There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Do you mean to say that 70 years after I am dead, my great grandchildren will go to the same beach house my parents took me to when I was a kid and standing in the exact same spot, their ankles will get wet instead of their toes? That sound absolutely terrifying!!! 

That is pretty much the most self centred and short sighted synopsis of the situation I have seen from you. We know, you don't give a shit about the future, you'll be dead. Got it.

[billvon 2,990]

On 12/12/2019 at 5:23 AM, brenthutch said:

With regard to you comparison of blood and sea water, well that is just silly.  The daily fluctuation of PH in and around coral reef systems is huge (it can vary from 7.8 to 8.7 in a single 24 hour period) so again you analogy is just silly.

They are not the same.  It is indeed silly to say that something cannot become more acidic if it has a pH over 7, as the example explained.  Any chemist would laugh at you.

Quote

"Climate-driven increases in wildfires, drought conditions, and insect outbreaks are critical threats to forest carbon stores. In particular, bark beetles are important disturbance agents although their long-term interactions with future climate change are poorly understood."

The relationship between bark beetles and climate change is poorly understood.  The relationship between drought conditions, climate change and wildfires is well understood, as is the relationship between longer fire seasons and longer, more destructive fires.

Your reading of articles to look for words like "poorly understood" while completely ignoring the rest of the paper reminds of George Monbiot's comment on the blindness many climate change deniers need to maintain to believe their own positions:

"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals."

Must be a lot of work.

And all this is especially funny in a thread whose original post claimed that climate change ended 20 years ago.

[billvon 2,990]

On 12/13/2019 at 6:50 AM, brenthutch said:

 Seven centimeters of sea level rise by the end of the century?  Do you mean to say that 70 years after I am dead, my great grandchildren will go to the same beach house my parents took me to when I was a kid and standing in the exact same spot, their ankles will get wet instead of their toes? That sound absolutely terrifying!!! 

Your great grandkids will move a bit inland and be fine.  The great grandkids of the people living near the water in Bangladesh will be homeless (or dead.)  Some people care about that.

[brenthutch 444]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Your great grandkids will move a bit inland and be fine.  The great grandkids of the people living near the water in Bangladesh will be homeless (or dead.)  Some people care about that.

Our ancestors dealt with it 11,000 years ago when the last ice age ended, and it happened much faster and was much more profound than anything contemplated by todays scientists.  To riff off a GICO commercial, "Sea level rise, so easy a caveman can deal with it"

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

[airdvr 210]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

Your great grandkids will move a bit inland and be fine.  The great grandkids of the people living near the water in Bangladesh will be homeless (or dead.)  Some people care about that.

Aren't the folks living near the water in Bangladesh already homeless?

[gowlerk 2,190]

Why would you even care? They are not American, or Christian, they are far away, and as your question infers they don't matter except to be the butt of your jokes.

[airdvr 210]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Why would you even care? They are not American, or Christian, they are far away, and as your question infers they don't matter except to be the butt of your jokes.

No...it's a serious question.  If the effect of AGW is a sealevel rise of a few inches I'm trying to understand how this could be devastating.  If the people are already homeless then it wasn't the sealevel rise that caused it.

[Coreece 190]

34 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Why would you even care? They are not American, or Christian, they are far away, and as your question infers they don't matter except to be the butt of your jokes.

Dude, get off your high horse and stop shoving your beliefs down everyone's throat.  If Bill's correct and people can just move inland and be alright, then Brent is also correct - the solution is through economic development around high risk areas, not by selling windmills and discounted EVs in the U.S or standing ankle deep in water shouting at the tide and scaring the living shit out of our kids.

 

[Coreece 190]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

Your great grandkids will move a bit inland and be fine. 

Be careful there, they might start calling you a type IV denier!

[gowlerk 2,190]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Dude, get off your high horse and stop shoving your beliefs down everyone's throat.  If Bill's correct and people can just move inland and be alright, then Brent is also correct - the solution is through economic development around high risk areas, not by selling windmills and discounted EVs in the U.S or standing ankle deep in water shouting at the tide and scaring the living shit out of our kids.

 

My belief? That people in other places matter too? 

[brenthutch 444]

36 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

My belief? That people in other places matter too? 

No, that windmills,  EVs And virtual signaling will somehow make a difference.

[gowlerk 2,190]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No, that windmills,  EVs And virtual signaling will somehow make a difference.

That’s a different subject. “Virtue signalling “ is another one of those silly phrases used in a lame attempt to diminish people.

[wmw999 2,439]

6 hours ago, airdvr said:

Aren't the folks living near the water in Bangladesh already homeless?

Homeless is a relative term in many countries. Shantytowns, where it's really just squatters, are pretty common, and those are those people's homes. Moving populations means finding a place to put them, and that's no easier in other countries than it is in the US. It might even inconvenience a rich person.

And, just like in the US, some of those waterfront homes probably belong to rich people. 

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,990]

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

Be careful there, they might start calling you a type IV denier!

Rich people will always be fine.

[billvon 2,990]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

Aren't the folks living near the water in Bangladesh already homeless?

From your perspective, perhaps.  Not from theirs.  Of course, we are working hard to make them as homeless as possible, so there's that.

[brenthutch 444]

On 12/13/2019 at 10:53 AM, gowlerk said:

That is pretty much the most self centred and short sighted synopsis of the situation I have seen from you. We know, you don't give a shit about the future, you'll be dead. Got it.

On the contrary, I care a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQhX8PbNUWI

 

[airdvr 210]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

From your perspective, perhaps.  Not from theirs.  Of course, we are working hard to make them as homeless as possible, so there's that.

OK...so a rise of several inches of sea level will kill them how?  I'm serious here...if "people are dying...entire ecosystems are collapsing" is the battle cry...

[brenthutch 444]

Several inches over the next century.  The notion that these folks cannot take care of themselves is nothing more than a neocolonial construct of effete progressives.

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

OK...so a rise of several inches of sea level will kill them how?  I'm serious here...if "people are dying...entire ecosystems are collapsing" is the battle cry...

It won't.  But a rise of several feet will.

Remember Katrina?  Now think about Katrina with a sea level that starts out 2 feet higher.

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Several inches over the next century.  The notion that these folks cannot take care of themselves is nothing more than a neocolonial construct of effete progressives.

Again, the whole lying thing is why no one takes you seriously.

[brenthutch 444]

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

It won't.  But a rise of several feet will.

Remember Katrina?  Now think about Katrina with a sea level that starts out 2 feet higher.

But we are not talking about several feet, we are talking about a few inches. (That is if you believe the IPCC)

[billvon 2,990]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

But we are not talking about several feet, we are talking about a few inches. (That is if you believe the IPCC)

IPCC:

The latest report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) paints a very sobering picture of the challenges we face due to sea level rise. The Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) finds that global mean sea levels will most likely rise between 0.95 feet (0.29m) and 3.61 feet (1.1m) by the end of this century.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rob-moore/new-ipcc-report-sea-level-rise-challenges-are-growing

And that .95 feet is under the RCP2.6 scenario, which is the lowest CO2 emission scenario.  (You know, that scenario you are proud of making sure we never see.)  The high CO2 emission scenario (i.e. yours) has a median sea level rise of two and a half feet.

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/

So what's it going to be?  Just under a foot, or two and a half feet?  Or is that something your grandkids will have to deal with so you don't care?

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

IPCC:

The latest report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) paints a very sobering picture of the challenges we face due to sea level rise. The Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) finds that global mean sea levels will most likely rise between 0.95 feet (0.29m) and 3.61 feet (1.1m) by the end of this century.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rob-moore/new-ipcc-report-sea-level-rise-challenges-are-growing

And that .95 feet is under the RCP2.6 scenario, which is the lowest CO2 emission scenario.  (You know, that scenario you are proud of making sure we never see.)  The high CO2 emission scenario (i.e. yours) has a median sea level rise of two and a half feet.

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/

So what's it going to be?  Just under a foot, or two and a half feet?  Or is that something your grandkids will have to deal with so you don't care?

It is something that we cannot stop.  We will have to overcome and adapt.

Unless you can get China to "Toe The line" Immediately - but even that won't matter, not really.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by turtlespeed

[normiss 798]

37 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

It is something that we cannot stop.  We will have to overcome and adapt.

Unless you can get China to "Tow The line" Immediately - but even that won't matter, not really.

 

*toe

[turtlespeed 220]

2 minutes ago, normiss said:

*toe

Dammit - Fixed

 

That's all you found wrong.

Edited December 16, 2019 by turtlespeed