Prev  1  2  3  4  

Comments 151 to 152 out of 152:

151. Bob Loblaw at 12:18 PM on 26 February, 2018

     NorrisM:

     The parent web page of the detailed Miami map I linked to is:

     http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/

     It took me a few minutes to get this map of New York City. (Mostly because the web page seems to want to rotate through different options faster than you can choose them.)

     Typing "Los Angeles" in the box in the upper right corner of the New York (or Miami) map and then zooming and moving a bit rapidly gets me to this map.

     It's taking me more time to type this comment than it took to get those maps.

     0 0
152. NorrisM at 14:12 PM on 26 February, 2018

     michael sweet @ 149

     Thanks for the reference.  That was a bit lazy on my part.  I will read the chapter on sea level rise.

     Although everyone knows what is meant by the term "porous", technically the proper term is "permeable".  Swiss cheese is porous but you need permeability as in a sponge (interconnectivity) for fluids to move through rock.  Learned this a long time ago being corrected by geologists.  

     My understanding is that the IPCC 1 m was the median case not the "best case". 

     I have a little more reading to do on sea level rise, both the Climate Science Report as well as some other sea level discussion recently published on another website.

     I think Florida will be instructive as to how we deal with sea level rise in developed countries.  My guess is that at some point real estate prices will start to decline, there will be less new development and people will gradually over the next 50 years move out of south Florida.  The parents will stay but the children will live elsewhere, somewhat similar to what has happened in rural areas of the US and Canada.  There will be no mass migration but rather a gradual reduction in the population and the importance of Florida.

     0 0
153. michael sweet at 22:29 PM on 26 February, 2018

     Norrism:

     In commment 152 you say "My understanding is that the IPCC 1 m was the median case not the "best case" suggesting you claimed sea level would rise 1 meter.  In comment 137 you say "At the present rate of sea level rise of ballpark 3.5 mm/yr by 2100 this represents about 11 inches of sea level rise."  Your claim of 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100 is false.  Nerem's estimate of a minimum of 0.68 meters with at least 8  feet as an amount plannners should plan for.  You consistantly minimize the danger we must plan for.

     This discussion began with your claim that it might be good for the economy that people have a lot of work to do to adapt to climate change.  I asked where you were going to put hundreds of millions of refugees from sea level rise as an example of how bad it might be.  This Climate Central study estimates as many as 650 million sea level refugees by 2100.  More would come after that.  Where do you think Canada can put several million refugees?

     We have not begun to discuss negative affects on agriculture (like the desertification of Texas, California and large areas of Africa among other areas) or the extinction of most coral species.  Need I expand this list further?  Of course jobs might be created building new water systems and who wants to go fishing anyway. 

     You do not want to face the facts of the matter.  AGW is already bad for the economy.  It will be much cheaper to take action to reduce CO 2now than to try to repair the damage in the future.

     0 0
154. One Planet Only Forever at 01:58 AM on 27 February, 2018

     I encourage everyone to rigorously differentiate the people who are doing something when discussing the actions related to climate change impacts.

     Regarding sea level rise. The sub-set of current day humanity desiring prolonged or increased burning of fossil fuels are creating harm plus high risks of more harm that others, particularly future generations, will have to suffer from and attempt to deal with. And a sub-set of the previous generations can be included in the group that knowingly pursue(d) more Private Interest benefit in ways that do harm to others (do harm to the Public Interest).

     It is not helpful to discuss things as a generic totality of human with terms like We. The current generation of humanity is a separate group from future generations. This is not a matter of what We are doing to Us. What a current generation does 'affects Others in the future'. It is Us and Them. And the future Them do not really get any benefit from the fossil fuels burning by Us, regardless of the silly economic assessments that pretend that perceived wealth/value today will always increase into the future. Only the value connected to completely sustainable activities can be expected to continue into the future, and it can only grow into more future wealth if a better truly sustainable way of doing things is developed to supersede it.

     More precisely the delay or lack of action to reduce the future rapid global warming climate change impacts that Others will have to deal with is 'a portion of the current population doing harm to All Others, including future generations'. And even more explicitly it is harm that is substantially being done by a portion of the wealthiest among the current day population who want to get away with benefiting more from the burning of fossil fuels to be perceived to be Winners relative to all others'.

     More correctly presenting who is doing what should help increase the number of people who will understand and support the required corrective actions to advance humanity to a sustainable better future.

     I am pretty sure that the trouble-making few among the wealthiest 'understand this this way' and are very highly motivated to delay the development of that increment of improved awareness and understanding in the general population.

     0 0
155. John Hartz at 05:19 AM on 27 February, 2018

     For details about the impacts of sea level rise in Miami, check out this post by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS):

     Tidal Flooding and Sea Level Rise in Miami-Dade County, Florida (2016)

     The above article provides context for the 10-page fact sheet, Encroaching Tides in Miami-Dade County, Florida prepared by the UCS.

     0 0
156. scaddenp at 07:11 AM on 27 February, 2018

     "This discussion began with your claim that it might be good for the economy that people have a lot of work to do to adapt to climate change."

     NorrisM is really desparate for reasons to do nothing. Wild suppositions in preference to the literature that actually crunches the numbers.

     0 0
157. michael sweet at 08:00 AM on 27 February, 2018

     John Hartz,

     From the UCS paper:

     "Using the Army Corps of Engineers scenario and tide gauge
     data from Virginia Key, UCS analysis projects that tidal flooding
     is likely to affect areas in Miami, Miami Beach, Coral
     Gables, and other nearby cities around 80 times per year
     by 2030 (compared to roughly six per year currently) and
     more than 380 times per year by 2045. [!!]  In 2045, given normal
     variations in the tides, while some days would be flood-free,
     many days would see one or even two flood events—one
     with each high tide." my emphasis

     At some point insurance (currently provided by the government) will not be extended any more to houses that flood many times per year.  Once that happens banks will not loan mortgages and the property values will collapse.  Since this paper projects 80 floods per year in only 13 years (!!!) one wonders how long it will be before banks catch on.

     It states that 20% of Miami-Dade county is within 12 inches of sea level.  15 inches of sea level rise is expected by 2050.  A big hurricane (they just dodged one last summer) will swamp the city.  

     OMG!

     0 0
158. NorrisM at 10:40 AM on 27 February, 2018

     michael sweet @ 153

     Here is a qualification stated in the Climate Central Study you quote:  "The ranges depend on the ultimate sensitivity of sea level to warming."

     I could not find any reference to what assumed sea level rise by 2100 is used in the study.  Do you know?  If you are quoting these figures I assume you have access to the New York Times more detailed information.

     You are placing a lot of emphasis on the Nerem 2018 paper.  I have not finished reading the information from the US Climate Change Report or the other website but my understanding from what I have read so far that Nerem has basically reinterpreted the data from the first 6 years of TOPAZ and then made some assumptions about what would have happened to sea levels if Mt Pitulabo would not have erupted in 1991.  From my understanding the first 6 years of TOPAZ is so problematic that it should simply be discarded.  

     My suggestion is that when I get through this reading material, I will post any comments I have on the sea level rise thread but address the post to you.

     0 0
159. NorrisM at 10:51 AM on 27 February, 2018

     michael sweet @ 153

     "It will be much cheaper to take action to reduce CO 2now than to try to repair the damage in the future."

     Here is the rub. 

     My understanding is that the IPCC Fifth Assessment has very little in it on actual numbers making any such comparisons for very obvious reasons.  You have criticized me for not having any "peer reviewed studies" for various common sense comments I have made.  Is this your "common sense" view or can you provide me with some study that has concluded this?  I am not criticizing you if you do not have a peer reviewed study but just making a point about asking for "peer reviewed statements" for any comments or questions posed on this website.

     0 0
160. NorrisM at 10:59 AM on 27 February, 2018

     michael sweet @ 153

     I have to say that what troubles me most about what is happening with climate change is the increasing acidification of our oceans and the potential loss of our coral and the implications this has for our oceans and the living organisms in it.  Maybe this is how you get to "conservatives".

     There is no way to fix this by spending money later.  I personally do not see the nation states of this world coming together.  If they cannot even clean up the plastic in the oceans, then what hope is there for the coral?  I am not very conversant on this.  Is there a thread on this website which deals with the loss of coral and ocean acidification?

     0 0
161. Bob Loblaw at 12:25 PM on 27 February, 2018

     NorrisM @159:

     Before I go on a wild goose chase into the IPCC reports, can you clarify just what you have looked at to support your statement that it "has very little in it on actual numbers"?

     I am wondering in particular if you have looked at the full reports for Working Groups II and III.

     0 0
162. scaddenp at 12:26 PM on 27 February, 2018

     NorrisM - try the Stern review. Attempts to show otherwise (eg Lomborg) can only do so by not talking about risk and positing impacts lower than anything in the IPCC studies. There have been numerous criticism of Stern for discounting rates, but also plenty of concern (even from Stern himself) that in hindsights, the risks were underestimated.

     Maybe a new analysis might do better, but to make a convincing case for not mitigating, someone needs to publish a study with that kind of breadth that also makes a realistic assessment of risks and impacts. So far, I have only seen hand-wavy stuff or over-sold critiques of Stern that dont change the overall conclusion.

     0 0
163. Bob Loblaw at 12:30 PM on 27 February, 2018

     NorrisM @ 160:

     There is a good but lengthy series of posts on ocean acidification at SkS. The last post in the series (with links to all other parts), is here:

     https://skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_part_20.html

     0 0
164. NorrisM at 02:09 AM on 28 February, 2018

     Bob Loblaw @ 161 & 163

     Thanks for the reference re ocean acidification. 

     As for the studies, I printed the 50 page assessment of the IPCC that I read which is at home so I will defer trying to locate the information now.  My wife is not impressed with how much time I am spending on my notebook so I do have to watch my time spent.  Clearly I have not read everything published by the IPCC but what I did read was the IPCC making the statements that I have referenced above which obviously took into account everything they had published.  I will locate it when I am home in late March.

     0 0
165. One Planet Only Forever at 02:19 AM on 28 February, 2018

     scaddenp@162,

     When you develop the understanding that future generations are 'others' and that the only sustainable perceptions of wealth are the perceptions developed due to truly sustainable economic activity, you understand that even the criticized 'lower discount rate' used by Stern is unacceptably high.

     One of the recommendations in the detailed back-up of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is for the discount rate to be zero, to be fairer to future generations. Even a discount rate of zero isn't truly 'fair' to future generations.

     A proper evaluation would simply identify all of the unproductive costs and reduced resources (including decimated agricultural land due to unsustainable industrial agriculture) 'Others in the future to have to deal with' that are the result of unjustified Winning by Private Interest pursuits of benefit that incorrectly over-developed in the flawed global economy is leaving for.

     The correction of those unsustainable incorrectly over-developed perceptions is contrary to the Private Interests of many already very fortunate people who refuse to give up 'pursuing more benefit any way they can get away with'.

     0 0
166. One Planet Only Forever at 02:32 AM on 28 February, 2018

     in my prevous comment the second last paragraph is intended to end at ... flawed global economy.

     More could be stated, but 'is leaving for' is a legacy of original phrasing that I made a last second edit of.

     0 0
167. NorrisM at 02:40 AM on 28 February, 2018

     scaddenp @ 162

     About the only two things I took away from my undergraduate economics degree was the present value of money and the importance of assumptions in any analysis (ie my joke about the economist's contribution to opening the can of beans on the desert island).

     The arguments of what discount rates to use render any discussion about future costs of climate change very problematic.  The assumptions used again make the discussion very difficult.

     Again, my point is that governments have a lot more resources than we do to come up with some estimates of the costs but we once again meet up with the problem that there is no world body that has any power to do anything about it.

     The information that China's population is more at risk than any other nation state is somewhat interesting.  If there is one thing the oligarchy in China is concerned about is staying in power and keeping its nation united.  This should be a strong incentive for China to come up with innovative ways to deal with climate change knowing that they have 50 million people to protect. 

     I hate to say it but I look at Florida with some amusement.  Did they only discover yesterday that some areas are only 12" above sea level? Or was it not a problem when it was 15" perhaps 10 years ago?  I have no idea what the annual rate of sea level change is in this area. 

     As for Lomborg, I have read his book and I recall the reception I received on this website bt making reference to him.

     I might be mistaken but I believe that Stern has joined Lomborg's "council of scientists".   I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on this.  Even if that is the case I am not sure what that means as to whether any of his views have changed.  I do not follow Lomborg's website.

     0 0
168. BaerbelW at 05:04 AM on 28 February, 2018

     NorrisM @ 160 & 164

     Ocean-Acidification.net is a website dedicated to just this particular and worrying issue. It has lots of graphics and articles to explore.

     0 0
169. michael sweet at 09:07 AM on 28 February, 2018

     Norrism:

      I get nothing from GOOGLEing Lomborg Stern "Council of Scientists" and also nothing from Lomborg "council of Scientists".  Can you provide a link supporting your unbelievable claim that Lord Stern would work with Lomborg.

     It is easy to make false claims.  Please support your claims.

     0 0
170. One Planet Only Forever at 10:12 AM on 28 February, 2018

     NorrisM@167,

     I hope that your understanding of present value of money and the related assumptions is consistent with my reply to scaddenp@165.

     I have an MBA and decades of observation and consideration of what is going on as the basis for that understanding. But it does not even require a business class in economics to understand that any evaluation that combines/compares future benefit/cost is only legitimate if the same people experience all the benefits and costs now and into the future of what is evaluated.

     Any other evaluation would be like a person justifying doing something that causes costs/problems/harm for other people by declaring that the impacts they impose on those others are less than the benefit they get for themselves, with the comparison done as 'they (not the harmed person) sees it'.

     Properly understood, there is no need for complicated assessments to understand what is acceptable and what needs to change regarding climate change. Any negative impact on future generations is unacceptable. And the politics of popularity in pursuit of bargaining to get away with creating more future harm, delaying the correction of the incorrect things hat have developed, can be seen clearly as being grossly unacceptable.

     As for International Leadership, the UN led the development of the IPCC, Kyoto, the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, and the Paris Agreement (along with many other international leadership actions that are contrary to the damaging unsustainable developed desires among humanity).

     I am glad you appear to appreciate the unacceptability of what has developed and have the abiliity to recognise the specific players in humanity who deserve penalties for their behaviours. But I have yet to see you bluntly admit that recognition of reality. Your presentations tend towards excusing the bad behavers among us, and tend towards finding and arguing for excuses for their understandably unacceptable harmful unsustainable behaviour.

     0 0
171. Bob Loblaw at 11:14 AM on 28 February, 2018

     NorrisM:

     By all means enjoy your vacation, and cut back on what my wife calls "climate blogging". There will still be issues to discuss when you get home - we won't have solved them all by then.

     What OPOF describes as "the impacts they impose on those others are less than the benefit they get for themselves," fall into what economists call "externalities": I get personal benefit while someone else bears the costs. Great for me in teh short term if I'm selfish; not so good for society (and maybe me) when the poor suffering peasants get uppity and find weapons to fight with.

     As for the IPCC reports: keep in mind that the three working groups have completely different areas of study. WG I is climate science. The other two deal with economic and social issues. Also keep in mind that there is a hierachy of information here:

     1. Summaries provide, well, summaries of the main reports.
     2. The main reports go into much more detail.
     3. Ultimately, even the main reports refer to the scientific literature. It's in the scientific literature that you will find the greatest level of detail.
     0 0
172. NorrisM at 14:07 PM on 28 February, 2018

     michael sweet @ 169

     I clearly had it wrong. 

     First of all, the "Council of Scientists" as I called it is the "Copenhagen Consensus" which is a collection of scientists who do believe that the best expenditure of funds to battle climate change is to invest significant capital into research into green technologies rather than cutting off the public's present use of fossil fuels without viable alternatives for major sectors of the economy and world (read storage for one example).

     But here is the connection to Lord Stern. 

     On Lomborg's website referencing the Paris Agreement and what it does or does not achieve here was a reference to the Apollo Program which has the same aims:

     "Copenhagen Consensus has consistently argued for a R&D-driven approach. Fortunately, more people are recognizing that this approach is cheaper and much more likely to succeed –including the Global Apollo Program which includes Sir David King, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lord Adair Turner and Lord John Browne."

     So Lord Stern is not part of Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus but is part of a group which seems to have the same objectives.

     0 0
173. NorrisM at 14:43 PM on 28 February, 2018

     OPOF @ 170

     Let me apologize for often not replying to you when I have made replies to others at the same time.  I just have to admit that your comments are so long and have so much in them that I honestly give up.

     I fully respect your qualifications as an engineer who even worked in the Canadian oil and gas sector before moving out of Alberta.  I am sure that one of your reasons for moving out of Alberta was the attitude of Albertans to anything that could impact their welfare which is clearly tied to the production of oil and gas.  I have to admit that when I am in Calgary on business I tend not to get into discussions of climate change because it does not go over well.  With my good friends I can have some discussion but even then I watch what I say.  Somewhat like suggesting to  Republicans while in the US that there were some good things about Obama.  

     But there is another reason why I often do not respond which relates to our different philosophies and what I consider to be your somewhat unrealistic view of the political systems under which we operate, at least in the Western World.  The key word is "democracy".  There is no world government and everything we do has to be based upon convincing our governments (and the populace) that certain actions should be taken.  I often see (perhaps wrongly) a desire in you that we had some rational benevolent world dictator who could wave a magic wand and make everything right.  Because of that there is much we disagree on even if we agreed in principle on many things if there were such a benevolent dictator in charge.  I just think it is wasted time not taking into account the political realities which exist in the world.

     0 0
174. MA Rodger at 19:28 PM on 28 February, 2018

     NorrisM @173,

     You clearly continue to have "it wrong."

     The Copenhagen Consensus on Climate argues for nothing in common with that called for by the  Global Apollo Programme. You will note that the Copenhagen Consensus On Climate considers amongst other apparent options action to mitigate AGW, mitigation being predicated with the following assertion:-

     "Humankind is changing the earth’s energy balance. It is doing so by releasing large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions into the atmosphere. While it is still a matter of scientific debate how much the build-up will alter our climate, there is little doubt that at least some change will occur, with potentially serious ecological, social and economic implications."

     So there is even remaining doubt attached to there view that 'potentially' there will eventually be serious implications from AGW.

     This is a different ballpark from the Global Apollo Programme who express no doubt and bucket-loads of urgency for a big increase in mitigation measures.

     "By 2035 the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will exceed the critical level for a 2 ̊C rise in temperature and on current policies the temperature will eventually reach 4 ̊C above the pre-industrial level. This is the central forecast, implying a 50% chance of still higher temperatures. We must take action to prevent this, by radically cutting the world’s output of carbon dioxide (see Figure). We must reduce the use of energy and we must make the energy we use clean i.e. free of carbon-dioxide emissions. This Report is about how to make energy clean."

     You fail to differentiate between a bunch of AGW deniers and a grown-up call for more action to mitigate AGW.

     0 0
175. michael sweet at 21:32 PM on 28 February, 2018

     What MA Rdger said times two.

     "You fail to differentiate between a bunch of AGW deniers and a grown-up call for more action to mitigate AGW" describes NorrisM perfectly.

     Lomborg has no expertise in environmental matters.  He has a degree in Political Science, not science.  He has never published a peer reveiwed paper on an environmental issue.   He has gained fame for claiming expertise he does not have and writing OP-ED pieces that support raping the planet.

     It is typical for deniers to cite an industry shill as an environmental expert.

     0 0
176. NorrisM at 02:43 AM on 1 March, 2018

     michael sweet @ 153

     I have now read the Executive Summary of the US Climate Report 2017 and look forward to reading Ch 14 on sea level rise.  In the above post you state that my claim of 11" from now to 2100 "is false" and you exhort me to consider a possible sea level rise of 8 feet by 2100.

     But here is what the Executive Summary has to say about sea level rises for the period up to 2100:

     "Relative to the year 2000, GMSL is very likely to rise by 0.3–0.6 feet (9–18 cm) by 2030, 0.5–1.2 feet (15–38 cm) by 2050, and 1.0–4.3 feet (30–130 cm) by 2100 (very high confidence in lower bounds; medium confidence in upper bounds for 2030 and 2050; low confidence in upper bounds for 2100). Future emissions pathways have little effect on projected GMSL rise in the first half of the century, but significantly affect projections for the second half of the century (high confidence)."

     So my suggestion of 11" is pretty close to the low range prediction of the Climate Report of 1.0 ft.  Is it not a little extreme to call my "linear" estimate of 11" "false"?

     And as for your 8 ft number, I know somewhere else in the Report this "outside" number is used (I think based upon the unrealistic RCP 8.5) but as to its upper bound estimate of 4.3 ft the Climate Report states that it has "low confidence" in this estimate.  So if the Report has "low confidence" in 4.3 ft then what reliance should be place on 8 ft? 

     0 0
177. michael sweet at 03:53 AM on 1 March, 2018

     NorrisM

     From paragraph 6 of the executive summary of the US Climate Report 2017 which I have copied for you before here at SkS:

     "Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise—by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1–4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out." my emphasis

     They put this number at the top so everyone would see it.

     When they say they have "low confidence" in their upper bounds that means they think they may have underestimated the high end and that it is possible for it to be much higher.  That is no reason to be confident about your low ball number, it is a reason to be less confident in low numbers.  They are very confident that sea level rise will be higher than their low estimate.

     Apparently they are estimating rise from today so you have to add 9 inches to obtain total rise.

     As I have quoted to you before and above, 8 feet is what they think is a possible maximum before adding the acceleration from Nerem and the recently documented destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Engineers are generally required to design public works so that they survive the worst case ie 8 feet of sea level rise. 

     "Plan for the worst and hope for the best" is appropriate.  Planning for the best and hoping that it works out is a receipt for disaster

     0 0
178. NorrisM at 12:46 PM on 1 March, 2018

     michael sweet @ 177

     I see what you are saying about the Climate Report upper estimate but I will reserve comment on how much weight the Climate Report places on the 8 ft number until I have read the chapter on sea level rise.  From the summary you cannot get any sense of what risk they assign to this.  It obviously has to do with "what if" issues relating either to the Greenland ice sheet or the West Antarctic glaciers. 

     But you have ignored my request to withdraw your following statement made at 153:

     "Your claim of 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100 is false.

     At the time you made this statement you were fully aware that I was using this figure as a measurement from today to 2100 and not from 1880. 

     Given that this 11 inch "linear guesstimate by me is just about "dead on" the lower limit given by the Climate Report, I would ask you why you would use such a pejorative term as "false" when in fact it is the actual figure (one inch off) used by the Climate Report.

     Was my statement false? I think I am owed an apology. 

     I am a little disappointed that the Moderator has not weighed in on my behalf.  I am sure he or she well knew that my use of 11" was not off the mark.  It was very clear that I was referencing 2018 to 2100.  For that matter the Climate Report is using 12" from 2000 if I am not mistaken.  So if anything I am higher than the lower limit.  

     0 0
179. One Planet Only Forever at 14:36 PM on 1 March, 2018

     NorrisM@173
     “I just have to admit that your comments are so long and have so much in them that I honestly give up”

     Really? I felt that my first comment to you @15 was fairly concise. So were my comments @32 and @44.

     My comment @46 was also rather clearly to the point and founded on the content of my previous comments, and the comments of others. It included:

     “I have to ask if you understand, accept and support the need for the global impacts of human activity to be limited to a level that climate science indicates has a good chance of less than 2.0C increase of global average surface temperature above pre-industrial levels.

     "If you disagree with that understanding, that all of the global leaders agreed was the proper understanding of what was needed to responsibly limit the harm done to future generations, please provide the 'substantial new climate science evidence' that was not part of the basis for the understanding and acceptance of the Paris Agreement. 'Substantial new climate science evidence' is the only thing that would justify changing such a decision (not the election of a different leader in the USA).”

     My comment@53 was lengthier to try to make the understanding clearer to you. And the lack of any response from you to my earlier comments led to the even longer @62, but mainly because I included the large quote from the UN Report.

     My comment @63 was another attempt to help you more correctly understand this issue. And my comment @70 was a further attempt to get a reasoned and justified answer in response to your first suggestion that you would respond to my comments (your comment @69).

     My comment @98 was a more expansive attempt to present information that would help clarify understanding of issues you seemed to struggle to grasp the correct understanding of.

     My reply @133 and @136 to your comment @132 were added attempts to help you correctly understand what I was presenting, as was my comment @139. And my comment @143 elaborated on the sea level rise matter to help you correctly understand my points. As were my comment @146, @148 and @170.

     Then comes your comment@173 with the opening para leading me to provide the above summary and explanation.

     Your second paragraph is full of misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions about me, and an apparent wish to not admit that my MBA may give me a better understanding of the Present Value of money and its correct use.

     And your last para is full of gross misunderstandings or deliberate misrepresentations of my awareness and understanding of what is going on, other than 'our different philosophies'. Your 'philosophy' appears to be to try to excuse understandably unacceptable things that have developed. My 'philosophy' is to try to help people better understand what is really going on and the 'changes of understanding required regarding what has developed' (what you call - "... convincing our governments (and the populace) that certain actions should be taken.").

     The political realities of the 'Real World' admittedly delay correcting understandingly unacceptable developments. But when the corrections occur they can be very rapid. History is full of dramatic rapid corrections of things that had unacceptably over-developed in a harmful unsustainable way. The correction of the burning of fossil fuels is unlikely to be an exception.

     I have tried to help you be more aware of and correctly understanding of my understanding of what is going on. But you do not appear to be interested in correctly understanding what I present.

     Thank you for presenting case study examples of the type of thinking and claim-making that I understand needs to be corrected. Even if you choose not to better understand the many aspects of this issue, others may learn from your example. And I am more certain that I have a Good understanding of what is going on, the motivations of those who try to deny (or delay, or diminish) the corrections of what has developed that climate science has identified are required for the benefit of the future of humanity (there I go - that idealism that people can learn to change their minds and help improve the future for humanity, that you appear to disagree with).

     0 0
180. MA Rodger at 23:02 PM on 1 March, 2018

     NorrisM @178.

     The US Global Change Research Program Fourth National Climate Assessment - Volume I sets out the 2000-2100 GMSL rise in its Executive Summary as:-

     "1.0–4.3 feet (30–130 cm) by 2100 (very high confidence in lower bounds;  ...  low confidence in upper bounds for 2100)."

     Your 11" SLR by 2100 (+27.94cm) lies outside the range 30-130cm with its "very high confidence in lower bounds". To suggest your 11" is "just about "dead on" the lower limit" is incorrect. It is outside the limits. And (rounding errors aside) it also sits outside the limits set out in IPCC AR5 Chapter 13 Table 13.5, an assessment which is often criticised for having under-evaluated SLR.

     So do you consider an apology is truly in order? And when will you make it?

     0 0
181. NorrisM at 03:02 AM on 2 March, 2018

     MA Rodger @ 180

     Am I missing something here on simple math (not regression analysis)?  If the lower limit predicted by the Climate Report is 12" for the period 2000 -2100, then that means, based upon simple math, that we have about 10" of sea level rise to go from 2020 to 2100 (you will see I am rounding).  So how is my 11" SLR even outside the range?

     But my basic point, which I have made in other comments on this website (that referenced Steve Koonin) is that the use of the word "false" (by michael sweet) rather than the word "incorrect" as used by you above, is inappropriate unless you truly believe that the person making that statement has some ill intent. 

     We all have the interests of humanity at heart.  We just have different views on what is the best way to get there.  When I see proposals that could seriously harm many of the poor in this world and I personally have some reluctance to some of these proposed changes and my perceived view of how these changes could impact them. This is not ill intent.  We just disagree on things but our disagreement is based upon a different view of the facts utilizing our powers of reason. There is no problem with this.  It is casting aspersions on the intent of people that I have a problem with.

     0 0
182. One Planet Only Forever at 06:54 AM on 2 March, 2018

     NorrisM@181,

     You claim "We all have the interests of humanity at heart. We just have different views on what is the best way to get there. When I see proposals that could seriously harm many of the poor in this world and I personally have some reluctance to some of these proposed changes and my perceived view of how these changes could impact them."

     That claim appears to be based on a perceived 'better understanding of what is going on' than I presented in my comment @98. Please explain in detail which specific parts of what I presented in my comment @98 you can 'correct for my benefit' to help me better understand how to best help sustainably improve the future for all of humanity, including genuinely sustainably helping the poorest to live a better life'.

     0 0
183. NorrisM at 15:22 PM on 2 March, 2018

     OPOF @ 182

     I have just reread your comment at 98 and, again, there are so many "factual statements' in there that are unsupported that I do not know where to start.  I do admit that Africa is a problem all by itself. 

     I have zero data to support this but my suspicion is that the poor who have benefitted from fossil fuels are largely in China and India where there are political systems that are not so corrupt as to deny the poor any chance.  But we are a far way from talking climate change.

     When talking about the poor, my real thought is the farmer somewhere who uses some form of locomotion powered by fossil fuels to farm his land and who relies on trucking of some sort to deliver his product to other transmission points which then allow his product to be exported to other parts of the world again relying on fossil fuels.  Without fossil fuels, these tractors will sit in the fields.  They will not be powered by EV tractors and then transported by railroads powered by electricity simply because the cost per product produced will be too high.   The fields will return to nature.  At the same time, the diesel generators needed to provide the electricity for an emergency operation to save his daughter from some life threatening event will not be there.  Until we have a viable storage system for solar power we cannot rely on solar power in outlying areas.  We need diesel power as a backup. 

     You talk about the millions of people who will be displaced by climate change but ignore the millions of people who will die from being cut off from a cheap source of energy that has for the first time allowed them (like the farmer referenced above) to produce a product that is not only for their consumption but can be sold to provide them with the resources to have a better diet or to perhaps fund an education for their children. 

     I will limit my comments to the above because we could go on forever on this topic.  There are no "studies" that I know of that have examined how the poor of this world could survive if we cut off their access to cheap energy. 

     The underlying issue is that we as humans have leveraged energy beyond what our own bodies can produce to develop the society we presently live in.  For the last 200 years it has been fossil fuels that have propelled us to where we are so that you are able to use a computer and the internet to communicate your thoughts on this website. 

     We have realized that the use of fossil fuels is complicating our future because of what it is doing to the atmosphere, our land areas and to the oceans and the organisms that live in it.  So we have to do something about it.  But until we have developed viable ways to replace fossil fuels, we cannot just cut humanity off from this lifeblood of our civilization.  We will have to live and deal with the consequences of not being able to do so. 

     This website is devoted to convincing people that there is a problem.  I clearly accept that there is a problem.  I am not totally convinced as to how sensitive our climate is to the massive increases in CO2 but I agree that we should be "covering our bets".  The real issue is what can we and what should we do about it given the present state of knowledge.

     OPOF, perhaps this is why I have limited my responses to you!! You get into philosophy and that takes a lot of time and words which I am sure most do not want to read.

     0 0
184. MA Rodger at 20:18 PM on 2 March, 2018

     NorrisM @181.

     I will admit that it was not clear to me that the period for which you appled that 11" SLR was 2018-2100 (rather than 2000-2100) and that your 11" was therefore not outside the limit set out in the 2017 Climate Science Special Report. It does set a linear projection of  current rates to set that lower limit which is much the same method as you employed. I was wrong to state your 11" lay outside their lowest limit.

     Yet your talk of "casting aspersions on the intent" rather trumps any contrition on my part. You feel content to bandy a level of SLR for the century that sits at the lowest limit.

     If nothing else, this ignores all the places which, balanced by other places which will see less than the average SLR, those places which will see SLR above the global mean, places like Miami which has to contend with a sinking coast line. Note that up-thread @137 the talk that spawned your 11" was of Miami.

     But it is not "nothing else." You may feel your arguments hold water but your argument require the acceptance of unbelievable inconsistencies. You tell us you disgree with "proposals that could seriously harm many of the poor in this world" which sounds all very commendable. You would therefore be arguing that the impacts from AGW-mitigation under,say, RCP2.6 would harm "the poor in this world" far more than the AGW prevented by such mitigation.

     So where does your 11" SLR fit into all this? Doesn't that 2017 Report say that the 12" lower limit to 21st century SLR is very unlikely, and this even under the RPC2.6 scenario? Doesn't it say it is impossible under BAU? You are being insincere or silly with your magicing away multi-foot SLR. You argue that AGW mitigation measures are unnecessary but cite reduced AGW impacts that require those mitigation measures to have been enacted.

     Do you not then see why your arguments here attract the description "false"?

     0 0
185. michael sweet at 23:15 PM on 2 March, 2018

     NorrisM:

     You object to my statement at 153 that "Your claim of 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100 is false." I am sorry.  In attempting to shorten my post I misspoke.  I intended to say that your claim at 152 suggesting that you supported the IPCC 1meter of rise was deliberately false and intended to short cut the discussion.  Your claim has consistently been 11 inches.  Please link to a statement where you supported a 1 meter claim.

     This entire discussion began with your claiming that mitagating AGW would provbide employment and was good.  You have not stated where you will put the millions of climate refugees that Canada will have to take in by 2100.  Please address where you will house all these people in your country.

     You have made the completely usupported claim that reducing CO2 emissions might harm the economy.  I have provided two technical reports that claim reducing CO2 will provide millions of jobs and reduce energy cost at no danger to other sections of the economy (except fossil fuels) and the Stern Report which documented years ago that reducing CO2 would provide much more benefits than harm.  Since then the cost of renewable energy has plummeted so the benefits would be much greater.  I will conceed that Stern has said they underestimated the damage from AGW and the benefit would be greater than they estimated.

     You must provide a reference to a peer reviewed economic report that claims reducing CO2 will harm the economy or withdraw your absurd claim.  

     You must say where you expect the 650 million refugeees from sea level rise to go and describe how Canada will house their share of these persons.  We will leave the refugees from drought unaccounted for.

     You must link a comment you made at SkS where  you support the IPCC median sea level rise as 1 meter and conceed the damage it would cause.  If you cannot you must withdraw your claim at 152 that you have supported that amount of damage.

     In previous comments you have dodged these questions and changed the topic of discussion.  We need to answer them so that the discussion can proceed on.  Please do not change the topic again.

     0 0
186. NorrisM at 04:06 AM on 3 March, 2018

     MA Rodger and michael sweet,

     Thanks for your responses.  I plan to spend time reading at least Chapter 12 of the Climate Report before I get back to you on SLR.  I find the Climate Report much more readable than the IPCC Fifth Assessment. 

     0 0
187. John Hartz at 04:21 AM on 3 March, 2018

     NorrisM wrote:

     I find the Climate Report much more readable than the IPCC Fifth Assessment.

     As to be expected. The Climate Report was written by a relatively small group of scientists who all spoke the same language. The IPPC Fifth Assessment Report was written by a large group who spoke different languages.

     0 0
188. One Planet Only Forever at 05:40 AM on 3 March, 2018

     NorrisM@183,

     I try to follow all commenting in strings I participate in, as well as reading comments on items I do not have any comments to add to. So I will start by 'addressing the issue of sea level rise' then continue with the relevant related issue of your comment that was introduced into this discussion by your comments that imply the need to 'limit harm to the developed economy', not negatively affect any already very fortunate people (and you claiming that the added work required in future generations is a "Good Thing").

     The maximum potential harm created by the current most fortunate beneficiaries of the burning of fossil fuels is what the current most fortunate beneficiaries of the burning of fossil fuels must correct. The more that they try to benefit, the more they need to do now to protect the future generations from the potential future challenges or negative consequence. So your 11” value, which is not the worst of the possible future impacts, is irrelevant when discussing/evaluating the actions required today. The required actions are immediate actions to sustainably deal with the worst of the potential developed outcomes. Those actions are either the immediate building of conservatively adequate height and durability sea walls (massive), or the rapid reduction of impacts to reduce the magnitude of required wall building. (refer to my comments @139 and @143)

     Now onto the rest of my reply.

     Thank you for bothering to read my brief presentation @98 that focuses on the globally developed and robust understanding that the Sustainable Development Goals are the collective of actions required to sustainable help the least fortunate have better lives. Feel free to provide any substantial new information you believe would change any aspect of that international leadership developed understanding.

     Your lengthy reply, that offers no information that would alter the understanding of the importance of achieving all of the SDGs, reinforces my understanding that you are one of those among humanity who has developed personal interests that lead them to like to claim that their personal ability to continue to benefit from burning fossil fuels 'must be allowed for the good of the poor'.

     From your comment I would expect you to be a very ardent supporter of nations like China and India being exempt from having to reduce their per-capita CO2 production while the more fortunate nations lead by example and rapidly reduce their impacts while providing assistance to help China and India transition to reduce their CO2 impacts (essentially the basis for the internationally understood Kyoto Accord and the Paris Agreement). However, I have my doubts about you arguing that way (refer to my comment @32 and @68). Of course, my understanding is that even in places like China and India there are many more fortunate people who should also be rapidly correcting how they behave. So, while I accept that places like India and China should be able to continue increasing their per-capita impacts while the supposedly more advanced nations rapidly reduce their impacts, I would push for the wealthiest in those nations to do what those other most fortunate people are all expected to responsibly do (with penalties from peers applied effectively to the recalcitrant among their kind - no Dictators required).

     The burning of fossil fuels is undeniably unsustainable and undeniably creates harmful changes for the future generations while reducing the non-renewable resources available to future generations.

     That understanding makes it clear that the most fortunate need to stop trying to personally benefit from the activity, and the ones that benefited most to date from the burning owe everyone else, especially the future generations. My main take-away from your comments is that you do not believe in confronting/declaring the unacceptability of those who are resistant to correcting the way they think. Correcting their attitudes and actions is the required step. The benefiting from burning fossil fuels needs to rapidly be restricted to the least fortunate, with assistance provided to most rapidly transition their ways of living away from the burning of fossil fuels. (refer to my comment @38)

     John Stewart Mill in “On Liberty” said: “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.” Those unwilling to accept the awareness and better understanding of the need for all of the SDGs to be achieved are like Mill's Mere Children needing to be better educated, to correct their developed personal desires to benefit from understandably unsustainable and harmful activity, people who have developed a lack of interest in better understanding the harmful unacceptable 'externalities' created by their developed addiction to benefiting from pursuing unjustifiable Private Interests.

     My primary objective is indeed helping to improve awareness and understanding of the corrections of what has developed to sustainably end poverty. Correctly understanding climate science and the corrections/changes it identifies are an important part of sustainably ending poverty, developing a sustainable better future for humanity. That includes understanding that some people will persistently resist correcting their understanding of many things, resulting in them resisting the understanding of the corrections required to sustainably help advance humanity to a better future.

     Un-refereed Capitalism competition can only develop good results if Everyone is dedicated to increased awareness of what is going on and limits their actions to the proper understanding of what is acceptable, actions that fit under the very broad but still limited umbrella of the Sustainable Development Goals.

     My conclusion based on all of your comments is that you hope to appeal to people who are easily impressed. Frankly, your comments are unimpressive, poorly justified. The understanding of the required corrections of what has developed is strengthening, particularly because of the continued misguided arguments against the responsible changes required by all of the most fortunate to develop improvements of human activity that are sustainable into the distant future - no more pretending that developed perceptions of winning/superiority in the developed competitions for popularity and profitability are justified or deserved.

     0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.