Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

Beliefs are subject to scriptures. Science is subject to peer review. You've conflated two very different things. Opposites, actually.

 

Wow. 0.13 inches a year. How will we ever survive? In another 92 thousand years, I will be under water.

But again we don't know how much of that is due to AGW.

 

Oh stop. It's accelerating. Even if it stops accelerating, that's over a foot in 100 years. If it keeps accelerating it could be two feet in 100 years. There are other factors to consider, like the recently discovered fracturing of Antarctic glaciers due to warming. We can't dismiss the possibility of a catastrophic event.

You and I don't. Thankfully, we have scientists that do.

 

Some people just can't think beyond their own little world, or how future generations will be affected. Me, I have kids, I don't want to leave them a mess.

 

Floridians are taking it seriously.

New projections show that South Florida is in for even more sea level rise

The region went from expecting between 14 and 26 inches of sea level rise by 2060 — commonly shortened to two feet by 2060 by local leaders — to predicting 17 to 31 inches of sea rise.



“These numbers are all big enough that you can see that South Florida gets in big trouble quickly,” said Harold Wanless, a University of Miami professor of geology and member of the projections team. “If you look out the window, like the areas in the Keys that are flooding for weeks on end, this is not something that might happen, this is something that is already happening.“

 

If you have real estate on Miami Beach, it is time to get out, before it is too late.

That's when actual change will happen. When the wealthy see their ocean front home's real estate value at risk, you'll see that government will all of a sudden take climate change seriously.

 

You have scientists who are making a guess. That is the area where the scientists disagree. How much and what can be done about it.

 

That is the accepted theory, but practical real situations can differ. Why do you suppose very few of credited climate scientists are not trying to disprove the current theory of global warming in all of its detail? Why do the few scientists who disagree with some detail of AGW have difficulty in getting peer reviewed publications? Why are the few scientists who disagree with some detail of AGW loudly denigrated by other scientists?

If a scientists does a lot of work and determines that it looks like such and such, and then vehemently professes that result and completely rejects any questioning, that is a religious belief.

 

If a scientist completely rejects contrary opinions of a peer scientist out of hand, that is expressing a religious belief.

 

It's not a guess, which you're entirely aware of. I'm puzzled at your attempts to declare it so.

Variations in the models are to be expected. See the graph I posted above. The median model, which appears to continue the current rate of acceleration out to 100 years, predicts a 40 inch rise in sea level by 2120. This will alter shorelines around the world. The extreme prediction is 175 inches, which will leave Miami and New Orleans under water. It's nothing to dismiss as a guess.

 

You'll have to give me an example. I'm not aware of any scientist doing what you claim.

 

Science writes it own scriptures...
Not the least of which is that a 1part per 1000 increase in CO2 is more problematic than a 3000 % increase in the amount of the planet covered in adphalt.

 

The Keys will go first.





If the predictions are correct, that will be low tide in 2060.

 

It is a model in which a number of estimates are used. There is no way to verify the validity of the estimates. So it is an estimate based on a number of questionable estimates. That is pretty much a guess.

 

Okie-doke kriman. You believe what you want.

I see them as variables based on known factors, assuming various levels of human behavior, which is the only variable that's unpredictable, not guesses. I call it the greenhouse effect, which was formulated and proven in 1896. If you pump a certain amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, you can expect the avg temp of the earth to rise by a certain amount. This has been proven over and over. Call it what you want.

 

Then you have been oblivious to the way the climate science community excoriates the likes of Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, and Curry.

 

So, nothing. It's okay. I'm used to it.

 

One of the areas you are wrong. The basic greenhouse effect was eventually proven following Arrhenius' efforts (after he was thoroughly beaten up by the science community) but only to the extent that it does happen, However, not to how much it happens. The base forcing equation that determines temp rise for a doubling of CO2 is based on an assumption -- a best guess if you will even if backed by scientific indications. That assumptive factor has been changed three or four times over the past 30 years as they think they learned a little more. There is nothing that can "prove" that the sea level will rise 20", 10" or 30" in the next decade or century, or that there will be large destructive atmospheric temperature rise even if we do nothing, other than SWAGs.

This is why I have always maintained that "do you believe in global warming?" is entirely the wrong question. The real question is 'do you believe that global warming will continue unabated and uncontrolled and cause problems, and to what extent...... (or conversely make things overall better)?'

 

Yes, you are correct that there are too many unknowns to definitively predict 100 years out, but the sea level is rising, and of course we will adjust the science based on more data. Doing nothing does not seem wise.

It has so far. I see no reason to think it will stop.

 

The science is there. There is a scientific consensus. I'm not anymore in the business of convincing anybody. Did that for 20 years. Denialists either need to read the science (or, alternatively, science popularization authors) or get out of the way of those who are dealing with the problem.

The world is a big place. There is room for hurricanes and droughts. Not sure I understand the question. Why wouldn't it produce conditions for both at the same time? Obviously not in the same place.

Global warming creates the conditions for more hurricanes. Also for more drought and more forest fires. It's not the only thing that produces those conditions. It just produces more of those conditions.

Weather and climate are very complex systems. The effects of Global Warming can only be seen statistically. It's not like you can identify this hurricane was created by AGW, but this other one wasn't. It's not how it works. Not how science works. The prediction was that a statistically significant increase in hurricanes and droughts (for example) would be experience. And, by God, they were right! What exact number, or even what exact statistic, is impossible to ascertain. But when things start happening as predicted, and no other cause exists (other than maybe, the power of God), then we safely say that the predictions were correct. And when those predictions were made by unanimous studies, we better pay attention. Lest we get burnt.

 

Only beyond a reasonable doubt. Science is not a good tool against unreasonable doubts, I'm afraid.

 

That's what I'm waiting for. Coastal property prices should crash once it's apparent that those areas will be gone. Right now though people are putting their money down.

 

New Climate Maps Show a Transformed United States

According to new data from the Rhodium Group analyzed by ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine, warming temperatures and changing rainfall will drive agriculture and temperate climates northward, while sea level rise will consume coastlines and dangerous levels of humidity will swamp the Mississippi River valley.

Taken with other recent research showing that the most habitable climate in North America will shift northward and the incidence of large fires will increase across the country, this suggests that the climate crisis will profoundly interrupt the way we live and farm in the United States. See how the North American places where humans have lived for thousands of years will shift and what changes are in store for your county.
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

Two major Antarctic glaciers are tearing loose from their restraints, scientists say
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...ng-loose-from-their-restraints-scientists-say

5 tropical cyclones are in the Atlantic at the same time for only the second time in history
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/14/weather/atlantic-ocean-5-active-tropical-cyclones/index.html

 

They are variables based on the unpredictable.. They have not been proven because for them to be proven you would have to know with certainty the other variables.

 

No need to be afraid. Questioning is how it should be.
They have not proved anything. Proving is not accomplished using equations and models where the variables are not well established.