There Is A Real Problem...

[ReinyDays]

As I understand it, there are multiple natural climate cycles of varying time frames. I don't ignore that, what worries me is that man has added new influences, CO2, CH4, deforestation, etc. There are studies that show there is a coming calamity and studies that show it just smoke and mirrors. What is undisputed is that the majority of climate scientists believe there is a crisis looming. I'm not a tin-hat type so I have trouble believing there is some conspiracy knowingly or unknowingly perpetuated by the scientific community. On the other side, I see the deniers as starting from an religious or ideological mindset and viewing the data from that perspective.

Anyone who tells me they know how these climatic influences will play out in the future is suspect but, since the threat may be an existential one, it shouldn't be ignored.

I can agree with you on most of this ... "multiple natural climate cycles of varying time frames" is spot-on correct and we know very little about these, and I'll even go as far as saying there are climate oscillations yet to be discovered, thus cannot be included in the climate model runs ... and I can agree that new innovations that effect the environment are worrisome, but that has to be balanced against the positive effect on the human condition ... is a small temperature increase 100 years from now more problematic that 1.6 billion people going without electric service today? ... no refrigeration, cooking with wood every meal, and no prosperity in sight ... it's inhuman enough to not bother helping all these people, but are we seriously going to interfere and see that they never have electric power ... that's evil ... let's have a 16-year-old Congolese girl speak to the UN about gathering firewood sun-up to sun-down everyday ... and that's why she can't go to school to learn to read and write ...

I think you need to be careful ... it's flat untrue that a majority of climatologist believe a crisis is coming ... you seem to have confused believing humans contribute to global warming with "crisis" ... this is the type of things we've been arguing about these past few days, we see barrier islands come and go, if we extrapolate along a quartic curve we can see miles of coastal properties swept away, but that's completely unrealistic, that material has to go someplace and always it's re-deposited making new islands ... always ...

You might be shocked at how many people still believe in hypercanes and hockey sticks ... those terms should never have entered the conversation ... do we who know better have any obligation to correct these terrible mistakes? ... positive feedback violates the Laws of Thermodynamics unless it can be explained why it doesn't in every little detail, we can put positive feedback right there with perpetual motion as far as our future outlook in concerned ... I'm sorry, adding a $1 per gallon carbon tax to gasoline is NO solution to what little problem there actual is, and only further impoverishes the poor ... I'm going to fight on, and I have empirical evidence on my side ...

 

[alang1216]

As I understand it, there are multiple natural climate cycles of varying time frames. I don't ignore that, what worries me is that man has added new influences, CO2, CH4, deforestation, etc. There are studies that show there is a coming calamity and studies that show it just smoke and mirrors. What is undisputed is that the majority of climate scientists believe there is a crisis looming. I'm not a tin-hat type so I have trouble believing there is some conspiracy knowingly or unknowingly perpetuated by the scientific community. On the other side, I see the deniers as starting from an religious or ideological mindset and viewing the data from that perspective.

Anyone who tells me they know how these climatic influences will play out in the future is suspect but, since the threat may be an existential one, it shouldn't be ignored.

I can agree with you on most of this ... "multiple natural climate cycles of varying time frames" is spot-on correct and we know very little about these, and I'll even go as far as saying there are climate oscillations yet to be discovered, thus cannot be included in the climate model runs ... and I can agree that new innovations that effect the environment are worrisome, but that has to be balanced against the positive effect on the human condition ... is a small temperature increase 100 years from now more problematic that 1.6 billion people going without electric service today? ... no refrigeration, cooking with wood every meal, and no prosperity in sight ... it's inhuman enough to not bother helping all these people, but are we seriously going to interfere and see that they never have electric power ... that's evil ... let's have a 16-year-old Congolese girl speak to the UN about gathering firewood sun-up to sun-down everyday ... and that's why she can't go to school to learn to read and write ...

I think you need to be careful ... it's flat untrue that a majority of climatologist believe a crisis is coming ... you seem to have confused believing humans contribute to global warming with "crisis" ... this is the type of things we've been arguing about these past few days, we see barrier islands come and go, if we extrapolate along a quartic curve we can see miles of coastal properties swept away, but that's completely unrealistic, that material has to go someplace and always it's re-deposited making new islands ... always ...

You might be shocked at how many people still believe in hypercanes and hockey sticks ... those terms should never have entered the conversation ... do we who know better have any obligation to correct these terrible mistakes? ... positive feedback violates the Laws of Thermodynamics unless it can be explained why it doesn't in every little detail, we can put positive feedback right there with perpetual motion as far as our future outlook in concerned ... I'm sorry, adding a $1 per gallon carbon tax to gasoline is NO solution to what little problem there actual is, and only further impoverishes the poor ... I'm going to fight on, and I have empirical evidence on my side ...

I agree that anything we do has to balance risks, costs, and benefits. Not an easy equation. We are rich and techno-savy but it is the Chinese who manufacture solar power collectors for the world. We need to take the lead.

You're right that "material has to go someplace" but you're wrong that "it's re-deposited making new islands". The ultimate destination for beach sand, at least on the East Coast, is the deep ocean basin, putting it forever out of reach.

I disagree that "adding a $1 per gallon carbon tax to gasoline is NO solution". I think it will encourage smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks which will have numerous benefits. Saving fuel is an obvious one but those smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks are what other countries will buy so our car manufacturing will benefit. The $1 tax can be offset by a Federal tax credit. Users that need big vehicles should break even while those that downsize should see a small windfall.

 

[luchitociencia]

I guess my post has been taken the wrong way, now some new postings are showing a competence of "whom" own the best available volcanoes.

Knowing how we humans are, next step won't be "plant more trees" but will be "plant more volcanoes".

Point is that somehow earth itself finds balance.

There are some other causes of why the changes in climate. Something that no one pay attention because their concentration is to be an alarmist from one side, and from the other side to contra attack what the first ones say.

But, there are other causes which are not seen at fast review, but when a methodical step by step analysis is made, one can find that the temperature of the planet is not only controlled by internal and/or external means just as a passing fancy but as a need. Not a need for humans, because we are like bacteria living in an orange.

What other causes can change the temperature of the earth besides the common causes named by scientists today? You have CO2, cut of trees, farts of cows, volcanic eruptions, even solar influence.

But all of them together can't make a sole theory yet. There are also other factors. Other factors which have caused huge consequences as changing earth climate for long periods of time.

Have your earth globe in front of you, a flash light illuminating the globe as the Sun does with earth. Play with the globe and watch. Eventually ou will find out.

This is saying of mine, which sadly it did cost me to recognize by myself when trying to do a test several times and was unable to find the right procedure in making it: "You can't predict what you can't control"

If we have a problem with climate change, the predictions accuracy about the consequences have failed before and still are failing today, simply because we can't control it.

 

[SSDD]

Here's a quote from your link:

On average, climate change is causing seas to rise globally by more than an inch per decade. That rate is increasing as rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap more heat, melting ice and expanding ocean waters. Seas are projected to rise by several feet this century — perhaps twice that much if the collapse of parts of the Antarctic ice sheet worsens.​

I provided that as a beginning point to begin researching the fact that the land is sinking faster than the oceans are rising...It is possible to be right about one thing and completely wrong about another...mankind is not causing the oceans to rise.

But it should demonstrate that I don't restrict my reading to materials "approved" by one side or another... When
​

Are you cherry-picking the data that supports your position and ignoring data that don't?

Not at all...although that seems to be your MO...It is a fact that the oceans are rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...it is a falsehood, not supported by any empirical evidence that man is the cause of the rising sea level...and we have nothing whatsoever to do with the course of ocean currents....in fact, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that we are having any discernible effect whatsoever on the global climate.

 

[ReinyDays]

I agree that anything we do has to balance risks, costs, and benefits. Not an easy equation. We are rich and techno-savy but it is the Chinese who manufacture solar power collectors for the world. We need to take the lead.

You're right that "material has to go someplace" but you're wrong that "it's re-deposited making new islands". The ultimate destination for beach sand, at least on the East Coast, is the deep ocean basin, putting it forever out of reach.

