Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11291 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
So you agree this debate is past "it's not happening" denial and into a "it's not so bad" debate.

Since we are now debating "how bad is it"  -- where are you getting the 1 trillion dollar figure ?

That figure seems quite optimistic -- Hurricane Katrina resulted in 125 Billion in economic losses

Just the cost of inundation of major parts of the Netherlands , all of Venice, major parts of London, Miami, and many other cities is going to blow past the 1 trillon dollar figure pretty quick -- so show your work on the 1 trillion dollar figure.

No, that argument does not require your premise to be true. We can hold several arguments at once. One, is it human caused (not likely).

Two, if temps rise within the range of any natural changes due to any cause would there be disaster. (no)

Three, if you're going to talk about spending money, what are the value judgments being made about spending relative to alternatives.

You persist in using cheap social tactics like putting words in people's mouths as if it works. I guess if clarity is not your goal, it does work.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11291 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
Another layer of complication arises when we start asking each other where those expenditures should be prioritized biggrin.gif The discussion would probably look a lot like this GW thread - how do we reconcile everyone's potentially conflicting priorities? Who gets shafted? If someone is shafted in favor of climate change mitigation, how do you approach them and discuss the issues addressed by and actions taken during mitigation? No envy here for the challenges some politicians face, having a discussion in a Stewardship forum on a site where we are all supposed to love nature has proven challenging enough.

Easy, when you don't think everyone else's resources are for your use, the conflict vanishes. The conflicting priorities are the inherent result of thinking that someone else's property or resources is for your use.

We reconcile all the conflicting priorities by not using govt to reconcile or address them.

Individuals have all kinds of conflicting interests and goals which they 'resolve' by each addressing their own priorities with their own resources to the degree they *actually* feel they are priorities.

With their actions demonstrating their priorities, as opposed to their pieholes claiming priorities. The reality that your true, real world priorities are shown by your actual actions is inescapable, no matter how painful that truth is.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11291 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
It is just diversion like the folks when any social issue is presented say what about all the homeless vets but never act to help homeless vets.

Like when catastrophists claim we're cooking the planet but refuse to choose to make the cuts in their own lives to the degree necessary to meet their own claimed requirements for CO2 cuts.

There's no getting around that one. You don't require visits to the mountains or travel for your life to exist or continue, you *choose* those. Nor do you require more than a few very basic foods, day in, day out, to continue your existence.

But you put your comfort and recreation above the cuts you claim are needed. Demonstrably and by your actions.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11291 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles...in 2009

“Next 18 months will decide” climate change success – Prince Charles....years after the 96 month deadline expired

we're past the tipping point...in 2006

an endless litany of we're doomed unless you give us power to impose what you won't actually choose on your own...only to have the deadly deadlines pushed out every time we pass them.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16113 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 11:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
A 3C rise is fantasy from folks who didn't even get predictions of the past correct.

Best you can come up with is Prince Charles?  You're really having to dig hard to demonstrate this.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1590 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 11:41 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Easy, when you don't think everyone else's resources are for your use, the conflict vanishes. The conflicting priorities are the inherent result of thinking that someone else's property or resources is for your use.

I would applaud such a change, this sounds like people moving towards respecting each other and the resources as well - unfortunately not enough to balance a budget I think, but it would be nice to remove this barrier towards coming to a common resolution.

MtnGoat wrote:
an endless litany of we're doomed unless you give us power to impose what you won't actually choose on your own...only to have the deadly deadlines pushed out every time we pass them.

I think this train wreck is happening more slowly than that, fortunately we don't have a consistent pattern of catastrophes we can point to and say "told you". Yet, give it another decade. Anyone else think the heatwave is unusual this week, particularly on the heels of Barry? If the weather system were a rubber band, how many expansions and contractions between extremes could the system handle?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 934 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 6:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Amsterdam, Netherlands disappears

https://choices.climatecentral.org/#7/52.368/4.904?compare=temperatures&carbon-end-yr=2100&scenario-a=warming-1.5&scenario-b=warming-2

I think the real-estate value of Amsterdam alone is more than a trillion dollars.

Before relying on links and data sources, you should do some quick sanity checks.  In this case this source fails badly and immediately by bringing up their Seattle map.  They flood all of Boeing Field at +1.5C.  Boeing field ranges from about 17 to 21 feet above sea level, making these flood maps hopelessly wrong.

Like trump levels of wrong.  An order of magnitude too aggressive.  We might be able to flood BFI at +15C a thousand years from now.  Maybe.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 502 | TRs

CC
  Top

cascade curmudgeon
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Chennai ran out of water while getting 47 inches per year?  Haha.  Thats a staggering level of incompetence.  WADOT, Inslee, and Trump can't even match that level of stupidity in their wildest dreams.

Yeah, but what can you expect from stupid, incompetent brown people.  Wouldn't happen in USA.  Oh wait......I forgot about the drought around the turn of the century in southeast US.  Cities in GA, like Atlanta, were close to running out of water.  GA governor's strategy was to hold a day of prayer for rain.  Average annual rainfall in Atlanta:  47”.

The post from OP on the Chennai water crisis was misleading in several respects.  Yes the water crisis in India is man made, but not in the way the article implied.  More precisely; it's man, woman, and child made.  When I lived in India fifty years ago the population was about 500M, now it's pushing 1.4G.  The population density is 12 times that of US.  And despite it's advanced technology, it's still a poor country; per capita GDP is about 1/8th of US.  Population density of Chennai is about same as that of Manhattan, but per capita tax base is probably several orders of magnitude less.  Even when I was there the infrastructure in cities (I was in what are now Mumbai and Pune) was borderline, and it's been impossible to catch up given the combination of explosive population growth and lack of resources.  Finally, Indian cities are not automobile-centered like US cities; they don't have malls or stadiums with vast parking lots.  A much smaller area of their cities is paved over re US cities, which in some cases (e.g. Houston) are 1/3 pavement.  In Chennai the majority of water comes from surface reservoirs, not the aquifer, so pavement runoff shouldn't be an overriding factor in the crisis.

The other factor is that India gets basically all of its rain in the 3-month monsoon period.  So much of the rainfall comes in downpours; 5” a day is not uncommon, 10” is not unheard of, I was witness to one.  So obviously you can have a “good” monsoon with flooding, followed by a poor monsoon the next year with drought.

So yes, the upcoming water crisis in India and many other countries is very serious, and in some cases a more immediate concern than global warming.  And in the long run US is not immune.  We are depleting many of our aquifers: the Ogallala in the midwest, one of the largest in the world is being rapidly depleted, similarly with aquifers in California's central valley, in Arizona (feds saved their butts in short term with central Arizona project),and in eastern WA.  But hey, maybe everybody who left will come streaming back to the much disparaged rust-belt cities on the Great Lakes.

Now I know somebody is going to see the news about India's soon-to-launch moon probe and say something like :  why are they spending all this money on space probes when their infrastructure is failing?  Well it's a valid point but, as with individuals, the ego-trip project is pretty much a universal phenomenon among countries and cities.  We, of course are not immune; we spent $180G in today's money on Apollo project, and it wasn't for the science, which could have been learned much more cost-effectively with unmanned probes.  It was to surpass USSR both for ego and for potential military reasons.  Meanwhile our infrastructure is now in poor shape.  Like Jill Lapore recently said; “My country went to the moon and all I got was this lousy surveillance state.”

By the way TH, why the hell is WSDOT in your stupidity comparison?  WSDOT is an organization composed of thousands of people, not a person.  Are they all stupid?  Certainly the crews that do the plowing and avy control in Stevens Pass area are neither stupid nor incompetent.  I would mach them with similar crews anywhere in the world.

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 502 | TRs

CC
  Top

cascade curmudgeon
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
It would be wise for anyone debating the subject to stick to legitimate sources of scientific data... NCDC, USGS, peer reviewed papers, etc.  If you lack the intelligence to comprehend the data yourself, at least fall back on experts... people with careers in weather and physics and fluid mechanics and atmospheric science, not a couple bloggers or news reporters.

I don't disagree with the gist of this, but “intelligence” is not the word of choice here.  Unless one is the second coming of Poincare they are not going to understand peer-reviewed journal papers outside of their area in any of the hard sciences.  Native intelligence without a PhD-level background in the particular area is insufficient.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand most of my papers, and, likewise, I wouldn't understand most papers in climate science, even though I have undergrad background in some of the underlying disciplines.  That's why since the very beginning of this thread I have been pointing out the ludicrousness of non-experts arguing about the science aspect of global warming and have been likening it to Einstein's comments about the “strange madhouse” of post-WWI Germany where “waiters and coachmen” were arguing over the merits of relativity theory (Unfortunately that's probably the least scary of the parallels between post-WWI Germany and the present era in the US, but we can't go there).

Given your propensity for calling other people stupid, I'm beginning to think you may be a candidate for the prize that I thought MG was a shoo in for:  the highest Dunning-Kruger-index score on NW hikers.  Plus you seem to be posing as an expert in climate science.  Howsabout showing us your CV?

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 502 | TRs

CC
  Top

cascade curmudgeon
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
The Left keeps getting lefter...

Left-right divide
Left-right divide

The reason for this is that, by the standards of the rest of the world, what passes for extreme left in US is slightly left of center and the republican party is extreme right.  So our political center of gravity is skewed very much to the right.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage&mtrref=t.co&gwh=B94D0EE6E5F45C6CD9912ED3CCC345B8&gwt=pay

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 502 | TRs

CC
  Top

cascade curmudgeon
PostWed Jul 17, 2019 8:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
We don't need saving from capitalism, or actual cooperation, during the natural event of changing climate. We need saving from our would be central planners, who will once again demonstrate Hayek's observation of truth, and in doing so harming all the little people the most.


Ah, good old Freddy Hayek.  MG certainly has a propensity for collecting outdated philosophies:  Objectivism, Austrian School of Economics, Karl Popper's philosophy of science.

