop our contribution to the rising CO2 levels. We can't stop volcanic explosions. I'm not sure what you mean by "unequivocally" here; I don't think anyone believes we can stop volcanoes or instantly reverse prior damage. I don't understande why that means we should ignore the implications of future damage.

What I mean is we should not base policy that will affect billions on "mights". If we do not know exactly what effect curbing our CO2 emissions will have, and whether or not it is actually a problem that climate change may be happening in the first place, and be able to accurately predict the outcomes of any changes we may make, or not making any changes for that matter, then making sweeping changes that could lead to widespread famine and other socio-economic issues is more than unwise. I am against panic-mongering, on the whole.

 

[LogGrad98]

No, it doesn't. Any major change in the environment starts with a massive killing off of species. That killing off allows the remaining species more chances for diversification. For example, a massive increase in CO2 was one of the first stages of the Permian extinction.

What is the exact mechanism of extinction? Does it apply directly in every single case? Can it be proven objectively that this rise in CO2 will absolutely results in an extinction event for mankind?

 

[LogGrad98]

Question for the dal/one brow side of the debate.

What steps would you recomend to decrease the CO2 output of the US?

No hidden agenda Brow, just curious.

Just because I do not buy into the panic-mongering does not mean I don't think we need to take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Economic viability is a very big hurdle, and one of the primary reasons why we didn't ratify the Kyoto protocol. We are making progress in this area, but that is something that we need to take a hard look at and find ways to make alternative energy forms economically viable.

 

[LogGrad98]

It's also funny that people refuse to understand replaceable fossil fuels really are. The notion of a nation bankrupting after pursuing alternative energy resources is completely laughable

Ever read some of the economic analysis should the US have ratified the Kyoto protocol? Give it a google sometime.

 

[LogGrad98]

Do you think an opinion like this wasn't commonplace in the mid 19th century?

Perfect example of dogmatic panic-mongering.