Glaciers draining Antarctic basin destabilized, 4m level rise all but certain

[MadImmortalMan]

Climate Central has this map that let's you look at the world with up to 10 feet increase in sea level. My apartment still isn't on the waterfront with that amount of increase.

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/

Man.  Bummer about Galveston.

It already got wasted a hundred years ago. Everybody left lives on stilts or in boats.

[Capetan Mihali]

I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge. 

I think it has little to do with lack of knowledge and more to do with lack of immediacy. There is no immediate personal impact, so political tribal declarations and attempts at internet cleverness is more important than gaining an understanding of the facts of the matter.

I mostly feel helpless on the issue of global warming and its effects.  I'm already a low-emissions person by developed world standards just by virtue of my income and lifestyle; thinking about it in depth makes me anxious; and I do find it pretty complicated to understand, other than that it's a major problem. 

So I have to admit I do unintentionally cabin it off in my mind and don't treat with the requisite seriousness, mostly as a mental protective measure.  I have a feeling others do this too.

[The Brain]

I am a longtime advocate of humanity moving to underground cities powered by nuclear fission. I like to think I'm doing my part.

[grumbler]

That's a huge worry of mine.

That's a huge worry of anyone who has studied the issue.  Again, though, it is unclear as to whether mitigation of the effects would be more cost-effective than reduction of the cause.

And I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.

I find it strange that normally intelligent posters assume that they know far more about the human component in climate change than they do, and that they also believe that the answers to the challenges of climate change can fit on bumper stickers.

To want to discuss the human component in climate change, and to consider multiple approaches to its solution, is not unintelligent.  It simply is departure from the religion which states that Man=Bad.  Climate change is not the morality tale the bleaters want it to be.

[grumbler]

That's a huge worry of mine.
And I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.

It's political.

Sometimes, it is.  Other times, it is just intelligence rejecting dogma (to the extent that my comments, for instance, are read by the religious as an attempt to "dismiss the human component in climate change from the off").

[Valmy]

So I have to admit I do unintentionally cabin it off in my mind and don't treat with the requisite seriousness, mostly as a mental protective measure.  I have a feeling others do this too.

Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power.  If I actually end up helping anything is another story

[crazy canuck]

Ok Jacob, you have convinced me.  Or rather Grumbler's posts did.  It was an attempt at internet cleverness after all.

[grumbler]

I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge. 

I think it has little to do with lack of knowledge .... There is no immediate personal impact, so political tribal declarations and attempts at internet cleverness is more important than gaining an understanding of the facts of the matter.

Actually, this is exactly how I view the bleaters.  No one (and by this i actually mean no one, as far as any of the publicly released literature goes) understands exactly what causes climate change, how much of what we are seeing in terms of climate change is due to human efforts, or how much an effective program to reduce the causes of climate change would cost.  No one.  Further, no one knows how effective various methods of reducing the impact of climate change would be, how much they would cost, or how to make either the prediction models or the amelioration models more accurate.

Given all of this, it is foolish to believe that you  have the knowledge of the best way to combat climate change.  And yet people are bleating about "the folly of man" when the course we have taken may prove to be the wisest one so far.

Personally, I suspect that the effort to validate any given model or series of models is going to be vastly expensive (tens of billions, and maybe hundreds of billions, of dollars per year for a decade or more).  We'd be smart to know what models those are and what would validate them.  Bleating about man's foolishness and self-importantly claiming that you support the end of global warming without doing a thing about it are just wastes of breath in the face of the effort needed to get the information needed.

[derspiess]

Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power.

Wow, someone ate his Nietzsche Pops this morning. 

[Valmy]

Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power.

Wow, someone ate his Nietzsche Pops this morning. 

Erm?  Am I one of the Übermensche or something?  I do have blue eyes.

Oh...power.    Not that sort of power.  I have a will to generate watts.

[grumbler]

I mostly feel helpless on the issue of global warming and its effects.  I'm already a low-emissions person by developed world standards just by virtue of my income and lifestyle; thinking about it in depth makes me anxious; and I do find it pretty complicated to understand, other than that it's a major problem. 

So I have to admit I do unintentionally cabin it off in my mind and don't treat with the requisite seriousness, mostly as a mental protective measure.  I have a feeling others do this too.

You, and every other smart person, naturally feel helpless, because you don't know anything.  Attempts to get around this ignorance just expose you to the fact that no one else knows anything, either, and those who know why they know know that learning the answers will be hugely expensive.

How much would it cost to cut US CO2 emission by, say, 50% over the next ten years?  Would that cut actually tell us which model is right, and therefor tell us whether cutting emissions is better than dealing with the consequences of emissions?  If so, it could be the best investment in the history of mankind, even if the cost is a trillion dollars, and even if it tells us that man's contribution to climate change is insignificant.  Just the knowing is worth it.

That's what we should be doing in terms of climate change.  Not bleating about the folly of man or patting ourselves on the back for declaring that any deviation from the religious line  about Bad Man is merely "an attempt at internet cleverness."

[grumbler]

Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power.  If I actually end up helping anything is another story

As an engineer, you understand that the difference between helping only yourself and helping all of mankind is just a difference of scale, right? 

[derspiess]

Erm?  Am I one of the Übermensche or something?  I do have blue eyes.

Oh...power.    Not that sort of power.  I have a will to generate watts.

Anyway if you do happen to seize power, let me be your driver.

[derspiess]

That's what we should be doing in terms of climate change.  Not bleating about the folly of man or patting ourselves on the back for declaring that any deviation from the religious line  about Bad Man is merely "an attempt at internet cleverness."

We have met the enemy and he is us

[Jacob]

grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?

Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?