Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:10 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI
SciShow
In which Hank details the five scariest things that will likely happen because of climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Look not meaning to sound like a jerk here but if you're this far behind have you considered reading the most recent IPCC report?
The IPCC reports are dry and scientific. GIGObuster's link, while slightly comical in tone, is quite glib and and speeds over a lot of science. If Mr. Ditka is sincere in wanting to learn, I think someone should link to a slower, more basic tutorial.
  #202  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:29 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The IPCC reports are dry and scientific. GIGObuster's link, while slightly comical in tone, is quite glib and and speeds over a lot of science. If Mr. Ditka is sincere in wanting to learn, I think someone should link to a slower, more basic tutorial.
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/big-questions/ might be what we're looking for.
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #203  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/big-questions/ might be what we're looking for.
As a teachable moment, it should be noted that the link HD used was Tucker Carson interviewing Lomborg. In light of the many lies and misleading information coming from Lomborg, that was evidence that once again shows how poisonous FOX news is.

That kid's site is 1000 times better than the trash FOX is making to mislead many conservatives on this issue.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-08-2019 at 12:44 PM.
  #204  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Read it again please. As mentioned one does not need that gun for us to continue to play Russian roulette.


Lomborg is always wrong. You fell hook line and sinker for a well known denier with an interest on minimizing the dangers.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...e-and-poverty/


Again, if you put some thought to it, it is clear that what Lomborg and other deniers out there are going for is misleading in the extreme, they are willing to ignore deaths caused by displacement and civil unrest that are happening now in part due to climate change already observed, so what Lomborg and others do is misleading.
I read your link, but it was not responsive to my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear before. I was asking if he was mistaken about these two specific claims:

1) "Every year in the 1920s, we estimate about half a million people died around the world" [from weather]

2) "We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year" [from weather]

Are those assertions accurate or not? You wrote "Lomborg is always wrong" so presumably you think he's wrong here too. So how many people died from weather 100 years ago, and how many people die from weather now?

If the truth is that he's actually correct about these two claims, but that you think it's misleading because weather-related deaths are only a small slice of the coming climate change apocalypse, I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts about the larger slices of the pie, but perhaps you could cut the stupid crap like "Lomborg is always wrong"

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-08-2019 at 12:59 PM.
  #205  
Old 04-08-2019, 01:41 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,438
HD, do you think my ex gf with the PhD in atmospheric science who works for NOAA and publishes in peer reviewed scientific journals is wrong when she claims that one of CO2's properties is to absorb infrared radiation (ie heat) that is naturally on a trajectory into space, and then promptly re-emit this radiation in a random direction, causing a significant % of CO2-striking radiation to be redirected back towards Earth in what amounts to the classic "greenhouse effect"?

Do you think she and every other reputable scientist are wrong when they claim that increased CO2 emissions leads directly to an increase in this phenomenon?

Do you think measurements are wrong that claim CO2 levels have been increasing since the industrial revolution? Here is a cite going back to 1960. Do you think it is incorrect? https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

Do you understand that returning to atmospheric carbon levels of the carboniferous period (800 ppm)would create climate conditions similar to that time? Have you seen a map of what sea levels were like back then? https://www.google.com/search?q=carb...qb10d_GvEB18M:

Do you think 7 billion people could make a harmonious transition to living in a world with such reduced landmass? What % of the world's population do you believe lives within 10 miles of a coastline?

Also, re: our previous interaction, could you explain why you think providing food, medicine, and disaster mitigation is just a case of the government fraudulently slapping a "general welfare" label on their actions as a pretext to assume "unlimited power"?

Can you say a few words about how having more babies addresses any of this?
  #206  
Old 04-08-2019, 01:58 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I read your link, but it was not responsive to my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear before. I was asking if he was mistaken about these two specific claims:

1) "Every year in the 1920s, we estimate about half a million people died around the world" [from weather]

2) "We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year" [from weather]

Are those assertions accurate or not? You wrote "Lomborg is always wrong" so presumably you think he's wrong here too. So how many people died from weather 100 years ago, and how many people die from weather now?

If the truth is that he's actually correct about these two claims, but that you think it's misleading because weather-related deaths are only a small slice of the coming climate change apocalypse, I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts about the larger slices of the pie, but perhaps you could cut the stupid crap like "Lomborg is always wrong"
Uh, he is still wrong, because his intention is clear, to discredit what others do realize is very likely to come when refugees increase and other heat related issues. One can be also accurate when saying that there are less cases of polio nowadays, but it will be grossly inaccurate and wrong to tell others that therefore we should not worry about the disease and that then we do not need vaccines now.

What Lomborg and his "style" of accuracy misses:

https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2012...ility-monitor/
Quote:
This is actually the second edition of DARA’s climate vulnerability monitor, and the difference between this and the first has generated some controversy.

The 2010 version projected 350,000 deaths per year due to climate change in 2010, rising to 800,000 deaths per year by 2030. While hundreds of thousands of deaths are hardly trivial, this is a far cry from the 100 million deaths by 2030 anticipated in the 2012 version.

The dire projections have generated significant media interest and inspired shocking headlines and sharp rebuttals.

The contrast between the two reports is not due to a major change in the climate, but because of a change in focus. The new report measures the impact of both climate change and the carbon economy – that is, “the carbon-intensive energy system and related activities.” Most of the projected deaths in the 2010 report were caused by malnutrition, diarrhea, and malaria, conditions which can be exacerbated by climate change. The 2012 report, on the other hand, projects 400,000 deaths per year due to climate change but 4.5 million deaths because of the carbon economy, mainly due to pollution and cancer.

So, no, climate change does not kill five million people a year. But the carbon economy gets pretty close, according to DARA.
Mind you, they also do not deal much on the pressures due to climate change refugees. But I point to the Wilson Center to show how even dismissing warfare that deaths are minimized by the likes of Lomborg by pointing at reports that do ignore the effects of pollution and related heat deaths.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-08-2019 at 02:02 PM.
  #207  
Old 04-08-2019, 02:53 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
One more thing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I read your link, but it was not responsive to my question.

[snip]

.. but perhaps you could cut the stupid crap like "Lomborg is always wrong"
Actually that observation was the crappy one, reading that link would demonstrate how the peers of Lomborg see him and that Lomborg is wrong or misleads others as a way of life. (BTW Lomborg is not a climate scientist or an environmentalist, his degree was in Political Science.)

Elsewhere, other scientists are not impressed with him either.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...o-lomborgs-re/

And that has been known for more than 15 years, Lomborg is not better and it is clear to me that FOX news knows that already.
  #208  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:45 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,360
Oops mispress
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-09-2019 at 12:46 AM.
  #209  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:55 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I read your link, but it was not responsive to my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear before. I was asking if he was mistaken about these two specific claims:

1) "Every year in the 1920s, we estimate about half a million people died around the world" [from weather]

2) "We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year" [from weather]
"Back in the 1920s, more people died from diseases. Therefore, we shouldn't have to worry about antibiotic resistance."

Part of propaganda is framing. And what Lomberg is doing is asking a very stupid, irrelevant question, answering it, and pretnding that that resolves anything. But it doesn't. Due to massive technological advances we've seen a reduction in weather-related fatalities... Compared to 1920. What the fuck is that supposed to say about anything? How does that solve the problem that broad swathes of the tropics may end up virtually uninhabitable in a century? How does that solve rising sea levels, shrinking water sources, increased reach of disease-bearing insects, and more? It's such a stupidly irrelevant question that you have to ask, "why even bring it up?"

... Well would it surprise you to hear he's being bankrolled by the Kochs?

https://thinkprogress.org/bjorn-lomb...in-68dab8cf68/

It shouldn't.


Quote:
You wrote "Lomborg is always wrong" so presumably you think he's wrong here too. So how many people died from weather 100 years ago, and how many people die from weather now?
Hey HD, do you understand the concept of hyperbole, or are you intentionally dismissing it for a nonsensical gotcha?

Quote:
If the truth is that he's actually correct about these two claims, but that you think it's misleading because weather-related deaths are only a small slice of the coming climate change apocalypse, I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts about the larger slices of the pie, but perhaps you could cut the stupid crap like "Lomborg is always wrong"
Oh, ok, the latter. Good to know!
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-09-2019 at 12:56 AM.
  #210  
Old 04-09-2019, 10:04 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Due to massive technological advances we've seen a reduction in weather-related fatalities... Compared to 1920. What the fuck is that supposed to say about anything?
Exactly. If it's true that there are fewer weather-related fatalities today than there were 100 years ago (which seems possible to me), it's because we now have weather satellites, weather radar, and (as a result) much better weather forecasting, which, in the vast majority of cases, gives people in the path of severe weather more time to prepare. Modern building techniques (at least in wealthier countries) make it less likely that people will be injured or killed by collapsing buildings in severe storms.

And, of course, all of that is completely independent of how frequently severe weather occurs.
  #211  
Old 04-10-2019, 12:07 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Quote:
2) "We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year" [from weather]
"Back in the 1920s, more people died from diseases. Therefore, we shouldn't have to worry about antibiotic resistance."
I'm suspicious of that 20,000/year figure.

The 1970 Bhola cyclone in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) killed over 500,000. More recently, Cyclone Nina 1975 (China ) killed 229,000; another Bangladeshi cyclone killed 139,000 in 1991; and Cyclone Nargis killed 138,000 in Myanmar in 2008.

What about heat? According to this webpage there were 70,000+ heat-related deaths in Europe 2003; 56,000 deaths in Russia 2010. There have been many other heat waves in recent years. In July 2018 the temperature was 41.1C in Tokyo I don't think any 40 temperature had ever been recorded in Japan previously and hundreds died. A few weeks ago, temperature exceeded 44C where I live with fans just blowing hot air my own fragile health would have been in jeopardy without a/c.

250,000 people died during the 2010-12 drought in Somalia. (Note that these deaths alone, if attributed to "weather," would put the decade's average at 25,000.) Rainstorms caused mudslides in Vargas, Venezuela in 1999 killing between 10,000 and 30,000. High rainfall causes other deaths due to flooding, almost 1000 lives during the 2011 disaster where I live.

TL;DR: I don't think the 20,000/yr estimate is entirely reasonable.
  #212  
Old 04-10-2019, 12:19 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... Hey HD, do you understand the concept of hyperbole...
Yeah. Do you think resorting to "hyperbole" is helpful / useful when discussing climate change?
  #213  
Old 04-10-2019, 12:42 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yeah. Do you think resorting to "hyperbole" is helpful / useful when discussing climate change?
If global warming truly spirals out of control as it appears that it will inevitably do, the results will be much worse than what you consider "hyperbole" now. The sad part is that the science is relatively simple and straightforward, and we already have a lot of statistical evidence that shows what is happening on this planet. I guess that doesn't matter, though.
  #214  
Old 04-10-2019, 12:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
If global warming truly spirals out of control as it appears that it will inevitably do, the results will be much worse than what you consider "hyperbole" now. The sad part is that the science is relatively simple and straightforward, and we already have a lot of statistical evidence that shows what is happening on this planet. I guess that doesn't matter, though.
In another thread, another poster wrote "the odds approach certainty that we as a species will be too late to slow down global warming. In which case, billions will likely die."

Do you think that's accurate? That "billions will likely die" from global warming? Do you consider that a sober, non-hyperbolic assessment of the likely outcome?
  #215  
Old 04-10-2019, 01:03 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In another thread, another poster wrote "the odds approach certainty that we as a species will be too late to slow down global warming. In which case, billions will likely die."

Do you think that's accurate? That "billions will likely die" from global warming? Do you consider that a sober, non-hyperbolic assessment of the likely outcome?
Why do you even care? You don't believe it's happening. (Or are on some other step of the denialism ladder which leads you to say we should do nothing, you'll have to excuse me if I'm out of patience to distinguish.)
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-10-2019 at 01:05 PM.
  #216  
Old 04-10-2019, 01:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why do you even care? You don't believe it's happening. (Or are on some other step of the denialism ladder which leads you to say we should do nothing, you'll have to excuse me if I'm out of patience to distinguish.)
That sounds to my ears like a tacit admission that it's more hyperbole.

I care because ISTM that there's a shitload of "hyperbole" and alarmism on the topic of climate change. People who tell themselves (and everyone else) that they're just following the science and living in reality have no problem spouting off about how "billions will die" or humanity will go extinct. Their ignorance should be fought.
  #217  
Old 04-10-2019, 01:37 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That sounds to my ears like a tacit admission that it's more hyperbole.

I care because ISTM that there's a shitload of "hyperbole" and alarmism on the topic of climate change. People who tell themselves (and everyone else) that they're just following the science and living in reality have no problem spouting off about how "billions will die" or humanity will go extinct. Their ignorance should be fought.

Out of idle curiosity, what *would* convince you that the scientific consensus on this matter is, in fact, correct and that these experts who've studied and modeled for decades and have been warning us for just about that long know what they're talking about, possibly even with a nearer degree of accuracy than your gut feelings ?
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #218  
Old 04-10-2019, 01:46 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In another thread, another poster wrote "the odds approach certainty that we as a species will be too late to slow down global warming. In which case, billions will likely die."

Do you think that's accurate? That "billions will likely die" from global warming? Do you consider that a sober, non-hyperbolic assessment of the likely outcome?
In terms of its overall impact? It might not be as far off as you complacently imagine, based on scientific assessments such as these:
Quote:
Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today.
Now of course, if anybody is claiming that "billions will likely die" due to global warming in the next decade or thereabouts, that seems extremely excessive.
But if you're just talking about total aggregate impact, well, do the math.

If climate change starts directly killing (via factors such as malnutrition, heat stress, diarrhea, and malaria) a quarter-million people every year, that alone is 100 million deaths if it continues over the next 400 years. And that doesn't take into account any of the indirect impacts from reduced food production, increased extreme poverty, population displacement, or disruptions in health services, nor the effects of climate change in worsening natural disasters, all of which could bump up the total by an order of magnitude. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change before we manage to regain a more stable climate system. (If we ever do.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane Ditka
I care because ISTM that there's a shitload of "hyperbole" and alarmism on the topic of climate change.
Just because something STY like "hyperbole" doesn't mean that it necessarily is. I agree that at present it seems quite unlikely that the human species will actually go extinct, but then, I'm not seeing any serious scientists or policymakers predicting that.

If you (generic you) want to avoid implausible hyperbole and alarmism, it's easy to do by sticking to serious sources of climate science reporting. But you need to guard against the tendency to dismiss some prediction as "hyperbole" or "alarmism" just because your own naive and ignorant assumptions about the short term make it sound unrealistic.
  #219  
Old 04-10-2019, 02:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
... If you (generic you) want to avoid implausible hyperbole and alarmism, it's easy to do by sticking to serious sources of climate science reporting. But you need to guard against the tendency to dismiss some prediction as "hyperbole" or "alarmism" just because your own naive and ignorant assumptions about the short term make it sound unrealistic.
Let's try this advice out. Here is the snippet of your post that attempts to defend the "billions will likely die" quote from before:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
... And that doesn't take into account any of the indirect impacts from reduced food production, increased extreme poverty, population displacement, or disruptions in health services, nor the effects of climate change in worsening natural disasters, all of which could bump up the total by an order of magnitude. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change before we manage to regain a more stable climate system. (If we ever do.) ...
You say that those things "could bump up the total by an order of magnitude". Did you read that in one of your "serious sources of climate science reporting"? If so, which one? What was the probability that it actually would "bump up the total by an order of magnitude" (a whole lot of things are possible or "could" happen, but I'm more interested in what's "likely" or probable). Or is this just a gut feeling for you?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-10-2019 at 02:18 PM.
  #220  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:02 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yeah. Do you think resorting to "hyperbole" is helpful / useful when discussing climate change?
Better than belittle, disparage, minimize, or poor-mouthing the science.

Again, it is clear that that is what Lomborg is doing. And again: you fell for it.
  #221  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:09 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Better than belittle, disparage, minimize, or poor-mouthing the science. ...
You think exaggerating is "better"?
  #222  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:12 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think exaggerating is "better"?
Well, you have to face the fact that that "Billions" was not ever said here in this thread, so, we are not defending that, so you are exaggerating by trying to claim that we support that statement. IOW, you are right that exaggeration is not helpful.




It has to be noticed that you are not acknowledging that you, and most of the right, was wrong by trusting Lomborg on the way he misuses reports, that while accurate on an specific issue, it grossly misleads regarding the big picture.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-10-2019 at 03:16 PM.
  #223  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well, you have to face the fact that that "Billions" was not ever said here in this thread, so, we are not defending that ...
I said it, in post #214 in this thread, while acknowledging that the original source was "another thread". In trying to craft a defense of that statement, Kimstu wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
In terms of its overall impact? It might not be as far off as you complacently imagine...

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change before we manage to regain a more stable climate system. (If we ever do.)...
You may not consider her post "defending that" or "support[ing] that statement", but I suspect most reasonable readers will not see it that way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
... while accurate on an specific issue...
Finally! The admission you've been so loathe to make! Thank you! As for the rest of the snipped paragraph, I think it would be worthwhile to repeat something I said earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... If the truth is that he's actually correct about these two claims, but that you think it's misleading because weather-related deaths are only a small slice of the coming climate change apocalypse, I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts about the larger slices of the pie, but perhaps you could cut the stupid crap like "Lomborg is always wrong"
As you can hopefully see from the quote above, I'm certainly open to hearing arguments along the lines of 'he's misleading on the big picture', but that's not the approach you decided to take. You just said "Lomborg is always wrong". That's not convincing and makes you look worse when you have to backtrack.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-10-2019 at 03:44 PM.
  #224  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:46 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Out of idle curiosity, what *would* convince you that the scientific consensus on this matter is, in fact, correct and that these experts who've studied and modeled for decades and have been warning us for just about that long know what they're talking about, possibly even with a nearer degree of accuracy than your gut feelings ?
What's the "scientific consensus" on how many people are likely to die from climate change, let's say between now and 2100?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-10-2019 at 03:48 PM.
  #225  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:49 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
As you can hopefully see from the quote above, I'm certainly open to hearing arguments along the lines of 'he's misleading on the big picture', but that's not the approach you decided to take. You just said "Lomborg is always wrong". That's not convincing and makes you look worse when you have to backtrack.
Like you will then when acknowledging that Lomborg pulled a fast one with those seemingly accurate statements? Again, his intention was to mislead and that is what me and others showed already.

Because it is clear that you are not reading, I still stand on my statement that Lomborg is always wrong, because he has mercenary reasons to be that way and it was demonstrated that he does what gish gallopers do, buried in their statements we will find a few accurate statements, but they are geared in support of gross lies and inaccuracies.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-10-2019 at 03:54 PM.
  #226  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:49 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's the "scientific consensus" on how many people are likely to die from climate change between now and 2100?
Dodging the question. Retry, Abort, Fail ?
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #227  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:53 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's try this advice out. Here is the snippet of your post that attempts to defend the "billions will likely die" quote from before:
Again, you need to pay more attention to what people are actually saying rather than what you wish they'd said. What I said about that statement was just that it might not be as far off as you complacently imagine, and that we might lose a billion or more humans to the overall impacts of climate change.

That's not "defending" it in the sense of asserting it's true; that's just challenging your unthinking dismissal of it as ridiculously exaggerated "alarmist" "hyperbole".
  #228  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
... I still stand on my statement that Lomborg is always wrong... buried in their statements we will find a few accurate statements...
You appear to be contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Or perhaps you're using "stand by" or "always" in some non-standard way?
  #229  
Old 04-10-2019, 04:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Again, you need to pay more attention to what people are actually saying ...
I'm paying attention to what YOU are saying. You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
... And that doesn't take into account any of the indirect impacts from reduced food production, increased extreme poverty, population displacement, or disruptions in health services, nor the effects of climate change in worsening natural disasters, all of which could bump up the total by an order of magnitude. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change before we manage to regain a more stable climate system. (If we ever do.) ...
You've made a fairly specific claim here, about the potential deaths of 900 million people, and I'd like to know the source of it. Do you have a cite?
  #230  
Old 04-10-2019, 04:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You appear to be contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Or perhaps you're using "stand by" or "always" in some non-standard way?
That should have been "stand on", not "by".
  #231  
Old 04-10-2019, 04:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You appear to be contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Or perhaps you're using "stand by" or "always" in some non-standard way?
You seem to not be aware of what a Gish Gallop is, Lomborg is an expert on that. In that fallacy some accurate items are used with the intention to mislead others on the big picture.

Again, as you told us, you will look at the evidence after it was clear that I can report that there are 2 items were he is correct, the point stands that he uses those correct bits of information and sets them up to deceive many. So, it is your turn now.

It is no different from Astrologers that tell you that there is a Sun, a Mars, a Venus, etc. and you think that Lomborg is a good accurate fellow by pointing that. While ignoring the tons of bullshit that Astrologers then try to pull in their horoscopes.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-10-2019 at 04:09 PM.
  #232  
Old 04-10-2019, 04:19 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You've made a fairly specific claim here, about the potential deaths of 900 million people, and I'd like to know the source of it. Do you have a cite?
Yep.
Quote:
The UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report last week [October 2018], warning that failing to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celcius would result in hundreds of millions of deaths.
The rest of that article describes a variety of unfortunately plausible scenarios in which warming would significantly exceed 1.5 degrees, worsening the catastrophic nature of the results.

