| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A lot 'do' winters Fred. 'My' patch is the N. Sea east coast. Filey today, and a play about in a nice jumbly tide race over a reef. (Playboat.) Temp a nicer 3 degree centigrade. Makes a change from Windsurfing, and much warmer.
More snow forecast for tomorrow, and raw cold again. M.T.B. day oop ont' moors, so off to beddy-byes now. (12.35)
Aint life grand! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GT--I know the geology of California, not England, and relative sea level rise is always the question. Some areas are still rebounding from the last age, some areas have high organic soils that are compressing. One of the longest records is in California. But rise has been going on for a long time--and is accelerating. From National Geographic:
| Quote: | | Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
"M.T.B. day oop ont' moors" ??????
Let me take a crack at this.
You are either
a) catching an early flight to Ontario to study Northern African Muslims
b) It's a mountain biking day and the order of play is the English countryside
c) I should have left the pub an hour ago |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LHDR wrote: | Most of us wear seat belts even though it is very unlikely we will ever need them ... The reason is of course that a small chance of something very bad happening makes it worth dealing with... Global warming easily belongs in this category ... wouldn't it be reckless not to address the risk of CO2 driven global warming?
The argument that, without absolute proof that global warming and its costly consequences could be ameliorated by reducing CO2, nothing should be done is false. ... I suspect that most people who make this argument wear their seat belts every day and like to have health insurance, and are happy to pay for them. |
I have seen no one argue that nothing should be done. What we HAVE seen is the far left third or so of the country and the UN argue that we must spend many trillions of the US's apparently infinite wealth to try in vain to make inconsequential tweaks in the global temperature by the year 2100 because some wealth redistribution zealots claim with no proof that we are doomed if we don't take their word for it ... and ignore the 18 greater, MUCH more imminent, and actually SOLVABLE and REAL socioeconomic problems facing the world.
That's 10,000 pages in a nutshell.
Wearing my seat belts costs me virtually nothing and has prevented serious injury to me. The four layers of health care insurance I pay for have saved me many tens of thousands of dollars. The thousands of dollars the economic redistribution ... aka AGW ... zealots want from me would achieve virtually ZERO except for suffocating the U.S. economy.
As for CO2 ... I must assume that's a joke, on many levels including its plateau-limited effect on atmospheric warming, its low ranking among greenhouse contributors, and its historical much higher values. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LHDR
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | LHDR wrote: | Global warming easily belongs in this category ... wouldn't it be reckless not to address the risk of CO2 driven global warming?
...The argument that, without absolute proof that global warming and its costly consequences could be ameliorated by reducing CO2, nothing should be done is false. |
As for CO2 ... I must assume that's a joke, on many levels including its plateau-limited effect on atmospheric warming, its low ranking among greenhouse contributors, and its historical much higher values. |
I think its more of a parallel universe kind of thing? Here is why.
I said it to GT, and I will repeat it. Neither you nor I are qualified to judge the actual evidence on climate change. The best we can do is read what credible sources have to say and use common and scientific sense to follow the reasoning. Below are two examples that I am basing my opinion on CO2 driven global warming on. If you are aware of comparable sources arguing otherwise, not evidence from a parallel universe, not some 10,000 pages summarized by a full-time windsurfer, but something real and solid, I'd be interested. (And, no, a popular book by a single author is not a credible source.)
1. Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, [..]. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
2. I pasted a figure from this 2014 report below. Source: The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, offer this new publication as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate change science. The publication makes clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty. It is written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national science academies, as well as the newest climate change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
From this report:
"Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further. [..]
The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits."
The figure shows predictions, obviously, not 100% certainty, and GT and others may not believe it based on gut feeling or hope for solar cooling or whatever but not because they can argue the science. Truly reckless behavior, in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
LHDR .. In defence against the charge of reckless behaviour! (Isobars does not speak for me.)
1) As an individual who is concerned about the future of the human race, but who is powerless to effectively act alone, I do what the majority (consensus) of ordinary citizens do, in their daily lives. (Drive a car, use fossil fuels etc.)
2) I wring my hands in despair, figuratively speaking, at the continuing and unstoppable rise in human overpopulation of our planet ,way beyond anything ultimately sustainable, which NOBODY has any answer to.
3) I hazard a guess that you too, along with myself, are a part of the problem, in that you 'fit in' with your countries consumption of natural resources. (You don't live a hermits existence do you?)
4) When I say I won't sacrifice my freedom of movement (driving) it is because NOBODY ELSE is prepared to do so, and I will not alone set an example. (What would be the practical point?) (I already drive a very modest low pollution mini car, and pay three times the price for fuel which you in your country, along with China and the growing countries such as India who are the worlds largest polluters, do not.) Incidentally, that tax money should be spent on alleviation scemes such as shoring up coastal defences against the onslaught, but it is NOT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
(Continued.)
You may call me reckless and selfish at not voluntarily making sacrifices, when the majority of 'ordinary' people do not. If so, I'm entitled to ask, what changes, seperate from what all your fellow Americans, have you made to the consumer led lifestyle and depletion of earths resources so prevalent in advanced countries? What is it you wish me to emulate??
If I'm clinging to what you see as a gut feeling, or forlorn hope, by hoping for a solar cooling cycle (predicted by supposedly competent and informed Russian scientists) perhaps it's because as a realist, I can see the world is rapidly' going to hell in a handcart' with the crazy problems now facing it, and can not successfully sustain that drive.
I will continue to drive my car because I truly value the freedom and quality of life that it allows me (us) to experience. If that, to you, is recklessness, I plead guilty! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LHDR wrote: | Neither you nor I are qualified to judge the actual evidence on climate change. The best we can do is read what credible sources have to say and use common and scientific sense to follow the reasoning. Below are two examples that I am basing my opinion on CO2 driven global warming on. If you are aware of comparable sources arguing otherwise, not evidence from a parallel universe, not some 10,000 pages summarized by a full-time windsurfer, but something real and solid, I'd be interested. (And, no, a popular book by a single author is not a credible source.)
1. Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, [..]. ...
2. I pasted a figure from this 2014 report below. ...
The figure shows predictions, obviously, not 100% certainty ... |
The 10,000 pages I referred to are not mine. They are written by climate scientists, meteorologists, physicists (the basis of meteorology), mathematicians (without whom physics and meteorologists are impotent), statisticians (the only ones qualified to derive likelihoods), the global body of socio-economists who identify and rank the huge variety and number of threats mankind faces, forking politicians with giant self-serving agendas, the principle researchers of thousands of published climate studies, the IPCC, the NIPCC, the Oregon Petition, the many books and data analyses I've read from scores of sources, and on and on and on.
Just as I don't need to read anything more about Obama, or the ACA, or socialism to know who and what party to vote against in 2016, I also don't need to study AGW any more to recognize that it is not sufficiently proved to justify 10- or 11-figure [correction: 13- or 14-figure] global or national wealth redistribution. I'm certainly not going to retype the hundreds of pages I've already posted on the topic, most especially the TOTAL debunkery of the lie that "97% of climate scientists agree ..." and the asininity of reliance on ANY of the dozens of climate models.
Last edited by isobars on Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GT--one of the many characteristics of the denier propaganda machine is that it makes up things about what "scientists" and "environmentalists" and "liberals" want to do about global warming. In your case, you repeat a bunch of nonsense about unnecessary sacrifices. In Isobars case, he repeats stuff about made up global redistribution of wealth via a grand conspiracy. Both are nonsense.
What responsible public policy people have suggested is ending subsidies for carbon fuels, instituting reasonable subsidies for sustainable alternatives, and sending mild economic signals to the economy to be more efficient. Much of what you have done is directly in that line. One of the most intelligent approaches that I've seen is a revenue neutral carbon tax. It's even made the news on your side of the pond: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy
But why believe people who want to end the current redistribution of wealth--which occurs by transferring the costs of global warming to other people and countries--and actually listen to what they say. We can listen to Murdoch and the Koch's, and, here it comes, scare ourselves.
Dan Hicks said it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'Make up things about unnecessary sacrifices.' ..... 'a bunch of nonsense.' Rubbish! (And don't lump me with Isobars. I have no sympathy for his ever changing views.)
Our country has committed 6% of our yearly G.D.P. to aid for poorer countries. (I do not oppose this - does your government do likewise?)
Our government has set the most stringent CO2 reduction targets ( as a claimed world example) to be achieved by the year 2030. (I do not oppose this IF it is possible without putting us at an economic disadvantage, but consensus is that that will be very difficult to achieve.)
We already have sky high fuel ta(carbon) taxes for petrol and diesel, and our electricity bills have quadrupled in the last 5 years with loaded costs for wind farm developments. (I, and many others, would rather have had that money spent on a new swathe of nuclear stations, which would ensure our future power supplies.)
That is our governments ( a CONSERVATIVE/Liberal alliance - not left) contribution to tackling the global warming issue, but as for the accusation of 'other nonsense!'
It is obvious that every developing country in the world will want their fair share of the worlds finite resources. I know of no authority which imagines this will be possible, with the worlds ever increasing population.
You dismiss this as deniers 'talking points.' If so, I, in turn, wonder if it's you who doesn't inhabit the real world!
Last edited by GURGLETROUSERS on Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
