Global warming strikes again...

[yung.carl.jung]

There are not enough smileys on the entire internet to express my opinion of how this thread is not progressing anywhere sensible.

Well, it never started with a sensible note Makes sense that it would continue this way..

 

[CavLancer]

Its true however, there are not enough smileys. Glad we can agree Valka!

 

[onejayhawk]

There are not enough smileys on the entire internet to express my opinion of how this thread is not progressing anywhere sensible.

Unfortunately, very little about climate change is sensible. Either everyone moans about the impending doom of the planet, which is not a sensible position, everyone claims it's all a hoax, also not sensible, or we get the sort of name calling witnessed here.

I suppose it isn't surprising. A rational dialog is not possible when there is 97% agreement.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Its true however, there are not enough smileys. Glad we can agree Valka!

On any forum where I'm on the admin team, there are as many smileys as I choose. And I tend to choose a lot. The only ones I don't choose are the "blood/guts/gore/x-rated" ones.

I used to belong to a forum dedicated to smiley-making, and the owner/admin was an excellent smiley artist. But to this day I regret making the comment that inspired him to make some smileys that I couldn't possibly post here or even link to since they're definitely in violation of the rules. Let's just say that what has been seen can never be unseen.

Unfortunately, very little about climate change is sensible. Either everyone moans about the impending doom of the planet, which is not a sensible position, everyone claims it's all a hoax, also not sensible, or we get the sort of name calling witnessed here.

I suppose it isn't surprising. A rational dialog is not possible when there is 97% agreement.

J

97% agreement by whom, and for which side? If we're talking about 97% of OT regulars, groovy. If not... let's just say that I live in a part of Canada where all too many people prefer to pretend that the evidence of their own eyes isn't happening.

 

[onejayhawk]

97% agreement by whom, and for which side? If we're talking about 97% of OT regulars, groovy. If not... let's just say that I live in a part of Canada where all too many people prefer to pretend that the evidence of their own eyes isn't happening.

97% is a buzz phrase for complete consensus. If everyone agrees about something, no one bothers to talk about it.

J

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I suppose it isn't surprising. A rational dialog is not possible when there is 97% agreement.

Idk man, I thought we had a really rational dialogue going until you decided to stop replying for no reason

 

[CavLancer]

97% is a buzz phrase for complete consensus. If everyone agrees about something, no one bothers to talk about it.

J

So true. Yet the folks who came up with this stat are experts too, they did the "9 out of 10 dentists prefer" slogan. Can't argue with 9 out of 10 dentists! No way, not when you might be under the drill one day soon...

Good for you making a stand against such stuff Valka, well done!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Good for you making a stand against such stuff Valka, well done!

Against climate change deniers or x-rated smileys?

 

[CavLancer]

Oh come on. Just take the compliment on down the road why dontcha?

 

[Angst]

Global warming causes climate change, we can tell if the world is warming easier than I can detect changes in our climate here, so I was baffled by the switch in terminology. But more than that, are these climate changes good or bad? Overall?

I'd have to admit the world does better when its warmer.

Our problem will be melting ice and rising seas. I suggest we explore the possibility of lowering sea level by expanding ocean surface where we can without too much disruption before 1 or 3 billion people gotta leave their coastal homes. Maybe a damn along a coastal ridge line between the sea and a sparsely populated depression. And thats just to give us time, we'll need to build sunscreens for orbit and paint more of the world in bright colors. Follow the yellow brick road

It's complicated, but the world doesn't get better when it gets warmer. The change is too rapid for us to adapt properly, that is, without a lot of real damage. Just think of how difficult it is to change the current infrastructure to greener forms with the speed required to evade problems with climate change. How expensive it is, how deeply we have to rewire our consumption and food culture. It is not going to get easier.

Unfortunately, very little about climate change is sensible. Either everyone moans about the impending doom of the planet, which is not a sensible position, everyone claims it's all a hoax, also not sensible, or we get the sort of name calling witnessed here.

I suppose it isn't surprising. A rational dialog is not possible when there is 97% agreement.

J

How in the world can you make it "rational" that you take the position of 3% of scientists (let's just assume this is a thing here) and stick with it unrelentingly as a counterpoint, pretending your opinion is balanced at all? What in the world does "rational" mean to you? Are you reading what you're writing, at all? Even if your position is at all legitimate, you ignore like 80% of the content directed at you. It's very similar to the way you treat science.

 

[CavLancer]

Didn't Copernicus take the position of 3% of scientists?

