I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

the currents also control/impact the levels,as does the composition of the land mass

 

the world is wonderful thing

[PeterMP]

the currents also control/impact the levels,as does the composition of the land mass

 

the world is wonderful thing

 

e.g. stands for example.  I gave one example

 

Globally and where most people live, sea levels are going up.

Edited February 27, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

e.g. stands for example.  I gave one example

 

Globally and where most people live, sea levels are going up.

 

 I've been wanting a ocean view

[Skins24]

Though, I generally agree with the idea that some will winners and losers, which is why I really don't understand the issue with most Americans when we have a really great climate.

I mean if you live the Sahara desert, climate can't much worse so I can see be willing to take that coin flip, but for the US, it makes no sense.

The US would most certainly be a winner when it comes to climate change. More dust and wind shear in the Atlantic mean less hurricanes. Less dramatic weather mood swings transitioning from winter to spring mean less tornadoes for the mid west. And if climate change causes more El Nino events, less west coast droughts. Even Alaska becomes more livable. Everyone wins!

In all seriousness, the US would indeed thrive in a warmer climate. I don't see how we wouldn't.

[Slateman]

Thread is invalidated due to Senate vote on climate change.

[PeterMP]

The US would most certainly be a winner when it comes to climate change. More dust and wind shear in the Atlantic mean less hurricanes. Less dramatic weather mood swings transitioning from winter to spring mean less tornadoes for the mid west. And if climate change causes more El Nino events, less west coast droughts. Even Alaska becomes more livable. Everyone wins!

In all seriousness, the US would indeed thrive in a warmer climate. I don't see how we wouldn't.

 

Well first is the issue with large numbers of the population living near bodies of water at a time when sea levels are rising.

 

Second, there are issues such as droughts.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays-drought-in-the-west-is-nothing-compared-to-what-may-be-coming/2015/02/12/0041646a-b2d9-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html

 

Even when you think about hurricanes, you've ignored the importance of them in terms of delivering water to certain parts of the country.

 

In addition, warmer water means stronger hurricanes so you get few hurricanes (you are right about wind sheer), which means less general preparedness, but when they come they are stronger.

 

A lot of predictions call for fewer storms, which means prolonged drought like conditions, but stronger storms when they do come over much of the south-east US.

 

In other areas, snow fall and accumulation is important component of building up water in certain parts of the country.  Those patterns can change.

 

We can also throw in issues with changes in what have typically been tropical parasites and their vectors:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4022587/

 

The fact of the matter is that the US has dominated the world over the last 50+ years and much of that has been due to the climate allowing for access to easy drinking water and having large areas of land that are fertile.

 

If the interior of the US looks like the Sahara (the Sahara is about the size of the US), US global domination is much less significant.

 

Is there a country in the world that has a better climate than the US?

 

You flipped a coin once and got it right.  The best you can do is getting it right again.  Why would you flip it again if you didn't have to?

 

Global societies are evolutionary in nature.  The US in particular has evolved during the current climate regime (being a relatively new country and not really being affected by things like the LIA).  The chances of a shift in climate favoring the current dominant entity in an evolutionary system is just very unlikely.

 

At some level, without worrying about the nuts and  bolts of the results of climate change (which aren't really clear on a regional scale), it is basic evolutionary theory.

 

If you are the dominant entity in an evolutionary system, shifts in the environment of the system are much more likely to be harmful than be positive for you.

 

And that's where we sit.

Edited February 28, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

we have been the dominant entity because of much more than climate....of course they can always **** that up

[PeterMP]

we have been the dominant entity because of much more than climate....of course they can always **** that up

 

I think climate has been an integral part of it.  How many people were willing to leave their homes to colonize Sarah Africa?

 

Or the Gobi?

[twa]

I think climate has been an integral part of it.  How many people were willing to leave their homes to colonize Sarah Africa?

 

Or the Gobi?

Or Death Valley or White Sands

Cali has great climate and they are screwing the pooch

[PeterMP]

Or Death Valley or White Sands

Cali has great climate and they are screwing the pooch

 

Well, I agree with you with respect to Death Valley and White Sands, but in terms of area, they are (relatively) small.

 

The US didn't become great because people came to colonize Death Valley.  They came, initially because there was a lot of land where you could grow things.

 

If most of that is desert, we as a country are not where we are today.

 

Cali is having economic problems, but those things come and go with time.  No different than the issues TX had in the late 70s and early 80s when it was hit by the combination of falling oil prices and the S&L crisis.

 

And you may have heard about the massive drought CA is currently having, and the subsequent issues with things like wild fires.

Edited February 28, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

spending time and money on the wrong things left Cali in a bind?....color me shocked

who could have ever predicted a drought?

[PeterMP]

Deleted.

 

Ahh, it just isn't worth it. 

Edited February 28, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

Deleted.

 

Ahh, it just isn't worth it. 

 

I know the feeling 

[Skins24]

Well first is the issue with large numbers of the population living near bodies of water at a time when sea levels are rising.

Non issue.

Pace of sea level rise is not even close and will never come close to the pace of technology to deal with any sea level rise.

Second, there are issues such as droughts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays-drought-in-the-west-is-nothing-compared-to-what-may-be-coming/2015/02/12/0041646a-b2d9-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html

Seen that article and it makes a ton of assumptions based on models that have gotten NOTHING correct so far.

Our current best guess as to what will happen if we see extreme warming comes from east-based El Nino events and...droughts aren't the U.S.'s problem.

Even when you think about hurricanes, you've ignored the importance of them in terms of delivering water to certain parts of the country.

Like? Texas? The parts of the country that are vulnerable to or are in the path of hurricanes and their remnants receive rain/snow year round.

In addition, warmer water means stronger hurricanes so you get few hurricanes (you are right about wind sheer), which means less general preparedness, but when they come they are stronger.

Not convinced at all. Warm water is only one out of many aspects that cause hurricanes to form and gain strength. Simply increasing one factor does not automatically lead to stronger storms.

Geographically the U.S. is well situated...and pretty darn big. Even in worse case scenarios there is plenty of room to move about and large areas that would not be affected. I have full confidence we can continue our dominance

Bottom line is, the climate as far as we know has never stopped changing and if you're not warming, you're cooling. This world, and organics in particular, do 1000x better when we're warming.

0% chance of happening but if somewhere down the line this warming becomes too much to handle, well,to quote a well known and well respected doctor, Life will find a way. We'll survive...

[PeterMP]

Seen that article and it makes a ton of assumptions based on models that have gotten NOTHING correct so far.

 

I had a long, point-by-point post essentially written, then I had to leave my computer, and when I came back it had issues restarting and so I lost it.

 

While I was away, I thought about this a little bit though.

 

In 1988, you could have thought about climate and made predictions.

 

Let's take 3 variables- surface temperature, precipitation levels, and sea levels.

 

You could make a prediction for all 3 of those, and at some level it is tempting to think they are all related and so you are only really making one prediction.

 

However, we know there can be differences (see the plots from earlier in this thread that show that from 1940-1980 surface temperatures were down while the general trend for sea levels was up) so there is a degree of independence.

 

Now, in 1988 climate models predicted that all 3 of those things would significantly increase, and they didn't just make predictions on those 3 variables.

 

Climate models in 1988 predicted a whole host of variables would change in certain ways.  To my knowledge, there isn't a case where the models have said this value will increase or decrease in a significant manner and were wrong.

 

The models didn't just get ONE thing right (e.g. global surface temperature will significantly increase).  They've gotten lot's of things right.

 

Climate models have EASILY been better than the naive hypothesis (i.e. there will be no significant change), and it isn't even close.

 

A person that can't recognize those facts:

 

1. is flat out lying

2. has issues recognizing what they don't know or understand.  They are actually ignorant on the topic and don't know enough to realize it.

3.  has more deeply held beliefs that get in the way of them admitting the basic truths of the situation.

 

And the models we have today are clearly better than those in 1988.

 

That isn't to say the models are perfect (which I've alluded to already in this thread).

 

To try and have a more detailed conversation with somebody in one of those states would be like trying to have a conversation about the origin of the universe with somebody that at least claims to not accept the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

 

Yes, I could launch into a lecture on the Big Bang, but realistically it wouldn't do any good.

Edited February 28, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

if your model is exaggerating the human induced co2 impact by a factor of 3 your reduction efforts/targets are ineffective.

the world doesn't grade on a curve

[PeterMP]

if your model is exaggerating the human induced co2 impact by a factor of 3 your reduction efforts/targets are ineffective.

the world doesn't grade on a curve

 

Certainly, everybody doesn't get killed that gets something wrong.

 

Or none of us would be here.

 

Given that, the "winner" in most cases is the person that gets the most things the most right.  That's a curve.

 

We didn't get everything right with respect to WWII, but we still came out way ahead of most other countries and were the winners because we got more right.  That's a curve.

 

We weren't graded vs. some objective scale.  We were graded vs. those we were competing against.

 

(and none of that should be taken to suggest what you've suggested about the models is factually correct just that your philosophical reasoning is even wrong.)

Edited February 28, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

WWII?...you mean if we invaded South America instead of Germany it is close enough?

 

if ya ain't hitting the target using larger shells don't help

[Hersh]

WWII?...you mean if we invaded South America instead of Germany it is close enough?

 

if ya ain't hitting the target using larger shells don't help

 

Serious questions:

What do you think is the worst case scenario it the world takes little to no action when it comes to climate change?

 

What do you think is the worst case scenario if the world takes little to no action when it comes to climate change and your side is wrong about what man is doing to the climate?

[PeterMP]

WWII?...you mean if we invaded South America instead of Germany it is close enough?

 

if ya ain't hitting the target using larger shells don't help

 

Nobody is worried about oxygen concentrations (wrong country; wrong molecule).

 

*EDIT*

twa's point is one of magnitude not direction or target.  With respect to bombs, the relevant analogy would be that one group is saying that you have to drop a certain number of bombs on the enemy to achieve the objective.

 

While others are saying you have to drop 3X as many.

 

The current Republican answer is to drop no bombs and not do anything else special to offset the fact that there aren't any bombs being dropped.

 

(In the context of climate change, the Republicans are not putting forward a mitigation strategy.)

Edited February 28, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

The US would most certainly be a winner when it comes to climate change. More dust and wind shear in the Atlantic mean less hurricanes. Less dramatic weather mood swings transitioning from winter to spring mean less tornadoes for the mid west. And if climate change causes more El Nino events, less west coast droughts. Even Alaska becomes more livable. Everyone wins!

In all seriousness, the US would indeed thrive in a warmer climate. I don't see how we wouldn't.

 

I'm dumbfounded that you think this is a rational argument. 

 

‎cier.umd.edu/documents/US%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20of%20Inaction.pdf

 

Climate Change Is Harming Economy, Report Says - WSJ

[Mad Mike]

Thread is invalidated due to Senate vote on climate change.

 

I'll say this. I would refine the verbiage to target individual politicians and corporations like Koch industries that support them.

[Mad Mike]

Non issue.

Pace of sea level rise is not even close and will never come close to the pace of technology to deal with any sea level rise.

Seen that article and it makes a ton of assumptions based on models that have gotten NOTHING correct so far.

Our current best guess as to what will happen if we see extreme warming comes from east-based El Nino events and...droughts aren't the U.S.'s problem.

Like? Texas? The parts of the country that are vulnerable to or are in the path of hurricanes and their remnants receive rain/snow year round.

Not convinced at all. Warm water is only one out of many aspects that cause hurricanes to form and gain strength. Simply increasing one factor does not automatically lead to stronger storms.

Geographically the U.S. is well situated...and pretty darn big. Even in worse case scenarios there is plenty of room to move about and large areas that would not be affected. I have full confidence we can continue our dominance

Bottom line is, the climate as far as we know has never stopped changing and if you're not warming, you're cooling. This world, and organics in particular, do 1000x better when we're warming.

0% chance of happening but if somewhere down the line this warming becomes too much to handle, well,to quote a well known and well respected doctor, Life will find a way. We'll survive...

 

Are you a climate scientist? If so, please share with us the degrees you hold. If not I suggest you point to scientific evidence that can be reviewed to back your claim that NASA has "gotten NOTHING correct so far." 

 

Or you can simply admit that you are speaking directly from your rectum.

[Mad Mike]

I am Under “Investigation”

 

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.

 

Be Worried: Climate Scientists Under Attack | ThinkProgress

 

 

 

"Many scientists do not enjoy the institutional support necessary to fight attacks from well-funded science-denying groups," the letter said. "We need to help scientists to defend themselves. If ATI succeeds in this case, it would set a terrible precedent for scientists at public institutions across the country. But if they are turned back here, it will send a clear message to climate deniers that scientists are willing to stand up to them and fight for their rights."

[No Excuses]

It's admirable that some of you are still interested in giving twa reasonable responses.

His act is so worn out, it's obvious. He knows he's wrong but too proud to admit it.

That's really where this argument is at in general. As latest as 2016, you will most likely see a complete about face on this from the GOP and they will pretend that they were always siding with the scientists.

The debate has been long over. Fighting against science is a bad idea.

Edited February 28, 2015 by No Excuses