?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

https://nextgenclimate.org/rising-up-in-miami/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=climate&utm_content=2+-+WATCH+VIDEO&utm_campaign=email_140910_US_FL-Kayaker&source=email_140910_US_FL-Kayaker

For those who believe that global warming and climate change are frauds, then obviously Miami and the Atlantic Ocean are in on the conspiracy to commit that fraud. For those of you who believe they are real, this is evidence confirming that global warming is happening and that it is having serious impacts on our coastal cities. And for those of you who are undecided . . . this may give you what you need to make up your minds one way or the other.

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
ford_prefect42
Sep. 11th, 2014 01:51 am (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

dunno, looks like a pretty steady rise to me. the 1990 to 2010 slope isn't any steeper than the 1950-1970 slope, and there are vastly more emissions now than then.

longer view.
http://www.teachingboxes.org/seaLevel/lessons/lesson4_SeaLevelCurveGraph_files/image002.jpg

AGW is a hard question.
polaris93
Sep. 11th, 2014 03:51 am (UTC)
That sea-levels are rising steadily and have been for a long time (about 15,000 years, or the end of the Pleistocene), is supported by a hell of a lot of evidence. It only continues because the world is warming, and has been for 150 centuries. Real estate agents are pulling out of costal properties and shifting their enterprises more and more inland, for just that reason -- and they don't do things for feel-good reasons, only out of hard practical necessity. The world really is warming; the question is, at what pace? And what's responsible for it? And there will be serious disputes over that.

What gets me, though, is numerous right-wing "pundits" denying it's happening at all, and ascribing clims or even hard evidence to the contrary to "scientific conspiracies" and "blatant fraud." They refuse to give the evidence an honest analysis, refuse to even look at it. Why? Refusal to examine evidence is either denial -- or a sign that some real hanky-panky is going on among the deniers. And it's disgusting.
ford_prefect42
Sep. 11th, 2014 01:35 pm (UTC)
Agreed. But it bugs me as much or more when the left screams about "Day after Tomorrow" type scenarios, ignores the evidence to the contrary, such as the 19 year "hiatus", the reformation of the arctic sea ice, and the fact that none of the models have accurately predicted actual events (that's generally a hint that the principles are not sufficiently understood).

This is all what I mean when I say "when politics and science enter a room, only politics emerge". a lot o bad science has been done on this issue and a lot of good science has been wildly misrepresented in the media. The fact that literally every significant event is attributed to "global warming", and that the AGW alarmists similarly ignore actual observations with shouts of "denier", annoys me no end, and is every bit as scientifically poor as those that flat out deny the events.

There's a HUGE amount of outright CRAP going on from both sides on this issue. Getting back to the actual facts is hard. In my observation, when you do... The realities are oddly comforting. Yes, sea level is rising, and projected to keep rising for a good while... At a rate of 1 to 3 milimeters per year, meaning that it should have come up a whole foot in 152 years... That's... Not a particularly challenging engineering scenario. And that's the IPCC number based on their model results bearing out, which they have absolutely zero history of doing.

To me, this is an engineering decision. A) What are the actual predictions based on the Business as usual scenario, B) what are the costs of the mitigation scenario, and C) what change does the mitigation scenario have on the problem?

And here we come into the problematic part. The science says that there will be negative results going forward to the BAU scenario. However, it also says that those negative results really don't amount to much for the next 50 years minimum. Taking a 5% discount rate, that means that a dollar spent today has to prevent $11.50 in damage in 2064 in order to be worth spending. There are probably places where that will be worthwhile, particularly in cases where it's not really spending, but instead, moving the spending (building homes an extra 20 feet back from the shore, for instance). But in the main, that means that it's *really* not worth doing much at all to avoid it. All of the emissions mitigation scenarios have HUGE immediate costs... Like, trillions of dollars annually, massive lost growth, which means poverty, misery, and death today, slowing technological advancement, and, in general, a much worse world today, with that misery compounding forward between now and that future day. On TOP of which, none of the mitigation scenarios actually proposed by regulatory bodies have any particular impact on the final result! No windfarms built in the US can POSSIBLY mitigate for China onlining a coal plant every week. So, whatever that "base case" scenario is, we'd be prepared to deal with it!

And, science notwithstanding, there IS a large leftist push toward using AGW as an excuse to take over virtually every aspect of the economy. They have already used it to control what cars you can use, what houses you can live in, and virtually every other aspect of human endeavor. Regardless of the science, that is to be opposed unless the economic case (not the scientific case) is truly overwhelming. It isn't. It's not even close.
polaris93
Sep. 11th, 2014 05:29 pm (UTC)
I completely agree with you on the Left's push, using global warming and other environmental concerns, to take over every aspect of our economy, not to mention our political system and all the minutia of our daily lives and our mindset. If they succeed, from that moment on they will do NOTHING WHATSOEVER to reduce global warming or solve any of the other, very real environmental problems of the world. Between the Left and many major corporations, such as Monsanto and Coca-Cola, they want the world delivered to them on a silver platter, theirs to do with as they please, and the hell with the rights, needs, and well-being of anyone or anything else. That scares the hell out of me -- Hillary as Empress of the World! No. No way.

And yes, science is not monolithic, either as to results or the people involved in it. There is such a thing as sloppy, incompetent science as well as outstanding science. There are scientistic poseurs, corporate hacks, outright damned liars (remember the doctor who claimed vaccines cause autism, who was found to be a rank fraud by his colleagues and got his license to practice yanked forever? He's now on a lecture circuit, reassuring parents of autistic children that the condition isn't due to anything they had any control over, and was instead due to the vaccinations given to their children? The "Never trust doctors or pharmacists" guy?), and a host of other less-than-competent/ethical/what have you types as well as honest, highly competent, ethical, and unbought scientists.

That said, however, when a great number of scientists from numerous backgrounds agree on the conclusions of the research they've all participated in, and acquire a huge body of hard evidence supporting those conclusions, the probability that they are all fraudulent drops to virtually zero. While one type of scientist may claim something that is fraudulent, that all scientists are doing so is only a Planck Length from impossible. And that's what we have in the case of the reality of global warming. Not of its probable causes -- there is still some disagreement on that. But that it is happening and will likely to continue for a long time, perhaps millennia, before the Ice begins to return, is as close to certain as you can get.

Continued on next comment
polaris93
Sep. 11th, 2014 05:31 pm (UTC)
Continued from previous comment


Yes, there have been hiatuses in the warming, especially during the 20th century. But a hiatus of, say, several decades or even a century doesn't mean the warming is permanently over. It's the overall period of warming and likely future warming that counts, and that is the period of scientific interest. A period of drastic global warming -- a global avwreage of some 18 degrees Fahrenheit, with a rise of some 25 degrees F at the poles -- at the close of the Permian Period, almost resulting in a runaway greenhouse effect that could have left Earth a true twin of Venus. The cause of it apparently combined extensive basalt flooding in what is now Siberia that lasted for at least 8,000 years, combined with the melting-out of methane clathrates that then added their burden of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Now the Sun is significantly warmer than it was then, its temperature increasing continuously as it uses up more and more of its hydrogen fuel. What ended without killing off everything then might well do something far worse now. And we are addubg enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every year. Not all of it is being absorbed by the oceans and continental waterways (but enough to decrease the pH of ocean water such that many types of shellfish and other marine invertebrates are having real trouble growing and maintaining their shells and carapaces). So what is left in the atmosphere increases every year.

Therefore there is real cause for concern. And thus when the oil companies and their promoters say there is no cause for concern, you know they're trying to pull a fast one on the public. As the Left's only concern is for their bottom line, power, the oil companies' and their promoters' only concern is for their bottom line, which is money and power. I don't trust any of them.

And meanwhile none of them are doing jack shit to get us out into space in a big, permanent way so we can colonize and exploit the riches of the Solar System. Why? Because they'd lose control over those of us who would head for space, and lose profits that they could only garner if people were confined to Earth and had to use their products. The same would be true of numerous other big corporations. They're standing right in the way of the survival of the human species and of most species on Earth, and don't give a damn about consequences, even for them. Our salvation lies in space -- and they do not want us to be thus saved, because their bottom lines would be impacted by that. They don't even care about the prosperity and well-being of their own descendants. That has to end.
ford_prefect42
Sep. 11th, 2014 05:51 pm (UTC)
Again, all true. One of the biggest problems I have with the left on this particular issue isn't the alarmist insanity, but instead, is their steadfast opposition to the methodologies that might actuall *help* the problem. French co2 emissions in 2010 were 5.6 tons per person. the netherlands were 11, this despite the fact that the netherlands is 3 times as densely populated. The difference? The French rely on nuclear power for their electricity production. As a result, they have cheap, nearly carbon neutral electricity.

And what does the left do? Removes nuclear reactors and replaces them with... nothing. In fact, the left also removes carbon neutral hydro power and replaces it with... nothing. Ultimately, that means that the grid mix goes back to coal.

I view that as a far worse thing than anything the oil companies are doing. After all, the oil companies are at least producing something.

One of the things that I see as the case as regards all the problems we're facing is that the only way out is through. We cannot yet get away from fosil fuels, we can't export massive number of people off-world (although we should be doing FAR more to work toward that). What we need is a few more years of advancement, and the only way to get that is to keep the lights on. To do that, we REALLY need nuclear power! If we try to go back to "simpler ways", we're going to wind up with 4/5 of the human population dead, and no real hope of getting to space, because the technological base needed for things like PV is WAY too high to be created from post-apocalyptic circumstances.

The greatest threat to human continuation is the anti-science left. followed at a distant remove by the anti-science right.
polaris93
Sep. 11th, 2014 06:35 pm (UTC)
I agree completely. We should be using nuclear power, but as you say, the Left removes it and replaces it with nothing at all. I also believe that the Left wants 4/5 of Earth's human population dead. After all, it's a lot easier to micromanage and establish absolute control over two billion people than 7.3 billion. And then there's Ebola. They'd love to see that cut Earth's human population way down (I don't think that's so likely. Ebola only spreads rapidly in the tropics. In the temperate, subarctic, and aarctic zones, people cover up well to stay warm, so Ebola's normal vector -- skin-to-skin or bodily fluid transfer between humans -- just isn't there. But then, there's always smallpox . . .).

And it's not just the Left. Giant corporations want that, too, as they want not only profits, but power, just as much as the Left does. Both groups want absolute control over humanity, and the numbers right now are just too large for them to accomplish that.

BTW, speaking of corporations, there's a book on the ties some of them have to the federal government, which currently seems to be ien the corporations' pockrts: Claire Hope Cummings' Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds. (Her own website is Claire Hope Cummings - Home.) There are numerous other resources out there that explore those ties between the Obama administration and such GMO companies as Monsanto, Dow, and so on. For your health's sake, you really ought to check those out. You'd be amazed at what's in your food, and the damage that growing those crops is doing to the environment. Not to mention American farmers, who have been wholly dependent on government handouts for decades. All in the name of the bottom line: politics and power. In the meantime, if you can, switch to Certified Organic products. Not only are they far better for you, but they taste so much better than the junk-food and GMO counterparts. And if you can, start growing your own organic vegetables and fruits, if only on the porch or balcony. There's nothing like the pleasure you get from eating nutritious, good-tasting, untainted food you have grown yourself, as people did for time out of mind until these giant food and beverage corporations came on the scene. Both the Left and the Right will hate you for it, too. XD
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Let's Roll
polaris93
Yael Dragwyla

Latest Month

November 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner