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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I will let Broomstick explain herself, but that 7’ rise is not coming from her imagination.
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:
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.
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.