I disagree that "adding a $1 per gallon carbon tax to gasoline is NO solution". I think it will encourage smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks which will have numerous benefits. Saving fuel is an obvious one but those smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks are what other countries will buy so our car manufacturing will benefit. The $1 tax can be offset by a Federal tax credit. Users that need big vehicles should break even while those that downsize should see a small windfall.

American workers won't work for yuans ... they demand dollars ... that's makes everything more expensive here ... you need to demonstrate that large amounts of sand are being drug all the way out and off the edge of the continental shelf ... look at the coastal surveys maps made for the Revolutionary War and then look at these areas now ... where do we see miles of erosion due to sea level rise we have been experiencing? ...

Charging a dollar tax at the pump and then just give it back at the end of the year doesn't make sense ... unless we prorate the refund based on AGI ... and it's already fully deductible for businesses ... too many people will continue to buy SUV's, F-150's and White Freightliners ... we saw this in 2005, why would today be any different? ...

Half of us live in cities ... that means half the world's food production has to be transported from the farms to the cities ... today, we are wholly and completely dependent on burning fossil fuels to transport this food ... any carbon tax on fuel will just be paid, without a reduction of emissions delivering all this food, the food will just be more expensive ... on the other hand, if we reduce our meat consumption by 90%, cities could buy their food locally ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The French were indeed smart enough to build New Orleans above sea level ... the land subsided fifteen feet since then ... and it's still subsiding ...

 

[alang1216]

You're right that "material has to go someplace" but you're wrong that "it's re-deposited making new islands". The ultimate destination for beach sand, at least on the East Coast, is the deep ocean basin, putting it forever out of reach.

you need to demonstrate that large amounts of sand are being drug all the way out and off the edge of the continental shelf ...

Abstract
Submarine canyons are morphological incisions into continental margins that act as major conduits of sediment from shallow- to deep-sea regions. However, the exact mechanisms involved in sediment transfer within submarine canyons are still a subject of investigation. Several studies have provided direct information about contemporary sedimentary processes in submarine canyons that suggests different modes of transport and various triggering mechanisms. Storm-induced turbidity currents and enhanced off-shelf advection, hyperpycnal flows and failures of recently deposited fluvial sediments, dense shelf-water cascading, canyon-flank failures, and trawling-induced resuspension largely dominate present-day sediment transfer through canyons. Additionally, internal waves periodically resuspend ephemeral deposits within canyons and contribute to dispersing particles or retaining and accumulating them in specific regions. These transport processes commonly deposit sediments in the upper- and middle-canyon reaches for decades or centuries before being completely or partially flushed farther down-canyon by large sediment failures.

 

[alang1216]

look at the coastal surveys maps made for the Revolutionary War and then look at these areas now ... where do we see miles of erosion due to sea level rise we have been experiencing? ...

Source

 

[alang1216]

I disagree that "adding a $1 per gallon carbon tax to gasoline is NO solution". I think it will encourage smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks which will have numerous benefits. Saving fuel is an obvious one but those smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks are what other countries will buy so our car manufacturing will benefit. The $1 tax can be offset by a Federal tax credit. Users that need big vehicles should break even while those that downsize should see a small windfall.

Charging a dollar tax at the pump and then just give it back at the end of the year doesn't make sense ... unless we prorate the refund based on AGI ... and it's already fully deductible for businesses ... too many people will continue to buy SUV's, F-150's and White Freightliners ... we saw this in 2005, why would today be any different? ...

If it was done perfectly, the tax refund would cover the increased cost of fuel for most people. If they did nothing to decrease their fuel consumption it would be a wash for them. However, if they somehow used less fuel, fewer trips or bought a smaller car, they could pocket the difference as an incentive to conserve.

 

[luchitociencia]

The French were indeed smart enough to build New Orleans above sea level ... the land subsided fifteen feet since then ... and it's still subsiding ...

That is correct, and such is telling us that "the problem has always been..."

Man in the past found the way to fit in the world and survive. In the past they didn't waste their lives pointing fingers about faults, they even never asked why the changes, they just worked for fit and survive.

Dudes are crazy about sea water reaching their homes, and building a contention wall is not the answer, just move from there. It is painful, it is costly, but the best solution.

Forget about the past, forget about trying to save -as an example- Venice, if nature is destroying an area, then move, you will waste a lot trying to contain water which turns deadly by storms you can't control. At the end nature will prevail.

If this topic is about "saving lives", then the concentration of it must be looking how to survive better, not so finding guilty parties. Remember, the damage -if any- has been done. Reversing it is peanuts. To reverse the current trend arguing that we humans caused it, then it is time to invade every country burning oil,and that is producing cars, war airplanes, ships, trains, etc. Banning the total production of plastics, a new tax for farting, and more.

Peanuts.

As a "general knowledge" topic, trying to find a fault from us is OK, but such is not the solution. Like to say, you find the BBQ grill heat warped the plastic fence behind, and you find heat as the guilty cause. Your solution is replacing the warped fence from time to time or, stop using the BBQ grill or, installing a heat insulator between the grill and the fence or, install a cooling system behind the BBQ grill, and more. While the most simple solution is just moving the BBQ grill three feet away from the fence and problem solved.

If finding solutions is the topic, then the practical ones which really work are the best to be applied.

If your son keeps falling from bed at nights, then put him to sleep on the floor.

 

[ReinyDays]

Right ... thank you ... at a square mile per year, it will take thousands of years to lose "thousands of square miles" ... I don't think burnable fossil fuels will last that long ...

 

[SSDD]

I disagree that "adding a $1 per gallon carbon tax to gasoline is NO solution". I think it will encourage smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks which will have numerous benefits. Saving fuel is an obvious one but those smaller, more fuel efficient cars & trucks are what other countries will buy so our car manufacturing will benefit. The $1 tax can be offset by a Federal tax credit. Users that need big vehicles should break even while those that downsize should see a small windfall.

Charging a dollar tax at the pump and then just give it back at the end of the year doesn't make sense ... unless we prorate the refund based on AGI ... and it's already fully deductible for businesses ... too many people will continue to buy SUV's, F-150's and White Freightliners ... we saw this in 2005, why would today be any different? ...

If it was done perfectly, the tax refund would cover the increased cost of fuel for most people. If they did nothing to decrease their fuel consumption it would be a wash for them. However, if they somehow used less fuel, fewer trips or bought a smaller car, they could pocket the difference as an incentive to conserve.

The wait continues for some actual evidence, as opposed to failing climate models as to why fuel consumption needs to be cut in the first place. The idea that fuel consumption needs to be cut is based on the assumption that more CO2 is causing warming. To date, there is no empirical evidence that supports this assumption.

How much sense does it make to upset an entire economy based on pure assumption?

 

[alang1216]

The wait continues for some actual evidence, as opposed to failing climate models as to why fuel consumption needs to be cut in the first place. The idea that fuel consumption needs to be cut is based on the assumption that more CO2 is causing warming. To date, there is no empirical evidence that supports this assumption.

How much sense does it make to upset an entire economy based on pure assumption?

Everything you've said may be true but I don't see how we'll have actual evidence until it is too late so we have 2 choices, do something in anticipation of a future problem or do nothing and wait and see.

If we wait and there no problem we're golden but if there is a problem, it will likely be either too late or very expensive and very disruptive to play catch up.

If we take concrete measures to reduce CO2 emissions and harden our infrastructure against sea level rise and there is no problem, we've spent money to lessen our use of non-renewable energy, developed a more energy-efficient infrastructure, and made our coastal cities less vulnerable to storm surges. If there is a problem and we've taken measures, we've likely lessened the impact of these changes.

 

[ReinyDays]

Everything you've said may be true but I don't see how we'll have actual evidence until it is too late so we have 2 choices, do something in anticipation of a future problem or do nothing and wait and see.

If we wait and there no problem we're golden but if there is a problem, it will likely be either too late or very expensive and very disruptive to play catch up.

If we take concrete measures to reduce CO2 emissions and harden our infrastructure against sea level rise and there is no problem, we've spent money to lessen our use of non-renewable energy, developed a more energy-efficient infrastructure, and made our coastal cities less vulnerable to storm surges. If there is a problem and we've taken measures, we've likely lessened the impact of these changes.

The only thing I disagree with is the "likely too late" scenario ... are you implying that we wait 150 years to begin dealing with a problem that begins to appear after 100 years ... I think we'll know or way or the other in 50 years, which gives us 50 years to find and implement the solution ... and keep in mind whatever problems are coming will be coming incrementally ... we won't be suddenly 2ºC warmer, we're becoming 0.02ºC warmer every year for 100 years ... so the expense and disruption totaled over 100 years might be high, but it's only 1/100th every year, which is chump change ...

Plus we can adapt ... all these building subject to being damaged by sea level rise, in a 100 years, will not last, 100 years ... beach houses just don't last that long and if they do they probably need razed anyway ...

Lying to get people to change their behaviors is always wrong ... we're definitely going to see a crisis in 100 years that has nothing to do with climate, rather oil shortages ... or better to say cheap oil shortages ... the environmental movement made a terrible mistake focusing on maybe/maybe not climate change ... the deceits and hyperbole are chasing people away, lifelong supporters of the environment like myself are going to vote Republican just to stop the craziness ... I'm fine with shooting loggers out in the woods, booby-trapping the trees so mill workers get killed, and I especially enjoy watching big car dealerships burn to the ground ... just good wholesome honest terrorism ...

I can't stand with lies ... the problem is we'll run out of oil ... then, dammit, we should say the problem is we're running out of oil ... keep Fairy Godmother dust out of the discussion ...

 

[alang1216]

Everything you've said may be true but I don't see how we'll have actual evidence until it is too late so we have 2 choices, do something in anticipation of a future problem or do nothing and wait and see.

If we wait and there no problem we're golden but if there is a problem, it will likely be either too late or very expensive and very disruptive to play catch up.

If we take concrete measures to reduce CO2 emissions and harden our infrastructure against sea level rise and there is no problem, we've spent money to lessen our use of non-renewable energy, developed a more energy-efficient infrastructure, and made our coastal cities less vulnerable to storm surges. If there is a problem and we've taken measures, we've likely lessened the impact of these changes.

The only thing I disagree with is the "likely too late" scenario ... are you implying that we wait 150 years to begin dealing with a problem that begins to appear after 100 years ... I think we'll know or way or the other in 50 years, which gives us 50 years to find and implement the solution ... and keep in mind whatever problems are coming will be coming incrementally ... we won't be suddenly 2ºC warmer, we're becoming 0.02ºC warmer every year for 100 years ... so the expense and disruption totaled over 100 years might be high, but it's only 1/100th every year, which is chump change ...

Plus we can adapt ... all these building subject to being damaged by sea level rise, in a 100 years, will not last, 100 years ... beach houses just don't last that long and if they do they probably need razed anyway ...

Lying to get people to change their behaviors is always wrong ... we're definitely going to see a crisis in 100 years that has nothing to do with climate, rather oil shortages ... or better to say cheap oil shortages ... the environmental movement made a terrible mistake focusing on maybe/maybe not climate change ... the deceits and hyperbole are chasing people away, lifelong supporters of the environment like myself are going to vote Republican just to stop the craziness ... I'm fine with shooting loggers out in the woods, booby-trapping the trees so mill workers get killed, and I especially enjoy watching big car dealerships burn to the ground ... just good wholesome honest terrorism ...

I can't stand with lies ... the problem is we'll run out of oil ... then, dammit, we should say the problem is we're running out of oil ... keep Fairy Godmother dust out of the discussion ...

I think you give our children and grandchildren too much credit. We have 150 years of climate data and we can't agree on what it means. Hopefully our heirs will be smarter than we are but I doubt it.

A beach house built today may last 100 years. What restrictions would you put on such a building? I'd certainly forbid any Federal gov't insurance.

Not all environmentalists believe the ends justify the means.

We'll never run out of oil or natural gas, only cheap oil and gas.

 

[SSDD]

Everything you've said may be true but I don't see how we'll have actual evidence until it is too late so we have 2 choices, do something in anticipation of a future problem or do nothing and wait and see.

The greenhouse effect is a quite old hypothesis and there is still no empirical evidence to support it. After all this time, if there was an issue, don't you think at least some evidence would have popped up...on the other hand, there is considerable empirical evidence that a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply can not exist.

If we wait and there no problem we're golden but if there is a problem, it will likely be either too late or very expensive and very disruptive to play catch up.

If we cripple economies now waiting for some theorized problem that might show up at some vague future date, we are no better than the sorts of suicide cults that we are all familiar with.

If we take concrete measures to reduce CO2 emissions and harden our infrastructure against sea level rise and there is no problem, we've spent money to lessen our use of non-renewable energy, developed a more energy-efficient infrastructure, and made our coastal cities less vulnerable to storm surges. If there is a problem and we've taken measures, we've likely lessened the impact of these changes.

Again...you are talking about CO2 as if it were a real issue...and reducing it will have any effect on the climate....there is no empirical evidence that suggests that reducing CO2 will have any effect on the climate.

And who says that hydrocarbon fuels are non renewable...the term fossil fuels is very misleading. Science to date, has not provided any real explanation as to how fossil fuels may have been formed....synthetic hydrocarbons very similar to crude oil have been produced in the lab simulating conditions found on the boundary between the earth's crust and mantle.

It seems that all the things you fear are based on the flimsiest of suppositions with very little, if any actual empirical evidence to support them. All you have to really worry about is sea level and there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that we are having any effect on that.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think you give our children and grandchildren too much credit. We have 150 years of climate data and we can't agree on what it means. Hopefully our heirs will be smarter than we are but I doubt it.

I get the feeling you're not grasping how long of time period we're speaking about ... our grandchildren will be grandparents themselves in 50 years ... and these babies again grandparents in another 50 years ... so, not children and grandchildren, rather great-great-great-grandchildren and great-great-great-great-grandchildren ...

 

[SSDD]

I think you give our children and grandchildren too much credit. We have 150 years of climate data and we can't agree on what it means. Hopefully our heirs will be smarter than we are but I doubt it.

150 years of data...and thus far it is of little use for anything beyond being the basis for a fictional tale about man made climate change.

In 150 years climate science has failed to produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Nor has climate science published a single paper in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses.

Those would seem to be the bare minimum bits of knowledge to nail down before starting to wave ones hands hysterically claiming that the sky is falling.

can you provide any actual empirical evidence that supports your belief that we have any control at all over something like sea level?

 

[alang1216]

I think you give our children and grandchildren too much credit. We have 150 years of climate data and we can't agree on what it means. Hopefully our heirs will be smarter than we are but I doubt it.

150 years of data...and thus far it is of little use for anything beyond being the basis for a fictional tale about man made climate change.

In 150 years climate science has failed to produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Nor has climate science published a single paper in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses.

Those would seem to be the bare minimum bits of knowledge to nail down before starting to wave ones hands hysterically claiming that the sky is falling.

can you provide any actual empirical evidence that supports your belief that we have any control at all over something like sea level?

If you're looking for a confession from the Gaia, you're out of luck. You'll have to settle for circumstantial evidence.

It doesn't matter if I die in a flood that was man-made or natural, I'm just as dead.

 

[SSDD]

I think you give our children and grandchildren too much credit. We have 150 years of climate data and we can't agree on what it means. Hopefully our heirs will be smarter than we are but I doubt it.

150 years of data...and thus far it is of little use for anything beyond being the basis for a fictional tale about man made climate change.

In 150 years climate science has failed to produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Nor has climate science published a single paper in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses.

Those would seem to be the bare minimum bits of knowledge to nail down before starting to wave ones hands hysterically claiming that the sky is falling.

can you provide any actual empirical evidence that supports your belief that we have any control at all over something like sea level?

If you're looking for a confession from the Gaia, you're out of luck. You'll have to settle for circumstantial evidence.

It doesn't matter if I die in a flood that was man-made or natural, I'm just as dead.

What sort of flood do you think people are stupid enough to die in if the water is rising 3mm per year? At that rate, how long would you have to stand there before the tops of your socks got wet...much less drowned?