Axios: American belief in global warming reaches 10-year high

maxparrish · Jul 19, 2018

Cont...

To the contrary I don't recognize the need for geo-engineering at this moment because technologies need time to mature and the need may not exist. But I do recognize that IF you think there is a crisis, working towards (for example) brightening clouds through water seeding or seeding ocean areas that are sterile to produce plankton has a greater chance of succeeding than all the Paris agreements born and unborn. In other words, using technology for mitigation of effects with adaptation to a warmer world is the most promising route.

By the way, we do know how to reduce emissions. We can produce less waste and less garbage; we can push for energy efficiency standards, in buildings and with vehicles; we can push for sustainable and green energy generation, to name a few. We've already seen how the cost of renewables has been falling through the floor over the past decade, and it is likely to continue to fall. There is no grand mystery, we just have to get on it.

Another bonus? Even though it's very difficult, the reality is that we can cut emissions right now. We are decades away from even the start of any sort of geoengineering projects.

Ultimately, we are doing so much harm and may need to move with enough alacrity to need some types of geoengineering. That is a far, far cry from suggesting that it is the first option we should consider.

Nonsense. The reduction of "less garbage" and energy efficiency standards in vehicles and buildings is not efficient - it is spasmodic, ignores economic consequences, and often uses excessive resources. Moreover, without an enforceable international mechanism, the free rider problem will only punish some countries to the benefit of others - without solving a thing.

in short my order of preference is:

Do nothing. Wait and see. Adapt, as humans have always adapted.
Geo-engineering and carbon sequestration.
Universal Carbon Taxes.
Universal Cap and Trade.
Arcane and Arbitrary Regulatory Standards and Government Micromanagement.

Only those who love using 'edicts' and 'decrees' on the populace to directly dictate their consumption love the last option - most economists know better.

Hawkeye10 · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
https://www.axios.com/united-states...igh-7f706e6f-6683-4011-b66b-db9b807ce6b8.html

Full PDF of the report: http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2018-spring-climate-belief.pdf

Axios presents a brief summary of a long-term poll conducted by the Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy / National Surveys on Energy and Environment. The percentage of Americans who believe there is solid evidence for global warming, as well as the percentage of people who attribute it to human activity, is at a 10-year high.

The number who believe in global warming has gone up and down since 2008, but is now at 73%. The lowest numbers were in 2010, at 52%.

34% believe global warming is primarily due to human activity; another 26% believe it is in part due to human activity, and part other causes. Only 12% say it is exclusively natural, and another 15% do not believe the climate is changing at all.

Unsurprisingly, there is a partisan divide over the issue, which is also larger than usual.

I guess that's what happens when you have years of record high temperatures, plus hurricanes whose impact is intensified by climate change, plus droughts and heat waves and massive glaciers calving off of Antarctica and...

That most certainly does not mean that 73% of us agree with the "solutions" the geniuses and commanded that we follow.

Bergslagstroll · Jul 19, 2018

Into the Night said:
Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. This buzzword has been around a long time. It is still just as meaningless as when it was first used.

There are no American fossil fuel companies. We don't burn fossils for fuel. They don't burn. We use oil, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and solar.

The oil companies you mentioned are trying to market their products to members of the Church of Global Warming, and trying to protect government research money.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. This meaningless buzzword has been around awhile too. Buzzwords do not require action except by the person using them.

There is no theory of science based on meaningless buzzwords. It is not possible to even have a nonscientific theory based on meaningless buzzwords. If you want to have any theories about 'global warming' or 'climate change', you MUST first DEFINE them in some way other than by themselves.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. There is no such thing as 'greenhouse' effect except in an actual greenhouse. Greenhouses work by reducing heat, specifically convective heat. The atmosphere is open. It does not reduce convective heat.

Fossil fuel companies have spent tons of money on trying to delay action on climate change. For example, that gas companies spend 104 million Euros lobbying EU politcians.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

So of course, the fossil fuel companies would have had the money to disprove manmade global warming if it was real evidence. Also, Bush who didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol was president for eight years. While Trump who have claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax is now president. So, there would also have been governmental funds to disprove man made global warming.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

While the result after several decades is that the people that deny the need for action on made global warming cause by C02 are all over the place. Some acknowledge manmade global warming from C02 but claim that the negative effect is much smaller or none. While other acknowledge manmade global warming but claim it not because of C02. While some acknowledge global warming but claim it mostly non-human factors. While other claim that the climat is cooling.

