• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What would change your mind on Climate change?

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
For me it would be some sort of credible aspect of a warmer world, as per credible predictions, that would be someting I could see as actuallly casuing a real significant problem from it. More than having to add a couple of feet to the sea defenses.

What would it take for you to change your mind regardless of which side you are on.

Treat this as a test of scientific thinking. A test of open mindedness.
 
Tim the plumber said:
For me it would be some sort of credible aspect of a warmer world, as per credible predictions, that would be someting I could see as actuallly casuing a real significant problem from it. More than having to add a couple of feet to the sea defenses.

What would it take for you to change your mind regardless of which side you are on.

Treat this as a test of scientific thinking. A test of open mindedness.
Click to expand...

Change your mind about taking action to mitigate AGW, presumably? For me it would be some sort of credible prediction that a warming world would not actually cause any real significant problems.
 
Tim the plumber said:
For me it would be some sort of credible aspect of a warmer world, as per credible predictions, that would be someting I could see as actuallly casuing a real significant problem from it. More than having to add a couple of feet to the sea defenses.

What would it take for you to change your mind regardless of which side you are on.

Treat this as a test of scientific thinking. A test of open mindedness.
Click to expand...

I think for me it would be so sort of repeatable test that validated that added CO2 had anywhere near the climate sensitivity predicted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tim the plumber said:
For me it would be some sort of credible aspect of a warmer world, as per credible predictions, that would be someting I could see as actuallly casuing a real significant problem from it. More than having to add a couple of feet to the sea defenses.

What would it take for you to change your mind regardless of which side you are on.

Treat this as a test of scientific thinking. A test of open mindedness.
Click to expand...

I just look up videos on the Internet that show the effects of rising water levels in the US.

Seawalls that promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!
 
Upgrading Ellis Island could mean Labor from any sector most anywhere in the world would find it easier to visit the US.

And, give local labor more chance to "move up".
 
The governing paradigm on which AGW alarmism is based is faulty. Step one would have to be an honest recognition of that fact and a restart from zero to determine what mitigation, if any, is called for.
 
Jack Hays said:
The governing paradigm on which AGW alarmism is based is faulty. Step one would have to be an honest recognition of that fact and a restart from zero to determine what mitigation, if any, is called for.
Click to expand...
Seawalls that promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!
 
danielpalos said:
Seawalls that promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!
Click to expand...



Florida’s Climate Crisis and Sea Level Rise Non Sequitur

Guest crisis-bashing by David Middleton Florida faces a climate crisis as Democratic candidates take the debate stage By Drew Kann, CNN Wed June 26, 2019 (CNN)Presidential candidate Jay Inslee was not happy when the Democratic National Committee shot down his request to hold a climate crisis-focused debate. [Blah, blah, blah] …the global climate emergency… [Blah,…

June 28, 2019 in Alarmism.

[FONT=&quot]. . . The nature of Florida’s geology does not follow from the climate crisis myth… Nor does the climate crisis myth follow from the nature of Florida’s geology.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The bedrock in parts of Florida is “made from the remnants of ancient coral reefs” because, not so long ago, it was underwater, when sea level was 1-2m higher than it is today. There are also “remnants of ancient coral reefs” outboard and in much deeper water than modern coral reefs, because, also not so long ago, sea level was about 100m lower than it is today. This called glacioeustasy. It’s what sea level does during ice ages. We are fortunate to be living in an interglacial stage of an ice age.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sea level isn’t doing anything now that it hasn’t been doing for the past 200 years…[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&][/FONT]
Florida’s Climate Crisis and Sea Level Rise Non Sequitur

[FONT=&]Guest crisis-bashing by David Middleton Florida faces a climate crisis as Democratic candidates take the debate stage By Drew Kann, CNN Wed June 26, 2019 (CNN)Presidential candidate Jay Inslee was not happy when the Democratic National Committee shot down his request to hold a climate crisis-focused debate. [Blah, blah, blah] …the global climate emergency… [Blah,…
[/FONT]
June 28, 2019 in Alarmism.

[FONT="]. . . The nature of Florida’s geology does not follow from the climate crisis myth… Nor does the climate crisis myth follow from the nature of Florida’s geology.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]The bedrock in parts of Florida is “made from the remnants of ancient coral reefs” because, not so long ago, it was underwater, when sea level was 1-2m higher than it is today. There are also “remnants of ancient coral reefs” outboard and in much deeper water than modern coral reefs, because, also not so long ago, sea level was about 100m lower than it is today. This called glacioeustasy. It’s what sea level does during ice ages. We are fortunate to be living in an interglacial stage of an ice age.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Sea level isn’t doing anything now that it hasn’t been doing for the past 200 years…[/FONT]
Click to expand...

are you claiming they built the original city "in the ocean?"
 
Tim the plumber said:
For me it would be some sort of credible aspect of a warmer world, as per credible predictions, that would be someting I could see as actuallly casuing a real significant problem from it. More than having to add a couple of feet to the sea defenses.

What would it take for you to change your mind regardless of which side you are on.

Treat this as a test of scientific thinking. A test of open mindedness.
Click to expand...

If it actually began to happen. But that will take time. So far in the
well over thirty years of apocalyptic headlines it hasn't begun.

How would I know if it began?

If the tide gauges actually do begin to report 15 mm/year of sea level
rise. Sea level rise is the biggest threat that drum beaters have.
Problems associated with that would be obvious.

A return to the dust bowl years would convince a lot of people.

But just right now there is nothing that Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt,
Steve Nerem, Andrew Derocher, Kevin Trenberth, Eric Rignot, Josh Willis,
John Church, Stephan Rahmstorf, Richard Alley, etc. could possibly say
or write that could change my mind. It would have to be real events.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. I'm claiming the situation in south Florida has little to do with human activity.
Click to expand...

I am claiming it doesn't matter; climate change happens regardless of our input to the environment.

Seawalls that promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!
 
Surface Detail said:
Change your mind about taking action to mitigate AGW, presumably? For me it would be some sort of credible prediction that a warming world would not actually cause any real significant problems.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit of an impossible ask to prove a negative?

How do you prove that bird flue won't mutate and kill all of us? Given you can't prove it why not live your life in a panic about it, not physically meeting anybody?

Does not sound very open minded to me.
 
danielpalos said:
I just look up videos on the Internet that show the effects of rising water levels in the US.

Seawalls that promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!
Click to expand...

How much sea level rise do you think will happen? Say over this century, at worst.
 
Steve Case said:
If it actually began to happen. But that will take time. So far in the
well over thirty years of apocalyptic headlines it hasn't begun.

How would I know if it began?

If the tide gauges actually do begin to report 15 mm/year of sea level
rise. Sea level rise is the biggest threat that drum beaters have.
Problems associated with that would be obvious.

A return to the dust bowl years would convince a lot of people.

But just right now there is nothing that Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt,
Steve Nerem, Andrew Derocher, Kevin Trenberth, Eric Rignot, Josh Willis,
John Church, Stephan Rahmstorf, Richard Alley, etc. could possibly say
or write that could change my mind. It would have to be real events.
Click to expand...

So if you saw a 15mm sea level rise, thus getting to a 1.2m by 2100, or I would hope, that sea level increase rise went up to 5mm/yr in the next 5 years, and that the evidence of outflow from Greenland etc matches you would think that there was a significnat problem. Is that right?

I certainly would.
 
Tim the plumber said:

How much sea level rise do you think will happen? Say over this century, at worst.
Click to expand...

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report described studies that estimated sea level rise for the 20th century between 0.5 and 3.0 mm a year. The most likely range, according to the IPCC, was between 1.0 and 2.0 mm a year.
How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
Click to expand...

Seawalls that Promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!

better planning could account for sea level rise in the initial installation of seawalls to make a "second tier" of seawalls more cost effective to install.
 
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report described studies that estimated sea level rise for the 20th century between 0.5 and 3.0 mm a year. The most likely range, according to the IPCC, was between 1.0 and 2.0 mm a year.
How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
Click to expand...

danielpalos said:
Seawalls that Promote the general welfare not landwalls that don't!

better planning could account for sea level rise in the initial installation of seawalls to make a "second tier" of seawalls more cost effective to install.
Click to expand...

See the thing is that those of us who know what a mm is underestand that you have just quoted a figure of 6 inches for the century.

I know you did not intend to use that figure as is also plain because it is for the wrong century.

The IPCC's 4th report had a worst case scenario of 59cm, less than 2 feet, and the 5th report had, with no change in the science, a 1m, 3 feet, figure. Neither figure looks at ll likely to happen. The current rate, as a maximum if you squint, is 1 foot.

Which city do you think will be unable to cope with a 3 feet sea level rise by 2100?
 
Tim the plumber said:
For me it would be some sort of credible aspect of a warmer world, as per credible predictions, that would be someting I could see as actuallly casuing a real significant problem from it. More than having to add a couple of feet to the sea defenses.

What would it take for you to change your mind regardless of which side you are on.

Treat this as a test of scientific thinking. A test of open mindedness.
Click to expand...

My mind's made up. Climate IS changing, always has, always will. If we as a society with all our brilliant scientists and engineers can't develop technologies to tolerate, counter, and mitigate its effects maybe the next dominant species will. :cool:
 
Tim the plumber said:
See the thing is that those of us who know what a mm is underestand that you have just quoted a figure of 6 inches for the century.

