Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[SageBrush]

So... would you stupidly stand there and get run over?

Nope -- but that is me. And I am not a trumper.

 

[SageBrush]

My understanding is that warming of several degrees over the course of a century and rise of sea levels that will change coastlines and eliminate some islands are the results predicted by the science.

You understand wrong.

Predictions are that the coastlines will submerge displacing hundreds of millions in the US alone, if hurricanes do not displace them first.
There will be mass starvation, mass biological extinctions, loss of the oceans as a precious resource, and epidemics.

The most uncertainty is when, but well within the lifespan of a 'civilization.'

 

[JRP3]

Not to mention what severe weather changes might do to our crops.

 

[electracity]

Not to mention what severe weather changes might do to our crops.

That's going to be the first killer that starts the climate panic. Most countries are not food self sufficient. Even countries like England and Russia import a substantial percentage of calories.

 

[RichardC]

If extinction of the human race is the likely result, you point is valid. Does the science really predict extinction of the human race?

My understanding is that warming of several degrees over the course of a century and rise of sea levels that will change coastlines and eliminate some islands are the results predicted by the science.

That means scarcity of resources. How the country deals with that forecast is a policy question. It may strike you as callous, but if the situation threatens the US, the path of least resistance may be to prepare to defend our resources and potentially take resources from those who cannot defend their own. That may be a moral non-starter for your world view, but I'm sure you realize that is the type of strategic contemplation that our country (USA) has weighed for decades for a range of threats.

It is the displacement of populations by famines, and the other unnatural climate change-powered disasters, that the Pentagon views as the threats to international security and stability that are likely to translate into serious global conflicts. For a taste of things to come, look at the impact on the EU of a few million migrants from Syria. Scale up by a factor of ten or a hundred in a context with serious global food shortages caused by climate change and the prospects for serious global conflicts become very real.

 

[u00mem9]

It is the displacement of populations by famines, and the other unnatural climate change-powered disasters, that the Pentagon views as the threats to international security and stability that likely to translate into serious global conflicts. For an example of a precursor, look at the impact on the EU of a few million migrants from Syria.

Exactly. But if the government decides to prioritize military power over PV, you have to acknowledge that is a policy decision, not a question for science.

 

[RichardC]

Exactly. But if the government decides to prioritize military power over PV, you have to acknowledge that is a policy decision, not a question for science.

No, I do not agree. In order to be a valid exercise of public policy such a decision would have to be based on facts and truth, not lies and disinformation. At no point have the public been informed that our continuing, largely unnecessary, consumption of fossil fuels is expected to result in a breakdown of social order and war, or given the choice between renewable energy, prosperity and peace, on the one hand, or greater fossil fuel revenues, climate change and war on the other. Only if that choice were to be clearly and honestly articulated and a decision made on that basis could such a choice be viewed as a valid exercise of public policy.

 

[u00mem9]

No, I do not agree. In order to be a valid exercise of public policy such a decision would have to be based on facts and truth, not lies and disinformation. At no point have the public been informed that our continuing, largely unnecessary, consumption of fossil fuels is expected to result in a breakdown of social order and war, or given the choice between renewable energy, prosperity and peace, on the one hand, or greater fossil fuel revenues, climate change and war on the other. Only if that choice were to be clearly and honestly articulated and a decision made on that basis could such a choice be viewed as a valid exercise of public policy.

Regardless of whether you think the basis is 'valid', it's still POLICY.

I lose confidence in scientists who seem to struggle with rather simple logic concepts when their ideology is involved. No better than "intelligent design" advocates.

Science tells us it's warmer, why, and maybe even educates our expectation of how warm it will be tomorrow. Science does not tell us what to do. It's a simple concept.

 

[mspohr]

Regardless of whether you think the basis is 'valid', it's still POLICY.

I lose confidence in scientists who seem to struggle with rather simple logic concepts when their ideology is involved. No better than "intelligent design" advocates.

Science tells us it's warmer, why, and maybe even educates our expectation of how warm it will be tomorrow. Science does not tell us what to do. It's a simple concept.

Science tells us we have a problem (climate change); tells us the cause of the problem (fossil fuels); and tells us what to do to stop the problem (stop burning fossil fuels).
What else do you need to know?
The "ideology" of the politicians (greed) keeps them from accepting the science. They don't want to understand the simple message from the scientists.

 

[David_Cary]

While ideology keeps some from accepting the science, you can certainly make the decision that transitioning off fossil fuels may not be worth the cost. A warming planet does have some advantages - longer growing season for instance.

The totality of effects of warming are a guess. Famine and food shortage etc are not written in stone.

Displacing 100s of millions in the US alone? Wait a second there are only 320 million or so. A rational policy might be to grow the inside of the country over the next few 100s of years. Displacement could be long term population shifts. I live at 500 feet with 3 million other people. I have no worries of going under water anytime soon.

Making the claim that the coastlines are going to dramatically change in our lifetime is a bit of hyperbole. The NOAA is predicting .3 to 2.5 meter rise over 100 years. I have a oceanfront house with a floor at 26 ft. Might still be usable in 100 years at the high estimate.

I'm 46. I'm not planning on retiring to Florida but I suspect NY will be ok in my later years. A retreating coastline will probably happen gradually enough to gradually move populations (in the US at least).

Hurricanes - sure. They suck. Warm water powers them. But it is really hard to see a trend in the last 70 years. Of the 5 worst for NC, they have hit in expected distribution over 70 years. Hazel was arguably the worst given the lower population at the time - 1954. Damage wasn't number one but force probably was. None of the 5 worst were since 2000. So no trend over a 70 year old's lifetime. More houses on the coastline and higher dollar houses will gradually up the damage but population displacements - not common.

$100 trillion is a good amount of money. Money buys things. Like food, clothing, shelter for the world's poor. So ignoring the wealth that fossil fuels have given the world is ignoring the greatest single form of wealth in world history.

That being said, I have a good size solar array and we have only EV's in our house. The earlier we transition, the better in my opinion. But that is a policy decision.

 

[JRP3]

While ideology keeps some from accepting the science, you can certainly make the decision that transitioning off fossil fuels may not be worth the cost.

I don't think you can actually. First, even ignoring climate change, fossil fuels have other external costs, from health effects to resource wars. Second, sustainable energy use will be cheaper in the long run, so I'm not sure what "cost" you are referring to.

warming planet does have some advantages - longer growing season for instance.

Not if that longer season means drought or flooding. Plus the potential for less healthy plants and less nutritious food from excessive CO2 as described previously in this thread.

 

[ThortsMD]

While ideology keeps some from accepting the science, you can certainly make the decision that transitioning off fossil fuels may not be worth the cost. A warming planet does have some advantages - longer growing season for instance.

And a shorter or no growing season for others. Like farmers in Nebraska and Oklahoma.

The totality of effects of warming are a guess. Famine and food shortage etc are not written in stone.

Tell that to the Dept of Defense. They are modeling massive human refugee problems based on the inability to farm and feed themselves (such as the Bangladeshees).

Displacing 100s of millions in the US alone? Wait a second there are only 320 million or so. A rational policy might be to grow the inside of the country over the next few 100s of years. Displacement could be long term population shifts. I live at 500 feet with 3 million other people. I have no worries of going under water anytime soon.

Are you going to close all of the ports? Move the population of all the coastal cities to Colorado? Millions of Americans live within the unusable area you describe. What would be the cost of such displacement? Are *YOU* going to pay for that? Another few inches of sea rise will cause the evacuation of Miami. Not from flooding, but from salt water incursion into all drinking water sources that south Florida relies upon. You are not taking practical considerations into account. Six inches of sea rise makes the farms of 30 million in Bangladesh have salty soil. Unfarmable. How real should we take that scenario? The Indians are nearing completion of a 15 foot high wall all along their entire border with Bangladesh to stop those, and other, refugees. Ask the Indians how real the risk is.

Making the claim that the coastlines are going to dramatically change in our lifetime is a bit of hyperbole. The NOAA is predicting .3 to 2.5 meter rise over 100 years. I have a oceanfront house with a floor at 26 ft. Might still be usable in 100 years at the high estimate.

2.5 meters is 6.125 feet. You won't be able to use your oceanfront property with that degree of sea level rise. You won't be able to insure it.

I'm 46. I'm not planning on retiring to Florida but I suspect NY will be ok in my later years. A retreating coastline will probably happen gradually enough to gradually move populations (in the US at least).

Superstorm Sandy put salt water into the NYC subways for 3 days. Not long enough to destroy them. But it won't take much sea level rise to repeatedly flood them and make transportation in NYC unbearable. What will those 8+ million people do then? Are YOU going to pay to rebuilt NYC in the Poconos? I hope you're not planing on living NYC...

That being said, I have a good size solar array and we have only EV's in our house. The earlier we transition, the better in my opinion. But that is a policy decision.

I can't seem to get the quoting part correct. My responses to your points are embedded in the quote of your original. And good for you! You are part of the solution. I also have on one BEV and solar.

 

[RichardC]

Regardless of whether you think the basis is 'valid', it's still POLICY. ...

How about the Holocaust, and the collectivization of agriculture by Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. All were policies, and all were profoundly wrong.

Closer to the current time, at what point do lies, fraud and bribery vitiate the validity of the "POLICY"?

Validity is the very essence of policy, if it is to be respected and enforceable under the rule of law.

 

[RichardC]

... I lose confidence in scientists who seem to struggle with rather simple logic concepts when their ideology is involved. No better than "intelligent design" advocates.

Science tells us it's warmer, why, and maybe even educates our expectation of how warm it will be tomorrow. Science does not tell us what to do. It's a simple concept.

Unlike politicians and other paid propagandists of the fossil fuel industry, scientists are acting on the science and the facts when speaking about climate change and have tended to err on the side of caution.

You are correct that science, strictly speaking, does not tell us what to do, but it does tell us that:

1. Human burning of fossil fuels is releasing massive amounts of GHG emissions which are accumulating in the atmosphere, are dangerously destabilizing the global climate, and will thereby destabilize human civilization over the coming decades.
2. The constantly declining costs of solar, wind, storage, electric vehicles and other alternative energy technologies means that they could replace all fossil fuels over the coming decades at a lower total cost.

From which, the logical and reasonable course of action is readily apparent.

 

[ohmman]

Potentially pertinent.

How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail

 

[RichardC]

Potentially pertinent.

How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail

Thanks. Quite so! Hard lesson to remember.

 

[ohmman]

Thanks. Quite so! Hard lesson to remember.

To be clear, I meant that it was pertinent to the thread topic in general, not the current sub-conversation necessarily.

 

[S'toon]

Sea ice around Antarctica has shrunk to the smallest annual extent on record after years of resisting a trend of man-made global warming, preliminary U.S. satellite data showed on Tuesday.

Ice floating around the frozen continent usually melts to its smallest for the year around the end of February, the southern hemisphere summer, before expanding again as the autumn chill sets in.

This year, sea ice extent contracted to 2.287 million square kilometres on Feb. 13, according to daily data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

That extent is a fraction smaller than a previous low of 2.290 million square kilometres recorded on Feb. 27, 1997, in satellite records dating back to 1979.

Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC, said he would wait for a few days' more measurements to confirm the record low.

"But unless something funny happens, we're looking at a record minimum in Antarctica. Some people say it's already happened," he told Reuters. "We tend to be conservative by looking at five-day running averages."

<snip>

Full article at:
Antarctic sea ice hits record low early data shows

 

[u00mem9]

They haven't learned their lesson on credibility yet.
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations

 

[JRP3]

They haven't learned their lesson on credibility yet.
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations

The issue is not one of fake news or manipulated data but of emphasis.

Unfortunately the general public doesn't deal well with subtleties. The claims are within range of what the data shows and the move to sustainable carbon neutral energy use is imperative regardless of yearly fluctuations.