While all the world’s leading scientific institutes acknowledge the need for action on climate change. Like for example thirty-one of the largest American science societies, that collectively representing millions of scientists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ammer-congress-on-climate-change-mdash-again/

Threegoofs · Jul 19, 2018

This thread is like watching a parade of retards.

I’ll just note that there are some actual answers that are correct from this poll.

An answer key, if you will.

The scientific consensus is that there is a 99% likelihood that there is global warming happening.

Also, it’s 95% certain that most or all of that warming is from anthropogenic causes.

Visbek · Jul 19, 2018

maxparrish said:
And heading in the right direction can only happen (in part) when requests to openly publish data, code, and methods are welcomed and embraced by those scientists, as opposed to hiding them out of sight.

...and again, we already have transparency. Please try to keep up.

So name calling stonewalled folks as cranks and shills does not fool anyone....

And again: There is nothing wrong with calling a crank, a crank.

The right direction has been to emulate more serious and sophisticated academic and statistical work such as in economics, where data and methods of papers have been routinely and customarily published for decades. Thankfully, a some of the more recent authors (e.g. Marcott) are beginning to do so - such courage should be celebrated.

Erm... You mean, Shaun Marcott? Or someone else? What is he doing that is so different? Climate scientists have used models and statistical analyses for decades.

In the meantime, I understand your hostility to geo-engineering - its an article of faith in the green religion that nothing less than sacrifice and punishment by a omnipotent command authority is acceptable. I mean, what's a state religion if it not punishment by the high priests of officialdom for our sins, right?

Wrong.

I tried to be very clear on this:
• It's better to prevent the damage in the first place
• We've never done anything like deliberate geo-engineering, so we have no idea whether it will work, or if there will be unintended side effects
• We can already surmise that some techniques (like putting massive amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere) will be harmful
• It's very easy to be starry-eyed about something that isn't even anywhere near the testing phase
• Promises that "it will be cheap!" are easy to make, hard to fulfill, impossible at this point to prove
• Promising future cleanup can encourage even more releases of GHGs
• It could be decades before we can even test these projects
• What is better, in your view: To dump a bunch of toxic waste and clean it up later, or to prevent improper disposal of toxic waste in the first place? Is it really justified to dump waste indiscriminately if you claim that it's cheaper to clean it up later? Again, that is what you're proposing here.

Sorry to break this to you, but these are eminently rational concerns about proposals that aren't even on the drawing board yet.

On the other hand, a decade ago a cost-benefit analysis by environmental economist William Nordhaus using his DIME model found geo-engineering to be the most cost-effective avenue of mitigation.

1) I'm pretty sure it is DICE, not DIME.

2) Apparently there's a die-hard denialist who willfully misrepresented Nordhaus' position on this, and you're probably just parroting his claims.

3) He didn't roll back out of fear that the IPCC would slash his tires. Rather, he has never advocated inaction. In fact, his 2015 book Climate Casino makes the case that we are taking significant risks with our current path, as we may well trigger irreversible tipping points. In his view, the best fix is to put a price on carbon -- e.g. carbon taxes, or cap-and-trade.

None the less, not all share the mindless hostility and irrational fears of using technology as well a embracing adaptation to mitigate whatever negative effects are feared....

Or: We realize that it is better to avoid doing damage in the first place, rather than "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" and hope someone figures out how to fix the mess later.

Of course, that is assuming that the crisis is real and in need of serious solutions.

Uhh, yeah. The crisis is real, and it needs to be solved. It might help to accept that when allegedly running your own numbers on the various costs.

But the reality is that no one really knows the cost-benefit ratio of increased balmy weather, and that absent such knowledge it would be most foolish to pursue a policy regime that has the twin vices of being both ineffective and costly....

Dude.

It isn't just "increased balmy weather." It is:
• Soaring temperatures around the world
• Sea levels rising, which causes more damage to coastal areas (where 40% of the world's population lives btw)
• Increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more intense storms and rainfall (e.g. Hurricane Harvey was made worse due to changes in the climate)
• Increased acidification and ocean temperatures harms wildlife (e.g. we're already seeing massive damage to coral reefs)

The list goes on. But <sarcasm>I'm glad to see you're taking this seriously, because it's not like downplaying the damage is going to have any effect on your own private cost models.</sarcasm>

Visbek · Jul 19, 2018

maxparrish said:
To the contrary I don't recognize the need for geo-engineering at this moment because technologies need time to mature and the need may not exist. But I do recognize that IF you think there is a crisis, working towards (for example) brightening clouds through water seeding or seeding ocean areas that are sterile to produce plankton has a greater chance of succeeding than all the Paris agreements born and unborn. In other words, using technology for mitigation of effects with adaptation to a warmer world is the most promising route.