Honestly, HD, I'm baffled as to why you're trying to insist that mortality on this order of magnitude must somehow be a "hyperbolically" unrealistic prospect. Hundreds of millions of deaths due to climate change is not at all unrealistic, based on the fairly conservative and scientifically conscientious estimates of the IPCC. And a billion or more deaths is merely the high end of the fairly short linear scale of "hundreds of millions".

Sure, you personally are probably not going to live in a world where climate-change impacts will be felt at such magnitudes. But your grandchildren probably will. If you just can't wrap your head around the notion that "hundreds of millions" or even "billions" is a more reasonable estimate for total mortality from climate change than, say, "hundreds of thousands" (hell, we're already on track to get into the "millions" well before 2030), then consciously or not, you're engaging in some kind of irrational denial.
  #233  
Old 04-10-2019, 04:26 PM
PackerMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a Republican, and one of Senator Lee's constituents. I'll let him flesh out his own argument:



(emphasis mine)

source: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/in...5-B621E9BAF878
We have a problem. According the bestest, most intelligentest and knowledgeablest president Trump, America is full. He can't be wrong, so how are we going to fit all these new babies?

What is the solution? Killing the old people? Better yet, we should kill all of the brown people, they aren't real Americans anyway.
  #234  
Old 04-10-2019, 05:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yep. ...
Would you agree that "the Intellectualist" (an online publisher and aggregator that covers politics, science, feminism, and secularism) is not among "serious sources of climate science reporting"? The author, Jake Thomas, describes himself like this:

Quote:
Jake Thomas is a political moderate who became passionate about politics during the 2016 election. His main interests are the social safety net, American politics, basic income, and institutions. Thomas hopes to one day return to school and earn a PhD in political science or economics.
It doesn't sound like he's a climatologist (although I'm certainly open to correction on this point). His "article" appears to be a glorified re-telling of this article ("UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.") in the New York Magazine. So what about New York Magazine? Are they intellectual heavy-weights? A source we could rightly label one of the "serious sources of climate science reporting"? I'll let them answer for themselves (if the headline of their article wasn't enough of a clue):
So what about the author: David Wallace-Wells? His Twitter account says he's the "Deputy editor and climate columnist for New York magazine" and has apparently authored a book titled "The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming". On Twitter, his publisher is touting his book as:

It gets better still though. The book is apparently based on an article he wrote in 2017 by the same title. Here is how Wikipedia describes the response to the article:

Quote:
The story received immediate criticism from the climate change community along two fronts: the piece is too pessimistic; or it contains some factual errors.[9]

Robinson Meyer of The Atlantic said it is an "unusually specific and severe depiction of what global warming will do to the planet." [10] Susan Matthews writing in Slate said "The instantly viral piece might be the Silent Spring of our time".[11]

The NGO Climate Feedback summarized reviews by dozens of professional scientists and concluded the majority of the reviewers tagged the article as: Alarmist, Imprecise/Unclear, Misleading.[12]

Some journalists defended the science saying it is mostly correct, "I haven’t seen any good evidence for serious factual errors," said Kevin Drum.[9] Emily Atkin said "The complaints about the science in Wallace-Wells’s article are mostly quibbles".[13]

The major criticism is that David Wallace-Wells was trying to scare people.[9] This theme was then explored by journalists and commentators with some saying they thought fear was necessary given the reality of the problem, while others thought scaring people was counter-productive.[10][11][9][13][14] For example, Eric Holthaus said that "scaring the shit out of [people] is a really bad strategy" for getting them to want to address climate change.[15]

In a later interview, David Wallace-Wells said "it didn’t seem plausible to me that there was more risk at scaring people too much than there was at not scaring them enough ... my feeling was, and is, if there's a one percent chance that we’ve set off a chain reaction that could end the human race, then that should be something that the public knows and thinks about." [16]
It seems that our friend David has made a career for himself out of hyping the consequences of global warming. Good for him, but I don't think you should be turning to him as a source when the complaint is that there's too much hyperbole in the global warming discussion and you're arguing the point that it's not really hyperbole.

So let's set aside the fear-mongering and turn to what real scientists say. After all, there was an actual IPCC report that was referenced (indirectly, without a link) in your cite:

Quote:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report last week, warning that failing to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celcius would result in hundreds of millions of deaths.
AFAICT, this is the actual IPCC report that your cite is referring to. Now, I haven't read the whole thing yet, I just perused the "Summary for Policymakers". I didn't see anything in there about a billion dead (or "hundreds of millions"). Perhaps they buried it in the main report (which would be fucking BIZARRE because "hundreds of millions will die" seems like exactly the sort of thing one should include in their "Summary for Policymakers"). Either way, I'm back to asking you for a cite again, preferably one from among the "serious sources of climate science reporting", and not more of this hyperbolic bullshit.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-10-2019 at 05:29 PM.
  #235  
Old 04-10-2019, 06:19 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
AFAICT, this is the actual IPCC report that your cite is referring to. Now, I haven't read the whole thing yet, I just perused the "Summary for Policymakers". I didn't see anything in there about a billion dead (or "hundreds of millions").
Well, if you bothered to read some of the report's details instead of just fuming about the website that summarized them, you'd see that those estimates are, again, not at all unrealistic. Chapter 3 is the part that talks about impacts on natural and human systems of 1.5 degrees C of warming (which is probably significantly lowballing the amount of warming we'll actually get):

Quote:
Out of a contemporary population of approximately 1.3 billion exposed to water scarcity, about 3% (North America) to 9% (Europe) are expected to be prone to aggravated scarcity at 2C of global warming (Gerten et al., 2013). [...]

Under the same scenario, the global mean monthly number of people expected to be exposed to extreme drought at 1.5C in 2021–2040 is projected to be 114.3 million, compared to 190.4 million at 2C in 2041–2060 (Smirnov et al., 2016). [...]

At 1.5C in 2100, 31–69 million people (2010 population values) worldwide are projected to be exposed to flooding, assuming no adaptation or protection at all, compared with 32–79 million people (2010 population values) at 2C in 2100 (Supplementary Material 3.SM, Table 3.SM.4; Rasmussen et al., 2018). [...]

Arnell et al. (2016) also found that the number of people exposed to flooding increased substantially at warming levels higher than 2C, assuming no adaptation beyond current protection levels. [...]

At least 136 megacities (port cities with a population greater than 1 million in 2005) are at risk from flooding due to SLR (with magnitudes of rise possible under 1.5C or 2C in the 21st century, as indicated in Section 3.3.9) unless further adaptation is undertaken (Hanson et al., 2011; Hallegatte et al., 2013).

The IPCC AR5 concluded there is high to very high confidence that climate change will lead to greater risks of injuries, disease and death, owing to more intense heatwaves and fires, increased risks of undernutrition, and consequences of reduced labour productivity in vulnerable populations K.R. Smith et al., 2014). [...]

The projected risks to human health of warming of 1.5C and 2C, based on studies of temperature-related morbidity and mortality, air quality and vector borne diseases assessed in and since AR5, are summarized in Supplementary Material 3.SM, Tables 3.SM.8, 3.SM.9 and 3.SM.10 (based on Ebi et al., 2018). Other climate-sensitive health outcomes, such as diarrheal diseases, mental health issues and the full range of sources of poor air quality, were not considered because of the lack of projections of how risks could change at 1.5C and 2C. [...]

For populations vulnerable to poverty, the exposure to climate risks in multiple sectors could be an order of magnitude greater (8–32 fold) in the high poverty and inequality scenarios (SSP3; 765–1,220 million) compared to under sustainable socio-economic development (SSP1; 23–85 million). [...]
Here are some examples from the same chapter of realistic possible outcomes of mid-case and worst-case scenarios (and remember that the IPCC's scenarios have usually been relatively optimistic compared to how things turned out):
Quote:
Temperatures are regularly above 1.5C of warming, although radiative forcing is consistent with a warming of 1.2C or 1.3C. Deadly heatwaves in major cities (Chicago, Kolkata, Beijing, Karachi, So Paulo), droughts in southern Europe, southern Africa and the Amazon region, and major flooding in Asia, all intensified by the global and regional warming (Chapter 3, Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.4.8; Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4), lead to increasing levels of public unrest and political destabilization (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1). [...]

Global warming of 1.5C is reached by 2030 but no major changes in policies occur. Starting with an intense El Nio–La Nia phase in the 2030s, several catastrophic years occur while global warming starts to approach 2C. There are major heatwaves on all continents, with deadly consequences in tropical regions and Asian megacities, especially for those ill-equipped for protecting themselves and their communities from the effects of extreme temperatures (Chapter 3, Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.4.8). Droughts occur in regions bordering the Mediterranean Sea, central North America, the Amazon region and southern Australia, some of which are due to natural variability and others to enhanced greenhouse gas forcing (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.4; Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2; Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4). Intense flooding occurs in high- latitude and tropical regions, in particular in Asia, following increases in heavy precipitation events (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3). Major ecosystems (coral reefs, wetlands, forests) are destroyed over that period (Chapter 3, Section 3.4), with massive disruption to local livelihoods (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2 and Box 5.3; Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5). An unprecedented drought leads to large impacts on the Amazon rainforest (Chapter 3, Sections 3.3.4 and 3.4), which is also affected by deforestation (Chapter 2). A hurricane with intense rainfall and associated with high storm surges (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.6) destroys a large part of Miami. A two-year drought in the Great Plains in the USA and a concomitant drought in eastern Europe and Russia decrease global crop production (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.4), resulting in major increases in food prices and eroding food security. Poverty levels increase to a very large scale, and the risk and incidence of starvation increase considerably as food stores dwindle in most countries; human health suffers (Chapter 3, Section 3.4.6.1; Chapter 4, Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.3; Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1).
There are high levels of public unrest and political destabilization due to the increasing climatic pressures, resulting in some countries becoming dysfunctional (Chapter 4, Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2). [...]
Again, think about what these massively increased risks mean quantitatively. Natural disasters already kill about 50K people per year, malaria kills one million annually, and other tropical diseases maybe half a million. Famines even during the comparatively food-rich 20th century killed about 70 million people. It is really not difficult, looking at the increased risk exposure in huge amounts of the global population even at optimistically restricted levels of warming which we're almost certain to exceed, to plausibly estimate hundreds of millions of additional deaths as part of the total impact of climate change.

Last edited by Kimstu; 04-10-2019 at 06:19 PM.
  #236  
Old 04-10-2019, 06:30 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,183
If the consensus about ocean level rise is accurate, it seems obvious that at the very least hundreds of millions, if not billions, will be displaced in the coming century or so, and such mass displacements always have a lot of death along with them. Just from looking at population maps. Billions of people live near low lying coasts.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-10-2019 at 06:32 PM.
  #237  
Old 04-10-2019, 06:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, if you bothered to read some of the report's details instead of just fuming about the website that summarized them, you'd see that those estimates are, again, not at all unrealistic. Chapter 3 is the part that talks about impacts on natural and human systems of 1.5 degrees C of warming (which is probably significantly lowballing the amount of warming we'll actually get):



Here are some examples from the same chapter of realistic possible outcomes of mid-case and worst-case scenarios (and remember that the IPCC's scenarios have usually been relatively optimistic compared to how things turned out):


Again, think about what these massively increased risks mean quantitatively. Natural disasters already kill about 50K people per year, malaria kills one million annually, and other tropical diseases maybe half a million. Famines even during the comparatively food-rich 20th century killed about 70 million people. It is really not difficult, looking at the increased risk exposure in huge amounts of the global population even at optimistically restricted levels of warming which we're almost certain to exceed, to plausibly estimate hundreds of millions of additional deaths as part of the total impact of climate change.
You've been steadily moving the goalposts during our conversation. It started out with a quote (by another poster) that "billions will likely die". You moved that back to one billion, and from there we've come down to hundreds of millions. And it's no longer "likely", but now to "It is really not difficult... to plausibly estimate hundreds of millions of additional deaths". I suppose you're right that it's really not that difficult. Apparently anyone can do it: journalists touting their latest book, aspiring PoliSci PhD students, and random Dopers all seem to be able to estimate wildly-inflated figures.

You wrote earlier "I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change before we manage to regain a more stable climate system. (If we ever do.)". I certainly believe that you "don't think it's at all unreasonable", but I want to know WHY you think that. Is it because you've been reading articles by the likes of Jake Thomas and David Wallace-Wells? The IPCC reports don't seem to back up your belief. They talk about people "exposed to water scarcity" and "exposed to extreme drought" or "exposed to flooding", but we all know that people "exposed to water scarcity" don't all die from dehydration and people "exposed to flooding" don't all drown. The IPCC report did say this:

Quote:
The IPCC AR5 concluded there is high to very high confidence that climate change will lead to greater risks of injuries, disease and death, owing to more intense heatwaves and fires, increased risks of undernutrition, and consequences of reduced labour productivity in vulnerable populations ...
They don't appear to quantify it there. You did though. You made a specific claim that you "don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change". Where did you get this figure from? Did you read it in an IPCC report? An Intellectualist "article"? Did you concoct it on your own with some personal napkin-figuring based off historical malaria and famine numbers? I'm not trying to pick on you, but you're the poster that earlier advised me "If you (generic you) want to avoid implausible hyperbole and alarmism, it's easy to do by sticking to serious sources of climate science reporting." Should I be regarding your posts here as "implausible hyperbole and alarmism" or do they have an actual basis in "serious sources of climate science reporting"?
  #238  
Old 04-10-2019, 06:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If the consensus about ocean level rise is accurate, it seems obvious that at the very least hundreds of millions, if not billions, will be displaced in the coming century or so, and such mass displacements always have a lot of death along with them. Just from looking at population maps. Billions of people live near low lying coasts.
I'm going to ask you for cites too. What's the "consensus about ocean level rise"? Are we talking about 1 meter? 3 meters? 30 meters? And which population map(s) would you suggest I look at?
  #239  
Old 04-10-2019, 06:48 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,575
People, people, please. Unless you can provide a specific number of deaths, and prove it's correct in a way that is both absolutely certain and yet doesn't rely on any (so-called-)scientific publications, any claims that you make that anything bad will happen are nothing but hyperbole.
  #240  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:01 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In another thread, another poster wrote "the odds approach certainty that we as a species will be too late to slow down global warming. In which case, billions will likely die."

Do you think that's accurate? That "billions will likely die" from global warming? Do you consider that a sober, non-hyperbolic assessment of the likely outcome?
Yes, I for one certainly do.
  #241  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Yes, I for one certainly do.
Okay, great. Now this is the key part: WHY do you think that? Did you read it somewhere? If so, where? Would you consider it a "serious source of climate science reporting"? Or is it just a gut feeling you have?
  #242  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:04 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You've been steadily moving the goalposts during our conversation. It started out with a quote (by another poster) that "billions will likely die".
And, as I keep pointing out to you, I never claimed that that statement was true. I have simply been showing you why it is much more plausible than your denialist stance is willing to admit.

No goalpost-shifting has been involved on my part: I started out in this conversation showing concrete numbers behind a fairly conservative estimate of 100 million climate-change deaths in the course of a few centuries, and have been giving realistic reasons why that number might expand by an order of magnitude or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
You wrote earlier "I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that we might lose a billion or more humans to the combined effects of climate change before we manage to regain a more stable climate system. (If we ever do.)". I certainly believe that you "don't think it's at all unreasonable", but I want to know WHY you think that.
Because, to spell it out for you once again, the world already has, at an extremely conservative estimate, at least a million deaths a year resulting from tropical diseases, natural disasters, food and water scarcity, political destabilization related to resource scarcity, and other climate-related factors.

If the impacts of climate change put twice as many people at similar levels of risk from those factors---and the IPCC estimates and scenarios I cited make it clear that that's extremely likely---then statistically, we can expect twice as many deaths from them. And in the course of centuries, those (extremely conservatively estimated) extra million deaths a year add up to hundreds of millions of deaths. What part of this do you really find implausible or "hyperbolic" or "alarmist"? It looks to me like pretty predictable cause and effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
Should I be regarding your posts here as "implausible hyperbole and alarmism" or do they have an actual basis in "serious sources of climate science reporting"?
The latter, as you can see from the recent IPCC report I quoted (and which, along with previous IPCC reports, all my previous cites---however much you might not like their "tone"---were ultimately based on).

But you are heavily invested in denying that the implications of those factual summaries and realistic predictions can be true. You have constructed a denialist safe-space for yourself where you've decided you don't have to take seriously any facts or reasoning not presented in the form of an irrefutable proof that X hundred million people will absolutely-guaranteed be killed by climate change in the next Y years.

You're not trying to arrive at a realistic assessment of likely outcomes: you're just trying to defend your comfort zone by ignoring scientific reality in favor of demanding an impossible level of certainty.
  #243  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:32 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm going to ask you for cites too. What's the "consensus about ocean level rise"? Are we talking about 1 meter? 3 meters? 30 meters?
Well, as this article notes,
Quote:
Between 1900 and 1990 studies show that sea level rose between 1.2 millimeters and 1.7 millimeters per year on average. By 2000, that rate had increased to about 3.2 millimeters per year and the rate in 2016 is estimated at 3.4 millimeters per year. Sea level is expected to rise even more quickly by the end of the century. [...]

Scientists with the Intergovernmental Project on Climate Change predict that global sea level will rise between 0.3 and 1 meter by 2100. Eventually, sea level is expected to rise around 2.3 meters for every degree (C) that climate change warms the planet, and Earth has warmed by 1C already. What scientists don't know is how long it will take for sea level to catch up to the temperature increase. Whether it takes another 200 or 2000 years largely depends on how quickly the ice sheets melt.
The IPCC report previously linked estimates a 20-cm rise in sea level by 2050, increasing to about 1 or 1.25 m by some time in the 2200s, depending on how much warming we induce. (Note that even a rise of 25cm or so will have serious impacts on many US East Coast cities, among other places.)
  #244  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:43 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 517
How will that impact sealions?
  #245  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, as this article notes,





The IPCC report previously linked estimates a 20-cm rise in sea level by 2050, increasing to about 1 or 1.25 m by some time in the 2200s, depending on how much warming we induce. (Note that even a rise of 25cm or so will have serious impacts on many US East Coast cities, among other places.)
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29461

Over a hundred million may be displaced just in the next few decades, according to the World Bank.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017...-refugees-2100

Or up to 2 billion by 2100, according to this Cornell research.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-10-2019 at 07:51 PM.
  #246  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:55 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
How will that impact sealions?
, but in all seriousness, the impacts of climate change on sea lions are pretty severely negative.
  #247  
Old 04-10-2019, 10:19 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,438
The approach I learned from my atmospheric science PhD pal is to stick to what one can be sure of. Do we know the photochemical properties of CO2? Yes. Can we measure the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. Has it been rising? Yes. Do we know why? Yes. Will it continue? Forward looking statement, and the exact numbers will vary depending on what occurs as events play out, but sure looks like it.

Do we have precedents for increased atmospheric carbon levels? Geologically speaking, oh yes, up to and including a period when most of the coal underground today was floating around in the atmosphere. It was hot, there was not much ice gloabally, and sea levels were (cites vary on the exact number, and is was hundreds of millions of years ago, and also I am not a professional scientist but a message board poster) ~240 feet higher than today.

I think it would be a long-term rolling disaster if sea level rise accelerated significantly. Sea levels have been rather stable for centuries, millenia even, and now that is changing. Inches per year will really add up over a couple of centuries, and a burgeoning future world population will be continuously squeezed inland. How much poisonous crap will end up in the oceans? A lot, probably.

This is on top of arable land moving or being lost, in an increasingly desertified world, buffeted by ever increasingly violent storms.

It is alarming. But where have I been dishonest?
  #248  
Old 04-11-2019, 12:38 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Okay, great. Now this is the key part: WHY do you think that? Did you read it somewhere? If so, where? Would you consider it a "serious source of climate science reporting"? Or is it just a gut feeling you have?
As Kimstu showed, he and others "never claimed that that statement was true. I[/we] have simply been showing you why it is much more plausible than your denialist stance is willing to admit."

Speaking of gut feelings, you actually did go for a cite from Fox news' Tucker Carlson parading Lomborg, who was discredited more than 15 years ago. It was like seeing a denier of evolution pointing at a creationist as if he was a reliable source in a biology discussion... well, at least the creationist quoted the bible passages accurately.. /s

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-11-2019 at 12:39 AM.
  #249  
Old 04-11-2019, 12:53 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
As Kimstu showed, he and others "never claimed that that statement was true. I[/we] have simply been showing you why it is much more plausible than your denialist stance is willing to admit." ...
The post of mine you quoted here was in response to this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Yes, I for one certainly do.
  #250  
Old 04-11-2019, 12:59 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
... where have I been dishonest?
It's not that you've been dishonest, it's that you didn't follow through with what you said in the beginning. You started out with: "The approach I learned from my atmospheric science PhD pal is to stick to what one can be sure of." That lasted for like most of one paragraph. By the second one, you were quoting sea level figures that you were NOT sure of, and by your third paragraph you had abandoned that initial plan altogether and resorted to "I think" and "probably".

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-11-2019 at 12:59 AM.
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 09:54 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 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017