A real-world example of the cost of climate change

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,809
6,362
126
That's what you have? There are actually 2 good points made; one that climate science data was proven to be tampered with as early as 1996, and two, that climatologists along with gov't officials bullied and threatened opponents and falsified and destroyed information.

However, after all that, we're supposed to simply trust these same individuals later when new "facts" (based on the previously falsified information) emerge? :confused: Obviously shit is going on, but there's no one that can be trusted to give an unbiased evaluation.

False
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,691
15,939
146
Why are we talking about CO2 concentrations 3 orders of magnitude higher than current and 2 orders of magnitude higher than historical highest in a news article that is simply WRONG and sensationalist. (and it seems to me someone with a plastic head around their head will die a bit earlier than 10 minutes due to lack of oxygen).

Norfolk problems have nothing to do with climate change and all about its location.

It looks like we are back a few thousands years in human history, when the only way to explain events was gods and now the only way to explain something is man made CO2.

Well if you have been following along, Jasklas was resorting to hyperbole when he said the environmentalists want to to reduce CO2 to nothing thereby killing all plant-life because environmentalists are stupid. So I pointed out with equal hyperbole that increasing CO2 wildly would kill humans because deniers are to stupid to realize CO2 isn't just plant food.
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,406
389
126

Not just sinking land, but erosion is a huge problem in the bay. Invasive species, such as mute swan and Nutria, have eaten tidal grasses. Without support from the grass roots, the moving waters of the bay erodes the land. I have personally seen islands disappear under the water, not because the sea is rising but because of fast acting erosion. Hampton roads, being at the entrance to the bay, is likely also experiencing such erosion. Hampton roads doesn't dispprove global warming and searise, it however, is just a bad example of sea rises effects because there are so many better correlated events.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080306-sea-levels.html

Sea Levels to Plunge Long Term, Study of Dino Era Says

In fact, the data reveal that the long-term trend in sea levels since the Cretaceous has been downward, said Müller, who led the study appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

When this trend is extrapolated out 80 million years from now, it suggests that even if all of today's ice caps were to melt, sea levels would be 230 feet (70 meters) lower than they are today.

:)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,944
10,285
136
At 100,000 PPM you pass out and die in about 10min. It's nonsensical, but just as much as your original comment about removing all the CO2.

FIFY, I added a comma to make it legible. Looks like you called out 10% CO2 in the atmosphere. You realize our CO2 "pollution" is never going to go that far, right?

My original comment was "nonsensical" because it was in direct reply to the notion of developing a means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In that fantasy scenario I demonstrated why we'd have to be extremely careful and control the method of removing CO2, else we'd kill all surface life.

In reply to you, I remember 2% being a serious threshold, but when speaking of life-long conditions it's probably best to avoid mild discomfort. So there you have it, I submit that we shouldn't let CO2 reach 5,000ppm. Otherwise known as 0.5%.

We are currently at 0.04%. We'd have to increase CO2 12 times present levels to reach that. Something tells me we have plenty of time to deal with that in a slow, controlled, and reasonable manner.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
Not just sinking land, but erosion is a huge problem in the bay. Invasive species, such as mute swan and Nutria, have eaten tidal grasses. Without support from the grass roots, the moving waters of the bay erodes the land. I have personally seen islands disappear under the water, not because the sea is rising but because of fast acting erosion. Hampton roads, being at the entrance to the bay, is likely also experiencing such erosion. Hampton roads doesn't dispprove global warming and searise, it however, is just a bad example of sea rises effects because there are so many better correlated events.

And, controlling rivers, preventing them from carrying new sediments to the area. Also preventing the rivers from flooding, dumping sediment all over the land, which helps raise the surface to make up for the sinking.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Sooner or later fanatics like shira, after swaying enough simple-minded folks, may gain enough power to thrust their hands very, very deep into our pockets. The money will mostly go to make very rich people very much richer and lo and behold the "problem" of climate change will be mitigated and everything occurring will then be due to natural causes. Explained by the cycles the Earth has gone through since it was formed. That explanation will be accepted for we will have truly done "something" and man in his infinite wisdom will have fixed the problem. That is what simple minded folks will be taught and what simple minded folks will believe.

The planet is ever changing. Humans cannot control the ebb and flow of the oceans, the movement of tectonic plates, the erosion of our coastlines, the gravitational pull of the moon, the orbit of the Earth, the shifting of Earth on it's axis, the cycles of our Sun. Ancient man devised religion to help him cope with that which he could not understand. Make no mistake, climate alarmists have their own religious cult going on. Their weak minds have been manipulated into thinking that man can control the climate of the Earth and that it must be done or man will perish! And there must be human sacrifices to make it all better. Your lifestyle must be sacrificed either through financial methods or physical methods. The climate change God must be appeased!

We cannot control the climate despite what your religion tells you climate alarmists. Your thought processes are as backwards as any tribe not exposed to the rest of humanity. You understand that the Earth revolves around the Sun but your religion along with your ignorant arrogance has led you to believe that you can control the climate of an entire planet. Your belief in that is as misguided as a cult of people sacrificing to a volcano to make the rain fall. You live in modern times but you think like early humans scared of thunder and the setting of the sun.

I will not acquiesce to your fears. I will not allow your fear filled brains to dictate the course of my actions. Practice your religion, but don't drag me into it. I don't need it and I will not accept it. Practice your religion, tithe to your Gods, but don't expect me to join you. Do expect me to fight you should you try to force your religious beliefs upon me. I'm in no mood to be conquered by backward thinking fanatics.
Although I feel there are many energy conservation and environmental issues to be dealt with by level-headed, competent, knowledgeable people (read: virtually no politicians and none of their rabid dumbshit ass-lickers) I agree with this post wholeheartedly.

All the jackass polticial hack assholes who've hijacked environmental issues in the same way they hijack every other issue, will never do shit but put more piles of everyone's money into the hands of the political hacks they grovel at the feet of. The whole lot of them with their serf-mentalties won't ever do shit but make the world an even filthier and crappier place- just everyone but their polticial masters will be a lot poorer to experience the increased filth and grime a lot closer up. Unless one is a politically connected billionare donating to a pocket political hack to get favor for the latest "green energy" scam, then the enviro-nutbag movement will bring you nothing but an even filthier life, much costlier energy until its unafordable, an empty wallet, and sore knees you've been groveling on.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Although I feel there are many energy conservation and environmental issues to be dealt with by level-headed, competent, knowledgeable people (read: virtually no politicians and none of their rabid dumbshit ass-lickers) I agree with this post wholeheartedly.

All the jackass polticial hack assholes who've hijacked environmental issues in the same way they hijack every other issue, will never do shit but put more piles of everyone's money into the hands of the political hacks they grovel at the feet of. The whole lot of them with their serf-mentalties won't ever do shit but make the world an even filthier and crappier place- just everyone but their polticial masters will be a lot poorer to experience the increased filth and grime a lot closer up. Unless one is a politically connected billionare donating to a pocket political hack to get favor for the latest "green energy" scam, then the enviro-nutbag movement will bring you nothing but an even filthier life, much costlier energy until its unafordable, an empty wallet, and sore knees you've been groveling on.

Here's another "real world example," an example of just how far out of touch the Republican party has become on climate change:

screen-shot-2014-06-02-at-12-03-24-pm.png


That's the Republican party, safely sandwiched between Egypt and China in its denialism of climate change. You guys keep great company. Congrats!

And here the article that cited that chart:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/02/the-scandal-of-the-gop-and-climate-change/

[Johnathan] Chait has a great little jab at the Republican “I’m not a scientist” schtick when trying to square objective reality with the denialism or fantasy of their own coalition.

[An excerpt from that referenced article:]

Asked by reporters yesterday if he accepts the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, John Boehner demurred on the curious but increasingly familiar grounds that he is not a scientist. “Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,” the House Speaker said. Boehner immediately turned the question to the killing of jobs that would result from any proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which he asserts with unwavering certainty. (On this question, Boehner is not held back by the fact that he is also not an economist.

I’m not a scientist either. I have no expertise in measuring carbon levels back thousands of years; I have no clue how to balance measurable heat in the oceans as opposed to the deserts; I cannot say what would likely shift in weather patterns if we keep boiling our planet like the proverbial frog; and on and on. But I can read temperature charts and I can read the IPCC report and I can glean something relevant from the crushingly overwhelming majority view of the relevant climate scientists.

And that simple act of amateur reasoning is all we ask of ourselves as citizens, and it is all we can ever ask of our elected representatives. We elect them to make decisions about the future of Afghanistan, the sectarian conflict in Syria, the intricacies of Internet regulation, and any number of complex questions usually grasped only by experts. Sometimes, they can become kinda experts themselves. But what’s vital is that they simply use reason – a core democratic practice – to figure stuff out.

On this important issue, one entire party in our system has simply decided to opt out of these basic demands of democratic life. And this is not restricted to Christianist congressmen who believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago. It’s deep in the bones of what’s left of the intelligentsia as well:

In a recent hearing before Congress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce refused to take a position on whether anthropogenic global warming is real. “Room to Grow,” the new policy manifesto by a coalition of non-crazy Republicans, has one chapter on energy, which omits any reference at all to climate change. It doesn’t deny climate change, nor does it concede it — it merely treats the energy debate as if the question of whether to price carbon emissions does not exist at all.

A figure as respected on the right as Charles Krauthammer has been reduced to claiming that no reigning scientific theory should be taken seriously because it might one day be adjusted in light of new data or new experiments.

This is what happens when reason becomes anathema in one hermetically sealed party:

According to Pew Research Center surveys conducted last year, 25 percent of self-identified Republicans said they considered global climate change to be “a major threat.” The only countries with such low levels of climate concern are Egypt, where 16 percent of respondents called climate change a major threat, and Pakistan, where 15 percent did. By comparison, 65 percent of Democrats in the United States gave that answer, putting them in the same range as Brazilians (76 percent), Japanese (72 percent), Chileans (68 percent) or Italians and Spaniards (64 percent).

It matters when one major party refuses to accept reality – when it refuses to grasp the fact that you cannot raise revenue by cutting taxes, that the United States practiced torture, or that human-made climate change is real. When one side engages in this surreal debate, the country becomes incapable of engaging in any real debate. I know we’ve become used to this – and the press has found a way to write about the GOP as if they are not a reckless, know-nothing, post-modern fantasy machine. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remain capable of shock and anger at this pathetic excuse for a political party, at the unique idiocy of this party of the right in the Western world.

It must be great to be so filled up with anger at "jackass polticial hack assholes who've hijacked" climate change that you don't allow yourself to actually see that science is what's really behind the argument, not your straw-man political hacks. So you've become immune from fact and reason, just like the rest of your brain-dead compatriots.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
*blather*
^ Case in point. Exactly the type of knuckle-dragging, politcian asslicker for whom this is just a crazy religion. Go pray to your political religious leaders and STFU.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
^ Case in point. Exactly the type of knuckle-dragging, politcian asslicker for whom this is just a crazy religion. Go pray to your political religious leaders and STFU.
In other words, you've got nothing. Your only "argument" is to hurl insults.

Who needs evidence when they've got their righteous anger?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Here's another "real world example," an example of just how far out of touch the Republican party has become on climate change:

screen-shot-2014-06-02-at-12-03-24-pm.png


That's the Republican party, safely sandwiched between Egypt and China in its denialism of climate change. You guys keep great company. Congrats!

Someone didn't read what the poll was about:

Percentage of residents who call global climate change "a major threat"

So for example if you think the climate was changing for the better you would not think it was a major threat nor would you be in denial of climate change.

I love the irony of it being progressives that essentially have declared that we magically reached optimal climate just before the industrial revolution. Talk about a coincidence!
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
So for example if you think the climate was changing for the better you would not think it was a major threat nor would you be in denial of climate change.

I love the irony of it being progressives that essentially have declared that we magically reached optimal climate just before the industrial revolution. Talk about a coincidence!

Indeed such a coincidence. :) I would enjoy a slightly warmer climate and overall, a warmer climate is better for us humans and most other life anyway.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
Indeed such a coincidence. :) I would enjoy a slightly warmer climate and overall, a warmer climate is better for us humans and most other life anyway.

Except of course that human civilization is built with the current climate in mind, meaning that even if a warmer climate were desirable with all things being equal, the cost to change our current locations and structures to accommodate it would be in the untold tens of trillions.

So no, given that we live on planet earth in our current circumstances it is much much worse.

I will have to add that to my list of conservative climate change denial arguments though. Now it's a good thing, so we must do nothing.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Except of course that human civilization is built with the current climate in mind, meaning that even if a warmer climate were desirable with all things being equal, the cost to change our current locations and structures to accommodate it would be in the untold tens of trillions.

So no, given that we live on planet earth in our current circumstances it is much much worse.

I will have to add that to my list of conservative climate change denial arguments though. Now it's a good thing, so we must do nothing.

How is saying climate change will be good in anyway a denial of climate change?:confused:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,069
55,594
136
And? You can oppose policy response for multiple reasons as has now been clearly pointed out to you.

Of course you can, but I see no cause to believe that this opposition is any more intellectually honest than any of the other litany of excuses that has come before it.

When the facts and reasons continually shift but the answer remains the same, chances are good the person is lying to you. You're a great example of someone who does this frequently.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
I will have to add that to my list of conservative climate change denial arguments though. Now it's a good thing, so we must do nothing.

really?? I am denying nothing. Our civilization has evolved over thousands of years. Tomorrow will be much different than today. What you highlighted in your response is exactly why we should not be concerned with climate change. The idea that man can possibly have an overwhelming affect on climate as to halt its change and "freeze" it in place in some supposedly "ideal" configuration is laughable at best.

Instead what we should be doing is investing those trillions in energy production so our poor countries can raise their standard of living to a point where they can afford cleaner forms of energy. The faster we do that, the better our environment will be.

The US already has done a phenomenal job of energy conservation and so called "greening" over the last 30 years or so. Let's help the rest of the world instead of condemning them to a backwards lifestyle.
 
Last edited:

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
It's super easy. All we need to do is capture 200 years worth of unchecked CO2 emissions.

FWIW, the oceans do a good job of sequestering it if we'd only slow down for a bit.
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,731
428
126
Except of course that human civilization is built with the current climate in mind, meaning that even if a warmer climate were desirable with all things being equal, the cost to change our current locations and structures to accommodate it would be in the untold tens of trillions.

So no, given that we live on planet earth in our current circumstances it is much much worse.

I will have to add that to my list of conservative climate change denial arguments though. Now it's a good thing, so we must do nothing.

So we can either spend money adapting to the changes or we apend our money changing the way our society is built (CO2 emissions) to accomplish nothing...

I guess you will have to add Daniel B. Botkin arguments to your list as well.

http://science.house.gov/sites/repu...ments/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf

"17.THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND
RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent,
adaptable, adjustable.
18. STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014
report and the Climate Change Assessment that all change is negative and
undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for
populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on planet Earth, including people.
This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is
always changing, and living things have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly,
many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require
environmental change.7"
 
Last edited: