Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #321
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(12-05-2019 03:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

So, what is the goal for decreasing the rate? So far, it seems the goal is a little less than it is now. Using your 35MPH analogy, you want a 2 MPH reduction in whatever speed the car is traveling at now, without knowing if it is going at 45 or 85, and without knowing what that would get you.

If that is what you call defining either the goal or the problem, I don't think we can agree on anything.

Defining a goal is not going to easy, Lad.

Actually, there have been a lot of goals proposed. Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures. Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm is another target.

Both of these reduce the rate of change and magnitude of impacts expected from anthropongenic climate change.

And you just side shuffled the question and tried to rearrange it.

You just answered 'keep your speed within 2 mph of the (original speed of) 35 mph'.

You still havent bothered to note what speed it is expected, why that speed is expected to be without fixing the car, and what is needed to get to 37 mph.

Nice try but still shuffling and obfuscating the point of scope. God this is like going to the dentist's office.....

Yeah, no shuffling. OO asked for measurable/defined goals and I gave him two different goals we could go after.

You’re talking about something different, again (just like before). You’re in essence asking for an equation that says X ppm = Y degrees C increase. I am not nearly enough of an expert to find the information that will give you the direct correlation.

You can look to a recent IPCC report that shows scenarios for modeled climate change given changes in CO2 emission, and how reduced emissions would result in either a slower approach to 1.5 C, or likely not crossing the threshold.

https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

Actually, what I was looking for is a goal that says you want to get the Earth to XX average temperature and keep it there for at least Z years. Where XX and Z are actual numbers.

Failing that, a goal that says we want to return the Earth to the average tempatures it experienced in (name a year(e.g. 1875), an era(e.g. medieval times) , or an epoch(e.g. the Jurassic Period)).

But all I ever hear is more of this, less of that.
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2019 05:57 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
12-06-2019 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #322
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(12-06-2019 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Actually, what I was looking for is a goal that says you want to get the Earth to XX average temperature and keep it there for at least Z years. Where XX and Z are actual numbers.
Failing that, a goal that says we want to return the Earth to the average tempatures it experienced in (name a year(e.g. 1875), an era(e.g. medieval times) , or an epoch(e.g. the Jurassic Period)).
But all I ever hear is more of this, less of that.

Lad,

I think what OO is wanting is specific, measurable goals, and I don't think you've provided that. If you did, I missed it and would appreciate your pointing me to the post where you did.

But I think there's a bigger difference here, and OO's questions highlight it OO wants to talk in terms of solutions, and you seem to want to harp on how bad the problem is. This is the crux of the issue I have with the whole climate change discussion. If it is really going to mean the end of life as we know it, as some alarmists suggest, then don't we need to get high behind solutions instead of just regurgitating talking points about how bad it is going to be?

If we really want to achieve a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gases, then nuclear pretty much has to be an integral part of any solution. There simply is no other way. Solar can't do it, wind can't do it, geothermal can't do it, hydroelectric can't do it--they can help, but they can't do the heavy lifting, not now, and not for a long time to come. Nuclear does not come without its own issues--but right now it's what we have. When we get something better, we can transition. And even nuclear won't replace fossil fuels in cars and trucks. They have to take their fuel with them, and reactors don't fit very well in trunks. But nuclear-generated electricity can become the prime mover for railroads and much of our existing infrastructure.

There is no exotic technology that is ready. That's not an excuse to stop researching. In fact, we should step up research. But pretending there is a ready-to-go solution when there isn't is a sure recipe for failure. And IMO that is one of the biggest problems we currently face in this area.

I have mentioned some other massive projects that we could take on to offset rising sea levels. Actually, we need to recognize that fresh water is going to become a scarce commodity in the not too distant future, and anything we can do to get ahead of the power curve there would be a good thing.
12-06-2019 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #323
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(12-05-2019 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actually, there have been a lot of goals proposed. Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures. Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm is another target.

Both of these reduce the rate of change and magnitude of impacts expected from anthropongenic climate change.

Two key questions:
1. Are those temperature and emissions goals achievable?
2. If they are achieved, would it make a difference, or will harmful climate change happen anyway? (E.g., if the car is already hitting the curve at 85 mph, will reducing the speed to 83 mph prevent a crash?) If achieving the stated goals has little or no effect on the world's climate, then they seem like wasted effort, and the only thing that really matters is adapting to the change that's going to happen (e.g. deploying the airbags).

Perhaps ultimately these boil down to one question: will the urgently proposed "solutions" do any real good? The general lack of discussion on that important question is one of the factors that lead folks to believe that the prime motive of many "action" demanders is not to actually improve the world's climate, but to accumulate the power that their demands would necessitate.

An innocent historical example is the wartime scrap metal drives, which encouraged people to donate their pots and pans for war production. My understanding is that these were almost entirely morale measures that made essentially no contribution to war production. On the other hand, they didn't do any harm. The same cannot be said about the more extreme demands for climate "action".
12-09-2019 05:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #324
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(12-09-2019 05:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actually, there have been a lot of goals proposed. Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures. Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm is another target.

Both of these reduce the rate of change and magnitude of impacts expected from anthropongenic climate change.

Two key questions:
1. Are those temperature and emissions goals achievable?
2. If they are achieved, would it make a difference, or will harmful climate change happen anyway? (E.g., if the car is already hitting the curve at 85 mph, will reducing the speed to 83 mph prevent a crash?) If achieving the stated goals has little or no effect on the world's climate, then they seem like wasted effort, and the only thing that really matters is adapting to the change that's going to happen (e.g. deploying the airbags).

But again, both 1 and 2 require the impact of AGHG emissions and the role it plays in the actual scientific parameter in the energy balance equations to be understood with specificity, reliability, and predictability that has yet to be shown in the slightest.

Which by all accounts is glossed over.

Quote:Perhaps ultimately these boil down to one question: will the urgently proposed "solutions" do any real good?

See the above. The same issues that rule the problems with the scope of the impacts with additions to the AGHG in the atmosphere are present with reductions from the same. In fact, they are a little more complex and fuzzy since the 'persistence' of effects is, again, one of those areas that sits in the realm of 'absolutely fuzzy'.
12-09-2019 07:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #325
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(12-09-2019 05:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  An innocent historical example is the wartime scrap metal drives, which encouraged people to donate their pots and pans for war production. My understanding is that these were almost entirely morale measures that made essentially no contribution to war production. On the other hand, they didn't do any harm. The same cannot be said about the more extreme demands for climate "action".

Cash for Clunkers.

https://fee.org/articles/cash-for-clunke...e-failure/
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2019 10:04 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
12-09-2019 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #326
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(12-05-2019 03:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

So, what is the goal for decreasing the rate? So far, it seems the goal is a little less than it is now. Using your 35MPH analogy, you want a 2 MPH reduction in whatever speed the car is traveling at now, without knowing if it is going at 45 or 85, and without knowing what that would get you.

If that is what you call defining either the goal or the problem, I don't think we can agree on anything.

Defining a goal is not going to easy, Lad.

Actually, there have been a lot of goals proposed. Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures. Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm is another target.

Both of these reduce the rate of change and magnitude of impacts expected from anthropongenic climate change.

And you just side shuffled the question and tried to rearrange it.

You just answered 'keep your speed within 2 mph of the (original speed of) 35 mph'.

You still havent bothered to note what speed it is expected, why that speed is expected to be without fixing the car, and what is needed to get to 37 mph.

Nice try but still shuffling and obfuscating the point of scope. God this is like going to the dentist's office.....

Yeah, no shuffling. OO asked for measurable/defined goals and I gave him two different goals we could go after.

You’re talking about something different, again (just like before). You’re in essence asking for an equation that says X ppm = Y degrees C increase. I am not nearly enough of an expert to find the information that will give you the direct correlation.

You can look to a recent IPCC report that shows scenarios for modeled climate change given changes in CO2 emission, and how reduced emissions would result in either a slower approach to 1.5 C, or likely not crossing the threshold.

https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

You gave me no measurable goals - only goals for more of this, less of that.

