EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:48 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: How are you persudaed?
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:48 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyR ... commenttop

comment 109

The difficulty of a huge problem with viewpoints so far seemingly far apart. I enjoyed reading this summation of a science view of itself vs a non science view persuaded by other means.


"Many scientists, trained in a discipline of evidence-based knowledge generation, fall naturally to presenting evidence-based arguments, with the idea that ultimately the evidence-based argument will be convincing beyond reasonable doubt. In many ways this invites an argument more suitable to our approach to legal problems. We the scientist will present the evidence base. This will stand in contrast to the arguments of the non-scientist. There will, ultimately, be judgment in favor of the evidence base, because, well, it becomes self evident. This form of argument does not recognize that we often look at evidence and make decisions that deny the existence of that evidence. We make decisions that align with, our desires, our beliefs and what we want to believe." ........ I think this fairly accurately sums up the rest. The science is what it is. Science shows no bias, takes no sides and is not influenced by emotions. People, on the hand are biased, will take sides and are influenced by emotions. Without an understanding of the science then a person's belief is allowed to become their driving influence on anything concerning the science. You are correct, Barefoot. Charts, insults, graphs, coddling, pictures of ice and snow, taking ones hand to guide them through the chaos or anything else will not change a person's belief until it becomes self evident that they held the wrong belief. ... Science is an understanding and not a belief. Any belief held does not have to be based on any facts that are known. "Beliefs" will be nurtured and strengthened until the facts become self evident and these beliefs are cast aside.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:22 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Since the "consensus" facts(IPCC's 4th report + other stuff) are that there is no danger of any catastrophy due to CO2 in the next centuary I will need to see something with a very strong evidence base to convice me that there is anything to worry about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Since the "consensus" facts(IPCC's 4th report + other stuff) are that there is no danger of any catastrophy due to CO2 in the next centuary I will need to see something with a very strong evidence base to convice me that there is anything to worry about.


Where exactly does the IPCC make such a statement? I will need something much stronger than your personal opinion of the situation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:30 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
My point exactly. Tim is certainly entitled to his own views of what the report says: but it would be helpful if he notes that his conclusions are his own, and not those of said report.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:00 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
IPCC:-

Worst case scenario 6.4 degree c temperature rise by 2100 resulting in a 59cm sea level rise.

This has since been revised down to 3.2c temp gain. Presumably the sea level change has droped as well.

Sounds nice to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:18 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
IPCC:-

Worst case scenario 6.4 degree c temperature rise by 2100 resulting in a 59cm sea level rise.

This has since been revised down to 3.2c temp gain. Presumably the sea level change has droped as well.

Sounds nice to me.


That is all well and good, but it does not sound nice to the experts, the insurance industry, the politicians who try to outlaw it, and anyone that understands the implications.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
IPCC:-

Worst case scenario 6.4 degree c temperature rise by 2100 resulting in a 59cm sea level rise.

This has since been revised down to 3.2c temp gain. Presumably the sea level change has droped as well.

Sounds nice to me.


Given Denmark currently spends ~$1 billion dollars USD a year on sea-level control for 5,316 km of coastline and there are 1,634,701 km of coastline in the world, there is ~308 times the coastline to control. That would be a minimum of ~$308 billion USD in cost if the numbers are extrapolated.

Given the GDP of the world in 2011 was $6,966 billion this would be a minimum of ~5% of the world GDP each year to deal with sea level rise. This, of course could be higher in some areas and lower in others where the land is just given up to the sea. This also assumes all countries would bear the cost, which is not correct as those with coastlines will pay those costs. That is also only the cost of sea level rise and does not touch on the impacts on current agriculture or infrastructure. Some countries will not be able to afford this hit.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:54 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
Given Denmark currently spends ~$1 billion dollars USD a year on sea-level control for 5,316 km of coastline and there are 1,634,701 km of coastline in the world, there is ~308 times the coastline to control. That would be a minimum of ~$308 billion USD in cost if the numbers are extrapolated.


If you use clasic Enviromental thinking then yes. If however you use more sensable normal assesments of the world then you should understand that Denmark is low lieing and exposed to rough seas. It is also densely populated and goes to great lengths to protect it's coast very little of which is cliff or salt mash or not valuable economically.

Quote:
Given the GDP of the world in 2011 was $6,966 billion this would be a minimum of ~5% of the world GDP each year to deal with sea level rise. This, of course could be higher in some areas and lower in others where the land is just given up to the sea. This also assumes all countries would bear the cost, which is not correct as those with coastlines will pay those costs. That is also only the cost of sea level rise and does not touch on the impacts on current agriculture or infrastructure. Some countries will not be able to afford this hit.


Second "green maths" rediculous multiple. Most of the world's coast line is not inhabited, the Arctic ocea, the Southern Ocean, the coast of western Austrailia or the coast of Western Sahara etc etc do not matter. Who cares if they move a few meters inland?

The inhabited coastal areas are made up of:-

1 Cliff. If the sea rises 2 feet up the cliff it does not matter. No change.

2 Salt marsh. The best sea defence there is. As the sea rises it will grow up with it, continuing to trap silt and slowly forming new land.

3 Beach. Beaches are active things where the sand or pebles are moved about by each wave and especially by large storm waves. They are created by the sea depositing sand in that place. If the sea level gradually rises the beach will generally rise with it. Such beaches are dangerous and popular places to build homes on, the next storm might take the beach away and destroy houses near it, It is a generally good idea to spend money fighting this. If you are rich enough to buy beach front property then you should understand it comes with a price tag.

4 Built enviroment. Dockyards and ports will have to be repaired and rebuilt many times over the next 100 years. That's how it goes in industrial sites. That there may be small changes in sea level will be nothing to the changes in such things as the depth of the hulls of the ships. There are plans to build "Malaka Max" ships, the biggest ships that can fit between Singapore and Jarva(?). They will need new dockyard facilities.

5 Coastal rigid defences such as the Dutch Dykes. When they are being maintained they will need a couple of feet adding on to them. Add 20% to the budget and see how it does. In 10 years time check if more is needed.

None of these coastal enviroments will need much more money spent on them than is done so now. Perhaps the budget of Denmark's sea defence department will have to rise by the amount Denmark spends on painting white line on the roads. Everywhere else will get of a lot lighter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:54 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
Given Denmark currently spends ~$1 billion dollars USD a year on sea-level control for 5,316 km of coastline and there are 1,634,701 km of coastline in the world, there is ~308 times the coastline to control. That would be a minimum of ~$308 billion USD in cost if the numbers are extrapolated.


If you use clasic Enviromental thinking then yes. If however you use more sensable normal assesments of the world then you should understand that Denmark is low lieing and exposed to rough seas.


As would be nearly every coastline in the world with an additional 2 foot increase in sea height. There would be some which would not and there would be some which would be more impacted, which would average out.

Quote:
It is also densely populated and goes to great lengths to protect it's coast very little of which is cliff or salt mash or not valuable economically.


But you stated they spent more on traffic signals at one time did you not? The neat thing about sea level rise is that it affects a lot of area and to protect a small area can cause more of a rise in other nearby areas.

Quote:
Quote:
Given the GDP of the world in 2011 was $6,966 billion this would be a minimum of ~5% of the world GDP each year to deal with sea level rise. This, of course could be higher in some areas and lower in others where the land is just given up to the sea. This also assumes all countries would bear the cost, which is not correct as those with coastlines will pay those costs. That is also only the cost of sea level rise and does not touch on the impacts on current agriculture or infrastructure. Some countries will not be able to afford this hit.


Second "green maths" rediculous multiple. Most of the world's coast line is not inhabited, the Arctic ocea, the Southern Ocean, the coast of western Austrailia or the coast of Western Sahara etc etc do not matter. Who cares if they move a few meters inland?


I think you have some supporting evidence to provide concerning the claim most of the world's coastline not being inhabited. I know od people who actually live on the western coast of Australia and I cannot see them holding the view you do about it not mattering.

You also ignore the problem with the harbors and ports where the rise cannot just be mitigated with a soil berm. Thus the average cost use considers such inequalities in cost.

Quote:
The inhabited coastal areas are made up of:-

1 Cliff. If the sea rises 2 feet up the cliff it does not matter. No change.


What percentage of the coastlines are covered?

Quote:
2 Salt marsh. The best sea defence there is. As the sea rises it will grow up with it, continuing to trap silt and slowly forming new land.


Actually the salt marsh would be covered with two feet of seawater and the new salt marsh would be on land farther inland.

Quote:
3 Beach. Beaches are active things where the sand or pebles are moved about by each wave and especially by large storm waves. They are created by the sea depositing sand in that place. If the sea level gradually rises the beach will generally rise with it. Such beaches are dangerous and popular places to build homes on, the next storm might take the beach away and destroy houses near it, It is a generally good idea to spend money fighting this. If you are rich enough to buy beach front property then you should understand it comes with a price tag.


The beach will move up and inland so it is now a lot farther inland than it was before. Thus all of the property, roads, etc. which were not over about 3 feet higher than the ocean now are going to be beach in the future. The price tag is very high when talking about 2 feet, but you said there would be no problems and this sounds like an expensive problem you are trying to ignore.

Quote:
4 Built enviroment. Dockyards and ports will have to be repaired and rebuilt many times over the next 100 years. That's how it goes in industrial sites. That there may be small changes in sea level will be nothing to the changes in such things as the depth of the hulls of the ships. There are plans to build "Malaka Max" ships, the biggest ships that can fit between Singapore and Jarva(?). They will need new dockyard facilities.


Draft is generally attained by dredging channels etc. not building new facilities. The increased replacement rate IS a cost you also seem to be ignoring in the claim of there not being a problem.

Quote:
5 Coastal rigid defences such as the Dutch Dykes. When they are being maintained they will need a couple of feet adding on to them. Add 20% to the budget and see how it does. In 10 years time check if more is needed.


How did you arrive at a 20% increase for the Dutch? The increase in sea level will have an exponential impact on the normal maintenance levels in addition to the cost of adding the new level of protection.

Quote:
None of these coastal enviroments will need much more money spent on them than is done so now. Perhaps the budget of Denmark's sea defence department will have to rise by the amount Denmark spends on painting white line on the roads. Everywhere else will get of a lot lighter.


This sounds like a WAG unsupported by anything other than wishful thinking. If they spend 1 billion dollars a year now with no increase in sea level, how do you conclude an increase of 2 feet will not cause an increase in maintenance costs or the cost of new levels?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2240
Location: Central Colorado
I think we should build walls to prevent the coastal people from moving inland. Let them go out to sea, while we on our burning mountaintops wave goodbye, and the inland desert takes over below.....Dim the Dumber has 'persudated' me that all will be fine and the heat is "droping". I guess that is good. :crazy: Think only of now and don't think about the future. #-o "ShaLa LaLa LaLa live for today, let's not worry about tomorrow hey, hey, hey." (The Grass Roots) :- :-({|= =; :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:31 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
But you stated they spent more on traffic signals at one time did you not? The neat thing about sea level rise is that it affects a lot of area and to protect a small area can cause more of a rise in other nearby areas.


No, I said the increase in spending needed will be less than is spent on trafic lights. Although which exact post you refer to I forget.

I note that your position that we should take the Danish data and multiply it by the whole of earth's coast line and then multiply the percentage of GDP spent by Denmak by the whole of the world's GDP and then add some other numbers we just thought up has disapeared.

The world will not find dealing with a less than 2 foot sea level rise over the coming centuary very difficult.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:30 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
But you stated they spent more on traffic signals at one time did you not? The neat thing about sea level rise is that it affects a lot of area and to protect a small area can cause more of a rise in other nearby areas.


No, I said the increase in spending needed will be less than is spent on trafic lights. Although which exact post you refer to I forget.


And the supporting evidence for such a claim was where?

Quote:
I note that your position that we should take the Danish data and multiply it by the whole of earth's coast line and then multiply the percentage of GDP spent by Denmak by the whole of the world's GDP and then add some other numbers we just thought up has disapeared.


No, and if that is the example of your comprehension, I would question anything you say.

The Netherlands has ~20% of the area below sea level and ~50% <3 feet above sea level. Thus the change in now and in the future with a 2 foot rise would be ~2X since twice the area would be involved than now. The area previously protected would cost more to protect and such protections are not linear but exponential due to the multiplication of force.

Thus, we have some basis by which to make an educated guess at costs. The average cost per mile of coast is all I have given I do not have the number of miles currently protected. This gives a much lower number than actual per mile, but is a good start. This can be extrapolated over the other nations with the understanding that some areas will be less expensive and some will be much more expensive to protect, but that is the purpose of averages. Once we have a figure from which to work, based on the per mile average multiplied by the numbers of miles of coastline we can get a ballpark cost for the protection. That number is divided into the 2011 GDP figure for the world to get the percentage. The GDP of any nation was not used for any calculations.

Quote:
The world will not find dealing with a less than 2 foot sea level rise over the coming centuary very difficult.


That is your claim, but where is your evidence? You have already stated the less inhabited coastlines should be abandoned and those people will have to move inland. The costs of this move and the losses incurred seem to be easily ignored in your guesses. What percentage of the population will be forced to move and what percentage will be protected? that seems like it would be a critical aspcet which would have to be determined before any costs could be calculated. Then the costs for relocation would have to be calculated, the loss of property of those folks, and then the cost of protecting the rest. You believe this will be some small amount of money based on your hopes?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:34 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
IPCC:-

Worst case scenario 6.4 degree c temperature rise by 2100 resulting in a 59cm sea level rise.

This has since been revised down to 3.2c temp gain. Presumably the sea level change has droped as well.

Sounds nice to me.


Given Denmark currently spends ~$1 billion dollars USD a year on sea-level control for 5,316 km of coastline and there are 1,634,701 km of coastline in the world, there is ~308 times the coastline to control. That would be a minimum of ~$308 billion USD in cost if the numbers are extrapolated.

Given the GDP of the world in 2011 was $6,966 billion this would be a minimum of ~5% of the world GDP each year to deal with sea level rise. This, of course could be higher in some areas and lower in others where the land is just given up to the sea. This also assumes all countries would bear the cost, which is not correct as those with coastlines will pay those costs. That is also only the cost of sea level rise and does not touch on the impacts on current agriculture or infrastructure. Some countries will not be able to afford this hit.


I made a simple but very important mistake in these calculations.

I used the data for the cost of maintenance from the Netherlands and the coastline of Denmark. Had I used the coastline of the Netherlands as I should, the results would have been significanlty different.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The correct figures
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Given the Netherlands currently spends ~$1 billion dollars USD a year on sea-level control for 451 km of coastline and there are 1,634,701 km of coastline in the world, there is ~3625 times the coastline to control. That would be a minimum of ~$3625 billion USD in cost if the numbers are extrapolated.

Given the GDP of the world in 2011 was $6,966 billion this would be a minimum of ~52% of the world GDP each year to deal with sea level rise. This, of course could be higher in some areas and lower in others where the land is just given up to the sea. This also assumes all countries would bear the cost, which is not correct as those with coastlines will pay those costs. That is also only the cost of sea level rise and does not touch on the impacts on current agriculture or infrastructure. Most countries will not be able to afford this hit.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The correct figures
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:37 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Given the Netherlands currently spends ~$1 billion dollars USD a year on sea-level control for 451 km of coastline and there are 1,634,701 km of coastline in the world, there is ~3625 times the coastline to control. That would be a minimum of ~$3625 billion USD in cost if the numbers are extrapolated.

Given the GDP of the world in 2011 was $6,966 billion this would be a minimum of ~52% of the world GDP each year to deal with sea level rise. This, of course could be higher in some areas and lower in others where the land is just given up to the sea. This also assumes all countries would bear the cost, which is not correct as those with coastlines will pay those costs. That is also only the cost of sea level rise and does not touch on the impacts on current agriculture or infrastructure. Most countries will not be able to afford this hit.


You are just making a joke. This sort of psudo-maths gibberish will never be believed even by the most insane Greenie.

The Neitherlands spends a lot maintaining a lot of land below sea level by 10m or more. Suggesting that we will need to spend the same on the Arctic ocean coasts is ...... beyond fantasy.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group