Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Wavicle]

You seem to be saying that it's OK to breed new kinds of wheat and spend a fortune on new power structures instead of doing the intelligent thing and radically reducing emissions and finding new technology. Is this what you are saying?

Perhaps you need to read the science some more. There is near consensus that it is simply too late - so whether or not it is "OK" it is going to be "necessary." However, once again you seized on the opportunity to state what I'm saying as something other than what I've said. So while I am attacking a naive and incorrect conclusion drawn from a science paper, you have morphed that into "You seem to be saying that it's OK to breed new kinds of wheat and spend a fortune on new power structures" something I most assuredly have not weighed in on.

After all that back and forth did you finally accept that climatologists aren't the only ones working on the projections?

I stand by what I said, however I see little point in restating them as my argument will once again be restated as something I did not say (note, you said I think that climatologists are the only ones working on the projections, that is not something I have said nor think.)

 

[Joey McGee]

Perhaps you need to read the science some more. There is near consensus that it is simply too late so whether or not it is "OK" it is going to be "necessary."

Is this an incorrect statement? "The more carbon we pump into the atmosphere the worse climate change will be" It is!? Then it's not too late to curb climate change right? What are you talking about? It's going to be bad, just how bad, we don't know, but we have a lot of control over that. That's the consensus. No?

However, once again you seized on the opportunity to state what I'm saying as something other than what I've said.So while I am attacking a naive and incorrect conclusion drawn from a science paper, you have morphed that into "You seem to be saying that it's OK to breed new kinds of wheat and spend a fortune on new power structures" something I most assuredly have not weighed in on.

Incorrect, I'm confused by you, I'm asking an honest question, I didn't state what you're saying.

I stand by what I said, however I see little point in restating them as my argument will once again be restated as something I did not say (note, you said I think that climatologists are the only ones working on the projections, that is not something I have said nor think.

Uh-huh.

<snip>It is not clear at all to me that climatologists are experts in human anthropology. When climate scientists stand up and say "the climate is warming" I listen. When they say "and it is going to disrupt the security of many societies" I don't.<snip>

Than you shouldn't have said this.

 

[punshhh]

I believe 70m.

I read in the Beer Store the other day Ontarians returned enough beer bottles to circle the globe 13 times. I figure if we lined them up around the entire country and back filled them we would have a sea wall capable of holding back the next 50 years of sea level increase.

Mitigation.

Ah I see, your ok then you probably won't have a loss of equity in your lifetime.
I'm at 40 meters, I'm planning to sell up and move up at least another 40m in the next couple of years.

 

[DC]

i am more than 244 m above sea level. and also i dont think other changes if we continue as we do will have significant impact on my remaining life. i think the whole issue is more how do we leave our planet behind for the next generations.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem,
This is what I asked you evidence for.
And this is what you gave me.
That's not proof of anything, is it? If there are scams and profiteering happening (hard to imagine in this scum infested universe) that should be dealt with. Actually the alarmists are calling for scrutiny as much as anyone else so this is just a horribly weak argument.

Er, the burden of proof would be on you if you're maintaining the position that GW is in fact "the end of the world".

It really is a question of "future generations". Given the lack luster effort we're giving the current generation I don't really see the pressing need for future ones. That's just the practical position on the matter.

Unless of course GW represents the "end of the World". Then there's no question, we need to do everything to prevent the apocalypse.

But, if that were the case, and 97% of the publishing climate scientists all agreed GW represents the end of human civilization as we know it, then that's exactly what we would be doing. That would most likely entail 50% of the population engaged in building nuclear reactors, and the other 50% making them sandwiches and whatnot. Well not exactly, but you get my point.

So from my perspective we're doing exactly what we need to be doing right now. Short of this cap and trade/Kyoto BS. We can't impose things on people that can't afford to do so. It has to happen one of two ways, either naturally as the market dictates or perhaps as gifts bestowed by the more fortunate on the less fortunate. If Al Gore wants to dig into his Nobel money and buy me a Prius more efficient and clean power to him!

In the mean time there has to be some accountability for the money being spent on reducing CO2. On the large scale and in terms of "future generations" that means having reliable models and accurate measurements. Until we have those all we can really do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[DC]

Er, the burden of proof would be on you if you're maintaining the position that GW is in fact "the end of the world".

It really is a question of "future generations". Given the lack luster effort we're giving the current generation I don't really see the pressing need for future ones. That's just the practical position on the matter.

Unless of course GW represents the "end of the World". Then there's no question, we need to do everything to prevent the apocalypse.

But, if that were the case, and 97% of the publishing climate scientists all agreed GW represents the end of human civilization as we know it, then that's exactly what we would be doing. That would most likely entail 50% of the population engaged in building nuclear reactors, and the other 50% making them sandwiches and whatnot. Well not exactly, but you get my point.