What does "Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures" or "Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm" get us? A slower death?

If we get to those goals, what will have been achieved?

It's like you are content with goals like "commit less felonies" and "be the best you can be".
12-09-2019 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #327
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(12-04-2019 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I hate when people completely misrepresent what someone believes, and when corrected that they don't believe that, this is the response.

You can't disagree on what someone else believes. They are the undisputed authority on what they think.



Let me try and say it different, Lad....

If the natural baseline is 35mph and the man-made addition is another 100mph, then absolutely... the focus should be on mitigating the man-made portion. If however the man-made addition is 3, then the focus should be on adaptation rather than mitigation.... especially in that those proposing to focus on mitigation have proposed multi-trillion dollar actions that aren't really solutions, they just hope they are.

Instead of allowing that this is a complex question, you seem to want to narrow people down to one of two extreme positions and paint everything they say with that brush.

That's just not the reality for intelligent people which is predominantly what you'll encounter on here, which is why this site is better than the spin room
12-10-2019 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #328
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
I was reading an article in Smithsonian about the migration of man into the Americas via the Bering land bridge (instead of Native Americans, maybe we should call them the First Immigrants).

But the lines that referred to the warming period as the last Ice Age struck me. They said the sea level had risen 400 feet since the days of the land bridge.

Four. Hundred. Feet.

And here we are today scared of a few inches rise.

The difference of course, was that our primitive ancestors could deal with changing seas levels by moving the village, while we industrialized modern humans would have more trouble moving Miami, LA, Seattle, New York, etc.

In fact, nearly all of our major cities are on seacoasts. All of them, to one degree or another, are Democratic strongholds.

Which leads me to think, maybe the impetus from the left to panic over climate change/global warming is fueled by wealthy people with real estate at risk.

I have advocated we spend less time and money trying to reverse what is primarily a natural process and more getting ready for the future. Slowing it is fine if we actually use the extra time to prepare. Of course, we are developing heat resistant strains of grains. However there is the pushback from the antiGMO crowd, which is largely a left group. Kind of working against themselves, it seems to me.
01-02-2020 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #329
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was reading an article in Smithsonian about the migration of man into the Americas via the Bering land bridge (instead of Native Americans, maybe we should call them the First Immigrants).

But the lines that referred to the warming period as the last Ice Age struck me. They said the sea level had risen 400 feet since the days of the land bridge.

Four. Hundred. Feet.

And here we are today scared of a few inches rise.

The difference of course, was that our primitive ancestors could deal with changing seas levels by moving the village, while we industrialized modern humans would have more trouble moving Miami, LA, Seattle, New York, etc.

In fact, nearly all of our major cities are on seacoasts. All of them, to one degree or another, are Democratic strongholds.

Which leads me to think, maybe the impetus from the left to panic over climate change/global warming is fueled by wealthy people with real estate at risk.

I have advocated we spend less time and money trying to reverse what is primarily a natural process and more getting ready for the future. Slowing it is fine if we actually use the extra time to prepare. Of course, we are developing heat resistant strains of grains. However there is the pushback from the antiGMO crowd, which is largely a left group. Kind of working against themselves, it seems to me.

Nearly all of our major cities are on seacoasts? Chicago , Minneapolis, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Orlando, and on and on would like to have a word with you.

And all of the coastal communities that aren't large, urban areas, would like to speak to you about whether or not they are Democratic strongholds. You know that there are a lot of suburban or rural communities along the coast, all along the Gulf and Atlantic, right?

And you do know that there are plenty of coastal communities that are not wealthy, right?

And I don't see the right jumping up and down trying to support climate adaptation legislation - do you?
01-02-2020 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #330
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 11:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was reading an article in Smithsonian about the migration of man into the Americas via the Bering land bridge (instead of Native Americans, maybe we should call them the First Immigrants).

But the lines that referred to the warming period as the last Ice Age struck me. They said the sea level had risen 400 feet since the days of the land bridge.

Four. Hundred. Feet.

And here we are today scared of a few inches rise.

The difference of course, was that our primitive ancestors could deal with changing seas levels by moving the village, while we industrialized modern humans would have more trouble moving Miami, LA, Seattle, New York, etc.

In fact, nearly all of our major cities are on seacoasts. All of them, to one degree or another, are Democratic strongholds.

Which leads me to think, maybe the impetus from the left to panic over climate change/global warming is fueled by wealthy people with real estate at risk.

I have advocated we spend less time and money trying to reverse what is primarily a natural process and more getting ready for the future. Slowing it is fine if we actually use the extra time to prepare. Of course, we are developing heat resistant strains of grains. However there is the pushback from the antiGMO crowd, which is largely a left group. Kind of working against themselves, it seems to me.

Nearly all of our major cities are on seacoasts? Chicago , Minneapolis, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Orlando, and on and on would like to have a word with you.

And all of the coastal communities that aren't large, urban areas, would like to speak to you about whether or not they are Democratic strongholds. You know that there are a lot of suburban or rural communities along the coast, all along the Gulf and Atlantic, right?

And you do know that there are plenty of coastal communities that are not wealthy, right?

And I don't see the right jumping up and down trying to support climate adaptation legislation - do you?

\So predictable.

Of course, I am aware of Kansas City, Denver, and other large cities inland. But most of the large cities, including the largest, are on a coast. New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, Now Orleans, Boston, lots of others.

I should have expected the nit-picking. Mea culpa. Next time I will compile a list of every settlement in the US, from Muscle Shoals, Ala to Rockport, Texas. Oh, and Biloxi.

Rising sea levels are bad because....?
01-02-2020 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #331
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 12:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 11:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was reading an article in Smithsonian about the migration of man into the Americas via the Bering land bridge (instead of Native Americans, maybe we should call them the First Immigrants).

But the lines that referred to the warming period as the last Ice Age struck me. They said the sea level had risen 400 feet since the days of the land bridge.

Four. Hundred. Feet.

And here we are today scared of a few inches rise.

The difference of course, was that our primitive ancestors could deal with changing seas levels by moving the village, while we industrialized modern humans would have more trouble moving Miami, LA, Seattle, New York, etc.

In fact, nearly all of our major cities are on seacoasts. All of them, to one degree or another, are Democratic strongholds.

Which leads me to think, maybe the impetus from the left to panic over climate change/global warming is fueled by wealthy people with real estate at risk.

I have advocated we spend less time and money trying to reverse what is primarily a natural process and more getting ready for the future. Slowing it is fine if we actually use the extra time to prepare. Of course, we are developing heat resistant strains of grains. However there is the pushback from the antiGMO crowd, which is largely a left group. Kind of working against themselves, it seems to me.

Nearly all of our major cities are on seacoasts? Chicago , Minneapolis, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Orlando, and on and on would like to have a word with you.

And all of the coastal communities that aren't large, urban areas, would like to speak to you about whether or not they are Democratic strongholds. You know that there are a lot of suburban or rural communities along the coast, all along the Gulf and Atlantic, right?

And you do know that there are plenty of coastal communities that are not wealthy, right?

And I don't see the right jumping up and down trying to support climate adaptation legislation - do you?

\So predictable.

Of course, I am aware of Kansas City, Denver, and other large cities inland. But most of the large cities, including the largest, are on a coast. New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, Now Orleans, Boston, lots of others.

I should have expected the nit-picking. Mea culpa. Next time I will compile a list of every settlement in the US, from Muscle Shoals, Ala to Rockport, Texas. Oh, and Biloxi.

Rising sea levels are bad because....?

Rising sea levels are bad because, as you said, our cities are much less mobile. Millions of people, of ALL income levels, live in coastal communities. They have invested in those communities and stand to lose significant value, outside of just property values, as sea levels continue to rise.

We also will see massive migrations away from coastal communities as they become uninhabitable, and those migrants will need to settle elsewhere. That migration will stress infrastructure and community bonds.

And the reason I bolded your comment is that you were making sweeping generalizations that morphed into a hackish, partisan attack. Climate change, and the sea level rise that will come with it, is not a partisan problem.
01-02-2020 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #332
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rising sea levels are bad because, as you said, our cities are much less mobile. Millions of people, of ALL income levels, live in coastal communities. They have invested in those communities and stand to lose significant value, outside of just property values, as sea levels continue to rise.

Well I did say it was a money problem.
Quote:We also will see massive migrations away from coastal communities as they become uninhabitable, and those migrants will need to settle elsewhere. That migration will stress infrastructure and community bonds.

I on't think so. People will make the best of where they are, I think. I think Houston will continue to grow, even as the sea rises a few inches.

But if you think you are right, you need to invest in Kansas real estate.
Quote:And the reason I bolded your comment is that you were making sweeping generalizations that morphed into a hackish, partisan attack. Climate change, and the sea level rise that will come with it, is not a partisan problem.

But it is more of a problem for rich people on the coasts - say the beachfront estates in Malibu or the owners of the port properties or the people in the Hamptons on Long Island. Rich people in large coastal cities tend to be Democrats. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I am ready to listen.
01-02-2020 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #333
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rising sea levels are bad because, as you said, our cities are much less mobile. Millions of people, of ALL income levels, live in coastal communities. They have invested in those communities and stand to lose significant value, outside of just property values, as sea levels continue to rise.

Well I did say it was a money problem.
Quote:We also will see massive migrations away from coastal communities as they become uninhabitable, and those migrants will need to settle elsewhere. That migration will stress infrastructure and community bonds.

I on't think so. People will make the best of where they are, I think. I think Houston will continue to grow, even as the sea rises a few inches.

But if you think you are right, you need to invest in Kansas real estate.
Quote:And the reason I bolded your comment is that you were making sweeping generalizations that morphed into a hackish, partisan attack. Climate change, and the sea level rise that will come with it, is not a partisan problem.

But it is more of a problem for rich people on the coasts - say the beachfront estates in Malibu or the owners of the port properties or the people in the Hamptons on Long Island. Rich people in large coastal cities tend to be Democrats. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I am ready to listen.

Why is this more of a problem for rich people?

How many rich people live in coastal communities versus poor people? What is the cutoff for your evaluation?

I grew up in Brevard County, right on the east coast of Florida. The coastal communities from Cape Canaveral to Melbourne Beach were full of poor, rich, and middle class households, and each one of them will be affected by sea level rise.
01-02-2020 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #334
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 01:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rising sea levels are bad because, as you said, our cities are much less mobile. Millions of people, of ALL income levels, live in coastal communities. They have invested in those communities and stand to lose significant value, outside of just property values, as sea levels continue to rise.
Well I did say it was a money problem.
Quote:We also will see massive migrations away from coastal communities as they become uninhabitable, and those migrants will need to settle elsewhere. That migration will stress infrastructure and community bonds.
I on't think so. People will make the best of where they are, I think. I think Houston will continue to grow, even as the sea rises a few inches.
But if you think you are right, you need to invest in Kansas real estate.
Quote:And the reason I bolded your comment is that you were making sweeping generalizations that morphed into a hackish, partisan attack. Climate change, and the sea level rise that will come with it, is not a partisan problem.
But it is more of a problem for rich people on the coasts - say the beachfront estates in Malibu or the owners of the port properties or the people in the Hamptons on Long Island. Rich people in large coastal cities tend to be Democrats. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I am ready to listen.
Why is this more of a problem for rich people?
How many rich people live in coastal communities versus poor people? What is the cutoff for your evaluation?
I grew up in Brevard County, right on the east coast of Florida. The coastal communities from Cape Canaveral to Melbourne Beach were full of poor, rich, and middle class households, and each one of them will be affected by sea level rise.

I find it difficult to believe that a rise of a couple of inches is going to make vast coastal areas uninhabitable. The Maldives maybe, but it is going to take far more to make Houston or even Miami uninhabitable.

In a lot of places, Houston among them, the problem of rising sea level is being exacerbated by lowering of the land surface caused by subsidence due to groundwater removal. A two inch rise in sea level is not catastrophic, but a two inch rise in sea level accompanied by a two foot subsidence of the land surface gets you into many more critical situations. Better management of water resources could address a lot of that.
01-02-2020 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #335
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why is this more of a problem for rich people?

More to lose. Duh. You tell me - who is more affected by a rise in sea levels - the guy with the five million dollar beachfront mansion or the homeless sleeping in a shelter two blocks away.

Who is more affected - the guy who owns the dockside properties at the port, or the guy who commutes there to work?


Quote:How many rich people live in coastal communities versus poor people? What is the cutoff for your evaluation?

No idea. but I know who has the most to lose. And I know who has the ears of politicians more.

You tell me your cut off. We will see if I agree.
01-02-2020 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #336
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 05:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why is this more of a problem for rich people?

More to lose. Duh. You tell me - who is more affected by a rise in sea levels - the guy with the five million dollar beachfront mansion or the homeless sleeping in a shelter two blocks away.

Who is more affected - the guy who owns the dockside properties at the port, or the guy who commutes there to work?


Quote:How many rich people live in coastal communities versus poor people? What is the cutoff for your evaluation?

No idea. but I know who has the most to lose. And I know who has the ears of politicians more.

You tell me your cut off. We will see if I agree.

I would argue that poor people have far more to lose, as they do not have the same type of resources to recover than wealthy individuals do. You're right that wealthy people have more $ at risk, but absolute $ is not the way people evaluate risk and vulnerability.

The wealthy people you mention - the home owner, the marina owner - they're likely able to weather a storm better than an hourly worker with little to no savings.

Anywhere between 87 and 126 million people live in coastal communities - are you trying to tell me that all of those people are rich and wealthy?

I just don't get why you're so fixated on thinking that coastal vulnerability is only a wealthy person's problem. Do you think earthquakes in California are the same thing?
01-02-2020 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #337
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 05:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 05:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why is this more of a problem for rich people?

More to lose. Duh. You tell me - who is more affected by a rise in sea levels - the guy with the five million dollar beachfront mansion or the homeless sleeping in a shelter two blocks away.

Who is more affected - the guy who owns the dockside properties at the port, or the guy who commutes there to work?


Quote:How many rich people live in coastal communities versus poor people? What is the cutoff for your evaluation?

No idea. but I know who has the most to lose. And I know who has the ears of politicians more.

You tell me your cut off. We will see if I agree.

I would argue that poor people have far more to lose, as they do not have the same type of resources to recover than wealthy individuals do. You're right that wealthy people have more $ at risk, but absolute $ is not the way people evaluate risk and vulnerability.

The wealthy people you mention - the home owner, the marina owner - they're likely able to weather a storm better than an hourly worker with little to no savings.

Anywhere between 87 and 126 million people live in coastal communities - are you trying to tell me that all of those people are rich and wealthy?

I just don't get why you're so fixated on thinking that coastal vulnerability is only a wealthy person's problem. Do you think earthquakes in California are the same thing?

Where did you get the ONLY? And the ALL? I don't remember claiming that. I think that came out of your head, not mine. That's what happens so often with you - you hear what you want to hear and expect me to defend it.

Yep, a rich person might lose a lot of $$$, but a poor one might lose everything they have. Thing is, I don't think a 2-3 inch in sea level rise is going to threaten many poor people's homes, unless they are in a flood plain, but it may affect a rich guy's business of it is at a port and his home if it is oceanside. I threw out Malibu and the Hamptons as examples of places that have rich people's home that would be affected, maybe, by a tiny rise in sea level. But 400 feet, that would take the ocean back up to
Waco. I would really be concerned by a rise of that magnitude, even over thousands of years.

My point is that the rich guys are the ones donating big $$ to campaigns, and so they have the ears of politicians, while the poor guys have zero influence. And the poor ones can usually move a lot easier than the rich ones. You try sellong a 5M house quickly. Lot easier to just load the family car and leave that rental behind.

I wonder, are you just arguing because it is me?
01-02-2020 06:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #338
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
I don't know of one single place in this country where beach-front is not more expensive than 'off the beach'... In fact, if rising sea levels make current beach-front properties uninhabitable, the next row of homes gets significantly more expensive than they were... etc etc etc

Comparing rising sea levels to earthquakes is apples:oranges because you can't define the PHYSICALLY impacted areas.... and earthquakes happen in moments, while rising sea levels would take years or even decades.
01-03-2020 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,538
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #339
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-02-2020 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 05:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 05:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why is this more of a problem for rich people?

More to lose. Duh. You tell me - who is more affected by a rise in sea levels - the guy with the five million dollar beachfront mansion or the homeless sleeping in a shelter two blocks away.

Who is more affected - the guy who owns the dockside properties at the port, or the guy who commutes there to work?


Quote:How many rich people live in coastal communities versus poor people? What is the cutoff for your evaluation?

No idea. but I know who has the most to lose. And I know who has the ears of politicians more.

You tell me your cut off. We will see if I agree.

I would argue that poor people have far more to lose, as they do not have the same type of resources to recover than wealthy individuals do. You're right that wealthy people have more $ at risk, but absolute $ is not the way people evaluate risk and vulnerability.

The wealthy people you mention - the home owner, the marina owner - they're likely able to weather a storm better than an hourly worker with little to no savings.

Anywhere between 87 and 126 million people live in coastal communities - are you trying to tell me that all of those people are rich and wealthy?

I just don't get why you're so fixated on thinking that coastal vulnerability is only a wealthy person's problem. Do you think earthquakes in California are the same thing?

Where did you get the ONLY? And the ALL? I don't remember claiming that. I think that came out of your head, not mine. That's what happens so often with you - you hear what you want to hear and expect me to defend it.

Yep, a rich person might lose a lot of $$$, but a poor one might lose everything they have. Thing is, I don't think a 2-3 inch in sea level rise is going to threaten many poor people's homes, unless they are in a flood plain, but it may affect a rich guy's business of it is at a port and his home if it is oceanside. I threw out Malibu and the Hamptons as examples of places that have rich people's home that would be affected, maybe, by a tiny rise in sea level. But 400 feet, that would take the ocean back up to
Waco. I would really be concerned by a rise of that magnitude, even over thousands of years.

My point is that the rich guys are the ones donating big $$ to campaigns, and so they have the ears of politicians, while the poor guys have zero influence. And the poor ones can usually move a lot easier than the rich ones. You try sellong a 5M house quickly. Lot easier to just load the family car and leave that rental behind.

I wonder, are you just arguing because it is me?

Still wondering where you got the ALL and the ONLY.
01-03-2020 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #340
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(01-03-2020 11:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know of one single place in this country where beach-front is not more expensive than 'off the beach'... In fact, if rising sea levels make current beach-front properties uninhabitable, the next row of homes gets significantly more expensive than they were... etc etc etc

Comparing rising sea levels to earthquakes is apples:oranges because you can't define the PHYSICALLY impacted areas.... and earthquakes happen in moments, while rising sea levels would take years or even decades.

Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? That is not how to differentiate what areas/properties will be affected by rising sea levels. You need to understand local topography, locations of waterways and wetlands, and local bathymetry to start. It is much more than just beach front property that will be affected by rising sea levels. You can see how beach front property is not the only property affected by rising sea levels by looking at aerials taken following the storm surge generated by hurricanes.

And you're totally off the mark in terms of comparing the effects of sea level rise and earthquakes on populations as being apples to oranges. First of all, you seem to only be thinking of the immediate effect of sea level rise, without considering the compound effects when coupled with other natural disasters (like hurricanes). So, like earthquakes, sea level rise will have immediate impacts in many instances, because it will exacerbate impacts. Second, I don't know why you say you can't define the physically impacted areas. Both types of hazards have physical footprints that can be defined.

If anything, look at academic work in the realm of hazard analysis and disaster probabilities, specifically with respect to compound events, to understand that these issues are not as apple to oranges as you think.
01-03-2020 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.