217 replies to this topic

[Lallante]

That is not correct. Once the forest is mature the biomass per area is not really increasing anymore and the forest cannot anymore work as an effective carbon sink.

Buried dead biomass continues to accumulate in the soil, thus the overall level of stored carbon continues to increase. Plus the trees get thicker at a steady rate as they get older so I'm not sure that you are right that even the biomass of the forest itself is not really increasing.

Soil is not necessarily a sink at all when the biomass decomposes, these are not simple issues. I'm pretty sure that from a carbon viewpoint cutting down an old forest, storing the trees in a dry mine and planting a young forest in its place would create an effective sink.

In terms of carbon, yes probably. There are many many other externalities to the destruction of old forest though, not least to biodiversity.

[platypus]

Soil is not necessarily a sink at all when the biomass decomposes, these are not simple issues. I'm pretty sure that from a carbon viewpoint cutting down an old forest, storing the trees in a dry mine and planting a young forest in its place would create an effective sink.

In terms of carbon, yes probably. There are many many other externalities to the destruction of old forest though, not least to biodiversity.

Of course.

[donjoe]

I was incredibly surprised, and elated, to see that both 1) and 2) had 100% affirmative responses, and 3) had about 90%.

As elated, I'm sure, as a religious man would be to see that his entire congregation agrees that Jehovah is god and that Jesus is his prophet. Which, of course, doesn't make it true.

I asked the speaker afterwards why there was such great opposition to the concept of AGW. He replied lack of education, a modern obsession with conspiricies, and the strength of vested interests.

Vested interests? Don't make me laugh.
http://www.correntew...ubble_machine_0

[Lallante]

I was incredibly surprised, and elated, to see that both 1) and 2) had 100% affirmative responses, and 3) had about 90%.

As elated, I'm sure, as a religious man would be to see that his entire congregation agrees that Jehovah is god and that Jesus is his prophet. Which, of course, doesn't make it true.

I asked the speaker afterwards why there was such great opposition to the concept of AGW. He replied lack of education, a modern obsession with conspiricies, and the strength of vested interests.

Vested interests? Don't make me laugh.
http://www.correntew...ubble_machine_0

The thing is, if there was a legitimate case to be made against climate change, these are exactly the sort of people who would be making it.

[Nootropic Cat]

any rational arguments for not pushing to restore the atmosphere to its natural (by which I mean pre-industrial age) state?

it's prohibitively expensive, and also pretty close to the atmosphere of today. Given more advanced technology the cost should decline drastically(which may well end up in the atmosphere being altered to a state different from both today and preindustrial times as whoever controls said technology tinkers away).

Cost matters.

The natural state is the ice age. I'm sure environmentalists would love to live in their community igloos.

I think my point was that I'm not entirely convinced as to whether global warming is happening or what is causing it if it is, but I support the cessation of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere based on the assumption that we just don't understand what the consequences might be. I don't understand why anyone would think otherwise unless they have a vested financial interest in the car/oil companies etc.

[eternaltraveler]

we just don't understand what the consequences might be

we know what they won't be. The present carbon dioxide level in the earth's atmosphere is hardly unprecedented. Just unprecedented lately.

500 million years ago the carbon dioxide level was 20 times of the level today, and 5 times current levels during the Jurassic. Life went on, and that without human ingenuity which presently enables us to live from Antarctica to death valley, and visit much more extreme environments (the present low CO2 levels are what prompted the evolution of C4 plants which really only came into prominence in the last 7 million years).

[niner]

we just don't understand what the consequences might be

we know what they won't be. The present carbon dioxide level in the earth's atmosphere is hardly unprecedented. Just unprecedented lately.

500 million years ago the carbon dioxide level was 20 times of the level today, and 5 times current levels during the Jurassic. Life went on, and that without human ingenuity which presently enables us to live from Antarctica to death valley, and visit much more extreme environments (the present low CO2 levels are what prompted the evolution of C4 plants which really only came into prominence in the last 7 million years).

The problem with that argument is that the last time CO2 levels were very much higher there weren't any humans around. This is not to say that some humans couldn't survive in such an environment, but what would be the effect on the biosphere overall? Ocean acidification, sea level rise, drought, floods, new diseases (like the pine beetles that are destroying forests in the western US now, only worse), not to mention the consequences of billions of people facing extreme dislocation, e.g. resource wars, uncontrolled immigration, massive rise in violence, economic disruption or collapse... In the end, sure, there would still be life on earth. Just not as many species as we have now. There would still be (some) people, but it would be ugly.

[Nootropic Cat]

we know what they won't be. The present carbon dioxide level in the earth's atmosphere is hardly unprecedented. Just unprecedented lately.

500 million years ago the carbon dioxide level was 20 times of the level today, and 5 times current levels during the Jurassic. Life went on, and that without human ingenuity which presently enables us to live from Antarctica to death valley, and visit much more extreme environments (the present low CO2 levels are what prompted the evolution of C4 plants which really only came into prominence in the last 7 million years).

K, but we're spewing a lot more than just CO2...

And in line with what niner said, this isn't about being a tree-hugging 'let's save the world' type. The world will be fine, as will the continuation of life. Whether we will be too is the question, and gambling on uncertain outcomes for the sake of convenient travel and so on has me concerned.

Edited by TripleHelix, 23 April 2010 - 02:44 AM.

[niner]

Better yet, use a reusable bag. Plastic bags are still a massive environmental problem.

Reusable bags are not a bad idea, but how are plastic bags a massive environmental problem? The only one I can think of is when they are just tossed on the ground as litter. If they are discarded in a landfill or recycled, I don't see a problem. My rationale is that they represent only a few grams of hydrocarbons, only enough to run the average car for a few seconds. They were originally hydrocarbons underground, where they sat for millions of years without bothering anyone. When we put one in a landfill, it is kind of like returning the hydrocarbons to where they came from. The fact that it doesn't biodegrade isn't really relevant; the original petroleum didn't biodegrade either.

[eternaltraveler]

Ocean acidification, sea level rise, drought, floods, new diseases (like the pine beetles that are destroying forests in the western US now, only worse), not to mention the consequences of billions of people facing extreme dislocation, e.g. resource wars, uncontrolled immigration, massive rise in violence, economic disruption or collapse..

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

I already know you dont really buy into this kind of fear mongering hysteria, so why say it?

Life's dangerous, wear a helmet.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 23 April 2010 - 04:46 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

Plastic bags are still a massive environmental problem.

they look bad on the side of the highway, and some sea turtles eat them occasionally, but otherwise plastic bags or any other litter doesnt do much much besides look ugly. Worry more about pollution.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 23 April 2010 - 04:48 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

like the pine beetles that are destroying forests in the western US now

yeah, damn pine beetle killed a bunch of trees in my yard.

[Nootropic Cat]

I'm interested to hear you define 'pollution' without invoking something along the lines of 'natural balance'.

[eternaltraveler]

I'm interested to hear you define 'pollution' without invoking something along the lines of 'natural balance'.

Heavy metals
Persistent organic pollutants
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Volatile organic compounds
Environmental xenobiotics

you know, stuff that when you breath it or drink it or roll in it makes you sick in places it shouldnt be?

Edited by eternaltraveler, 23 April 2010 - 06:01 AM.

[donjoe]

gambling on uncertain outcomes for the sake of convenient travel and so on has me concerned.

Spending billions that we didn't spend before and disrupting the energy economy with carbophobic policies is just as much a gamble as leaving things alone, absent proof that total human quality of life has decreased because of the atmospheric warming of the last 3 decades.

Edited by donjoe, 23 April 2010 - 06:30 AM.

[Nootropic Cat]

I'm interested to hear you define 'pollution' without invoking something along the lines of 'natural balance'.

Heavy metals
Persistent organic pollutants
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Volatile organic compounds
Environmental xenobiotics

you know, stuff that when you breath it or drink it or roll in it makes you sick in places it shouldnt be?

