Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old Yesterday, 05:32 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well that is a nice change of pace from others that came with contrarian points, so thanks for that, sincerely.

However, my background on history and social studies is telling me to ask you for a favor: who were the sources that told you about using the flawed extinction and hurricane talking points? This is because me and many others that investigate media issues besides the science of items like this need to take flawed sources to task as they deserve for not updating their information if they are sincere, or to condemn them for repeating misinformation on purpose.
I do not recall when I first heard Katrina sized hurricanes are likely to increase. I probably read it here posted by someone as an argument why climate change was so dangerous. I just googled it, and this was near the top:

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...ore-dangerous/

It says hurricanes aren't getting more frequent, but more intense. To many that is a distinction without a difference as to whether or not hurricanes are getting worse. I'm not arguing against you, just pointing out that saying "hurricanes are getting worse" or "Cat 5 hurricanes more frequent" isn't so outlandish given that data. Or am I missing something? Is it still wrong to think that?

The extinction "talking point" (please don't assign me to that category, I'm really not a denier. Call me ignorant, but I'm not hanging out in denier websites trying to find all the flaws in the models) came from me. Me alone. I've heard about ocean acidification and the effects of softening of shells, dying coral reefs and extinctions. I've also known for a long time 99% of all species went extinct long before humans showed up. There are warnings about invasive species that can take over local ecosystems if allowed to get a foothold and spread rapidly. There are warnings about mosquitoes and other insects migrating further north due to warming climates and doing untold damage. In other words, as new locations become more hospitable to existing species, it does not seem so totally outlandish a concept that species will move in and take over. That isn't evolution, per se, but migration, which seems like it could happen rapidly. Life, generally speaking, spreads quickly to wherever it can get a foothold.

So, thanks again for your patience. I'm hoping to get myself straightened on the facts and whatever help you provide is great.
  #152  
Old Yesterday, 05:45 PM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'm trying to tread lightly here, so please take this in the ignorance it is being asked. Ocean acidification will likely lead to species die off. But 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Climate and patterns change, and species adapt or die. New species take over. What am I missing? I'm all for reducing CO2, but I don't know if I'd call the situation dire (see above).
Ocean acidification has the greatest effects on animals with calcium hard parts - e.g. krill, crabs, and other crunchy critters. The calcium lets them grow relatively large and store lots of fat. These form the bottom of the food chain for most of the fish we currently catch and eat.

When they fail, what would tend to move in first are the "weed" species, which are smaller plankton (microscopic) with higher growth rates and no calcified structure - but the fish can't eat them profitably because they aren't such convenient packets of nutrients. This is especially true if it's coupled with warming temperatures, that increases fish respiration rates. Instead of entering the food chain, the "weed" micro-plankton suck up oxygen (possibly leading to more fish die-offs) and sink to the bottom (which is actually a positive for carbon sequestration), or are eaten by filter feeders, in particular jellyfish, which then may explode in population. This leads to less fish for people to catch and eat, at least of the type for which markets are developed.

On the evolutionary scale, it's no big deal if jellyfish move in (or if they do so temporarily, until new fish are selected for that eat jellyfish). But it definitely leads to collapses/shut downs in present-day fisheries harming food security - and if you remember fallouts from collapses of New England and Canadian cod 30 years ago, leads to political disturbance/unrest etc.

Now, markets can be developed for jellyfish, and the good news is there's lots of room for mitigation (allowing fishing boats to pursue developing markets and so forth) and the management of fisheries is evolving to be more resilient to projected changes in climate. But they're still shocks to the socio-economic system when the changes happen, and overall, on the medium time scale, it means fewer fish of the type we prefer to catch and eat.

Oh - and whales pretty much take it in the shorts.
  #153  
Old Yesterday, 06:07 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Please also remember that "significant," "painful," "very painful," and "dire" are all subjective terms. Each of us will likely have widely varying conditions in our heads as part of their definitions.

In addition, the timelines involved will also vary. I think that conditions will become "dire" in the future even if we stop additional carbon production, let alone let it increase. When exactly the world will pass from "painful" to "dire" is irrelevant as long as that future is within the lifetimes of people alive today. Others may have different timelines in mind.

The important factor is that global change will affect everyone in our connected world. There are no safe niches in which to hide, although some areas will be hit worse than others. If conditions hit "dire" anywhere, the effects will ripple out to everywhere. You're just kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
I defined "dire" in my post above because I knew there would be differences in how it is used. I assume this is the root of some of the disagreement between myself and experts on this topic. GIGObuster has explained to me how he is defining the word, which I now understand and can see why the topic looks dire from that perspective.
  #154  
Old Yesterday, 06:17 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Most of what I see when I read the reports are certain things that are indisputable:
1) The world is getting warmer. Probably in the range of 2C to 4C.
2) The result of the warming will be polar ice cap melting and sea level rise.

Those two things I fully accept. I'm not sure if that is a big part of the controversy or not.

Beyond that, it would seem the rest is trying to determine the impact of that warming and sea level rise on the planet. Models can be used to determine what impact global warming will have.

This is where, I think, I struggle. Sometimes the models predict things that are of biblical proportions, with millions being displaced as a result of crop failure or cities like Miami or other coastal places being flooded. I've no doubt the sea level will rise, but I've also no doubt humanity will adjust. Sea walls can be built, people can move, etc. Is that really so dire we need to spend billions or trillions to prevent it?
I don't know, is it?

I'm not a scientist or an expert, I'm not that much different from yourself, but I've come to an opposite stance from yours. I do believe climate change is approaching emergency levels of serious.

Sure, millions might be displaced by crop failure - but that's NOT a trivial thing. Look at what happened with millions of refugees walking/rafting from the Middle East and North Africa recently. Those people have to go somewhere, and that somewhere already has people in it, people who might well put up walls and fences. You wind up with people trying to cross large stretches of water on improvise/crappy boats, overloading them, with all too often deadly result and bodies, including those of children, toddlers, and babies washing up on the beach somewhere else.

Rising food prices were a factor in the "Arab Spring" and the current unrest/war in the Middle East and North Africa. You see, the food doesn't disappear all at once, there's just less of it, and still less of it, and the price goes up until the bottom ranks of society wake up one day and they just can't afford to get enough to eat anymore... and the hungry are also the desperate.

Closer to (my) home - I work in a grocery store. I often hear people bitch about the cost of certain items. Let's consider one of them: oranges. We used to sell oranges by the pound. We now sell them by the individual orange in most cases. Where we don't, the 5 pound bags are now 3 pound bags AND also more expensive than in the past. People bitch about this - why do they cost more? Hurricanes Irma and Maria (Irma the most powerful ever to his Puerto Rico, Maria "only" a Cat 4), which didn't just destroy some of the 2017 crop (and, oh yes, killed thousands of people), they knocked over a lot of trees. Trees which will take years to replace...except no one seems to want to spend the money to rebuild so maybe never. So... we still have oranges, just fewer of them, and they cost more.

At least in the short term we aren't going to see complete crop failures, "just" diminishing availability and more cost. This is moderated in a nation like the US, which has things like food stamps to help those on the lower socio-economic rungs afford food. Except the current administration wants to cut that benefit.... (an example of how human action can make a situation worse when human action could instead make it better). If you live in the "first world" this sort of thing is very survivable, especially if you also have a decent social safety net. It's people in the third world who are really going to suffer, and people around the equator (there's some overlap there) until they get desperate enough to risk ocean crossings in overloaded crappy boats or just try to walk to another continent. Risk death? Well, yeah, if staying put is certain doom you'll undertake risky journeys in hope of survival.

At that, Puerto Ricans were lucky - they had a place to go, being allowed to freely travel and/or relocate to the US mainland. About half a million have made the trip so far. If they were a wholly independent island nation they'd be screwed, or waiting years to get a refugee visa from somewhere. Or maybe setting out in leaky boats (or worse) to try to make to somewhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
As for crop failures, obviously that is another thing altogether. If that prediction is true, then yes, we need to do something. Crop failures happen from time to time and humanity has adjusted. If we can avoid it, though, we should keep millions from starving or suffering. But this is an extraordinary claim and needs extremely high confidence the prediction made by the models is accurate.
Yes, crop failures have happened from time to time. And from time to time they killed millions.

I think this gets to what YOU consider "serious", "painful", or "dire".

As I mentioned, some food items are already getting more expensive. How big a problem is that? I don't know, you tell me. It used to be that in temperate climates a fresh orange was a rare and precious thing, given as a gift at Christmas or New Year's. Are we going to return to that? I don't know. Keep in mind, too, that one reason crop failures don't kill people the way they used to is because we have a modern transportation system. If every orange in Florida is lost in a year we can get oranges from other places. Sure, they'll cost more (supply and demand does that when supply drops) but you'll be able to get oranges. Rinse and repeat for just about any other crop.

Yes, I believe humanity will survive... but that doesn't mean a lot of individuals won't die along the way.

Let's take a look from history: the Irish Potato Disaster. In four years Ireland lost half its population. Roughly one-two million went elsewhere and one-two million died of starvation, malnutrition, and related causes (there is some dispute about numbers for the various categories of dead/gone/survived, and whether or not you include other deaths/emigrations from other affected areas in Europe - the blight was by no means restricted to just Ireland, Ireland was just hit hardest). So yes, the Irish survived, Ireland survived... but there were a LOT of changes, not all of them good, and millions died. Nevermind the weather hadn't turned deadly for humans, or that other crops besides potatoes were still growing - just take out the potatoes in the 1840's and >boom< millions of the population of a country gone forever, either other places or to the grave. In just four years.

So don't disregard the effects of the failure of a crop. Or just an overall reduction in agricultural efficiency.

So - complete hypothetical here - imagine a place on the planet that is low-lying by the sea, in an already warm area of the world. Now, imagine that they lose, oh, 10-20% of their land area to rising ocean levels, agriculture is disrupted reducing the food produced, and summers start seeing heat waves that in and of themselves start causing casualties.... no one item on that list might be outside of their ability to handle, but all three at once? How much money do these people have?

Depends, doesn't it? Singapore or Hong Kong might be able to simply build their skyscrapers higher, install some seawalls, import more food, and run the air conditioning when needed. If you're looking at Bangladesh, though... there simply isn't the money to do any of that to any significant level. There, they lose land and become even more overcrowded, go hungry or malnourished (or actually starve to death) and every summer lots of people die from heatstroke. What for Singapore or Hong Kong is a serious or even painful situation may be for Bangladesh dire or apocalyptic.

So... where do you live, how much money do you have, and what are you willing to do to adapt?

Current agriculture depends on weather staying within certain parameters, parameters that are changing with the climate. It's not just temperature and rainfall - there are crops that have requirements for day/night lighting that are just not compatible once you get out of their adapted zone. Sure, a lot of crops can migrate towards the poles, but not all of them, not even if you provide warmth and water because the light available isn't available on a compatible schedule.

It's not enough to simply say "the weather is getting more extreme", you have to consider the effects that will have. It's not enough to say "the sea level will rise", you have to consider both who and how people will be displaced, whether or not they are able to relocate elsewhere, and the expense not only building but maintaining essentially forever sea defenses. At what point do you decide it makes more sense to abandon a city like New York or London rather than trying to hold back the sea? I've seen models where most of Florida goes under water - sure, we can talk about building a seawall around Miamai, but around an entire state?

It's not enough to look at each effect in isolation. They have synergistic effects.

Also, there will be some "winners" - places that get warmer, wetter/drier, that have a longer growing season, and so forth. The fact that such spots exist does not invalidate the misery the rest of the world will experience.

On top of that - weather and climate are not exact sciences. There's a lot done with statistics, and deniers will always be able to find an exception to "invalidate" the rest of a stack of results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Weather patterns will change. We are better now at dealing with extreme weather so the danger from an extra Cat 5 hurricane every other year isn't as catastrophic as it was 20 years ago.
Maybe not as catastrophic, but if a place really does get a Cat 5 every other year that would probably qualify as "catastrophic" by some measures. At the very least you'd have some huge changes in building codes (essentially, you'd have to build bunkers) and the local vegetation is going to change drastically with that sort of assault every other year. Big changes. Changes that the human race could survive? Sure - but we're going to lose individuals, a lot of them, until we make some significant changes and adaptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Sea levels rising means people having to move or sea walls being put up (see Netherlands). Again, something we would want to work toward improving, but it isn't catastrophic. Does that make any sense?
No, not from my viewpoint - look at what happened to the recent migration from MENA to Europe. It was certainly catastrophic for those doing the migrating. Pretty harrowing for those picking bodies off their shores, having to deal with hundreds of thousands if not millions moving to/through their territory... "People having to move" have to move somewhere and these days "somewhere" is already occupied. The worse things get the more reluctant others will be to take in refugees. That's a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Can you elaborate on what the dire effects of ocean rise, ocean acidification and extreme weather events will be? As I mentioned in my other messages, I'm having a hard time getting worked up that a rising ocean is dire. What is the dire part?

In my mind dire = significant loss or risk to human life. Is that the wrong way to view it?
Yes.

Consider Venice, which is having even more of a flooding problem than usual. How much would it cost to save Venice? Does anyone want to spend that money? If no... where do the people of Venice go?

Consider New York City, Miami, Los Angeles, New Orleans.... How much will it cost to save them? Well, obviously that will vary with how much the sea rises... but at some point it's no longer cost effective. What do you think the effect would be on the US if we have to abandon just those five cities? Except it won't be just those five, because if we can't afford to save those cities we can't afford to save any threatened by those sea levels... imagine the economic losses, having relocate everyone in those areas, all the businesses....

As any refugee - sure, great, escape something horrible with your life but lose everything else. Every material good, all your money, all your investments, your job, your home, wind up somewhere where you need to learn a new language... Maybe your life is not at risk (anymore) and you're alive, but don't you think for at least some people that would qualify as "dire"? Sure, we can evacuate people from the path of a hurricane or a wildfire... but if they have nothing to return to? What then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'm trying to tread lightly here, so please take this in the ignorance it is being asked. Ocean acidification will likely lead to species die off. But 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Climate and patterns change, and species adapt or die. New species take over. What am I missing? I'm all for reducing CO2, but I don't know if I'd call the situation dire (see above).
The problem is that it will take millions, tens of millions of years for that "new species take over" thing to happen. Life recovers on geologic time scales, not human time scales.

Currently, we depend on a LOT of different species. Wipe out half of them (a Thanos finger-snap for species) and what do you have? Consider major grains: wheat, rice, corn, barley, rye, oats. Remove half of them - what happens if we lose wheat, rye, and oats? Or rice, corn, and barley? Different people starve depending on which you remove, for one thing - remove rice and Asia is going to be having a LOT of problems. Remove wheat and Europe will be having problems on an epic scale.

So, sure, shrug and say "99% of all species ever are already dead, so what's a few more?" It depends on which species - if it's one YOUR species (or nation) depends on heavily you're fucked. Again, consider the Irish in the 1840's - it's not that there weren't things other than potatoes grown in Ireland, or that the Irish weren't physically capable of eating things other than potatoes, it's that they were so heavily dependent on potatoes for so much that removing potatoes became a catastrophe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Ocean rise isn't like a tsunami. Because of that, people will adjust, not die.
No, some will die - because "adjust" requires money, or somewhere else to go, and not everyone will have that option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
It is my understanding the Sahara was once a plush grassland. Now it is desert and people farm and graze animals elsewhere. The change that happened in the Sahara is thought to be fairly rapid, yet humans survived.
Yes, the species survived. We will never know how many individuals died during those changes, though.
  #155  
Old Yesterday, 06:18 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I do not recall when I first heard Katrina sized hurricanes are likely to increase. I probably read it here posted by someone as an argument why climate change was so dangerous. I just googled it, and this was near the top:

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...ore-dangerous/

It says hurricanes aren't getting more frequent, but more intense. To many that is a distinction without a difference as to whether or not hurricanes are getting worse. I'm not arguing against you, just pointing out that saying "hurricanes are getting worse" or "Cat 5 hurricanes more frequent" isn't so outlandish given that data. Or am I missing something? Is it still wrong to think that?
The key is that is proper to say that hurricanes will become more intense, IMHO the item to take into account is not just the expected increase in energy going into a hurricane, but in the already reported increase of water that is dumped from the hurricane clouds. This is because in a previous discussion some contrarian actually did go for the point that somehow clouds in a hurricane do not dump increasing amounts of water like the clouds in other storms in a warming world.

Now, how many hurricanes can appear in a warming world is where things are iffy still. But the sad thing is that contrarians and politicians that follow them are willing to bet on us getting fewer hurricanes in the future, forgetting that more intense hurricanes will still come even if they are in lesser numbers.

Now the thing is that usually in past discussions a cite like yours here is not really one coming from the misleaders, it is not what I asked as a favor from you.

The sources of misinformation usually do make a post or a link telling others that the good scientific site there shows something else. From past discussions it usually comes looking like click bait that the ones that are wrong are copying and pasting with no regard of what the cite is actually saying, chances are that whoever did send you the information in the past did so with a description like "scientists here were wrong about the number of hurricanes!" and of course very few people do bother to check the "fine print".

A classic example of how contrarians do "research":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow
Quote:
No, sadly the Mail on Sunday has got it wrong... yet again. Here's what's behind the sensational news that global warming ended in 1997, and how it comes from misreporting, misquotes and omissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
The extinction "talking point" (please don't assign me to that category, I'm really not a denier. Call me ignorant, but I'm not hanging out in denier websites trying to find all the flaws in the models) came from me. Me alone.
Sorry, but that is where we do disagree and hard, I have seen this before, what I have concluded is that a lot of talking points manufactured by deniers do percolate through right wing media, social media and even mainstream media. Sometimes the effort is subtle, like getting the talking point from a friend or at a glance from a misleading meme on twitter and others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I've heard about ocean acidification and the effects of softening of shells, dying coral reefs and extinctions. I've also known for a long time 99% of all species went extinct long before humans showed up. There are warnings about invasive species that can take over local ecosystems if allowed to get a foothold and spread rapidly. There are warnings about mosquitoes and other insects migrating further north due to warming climates and doing untold damage. In other words, as new locations become more hospitable to existing species, it does not seem so totally outlandish a concept that species will move in and take over. That isn't evolution, per se, but migration, which seems like it could happen rapidly. Life, generally speaking, spreads quickly to wherever it can get a foothold.
That was also pointed out in the cite I made already explaining how incomplete is the idea that we will adapt out of this issue. Even migration was explained that it will not be a solution for many species. So that really it is also a boiler plate denier talking point as it was reported years ago by Skeptical Science. So, yeah, you still need to dig a bit to remember who told you those misleading bits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
So, thanks again for your patience. I'm hoping to get myself straightened on the facts and whatever help you provide is great.
Thanks, but one thing that needs to be remembered is that no one is immune to be offered misleading information in such subtle or peer pressure ways that the misinformers do manage to convince people that 'they did figure out about a scientific or social issue all by themselves'.

Last edited by GIGObuster; Yesterday at 06:21 PM.
  #156  
Old Yesterday, 06:21 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidfood View Post
Ocean acidification has the greatest effects on animals with calcium hard parts - e.g. krill, crabs, and other crunchy critters. The calcium lets them grow relatively large and store lots of fat. These form the bottom of the food chain for most of the fish we currently catch and eat.

When they fail, what would tend to move in first are the "weed" species, which are smaller plankton (microscopic) with higher growth rates and no calcified structure - but the fish can't eat them profitably because they aren't such convenient packets of nutrients. This is especially true if it's coupled with warming temperatures, that increases fish respiration rates. Instead of entering the food chain, the "weed" micro-plankton suck up oxygen (possibly leading to more fish die-offs) and sink to the bottom (which is actually a positive for carbon sequestration), or are eaten by filter feeders, in particular jellyfish, which then may explode in population. This leads to less fish for people to catch and eat, at least of the type for which markets are developed.

On the evolutionary scale, it's no big deal if jellyfish move in (or if they do so temporarily, until new fish are selected for that eat jellyfish). But it definitely leads to collapses/shut downs in present-day fisheries harming food security - and if you remember fallouts from collapses of New England and Canadian cod 30 years ago, leads to political disturbance/unrest etc.

Now, markets can be developed for jellyfish, and the good news is there's lots of room for mitigation (allowing fishing boats to pursue developing markets and so forth) and the management of fisheries is evolving to be more resilient to projected changes in climate. But they're still shocks to the socio-economic system when the changes happen, and overall, on the medium time scale, it means fewer fish of the type we prefer to catch and eat.

Oh - and whales pretty much take it in the shorts.
While I understand there will be huge shifts in these markets and systems, are these changes going to be sudden enough to be considered "dire"? I really have no idea how quickly something all these shifts can happen. I long understood that shellfish would have softer shells, etc., but my perception was that the fallout from this would be happening over the next 50 years, not suddenly.

I can see why whales would take it in the shorts, but how does that affect the rest of the systems? We don't, by and large, eat whales or use them for much of anything. I'm not trying to be completely callous about a species going extinct, but I am trying to understand how their extinction makes this situation "dire."
  #157  
Old Yesterday, 06:54 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The key is that is proper to say that hurricanes will become more intense, IMHO the item to take into account is not just the expected increase in energy going into a hurricane, but in the already reported increase of water that is dumped from the hurricane clouds. This is because in a previous discussion some contrarian actually did go for the point that somehow clouds in a hurricane do not dump increasing amounts of water like the clouds in other storms in a warming world.

Now, how many hurricanes can appear in a warming world is where things are iffy still. But the sad thing is that contrarians and politicians that follow them are willing to bet on us getting fewer hurricanes in the future, forgetting that more intense hurricanes will still come even if they are in lesser numbers.

Now the thing is that usually in past discussions a cite like yours here is not really one coming from the misleaders, it is not what I asked as a favor from you.

The sources of misinformation usually do make a post or a link telling others that the good scientific site there shows something else. From past discussions it usually comes looking like click bait that the ones that are wrong are copying and pasting with no regard of what the cite is actually saying, chances are that whoever did send you the information in the past did so with a description like "scientists here were wrong about the number of hurricanes!" and of course very few people do bother to check the "fine print".

A classic example of how contrarians do "research":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow
Be fair, here. Please. I didn't quote a contrarian website and I didn't come by my information from right wing media sources or social media. You are accusing me of doing something that others have done that I don't think I've done.

I don't understand how my statement, "There will be a higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes" isn't completely in alignment with what that cite indicates. How are they different?? You told me that statement is wrong. How is it wrong?

I get it that you see me as some sort of contrarian who is "just asking questions." If I were you I'd be thinking the exact same thing. If you want to see me that way this likely won't go anywhere because you are likely going to dismiss my questions with some motivation that I do not have. I'm trying to ask legitimate questions and if you are going to just toss them off to me being something I'm not, we should just stop here because you won't be able to help me. I truly do not see anything I've said as denying anything. I'm now trying to understand the basis for the conclusion we are in a crisis situation. You've explained some of it, to be sure, that species die off and ground water pollution will be a huge deal. That helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Sorry, but that is where we do disagree and hard, I have seen this before, what I have concluded is that a lot of talking points manufactured by deniers do percolate through right wing media, social media and even mainstream media. Sometimes the effort is subtle, like getting the talking point from a friend or at a glance from a misleading meme on twitter and others.
Up to you to believe me or not when I tell you where I came to the thought species replacement. I'm not on any social media. Not twitter, facebook or anything else. I read stuff here all the time, but that is about it. I detest Fox news and wouldn't click there if you paid me. If you don't want to believe me, I really can't help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That was also pointed out in the cite I made already explaining how incomplete is the idea that we will adapt out of this issue. Even migration was explained that it will not be a solution for many species. So that really it is also a boiler plate denier talking point as it was reported years ago by Skeptical Science. So, yeah, you still need to dig a bit to remember who told you those misleading bits.


Thanks, but one thing that needs to be remembered is that no one is immune to be offered misleading information in such subtle or peer pressure ways that the misinformers do manage to convince people that 'they did figure out about a scientific or social issue all by themselves'.
I'm not sure why you feel it is so hard to fathom the logic I posted about how I came to the conclusions I came to. It really isn't a complicated thought process. So the source of the info really is me. I also now understand why that thinking is wrong, so thanks for the cite. That is appreciated. You can consider that ignorance fought.
  #158  
Old Yesterday, 07:18 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I long understood that shellfish would have softer shells, etc., but my perception was that the fallout from this would be happening over the next 50 years, not suddenly.
I have to admit that I don't understand this attitude, which is far from unique to you. If what we are doing today is guaranteed to create enormous damage in 50 years shouldn't that be meaningful? Shouldn't we try to mitigate those ills? Shouldn't we even try to eliminate them? That such mitigation would be difficult or expensive is a concern, of course, but not an absolute impediment. Not only would be it less difficult and expensive to start taking steps today instead of twenty years from now, it might even be cost effective. After all, the damage will be done not to one species or one area but to thousands, maybe millions.

Perhaps it's a matter of age. I can remember 1969 vividly. Fifty years doesn't seem so long now, certainly not as long as it did then. I can see the actions that were taken then profoundly affect our lives today. (Nixon's Southern Strategy is a major example.) It's historically unprecedented that we can see the future as clearly as we do today. We need to take historically unprecedented actions in response. The challenge lies as much in convincing individuals that action needs to be taken as the actions we take themselves.
  #159  
Old Yesterday, 07:19 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I don't know, is it?

I'm not a scientist or an expert, I'm not that much different from yourself, but I've come to an opposite stance from yours. I do believe climate change is approaching emergency levels of serious. <snip>
I can't respond to this point by point, but I appreciate the response.

I'm trying to understand the realistic possibilities of what could happen and how that translates to "dire." You made some good points about how forcing mass migrations would be considered dire. Others made that same point and I agree. That would be a huge issue, to say the least.

On the other hand, some of your points seem hyperbolic and extremely far fetch. New York, Los Angeles and Miami are not going to be abandoned due to rising sea levels. Unless you have some serious data to point to that as a realistic possibility it won't help educate me on the seriousness of this issue by imagining extremely unlikely situations.

I'm looking for factual, science based consequences to climate change, not thought experiments on how bad things could get if some extremely unlikely scenarios happen. Does that make sense?

I didn't disagree about crop failures and how if it happens it would be a dire situation.

Others have indicated the seriousness migrations would be, and I understand that now.
  #160  
Old Yesterday, 07:30 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I have to admit that I don't understand this attitude, which is far from unique to you. If what we are doing today is guaranteed to create enormous damage in 50 years shouldn't that be meaningful? Shouldn't we try to mitigate those ills? Shouldn't we even try to eliminate them? That such mitigation would be difficult or expensive is a concern, of course, but not an absolute impediment. Not only would be it less difficult and expensive to start taking steps today instead of twenty years from now, it might even be cost effective. After all, the damage will be done not to one species or one area but to thousands, maybe millions.

Perhaps it's a matter of age. I can remember 1969 vividly. Fifty years doesn't seem so long now, certainly not as long as it did then. I can see the actions that were taken then profoundly affect our lives today. (Nixon's Southern Strategy is a major example.) It's historically unprecedented that we can see the future as clearly as we do today. We need to take historically unprecedented actions in response. The challenge lies as much in convincing individuals that action needs to be taken as the actions we take themselves.
I think to me 50 years is a looong time. But I just barely older than 50, so I don't remember 1969 vividly.

The best I can explain is two fold. First, 50 years is a long time. Technology and societies can change *very* rapidly in that time. There is no guarantee there will be enormous damage in 50 years. Of course, I was wrongly assuming that the impact to the shellfish would quickly be replaced by other species, but I've been shown that isn't likely to happen at the same rate shellfish are dying out, so it won't really help. Something new I've learned.

I look back at 1969 and see slide rules, leaded gas, USSR, leaded paint, etc. Many of these things changed very, very rapidly, particularly the breakup of the Soviet Union.

