How to Adjust to Climate Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…

What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?

We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]

Why not let Mr. Cooper run with this?

Ok, DB, write down your list of necessary actions (personal, national, global), prioritize them, put probabilities on them, and give them each an expected cost over the next 25 years.

Oh, and don’t try to mitigate the inevitable; we are not going to reverse anthropogenic global warming because the Siberian tundra is just degrees away from melting and releasing eons of stored methane. Scientists have told me so.

22

Tea party members ‘solidly more scientifically literate than non tea party members.’

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, are you pink tutu-ing again? I swear you are too smart to be doing this.

Is this an exercise?[/quote]

Too smart to be doing what? Anthropogenic climate change is occurring as we speak, the evidence is in, the evidence to the contrary is illegitimate and uses poor science to arrive at the opposite conclusion, and I think it’s appropriate to have a discussion about how to prepare for the changes that we will continue to see happen. I’m not going to sit here and waste my time arguing about it with people whose knowledge of the subject is so limited as to point to the abnormally cold winter the northeast experienced as evidence that global warming is not occurring. I’m not going to sit here and argue with people who are so ignorant as to think that a 17-year “pause” in the warming trend is an indication that nothing is amiss.

You’re right. I’m too smart to waste my time with dead-end arguments of such a nature.

It is my hope that this thread will move beyond the petty arguments and start looking at the reality of the situation. I don’t know that human efforts can do much, if anything, to mitigate the changes to the climate. But as I’ve expounded on in the past, we can certainly take steps to prepare for certain eventualities.

If you have a problem with that, fine. This thread isn’t for you then. You are one of the most vocal proponents of sticking to the original topic of a thread in this forum, so I’d ask that you show the same respect toward this thread that you demand of ones that you have created in the past. If you want to argue whether there is a problem or not, fine. But that isn’t what this thread is for; it’s for discussing solutions and preparations.

24

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…

What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?

We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]

Why not let Mr. Cooper run with this?

Ok, DB, write down your list of necessary actions (personal, national, global), prioritize them, put probabilities on them, and give them each an expected cost over the next 25 years.

Oh, and don’t try to mitigate the inevitable; we are not going to reverse anthropogenic global warming because the Siberian tundra is just degrees away from melting and releasing eons of stored methane. Scientists have told me so.
[/quote]

I’d love to write all that down, but I lack the knowledge necessary to create a perfectly prioritized list, including all costs over the next 25 years, hence this thread. I’d like to hear from people who have contemplated this thread’s topic. There are all sorts of things that will change that I simply haven’t anticipated, yet.

25

This gave me a good chuckle on a Monday morning. Especially the “accelerated rates rarely, if ever, seen in the last several hundred thousand years” part.

26

Ok then, so how about a national water system?

Whether there is exceptional drought or flooding, we would still need potable water. How could it be gone about to get it from where it occurs naturally, like all of our major river basins- to where it is needed? I would propose a closed system that can primarily tap the great lakes and provide drinking water from the foothills of the Rockies east and south. Piping significant quantities over the elevation and distance of the Rockies would be ridiculously expensive energy wise

Then there’s food supply. How can we produce basic food products like grains, vegetables and general meat products to provide for a population of our size in an expanding and intensely more arid climate?

Some areas would simply have to be abandoned as a going agricultural or living concern. Irrigating the desert southwest and southern California is already a giant waste of resources, so we’re also looking at relocation.

The northern maritime rain forest would probably remain inhabitable and productive.

27

Climate change is a global problem and thus requires a global solution. Interestingly enough, this makes it not only within the purview of environmental science, but international relations as well. The late John Herz, a seminal scholar of IR, addresses the political side of climate change in his so called “survival research.”

Climatologists are virtually unanimous in their belief that climate change is not only a reality, but anthropogenic. Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so.

28

I know! How about biofuels?

Ooops. I guess not.
But then, anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of chemistry could have guessed that biofuels would fail to reduce carbon emissions, would increase the cost of food and waste huge amounts of money, untallied.
But real scientists were “virtually unanimous” in the their opinion, and the state of Iowa is important in electoral politics.

Come on, DB, you have thoroughly studied the subject. You have defended your position on numerous threads. Scientists are 97% unanimous in their opinion and you share it.

Now what are we to do, and how much will it cost?

29

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…

What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?

We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]

Assuming? Anthropogenic climate change most certainly is occurring. If you stack the totality of evidence supporting this against the evidence saying otherwise

[/quote]

I assume, of course, that you are perfectly capable of understanding the chemistry, statistics, methodology, atmospheric physics and other mathematical methods needed to assess the data so confidently.

I disagree that climate change is going to be the military’s #1 problem in the future. Mexico is nowhere near capable of enforcing its will on us…IF we have the will to stop them and lay down a hard line. We currently do not because of politics, not military constraints. Instead of military, I believe the problem will be policy. It is already problem now and we have done nothing really to solve it.

I’d agree though that given your scenario global warming will a driver behind foreign policy problems and conflicts. This seems much more likely given that We have only one real problematic neighbor to the south and are protected by 2 oceans from other “tribes” the will look to immigrate. If we were in Europe/ME I would revise my stance, that place will heat up rapidly (pun intended).

30

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so. [/quote]

How about a masters in biochemistry and biophysics combined with current research career? That about do it for you?

And I’m not a naysayer. I’ve been on DB’s ass about his and the IPCC’s asinine attitude towards it, not denying that GC exists. I’m only forced into the role because people who have zero appreciable knowledge of chemistry like to post the sort of thing that he does and paint all skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as illiterates. You will notice, if you read attentively, that I’ve never made that blanket claim in reverse and that most scientifically active research personnel at major research universities are not making that claim either, which belongs only on fringe publications.

32

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Tea party members ‘solidly more scientifically literate than non tea party members.’

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/[/quote]

Really! I mean really? Are you sure that you want to pretend based on this single finding (a whopping correlation of .05) that tea-baggers are more scientifically literate than non-teabaggers?

Any scientist worth a shit would NEVER claim that a correlation this small is important.

If you need a review of power, type I errors, here is a good website (Type I and II Errors).

jnd

33

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…

What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?

We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]

Assuming? Anthropogenic climate change most certainly is occurring. If you stack the totality of evidence supporting this against the evidence saying otherwise

[/quote]

I assume, of course, that you are perfectly capable of understanding the chemistry, statistics, methodology, atmospheric physics and other mathematical methods needed to assess the data so confidently.

I disagree that climate change is going to be the military’s #1 problem in the future. Mexico is nowhere near capable of enforcing its will on us…IF we have the will to stop them and lay down a hard line. We currently do not because of politics, not military constraints. Instead of military, I believe the problem will be policy. It is already problem now and we have done nothing really to solve it.

I’d agree though that given your scenario global warming will a driver behind foreign policy problems and conflicts. This seems much more likely given that We have only one real problematic neighbor to the south and are protected by 2 oceans from other “tribes” the will look to immigrate. If we were in Europe/ME I would revise my stance, that place will heat up rapidly (pun intended).

[/quote]

We are indeed protected from direct mass migration by the oceans. Though there are almost half a billion people on the other side of the Texas-Mexico border, if we count the nations beyond Mexico.

However, I think the military is thinking a little more indirectly–and much shorter-term. A smaller crop yield —> fewer loaves of bread in the market —> widespread unrest —> protests —> a country full of young Islamic men (and nuclear weapons?) begins to destabilize. Etc. Not that the military can really do much about any of that.

34

I think you will find the part about how Eugenics was once accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists to be undisputed fact…quite fascinating.

35

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…

What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?

We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]

Assuming? Anthropogenic climate change most certainly is occurring. If you stack the totality of evidence supporting this against the evidence saying otherwise

[/quote]

I assume, of course, that you are perfectly capable of understanding the chemistry, statistics, methodology, atmospheric physics and other mathematical methods needed to assess the data so confidently.

I disagree that climate change is going to be the military’s #1 problem in the future. Mexico is nowhere near capable of enforcing its will on us…IF we have the will to stop them and lay down a hard line. We currently do not because of politics, not military constraints. Instead of military, I believe the problem will be policy. It is already problem now and we have done nothing really to solve it.

I’d agree though that given your scenario global warming will a driver behind foreign policy problems and conflicts. This seems much more likely given that We have only one real problematic neighbor to the south and are protected by 2 oceans from other “tribes” the will look to immigrate. If we were in Europe/ME I would revise my stance, that place will heat up rapidly (pun intended).

[/quote]

We are indeed protected from direct mass migration by the oceans. Though there are almost half a billion people on the other side of the Texas-Mexico border, if we count the nations beyond Mexico.

However, I think the military is thinking a little more indirectly–and much shorter-term. A smaller crop yield —> fewer loaves of bread in the market —> widespread unrest —> protests —> a country full of young Islamic men (and nuclear weapons?) begins to destabilize. Etc. Not that the military can really do much about any of that.[/quote]

Well I suppose seen this way it is probably true. However I tend to lump this in with foreign policy as I mentioned above, primarily because 1) the military can’t do anything about that and 2) the military should be a LAST resort of solving foreign policy objectives, so although they may in fact have to deal with this scenario (and already are in some ways) IMO that represents a failure of FP rather than a military problem.

36

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Well I suppose seen this way it is probably true. However I tend to lump this in with foreign policy as I mentioned above, primarily because 1) the military can’t do anything about that and 2) the military should be a LAST resort of solving foreign policy objectives, so although they may in fact have to deal with this scenario (and already are in some ways) IMO that represents a failure of FP rather than a military problem.[/quote]

Yeah, when I say “thinking about,” I don’t mean “thinking about ways to fight climate change.” I mean “thinking about where food shortages might, in the future, destabilize civil society and cause us headaches.”

37

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Well I suppose seen this way it is probably true. However I tend to lump this in with foreign policy as I mentioned above, primarily because 1) the military can’t do anything about that and 2) the military should be a LAST resort of solving foreign policy objectives, so although they may in fact have to deal with this scenario (and already are in some ways) IMO that represents a failure of FP rather than a military problem.[/quote]

Yeah, when I say “thinking about,” I don’t mean “thinking about ways to fight climate change.” I mean “thinking about where food shortages might, in the future, destabilize civil society and cause us headaches.”[/quote]

Agreed here

38

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Climate change is a global problem and thus requires a global solution. Interestingly enough, this makes it not only within the purview of environmental science, but international relations as well. The late John Herz, a seminal scholar of IR, addresses the political side of climate change in his so called “survival research.”

Climatologists are virtually unanimous in their belief that climate change is not only a reality, but anthropogenic. Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so. [/quote]

I don’t have to have a nutritional science degree to know the traditional US food pyramid, created and advocated by US doctors and scientists, was not a healthy way to eat. As such, I’m intelligent enough to realize the climate has and will change regardless of human activity and this current hysteria is nothing more than a funding mechanism of a new religion.

Do you believe second-hand smoke causes lung cancer? The scientists at the WHO have stated there is no link between the two.

39

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Ok then, so how about a national water system?

Whether there is exceptional drought or flooding, we would still need potable water. How could it be gone about to get it from where it occurs naturally, like all of our major river basins- to where it is needed? I would propose a closed system that can primarily tap the great lakes and provide drinking water from the foothills of the Rockies east and south. Piping significant quantities over the elevation and distance of the Rockies would be ridiculously expensive energy wise

Then there’s food supply. How can we produce basic food products like grains, vegetables and general meat products to provide for a population of our size in an expanding and intensely more arid climate?

Some areas would simply have to be abandoned as a going agricultural or living concern. Irrigating the desert southwest and southern California is already a giant waste of resources, so we’re also looking at relocation.

The northern maritime rain forest would probably remain inhabitable and productive.
[/quote]

The federal gov’t quietly added quite a lot of irrigation canals and other such waterways under their aegis after some decision from the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act. I’m a little fuzzy on the details of that one.

I think the thing to keep in mind and prepare for is the fact that as droughts increase in certain areas, the groundwater that is used to compensate for the lack of rainwater will lead to subsidence. Large swaths of the San Joaquin Valley in California have dropped by 10-25 feet in the last decade or so. There is legitimate concern that the San Joaquin River will not flow to the Pacific anymore as a result. The increased salinity in that area as a result would be disastrous for agriculture.

I totally agree with the part about irrigating the Southwest and so on. Federal subsidies, which I generally abhor anyways, should be completely off the table when it comes to any sort of water-intensive crop (particularly rice), and subsidies for improving canals and irrigation ditches in those areas should be abandoned as well.

40

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Ok then, so how about a national water system?

Whether there is exceptional drought or flooding, we would still need potable water. How could it be gone about to get it from where it occurs naturally, like all of our major river basins- to where it is needed? I would propose a closed system that can primarily tap the great lakes and provide drinking water from the foothills of the Rockies east and south. Piping significant quantities over the elevation and distance of the Rockies would be ridiculously expensive energy wise

Then there’s food supply. How can we produce basic food products like grains, vegetables and general meat products to provide for a population of our size in an expanding and intensely more arid climate?

Some areas would simply have to be abandoned as a going agricultural or living concern. Irrigating the desert southwest and southern California is already a giant waste of resources, so we’re also looking at relocation.

The northern maritime rain forest would probably remain inhabitable and productive.
[/quote]

The federal gov’t quietly added quite a lot of irrigation canals and other such waterways under their aegis after some decision from the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act. I’m a little fuzzy on the details of that one.

I think the thing to keep in mind and prepare for is the fact that as droughts increase in certain areas, the groundwater that is used to compensate for the lack of rainwater will lead to subsidence. Large swaths of the San Joaquin Valley in California have dropped by 10-25 feet in the last decade or so. There is legitimate concern that the San Joaquin River will not flow to the Pacific anymore as a result. The increased salinity in that area as a result would be disastrous for agriculture.

I totally agree with the part about irrigating the Southwest and so on. Federal subsidies, which I generally abhor anyways, should be completely off the table when it comes to any sort of water-intensive crop (particularly rice), and subsidies for improving canals and irrigation ditches in those areas should be abandoned as well.[/quote]

I wouldn’t want an open source like trenches and canals for the simple problems of stagnation, contamination and loss through evaporation. Or theft for that matter. In either scenario-drought or flooding any one or combination of those could be devastating. It would be a commodity that needs to be protected. Water would become the new oil.(I’ve heard it said that it will be anyways, for a number of reasons)