OK, so stuff that is immediately toxic to humans is 'pollution' and is bad. I'm guessing that if there were a substance that was harmless to humans but would wipe out another species causing the collapse of an entire ecosystem, you'd go ahead and stretch the definition of 'pollution' to include that as well. I'm wondering where we draw the line. What about trash that is effectively inert over a period of 10-20 years, but will leach toxic compounds into the soil and waterways over the course of 200 years? What about a cocktail of gases and colloids that have never been tested in the atmosphere over a long period of time (not just CO2 remember) which despite negligible effects during our brief 'experiment' thus far, some scientists predict will reach a tipping point and cause untold damage to some if not many organisms and ecosystems? Is it only pollution after it starts killing people?

[Nootropic Cat]

gambling on uncertain outcomes for the sake of convenient travel and so on has me concerned.

Spending billions that we didn't spend before and disrupting the energy economy with carbophobic policies is just as much a gamble as leaving things alone, absent proof that total human quality of life has decreased because of the atmospheric warming of the last 3 decades.

I agree that taking immediate and drastic action is hard to justify without being pretty certain that our future is in danger (though there's a case to be made that the worst-case scenario carries such a heavy price as to make it significant even if there's only a small probability of it happening). Actually even if really bad stuff plays out in 50 years time I imagine that technology and AI will be developed enough that we will be able to fix it at short notice with geoengineering etc. anyway. I still don't see why it isn't obviously correct to have a mindset of moving away from emission-belching industries wherever possible. Seems to me that the emotions aroused by this subject have polarised the two camps into 'do everything' and 'do nothing'. Why not 'do a little bit' while continuing to discuss it?

Edited by TripleHelix, 23 April 2010 - 06:56 AM.

[JLL]

Here's something to kickstart your day with:

"Planet or Death!" -- Bolivian President Evo Morales' Courageous Speech at World People's Conference on Climate Change
"Without equilibrium between people, there will be no equilibrium between humans and nature."

TIQUIPAYA, Bolivia -- Bolivian President Evo Morales seems testier today than when he told me during a 2007 interview, "For 500 years, we have had patience."

The urgency felt by Morales and the more than 15,000 people from 150 nations attending the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (CMPCC) was evident from the first sentences uttered by the host and convener of this unprecedented gathering in Tiquipaya, a small town just north of Cochabamba, home of the historic “water war” that helped sweep Morales into power.

In a 21st century twist on “Revolución o Muerte” (Revolution or Death), the slogan that powered Latin American revolutionary movements of the 60s and 70s, the generally soft-spoken Morales opened the conference by shouting “Planeta o Muerte!” (Planet or Death). Morales' slogan drew raucous responses from the diverse and mostly dark-skinned crowd filling a stadium that bore more flags of indigenous nations than it did of nation states like Bolivia. Having sung just prior to Morales' invocation the song “Oye amigo tu tierra está en peligro,” (Listen friend, your earth is in danger), a variation on the Spanish-language version of “The people united will never be defeated,” the crowd was ready to accept Morales’ challenge to forge “a new planetary paradigm to save the Earth.”

Morales' choice of opening words as well as his convening of this unprecedented global mobilization represents more than a greening of revolutionary movements or a revolutionizing of green movements. It is something even more ambitious: inspiring a new era in hemispheric and global politics, one that fuses the best of indigenous, leftist, labor, environmentalist and other movements in the effort to save Pachamama (Mother Earth). The welcome from the president of the Plurinational State of Bulibiya (Bolivia in Quechua) also marks another stage in the remarkable rise of an indigenous former coca-grower and immigrant (Morales migrated to Argentina in his youth) who has become the de-facto leader of this hybrid global movement that links the rights of humans to what organizers have coined the “universal rights of Mother Earth.”

“Without equilibrium between people, there will be no equilibrium between humans and nature,” said Morales, who proposed the CMPCC after what he and all attendees here consider the failure of the top-down driven Copenhagen round of climate talks to secure commitments to emissions reductions that would keep temperature rises to less than 2 degrees centigrade. The unapologetically anti-capitalist philosophy, program and approach of the alternative climate summit and Morales (i.e., “Either capitalism dies or Mother Earth dies”) stand in direct conflict with the approach taken by the leaders of industrial nations at Copenhagen. Critics came to Tiquipaya, a suburb of Cochabamba, out of dismay with the “Copenhagen consensus,” which was brokered behind closed doors and rapidly ratified with little time for discussion and no connection to issues being discussed here: climate migration, agriculture and food sovereignty, climate debt, indigenous peoples and 14 other issues organizers say they will push during the next round of UN-sponsored climate talks taking place in Mexico this November.

[eternaltraveler]

I'm interested to hear you define 'pollution' without invoking something along the lines of 'natural balance'.

Heavy metals
Persistent organic pollutants
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Volatile organic compounds
Environmental xenobiotics

you know, stuff that when you breath it or drink it or roll in it makes you sick in places it shouldnt be?

OK, so stuff that is immediately toxic to humans is 'pollution' and is bad. I'm guessing that if there were a substance that was harmless to humans but would wipe out another species causing the collapse of an entire ecosystem, you'd go ahead and stretch the definition of 'pollution' to include that as well. I'm wondering where we draw the line. What about trash that is effectively inert over a period of 10-20 years, but will leach toxic compounds into the soil and waterways over the course of 200 years? What about a cocktail of gases and colloids that have never been tested in the atmosphere over a long period of time (not just CO2 remember) which despite negligible effects during our brief 'experiment' thus far, some scientists predict will reach a tipping point and cause untold damage to some if not many organisms and ecosystems? Is it only pollution after it starts killing people?

Its not complicated. Pollution are the toxic compounds especially in places where it hurts stuff. If some piece of trash leeches toxic compounds, sure, that's pollution. Of course its only relevant in concentrations that actually hurt stuff, and some level of pollution is inevitable. litter=trash where it shouldn't be that mostly looks ugly but sometimes hurts some animals who mistake it for jellyfish.

[donjoe]

I still don't see why it isn't obviously correct to have a mindset of moving away from emission-belching industries wherever possible.

Moving away from old technologies to new technologies is a process that can set its own pace just fine, it won't happen much faster just because some idiots put huge economic pressure on it (through "cap and trade"). The reality is that none of the existing alternative energy sources are quite good enough (yet) to replace fossil fuels and this won't change any faster if we start punishing the owners of fossil-based industries with big taxes.

What should be seen as obviously correct IMO is that - since the climate can do a lot more nasty things to us than a little heat wave - the main direction of environmental investment should be toward an ever-increasing immunity of the human habitat to ALL kinds of natural aggressions. D'ooohhh!

You know you have an enemy that has projectile weapons, you're probably better off building a big ass shield (or kevlar vests etc.) than investing in psychological research in the hopes of developing some manipulation techniques that might convince the enemy to leave you alone. This time. The enemy's mind is hugely complex and you can't have any confidence that your psy methods will really convince him to stand down. A shield, OTOH, is easier to conceive and build and it will always do its job against the type of thing it was built to protect you from. What we need is a shield against environmental forces, not some stupid geoengineering roulette that we may very well lose. (Think "Asimov's Trantor".)

Edited by donjoe, 24 April 2010 - 06:36 PM.

[niner]

I still don't see why it isn't obviously correct to have a mindset of moving away from emission-belching industries wherever possible.

Moving away from old technologies to new technologies is a process that can set its own pace just fine, it won't happen much faster just because some idiots put huge economic pressure on it (through "cap and trade").

What, you don't believe in rational markets? If you increase the price of the old technology relative to the new one, what do you think will happen?

The reality is that none of the existing alternative energy sources are quite good enough (yet) to replace fossil fuels and this won't change any faster if we start punishing the owners of fossil-based industries with big taxes.

Creating markets for alternative technologies causes them to be developed. That development either doesn't happen or happens more slowly if there is no market for it.

What we need is a shield against environmental forces, not some stupid geoengineering roulette that we may very well lose. (Think "Asimov's Trantor".)

You mean like some sort of dome? A spaceship? Who the hell is going to pay for that? It would be cheaper to not wreck the environment in the first place.

[donjoe]

What, you don't believe in rational markets?

Only intelligent beings can be rational, not impersonal constructs like "the market", so no I don't.

If you increase the price of the old technology relative to the new one, what do you think will happen?

Market distortion. A less efficient technology will be made artificially cheaper and our quality of life will decrease as our total energy budged decreases (whether through the adoption of the less efficient new tech or through continuing to operate the old tech, but lowering its output because of the new prohibitive costs).

Creating markets for alternative technologies causes them to be developed.

No it doesn't, it just increases the chances if it's done properly. Try creating a market for human teleporters, see if that "causes them to be developed" any time soon.

You mean like some sort of dome? A spaceship? Who the hell is going to pay for that?

You're getting hung up on the specifics. I'm not a constructions engineer so I can't tell you what exactly would work right now, but the idea is that of residences that are better protected against extreme weather, rising seas, earthquakes, volcanic activity and whatnot.

It would be cheaper to not wreck the environment in the first place.

Yes, we could lay down and die, let our species be wiped off the face of the Earth. Then the "environment" would be fine and dandy, I'm sure. But I want nothing to do with such a "solution". That's the sociopathic/anti-human alternative and I will always find it absolutely revolting.
Also, as has been clearly stated before, it's not at all clear what the "optimum" state is for an environment that's been continuously changing ever since it first formed and thus not at all clear which of our actions constitute "wrecking it" and which not. Any action you take to directly change the behaviour of this chaotic beast - the climate - is inherently unpredictable and may well turn out to be a total waste of resources or it may even backfire and get you the opposite of the result you wanted. (Take, for instance, the next ice age, which could start at any time if the historical frequency of ice ages still holds. What evidence do you have that the current warming, if left alone, wouldn't postpone the devastation of the next ice age until the 3000s - when we'd presumably have much better methods of dealing with it than we have today - and that anti-CO2 policies wouldn't in fact push us faster over the temperature cliff and bring the ice age in, say, 2200?)

Making better houses/cities, by contrast, is a much simpler concept and much more likely to work as intended.

Edited by donjoe, 25 April 2010 - 03:27 PM.

[niner]

It would be cheaper to not wreck the environment in the first place.

Yes, we could lay down and die, let our species be wiped off the face of the Earth. Then the "environment" would be fine and dandy, I'm sure. But I want nothing to do with such a "solution". That's the sociopathic/anti-human alternative and I will always find it absolutely revolting.

Nice Straw Man, but no one is proposing that we "lay down and die", or anything even close to that.

Also, as has been clearly stated before, it's not at all clear what the "optimum" state is for an environment that's been continuously changing ever since it first formed and thus not at all clear which of our actions constitute "wrecking it" and which not. Any action you take to directly change the behaviour of this chaotic beast - the climate - is inherently unpredictable and may well turn out to be a total waste of resources or it may even backfire and get you the opposite of the result you wanted.

Please. No one is talking about the "optimum" state. We know that the state we have now is what six and a half billion people are currently well adapted to. You are the one who is proposing to change the climate by continuing our present path of climate modification. I'm proposing that we slow our uncontrolled experiment in a manner that is economically feasible. If you wish to debate this, please don't waste our time with semantic quibbles and straw men.

[eternaltraveler]

the idea is that of residences that are better protected against extreme weather

my house up near the continental divide in colorado regularly will get 120+ mph wind. Its not that bad, and its not at all built like a bunker. I don't understand how all these gulf coast houses blow away with a little wind. Of course another viable strategy it to build houses absolutely as cheaply as possible, so it is cheap to rebuild when needed, however the middle ground approach they seem to take is pretty dumb.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 25 April 2010 - 06:29 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

We know that the state we have now is what six and a half billion people are currently well adapted to.

we know people can adapt themselves to any and every environment on earth, because they do, and we know throughout human history climate has varied wildly (relatively speaking). Furthermore if the present climate is what is optimal for these people we better learn to control the weather through engineering because we know for a fact the long term climate of the earth is not stable (within the confines you seem to be concerned about).

[niner]

We know that the state we have now is what six and a half billion people are currently well adapted to.

we know people can adapt themselves to any and every environment on earth, because they do, and we know throughout human history climate has varied wildly (relatively speaking). Furthermore if the present climate is what is optimal for these people we better learn to control the weather through engineering because we know for a fact the long term climate of the earth is not stable (within the confines you seem to be concerned about).

Some people will be able to adapt, and some will not. The question is: "What is the cost?" How many people will die or be harmed, how much lost productivity will we suffer under any given scenario? I suppose we should compare the cost of climate change (to the extent we can predict it) to the cost of reducing emissions (to the extent we can predict it), and do what is cheapest. We might discover that within the margin of error in each calculation, it's a tossup. Someone should at least do the analysis. It would focus our thoughts and perhaps show us what we have particularly inadequate information about, which could help to direct research.

[eternaltraveler]

Someone should at least do the analysis.

Now that is something we can completely agree on. I'd be very interested in reading a well thought out analysis.

[donjoe]

I suppose we should compare the cost of climate change (to the extent we can predict it) to the cost of reducing emissions (to the extent we can predict it), and do what is cheapest.

I don't know why you're mixing together the idea of financial cost and the idea of harm to humanity. They could very well be inversely proportional, in which case we should give priority to minimizing harm to humanity and not financial cost.

Edited by donjoe, 26 April 2010 - 04:52 PM.

[Grail]

Once again, it's not the change in temperature that is the problem, it's the speed with which it is changing. Ecosystems react very poorly to drastic and sudden changes, and whatever you believe, we are still a part of the ecosystem. We have not yet reached the point where we can engineer our way out of virtually any obstacle.

It's all well and good to say "we" will be fine, but when you say "we" you tend to mean the very small and exceedingly wealthy (comparatively) proportion of humans living in the USA.

There is cost associated with any major technological and economical shift, but in the long run it is entirely probable that the cost will be much more if the groundwork isn't laid out now.

Eternaltraveler, you mentioned that global climate shift is not really a problem, because it has happened before in the history of our planet. Do you have any examples of a particular time when the global climate shifted as quickly and drastically as it is predicted to this time, in which there is no evidence of a related mass extinction event? If not, then there is no comparison and your argument is flawed.

The fact that CO2 was higher sometime in the ancient geological past without a corresponding temperature explosion means very little today. Climate systems are complex, and there is no way to tell (especially with the data gaps we have) what other climate mechanisms were in place at the time. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know we put a crapload of it and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (extremely quickly in geological terms) that wouldn't ordinarily be there, and observations indicate that the climate is changing equally quickly with a remarkable correlation to these greenhouse gas levels, and no other plausible or evident cause. We can see the effects that this is starting to have on our environment (none of them being positive), and indications are that things are going to get worse as time goes on (because of other feedback mechanisms kicking into gear, and environmental chain reactions occurring).

This is not "sensationalist hippy greenie liberal wacko" rhetoric, this is based observations of our recent natural environment, and well founded scientific theory.

[niner]

I suppose we should compare the cost of climate change (to the extent we can predict it) to the cost of reducing emissions (to the extent we can predict it), and do what is cheapest.

I don't know why you're mixing together the idea of financial cost and the idea of harm to humanity. They could very well be inversely proportional, in which case we should give priority to minimizing harm to humanity and not financial cost.

Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who is proposing that we do nothing to mitigate greenhouse gases because it would be too expensive? That's like saying that humans and the ecosystems of the Earth are worth... nothing. Or at least not as much as it would cost for mitigation. Do you think that mitigation would itself cause more harm to humanity than climate change? If so, you might be thinking that because you personally don't feel capable of doing the required analyses, that no one is capable of doing them. I think that there are people who have sufficient understanding of the systems involved to provide sensible guidance. Whether or not policy makers will listen to them is another point entirely.