So from my perspective we're doing exactly what we need to be doing right now. Short of this cap and trade/Kyoto BS. We can't impose things on people that can't afford to do so. It has to happen one of two ways, either naturally as the market dictates or perhaps as gifts bestowed by the more fortunate on the less fortunate. If Al Gore wants to dig into his Nobel money and buy me a Prius more efficient and clean power to him!

In the mean time there has to be some accountability for the money being spent on reducing CO2. On the large scale and in terms of "future generations" that means having reliable models and accurate measurements. Until we have those all we can really do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

what do you mean by that? what measurements=?

 

[Furcifer]

what do you mean by that? what measurements=?

money spent, CO2 and temperature reduced etc.

Breakdowns therein. I'd like to know what the most cost effective way of reducing CO2 is. What is my money buying. If Canadians spend $2500 this year what effect will it have? Is it going to reduce CO2 or is just going to mean that the residents of India will all pay $1 less and have no effect at all?

Measurements. Maybe bar graphs or pie charts, whatever.

 

[CapelDodger]

i am more than 244 m above sea level. and also i dont think other changes if we continue as we do will have significant impact on my remaining life.

Nor on mine.

i think the whole issue is more how do we leave our planet behind for the next generations.

Meh. What has posterity ever done for us?

 

[macdoc]

He fails to understand ranges of outcome an nauseum.

Another tired denier argument that we don't know enough to act.......

Of course we know enough to act and many are even at the national level ( Nordic in particular ) but to admit but that would threaten his job

 

[lomiller]

In the mean time there has to be some accountability for the money being spent on reducing CO2. On the large scale and in terms of "future generations" that means having reliable models and accurate measurements.

Useless statement unless you tell us your definition of “reliable” is in this context. The scientists who actually research climate consider models to be reliable for some things and less reliable for others.

My suspicion is that for the scientific community already considers both models and measurements highly reliable for the things you have in mind since you won’t tell us it’s difficult to say for sure. At this point your whole argument seems to be that no one can read your mind to figure out what you are trying to say so you can never be proved wrong.

 

[Joey McGee]

Er, the burden of proof would be on you if you're maintaining the position that GW is in fact "the end of the world"

What kind of straw man is this? Who is saying that it's the end of the world? I'm not, I don't think any sane people are. Do you deny that the climatologist consensus is that horrible, unspeakable things may occur?

It really is a question of "future generations". Given the lack luster effort we're giving the current generation I don't really see the pressing need for future ones. That's just the practical position on the matter.

No it's not! That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. First, that's a judgment call, people try their very best to improve this world, maybe you don't like it, but hey, you are welcome to sit on the sidelines and claim none of the new world for your descendants, that's not my choice. Second, you're literally justifying laziness in the face of unmeasurable suffering? You can't be serious.

Unless of course GW represents the "end of the World". Then there's no question, we need to do everything to prevent the apocalypse.

Man of straw. Black and white thinking.

But, if that were the case, and 97% of the publishing climate scientists all agreed GW represents the end of human civilization as we know it, then that's exactly what we would be doing. That would most likely entail 50% of the population engaged in building nuclear reactors, and the other 50% making them sandwiches and whatnot. Well not exactly, but you get my point.

Yeah I get your point, black and white thinking.

So from my perspective we're doing exactly what we need to be doing right now. Short of this cap and trade/Kyoto BS. We can't impose things on people that can't afford to do so. It has to happen one of two ways, either naturally as the market dictates or perhaps as gifts bestowed by the more fortunate on the less fortunate. If Al Gore wants to dig into his Nobel money and buy me a Prius more efficient and clean power to him!

So I think I have identified your anti-science motivations in your libertarian anti-government philosophy?

In the mean time there has to be some accountability for the money being spent on reducing CO2. On the large scale and in terms of "future generations" that means having reliable models and accurate measurements. Until we have those all we can really do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

I think I'm going to pay attention to the people who's job it is to make these predictions and not the people who think they are wise enough to poke holes in them. Their colleagues do a good enough job of that. As it stands the consensus is that our efforts to reduce emissions will improve the quality of life on earth, the more the better, and if we do nothing, a horror show is an eventuality. Do look forward to the report due out later this year "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation" the world needs your help, it's not too late. Since I'm fairly young and will live to see the day, I predict my resentment against the deniers will only grow over time. I have models to support my prediction.

 

[Trakar]

The temperature increase over the last 150 years is so small it's taken 20 years or so to measure properly and the actual contribution from manmade sources and natural variability are indistinguishable. You couldn't physically detect the difference nor could you read it off an average thermometer.

That's the very definition of "slight".

Once again, if you are meaning that the increase in average temperature is insignificant, inconsiderable and/or inconsequential, then you are, again, in error. The fact that you keep avoiding the substance of my statements implies that you are aware of the erroneous impressions you are attempting to foster through the disingenuous use of such statements.

 

[Trakar]

Seems he does not understand hysteresis.