 

[Angst]

Not comparable. Copernicus applied the scientific method in an environment of people that, to say it bluntly, didn't. The 3% of scientists that utilize the scientific method are going against 97% of scientists that utilize the scientific method. Do you like science? You trust jet engines you cannot build, you clean yourself because of germs you cannot see. Why do you trust so many forms of consensus while denying this particular instance?

EDIT: If you want to find examples of contrarian scientists in the right, there should be a couple during history. Darwin for example proposed a theory that caused a wee bit of chaos for a while. Even with the other supporters of similar theories before the publishing of the Origin of Species (because there were a few - he wasn't nearly as heroic a pariah as modern pop culture makes him out to be). But - and it's an important but - the general outline of his theory was adopted by the majority of scientists about ten years after the book's publishing. And his theory was so succesful because all previous theories hadn't been sufficient even to contemporary knowledge. Climate science is akin to the consensus that followed the theory of evolution. Evolution was fully developed around the 1930s, and climate science still has internal disagreements on particular facts, but the general outline - that the climate is changing, and it's due to us - and that it's most probably dangerous - is very much accepted, and that in spite of theories that have been contrary to that for a few decades at this point. Basically, the two situations aren't comparable in themselves either, because the "pariah" 3% have been disproven over and over again, while Darwin, on the contrary, was proven over and over again. But I'm sure you can dig up some other figure.

EDIT2: This post was kind of messy for a while. I've made enough edits now.

 

[Silurian]

Global warming causes climate change, we can tell if the world is warming easier than I can detect changes in our climate here, so I was baffled by the switch in terminology. But more than that, are these climate changes good or bad? Overall?

I'd have to admit the world does better when its warmer.

Our problem will be melting ice and rising seas. I suggest we explore the possibility of lowering sea level by expanding ocean surface where we can without too much disruption before 1 or 3 billion people gotta leave their coastal homes. Maybe a damn along a coastal ridge line between the sea and a sparsely populated depression. And thats just to give us time, we'll need to build sunscreens for orbit and paint more of the world in bright colors. Follow the yellow brick road

We have had this discussion before.

Better to turn kansas into a 297m deep lake. Far more room for water

Plus a far better use for Kansas.

Yes you would have to have some dams running north south to stop the water running down hill. These dams would also be used for road access to fishing villages.

The people creating the pollution should deal with it rather than free loading. The US could pay some other country to store the results of US pollution if they wished. But a small area off the Red Sea will not be able to hold a significant share of the increase in sea water that the US could produce. In other threads you have suggested flooding the Dead Sea but unfortunately this will not hold the water that could result from Israel, Jordan and Syria.

Fish make good food.

Turning Kansas into Lake Kansas would allow increased irrigation of the surrounding states. There would also be increased rain fall.

The farmland in Kansas was worth $2100 per acre in 2013 against the US average of $4000. It is better to flood lower value farm land than higher value farm land.

The Danaki depression has an area of about 10000km. So flooding it to sea level, 100m, would take 1000 km3 of water.

Assume 200,000km2 of Kansas could be flooded. (the other 13000km would be covered by the dams, strip next Missouri, hill tops etc.). So If Lake Kansas was 300m average depth it would hold 60000 km3.

So another 60 places like the Danaki depression would have to be purchased by the US to spare Kansas from flooding; if the US was to take its fair share of the water and not free load.

 

[Synobun]

Unfortunately, very little about climate change is sensible. Either everyone moans about the impending doom of the planet, which is not a sensible position, everyone claims it's all a hoax, also not sensible, or we get the sort of name calling witnessed here.

I suppose it isn't surprising. A rational dialog is not possible when there is 97% agreement.

J

I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse so as to avoid having a discussion. At least the rest of us who give trolling one-liners are witty about it (and still give meaningful contributions to the thread in-between).

 

[onejayhawk]

Didn't Copernicus take the position of 3% of scientists?

It has happened several times.

I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse so as to avoid having a discussion. At least the rest of us who give trolling one-liners are witty about it (and still give meaningful contributions to the thread in-between).

That applies to several parties to this discussion. Angst is insisting there is nothing left to discuss since everything is settled science. it does not matter that very little of it is settled science. In essence, we are trying to re-construct a feature length movie using three frames taken from reel three and a thirty seconds of the music score. Our lack of understanding is vast.

Just to make a few points clear. I acknowledge that climate change is real and that we are in a warming trend. I acknowledge human contribution to the warming trend. Where you will lose me is by claiming that climate change is caused by human activity. This common misconception is what is currently halting the discussion. Human activity is an element in the process. You would have to convince me that it was a primary element.

The other thing that is commonly argued is that significant change is urgently needed. I see no convincing evidence for urgency or that major change is going to be necessary at any point. For example, the war on coal is wrongheaded while ethanol mandates and subsidies are fully discredited and should end today. Both of these are examples of political actions that are not backed by science.

These are centrist positions but are usually treated as heresy. I use the term advisedly since there is a fully fleshed out, state-sanctioned religion of climate change. So, if you want to get into a religious discussion with a non-believer, be advised that is what you will be doing.

J

 

[CavLancer]

"Settled science"... Interesting concept. It cooled in the 70s, got warmer in the 90s, these things happen. These minor changes are nothing compared to what can be, and have been in the past and what will happen in the future no matter whether Vincour, Silurian, or Angst get in their cars tomorrow and drive to work or not..

 

[Synobun]

Just to make a few points clear. I acknowledge that climate change is real and that we are in a warming trend. I acknowledge human contribution to the warming trend. Where you will lose me is by claiming that climate change is caused by human activity. This common misconception is what is currently halting the discussion. Human activity is an element in the process. You would have to convince me that it was a primary element.

I don't believe anyone has ever made a serious attempt to say that humans are the sole cause of climate change. I've seen many people make a serious attempt to say that we are expediting and upsetting a natural climate cycle the Earth has enjoyed for previous millennia, which is true if all the comparative statistics are accurate. We won't ever cause irreparable harm to the planet. Earth will live on regardless of humanity. Our concern is the existing biodiversity, the existing climate, and the existing position our species finds itself in. The world as it is today and as it has been for the previous 10,000 years has lent us an excellent opportunity for advancement and prosperity. The point of making these changes and behind treating the planet better is so that we can maintain this opportunity. Our prosperity and our ability to advance will be compromised if the world we live on is no longer ideally suited for human life(style). Our goal should be to allow our continued upward advancement, not to operate as things always have been with no regard for the future consequences.

The other thing that is commonly argued is that significant change is urgently needed. I see no convincing evidence for urgency or that major change is going to be necessary at any point. For example, the war on coal is wrongheaded while ethanol mandates and subsidies are fully discredited and should end today. Both of these are examples of political actions that are not backed by science.

It is easier to fill a hole that is 5ft deep than it is to fill a hole that is 10ft deep. Making changes sooner rather than later allows us to commit less damage to our environment and, as a result, reduces our need to repair said damage. We wouldn't have to worry about recreating our coral reefs, for example, if we didn't destroy them all to begin with. We wouldn't need to worry about biodiversity, for example, if we didn't eliminate the diversity to begin with. We wouldn't need to worry about deforestation, for example, if we didn't utilize antiquated and non-sustainable logging practices to begin with.

On that note, I am not sure how you do not see any convincing evidence that a change will be necessary in the future (if not today or yesterday). All of the accepted climate models show that we're going to be facing significant problems within the next century and beyond without alteration of our resource use. If you can acknowledge that climate change is both real and something we contribute towards, how are you incapable of acknowledging that we need to also change in order to adapt or limit risk?

The consistent pointing to political action as a means to disprove our impact on the environment is nonsensical. Politicians are inherently out of the loop on most things because that is what their system is set up to be like. Everyone in the political process has an agenda, hence the popularity for politicians who keep their nose out of it and concede to greater authorities on the subject or politicians who come from a specific background that allows them to do more than line their pockets for the next financial quarter. While I empathize with the idea that political and economical subsidies and penalties are mostly unreasonable, I don't believe they have any bearing on the legitimacy behind climate science and our impact on the world we inhabit. If you build a 15 foot seawall on a coast that deals with 25 foot waves, this doesn't mean the idea of a seawall is bogus. It just means you didn't do it right.

 

[onejayhawk]

Using your analogy, holes can be counterproductive, eg ethanol. They are also very difficult to refill. Keeping them clear can be expensive. Ergo, it does not follow that a 5-foot hole now is better than a 10-foot hole later.

The constant pointing to politics is necessary because two widely separated issues get mingled. If you want to talk science, stick to science. If you want to talk courses of action, stick to politics. The science does not support the political actions requested. Never has.

J

 

[Synobun]

That is an exquisitely phrased cop out from the conversation.

 

[onejayhawk]

That is an exquisitely phrased cop out from the conversation.

That's flattering in this environment. That said, it's wrong.

Try something more concrete. General platitudes are not sufficient. The case that sharp reductions in carbon emissions are value-positive has not been made. Not yet, at least.

J