Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[TimG]

How do we explain to them that they have to relocate to a bigger island because sorry, we burned too many fossel fuels for them to survive on their own island.

How do you explain to a family that has to watch a child die because someone decided to make energy so expensive that they no longer had money to pay for healthcare?

People use fossil fuels because they are the cheapest source of energy. If society stops using fossil fuels then the standard of living will go down and that will mean less money to pay for everything from shelter to healthcare. People who think that they can have everything they have now without fossil fuels are simply deluded.

Edited May 17, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

ROTFLMAO. Your response proves again that you have a HUGE problem with reading comprehension. There is really no point in discussing it further until you come up with a response that demonstrates you actually understood the words I wrote

Get back to me if and when you sort out the difference between tidal flow and sea level.

[TimG]

Get back to me if and when you sort out the difference between tidal flow and sea level.

I know the difference. You are the one who clearly does not understand some very basic concepts.

[On Guard for Thee]

I know the difference. You are the one who clearly does not understand some very basic concepts.

And what concepts might those be? Your previous comments indicated you didn't know the difference. I trust you have that sorted now.

[TimG]

And what concepts might those be? Your previous comments indicated you didn't know the difference..

I knew the difference. You simply assumed I did know the difference because of your own comprehension problems. You see you do not understand that makes no difference why water level reaches a certain level all that matters is the level it reaches. Edited May 17, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I knew the difference. You simply assumed I did know the difference because of your own comprehension problems. You see you do not understand that makes no difference why water level reaches a certain level all that matters is the level it reaches.

I know quite well why it reaches various levels. Had to do with global cooling a few million years ago, and global warming now. Water kinda goes up and down with temperature. And once again, I think it makes a difference to people who live in low lyeing areas nearit, such as the Maldives, Marshall Islands, New York City, New Orleans, need I go on?

[WestCoastRunner]

How do you explain to a family that has to watch a child die because someone decided to make energy so expensive that they no longer had money to pay for healthcare?

People use fossil fuels because they are the cheapest source of energy. If society stops using fossil fuels then the standard of living will go down and that will mean less money to pay for everything from shelter to healthcare. People who think that they can have everything they have now without fossil fuels are simply deluded.

Than perhaps we should have a consortium of countries to pool together resources to relocate these people.

[TimG]

Than perhaps we should have a consortium of countries to pool together resources to relocate these people.

We already have mechanisms in place to offer assistance to countries facing natural disasters whether they are earthquakes, weather or famine. I am sure that over the next 400 years the people of Tuvalu will be taken care of. That does not mean this is a problem that requires any special attention. Edited May 17, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

We already have mechanisms in place to offer assistance to countries facing natural disasters whether they are earthquakes, weather or famine. I am sure that over the next 400 years the people of Tuvalu will be taken care of. That does not mean this is a problem that requires any special attention.

Did you come to that conclusion based on astrology?

[Keepitsimple]

If some people are worried about rising sea levels, there's a canary in the coal mine right in the Florida Keys - 125 miles of skinny little islands connected by a bunch of bridges - the highest elevation is 18 feet with the average elevation being just 3 to 4 feet! When these islands start to lose their miniscule land mass, I'll start to pay attention. It's been over 30 years since we started hearing the warnings of rising oceans - but those darn observations keep throwing sand at the predictions.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

I've read that the real estate industry and much of the people who own real estate in the Keys feel more alarmed about alarmism than, you know, the alarm they should be feeling.

[-1=e^ipi]

I just wanted to add, that the study I linked to in my last post indicates that half of the warming in Greenland and the Canadian arctic in the past few decades was not due to increases in CO2 concentrations. Since I did not account for this in my calculations, my calculations OVERSTATE the amount of change to the jetstreams that we should expect under the scenario described in my original post.

And is not the population inhabiting our planet earth screwing up the delicate geology with planet earth? So, because Tuvalu, a small island in the south pacific, that no one has really heard of, they make no difference in the big picture even though families who inhabit this island are impacted by global warming. How do we explain to them that they have to relocate to a bigger island because sorry, we burned too many fossel fuels for them to survive on their own island.

The thing is that some places will gain from climate change, while other places will lose. Is it hard to believe that loss in habitability of Tuvulu which has a land area of 26 square kilometers can be offset by gains in the habitability of Canada which has a land area of 10 million square kilometers? Canada is about 38,000 times the size. Let alone the economic & humanitarian costs of performing extreme CO2 mitigation policies by not using fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy.

[eyeball]

Is it hard to believe that loss in habitability of Tuvulu which has a land area of 26 square kilometers can be offset by gains in the habitability of Canada which has a land area of 10 million square kilometers? Canada is about 38,000 times the size. Let alone the economic & humanitarian costs of performing extreme CO2 mitigation policies by not using fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy.

It's hard to believe that gains in habitability will be realized or offset losses in a time span that means much to anyone. It's easy enough to say life will adapt over the long-term as measured by hundreds, thousands and millions of years but it's easy to imagine this will be preceded by a deep prolonged social and economic interregnum that could last for generations.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's hard to believe that gains in habitability will be realized or offset losses in a time span that means much to anyone. It's easy enough to say life will adapt over the long-term as measured by hundreds, thousands and millions of years but it's easy to imagine this will be preceded by a deep prolonged social and economic interregnum that could last for generations.

Do you have proof or evidence for these implicit claims or is it another of your posts that contain unjustified nonsense?

[TimG]

it's easy to imagine this will be preceded by a deep prolonged social and economic interregnum that could last for generations.

It is also easy to imagine that humans will adapt easily without any major hardship to whatever changes may come.

[bleeding heart]

So the "Climate change might be awesome" dudes are offering sober political analysis....whereas the "it might not be awesome" dudes are sputtering "unjustified nonsense."

Just to clarify the parameters of the current "debate."

[TimG]

So the "Climate change might be awesome" dudes are offering sober political analysis....whereas the "it might not be awesome" dudes are sputtering "unjustified nonsense."

The real question is what to do if we have no information? My position is all climate predictions (good and bad) are garbage and making decisions as if any are likely to be true is delusional. That is the rational position.

[cybercoma]

The real question is what to do if we have no information? My position is all climate predictions (good and bad) are garbage and making decisions as if any are likely to be true is delusional. That is the rational position.

Aside from the fact that there is scientific consensus on climate change, you don't even need to look at predictions. You can look at the historical models and see the impact people are having.

Maybe just stick to your position that it's "no big deal."

[Keepitsimple]

Aside from the fact that there is scientific consensus on climate change, you don't even need to look at predictions. You can look at the historical models and see the impact people are having.

You mean those 73 computer models - all of which failed to predict that there would be little if any warming over the last 17 years.....which collectively, on average, over-estimated the warming by an average of 3 to 4 degrees? You mean those historical models? I'll even post a link which you failed to do:

Link: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=8926a1d3-f43f-4f8b-811d-0a0daa3e1012

[TimG]

Aside from the fact that there is scientific consensus on climate change, you don't even need to look at predictions. You can look at the historical models and see the impact people are having.

There is no evidence that climate change has had any harmful effects to date (warmer weather is does not mean harm). All of the claims in the media are simply not supported by the scientific literature (links to storms, drought, et. al.).

IOW - there is absolutely no consensus that climate change has had a negative effect so far and all of the predictions of the future are just that: predictions.

Frankly, it is quite hypocritical for you to talk about the listening to the "scientific consensus" when you always ignore the "consensus" (i.e. the consensus that there have been no identifiable negative effects from climate change to date) when the consensus fails to fit what you want to believe.

Edited May 18, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

If you think there is any consensus that climate change is nothing to worry about and no big deal, you're delusional.

[TimG]

If you think there is any consensus that climate change is nothing to worry about and no big deal, you're delusional.

That is not what I said (not surprising since misrepresenting skeptical positions is a common tactic used by alarmists).

What I said is there is no consensus that climate change has had any negative effects to date. If there is any consensus it is that there is no evidence that climate change is making extreme weather events like hurricanes or droughts more frequent or damaging.

If there is a consensus that bad things will happen in the future it is a consensus based on climate models which have little connection with the real world. It is not a consensus based on analyzing real data.

Edited May 18, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

If you think there is any consensus that climate change is nothing to worry about and no big deal, you're delusional.

Kinda reminds you of that old business of Nero fiddling while Rome burns" literally, doesn't it.

[Wayward Son]

Do you have proof or evidence for these implicit claims or is it another of your posts that contain unjustified nonsense?

It would depend on what percentage of the habitability are primary succession, autogenic succession or allogenic succession. Regardless, the belief that this currently uninhabitable land would quickly become in any meaningful way habitable is pretty at odds with the mainstream thinking of scientific experts. As is the belief that these areas would become habitable at a time when the losses would consist of only Tuvulu and not current coastal areas throughout the world.

[WestCoastRunner]

It is also easy to imagine that humans will adapt easily without any major hardship to whatever changes may come.

I can't imagine these islands that will vanish due to sea levels rising will adapt easily without any major hardship.

Kiribati (halfway between Hawaii and Australia) population, just over 100k

Maldives - population 325k

Seychelles - population just under 100k

Solomon Islands - population close to 600k

Micronesia - population close 100k

How much responsibility should the U.S., Canada, China, UK etc take in absorbing the cost to relocate these people as they certainly won't have the funds? (there are many other islands that I have not included in this list)