Page 7 of 41
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:11 am
by doubtingthomas
Cultellus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:09 am
doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:46 am
So did you change your mind?
No. But I see the point.
What would make you change your mind?
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:46 am
by Gunnar
Cultellus post_id[quote=Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 9:36 pm
I would wager that if any of the homeowners of those houses sold them today, the banks would offer a 30-year mortgage to the buyer and they would be able to get insurance. The money is on Atlanticmike in this wager. I would be long Mike and short Alf.
Does that include the houses that are already being moved farther from the shore due to rising sea level as shown in that
National Geographic article upthread?
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 7:25 am
by Alf'Omega
Who gives a crap how soon the coastline will be completely flooded? If you understand the science, then you know it is inevitable at our current pace of producing greenhouse gases. Idiots like AM and Cult think they're in a great position to argue that yes, climate change is real, "but so what"? Ten years ago I couldn't find a single Republican admit this much. The science is changing minds, slowly but surely. Prideful cult members like AM and Cult just like to spin it in a way to diss the Left when in reality they're just forced to agree the Left was right all along. Climate change is real, it is happening because of human irresponsibility, and the results could be catastrophic at some point. But they're gloating because no one can say the exact day or month or year bad things will happen. Perhaps the biggest thing they don't get is how important it is to make meaningful changes NOW so the worst case scenarios don't happen at all, whether it be 10 years or 200 years from now. In the year 2450, history will look back on these past few generations as the ones that ruined the planet. This is the time science has identified the problem. This is the time humans can decide to do something about it. But leave it to damned Republicans to embarrass the human race. First with their "antivax" denialism, and also their similar stupidity with climate change.
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:03 am
by Chap
I posted the material below on the first page of the thread.
The point is clear. See levels are rising, and are going to rise a lot quicker than previously predicted.
Basically, there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world whose ways of life, and in many cases lives will be in deep jeopardy from flooding as the current century moves forwards. As lots of residents of low-lying coastal areas in the US know, that is already happening.
We made that happen, and we are continuing to make it worse by continuing to burn large amounts of fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. In that context, the precise date when A-m will have to choose another surfing resort is deeply, deeply insignificant, and utterly without interest to anybody with a rational sense of priorities.
Chap wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 2:41 pm
Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:31 pm
So I live on the east coast, could you tell me when all the beach houses where I live will be submerged? I've been surfing and fishing on the same beach for 40 years and nothing has changed so far. Will all the millionaires need to sale these million dollar homes in the next year, ten years, 50 years? I mean, you guys say the scientist can predict what's going to happen in 50 to 100 years, correct?
You may find this article interesting:
This is an open-access article from a highly rested peer-review journal.
TL;DR: Things look worse than previously thought. A lot of people are going to get their feet wet (and that's when they are standing on the the roofs of their houses, and if carbon emissions are on the low side).
New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding
Scott A. Kulp & Benjamin H. Strauss
Nature Communications volume 10, Article number: 4844 (2019)
Abstract
Most estimates of global mean sea-level rise this century fall below 2 m. This quantity is comparable to the positive vertical bias of the principle digital elevation model (DEM) used to assess global and national population exposures to extreme coastal water levels, NASA’s SRTM. CoastalDEM is a new DEM utilizing neural networks to reduce SRTM error. Here we show – employing CoastalDEM—that 190 M people (150–250 M, 90% CI) currently occupy global land below projected high tide lines for 2100 under low carbon emissions, up from 110 M today, for a median increase of 80 M. These figures triple SRTM-based values. Under high emissions, CoastalDEM indicates up to 630 M people live on land below projected annual flood levels for 2100, and up to 340 M for mid-century, versus roughly 250 M at present. We estimate one billion people now occupy land less than 10 m above current high tide lines, including 230 M below 1 m.
This is from the Discussion:
The levees, seawalls and other defenses and accommodations currently protecting tens or hundreds of millions of coastal-area residents globally point to the potential for protecting ever-larger areas as seas rise. At the same time, current coastal defenses should not be assumed adequate to protect against future sea levels and storms without continued maintenance and, likely, enhancement. These countervailing possibilities point to the merits of reporting results based both on total ECWL exposure and on marginal increases in exposure from the contemporary baseline. Total exposure recognizes the potential vulnerability of all populations on low-lying coastal lands as sea levels rise. Marginal exposure highlights new populations of concern, while leaving out populations in areas that may be defended at present, and thus may be more likely to be defended in the future.
