Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How much responsibility should the U.S., Canada, China, UK etc take in absorbing the cost to relocate these people as they certainly won't have the funds? (there are many other islands that I have not included in this list)

None specifically. Aid would have to be handled the same way it is handled for earthquakes, large storms or famines. It goes without saying that a world which was not shy about using the cheapest fuel source available would be in a much better position to provide aid than a world which legislated itself into fuel poverty. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

So the "Climate change might be awesome" dudes are offering sober political analysis....whereas the "it might not be awesome" dudes are sputtering "unjustified nonsense."

No, some people just think that a cost benefit analysis should be done to weight the benefits and costs of performing mitigation policies, rather than blindly advocate for severe mitigation policies without sufficient evidence.

The real question is what to do if we have no information? My position is all climate predictions (good and bad) are garbage and making decisions as if any are likely to be true is delusional. That is the rational position.

But we have information, and plenty of it...

Aside from the fact that there is scientific consensus on climate change, you don't even need to look at predictions.

Can you define this 'consensus' please? Because it appears to mean different things to different people.

What I said is there is no consensus that climate change has had any negative effects to date. If there is any consensus it is that there is no evidence that climate change is making extreme weather events like hurricanes or droughts more frequent or damaging.

Oh come on, this is not true.

Increases in global temperatures due to increases in CO2 concentrations have caused sea levels to rise by a few additional millimeters over the past few decades. This makes certain places along the ocean slightly more vulnerable to storm surges. That is a negative effect.

Reduction in polar-equatorial global temperature gradient will reduce the speed of jetstreams, which will increase the chance of resonance phenomena as I explained in the original post. One could make a good argument that the increase in frequency of resonance phenomena is a negative effect.

Hurricanes becoming more frequent or severe however is complete nonsense and the reverse is true due to the physics of heat engines and the fact that the temperature differential between the Earth's surface and the top of the troposphere will be reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course there will be no hardships for these hundreds of thousands of people?

What is the alternative? Create hardships for billions by inflating the cost of energy and denying the poor access to the energy consuming conveniences that we take for granted? Your priorities are really twisted if you think the welfare of billions is less important than a few islands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would depend on what percentage of the habitability are primary succession, autogenic succession or allogenic succession. Regardless, the belief that this currently uninhabitable land would quickly become in any meaningful way habitable is pretty at odds with the mainstream thinking of scientific experts. As is the belief that these areas would become habitable at a time when the losses would consist of only Tuvulu and not current coastal areas throughout the world.

Indeed, how able certain land or plant-life is able to adapt to changing climate should be considered when evaluating what course of action should be taken. Thanks for bringing up this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Increases in global temperatures due to increases in CO2 concentrations have caused sea levels to rise by a few additional millimeters over the past few decades. This makes certain places along the ocean slightly more vulnerable to storm surges. That is a negative effect.

Any effect is infinitesimally small and swamped by other factors. There is no way it is measurable today which means my original statement is true: there is no evidence of negative effects. When I say evidence - I mean something measurable - not a hypothetical problem that depends on a computer model. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine these islands that will vanish due to sea levels rising will adapt easily without any major hardship.

Kiribati (halfway between Hawaii and Australia) population, just over 100k

Maldives - population 325k

Seychelles - population just under 100k

Solomon Islands - population close to 600k

Micronesia - population close 100k

How much responsibility should the U.S., Canada, China, UK etc take in absorbing the cost to relocate these people as they certainly won't have the funds? (there are many other islands that I have not included in this list)

That is less than 1.3 million people. To put things in perspective, the population of the Earth is over 7 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am responding to your comment above. Why you continue to insinuate that no major hardship will befall anyone is ludicrous.

What is the alternative? Create hardships for billions by inflating the cost of energy and denying the poor access to the energy consuming conveniences that we take for granted? Your priorities are really twisted if you think the welfare of billions is less important than a few islands. You are also delusional if you think anything can be done about it in any case. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean they will suffer no hardship? That is the point I am making.

I never said they wouldn't. I disagree with Tim. See my above post.