I know you did not intend to use that figure as is also plain because it is for the wrong century.

The IPCC's 4th report had a worst case scenario of 59cm, less than 2 feet, and the 5th report had, with no change in the science, a 1m, 3 feet, figure. Neither figure looks at ll likely to happen. The current rate, as a maximum if you squint, is 1 foot.

Which city do you think will be unable to cope with a 3 feet sea level rise by 2100?
Click to expand...

I am assuming that you don’t live anywhere near a coast, or have any real understanding of hydraulic engineering (which is NOT just plumbing).

Add two feet to the high tides of locals on either coast of this country and you’ll see most of our beaches disappear, and quite a bit of waterfront housing as well.

And, since the same water backs up estuaries, look for higher elevations along large rivers as well (this has already happened).

Not that it matters.

The anti global warming campaigns of the past few years are all oil financed and are intended to discourage investment in renewable energy and infrastructure.

But the banks and the investors are embracing renewables and forsaking coal and nuclear.

And if you have any doubt that sun is beginning to set on the primacy of oil, take a look at the way the Saudi Aramco IPO is going.
 
TomFitz said:
I am assuming that you don’t live anywhere near a coast, or have any real understanding of hydraulic engineering (which is NOT just plumbing).

Add two feet to the high tides of locals on either coast of this country and you’ll see most of our beaches disappear, and quite a bit of waterfront housing as well.

And, since the same water backs up estuaries, look for higher elevations along large rivers as well (this has already happened).

Not that it matters.

The anti global warming campaigns of the past few years are all oil financed and are intended to discourage investment in renewable energy and infrastructure.

But the banks and the investors are embracing renewables and forsaking coal and nuclear.

And if you have any doubt that sun is beginning to set on the primacy of oil, take a look at the way the Saudi Aramco IPO is going.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I live near the east coast on a peninsula between the York and James rivers. No problem now; none anticipated.
Scientific climate skepticism has nothing to do with oil and is indifferent to (or favorable toward) renewable energy. What we are put off by are overblown claims and marketing PR disguised as analysis.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense. I live near the east coast on a peninsula between the York and James rivers. No problem now; none anticipated.
Scientific climate skepticism has nothing to do with oil and is indifferent to (or favorable toward) renewable energy. What we are put off by are overblown claims and marketing PR disguised as analysis.
Click to expand...

You.re not too well informed, and you obviously don’t read the local press then.

Norfolk has been experience in problems with storm drains that never empty and some low lwvel high tide flooding for about a decade now. And NAVFAC has hosted a number of conferences on the subject, as rising sea level is a threat to the Norfolk Navy Yard.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So if you saw a 15mm sea level rise, thus getting to a 1.2m by 2100, or I would hope, that sea level increase rise went up to 5mm/yr in the next 5 years, and that the evidence of outflow from Greenland etc matches you would think that there was a significnat problem. Is that right?

I certainly would.
Click to expand...

It's the sudden acceleration to 15mm/year that's the issue. What's sudden?
An extraordinary increase of maybe 1 mm/yr every year for a while should
get everyone's attention. Our friends at Colorado University are claiming
only 0.084 mm/yr² but that's an artifact of data manipulation. The reality is
there isn't any acceleration.
 
TomFitz said:
You.re not too well informed, and you obviously don’t read the local press then.

Norfolk has been experience in problems with storm drains that never empty and some low lwvel high tide flooding for about a decade now. And NAVFAC has hosted a number of conferences on the subject, as rising sea level is a threat to the Norfolk Navy Yard.
Click to expand...

Subsidence is a real problem. Sea level rise is a way to get money.
 
TomFitz said:
I am assuming that you don’t live anywhere near a coast, or have any real understanding of hydraulic engineering (which is NOT just plumbing).

Add two feet to the high tides of locals on either coast of this country and you’ll see most of our beaches disappear, and quite a bit of waterfront housing as well.

And, since the same water backs up estuaries, look for higher elevations along large rivers as well (this has already happened).

Not that it matters.

The anti global warming campaigns of the past few years are all oil financed and are intended to discourage investment in renewable energy and infrastructure.

But the banks and the investors are embracing renewables and forsaking coal and nuclear.

And if you have any doubt that sun is beginning to set on the primacy of oil, take a look at the way the Saudi Aramco IPO is going.
Click to expand...

If you chose a place that you think will suffer badly from such a 2 feet sea level rise and we look at it in detail, would you then change your mind if you found out that the cost of sorting that out, of increasing the height of the beach etc was tiny?

How much expense do you think will be caused by such a thing in any given place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom