Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,280
#1,280
Sandvol said:
If he were overly alarmist would that change your view of his work? Also, has he ever authored or reviewed a peer reviewed paper that includes these models you mentioned that support anthropogenic global warming? I'm not talking about hypotheticals or Monte Carlo simulations but real world examples. And, could you please cite it?
Click to expand...

He was a lead author of a modeling chapter in AR4 which I'm sure cited his work alongside others. I don't know of specific papers off the top of my head that are the models he has participated in writing.

Here is a complete list of peer-reviewed work from the program he runs with Jacoby from the economics department (so there's hard core modeling here as well as softer economics and models that combine both).

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/reprints/all

I'm not exactly sure what the distinction between the Monte Carlo simulation and these models is, though. MC is just a framework for running the model when faced with inputs that have probability distributions as values.

As for alarmism changing my opinion, I would have to see what he's saying and draw my opinion from that. This was one of the first things that turned me off of Lindzen. I watched him talk about the CO2 lagging issue I was referring to earlier in reference to Gore's plot. He conveniently left half the story untold as he said historically CO2 lags temperature not the other way around and left it for the listener to make the conclusion of - oh, so CO2 doesn't lead temps. However, he didn't say that because he knows better and knows it can be both says depending in what's forcing the change. It was basically the same as Gore did but in the other side of the spectrum. I found it very disappointing and I stopped listening to what he had to say for the most part.
 
Last edited:
#1,282
#1,282
Regardless of one's political beliefs, and whether humanity's contribution to climate change is overstated or understated, there actually are people losing their homes, their land, and their lives thanks to rising water levels.

The Maldives will be non existent in the near future at this pace, and there are probably over a hundred cities around the world only a few feet of sea level above them with populations of a million plus. Venice is flooded most of the year. New York City is one of them. Sandy wasn't a massive storm by any means but we all saw how flooded NY city became from the swells.

You can only build up defenses against mother nature for so long, and regardless of what is the root cause in rising sea levels, there will be consequences either way. I think we should spend less time bickering over the politics of it and start accounting for the logistics of how we are going to deal with the problem. The people of the Maldives will probably end up having to all migrate to India or Sri Lanka. They're just the prelude to what's going to happen to millions of people around the world eventually.
 
#1,284
#1,284
MercyPercy said:
Regardless of one's political beliefs, and whether humanity's contribution to climate change is overstated or understated, there actually are people losing their homes, their land, and their lives thanks to rising water levels.

The Maldives will be non existent in the near future at this pace, and there are probably over a hundred cities around the world only a few feet of sea level above them with populations of a million plus. Venice is flooded most of the year. New York City is one of them. Sandy wasn't a massive storm by any means but we all saw how flooded NY city became from the swells.

You can only build up defenses against mother nature for so long, and regardless of what is the root cause in rising sea levels, there will be consequences either way. I think we should spend less time bickering over the politics of it and start accounting for the logistics of how we are going to deal with the problem. The people of the Maldives will probably end up having to all migrate to India or Sri Lanka. They're just the prelude to what's going to happen to millions of people around the world eventually.
Click to expand...

This, I can get behind. Let's stop ruining lives and our economy trying in vain to stop something that we have had little to no part in starting and quite frankly don't know if it's even happening.

Let's spend the money a resorces figuring out how to and preparing to live with what Mother Nature might be throwing at us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,286
#1,286
hndog609 said:
You mean "Superstorm" Sandy? The largest (by diameter) Atlantic hurricane on record? I think you might be downplaying that a bit.
Click to expand...

It was "only" a category 2 storm. The reason it caused so much damage up north is because they don't usually get those types of storms and had almost no defenses in place to mitigate the effects of the rising water.
 
#1,287
#1,287
MercyPercy said:
It was "only" a category 2 storm. The reason it caused so much damage up north is because they don't usually get those types of storms and had almost no defenses in place to mitigate the effects of the rising water.
Click to expand...

I was only pointing out a "hurricane" of any category isn't something to take lightly. It's true that location of bad weather matters (a snow that won't even close the schools in Buffalo will murder Atlanta) but there's nowhere that a Cat 2 hurricane is "no big deal".
 
#1,288
#1,288
82_VOL_83 said:
So, what is the correlation? Does temp lead CO2 or vice versa?
Click to expand...

The correlation is between increasing global average temperatures and increasing CO2 emissions. Global temperatures has increased and CO2 emission had increased as well. As a result, you can say there is a "correlation between A and B". That itself is nothing to warrant a scientific argument. Factor in the greenhouse effect and and the relationship to one another, "causation" begins too be made through scientific explanations for why the global averages have increased as of late.
 
#1,291
#1,291
MercyPercy said:
Regardless of one's political beliefs, and whether humanity's contribution to climate change is overstated or understated, there actually are people losing their homes, their land, and their lives thanks to rising water levels.

The Maldives will be non existent in the near future at this pace, and there are probably over a hundred cities around the world only a few feet of sea level above them with populations of a million plus. Venice is flooded most of the year. New York City is one of them. Sandy wasn't a massive storm by any means but we all saw how flooded NY city became from the swells.

You can only build up defenses against mother nature for so long, and regardless of what is the root cause in rising sea levels, there will be consequences either way. I think we should spend less time bickering over the politics of it and start accounting for the logistics of how we are going to deal with the problem. The people of the Maldives will probably end up having to all migrate to India or Sri Lanka. They're just the prelude to what's going to happen to millions of people around the world eventually.
Click to expand...

So when will the Maldives be non-existent? Is the ocean higher there than say the Florida Keys?
 
#1,293
#1,293
Sandvol said:
So when will the Maldives be non-existent? Is the ocean higher there than say the Florida Keys?
Click to expand...

Scientists think around 2100, the entire country would probably be abandoned. But the smaller and lower islands are already being abandoned these days. Their highest point I believe is like 7 feet above sea level.

They are closer to sea level than the keys, but not by much.
 
#1,294
#1,294
MercyPercy said:
Scientists think around 2100, the entire country would probably be abandoned. But the smaller and lower islands are already being abandoned these days. Their highest point I believe is like 7 feet above sea level.

They are closer to sea level than the keys, but not by much.
Click to expand...

2100, eh? You guys keep pushing these disaster dates back. I guess when the Great Blizzard of 2100 rolls around the entire Northern Hemisphere is covered in snow and ice, we'll have to wait until 2200 before all of the earth's coastlines are under water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,295
#1,295
Gannon Goodson said:
2100, eh? You guys keep pushing these disaster dates back. I guess when the Great Blizzard of 2100 rolls around the entire Northern Hemisphere is covered in snow and ice, we'll have to wait until 2200 before all of the earth's coastlines are under water.
Click to expand...

What? If the water levels continue to rise as they have and are projected to, the Maldives will be mostly under water. It's simple math.

I'm not trying to be alarmist about anything, in fact I've made a concerted effort to try and keep politics out of my last couple posts. The scientific fact is that the sea level is steadily rising, low lying areas are the first to see its effects. that's all.
 
#1,296
#1,296
MercyPercy said:
Scientists think around 2100, the entire country would probably be abandoned. But the smaller and lower islands are already being abandoned these days. Their highest point I believe is like 7 feet above sea level.

They are closer to sea level than the keys, but not by much.
Click to expand...

New Orleans is below sea level, so they built a system of levies around it.

Problem solved.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top