Yeah, thing is? We already know there is a crisis. We already know it's going to get worse.

That's one reason why I don't accept your pie-in-the-sky assumptions about technologies that we've never even tested, and whose use on a global scale is unprecedented.

And "adaptation?" What are we going to do, abandon every major coastal city? Tell hundreds of millions of Bangladeshis to buy hip-waders and hope for the best? Feel the thrill when cities like Houston get hit with Category 6 hurricanes? Oh, I know. We'll just pretend that there's nothing wrong, that will fix everything!

Nonsense. The reduction of "less garbage" and energy efficiency standards in vehicles and buildings is not efficient - it is spasmodic, ignores economic consequences, and often uses excessive resources. Moreover, without an enforceable international mechanism, the free rider problem will only punish some countries to the benefit of others - without solving a thing.

:roll:

Oh, really? Where is the increased efficiency in wasting half the food we buy? Where is the efficiency in throwing out 100 billion straws per year? Where is the efficiency in Americans throwing away 10 million tons of clothing per year? What are the "economic consequences" of using wind energy, when it becomes cheaper than coal?

It seems rather bizarre that you lament the lack of international mechanisms, even as you dump on international accords designed to encourage increased international cooperation.

By the way, how do you think mitigation is going to work? You may imagine it will be cheaper, but someone still has to pay for it, and it's probably going to be trillions of dollars. If it is somehow impossible to develop international coordination today, why will that be easier tomorrow?

Only those who love using 'edicts' and 'decrees' on the populace to directly dictate their consumption love the last option - most economists know better.

:roll:

Only those who don't take the problem seriously think we can "do nothing," or fix it all with a wave of a magic wand in the future.

maxparrish · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
...and again, we already have transparency. Please try to keep up.
And again: There is nothing wrong with calling a crank, a crank.
Erm... You mean, Shaun Marcott? Or someone else? What is he doing that is so different? Climate scientists have used models and statistical analyses for decades.

I refuse to believe, in spite of your point ducking replies, that you are incapable of reading for comprehension. As such I will leave it to you to show that you are, in fact, capable. In the meantime, for the final time:

- There is nothing wrong with calling a crank a crank, unless it is a form of hand-waving to avoid transparency and full disclosure. Given the obstructionist history of Climate Science and the comments made by its members (e.g. in Climate-Gate or in the dispute on the hockey stick between McIntyre and Von Storch vs. the Mann, Briffa, et. al. "team") this is obvious.

- No we don't "already have (full) transparency", but transparency has vastly improved especially with younger researchers. Full, true, and plain disclosure (a basic requirement for a financial prospectus) of the basis for a scientific paper is now routine in many academic areas, but climate science has been historically doggedly resistant to archiving data, archiving calculations and computer code, and to providing all the supplementary material necessary to replicate a study - even when journals and grants required it. And, in case you have forgotten, replicability is one of the fundamental precepts of the scientific method.

- Marcott, a younger multiproxy researcher, did "man up" in his often cited 2013 paper on Holocene temperatures. He archived all of it on-line and it was easily and quickly replicated, some weaknesses and errors noted, and the science moved on. This is how it should be (as it is in economics) - not the attitude of the notorious Phil Jones comment made to Von Storch: “Why should I make my data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

- As you seem unaware of these issues here are some links that discuss the history of Climate Science obstructionism, many of them by published climate researchers. Should you wish to open your mind, here is your opportunity:

https://climateaudit.org/2005/02/14...closure-and-due-diligence-in-climate-science/
https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/21/replication-policy-re-posted/
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/check-numbers-case-for-due-diligence-in-policy-formation
https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/31/violating-the-norms-and-ethos-of-science/
https://judithcurry.com/2012/05/07/the-legacy-of-climategate/

And a comment on when the dark side fights to suppress data:

https://politicalsciencereplication...arency-all-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-4048

As I have other more important tasks pending, I will leave it at that. Best of luck in your readings...

Max

Threegoofs · Jul 19, 2018

Oh, look.

A climategate crank.

Tim the plumber · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
Yeah, thing is? We already know there is a crisis. We already know it's going to get worse.

That's one reason why I don't accept your pie-in-the-sky assumptions about technologies that we've never even tested, and whose use on a global scale is unprecedented.

