Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:
We are talking about the destruction of land and relocation of entire cultures and nations. Developed nations that emit a lot of greenhouse gases are the ones mainly responsible for this sea level rise -- we should own up to this. If we aren't willing to do what it takes to reverse what we are doing to these countries, we should at least be coming up with a plan to save them.

Notice the cost-only analysis. Suppose the industrial revolution never occurred and/or that no developed country traded with poorer countries (e.g. Maldives, India, etc.). Would the Maldives look so modern as it does in the picture? Would they have lower rates of death, greater wealth, etc.?

No. So, we need to also consider the benefits as well as the costs, granted mostly by developed nations. After doing so, it's not at all certain that "we should own up to this."

Also, the Maldives government/people have to face some severe decisions (e.g. moving outta there, or building higher). That government should also "own up" to their own decisions of encouraging people to live on an island that is so close to sea level. And other countries may have to open up immigration policies to relieve that.


As we see, the burden of responsibility lies with the Maldives government, its people, and their trading partners---not just "we, the developed nations," and the only solution is obviously not 'cut C02 levels NAO!'

Metsfanmax wrote:One follows from the other. If no one lived on coastlines, the problems associated with rising sea levels would not be as important. But people do live on coastlines and on island nations, and we cannot just wave our hands to make it go away.

I understand that science is difficult for most scientists to explain for laypeople. However, it is rather confusing to use the phrase "rising sea levels" and then post a picture of damage after/during Hurricane Sandy as evidence of "rising sea levels." There have been modern, historic, and pre-historic evidence of hurricane/storm damage which was not, ostensibly, caused by humans. Does human-made climate change cause both hurricanes and rising sea levels? Do rising sea levels intensify the damage from hurricanes?

thegreekdog wrote:A lot of moderators posted in this thread. I don't know what that means, just thought I'd mention it.

Im not a real moderator yet.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:One follows from the other. If no one lived on coastlines, the problems associated with rising sea levels would not be as important. But people do live on coastlines and on island nations, and we cannot just wave our hands to make it go away.

I understand that science is difficult for most scientists to explain for laypeople. However, it is rather confusing to use the phrase "rising sea levels" and then post a picture of damage after/during Hurricane Sandy as evidence of "rising sea levels." There have been modern, historic, and pre-historic evidence of hurricane/storm damage which was not, ostensibly, caused by humans. Does human-made climate change cause both hurricanes and rising sea levels? Do rising sea levels intensify the damage from hurricanes?

If you return to my post and examine it again, you will find that the image from Hurricane Sandy followed the words "the coastlines are flooding." (There was separately a graph of average sea level after the text "the oceans are rising.") You will also find in a post in response to yours that I stated:

Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

(Note: For clarification, since you asked, there is no consensus on the relationship between global warming and hurricane activity, though it is responsible for rising sea levels. There is some evidence that global warming could intensify the damage from hurricanes. Rising sea levels play a role in this (see above), but there are other factors such as increased water content in the air, leading to greater precipitation during a hurricane.)

Yeah ever since Al Gore predicted many years of Very active hurricane seasons it has been surprisingly low activity.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:One follows from the other. If no one lived on coastlines, the problems associated with rising sea levels would not be as important. But people do live on coastlines and on island nations, and we cannot just wave our hands to make it go away.

I understand that science is difficult for most scientists to explain for laypeople. However, it is rather confusing to use the phrase "rising sea levels" and then post a picture of damage after/during Hurricane Sandy as evidence of "rising sea levels." There have been modern, historic, and pre-historic evidence of hurricane/storm damage which was not, ostensibly, caused by humans. Does human-made climate change cause both hurricanes and rising sea levels? Do rising sea levels intensify the damage from hurricanes?

If you return to my post and examine it again, you will find that the image from Hurricane Sandy followed the words "the coastlines are flooding." (There was separately a graph of average sea level after the text "the oceans are rising.") You will also find in a post in response to yours that I stated:

Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

(Note: For clarification, since you asked, there is no consensus on the relationship between global warming and hurricane activity, though it is responsible for rising sea levels. There is some evidence that global warming could intensify the damage from hurricanes. Rising sea levels play a role in this (see above), but there are other factors such as increased water content in the air, leading to greater precipitation during a hurricane.)

