Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 Next
Comments 39851 to 39900:
-
meb58 at 02:24 AM on 10 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
I think humanity cares...but the challenge is complex on a global scale, challenging on a scale of time leaving, in my opinion, a good chunk of humanity to peck away solutions in ways that seem reasonable. If you step back, the challenge is monumental with no concerted frame work in place for most of humanity to follow. For some, recycling news papers, cans and plastic is all they can do...I myself am not much beyond this. Humanity has to march along the same, clear, chord. That we do not agree on the science presents a pretty big hurdle, and leap into one camp or the other.
Humanity - non science folk - is keen to follow I hope. But I feel we attach to emotion better than we do raw science. and perhaps this film begins to do just that.
-
John Hartz at 02:04 AM on 10 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
@Tom Curtis #23: Sadam Huessein and his henchmen accumulated much personal wealth through illegal means (e.g. selling petroleum on the black market) during their reign. Is this taken into account in the World Bank's computation of Iraq's GDP during this time period?
-
michael sweet at 01:52 AM on 10 December 2013Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
Tom,
I do not think that that we substantially disagree. Reasonable people may have different concerns when looking at projections many years in the future.
It is surreal when I suggest that having the homes of several hundred million people destroyed, along with a considerable percentage of the best farmland in the world, is a problem. You return that we have to keep our eye on the big problems, not the smaller ones and I have to agree. What kind of a discussion is that? Hopefully Hansen's message will start to sink in and something will be done.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:49 AM on 10 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
John Hartz @19 inline, Iraq has a population of around 31 million, and around 1 million regugees external to the borders (ie, excluding IDP and returned refugees). That means including them in the per capita population would reduce per capita GDP by at most 3.25%, a minimal impact relative to the PPP per capita GDP growth of just over 100% since 2003. Given the removal of sanctions, it would be extraordinary of Iraq's economy had not improved.
-
Smith at 00:51 AM on 10 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
I cannot help but wonder, however, how the thousands of Iragi refugees residing in other Mideast countries are accounted for in the World Bank's computations.
I do not know, but per capita GDP was the metric chosen by the author and the World Bank was their chosen source for the data. The claim is not accurate and should be corrected, particularly in the context of an article discussing media reporting accuracy.
Moderator Response:[JH] This matter certainly bears further review by the author of the OP -- especially since the link embedded in the statement you have called into question is also to the World Bank data base. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:20 AM on 10 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
JH inline @17:
Iraq GDP per capita (PPP), 1999-2011.
Also, Iraq's "Economy grows but how many benefit?"
-
Smith at 00:06 AM on 10 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Sorry the last point in my post No. 19 should read;
Iraqi GDP per capita currently (2012) was $6455 USD.
-
Smith at 00:00 AM on 10 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Please specify the source of your data.
The acronym "GDP" was hyperlinked to the World Bank, which is the same source hyperlinked as the citation for the claim that "Iraqi per capita GDP has so far failed to return to prewar levels".
Iraqi GDP per capita pre-war (2001) was $772 USD.
Iraqi GDP per capita pre-war (2001) was $6455 USD.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you. I obviously did not see that "GDP" had a link embedded in it. I cannot help but wonder, however, how the thousands of Iragi refugees residing in other Mideast countries are accounted for in the World Bank's computations.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:52 PM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
JH, Smith's numbers line up with the chart and 'knowledge graph' produced when Googling "Iraq GDP". Google cites the World Bank as their source. The link in the article above also goes to World Bank data on Iraq, and shows the same $210.3 billion figure for 2012 as Google has, but not the history. I found the history at this page, and it too matches Google once you click through the different time periods.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:34 PM on 9 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
The 'line charge' thing is a total scam. In Arizona, the first state to rule on it, ALEC and the power companies were pushing for a $100 per customer monthly line charge. That's more than the total monthly electric bill of most households. Even the $5 per month charge they eventually settled on is pure highway robbery. There are over 100 million 'households' in the US (for 300 million people). Even if we ignore businesses, charging each of those 100 million households $5 per month would mean $500 million per month available for grid maintenance. For that kind of money they could replace the entire US electric grid every ten years or so. Instead, most of the equipment in use is over a century old.
Yes, there is some hypothetical amount of money that power companies spend to keep the electric grid operating. The fact that it stops operating every time a strong storm blows through or a squirrel chews on the wrong wire ought to be a clue that this amount isn't very large. In some places the power companies are actually making money on solar because it generates power at peak usage times and they get to sell the power at peak rates while paying the solar generators a flat rate. In other cases the peak rate gets passed on to the solar generator, but the power companies are still benefitting because they can produce steady baseload power (the least expensive) rather than having to ramp up as much for the peaks.
In all likelihood, the money power companies make off of selling 'excess' solar power to their customers is greater than the amount they 'lose' by not charging the solar generators for maintenance of the electric grid. However, the profits they lose from those people generating their own electricity are even greater... and they are introducing these grossly inflated line charges as a way to discourage solar power generation and still get their profits even though they no longer supply the electricity.
William's point about applying the same rates to all customers is the correct way to go. The $5 'line charge' in Arizona is only being applied to solar producers. The proper way to implement it would have been to apply the new $5 charge to all customers and decrease the cost of electricity such that on average the total monthly bill wouldn't change.
That said, $5 per customer is a low enough 'tax on solar' / 'fossil fuel subsidy' that it will do little to slow the growth of solar power. The fact that it was kept so low shows that the fossil fuel industry is already losing their political clout... and as that happens they will begin to lose some of their big subsidies, leading to higher costs, which will drive more adoption of solar (and/or wind), and the whole thing will just continue to snowball. The fossil fuel industry is dying. Finally.
-
Johnny Vector at 22:46 PM on 9 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
William: To be fair, at some level of solar input, load balancing does start to become a more difficult job. However at that point the cost of upgrading the grid to handle it, divided by the number of producers, is still a small cost. I'm happy to pay that cost.
Not to mention that in large parts of the US, peak power demand occurs precisely when peak solar power is available, since the power is being used to remove solar-generated heat from buildings. Which makes solar generation from individual buildings inherently load-leveling.
-
Smith at 22:19 PM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Iraqi per capita GDP has so far failed to return to prewar levels,
This claim is not accurate. Iraqi per capita GDP in 2001 was $772, it was $6455 in 2012. That is nearly a ten fold increase in Iraqi per capita GDP.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please specify the source of your data.
-
funglestrumpet at 21:02 PM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
John Hartz @ 8
The point that I was making, with proof of same, was that not all conspiracy theories are false and this site, in saying that climate deniers are likely to be conspiracy theorists supports the media's meme that they are.
It is no good complaining about media manipulation of the public's opinion on climate change while supporting their manipulation of the public's opinion on other matters.
Important as it surely is, climate change is not the only game in town. If sks wants to have an effect on the media, it needs to support others who also wish to have the same effect on the same media.
How that was off topic is a mystery to me. (I note that later posts have disappeared into w.m.d. and wars fought over them.)
Moderator Response:[JH] I apparently misread your initial post. My apologies for deleting it.
-
mercpl at 20:06 PM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
I have used the Iraq war to illustrate to conservatives (Liberals here in Australia) how hypocritical their views on climate change action are.
The reasoning of Bush, Blair and Howard used to justify the Iraq war was essentially this:
We think that there is a very high probability that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction. If this is true then the consequences of allowing this to continue will be very severe. Therefore we cannot wait for absolute certainty, we must act now.
That was a logically consistent argument and the decision to invade Iraq was justified if (and its a very big IF) Saddam did posses WMD.
Now, if only the conservatives would apply the same logic to Global Warming but instead they refuse to acknowledge the consequences and demand that we wait for absolute certainty.
-
nigelj at 18:46 PM on 9 December 2013New Video: Making the Plio Scene – What the Past tells us about Sea Level
Very good video. There is a useful book called After the Ice about human communities after the last ice age ended. The book presents evidence of a period of rapid sea level rise of several metres in about 50 years.
Remains were found in some countries of settlements relocating to higher ground several times over. Past climate history needs more emphasis in the media, as its easy to relate to historical situations.
-
nigelj at 17:48 PM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
I agree with the article, the media were unquestioning over the rather weak claims about weapons of mass destruction. The media seem to let many ridiculous sceptical claims on climate science go unanswered (apart from the work of this site). Whether this is journalistic ignorance on the science, or bias its hard to tell and is possibly both.
However theres no point wringing your hands, only the mainstream climate science community can move to better engage with the media, and ensure its case is put fairly, and that sceptical claims are properly scrutinised.
-
John Hartz at 14:30 PM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
The spin-meisters in the Bush-Cheney Administration purposely embedded the media into the shock and awe invasion of Iraq. That mechanism succesfully co-opted the U.S. media. There is no parallel mechanism in place when it comes to communicating the science of climate change.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Warren Hindmarsh @11, WMD in Iraq were presented to the UN by the UN agency (ie, the IAEA), as possibly existing in Iraq, but that there was no confirmation either that they existed or had been destroyed. Further, it was presented by the IAEA that Iraq was in fact cooperating with inspections. Those views were in fact correct.
That you, instead of drawing the analogy to Hans Blix's statements, draw it to that of a politically motivated actor shows your analogy to be deceptive rather than informative. If you want to draw the analogy, draw it between like and like (IAEA and IPCC). Of course, if you do, the lesson from the analogy would be that the IPCC reports are fair minded, and as reliable as is permited given the evidence, while clearly drawing attention to where the evidence is insufficient to support conclusions, or make the conclusions tentative.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 11:44 AM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Good analogy, but it doesn't support your position. Both WMD and CAGW were presented to the UN (remember Colin Powell presentation on WMD and the IPCC on CAGW) as irrefutable facts, governments around the world accepted the propositions on face value. There were skeptics on both presentations who questioned the lack of evidence they were howled down. The results lives and billions wasted.
-
John Hartz at 09:26 AM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Nigelj, One Planet Only Forever, Philippe Chantreau, and Rob Painting:
Thank you all for taking the time to post thoughtful responses to keitho's diatribes.
I aplogoize for not getting on top ofthis situation earlier thatn I did, but I was focused on producing the Weekly Digest,
-
John Hartz at 08:59 AM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
keitho: All of your posts have been deleted because they were nothing more than argumentative sloganeering and generally off-topic. All response to your comments were also deleted.
Please read the SkS Comments Policy and adhere to it. If you do not, you will forfeit your privilege to post comments.
-
John Hartz at 05:35 AM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Funglestrumpet: Your post was deleted because it was off-topic.
The topic of the OP is a comparison of the media coverage of the Iraq war to its coverage of climate change.
Conspiracy theories about the Sept 11 attack on the World Trade Center towers in New York are not on topic.
-
Roger D at 04:47 AM on 9 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
I think the analogy that is the topic of this OP does hold up. In both cases, the mainsteam media's coverage misinformed opinion. It's been well documented how the need for invasion was marketed and its probable costs downplayed during the fake "emergency" sold by the Bush Administration.
I think what is maybe confusing about the analogy is that while the media's coverage of both WMD and AGW resulted (is resulting in the case of AGW) in many more people believing untruths, one was a case where action was being justified and one is a case where inaction is being justified.
I think the analogy will hold up in this way too: after it becomes widely apparent that there was a failure to portray the AGW situation in a way that accurately reflects honest/ dilegent reporting of what is actually known vs unknown, it would be as hard to find people defending their staunch assertions that AGW is harmless as it is to find those willing to admit the degree of their support for the Iraq war today. Many of those supporting inaction may die before it is so blatantly obvious that they were mistaken, but if some of them are still around in decades to come they could rightfully put much blame on the media.
On Iraq, I though Frank Rich's book "the Greatest Story Ever Sold" was very good. It has timeline of what those in the know actually thought vs what the Bush Admin spun, with a largely malable or complicit media to help. It's pretty shocking to see the the filtering of information that occurred and the focus on "evidence" that painted the picture of a potential mushroom cloud. Rich even gets into the fake expert reports used in the runup to the invsion. A similar timeline will be able to be made for the disinformers on AGW of today vs what is actually known.
-
william5331 at 04:18 AM on 9 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
By the by, the power company gains a huge advantage too. With lots of renewable energy being fed into the grid, they don't have to build an extra gas powered generator for peak shaving - a power station that is only used occasionally and hence isn't financially worth while. They can store this extra power by simple pumped storage to be used as needed.
-
william5331 at 04:14 AM on 9 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
That first article on ALEC is a shocker. At least they have shown their hand as clearly as is possible. As with all good lies, there is a grain of truth in what they say. By having a grid tie system, you gain the considerable advantage of not having to buy a full set of batteries every 7 years or so and your power is distributed to other users. You get a service from the power company. But the fee you pay should take the form of a simple, transparent line charge. One little proviso here, though. The power company must be forced to charge the same line charge to the user and the user/generator. Otherwise the solar panel owner will end up paying a huge line charge and a small kWh charge while the simple user the reverse.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/solar-power-and-ratchet.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2009/09/german-fit-system-brilliant.html
-
dana1981 at 03:17 AM on 9 December 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
devadatta @69 - basically yes. Church was one of our co-authors and provided his full data set for our paper.
-
KiwiInOz at 14:59 PM on 8 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
That ALEC mob would have been supporting Great Britain in the US War of Independence!
-
Tom Curtis at 10:38 AM on 8 December 2013Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
Michael Sweet @17, the UNEP report shows 15 million (10% of the population) effected, not inundated. It also shows 17,000 km2 (11.5%) inundated. The percentage inundates will be lower than the 10% because the coastal area effected is not, for the most part a high population area (for Bangladesh). I am not entirely sure what is meant by "effected" given that a larger area has already been effected by increased salinity, and the entire country will be effected by increased riverine flood levels with higher sea levels. Presumably it means that part of the population whose land is either inundated or becomes vulnerable to storm surge.
That quibble aside, I do not disagree with anything you say. Bear in mind that I am responding to the claim that:
"And adding the risk of large and fast SLR to other severe climate risks probably does change the maths into making even relatively limited global warming a civilizational threat, that we better insure ourselves against, as far as we still can."
My point has not been that sea level rise is costless, or even low cost. It is that relative to other effects of global warming it is a minor cost, and that given that tackling global warming will be expensive, the costs from sea level rise would not justify it alone. Therefore sea level rise is not likely to cause a level of global warming that does not threaten our civilization to become a threat to that civilization. In this it is unlike threats from ocean acidification, anoxia, ecosystem collapse and simple ongoing temperature increases which within two centuries with BAU could rise to levels which make the tropics seasonally uninhabitable. Thus, while from Bangladesh's perspective (and Florida's), sea level rise is the most imminent and dangerous threat from global warming, this is not so globally where it ranks well down the list.
-
nigelj at 08:35 AM on 8 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Fair comments Rob Painting. I accept people arent fully informed of the consequences of climate change, especially at an individual level. And its important as I only gave up smoking when I realised the full range of health risks.
I have been concerned whether a forum like this is the right place, but its better than leaving it to over dramatised movies.
-
vrooomie at 07:38 AM on 8 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
All mentions of "ALEC" should be in caps, to delineate it as an it; 'Alec' is a person. Great report!
-
nigelj at 07:26 AM on 8 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
Apparently some meteorologists are sceptical of climate change. Of course some of this is probably quite healthy scepticism, but I think an element of this is likely to be driven by professional jealousy. It may also be simply a poor understanding of the issues, and I suspect some meteorologists get bogged down in natural cycles given their job.
I just hope that they carefully consider the origins of their scepticism, and whether its rigorous and based on the evidence. It is very confusing for the public to see disagreement like this.
-
WheelsOC at 05:51 AM on 8 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
Ah, a conservative group arguing for MORE regulations on the scrappy home-based "business" of selling extra power to the electric company. Perhaps their ideology of smaller government, protecting the "little guy," and the kind of unfettered can-do do-it-yourself self-sufficiency we've heard so much about is finally cracking! Now we just need to aim their newfound love of regulation at a worthy target. How about the fossil fuels industries? We could get them to strengthen regulation of frac-
A model bill endorsed by the Alec board of directors last August would strip the EPA of power to shut down a frack site or oil industry facility.
... oh.
-
Rob Painting at 04:18 AM on 8 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
John Hartz - this is not a pissing match. Yube has made a number of spurious claims, and I feel it's important to not let these go unchallenged. Yube, however continues to duck the question, and also steers well clear of any discussion of actual science, so this has come to its conclusion.
Moderator Response:[JH] I am remiss for not pointing out that YubeDude was doing most of the peeing.
-
John Hartz at 02:26 AM on 8 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
All: The OP was posted at the request of John Cook, the founder and owner of SkS. If you object to its posting, you are free to do so. Temper tantrums will not, however, be tolerated.
-
r.pauli at 02:20 AM on 8 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
In the US, our advertiser supported media is wildly successful at delivering commericial messages. The purpose of any news segment is to attract and build more of an audience for advertisers. They have no obligation to serve the welfare of viewers.
-
John Hartz at 02:12 AM on 8 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
@nigelj: Sadly, most politicans will say and do whatever it takes to remain in power. Consistency is not one of their strong suits. Think: "Jack be nimble, ..."
-
PluviAL at 01:57 AM on 8 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
Yube, this is the purpose of the site, to better inform the public. What can be more central than media coverage?
However, I doubt the media can do better. 1) it is an entertainment source. 2) its a source for soothing, as much or more than informing. 3) There is no solutions offered but only presentation of the problem.
What we need to develop are valid solutions, then the public will want to hear it. And, then that section of the media will look at the real problem. A certain part of the public needs to be deceived, the media simply provides.
-
kmalpede at 01:00 AM on 8 December 2013Media failure on Iraq War repeated in climate change coverage
The science is in. Now, we need to change public opinion. As an artist whose anti-war play "Prophecy" was censored in the NY Times, though loved by audiences, my experience with producing a play about Climate Change scientists and their struggle, "Extreme Whether" is similar. We need stories that tell the truth. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/extreme-whether
-
John Hartz at 23:19 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Rob Painiting & Yube Dude: Your discourse has degenerated into a rather absurd peeing match. Pleaese cease and desist.
-
michael sweet at 22:27 PM on 7 December 2013Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
Tom,
I looked at the sea level rise map you linked here. I looked at Miami since I live in Florida. Your map showed little damage in Miami at a 3 meter sea level rise even though I know that the land side of Miami is only one meter high and the entire area should be inunduated. I found this map from Climate Central (which only shows the USA). It shows that Miami is only a handful of islands after 3 meters of sea level rise. I found this UNEP report which shows a lot of Bangladesh (15 millon people's houses) underwater after 1 meter of sea level rise while your link shows only a few dots of water. Substantial parts of Bangladesh will be gone with even 1 meter of sea level rise, much less 4 meters. Reading the background on your link it says the elevation is from satalite data and shows the tops of the trees and buildings. This does not seem very useful to me.
It is my experience that these maps underestimate the damage of sea level rise. They show inundated area, but I cannot live in a house that is 10 cm above sea level. Any surge would flood the house. For this reason .25 meters of sea level rise appears to have no damage, because a minimum of .25 meters is required everywhere to avoid floods. If sea level rises .25 meters the people who live .5 meters above sea level will have to move because they will flood with any storm surge. Usually people move after disasters like hurricanes. This is affecting Miami now as low lying areas flood from high tides they used to be resistant to. In addition, areas like Miami are cut off from the mainland and will become useless islands with no fresh water before they are inundated.
The deltas of the world have a greatly disproportionate amount of the good farming land. If the Nile delta (covered in the UNEP link above) is flooded, the farmers cannot simply move into the desert and expect to be able to raise crops like they formerly did. Virtually all the deltas are low-lying.
Sea level rise will not wipe out civilization, but even 1 meter of rise will displace millions of people worldwide, and the food source for many more. This will not happen tomorrow, but it is an important problem.
-
YubeDude at 20:55 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Remember the topic is the Cameron project that is being shown on Showtime. The moral issue may be a part of his project but it hardly falls into the cited and sourced catagory.
Now, not to put too fine a point on it, what the hell question did you ask that is relevant to the SCIENCE scince of AGW as it pertains to the SKS guidelines? Or was this just your moral outrage demanding a response? Did you get a chance to look at some of those faith based web sites?
Regardless of what you think or what your opinion is regarding the prognostications, or my own for that matter, it is irrelevant. The post is about a Showtime production. It will be in English. Now it's wonderful you live in New Zealand, I use to live in Gisborne. It is mind boggling that you all know how to illegally obtain a signal and get first rate American productions for free (if that is what you are inferring) but I hate to be the one who has to break this shocking new to you…New Zealand, the entire Polynesian Pacific, and you can even throw in all of North America and Australia hardly constitutes the great bulk of humanity which as you clearly stated is Cameron’s audience.
So continue on your excess of repetition beating a horse that died many post ago.
You questions and high minded attitude are yours and yours alone; why the mods have not suggested you cool your distinctly unscientific rants is a mystery to me.Morals, emotions, and glossy productions really don’t have any peer review; I have been told that is pretty much sacrosanct here at SKS. Maybe you have heard otherwise.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your rehetoric is overheated. Please dial it back. If you do not, your future posts will be summarily deleted.
PS - SkS Comments Policy prohibits the use of all caps. Please read the SkS Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
lennartvdl at 20:03 PM on 7 December 2013Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
Tom @14,
I've played with such maps and that hasn't comforted me. Again, for the coming century you may well be right, as also suggested in this paper by Nicholls et al (2010):
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/161.fullThey estimate up to 187 million people forced to relocate during this century in the worst-case (2.4% of the current global population). They also speak about adaptation 'pessimists' and 'optimists':
"The ‘pessimists’ seem to take it as read that adaptation will either fail or people will not even try to adapt. In contrast, the ‘optimists’ appear overly confident that benefit–cost approaches describe human behaviour in response to threats such as sea-level rise."Beyond 2100 it seems less clear to me that adaptation will be the preferred option, or even technically or economically possible, if SLR by that time is so fast that cities/countries will need to adapt almost continuously (and not only to SLR of course). Miami/Florida for example seems almost impossible to defend, even in this century, due to its porous geological foundation:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/23/2199031/scientist-miami-as-we-know-it-today-is-doomed-its-not-a-question-of-if-its-a-question-of-when/Meanwhile probably some cities/countries will adapt in time to prevent big disasters from happening, but others will likely be too late, so disasters wil probably be bigger and more frequent.
Also protection costs will rise disproportionately with higher sea level, according to Nicholls et al:
"[A] dike required in response to a 2m rise in sea level is assumed to be four times the cost of that required for a 1m rise in sea level."Since we can't simply assume the world will become richer and richer, due to both climate change and resource depletion, these rising adaptation costs will at some point become an unbearable burden on public budgets. The less we invest in mitigation the sooner we will probably reach this point.
But at the same time: the less we invest in adaptation, the more and bigger disasters will happen. So we need to invest more now, in both mitigation and adaptation, to prevent costs from becoming unbearable further into the future.
In Holland, where I live, planners now assume a worst-case of 60 cm in 2100 and 120 cm in 2200, based on IPCC 2007. They know it could be worse, but at this point we don't insure ourselves against that risk. The Dutch Delta Committee considers 130 cm by 2100 and 4 m by 2200 as the worst-case (including subsidence). They think we could adapt to such rises.
Our Environmental Assessment Agency and Delft University think we can adapt to 1.5 meter/century for at least four centuries. They consider this as a worst-case, even though the main adviser to the Delta Committee say there's a significant risk of more than 1.5 meter/century.
So, returning to the question, is SLR by itself a civilizational threat? Maybe not, but perhaps I'm more of a pessimist than you are. I agree that other threats may be bigger, certainly during this century. But like I said, SLR adds to these other risks, and may be very significant in itself in coming centuries.
Also, the world is much fuller now than during the Black Death, and we have nuclear weapons now, which is a big civilizational threat in itself. Still, you may be right that civilization is more resilient than I fear, and that even billions of deaths will not hurt civilization much, unless maybe caused by nuclear war. We should minimize such risks, however, so including the risk of SLR, in my mind.
-
Rob Painting at 19:10 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Yube - you simply continue to demonstrate you have no rational argument to make. Your lame attempts to wriggle out of this by accusing me of creating strawman arguments is fooling no one. This isn't Jabberwocky you know. You have not answered the question I posed to you several times already because I suspect you know you're probably wrong. Remember upthread that you were the one to raise this issue.
The assumptions are either that:
a) the public understand the dire consequences of climate change and ocean acidification under business-as-usual scenarios - which would suggest a lack of morality by continuing down this path, or....
b) the public don't understand and are therefore largely ignorant of the looming ecological and humanitarian crises that lay ahead.
I suspect option b, but there is no scientific research that I am aware of to substantiate this. Therefore, as any rational person would surmise, my comments in this thread have been entirely consistent.
"Regarding the suggestion that my comments smack of racism...I live in the third world and here I am in the minority."
Maybe you do. As far as I'm aware you're just an anonymous person on the internet, but regardless, this doesn't give you any right to make bigoted comments.
"They don't get Showtime. If you followed the links you would know where the cable is available and how much it cost."
Well I don't know about where you live, but down here in the South Pacific a lot of cable TV material is watched even though people don't have cable. I think you might be able to figure out how this is so. You do seem to have a rather naive understanding of the world.
"most of whom it should be noted are too poor, too disconnected, and too interested in eating to really give a shit about what you or Mr. Cameron have to say."
Unlike you I have actually listened to Tuvaluans speak about climate change. They may be poor, but they do give a shit about climate change. I didn't have the heart to tell them that sea level rise could not be stopped and that their homeland will become inundated later this century, or early in the 22nd century. But at some point someone is going to have to spell it out to them.
"As for the morality or other side issues you keep trying to draw into this thread none of them have any merit on a site dedicated to the science of climate change...maybe a faith based web site is what you should be looking for."
I'm sure when you are running your own website you will be able to exercise complete editorial control.
"Feel free to tie up your high horse in the stable along with the other emotive moral imperatives that have no scientific foundation."
Climate change and ocean acidification have consequences. Increased heat wave intensity and frequency, for instance, kills people. You can pretend that it doesn't, but it does. There can hardly be a stronger scientific foundation than the many scores of peer-reviewed scientific papers published on this subject. Maybe you have not read any of them. It would seem so.
-
YubeDude at 17:54 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Rob@44
Well thanks for showing us what a real strawman looks like.
Is it really your contention that the great bulk of humanity truly understand the ramifications of climate change and ocean acidification, but just don't give a damn?
The only thing I have said in relationship to your anecdotal great bulk of humanity repetition is that nothing Cameron says will they ever hear. They don't get Showtime. If you followed the links you would know where the cable is available and how much it cost. The cost alone puts it out of reach to your great bulk; most of whom it should be noted are too poor, too disconnected, and too interested in eating to really give a shit about what you or Mr. Cameron have to say.
As for the morality or other side issues you keep trying to draw into this thread none of them have any merit on a site dedicated to the science of climate change...maybe a faith based web site is what you should be looking for.
Regarding the suggestion that my comments smack of racism...I live in the third world and here I am in the minority. It is in the third world where most of the impacts are going to be felt especially in regards to sea level rise. The unwashed masses is offered as an alternative to your repeated use of the equally evocative great bulk of humanity. But please, don’t let me slow down you cause or suggest that on SKS science is the discourse of choice; let the pejoratives and accusations fly.
Feel free to tie up your high horse in the stable along with the other emotive moral imperatives that have no scientific foundation.
Moving on...
-
nigelj at 17:32 PM on 7 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
"An alliance of corporations and conservative activists is mobilising to penalise homeowners who install their own solar panels – casting them as "freeriders" – in a sweeping new offensive against renewable energy, the Guardian has learned."
I thought conservatives and business groups promoted personal freedom and new products. What a group of dishonest, bullying, hypocrites.
-
Rob Painting at 16:54 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
"......and little of anything Cameron says in this film is going to affect the great bulk that you anecdotally referenced. This is for a western market and not the unwashed masses living on Asian flood planes or those low lying islands scattered about the South Pacific."
Maybe, but now you're venturing into prognostication. And I'm not sure why refer to people from Asia and Polynesia in such a derogatory fashion, it smacks of bigotry. Having been to several South Pacific islands, and living in New Zealand with it's huge polynesian population, I can assure you that many people in the South Pacific watch American television.
-
Rob Painting at 16:43 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Yube - I think any rational reader of this thread can clearly see whom is being disingenuous. This video has clearly triggered an emotional response in you and you seem committed to making a nonsensical argument. Is it really your contention that the great bulk of humanity truly understand the ramifications of climate change and ocean acidification, but just don't give a damn? That would be very sad, but I'd like to see some evidence to support it.
-
YubeDude at 16:26 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Rob @41
Now you are just being disingenuous. You did say that the great bulk of humanity was Cameron’s target audience and that they are unaware (Rob @12) of the enormous threat.
There is no straw man on my part and suggest that there is sophistry. The links??
Something I am going to learn about cable access by clinking on the Weintraub wiki link? Even the Showtime link doesn’t illuminate a potential for widespread distribution to the great bulk as you suggest.
My point is consistent. None of this has anything to do with the core position of SKS, and little of anything Cameron says in this film is going to affect the great bulk that you anecdotally referenced. This is for a western market and not the unwashed masses living on Asian flood planes or those low lying islands scattered about the South Pacific.
(-snip-).Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
-
Rob Painting at 16:17 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Climate Lurker - AFAIK only SkS moderators can edit their posts.
-
Rob Painting at 16:07 PM on 7 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Yube - Hmm...you seem to be arguing a strawman - note the hyperlinks provided in the blog post. As for anecdotal evidence, until such time as someone conducts the research in that regard, that's all there is. I seriously doubt the greater proportion of humanity are so immoral that they would continue business-as-usual armed with the knowledge of all the harm and suffering that it entails. I could be wrong though. Until proven wrong by the relevant research I'll operate under the assumption that the public don't truly understand the ramifications of climate change and ocean acidification.
Prev 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 Next