And "adaptation?" What are we going to do, abandon every major coastal city? Tell hundreds of millions of Bangladeshis to buy hip-waders and hope for the best? Feel the thrill when cities like Houston get hit with Category 6 hurricanes? Oh, I know. We'll just pretend that there's nothing wrong, that will fix everything!

:roll:

Oh, really? Where is the increased efficiency in wasting half the food we buy? Where is the efficiency in throwing out 100 billion straws per year? Where is the efficiency in Americans throwing away 10 million tons of clothing per year? What are the "economic consequences" of using wind energy, when it becomes cheaper than coal?

It seems rather bizarre that you lament the lack of international mechanisms, even as you dump on international accords designed to encourage increased international cooperation.

By the way, how do you think mitigation is going to work? You may imagine it will be cheaper, but someone still has to pay for it, and it's probably going to be trillions of dollars. If it is somehow impossible to develop international coordination today, why will that be easier tomorrow?

:roll:

Only those who don't take the problem seriously think we can "do nothing," or fix it all with a wave of a magic wand in the future.

To say the same thing yet again;

1, Bangladesh gets 2cm of sediment dumped on it every monsoon. That is if you are 10km away from the rivers. The rivers are everywhere and you will have to try hard to find anywhere that is so far away from a river channel. So a 1m sea level rise by 2100 means that Bangladesh will be bigger not smaller.

2, Other coastal cities will build sea defences just as they do already. The cost will be tiny, less than their budget for traffic lights.

3, Hurricanes go up to cat 5.

4, Have you noticed the total lack of push back against the single use plastic thing? Everybody thinks it is good to not throw away so much plastic and make sure the environment is less poluted by it.

5, As and when wind power becomes cheaper the world will swap over very quickly. See the thread of mine which is my idea of how to do it.

6, If you can show me any single aspect of a slightly warmer world that will cost any local council in the world that has traffic lights more than its' traffic light budget then you win. You must explain the mechanism by which this will happen in your own words, cite supporting science, a paper or such, then we can look at it, see if it is at all credable and see if it will in fact cost more than the traffic light budget. Always assuming that trafficlights remain when we have driverless cars.

Into the Night · Jul 19, 2018

Bergslagstroll said:
Fossil fuel companies have spent tons of money

There are no fossil fuel companies. Fossils don't burn. I assume you mean 'evil' sources of energy.

Bergslagstroll said:
on trying to delay action on climate change.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Action is not required for a meaningless buzzword.

Bergslagstroll said:
For example, that gas companies spend 104 million Euros lobbying EU politcians.

I notice you don't mention what the lobbying was for.

Bergslagstroll said:
So of course, the fossil fuel companies would have had the money to disprove manmade global warming if it was real evidence.

Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. There is nothing to disprove. A buzzword is meaningless. You are attempting to force a negative proof, a fallacy.

Bergslagstroll said:
While the result after several decades is that the people that deny the need for action on made global warming cause by C02 are all over the place.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 'greenhouse' effect mechanism denies the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also produces a paradox.

Bergslagstroll said:
Some acknowledge manmade global warming from C02 but claim that the negative effect is much smaller or none.

Yes. The Church of Global Warming has several denominations.

Bergslagstroll said:
While other acknowledge manmade global warming but claim it not because of C02. While some acknowledge global warming but claim it mostly non-human factors. While other claim that the climat is cooling.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough instruments to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

Bergslagstroll said:
While all the world’s leading scientific institutes acknowledge the need for action on climate change.
Like for example thirty-one of the largest American science societies, that collectively representing millions of scientists.

This is a false authority fallacy, combined with bigotry. It also ignores the fact that most of the scientists in these organizations are funded by a single source: the federal government, and must toe the government agenda to get paid.

Into the Night · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
Again... Whatever, dude.

Scientists have no obligation to treat cranks and fossil fuel industry flunkies as equals;

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel industry. Fossils don't burn. Did you know that scientists work for oil, coal, and natural gas companies?

Visbek said:
and a sophisticated polis will reject what you're dishing out, as each year that goes by displays more and more effects of the human impact on the environment.

...such as? Can you be more vague about this?

Visbek said:
Fun fact! Climate science has a pretty good idea of what they don't know; it's expressed in ranges of uncertainty. And while we don't know everything, we certainly do understand the most important factors:

There is no such thing as a 'climate' science. There are no theories of science concerning a global climate. Indeed, there is no such thing as a global climate, for there is no such thing as a global weather.

Visbek said:
• Human beings are producing unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Visbek said:
• As more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, more heat gets trapped, and this has major consequences for the environment

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy either. There is always heat. It is not possible to trap light either. You are ignoring the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics here, as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are also ignoring a rather important paradox the 'greenhouse effect' argument produces.

