Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
socialist

The Truth About The Climate Change Debate

Recommended Posts

Actually not true. The climate models show that the number of storms *decreases* although they may be more severe. In any case, a 1m increase in sea level is not going to require much in terms of sea walls even after accounting for storm surges. Building the sea walls is certainly more cost effective than engaging in a futile effort to reduce emissions that will likely end up with us spending the money on sea walls anyways.

Well they better get busy in Florida because the latest data show SL rise is happening a lot faster than previously thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they better get busy in Florida because the latest data show SL rise is happening a lot faster than previously thought.

Yep - rising at the rate of 1m per 200 years. Noot a concern for anyone capable of math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a m every 100 years, speaking of math.

Yes it is apparent you have problems with it:

Global sea levels have risen 8cm since 1992, Nasa research shows

Which is 8cm over 23 years or about 34 cm per 100 years. I rounded up to 5cm to assume a worst case that is consist with what is said in the IPCC reports. 34cm by 2115 is not a concern to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is apparent you have problems with it:

Which is 8cm over 23 years or about 34 cm per 100 years. I rounded up to 5cm to assume a worst case that is consist with what is said in the IPCC reports. 34cm by 2115 is not a concern to anyone.

I think you are relying on outdated info.

http://theconversation.com/rising-sea-levels-will-be-too-much-too-fast-for-florida-27198

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IPCC AR5 excludes sea level rise over the next century above 1 m per century at the 95% confidence level even under insane emission scenarios such as RCP 8.5.

Sea level rise will be ~half a meter over the next century, give or take a quarter of a meter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IPCC AR5 excludes sea level rise over the next century above 1 m per century at the 95% confidence level even under insane emission scenarios such as RCP 8.5.

Sea level rise will be ~half a meter over the next century, give or take a quarter of a meter.

A lot of actual scientists say otherwise I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of actual scientists say otherwise I'm afraid.

A lot of scientists say god exists.

That doesn't mean god exists.

Some scientists think the earth is 6000 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many scientists can you quote who think the world is 6k years old?

I'm sure Ken Ham and the Creation Science Museum are anxious to find some! Anyone with a science degree who believes in 6000 year old earth probably gets a lifetime membership at the museum with free animatronic dinosaur rides!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is apparent you have problems with it:

Which is 8cm over 23 years or about 34 cm per 100 years. I rounded up to 5cm to assume a worst case that is consist with what is said in the IPCC reports. 34cm by 2115 is not a concern to anyone.

So, I don't know where you got the idea that 5 cm per year is a worst case scenario. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the anticipated global average sea level rise is between 8 inches and 6.6 feet. Your "worst case" is actually closer to the most optimistic estimate.

The intermediate-high scenario (3.9 feet) is based on projected ocean warming and recent ice sheet loss

It seems like a reasonably conservative position would be the above projection. Four feet might not seem like a lot but it's enough that Miami Beach will be under water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a reasonably conservative position would be the above projection. Four feet might not seem like a lot but it's enough that Miami Beach will be under water.

Holland is below sea level.

Why is it not under water?

Maybe it's cheaper for Miami Beach to become like Holland, instead of reducing global emissions to zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holland is below sea level.

Why is it not under water?

Maybe it's cheaper for Miami Beach to become like Holland, instead of reducing global emissions to zero.

Only if it's cheaper to replace the entire landmass of Southern Florida with something like that of the Netherlands.

The porous limestone underlying much of Florida makes the state particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise. Seawalls can’t block seawater from infiltrating underground, and saltwater from the ocean is already contaminating freshwater aquifers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if it's cheaper to replace the entire landmass of Southern Florida with something like that of the Netherlands.

So this is one of those scenarios where, if you are setting up sandbags to prevent the flooding of your house/land, and the sandbags hold but then the following morning you find that you have been flooded because the water has come up from the land?

I think I saw that on TV once - man, that just sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is one of those scenarios where, if you are setting up sandbags to prevent the flooding of your house/land, and the sandbags hold but then the following morning you find that you have been flooded because the water has come up from the land?

Not if. It's already happening. There are a number of former freshwater drinking aquifers that are now contaminated by seawater and unusable. The flooding of Miami will be a gradual affair.

Until the hurricane hits, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the hurricane hits, of course.

Oh, good.

With apps like Periscope and everyone having a smartphone this one should be much more interesting to watch than Katrina.

Flood, baby, flood is my new mantra. Gets me the popcorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holland is below sea level.

Why is it not under water?

Maybe it's cheaper for Miami Beach to become like Holland, instead of reducing global emissions to zero.

And Miami is not the only place that will be affected.

Here is a list of cities around the world that are expected to be hardest hit by a sea level rise of just half a meter. Potentially, there are trillions of dollars of assets and tens of millions of people affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if it's cheaper to replace the entire landmass of Southern Florida with something like that of the Netherlands.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. One would have to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

Also, this isn't the only option. It might make more sense to only protect major cities where population density is high, and flood the rest of the area. Another option is for people to gradually relocate elsewhere (there is plenty of time to do this for a sea level rise of half a meter per century).

Here is a list of cities around the world that are expected to be hardest hit by a sea level rise of just half a meter. Potentially, there are trillions of dollars of assets and tens of millions of people affected.

Same thing applies to them. It might be cheaper to either build some levees or to slowly relocate elsewhere overtime.

As for your concern over assets, the rate of depreciation of physical capital is faster than the rate of sea level rise, so that's basically a non issue.

As for tens of millions of people affected, there are 7 billion people on earth, and there will be roughly 10-11 billion in half a century.

Again, it's about costs and benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. One would have to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

Same thing applies to them. It might be cheaper to either build some levees or to slowly relocate elsewhere overtime.

That's comforting. Let's pick whatever option doesn't require us to give up the seat warmers in our gargantuan SUV's. Especially if all the flooding is going to happen to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's comforting. Let's pick whatever option doesn't require us to give up the seat warmers in our gargantuan SUV's.

1. I never claimed that CO2 emissions shouldn't be drastically reduced. But perhaps it makes sense to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis to determine to optimal level of CO2 emission taxation.

2. I don't own a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I never claimed that CO2 emissions shouldn't be drastically reduced. But perhaps it makes sense to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis to determine to optimal level of CO2 emission taxation.

Sea level rise isn't the only consequence of climate change - it may not even be the worst consequence.

Weather pattern changes will result in more violent storms and disrupt agriculture.

Loss of glaciers will reduce the amount of hydroelectricity that can be generated.

If warmer waters and ocean acidification cause a collapse in seafood, a lot of somebodies out there are going to be on a forced diet.

Care to run a cost benefit analysis on all of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea level rise isn't the only consequence of climate change - it may not even be the worst consequence.

It definitely isn't. Temperature and precipitation change affects dominate the impacts of sea level rise or ocean acidification.

Weather pattern changes will result in more violent storms and disrupt agriculture.

I don't think your claim agrees with empirical data or theoretical models, though that is difficult to determine given the vagueness of your claim. For example, the frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes is expected to decrease with climate change.

Loss of glaciers will reduce the amount of hydroelectricity that can be generated.

I don't think this logically follows. Water flowing downhill is what gives you energy for hydroelectricity, the existence of frozen glaciers does not change that.

What does occur when global temperatures increase is that air can hold more water (clausius-clapeyron relation). As a result, there is greater moisture transfer between oceans and continents. This means that there is on average more precipitation over continents due to global warming, which means there is more water traveling downhill, thus potentially more hydroelectricity.

If warmer waters and ocean acidification cause a collapse in seafood

Why would it? Some species benefit, others don't. It depends. Ocean acidification (on the magnitude we are talking, say a decrease in pH from 8.1 to 7.8 over the next century) is not good for mollusks, but vertebrate fish are for the most part unaffected, and some seaweeds benefit.

Care to run a cost benefit analysis on all of that?

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...