My point is simply that on some scales 50 years is a long time. On others, as you note, it is a blink of an eye. I've always been under the impression that life, and particularly humans, are highly adaptable. As has been pointed out, that adaptation is often not without huge upheaval and that is where the "dire" part of climate change seems to be stemming from. Unless I'm still completely missing the point.
  #161  
Old Yesterday, 08:39 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Be fair, here. Please. I didn't quote a contrarian website and I didn't come by my information from right wing media sources or social media. You are accusing me of doing something that others have done that I don't think I've done.
This is missing the point, on this issue there is also an effort from contrarian sources to poison a lot of sources into repeating myths in ways that also leads a good number of people into thinking that they did figure it out for themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I don't understand how my statement, "There will be a higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes" isn't completely in alignment with what that cite indicates. How are they different?? You told me that statement is wrong. How is it wrong?
Read it again, what I said was that there is little wrong here, just a misunderstanding that many times is twisted to be a big show stopper by others when it is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I get it that you see me as some sort of contrarian who is "just asking questions." If I were you I'd be thinking the exact same thing. If you want to see me that way this likely won't go anywhere because you are likely going to dismiss my questions with some motivation that I do not have. I'm trying to ask legitimate questions and if you are going to just toss them off to me being something I'm not, we should just stop here because you won't be able to help me. I truly do not see anything I've said as denying anything. I'm now trying to understand the basis for the conclusion we are in a crisis situation. You've explained some of it, to be sure, that species die off and ground water pollution will be a huge deal. That helps.

Up to you to believe me or not when I tell you where I came to the thought species replacement. I'm not on any social media. Not twitter, facebook or anything else. I read stuff here all the time, but that is about it. I detest Fox news and wouldn't click there if you paid me. If you don't want to believe me, I really can't help you.
Nope, that is not to me. As noticed, your extinction item did go to through the same steps coming from deniers out there (even the misleading point about species adapting well to the changes) that the original makers of the myth made years ago. Skeptical Science had identified that malarkey back in 2007. I guess one can say that other sources came up also on their own, making the same mistakes, but I will have to say here that it is still more likely that you did get the "evidence" that allowed you 'to figure it yourself' to come from dubious sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'm not sure why you feel it is so hard to fathom the logic I posted about how I came to the conclusions I came to. It really isn't a complicated thought process. So the source of the info really is me. I also now understand why that thinking is wrong, so thanks for the cite. That is appreciated. You can consider that ignorance fought.
And that is ok, but as usual, if it was fought, that will be demonstrated when one sees those points dropped in the future; as well as you dropping the sources of information that you used to figure out those.

Last edited by GIGObuster; Yesterday at 08:42 PM.
  #162  
Old Yesterday, 09:29 PM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
While I understand there will be huge shifts in these markets and systems, are these changes going to be sudden enough to be considered "dire"? I really have no idea how quickly something all these shifts can happen. I long understood that shellfish would have softer shells, etc., but my perception was that the fallout from this would be happening over the next 50 years, not suddenly.
One of the first examples of a climate-driven collapse literally just happened this month, as described here. Due to a single-year heat wave (attributed to climate change), an Alaska cod stock went down by 2/3 in 3 years, enough to shut down a fishery that looked very healthy in recent years. Fisheries failures, especially due to prey supply, can be quite sudden. If you creep downwards in prey, things could seem fine, but cross a starvation line you lose an entire population at once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I can see why whales would take it in the shorts, but how does that affect the rest of the systems? We don't, by and large, eat whales or use them for much of anything. I'm not trying to be completely callous about a species going extinct, but I am trying to understand how their extinction makes this situation "dire."
This was a bit of a throwaway comment, and to a sense you're right - I wasn't trying to be alarmist about the whales in particular. But other people don't have the same value system as you, and our legal system currently puts a great deal of weight on mammals and birds if they are endangered - to the extent that there would be disruptive shutdowns of fisheries to protect the remaining species as has happened in the past, and is currently the law. You could say "well we'd just repeal the law" but this is also the sort of political struggles that become very real (pitting environmentalists against fishers) and shouldn't be discounted just based on the straightforward meat value of these species.
  #163  
Old Yesterday, 10:36 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
This is missing the point, on this issue there is also an effort from contrarian sources to poison a lot of sources into repeating myths in ways that also leads a good number of people into thinking that they did figure it out for themselves.


Read it again, what I said was that there is little wrong here, just a misunderstanding that many times is twisted to be a big show stopper by others when it is not.


Nope, that is not to me. As noticed, your extinction item did go to through the same steps coming from deniers out there (even the misleading point about species adapting well to the changes) that the original makers of the myth made years ago. Skeptical Science had identified that malarkey back in 2007. I guess one can say that other sources came up also on their own, making the same mistakes, but I will have to say here that it is still more likely that you did get the "evidence" that allowed you 'to figure it yourself' to come from dubious sources.


And that is ok, but as usual, if it was fought, that will be demonstrated when one sees those points dropped in the future; as well as you dropping the sources of information that you used to figure out those.
I'll say upfront. I have no intention of responding to you anymore unless you want to change your attitude. I'm not going to defend myself against accusations that I can't disprove. If you honestly believe people can't independently come to the thought species and plants will adapt, there will be no convincing you I'm being genuine. And I'm here to learn the science of why it is dire (it is real, for sure), not defend myself.

Your exact quote to me:
However, my background on history and social studies is telling me to ask you for a favor: who were the sources that told you about using the flawed extinction and hurricane talking points?

I had no flawed talking point about hurricanes. Your accusation is right there for all to see. You are desperately trying make me some hidden denier and I'm not. Stop it or stop answering me.


If you want to get back talking about the science, I'm all ears. If you want to accuse me without basis, go away. I asked about why species can't adapt or migrate, and that was answered. Squidfood did a nice job explaining how much of that would work and why it wouldn't be helpful or save us. I get that now.

I've no doubt I'm not smart enough to come up with ideas that no one had ever thought of before. That doesn't mean I got them from some imagined website you want me give to you. I don't have one. I don't visit contrarian websites (I say again!) and I didn't pick any of this up through social media.
  #164  
Old Yesterday, 11:37 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'll say upfront. I have no intention of responding to you anymore unless you want to change your attitude. I'm not going to defend myself against accusations that I can't disprove. If you honestly believe people can't independently come to the thought species and plants will adapt, there will be no convincing you I'm being genuine. And I'm here to learn the science of why it is dire (it is real, for sure), not defend myself.

Your exact quote to me:
However, my background on history and social studies is telling me to ask you for a favor: who were the sources that told you about using the flawed extinction and hurricane talking points?

I had no flawed talking point about hurricanes. Your accusation is right there for all to see. You are desperately trying make me some hidden denier and I'm not. Stop it or stop answering me.
Read it again, it was for this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
In order for someone like me to have that confidence, I'd need to see the predictions made by the models demonstrably proven. For example, the higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes is exactly as predicted (I think). That gives higher confidence about the models. Brutal NE winters with more severe storms is again a huge boost to the models as those types of weather extremes seem to match with what I've heard the models predict. These are both measurable and factual events that we can use to gauge the accuracy of the models.
Point being that no there is not much a consensus or agreement on a high number of hurricanes as pointed already.

Hence the request, who did told you that there was agreement that the number of hurricanes was going to increase? As pasts discussions showed, that was a club used to beat the scientists as being clueless. Sorry that that club is not really available as they told you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
If you want to get back talking about the science, I'm all ears. If you want to accuse me without basis, go away. I asked about why species can't adapt or migrate, and that was answered. Squidfood did a nice job explaining how much of that would work and why it wouldn't be helpful or save us. I get that now.
Well thanks for showing you do not check cites, the link on my last post was to the Skeptical Science site that does look at the published science to explain earlier what Squidfood did say

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I've no doubt I'm not smart enough to come up with ideas that no one had ever thought of before. That doesn't mean I got them from some imagined website you want me give to you. I don't have one. I don't visit contrarian websites (I say again!) and I didn't pick any of this up through social media.
Point is that since the same flawed point was made in 2007. It is important to figure out what did you look at back then to get it wrong, while you think that is not important, it is really a bit of introspection that is needed so as to not fall for misleading books, or other ways a myth from 2007 misled you. I know that it can be frustrating, but it is not very likely that a mistake from 2007 was repeated the same way in 2017 unless the same sources arrived to your sphere of information by indirect means, it is anyhow an item that deals with science and once again, finding that a tune one thinks it is original does not prevent others from noticing that it was heard before.

And as the cite I made before shows, it also included an explanation back in 2007 about why it was not a good idea to think that many species today and in the future will 'just migrate' and be alright in a warming world.

https://skepticalscience.com/Can-ani...al-warming.htm
Quote:
However, although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future impacts on biodiversity will be particularly severe:

A) Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to further accelerate. The IPCC storyline scenarios such as A1FI and A2 imply a rate of warming of 0.2 to 0.6°C per decade. By comparison, the average change from 15 to 7 thousand years ago was ~0.005°C per decade, although this was occasionally punctuated by short-lived (and possibly regional-scale) abrupt climatic jolts, such as the Younger Dryas, Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events.

B) A low-range optimistic estimate of 2°C of 21st century warming will shift the Earth’s global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago. More than 4°C of atmospheric heating will take the planet’s climate back, within a century, to the largely ice-free world that existed prior to about 35 million years ago. The average ‘species’ lifetime’ is only 1 to 3 million years. So it is quite possible that in the comparative geological instant of a century, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that most of the world’s modern species have encountered.

C) As noted above, it is critical to understand that ecosystems in the 21st century start from an already massively ‘shifted baseline’ and so have lost resilience. Most habitats are already degraded and their populations depleted, to a lesser or greater extent, by past human activities. For millennia our impacts have been localised although often severe, but during the last few centuries we have unleashed physical and biological transformations on a global scale. In this context, synergies (positive or self-reinforcing feedbacks) from global warming, ocean acidification, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, chemical pollution (Figure 2) are likely lead to cascading extinctions. For instance, over-harvest, habitat loss and changed fire regimes will likely enhance the direct impacts of climate change and make it difficult for species to move to undamaged areas or to maintain a ‘buffer’ population size. One threat reinforces the other, or multiple impacts play off on each other, which makes the overall impact far greater than if each individual threats occurred in isolation (Brook et al 2008).

Last edited by GIGObuster; Yesterday at 11:39 PM.
  #165  
Old Today, 12:23 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Read it again, it was for this:


Point being that no there is not much a consensus or agreement on a high number of hurricanes as pointed already.

Hence the request, who did told you that there was agreement that the number of hurricanes was going to increase? As pasts discussions showed, that was a club used to beat the scientists as being clueless. Sorry that that club is not really available as they told you.


Well thanks for showing you do not check cites, the link on my last post was to the Skeptical Science site that does look at the published science to explain earlier what Squidfood did say


Point is that since the same flawed point was made in 2007. It is important to figure out what did you look at back then to get it wrong, while you think that is not important, it is really a bit of introspection that is needed so as to not fall for misleading books, or other ways a myth from 2007 misled you. I know that it can be frustrating, but it is not very likely that a mistake from 2007 was repeated the same way in 2017 unless the same sources arrived to your sphere of information by indirect means, it is anyhow an item that deals with science and once again, finding that a tune one thinks it is original does not prevent others from noticing that it was heard before.

And as the cite I made before shows, it also included an explanation back in 2007 about why it was not a good idea to think that many species today and in the future will 'just migrate' and be alright in a warming world.

https://skepticalscience.com/Can-ani...al-warming.htm
I'm done with you. You aren't nearly the insightful Holmes as you want to believe you are.
  #166  
Old Today, 12:35 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'm done with you. You aren't nearly the insightful Holmes as you want to believe you are.
Not that I thought I was, again the request was for some introspection from you, if you do not want to notice that the good information was available since 2007 then yes, there is nothing else to say.
  #167  
Old Today, 06:37 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
What would you like me to take from those papers? Both seem to be saying, "Things will be different in 2100 and we need to prepare for that." If there is something in those papers which demonstrates the PNW really is wetter now I didn't see it.
I was very busy yesterday afternoon revising an upcoming journal paper so I didn't get to look up any information for you. I'm still working on putting together a broader reply to your request but I thought I would answer this first.

There are a few observations to take, at least from my point of view, from "Water, Economics, and Climate Change in the Willamette Basin, Oregon".

1 - The graph on page 11 shows that while there is a clear trend towards getting warmer and wetter, there are predicted periods of that are dryer. In particular, this decade is overall predicted to be dryer.

2 - While there is no trend line, if you take the data and plug it into something like Excel and do a simple linear regression trend line there is a slight predicted trend towards increased wetness. The slope of that line is not so extreme. So if you consider that we are currently at the start of that line, then you do not expect to see too much extreme variation from the norm. See also Figure 5 that shows that expected snowfall at higher elevations. Note, that by 2050 the change from 2010 is not so great, but by 2090 the change is very extreme.

3 - The paper states that "In the case of precipitation, the three climate
scenarios indicate that winters will become slightly
wetter and summers slightly drier" and "whether the Basin’s climate will become wetter or drier overall." Looking at the data you provided (https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/eugclimate/pg67.pdf), we can see in this decade there is a definite trend for summers to be drier (see page 70 and compare especially July and August to the norm). Other months, especially the winter, have not been especially wetter (but remember this decade is predicted to be drier overall), so this makes for an overall drier average. In any case, the average is not a good indicator due to the second quote above.

Thus, overall, the takeaway is that while there is a prediction of (slightly) greater wetness in the Willamette Basin the time frame to observe such effects is very long, and we are only at the start of the predicted rise. However, the evidence suggests that at a minimum summers do appear to be getting significantly drier.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; Today at 06:41 AM.
  #168  
Old Today, 07:11 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I can't respond to this point by point, but I appreciate the response.

I'm trying to understand the realistic possibilities of what could happen and how that translates to "dire." You made some good points about how forcing mass migrations would be considered dire. Others made that same point and I agree. That would be a huge issue, to say the least.

On the other hand, some of your points seem hyperbolic and extremely far fetch. New York, Los Angeles and Miami are not going to be abandoned due to rising sea levels.
Arguably, New York City has the wealth to build a wall against the sea, so you may be right about that one.

Miami, though.... Florida is already talking about abandoning part of the Keys. Miami is 6 and a half feet above sea level. If sea level rises to 7 feet yes, Miami will be underwater. And even if they build a sea wall around Miami everything around Miami will be underwater - you'll need a boat or helicopter to get in or out of the city.

So, it really depends on just how high the sea will rise. If it rises "only" three feet you are correct, Miami stays above the sea - although flooding during storms will become much more common. If it goes to 7 feet Miami drowns.

At a certain point it's easier to abandon a city than try to save it. It's happened in the past. It's even happened fairly recently (See Pripyat and Fukushima).

I'll point out that the average elevation in Florida is six feet above sea level. If the ocean rises 7 feet we lose half of Florida. We might be willing to build a wall around a city, but around half of Florida? I don't think so.

So the question is - just how high will the seas rise? That's something fact-based for you. Of course, we don't know for sure how high the seas will rise, but by all means examine the models yourself. How much are people willing to pay to turn cities into islands in the sea? Who will pay for that?
  #169  
Old Today, 10:47 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Arguably, New York City has the wealth to build a wall against the sea, so you may be right about that one.

Miami, though.... Florida is already talking about abandoning part of the Keys. Miami is 6 and a half feet above sea level. If sea level rises to 7 feet yes, Miami will be underwater. And even if they build a sea wall around Miami everything around Miami will be underwater - you'll need a boat or helicopter to get in or out of the city.

So, it really depends on just how high the sea will rise. If it rises "only" three feet you are correct, Miami stays above the sea - although flooding during storms will become much more common. If it goes to 7 feet Miami drowns.

At a certain point it's easier to abandon a city than try to save it. It's happened in the past. It's even happened fairly recently (See Pripyat and Fukushima).

I'll point out that the average elevation in Florida is six feet above sea level. If the ocean rises 7 feet we lose half of Florida. We might be willing to build a wall around a city, but around half of Florida? I don't think so.

So the question is - just how high will the seas rise? That's something fact-based for you. Of course, we don't know for sure how high the seas will rise, but by all means examine the models yourself. How much are people willing to pay to turn cities into islands in the sea? Who will pay for that?
You are seriously considering Pripyat and Fukishima to be in any way comparable to NY and Miami? Both of those former cities were well under 500,000 people and were both abandoned because of nuclear fallout that was sudden, as in happened in hours. Maybe days. IPCC reports on sea level rise had it at about 3 feet by the end of the century. That is over 80 years from now and even then is less than half of what is needed, according to your conjecture.

Abandoning parts of the Keys is a long, long way from abandoning Miami. I didn't see how many people would be impacted by the Keys abandonment. Do you know? Order of magnitude is fine.

Again, I'm asking to keep this science based and factual, not pure conjecture on what could happen. I hope that makes sense.
  #170  
Old Today, 10:55 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I was very busy yesterday afternoon revising an upcoming journal paper so I didn't get to look up any information for you. I'm still working on putting together a broader reply to your request but I thought I would answer this first.

There are a few observations to take, at least from my point of view, from "Water, Economics, and Climate Change in the Willamette Basin, Oregon".

1 - The graph on page 11 shows that while there is a clear trend towards getting warmer and wetter, there are predicted periods of that are dryer. In particular, this decade is overall predicted to be dryer.

2 - While there is no trend line, if you take the data and plug it into something like Excel and do a simple linear regression trend line there is a slight predicted trend towards increased wetness. The slope of that line is not so extreme. So if you consider that we are currently at the start of that line, then you do not expect to see too much extreme variation from the norm. See also Figure 5 that shows that expected snowfall at higher elevations. Note, that by 2050 the change from 2010 is not so great, but by 2090 the change is very extreme.

3 - The paper states that "In the case of precipitation, the three climate
scenarios indicate that winters will become slightly
wetter and summers slightly drier" and "whether the Basin’s climate will become wetter or drier overall." Looking at the data you provided (https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/eugclimate/pg67.pdf), we can see in this decade there is a definite trend for summers to be drier (see page 70 and compare especially July and August to the norm). Other months, especially the winter, have not been especially wetter (but remember this decade is predicted to be drier overall), so this makes for an overall drier average. In any case, the average is not a good indicator due to the second quote above.

Thus, overall, the takeaway is that while there is a prediction of (slightly) greater wetness in the Willamette Basin the time frame to observe such effects is very long, and we are only at the start of the predicted rise. However, the evidence suggests that at a minimum summers do appear to be getting significantly drier.
Thanks!