Visbek said:
I.e. passing the buck to your kids is not going to produce the best outcomes.

How quaint. The "it's for the kids" argument.

The 1st law of thermodynamics basically describes the conservation of energy law. You can't create or destroy energy. You are assuming that the additional thermal energy is coming out of nothing.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy never decreases in any system. By 'trapping' thermal energy, you are decreasing entropy in a system.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that radiance and temperature are proportional to each other, never inversely proportional. By 'trapping' heat, you are reducing radiance while temperature is increasing at the same time. That is not possible.

The daylit skin temperature of the International Space Station reaches 250 deg F. It has no appreciable atmosphere, no CO2, no methane, no significant water vapor..
There is nowhere on Earth that gets anywhere near that hot. Yet Earth has an atmosphere, with so-called 'greenhouse' magick gases that somehow cause the Earth to warm. If CO2 warms the Earth, why is the surface of the Earth so much COLDER???

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse' effect. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Visbek · Jul 19, 2018

maxparrish said:
I refuse to believe, in spite of your point ducking replies, that you are incapable of reading for comprehension....

Right back at ya.

Strike 1: "Climategate"
Strike 2: Climate Audit
Strike 3: Fraser Institute

Have a nice day.

Into the Night · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
:
Any even remotely rational person who has looked at geo-engineering should realize that the risks are enormous, the outcomes unpredictable, and capabilities insufficient. We have never deliberately engaged in the kind of projects required to reverse some of the damage we've already done; e.g. dumping massive amounts of aerosols could wreak havoc with the environment, in ways known and unknown.

Geo-engineering is not possible. Not even remotely possible. You've been watching too many science fiction shows.

Visbek said:
:
Most geoengineering projects won't mitigate existing harms, such as ocean acidification,

You can't acidify the oceans. Ocean water is alkaline. You can't acidify an alkaline. Are you thinking of CO2 lowering the pH of the worlds oceans? Okay...let's look at that.

Currently, approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide (if you use the Mauna Loa data and disregard the cooking of it, or the nonuniformity of CO2 in the atmosphere). That means that approximately the same concentration is in ocean water. Over the last 60 years of measuring it, we have seen an increase of approx. 0.012%. This means the CO2 in ocean water has increased about the same.

The effect of putting CO2 into water is that is simply dissolves. We call it soda water if you get enough in there (far more than the oceanic concentration). A small portion of it will convert to carbonic acid (about 0.13%). So, approximately 0.000156 % of the ocean water is increased carbonic acid.

Carbonic acid is a weak acid. Ocean water acts as a buffer, so the total change of pH in ocean with this much carbonic acid in it is insignificant. We have no instruments to measure that small a difference in pH.

pH of ocean water is not uniform. It varies somewhat depending on where in the ocean you measure it. This variance completely masks any difference caused by

Visbek said:
:
coral losses,

Coral is a living organism, built upon the dead of its own ancestors. Living things die from time to time.

Visbek said:
:
marine cloud brightening,

Clouds are liquid water (or ice). Nothing has changed. Clouds are still liquid water (or ice). There is no difference between a 'marine' cloud and any other except it's location.

Visbek said:
:
ice losses

Antarctica recorded a record maximum ice extent in 2014. The 2016 cycle recorded one of the lowest. The 2017 cycle is slightly higher than the 2016 cycle.

What ice losses?

Visbek said:
:
and more.

Can't think of anymore disasters at the moment?

Visbek said:
:
Not to mention that just a moment ago, you were saying we don't understand the environment -- yet you're fine with untested (and untestable) global geo-engineering projects? How does that fly?

It doesn't. No one can do geo-engineering.

Visbek said:
:
By the way, we do know how to reduce emissions.

Who cares? CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.

Visbek said:
:
We can produce less waste and less garbage;

CO2 is not waste or garbage. Is it a gas necessary for life on Earth.

Visbek said:
:
we can push for energy efficiency standards in buildings and with vehicles;

Always nice. It saves money to do that. You can't create energy out of nothing, though.

Visbek said:
:
we can push for sustainable and green energy generation, to name a few.

Ah yes...the old 'evil energy' vs 'good energy' argument.

Sorry to break your politically correct balloon, but coal, oil, and natural gas ARE sustainable. Oil and natural gas, in particular, are renewable energy sources. We don't know about coal, but there seems to be plenty of it.
The best indication of this? It's worth in the marketplace compared to other commodities. Gold makes a good reference point. since its amount and purity are easily checked, and governments can't just print it. Oil products and natural gas is CHEAP right now...much cheaper than it was in the 60's! That means there is plenty of it! In terms of BTU (or wattage), you can't find a more efficient package for chemically based energy.

Wind is expensive. It requires vast amounts of real estate for the power it produces. Solar is far worse, requiring expensive crystals to make it work, and they decay after a few years of Sun exposure. Both of these methods require ballasting as well, which is often more expensive than the power source itself.

Visbek said:
:
We've already seen how the cost of renewables has been falling through the floor over the past decade, and it is likely to continue to fall.

Yes. The cost of oil and natural gas in particular has fallen quite a ways, and will likely continue to do so.

Into the Night · Jul 19, 2018

Threegoofs said:
This thread is like watching a parade of retards.

I’ll just note that there are some actual answers that are correct from this poll.

An answer key, if you will.

The scientific consensus is that there is a 99% likelihood that there is global warming happening.

Also, it’s 95% certain that most or all of that warming is from anthropogenic causes.

Argument from randU.You are making up numbers.

Science doesn't use consensus. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' consensus. Only religions use consensus.

Visbek · Jul 19, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
To say the same thing yet again;

1, Bangladesh gets 2cm of sediment dumped on it every monsoon. That is if you are 10km away from the rivers. The rivers are everywhere and you will have to try hard to find anywhere that is so far away from a river channel. So a 1m sea level rise by 2100 means that Bangladesh will be bigger not smaller.

Most of the sediment gets washed away. It's not going to accrete naturally.

So, if we want to use that silt to raise the land or redirect the rising sea levels, we're going to need a massive civil engineering program, the likes of which a poor nation like Bangladesh cannot afford.

And again, who pays? Bangladesh contributed very little to the GHGs that ultimately cause the sea levels to rise, yet they suffer the consequences, and the polluter nations -- notably the US -- are often reluctant to help.

2, Other coastal cities will build sea defences just as they do already. The cost will be tiny, less than their budget for traffic lights.

Again, this is an absurd claim.

For example, New York City might need to spend $25 billion to mitigate the increased flood hazards due to climate change. These barriers would likely impact shipping lanes and views. A poorly designed barrier could trap water inside its perimeter, or cause increased sea levels or flooding in nearby areas.

How about traffic lights? NYC replaced all of its traffic lights with LED versions for $10 million. NYC could do that every year for 2,500 years before matching the cost of just the barriers.

You need to drop this ridiculous idea that mitigation is cheap. It isn't.

3, Hurricanes go up to cat 5.

The world has never seen a Category 6 hurricane, but the day may be coming

Take a wild guess why we might start seeing Cat6 hurricanes.

Into the Night · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
Dude.

It isn't just "increased balmy weather." It is:
• Soaring temperatures around the world

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Visbek said:
• Sea levels rising, which causes more damage to coastal areas (where 40% of the world's population lives btw)

It is not possible to measure a global sea level. The only places where sea flooding occurs is in areas with silted up river deltas, sinking or tilting land, or storm surges.

Visbek said:
• Increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more intense storms and rainfall

It is not possible to measure the global water vapor in the atmosphere. (It's not possible to measure the global CO2 either).

Visbek said:
(e.g. Hurricane Harvey was made worse due to changes in the climate)

Circular argument fallacy.

The National Hurricane Center has noted no increase in the number of intensity of storms since 1945, when they first began to accurately measure them.

Visbek said:
• Increased acidification

You can't acidify an alkaline. 0.00056% of a weak acid like carbonic acid is not going to change the pH of the oceans enough to even be able to measure it.

Visbek said:
and ocean temperatures

It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth's oceans.

Visbek said:
harms wildlife (e.g. we're already seeing massive damage to coral reefs)

BS. Coral reefs are fine. They are living things. They live, they die. End of story.

Visbek said:
The list goes on. But <sarcasm>I'm glad to see you're taking this seriously, because it's not like downplaying the damage is going to have any effect on your own private cost models.</sarcasm>

There is no damage traceable to 'global warming'. You can't even define 'global warming'. It's a meaningless buzzword, and a religion.

Into the Night · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
Most of the sediment gets washed away. It's not going to accrete naturally.

Guess you don't believe in sedimentary rock or sandbars, do you? You must figure that some construction company put all the sand on the beaches. :roll:

Visbek said:
Again, this is an absurd claim.

For example, New York City might need to spend $25 billion to mitigate the increased flood hazards due to climate change.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. New York has no need to waste its money on a meaningless buzzword. But they'll probably do it anyway.

Visbek said:
These barriers would likely impact shipping lanes and views. A poorly designed barrier could trap water inside its perimeter, or cause increased sea levels or flooding in nearby areas.

Barriers don't increase the global sea level!:lamo

Visbek said:
How about traffic lights? NYC replaced all of its traffic lights with LED versions for $10 million. NYC could do that every year for 2,500 years before matching the cost of just the barriers.

They did it to save money. LED lights are cheaper to operate, and don't require staff and trucks to replace burned out bulbs. They are brighter and easier to see by drivers too. Few less lawsuits against the city that way!

Visbek said:
You need to drop this ridiculous idea that mitigation is cheap. It isn't.

NYC didn't replace traffic lights to mitigate the effects of a meaningless buzzword. They did it to stop having to replace burned out light bulbs and install a more reliable traffic light. $10 million is a drop in the bucket for the budget of NYC, which spends annually some 85 BILLION dollars each year.

Visbek said:
The world has never seen a Category 6 hurricane, but the day may be coming
Take a wild guess why we might start seeing Cat6 hurricanes.

You won't. There is no such thing as a cat 6 hurricane, nor ever could be. See the Saffir-Simpson hurricane rating scale. Maybe you are thinking of your network cable.

Threegoofs · Jul 19, 2018

Into the Night said:
Argument from randU.You are making up numbers.

Science doesn't use consensus. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' consensus. Only religions use consensus.

There is no such thing as RandU.

Pulling stuff out of your ass fallacy.

Jack Hays · Jul 19, 2018

Threegoofs said:
There is no such thing as RandU.

Pulling stuff out of your ass fallacy.

[h=3]RANDU - Wikipedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANDU

RANDU is a linear congruential pseudorandom number generator of the Park–Miller type, which has been used since the 1960s. It is defined by the recurrence:.

Visbek · Jul 19, 2018

Threegoofs said:
There is no such thing as RandU.

Pulling stuff out of your ass fallacy.

lol

Maybe he's thinking about "argument from Landru?"

maxparrish · Jul 19, 2018

Visbek said:
I tried to be very clear on this:

You were clear in that you were clearly wrong.

Comments on your assertions to follow in red:

• "It's better to prevent the damage in the first place" . Wrong. If the costs of prevention are more than the cost of the damage, or more than the cost of adaptation or cleanup then no, it is not better.. (IE familiarize your self with cost-benefit analysis).

• "We've never done anything like deliberate geo-engineering, so we have no idea whether it will work, or if there will be unintended side effects". There are unintended and unknown side-effects to any change from the status quo. The difference is that we know that showboat policies like the Paris Accords are as expensive as they are useless. Ergo, if you think the future so awful then side effects from adaptation and mitigation are the least of your concerns.

• "We can already surmise that some techniques (like putting massive amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere) will be harmful". We do, do we? I'd like to see which geo-engineering proposals are known and computed to be more harmful than the alarmist claims about consequences of global warming". Marine cloud brightening, for one, is a promising and cheap strategy that can be tested and tried without long-term harm.

• It's very easy to be starry-eyed about something that isn't even anywhere near the testing phase - Excuse us, how has GHG emission control efforts and climate consequences been tested? Answer: to the degree they have, they have failed to effect climate (leaving aside the fact that the reduction of particulates increase warming).

• Promises that "it will be cheap!" are easy to make, hard to fulfill, impossible at this point to prove In other words, its too hard to try, right?

• Promising future cleanup can encourage even more releases of GHGs You can't encourage the production of something not desired to begin with; they are a side effect from another purpose - like producing electricity. What you really mean is that it discourages politicians from adopting your favored strategy of regulatory limits.

• It could be decades before we can even test these projects If people like you keep opposing them, it may well be a self fulfilling prophecy. Hardly a valid argument, do you think?

• What is better, in your view: To dump a bunch of toxic waste and clean it up later, or to prevent improper disposal of toxic waste in the first place? Is it really justified to dump waste indiscriminately if you claim that it's cheaper to clean it up later? Again, that is what you're proposing here. See my prior explanation of cost-benefit. For example, is it cheaper to clean your own water (toilet wastes, detergent, etc.) before you dump polluted water into a sewer, or cheaper and more justified to clean it up a single point down the road (a waste water plant)? Is it cheaper to purify waste water to the quality of drinking water and then reroute it back to homes, or to dump a mildly tainted water into the river and let nature take care of it? One must calculate the cost-benefit, especially to consumer well being of each of these scenarios.

