• Member Statistics

    16,737
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    WX Fan
    Newest Member
    WX Fan
    Joined
ChescoWx

New Book - Unsettled Science

Recommended Posts

On 6/7/2021 at 12:40 PM, The Iceman said:

And liberals claim they care about the environment yet continue to fly in private jets to speak at these "climate events" and live in mega mansions near the ocean. Weird. You'd think if they were really that concerned about a "climate emergency", they'd practice what they preach. 

Do as I say, not as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, raindancewx said:

The science for greenhouse gasses impacting the climate has been around for over 100 years in a mathematical sense. It's not terribly complicated. How long do scientists need to convince the public that it will have effects on their lives? Another 100 years? 1,000? The position that one day people will wake up, take the streets, demand action and all will be well is beyond idiotic to me, it's naive. One way to evaluate science for usefulness is to look at what problem facing humanity has been solved by the scientific research. So...what problem has been solved with climate science? We have nuclear scientists here, it's a bit ironic, but their work has contributed to a peaceful world and because countries with a-bombs don't attack either other. No war between powerful countries is a pretty big get. Meteorologists have mostly solved forecasting in short term time-frames I would say. You'll never die from a tornado or a flash flood if you have a weather radio. Engineers and scientists have solved countless communication problems with radio, tv, internet, cell phones, cars, and so on. A lot of climate science looks like curve fitting to me, or to put it another way, fudging some of the more basic physics math with assumptions about how human behavior will change. Say you'd like to think the Earth's albedo would change in predictable ways in 100 years based on the sea ice changes in the past 100 years and you used a simple static or linear model....but what if it doesn't, you know if you were just to pick on this equation as the basis for a really over simplified climate model?

Screenshot-2021-06-16-7-04-15-PM

I can't think of a way my life is meaningfully worse from the climate being warmer than 100 years ago because the rate of human adaption is much faster than the rate of climate change, and since I never lived through that climate I never had to adapt fully anyway. I like the heat. When I don't, I have air conditioning. If we keep seeing brief severe cold like we've had in recent Februaries in Western economies when people expect warmth all the time you're going to continue to see massive destruction to poorly planned infrastructure.  Most of what you focus on is places like Phoenix that are at the edge of climate zones in Koppen classification sense, and so the results in those places are going to be far more dire than in most places that are not moving to a new climate zone, like Boston or New York. The climate of 50 years from now will be normal to young people growing up in that era. They won't have to adapt, it will be their normal, and I'll be dead.

I saw someone said that you have water crisis for farmers and ranchers in the West. That's certainly true to some extent, but it's not new. There are ancient irrigation systems all over the state to attempt to draw water from different sources that were designed hundreds of years ago by the tribes here. Mark Twain is famous for saying that "Until I came to New Mexico, I never realized how much beauty water adds to a river". New Mexico if you study hydrology has a "great lake" sized body of water that has been drained by stupid farming practices and other poor planning underneath. That has as much to do with the issues in the West as anything. You guys in the East always act like if we go through three to 18 month dry periods, it's the end of the world. We have cool places for water storage, on the mountain tops, and then underground thanks to all the prominent mountain ranges above the valley floor. The other issue locally is that the Rio Grande Compact was largely based on precipitation patterns during some extremely wet El Ninos, including 1940-41, which shows up on every hike I've ever taken with huge tree rings on the tree trunks and has something like top-annual rain in the last 300 years locally. The general view in the small towns in the West is that whenever a drought comes, the liberals will divert water to the cities if they are in charge, because that's their power base and the small towns and farmers will run out. There are certainly stories locally about small towns out of water already this Summer, while Albuquerque doesn't even have water restrictions. These are not climate problems, just poor planning problems. The old research I've seen implies something like 20 billion acre feet of water in New Mexico alone underground, it just can't be extracted mostly. Presumably, someone will come up with an innovation to grab it because necessity is the mother of invention.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/0741/report.pdf

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/08/07/groundwater-levels-are-on-the-rebound-in-albuquerque/

Ogallala-aquifer.jpg?resize=620%2C802&ssl=1Groundwater_graph-771x552.jpg?resize=771%2C552&ssl=1

Although the value of knowledge is realized more broadly than within the field in which the knowledge was developed once that knowledge is applied, that does not mean that such knowledge lacks intrinsic value. The potential value from understanding of the changing climate and its predominant cause would be unlocked from taking the appropriate steps to move toward net zero emissions. The value of the benefits would be substantial. 

In the fossil fuel-centered status quo, there are enormous adverse externalities (health effects, disasters from extreme events attributed to climate change, reduced productivity during heat events, agricultural losses from more frequent/expansive/intensive drought, fire damage, etc.). Those externalities are covered by society at large, rather than the major fossil fuel producers. That’s why they go unnoticed, but not unpaid.

An IMF working paper estimated that the post-tax value of such externalities in the U.S.  currently exceeds $640 billion per year (and $4.7 trillion per year globally). That’s about 3% of GDP. Realization of net zero emissions would eliminate that massive externality. That societal saving would represent a benefit of climate science understanding.

https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx

That confirmation bias/other cognitive biases, motivated reasoning and an unethical disinformation campaign waged by climate change denial sources (barriers over which climate scientists have little influence) impede a timely human response, does not diminish the value of climate science. It only impedes realization of that value. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with a lot of economic studies and projections concerning climate change because they do not incorporate risk of ruin. The amount of risk and potential damage goes up exponentially with each degree of warming. I think it would be nigh impossible to calculate warmings of 4-6C just because of the non-linearities involved. Even 2-3C could really be stretching it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Although the value of knowledge is realized more broadly than within the field in which the knowledge was developed once that knowledge is applied, that does not mean that such knowledge lacks intrinsic value. The potential value from understanding of the changing climate and its predominant cause would be unlocked from taking the appropriate steps to move toward net zero emissions. The value of the benefits would be substantial. 

In the fossil fuel-centered status quo, there are enormous adverse externalities (health effects, disasters from extreme events attributed to climate change, reduced productivity during heat events, agricultural losses from more frequent/expansive/intensive drought, fire damage, etc.). Those externalities are covered by society at large, rather than the major fossil fuel producers. That’s why they go unnoticed, but not unpaid.

An IMF working paper estimated that the post-tax value of such externalities in the U.S.  currently exceeds $640 billion per year (and $4.7 trillion per year globally). That’s about 3% of GDP. Realization of net zero emissions would eliminate that massive externality. That societal saving would represent a benefit of climate science understanding.

https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx

That confirmation bias/other cognitive biases, motivated reasoning and an unethical disinformation campaign waged by climate change denial sources (barriers over which climate scientists have little influence) impede a timely human response, does not diminish the value of climate science. It only impedes realization of that value. 

Coastal cities were mentioned- those coastal cities may not even exist 50 years from now!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2021 at 11:17 AM, Brian5671 said:

Do as I say, not as I do.

He's using this as a means to disqualify the idea based on the bad merits of a few opportunists. While it proves that he is here on good faith sadly the world does not operate on good faith. The main obstacle facing conservatives is realizing that they handicap themselves by trying to work from within the system to achieve the change they desire or worse yet doing nothing and expecting the system to self-correct.

Synergetically combine the best of both worlds in the hope that you can actually overthrow the system (liberal pathology) and build/maintain something to replace it (conservative pathology). Or better yet don't replace it with anything and let nature run it's course. We are all guilty worldwide in some respects we've bloodied our hands and we deserve everything coming to us.

Not only this we went to war with the very people trying to save us and sided with monetaried interests and slave drivers hoping to get our piece of the pie so to speak which does a huge disservice to the sacrifices of the people who actually want love and prosperity for this planet.

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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.