I'm going to ask a favor if you are willing to continue this discussion, which I sincerely hope you do because I'm learning quite a bit.

I'm going to trust your input as being backed by scientific studies without you needing to send me to 126 page papers. You obviously are not one to shoot from the hip, which is what I appreciate.

Given that, if you can find a way to answer some of the simple questions I have, that would be greatly appreciated. Just like squidfood did in laying out an easily readable chain of events that explains why any species replacement isn't going to be helpful, so too would it help me if you can give me that kind of an answer.

The skepticalscience website GIGOBuster pointed to has been very helpful as well. Concise answers to the typical kinds of questions lay people like me are likely to have about climate change.

I've never been against the idea that climate change is real. What I've been skeptical about is the severity, so getting some of these answers is helping to reshape my thinking. Unfortunately, GIGOBuster has come to the conclusion I'm a denier who is "just asking questions", so hopefully you are still willing to discuss.
  #171  
Old Today, 11:33 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Thanks!

I'm going to ask a favor if you are willing to continue this discussion, which I sincerely hope you do because I'm learning quite a bit.

I'm going to trust your input as being backed by scientific studies without you needing to send me to 126 page papers. You obviously are not one to shoot from the hip, which is what I appreciate.

Given that, if you can find a way to answer some of the simple questions I have, that would be greatly appreciated. Just like squidfood did in laying out an easily readable chain of events that explains why any species replacement isn't going to be helpful, so too would it help me if you can give me that kind of an answer.

The skepticalscience website GIGOBuster pointed to has been very helpful as well. Concise answers to the typical kinds of questions lay people like me are likely to have about climate change.

I've never been against the idea that climate change is real. What I've been skeptical about is the severity, so getting some of these answers is helping to reshape my thinking. Unfortunately, GIGOBuster has come to the conclusion I'm a denier who is "just asking questions", so hopefully you are still willing to discuss.
That is better, but you are missing one item, I did say that it depends on you and I have not concluded that you are a denier that JAQs, only that your sources (that include "educational" material that many do not realize is misleading info) are.
  #172  
Old Today, 03:23 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That is better, but you are missing one item, I did say that it depends on you and I have not concluded that you are a denier that JAQs, only that your sources (that include "educational" material that many do not realize is misleading info) are.
Me:
In order for someone like me to have that confidence, I'd need to see the predictions made by the models demonstrably proven. For example, the higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes is exactly as predicted (I think). That gives higher confidence about the models.
->This was used by me as a demonstration that Climate Change models are accurate and can believed. You then went on to claim I was quoting misinformation and using it to deny climate change.

GIGOBuster:
Well, that is one basic problem, it is a bit of ignorance peddled also by many contrarian sources, what I have seen in previous discussions is that many times before the experts reports that the number of hurricanes is not something that they can get with confidence into right now.

I made no claims about the number of hurricanes and you somehow determined I did. You persisted in trying to beat me over the head with your own made up interpretation of what I said over and over again:


GIGOBuster:
who were the sources that told you about using the flawed extinction and hurricane talking points?
And again:
a misunderstanding that many times is twisted to be a big show stopper by others when it is not

I claimed the opposite. I claimed it supported the ideas the models are accurate, not refute them.

But you persisted:
As pasts discussions showed, that was a club used to beat the scientists as being clueless. Sorry that that club is not really available as they told you.

Here you are saying I'm trying to use a club to claim scientists are clueless, when, in fact, I never used any club, never claimed they were clueless and, even more, I WAS CITING THE EXACTLY RIGHT SCIENCE. But the more subtle part of that statement is the accusation I'm a denier ("as they told you").

Then you followed up with this gem:
I did say that it depends on you and I have not concluded that you are a denier that JAQs, only that your sources (that include "educational" material that many do not realize is misleading info) are.

All throughout you could not fathom the simple notion that a scientifically educated and professional person, who supports the concept of evolution and all that entails, couldn't possibly conclude for themselves (wrongly, it turns out) that evolution, adaptation and migration might diminish the impacts of climate change. Anyone who says such a ting MUST be getting their information elsewhere.

The ONLY evidence you have that I get my information from denier sources is that I had the same notion that evolution, migration or adaptation might help fill any voids caused by climate change as, apparently, other deniers have had. That's it. That is the only thing you can base all your stupid, idiotic, accusations on.

Last chance. You can get back to the science and discuss that, or you can walk away from this convinced you sniffed out another closet denier or someone who subscribes to such nonsense. I swear to god you are as annoying as a denier. Facts and information that most easily explain a situation you want to twist and warp into your own perceived concept of what you want it to be.

I understand climate change is real. There are no issues with me with that. The ignorance I have is in understanding how the conclusion this is dire was reached. I'm pretty certain that given a proper explanation I'll get it, but right now there are reasons I don't get it I'm asking for help understanding where that reasoning goes wrong. If you want to discuss openly and honestly, it would be great to discuss.
  #173  
Old Today, 06:02 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Thanks!

I'm going to ask a favor if you are willing to continue this discussion, which I sincerely hope you do because I'm learning quite a bit.

I'm going to trust your input as being backed by scientific studies without you needing to send me to 126 page papers. You obviously are not one to shoot from the hip, which is what I appreciate.

Given that, if you can find a way to answer some of the simple questions I have, that would be greatly appreciated. Just like squidfood did in laying out an easily readable chain of events that explains why any species replacement isn't going to be helpful, so too would it help me if you can give me that kind of an answer.

The skepticalscience website GIGOBuster pointed to has been very helpful as well. Concise answers to the typical kinds of questions lay people like me are likely to have about climate change.

I've never been against the idea that climate change is real. What I've been skeptical about is the severity, so getting some of these answers is helping to reshape my thinking. Unfortunately, GIGOBuster has come to the conclusion I'm a denier who is "just asking questions", so hopefully you are still willing to discuss.
I've no problem answering questions. Again, I apologize for not answering much yesterday and today. As I mentioned I have a paper I'm trying to get out the door because there's a conference deadline coming up (it's a long story so I should stop now).

I've noticed from looking back through the thread that you seem particularly interested in what's happening now versus predictions. Overall, the worst of climate change has not happened yet. By the time we get there, that will be bad, so there may not be a lot of material to present. The most prominent effects at the moment are in temperature, which is an unmistakable warmer that the global temperature is rising. As with the rainfall in the Willamette Basin, many of the other effects of climate change a small, but significant variations from the norm so they can disappear into the noise of the real-world (i.e., error).

So the natural question would be, I think, if the real-world effects so far are not too bad, why would I say that climate change is already dire (as I posted above)?

1 - There are many different models. Some models predict worse outcomes than others. In some sense, these can be taken as showing a range out of outcomes. The best case scenarios models are quite bad.

2 - Scientists love to disagree. Unless you've been around scientists this might seem odd, but it is very true. Everything I've ever presented has been questioned. Always. 100% of the time. Scientists especially love to prove another scientist incorrect (or incomplete). And that's not a bad thing, that's how good science gets done. So, to have so many scientists from diverse fields saying "climate change is real , human-engineered, and the outcome is super bad" is very telling. Now, of course, there is much disagreement within the scientific community. Scientists disagree about the which model is best, they disagree about how they're analyzed, etc. However, there is one constant message coming out "climate change is real , human-engineered, and the outcome is super bad" over and over and over. I'm not a climatologist, I'm a computer scientist, but that message being repeated by so many scientists is a very compelling one especially when my (limited) review of the literature suggests they're right.

3 - The window is closing. That's what I mean when I say it is dire. If the outcomes are going to be as bad as the worst case estimates, then it is bad. The window to have 1.5C degree global temperature rise is gone for all practical purposes. The window for a 2C degree global temperature is rapidly closing. In my opinion, it is basically gone. There are simply too many people who will not accept taking action, largely for vested economic reasons. And I say vested because while fossil fuel industries would be hurt, much of the economic analysis suggests that addressing climate change would likely be a net economic gain. So, it is specific industries and their supporters keeping us from acting. Lately, the message has been we're on track for a 3C degree global temperature increase. A 3C degree change is where some of the worst outcomes start to occur because we have to start looking at the effects of widescale permafrost thawing out, and releasing greenhouse gasses that will further increase the temperature.

So hopefully that explains my point of view. Again, I will try to answer questions as best as I can, I've just been very busy the past couple of days.
  #174  
Old Today, 06:04 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
You are seriously considering Pripyat and Fukishima to be in any way comparable to NY and Miami?
They were strictly examples of abandoned cities that were recently abandoned. I could have used Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Petra as older examples of abandoned cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Both of those former cities were well under 500,000 people and were both abandoned because of nuclear fallout that was sudden, as in happened in hours. Maybe days. IPCC reports on sea level rise had it at about 3 feet by the end of the century. That is over 80 years from now and even then is less than half of what is needed, according to your conjecture.
First - no, my statement about Miami is not conjecture. It is based on its current elevation above sea level, which is 6.5 feet. Should the ocean rise 7 feet Miami goes underwater.... unless, as you note, extensive sea walls are built. That is not conjecture at all. Conjecture would be firmly stating that either seawalls will be built or that the city will be abandoned because no, we can't state with assurance either way until that event actually occurs (if it ever does). However, a rise in sea level of 7 feet will require a decision, that is a fact.

A rise of three feet in sea level will put about 1/3 of Florida underwater, most of it in the south but all the coastline will be nibbled away. Again, that is based on current elevation above sea level, which is a factual thing.

