Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2016, 07:31 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 05:38 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 03:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I actually agree with all of this. I think it has been too late to "stop" it for quite some time, that the problems (such as the deep ocean temps) are ones that are going to continue to build over time rather than showing immediate correlation to what is causing them, like a lit fuse that hasn't yet set off the dynamite.

I guess one more example I could have given is the Great Barrier Reef and coral bleaching. Parts of the reef are always bleached that's just how reefs go through their life cycles is they die and regrow. Yes it's probably true that a higher climate has caused more bleaching, but it pales in comparison to polluted river run-offs if you want to look for an anthropogenic cause. There is no solid evidence that I have seen that shows the reef is in long-term danger due to climate change.

Respectfully, I think you're committing what I think of as the "Murika!" Fallacy, looking at things from too-local of a perspective, and considering only data points that directly impact your region.

I'm not an expert on coral, but as I understand it (don't feel like looking it up right now, so I'll just go on recollection for the moment), the bleaching is caused in part by toxins but in larger part by the increasing acidity of the ocean due to the dissolution of CO2 into the water, forming higher amounts of carbonic acid (the stuff that makes your soda pop fizzy) and lowering the pH to below the level at which the corals can thrive. This problem is bound to get worse-- indeed, one of the big speculations by biologists for why we see ocean creatures dying off in the Great Extinctions (such as the infamous K-T) at the same rates as land creatures is because of the changes in ocean chemistry, like this one, causing the collapse of things like coral which underlie the entire ocean food chain/ecosystem. It is one of the ways in which reducing the amount of CO2 we put into the air could immediately help, if it prevents such a collapse.

And that's the real threat of Global Warming/Climate Change, to me. We don't know what part of the "web of life" will collapse, causing a cascade that renders our current plans moot. One example is the honeybee crisis we've been facing here in the USA, as the colonies collapse and we suddenly lack pollinators for our crops. We don't know if other anthropogenic factors (such as the one you pointed out, poisoned waters/air, or others such as the introduction of invasive species into formerly-stable ecosystems due to global travel) will combine with the increased stresses on these ecosystems from the temperature and climate pattern shifts to produce a toxic brew that accelerates the process of collapse-- what we currently think of as 60 years or a century away could in fact happen next year, if all the bee colonies collapse... or some other thing we haven't accounted for, such as the deep-sea corals (different from the ones we've been discussing) that underpin the ocean ecosystem, and were literally dredged almost into nonexistence by industrial-sized fishing net vessels. And so on.

The key to me is trying to mitigate the ongoing (even accelerating) damage we're doing via CO2 and other forms of pollution, and put a massive task force together to study exactly what the extent of the damage we've done is, where the weak points in the ecosystem-chain are, and how we might prop up our ecological defenses. Because while "Climate Change" might not affect Australia much, an ecosystem collapse in any part of the world could indeed do so, if the cascade is as bad as it appears it could be. We simply don't know-- but we do know that the last times the planet saw these levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, from whatever cause, it ended with 70-90% of the species on the planet vanishing from the record. Picture that for a moment. Undecided

So it's either plan for that, or else work on large scale colonization of new planets in other solar systems.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
29-11-2016, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2016 09:55 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 05:38 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 03:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I actually agree with all of this. I think it has been too late to "stop" it for quite some time, that the problems (such as the deep ocean temps) are ones that are going to continue to build over time rather than showing immediate correlation to what is causing them, like a lit fuse that hasn't yet set off the dynamite.

I guess one more example I could have given is the Great Barrier Reef and coral bleaching. Parts of the reef are always bleached that's just how reefs go through their life cycles is they die and regrow. Yes it's probably true that a higher climate has caused more bleaching, but it pales in comparison to polluted river run-offs if you want to look for an anthropogenic cause. There is no solid evidence that I have seen that shows the reef is in long-term danger due to climate change.

Quote:At this point, we should be trying to make the world better to live in after all the changes that are bound to happen occur...

Well here's the thing that many people don't get. There is no solid academic evidence published, here or anywhere in the world, that says that we can prevent climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions. What we do need to do is work out how to respond to climate change to prevent the crisis of climate refugees that will happen in just 60 years or so!

If I must say so, we're not the problem - it's those asshole counties that have bred to unsustainable populations that have cause this problem. Filling their lands to and well beyond capacity. We could cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and live quite happily - we have enough food, shelter, and water for everyone even if a climate crisis happens here.

"There is no solid academic evidence published, here or anywhere in the world, that says that we can prevent climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions."

Straw man. Scientists aren't proposing methods to stop climate change. There are studies showing geo-engineering solutions to offset or eliminate the anthroprogenic effect, and there are models (in the IPCC reports for instance) that show that by reducing or eliminating the anthroprogenic effect the oceans and climate can begin to naturally sequester the CO2 we are releasing and the feedback loops would begin to slow down and the rate of climate change would at least slow.

Hypothesized ways to offset the human effect (I am quickly searching for articles related to the ways I know that scientists have hypothesized altering the human effect on climate. I am using google scholar and you could also search for what studies have cited these):
Using primary production in the oceans to create a natural carbon pump into the sediments for longterm carbon sequestration (for example: Coale et al. 1996 published in Nature titled "A massive phytoplankton bloom induced by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean)

Trying to use phytoplankton and sulfur emissions to alter albedo of clouds and the atmosphere to decrease warming (for example: Charlson et al. 1987 "Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate" or Roeckner et al. 1999 "Transient climate change simulations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle).

And there are other ways we can try and offset the effects that have been proposed, some are rather drastic (like putting large solar screens in orbit around the Earth to reduce incoming solar radiation) and others revolve around ways humans can physically sequester carbon. If this experiment holds up as true, then we could even turn our CO2 into another fuel source.

"What we do need to do is work out how to respond to climate change to prevent the crisis of climate refugees that will happen in just 60 years or so!"

That is one thing we can do, but it isn't true that we can't offset some of the human effects. If we can do something to reduce the rate and/or magnitude of change, we should. And while we do so, we should adapt.

"If I must say so, we're not the problem - it's those asshole counties that have bred to unsustainable populations that have cause this problem."

I assume by "we" you mean the United States. If that is what you mean, then you are wrong. The U.S. has contributed its fair share to the population bloom as well as the amount of pollution. We pollute more per person than any other country. So we are absolutely part of the problem. We can't just sit back and point fingers at the "asshole counties (sic)" and say they did it, that's just dishonest.

"Filling their lands to and well beyond capacity. We could cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and live quite happily - we have enough food, shelter, and water for everyone even if a climate crisis happens here."

Some parts of the US have enough water right now. Other places, like the desert SW and California, water is very scarce. And even for places that have plenty of water resources right now, it is still a finite resource. Groundwater recharge rates can (and commonly are) in excess of centuries, making groundwater a non-renewable resource too. Surface water reservoirs are highly susceptible to contamination and a certain amount of water must be retained in them in order to not damage the flora and fauna that depend on it. And the US already has states fighting over water resources (Georgia tried using an old map of the boundary between it an Tennessee in order to gain access to the Tennessee River for use in Atlanta). And then another huge problem are water reservoirs for coastal communities. They get most of their water from groundwater too but with increasing sea level the saltwater is infiltrating into the freshwater reserves, making it largely unusable. Desalination is possible but it isn't cheap and desalinating the oceans still requires careful conservation of the ecosystem.

Food and agricultural land is plentiful in some parts of the US, but changes in climate will alter the distribution of precipitation across the US. This will impact what food and resources we can grow where and when you couple this to the effect on the distribution of water resources, you have an ever-expanding problem. For instance, places like Texas have large agricultural industries and they use a lot of groundwater for irrigation, but Texas will become more arid in a warmer world, further straining the already strained groundwater reservoirs.

And then on top of all of this, the US isn't an island in an increasingly global economy. So expecting any country to be able to just sit back and weather the storm is naive. The effect that climate change has on Europe or China will have serious implications for the US too.




And this doesn't even account for the other adverse effects (some as mentioned by Rocket) that aren't strictly related to climate. Ocean acidification impacts not only corals, but calcareous nanoplankton like coccolithophores. It makes the corals more susceptible to diseases. The collapse of these ecosystems isn't only bad for biodiversity, it is also bad for coastal communities that rely on reefs to help buffer the energy from large storms.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
29-11-2016, 11:41 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
I found this article from the American Institute of Physics really great. It goes through the whole historical perspective and is heavily referenced. I also has hyperlinks to expand on certain topics. It is a long read, but very thorough.

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_60_

Here is a Scientific American article on how temperatures can be reconstructed from ice cores by looking at the isotope ratios in the water (expands on what the bearded dude alluded to).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...peratures/

I have had some success with this approach when talking to climate change skeptics. I ask them if they believe the weather when they report that a winter night is going to be particularly cold because without any cloud cover there is going to be "radiational cooling". If they say yes, then they are admitting that they believe that there is a chemical (in this case water vapor in the clouds), that reflects infrared radiation back back toward the earth modulating the temperature. Of course cloud cover and humidity vary over time in a given spot, but what if there was another chemical (i.e. CO2) that was always there reflecting IR back toward the earth...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Iñigo's post
29-11-2016, 12:10 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Quote:Why do I even need to have this conversation with him?

Some people are just willful idiots. He has fallen in with a bunch of conservatard assholes and has adopted their mores. As a psychologist he should be able to understand that. When he is ready to stop being stupid he will. And not a day sooner.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2016, 01:58 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(27-11-2016 01:52 PM)Sturm Wrote:  I have had a few conversations with climate skeptics, they always bring forth the same unfounded/biased arguments, I made a research a while ago to be able to answer them and I found this website, they have a lot of information and also an exhaustive list of arguments that climate skeptics use to deny human impact on global warming, and the truth about them :

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I don't know if it might help you or not, but you'll certainly find some arguments of your father in them, and I think that's useful to have all the answers at hand !

I have completely fallen down a rabbit hole with this link. This is great, thanks for posting! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
29-11-2016, 02:42 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Show him this:

https://youtu.be/va_MVxpboqg

Don't be surprised if he does not see himself.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 01:58 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I have completely fallen down a rabbit hole with this link. This is great, thanks for posting! Smile

I'm glad you found useful information on it Smile I remember spending a lot of time reading different articles on it when I first discovered this website. It was a very useful resource when I had conversation with climate skeptics, but sadly, even when I had the correct information to debunk their arguments, I didn't manage to convince them : a lot of climate skeptics deny human impact on global warming simply because it's more comforting for them, like "it's warming, but it's not our fault, so let's not change our habits and let's not feel guilty that those habits are responsible of greenhouse gas emissions". Hopefully, they are not all like that, some have just been ill informed, or not informed enough.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sturm's post
29-11-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 02:56 PM)Sturm Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 01:58 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I have completely fallen down a rabbit hole with this link. This is great, thanks for posting! Smile

I'm glad you found useful information on it Smile I remember spending a lot of time reading different articles on it when I first discovered this website. It was a very useful resource when I had conversation with climate skeptics, but sadly, even when I had the correct information to debunk their arguments, I didn't manage to convince them : a lot of climate skeptics deny human impact on global warming simply because it's more comforting for them, like "it's warming, but it's not our fault, so let's not change our habits and let's not feel guilty that those habits are responsible of greenhouse gas emissions". Hopefully, they are not all like that, some have just been ill informed, or not informed enough.

I just kept on clicking.... and clicking, and clicking. The next thing I knew hours had passed by. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
29-11-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 07:31 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm not an expert on coral, but as I understand it (don't feel like looking it up right now, so I'll just go on recollection for the moment), the bleaching is caused in part by toxins but in larger part by the increasing acidity of the ocean due to the dissolution of CO2 into the water, forming higher amounts of carbonic acid (the stuff that makes your soda pop fizzy) and lowering the pH to below the level at which the corals can thrive. This problem is bound to get worse-- indeed, one of the big speculations by biologists for why we see ocean creatures dying off in the Great Extinctions (such as the infamous K-T) at the same rates as land creatures is because of the changes in ocean chemistry, like this one, causing the collapse of things like coral which underlie the entire ocean food chain/ecosystem. It is one of the ways in which reducing the amount of CO2 we put into the air could immediately help, if it prevents such a collapse.

Yes that's right - speculation is not a proven science though. Yes the acidity of the ocean is a concern, as is over fishing which is why I support marine mammalian fishing (except dolphins) in sustainable numbers. Especially seals which are a pest in Canada - they're the equivalent of Kangaroos there. I hate the fact there are ideologies against marine mammalian fishing which have nothing to do with environmental and sustainability concerns.

But I'll reiterate - ocean acidity is, in my opinion, the only valid long-term concern for CO2 emissions. Not climate, not sea level rise, and not glacial melting. Even if there was no climate change from the 1800's on glaciers would still be melting:

"Rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for their demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them." (Cullen, Mölg, Kaser, Hussein, Steffen, & Hardy, 2006). doi:10.1029/2006GL027084

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2016, 08:01 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(27-11-2016 04:07 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Perhaps he can explain how releasing as much CO2 as a supervolcano eruption every year is not going to change the climate.

The Roman empire beginning date is incorrect.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: