It is currently Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:07 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:16 pm 
Stake High Council
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am
Posts: 559
Location: Canberra
Living in Canberra, which lost 500 homes to bushfires in 2003, it has been a pretty sobering experience to watch the catastrophic fires in our southeastern corner. It’s a beautiful place where many Canberrans spend their holidays at this time of the year. I have old work colleagues who live near Cobargo, a town all but destroyed by the fires.

During this national tragedy I have had a profound sense of deja vu as I have watched the way people have responded to the crisis. Having just experienced our hottest and driest year on record, and the most horrific bushfires in our history, Australians are now waking up to the fact that catastrophic climate change has arrived and we are the cause of it. The worn out expression “the climates always changed and always will” now has a very hollow ring to it. It’s a lie anyway. The earth has never been this hot in the last 20,000 years and that’s twice as long as the entire history of civilisation.

Image

Temperatures over Australia for the past 110 years

In spite of the magnitude of the fires and the compelling climate science, there remains a core of people, the loudest being politicians addicted to coal lobby money, who will not budge. Rather than face facts, they have blamed the fires on arsonists and greenies and even scientists for exaggerating and twisting the science. I am also keenly aware that some people reading this post may still find it hard to accept the science of climate change. I can understand that, because I’ve been there too. Even as a scientist I have gone through phases of scepticism and agnosticism before finally reaching acceptance.

Watching the responses to the fires has reminded me of the way the LDS Church, in particular its apologists, responded to Thomas Murphy, Brent Metcalfe and myself when we drew attention to the enormously threatening DNA evidence. Mormon scholars responded with ridicule and attacked our motives, intelligence and scientific credibility. They obscured the issue by misrepresenting the science, made false claims of positive DNA evidence and twisted the Book of Mormon narrative to accommodate the science. I believe most of these people are basically good. But their fear of the terrifying conclusions the science clearly pointed to, motivated them to take extreme measures to soothe the cognitive dissonance it created.

I wanted to share some of my reflections during the bushfires. I have observed disturbing similarities between LDS apologetics and what I call climate change apologetics.

Bushfire week
I recently shared this image from my mobile phone on my Facebook page. This isn't normal rain, it's bushfires. It's smoke plumes from bushfires, and the rain they create, detected by radar across southeastern Australia. It's the first time I have noticed this on our weather radars since I became addicted to watching our B.O.M. (Bureau of Meteorology) radar about 15 years ago. It was alarming to see these plumes appear as the fires progressed on one of the worst days.

Image

Radar Image, 4 Jan 2020

Thirteen years ago Australian scientists predicted (Garnaut Climate Change Review) that by 2020 we would start to see the effects of climate change on the length of the fire season and the intensity of bushfires. At the beginning of our fire season our state fire chiefs requested a meeting with the Prime Minister. They had seen the science-based predictions that this year would be a catastrophic fire season. Our Prime Minister didn't think it was important enough to meet with them. He was probably planning his Hawaiian holiday and his (very well kept secret) trip to New York to attend the opening of a new Hillsong megachurch.

And it came to pass that the scientific prophecies were fulfilled with shocking accuracy during our Prime Minister's Hawaiian holiday. He returned home in disgrace. I can't repeat the words hurled at him as he toured the firefighter recovery centres in Cobargo and elsewhere. Australians can be colorfully blunt, but he got nothing more than he deserved. Our Prime Minister leads a party filled with people who deny the climate science his government pays for. A couple of years ago our climate denying Prime Minister mocked the opposition by waving a lump of coal at them in Parliament.

As we have coughed our way through the bushfire catastrophe, I have been peppered with questions from US exmormon friends, desperate to know if what they are hearing in the US media is true. Sadly, a former Australian, Rupert Murdoch, who is now an American citizen (our gain, your loss), has been responsible for spreading misinformation and lies about what is going on in Australia. The Murdoch press (Fox news etc.) immediately blamed the fires on arsonists and greenies, in a pathetic attempt to weaken the case for climate change. This has been deeply offensive to many Australians already feeling distressed by the carnage inflicted by the largest and most ferocious bushfires we have ever witnessed. And we still have two months of bushfire season to go.

Australian scientists and the Rural Fire Service (RFS) have looked at the evidence and it's clear over 95% of the fires were started by dry lightning in remote regions of national parks that are locked up during fire season. Any local can see this in my phone’s radar image. Scientists simply line up the lightning strikes with the origin of each fire. Murdoch outlets have also blamed the greenies for preventing back burning. This is another lie that climate deniers drag out after every bushfire. Greenies are very aware of the value of hazard reduction burning and are frequently involved in carrying them out! The RFS has clearly articulated the real problem. As our fire season gets longer, the window of opportunity for back burning gets shorter. You can’t burn cold, damp forests. Even if you could you can't burn them every year because you would destroy the forest.

After posting my radar image I was immediately sent links to YouTube conspiracy theory clips. In the brief segments I could stomach watching, they were claiming greenies were flying planes and dropping incendiaries to start the fires in order to scare people into believing climate change is real. Utter filth and lies. They had even created childishly ignorant maps showing the flight paths of planes flying up and down fires zones in a regular pattern. My radar image clearly shows this is absolute ____. The largely American (sorry its true) sewer of poisonous conspiracy lies has reached our shores, and it makes me and my friends feel physically ill. I now know how the parents of Sandy Hook and the residents of New York felt when the heartless conspiracy theories reared their ugly heads. The biggest problem with the bushfire conspiracy theories is that they make mainstream media reports about arsonists and greenies look fair and balanced. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To cap off the week I received a phone call from a TBM sibling who is clearly feeling distress due to the fires. They were not interested in an adult conversation about the root cause of the driest and hottest year on record in Australia. They were tired of the arguments about climate change, after all, contention is of the devil! Instead, I was treated to a lecture on why scientists needed to get off their butts and quickly invent solutions (as if research isn't being done) to rapidly capture the CO2. They are obviously feeling pain and fear, but rather than honestly facing those fears, my sibling preferred to pile even more blame on the scientists for not working on a real solution. They then went on to slam our two national broadcasters that have told the truth on climate change for the last 20 years. I then changed to subject because my language was about to get colorful.

This sibling’s response to me was exactly the same as their (lack of) response to me when I raised uncomfortable questions about Book of Mormon historicity due to DNA. The issue has been out of bounds for two decades.

My evolution from climate agnostic
You would think that someone who has worked in scientific research his entire career would have accepted global warming after looking at the evidence. It turns out I'm no different from everyone else. I was naturally suspicious of climate science research when I first heard about it, because it was outside my immediate field of expertise. I only became convinced humans were causing our climate to change after I met a unique group of people who knew a lot more about our climate than me.

In 1999 I joined the Division of Forestry at CSIRO, Australia's national scientific research organisation. Up to that point I had not known any climate scientists, and because of that I hadn’t taken it seriously. I was essentially a climate agnostic. At CSIRO I soon found myself working alongside dozens of scientists who worked across all disciplines related to forest trees. This included ecology, bushfires, native forest management, wood science, water, soils, genetics, carbon capture, plantation management etc. Virtually all of these diverse disciplines are being directly impacted by our changing climate. It may surprise some of you to learn that all advanced forestry companies plan their naturally long term forest rotations with climate change uppermost in their minds.

Because I was living, working alongside and socialising with this very capable group of people I formed very good friendships with many of them. I witnessed their curiosity, passion for truth and commitment to scientific rigour and I soon began to trust[u]them. I knew they weren’t lying to get another grant, as they were women and men of integrity, and they were well funded anyway. That trust drove my own curiosity and I quickly became convinced that our climate was changing and that the science underpinning the forecasts by scientists was utterly compelling. The underlying physics of climate change has been well understood for over a century. There are plenty of websites that describe the science much better than me.

Image

Climate change predicted in a New Zealand newspaper in 1912

By the time I realised the problem, the fossil fuel industry was well ahead of me. Just like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry knew the science well ahead of the general population and the threat it posed for their future profits. Most of the developed world has headed the prophets of science. The US and Australia stand out as the biggest feet draggers on this issue because of their dependence on the profits from burning fossil fuels. Our two countries are largely responsible for holding back progress on climate agreements and Australia remains the largest polluter per capita in the world. It’s a source of national shame that many of you probably also share.

Unfortunately, some things that are true are not very…pleasant. As a species we naturally avoid facing things that make us uncomfortable. Many of us have faced our fears when confronted by the terrible truth that the LDS church has lied to us our entire lives. But the sooner we face our fears, the easier it is to change and the sooner we can put all our energies into making wise choices and facing the realities of living on this remarkable, but fragile planet.

This is exactly what the EU is doing because it is heeding the warnings of climate scientists. The EU recently announced it would be committing 1 trillion euro’s to ensure Europe is climate neutral by 2050. This deal will support economies that, through no fault of their own, have historically relied heavily on fossil fuels for energy.

I have a dream
Wouldn’t it be great if the LDS Church chipped in a lazy $100 billion to help poorer countries adapt to the biggest challenge the world is facing? Maybe if we look away the leaders can create evidence that this was why they hoarded the money in the first place. At least facing the facts can’t stop us dreaming.

_________________
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 1114
A fascinating clipping. I suspected a hoax because it seemed hard to believe that the greenhouse effect was so clearly understood in 1912, when all of our current understanding of how light interacts with matter was still decades in the future. Google brought me straight to Snopes, however, which confirmed that that short snippet can still be found in archived copies of that old New Zealand newspaper as well as in a contemporary Australian one. According to Snopes the snippet furthermore turns out to have been clipped from a 1912 article in Popular Mechanics which was explicitly all about anthropogenic global warming due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 as a product of combustion. And the science of the greenhouse effect can be traced back into the 1800s in papers by well-known scientists that are still archived in the old journals.

Among these papers is one published in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, whose name is still mentioned today in connection with certain laws he discovered. I skimmed through this paper online, since Snopes linked to it, and found that Arrhenius not only had everything right but that on several important points he cites other papers that had it right as far back as 1827. Essentially everything that appears in popular explanations of the atmospheric greenhouse effect was indeed understood clearly back then. It was just all empirical. They couldn't explain theoretically how light and matter interacted, except in quite vague and general terms. They didn't know that electrons or nuclei existed; they didn't know for sure that atoms really existed; they had no inkling of photons or quantized energy levels of molecular vibrations. They had measured the greenhouse effect experimentally, however.

They knew that light came from the sun at all frequencies and that some of it was ultraviolet and infrared. They knew that different frequency ranges were absorbed or scattered by the atmosphere differently. They understood the same about glass and about how that kept greenhouses warm in the winter. They were perfectly able to put two and two together to deduce that a greenhouse effect could be keeping the whole planet warm in outer space. And they also knew, from experiment, that the atmosphere is a mixture of different kinds of gases that absorb light differently. They knew that CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas and they knew that burning coal was adding CO2 to the air.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by all that. Fundamental theory isn't everything; you can get an awful lot of stuff right from experiments even if you don't really understand how the things that you observe are happening. And it's not really important for climate science that the greenhouse mechanism was understood in the 19th century as opposed to, say, the 1930s, when atoms and quantum mechanics were known. The greenhouse mechanism itself was never in any kind of doubt, but only the issue of whether various natural trends beyond human control might be playing a bigger role than humans either in changing climate more than we are or in keeping it stable in spite of what we do.

It's still been a fascinating little eye-opener for me about the history of physics.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:37 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20894
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Yesterday I read a very short article about Paul Watson, a climate activist, with the quote, “If the Oceans Die, We Die.”

I am having a very difficult time being hopeful.

I spend a fair amount of time mentally grinding on these problems with no solid answers coming to mind. The problem, as I see it, is that nation-states will not cooperate in taking serious action to suppress human impact on the environment. I am afraid that we have been smart enough to create technology that addresses problems of scarcity and security but not smart enough to do it in a sustainable way.

We are too good at extraction but not without causing a lot of harm.

I don’t see how we turn this massive ship around in time.

We are looking at extinction and maybe even the end of life on earth, and it is probably too late already. It would not be too late if we could act collectively, but there is no answer that will not be resisted to the death by nations to get us to cooperate in doing what we need to do.

Unfortunately, the U.S.A. is one of the suicidally irresponsible nations.

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 21507
Location: Koloburbia
Kishkumen wrote:
I am having a very difficult time being hopeful.

Cockroaches survive, and one day an evolutionary descendant might achieve sentience, and eventually, an individual Roach-Person from this line will be approached by a Roach-Angel with a drawn mallet and be ordered to take a swarm of wives. Now go be hopeful once more.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9523
Location: On walkabout
I cannot recommend strongly enough Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm. It is a detailed history of what we know about greenhouse gases and how we came to know it. And all it will cost you is your time.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:40 pm
Posts: 1232
Location: Mesa, Arizona
To pile on, kindly consider this clip from potholer54

Dr. Southerton's points are dead on.

_________________
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9523
Location: On walkabout
beefcalf wrote:
To pile on, kindly consider this clip from potholer54

Dr. Southerton's points are dead on.


Potholer has produced many excellent videos on climate. This is one of the best I’ve seen. The out and out lies spread by Murdoch and Breitbart are stunning.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 5966
Location: Cassius University Hall of Mirrors - Its Symbolic of Something Significant I Just Know it!
We have the smarts, we lack the Wisdom and the Will........thank you Simon for sharing your story.

_________________
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 5365
Res Ipsa wrote:
beefcalf wrote:
To pile on, kindly consider this clip from potholer54

Dr. Southerton's points are dead on.


Potholer has produced many excellent videos on climate. This is one of the best I’ve seen. The out and out lies spread by Murdoch and Breitbart are stunning.


The only thing more stunning are the number of people who believe the lies. We all learned about greenhouse gases in science class, so it should be easy to spot the lies and disinformation, but we have a large segment of our population who refuse to use their science education to counter the pseudeuscience they hear in the media.

_________________
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:23 pm 
Stake High Council
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am
Posts: 559
Location: Canberra
Kishkumen wrote:
I am having a very difficult time being hopeful.

I spend a fair amount of time mentally grinding on these problems with no solid answers coming to mind. The problem, as I see it, is that nation-states will not cooperate in taking serious action to suppress human impact on the environment. I am afraid that we have been smart enough to create technology that addresses problems of scarcity and security but not smart enough to do it in a sustainable way.

We are too good at extraction but not without causing a lot of harm.

I don’t see how we turn this massive ship around in time.

We are looking at extinction and maybe even the end of life on earth, and it is probably too late already. It would not be too late if we could act collectively, but there is no answer that will not be resisted to the death by nations to get us to cooperate in doing what we need to do.

Unfortunately, the U.S.A. is one of the suicidally irresponsible nations.


I have felt similar feelings as I have pondered about these problems. But I think there is room for optimism. Europe is completely onboard and they recognize the need to subsidize poorer EU economies more dependent on fossil fuels. They will soon realise that they need to bring along all poorer economies world-wide.

We have the technology to stop CO2 levels rising within 20-30 years and I reckon eventually bring it down. It may be expensive but the money is there (many times over) and we don't have any choice. It would help if social media wasn't pumping out so many armchair climate change deniers, several of whom currently lead the "suicidally irresponsible nations".

_________________
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:27 pm 
Stake High Council
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am
Posts: 559
Location: Canberra
beefcalf wrote:
To pile on, kindly consider this clip from potholer54

Dr. Southerton's points are dead on.


Thank you beefcalf. I hadn't seen that clip. It's absolutely spot on. My father-in-law consumes, on a daily basis, the lies of Peta Credlin, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and others who wade around in the Murdoch sewer.

_________________
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 20100
I've just resigned myself to the reality that they won't listen to anyone. This isn't an argument or a debate where they can be won over or convinced through some appeal or other. They're not listening to what most experts say on the matter, and they don't care or believe in what they're saying. They're not engaging in good faith. They're not really engaging at all. You can't logic them out of something they didn't logic themselves into. They've made that clear. Even acknowledging the problem exists is too far for them. Pathetic half-measures that won't do ____ like cap-and-trade and vehicle fuel efficiency standards are unacceptable big government socialism to them. Full measures that still probably won't be enough like the Green New Deal are Josef Stalin reincarnated in their minds. They will not be convinced. They will not be reasoned with.

From what I've read we needed to act 20 years ago to combat the worst of climate change. You have these poor climate scientists (I wish I could remember the article well known guy wrote; he was basically despairing) that are begging them to listen, and they aren't even saying the worst reality of it all:

What they're proposing, even if enacted now, most likely won't work because we passed the 400 ppm CO2 threshold, which if I'm not mistaken it the point of no return for the greenhouse effect.

We have massive biodiversity losses already, abnormal weather anomalies (I think the polar cell?? has split into two for 9 straight months - but I don't really know what that means), and then I caught on the news yesterday that for the first time on record that the atmospheric angular momentum was full westerly winds. <- I have no idea what that is, but if our atmosphere just didn't something for the first time in recorded meteorological history it's concerning.

So. Yeah. We're in advanced global warming already. But, hey. Rush Limbaugh said it'd be a good thing since shipping lanes will run through the arctic now.

- Doc

_________________
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 5365
But if global warming melts the Antarctic ice wall that is holding in all the water, the oceans will run off the edge of the Earth and there won't be any shipping lanes in the Arctic. Have they thought about that?

_________________
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 9523
Location: On walkabout
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I've just resigned myself to the reality that they won't listen to anyone. This isn't an argument or a debate where they can be won over or convinced through some appeal or other. They're not listening to what most experts say on the matter, and they don't care or believe in what they're saying. They're not engaging in good faith. They're not really engaging at all. You can't logic them out of something they didn't logic themselves into. They've made that clear. Even acknowledging the problem exists is too far for them. Pathetic half-measures that won't do ____ like cap-and-trade and vehicle fuel efficiency standards are unacceptable big government socialism to them. Full measures that still probably won't be enough like the Green New Deal are Josef Stalin reincarnated in their minds. They will not be convinced. They will not be reasoned with.

From what I've read we needed to act 20 years ago to combat the worst of climate change. You have these poor climate scientists (I wish I could remember the article well known guy wrote; he was basically despairing) that are begging them to listen, and they aren't even saying the worst reality of it all:

What they're proposing, even if enacted now, most likely won't work because we passed the 400 ppm CO2 threshold, which if I'm not mistaken it the point of no return for the greenhouse effect.

We have massive biodiversity losses already, abnormal weather anomalies (I think the polar cell?? has split into two for 9 straight months - but I don't really know what that means), and then I caught on the news yesterday that for the first time on record that the atmospheric angular momentum was full westerly winds. <- I have no idea what that is, but if our atmosphere just didn't something for the first time in recorded meteorological history it's concerning.

So. Yeah. We're in advanced global warming already. But, hey. Rush Limbaugh said it'd be a good thing since shipping lanes will run through the arctic now.

- Doc


Hey Cam,

A couple of things. The more greenhouse gasses we dump into the atmosphere, the higher the temperature will go, and the worse the effects will be. Had we taken action 20-30 years ago, we might have been able to stabilize the concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere before significant effects kicked in. There was some debate over whether the “safe” level was 350 or 400 ppm. As you said, that ship has sailed. We’re at around 412 ppm today. But that was never the threshold for avoiding the worst impacts — it was the threshold for avoiding any significant impact. Now it’s a question of how bad it will get.

As for points of no return, it sounds like you may be talking about tipping points. There are potentially lots of those. They involve the triggering of positive feedbacks that would continue to raise the atmosphere’s temperature even if we cut our net emissions to zero. The melting of permafrost is a good example. As the permafrost thaws, plant material that was frozen thaws and starts to decay, releasing CO2. The CO2 warms the atmosphere, which, in turn, melts more permafrost. The feedback is self limiting at some point because we don’t have infinite permafrost. The permafrost is already melting, so we are passed that particular tipping point.

In another sense, every increase in temperature is a point of no return because whatever climate we end up with is expected to last something like a thousand years. So it’sa point of no return for you and me. And our kids. And their kids. And so on. The only way to return to the climate that you and I and civilization grew up in is to develop a way to remove massive quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it somewhere.

But there is no point of no return in the sense of a runaway greenhouse effect that turns earth into Venus. As far as we know.

The atmospheric phenomena you mention are usually analyzed in terms of effect on weather over a shorter period of time. As we increase the heat energy in the system, we expect those patterns to change. Because our food producing and other infrastructure were developed during a relatively stable climate regime, significant changes in these patterns are expected to reduce food production and Negatively effect other infrastructure. Whether we are setting long term changes in these patterns is being studied by lots of folks. I think the atmospheric angular momentum issue you mentioned is a relatively short term phenomenon that affects the severity of weather events. I haven’t seen anything that indicates climate change has affected that specific phenomenon. At least not yet.

As for doing anything about it, my take is similar to yours. As potholer pointed out, no politician has incentive to take on the problem because the benefit is unlikely to show up for several decades.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:15 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20894
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Res Ipsa wrote:
But there is no point of no return in the sense of a runaway greenhouse effect that turns earth into Venus. As far as we know.


:eek:

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 20100
Res Ipsa wrote:
As for doing anything about it, my take is similar to yours. As potholer pointed out, no politician has incentive to take on the problem because the benefit is unlikely to show up for several decades.


Well. I think the real problem mostly involves the sheer amount of people that exist. We all consume. Even environmentally ‘woke’ types are inevitably hypocrites due to air travel, consumption, waste, whatever. For example, a family that’s vegan, drives an EV, lives in a tiny home, xeriscapes their property with pollinators, etc., pretty much negates that with air travel and all the things that come with it.

Anyway. I do think it’s important that we move toward as many sustainable practices as soon as possible. We live in a finite situation, so my hope is we can transition to farsighted practices, but I’m not sure we can do that until we’re forced to do so. But. We need more concrete boxes and the forest must give way to our hubris. <- I know that’s smug.

- Doc

_________________
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1507
I'd like to read a good book on climate change science. Anyone know what the definitive works are on the subject? I'd like to avoid something that is just full of hyperbole and emotional rhetoric and find something that just really explains the data and models and the implications thereof.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:51 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 9306
Didn’t one of the Apostles or a combination of Apostles, exhort people to have lots more babies regardless of whether or not they can afford them because everyone on the planet could fit in Brazil?

_________________
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:56 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 9306
fetchface wrote:
I'd like to read a good book on climate change science. Anyone know what the definitive works are on the subject? I'd like to avoid something that is just full of hyperbole and emotional rhetoric and find something that just really explains the data and models and the implications thereof.

It’s not a book on climate change, but it is data...
https://www.gapminder.org/data/

_________________
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:38 pm
Posts: 5365
fetchface wrote:
I'd like to read a good book on climate change science. Anyone know what the definitive works are on the subject? I'd like to avoid something that is just full of hyperbole and emotional rhetoric and find something that just really explains the data and models and the implications thereof.


I don't have any specific books in mind, but I think a great primer on this topic is an introduction to the greenhouse effect of the Earth's atmosphere and how it keeps the Earth warmer than it would be if there was no atmosphere. Any elementary science book or website would have this information. Potholer54 has a series of excellent videos on the topic.

_________________
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Climate change apologetics
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1507
I'll check out Potholer54. I was just hoping there was something with the tone of, say, Bill Dever's biblical archeology books but for climate science, someone who would just run through what kinds of data we have, how we developed and validated the models, and then argue for conclusions (and be honest about the relative strength of the various conclusions).

I'm particularly interested in the models. I know enough about modelling and simulation to know that saying "I ran a simulation" could be anything from a completely worthless and misleading statement to something very strong and robust.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group