(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.