At present we have a relatively small range of figures for sea level rise at, say, 10 year intervals. But the rate of rise could change if there is an unforeseen feedback loop due to synergistic effects. If there's a big methane release, or we lose even more glacial icepack than current estimates predict, or even if we have a sufficiently large volcanic eruption that reduces global temperatures of a decade (that would be a HUGE eruption, which will also have some unpleasant side effects) which might slow sea level rise. That's the problem with predicting the future, you don't and can't have all the information involved in what will happen 20 or 50 or 103 years down the road. Because uncertainty increases with the time of estimate, our predictions for 10 years in the future are going to be more reliable than those for 50 or 100 years in the future, but there is still enough information to see a trend occurring. I can't tell you what the exact temperature will be at 11:59 am on January 15th 2025 in Ames, Iowa, but I can state with reasonable assurance it will be colder than 11:59 am on July 15th 2026 in Ames, Iowa even if I can not give absolute temperatures or a firm difference in number of degrees on the thermometer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Abandoning parts of the Keys is a long, long way from abandoning Miami. I didn't see how many people would be impacted by the Keys abandonment. Do you know? Order of magnitude is fine.
As I said, it's on the table but by no means certain so really it's hard to say to within an order of magnitude. Will they abandon all of them? None of them? Some of them? If some, which ones? This is being discussed, it is not decided. Until a firm decision is made your question can not be answered to the fine detail you seem to desire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Again, I'm asking to keep this science based and factual, not pure conjecture on what could happen. I hope that makes sense.
Yes, but you do seem to reject some facts.

Such as: if sea levels rise 7 feet then everywhere in Florida that currently is less than 7 feet above sea level is going to be underwater. The conjecture is whether or not seas will rise that much, not what would happen if they did.

You are asking for a level of knowledge about the future no one can possibly have. You seem reluctant to act until you have that. You're like someone standing on the train tracks seeing a train coming at them who refuses to move off the tracks until someone can tell the precise second the train will overrun the spot he stands on. The time to move is NOT that second, it's well in advance when you can see the train coming and still have time to move out of the way.

Climate change is occurring. The time to do something is now, not in 50 years when all the fish we like to eat are gone, or in 80 years when a third of Florida is underwater.

(Actually, the time to do something was probably a decades or two ago, at this point it's a matter of mitigation and adaption because we can't stop the train anymore)
  #175  
Old Today, 06:15 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367


All that just to show that you still miss the point, Again, when you said "For example, the higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes is exactly as predicted (I think). That gives higher confidence about the models." To that I'm just saying that it is a moot example, because there is really no consensus on that.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/
Quote:
The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
And again you still get it grossly wrong about me calling you a denier, just that it is not likely that you ever completely avoided getting misleading information by osmosis as in the example of the migration of species; remember, using the same talking points of denier sources ten years later does not mean that you are a denier. It is that you were wrong, happens to anyone.


And I was wrong before by thinking that Guinness beer was from Britain, even Irish Girl spanked me, but I did not keep going about her treating me unfairly just because I was wrong.
  #176  
Old Today, 06:18 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
At cmosdes:



All that just to show that you still miss the point, Again, when you said "For example, the higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes is exactly as predicted (I think). That gives higher confidence about the models." To that I'm just saying that it is a moot example, because there is really no consensus on that.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/
Quote:
The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
Just saying here that there were also in the SDMB several treads with contrarians letting us know how scientists got that increase in numbers thing wrong, when it was back then also a moot example.

And again you still get it grossly wrong about me calling you a denier, just that it is not likely that you ever completely avoided getting misleading information by osmosis as in the example of the migration of species; remember, using the same talking points of denier sources ten years later does not mean that you are a denier. It is that you were wrong, happens to anyone.


And I was wrong before by thinking that Guinness beer was from Britain, even Irish Girl spanked me, but I did not keep going about her treating me unfairly just because I was wrong.

Last edited by GIGObuster; Today at 06:20 PM.
  #177  
Old Today, 06:30 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
They were strictly examples of abandoned cities that were recently abandoned. I could have used Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Petra as older examples of abandoned cities.


First - no, my statement about Miami is not conjecture. It is based on its current elevation above sea level, which is 6.5 feet. Should the ocean rise 7 feet Miami goes underwater.... unless, as you note, extensive sea walls are built. That is not conjecture at all. Conjecture would be firmly stating that either seawalls will be built or that the city will be abandoned because no, we can't state with assurance either way until that event actually occurs (if it ever does). However, a rise in sea level of 7 feet will require a decision, that is a fact.

A rise of three feet in sea level will put about 1/3 of Florida underwater, most of it in the south but all the coastline will be nibbled away. Again, that is based on current elevation above sea level, which is a factual thing.

At present we have a relatively small range of figures for sea level rise at, say, 10 year intervals. But the rate of rise could change if there is an unforeseen feedback loop due to synergistic effects. If there's a big methane release, or we lose even more glacial icepack than current estimates predict, or even if we have a sufficiently large volcanic eruption that reduces global temperatures of a decade (that would be a HUGE eruption, which will also have some unpleasant side effects) which might slow sea level rise. That's the problem with predicting the future, you don't and can't have all the information involved in what will happen 20 or 50 or 103 years down the road. Because uncertainty increases with the time of estimate, our predictions for 10 years in the future are going to be more reliable than those for 50 or 100 years in the future, but there is still enough information to see a trend occurring. I can't tell you what the exact temperature will be at 11:59 am on January 15th 2025 in Ames, Iowa, but I can state with reasonable assurance it will be colder than 11:59 am on July 15th 2026 in Ames, Iowa even if I can not give absolute temperatures or a firm difference in number of degrees on the thermometer.


As I said, it's on the table but by no means certain so really it's hard to say to within an order of magnitude. Will they abandon all of them? None of them? Some of them? If some, which ones? This is being discussed, it is not decided. Until a firm decision is made your question can not be answered to the fine detail you seem to desire.


Yes, but you do seem to reject some facts.

Such as: if sea levels rise 7 feet then everywhere in Florida that currently is less than 7 feet above sea level is going to be underwater. The conjecture is whether or not seas will rise that much, not what would happen if they did.

You are asking for a level of knowledge about the future no one can possibly have. You seem reluctant to act until you have that. You're like someone standing on the train tracks seeing a train coming at them who refuses to move off the tracks until someone can tell the precise second the train will overrun the spot he stands on. The time to move is NOT that second, it's well in advance when you can see the train coming and still have time to move out of the way.

Climate change is occurring. The time to do something is now, not in 50 years when all the fish we like to eat are gone, or in 80 years when a third of Florida is underwater.

(Actually, the time to do something was probably a decades or two ago, at this point it's a matter of mitigation and adaption because we can't stop the train anymore)
Um... you really appear to be willfully ignorant on what is conjecture and what is fact. Seriously.

The conjecture part of your scenario is a 7' rise in sea level. Do you not understand that? I didn't ignore a single fact. I questioned where you could possibly come up with a realistic scenario of a 7' rise in sea levels. It makes zero sense to claim that things that are 6' above sea level won't be below sea level if the seas rise 7'. Show me where I said such a thing, please. You have at least two parts of complete conjecture. A 7' rise in sea levels AND that would mean Miami being abandoned.

Just because I'm not nodding in agreement that Miami and NY are at risk of abandonment doesn't mean I've rejected a single factual thing you've said. Point to one single fact you've said that I've rejected.

It is beyond crazy to me that in a scientific discussion about climate change you bring up are making comparisons to cities that in no way at all resemble the present topic. Not even remotely. When called on the utter and complete lack of comparability between Pripyat and Fukishima, you then move to other cities and claim those are somehow representative.

I'll give you a clue about something. Your wild speculations about what could happen, stating it as if it were fact, is why a lot of people have a tough time sorting through the noise. Not a single person who is trying to give the considerations an honest assessment is going to believe that Miami will be abandoned, and certainly not in the next 80 years. Stick to the facts. The real facts, and you'll reach more people.

You spew out little factoids then draw the wildest, speculative conclusions from that. The keys might not maintain some of the highways? Oh man, sure that indicates Miami will be abandoned! Pripyat and Fukushima (and Pompeii?!), each destroyed in hours aren't even close to being examples of cities even close the same situation as Miami. Half of New Orleans is already at or below sea level. Why isn't it abandoned? According to your speculation it should be.
  #178  
Old Today, 06:39 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
At cmosdes:



All that just to show that you still miss the point, Again, when you said "For example, the higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes is exactly as predicted (I think). That gives higher confidence about the models." To that I'm just saying that it is a moot example, because there is really no consensus on that.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/


Just saying here that there were also in the SDMB several treads with contrarians letting us know how scientists got that increase in numbers thing wrong, when it was back then also a moot example.

And again you still get it grossly wrong about me calling you a denier, just that it is not likely that you ever completely avoided getting misleading information by osmosis as in the example of the migration of species; remember, using the same talking points of denier sources ten years later does not mean that you are a denier. It is that you were wrong, happens to anyone.


And I was wrong before by thinking that Guinness beer was from Britain, even Irish Girl spanked me, but I did not keep going about her treating me unfairly just because I was wrong.
Try again, GIGObuster. I can give you cites if you want that present models predict a higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes. As a matter of fact, I did give you one. I read the statement you have quoted, and I need to read it several times because it took me a minute to realize that the number of hurricanes could stay about the same while the number of Cat 5 hurricanes increased. And this is exactly what I said.

So, it isn't me missing the point. It is you. Over and over again. I truly do not care that you think I must have come by my information through osmosis or other means. I really don't. Your statements are clearly indicative you think I give any credence to the deniers. I don't. You can stomp your feet and demand as much as you want that it is impossible for someone, on their own, to conclude the one thing you want to beat me up over, but you are wrong. Flat out wrong.

This statement:
"As pasts discussions showed, that was a club used to beat the scientists as being clueless. Sorry that that club is not really available as they told you."
is as close to an outright accusation as any. It is obvious what you think you know.

But in the end, I do not care what you think you know about me or my source of information. You've managed to sidetrack an opportunity to educate someone about the dire situation on climate change and turn it into an accusation that I get bad information. And instead of then asking, "So what gives you pause to think this isn't a crisis? Maybe I can help explain some of those things." You instead make sly accusations.

I gave you one last chance. You can take me to the pit or not. I don't care. I want to get back to the science.

Last edited by cmosdes; Today at 06:40 PM.
  #179  
Old Today, 06:51 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
The conjecture part of your scenario is a 7' rise in sea level. Do you not understand that? I didn't ignore a single fact. I questioned where you could possibly come up with a realistic scenario of a 7' rise in sea levels.
I will let Broomstick explain herself, but that 7' rise is not coming from her imagination.

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-lev...termediate.htm
Quote:
Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'll give you a clue about something. Your wild speculations about what could happen, stating it as if it were fact, is why a lot of people have a tough time sorting through the noise. Not a single person who is trying to give the considerations an honest assessment is going to believe that Miami will be abandoned, and certainly not in the next 80 years. Stick to the facts. The real facts, and you'll reach more people.
I think that one very pertinent fact is not taken into account when one could think that Miami will be protected or kept: one common assumed solution, like walls just around the city, will not be effective there because of two nasty facts:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...#ixzz2X0NGzxLY
Quote:
South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12 feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone; if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling overpasses. And the waters won’t just come in from the east – because the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the west too, through the Everglades.

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. “Imagine Swiss cheese, and you’ll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like,” says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily – it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. “Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here,” says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas. “Protecting the city, if it is possible, will require innovative solutions.”
As in, very expensive. Now I would think that some will be willing to turn Miami into Sealand, but many will not be able to afford it.
  #180  
Old Today, 06:53 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Um... you really appear to be willfully ignorant on what is conjecture and what is fact. Seriously.
Ah, I get it - you aren't actually here to learn anything. You're just an especially adroit JAQer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
The conjecture part of your scenario is a 7' rise in sea level.
Incorrect.

At no point did I assert there would be a rise of 7 feet in sea level, nor even proposed a model that would predict that (Even though, as GIGObuster pointed out, such models do exist). I stated it purely as a hypothetical - IF this happened, THESE are consequences. You are attempting to twist my posts into something they are not for you to attack in a pre-planned manner.

You purposely misconstrue analogies and hypotheticals as proposed facts when in fact they are nothing of the sort.

You are a climate change denier in "educate me" clothing.

I am no longer playing your game.

Last edited by Broomstick; Today at 06:54 PM.
  #181  
Old Today, 06:56 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Try again, GIGObuster. I can give you cites if you want that present models predict a higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes. As a matter of fact, I did give you one.
Full stop here, you are grossly ignoring that science is not just a single paper or study, there is a need for confirmations and many other studies, hence what science does there in the cite made, they are telling us that right now that example of yours is an ignorant point because other studies point in a different direction, hence the usual position that more research is needed to reach a conclusion that will be more supported.
  #182  
Old Today, 07:12 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Ah, I get it - you aren't actually here to learn anything. You're just an especially adroit JAQer.


Incorrect.

At no point did I assert there would be a rise of 7 feet in sea level, nor even proposed a model that would predict that (Even though, as GIGObuster pointed out, such models do exist). I stated it purely as a hypothetical - IF this happened, THESE are consequences. You are attempting to twist my posts into something they are not for you to attack in a pre-planned manner.

You purposely misconstrue analogies and hypotheticals as proposed facts when in fact they are nothing of the sort.

You are a climate change denier in "educate me" clothing.

I am no longer playing your game.
First, 2 meters is not 7'. Second, putting the word "if" is automatically conjecture. Do you not understand that? I twisted nothing. I said exactly what you said. You conjecture that IF something happens, that isn't projected to happen, then maybe, possibly, something else might need to happen. And with all that conjecture, you then want to claim climate change is dire.
  #183  
Old Today, 07:17 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
First, 2 meters is not 7'.
Ocean rise will not stop magically after 2100
  #184  
Old Today, 07:40 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I've no problem answering questions. Again, I apologize for not answering much yesterday and today. As I mentioned I have a paper I'm trying to get out the door because there's a conference deadline coming up (it's a long story so I should stop now).

I've noticed from looking back through the thread that you seem particularly interested in what's happening now versus predictions. Overall, the worst of climate change has not happened yet. By the time we get there, that will be bad, so there may not be a lot of material to present. The most prominent effects at the moment are in temperature, which is an unmistakable warmer that the global temperature is rising. As with the rainfall in the Willamette Basin, many of the other effects of climate change a small, but significant variations from the norm so they can disappear into the noise of the real-world (i.e., error).

So the natural question would be, I think, if the real-world effects so far are not too bad, why would I say that climate change is already dire (as I posted above)?

1 - There are many different models. Some models predict worse outcomes than others. In some sense, these can be taken as showing a range out of outcomes. The best case scenarios models are quite bad.

2 - Scientists love to disagree. Unless you've been around scientists this might seem odd, but it is very true. Everything I've ever presented has been questioned. Always. 100% of the time. Scientists especially love to prove another scientist incorrect (or incomplete). And that's not a bad thing, that's how good science gets done. So, to have so many scientists from diverse fields saying "climate change is real , human-engineered, and the outcome is super bad" is very telling. Now, of course, there is much disagreement within the scientific community. Scientists disagree about the which model is best, they disagree about how they're analyzed, etc. However, there is one constant message coming out "climate change is real , human-engineered, and the outcome is super bad" over and over and over. I'm not a climatologist, I'm a computer scientist, but that message being repeated by so many scientists is a very compelling one especially when my (limited) review of the literature suggests they're right.

3 - The window is closing. That's what I mean when I say it is dire. If the outcomes are going to be as bad as the worst case estimates, then it is bad. The window to have 1.5C degree global temperature rise is gone for all practical purposes. The window for a 2C degree global temperature is rapidly closing. In my opinion, it is basically gone. There are simply too many people who will not accept taking action, largely for vested economic reasons. And I say vested because while fossil fuel industries would be hurt, much of the economic analysis suggests that addressing climate change would likely be a net economic gain. So, it is specific industries and their supporters keeping us from acting. Lately, the message has been we're on track for a 3C degree global temperature increase. A 3C degree change is where some of the worst outcomes start to occur because we have to start looking at the effects of widescale permafrost thawing out, and releasing greenhouse gasses that will further increase the temperature.

So hopefully that explains my point of view. Again, I will try to answer questions as best as I can, I've just been very busy the past couple of days.
I'm a scientist (engineer) and I'm fully aware scientists disagree. It is a benefit to the system, not a bug.

Take your time responding. Whatever information you can help me understand would be appreciated.

First, I'll say upfront again, I don't doubt for a second temps are rising and will likely continue to rise. I've no doubt sea levels will rise as a result. I'm really not sure what constitutes a "denier", but if it is about understanding those as facts, I'm not one of them.

I also understand small changes now can me huge issues later. I certainly understand that the full effects of what we do now can have huge impacts later.

I'm not so much interested in trying to understand why things aren't bad now, I'm trying to understand the stance the models are as unmistakable as is being stated.

As I said before, in order for a model to be believed, it must first predict outcomes that are verifiable. Newtonian physics is great when talking about things on a macro scale, but it breaks down on the subatomic or relativistic scale. It took a while, but Einstein's equations were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through rigor and testing. I'm wondering what tests can we point to in the models for climate change that can give similar credence to their veracity?

What do the models predict that is measurable that we can look at and say, "yep, the models are right!" beyond just temps and sea level.

If the models are just about temps and sea level, what studies are there to link those changes to major upheavals?
  #185  
Old Today, 08:55 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
If the models are just about temps and sea level, what studies are there to link those changes to major upheavals?
You know there's a whole internet out there with thousands of climate sites that can answer these questions faster than bothering a few people who are taking time out of their lives to try to help you, right?
  #186  
Old Today, 11:04 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I'm a scientist (engineer) and I'm fully aware scientists disagree. It is a benefit to the system, not a bug.
Uh...

http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lut...s-not-science/
Quote:
Engineering Is Not Science

Engineers are not a sub-category of scientists. So often the two terms are used interchangeably, but they are separate, albeit related, disciplines. Scientists explore the natural world and show us how and why it is as it is. Discovery is the essence of science. Engineers innovate solutions to real-world challenges in society.
[QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
As I said before, in order for a model to be believed, it must first predict outcomes that are verifiable. Newtonian physics is great when talking about things on a macro scale, but it breaks down on the subatomic or relativistic scale. It took a while, but Einstein's equations were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through rigor and testing. I'm wondering what tests can we point to in the models for climate change that can give similar credence to their veracity?
You know there post #127 exists no?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=127

Last edited by GIGObuster; Today at 11:04 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017