CSNbbs

(03-28-2019 10:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 09:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

From NASA's website: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

OO... where do you fall on your GW not being 100% man-caused? Like mostly man-caused or mostly not-man-caused? I'm genuinely curious. It's hard to for me to fathom fighting the massive tide of climate scientists' near-consensus opinion.

Doesn't really matter.

I fall on the side of it not being 100% man-caused. Because if it is less than 100% man-caused it cannot be fully reversed by correcting men's actions. In any case, we cannot correct every human contribution anyway. So if, just picking a number out of the air, if GW is 80% man-caused, and we can correct/reverse 80% of that, ,8 x .8 = .64 corrected, then we are still going to get a warmer globe, just not as fast as if we did less. AND, if the globe is going to continue to warm despite our best efforts, best to prepare for a warmer globe.

So for percentages of man-cause AND man-correctable less than 100%, we are going to continue to warm.

I do not disagree that Earth is warming, as it has done many times in the past. I just do not believe there is any good reason to assume that man is 100% responsible. Even if that was so, I also do not think man can coorect 100% of his influence.

So, IMO, the Earth will continue to warm, despite our best efforts. let's get ready.

97%

glacial and interglacial periods

Glacial periods are caused by global cooling. Interglacial periods are caused by global warming. Duh. Been happening for eons. Maybe you and/or the 97% can present the evidence that it is NOT happening now. Because a determination that it is 100% due to man is also a determination that it is 0% nature.

I’m not sure why this matters. We’re clearly exacerbating the issue, so we should modify our behavior to reduce that. You wouldn’t tell a smoker going through chemo to keep smoking because sometimes people get cancer regardless of a smoking habit.

Also, almost all agreements, bills, etc that focus on cutting emissions to battle climate change also include a focus on climate adaptation, mitigation, etc. Even the Paris Climate Accord focuses on adaptation. So while you may not agree with the attempts to curtail emissions, it sounds like you support the mitigation efforts that have been proposed?

(03-28-2019 10:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 09:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]In any case, from the git-go, I disputed (a) that GW was 100% man-caused and that it was (b) 100% man-reversible. I made thye point that a few hundred years ago, if sea levels rose, people just moved the camp back a few feet, but now we had built up the coast, and the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible. Looks like it is happening for them.

Of course, when I said these things, I was called all sorts of names, the nicest of which was climate change denier.

From NASA's website: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

OO... where do you fall on your GW not being 100% man-caused? Like mostly man-caused or mostly not-man-caused? I'm genuinely curious. It's hard to for me to fathom fighting the massive tide of climate scientists' near-consensus opinion.

Doesn't really matter.

I fall on the side of it not being 100% man-caused. Because if it is less than 100% man-caused it cannot be fully reversed by correcting men's actions. In any case, we cannot correct every human contribution anyway. So if, just picking a number out of the air, if GW is 80% man-caused, and we can correct/reverse 80% of that, ,8 x .8 = .64 corrected, then we are still going to get a warmer globe, just not as fast as if we did less. AND, if the globe is going to continue to warm despite our best efforts, best to prepare for a warmer globe.

So for percentages of man-cause AND man-correctable less than 100%, we are going to continue to warm.

I do not disagree that Earth is warming, as it has done many times in the past. I just do not believe there is any good reason to assume that man is 100% responsible. Even if that was so, I also do not think man can coorect 100% of his influence.

So, IMO, the Earth will continue to warm, despite our best efforts. let's get ready.

97%

glacial and interglacial periods

Glacial periods are caused by global cooling. Interglacial periods are caused by global warming. Duh. Been happening for eons. Maybe you and/or the 97% can present the evidence that it is NOT happening now. Because a determination that it is 100% due to man is also a determination that it is 0% nature.

So it is your opinion that man has not caused 100% of the current elevation of global temperatures? I'm pretty sure that most everyone agrees with this.

You also contend that GW cannot be 100% reversible? You remain in step with... um... literally everybody?

You don't come out and say whether or not you agree with attempts to limit/reverse "man-caused" alterations to our climate. I'm guessing no? Your point seems to be that it's getting warmer and our best option is to direct efforts towards dealing with this fact and not looking to reverse it? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

You do know that there is a massive difference between a temperature elevation of 0.1 degree and 1.5 degrees? I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't want to do what can be done to limit this impending problem? Do you think that none of the proposed efforts have any chance of having an effect?

(03-29-2019 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 10:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]If a SJW is someone who clearly states that climate change will have an adverse affect on both rich and poor - then call me a SJW all you want. I’ll definitely wear it with pride.

But I don’t understand - what about OO’s position don’t I like? Can you explain that to me?

The fact that you are combining your umbrage over climate change with an additional chance to spark umbrage over class distinction must make you 'extra special good' today.

Cmon man, I think that if you put your mind to it you could find a racial distinction avenue to add to it...... make it a trifecta.....

I would *pay* to see that turn come in this line..... lolz.

I am still chuckling that the moral preening of 'only two cities' (combined with the preaching of 'a bunch of rich people', to boot) found its way into your response.

My entire point was that OO was seemingly trying to make this an issue that only affected liberal elites. I wanted to make it clear that climate change will affect liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, black, white. It isn’t an issue that just two cities should care about.

I see you found another "only" I didn't say. You are blaming me for your misperception and lack of understanding.

Why did I choose those two? Came to mind first. I guess I could have chosen Kennebunkport, ME, and Cancun. Or Sydney and Anchorage. Or all of them. Then you would be upset and demanding to ask why I chose those six, and not others.

I was not saying poor people would be unaffected. I was saying that rich people with a lot at stake can get action from politicians where poor people cannot. when a six or seven figure donor calls, they listen. The people who own the facilities in ports are not poor.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to point the fingers at me that you are pointing. You have to assume that I do not know that sea levels will rise everywhere. How stupid you must consider me to think that. You have to assume I don't know that all sorts of people will be affected, from Aleuts in Alaska to people on StMaarten and in South Africa.. How ignorant you must think of me to assume i don't know that. You have to assume I don't know that affected people will range from the very poorest to the very richest. I think you are making these assumptions to create a straw man that you can argue against. I cannot believe you would think I don't know the behavior of water. So you have to invent somebody who doesn't understand the nature of water and doesn't know that not all people on the coast are rich. I guess you think I need custodial care. You just cannot keep from insulting me. Liberal use of the "only" vision you possess must help.

Well heck, this is the first time I’ve heard you articulate this viewpoint. I didn’t realize we both were on the same page regarding the impact of sea level rise and how serious of an issue it will be in the future.

And I’m sorry if I underestimated your experience and understanding of hydrology/hydraulics, global climate change modeling, and coastal risk. These are fairly complex topics that lots of people struggle with understanding, so when it appeared as if you were only focusing on the idea that sea level rise was going to affect wealthy beach front property owners, I didn’t think you had a good grasp on the severity of the situation. It is not just as simple as “knowing how water works,” but mea culpa.

Since we both agree that sea level rise will be a significant threat in the future, what are your thoughts on mitigating the threat? Do you envision private industry leading the charge? Or do you believe that government entities will play the largest role in developing actionable plans?

lad, one of the major problems is that no one, literally no one, can articulate with any specificity, let alone predictability, *what* even a set amount of CO2 will do when released.

The base level physics show to *some* degree, in controlled lab situations, what the thermal response is across some wavelengths of heat radiation from CO2. So no one does argue that CO2 acts as a thermal shield.

Moving that to a much more complex system, to be blunt, the predictability of pretty much all the issues is pretty much no more than a wild ass guess. The majority of the climate scientists basically fudge the wildly chaotic nature of the system (aerosols, clod formation, water heat transfer, etc.) into a single 'forcing' or 'sensitivity' parameter, that until 2011 or so, they simply tuned up or down to 'best fit' the data. The problem with that, is that when you compare the basic scientific tenets of repeatability and predictability to that methodology, it completely kind of tosses them out the window.

Further, the forcing factors and their impacts run the gamut across the research. You toss 100 climate scientists into a room, no two of them will agree on the 'major forcings' or their impacts in the slightest. And, to great extent until 2008, they pretty much ignored water vapor in that regard.

On top of it, they really havent bolstered their impact amongst critics with the operational problems of: a) the British weather service fiasco; b) the unearthing of the Climategate memos and emails detailing the active squelching of contrary views in the literature; c) the refusal of prominent climaatistas in the pre 2007 world to bother to release code, data, or otherwise even engage in debate on their findings; d) the 'stitching' of disparate data in the hockey-stick and the adamant refusal to acknowledge that; e) an ongoing adamant refusal to debate the veracity of 'proxy-studies'; f) the standard of smearing any 'skeptic' within the community (see Roger Pielke Jr., Lindzen, Bengstonn)

So some of the answers to your questions:

Is man putting more long-cycle CO2 into the air: yes.
Is this CO2 staying in the air: yes.
Is this CO2 contributing to a larger warming effect: yes.

Is CO2 the only 'driver' in the warming: not in the slightest.
Is CO2 the major driver in the warming: probably not -- remains to be seen.

Have the effects of feedbacks been properly accounted for: most likely not, considering the 20 year ongoing continuous addition and reassessment

Are there natural heat drivers being added: undoubtedly yes.

What are the effects on carbon uptake by warmer climates (i.e. warm == faster plant growth and carbon sequesteration): hasnt really even been considered.

Have the current heat-balance equations/models taken into account in any form able to be predicted: not in the slightest; to be blunt, when the models actually cannot be used for repeatability or predictability purposes, or even give in *any* specifics what the effect of a set amount of CO2 will be in even a short time frame of 5 years, it is really hard to take them in any way as scientific evidence.

Based on the previous question, are the models 'wrong": uncertain.

So when you beat the drum of weather change effects, you are really beating a drum that really has no specificity attached to it, nor any predictability attached to it.

When you choose to attack someone for the horrible action of stating two cities, then rip at that like a dog on a bone going after marrow because of 'class issues' -- it really detracts from your 'climate change' direction and actually transforms what could be a valid climate change issue into a pathetic prototypical progressive-style rant where everything is based on social class, race or some combination of both.

I think most here will engage you with a rational discussion of climate change, but when you start charging down the 'social class' issue ('forcing' it actually, which is a pretty good term considering its use in the climate sense, and actually forcing it in a rather idiotic manner, might I add), it kind of brings an SJW air to it. Do you really want that? Your choice. If you do, I will tell you right here and now all you will do is detract from any rational point that you want to make about climate change (in the parlance, a 'negative forcing').

btw: am out for the next couple of days getting a water well drilled near Fredericksburg, so I am not ignoring this, just pretty much in a place that literally has zero contact.

(03-29-2019 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 10:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that you are combining your umbrage over climate change with an additional chance to spark umbrage over class distinction must make you 'extra special good' today.

Cmon man, I think that if you put your mind to it you could find a racial distinction avenue to add to it...... make it a trifecta.....

I would *pay* to see that turn come in this line..... lolz.

I am still chuckling that the moral preening of 'only two cities' (combined with the preaching of 'a bunch of rich people', to boot) found its way into your response.

My entire point was that OO was seemingly trying to make this an issue that only affected liberal elites. I wanted to make it clear that climate change will affect liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, black, white. It isn’t an issue that just two cities should care about.

I see you found another "only" I didn't say. You are blaming me for your misperception and lack of understanding.

Why did I choose those two? Came to mind first. I guess I could have chosen Kennebunkport, ME, and Cancun. Or Sydney and Anchorage. Or all of them. Then you would be upset and demanding to ask why I chose those six, and not others.

I was not saying poor people would be unaffected. I was saying that rich people with a lot at stake can get action from politicians where poor people cannot. when a six or seven figure donor calls, they listen. The people who own the facilities in ports are not poor.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to point the fingers at me that you are pointing. You have to assume that I do not know that sea levels will rise everywhere. How stupid you must consider me to think that. You have to assume I don't know that all sorts of people will be affected, from Aleuts in Alaska to people on StMaarten and in South Africa.. How ignorant you must think of me to assume i don't know that. You have to assume I don't know that affected people will range from the very poorest to the very richest. I think you are making these assumptions to create a straw man that you can argue against. I cannot believe you would think I don't know the behavior of water. So you have to invent somebody who doesn't understand the nature of water and doesn't know that not all people on the coast are rich. I guess you think I need custodial care. You just cannot keep from insulting me. Liberal use of the "only" vision you possess must help.

Well heck, this is the first time I’ve heard you articulate this viewpoint. I didn’t realize we both were on the same page regarding the impact of sea level rise and how serious of an issue it will be in the future.

And I’m sorry if I underestimated your experience and understanding of hydrology/hydraulics, global climate change modeling, and coastal risk. These are fairly complex topics that lots of people struggle with understanding, so when it appeared as if you were only focusing on the idea that sea level rise was going to affect wealthy beach front property owners, I didn’t think you had a good grasp on the severity of the situation. It is not just as simple as “knowing how water works,” but mea culpa.