The following quote is from a theoretical physicist writing about a conference titled “Why Trust a Theory” at The Center for Mathematical Philosophy.
“What I learn is that Karl Poppers idea that scientific theories must be falsifiable has long been an outdated philosophy.  I am glad to hear this as it's a philosophy that nobody in science ever could have used, other than as a rhetorical device.  It is rarely possible to falsify an idea, since ideas can always be modified or extended to match incoming evidence.  Rather than falsifying theories therefore we “implausify” them; a continuously adapted theory becomes increasingly difficult and arcane—not to say ugly—and eventually practitioners lose interest.  How much it takes to implausify an idea, however, depends on one's tolerance for repeatedly making a theory fit conflicting evidence.”

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 934 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 18, 2019 10:51 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC wrote:
GA governor's strategy was to hold a day of prayer for rain.

And he was properly ridiculed for being incompetent.

CC wrote:
By the way TH, why the hell is WSDOT in your stupidity comparison?  WSDOT is an organization composed of thousands of people, not a person.  Are they all stupid?  Certainly the crews that do the plowing and avy control in Stevens Pass area are neither stupid nor incompetent.  I would mach them with similar crews anywhere in the world.


You are correct.  The snow control DOT folks up there at the passes do a great job.  If only we could put them in charge of the rest of the state's road planning...



CC wrote:


I don't disagree with the gist of this, but “intelligence” is not the word of choice here.  Unless one is the second coming of Poincare they are not going to understand peer-reviewed journal papers outside of their area in any of the hard sciences.  Native intelligence without a PhD-level background in the particular area is insufficient.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand most of my papers, and, likewise, I wouldn't understand most papers in climate science, even though I have undergrad background in some of the underlying disciplines.  That's why since the very beginning of this thread I have been pointing out the ludicrousness of non-experts arguing about the science aspect of global warming and have been likening it to Einstein's comments about the “strange madhouse” of post-WWI Germany where “waiters and coachmen” were arguing over the merits of relativity theory (Unfortunately that's probably the least scary of the parallels between post-WWI Germany and the present era in the US, but we can't go there).

Given your propensity for calling other people stupid, I'm beginning to think you may be a candidate for the prize that I thought MG was a shoo in for:  the highest Dunning-Kruger-index score on NW hikers.  Plus you seem to be posing as an expert in climate science.  Howsabout showing us your CV?

I am going to disagree a bit.  Sure, I don't expect the average scientist to delve into the details of atmospheric CFD models, or to completely understand how a planetary atmosphere settles into radiative-convective equilibrium, but there are some pretty simple trends related to global warming that are widely apparent, that get neglected by politicians and newscasters of various flavors.  There are downright fundamental statistical mistakes made across the public discourse on global warming, that even a slightly educated amateur should not make.


As for my CV... this is not the forum to disclose private details of my career.  It is in atmospheric physics, but that is relatively unimportant.  Don't trust me... trust the data I link to, after proper verification, and draw your own conclusions.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 499 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 18, 2019 12:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC wrote:
Unless one is the second coming of Poincare they are not going to understand peer-reviewed journal papers outside of their area in any of the hard sciences.  Native intelligence without a PhD-level background in the particular area is insufficient.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand most of my papers, and, likewise, I wouldn't understand most papers in climate science, even though I have undergrad background in some of the underlying disciplines.  That's why since the very beginning of this thread I have been pointing out the ludicrousness of non-experts arguing about the science aspect of global warming

This is just an attempt at gate-keeping to try to delegitimize criticism of science by non-experts.  Yes there are highly technical aspects that will be beyond most of us, but the general findings and significance are usually accessible, or can be with some time & effort spent.  Climate science has many areas of study, and someone with expertise in ocean circulation doesn't necessarily have any special knowledge of the atmosphere or cryosphere or paleoclimate or whatever.  And even credentialed peer reviewers miss errors at times.  It's like the meme "don't confuse your Google search with my medical degree."  Yeah point taken, but at the same time it's not that hard for a scientifically literate person to know a lot more about a specific medical issue than a lot of MDs do who don't specialize in that area.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7718 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
  Top

seeker
PostThu Jul 18, 2019 1:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I've read a lot of peer reviewed papers (and  have  no PhD...) on multiple topics and yes there are some problems with some of them that  are apparent to me (which other publishing experts in the relevant field agreed  were issues), but there  are other things  that  seemed like problems to me that I've  subsequently had satisfactorily explained to me by a publishing expert in the field. So I think there's truth in what  both of you are  saying there,  fwiw

But to be clear, in most of them there were also  details that  were way beyond my depth in the topic which were impenetrable by me. But usually I can read an abstract and conclusion and have a decent  idea of the import of the paper, assuming that  the  details hold water  for experts in the field (which is what I'm rarely a great judge of). Not always. But  usually.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 318 | TRs

Gregory
  Top

Member
PostFri Jul 19, 2019 7:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
So, Bill Nye, the science guy does not know what he is ranting about after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday marzsit, NacMacFeegle!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy