main
side
curve

Senate Global Climate Change

Discussion in 'Community' started by Jabbadabbado, May 7, 2014.

  1. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    Umm no, it's not the same. An assessment by it's definition is an estimate, meaning not fact. It is a fact that smoking causes cancer it is not an assessment.

    Now before someone crawls all over me, I am sure there are plenty of facts in the assessment, but, the assessment of those facts is not a fact. Assessment is an opinion.....
     
  2. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I'm not much concerned with how exactly perfect the example is in every detail. It still serves the point I was trying to make. That is, I fully admit it's an estimate. But the estimate is not based on watching media coverage of weather disasters. So why did you even bring that topic it up? It has nothing to do with how they produced this document.
     
  3. dp4m

    dp4m JCC Playoff Pick 'Em Winner, Also a Narc star 10 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Exercise gives you endorphins.
    Endorphins make you happy.
    Happy people don't kill their husbands.

    They just don't!
     
  4. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    You should concern yourself with how perfect your examples are if you are going to make them.

    The media, politicians, general public takes the opinions from the assessment and uses every weather event, or non-event to justify their own opinion or push an agenda. When there is a huge weather event, we all hear how it's climate change. When it's quiet and nothing going on, it's climate change, and then people point to opinions like this assessment as proof that we are doomed. I don't subscribe to Chicken Little Syndrome.

    My post was my sarcastic view of how a lot of people view climate change. It is exactly how I have said it in my initial post, and I said again in this post. Every event is climate change, and when there isn't an event, well that's because of climate change.

    Really, my post ruffles all your feathers to this extent for what reason?
     
  5. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Even if we agree that you are 100% correct in how "a lot of people" view climate change, that's not how these scientists wrote their report. So do you have anything to agree or disagree with them on given what they actually said?
     
  6. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    Why does that matter? I made a post with an opinion. An opinion that I have because of the Topic of the thread, and as I said, it ruffles feathers why? Should I preview every post within a thread and only post my opinion if I know it is in agreement with the others in the thread? Furthermore, it is still the Scientists Assessment, hence OPINION!
     
  7. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I'm not asking you to agree with everyone.

    But maybe if you said something like "I disagree with this report BECAUSE I think _________ (it underestimates new technologies that can fix things/it overestimates population growth/it ignores the economic cost of trying to fix the problems they are proposing)" then we might have something to talk about.

    Just saying that you have an opinion, and expecting us to treat that opinion as equal to someone who has spent their entire working life and schooling to this topic is unrealistic, and provides no avenues for future discussion.
     
  8. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
    all opinions are not equal, mikeximus. if an accredited lawyer in good standing and a plumber claims to be an authority on legal matters gave you conflicting legal advice, which one would you be more likely to follow the advice of? would their opinions be of equal value to you?
     
  9. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Here lets take this one right from the Report, here this is part of the proof for Climate change?:

    Other changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snow melt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation..


    If you look it up, you see that the reason why flood insurance is going up is not because of Climate Change, but it's going up because the National Flood Insurance took on a huge amount of debt after a couple bad storms hit heavily populated areas. Also, they adjusted premiums for people that used to get a subsidy... But the report uses it as a form of proof of climate change? Really....are you serious. Now I am not trying to say that there aren't true and reliable facts in this report, but, this is the garbage that again leads to chicken little syndrome!

    http://www.delawareonline.com/story...flood-insurance-rates-going-to-go-up/6811159/

    Here's another one:

    Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.

    Generally shorter and warmer winters, well most of the country just experienced a very long and very cold winter this past season... But, I am sure that will be explained as part of Climate Change as well. Rain in heavier downpours? Really? What possible science did they use to measure every downpour in every part of the country over the last what 20 30 40... 100 years to come to the conclusion that downpours are heavier?

    Color me Skeptical is all!
     
  10. dp4m

    dp4m JCC Playoff Pick 'Em Winner, Also a Narc star 10 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001

    The report says this:

    Sea Level Rise
    Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.

    And you don't, perhaps, see a correlation between national flood insurance taking on a bunch of debt after a couple of bad storms hit heavily populated areas and the above? Really? Really really?
     
    Point Given likes this.
  11. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    The word "generally" means that there will be some exceptions, but overall a trend is still noticeable. As to measuring rainfall, it's not really that hard. Let's put aside the fact that satellites can track precipitation all over the world. Even if were in 1900, what's so impossible about having people the live in different areas record how much rain falls per storm, and then sharing all their notes with one another? This is not half so impossible as you make it seem.
     
  12. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    No because bad storms have hit populated areas before A LOT! They are nothing NEW!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Jersey_hurricanes
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes

    Look up more!
     
  13. dp4m

    dp4m JCC Playoff Pick 'Em Winner, Also a Narc star 10 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    I'm going to ask you a very specific question: how old are you?

    (this will not be used against you as a dig, I promise)
     
  14. Valairy Scot

    Valairy Scot Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Flood insurance rates are changing because there's more payouts due to more damage and the government set rates are not self-sustaining. That's a consequence of weather events, not "proof" or "evidence" per se, so I think you misunderstand that point.

    (I work in insurance and occasionally sell flood insurance.)
     
  15. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    And as I stated many times, I am not disputing that Climate Change is happening, that is something you guys keep glossing over that I have said a few times. However, these opinions in the assessment want to make it out that everything is due to climate change. I keep calling it the Chicken Little Syndrome, and that the sky is falling. Just like dp4m seems to miss is that bad and extreme weather has happened well before industrialization. Every year coastal cities become bigger and bigger as we expand into those cities and more people live in those cities. More housing, buildings, more expensive housing, infrastructure and the like. The storms that hit a few years ago weren't even the worst in recorded history. There have been worse storms that killed more, but, the recent storms were so bad Damage wise because we have built so much into those areas over the last 25 to 50 years. However, these reports, citing rising insurance and the destruction tend to leaves those facts out. Politicians who cite these reports when talking about climate change tend to leave out the facts I just pointed out. People who want to prove so bad that Climate Change is the doom of us all tend to leave those facts out.
     
  16. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    The point I think being made is that institutions -- even reputable, scientific ones -- are not exactly immune to exaggerating claims made or scratching for any tangential "evidence" that might conceivably support a point. I mean, as an example...

    People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.

    Without delving into the report I'm assuming there are stoic, objective, independent studies cited in support of these three assertions--because if not, if they're relying solely on a phone poll or something along these lines for these propositions, then good grief. These are about as subjective a set of "observed" changes as you can get, unless the people doing the "seeing" here are the sort of people who systematically categorise the number of birds of a particular kind they see for 10-12 hours per day on a round-the-clock basis.

    However: My complaint's more along the lines that the nature of the crisis doesn't need this sort of silly embellishment, even if it is targeted at Tea Partiers, sixth graders, or Gomer Pyle. The cumulative material in support of climate change is necessarily circumstancial evidence, certainly, but in combination it's pretty damn hard to deny it.
     
  17. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    OK, why are the payouts so high? Because of climate change or because those coastal cities are so jammed packed now, more so than even 50 years ago with bigger and more expensive infrastructure, housing, buildings etc? If Hurricane Sandy hit 60 years ago, would the damage in the cost of dollars been more (even accounting for inflation)? I doubt it would because there were less people, less housing less of everything even 60 years ago. Insurance rates have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with how we have expanded into those areas so when a bad storm does hit, the damage is tremendous.
     
  18. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Alright, so if we accept your explanation, how doesn't that prove climate change is a serious problem? Yes, things are more developed now than they were in the past. But they are more developed because people actually live in those places and actually use them. If increasing storms make it impossible to do that, then that's a negative consequence humanity is suffering. How doesn't that count as a bad effect of global warming?
     
  19. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    I think the point mikeximus is trying to make is that the magnitude of the problem might be exaggerated, which does impact on whether it's "impossible" to live in a given area because of "increasing storms".
     
    mikeximus likes this.
  20. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    Once again, I will state for the record, I have said many times, I do not deny Climate Change is happening at that it will be a problem in the future, I have stated that in many previous posts. Please go back and look at them. But just look at your post, You talk of increasing storms... where is the proof there are increasing storms lol! Look at the the wikis I posted about NY and NJ and the Hurricanes that have hit, There have been really bad Storms that have hit those areas before, some extremely worse than anything that hit the last couple times, some in the 1800's and early 1900's. That is my point, bad weather happens, bad storms happen. It has happen so many times before Climate Change, so why did they happen then? Everything is now climate change, the wind changes direction, well it climate change. Get in your bunkers everyone!
     
  21. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012

    Thank You, Plus lets add the money factor to these reports. It's funny how we are so suspicious of greedy companies that want to suck money out of everything, you don't think these scientists have an other motives to stay relevant to keep a cash flow going? But because it's science that some agree with, we don't follow the money trail on all these Govt funded Assessments. Once again, before someone attacks me, I still say climate change is happening, but, this doom and gloom is just silly. That is my opinion anyway. I will see u in 150 years and you can tell me I was wrong.
     
  22. Saintheart

    Saintheart Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2000
    EDIT: Never mind, clicked a few more links...
     
  23. mikeximus

    mikeximus Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2012
  24. Valairy Scot

    Valairy Scot Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 16, 2005
    mikeximus: You're correct in some cases, but actually more as relates to wild fire than flood (re: building in damage prone areas).

    You can only collect so many times from Flood insurance, and in many cases, communities are working to make their communities safer via various methods and re-evaluating their flood studies. In my own state, actually not that far as the crow flies from the recent Oso landslide, an entire rural community was relocated to higher ground because of flooding - the area had a history of flooding, only the flooding was becoming more frequent.

    We've also found in some areas that "100 year flood zones" were first mapped during a period of relatively dry weather and those actual "100 year flooding" is more accurately "50" or "25" year.

    heck, look at the "Little ice Age" a few centuries ago ( NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming), or the winter or two little "ice age" in Europe during WWII that kept many ships locked in harbor.

    However, the normal swings are becoming more frequent. We are contributing to and accelerating those normal swings.
     
  25. dp4m

    dp4m JCC Playoff Pick 'Em Winner, Also a Narc star 10 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Okay, without you telling me of your age, I'll try and answer the portion about NY/NJ as best I can.

    I've lived there (personally) for more than 35 years.
    My parents for more than 70 (each).
    My grandparents (deceased) covered the portion of the early 1900s.

    Yes, there were bad storms back in the 1800s and early-1900s but there is a reason that NY (particularly NYC) stopped seeing such powerful storms after that period of time: growth. A combination of tidal direction (Atlantic Ocean / Hudson basin / etc.) combined with many, many, many taller buildings going up in that time providing a "natural" wind buffer and many more degrees of ambient heat basically stopped hurricanes and dissipated them very quickly. The typical path up the east coast either involves traveling up the mid-Atlantic and pummeling the NJ beach towns (Sea<name>, etc.) and cross Long Island and either attempting to make landfall up through CT / upstate NY and dying down, or heading out to sea while skirting by CT/RI/MA or simply just heading out to sea -- they come to NYC to die most of the time.

    We don't take hurricanes seriously much at all for this reason as a general rule, even those of us who head out to the beach (I have personally slept through Cat 1s on the Atlantic-side of a barrier beach island off the coast). Hurricane Gloria, I believe, was the last serious storm to come through and cause "significant" damage -- back in 1985 -- and that included surges of 8 feet down at Battery Park (a landfill section of southern Manhattan) and winds up to 81 mph (Cat 1) outside the city and 50 or so within the confines of the city. Ultimately though., while damaging, it was manageable for the most part.

    While NYC had been overdue for a large-scale hurricane, the prevailing conditions indicated a mostly safe position from hurricanes overall.

    Then in 2011, we got Irene which caused flooding greater than Gloria, though winds were comparable or less. I definitely took a walk on the river before the storm fully hit.
    One year later, we got Sandy. I, who had lived there my whole life and eschewed any danger from hurricanes, told everyone "do not go the **** outside." Literally, in my life, in my parents' lives, in my grandparents' lives, had never seen anything like that before. Never before had Manhattan (that I am aware of) lost significant power other than intentionally moving to rolling brown-outs from inclement weather except in extreme outlying areas of the five boroughs; now everything in Manhattan below 40th street was gone because a utility substation EXPLODED from the flooding (there's video; it looks like Highlander, I highly encourage people to watch it).

    The flood level at Battery Park was just under 14 feet and reached clear into Flood Zone B. (for the record, I live in C and still wasn't worried about flooding at that point, only wind).

    Now, having said that -- I agree with President Obama when he said that no one particular weather event can be blamed on climate change or the like, but on the other hand that is not a normal phenomenon for that part of the country. Let alone in consecutive years.