Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

Hobbitling 04-24-2014 11:47 AM

So you're saying that CO2 levels are a problem then?

:Peek:

cityboy 04-24-2014 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbitling (Post 216519)
So you're saying that CO2 levels are a problem then?

:Peek:

Only if they raise temperatures by 2C in 2100 (I doubt they will).

There is no doubt in my mind that CO2 is rising and that man is either partially or wholly responsible.

It also does not make sense to exempt CO2 restrictions for a major part of the world that accounts for 70% of worldwide levels and is increasing that each year.

In order to work, everyone should share the pain. After all its estimated that CO2 stays in the environment for at least 100 years so any CO2 produced in 2000 will still be there in 2100.

I still think it isn't a problem and would be surprised if temperatures increased by 1C but why just economically disadvantage industrialized countries.

Either everyone participates or no one.

brontide 04-24-2014 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216522)
There is no doubt in my mind that CO2 is rising and that man is either partially or wholly responsible.

...

Either everyone participates or no one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

So you concede that the warming is both real and man made, but have moved on to claiming that since everyone in the world does not share the identical goals in preventing it we should just give up and deal with the consequences? :confused:

cityboy 04-24-2014 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brontide (Post 216524)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

So you concede that the warming is both real and man made, but have moved on to claiming that since everyone in the world does not share the identical goals in preventing it we should just give up and deal with the consequences? :confused:

You make it seem like I'm changing my position. This has been my stance from the beginning.

Warming since 1850 is real. Any fool can look at a graph and see temperatures
have risen roughly .75C since then. I think most of that is natural but some might be due to man. Remember 1850 marked the end of the Little Ice Age so I suspect that that rise is really a recovery from unusual lows. This has happened several times over the last 15,000 years.

CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years has been pretty steady at around 280 ppm. Its increased dramatically to 400. That is more than likely due to man.

What I have a hard time believing is that CO2 increase will cause temperatures to rise more than 2C. A doubling of CO2 levels has been proven to raise temperatures by 1.2C. The rest that the IPCC estimates is purely conjecture.

Real world temperatures indicate that Climate Models are overestimating the true effect.

In reality we have more than enough time to SLOWLY reduce CO2 by either Fracking shale or going to Nuclear Energy with a possibility of cleaning up coal.

The 3.2C that the IPCC estimates is way high and their upper band of 4.5C is unrealistic. The lower band of 1.5C might even be too high.

CO2 is not a bad thing in fact its essentially for life. However when emitted by man there are a lot of bad chemicals that accompany it so reducing pollution is a good thing. It must be done in a way that doesn't hurt our economy. And for just the developed world to cut back is insane.
70% of the worlds CO2 is emitted by developing countries. They are rapidly increasing their output yearly. They must be part of the solution or it will never work.

redhawk 04-24-2014 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brontide (Post 216524)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

So you concede that the warming is both real and man made, but have moved on to claiming that since everyone in the world does not share the identical goals in preventing it we should just give up and deal with the consequences? :confused:

Thats the way it's done. Admit there is a problem when the truth is overwhelming but get out of being responsible by putting the responsibility on everyone else.

That's the major problem today. We don't have "leaders" Look at the word. It means "one who leads". If you do not take action and "lead" then you are not a leader. Therefore the United States and it's citizens cannot be called world "leaders". They are too busy pointing fingers and refusing to accept responsibility to lead. And whether other countries choose to do anything about it has nothing to do with it.

If I walk down the street and see a bunch of people watching someone abuse an animal and I do nothing because they won't, I'm not much of a man because it is my actions (or lack of), not theirs, that determines my character.

TCD 04-24-2014 03:10 PM

Please read carefully. He did not concede that. He conceded that CO2 increases are real and probably man made. On "warming" he said that he doubted a 2C rise would occur, and that he would be surprised if a 1C rise occurred.

There are several levels to this debate:

Is warming occuring?
Is it due to atmospheric CO2?
Is At. CO2 increasing?
Is the At. CO2 increase man made?
What will the effects of warming be?
What should we do about any of the above?

Many folks on all sides of the discussion have a habit of conflating these levels, producing absurd statements such as "If you drive a big car, you must be denying that warming is occuring."

Much is known about the above questions, but much is unknown. About the only one where we have solid knowledge, and most everyone agrees, is that atmosheric CO2 is increasing.

redhawk 04-24-2014 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216534)
You make it seem like I'm changing my position. This has been my stance from the beginning.

Warming since 1850 is real. Any fool can look at a graph and see temperatures
have risen roughly .75C since then. I think most of that is natural but some might be due to man. Remember 1850 marked the end of the Little Ice Age so I suspect that that rise is really a recovery from unusual lows. This has happened several times over the last 15,000 years.

CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years has been pretty steady at around 280 ppm. Its increased dramatically to 400. That is more than likely due to man.

What I have a hard time believing is that CO2 increase will cause temperatures to rise more than 2C. A doubling of CO2 levels has been proven to raise temperatures by 1.2C. The rest that the IPCC estimates is purely conjecture.

Real world temperatures indicate that Climate Models are overestimating the true effect.

In reality we have more than enough time to SLOWLY reduce CO2 by either Fracking shale or going to Nuclear Energy with a possibility of cleaning up coal.

The 3.2C that the IPCC estimates is way high and their upper band of 4.5C is unrealistic. The lower band of 1.5C might even be too high.

CO2 is not a bad thing in fact its essentially for life. However when emitted by man there are a lot of bad chemicals that accompany it so reducing pollution is a good thing. It must be done in a way that doesn't hurt our economy. And for just the developed world to cut back is insane.
70% of the worlds CO2 is emitted by developing countries. They are rapidly increasing their output yearly. They must be part of the solution or it will never work.

Just out of curiosity. Are you saying that a temperature change of 1 degree fahrenheit would not have any effect and therefore should be discounted?

And another question. Let's say you are one of those developing countries and another country that is not doing anything to cut back on climate change is telling you that you should. Why should you listen? After all, if they aren't doing anything about it, then it can't be very important and they are just being hypocritical, right?

Why not lead from the front, just because it's the RIGHT thing to do. Or is right or wrong relevant only when cost or work is not a factor?

cityboy 04-24-2014 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216537)
Just out of curiosity. Are you saying that a temperature change of 1 degree fahrenheit would not have any effect and therefore should be discounted?

And another question. Let's say you are one of those developing countries and another country that is not doing anything to cut back on climate change is telling you that you should. Why should you listen? After all, if they aren't doing anything about it, then it can't be very important and they are just being hypocritical, right?

Why not lead from the front, just because it's the RIGHT thing to do. Or is right or wrong relevant only when cost or work is not a factor?

I think you meant 1C not 1F. One C equals 1.7F. Most experts say 1C is not harmful. When the rise gets above 2C then the alarmist scenarios kick in (at least according to the IPPC).

To answer your second question. Short of war you can't do a damn thing to force another country to do something they don't want. The US did not ratify Kyoto but they are still one of the world leaders in CO2 reduction so I say we did lead but India and China did not follow.

As for hypocritical how's' this. China declares themselves to be a "developing" country and refuses to commit to any CO2 reduction. They also insist that they are entitled to reparations from developing countries for damages while they are now #1 in the world in CO2 emission and rapidly growing at a much faster rate than the rest of the world.
Their air quality in some of Chinese cities was extremely poor. They corrected it by MOVING coal plants to the rural areas. China makes 90% of the world's solar panels. Did they convert to solar? Hell no (at least not in a big way). They are creating more coal plants by the month. But they're willing to sell their solar panels to Europe and the US. That's a true hypocrite.

redhawk 04-24-2014 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216539)
I think you meant 1C not 1F. One C equals 1.7F. Most experts say 1C is not harmful. When the rise gets above 2C then the alarmist scenarios kick in (at least according to the IPPC).

To answer your second question. Short of war you can't do a damn thing to force another country to do something they don't want. The US did not ratify Kyoto but they are still one of the world leaders in CO2 reduction so I say we did lead but India and China did not follow.

As for hypocritical how's' this. China declares themselves to be a "developing" country and refuses to commit to any CO2 reduction. They also insist that they are entitled to reparations from developing countries for damages while they are now #1 in the world in CO2 emission and rapidly growing at a much faster rate than the rest of the world.
Their air quality in some of Chinese cities was extremely poor. They corrected it by MOVING coal plants to the rural areas. China makes 90% of the world's solar panels. Did they convert to solar? Hell no (at least not in a big way). They are creating more coal plants by the month. But they're willing to sell their solar panels to Europe and the US. That's a true hypocrite.

No I am uneducated but I know the difference between Centigrade and Fahrenheit and Kelvin while we're at it. In fact believe it or not, I even know hot to convert between Centigrade and Fahrenheit. I'm also pretty good at posting what I mean.

Now, regardless of what the "experts" say I've been told by some other "experts", forestry rangers and some entomologists in Montana that a 1 degree fahrenheit average rise, Yep, Not (Centigrade or Kelvin) makes all the difference in the world when it comes to the infestations of the pines in their forests. That's why I asked you the question that I did.

Lets see how I can make this clkear. God knows I've tried, in plain english.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S A** ABOUT WHAT CHINA OR INDIA OR TIMBUCKTU DO!! iT HAS NO BEARING ON DOING THE RIGHT THING. BECAUSE SOME ONE ELSE IS GREEDY OR WRONG OR IRRESPONSIBLE IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

OK, I hope that makes my position clear. As far as China polluting with coal while manufacturing solar panels, that's not hypocrisy. There's another well defined definition. It's called capitalism. That's a word that should be pretty understandable to an American. After all, Americans take great pride in being a Capitalistic country.

Now, let me give you a definition of hypocrisy. "Telling others what they must do and failing to do it oneself". Seems to me that China and India aren't telling other countries what to do. But America is, while failing to clean up it's own house. And that my educated friend is hypocrisy.

cityboy 04-25-2014 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216544)
Now, regardless of what the "experts" say I've been told by some other "experts", forestry rangers and some entomologists in Montana that a 1 degree fahrenheit average rise, Yep, Not (Centigrade or Kelvin) makes all the difference in the world when it comes to the infestations of the pines in their forests. That's why I asked you the question that I did.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S A** ABOUT WHAT CHINA OR INDIA OR TIMBUCKTU DO!! iT HAS NO BEARING ON DOING THE RIGHT THING. BECAUSE SOME ONE ELSE IS GREEDY OR WRONG OR IRRESPONSIBLE IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

No one individual or species lives forever. World temperatures having been rising and falling over 4.5 billion years. That's why over 90% of all species are extinct. Your Pines will either adapt or die out and be replaced by a more hardy tree. That's life.

As for man, a 1F degree change will not effect us. We're a warm climate species so it would be more beneficial for it to be warmer than colder. We've been fortunate to be living in a warm environment. Population has exploded since the last ice age. Eventually temperatures will go lower. We are after all in an interglacial period.

And you should care about India and China. That's 31% of world CO2 emissions as opposed to the US total of 17%. Plus those two countries are increasing their output at a rapid pace too.

The West has decreased their CO2 output by throwing billions at Green technology. And what have they got for it? CO2 is rising faster now than in the 90"s.

Hobbitling 04-25-2014 06:46 AM

Okay. Well as long as it's only mass extinction that we're talking about.
What a relief. I thought we were talking about dire consequences.

cityboy 04-25-2014 07:20 AM

Before anyone gets too caught up in the "cause" you should first know what that cause really is.

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

As for extinctions its part of evolution. And no one is predicting mass extinction by 2100.
Species come and go. So too do theories if they can't predict real world temperatures.

Hobbitling 04-25-2014 07:35 AM

At least it's not another Al-Gore attack again, But a fine ad-hominem attack nevertheless.

Unfortunately, one German bureaucrats opinion doesn't change the data.
Glaciers are still melting...

brontide 04-25-2014 07:40 AM

cityboy,

More desperate cherry-picking? It's a poorly translated pull-quote from a newspaper interview. Show me the whole article.

cityboy 04-25-2014 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brontide (Post 216565)
cityboy,

More desperate cherry-picking? It's a poorly translated pull-quote from a newspaper interview. Show me the whole article.

You deny it so the burden of proof is on you to prove it wrong.

Here is another quote that should be easier to prove. I've included the whole text so you can't say I cherry picked although the important part is the last paragraph.

Tony Goodwin says: January 30, 2014 at 10:37 pm I agree with Matt Sisti that in the current political environment we must simply advocate for reducing CO2 emissions. The compelling reason is that the cost of the oil and coal that produces those emissions can only go up as supplies are diminished. Given that seemingly a majority of the population denies the reality of climate change, they need to be hit hard with the economic reality that over time prices for fossil fuels will rise – the rise will just be much slower if we conserve now. Now I come to my next point that will, for many readers, negate all that I have said above. The big reality is that in my view “environmentalists” are held in contempt by a majority of the population. Environmentalists are perceived as rich, over-educated individuals who have nothing better to do in their lives than to stop projects they don’t like. These projects would include the major 1980 Olympic project and years later the Keene Stewarts shop. In both cases, serious environmental issues were alleged without ever becoming a problem.
I would conclude by asking that environmental advocates be very careful of the causes they take on. Greater selectivity will, I believe, give environmentalists the true credit that they deserve and perhaps even allow the reversal of some recent decisions - "

That's good advice. Pick your battles.

randomscooter 04-25-2014 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216563)
Before anyone gets too caught up in the "cause" you should first know what that cause really is.

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

I think if you read the translation of the full interview (with an open mind of course :rolleyes:) it will be apparent that your quote above is taken out of context and used as a device by those who are saying what you want to hear. "The cause" is not about redistribution of wealth, but of course many countries, in particular those who have fossil fuel reserves and have benefited from them at the expense of those who do not have them (or have not developed them) are understandably concerned by the potential economic implications of climate policies. A large part of the problem is that much of the true cost of fossil fuels has been externalized by the "haves", at the expense of the "have nots". Climate policy will force these costs to be internalized, which is where they have belonged all along. As a result we will start paying the true cost, or closer to the true cost, for our energy.

cityboy 04-25-2014 08:24 AM

You guys are funny. Here's another quote:

"A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”"

Let me guess, its either cherry picked or a mistranslation back to English from a Chinese newspaper summarizing a German translation of a conversation held in English. And what he really said is "we need to save the Ponderosa Pine Tree".

brontide 04-25-2014 08:32 AM

Can we deal with one fact at a time here, the quote from Ottmar Edenhofer; do you still believe it says what you were claiming or implying?

Neil 04-25-2014 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216567)
Climate policy will force these costs to be internalized, which is where they have belonged all along. As a result we will start paying the true cost, or closer to the true cost, for our energy.

Not just climate and energy.

Drawing down on nature's capital comes with a cost. These "services" that nature renders to society have not been factored into the cost of goods. But, how do you rate the cost of the water either consumed to grow lettuce or to build a memory chip for a camera? Water in Quebec is pretty cheap but in California it's getting very expensive.

Or what about a heat load charge on the otherwise clean effluent water from a factory if it's 20 degrees warmer than when it was drawn out?

Very smart people with a lot of training actually look at and debate this stuff and try to come to agreement on how to factor in the cost of natural resources that goes beyond the cost of just harvesting it.

Perhaps with C02 production it's easier than with ecosystem damage due to logging, say. (soil compaction, loss of biodiversity when replanting a monoculture where a mixed forest once stood, soil loss due to erosion, stream silting and the like.

vtflyfish 04-25-2014 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216560)
No one individual or species lives forever. World temperatures having been rising and falling over 4.5 billion years. That's why over 90% of all species are extinct. Your Pines will either adapt or die out and be replaced by a more hardy tree. That's life.

Citboy, this is a gross over-simplification. Go read The Sixth Extinction. You might just learn that the background rate of extinction in the geological record is roughly 7 species per 1,000 years. Extinctions caused by the activities of man (extirpation, introduction of competing invasives, ocean acidification and (yes) global warming) have increased this rate by three orders of magnitude. Hawaii alone loses one specie per month. The fact that you cannot directly observe this day-to-day does not mean it is not happening and it certainly doesn't mean mankind doesn't have a substantial impact on the flora and fauna on this planet.

Decreasing biodiversity from the bacteria in our gut to vast agricultural monocultures should worry you more than CO2 and global warming.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.