Any effect is infinitesimally small and swamped by other factors. There is no way it is measurable today which means my original statement is true: there is no evidence of negative effects. When I say evidence - I mean something measurable - not a hypothetical problem that depends on a computer model.

There are plenty of negative effects and plenty of positive effects. I just gave you 2 such negative effects. The negative effects may be small, or may be offset by positive effects, but at least acknowledge their existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the alternative? Create hardships for billions by inflating the cost of energy and denying the poor access to the energy consuming conveniences that we take for granted? Your priorities are really twisted if you think the welfare of billions is less important than a few islands. You are also delusional if you think anything can be done about it in any case.

You said there would be no hardships and you were minimizing the real hardships of hundreds of thousands of people having to relocate. I take issue with that. I understand there is no turning back and these islands will become uninhabitable, but please do not diminish their hardships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine these islands that will vanish due to sea levels rising will adapt easily without any major hardship.

Kiribati (halfway between Hawaii and Australia) population, just over 100k

Maldives - population 325k

Seychelles - population just under 100k

Solomon Islands - population close to 600k

Micronesia - population close 100k

How much responsibility should the U.S., Canada, China, UK etc take in absorbing the cost to relocate these people as they certainly won't have the funds? (there are many other islands that I have not included in this list)

Before you start worrying yourself about those places, how about some alarm about the Florida Keys (as posted previously):

Kiribata - average elevation 20 feet

Micronesia - various scattered islands from sea level to as high as 791 meters

Seychelles - Highest point - 905 meters. Average elevation of it's most populous area (Victoria) is 200 feet.

Solomon Islands - average elevation is 160 feet

Florida Keys - 125 square miles with 80,000 people. Highest point - 18 feet. Average elevation is 3 to 4 feet.

Instead of listening to all the alarmism that's been spouted over the last 30 years, just keep your eyes on the Keys because if oceans are really rising out of control, the keys would seem to be the most exposed.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of listening to all the alarmism that's been spouted over the last 30 years, just keep your eyes on the Keys because if oceans are really rising out of control, the keys would seem to be the most exposed.

As I mentioned above, I left off plenty of other places that should be on that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said there would be no hardships and you were minimizing the real hardships of hundreds of thousands of people having to relocate. I take issue with that.

Over the next 400 years billions of people will suffer numerous hardships from the vagaries of nature. The "hardship" that a million or so islanders may suffer is quite irrelevant by comparison. More people suffer from a despot running North Korea today than from SLR. Why should we care about SLR?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of negative effects and plenty of positive effects. I just gave you 2 such negative effects. The negative effects may be small, or may be offset by positive effects, but at least acknowledge their existence.

You are listing hypotheticals which I am not discussing or even disputing.

I am discussing real (a.k.a. measureable) effects that we can see today. There are none.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the next 400 years billions of people will suffer numerous hardships from the vagaries of nature. The "hardship" that a million or so islanders may suffer is quite irrelevant by comparison. More people suffer from a despot running North Korea today than from SLR. Why should we care about SLR?

You are missing my point. You said "It is also easy to imagine that humans will adapt easily without any major hardship to whatever changes may come."

How can you possibly think that hundreds of thousands of people having to relocate will not suffer major hardship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

400 years is a long time. Entire cities have appeared and disappeared in such period. How do you even know there will still be people living there?

Do you seriously think these people will be waiting 400 years before they have to relocate? Think again and try and have more empathy for your fellow human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you seriously think these people will be waiting 400 years before they have to relocate? Think again and try and have more empathy for your fellow human beings.

I have a lot of empathy for the people who you wish to condemn to a life of energy poverty because of your twisted sense of priorities. My question for you: why do you pretend to care about people when your pet policies suggest you really don't? Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of empathy for the people who you wish to condemn to a life of energy poverty because of your twisted sense of priorities. My question for you: why do you pretend to care about people when your pet policies suggest you really don't?

You are actually 'twisting' my posts to suit your reasoning and it's not jiving, at least not with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you start worrying yourself about those places, how about some alarm about the Florida Keys (as posted previously):

Kiribata - average elevation 20 feet

Micronesia - various scattered islands from sea level to as high as 791 meters

Seychelles - Highest point - 905 meters. Average elevation of it's most populous area (Victoria) is 200 feet.

