Expert prognosis for the planet

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Just in general....

If folks approached scientific research and data with no agendas, no focus on personal financial or other gains, nor any preconceived notions or goals other than a greater understanding of events, the conclusions being widely published would undoubtedly be quite different... not to mention much more accurate.
There ARE experts.. many of them.. who do not share the prognoses promoted by the perpetrators of this thread. Perhaps, in the interest of accuracy (of course, who wants THAT, right?), the thread should be renamed "One of Many Possible Prognoses for the Planet, According to Some Self-Professed Experts and Their Followers."

I was speaking to a professor of geology, a gentleman who has spent all of his adult life studying rocks. That is, he is not someone who gets his information from 5 minutes of Googling. We had a discussion covering a wide range of subjects.

He disputes anthropogenic climate change*. When talking about this I had nothing to argue. That is, I knew I did not have the expertise to argue his position. Something else I found very interesting was his style of argument; he get didn't bothered, he presented his case in a calm manner, countering all my points with a convincing counter argument where as my stupid brother presented his Googled arguments with a "No, I'm right because I've read it" and wouldn't listen to new information.
His main point was that Co2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.

He also is well aware of the fallibilities of himself and his peers.

*I am not saying he is right; I do not know. But it was interesting to hear from a very knowledgeable person a counter view.

[Captain Snooze]

"Global warming below 1.7°C is ‘not plausible’, reveals our study of the social drivers of decarbonisation

If you read the scientific literature, there seem to be countless pathways and scenarios that might lead us to global deep decarbonisation by 2050, allowing us to meet the 1.5°C target. “It’s still possible,” is the message, “if only we have the political will”.

But what is the extent of our political will, and more importantly, what are the deeper social dynamics driving it? Is it not only possible, but in fact plausible that we will reach deep decarbonisation by 2050 and meet the associated 1.5°C target? These are some of the questions that we asked ourselves in the recent inaugural Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook, a report compiled by more than 40 academics from across various disciplines including sociology, macroeconomics and the natural sciences."


Quoted from here.
Source of the article here.

[soundman98]

as long as we are only 'solving' these problems on a country level instead of solving them on a global level, there is always going to be a problem.


reason being, as soon as one country shifts their efforts to minimize carbon output, another country with more lax standards generally picks up production of something that country needs, but is now too hazardous to manufacture within the confines of the original country.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Just in general....

If folks approached scientific research and data with no agendas, no focus on personal financial or other gains, nor any preconceived notions or goals other than a greater understanding of events, the conclusions being widely published would undoubtedly be quite different... not to mention much more accurate.

There ARE experts.. many of them.. who do not share the prognoses promoted by the perpetrators of this thread. Perhaps, in the interest of accuracy (of course, who wants THAT, right?), the thread should be renamed "One of Many Possible Prognoses for the Planet, According to Some Self-Professed Experts and Their Followers."

97% of climate scientists subscribe to the theory that the evidence suggests humans are the cause of the warming. We could ignore the experts. In general, dumping carbon and methane in the air is likely not a good ideal. We reversed smog and ozone destruction. I don’t see why this is so much harder for people to understand or rally behind.

Regardless, fossil fuels are finite resources. We need to move to renewables eventually, so it doesn’t matter what we feel or believe about the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels. We need to eventually transition off of them.

Also in general, scientists have their own politics and beliefs, but they tend to be humble, apolitical and without motives that go beyond understanding their world and providing society with knowledge and applications.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I was speaking to a professor of geology, a gentleman who has spent all of his adult life studying rocks. That is, he is not someone who gets his information from 5 minutes of Googling. We had a discussion covering a wide range of subjects.

He disputes anthropogenic climate change*. When talking about this I had nothing to argue. That is, I knew I did not have the expertise to argue his position. Something else I found very interesting was his style of argument; he get didn't bothered, he presented his case in a calm manner, countering all my points with a convincing counter argument where as my stupid brother presented his Googled arguments with a "No, I'm right because I've read it" and wouldn't listen to new information.
His main point was that Co2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.

He also is well aware of the fallibilities of himself and his peers.

*I am not saying he is right; I do not know. But it was interesting to hear from a very knowledgeable person a counter view.

A geologist is not a climatologist. There is some overlap like how a veterinarian is not a physician. Just saying.

If CO2 levels follow raises in temperature then why is that? What causes natural swings in temperature? If normally CO2 follows a rise in temperature then does he believe nature is warming and causing a spike in CO2 levels? If he thinks the events are separate, that global temperatures are rising, but CO2 rise is not the cause of it, but agrees that the CO2 rise is human caused, then is it possible that the link between CO2 following temperature was only during natural processes and that this is an unnatural process because we are the cause of the rise in emissions? In short, is this different because it isn’t natural? Does he feel it is fine continuing to dump greenhouse gases in the air indefinitely or does he think we need to change that behavior?

I guess I have a number of questions. The levels we are seeing are unprecedented. The projections for what the world will look like in fifty, one hundred years or longer given the same behavior are hard to predict, but that seems like a crazy, stupid experiment to do. Maybe global warming is harder to predict than ozone destruction or smog concentrations, but the data is alarming. I would question his opinion if he wasn’t alarmed too.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

97% of climate scientists subscribe to the theory that the evidence suggests humans are the cause of the warming.

Citation? Not even 97% of the scientists I know personally fit that description, and I've spent my entire adult life employed in public through post-graduate academia.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Also in general, scientists have their own politics and beliefs, but they tend to be humble, apolitical and without motives that go beyond understanding their world and providing society with knowledge and applications.

That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Seriously....it caused me to enjoy nasal coffee. Scientists are no more or less susceptible to outside biases than any other profession. I dare say, since quite a bit of (the bulk of?) the funding of their research comes from government grants and gifts from corportations with definite vested interests in ..shall we say...desired findings.... that perhaps research scientists may be bit MORE susceptible to outside pressures. You were kidding, right? Please tell me you were kidding....please.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

as long as we are only 'solving' these problems on a country level instead of solving them on a global level, there is always going to be a problem.


reason being, as soon as one country shifts their efforts to minimize carbon output, another country with more lax standards generally picks up production of something that country needs, but is now too hazardous to manufacture within the confines of the original country.

This is true, but America produces some of the most emissions per capita than any country in the world. We have a lot to improve. And you are right, we shouldn’t shift our carbon footprint to other countries. Selling carbon credits is a problem that is a common critique. Moving our waste management to other countries, and then claiming we are good, and they are bad, isn’t bettering the situation.

Fortunately, the path to a green future will come faster to other countries who can benefit from less investment costs and from the benefits of a developed, globalized system. It will be cheaper for them to adopt green technology, and the price will be lower when they finally adopt green technology. We could reach a point in the future where renewables provide such low cost energy that we can give it away.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Citation? Not even 97% of the scientist I know personally fit that description, and I've spent my entire adult life employed in public through post-graduate academia.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...fclimatechange

It really doesn’t matter if it is 97% or 90% or 75%. It isn’t 50% or 25%. Even if it isn’t anthropomorphic, scientists are still in agreement that it is alarming. That consensus is extremely high.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Seriously....it caused me to enjoy nasal coffee. Scientists are no more or less susceptible to outside biases than any other profession. I dare say, since quite a bit of (the bulk of?) the funding of their research comes from government grants and gifts from corportations with definite vested interests in ..shall we say...desired findings.... that perhaps research scientists may be bit MORE susceptible to outside pressures. You were kidding, right? Please tell me you were kidding....please.

The data is published. The studies are peer reviewed and critiqued for errors in their methodology, statistics and analysis. Scientists intentionally are vague and humble knowing their work and their credibility are easily tarnished or refuted by future studies. While scientists are paid and are sponsored and do receive grants, you seem to be acting as if scientists have deceitful alternative motives in some global conspiracy theory to move money from fossil fuel giants to new green energy sectors. Have you read studies or been to a scientific conference before? It is hard for anyone to read these articles or go to one of these events and not think scientists are some of the most humble people out there.

Scientists are driven to study the world or develop applications for problems. They aren’t in the business of fabricating problems for the deep state like some people believe.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Do you think I do not appreciate that? That I think every body with an education is an expert in everything?
Just saying.

Some people take their information from smart people who are not experts. That is what that sounded like. There really wasn’t any new arguments provided from him that we could argue here suggesting why rising temperatures aren’t anthropomorphic. What was said was his opinion and a statement that CO2 levels have followed temperature. That really isn’t much, so I took your comment as an appeal to an authority who isn’t an expert, or it was an anecdotal example of a non-climate scientists who isn’t a believer in the theory that climate change is anthropomorphic. What else was the point of the post if not those?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Citation? Not even 97% of the scientist I know personally fit that description, and I've spent my entire adult life employed in public through post-graduate academia.



That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Seriously....it caused me to enjoy nasal coffee. Scientists are no more or less susceptible to outside biases than any other profession. I dare say, since quite a bit of (the bulk of?) the funding of their research comes from government grants and gifts from corportations with definite vested interests in ..shall we say...desired findings.... that perhaps research scientists may be bit MORE susceptible to outside pressures. You were kidding, right? Please tell me you were kidding....please.

On the first part, some clarification please. Do the scientists you know dispute that Earth is warming? If not, do they dispute that the direct cause for Earth warming is an increase in various greenhouse gasses? If not, do they dispute the primary source of the increase in greenhouse gasses being related to human activity? I assume these scientists have published some data to back their opinions, so would you mind sharing that data?

On the second matter, I agree with you to a point. No scientists as people are not saints, nor are they ego-less, nor are they apolitical, and yes they have a number of pressures put on them due to monetary concerns. But, science as a profession has limits as to how far one might stray from the ideal before an individual is criticized, ostracized, and/or condemned. How many scientists that you know would straight up lie about objective data? It would be a really bad idea, considering someone else can run the same experiment and show it to be false, or at least that it is an anomaly. And if subjective conclusions do not follow a logical pattern leading back to some largely accepted theory or relationship, it is likely to be subject to quite a bit of criticism from peers. So in that way, science is ethically regulated.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Some people take their information from smart people who are not experts.

.

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

*I am not saying he is right; I do not know. But it was interesting to hear from a very knowledgeable person a counter view.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...fclimatechange

It really doesn’t matter if it is 97% or 90% or 75%. It isn’t 50% or 25%. Even if it isn’t anthropomorphic, scientists are still in agreement that it is alarming. That consensus is extremely high. .

That's not what you stated as fact; you stated that, unequivocally, 97% of climate scientists agree that climate warming is caused by man. That is a false statement on several levels, and you made it. Own it. First of all, the study you cited is flawed on several levels (see the Forbes article linked below), and secondly, the article to which you referred discussed "climate change," and not the more specific (and not coincidentally even more difficult to defend) charge of "climate/global warming."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...h=422ac4d71157

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The data is published. The studies are peer reviewed and critiqued for errors in their methodology, statistics and analysis. Scientists intentionally are vague and humble knowing their work and their credibility are easily tarnished or refuted by future studies. While scientists are paid and are sponsored and do receive grants, you seem to be acting as if scientists have deceitful alternative motives in some global conspiracy theory to move money from fossil fuel giants to new green energy sectors.

Again, read the Forbes link above. I read yours... you read mine. Regardless of how I "seem to be acting" to you, not once have I intimated that the scientists to whom you defer for your opinions are acting intentionally deceitfully, nor involved in a global conspiracy. I said that they, like everyone, are susceptible to outside biases, and that 97% do not agree that man is the cause of climate change/global warming. THAT is fact.
I have also never said anything to indicate a lack of support for moving away from fossil fuels.

If you insist on mischaracterizing my words, outside studies, and stating your strongly held opinions as fact, I can't stop you. You may wish to cease doing so, as it only serves to further weaken your already weak stance.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is true, but America produces some of the most emissions per capita than any country in the world. ...

We are fourth, as of 2018, beaten out by Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and Australia in spots one, two, and three respectively, for CO2 emissions/ capita. Interestingly, Canada is very close to us at 5th. We are in a distant second place to China for world's most polluting country in total (approx. 30% of the world's emissions compared to 15% for us). Nothing to be proud of, of course, but we are doing more to turn that around than pretty much any other country in the world.

Citation, taken from a source I'm sure you'll be much more likely to trust than I will - https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/eac...-co2-emissions

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Spuds

On the first part, some clarification please. Do the scientists you know dispute that Earth is warming? If not, do they dispute that the direct cause for Earth warming is an increase in various greenhouse gasses? If not, do they dispute the primary source of the increase in greenhouse gasses being related to human activity? I assume these scientists have published some data to back their opinions, so would you mind sharing that data?

On the second matter, I agree with you to a point. No scientists as people are not saints, nor are they ego-less, nor are they apolitical, and yes they have a number of pressures put on them due to monetary concerns. But, science as a profession has limits as to how far one might stray from the ideal before an individual is criticized, ostracized, and/or condemned. How many scientists that you know would straight up lie about objective data? It would be a really bad idea, considering someone else can run the same experiment and show it to be false, or at least that it is an anomaly. And if subjective conclusions do not follow a logical pattern leading back to some largely accepted theory or relationship, it is likely to be subject to quite a bit of criticism from peers. So in that way, science is ethically regulated.

I appreciate the measured response. The conversations I've had with colleagues in various science departments were all quite informal, and not in depth in the least; I teach orchestral and jazz music performance, and do not mean to suggest that I am attending science conferences or otherwise engaged in an indepth daily basis with the workings of scientific research at the universities I've taught at. Comments I do recall being made by my scientist colleauges and friends will most likely be things you've already heard; climate change is, indeed, cyclical and expected regardless of the existence of man, the earth has an incredible power to heal itself, a lot of the data driving the observations of increased temperatures are coming from very specific locations where a great deal of very localized industrial buildup has occured and thereby strongly skewing global readings towards these isolated area averages, and other commonly expressed concerns about the data being gathered and the resultant interpretations. There is NO doubt that the climate is changing... it always will. I will say that if one stated that there is majority agreement that mankind is a factor, they would be correct. The discussion lies in how much of a factor, or even if the factor is significant enough that we can make a discerinable shift in the natural course of climate change by even a quantum shift in our way of life.

NONE of that is to say......, and I want to be clear here just in case (a) certain someone(s) see fit to suggest that I advocate littering, irresponsible and wasteful living, tossing as much plastic as possible into our oceans, and driving the largest, thirstiest vehicles possible for grocery-getting...... that we shouldn't explore cleaner, renewable energy resources, and strive to care for and respect the environment in which we live. We should. All things in good balance. The world is not going to end in ten years. It hasn't in the last four decades, each time we were given the message that the world was going to end in ten years. We are better stewards of the planet than we have ever been, and should continue to improve. Internal combustion engines are not evil. The current crop of electric cars, especially considering the majority of the current sources (no pun intended) that provide the electricity and energy for their use and manufacture, are pretty much a zero sum gain (and some would argue a slight deficit, although strides are being made). I am not opposed at all to electric cars; if the price comes down, you may see me driving a Tesla in the next couple years, or a Nikola if they ever get to market. I am very much opposed to being told I HAVE to.