Is there data showing the comparable effects of rising sea levels to hurricane damage? In other words, yeah, hurricanes fucked up New Jersey and New Orleans, but did they f*ck up New Jersey and New Orleans (or the prior names for those regions) 500 years ago? Can we tell what hurricanes did 500 years ago?

Also, you answered my question in the note portion above. I think it makes sense (logically) that rising sea levels would contribute to hurricane damage, but then I think about what rising sea levels means. I admittedly do not know how hurricanes work (or how flooding works), but I assume that if sea levels rise, flooding will happen without a hurricane. If we don't see flooding without a hurricane (and we don't, at least in New Jersey), then I'm not sure what I should be looking for.

And what about all the "There are so many hurricanes because the ocean temperature is rising, and the hurricanes are getting bigger because of global warming!"

And this year there almost was not a single hurricane here

thegreekdog wrote: Is there data showing the comparable effects of rising sea levels to hurricane damage? In other words, yeah, hurricanes fucked up New Jersey and New Orleans, but did they f*ck up New Jersey and New Orleans (or the prior names for those regions) 500 years ago? Can we tell what hurricanes did 500 years ago?

Also, you answered my question in the note portion above. I think it makes sense (logically) that rising sea levels would contribute to hurricane damage, but then I think about what rising sea levels means. I admittedly do not know how hurricanes work (or how flooding works), but I assume that if sea levels rise, flooding will happen without a hurricane. If we don't see flooding without a hurricane (and we don't, at least in New Jersey), then I'm not sure what I should be looking for.

Which reminds me:

Another variable, which seems largely unrelated to climate change, is erosion. For example, the Great State of Louisiana used to have many natural barriers in the Gulf, but due to all those canals (thanks to rent-seeking) and due to improper management of the levee system and river (thanks to government), hurricanes will be more effective--in regard to erosion.

So, it's not just 'rising water levels' that (may) matter.

Found a great article on CC denialism from a credible news source:
http://larouchepac.com/node/28089

I know they are credible because they say this:

This website, besides being your source of daily updated assessments of the overall global strategic situation, will provide you the background to situate yourself in this historic fight; be your classroom for learning about the solutions out of this crisis; your place to download political ammunition to distribute and educate with; and your place to meet and coordinate with activists nationwide.

The most important thing for you to know is that we can win and usher in a new paradigm for mankind in the universe.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:One follows from the other. If no one lived on coastlines, the problems associated with rising sea levels would not be as important. But people do live on coastlines and on island nations, and we cannot just wave our hands to make it go away.

I understand that science is difficult for most scientists to explain for laypeople. However, it is rather confusing to use the phrase "rising sea levels" and then post a picture of damage after/during Hurricane Sandy as evidence of "rising sea levels." There have been modern, historic, and pre-historic evidence of hurricane/storm damage which was not, ostensibly, caused by humans. Does human-made climate change cause both hurricanes and rising sea levels? Do rising sea levels intensify the damage from hurricanes?

If you return to my post and examine it again, you will find that the image from Hurricane Sandy followed the words "the coastlines are flooding." (There was separately a graph of average sea level after the text "the oceans are rising.") You will also find in a post in response to yours that I stated:

Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

(Note: For clarification, since you asked, there is no consensus on the relationship between global warming and hurricane activity, though it is responsible for rising sea levels. There is some evidence that global warming could intensify the damage from hurricanes. Rising sea levels play a role in this (see above), but there are other factors such as increased water content in the air, leading to greater precipitation during a hurricane.)

Is there data showing the comparable effects of rising sea levels to hurricane damage? In other words, yeah, hurricanes fucked up New Jersey and New Orleans, but did they f*ck up New Jersey and New Orleans (or the prior names for those regions) 500 years ago? Can we tell what hurricanes did 500 years ago?

This is the sort of thing that we can model pretty accurately. We don't need empirical measurement of past hurricane activity because we can directly model what will happen when sea levels rise and how that affects a storm surge. Here's a link where you can read about it qualitatively, at least:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impact ... .html#ref6

Using this sort of reasoning, we know that (for example) Sandy was more damaging than it otherwise would have been if the sea level had been lower. I can dig up links if this is something you'd like to read more about.

Also, you answered my question in the note portion above. I think it makes sense (logically) that rising sea levels would contribute to hurricane damage, but then I think about what rising sea levels means. I admittedly do not know how hurricanes work (or how flooding works), but I assume that if sea levels rise, flooding will happen without a hurricane. If we don't see flooding without a hurricane (and we don't, at least in New Jersey), then I'm not sure what I should be looking for.

Even in the absence of hurricanes, we should expect to see more events of flooding due to increased precipitation. The actual sea level rise itself is too slow to cause flooding incidents of the kind you are imagining. In New Jersey, the sea level is rising one inch every six years or so. Rather, storm surge flooding is (as its name implies) the direct result of some storm (not necessarily a hurricane though) that overflows the water at the coastline.

Thanks. Good explanation from EPA. However, I smiled at this (although you may have BBS on foe still):

For example, coastal Louisiana lost 1,900 square miles of wetlands in recent decades due to human alterations of the Mississippi River's sediment system and oil and water extraction that has caused land to sink. As a result of these changes, wetlands do not receive enough sediment to keep up with the rising seas and no longer function as natural buffers to flooding. [5]

The EPA used this as an example, but I thought it was largely inappropriate given the subject of the piece.

Phatscotty wrote:And what about all the "There are so many hurricanes because the ocean temperature is rising, and the hurricanes are getting bigger because of global warming!"

And this year there almost was not a single hurricane here

Ok. If you intend that to mean anything, your sample size, presumably among other things, is too small.

Whats tragic about this situation is that many uneducated or in denial, would possibly be more inclined to believe that a man walked up into a mountain, talked to God, and brought down tablets explaining that extreme whether is coming.

Ill admit this....you guys sometimes prove natural selection isn't as plausible as it might be sometimes....however unwittingly.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it.

That's an interesting assumption. What reasoning does Mets use to demonstrate its soundness?

Metsfanmax wrote:if humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

Is genetic adaptation the only form of adaptation? No, so...
Would changes in technology affect this reasoning of his? Yeah.

So, his claim is not sound.

"Not enough time." How does he know?
"'Cleanly' adapt." What's his criteria for 'clean' adaptation? And why should 'clean' adaptation be the only desirable route of adaptation?

As a geneticist, I support this post.

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:And what about all the "There are so many hurricanes because the ocean temperature is rising, and the hurricanes are getting bigger because of global warming!"

And this year there almost was not a single hurricane here

Ok. If you intend that to mean anything, your sample size, presumably among other things, is too small.

Whats tragic about this situation is that many uneducated or in denial, would possibly be more inclined to believe that a man walked up into a mountain, talked to God, and brought down tablets explaining that extreme whether is coming.

Ill admit this....you guys sometimes prove natural selection isn't as plausible as it might be sometimes....however unwittingly.

Again, you're completely confusing the resistance to global warming science. The resistance doesn't come from any basis other than concern about what the response is. People say "Global warming science is bad." What they really mean is "I don't want to (1) pay carbon tax; (2) lose my job; (3) make major changes in my lifestyle to "fix" global warming." Instead of making reasoned arguments about those three (and other) things, they make arguments against the science.

I've tried to have this discussion with PS and Night Strike but they don't really pick it up (mostly because they are listening to people who reinforce the concept of "bad science" rather than the people who talk about the implications of any changes).

DoomYoshi wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it.

That's an interesting assumption. What reasoning does Mets use to demonstrate its soundness?

Metsfanmax wrote:if humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

Is genetic adaptation the only form of adaptation? No, so...
Would changes in technology affect this reasoning of his? Yeah.

So, his claim is not sound.

"Not enough time." How does he know?
"'Cleanly' adapt." What's his criteria for 'clean' adaptation? And why should 'clean' adaptation be the only desirable route of adaptation?

As a geneticist, I support this post.

I don't generally read or respond to BBS's posts anymore. He is not interested in actually getting the answers to these questions -- just in exposing enough minor flaws in an argument to cast doubt to the untrained eye, to justify his worldview. As an example, how can he state that my conclusion is not sound if he still seeks clarification on what my statement actually means? I am sure he can get access to the climate change literature or even the IPCC report if he seeks further information.

For clarification, in my post I wasn't discussing the role of technological adaptation; I apologize for the lack of clarity in my first sentence there -- all I meant to say is that we can't genetically adapt to climate change in the timescale available to us to solve the problem, but that we can adapt that way given a much longer timescale.

thegreekdog wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:And what about all the "There are so many hurricanes because the ocean temperature is rising, and the hurricanes are getting bigger because of global warming!"

And this year there almost was not a single hurricane here

Ok. If you intend that to mean anything, your sample size, presumably among other things, is too small.

Whats tragic about this situation is that many uneducated or in denial, would possibly be more inclined to believe that a man walked up into a mountain, talked to God, and brought down tablets explaining that extreme whether is coming.

Ill admit this....you guys sometimes prove natural selection isn't as plausible as it might be sometimes....however unwittingly.

Again, you're completely confusing the resistance to global warming science. The resistance doesn't come from any basis other than concern about what the response is. People say "Global warming science is bad." What they really mean is "I don't want to (1) pay carbon tax; (2) lose my job; (3) make major changes in my lifestyle to "fix" global warming." Instead of making reasoned arguments about those three (and other) things, they make arguments against the science.

I've tried to have this discussion with PS and Night Strike but they don't really pick it up (mostly because they are listening to people who reinforce the concept of "bad science" rather than the people who talk about the implications of any changes).

Im sorry. I honestly read this as one quote from phatscotty. I didnt even understand this till i saw you were originally quoted. I said you guys, and by that it looks like I mean you and him...but honestly I just meant overly crazy religious people who ignore science...certainly not you, and to be perfectly honest....not even completely fully scotty.

Personally Im fully aware that fighting global warming in every possible way may very well not be the best course of action. Mostly my point is of course that denying it at this point is just...well, its just phatscotty.

History is littered with scientists, fixing problems by making them much worse, so that is not lost on me. Arguing the exact course of action is admittedly and obviously above my pay grade. However, the ones arguing that nothing should be done because Jesus.....are just fucking stupid....Jesus or no Jesus notwithstanding.

In the end, if climate change ends up resulting in the catastrophes that seem very much possible, if not inevitable at this point....Im almost sure people wont be saying, well, sure, were gonna die now, but at least we had a job until now! I mean seriously, its like arguing that thank god we made and sold asbestos for so long. It would have killed the economy if we made it illegal any sooner. Its fucking ridiculous, and the root of the problem of pure capitalist thinking.

Good tactic by Mets. Next time anyone asks me about anything related to economics, I'll point into the vague direction of economic literature.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good tactic by Mets. Next time anyone asks me about anything related to economics, I'll point into the vague direction of economic literature.

What economics literature do you prefer?

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good tactic by Mets. Next time anyone asks me about anything related to economics, I'll point into the vague direction of economic literature.

What economics literature do you prefer?

<points in vague direction>

DoomYoshi wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it.

That's an interesting assumption. What reasoning does Mets use to demonstrate its soundness?

Metsfanmax wrote:if humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

Is genetic adaptation the only form of adaptation? No, so...
Would changes in technology affect this reasoning of his? Yeah.

So, his claim is not sound.

"Not enough time." How does he know?
"'Cleanly' adapt." What's his criteria for 'clean' adaptation? And why should 'clean' adaptation be the only desirable route of adaptation?

As a geneticist, I support this post.

I agree. When 99% of us die, its very possible there may be some incredible adaptation. Cant wait!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good tactic by Mets. Next time anyone asks me about anything related to economics, I'll point into the vague direction of economic literature.

What economics literature do you prefer?

<points in vague direction>

You passed.
(as in not failed)

AAFitz wrote: I agree. When 99% of us die, its very possible there may be some incredible adaptation. Cant wait!

It's actually a eugenicist's dream. The ones that do survive will be the technologically most sophisicated.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good tactic by Mets. Next time anyone asks me about anything related to economics, I'll point into the vague direction of economic literature.

You have told me numerous times to stick to astrophysics. How was I supposed to know that you actually wanted my opinion on climate science?

Start here if you are interested in the impacts of global warming and what we can do to mitigate its effects in the future. The marginal benefit I gain by responding to your posts is generally very low.

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:And what about all the "There are so many hurricanes because the ocean temperature is rising, and the hurricanes are getting bigger because of global warming!"

And this year there almost was not a single hurricane here

Ok. If you intend that to mean anything, your sample size, presumably among other things, is too small.

Whats tragic about this situation is that many uneducated or in denial, would possibly be more inclined to believe that a man walked up into a mountain, talked to God, and brought down tablets explaining that extreme whether is coming.

Ill admit this....you guys sometimes prove natural selection isn't as plausible as it might be sometimes....however unwittingly.

anyways, about the predicted rise in number and power of hurricanes because of warmer ocean surface temperatures due to man made global warming....just another prediction that did not happen, and worse for them the complete opposite happened and there was only 1 hurricane this year, and it barely made the cut. But we are supposed to keep believing their predictions? The weather cannot even be accurately predicted tomorrow. Forgive me for rolling my eyes about their predictions 100 years from now.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:One follows from the other. If no one lived on coastlines, the problems associated with rising sea levels would not be as important. But people do live on coastlines and on island nations, and we cannot just wave our hands to make it go away.

I understand that science is difficult for most scientists to explain for laypeople. However, it is rather confusing to use the phrase "rising sea levels" and then post a picture of damage after/during Hurricane Sandy as evidence of "rising sea levels." There have been modern, historic, and pre-historic evidence of hurricane/storm damage which was not, ostensibly, caused by humans. Does human-made climate change cause both hurricanes and rising sea levels? Do rising sea levels intensify the damage from hurricanes?

If you return to my post and examine it again, you will find that the image from Hurricane Sandy followed the words "the coastlines are flooding." (There was separately a graph of average sea level after the text "the oceans are rising.") You will also find in a post in response to yours that I stated:

Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

(Note: For clarification, since you asked, there is no consensus on the relationship between global warming and hurricane activity, though it is responsible for rising sea levels. There is some evidence that global warming could intensify the damage from hurricanes. Rising sea levels play a role in this (see above), but there are other factors such as increased water content in the air, leading to greater precipitation during a hurricane.)

Is there data showing the comparable effects of rising sea levels to hurricane damage? In other words, yeah, hurricanes fucked up New Jersey and New Orleans, but did they f*ck up New Jersey and New Orleans (or the prior names for those regions) 500 years ago? Can we tell what hurricanes did 500 years ago?

This is the sort of thing that we can model pretty accurately. We don't need empirical measurement of past hurricane activity because we can directly model what will happen when sea levels rise and how that affects a storm surge. Here's a link where you can read about it qualitatively, at least:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impact ... .html#ref6

Using this sort of reasoning, we know that (for example) Sandy was more damaging than it otherwise would have been if the sea level had been lower. I can dig up links if this is something you'd like to read more about.

Also, you answered my question in the note portion above. I think it makes sense (logically) that rising sea levels would contribute to hurricane damage, but then I think about what rising sea levels means. I admittedly do not know how hurricanes work (or how flooding works), but I assume that if sea levels rise, flooding will happen without a hurricane. If we don't see flooding without a hurricane (and we don't, at least in New Jersey), then I'm not sure what I should be looking for.

Even in the absence of hurricanes, we should expect to see more events of flooding due to increased precipitation. The actual sea level rise itself is too slow to cause flooding incidents of the kind you are imagining. In New Jersey, the sea level is rising one inch every six years or so. Rather, storm surge flooding is (as its name implies) the direct result of some storm (not necessarily a hurricane though) that overflows the water at the coastline.

That's the thing though. If we don't see the things we think we should expect to see, this will all be forgotten and the next global warming talking point will be thrown in everyone's face with all kind of science and evidence and data.

All the previous predictions of disaster in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's didn't happen, but they got billions of dollars each time. Starting to sound like a hustle