Solomon Islands - average elevation is 160 feet

Florida Keys - 125 square miles with 80,000 people. Highest point - 18 feet. Average elevation is 3 to 4 feet.

Instead of listening to all the alarmism that's been spouted over the last 30 years, just keep your eyes on the Keys because if oceans are really rising out of control, the keys would seem to be the most exposed.

Ah, the last time I was in the Keys they seemed to be in the same ocean that everybody else is in. They are kinda connected ya know. Look at an atlas. Thinking that a few attolls out in the Pacific are the only ones who will be affected demonstrates sheer ignorance of geoscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Regina
      The Canadian Government is planning to waste at least $235 million for a project, The Thirty Meter Telescope, which won't even be built on Canadian soil.  The Thirty Meter Telescope most likely will employ few Canadians.  To make matters worse, the telescope will be built in Hawaii, USA on land which is both environmentally and religiously sensitive to the indigenous Hawaiians.  I hope everybody will protest against the waste of tax money and human rights abuses.  Please sign the petition to stop the injustice happening within the USA at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.  I am posting a link to an online petition against the Thirty Meter Telescope and waste of taxpayer money: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-a-call-to-divest-canada-s-research-funding-for-the-thirty-meter-telescope-on-mauna-kea
      Please tell your friends to sign the petition too.  Thank you for your time.
    • By August1991
      There is no other feasible solution to limiting Canada's CO2 emissions which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
      A regulated solution will just lead to another bureaucratic dance orchestrated from Ottawa. Nor can the federal government pass this ball off to provincial governments. Only a federal tax will work.
      Ideally, the feds must impose a tax on anyone who emits CO2 into the atmosphere. The tax should apply at the moment of emission (or as close to that as possible) so that we create the correct incentives to limit them. This would also create an incentive to develop mechanisms for sequestration.
      I would suggest two approaches to a carbon tax:
      First, start small with the potential to ratchet up the tax according to its effects.
      Second, return all carbon tax revenues to the province where the tax was collected. The revenues of the carbon tax could be refunded to the provincial governments or ideally to individuals.
      This is the simplest, most cost effective way to deal with this problem.
      Offsets are not a solution and risk to become another placebo. (Offsets are the latest stylish buzz word. People as varied as David Suzuki, the Bare Naked Ladies and Lancome's supermodels all employ offsets. This means they give money abroad and then claim that this reduces the CO2 emissions equal to the emissions of their own travel and lifestyle. Offsets are a private version of Kyoto.)
    • By Canuck100
      A great source of information on the ‘Climate Model’ used by politicians to scam us! Should we be surprised how the wool was pulled over our eyes? 
       
      The scientists who believe in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming do so essentially because of the application of “basic physics” to climate, by a model that is ubiquitous and traditional in climate science. This model is rarely named, but is sometimes referred to as the “forcing-feedback framework or paradigm.” Explicitly called the “forcing-feedback model” (FFM) here, this pen-and-paper model estimates the sensitivity of the global temperature to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The FFM has serious architectural errors. Fixing the architecture, while keeping the physics, shows that future warming due to increasing carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of current official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are indirectly tailored to compute the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the FFM. Both explain 20th century warming as driven mostly by increasing carbon dioxide.
      Increasing carbon dioxide traps more heat. But that heat mainly just reroutes to space from water vapor instead. This all happens high in the atmosphere, so it has little effect on the Earth’s surface, where we live. Current climate models omit this rerouting. Rerouting cannot occur in the FFM, due to its architecture—rerouting is in its blindspot.
      http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/
    • By Canuck100
      It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled.
      I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. 
      The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever. 
      I could go on and on, but there are many credible scientists that have never been allowed by the MSM to have their say. It may be true that most people who only follow MSM may agree that “Humans are causing Climate Change”. That does not make it true. 
      Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before.
      For the sake of your grandchildren you at least owe it to them to explore this issue further. Here is a good article to get you started on some alternative views:
      https://www.iceagenow.info/
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...