More than this, the current and past increases are in themselves significant, substantial and unprecidented in their rates of occurence and environmental impact, and this is without getting into the fact that these temperature increases are the forerunners of impacts that take centuries to equilibrate through the Earth's biome.

More to your point, and as has been demonstrated before, even if we stopped all open cycle combustion today, it would take centuries before the system equilibrates to the current CO2 levels meaning that temps will keep rising for a long time even after emissions cease.

 

[Trakar]

Is this an incorrect statement? "The more carbon we pump into the atmosphere the worse climate change will be" It is!? Then it's not too late to curb climate change right? What are you talking about? It's going to be bad, just how bad, we don't know, but we have a lot of control over that. That's the consensus. No?

There are a lot of inaccuracies in wavicle's statements, but according to some (far from a concensus) climate researchers we have already exceeded several "tipping points." If this is accurate, then Nature is about to take back over as the major climate forcing agent and while our actions might help keep us from contributing to the problem, we really won't be able to keep many of the seriously bad circumstances from occurring.

 

[macdoc]

He also does not understand there will be almost no change in the tropics average temp - they will simply expand....and the north is already in the 5-9 degrees increase.

Parts of Canada are astoundingly warm. Nunatsiaq Online reports:
… temperatures around South Baffin reached record highs as much as 20 degrees above normal.Iqaluit set new records with temperatures rising to +1.2 C Jan. 3 breaking the record of —1.7 C set in 1970, said Yvonne Bilan-Wallace, a meteorologist with Environment Canada.
Jan. 4 saw another new record for the capital with a high of +1.5 C, breaking the old mark of —1.1 C set in 1969.
“The normal around this time of year is around -22C,” she said. “So yeah, you’re way above normal.”
Pangnirtung also set a record high temperature, peaking at +8 C Jan. 4, shattering an old record of —3.7 C set in 2002. Kimmirut hit +1C Jan.4, breaking a previous record high of —5.5C.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/...er-arctic-sea-ice-extent-in-satellite-record/


after all it's only a little bit of cigarette smoke too....

 

[Trakar]

i am more than 244 m above sea level. and also i dont think other changes if we continue as we do will have significant impact on my remaining life. i think the whole issue is more how do we leave our planet behind for the next generations.

There are already significant impacts.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_effects.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...port_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm

 

[Trakar]

Er, the burden of proof would be on you if you're maintaining the position that GW is in fact "the end of the world"...

The world we were born into has already disappeared, the worlds of +6º C, +10º C and 10º+ C will be significantly different from the current one, and from each other, but they are on our current climate path. in the coming decades and centuries.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee
Is this an incorrect statement? "The more carbon we pump into the atmosphere the worse climate change will be" It is!? Then it's not too late to curb climate change right? What are you talking about? It's going to be bad, just how bad, we don't know, but we have a lot of control over that. That's the consensus. No?

Not really - what's in the system now has already altered the climate and will continue to alter the climate until a new radiative equilibrium is reached somewhere a thousand years out.

Even if we stop now it's not going to "return" to say the Holocene average for 100k years.

No scientist I am aware of thinks it will flatten our under 2 degrees C by 2100 - we're past that short of active removal of C02.

4-6 C more like it.

Devastating in many areas.

 

[Trakar]

money spent, CO2 and temperature reduced etc.

Breakdowns therein. I'd like to know what the most cost effective way of reducing CO2 is. What is my money buying. If Canadians spend $2500 this year what effect will it have? Is it going to reduce CO2 or is just going to mean that the residents of India will all pay $1 less and have no effect at all?

Measurements. Maybe bar graphs or pie charts, whatever.

Psychology’s Contributions to Understanding and Addressing Global Climate Change - http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-66-4-241.pdf

Even Nordhaus has some interesting comments - http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/001/501275.pdf

Findings of the impacts of climate change in Iowa - http://www.iowadnr.gov/iccac/files/completereport.pdf#page=31

Climate change: the ultimate ‘tragedy of the commons’? -
http://www.cccep.ac.uk/Publications...50-59/WP53_climate-change-tragedy-commons.pdf

And of course, Stern - http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/pdf/20110317 Nick Stern ppt.pdf

a veritable smorgasbord

 

[Furcifer]

Psychology’s Contributions to Understanding and Addressing Global Climate Change - http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-66-4-241.pdf

Even Nordhaus has some interesting comments - http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/001/501275.pdf

Findings of the impacts of climate change in Iowa - http://www.iowadnr.gov/iccac/files/completereport.pdf#page=31

Climate change: the ultimate ‘tragedy of the commons’? -
http://www.cccep.ac.uk/Publications...50-59/WP53_climate-change-tragedy-commons.pdf

And of course, Stern - http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/pdf/20110317 Nick Stern ppt.pdf

a veritable smorgasbord

I skimmed the first article and didn't find anything relevant. Perhaps you could point out which ones you think address the issue I mentioned?