Climate Change, Deux

[SailOar]

This thread may not last any longer than the previous one, and trying to guide a thread is about as easy as herding cats, but I think the topic of climate change is very important, and I think that familiarizing ourselves with the scientific research on the topic is very helpful in guiding our thoughts and actions. To that end I plan to regularly post excerpts from research in the areas of Climate Change, Global Warming, Ocean Acidification, Alternatives to Fossil Fuels, Governmental Action, etc, and would invite other to contribute as well.

Climate change could bring severe drought to much of the world within decades | ROLLING STONE

How will climate change affect the planet? A new study [2011] by the National Center for Atmospheric Research warns that based on current projections of global-warming pollution, vast swaths of the world's most populated areas could begin suffering from extreme drought within decades. The increasingly dry soil would threaten water and food for hundreds of millions…

[SailOar]

Future flood losses in major coastal cities | NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE

ABSTRACT

Flood exposure is increasing in coastal cities owing to growing populations and assets, the changing climate, and subsidence. Here we provide a quantification of present and future flood losses in the 136 largest coastal cities. Using a new database of urban protection and different assumptions on adaptation, we account for existing and future flood defences. Average global flood losses in 2005 are estimated to be approximately US$6 billion per year, increasing to US$52 billion by 2050 with projected socio-economic change alone. With climate change and subsidence, present protection will need to be upgraded to avoid unacceptable losses of US$1 trillion or more per year. Even if adaptation investments maintain constant flood probability, subsidence and sea-level rise will increase global flood losses to US$60–63 billion per year in 2050. To maintain present flood risk, adaptation will need to reduce flood probabilities below present values. In this case, the magnitude of losses when floods do occur would increase, often by more than 50%, making it critical to also prepare for larger disasters than we experience today. The analysis identifies the cities that seem most vulnerable to these trends, that is, where the largest increase in losses can be expected.


Figure 1: The 20 cities where the relative risk is larger in 2005, that is, where the ratio of AAL with respect to local GDP is the largest.



Figure 2: The 20 cities where AAL increase most (in relative terms in 2050 compared with 2005) in the case of optimistic sea-level rise, if adaptation only maintains present defence standards or flood probability (PD).

[Group9]

Are you going to get upset if anyone posts any opposing viewpoints or is this just a "get on the bandwagon or else" kind of thing?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Group9

Are you going to get upset if anyone posts any opposing viewpoints or is this just a "get on the bandwagon or else" kind of thing?

My preference is that responses be based on science, not just personal opinions plucked off the top of one's head. I'm not a climate scientist, and as such I consider my personal opinion worthless. But I do respect the work of those who have spent a great deal of time and public resources carefully studying a very complex system, and who are warning us in ever increasing numbers and with a greater sense of urgency, that humanity may be facing an unprecedented challenge -- albeit, a slow-motion one.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by SailOar

. I'm not a climate scientist, and as such I consider my personal opinion worthless. But I do respect the work of those .... who are warning us....

In other words you only respect the views of the people you agree with.





Great!

I'm in for that!

The world is gunna end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! Run for your wives!!!!!!!

[zeehag]

as earth normally experiences cyclic patterns of weather-- one must take into account that el nino and la nina affect the entire worlds climatology. the stat and graphs p-resented represent el and la nina years... why not try use of stats presented to represent alleged normal years......when one compares apples and oranges one only gets fruit salad and a lot of dissidence.
our last allegedly normal year if climate was 207. el nino and la ni9n a were d evah year sine 2008. this year is first sans chilean current since 2007.
statistics can be skewed any direction one wishes to skew them.

yáll act as if we can control solar flaring. or volcanic action. or floods an d pestilence. to a point we can--we can stop burning rain forests we can stop dumping wtf into oceans and inland waterways...
many cry out that isnt enough...ok what do you suggest we do -- there really isnt anything mankind can do to prevent climate change--earth does this. even without human involvement---
what we all gonna do--don space suits and push the axis of earth to where we prefer to keep it????

[Sailor_Hutch]

I am always amused by the "based on science" approval stamp. What get's accepted for "approved" science is almost always another person's opinion, which has been "backed up" by some "evidence" they managed to collect (the data is always imperfect, and includes many "outlying anomalies," sometimes outnumbering the data points that actually follow the theory's math). The data points that fit are then associated with some concocted mathematical expression that claims to mirror the phenomenon, and the work is published in some "respected" journal, and afterwords it's referred to as "accepted science."

Not really.

Sometimes the pseudo science afficionados get closer. Speaking of conspiracy theories, some say the "chem trails" are a gubmint sponsored effort to mitigate global meltdown, which they "know" is imminent. But then government science is so profoundly accurate, especially when a private contractor can make some bucks on the "theory."

I'm not saying either side is correct, but am saying I don't know. But ... there is the evidence we think we see ... and it IS interesting. Neither bandwagon is appropriate at this point in time, IMHO.

[zeehag]

there are all kinds of science--and true science is all theories (ideas)and dialogues based on the observations seen by that scientist or groups of scientists, as well as on the ideas that pop up out of someone s brain. someone dreams up a theory and then works on proving that theory sometimes it doesnt work out, sometimes it does. tesla is a good scientist....

just because something can allegedly be proved to be doesnt mean it actually is.....

science is constantly changing, as is our earth and its environment.

exact science-oxymoron

[barnakiel]

But if the change is evolutionary, will they not have enough time to move?

I mean my father moved as the glaciers moved ...

b.

[Sailor_Hutch]

Originally Posted by SailOar

My preference is that responses be based on science, not just personal opinions plucked off the top of one's head. I'm not a climate scientist, and as such I consider my personal opinion worthless. But I do respect the work of those who have spent a great deal of time and public resources carefully studying a very complex system, and who are warning us in ever increasing numbers and with a greater sense of urgency, that humanity may be facing an unprecedented challenge -- albeit, a slow-motion one.

Great cartoon for the "lurking variable" effect. A lurking variable (statistical term) is one that really has an impact (maybe even the strongest impact) but is an attribute that we haven't bothered to study directly, or include in our calculations. The poor chap in the boiling pan forgot to consider that he wasn't cold blooded ...

[Sailor_Hutch]

exact science-oxymoron

Eggactimungo! Zee!

While he's famous for sparky things, Tesla was an incredibly talented poet ... and writer ...

My wife wants his namesake car ...

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by SailOar

My preference is that responses be based on science, not just personal opinions plucked off the top of one's head.

Sure--- a very informed scientist, Al Gore who wrote your Rolling Stones' article. Oh, how about the Society of Concerned Scientists??? That is another noteworthy group and you to can be one for $25. Then you can say to all your friends "yesterday I could not even spell sceintest, NOW I ARE ONE!"

Al will not care, he made is millions pumping that bull crap.


MR. MODERATOR--- HERE WE GO AGAIN as if we have not had enough of this controversial BULL POOP.

[markpierce]

All note that the article is in the political section of the magazine, written by a politician and not a scientist. That's quite appropriate. ... Talkin' politics, not science.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Sailor_Hutch

I am always amused by the "based on science" approval stamp. What get's accepted for "approved" science is almost always another person's opinion, which has been "backed up" by some "evidence" they managed to collect (the data is always imperfect, and includes many "outlying anomalies," sometimes outnumbering the data points that actually follow the theory's math). The data points that fit are then associated with some concocted mathematical expression that claims to mirror the phenomenon, and the work is published in some "respected" journal, and afterwords it's referred to as "accepted science."

Not really.

Sometimes the pseudo science afficionados get closer. Speaking of conspiracy theories, some say the "chem trails" are a gubmint sponsored effort to mitigate global meltdown, which they "know" is imminent. But then government science is so profoundly accurate, especially when a private contractor can make some bucks on the "theory."

I'm not saying either side is correct, but am saying I don't know. But ... there is the evidence we think we see ... and it IS interesting. Neither bandwagon is appropriate at this point in time, IMHO.

I hope you have a better understanding of navigation than you do of the scientific method. We apparently share the Chesapeake, after all.

[Sailor_Hutch]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

In other words you only respect the views of the people you agree with.





Great!

I'm in for that!

The world is gunna end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! Run for your wives!!!!!!!

I only have one of em' at the moment. :-)