Even in light of the limitations identified, this research, using a significantly improved model of coastal elevations, provides new best estimates of the vulnerability of populated low-lying areas to rising oceans at global and national scales. Reliability increases with the size of the area evaluated, and with the water level considered; thus, global assessments for end-of-century sea levels and floods, under high sea-level scenarios, should be considered most robust. Analysis reveals a developed global coastline three times more exposed to extreme coastal water levels than previously thought. Even with low carbon emissions and stable Antarctic ice sheets, leading to optimistically low future sea levels, we find that the global impacts of sea-level rise and coastal flooding this century will likely be far greater than indicated by the most pessimistic past analyses relying on SRTM. These results point to great need for the development and public release of improved terrain elevation datasets for coastal areas, for example via the high-resolution imagery and lidar point clouds increasingly collected by satellite today. There is also great need for improved population data; data on the location, height and condition of coastal-area levees and seawalls; and improved global sea-level and tidal models.
If our findings stand, coastal communities worldwide must prepare themselves for much more difficult futures than may be currently anticipated. Recent work has suggested that, even in the US, sea-level rise this century may induce large-scale migration away from unprotected coastlines, redistributing population density across the country and putting great pressure on inland areas60. It is difficult to extrapolate such projections and their impacts to more resource-constrained developing nations, though historically, large-scale migration events have posed serious challenges to political stability, driving conflict61. Further research on global-scale modeling of the timing, locations, and intensity of migratory responses to increased coastal flooding is urgently needed to minimize the potential human harm caused by such threats.
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:22 am
by Atlanticmike
Chap wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:03 am
I posted the material below on the first page of the thread.
The point is clear. See levels are rising, and are going to rise a lot quicker than previously predicted.
Basically, there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world whose ways of life, and in many cases lives will be in deep jeopardy from flooding as the current century moves forwards. As lots of residents of low-lying coastal areas in the US know, that is already happening.
We made that happen, and we are continuing to make it worse by continuing to burn large amounts of fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. In that context, the precise date when A-m will have to choose another surfing resort is deeply, deeply insignificant, and utterly without interest to anybody with a rational sense of priorities.
Chap wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 2:41 pm
You may find this article interesting:
This is an open-access article from a highly rested peer-review journal.
TL;DR: Things look worse than previously thought. A lot of people are going to get their feet wet (and that's when they are standing on the the roofs of their houses, and if carbon emissions are on the low side).
New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding
Scott A. Kulp & Benjamin H. Strauss
Nature Communications volume 10, Article number: 4844 (2019)
This is from the Discussion:
When I read what you wrote, I feel sad for you. You seem so convinced that you know exactly what's going to happen fifty years from now. I'm telling you, you don't!! Here are the facts. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have detailed temperature data for the past 140 years basically. That's nothing!! From written record we know there was a mid evil warming period followed by a regional cooling period that we call the little ice age. The Earth has been warming since then and we have helped it warm from our activity here on Earth for the past century. Global warming is going to be beneficial to a growing global population. For some reason you're scared of global warming. What if it was the reverse. What if we were talking about a colder climate that would bring on really harsh winter's and shorter growing periods for farmers? Would that worry you? If so, if you are worried about global warming, and if you would be equally worried about the reverse, global cooling, then you're one of those people who make a perfect cult member because no matter what the Prophets say, you're going to believe.
The climate cult you are part of is 1000 times worse then Mormonism could ever imagine being. If you think the cult mentality is only found in religion then you're sadly mistaken. I hope and pray that you live long enough to wake up one day and realize what I'm trying to explain to you.
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:07 pm
by Chap
Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:22 am
When I read what you wrote, I feel sad for you. You seem so convinced that you know exactly what's going to happen fifty years from now. I'm telling you, you don't!! Here are the facts. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have detailed temperature data for the past 140 years basically. That's nothing!! From written record we know there was a mid evil warming period followed by a regional cooling period that we call the little ice age. The Earth has been warming since then and we have helped it warm from our activity here on Earth for the past century. Global warming is going to be beneficial to a growing global population. For some reason you're scared of global warming. What if it was the reverse. What if we were talking about a colder climate that would bring on really harsh winter's and shorter growing periods for farmers? Would that worry you? If so, if you are worried about global warming, and if you would be equally worried about the reverse, global cooling, then you're one of those people who make a perfect cult member because no matter what the Prophets say, you're going to believe.
The climate cult you are part of is 1000 times worse then Mormonism could ever imagine being. If you think the cult mentality is only found in religion then you're sadly mistaken. I hope and pray that you live long enough to wake up one day and realize what I'm trying to explain to you.
Hmm. Let's think. I spent years of my life on getting a scientific education ... all that calculus, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, a dose of quantum physics and all that. Eventually was lucky enough to move into an environment where I met leading scientists on a daily basis, and came to know some personally. I know what moves professional scientists, how they deal with problems, what their ethics are. I read the scientific news regularly, and when things interest me I dig deeper by reading the reviews and sometimes research papers in
Nature,
Science and other journals, which I have the privilege of reading free. All the data and analysis I see there points inexorably to the fact that the world has got hotter as a result of the huge CO2 output to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and is on course to get hotter and hotter.
But wait! This guy who runs a roofing company* (did I get that right?) tells me all that stuff is wrong - it's just a cult.
What do I go with? The physics I have tested for myself about the sun's radiation and what it does when it arrives at the surface of a planet? The professional scientists who spend their lives on this stuff, and openly offer their evidence and argument for ruthless criticism? Or the roofing guy? It's so hard to decide.
Such a hard, hard decision.
*For the avoidance of doubt - running a roofing company is an honourable way of life, worthy of respect. That's the kind of thing my dad did, and without roofers we would be in deep trouble. They are OK people.
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:41 pm
by Lem
Chap wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:07 pm
Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:22 am
When I read what you wrote, I feel sad for you. You seem so convinced that you know exactly what's going to happen fifty years from now. I'm telling you, you don't!! Here are the facts. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have detailed temperature data for the past 140 years basically. That's nothing!! From written record we know there was a mid evil warming period followed by a regional cooling period that we call the little ice age. The Earth has been warming since then and we have helped it warm from our activity here on Earth for the past century. Global warming is going to be beneficial to a growing global population. For some reason you're scared of global warming. What if it was the reverse. What if we were talking about a colder climate that would bring on really harsh winter's and shorter growing periods for farmers? Would that worry you? If so, if you are worried about global warming, and if you would be equally worried about the reverse, global cooling, then you're one of those people who make a perfect cult member because no matter what the Prophets say, you're going to believe.
The climate cult you are part of is 1000 times worse then Mormonism could ever imagine being. If you think the cult mentality is only found in religion then you're sadly mistaken. I hope and pray that you live long enough to wake up one day and realize what I'm trying to explain to you.
Hmm. Let's think. I spent years of my life on getting a scientific education ... all that calculus, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, a dose of quantum physics and all that. Eventually was lucky enough to move into an environment where I met leading scientists on a daily basis, and came to know some personally. I know what moves professional scientists, how they deal with problems, what their ethics are. I read the scientific news regularly, and when things interest me I dig deeper by reading the reviews and sometimes research papers in
Nature,
Science and other journals, which I have the privilege of reading free. All the data and analysis I see there points inexorably to the fact that the world has got hotter as a result of the huge CO2 output to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and is on course to get hotter and hotter.
But wait! This guy who runs a roofing company* (did I get that right?) tells me all that stuff is wrong - it's just a cult.
What do I go with? The physics I have tested for myself about the sun's radiation and what it does when it arrives at the surface of a planet? The professional scientists who spend their lives on this stuff, and openly offer their evidence and argument for ruthless criticism? Or the roofing guy? It's so hard to decide.
Such a hard, hard decision.
*For the avoidance of doubt - running a roofing company is an honourable way of life, worthy of respect. That's the kind of thing my dad did, and without roofers we would be in deep trouble. They are OK people.
Such a hard decision indeed. [we need an eye rolling emoji where the eyes actually roll so far they pop out and the face has to go chase them as they roll away like marbles... Just saying.]
One silver lining of your quote of A-mike is seeing this:
…there was a mid evil warming period….
Does that mean we’re in a high- evil warming period now?
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:14 pm
by Gadianton
For what it worth, I have been thinking about this very idea. I haven't landed anywhere at this point, just thinking about it.
If nothing else, it's at least an interesting statement, in my opinion.
Is it really that interesting? Is there anything easier or more obvious than believing those who disagree with you do so only for political or religious reasons? It's like the go-to plot for B sci-fi. I realize I myself have accused A-Mike of getting his Ideas for Rush, but, that's pretty easy for him to prove incorrect, all he has to do is start linking sources. I won't hold my breath.
Let me give you a hypothetical example. Jehovah's Witnesses have taken some flack for their position on blood transfusions. My right-wing friend who denies climate change emphatically will bring this up from time to time, even though he wouldn't be able to tell you his own blood type. I doubt he even really knows what blood is. There aren't that many Jehovah's Witnesses out there and transfusions are rare enough that it's not a big news headline. But suppose that were to change. Suppose a growing social media crowd of transfusion deniers were to arise along with supporting government conspiracies and deaths followed. Invariably, whatever political or religious affiliations correlate with the new movement, people on the opposing side will laugh at it and mock it, and the derision of many of those will be fueled entirely by politics. But that would not mean that clear science about blood did not exist.
It doesn't matter if every online forum you visit makes you feel unwelcome and gives you the impression that the political left is only in it for political reasons. Even if 80% of liberals are just spouting politics, that doesn't mean there isn't a such thing as climate science. There are many subjects out there with a thick political layer, but not so thick that a little work can't get you past that. Like the anti-vaxx stuff from Cultellus and Hades, so far we're not seeing any sources at all that go against climate change. Surely, there's a conservative think tank out there with the veneer of credibility that has something to say about it?
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:25 pm
by Res Ipsa
Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:22 am
Chap wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:03 am
I posted the material below on the first page of the thread.
The point is clear. See levels are rising, and are going to rise a lot quicker than previously predicted.
Basically, there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world whose ways of life, and in many cases lives will be in deep jeopardy from flooding as the current century moves forwards. As lots of residents of low-lying coastal areas in the US know, that is already happening.
We made that happen, and we are continuing to make it worse by continuing to burn large amounts of fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. In that context, the precise date when A-m will have to choose another surfing resort is deeply, deeply insignificant, and utterly without interest to anybody with a rational sense of priorities.
When I read what you wrote, I feel sad for you. You seem so convinced that you know exactly what's going to happen fifty years from now. I'm telling you, you don't!! Here are the facts. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have detailed temperature data for the past 140 years basically. That's nothing!! From written record we know there was a mid evil warming period followed by a regional cooling period that we call the little ice age. The Earth has been warming since then and we have helped it warm from our activity here on Earth for the past century. Global warming is going to be beneficial to a growing global population. For some reason you're scared of global warming. What if it was the reverse. What if we were talking about a colder climate that would bring on really harsh winter's and shorter growing periods for farmers? Would that worry you? If so, if you are worried about global warming, and if you would be equally worried about the reverse, global cooling, then you're one of those people who make a perfect cult member because no matter what the Prophets say, you're going to believe.
The climate cult you are part of is 1000 times worse then Mormonism could ever imagine being. If you think the cult mentality is only found in religion then you're sadly mistaken. I hope and pray that you live long enough to wake up one day and realize what I'm trying to explain to you.
One sign of being in a cult is the repeating of the same phrases over and over despite the fact that the phrases are false. And that’s what Atlantic Mike is doing. Why is he obsessed with describing groups of people he doesn’t like as “cults?” Because that lets him dismiss huge amounts of evidence without ever grappling with them to figure out what they mean. It’s also projection. He’s a member of a political cult and, as a result, sees everything he doesn’t like as political.
His statement about the length of the temperature record ignores evidence that allows scientists to reconstruct global temperatures back hundreds of thousands of years That evidence has been around for decades. Why does Mike reject it?
He states that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. But so what? The important time frame for us is the period time during which there have been humans and, more importantly, during which human civilization has developed. We built our civilization during a period of remarkably stable climactic period, and it was built with an assumption of continued stability.
He rejects the mountain of evidence that the so-called medieval warming period was regional, not a global phenomenon, and that we’ve already exceeded the global temperature for that period. But worst of all, he talks about global temperature changes as if they were magic—that they just happen for no reason.
But that’s not what the evidence says. The atmosphere is a physical system. It is subject to physical laws that connect cause to effect. And part of those laws is that if we keep dumping enormous quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, the temperature of the atmosphere must increase, the oceans must become more acidic, and sea level must continue to rise. It’s just math.
Finally, he keeps repeating his mantra that warming will be better, reciting a couple of positive effects we expect of food crops while completely ignoring the negative effects that are expected to predominate. He continues to do this even after being presented with evidence.
This is a cult mentality — rejection of the evidence based on the cult dogma that government is bad and will take away our freedom. No wonder he sees cults everywhere. When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:38 pm
by Alf'Omega
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:25 pm
One sign of being in a cult is the repeating of the same phrases over and over despite the fact that the phrases are false. And that’s what Atlantic Mike is doing. Why is he obsessed with describing groups of people he doesn’t like as “cults?” Because that lets him dismiss huge amounts of evidence without ever grappling with them to figure out what they mean.
It’s also projection. He’s a member of a political cult and, as a result, sees everything he doesn’t like as political.
Nailed it. Projection appears to be the first defense mechanism among Right Wing religious types. The examples are numerous. Claim to care about law and order, but then embrace politicians who've engaged in the most criminal activity. Claim to care about lives of children, but then support policies that kill them. Embrace sources that are fake news, but then claim all sources contradicting your beliefs to be fake news. This is all very much like the Mormon's defense mechanism of calling everything "anti-Mormon" as if that is supposed to negate the information that refutes a religious premise. The first job of any cult is to convince the sheep that everyone else is lying to them.
He states that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. But so what? The important time frame for us is the period time during which there have been humans and, more importantly, during which human civilization has developed. We built our civilization during a period of remarkably stable climactic period, and it was built with an assumption of continued stability.
Precisely. Who cares if the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago when the issue before us is climate? The earth likely didn't even have an atmosphere for a billion years and no breathable oxygen to sustain human life until about 400 million years ago.
But worst of all, he talks about global temperature changes as if they were magic—that they just happen for no reason.
Kind of like COVID miraculously going away before Easter 2020.