Since we both agree that sea level rise will be a significant threat in the future, what are your thoughts on mitigating the threat? Do you envision private industry leading the charge? Or do you believe that government entities will play the largest role in developing actionable plans?

lad, one of the major problems is that no one, literally no one, can articulate with any specificity, let alone predictability, *what* even a set amount of CO2 will do when released.

The base level physics show to *some* degree, in controlled lab situations, what the thermal response is across some wavelengths of heat radiation from CO2. So no one does argue that CO2 acts as a thermal shield.

Moving that to a much more complex system, to be blunt, the predictability of pretty much all the issues is pretty much no more than a wild ass guess. The majority of the climate scientists basically fudge the wildly chaotic nature of the system (aerosols, clod formation, water heat transfer, etc.) into a single 'forcing' or 'sensitivity' parameter, that until 2011 or so, they simply tuned up or down to 'best fit' the data. The problem with that, is that when you compare the basic scientific tenets of repeatability and predictability to that methodology, it completely kind of tosses them out the window.

Further, the forcing factors and their impacts run the gamut across the research. You toss 100 climate scientists into a room, no two of them will agree on the 'major forcings' or their impacts in the slightest. And, to great extent until 2008, they pretty much ignored water vapor in that regard.

On top of it, they really havent bolstered their impact amongst critics with the operational problems of: a) the British weather service fiasco; b) the unearthing of the Climategate memos and emails detailing the active squelching of contrary views in the literature; c) the refusal of prominent climaatistas in the pre 2007 world to bother to release code, data, or otherwise even engage in debate on their findings; d) the 'stitching' of disparate data in the hockey-stick and the adamant refusal to acknowledge that; e) an ongoing adamant refusal to debate the veracity of 'proxy-studies'; f) the standard of smearing any 'skeptic' within the community (see Roger Pielke Jr., Lindzen, Bengstonn)

So some of the answers to your questions:

Is man putting more long-cycle CO2 into the air: yes.
Is this CO2 staying in the air: yes.
Is this CO2 contributing to a larger warming effect: yes.

Is CO2 the only 'driver' in the warming: not in the slightest.
Is CO2 the major driver in the warming: probably not -- remains to be seen.

Have the effects of feedbacks been properly accounted for: most likely not, considering the 20 year ongoing continuous addition and reassessment

Are there natural heat drivers being added: undoubtedly yes.

What are the effects on carbon uptake by warmer climates (i.e. warm == faster plant growth and carbon sequesteration): hasnt really even been considered.

Have the current heat-balance equations/models taken into account in any form able to be predicted: not in the slightest; to be blunt, when the models actually cannot be used for repeatability or predictability purposes, or even give in *any* specifics what the effect of a set amount of CO2 will be in even a short time frame of 5 years, it is really hard to take them in any way as scientific evidence.

Based on the previous question, are the models 'wrong": uncertain.

So when you beat the drum of weather change effects, you are really beating a drum that really has no specificity attached to it, nor any predictability attached to it.

When you choose to attack someone for the horrible action of stating two cities, then rip at that like a dog on a bone going after marrow because of 'class issues' -- it really detracts from your 'climate change' direction and actually transforms what could be a valid climate change issue into a pathetic prototypical progressive-style rant where everything is based on social class, race or some combination of both.

I think most here will engage you with a rational discussion of climate change, but when you start charging down the 'social class' issue ('forcing' it actually, which is a pretty good term considering its use in the climate sense, and actually forcing it in a rather idiotic manner, might I add), it kind of brings an SJW air to it. Do you really want that? Your choice. If you do, I will tell you right here and now all you will do is detract from any rational point that you want to make about climate change (in the parlance, a 'negative forcing').

btw: am out for the next couple of days getting a water well drilled near Fredericksburg, so I am not ignoring this, just pretty much in a place that literally has zero contact.

Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

Finally, you can try and chastise me all you want for trying to make sure we were all on the same page that sea level rise will affect people of all socio-economic statuses, go for it. It's your prerogative. But for some reason, in every response OO had, he focused on issues affecting the wealthy - he called out "the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible" and also said "and it is hard to move port facilities now. And who owns port facilities? Not poor people." It took like 10 posts to finally get to a point where OO wasn't talking about mitigating sea level rise with respect to just the wealthy.

And even then, I still don't get what his point is, other than that the wealthy are more connected and maybe can make a phone call to influence legislation.

I find it odd that pointing out how wide of an effect that sea level rise will have is a negative forcing. I keep hearing how conservatives are mad how liberals only care about groups X, Y, and Z, and then I get bashed for pointing out that sea level rise knows no groups, and that is a major reason as to why it is such serious issue to deal with. I thought the liberals were supposed to be the ones who needed to care about more people...

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 10:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]My entire point was that OO was seemingly trying to make this an issue that only affected liberal elites. I wanted to make it clear that climate change will affect liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, black, white. It isn’t an issue that just two cities should care about.

I see you found another "only" I didn't say. You are blaming me for your misperception and lack of understanding.

Why did I choose those two? Came to mind first. I guess I could have chosen Kennebunkport, ME, and Cancun. Or Sydney and Anchorage. Or all of them. Then you would be upset and demanding to ask why I chose those six, and not others.

I was not saying poor people would be unaffected. I was saying that rich people with a lot at stake can get action from politicians where poor people cannot. when a six or seven figure donor calls, they listen. The people who own the facilities in ports are not poor.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to point the fingers at me that you are pointing. You have to assume that I do not know that sea levels will rise everywhere. How stupid you must consider me to think that. You have to assume I don't know that all sorts of people will be affected, from Aleuts in Alaska to people on StMaarten and in South Africa.. How ignorant you must think of me to assume i don't know that. You have to assume I don't know that affected people will range from the very poorest to the very richest. I think you are making these assumptions to create a straw man that you can argue against. I cannot believe you would think I don't know the behavior of water. So you have to invent somebody who doesn't understand the nature of water and doesn't know that not all people on the coast are rich. I guess you think I need custodial care. You just cannot keep from insulting me. Liberal use of the "only" vision you possess must help.

Well heck, this is the first time I’ve heard you articulate this viewpoint. I didn’t realize we both were on the same page regarding the impact of sea level rise and how serious of an issue it will be in the future.

And I’m sorry if I underestimated your experience and understanding of hydrology/hydraulics, global climate change modeling, and coastal risk. These are fairly complex topics that lots of people struggle with understanding, so when it appeared as if you were only focusing on the idea that sea level rise was going to affect wealthy beach front property owners, I didn’t think you had a good grasp on the severity of the situation. It is not just as simple as “knowing how water works,” but mea culpa.

Since we both agree that sea level rise will be a significant threat in the future, what are your thoughts on mitigating the threat? Do you envision private industry leading the charge? Or do you believe that government entities will play the largest role in developing actionable plans?

lad, one of the major problems is that no one, literally no one, can articulate with any specificity, let alone predictability, *what* even a set amount of CO2 will do when released.

The base level physics show to *some* degree, in controlled lab situations, what the thermal response is across some wavelengths of heat radiation from CO2. So no one does argue that CO2 acts as a thermal shield.

Moving that to a much more complex system, to be blunt, the predictability of pretty much all the issues is pretty much no more than a wild ass guess. The majority of the climate scientists basically fudge the wildly chaotic nature of the system (aerosols, clod formation, water heat transfer, etc.) into a single 'forcing' or 'sensitivity' parameter, that until 2011 or so, they simply tuned up or down to 'best fit' the data. The problem with that, is that when you compare the basic scientific tenets of repeatability and predictability to that methodology, it completely kind of tosses them out the window.

Further, the forcing factors and their impacts run the gamut across the research. You toss 100 climate scientists into a room, no two of them will agree on the 'major forcings' or their impacts in the slightest. And, to great extent until 2008, they pretty much ignored water vapor in that regard.

On top of it, they really havent bolstered their impact amongst critics with the operational problems of: a) the British weather service fiasco; b) the unearthing of the Climategate memos and emails detailing the active squelching of contrary views in the literature; c) the refusal of prominent climaatistas in the pre 2007 world to bother to release code, data, or otherwise even engage in debate on their findings; d) the 'stitching' of disparate data in the hockey-stick and the adamant refusal to acknowledge that; e) an ongoing adamant refusal to debate the veracity of 'proxy-studies'; f) the standard of smearing any 'skeptic' within the community (see Roger Pielke Jr., Lindzen, Bengstonn)

So some of the answers to your questions:

Is man putting more long-cycle CO2 into the air: yes.
Is this CO2 staying in the air: yes.
Is this CO2 contributing to a larger warming effect: yes.

Is CO2 the only 'driver' in the warming: not in the slightest.
Is CO2 the major driver in the warming: probably not -- remains to be seen.

Have the effects of feedbacks been properly accounted for: most likely not, considering the 20 year ongoing continuous addition and reassessment

Are there natural heat drivers being added: undoubtedly yes.

What are the effects on carbon uptake by warmer climates (i.e. warm == faster plant growth and carbon sequesteration): hasnt really even been considered.

Have the current heat-balance equations/models taken into account in any form able to be predicted: not in the slightest; to be blunt, when the models actually cannot be used for repeatability or predictability purposes, or even give in *any* specifics what the effect of a set amount of CO2 will be in even a short time frame of 5 years, it is really hard to take them in any way as scientific evidence.

Based on the previous question, are the models 'wrong": uncertain.

So when you beat the drum of weather change effects, you are really beating a drum that really has no specificity attached to it, nor any predictability attached to it.

When you choose to attack someone for the horrible action of stating two cities, then rip at that like a dog on a bone going after marrow because of 'class issues' -- it really detracts from your 'climate change' direction and actually transforms what could be a valid climate change issue into a pathetic prototypical progressive-style rant where everything is based on social class, race or some combination of both.

I think most here will engage you with a rational discussion of climate change, but when you start charging down the 'social class' issue ('forcing' it actually, which is a pretty good term considering its use in the climate sense, and actually forcing it in a rather idiotic manner, might I add), it kind of brings an SJW air to it. Do you really want that? Your choice. If you do, I will tell you right here and now all you will do is detract from any rational point that you want to make about climate change (in the parlance, a 'negative forcing').

btw: am out for the next couple of days getting a water well drilled near Fredericksburg, so I am not ignoring this, just pretty much in a place that literally has zero contact.

Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

Finally, you can try and chastise me all you want for trying to make sure we were all on the same page that sea level rise will affect people of all socio-economic statuses, go for it. It's your prerogative. But for some reason, in every response OO had, he focused on issues affecting the wealthy - he called out "the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible" and also said "and it is hard to move port facilities now. And who owns port facilities? Not poor people." It took like 10 posts to finally get to a point where OO wasn't talking about mitigating sea level rise with respect to just the wealthy.

And even then, I still don't get what his point is, other than that the wealthy are more connected and maybe can make a phone call to influence legislation.

I find it odd that pointing out how wide of an effect that sea level rise will have is a negative forcing. I keep hearing how conservatives are mad how liberals only care about groups X, Y, and Z, and then I get bashed for pointing out that sea level rise knows no groups, and that is a major reason as to why it is such serious issue to deal with. I thought the liberals were supposed to be the ones who needed to care about more people...

To be honest lad, you are the one making the most hay about the introduction of social classes into the discussion.

In fact, you are the one that started it with the 'so Miami and New are the *only* places affected' thingy and complaint.

The *only* reason this portion of thread is addressing it is because one dog in particular felt the need to gnaw on that bone.

To be blunt, that detracts from your position, in much the same way if I were try to forcibly insert a discussion about state's rights and the Constitution into this portion thread that it would undoubtedly cause you to drift to the side of how you regarded that discussion.

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

So we should essentially dismantle our economy to convert to Luddite methods that have no guarantee of working, based upon projections from models that have never worked?

I guess I would state my position as being that I am concerned about the impacts of future climate change, but I'm not yet in the camp of doing things that make no sense just because they make us feel good.

Point number one, no matter what, we are not going to have any material impact on atmospheric CO2 without getting China, India, and developing nations onboard. The idea that we are going to pay them huge sums of money because we somehow screwed up the planet, while they continue to screw it up further, is ludicrous.

Point number two, if the impacts 100 years from now are truly as dire as some project, then we need to be doing big things that will have huge impacts instead of little nibbling around the edges. And we don't have any of those big things. It's all couched in language of, "OMG, if we don't do anything, then temperatures will rise 2 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years and that will destroy life as we know it, but if we do this and this and this, we can lower that to 1.8 degrees and everything will be copacetic." I'm looking for ways to turn that 2 degrees in to 0 degrees, not 1.8. Because if 2 degrees is as bad as people say, then 1.8 degrees is going to be pretty awful, and we will get to 2 not long after we get to 1.8. I'm willing and supportive of making changes to our economy and way of life to reduce 2 degrees to 0. I'm far less supportive of destroying our economy to reduce 2 degrees to 1.8.

(03-29-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2019 10:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I see you found another "only" I didn't say. You are blaming me for your misperception and lack of understanding.

Why did I choose those two? Came to mind first. I guess I could have chosen Kennebunkport, ME, and Cancun. Or Sydney and Anchorage. Or all of them. Then you would be upset and demanding to ask why I chose those six, and not others.

I was not saying poor people would be unaffected. I was saying that rich people with a lot at stake can get action from politicians where poor people cannot. when a six or seven figure donor calls, they listen. The people who own the facilities in ports are not poor.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to point the fingers at me that you are pointing. You have to assume that I do not know that sea levels will rise everywhere. How stupid you must consider me to think that. You have to assume I don't know that all sorts of people will be affected, from Aleuts in Alaska to people on StMaarten and in South Africa.. How ignorant you must think of me to assume i don't know that. You have to assume I don't know that affected people will range from the very poorest to the very richest. I think you are making these assumptions to create a straw man that you can argue against. I cannot believe you would think I don't know the behavior of water. So you have to invent somebody who doesn't understand the nature of water and doesn't know that not all people on the coast are rich. I guess you think I need custodial care. You just cannot keep from insulting me. Liberal use of the "only" vision you possess must help.

Well heck, this is the first time I’ve heard you articulate this viewpoint. I didn’t realize we both were on the same page regarding the impact of sea level rise and how serious of an issue it will be in the future.

And I’m sorry if I underestimated your experience and understanding of hydrology/hydraulics, global climate change modeling, and coastal risk. These are fairly complex topics that lots of people struggle with understanding, so when it appeared as if you were only focusing on the idea that sea level rise was going to affect wealthy beach front property owners, I didn’t think you had a good grasp on the severity of the situation. It is not just as simple as “knowing how water works,” but mea culpa.

Since we both agree that sea level rise will be a significant threat in the future, what are your thoughts on mitigating the threat? Do you envision private industry leading the charge? Or do you believe that government entities will play the largest role in developing actionable plans?

lad, one of the major problems is that no one, literally no one, can articulate with any specificity, let alone predictability, *what* even a set amount of CO2 will do when released.

The base level physics show to *some* degree, in controlled lab situations, what the thermal response is across some wavelengths of heat radiation from CO2. So no one does argue that CO2 acts as a thermal shield.

Moving that to a much more complex system, to be blunt, the predictability of pretty much all the issues is pretty much no more than a wild ass guess. The majority of the climate scientists basically fudge the wildly chaotic nature of the system (aerosols, clod formation, water heat transfer, etc.) into a single 'forcing' or 'sensitivity' parameter, that until 2011 or so, they simply tuned up or down to 'best fit' the data. The problem with that, is that when you compare the basic scientific tenets of repeatability and predictability to that methodology, it completely kind of tosses them out the window.

Further, the forcing factors and their impacts run the gamut across the research. You toss 100 climate scientists into a room, no two of them will agree on the 'major forcings' or their impacts in the slightest. And, to great extent until 2008, they pretty much ignored water vapor in that regard.

On top of it, they really havent bolstered their impact amongst critics with the operational problems of: a) the British weather service fiasco; b) the unearthing of the Climategate memos and emails detailing the active squelching of contrary views in the literature; c) the refusal of prominent climaatistas in the pre 2007 world to bother to release code, data, or otherwise even engage in debate on their findings; d) the 'stitching' of disparate data in the hockey-stick and the adamant refusal to acknowledge that; e) an ongoing adamant refusal to debate the veracity of 'proxy-studies'; f) the standard of smearing any 'skeptic' within the community (see Roger Pielke Jr., Lindzen, Bengstonn)

So some of the answers to your questions:

Is man putting more long-cycle CO2 into the air: yes.
Is this CO2 staying in the air: yes.
Is this CO2 contributing to a larger warming effect: yes.

Is CO2 the only 'driver' in the warming: not in the slightest.
Is CO2 the major driver in the warming: probably not -- remains to be seen.

Have the effects of feedbacks been properly accounted for: most likely not, considering the 20 year ongoing continuous addition and reassessment

Are there natural heat drivers being added: undoubtedly yes.

What are the effects on carbon uptake by warmer climates (i.e. warm == faster plant growth and carbon sequesteration): hasnt really even been considered.

Have the current heat-balance equations/models taken into account in any form able to be predicted: not in the slightest; to be blunt, when the models actually cannot be used for repeatability or predictability purposes, or even give in *any* specifics what the effect of a set amount of CO2 will be in even a short time frame of 5 years, it is really hard to take them in any way as scientific evidence.

Based on the previous question, are the models 'wrong": uncertain.

So when you beat the drum of weather change effects, you are really beating a drum that really has no specificity attached to it, nor any predictability attached to it.

When you choose to attack someone for the horrible action of stating two cities, then rip at that like a dog on a bone going after marrow because of 'class issues' -- it really detracts from your 'climate change' direction and actually transforms what could be a valid climate change issue into a pathetic prototypical progressive-style rant where everything is based on social class, race or some combination of both.

I think most here will engage you with a rational discussion of climate change, but when you start charging down the 'social class' issue ('forcing' it actually, which is a pretty good term considering its use in the climate sense, and actually forcing it in a rather idiotic manner, might I add), it kind of brings an SJW air to it. Do you really want that? Your choice. If you do, I will tell you right here and now all you will do is detract from any rational point that you want to make about climate change (in the parlance, a 'negative forcing').

btw: am out for the next couple of days getting a water well drilled near Fredericksburg, so I am not ignoring this, just pretty much in a place that literally has zero contact.

Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

Finally, you can try and chastise me all you want for trying to make sure we were all on the same page that sea level rise will affect people of all socio-economic statuses, go for it. It's your prerogative. But for some reason, in every response OO had, he focused on issues affecting the wealthy - he called out "the people who owned all that waterfront property in Miami and NY wanted their property protected, at somebody else's expense if possible" and also said "and it is hard to move port facilities now. And who owns port facilities? Not poor people." It took like 10 posts to finally get to a point where OO wasn't talking about mitigating sea level rise with respect to just the wealthy.

And even then, I still don't get what his point is, other than that the wealthy are more connected and maybe can make a phone call to influence legislation.

I find it odd that pointing out how wide of an effect that sea level rise will have is a negative forcing. I keep hearing how conservatives are mad how liberals only care about groups X, Y, and Z, and then I get bashed for pointing out that sea level rise knows no groups, and that is a major reason as to why it is such serious issue to deal with. I thought the liberals were supposed to be the ones who needed to care about more people...

To be honest lad, you are the one making the most hay about the introduction of social classes into the discussion.

In fact, you are the one that started it with the 'so Miami and New are the *only* places affected' thingy and complaint.

The *only* reason this portion of thread is addressing it is because one dog in particular felt the need to gnaw on that bone.

To be blunt, that detracts from your position, in much the same way if I were try to forcibly insert a discussion about state's rights and the Constitution into this portion thread that it would undoubtedly cause you to drift to the side of how you regarded that discussion.

I am well aware that I am the person who explicitly brought up the fact that sea level rise affects all socio-economic classes. I'm sorry that explicitly stating that sea level rise will affect all socio-economic classes because the only focus by another poster was on its affects to the wealthy gets you going.

This is stupid though - you've got a bone to pick, and that's fine.

OO's last response was more holistic and is why I gave him a mea culpa. I still don''t understand why he focused on how sea level rise affects the wealthy - I think he is concerned about funding to future proof cities disproportionately being funneled their way, but that isn't clear.

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

So we should essentially dismantle our economy to convert to Luddite methods that have no guarantee of working, based upon projections from models that have never worked?

I guess I would state my position as being that I am concerned about the impacts of future climate change, but I'm not yet in the camp of doing things that make no sense just because they make us feel good.

Point number one, no matter what, we are not going to have any material impact on atmospheric CO2 without getting China, India, and developing nations onboard. The idea that we are going to pay them huge sums of money because we somehow screwed up the planet, while they continue to screw it up further, is ludicrous.

Point number two, if the impacts 100 years from now are truly as dire as some project, then we need to be doing big things that will have huge impacts instead of little nibbling around the edges. And we don't have any of those big things. It's all couched in language of, "OMG, if we don't do anything, then temperatures will rise 2 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years and that will destroy life as we know it, but if we do this and this and this, we can lower that to 1.8 degrees and everything will be copacetic." I'm looking for ways to turn that 2 degrees in to 0 degrees, not 1.8. Because if 2 degrees is as bad as people say, then 1.8 degrees is going to be pretty awful, and we will get to 2 not long after we get to 1.8. I'm willing and supportive of making changes to our economy and way of life to reduce 2 degrees to 0. I'm far less supportive of destroying our economy to reduce 2 degrees to 1.8.

I wonder if Tanq will get as defensive for me, as he did for OO, when I assumed something about what OO posted...

I will try to address lad and 93's concerns in one post.

I was merely pointing out the difference in previous times we had global warming and this time. 100,000 years ago, the tribes just moved to new hunting grounds. 200 years ago they just moved the village another 50 feet from the water. NToday there are huge efforts to get man to turn the clock back to a day when the temperature was cooler, rather than have us adapt to the changes. Why? It think it is because of the industrialization of our ports. Talk of sea level rise has alarmed the people who have tons of $$$$ to lose. I am sure the poorer people in the bayous of LA are just as alarmed, but they don't have the ears of Senators.

Maybe that is why the emphasis is on turning back the clock, rather than preparing for the future. Developing heat resistant strains of grain does not help keep the water out of the portside warehouses.

This topic started with taxes. I asked about goals, because with so much, when I ask about goals and targets, I get no answer, just "more of this" and "less if that" with no end in sight.

Turning the clock back is not going to work, for many reasons. Delay is all that can be accomplished.

Somebody bought up a cancer patient who continues to smoke. ironic, I just buried a friend Wednesday. What do you do when when the patient is terminal? You put him in a hospice, do things to make as comfortable as possible.

hate to be the Debbie Downer here, but I think all this hullabaloo over carbon and fossil fuels are the eco-equivalent of making the patient feel better.

I think the problem with this Earth is not heat - we can adjust to that. it is overpopulation, and nobody is even talking about that. We are running out of water. We are running out of food. And in a few more generations, both those will reach crisis proportion. And we are wasting out time bitching about climate change. Lad's great-great-grandchildren will have adapted to heat, but how will they adapt to thirst and starvation?

I don't see a way out.



Now, slowing the impact of warming will be good. But it is like the morphine drip my friend had.

Public vs. private. Some of each, lad. Sea walls, public. Electric cars, private.
Taxing the hell out of industry and then having "public servants" decide where to throw the money? Counter productive.

In the end, useless.

Not very Optimistic, am I?

(03-29-2019 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think the problem with this Earth is not heat - we can adjust to that. it is overpopulation, and nobody is even talking about that. We are running out of water. We are running out of food. And in a few more generations, both those will reach crisis proportion. And we are wasting out time bitching about climate change. Lad's great-great-grandchildren will have adapted to heat, but how will they adapt to thirst and starvation?

OO... challenges to food supply and fresh water are directly related to global warming.

I agree with you that overpopulation is a massive component/problem.

(03-29-2019 11:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think the problem with this Earth is not heat - we can adjust to that. it is overpopulation, and nobody is even talking about that. We are running out of water. We are running out of food. And in a few more generations, both those will reach crisis proportion. And we are wasting out time bitching about climate change. Lad's great-great-grandchildren will have adapted to heat, but how will they adapt to thirst and starvation?

OO... challenges to food supply and fresh water are directly related to global warming.

I agree with you that overpopulation is a massive component/problem.

I also don't think no one is talking about overpopulation. I see plenty of talk about reducing birth rates, especially in the developing world, to around replacement levels. You just don't see that as a focus in the US because overpopulation isn't really a concern here because we he reproduction rates below to near replacement levels.

(03-29-2019 11:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 11:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think the problem with this Earth is not heat - we can adjust to that. it is overpopulation, and nobody is even talking about that. We are running out of water. We are running out of food. And in a few more generations, both those will reach crisis proportion. And we are wasting out time bitching about climate change. Lad's great-great-grandchildren will have adapted to heat, but how will they adapt to thirst and starvation?

OO... challenges to food supply and fresh water are directly related to global warming.

I agree with you that overpopulation is a massive component/problem.

I also don't think no one is talking about overpopulation. I see plenty of talk about reducing birth rates, especially in the developing world, to around replacement levels. You just don't see that as a focus in the US because overpopulation isn't really a concern here because we he reproduction rates below to near replacement levels.

We would be having the challenges to food/water whether we had global warming or cooling or nothing. The warming just changes the nature of the challenges and the nature of trying to handle it.

Challenges to food can be handled, if we have the water. We can grow bananas in Oklahoma, if need be, and wheat in Finland. We will have bananas and wheat, if we can water the crops. But no more water is being created. Aquifers are being drained. Once we have unlocked the water from the ice caps, that in itself will have serious effects on world wide weather.. When we start desalinization of the oceans, that will affect the ocean ecosystem. Fish stocks are already dropping. species are disappearing. And nearly all our focus is on electric cars and pipelines.

How are you going to force the third world to reduce to replacement rates? China had a one-child policy. did it work?

Of course, as long as we are focused on the wrong things, nothing will be taken care of that matters.

Going back to the cancer patient, we will have made great strides in the oxygen hookup, but the patient is dying anyway.

Nothing major will happen in my lifetime. Maybe not even in Lad's lifetime. But the path is inevitable, it seems.

So if the goal is slow the warming until everybody starves, we are on the path.

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Point number one, no matter what, we are not going to have any material impact on atmospheric CO2 without getting China, India, and developing nations onboard. The idea that we are going to pay them huge sums of money because we somehow screwed up the planet, while they continue to screw it up further, is ludicrous.

I agree with your Point #1 as being spot on.
One of my cars is an old Honda I've had for almost three decades. It's been a few years since it was under requirement for emissions inspection. I drive it now and then for specific reasons or for fun. It's been a great car, fun to drive five-speed stick, cheap to run, easy to fix a lot myself, which I enjoy doing more of these days...and it belches out smoke and emissions pretty well these days...and I couldn't care less. It's long since paid for, got it tested and repaired all those years, and now I'm going to enjoy the heck out of running whenever and wherever I please. When Dear Obissmal Leader, who supposedly cared about poor people (not), demanded these older cars be removed (govt redistribution cash for "clunkers"), he hurt many poor people who needed to have old cars like this available, but instead "muh GW from car emissions." What a completely stupiod waste of money that and the "stimulus before it (remember your $300? Yeah, I didn't do that one either.) I'll consider stopping driving it when China and India, et. al. spend 25 years cutting THEIR emissions in half, and then I'll only consider it. I'm not holding my breath (except when I drive my Honda, that is

(03-29-2019 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

So we should essentially dismantle our economy to convert to Luddite methods that have no guarantee of working, based upon projections from models that have never worked?

I guess I would state my position as being that I am concerned about the impacts of future climate change, but I'm not yet in the camp of doing things that make no sense just because they make us feel good.

Point number one, no matter what, we are not going to have any material impact on atmospheric CO2 without getting China, India, and developing nations onboard. The idea that we are going to pay them huge sums of money because we somehow screwed up the planet, while they continue to screw it up further, is ludicrous.

Point number two, if the impacts 100 years from now are truly as dire as some project, then we need to be doing big things that will have huge impacts instead of little nibbling around the edges. And we don't have any of those big things. It's all couched in language of, "OMG, if we don't do anything, then temperatures will rise 2 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years and that will destroy life as we know it, but if we do this and this and this, we can lower that to 1.8 degrees and everything will be copacetic." I'm looking for ways to turn that 2 degrees in to 0 degrees, not 1.8. Because if 2 degrees is as bad as people say, then 1.8 degrees is going to be pretty awful, and we will get to 2 not long after we get to 1.8. I'm willing and supportive of making changes to our economy and way of life to reduce 2 degrees to 0. I'm far less supportive of destroying our economy to reduce 2 degrees to 1.8.

I wonder if Tanq will get as defensive for me, as he did for OO, when I assumed something about what OO posted...

Depends on how far of a reach and how ludicrous your assumptions are. Your assumptions on me were were pretty ludicrous. You really thought I thought only two cities would be affected by a rise in sea level?

(03-29-2019 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

So we should essentially dismantle our economy to convert to Luddite methods that have no guarantee of working, based upon projections from models that have never worked?

I guess I would state my position as being that I am concerned about the impacts of future climate change, but I'm not yet in the camp of doing things that make no sense just because they make us feel good.
Point number one, no matter what, we are not going to have any material impact on atmospheric CO2 without getting China, India, and developing nations onboard. The idea that we are going to pay them huge sums of money because we somehow screwed up the planet, while they continue to screw it up further, is ludicrous.
Point number two, if the impacts 100 years from now are truly as dire as some project, then we need to be doing big things that will have huge impacts instead of little nibbling around the edges. And we don't have any of those big things. It's all couched in language of, "OMG, if we don't do anything, then temperatures will rise 2 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years and that will destroy life as we know it, but if we do this and this and this, we can lower that to 1.8 degrees and everything will be copacetic." I'm looking for ways to turn that 2 degrees in to 0 degrees, not 1.8. Because if 2 degrees is as bad as people say, then 1.8 degrees is going to be pretty awful, and we will get to 2 not long after we get to 1.8. I'm willing and supportive of making changes to our economy and way of life to reduce 2 degrees to 0. I'm far less supportive of destroying our economy to reduce 2 degrees to 1.8.

I wonder if Tanq will get as defensive for me, as he did for OO, when I assumed something about what OO posted...

Not sure I'm comprehending your post as anything but a non sequitur to my post, particularly to the part bolded. Perhaps you can elaborate.

(03-29-2019 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

So we should essentially dismantle our economy to convert to Luddite methods that have no guarantee of working, based upon projections from models that have never worked?

I guess I would state my position as being that I am concerned about the impacts of future climate change, but I'm not yet in the camp of doing things that make no sense just because they make us feel good.
Point number one, no matter what, we are not going to have any material impact on atmospheric CO2 without getting China, India, and developing nations onboard. The idea that we are going to pay them huge sums of money because we somehow screwed up the planet, while they continue to screw it up further, is ludicrous.
Point number two, if the impacts 100 years from now are truly as dire as some project, then we need to be doing big things that will have huge impacts instead of little nibbling around the edges. And we don't have any of those big things. It's all couched in language of, "OMG, if we don't do anything, then temperatures will rise 2 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years and that will destroy life as we know it, but if we do this and this and this, we can lower that to 1.8 degrees and everything will be copacetic." I'm looking for ways to turn that 2 degrees in to 0 degrees, not 1.8. Because if 2 degrees is as bad as people say, then 1.8 degrees is going to be pretty awful, and we will get to 2 not long after we get to 1.8. I'm willing and supportive of making changes to our economy and way of life to reduce 2 degrees to 0. I'm far less supportive of destroying our economy to reduce 2 degrees to 1.8.

I wonder if Tanq will get as defensive for me, as he did for OO, when I assumed something about what OO posted...

Not quite sure I understand this post in response to mine, particularly the bolded part, except as the ultimate non sequitur.

I haven’t read too far up this page but the Rice students and alums on twitter throwing a fit about Pence speaking at the Baker Institute on 4/5 is pretty amusing.

Anyone who thinks the Vice President shouldn’t be on campus to speak because they disagree with them is a moron.

(03-29-2019 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 10:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 10:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Whew, lots of text. In short, climate models have significant amounts of uncertainty. I can 100% agree with that. I think we still use them as a guide because they conform with our basic understanding of atmospheric chemistry which clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we should work from a position that we be cautious and assume the models are correct, as opposed to the opposite.

So we should essentially dismantle our economy to convert to Luddite methods that have no guarantee of working, based upon projections from models that have never worked?

I guess I would state my position as being that I am concerned about the impacts of future climate change, but I'm not yet in the camp of doing things that make no sense just because they make us feel good.

Point number one, no matter what, we are not going to have any material impact on atmospheric CO2 without getting China, India, and developing nations onboard. The idea that we are going to pay them huge sums of money because we somehow screwed up the planet, while they continue to screw it up further, is ludicrous.

Point number two, if the impacts 100 years from now are truly as dire as some project, then we need to be doing big things that will have huge impacts instead of little nibbling around the edges. And we don't have any of those big things. It's all couched in language of, "OMG, if we don't do anything, then temperatures will rise 2 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years and that will destroy life as we know it, but if we do this and this and this, we can lower that to 1.8 degrees and everything will be copacetic." I'm looking for ways to turn that 2 degrees in to 0 degrees, not 1.8. Because if 2 degrees is as bad as people say, then 1.8 degrees is going to be pretty awful, and we will get to 2 not long after we get to 1.8. I'm willing and supportive of making changes to our economy and way of life to reduce 2 degrees to 0. I'm far less supportive of destroying our economy to reduce 2 degrees to 1.8.

I wonder if Tanq will get as defensive for me, as he did for OO, when I assumed something about what OO posted...

Depends on how far of a reach and how ludicrous your assumptions are. Your assumptions on me were were pretty ludicrous. You really thought I thought only two cities would be affected by a rise in sea level?

Did I suggest we dismantle our economy and shirk technology? That seems like a really far reach, no?

(03-29-2019 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Did I suggest we dismantle our economy and shirk technology? That seems like a really far reach, no?

Where did I say that you suggested that? I didn't. I'm saying that's the impact of the green policies currently being proposed.

We cannot move FROM fossil fuels until we have a viable alternative to move TO. And right now, that something to move TO is what's lacking. And setting an arbitrary deadline with no available alternative is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.

So we destroy our economy, the rest of the world says no f-ing way, and in the end we go broke and have infinitesimal effect on global temperatures a century from now. I can think of one way that we might have a significant effect. Once we go to farming without fossil fuels, our food production will drop so precipitously that half the world will starve, and the other half will kill each other fighting over what food is left, and that will certainly reduce human impact on the environment.

It's an absurd goal. I know, people say JFK challenged us to go to the moon in a decade, and out of nowhere came a space program that got it done. Except that's not what happened. We already had a space program, we already had astronauts, three of them had already flown in space, and the rockets tat eventually took us to the moon were already being developed. We would have been on the moon by probably 1975 or so without JFK's challenge. He just ratcheted it up a bit.

That's not the case with green energy. We have some things that work, but most of them have limited applicability. We don't have answers to the scale and infrastructure issues that inevitably prove to be the hard ones. We don't have a practical way to take a green road trip.

(03-29-2019 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2019 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Did I suggest we dismantle our economy and shirk technology? That seems like a really far reach, no?

Where did I say that you suggested that? I didn't. I'm saying that's the impact of the green policies currently being proposed.

We cannot move FROM fossil fuels until we have a viable alternative to move TO. And right now, that something to move TO is what's lacking. And setting an arbitrary deadline with no available alternative is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.

So we destroy our economy, the rest of the world says no f-ing way, and in the end we go broke and have infinitesimal effect on global temperatures a century from now. I can think of one way that we might have a significant effect. Once we go to farming without fossil fuels, our food production will drop so precipitously that half the world will starve, and the other half will kill each other fighting over what food is left, and that will certainly reduce human impact on the environment.

It's an absurd goal. I know, people say JFK challenged us to go to the moon in a decade, and out of nowhere came a space program that got it done. Except that's not what happened. We already had a space program, we already had astronauts, three of them had already flown in space, and the rockets tat eventually took us to the moon were already being developed. We would have been on the moon by probably 1975 or so without JFK's challenge. He just ratcheted it up a bit.

That's not the case with green energy. We have some things that work, but most of them have limited applicability. We don't have answers to the scale and infrastructure issues that inevitably prove to be the hard ones. We don't have a practical way to take a green road trip.

I have a great idea...let's let the free market work and figure out when the right time is to allow green tech to supplant fossil across the various energy uses of our economy. It's pretty f'ing simple...just sit here and do nothing and let the
7.5 billion people on planet earth self select their energy source. Think we need a price on carbon because it is evil and the galveston seawall might need to be 6 inches taller in 50 years? Put a price on carbon, force every country to pay for it via tariffs when they import to the USA, and let the market figure it out. Wind, Solar, Algae farts, energy efficiency, not eating meat, taking covered wagons in lieu of aircraft...we will figure it out quickly once a carbon price is established. This back and forth about what can work or won't work is all idiot-speak for statists and idiots who think that driving a Prius is going to save the polar bears.

The Texas electric grid (ERCOT) routinely has more than 50% renewable penetration (IE the amount of electricity consumed at any point can be over 50% renewable) and Texas enjoys the most renewable capacity installed of any state and is pretty high up on the list if we were a country. New renewable projects continue to be built in Texas at this very moment. How did this happen? The PUCT put in place some pretty basic ground rules, the federal government implemented the PTC, and the free market went to work in a resource rich state. The government literally did nothing outside of a few one pagers, and the Texas grid has no problems handling over 50% renewables which people said was "implausible" etc. a few years ago. They were full of it...we are cranking out the wind power and solar is not far behind as y-o-y solar capacity growth is coming in around 25%-50% in a state with zero incentives for solar and zero carbon price.

It is simple, if you think carbon has a price, create an economy for carbon and everything else will follow. The results of the action will be wildly different than the mentally deficient GND. The fact that we are even having this discussion makes me think how many people are brain damaged. We might not even need a market for carbon as technology (Moore's law etc) is rapidly dropping the cost of renewables to the level of incremental costs of fossil fuel extraction. The arguments over the GND are the dumbest **** I have ever heard since the theories that Trump is a Russian plant.