Climate Change

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
beauss
Block E
Posts: 11
Joined: October 30th, 2013, 10:12 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby beauss » March 28th, 2014, 11:17 am

I think what drives a lot of climate change denial is confusing the scientific back and forth about the details with the broader consensus. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we can measure its increase in the atmosphere, directly tie those increases to human activities, and record a steady rise in global average temperature.

It's much more complex to nail down all of the potential impacts of global warming because, counterintuitively, your local weather is determined by a lot more inputs than global average temperature.

Since the kid is in the medical field, what would he think if I claimed the recent news that saturated fat isn't so bad for us after all invalidates the theory that consistently eating more calories than you burn makes you fat? Or that discoveries about the human microbiome are evidence that germ theory is a conspiracy propagated by the medical industry to make money and gain prestige?

90% of climate change skepticism is essentially this and is about as reliable as the anti-vaccination blogs your nutty cousin is always posting links to on Facebook.

m b p
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 198
Joined: September 3rd, 2012, 5:46 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby m b p » March 28th, 2014, 11:18 am

The Kid... I don't know where you are getting your information, but hardly any of it is accurate. Antarctica is losing ice as well. Huge sheets of ice are breaking off and floating away.

You're a doctor. I don't believe that humans needs water. Tylenol is fake. Headaches are caused by satan. Smoking relaxes the throat. Excersise kills. You're a doctor. You know everything I just said is bullshit. However I believe it. You know I'm wrong.

If I had a medical question, I would go to you for advice. I'm a meteorologist. If you have a weather question, would you come to me for advice? or would you say "I've read the partisan objections... I've already figured this out."

That's why I'm so objectionable to some of the things that have been said... and if it comes across rude I apologize. I've studied this stuff. I went to college for this stuff. I live this stuff every day. Then someone comes along and tells me that everything I know is false... they have the real truth... and they learned that real truth on Fox News or in some partisan publication.

Somehow everyone who reads and believes the scientific publications is sheep. Everyone who believes the partisan response to science is being objective. Crazy.

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4077
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Climate Change

Postby Anondson » March 28th, 2014, 12:03 pm

m b p wrote:You're a doctor. I don't believe that humans needs water. Tylenol is fake. Headaches are caused by satan. Smoking relaxes the throat. Excersise kills. You're a doctor. You know everything I just said is bullshit. However I believe it. You know I'm wrong.
Dietary cholesterol clogs arteries, eating saturated fat will lead to heart attacks and trans fats are safe, butter is bad, eggs are bad for you, coffee is unhealthy, too much salt raises blood pressure and therefor you will have heart attacks, training for and running marathons is heart healthy. Reduced fat milk is best. Hormone therapy for aging women has no drawbacks. Testing medicine on women is unnecessary since men and women aren't biologically different enough. Everything I just said used to be uncontroversial, settled science, and recommended advice. Some still follow the above advice, but the current research on everything I just listed is changing or has reversed completely.

I think it is dangerous and hubris to say that anything based on a computer model can never be improved and should never be looked at deeper with a skeptics eye. Scientists shutting down every skeptic is not going to advance any science.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 28th, 2014, 12:57 pm

Anondson wrote:I think it is dangerous and hubris to say that anything based on a computer model can never be improved and should never be looked at deeper with a skeptics eye. Scientists shutting down every skeptic is not going to advance any science.
Isn't that exactly what they are doing, though? Continually evolving their understanding of as many inputs to the system as possible given new research and data? As pointed out, they have reduced their predicted impacts, but slight disagreements and new data, unexplained events, or pieces of information completely missed by skeptics (warming in the sea vs the air, for example) are all factored in, constantly. The scientific community doesn't shut down skeptics, they review new data and the methodology of the analysis to say whether it passes the level of scrutiny required to be considered part of the larger body of evidence.

Unless one thinks the IPCC stands to gain from their recommendations (are they also design-build firms for transit or climate mitigation infrastructure?) beyond meaningfully moving the debate forward, I don't know how anyone could claim that scientists are motivated by self interest (at least not more than a fraction of those who have opposing ideologies).

m b p
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 198
Joined: September 3rd, 2012, 5:46 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby m b p » March 28th, 2014, 12:57 pm

Anondson wrote:
m b p wrote:You're a doctor. I don't believe that humans needs water. Tylenol is fake. Headaches are caused by satan. Smoking relaxes the throat. Excersise kills. You're a doctor. You know everything I just said is bullshit. However I believe it. You know I'm wrong.
Dietary cholesterol clogs arteries, eating saturated fat will lead to heart attacks and trans fats are safe, butter is bad, eggs are bad for you, coffee is unhealthy, too much salt raises blood pressure and therefor you will have heart attacks, training for and running marathons is heart healthy. Reduced fat milk is best. Hormone therapy for aging women has no drawbacks. Testing medicine on women is unnecessary since men and women aren't biologically different enough. Everything I just said used to be uncontroversial, settled science, and recommended advice. Some still follow the above advice, but the current research on everything I just listed is changing or has reversed completely.

I think it is dangerous and hubris to say that anything based on a computer model can never be improved and should never be looked at deeper with a skeptics eye. Scientists shutting down every skeptic is not going to advance any science.
Yes it used to be accepted fact that mankind could do what he wished with the earth and there would be no consequences. That belief is changing as well.

Here's what sucks about this debate: It's been tied into politics. I have just as much chance convincing deniers that climate change is happening as I do of turning a republican into a democrat. It's just not going to happen.

Let's just all shake hands.

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4077
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Climate Change

Postby Anondson » March 28th, 2014, 1:33 pm

m b p wrote:Let's just all shake hands.
I'm for that.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Climate Change

Postby David Greene » March 28th, 2014, 3:50 pm

Anondson wrote:
m b p wrote:Let's just all shake hands.
I'm for that.
I'm not. I don't want my kid dying at age 25 from famine and water wars.

We can sit down and sing kumbaya or we can do something to address the invetiable changes we'll have to deal with. I know where I'm putting my effort. If that pisses people off, I don't care. I'm fighting for my son's life.

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4077
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Climate Change

Postby Anondson » March 28th, 2014, 4:46 pm

David Greene wrote:We can sit down and sing kumbaya or we can do something to address the invetiable changes we'll have to deal with. I know where I'm putting my effort.
I believe the single best bang for the dollar spent fighting climate change is doing what Allan Savory is suggesting. I've donated.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_h ... ate_change

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2803
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Climate Change

Postby mulad » March 28th, 2014, 5:31 pm

I'll also mention that the price of carbon is often quoted in the range of $20 to $40 per ton, though some estimates go higher. It takes 112.5 gallons of gasoline to produce a metric ton of carbon dioxide, which works out to $0.178/gallon at the $20 price or $0.356 at $40. By comparison, the federal gas tax is $0.184/gal and the state tax is $0.286/gal, for a total of $0.47/gal. While anti-tax folks will cringe no matter what, I don't think a carbon tax is particularly onerous -- adding 5-10% to the current price of gasoline.

Now, I should be clear -- a carbon tax needs to go to funding carbon mitigation, such as funding renewable energy sources or programs to capture carbon from the atmosphere, the stacks of fossil-fueled power plants, etc. Some can go to funding non-motorized transportation (sidewalks and bikeways). I'm not sure if it should go into public transportation at all, unless those particular projects are built and operated in a carbon-neutral or carbon-negative way (paying carbon taxes on all construction materials and using wind/solar/hydro power for electricity, for instance).

We do also need to raise fuel taxes to pay for infrastructure, which is a bit of a problem -- I worry that carbon taxes would get sucked into paying for roads that are dominated by fossil-fueled cars. Legal barriers need to be set up to prevent that from happening. It could work to use carbon taxes to pay for renewable-powered charging stations for electric cars or something like that, but the money shouldn't go into actual roadways.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Climate Change

Postby VAStationDude » March 28th, 2014, 6:33 pm

I would prefer carbon taxes be refunded to every adult on an equal basis. Rich carbon hogs would transfer some of their vast wealth to the poor and old. Plus administering payments would be incredibly easy and cheap.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2803
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Climate Change

Postby mulad » March 28th, 2014, 6:50 pm

How would that reduce carbon emissions?

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Climate Change

Postby VAStationDude » March 28th, 2014, 7:41 pm

Increase the cost of carbon thus lower demand. Market forces. Since demand for energy is inelastic, prices would increase more than in your example. A flat rebate would barely be felt by most people and would be a boon to the poor and luddites.
Last edited by VAStationDude on March 28th, 2014, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2803
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Climate Change

Postby mulad » March 28th, 2014, 7:53 pm

I'm talking about (I think -- maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole carbon market) basically building in a carbon offset into every gallon of gas purchased, making every fossil-fuel-burning vehicle a net-zero-emission vehicle because of the tax being funneled toward alternative energy sources, carbon sinks, etc. A TerraPass for everyone, automatically.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Climate Change

Postby VAStationDude » March 28th, 2014, 8:02 pm

Your preference is good. Having worked in government I've come to appreciate simple solutions that are cheap and easy to administer. Set a price to achieve the desired level of carbon emission. Let market forces and the politics climate adjust to new reality. We'll get green energy and a more efficient build environment.

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Climate Change

Postby VAStationDude » March 28th, 2014, 8:14 pm

Unfortunately, any kind of carbon pricing as precisely zero chance of becoming law, barring major upheaval in both the US Senate and House. As a newly wed man, the lack of action against global warming really tempers my desire to expand my family.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Apartment Boom

Postby David Greene » July 1st, 2014, 10:05 am

min-chi-cbus wrote:I also think Global Climate Change and its side effects may have a positive influence on population growth in the Twin Cities area as it slowly becomes one of the few remaining U.S. cities to have 4 true seasons and a healthy water supply (not to mention milder winters).
To put this in perspective, we were up at the new Tettegouche visitor's center last week and they had a display about climate change. By 2060 the north shore climate is going to be like it is here in the Twin Cities.

Scary stuff.

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3946
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Apartment Boom

Postby seanrichardryan » July 1st, 2014, 10:24 am

Yes, and the TC will be like the dry Kansas prairie.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Apartment Boom

Postby min-chi-cbus » July 1st, 2014, 12:57 pm

I've heard that the Twin Cities may have the same climate as Kansas, but Kansas has two very distinct climates: one that's hot and wet, and another that's very hot and dry. I've never heard any forecasts that put the Twin Cities in the dry zone, and if anything I've heard MORE rain will be common, not less. Think KC, not Eastern Colorado.

What "North Shore"? Lake Superior? If it's Lake Superior I'd put some serious money into the City of Duluth soon! What an amazing place it would be with the Twin Cities' climate!!

JordanWasaN
City Center
Posts: 31
Joined: April 8th, 2013, 2:13 am

Re: Apartment Boom

Postby JordanWasaN » July 1st, 2014, 2:13 pm

seanrichardryan wrote:Yes, and the TC will be like the dry Kansas prairie.
More like Eastern Missouri or Southern Illinois. Most of the state is seeing increasing precipitation averages.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1365
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Apartment Boom

Postby xandrex » July 1st, 2014, 4:48 pm

min-chi-cbus wrote:What "North Shore"? Lake Superior? If it's Lake Superior I'd put some serious money into the City of Duluth soon! What an amazing place it would be with the Twin Cities' climate!!
Ugh, no thanks. I grew up near Duluth and vastly prefer the summers up there. Cooler and less sticky. The lake really does wonders for the weather. My first summer in Minneapolis was an eye-opener, especially with limited air conditioning. :shock:


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest