Suppose Climate Change is real, but we can’t stop it (1 Viewer)

[samiam5211]

At some point even the Greatas of the world may have to admit that climate change is not something we can prevent. Whether or not it is human caused, there will be a point if no return.

Where is the point where humanity is better served by focusing resources on adaptation rather than prevention?

There is likely much overlap between prevention and adaptation.

One example of this might be the activists’ push against fossil fuels...

Maybe we should be trying use as much solar power as possible now to save fossil fuels for a time when we have a period of glaciation in an area where humans live today? Maybe we will need that oil and gas should there be a time when the Midwest is below freezing five months a year. This is not an uncommon situation in Earth’s relatively recent history.

I do believe that the climate is changing and that we will fail to stop it, and we are the ancestors of people who will have to grow their food in different regions from us and get their energy from different places.

The sooner humanity begins to diversify these necessities the better.

 

[samiam5211]

What are some predictive successes that the science has had?
As an example - some right-wing sites recently pointed out that Glacier National Park had removed signage telling patrons that a glacier or glaciers would be gone by 2020. Apparently, there were models based on the science that predicted that. But it turns out to not have been true. Now the signs say the glacier will be gone at some undetermined time in the future if we don't act.

Well, there is no doubt that the glaciers at glacier national park are not what they used to be.

Maybe they missed the rate of loss, but we hiked to Iceberg lake around 1999 and again in 2015, and the glacier was much smaller, both Trips were in August.

The people should be much more concerned about whether or not the glaciers are smaller than at any time in recorded history than whether or not a sign was correct.

 

[samiam5211]

But this is about the particular science of it, right? If the models based on the science are wrong then what does that say about the science?

I think you are conflating a lack of precision with being wrong. Weather modeling and especially climate modeling are far from precise.

Predicting the difference between a cold rain and heavy snow 2 days out is often impossible for an exact location, but they can be pretty sure it will be cold and precipitating.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, that's no fair, a question was asked about the predictive success of climate models, so I started going back to read the various papers on the subject. As it turns out, they are very accurate in predicting the rise temperature correlated with the rise of carbon dioxide in the air.

Most models if anything are pretty conservative - the IPCC sea-level predictions are slightly conservative in their estimates. Same with the extent of sea ice.

Further, there are no, repeat ZERO, models in existence that can explain observed global temperature rise without taking into account the increase in carbon dioxide.

Where there is less precision is in when secondary effects will appear. For example, glaciers disappearing - they are disappearing, but they don't have the exact time they will disappear.

 

[Port City JJ]

Well, that's no fair, a question was asked about the predictive success of climate models, so I started going back to read the various papers on the subject. As it turns out, they are very accurate in predicting the rise temperature correlated with the rise of carbon dioxide in the air.

Most models if anything are pretty conservative - the IPCC sea-level predictions are slightly conservative in their estimates. Same with the extent of sea ice.

Further, there are no, repeat ZERO, models in existence that can explain observed global temperature rise without taking into account the increase in carbon dioxide.

Where there is less precision is in when secondary effects will appear. For example, glaciers disappearing - they are disappearing, but they don't have the exact time they will disappear.

What we should be more concerned with is the water distribution and micro-climate changes.

 

[Sabine]

The OP is certainly something we should all be pondering. How to prepare for the inevitable changes?

I suspect the majority will do the same as the majority does now faced with the prospect of slowing or halting climate change - demand OTHERS do something, while altering their own lifestyle choices little if at all.

My plan is to be as self-sustaining as possible, and location is key to that. About an hour in from the Gulf seems like the sweet spot for me.

While still subject to hurricanes and tropical storms, the wind force is often reduced significantly 60 miles inland. Wildfires are very rare because of all the rain, usually 60+/- annually but 80+ for the last 4 years. Elevations are high enough to hedge against rising sea levels. The land is sloped enough for drainage yet flat enough to maintain some soil moisture. My spot has 12 feet of change from its highest and lowest point, enough for a pond and a low head, inexpensive hydropower system to supplement solar on extended cloudy days.

Temperatures are comfortable most of the year, so there's room for "warming". Here, temp swings are tempered by the gulf. Our growing season is considered 10+ months now. If it goes to year round, then I can grow my own coffee!

There's plenty of freshwater sources available from surface, subsurface and rain. A pond, seasonal creek, shallow solar powered water well, and rain catchment system should do me and mine just fine.

