Climate Change vs. Waterfowl Migration

The collective "We", whether that "we" is individuals, towns, counties, states or some policy decision regarding spending of federal tax money.
But I think that the "We" as in tax payers need to decided whether or not we continue to pour federal tax dollars into areas that may be basically "un-livable" without significant expenditures.
In the case of towns along the MS River, communities decided it was cheaper and easier to relocate to higher ground than to keep rebuilding and/or enduring the risk. I think that is a good example of a win-win situation where a local decision was backed up by state and federal money.
Click to expand...


Taxpayers have been pouring their dollars into areas that are un-livable, and eventually will pour billions into areas that are un-livable.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140116/eroding-alaska-village-urges-congress-address-climate-change

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131105/climate-change-relocation-alaska-village-stops-after-state-audit-finds-potential

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/kivalina-climate-change_n_3678828.html

And its not just these three

http://tribalclimate.uoregon.edu/files/2010/11/AlaskaRelocation_04-13-11.pdf

What is sort of humorus in all this is that these locations were chosen by various government bodies over the last 150 years and then cemented into law in 1972 to secure land for the Trans Alaska Pipeline. Nomadic people anchored down by churches and public schools. Locally there are folks that think the ANCSA corporations should be the ones to handle these issues. However, that is no different than asking Microsoft or Boeing to be responsible for the governance of Seattle.
 
Have you actually read the paper....if so send me a copy. I can not access it, and do not want to decide on the abstract.

Also, I believe it is a cope out to avoid commenting on policy decisions....so you want politicians interpreting science to make decisions?

Clint
Click to expand...


I wished I had known you wanted that paper before this evening (was fishing today and just got the boat, fish and clams put to bed). I could have got it for you. I have to say, I’m surprised that you can’t get it easily. As far as what I’ve read or haven’t, I read the paper I cited and posted (Hansen et al. 2006), but certainly no supporting papers from meteorological journals. I wouldn’t even try and it would be crazy were I to suggest I could get into the nuts and bolts of a climate modeling paper.

I chose that particular paper for a bunch of reasons, first was that the question was temp changes in the past 18 years (and not 200 years) and since that figure (derived from the paper) is updated continuously. I also like the PNAS format, since if anyone here wanted to read it they could do so unencumbered with some of the nitty gritty that you are looking for to evaluate your downscaling concerns. I am comfortable with the paper given that it was published in a top journal with extremely rigorous peer-review, it has been cited over 500 times – and continues to be cited as an authoritative reference. Either way, barring a peer-reviewed analysis that casts doubt on it, I’m comfortable citing it here, especially as part of a huge body of supporting papers that indicate similar trends. I’m especially comfortable with the most data from the last 20-50 years that address the original point.

Either way, I have a big day tomorrow (it is the solstice after all) and I’m not going to be online next week, so please don’t be offended if I don’t respond....
 
A common characteristic of the human psyche is that many (if not all) people will, unfortunately, believe what they want to be true. Despite sound reasoning and evidence, many often reject an argument simply because it doesn't satisfy their wishes.

I wonder if I'm the only one believing that's what's going on here. (---Am I fooling myself?)

Good luck with your summer projects. Polar vortex will have the birds here before we know it :)

Martin
 
Stop cutting grass, driving, boating, traveling (unless on foot), grilling, using electricity, heat and hot water, Never Burn Wood or ever cut down a tree, stop industrialization, farming and Save The World.
Simple isn't it...
 
AND, don't forget to believe flawed computer models created by the loonies who want all of us to believe the sky is falling!
 
Let's remove the argument about the scientific publication process and look at the actual issue.

First, I do see that there is documented warming occurring at what seems to be an elevated rate. Does anyone not see that? Discussing that issue eliminates any issues with models or predictions of future patterns that involve uncertainty.

IF we agree that is the case, what we then have to ask ourselves is:

1) What might the ramifications be if this warming doesn't slow down/change?

2) Are we...ALL of us...as humans living on this planet willing to pay that price?

If the price is REALLY high, then we better be DAMN sure that we aren't the cause before we choose to just accept/ignore the problem.

I don't claim to know the definitive answers to either of those questions. However, I'm willing to listen to a logical discussion that doesn't involve resorting to name calling.
 
Name calling degrades the issue, and does not address it. The USA used to produce it's own Steel, the best electric transformers (Westinghouse), and a incredible amount of steel pipe, and tubing. I worked in all three industries, ALL shut down due to Clean Air & Clean Water laws and standards, which were and are needed, but took a heavy toll on profits. I have already paid a steep price, along with many thousands of others. When you loose everything you worked hard for, you pick yourself up, dust yourself off and start over - again and again and again... It is what it is.

Now China (the Country that owns us) and many other countries, produce what we once did. So we now buy the products from them. When they address extreme pollution problems like we did, then they may cease production as well. Transferring the problem does not solve it.

We have beat this subject to death already, and we sure as hell aren't gonna solve a World Problem on duckboats. Move On.
 
On China: they have finally realized they can't continue to crank out pollution like we were doing in the 50's & 60's (Duhhhh).
Air and water quality is so bad people in some areas can't go outside on certain days. Water supplies for millions of people are in danger of being untreatable to drinking quality.
The central govt realizes is effecting productivity and sustainability and risking social revolt.
So now they are talking about implementing air and water quality standard stricter than ours in some instances.
China will catch up with us quickly, they will become an assembler of raw materials made elsewhere, moving the pollution intensive natural resource processing out to Africa and other parts of Asia, and South America....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top