Going Green...is it worth it?

tonyw

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
675
Still taking this in, but it does highlight how climate science is still very much in it's infancy and open to interpretation:
Whilst I'm not a climate change scientist, nor a fanatic (I believe from the reports I have read that anthropomorphic global warming is probable, maybe highly probable, but not proven beyond doubt...….)

......I do know arXiv pretty well, and having a paper published on it does not mean that it has been peer reviewed. Or even reviewed and tested at all. It means either a) you come from a well-respected university (which the University of Turku may well be) or b) someone who's an eligible endorser on arXiv has done so (and I'd wager there are some climate change sceptics on there).

Also.....they've only referenced six other papers. One is the IPCC report, and four are their own papers. They are basically just citing their own theories to prove that their interpretation of the data is correct. A good scientist would work a lot harder to put their work in a broader context.

Again - I don't understand the core science, so I'm in no position to critique their theories.
But if I was a random Finnish dude, want to peddling crackpot theories that had limited evidence to support them, this is exactly how I would go about publishing those ideas!
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,748
Absolutely. My perspective is climate science is still in its early infancy, so it's very easy to pick at the assumptions both sides make and prove points because the deeper details are still being worked out on the fly. Consensus can be subjective, rather than objective. So when someone says we have 12 years to reverse the trend, are they postulating on belief rather than fact?

We have so much to learn about carbon storage in the ground, for example that is only now being peeked at.
 

tonyw

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
675
Absolutely. My perspective is climate science is still in its early infancy, so it's very easy to pick at the assumptions both sides make and prove points because the deeper details are still being worked out on the fly. Consensus can be subjective, rather than objective. So when someone says we have 12 years to reverse the trend , are they postulating on belief rather than fact?

We have so much to learn about carbon storage in the ground, for example that is only now being peeked at.
In short, they're talking B*****s.

Climate Science is about balance of probabilities. Anyone who claims certainties in terms of timelines is either a bad scientist, or just abandoning the science in favour of better headlines.

If they said something like (numbers made up by me) 'It's 95% probable that the Earth will one day no longer be able to support human life if we don't reverse Co2 emissions within time T, where T follows a normal distribution with a mean of 12 years, and a standard deviation of 3 years', then I could accept it.

But for some reason that doesn't make as good a headline...….
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,748
In short, they're talking B*****s.

Climate Science is about balance of probabilities. Anyone who claims certainties in terms of timelines is either a bad scientist, or just abandoning the science in favour of better headlines.

If they said something like (numbers made up by me) 'It's 95% probable that the Earth will one day no longer be able to support human life if we don't reverse Co2 emissions within time T, where T follows a normal distribution with a mean of 12 years, and a standard deviation of 3 years', then I could accept it.

But for some reason that doesn't make as good a headline...….
Exactly. This is a fascinating article about the struggles in Germany powering itself with renewables vs coal, etc. The original article in Der Spiegel is even more interesting. If Germany, as a power house is struggling to move to renewables, it highlights the complexity of transitioning energy needs in the short term, and it's almost naive for people to think that. Some of the figures spent are utterly eye watering.

One sentence kind of sums it up for me "Experts are getting bogged down in details -- producing papers, but no strategies. "
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,127
Yes, the speed of what might happen is conjecture. And do you know what, all the scientists who think climate change is happening might be wrong and the few outliers and deniers might be right.

But surely at the very very least it is a possibility that it IS happening?

If it is happening and we 'go green' we might just save our way of life (without being *too* apocalyptic!)
If it isn't happening and we 'go green' we will reduce the amount of plastic in the ocean (of which there is no serious denial), stop burning (so much) fossil fuel, reduce atmospheric pollution, maybe even slow the rate of animal extinctions etc.
If it is happening and we do nothing, none of the above will happen, plus there is the distinct possibility of calamitous consequences for us, and our children.

I can't help thinking that the phrase 'better safe than sorry' should apply - even if you are not totally convinced by climate science.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,220
Happened to catch up with Hugh FW plastics programme last night where he travelled to Ineos`s Grangemouth plant that produces plastic "nurdles" (raw polymers)....................... the volumes were staggering.
There was also a great explanation as to the "fallacy" of recycling as it just creates a larger market for plastics.
Was a great watch!
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,748
I saw a tweet the other day that was basically, it's not worth recycling anything but metal due to the effort involved. I'd disagree with it, but it is something that I see popping up more often now./
 
Top Bottom