Poll: How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?

[kuririn]

No. You based your argument on data that was cherry picked to support your argument. You didn't like seeing the superset of the data that actually didn't agree with your beliefs. Then you said "oh look, a squirrel" to attempt to distract me from those facts with a different graph that did fit with your beliefs.

And you didn't cherry pick your data to support your beliefs?
R_I_G_H_T.
Like the pot calling the kettle black.

BTW, the Wikipedia article you linked to runs counter to your argument:
"anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years.[49][5][4]"

In other words human caused factors (i.e. production of greenhouse gases) will outweigh the effect of orbital perturbations affecting the inclination of the earth to the sun .(i.e. the cause of the cyclical cooling/warming periods).

 

[kuririn]

No. You based your argument on data that was cherry picked to support your argument. You didn't like seeing the superset of the data that actually didn't agree with your beliefs. Then you said "oh look, a squirrel" to attempt to distract me from those facts with a different graph that did fit with your beliefs.

I guess I should backtrack and ask you what do you think the graph you posted actually shows or supports? Because I see an upward trend in temperature from about 20,000 years ago at two locations (green and blue lines). The red line shows ice volume. It is a little confusing because it is counter intuitive. If you look at the left hand side you see "Low" and "High". So a peak on the red line indicates a low point in volume of ice. This makes sense because increasing temperature would correlate to reduction in ice volume.
So the years of large scale human production of greenhouse gases is a tiny blip on the far right hand side of the graph. The world human population was perhaps 1 billion in 1800, around the start of the Industrial Revolution. It is now 8 billion, an eightfold increase in less than 225 years.
You wouldn't be able to see any effects on the graph of greenhouse gasses on temperature unless you changed the scale of the graph.
What do you see?

 

[tomsteve]

can someone name 5 cities that have ended up under water (and remain under water) in the last 100 years?

 

[MikeT]

Zip, Nadda..............For all you willing to pony up and pay, I have a bridge for sale.

 

[lakeroadster]

I agree that any person or organization can be wrong on any number of topics.
But it's not just NASA.
Scientists and organizations w-a-a-y- smarter than me have reached the same conclusions.
And they encompass both political parties.
You trust your mechanic when he tells you your car needs a tune up.
You trust your doctor when he tells you that you need an operation.
Why? Because they are knowledgable in their respective fields.
Why is this any different?

And there are over a thousand (documented) scientists who are on record stating their is no climate crisis.

human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”​

I judge the climate crisis folks by their past predictions. Polar Bears aren't extinct, they are thriving. We aren't all living in an Ice Age. And coastal cities are not flooding. All events these folk that are "knowledgable in their respective fields" predicted, yet the events are not happening.

 

[KC3KNM]

I've seen compelling arguments both ways. It's so politicized at this point and there's so much garbage from both sides to pick thorugh that I don't know how anyone forms a hard viewpoint.

What is objective, I think, is that shitting on the planet is bad. Just like hedging our bets on fossil fuels for an undefined future. Moving to cleaner renewables is only going to provide benefits. It's not going to be overnight, and it might not be cheaper off the bat, but controling our energy seems as much a national security issue as an enviornmental issue... it always blows my mind that the hard right guys don't get it.

The poll idea of throwing money to some climate boogyman is asinine to begin with, really.

 

[kuririn]

And there are over a thousand (documented) scientists who are on record stating their is no climate crisis.

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32HG6HR"But only a small number of the signatories are climate scientists, some have links to the oil industry or climate-skeptic organizations, and the claims have been widely debunked."

"Among the job titles of the other signatories were fisherman, airline pilot, sommelier, musician, lawyer, linguist, retired teacher, urologist, psychoanalyst and at least three energy workers' union representatives."

"The declaration includes a series of climate science claims that have been debunked by climate experts. It gives no sources. AFP and other organizations have previously fact-checked several of the claims:

1. "Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases... Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming."

Experts cited in this AFP fact check said that the surge in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been abnormally sharp, driven by carbon emissions following industrialization.

2. "The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing... Climate policy relies on inadequate models."

This analysis by Carbon Brief showed that some models projected less warming than experienced and some projected more, but all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not far from what actually occurred. Experts defended the models in this AFP fact check.

3. "More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. "

Experts cited in this article by AFP Fact Check's German service said that plants can only process a limited share of the excess carbon dioxide emissions and suffer from the effects of climate change.

4. "There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. "

World Weather Attribution (WWA), using methods including observational analysis of historic datasets, has calculated that various disasters were made more likely due to climate change, including floods and storms. Its methods are described in this AFP fact check on wildfires."

 

[lakeroadster]

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32HG6HR"But only a small number of the signatories are climate scientists, some have links to the oil industry or climate-skeptic organizations, and the claims have been widely debunked."

"Among the job titles of the other signatories were fisherman, airline pilot, sommelier, musician, lawyer, linguist, retired teacher, urologist, psychoanalyst and at least three energy workers' union representatives."

"The declaration includes a series of climate science claims that have been debunked by climate experts. It gives no sources. AFP and other organizations have previously fact-checked several of the claims:

1. "Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases... Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming."

Experts cited in this AFP fact check said that the surge in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been abnormally sharp, driven by carbon emissions following industrialization.

2. "The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing... Climate policy relies on inadequate models."

This analysis by Carbon Brief showed that some models projected less warming than experienced and some projected more, but all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not far from what actually occurred. Experts defended the models in this AFP fact check.

3. "More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. "

Experts cited in this article by AFP Fact Check's German service said that plants can only process a limited share of the excess carbon dioxide emissions and suffer from the effects of climate change.

4. "There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. "

World Weather Attribution (WWA), using methods including observational analysis of historic datasets, has calculated that various disasters were made more likely due to climate change, including floods and storms. Its methods are described in this AFP fact check on wildfires."

Yeah, I don't know why I bothered. You're a bit over the top on this... and your post shows that, in spades.

 

[kuririn]

Yeah, I don't know why I bothered. You're a bit over the top on this... and your post shows that, in spades.

Feel free to prove me wrong by showing links to reputable scientific sources supporting your point of view. That would be more impressive than ad hominem statements.

 

[lakeroadster]

Feel free to prove me wrong by showing links to reputable scientific sources supporting your point of view. That would be more impressive than ad hominem statements.

I'd rather focus on rocketry. Occasionally I make the mistake of wadding into these posts that have nothing to do with rocketry, and I almost always regret it. I'll correct that mistake shortly.

 

[kuririn]

Polar Bears aren't extinct, they are thriving.

Science says otherwise.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3184/003685008X324506https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...tarving-because-of-global-warming-study-shows

And coastal cities are not flooding.

Again, science says otherwise.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-coastal-flooding

We aren't all living in an Ice Age.

Thank God. I don't have any long johns.

 

[user 30299]

jderimig -

I can kick in $5 or $10 per month for a good cause.

 

[kuririn]

I'd rather focus on rocketry. Occasionally I make the mistake of wadding into these posts that have nothing to do with rocketry, and I almost always regret it. I'll correct that mistake shortly.

I feel the same way.
Hey, we agreed on something!

 

[user 30299]

can someone name 5 cities that have ended up under water (and remain under water) in the last 100 years?

New Orleans (pumps barely keep up - even with all the upgrades)
Miami (they have pumps too)
Jakarta, Indonesia (they have both rising waters and land subsidence)
Venice, Italy (many lower floors are not habitable, and they are adding a tidal flood barrier)

Those are four just off the top of my head.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

This poll is a little silly since it is not clear what we are getting for our money. I interpret this to mean that my money will have a "meaningful" impact on climate change. So I went with $100. By meaningful, I am assuming that my contribution will be matched similarly by everyone else AND it will go to technology development that enables energy alternatives that meet or exceed carbon-based fuels.

 

[kuririn]

can someone name 5 cities that have ended up under water (and remain under water) in the last 100 years?

Global warming due to anthropomorphic forcing was minimal a 100 years ago compared to today. So the question is irrelevant. More relevant is what scientists see as the top five cities at the most risk for flooding due to climate change.

Top 5 cities that face a threat from sea level rises by 2050​

Position	City	Country	Potential Sea-level Rise Impact 2050 Score
1	Bangkok	Thailand	100
2	Amsterdam	Netherlands	90
3	Ho Chi Minh City	Vietnam	89
4	Cardiff	UK	46
5	New Orleans	US	37

The Potential Sea-Level Rise Impact under the “Business as usual” scenario is based on sea-level rise projections (Kopp et al., 2014) and CoastalDEM® v1.1 map data (Kulp et al. 2018). The resulting projected impact was accessed through the COASTAL RISK SCREENING TOOL provided by Climate Analytics. Cities that are unaffected by coastal flooding or not geographically by the coast are automatically given a score of 1. The higher the score, the higher the potential flooding/sea level impact.
Table: Sky News Source: Nestpick

Would be interesting to necro this thread 27 years from now and see if it came true.

 

[Typhon]

Look at the data - total political BS
not enough people taking STEM courses
besides all my money goes into rocket motors

 

[dr wogz]

Us vs. Them
Right vs. Left
Anti vs. Pro
Green vs. Purple

Just another post / thread to make our viewpoints & beliefs know.. and to share in the the "agreement with" or "denial of"..

meanwhile in my big city:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-...cop15-biodiversity-summit-agreement-1.6200657

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I am just repeating the question as polled in the other poll. You can interpret how you see fit. I interpretted is a direct net cost to me (for example higher per unit energy bills). Personally for me I would not include capital costs to lower my energy usage. That might be a cost savings.

What is your answer to your poll?

 

[Hobie1dog]

I'd rather focus on rocketry. Occasionally I make the mistake of wadding into these posts that have nothing to do with rocketry, and I almost always regret it. I'll correct that mistake shortly.

It's time for me to use my favorite feature of TRF and click the "Ignore" button thread is out of sight, out of mind.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

No one ever changes their minds based on these kinds of arguments and threads. It’s basically a place to identify with your tribe and vent your frustrations, whatever those may be, on the topic, not to convince anyone.

You can see from the poll results so far how pointless it really is. You either think climate change is really happening and are concerned about it and show it by saying you are willing to kick in $100, or you think it’s complete BS and sho it by saying you are willing to spend $0. There’s not much middle ground in the poll results, and there is zero chance you are going to convince someone at the zero dollars end of the scale to agree that maybe there is at least some chance that climate change is happening and could be slowed down and maybe they’d be willing to kick in $10 or $20. It’s all or nothing, and that’s because many people don’t use facts and logic to state an opinion on this issue.

At this point, whether you are willing to say to others you believe or don’t believe in climate change is bound up in a person’s self identity, like whether or not you believe in human evolution versus the literal Biblical creation story. Beliefs like that are based more on the idea that “I am this kind of person and belong to this group of people, and people like us don’t believe in [fill in blank], therefore I don’t believe in it either.” When that kind of thinking takes over, it’s almost impossible to change it. And even if deep down a person knows their group is wrong on the issue, it’s not worth it to say so. “I’m just one person, so what does it matter if I say I believe in climate change or not? It makes no difference. It’s just going to put me on the wrong side of my friends, family, political party, etc. It’s not worth it.”

The United States is the only major country where this argument about the fundamental truth of climate change is happening. That’s because political tribalism is so strong in this country, and the fossil fuel industry and others with huge profits to protect have convinced one end of the political spectrum here in the US to take a stand that climate change is not real, or it’s not caused by human activity. And now there’s a huge group of people who will take that position to protect their place in their identity group. That’s not a problem in other countries. Most of the world has accepted the fact of human-caused climate change and has moved on to debating what should be done about it.

This poll might make sense in that context where everyone has agreed on the basic facts, and now we are discussing how much should we spend on the problem if anything. But that’s not where we are. This poll isn’t measuring how much people are willing to spend — the question about dollars is functioning here as a stand-in for “Do you think human-caused climate change is real?” And that is a stand-in for “What is your political identity group‘s stand on climate change?” So the framing of the poll is pointless in the US. It would be interesting to see the results for the same poll in other countries that are actually having that debate. Maybe there would be an actual distribution, not the same dumbbell results with everyone at one end or another.

 

[dr wogz]

@ThirstyBarbarian you hit the nail on the head. but it's becoming the norm in other G7 countries.. that this political divide is growing in other democracies..

I see it here in Canada as much as you are seeing in the US. I'm sure there are those who feel this way or that in the UK, in Germany, and in the rest.. just that some countries are better equipped to deal with it / less "politically" connected to it..

Until we get back to the adult conversations of "I see your point, and I can see why .." we are stuck in the pointless back & forth: "He said / She said" drivel.. (And backed by "sponsors" of Yes / No)

 

[Bravo52]

New Orleans (pumps barely keep up - even with all the upgrades)

I'm from around there and the city would be underwater if it weren't for the people of NOLA picking that place to live. That has zero credibility given it was a swamp before the French invaded and we kicked them out in 1812.

In fact, "modernization" is probably the reason the cities you listed are dry now. Has nothing to do with climate. Now, if you are saying that because we came in and dried them up and didn't do or aren't doing a very good job, you might have a point.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

@ThirstyBarbarian you hit the nail on the head. but it's becoming the norm in other G7 countries.. that this political divide is growing in other democracies..

I see it here in Canada as much as you are seeing in the US. I'm sure there are those who feel this way or that in the UK, in Germany, and in the rest.. just that some countries are better equipped to deal with it / less "politically" connected to it..

Until we get back to the adult conversations of "I see your point, and I can see why .." we are stuck in the pointless back & forth: "He said / She said" drivel.. (And backed by "sponsors" of Yes / No)

We are in a post-truth world where objective, measurable facts don’t matter to a lot of people. And if you can’t agree on basic reality, then there’s no basis for agreeing on what to do about certain problems that some people don’t even agree exist. There’s little capacity for collective action. And there is a lot of money that prefers the status quo and is happy to destroy the capacity for collective action by muddying the waters.

It didn’t used to be as much this way, but it is now. Thirty years ago, we were able to agree that acid rain was real, and even though there was a lot of money invested in the status quo, we were able to do something about it. Same with the ozone hole — lots of money invested in the status quo, but we were able to agree on the facts of the problem and come up with a consensus for doing something about it. Same with secondhand smoke and many other things we’ve been able to address as a society. But in the post-facts world and political climate we have now, if those things came up today, we would never be able to deal with them now.

It seems likely to me that we will probably not do enough to cut our fossil fuel use and other greenhouse gas emissions in time to prevent very serious consequences. We’ve already delayed too long, and some pretty serious consequences are already “baked in”. Certain tipping points have already been reached, and there’s no way back. So now the question is, what can we do to slow things down and maybe prevent even worse consequences? And the answer is, there are plenty of things we could do, but we probably won’t do them, due to entrenched interests and our political paralysis.

Every few years, some agency or body or other releases a new report that gives a recommendation about actions that could be taken, targets for lowering emissions, targets for the maximum global increase in temperature to allow, and a range of possible forecasts and future consequences. And then a few years later the report is updated and says basically, “Well… We didn’t do the recommendations, we did not achieve the targets, we are on the worse end of the range of possible consequences, and things are worse than we thought they would be at this point. Here are some recommendations for even more aggressive action required now to avoid the worst consequences.” And it just keeps going that way.

 

[Steven]

Rather than explain financial sacrifices or otherwise, I'll state what I won't give up. My loud, exhaust spewing, fun to drive, makes you feel alive cars. I thought of this next to my fireplace.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I agree and disagree with your points.

- LED bulbs. I was an early adopter when they were really expensive so I doubt I have recouped that initial cost in any kind of energy savings. I did it because I'm selfish and lazy and got tired of changing bulbs. I'm still trying to use up the 20 I bought way back in the day but they just never burn out I do feel better I'm not tossing bulbs in a landfill.

- Water heater and furnace. Replaced the water heater as it started leaking. Wasn't terribly expensive but there wasn't any reduction is energy cost following the installation. Did the furnace a few months later as mine was more than 30yrs old and the heating company I use had one of those 0% finance deals for 12 months going so we figured we'd do it. Total cost for the two was around $7K for both. Watching the gas bills afterward, there was never a reduction over previous months so that money will never get recouped but again, I did it because like heat and hot water

- Electric or Hybrid cars. The costs of Hybrids are coming down quickly so they are making more sense now than just a few years back. My buddy bought a a brand new Camry Hybrid back in 2015. Cost was $33K. In real world driving he gets around 40mpg. Around the same time I picked up a Camry SE non-hybrid. Paid $23K for mine and I average a real world mileage around 30mpg. Cars have basically the same creature comforts and features so they are comparable. Doing the math it there was a $10K difference in price and we used the $5.00 per gallon price that was the national average here a few months back and found that the difference in fuel cost to be around $500 a year based on 12500 miles. With those numbers it would take him 20 yrs to see a savings over buying a a non-hybrid. If you redo the math at todays lower gas prices ($3.09) that time jumps to 31 yrs.

As for pure electrics. Weather they are cheaper to own come down to a model by model bases. Read an interesting article from Car and Driver recently on the cost of owning a Kona gas vs electric and the gas was cheaper. They went on to compare an F150 gas vs F150 Lightning where the electric was cheaper. For me electric cars are a novelty and I can't see myself ever spending money on one as they jut don't fit my lifestyle. I just simply drive too darn much.


Edit: One last thought. I was quoted to put solar on my roof by two different companies when I first bought this house back in 2015. The lower of the two bids was $60K. They offered to finance it over 10 yrs. which broke down to around $6200 a year or $515ish a month. Hard to justify when I my electric bill has never exceeded $100 per month.

If your electric bill is less than $100 per month, and you were quoted $60,000 for a rooftop solar power system, you were being targeted by a scam.

The system is supposed to be scaled to the historical usage, and it sounds like you were being quoted a system on the order of 10x what you actually would need. My electric bill was about $125 per month, and my power system was about $9,000, so it will pay for itself in about 6 years, which is a bit on the high end for a few different reasons. It’s usually a bit shorter. Your system should cost only about $7,000 total after tax credits, and probably less, but that‘s about the ballpark for the maximum you would need.

I agree with you on some of your other points about never being able to recoup the cost of a more efficient item based on the energy savings. My wife and I bought a Camry Hybrid in 2018 and paid close to what you said — $34,000. We knew that at the rate we drive, we would never pay off the difference with gas savings, but we still wanted the hybrid. It’s a great car, and I’m not sure if it’s true for Camry’s but some hybrids have better performance than the gas version of the same model due to the electric motor working with the gas motor to boost acceleration. I like how the car drives. The mileage is awesome. We got home from our 1,000-mile road trip yesterday, and it cost almost exactly $100 for the gas which was $3.99 for a complete fill-up from almost empty at the beginning and $4.69 for a partial fill up partway through, and there’s still over 150 miles range left on the tank. To me, that’s a nice price for such a long trip. I’ll never make up the cost of the difference in the car prices, but now that I’ve paid for the hybrid, I really don’t care much about the fluctuation in gas prices.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

So NASA is wrong?

Nope. NASA is not wrong. That’s an easily measurable value. It is an objective fact.

 

[sambatterman]

Um... wake up call - we are all spending money - and so are our grandchildren - the recession bill that was recently passed had billions for fighting climate change - we are also giving money to 3rd world countries for reparations. Of course, we don't have this money so we are printing it and the Chinese are buying our treasuries - when Saudia Arabia and China feel we are beyond payment they will stop and our world ends.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

can someone name 5 cities that have ended up under water (and remain under water) in the last 100 years?

I think the concern is more about how many will be flooded in the next hundred years. The two American cities that immediately come to mind are Miami and New Orleans, but there are definitely many others that are threatened. Some are already spending lots of money to deal with it and prepare for the future. There are trillions of dollars of US real estate and infrastructure that will need to be upgraded, relocated, removed, or abandoned. People are already struggling with it because their homes were located based on historical flood maps that don’t apply anymore. Maybe you bought your home knowing it was in a 500 or 1,000-year floodplain, but now it’s flooded twice since you’ve owned it and likely to flood again. And now you have trouble insuring it, refinancing it, or selling it, because everyone knows it’s doomed. That’s going to be a problem for millions of people in flood-prone areas, and coastal neighborhoods where the property is literally falling into the sea.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

And coastal cities are not flooding. All events these folk that are "knowledgable in their respective fields" predicted, yet the events are not happening.

That’s just objectively wrong. Sea level has risen. That’s a measurable fact, not really open to debate or opinion. And some flooding in some cities is attributable to higher seas.