3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t consider ice melt in summer to be CATASTROPHIC, I will be going to A beach house in NC next week, if it is under water I may change my mind, if it is still there my position will be strengthened.

"My stuff is OK" is hardly a criterion that any intelligent person applies to the risks of climate change.  Imagine where we would be today if the CDC took that attitude.  "Hey, there's no such thing as epidemics, just a bunch of alarmists scared of organisms they CAN'T EVEN SEE!  Where's the proof?  When my kid dies maybe I'll believe in your so-called germ theory.  But if he's alive, my position will be strengthened."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

"My stuff is OK" is hardly a criterion that any intelligent person applies to the risks of climate change.  

Any more than “my stuff got hurt” is a criterion that any intelligent person applies to the risk of climate change.  But it doesn’t stop you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Any more than “my stuff got hurt” is a criterion that any intelligent person applies to the risk of climate change.  

Agreed.  You need a wider vision than that.  You need to look at species, ecosystems and global effects.

Quote

But it doesn’t stop you guys.

Who is "you guys?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Any more than “my stuff got hurt” is a criterion that any intelligent person applies to the risk of climate change.  But it doesn’t stop you guys.

This is another exercise in you picking something as measure of what is and isn't.  Sure, "Imminent" and "Catastrophic" are fairly alarming words and seem ridiculous if you're typing from a shady valley in Pennsylvania.  That's not so much the case if your house and business are located in low coastal areas or if you live in places like Europe or India where a heat wave can kill anywhere between 30-70,000 people (per previous events).  What do you think the densely populated regions like South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin American are going to do when they barely lived through a crop failure because of some short term weather anomaly and the next season is looking like the same.  Seeing as we're having year after year of record high temperatures all within the last 20 years and still steadily increasing they may see the writing on the wall that you're missing from your perspective. They're going to die or flee.  There have never been so many humans on the planet and the planet has never been in a more precarious position.  What do you think millions of people on the move will look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, DJL said:

What do you think millions of people on the move will look like?

Like China in the eighties?

In all seriousness, man has adapted to rapid global climate change in the past.  9000 years ago the world was five to six degrees centigrade warmer and the seas were about two meters higher than today.  Global cooling led to the desertification of the Sahara and the retreat of global shoreline.  Man adapted then and we can do it today, even in the face of the catastrophically high rate of sea level rise (3mm per year)

Edited by brenthutch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJL said:

 What do you think Billions of people on the move will look like?

FIFY :D

India has over a billion people. Add in Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and other equatorial regions, and you are looking at a lot of folks living in areas that will become uninhabitable. 
The places they will look to head for are already inhabited, in some places rather crowded. In some places occupied by folks who are not terribly friendly towards the 'intruders' (think about Pakistan & India). 
The possibility of significant conflict is very real. The possibility of nuclear war is also very real.

At that point, Ron would be right about SHTF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Like China in the eighties?

More like the southern border times 100,000.  You going to be OK with that?

Quote

In all seriousness, man has adapted to rapid global climate change in the past.  9000 years ago the world was five to six degrees centigrade warmer and the seas were about two meters higher than today.  Global cooling led to the desertification of the Sahara and the retreat of global shoreline.  Man adapted then and we can do it today, even in the face of the catastrophically high rate of sea level rise (3mm per year)

?? No it wasn't.  12,000 years ago we were in a global ice age. Temperatures were about 5C colder than they are today.  As the ice age ended, temperatures gradually rose.  (1 degree for every 2000 years or so.)  This resulted in the Holocene extinction, the sixth largest extinction ever. 

We are now warming 40 times faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, billvon said:

More like the southern border times 100,000.  You going to be OK with that?

?? No it wasn't.  12,000 years ago we were in a global ice age. Temperatures were about 5C colder than they are today.  As the ice age ended, temperatures gradually rose.  (1 degree for every 2000 years or so.)  This resulted in the Holocene extinction, the sixth largest extinction ever. 

We are now warming 40 times faster.

He's about to bring up the Holocene Climatic Optimum.  It's a favorite go to for the wattsup readers who don't know that was a Northern Hemispheric Summertime issue, not something that reached around the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DJL said:

He's about to bring up the Holocene Climatic Optimum.  It's a favorite go to for the wattsup readers who don't know that was a Northern Hemispheric Summertime issue, not something that reached around the globe.

Tell that to the folks splashing around in a lush green Sahara, or the costal developments that suddenly found themselves to be kilometers from the shore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DJL said:

He's about to bring up the Holocene Climatic Optimum.  It's a favorite go to for the wattsup readers who don't know that was a Northern Hemispheric Summertime issue, not something that reached around the globe.

?? The Holocene Optimum was a few tenths of a degree increase worldwide.  We blew past that decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Tell that to the folks splashing around in a lush green Sahara, or the costal developments that suddenly found themselves to be kilometers from the shore.

Are you comparing our current habitation of the planet with when we were literally in the stone age?  And if you're taking exception with the terms "imminent" and "catastrophic" do you know that the tilt in the Earth's Axis required to reach that "suddenly found" period took about 40,000 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? The Holocene Optimum was a few tenths of a degree increase worldwide.  We blew past that decades ago.

And only occurred in the Northern Hemisphere during the Summer months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

I cant believe I am getting pushback over the simple fact that mankind has survived climactic changes that far exceed what we are currently experiencing.  Wow, just wow. :-(

We had thousands of years to adjust to the "change" as a species of scattered hunter gatherers and basic city civilizations who would fade out in regions experiencing harsh climates and thrive where life was easier.  We didn't exist on the planet spread out and as densley populated as we are now and as I've already said, those higher summer temperature extremes were limited to the Northern Hemisphere.  See this for a scaled representation of the development of our civilization compared to Earth's average temperatures:  https://xkcd.com/1732/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I cant believe I am getting pushback over the simple fact that mankind has survived climactic changes that far exceed what we are currently experiencing.  Wow, just wow. :-(

You're not getting pushback over the fact that mankind has survived climactic changes in the past.  You are getting pushback because you have just switched from "AGW is all wrong" to "OK AGW is right but other things are worse."  And if you keep up your usual pattern, you will be back to "AGW is all wrong, and if you think it's right you are stupid" in a day or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DJL said:

We're not going to see them on the move all at once so I said millions.

I'm not so sure about that. 

I will agree that we are not likely to see it, because it won't happen for a while.

And it won't happen all at once. It will start slow and progress. 

But I would guess that, unless there are mass deaths before it gets to the point of 'billions on the move' (and the 'billions' in vulnerable areas no longer exist), there will eventually reach a point where there are more than a billion refugees either moving or needing to move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate driven population movement is happening NOW.  Prompted by the need to live in a more suitable climate, folks are fleeing the hostile climate of the north with AK, IL and NY leading the way and flooding into states with a more suitable climate, like FL + 1,025,261 TX + 944,018 NC + 327,631 AZ + 278,290

(these numbers reflect movement within the US and do not reflect indigenous population growth or immigration)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Climate driven population movement is happening NOW.  Prompted by the need to live in a more suitable climate, folks are fleeing the hostile climate of the north with AK, IL and NY leading the way and flooding into states with a more suitable climate, like FL + 1,025,261 TX + 944,018 NC + 327,631 AZ + 278,290

Right.  Because retirees going to Florida means there is no threat from climate change.  And let me guess - it was cold where you live, and no houses washed away today.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

3 3