Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
I'm leaving at this Jim. Too busy to engage in pointless arguments on the internet.
1. The global cooling argument from the 70's is way over played (see this link for more on that) https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
2. Spence had a good take on this above. Models are not wildly speculative assumptions. This video offers a good explanation on how models are made using historic data and carried into the future. The take away is that the exact prediction of any model is not important, but the overall consensus of these various independent models on increasing levels of CO2 are warming the atmosphere, and in the case of this video, reducing the sea ice cover in the arctic
The geological record provides solid evidence of the implications of warmer worlds, times with higher CO2 and higher sea level than present. Let’s take Sea level rise since we are in the coastal area of New England.
Sea level is rising. Period. Observations and data (NOT MODELS) show it has accelerated within the last few decades and that that is driven by thermal expansion and melting of land based ice related to a warming planet.
Even if you want to conclude that sea level rise is not accelerating, it is rising, and that means that for every area prone to flooding from storms (and sea level rise), that it is not going to get better. How many coastal communities have installed tide gates on storm drains in recent years because low areas are now flooding just on spring tides w/o storm surge? That is largely due to ~1 ft of sea level rise. Now picture 3 -5 feet. The extreme scenarios in S. New England are >10ft.
The degree of how much worse it gets is up for debate. Prudent planning for the next decades to deal with this, rather than sticking fingers in our ears and yelling is short sighted and will make adaptation harder in the future. That isn’t even adding in the increased height of storm surge or potential for more intense or more frequent storms.
Scott, I like you, but F--- off unless you are going to actually contribute to these discussions.
|
bryan, i run models all day long, to predict insurance losses. in these models, i have tons of historical data to base my assumptions on. if i’m trying to estimate how many auto accidents we will have in RI for every 100 cars we ensure, i can look at the number of accidents per 100 cars for each of the last 50 years. so the models are highly predictive, because there is a credible amount of historical data.
not so with climate change effects. the models
make wildly speculative assumptions, because it’s all brand new. it’s more complicated, with more moving pieces.
the sea is rising, that’s settled. how much if that is due to man, is wildly speculative, because we can’t know what sea labels would have been if man didn’t exist.
it’s very very important stuff, it needs to be researched. but don’t tell me that there aren’t broad assumptions because of the unknowns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device