Expert prognosis for the planet

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

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

I've read that article before, and I read it again.

I don't see any point in arguing over a few percentage points. I'll concede a few percentage points. If I were to truly claim 97% then I would need to also claim to be referring to a particular study on a particular point in time, and even then, 97% isn't a hard number. There is a certain amount of implications that when someone is sharing a perecentage, they are sharing a relative number. I could have said most or almost all, but that can have much more interpretation. At the same time, when I say 97%, I assume readers understand that I didn't just read the minds of all climate scientists, and I don't know their swaying consensus at any given moment. I assume a reader will interpret the 97% as relating to something with some sense of accuracy, but that the point is to suggest it is an overwhelming consensus. It is an overwhelming consensus. It doesn't matter if it was off or if the number changes by 3% or 10%.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

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.

While 97% might not be fact, and I don't care if it is higher or lower, it is a fact that the scientific community, as it pertains to climatologists who are experts in the field of the climate, overwhelmingly subscribe to the theory that global average temperatures are rising, and the cause is humans. This is a fact.

Now, depending on how you ask the question, you will get the very, very, very typical responses from scientists, which is to use qualifiers such as, "the evidence suggests, but I don't know." Scientists will rarely ever say with absolute certainty that something is for certain because they want to leave room for options, so the level of certainty expressed by these scientists should be viewed with respect.

The point is that the anecdotal conversation from a geologist should not weigh much in the face of the overwhelming consensus from climatologists. It shouldn't even sway anyone's opinions. If the person's arguments were convincing then let's hear their arguments, so we can evaluate and discuss their validity here. Until such time, I'll throw in that my brother's, friend's, former boss once worked for a guy who's uncle said climate change is anthropomorphic, and he has three PHDs--one in Ancient Chinese Art, one in French Literature and one in Biblical Studies.

Here is some interesting captures from the study discussed in the Forbes article:

[Irace86.2.0]

These seem to support my position that there is a strong consensus and that scientists don't have an agenda other than to provide the research as it unfolds.

[Capt Spaulding]

Edit: Irace86 has much quicker fingers than I. Nevertheless, I spent a bit of time on the following and insist that you all read it.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

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



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.

I read the Forbes piece and must confess, I'm a bit surprised you cited it as it seems to undermine rather than support what I gather to be your position. I could be mistaken, but you, as did Mr. Ritchie seem fixated on the magic 97% figure.

He goes to great pains to debunk that number critiquing several (what I would call) meta-analyses of papers produced between 2003 and 2016. And, he does, in fact raise legitimate questions about the 97% estimate. His first bar chart leads him to the statement that "... over half the surveys in the publishing category and all the surveys in the non-publishing category are below 97%." Touche But what does that mean?

Of the published surveys, none produces a figure lower than 84% and, tellingly the numbers trend upward until 2008 from which point all indicate census levels in excess of 90 % and four come to the infamous 97% number. On the unpublished side, the level of consensus is lower, peaking at 92% in a 2014 piece. But, of the 9 pieces he cites, only 3 indicate a level less than 80% and all were produced before 2014.

As a practical matter does the absolute number really matter? You seem to have spent time in an academic setting and are no doubt familiar with the related concepts of measurement error and false precision. I have no idea what the Ns of the surveys in question were and no way of drawing a confidence interval around their various point estimates. What I can say with certainty is that, unless they surveyed the universe of climate (I presume) scientists, each of the numbers provided is subject to measurement error and therefore, inexact. Does it matter that the 97% number is wrong. If it does, we need accept that all survey derived estimates are wrong. It seems to me that what we can conclude from Ritchie's piece is that, given the fractious nature of most scientific communities, there is pretty overwhelming support for the assertion that climate scientists subscribe to some version of anthropogenic climate change. Must we go beyond that? To do so seems almost cruelly pedantic.

The chart from the Bray and von Storch paper seems similarly unhelpful. The item they present represents the results of a Likert item measuring respondents beliefs in the anthropogenic foundations of climate change. First, I think Ritchie misread the text of the item. A seven point Likert scale would start at the low end with "Not at all convinced" not "not convinced" which would be scored as a 2. 4 is the "Not Sure" category and 5, 6, and 7 are various levels of positive conviction.

As to interpretation, ignoring the "somewhat convinced" group in category 5, over 69 (let's call it 70) % of the respondents were either "convinced" or "very much convinced" of the efficacy of the anthropogenic nature of climate change.

All of which leads me to this question: What is your point? To poke a hole in a number which anyone who has done or paid attention to an opinion survey knows is not true? Of course it's not true. A point estimate is, in the best of circumstances almost certainly not correct. The true value will lie within the confidence interval of the survey. The point estimate simply offers us something to talk about.

Now, I have rattled on for quite some time, but again, what is your point?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

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

We are ten times the size of Saudi Arabia and Australia and twenty times the size of Kazakhstan. Typically, the list includes large countries, but also per capita data (see below). We are more than double the per capita rate of China. If the countries above China lowered to China's levels then that would be a big improvement. Yes, China needs to improve, but we are far, far worse per capita. Remember, they have more than a billion more people than the US, so of course they will produce more, but considering they are four times our size, but only produce double our emissions is telling.




When you say we are doing more to turn that around than any other country, do you have a link for that statement? Is this in total volume or per capita? We have the most improvement to make from a volume and capita perspective, but we aren't leading in renewables in absolute terms or as a percentage of our total production of energy or in EV production or in many metrics, so I am wondering what makes you say that.

From these, it looks like China has more green production, Brazil and Canada have the highest percentage of production from renewables, the US is low on EV adoption as a percentage and behind China in total EV sales. What are you finding?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

We are ten times the size of Saudi Arabia and Australia and twenty times the size of Kazakhstan. Typically, the list includes large countries, but also per capita data (see below). We are more than double the per capita rate of China.

Per capita seems like a poor measurement in a country like China where only about 60% of it's massive population lives in an Urban area, most associated with carbon emissions. The US is considered over 80% "urbanized" in contrast, but the difference is even greater when you consider the population differences between the two countries.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

These seem to support my position that there is a strong consensus and that scientists don't have an agenda other than to provide the research as it unfolds.

ok, now does forbes compare the vote vs the actual use of the data?

because that reads like an OSHA test.

"when are you supposed to stand on top of a ladder?"
1always........10never

97% picked never!

we're all safe!

[in the background, just-finished-the-test timmy crashes to the floor off a 10' ladder because he was standing on the top to do one last thing]

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Per capita seems like a poor measurement in a country like China where only about 60% of it's massive population lives in an Urban area, most associated with carbon emissions. The US is considered over 80% "urbanized" in contrast, but the difference is even greater when you consider the population differences between the two countries.

That’s true, but it is the best measure of how a society is doing that we have. It is far better than total emissions. But with total emissions, it provides us with the countries that will make the biggest impact.

Also, if you are going to compare differences then you should compare all the differences and not just living location. I believe the per capita values include all emissions from individuals and from industries, and from what I understand, China leads the world in manufacturing, and they are higher per capita than the US. Manufacturing tends to have a larger carbon footprint than other industries.

Even without that, the 20% difference can’t account for a greater than doubling per capita that the US has over China. Individually, we are high consumers with poor recycling.

With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper.

A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mption-habits/

[EAGLE5]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Per capita seems like a poor measurement in a country like China where only about 60% of it's massive population lives in an Urban area, most associated with carbon emissions. The US is considered over 80% "urbanized" in contrast, but the difference is even greater when you consider the population differences between the two countries.

Urban, dense living is far more carbon friendly than living in the countryside. In a skyscraper, you've got people heating or cooling all around you, sharing the HVAC. You take a bus or a subway to your destination, if you don't just walk. A big truck can take a large amount into the city and distribute it efficiently. Dense cities are awesome for carbon impact.

In the countryside, you heat and cool a much larger space, without the benefit of other units insulating your home. You drive to get anywhere, and all deliveries are inefficient. The carbon footprint is dramatically higher.

Hence, arcologies are likely the future of much of the human race if we keep growing. The planet can sustain far more people in arcology lifestyles than it can in single family homes. That said, the falling birthrate in industrialized nations suggests that maybe the future will not be so dense. We may see a future where single child families are the norm, and the world population eventually drops or at least flattens out.

As for global climate change, (not at Dadhawk) it is abundantly clear that the planet is warming and warming quickly. The evidence is large and keeps piling up. Sure, there are holes in the evidence, but they're insignificant and require a lot of contorting to get through. Mostly they're just illogical.

There's also about the same amount of evidence that humans are responsible for the heating. It's not just carbon. It's methane and natural gas and a many other activities we do. We are a polluting our environment, and we're seeing the consequences.

Anti-science thinking pollutes minds and gets people killed. I can have my own beliefs, and I can have my own actions, but I can't have my own facts.

[Irace86.2.0]

I think Dadhawk was thinking that China might not just have urban, suburban and rural lifestyles, but that there was dual standard of livings there, where there are many people living in rural areas at lower standards, which could have less carbon footprint. Unlike people living in rural areas in the US, in China they probably don’t receive packages, have a car, have electricity, etc. I believe this is true of many countries like India too, but it might be even more polar for China. I don’t know. It is probably what Dadhawk was thinking. Outside of some inefficiencies and use of wood for cooking and heating, I tend to think an agrarian lifestyle would have a much smaller carbon footprint.

In general, I agree with all your points.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by EAGLE5

Urban, dense living is far more carbon friendly than living in the countryside.

In the countryside, you heat and cool a much larger space, without the benefit of other units insulating your home. You drive to get anywhere, and all deliveries are inefficient. The carbon footprint is dramatically higher.

My point was more around that, in China, those living outside urbanized areas are typically very poor and are more than likely not living a modern lifestyle where they "contribute" to the items as much. You are correct that is probably not the same as in the US where even those living outside urbanization do contribute.

I'm not arguing the Earth is warming, the data seems to say it is, just as it has done in the past as part of the Earth's cycle. And yes, we Humans are likely contributing to it to one degree or the other.

[EAGLE5]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My point was more around that, in China, those living outside urbanized areas are typically very poor and are more than likely not living a modern lifestyle where they "contribute" to the items as much. You are correct that is probably not the same as in the US where even those living outside urbanization do contribute.

I'm not arguing the Earth is warming, the data seems to say it is, just as it has done in the past as part of the Earth's cycle. And yes, we Humans are likely contributing to it to one degree or the other.

I misunderstood. My understanding is that urban China is quite modern, these days.

I tried to separate the latter half of what I wrote. , I didn't think it applied to you.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That’s true, but it is the best measure of how a society is doing that we have. It is far better than total emissions. But with total emissions, it provides us with the countries that will make the biggest impact.

Also, if you are going to compare differences then you should compare all the differences and not just living location. I believe the per capita values include all emissions from individuals and from industries, and from what I understand, China leads the world in manufacturing, and they are higher per capita than the US. Manufacturing tends to have a larger carbon footprint than other industries.

Even without that, the 20% difference can’t account for a greater than doubling per capita that the US has over China. Individually, we are high consumers with poor recycling.

I think net emissions per land area might be a better (or at least interesting) way to look at the country-aligned figures. Consider that countries are defined by geographic borders, so each makes up a certain percentage of the planet in terms of area. Climate change is a planetary matter and not a population matter.

Also, the "net emissions" would have to account for how the country may reduce it's emissions, through undeveloped land area for example.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I think net emissions per land area might be a better (or at least interesting) way to look at the country-aligned figures. Consider that countries are defined by geographic borders, so each makes up a certain percentage of the planet in terms of area. Climate change is a planetary matter and not a population matter.

Also, the "net emissions" would have to account for how the country may reduce it's emissions, through undeveloped land area for example.

I don’t know if land area matters that much as a meaningful metric.

Ultimately, it is emissions that we want to reduce, so total emissions matter, but it is possible that a country could meet a global standard per capita and still produce far more emissions than any other country because of shear numbers. This partially describes China. We need China to improve, but too often people in the US point to China when they should be pointing into a mirror.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t know if land area matters that much as a meaningful metric.

Ultimately, it is emissions that we want to reduce, so total emissions matter, but it is possible that a country could meet a global standard per capita and still produce far more emissions than any other country because of shear numbers. This partially describes China. We need China to improve, but too often people in the US point to China when they should be pointing into a mirror.

Land area should matter though. The planet has a relatively fixed area, but the human population is constantly changing, and shifting (number and location). If we keep basing our metrics on population, that is yet another variable challenging our optimization efforts. Per capita is only effective if your primary goal is to measure some metric relative to the individuals in a group. With climate change, we don't really GAF about individuals, we care (or at least should care) about optimizing the entire civilization for what the planet can handle.

Basically, the target per capita emissions should be subservient to the optimization of a country's strategy to meet an emissions target determined by the amount of Earth it is responsible for. In that way, you replace a variable national target with a generally fixed national target, allowing better planning and execution of the optimized strategy. This also allows greater freedom in devising said strategy.

In layman's terms, if you keep moving the goalposts every time somebody kicks the ball, everyone who took the time to aim carefully is going to miss.