Any change at all?

Tpaine · Sep 17, 2016

Tim the plumber said:
Again I have to ask what you see as the big problem that a slightly warmer world would be. Untill then and untill I understand what degree of warming you are talking about I cannot answer any better than I did in the last thread.

You seem to be saying you cannot say what YOU see as a problem until I tell you what I see as a problem. I know what I see as a problem and I'll already stated it. But I don't know what you would see as a problem if anything.

Lord of Planar · Sep 17, 2016

Tpaine said:
You seem to be saying you cannot say what YOU see as a problem until I tell you what I see as a problem. I know what I see as a problem and I'll already stated it. But I don't know what you would see as a problem if anything.

How do we separate natural vs. man made climate change problems?

We can worry all day about CO2 and then have an unseen black hole strike the earth.

If someone can show me a reasonable threat, and a reasonable way to mitigate it, I'm game. I see some solutions as being more problematic than what they try to solve, like wind farms and solar thermal fields.

Tim the plumber · Sep 17, 2016

Tpaine said:
You seem to be saying you cannot say what YOU see as a problem until I tell you what I see as a problem. I know what I see as a problem and I'll already stated it. But I don't know what you would see as a problem if anything.

So the problem is that it has been unusually floody along the gulf coast recently????

If that's it then no, I don't think the whole world should do anything about changing the whole economy because Southern USA will have to spend a couple of billion on flood defences.

Tpaine · Sep 17, 2016

Tim the plumber said:
So the problem is that it has been unusually floody along the gulf coast recently????

If that's it then no, I don't think the whole world should do anything about changing the whole economy because Southern USA will have to spend a couple of billion on flood defences.

Tim I'm having trouble communicating with you here. I'm not saying there is now a problem. I'm asking if you could identify something that might happen in the future that would convince you there is a problem. You keep putting it back on me or something I've said. That's not what I'm asking. I perfectly aware there is nothing that has happened so far that concerns you. If this doesn't work then I'm giving up on an answer from you.

Tpaine · Sep 17, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
How do we separate natural vs. man made climate change problems?

We can worry all day about CO2 and then have an unseen black hole strike the earth.

If someone can show me a reasonable threat, and a reasonable way to mitigate it, I'm game. I see some solutions as being more problematic than what they try to solve, like wind farms and solar thermal fields.

I don't think you or Tim are going to answer my question.

Lord of Planar · Sep 17, 2016

Tpaine said:
Tim I'm having trouble communicating with you here. I'm not saying there is now a problem. I'm asking if you could identify something that might happen in the future that would convince you there is a problem.

How is he, or I, or someone else suppose to answer?

Any problem that may occur, may or may not have no human cause. I would have to go rather severe, like covering 1/4 or more of the land with concrete, asphalt, and building. Such a dramatic loss in transpiration would be a serious problem, and it still isn't what you are asking for.

Tpaine · Sep 17, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
How is he, or I, or someone else suppose to answer?

Any problem that may occur, may or may not have no human cause. I would have to go rather severe, like covering 1/4 or more of the land with concrete, asphalt, and building. Such a dramatic loss in transpiration would be a serious problem, and it still isn't what you are asking for.

Correct I was asking for a change in the weather.

Lord of Planar · Sep 17, 2016

Tpaine said:
Correct I was asking for a change in the weather.

There are several things that would concern me about weather changes. But is that what matters?

How do you attribute natural vs. caused by man? Isn't that what you really want to get at?

Tim the plumber · Sep 18, 2016

Tpaine said:
Tim I'm having trouble communicating with you here. I'm not saying there is now a problem. I'm asking if you could identify something that might happen in the future that would convince you there is a problem. You keep putting it back on me or something I've said. That's not what I'm asking. I perfectly aware there is nothing that has happened so far that concerns you. If this doesn't work then I'm giving up on an answer from you.

OK, the problem is that so far I have not seen anything which would be a significant problem in my view.

The IPCC has projections of sea level rise of a maximum of 1m by 2100. I disagree that this is at all credable in the first place but ignoring that.. With 84 years to prepare for this 1m sea level rise any land worth protecting will be so protected by the owners of the sea front. No nation will need to spend more than it spends on traffic lights to do this with the possible exception of the occaisional tiny island.

So other than a spectacular increase in world temperatures, going above the IPCC's top predictions, I don't see any trouble to worry about. Certainly nothing that will be half as bad as the present use of food as fuel.

Mithrae · Sep 18, 2016

Tpaine said:
Tim I'm having trouble communicating with you here. I'm not saying there is now a problem. I'm asking if you could identify something that might happen in the future that would convince you there is a problem. You keep putting it back on me or something I've said. That's not what I'm asking. I perfectly aware there is nothing that has happened so far that concerns you. If this doesn't work then I'm giving up on an answer from you.

You have to understand that you're talking to a fellow who regularly insists that if you take the total number of hunger-related deaths worldwide (some 9-10 million per year), fluctuations in food prices kill some 400% or more of that number (about a third of that fluctuation being due to biofuels in some years, by some estimates); and instead of providing any evidence himself for his claims, on at least one occasion asked others to do his homework for him but (after Jack Hays obliged) decided he didn't like the conclusions of the study cited and would simply ignore it and stick with his "tens of millions" claim.

"Trouble communicating" would be an understatement of most folks' interactions with Tim, to say the least!

An estimated 10 to 90 million people flooded each year due to sea level rise by the end of the century (even with a certain level of faith in their governments' flood protection programs) is not something which is an issue, of course.
:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

Lord of Planar · Sep 18, 2016

Mithrae said:
You have to understand that you're talking to a fellow who regularly insists that if you take the total number of hunger-related deaths worldwide (some 9-10 million per year), fluctuations in food prices kill some 400% or more of that number (about a third of that fluctuation being due to biofuels in some years, by some estimates); and instead of providing any evidence himself for his claims, on at least one occasion asked others to do his homework for him but (after Jack Hays obliged) decided he didn't like the conclusions of the study cited and would simply ignore it and stick with his "tens of millions" claim.

"Trouble communicating" would be an understatement of most folks' interactions with Tim, to say the least!

An estimated 10 to 90 million people flooded each year due to sea level rise by the end of the century (even with a certain level of faith in their governments' flood protection programs) is not something which is an issue, of course.
:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

That assumes static factors, right?

Like people not moving to higher ground?

Mithrae · Sep 18, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
That assumes static factors, right?

Like people not moving to higher ground?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... That there's no problem because other people can just abandon their homes and buy or build new ones, so we can save a few dollars on petrol?

The numbers could potentially be reduced to zero if you want people and governments to throw endless money at it. Do you?

longview · Sep 18, 2016

Mithrae said:
You have to understand that you're talking to a fellow who regularly insists that if you take the total number of hunger-related deaths worldwide (some 9-10 million per year), fluctuations in food prices kill some 400% or more of that number (about a third of that fluctuation being due to biofuels in some years, by some estimates); and instead of providing any evidence himself for his claims, on at least one occasion asked others to do his homework for him but (after Jack Hays obliged) decided he didn't like the conclusions of the study cited and would simply ignore it and stick with his "tens of millions" claim.

"Trouble communicating" would be an understatement of most folks' interactions with Tim, to say the least!

An estimated 10 to 90 million people flooded each year due to sea level rise by the end of the century (even with a certain level of faith in their governments' flood protection programs) is not something which is an issue, of course.
:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

I actually have a few real issues with the authors findings.
Just look at his basic math, and what he says.

Global Mean Sea Level increased by 210mm between 1880 and 2009, and is continuing to rise at a fairly steady rate of just over 3mm/year.

So from 1880 to 2009 sea levels increased at 1.62 mm/year, but now are steady at 3 mm/year,
this disagrees quite a bit with the tide gauge systems around the world.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents
And the actual trends show little to no trend upward, surly a nearly doubling of the rate of sea level rise would show up on the trends.
In particular he cites Bangla Desh, which has a subsidence problem, here are 3 tide gauges in close proximity to Bangla Desh.
Gangra 1.45 mm/year
Haldia 2.59 mm/year
Diamond Harbor 4.67 mm/year
They are all on the same river mouth, if the sea level were rising, all would be affected.

Renae · Sep 18, 2016

backpacker said:
For my area, temperatures above 110 or snow 3 feet deep would both make me think the climate had definitely changed since neither one has happened in my lifetime in this area.

History always begins when one is born.

jimbo · Sep 18, 2016

Tpaine said:
Thanks to all of those that responded to my last question. From those responses I thought of maybe a better question. For the skeptics, or anyone really, is there anything that you would see changing in the weather that would cause you to think that climate change is becoming a problem?

By climate change I assume you mean man created climate change. Virtually no one doesn't think the climate doesn't change.

Unless the climate change in question could be isolated to only man made with no other possibility, then no, there is no change that would make me a AGW believer.

Lord of Planar · Sep 18, 2016

Mithrae said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here... That there's no problem because other people can just abandon their homes and buy or build new ones, so we can save a few dollars on petrol?

The numbers could potentially be reduced to zero if you want people and governments to throw endless money at it. Do you?

The time it will take for the changes indicated is decades, centuries, or longer. Do you think things stay static that long? That the buildings will not be bulldozed, abandoned, or something else?

jimbo · Sep 18, 2016

Tpaine said:
No I was serious. Maybe I should have elaborated more. For instance if we had 5 - 1000 year floods along the gulf coast in one year would that cause you to think global warming was becoming a problem? Or if we had an Arctic free of sea ice in 10 years would that raise concerns? Those were just some examples and not meant to be predictions of anything.

Both of your examples have happened before. Long before man was even a gleam in the world's eye. So no.

jimbo · Sep 18, 2016

Tpaine said:
So you don't have an answer to the question?

If 5 once in a thousand year events occur in a single year, it does not necessarily mean than the events were man created. It could have any number of other causes. You roll a die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of the 1 coming up, but that in no way precludes the number 1 from coming up 100 times in a row.

That's the problem with AGW predictions. AGW believers take a single event or group of events and attempt to mold them to fit the agenda. Even the warming "scientists" agree. If the predictions fail, and many have, then the models must be wrong or it is an unpredictable rare event. It couldn't be that the scientists were wrong.

The only way I could be convinced is if events started happening that were outside the normal workings of the earth in the long term.

Tpaine · Sep 18, 2016

Tim the plumber said:
OK, the problem is that so far I have not seen anything which would be a significant problem in my view.

The IPCC has projections of sea level rise of a maximum of 1m by 2100. I disagree that this is at all credable in the first place but ignoring that.. With 84 years to prepare for this 1m sea level rise any land worth protecting will be so protected by the owners of the sea front. No nation will need to spend more than it spends on traffic lights to do this with the possible exception of the occaisional tiny island.

So other than a spectacular increase in world temperatures, going above the IPCC's top predictions, I don't see any trouble to worry about. Certainly nothing that will be half as bad as the present use of food as fuel.

I give up.

Tpaine · Sep 18, 2016

It is amazing to me that no one can get a grip on this simple question and answer something like “If the temperature rose 10 degrees I would start to be concerned.” Forget why it happened, forget what has happened, forget what someone else said something was going to happened, forget AGW, forget CAGW, just a simple question. Is there anything that might happen in the future regarding the weather that would cause you concern. Like I said I have given up on any answers but it’s still amazing to me that no one has given an answer.

Tim the plumber · Sep 18, 2016

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
OK, the problem is that so far I have not seen anything which would be a significant problem in my view.

The IPCC has projections of sea level rise of a maximum of 1m by 2100. I disagree that this is at all credable in the first place but ignoring that.. With 84 years to prepare for this 1m sea level rise any land worth protecting will be so protected by the owners of the sea front. No nation will need to spend more than it spends on traffic lights to do this with the possible exception of the occaisional tiny island.

So other than a spectacular increase in world temperatures, going above the IPCC's top predictions, I don't see any trouble to worry about. Certainly nothing that will be half as bad as the present use of food as fuel.

Tpaine said:
I give up.

Isn't that the answer to your question? If not how so?

Tim the plumber · Sep 18, 2016

Tpaine said:
It is amazing to me that no one can get a grip on this simple question and answer something like “If the temperature rose 10 degrees I would start to be concerned.” Forget why it happened, forget what has happened, forget what someone else said something was going to happened, forget AGW, forget CAGW, just a simple question. Is there anything that might happen in the future regarding the weather that would cause you concern. Like I said I have given up on any answers but it’s still amazing to me that no one has given an answer.

As I just said(sprt of); "If the climate's temperature rises to a level higher that the IPCC's top predictions" then I will look at this with a lot of concearn. I think that is likely to be bad, I don't see at the moment exactly why it would be bad but surely.... there must be something.

Does that do it?

Mithrae · Sep 18, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
The time it will take for the changes indicated is decades, centuries, or longer. Do you think things stay static that long? That the buildings will not be bulldozed, abandoned, or something else?

Or flooded? 2100 is not "centuries or longer" away, FYI. Many families live in the same home for 60 or 80 years or more. Abandoning a home and buying or building a new one is a huge financial loss and reinvestment - many people simply could not afford it. Even many who could scrape the resources together aren't likely to do so on the mere risk of future flooding.

Without any investment in flood protections according to that report - with a mid-range scenario of 10 billion population and intermediate GDP - we'd be looking at some 200 to 300 million people exposed to coastal flooding per year. Obviously there's likely to be some investment in protection, so the 10 to 100 million range is more likely.

Of course you're right that if people and governments just throw endless piles of cash at the issue one way or another, there probably wouldn't be any flood exposure at all. But that'd be a pretty stupid approach to take, wouldn't it? Yes? So, the 10 to 100 million per year range range is the reasonable estimate to be working with, for one of the likely consequences of global warming in the next eight decades.

jimbo · Sep 18, 2016

Tpaine said:
It is amazing to me that no one can get a grip on this simple question and answer something like “If the temperature rose 10 degrees I would start to be concerned.” Forget why it happened, forget what has happened, forget what someone else said something was going to happened, forget AGW, forget CAGW, just a simple question. Is there anything that might happen in the future regarding the weather that would cause you concern. Like I said I have given up on any answers but it’s still amazing to me that no one has given an answer.

It appears that you have been given answers but they are not the answers you are looking for. Instead you are loohing for answers like a 10 degree temperature change.

It might be easier if you would give us a list of acceptable answers.

Tpaine · Sep 18, 2016

Tim the plumber said:
As I just said(sprt of); "If the climate's temperature rises to a level higher that the IPCC's top predictions" then I will look at this with a lot of concearn. I think that is likely to be bad, I don't see at the moment exactly why it would be bad but surely.... there must be something.

Does that do it?

You are right Tim that is exactly what I was looking for. It was posted after the post you were replying too. But thank you.

Any change at all?

Tpaine

Member

Lord of Planar

Tim the plumber

Tpaine

Member

Tpaine

Member

Lord of Planar

Tpaine

Member

Lord of Planar

Tim the plumber

Mithrae

Lord of Planar

Mithrae

longview

Renae

jimbo

Lord of Planar

jimbo

jimbo

Tpaine

Member

Tpaine

Member

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

Mithrae

jimbo

Tpaine

Member