2) Apparently there's a die-hard denialist who willfully misrepresented Nordhaus' position on this, and you're probably just parroting his claims.

3) He didn't roll back out of fear that the IPCC would slash his tires. Rather, he has never advocated inaction. In fact, his 2015 book Climate Casino makes the case that we are taking significant risks with our current path, as we may well trigger irreversible tipping points. In his view, the best fix is to put a price on carbon -- e.g. carbon taxes, or cap-and-trade.

To be more precise, Nordhaus originally considered geo-engineering as the most cost-effective solution. In 2006 he did not change his mind, but he did add caveats of concern conveyed to him by environmentalists that preached fear of the unknown and the concern over ocean acidification. My assumption is that his cost-benefit analysis and principles stand; i.e. what he called "backstop" technology was cheap, on the order of 5 bucks a ton of CO2.

Cont...

maxparrish · Jul 19, 2018

Cont...

It isn't just "increased balmy weather." It is:
• Soaring temperatures around the world [(Subjective theatrics. AKA "increasing". ]
• Sea levels rising, which causes more damage to coastal areas (where 40% of the world's population lives btw) [Threat exaggerated. Adaptation is solution]
• Increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more intense storms and rainfall (e.g. Hurricane Harvey was made worse due to changes in the climate) [Highly disputed as to severity and frequency increase/decrease due to warming
• Increased acidification and ocean temperatures harms wildlife (e.g. we're already seeing massive damage to coral reefs) Wildlife did fine in prior warm periods, including coral. Threat overblown]

The list goes on. But <sarcasm>I'm glad to see you're taking this seriously, because it's not like downplaying the damage is going to have any effect on your own private cost models.</sarcasm>

The models are not private, and the uncertainty of actual benefits and costs to global warming remain. As we write, the arctic may be opening up to access to vast resources, and new shipping routes established. CO2 fertilization increases crop yields, and new northern areas may open to agricultural development. Climate patterns may change, making both winners and losers. Clearly some of the most lush and lavish plant growth in earth's history has been in its warmer climate ages.

Put on a pair of swim trunks, sun tan lotion, and sun glasses and frolic on the beaches, in the new warmer climate, of the Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Enjoy Maine in mild winters, visit the new German Rivera. All these are as possible as any doom and gloom scenario.

Tim the plumber · Jul 20, 2018

Visbek said:
Most of the sediment gets washed away. It's not going to accrete naturally.

No. That is what Bangladesh is. So are all river deltas. Basic physical geography.

Into the Night · Jul 20, 2018

Threegoofs said:
There is no such thing as RandU.

Pulling stuff out of your ass fallacy.

Yes there is. A random number of type randU is the 'predictable' random number. It is the number one makes up in the course of a conversation in their own head. It's use is a fallacy when the number is used as data.

There are three types of random numbers: randR, or the type of random number found in dice, and randN, or the type of random number found in playing cards. These terms come from random number mathematics. It is the source of those numbers used in probability and statistical mathematics. Random number mathematics describe exactly what a random number is, and just exactly how random it is. It operates in the Full Discrete math Domain, not the Real Domain, which you learned in school (if you learned any math at all). Because random numbers are imported from another Domain, they remove the inherent property in math of the power of prediction in those branches of mathematics where they are used.

For this reason, probability math and statistical math do not have the power of prediction.

Threegoofs · Jul 20, 2018

Into the Night said:
Yes there is. A random number of type randU is the 'predictable' random number. It is the number one makes up in the course of a conversation in their own head. It's use is a fallacy when the number is used as data.

There are three types of random numbers: randR, or the type of random number found in dice, and randN, or the type of random number found in playing cards. These terms come from random number mathematics. It is the source of those numbers used in probability and statistical mathematics. Random number mathematics describe exactly what a random number is, and just exactly how random it is. It operates in the Full Discrete math Domain, not the Real Domain, which you learned in school (if you learned any math at all). Because random numbers are imported from another Domain, they remove the inherent property in math of the power of prediction in those branches of mathematics where they are used.

For this reason, probability math and statistical math do not have the power of prediction.

I guess when you make stuff up in your head, it becomes a real boy.

Axios: American belief in global warming reaches 10-year high

Conservatarian

Buttermilk Man

Sophisticated man-about-town

Stuck In The Circle

Stuck In The Circle

Conservatarian

Sophisticated man-about-town

Stuck In The Circle

Stuck In The Circle

Sophisticated man-about-town

Traveler

Stuck In The Circle

Conservatarian

Conservatarian

Sophisticated man-about-town