I'll start my off grid house this year, and build for the environment. Lots of shade trees, raised floor, windows and doors covered by porches and awnings, light colored roofing and exterior walls, home office, energy efficient, small footprint.

I know I may sound like a prepper crossed with an earth muffin but in reality I'm just cheap. Green can be cheap, especially for DIYers.

That's my plan. I'm curious what you guys are doing on an individual basis to address the coming changes.

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm honestly not trying to "win" a debate, but I am trying to figure out what the resistance is to the idea that the world is getting warmer, it is getting warmer faster than in past climate change events, humans are a significant part of that, and this is risky, greatly increasing the probability of high cost scenarios.

So, for skeptics out there, I am willing to talk through their concerns and see where I can hopefully clear things up.

IMO, the debate really shouldn't be over whether this is happening or not, but over what we should do about it and how.

What about the people like me who believe in climate change, thinks man has contributed to climate change in reagrds to CO2, thinks we should have clean water, land and air, but don't think we should wreck our economy for such a minuscule reduction in the global temperature?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

What about the people like me who believe in climate change, thinks man has contributed to climate change in reagrds to CO2, thinks we should have clean water, land and air, but don't think we should wreck our economy for such a minuscule reduction in the global temperature?

So, this is an area where there is more ambiguity b/c you're throwing in economics where it's really hard to determine what the exact economic costs of global warming, and what the net costs of prevention would be.

I would start by asking why you think corrections would wreck our economy. What are you basing that on? And what do you think the costs of not doing anything would be?

And since my aim would be to convince you to take the more conservative approach (see what I did there), and adopt a more risk averse position, I'd ask what sort of economic models are you comfortable with, and I'd go about trying to use those economic models to show you that you're better off in the long term by lowering carbon emissions today.

 

[dtc]

What about the people like me who believe in climate change, thinks man has contributed to climate change in reagrds to CO2, thinks we should have clean water, land and air, but don't think we should wreck our economy for such a minuscule reduction in the global temperature?

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but for folks like you I think you should have a more positive outlook and do what you can. Think big. Think American, but more than anything, support policies which are environmentally sustainable.

Oh, and it's not too big of a problem. It's a problem, but it's been shown time and time again that these very complex issues have solutions. And it's not going to wreck the economy to avoid. Actually, it's pretty likely that sustainable technology is the driver of the future economy.

 

[MT15]

Exactly, UTJ and dtc. We need something like the moon program. Commit to it and turn scientists loose. We gained far more from the moon program than it cost to do it.

 

[BrewDrees9]

Best way to win people over is by not brow-beating them. Every time I see Greta I want to pour toxic waste directly onto a coral reef. Oh- and I accept climate change as a natural occurrence neither helped nor stalled by human activity.... thanks!

 

[N.O.Bronco]

What about the people like me who believe in climate change, thinks man has contributed to climate change in reagrds to CO2, thinks we should have clean water, land and air, but don't think we should wreck our economy for such a minuscule reduction in the global temperature?

The cost of not doing anything is far more expensive and dangerous than even the most expensive Green New Deal.

So suggestion, accept the facts and adjust your thinking.

If I was a politician I might care to cater to this type of nonsense, but the facts and economics have been widely known and established for decades now. The problem and burden is no longer on us to convince you. It’s on you all to expel your ignorance and adjust to reality.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Lapaz]

Best way to win people over is by not brow-beating them. Every time I see Greta I want to pour toxic waste directly onto a coral reef. Oh- and I accept climate change as a natural occurrence neither helped nor stalled by human activity.... thanks!

What model supports your belief that humans aren’t impacting the environment? Also, if all of the scientists for the last 30 years haven’t convinced you, what approach would convince you?

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DaveXA]

Interesting, particularly Graham.

 

[Taurus]

Interesting, particularly Graham.

Without Twitter, it'll be interesting to see how Trump responds to his third-favorite bootlicker showing signs of a primitive notochord.

 

[cxz37]

I am more worried about war with Russia that some NWO lunatics in this administration are pushing for.

 

[samiam5211]

I am more worried about war with Russia that some NWO lunatics in this administration are pushing for.

Sure, the it is the NWO lunatics in the Biden administration who are escalating the situation. Poor Putin is just minding his own business.