Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: LesPalenik on July 03, 2022, 05:40:23 am
-
Quite alarming article about all kinds of climate changes on the National parks.
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220701153010-03-national-park-climate-extreme-weather-impacts-super-169.jpg)
"It was really striking to see that every single tree seems to be getting hit by either climatic changes; it could be dying from drought, or it could be insect attack or fungus, but they're certainly weakened," Dickman, a forest ecologist with the National Park Service, told CNN. "There's a big shift happening right now, and it's right in front of our eyes."
The consequences of the climate crisis -- more wildfires, devastating drought, sea level rise, flooding, ecological disease -- are plaguing the country's national parks. Most recently, unprecedented flash flooding overwhelmed Yellowstone National Park and some of its surrounding areas.
Scientists and officials say it signals a dramatic change unfolding at the nation's most prized parks. And unless the planet slashes fossil fuel emissions, scientists believe the climate crisis could drastically alter the landscapes, cultural sites and ecosystems in the parks, potentially making them inaccessible for humans and uninhabitable for other species.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/02/us/national-parks-climate-extreme-weather-impacts/index.html
-
Oh, no! Not another climate-alarmist article!
-
That must be only the alarmists who like nature and the national parks. And some scaremongers are spreading fake news that the Earth is round.
-
Oh, no! Not another climate-alarmist article!
Don't you get it Slobodan? When it's hot, it's global warming; when it's cold, it's climate change; when a global warming meeting needs to be postponed because of cold weather and heavy snow fall, well, that must be global warming/climate change/climate crisiss/ or whatever. Our local newspaper, the Oregonian, once a week has an article by some organization or another about what happened in the past week; highest and lowest temperatures, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. etc. and they regularly add what they think is the reason for what happened. The don't use the term climate change or global warming, but - drum roll please - global heating.
I'd like to introduce a term for the climate alarmists: global nitwits.
-
Well, when you lack the necessary education and experience to refute the science... there's always name calling.
-
Not only in USA.
ROME – Parts of a mountain glacier collapsed in the Italian Alps on Sunday amid record temperatures, local authorities said, killing at least six people and injuring eight.
The Trento provincial government said rescue operations were in progress after a large “ice avalanche” involving hikers, adding that there was likely to be a “heavy toll”. The avalanche took place on the Marmolada, which at more than 3,300 metres is the highest mountain in the Dolomites, a range in the eastern Italian Alps straddling the regions of Trento and Veneto. Injured people were taken to hospitals in the nearby towns of Belluno, Treviso, Trento and Bolzano, said the president of Veneto, Luca Zaia.
The huge mass of ice collapsed close to Punta Rocca, on the route usually used by hikers and climbers to reach the summit, the Alpine rescue unit said. “Fortunately the weather conditions are good but the danger is that there could be further collapses,” a spokesperson said. An early summer heatwave in Italy saw temperatures on the Marmolada touch 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit) on Saturday, Zaia said. Rising average temperatures have caused the Marmolada glacier, like many others around the world, to shrink steadily over recent decades.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/07/03/uk-italy-mountain-ice-collapse
-
I'd like to introduce a term for the climate alarmists: global nitwits.
Introduction by none other than the LuLa chief nitwit.
-
Introduction by none other than the LuLa chief nitwit.
No comment.
-
No comment.
You're finally getting a clue.
Next up, maybe photography? ;D
-
You're finally getting a clue.
Next up, maybe photography? ;D
No comment.
-
No comment.
And as we've come to expect, no photography, a concept of photography, experience with photography. Carpet poop yes. *Nothing new here!
*You've got to love the behaviour of someone who about once a month walks into the room, takes a dump on the carpet and departs, never to be seen again until next month.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1222178#msg1222178
Indeed from this side: no comment. On your imagery photography; there are no examples to suggest any have ever existed. ;)
Here's a forum specifically for you sir, no pretend photography experience necessary:
https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/freecompany/9229283011365807815/forum/
-
And as we've come to expect, no photography, a concept of photography, experience with photography. Carpet poop yes. *Nothing new here! https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1222178#msg1222178
Indeed from this side: no comment. On your imagery photography; there are no examples to suggest any have ever existed. ;)
Here's a forum specifically for you sir, no pretend photography experience necessary:
https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/freecompany/9229283011365807815/forum/
No comment.
-
No comment.
Way too late for "all doubts removed" (http://digitaldog.net/files/AllDoubtsRemoved.jpg)”.
-
Way too late for "all doubts removed" (http://digitaldog.net/files/AllDoubtsRemoved.jpg)”.
No comments.
-
No comments.
-
Well, when you lack the necessary education and experience to refute the science... there's always name calling.
The name-calling exists on both sides of the opposing arguments. For example, those who are skeptical about the 'potentially catastrophic effects' of human CO2 emissions, are often called 'climate change deniers'.
Any person who denies that the climate has always changed, over time, in most parts of the world, is surely a nitwit. ;)
-
The name-calling exists on both sides of the opposing arguments. For example, those who are skeptical about the 'potentially catastrophic effects' of human CO2 emissions, are often called 'climate change deniers'.
Any person who denies that the climate has always changed, over time, in most parts of the world, is surely a nitwit. ;)
Plus1!
-
"Most fools think they are only ignorant." -Benjamin Franklin
This applies to foolish nitwits Plus1. ;D
-
Nitwits need not apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/07/02/summer-2022-climate-change-heat/
Summer in America is becoming hotter, longer and more dangerous
Nitwits playing climate scientists on photo forums should ignore:
Scientists say the recent spate of severe summers is a clear change from previous generations. The average summer temperature in the past five years has been 1.7 degrees (0.94 Celsius) warmer than it was from 1971 through 2000, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But some parts of the country have been much harder hit, with the West showing a 2.7 degrees (1.5 Celsius) increase.
Researchers have found that some heat waves in recent years, including the one that struck the Pacific Northwest last year, would have been virtually impossible without human-caused global warming.
-
...those who are skeptical about the 'potentially catastrophic effects' of human CO2 emissions, are often called 'climate change deniers'.
Those who are skeptical about the 'potentially catastrophic effects' of human CO2 emissions, are often ill-informed amateurs pretending to be better informed than climate scientists who have spent their adult lives studying and analyzing the mechanisms and effects of climate change. In order to distract from their lack of knowledge, they will sometimes engage in transparently phony attacks on climate scientists.
-
Any person who denies that the climate has always changed, over time, in most parts of the world, is surely a nitwit. ;)
Any person who asserts that the current rate, mechanism, and consequences of global climate change is nothing new is surely a nitwit. ::)
-
Any person who asserts that the current rate, mechanism, and consequences of global climate change is nothing new is surely a nitwit. ::)
The last 100 years ("current rate") vs. how many billion of years of Earth existence, four, five, you say? That would be 0.000002%. That's five zeros after the decimal point.
-
The name-calling exists on both sides of the opposing arguments. For example, those who are skeptical about the 'potentially catastrophic effects' of human CO2 emissions, are often called 'climate change deniers'.
Any person who denies that the climate has always changed, over time, in most parts of the world, is surely a nitwit. ;)
Welcome back, Ray! Glad to see you are still clicking :)
-
Nitwits need not apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/07/02/summer-2022-climate-change-heat/Nitwits playing climate scientists on photo forums should ignore:
Oh, my God! Since 1971!? That long? ;)
-
Oh, my God! Since 1971!? That long? ;)
"Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes." -Jawaharlal Nehru
-
Those who are skeptical about the 'potentially catastrophic effects' of human CO2 emissions, are often ill-informed amateurs pretending to be better informed than climate scientists who have spent their adult lives studying and analyzing the mechanisms and effects of climate change. In order to distract from their lack of knowledge, they will sometimes engage in transparently phony attacks on climate scientists.
How often? Please provide a reference to the studies which show that such skeptics are often ill-informed amateurs pretending to be better informed than climate scientists. Skepticism is a fundamental requirement for the progression of our scientific understanding. It should not be dismissed. There are many well-qualified scientists who are skeptical about the exaggerated alarm about Anthropogenic
Climate Change.
Everything that I know about the history of climate on our planet, comes from scientists, such as Geologists and Paleoclimatologists. I don't make things up, or pretend to be better informed than them. I read their peer-reviewed studies, or at least the Abstracts and Summaries, search for other studies that confirm their results, and make an interpretation based upon logic and rationality.
When the alarm that our CO2 emissions would cause rising temperatures which could result in catastrophic consequences, first appeared in the media, and was supported in the media by interviews of certain 'famous' scientists, I accepted that claim as true, and wondered why governments were not taking more rigorous action. This would have been in the 1980's when I knew very little about past climate changes.
I can sympathise with many of the young people today who are very worried and concerned about their future because of the lack of government action on climate change, and this, unfortunately, has psychological consequences for them.
Such young folks probably spend most of their time chatting on the iPhone, playing video games, watching sporting events, and reading all the bad news about global warming and extreme weather events on the daily news.
With little understanding of history, and no confidence to investigate 'climate change' issues for themselves, by searching for scientific information on the internet rather than personal opinions on blogs, it's not surprising that many of them are seriously alarmed and depressed about their future.
One of the turning points for me was in 2011 when Queensland, Australia, was inundated by massive floods which caused billions of dollars worth of damage. It was reported in the media as the worst flood on record and a confirmation of the results of 'human caused' climate change. I was personally caught in the floods and had to travel by canoe to get home to my house.
After the flood event had settled, I decided to investigate on the internet if that flood really was the worst on record. The Bureau of Meteorology is a fairly reliable organization, wouldn't you think? Their records showed that the 2011 flood was the 7th worst on record. The worst flood on record occurred in 1893, over a hundred years ago when CO2 levels were much lower.
Attached is a photograph taken in 1893, of people canoeing in the centre of Brisbane. There still exists a monument in the city centre showing the flood height in 1893. Attached is also a BOM graph showing previous flood heights in Brisbane.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
This is just one example of the misinformation propogated by the mass media, regarding climate change. I've discovered many more.
-
I've ridden on your merry-go-round before. It never went anywhere interesting. Just round and round in circles.
Those who are skeptical about the 'potentially catastrophic effects' of human CO2 emissions, are often ill-informed amateurs pretending to be better informed than climate scientists who have spent their adult lives studying and analyzing the mechanisms and effects of climate change. In order to distract from their lack of knowledge, they will sometimes engage in transparently phony attacks on climate scientists.
-
I've ridden on your merry-go-round before. It never went anywhere interesting. Just round and round in circles.
Well, I'm sorry you are unable to appreciate my point. Extreme weather events, and changing climate, have always been a major issue for mankind, throughout history. The solution is to adapt.
In our modern scientific era, with abundant energy supplies and advanced technology, we have the capability to adapt, but due to hubris, most of those in control seem to think we can solve the problem by reducing CO2 emissions. It's a fairy story for children. ;D
-
No comment.
Good response. Ignore him.
-
Good response. Ignore him.
Teammate advice:
-
Ray, nice to see you back with your thoughtful comments, logically presented.
Sorry you had a flood. Hope things are back to normal.
The American Southwest needs some of that water. Lake Mead is drying up and California, New Mexico and the other desert states are having problems providing enough water for their inhabitants. Well, duh! Who in their right minds moves into the desert willingly building new homes all over the sand? What did these people think was going to happen eventually when it's 115F in Phoenix Arizona and everyone has pools, golf courses, green lawns, and farms that need loads of water. Why do only rattlesnakes and cactus live there? They blame global warming for the desert. Madness.
It's the same thing here where I live in New Jersey. Hurricanes come through and homes along the shore get wiped out. So, people just stay making the stilts that their homes sit on a few feet higher. They never learn. Then they blame global warming for hurricanes. More madness.
-
Ray, nice to see you back with your thoughtful comments, logically presented.
Sorry you had a flood. Hope things are back to normal.
The American Southwest needs some of that water. Lake Mead is drying up and California, New Mexico and the other desert states are having problems providing enough water for their inhabitants. Well, duh! Who in their right minds moves into the desert willingly building new homes all over the sand? What did these people think was going to happen eventually when it's 115F in Phoenix Arizona and everyone has pools, golf courses, green lawns, and farms that need loads of water. Why do only rattlesnakes and cactus live there? They blame global warming for the desert. Madness.
It's the same thing here where I live in New Jersey. Hurricanes come through and homes along the shore get wiped out. So, people just stay making the stilts that their homes sit on a few feet higher. They never learn. Then they blame global warming for hurricanes. More madness.
Madness indeed; all Biden's fault right Alan? 😭
Get back on script.
-
This has it all (for non-nitwits, those that first read about then accept science): hyperspectral imaging, raw processing, monitoring tropospheric ozone, detecting formaldehyde from wildfires, identifying and distinguishing between scattering and absorbing aerosols in the atmosphere, a crucial factor in understanding climate change, low levels of volcanic degassing and more.
New technology developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory (so much more useful than producing plutonium pits for U.S. nuclear weapons) was published today.
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/health_and_science/tiny-inexpensive-satellites-can-monitor-harmful-gases-from-space/article_b72e34bc-faf4-11ec-a845-2f9629a1616e.html
These inexpensive satellites and the capability to provide real-time data could change the way researchers approach atmospheric monitoring—and help combat climate change in the process.
-
Global warming is one thing. You can argue if it is caused by God, industry or cows farting, but the evidence and increasing number of catastrophic events can't be disputed.
The increased plastic pollution in the air and water is even worse, the small particles are already in the plants, animals, and human bodies. That can't be good - neither for climate change worriers or deniers.
-
... but the evidence and increasing number of catastrophic events can't be disputed....
That is exactly what we are disputing. There is no increasing number of catastrophic events, except in a very short, cherry-picked time frame.
-
That is exactly what we are disputing. There is no increasing number of catastrophic events, except in a very short, cherry-picked time frame.
And then there are the facts:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-02-18/top-10-us-record-breaking-extreme-weather-events-of-the-decade?context=amp
-
Well, I'm sorry you are unable to appreciate my point.
I am unable to appreciate your point because I've already been down this path with you and found it to be a gigantic waste of time and energy. You're not on a path of scientific exploration. You have an agenda which is to discredit scientists and "mass media" and are willing to create false narratives to do so.
That bubble is very elastic and impenetrable. I don't have anymore time for it.
-
And then there are the facts:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-02-18/top-10-us-record-breaking-extreme-weather-events-of-the-decade?context=amp
Have you noticed the part in my statement that reads "except in a very short, cherry-picked time frame"? Like a decade?
And the ranking based on a dollar value of damage? But of course that is highest now vs. before. Inflation is one factor, but even more important is urbanization and economic growth. There are now more buildings, more industry, more property, more cars, etc. than ever before, so naturally the damage, expressed in dollars, will be higher than before.
-
Have you noticed the part in my statement that reads "except in a very short, cherry-picked time frame"? Like a decade?
I did. It's nonsensical and moot in the grand scheme of things on this topic. A distraction and silliness.
I'm sorry the facts and science have ruined your day.
It is impossible to puncture the unreality bubble surrounding a fact denier. We can only attempt to sway those with open minds.
The evidence and increasing number of catastrophic events HASNT been disputed.
-
Quote from: TechTalk on Today at 02:10:16 am
Any person who asserts that the current rate, mechanism, and consequences of global climate change is nothing new is surely a nitwit. ::)
The last 100 years ("current rate") vs. how many billion of years of Earth existence, four, five, you say? That would be 0.000002%. That's five zeros after the decimal point.
Have you noticed the part in my statement that reads "and" in the sentence rather than "or"? It is the combination of those factors cited that I suggest is unique, not any one thing.
Your reply is verbal sleight of hand which isolates "current rate" by ignoring the clear intent of making it part of a group of things to be considered together and not selectively edited. If I had intended for the factors cited to be considered individually, I would have used "or" in their sequence. I have no doubt that this was inadvertent on your part.
Still, you do recognize the difference between climate and weather in your reply. That's why I like discussing things with you.
-
That is exactly what we are disputing. There is no increasing number of catastrophic events, except in a very short, cherry-picked time frame.
Very few people, including climatologists and financial analysts take into consideration the S-shape or exponential progress of a curve. Right now, we are still relatively early in the climate change curve, but every year the slope of the curve is increasing. That applies similarly to the amount of dioxide and CO2 in the atmosphere as well as to the value of, for example, Tesla company. When you get multiple S-curves, like the atmospheric and water pollution or in case of Tesla new EVs, solar panels, batteries, autonomous robots, the cumulative pace of the change increases and the resulting S-curve shape gets much steeper. While the Tesla progress is beneficial, the ecological pollution is not.
-
The polar bears are doing fine as they seem to be adapting to change whatever is causing it. More fear-mongering exposed as untrue.
-
The polar bears are doing fine as they seem to be adapting to change whatever is causing it. More fear-mongering exposed as untrue.
I am much more concerned with japanese beetles, they just arrived in my backyard. In the last two summers, I neutralized several thousands of them (avg 50/day in mid summer). I haven't found any ticks yet, but apparently they are also on increase.
-
I am much more concerned with japanese beetles, they just arrived in my backyard. In the last two summers, I neutralized several thousands of them (avg 50/day in mid summer).
The Bark Beetles in NM have been devastating to our forest area.
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/bark-beetle-infestations-could-cause-huge-pi-on-die-off/article_1fcb4242-a3b3-11ec-92c7-af38d3d23944.html
Human-driven climate change is compounding the drought’s severity and lengthening its duration, the researchers say, estimating that it could drag on to the 30-year mark before it finally passes.
-
Many climate deniers state "It's always been changing". Absolutely true. The Arctic was once a tropical jungle. Toronto was once buried under kilometer-deep ice.
But it's been changing over thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, driven by forces we don't yet fully understand.
Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes.
For those climate change deniers I suggest travel to Alaska or Northern Canada. There, you'll see (and hear about) what's actually happening from the people who've lived there for centuries. And, if you're lucky, from the scientists who are gobsmacked by what they're seeing up there. These are the guys with remote sensing and boots-on-the-ground data. They are arguably in a better position to report on climate change than a few keyboard kowboys on a photography forum.
“The Arctic Report Card continues to show how the impacts of human-caused climate change are propelling the Arctic region into a dramatically different state than it was in just a few decades ago,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “The trends are alarming and undeniable. We face a decisive moment. We must take action to confront the climate crisis.”
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/arctic-report-card-climate-change-transforming-arctic-into-dramatically-different-state
-
Different doesn't mean worse. Warming allows species to expand their population and move into areas that were inhospitable before because they were too cold. But you don't hear much talk about that. They only focus on the negatives. What about the positives?
Sure there are more beetles and ticks but also more bears humans trees and other species that can now exist in areas they haven't existed before. So while more beetles may seem bad for us, birds that eat them couldn't be happier.
-
Hey Everybody! Just Think Warm Happy Thoughts and Everything Will Turn Out Fine!
-
Many climate deniers state "It's always been changing". Absolutely true. The Arctic was once a tropical jungle. Toronto was once buried under kilometer-deep ice.
But it's been changing over thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, driven by forces we don't yet fully understand.
Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes.
For those climate change deniers I suggest travel to Alaska or Northern Canada. There, you'll see (and hear about) what's actually happening from the people who've lived there for centuries. And, if you're lucky, from the scientists who are gobsmacked by what they're seeing up there. These are the guys with remote sensing and boots-on-the-ground data. They are arguably in a better position to report on climate change than a few keyboard kowboys on a photography forum.
“The Arctic Report Card continues to show how the impacts of human-caused climate change are propelling the Arctic region into a dramatically different state than it was in just a few decades ago,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “The trends are alarming and undeniable. We face a decisive moment. We must take action to confront the climate crisis.”
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/arctic-report-card-climate-change-transforming-arctic-into-dramatically-different-state
I have personally noticed some changes in Ontario, both in the temperature and wind. .It seems that we have now more windy days - both in the summer and also in the other seasons. As a lake and river canoeist, I've been instictively attentive to the wind conditions. You don't want to be paddling on a big lake with high waves or whitecaps. Kayaks are generally safer in windy conditions, but a larger, more seaworthy canoe (16 - 18ft) has much more surface area which can catch wind gusts especially when paddling diagonally or or sideways to the wind.
The winds can make also the fire conditions more dangerous and firefighting much more difficult.
The National Weather Service in Boulder issued a record 16 red flag warnings—a measure of fire risk based on warm temperatures, very low humidity and strong winds—in April alone. That’s the most issued in a month in the history of the office. And some number-crunching by CU Boulder researchers confirms it was among the windiest Aprils in the last two decades, with day after day of strong or long-lasting gusts across the state.
“This spring, most of us on the Front Range are on edge because of what had happened with the Marshall Fire, and so any individual event of strong winds has felt significant,” said Julie Lundquist, associate professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, who gathers measurements in the field and conducts simulations which can fundamentally improve our understanding of the atmosphere. “But it has, in fact, been an exceptionally windy April.”
There isn’t a single, clear cause for the increased winds this spring, as wind is one of the trickier weather elements to model and forecast. Winds are very sensitive to subtle characteristics of the atmosphere, like temperature differences between atmospheric layers, soil moisture and topography. Dramatic changes in wind speed and direction can happen quite quickly, said Lundquist.
The models that predict winds were originally built to predict surface temperature and precipitation, and they most accurately predict those two.
Strong, repetitive winds over time can also weaken infrastructure, and if one gusty day doesn’t down a power line, it might set up a situation where the next time the wind blows, it will, said Winters.
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/05/12/its-been-unusually-windy-spring-heres-why-you-should-care
While the 30-year averages for wind do not show a change as large as the ones for cold and hot days, like those trends, the rate of change does seem to be accelerating. The most recent dip, in the early years of the 21st century, did not go as low as the previous drop in the 1980s. From 2001 to 2012, there were no years with more than 90 windy days. In 2013, there were 91 days, and since 2014 it has been triple digits every year. Of the three trends, wind is the most volatile.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-climate-change-now-1.5804758
-
The polar bears are doing fine as they seem to be adapting to change whatever is causing it. More fear-mongering exposed as untrue.
Yes, polar bears seem quite adaptable, but in the summer their fur changes from white to dirty yellow. In southern Ontario, barely 20 miles northeast from Toronto downtown, we have a pack of five such bruins and they are doing just fine. People pay big bucks to see them.
-
Many climate deniers state "It's always been changing". Absolutely true. The Arctic was once a tropical jungle. Toronto was once buried under kilometer-deep ice.
But it's been changing over thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, driven by forces we don't yet fully understand.
Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes.
For those climate change deniers I suggest travel to Alaska or Northern Canada. There, you'll see (and hear about) what's actually happening from the people who've lived there for centuries. And, if you're lucky, from the scientists who are gobsmacked by what they're seeing up there. These are the guys with remote sensing and boots-on-the-ground data. They are arguably in a better position to report on climate change than a few keyboard kowboys on a photography forum.
“The Arctic Report Card continues to show how the impacts of human-caused climate change are propelling the Arctic region into a dramatically different state than it was in just a few decades ago,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “The trends are alarming and undeniable. We face a decisive moment. We must take action to confront the climate crisis.”
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/arctic-report-card-climate-change-transforming-arctic-into-dramatically-different-state
Climate has not only been changing over thousands of years and hundreds of thousand years, but millions of years and billions of years, and hundreds of years, and even just a few decades.
Changes that occurred, say, around 10 thousand years ago could obviously not be 'happening before our eyes' because we were not present at that time to see such changes. But our ancestors were present and such changes would have happened right before their eyes.
Here's an example of a very dramatic change. https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/megalithic-atlit-yam-001579
"Not far off the coast of the village of Atlit in the Mediterranean Sea, near Haifa in Israel, lies the submerged ruins of the ancient Neolithic site of Atlit Yam. The prehistoric settlement, which dates back to the 7 th millennium BC, has been so well preserved by the sandy seabed that a mysterious stone circle still stands as it was first erected, and dozens of human skeletons lay undisturbed in their graves. Atlit Yam is one of the oldest and largest sunken settlements ever found and sheds new light on the daily lives of its ancient inhabitants."
"One of the greatest archaeological mysteries of Atlit Yam is how it came to be submerged, a question that has led to heated debate in academic circles. An Italian study led by Maria Pareschi of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa indicates that a volcanic collapse of the Eastern flank of Mount Etna 8,500 years ago would likely have caused a 40 metre high tsunami to engulf some Mediterranean coastal cities within hours.
However, other researchers have suggested that there is no solid evidence to suggest a tsunami wiped out the settlement. After all, the megalithic stone circle still remained standing in the place in which it had been constructed. One alternative is that climate change caused glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise and the settlement became flooded by a slow rise in the level of the Mediterranean that led to a gradual abandonment of the village.
If you're interested, the following 'Researchgate' site provides some sound academic reasons why the tsunami proposition doesn't match the evidence.
https://tinyurl.com/33ybef3j
-
Climate has not only been changing over thousands of years and hundreds of thousand years, but millions of years and billions of years, and hundreds of years, and even just a few decades.
Changes that occurred, say, around 10 thousand years ago could obviously not be 'happening before our eyes' because we were not present at that time to see such changes. But our ancestors were present and such changes would have happened right before their eyes.
Here's an example of a very dramatic change. https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/megalithic-atlit-yam-001579
"Not far off the coast of the village of Atlit in the Mediterranean Sea, near Haifa in Israel, lies the submerged ruins of the ancient Neolithic site of Atlit Yam. The prehistoric settlement, which dates back to the 7 th millennium BC, has been so well preserved by the sandy seabed that a mysterious stone circle still stands as it was first erected, and dozens of human skeletons lay undisturbed in their graves. Atlit Yam is one of the oldest and largest sunken settlements ever found and sheds new light on the daily lives of its ancient inhabitants."
"One of the greatest archaeological mysteries of Atlit Yam is how it came to be submerged, a question that has led to heated debate in academic circles. An Italian study led by Maria Pareschi of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa indicates that a volcanic collapse of the Eastern flank of Mount Etna 8,500 years ago would likely have caused a 40 metre high tsunami to engulf some Mediterranean coastal cities within hours.
However, other researchers have suggested that there is no solid evidence to suggest a tsunami wiped out the settlement. After all, the megalithic stone circle still remained standing in the place in which it had been constructed. One alternative is that climate change caused glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise and the settlement became flooded by a slow rise in the level of the Mediterranean that led to a gradual abandonment of the village.
If you're interested, the following 'Researchgate' site provides some sound academic reasons why the tsunami proposition doesn't match the evidence.
https://tinyurl.com/33ybef3j
Your story of the Atlit Yam people from 9000 years ago who were flooded out by rising seas due to global warming that occurred naturally after the last ice age reminds me of my fellow New Jerseyans on the shore who are suffering the same fate as the warming contines. Of course the Atlits blamed God and my neighbors blame CO2, but as long as the government provides cheap flood insurance, everyone's happy.
-
Your story of the Atlit Yam people from 9000 years ago who were flooded out by rising seas due to global warming that occurred naturally after the last ice age reminds me of my fellow New Jerseyans on the shore who are suffering the same fate as the warming contines. Of course the Atlits blamed God and my neighbors blame CO2, but as long as the government provides cheap flood insurance, everyone's happy.
As I understand, Alan, the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes which are causing the land to sink. It's very doubtful that reducing CO2 emissions could solve that particular problem. ;)
Here's your own EPA's explanation of the causes.
"The land in North America is actually still adjusting to the loss of ice after the last ice age, which peaked about 20,000 years ago. Back then, thick sheets of ice covered areas of what is now Canada and the northern United States. The weight of all that ice depressed the land beneath it, but caused the land farther south (particularly the Mid-Atlantic region from North Carolina to New York) to bulge upward. After the ice melted and the extra weight was lifted, northern areas began to rise, and the Mid-Atlantic region started to sink. This very slow process continues today."
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast
-
False narratives by selective editing Further down the linked page from the quoted text above... :(
"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects. To provide a useful regional perspective, this feature examines the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast from Florida to New York. It is based on satellite data that have been collected and analyzed at five-year intervals since 1996. Figure 1 divides the Atlantic coast into two regions for comparison, while Figure 2 shows the different types of land that have been lost."
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level)
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast)
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/sea-level_figure1_2021.png)
-
… Now, the changes are happening right before our eyes….
Thus the availability bias.
-
False narratives by selective editing Further down the linked page from the quoted text above... :(
"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects. To provide a useful regional perspective, this feature examines the amount of land lost to sea level rise along the Atlantic coast from Florida to New York. It is based on satellite data that have been collected and analyzed at five-year intervals since 1996. Figure 1 divides the Atlantic coast into two regions for comparison, while Figure 2 shows the different types of land that have been lost."
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level)
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast)
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/sea-level_figure1_2021.png)
I was selective because I was addressing Alan's reference to the New Jersey problem, which is not the same as all problems in coastal areas, for the reason I highlighted. That's not a false narrative. Your quote from the same article confirms that.
"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects."
I don't deny that the average global sea level is rising, and I don't dispute that during the last 150 years or so, there has been a slight warming trend of around 1 degree C, which is very likely not an unusual temperature change in the history of humanity. Consider the 'Roman Warm Period', the 'Dark Ages', The 'Medieval Warm Period', and the 'Little Ice Age' which is the starting point for our current warming trend.
-
Different doesn't mean worse. Warming allows species to expand their population and move into areas that were inhospitable before because they were too cold. But you don't hear much talk about that. They only focus on the negatives. What about the positives?
Sure there are more beetles and ticks but also more bears humans trees and other species that can now exist in areas they haven't existed before. So while more beetles may seem bad for us, birds that eat them couldn't be happier.
Maybe more deserts and scorpions too. OTOH, more solar power!
-
Thus the availability bias.
Thus the availability of observation along with measurement and science but your bias above is noted.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."-Lord Kelvin
-
I was selective because I was addressing Alan's reference to the New Jersey problem, which is not the same as all problems in coastal areas, for the reason I highlighted. That's not a false narrative. Your quote from the same article confirms that.
It isn't a multiple-choice quiz where you have to choose one answer. There can be — and usually is — more than one force at work at any given time. Such as in this case... where you focused on one force at work while ignoring the other.
"The Sea Level indicator shows that sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change, but the rate of change varies by region, as do the effects."
It's a great big globe (assuming you don't believe the world's flat), that "the rate of [any] change varies by region, as do the effects" is not surprising.
-
It isn't a multiple-choice quiz where you have to choose one answer. There can be — and usually is — more than one force at work at any given time. Such as in this case... where you focused on one force at work while ignoring the other.
Ignoring the other?? Do you mean there are only two forces at work?? :D
This is what I wrote in my previous post.
"the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes which are causing the land to sink."
Now anyone with at least a reasonable comprehension of English should be able to interpret that the author of the above statement is aware that sea levels are rising in New Jersey, but they might appear to be rising at a faster rate than at other locations because the land along the New Jersey coast is sinking. This is why I stated the problem of rising sea levels is exacerbated by natural processes.
I haven't ignored the other force, or general sea level rise. I've simply made a distinction between sinking land and rising water levels. This distinction needs to be made because there are many islands, and cities by the coast, that are sinking, sometimes at a much faster rate than the sea water is rising. The inhabitants of such islands and cities need to be informed that the alarming rate of 'apparent' sea-level rise, that they can see with their own eyes, is mainly due to the sinking of their land, for reasons that the linked EPA article explained in relation to New Jersey, and there were possibly other reasons which they didn't address.
Bangkok is a example of a city which is sinking much faster than the global average rate of sea level rise. Jakarta is sinking even faster, as much as 250mm per year in some locations. Compare that with the average global sea level rise of around 3mm per year due to global warming.
-
The whole Mississippi Delta and New Orleans are sinking because of man-made blockages of natural sediment not being deposited by the river. Of course, the climate changers only mention rising seas and never falling land. Of course, no one should be really living in New Orleans which is basically below sea level. But as long as man insists on living in pretty seashore areas, we're going to continue to have problems with the climate. ;)
-
The whole Mississippi Delta and New Orleans are sinking because of man-made blockages of natural sediment not being deposited by the river.
Okay... And then there is raising sea levels.
Of course, the climate changers only mention rising seas and never falling land.
Utter rubbish.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sinking-land-rising-seas-dual-crises-facing-coastal-communities
-
Utter rubbish.
It's a complete fabrication. But, that's to be expected.
-
It's a complete fabrication. But, that's to be expected.
Here is some info. Most of the loss is caused by man and not related to global warming. See the second link.
Although sea-level rise is a major factor in Louisiana’s disappearing coast, even if sea-levels remained stable, Louisiana would still be sinking. This, combined with natural subsidence and sea-level rise, has resulted in Louisiana having one of the worst coastal erosion problems around the world.
https://www.dekooktips.com/advices/what-causes-coastal-erosion-in-louisiana.html
More info:
https://mississippiriverdelta.org/our-coastal-crisis/land-loss/
-
I haven't ignored the other force, or general sea level rise.
Sure you did. The article from the EPA you cited was extremely brief. Despite its brevity, it managed to discuss several factors affecting coastal land loss — some natural and some caused by human activities. You cited only one portion of the article and left out the effect of climate change which it included.
I took notice of your use of language and wording in saying "the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes". I also took notice of what you didn't include in your post which is "sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change". I called that a false narrative by selective editing. I still do. But, I'm not surprised.
In response to my comment you attempt to again deflect from discussion of global climate change and its effects. You "consider" various past regional climate phenomena which were not global in scope or effect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.
-
Here is some info. Most of the loss is caused by man and not related to global warming. See the second link.
regional... phenomena ... not global in scope or effect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.
-
Sure you did. The article from the EPA you cited was extremely brief. Despite its brevity, it managed to discuss several factors affecting coastal land loss — some natural and some caused by human activities. You cited only one portion of the article and left out the effect of climate change which it included.
I took notice of your use of language and wording in saying "the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes". I also took notice of what you didn't include in your post which is "sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change". I called that a false narrative by selective editing. I still do. But, I'm not surprised.
In response to my comment you attempt to again deflect from discussion of global climate change and its affects. You "consider" various past regional climate phenomena which were not global in scope or affect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.
The damage caused on the New Jersey shore was not caused by sea levels rising. It was caused by Hurricane Sandy.
Even if you can prove that man caused sea levels to rise, the one or two inches are insignificant compared to rising water due to storm surge which ranged in height from 9 to 15 feet. Sandy's surge is what wiped out all those homes.
-
Now, there's some major league spinning in circles that you don't see every day!
-
Now, there's some major league spinning in circles that you don't see every day!
Another personal attack. You're getting like some others here. I thought you were smarter than them. How about addressing my points?
-
Quote from: TechTalk on Today at 03:12:14 pm
regional... phenomena ... not global in scope or affect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.
Another personal attack. You're getting like some others here. I thought you were smarter than them. How about addressing my points?
-
It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda.
-
To the nay sayers.
Incoming sunlight is absorbed by the surface of the planet and reradiated as infrared. The incoming and outgoing need to balance or the earth will heat or cool according to which way the imbalance is.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising.
Carbon dioxide is a good absorber of infrared radiation, thereby preventing it escaping.
The imbalance is heading in the getting hotter direction.
In terms of sea levels it does not matter if the ice cap at the North Pole melts as it is floating. Melting ice that is above land will make sea levels rise. There is a huge amount of it on Greenland and at the South Pole. Ice and snow being white also reflect light back off the earth much more than non white earth so loss of ice will also affect the energy imbalance.
Jonathan
-
Another personal attack. How about addressing my points?
It’s pointless.
-
To the nay sayers.
Incoming sunlight is absorbed by the surface of the planet and reradiated as infrared. The incoming and outgoing need to balance or the earth will heat or cool according to which way the imbalance is.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising.
Carbon dioxide is a good absorber of infrared radiation, thereby preventing it escaping.
The imbalance is heading in the getting hotter direction.
In terms of sea levels it does not matter if the ice cap at the North Pole melts as it is floating. Melting ice that is above land will make sea levels rise. There is a huge amount of it on Greenland and at the South Pole. Ice and snow being white also reflect light back off the earth much more than non white earth so loss of ice will also affect the energy imbalance.
Jonathan
A couple of observations. The biggest driver of global temperatures is solar activity: there is a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, in spite of the phenomenon you described. During long periods in the past global temperatures went down while CO2 levels rose and the other way around.
-
The biggest driver of global temperatures is solar activity: there is a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, in spite of the phenomenon you described. During long periods in the past global temperatures went down while CO2 levels rose and the other way around.
And now NASA and actual science of man-made climate change:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Is the Sun causing global warming?
No!
-
...There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures...
So, in addition to believing you're such a fierce debater (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1194728#msg1194728) that one would have to "be a masochist" to engage you... now, you believe that you have a better understanding of climate science than the world's leading climate scientists. Both prospects are absurd.
So, just how many minutes of your life have you spent studying climate science?
-
A couple of observations. The biggest driver of global temperatures is solar activity: there is a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, in spite of the phenomenon you described. During long periods in the past global temperatures went down while CO2 levels rose and the other way around.
We're in one of the warming periods between many interglacial Ice Ages that occurred before when man could have no impact on climate at all. So that raises the question of how much of the warming now would have occurred anyway even if higher CO2 levels today play a part.
-
Oh, no! Not another climate-alarmist article!
I'm waiting for the return of the next ice age. It should be good for frozen Margaritas.
Bud
-
According to Al Gore's prognostications from years ago, we all should be dead by now.
Bud
-
So, in addition to believing you're such a fierce debater (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1194728#msg1194728) that one would have to "be a masochist" to engage you... now, you believe that you have a better understanding of climate science than the world's leading climate scientists. Both prospects are absurd.
So, just how many minutes of your life have you spent studying climate science?
Climate scientists' predictions are as accurate as the Fed's PhD economists were about inflation.
-
Ever notice that the amateurs who know the least about science have the most disagreement with actual science and scientists. There's a correlation worthy of examination.
-
Ever notice that the amateurs who know the least about science have the most disagreement with actual science and scientists. There's a correlation worthy of examination.
Science is full of mistakes, politics, and changing theories. A person would be foolish to believe things at face value.
-
...and the less they know, the more convinced they are of the virtue of their talking points.
-
According to Al Gore's prognostications from years ago, we all should be dead by now.
Bud
Hyperbole for the purpose of distraction or lack of concern for facts?
-
...and the less they know, the more convinced they are of the virtue of their talking points.
Most people post articles that just repeat their preconceived beliefs. They have little original thought. They take what they read for the truth without question. I'm more impressed with people who think out of the box and can logically refute common beliefs with critical analysis of their own.
-
Hyperbole for the purpose of distraction or lack of concern for facts?
It was Gore's hyperbole and prediction errors that convinced a generation about global warming and made him a multi-millionaire in the process. He knew it was BS but he was more interested in selling a product to make him rich.
-
Most people post articles that just repeat their preconceived beliefs. They have little original thought. They take what they read for the truth without question. I'm more impressed with people who think out of the box and can logically refute common beliefs with critical analysis of their own.
You'd love the Flat Earth crowd then. They can confidently spout BS that almost sounds superficially reasonable; as long as you don't know much about science, don't trust or listen to scientists, or think about it for a moment. You might first want to start with the we've-never-been-to-the-moon crowd as a warmup.
You should go to one of their meetups. Why, they'd welcome you with open arms!
-
You'd love the Flat Earth crowd then. They can confidently spout BS that almost sounds superficially reasonable; as long as you don't know much about science, don't trust or listen to scientists, or think about it for a moment. You might first want to start with the we've-never-been-to-the-moon crowd as a warmup.
You should go to one of their meetups. Why, they'd welcome you with open arms!
Great entrepeneurs and scientists think out of the box. They did not take for granted existing theories. They always questioned them, critically. Anyone can repeat the thoughts and opinions of others with no question. Man would be no wheres with that attitude and back in the stone age.
In any case, it's a matter of degree. I don't question everything, just more things than most I suppose. When you see all the mistakes people make in so many fields, you become attuned to commonplace errors. You read between the lines. It becomes intuitive, maybe due to age. In any case, you're just saying what you're saying for political and competitive reasons. That's OK. I get it.
-
Ascribe my motives to whatever makes you feel better. I have firsthand experience in trying to provide you with very simple, basic, and irrefutable information about science and your adamant refusal to acknowledge it.
Praise be to the Heavenly and Omnipotent Cosmic Toad that we don't rely on your reading between the lines and intuition for medical knowledge; or unlike the phony folktales about Al Gore, we really would all be dead by now.
-
Middle East is experiencing also record temperatures this summer.
Kuwait has now been subjected to extreme summers this year and the weather has even resulted in human endangerment. If scorching heat keeps spiking like this in future days it would be unbearable to survive with this temperature in Kuwait.
The Meteorological Department of Kuwait’s monitoring stations in Jahra city recorded temperatures of 51 degrees Celsius in the shade yesterday. The temperature in Kuwait on Sunday, 5/6/2022, was the highest in the world yesterday.
The weather inside Kuwait City, Nuwaiseeb, and Al-Wafra reached around 49 degrees Celsius. Similar was the climate present near the airport region, according to the Abdali monitoring station. The Arab Regional Weather Center has previously warned that an extremely hot air mass followed by temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius will strike the eastern and northeastern regions of the Arabian Peninsula, including Kuwait.
According to Qatar Meteorology Department some parts of Qatar witnessed very hot temperatures today with Sudanthile recording a maximum of 49 degrees Celsius. Turyana, Mukaynis, Messaid, Mesaimeer, and Qatar University registered 48 degrees Celsius. The department said in their weather report that tomorrow also will be hot to very hot daytime with blowing dust. It also mentioned that strong wind with poor visibility is expected on Monday.
https://curlytales.com/kuwait-records-highest-temperature-on-earth-at-53-degrees/
-
In any case, it's a matter of degree. I don't question everything, just more things than most I suppose. When you see all the mistakes people make in so many fields, you become attuned to commonplace errors. You read between the lines. It becomes intuitive, maybe due to age. In any case, you're just saying what you're saying for political and competitive reasons. That's OK. I get it.
Thank you Alan for this. It confirms my opinion of you. You do question a lot, even opinions that have national and international consensus. That is obviously your nature. I am now out of this and will leave you alone to your opinions and questioning.
Jonathan
-
Ascribe my motives to whatever makes you feel better. I have firsthand experience in trying to provide you with very simple, basic, and irrefutable information about science and your adamant refusal to acknowledge it.
Praise be to the Heavenly and Omnipotent Cosmic Toad that we don't rely on your reading between the lines and intuition for medical knowledge; or unlike the phony folktales about Al Gore, we really would all be dead by now.
Why ascribe my beliefs to some nefarious objectives? People believe different things and not every idea is set in stone. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. But attacking people as is often done on social media just ruins the conversation.
-
Thank you Alan for this. It confirms my opinion of you. You do question a lot, even opinions that have national and international consensus. That is obviously your nature. I am now out of this and will leave you alone to your opinions and questioning.
Jonathan
Sorry to see you go, Johnathan. It was nice having new people adding their thoughts to the conversation.
-
Middle East is experiencing also record temperatures this summer.
https://curlytales.com/kuwait-records-highest-temperature-on-earth-at-53-degrees/
The temperatures now are not record breaking., They have been higher before. What's interesting is Kuwait is an oil-producing state So what do you think they're going to do?
Last Saturday (June 2019), Kuwait reportedly recorded the highest temperature on Earth at 63°C under sunlight (and 52.2°C in the shadows). The claim was reported Thursday in Gulf News, which quoted the Al Qabas newspaper, and added that Al Majmaah in Saudi Arabia recorded 55°C. Unless the Kuwait temperature is verified, however, the world record stands at 56.7°C, recorded at Death Valley in Furnace Creek Ranch, California, on July 10, 1913.
The United Nations agency World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has often examined claims of weather and climate records. One temperature claim found invalid was of 58ºC, said to be recorded at El Azizia, Libya, on September 13, 1922. In 2011, an investigation found an error in recording that temperature; in 2012, the WMO declared Death Valley’s 56.7°C as “officially” the highest on record.
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/fact-check-63c-claim-from-kuwait-is-it-really-a-world-record-5779655/
-
Hi Jonathon, good to see your post.
Here is a chart of global temperatures over a longer period for those who are dubious about what recent changes might mean.
-
Why ascribe my beliefs to some nefarious objectives?
I haven't. That's you putting words in my mouth, as you've often done when pretending to reply to myself and others. I don't find turning over your objective reasoning to a reliance on reciting ideological talking points nefarious. I find it sad, as I do the voluntary blindness to any information that conflicts with that. I also find your disingenuous responses and the attention seeking behavior sad, along with the immediate resort to victimhood when criticized.
On the other hand, whatever makes you happy.
-
Hi Jonathon, good to see your post.
Here is a chart of global temperatures over a longer period for those who are dubious about what recent changes might mean.
So it's increasing. That doesn't explain what they mean. When I was working, my bank account increased too. I thought that was better than it standing still.
-
Getting warmer means that populations are expanding and territory not previously occupied because it was too cold are now being filled by expansion of many species into them. That's good by most standards.
I live up north in NJ with a bunch of "snow birds", neighbors who vacation in hot Florida every winter. Warm is good. I'm jealous because I stay here in cold New Jersey.
-
There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, in spite of the phenomenon you described. During long periods in the past global temperatures went down while CO2 levels rose and the other way around.
Show us valid, verifiable data proving these assertions and we might take you seriously.
-
Show us valid, verifiable data proving these assertions and we might take you seriously.
There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising.
-
There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising.
Scientists were warning of Global Cooling back then. Newspapers were broadcasting how cold it's going to get - another Ice Age. Brrrr. :-[
-
Scientists were warning of Global Cooling back then. Newspapers were broadcasting how cold it's going to get - another Ice Age. Brrrr. :-[
They didn't cure many people of cancer back then either, and cardiologists didn't have stent technology. Science marches on. Try to keep track. ;)
-
They didn't cure many people of cancer back then either, and cardiologists didn't have stent technology. Science marches on. Try to keep track. ;)
It was current back then. The current science will be old in a few decades too as time marches on as well. I still think warming is better than cooling.
-
There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising.
What part of
Show us valid, verifiable data proving these assertions
Did you not understand?
Additionally, please demonstrate (with more valid, verifiable data) that, even if true, a brief cooling period in the 40s 50s and 60s accurately represents temperature trends hundreds of years long.
-
What part of
Did you not understand?
Additionally, please demonstrate (with more valid, verifiable data) that, even if true, a brief cooling period in the 40s 50s and 60s accurately represents temperature trends hundreds of years long.
You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.
-
You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.
You made the assertion. Anybody can make assertions, even Donald Trump.
It's up to YOU to prove your assertions, not for us to validate them for you.
Otherwise it's empty (for want of a more polite word that won't offend Alan's tender sensibilities) rhetoric. Valueless.
Still waiting for scientific data from you that disprove the link between atmospheric CO2 and global heating.
-
There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising.
You're a good parrot... word for word repetition, right down to the punctuation!... have a cracker.
https://grist.org/article/what-about-mid-century-cooling (https://grist.org/article/what-about-mid-century-cooling/)
‘What about mid-century cooling?’–No one said CO2 is the only climate influence
Coby Beck - Published Nov 06, 2006 in Grist - Brief excerpt below...
Objection: There was global cooling in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.
Answer: None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system, responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings. AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and steady — nor would it be expected to be.
If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you’ll notice a sharp drop in ’92, ’93, and ’94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo’s eruption. That doesn’t mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing.
The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the ’40s and ’50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the ’60s and ’70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over. Below, courtesy of Global Warming Art, is an image of the current understanding of the factors and their influence for the climate of the past century.
[More at Link Above]
-
It was current back then. The current science will be old in a few decades too as time marches on as well. I still think warming is better than cooling.
You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.
Let's see... two guys on the internet with virtually no knowledge or interest in science [who are ideological zealots] or the world's leading scientists who have devoted their lives to study and research of the subject. Hmmmm... I think I'll go with the people that have the education, experience, reams of data, and vast knowledge... the scientists.
-
Getting warmer means that populations are expanding and territory not previously occupied because it was too cold are now being filled by expansion of many species into them. That's good by most standards.
The temperature is increasing also in Alaska. And now we hear voices from Russia that they want Alaska back.
CLIMATE CHANGE IN ALASKA
Every new day brings with it new evidence of climate change in Alaskan communities – warmer, record breaking temperatures have resulted in thawing permafrost, thinning sea ice, and increasing wildfires. These changes have resulted in a reduction of subsistence harvests, an increase in flooding and erosion, concerns about water and food safety and major impacts to infrastructure: including damage to buildings, roads and airports.
...
A warming climate will damage Alaska’s infrastructure because it was designed for a cold climate. Damage from climate change could add $3.6 to $6.1 billion (10% to 20%) to future costs for public infrastructure from now to 2030. Institute of Social and Economic Research
https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/ClimateChange.aspx
A top Russian lawmaker warned the United States that Russia may seek to reclaim Alaska in retaliation for U.S. sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine.
During a parliamentary session in Moscow on Wednesday, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Federal Assembly, told the U.S. to think twice before seizing or freezing Russian assets abroad, reminding the U.S. that Alaska once belonged to Russia and the Kremlin may want the land back.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/russia-may-reclaim-alaska
-
Great entrepeneurs and scientists think out of the box. They did not take for granted existing theories. They always questioned them, critically. Anyone can repeat the thoughts and opinions of others with no question. Man would be no wheres with that attitude and back in the stone age.
In any case, it's a matter of degree. I don't question everything, just more things than most I suppose. When you see all the mistakes people make in so many fields, you become attuned to commonplace errors. You read between the lines. It becomes intuitive, maybe due to age. In any case, you're just saying what you're saying for political and competitive reasons. That's OK. I get it.
But you only seem to question things that you are "politically" against (in a general sense). Isn't that a bit selective? Sort of the way that Trump insists that voter fraud only happened in districts he lost. I mean, come on, it's a little convenient you have to admit. ;)
-
Let's see... two guys on the internet with virtually no knowledge or interest in science [who are ideological zealots] or the world's leading scientists who have devoted their lives to study and research of the subject.
Even worse: two guys on the internet on a website about photography with virtually no knowledge or interest in Photography! "On the internet, you can be anything you want. It’s strange that so many people choose to be stupid".- Anonymous
-
So, in addition to believing you're such a fierce debater (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1194728#msg1194728) that one would have to "be a masochist" to engage you... now, you believe that you have a better understanding of climate science than the world's leading climate scientists. Both prospects are absurd.
So, just how many minutes of your life have you spent studying climate science?
Personal attack; I'm done with you.
-
Awwwwww... you'll be OK.
(https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/wp-content/uploads/3446433115_76f0bd1d07.jpg)
-
They didn't cure many people of cancer back then either, and cardiologists didn't have stent technology. Science marches on. Try to keep track. ;)
Who's to say they're accurate now and won't change? Another scientific theory I recall back then besides Global Cooling was the Population Explosion. Science and media were pushing that theory as well. We were assured that another billion people and the world would collapse into starvation. Well, the population has increased by billions more and we're still here. Interestingly, many countries are in real trouble because of low fertility rates. There aren't enough younger people in these countries, like China, Italy, and Japan, to support the old populations that will stop working because of age. Science marches on. It's hard to keep track. :)
-
...Science marches on...
...while you remain rigidly planted.
-
You can find this information yourself, if you are really interested, instead of trying to create a gotcha moment. This cooling, while CO2 levels were rising is well documented, as is the solar activity and global temperature correlation.
The facts about global cooling are unimportant. Obviously, the scientists back then were wrong. The point is the whole world was worried about it because science claimed it was going to happen and the media ran with it as they are running with global warming today.
-
Let's see... two guys on the internet with virtually no knowledge or interest in science [who are ideological zealots] or the world's leading scientists who have devoted their lives to study and research of the subject. Hmmmm... I think I'll go with the people that have the education, experience, reams of data, and vast knowledge... the scientists.
What knowledge do you have of these things other than cherry-picking articles and statements by others? We don't even know your real name, or any name you want to give us. You hide all facts about yourself. Why are your opinions more valid than anyone else's?
-
The temperature is increasing also in Alaska. And now we hear voices from Russia that they want Alaska back.
https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/ClimateChange.aspx
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/russia-may-reclaim-alaska
It's warming up more in the lower 48. Will Canada want America "back"? Hold on. It;s warming up in Canada. Will France or GB want Canada back?
-
But you only seem to question things that you are "politically" against (in a general sense). Isn't that a bit selective? Sort of the way that Trump insists that voter fraud only happened in districts he lost. I mean, come on, it's a little convenient you have to admit. ;)
I've told you before, I don't think Trump won. Why do you keep claiming things I said that I didn't say?
-
He didn't. You just didn't bother to read what was actually written with any care whatsoever and jumped to the wrong conclusion. So... what else is new?
-
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus (https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf)
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus
American Meteorological Society - September 2008
The Myth... When climate researcher Reid Bryson stood before the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1972, his description of the state of scientists' understanding of climate change sounded very much like the old story about the group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. The integrated enterprise of climate science as we know it today was in its infancy, with different groups of scientists feeling blindly around their piece of the lumbering climate beast.
Rigorous measurements of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide were available for the first time, along with modeling results suggesting that global warming would be a clear consequence. Meanwhile, newly created global temperature series showed cooling since the 1940s, and other scientists were looking to aerosols to explain the change. The mystery of waxing and waning ice ages had long entranced geologists, and a cohesive explanation in terms of orbital solar forcing was beginning to emerge. Underlying this discussion was a realization that climate could change on time scales with the potential for significant effects on human societies, and that human activities could trigger such changes (Bryson 1974).
Bryson laid out the following four questions that still stand today as being central to the climate science enterprise:
i) How large must a climate change be to be important?
ii) How fast can the climate change?
iii) What are the causal parameters, and why do they change?
iv) How sensitive is the climate to small changes in the causal parameters?
Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales that would be significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979). However, perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time— each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions—was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today.
Much More at Link Above
-
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus (https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf)
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus
American Meteorological Society - September 2008
The Myth... When climate researcher Reid Bryson stood before the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1972, his description of the state of scientists' understanding of climate change sounded very much like the old story about the group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. The integrated enterprise of climate science as we know it today was in its infancy, with different groups of scientists feeling blindly around their piece of the lumbering climate beast.
Rigorous measurements of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide were available for the first time, along with modeling results suggesting that global warming would be a clear consequence. Meanwhile, newly created global temperature series showed cooling since the 1940s, and other scientists were looking to aerosols to explain the change. The mystery of waxing and waning ice ages had long entranced geologists, and a cohesive explanation in terms of orbital solar forcing was beginning to emerge. Underlying this discussion was a realization that climate could change on time scales with the potential for significant effects on human societies, and that human activities could trigger such changes (Bryson 1974).
Bryson laid out the following four questions that still stand today as being central to the climate science enterprise:
i) How large must a climate change be to be important?
ii) How fast can the climate change?
iii) What are the causal parameters, and why do they change?
iv) How sensitive is the climate to small changes in the causal parameters?
Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales that would be significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979). However, perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time— each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions—was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today.
Much More at Link Above
I lived through the time and claims of Global Cooling. Everyone including scientists were talking about it. The media pressed it home just as today they press home Global Warming.
In 50 years, if Global Warming turns out to be a bust, scientists and media of the future will re-write history as they try now to re-write past claims of Global Cooling. They will claim all sorts of proof there really was no real belief in Global Warming. Everyone thought Global Warming was a myth.
-
Baloney.
-
Great. Another opinion about my points. We're on a roll. :)
-
I lived through the time and claims of Global Cooling. Everyone including scientists were talking about it. The media pressed it home just as today they press home Global Warming.
In 50 years, if Global Warming turns out to be a bust, scientists and media of the future will re-write history as they try now to re-write past claims of Global Cooling. They will claim all sorts of proof there really was no real belief in Global Warming. Everyone thought Global Warming was a myth.
It's all a big con. Ignore it then.
-
At the current rate of ice melting in Greenland the entire island will be ice free in 200 years this is a prediction not a fact!
The ice is melting YES is that positive proof of permanent climate change, according to the recent reports fro the United States Government Agencies they don’t conclusively state and why would they. Is the ice melting yes is it going to continue ? Who’s nose. Is the planet hotter hum some places is it an exact science nope.
Sorry to bring it up but things are beautiful depending on which way your looking and if they aren’t say they are or blame it on someone or something but get some famous people to tell everyone so it sounds like fact.
Fountain of youth stuff!
Really
-
...is it an exact science nope...
Nope... and no one pretends that it is — except for those trying to create a false narrative surrounding the actual science, methodology, data, analysis, results, reports, updates, corrections, improved methodology, new data, new analysis, new results, and so on.
-
Nope... and no one pretends that it is — except for those trying to create a false narrative surrounding the actual science, methodology, data, analysis, results, reports, updates, corrections, improved methodology, new data, new analysis, new results, and so on.
There is no false narrative! OH YA the government report it might be possible that its not correct. Never-less please explain how in the next 200 years the notable scientific community has the proof. If you want you can use the same scientific community experts who said we all migrated from Africa found recently to be false, also proving man has been on earth a million years before they previously thought. Its science not fact.
"In science, a fact is an observation that's been confirmed so many times that scientists can, for all intents and purposes, accept it as "true." But everything in science comes with a level of uncertainty, so nothing is ever scientifically "true" beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Checkmate!
-
Science seeks to provide the best available information and explanations based on current human knowledge and understanding. As human knowledge and understanding evolves and expands, so does the science that supports it. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I'm occasionally surprised by attitudes that appear antagonistic toward science and the scientists and researchers supporting it, but quite happy to enjoy the rewards and benefits it brings to improving and enriching their lives.
-
Checkmate!
Gesundheit!
-
It's all a big con. Ignore it then.
I think it’s overdone. There may be other factors that are contributing to warming.
But my main objection is they're cherry-picking the negatives and totally ignoring the positives of a few more degrees. For example, the earth in many areas is one-third greener because of higher levels of CO2. Fauna grows thicker as well. (see link below) Added to additional warming, there are now areas on earth that can be farmed increasing crop production and feeding more people. Species are expanding into territories that couldn’t support them. Humans will get these benefits as well. Of course, the media and science always talk about the danger to polar bears. But they're only one species. In any case, recent facts show that they aren’t dying out and are adapting to changes.
Also never mentioned are the costs. When trillions will be spent on wind and solar generation and other green projects, that’s a lot of money never spent on feeding the hungry and healing the sick. R&D funds are reduced in another important medical research. Yet, few people publicly are talking about this. The focus is only warming damage and not warming benefits or how spending so much will hurt us in other areas. All these issues must be fleshed out to determine the best path. That hasn't happened. We're jumping off a limb hoping to land safely.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/earth-getting-greener-nasa-s-new-maps-confirm-69361
-
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/earth-getting-greener-nasa-s-new-maps-confirm-69361
The bottom line of the article...
"It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilising plant growth, which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming,” said Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research and co-author of the paper.
Shilong Piao of Peking University, and lead author of the paper, said:"This greening and associated cooling is beneficial, but reducing carbon emissions is still needed in order to sustain the habitability of our planet."
-
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/earth-getting-greener-nasa-s-new-maps-confirm-69361
The bottom line of the article...
"It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilising plant growth, which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming,” said Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research and co-author of the paper.
Shilong Piao of Peking University, and lead author of the paper, said:"This greening and associated cooling is beneficial, but reducing carbon emissions is still needed in order to sustain the habitability of our planet."
Mr. Piao only commented on greening as an advantage because it cools the atmosphere. He never mentioned and apparently has no knowledge of any of the other important attributes such as providing more arable land to grow food and expanding areas to support populations of thousands of species, including man. He believes that warming is automatically bad for the earth without once mentioning any of its many benefits other than acting as a counter balance for some heating.
-
Mr. Piao... apparently has no knowledge of... He believes...
You linked to and referenced the article. It's very brief. I actually read it and quoted from it.
Mr. Piao is only mentioned or quoted in a single sentence. You're judging his knowledge and beliefs from a single brief sentence.
Carnac the Magnificent has returned!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Carnac_the_Magnificent.jpg)
Next time you're doing a Google search to find articles, you might try reading what you link to first. Just a suggestion.
-
...such as providing more arable land to grow food and expanding areas to support populations of thousands of species, including man. ...
Except for all the places that burn up in wildfires or turn into deserts. And there isn't that much good topsoil in the tundra, so it's going to be a bitch to grow corn and wheat there, let alone apples and cantaloupes.
-
Alan, research the current irrigation situation in the Imperial Valley, CA.
You will be paying more for your lettuce next winter, and it’s not Biden’s fault.
-
Alan doesn't buy lettuce, he is a meateater.
-
Alan, research the current irrigation situation in the Imperial Valley, CA.
You will be paying more for your lettuce next winter, and it’s not Biden’s fault.
Peter... Peter...
You just haven't looked at the bright side (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M) of drought and wildfires yet. Say... you're not one of "they" are you? You know who "they" are.. "they're" cherry-picking the negatives and totally ignoring the positives of a few more degrees.
-
You linked to and referenced the article. It's very brief. I actually read it and quoted from it.
Mr. Piao is only mentioned or quoted in a single sentence. You're judging his knowledge and beliefs from a single brief sentence.
Carnac the Magnificent has returned!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Carnac_the_Magnificent.jpg)
Next time you're doing a Google search to find articles, you might try reading what you link to first. Just a suggestion.
You provided the article. I can't read more into than it says. It never mentioned anything about any positive beliefs he or anyone else involved in the article had that warming would provide a positive impact of any sort other than more vegetation would have a cooling effect. Maybe it was the reporter's fault. The media often removes positive news about global warming in keeping with their biased views on global warming.
-
Alan, research the current irrigation situation in the Imperial Valley, CA.
You will be paying more for your lettuce next winter, and it’s not Biden’s fault.
40 million people depend on the Colorado River and other water who live in California, Nevada, Arizona, and four other arid states. They moved into a desert and built water-guzzling homes, ponds, golf courses, lawns, farms, and pools, and wonder why there's not enough water. It's the desert!! Warming or no warming. Dry spells have always occurred there long before CO2.
In 1915 there were less than half a million people. In 1922, the water was divided up in a compact. But there was never enough water for the millions today considering droughts come and go. The last was 50 years ago when there was less CO2. The issue is too many people live in a desert served by limited water. So now they'll have to ration it even more than it's been rationed for 100 years. I'm sorry they have this problem. But that's what happens when millions move into a desert and refuse to ration water appropriately. And yes I do eat lettuce as well as steak.
Western river compacts were innovative in the 1920s but couldn’t foresee today’s water challenges
The Western U.S. is in a water crisis, from California to Nebraska. An ongoing drought is predicted to last at least through July 2022. Recent research suggests that these conditions may be better labeled aridification – meaning that warming and drying are long-term trends.
On the Colorado River, the country’s two largest reservoirs – Lake Powell and Lake Mead – are at their lowest levels in 50 years. This could threaten water supplies for Western states and electricity generation from the massive hydropower turbines embedded in the lakes’ dams. In August 2021 the federal government issued a first-ever water shortage declaration for the Colorado, forcing supply cuts in several states.
The seven Colorado River Basin states – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – signed a water sharing agreement, the Colorado River Compact, in 1922. Some observers are now calling for renegotiating the compact to correct errors and oversights. Nebraska and Colorado are also arguing over water from the South Platte River, which they share under a separate agreement signed in 1923.
https://theconversation.com/western-river-compacts-were-innovative-in-the-1920s-but-couldnt-foresee-todays-water-challenges-175121
-
40 million people depend on the Colorado River and other water who live in California, Nevada, Arizona, and four other arid states. They moved into a desert and built water-guzzling homes, ponds, golf courses, lawns, farms, and pools, and wonder why there's not enough water. It's the desert!! Warming or no warming. Dry spells have always occurred there long before CO2....
Interesting way to phrase that. It's as if all those people were individually responsible for the mistakes, although you may not have meant it that way. I'd say that this is a good example of a possible failure in public governance. It was the responsibility of public planners to think about and plan for all the ramifications. It's a mistake to rely on the knowledge of individual property owners or (even worse) property developers, since those constituents have almost zero interest in the long term. That's not their fault, the incentives were (are) established incorrectly.
I say that it's a "possible" failure in governance allowing for the possibility that no one could have done better. That may itself be a cop-out, long-term planning principles are not unknown or obscure, but you need people in place to learn about them and use them.
The problem with complaining about public planning bodies (government) or starving them of cash is that when you need them, they're not there. Eventually, everyone pays the price of course.
I listened to an interesting podcast the other day, a conversation between two economic philosophers, neither of them particularly left wing, one American and the other Canadian. One thing they seemed to agree on about public governance is why Americans are, in general, against it and that's because US public institutions are not very good compared to the rest of the democratic world. It's one reason why Canadians and western Europeans, for example, have a difficult time understanding why Americans are against government. Maybe if you had better more efficient government, you would see it as an asset. As an example, I've detected an attitude about US public schools that is mystifying. Everyone complains about it but instead of fixing them, you seem to prefer to hand over money to private education companies instead. I think that's hare-brained myself, especially when the world is filled with examples of how to run public school systems well. But the US seems to have lost interest in public infrastructure, human and otherwise. This is very odd because it was precisely that infrastructure that got you to where you are and now you're throwing it all away. I think you should give your heads a shake.
Human society outgrew the libertarian "every man for himself" stage centuries before Ayn Rand was born, but the trouble is each generation needs to grow up independently, you can't absorb historical knowledge by osmosis. This means thinking, schooling, reasoned discussion, all of which are in shorter and shorter supply.
-
Interesting way to phrase that. It's as if all those people were individually responsible for the mistakes, although you may not have meant it that way. I'd say that this is a good example of a possible failure in public governance. It was the responsibility of public planners to think about and plan for all the ramifications. It's a mistake to rely on the knowledge of individual property owners or (even worse) property developers, since those constituents have almost zero interest in the long term. That's not their fault, the incentives were (are) established incorrectly.
I say that it's a "possible" failure in governance allowing for the possibility that no one could have done better. That may itself be a cop-out, long-term planning principles are not unknown or obscure, but you need people in place to learn about them and use them.
The problem with complaining about public planning bodies (government) or starving them of cash is that when you need them, they're not there. Eventually, everyone pays the price of course.
I listened to an interesting podcast the other day, a conversation between two economic philosophers, neither of them particularly left wing, one American and the other Canadian. One thing they seemed to agree on about public governance is why Americans are, in general, against it and that's because US public institutions are not very good compared to the rest of the democratic world. It's one reason why Canadians and western Europeans, for example, have a difficult time understanding why Americans are against government. Maybe if you had better more efficient government, you would see it as an asset. As an example, I've detected an attitude about US public schools that is mystifying. Everyone complains about it but instead of fixing them, you seem to prefer to hand over money to private education companies instead. I think that's hare-brained myself, especially when the world is filled with examples of how to run public school systems well. But the US seems to have lost interest in public infrastructure, human and otherwise. This is very odd because it was precisely that infrastructure that got you to where you are and now you're throwing it all away. I think you should give your heads a shake.
Human society outgrew the libertarian "every man for himself" stage centuries before Ayn Rand was born, but the trouble is each generation needs to grow up independently, you can't absorb historical knowledge by osmosis. This means thinking, schooling, reasoned discussion, all of which are in shorter and shorter supply.
I agree with a lot of what you said. Let me add, that people and governments are irresponsible. Here in New Jersey, the government provides subsidized flood insurance to people who live on the Jersey shore or near pretty rivers and streams where hurricanes flood the area every few years. That only encourages people to live there. They figure if the stilts under my home aren't high enough, well then the government will pay for a new house. Then, the politicians stand on the boardwalk around election time reminding the voters how they provided that cheap insurance so they can get their vote. It's insidious.
Government is often just delinquent because no one there really cares. I worked for 14 years for the NYC government. I went to my boss once with this great idea that would cut costs and save the taxpayer money. After describing the plan, he looked me in the eye and offhandedly said, "What do you care what it costs?" Nothing happened. It was the last time I offered a cost-saving plan.
-
...For example, the earth in many areas is one-third greener because of higher levels of CO2. Fauna grows thicker as well. (see link below)...
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/earth-getting-greener-nasa-s-new-maps-confirm-69361
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/earth-getting-greener-nasa-s-new-maps-confirm-69361
The bottom line of the article...
You provided the article. I can't read more into than it says. It never mentioned anything about any positive beliefs he or anyone else involved in the article had that warming would provide a positive impact of any sort other than more vegetation would have a cooling effect. Maybe it was the reporter's fault. The media often removes positive news about global warming in keeping with their biased views on global warming.
No. You provided the article. But... You didn't read it. You apparently glanced at it thinking it supported your view and then referenced it and linked it in your post. I simply replied to the article you provided and quoted from it.
No, I didn't provide the article you linked. But... I did read it. You can't even recognize the very brief article that you referred and linked to in your post?
How do you function in life being this blind and deaf to everything around you?
Next time you're doing a Google search to find articles, you might try reading what you link to first. Just a suggestion.
-
Human society outgrew the libertarian "every man for himself" stage centuries before Ayn Rand was born, but the trouble is each generation needs to grow up independently, you can't absorb historical knowledge by osmosis. This means thinking, schooling, reasoned discussion, all of which are in shorter and shorter supply.
Well said, Robert. Thanks.
It'd be interesting to do a "streeter", a series of interviews with random Americans asking them the meaning of the term "governance".
-
...For example, the earth in many areas is one-third greener because of higher levels of CO2. Fauna grows thicker as well. (see link below)...
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/earth-getting-greener-nasa-s-new-maps-confirm-69361
So, you've got these scientists and their game all figured out... at least in your own mind. Where your x-ray vision reads between the lines and your intuition guides you to uncover their conspiracy with THE media to mislead everyone! Hero of the day!
Unfortunately, Mr. Science Detective... you don't recognize or remember or even read the evidence you provide. And you certainly don't understand any of it.
"Fauna grows thicker as well. (see link below)"... OK, I did what you asked and read the link below. There was no mention of anything growing "thicker" and zero mention of any "fauna". By the way, you might want to look up the definition of the word "fauna" before using it again. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
-
When you see all the mistakes people make in so many fields, you become attuned to commonplace errors. You read between the lines. It becomes intuitive, maybe due to age.
Something has come with age. But, I don't think that it's seeing all the mistakes people make, becoming attuned to commonplace errors, reading between the lines, or intuition.
-
Biden is two years older than me. I'm thinking of running for president in 2024. I'll be 79 and Biden will be 81. My campaign line will be: "Vote for Me. I'm Younger."
What do you think? Catchy isn't it. Better than MAGA.
-
New campaign slogan to appeal to Election Deniers, Science Deniers, etc...
I can't read
-
New campaign slogan to appeal to Election Deniers, Science Deniers, etc...
Sorry. My line is funnier.
-
Mine is more accurate
-
I worked for 14 years for the NYC government. I went to my boss once with this great idea that would cut costs and save the taxpayer money. After describing the plan, he looked me in the eye and offhandedly said, "What do you care what it costs?" Nothing happened. It was the last time I offered a cost-saving plan.
I believe that's the third time you've told that story, Alan.
-
...
Government is often just delinquent because no one there really cares. I worked for 14 years for the NYC government. I went to my boss once with this great idea that would cut costs and save the taxpayer money. After describing the plan, he looked me in the eye and offhandedly said, "What do you care what it costs?" Nothing happened. It was the last time I offered a cost-saving plan.
I worked almost all of my career in private industry with a 4 year stint at a Crown Corporation. The idea that private companies are efficient makes me laugh out loud.
Given what the private sector is set up to do and what the public sector is set up to do, to compare them on such narrow terms is nonsense. But we've been through this one before too.
-
I worked almost all of my career in private industry with a 4 year stint at a Crown Corporation. The idea that private companies are efficient makes me laugh out loud.
Given what the private sector is set up to do and what the public sector is set up to do, to compare them on such narrow terms is nonsense. But we've been through this one before too.
Because there's no profit motive, government is very wasteful.
Since everything is political, they rather talk about January 6th than inflation, recession, and the economy. People are watching their purchasing power evaporate. Meanwhile politicians are talking about spending another trillion dollars that will cause even more inflation.
-
Because there's no profit motive, government is very wasteful.
...
How do you introduce the profit motive into the design of a 25 year immigration policy?
How do you introduce the profit motive into a national transportation policy?
How do you introduce the profit motive into the design of voting districts?
How do you introduce the profit motive into municipal zoning decisions?
How do you introduce the profit motive into abortion or capital punishment or firearms ownership issues?
Please don't answer these rhetorical questions, they are presented to you only the for purpose of self-reflection. Surely even you should be able to understand that the function of government is not the same as the function of private companies. This is not at all a difficult concept. or even a controversial one.
Let me give you a simple example. Buying and selling black people was very profitable, but government stopped it anyway. Buying and installing asbestos made a lot of people money but it was stopped. Building very polluting cars was once normal. Government forced us to stop that, automobile manufacturers continued to make profits AND we ended up with better cars.
Please, please, I'm begging you, stop saying stupid shit. Educate yourself, it's not difficult.
-
How do you introduce the profit motive into the design of a 25 year immigration policy?
How do you introduce the profit motive into a national transportation policy?
How do you introduce the profit motive into the design of voting districts?
How do you introduce the profit motive into municipal zoning decisions?
How do you introduce the profit motive into abortion or capital punishment or firearms ownership issues?
Please don't answer these rhetorical questions, they are presented to you only the for purpose of self-reflection. Surely even you should be able to understand that the function of government is not the same as the function of private companies. This is not at all a difficult concept. or even a controversial one.
Let me give you a simple example. Buying and selling black people was very profitable, but government stopped it anyway. Buying and installing asbestos made a lot of people money but it was stopped. Building very polluting cars was once normal. Government forced us to stop that, automobile manufacturers continued to make profits AND we ended up with better cars.
Please, please, I'm begging you, stop saying stupid shit. Educate yourself, it's not difficult.
Please stop calling my contributions "stupid shit". It's that disrespect that chases people away.
The fact is agencies and government employees have no real incentive to save money and make their organizations efficient. When I went to my public agency boss and suggested a way to save the organization and effectively the taxpayer's money, he should have been receptive. But he didn't give a hoot about the public or the taxes they pay. He could have just as easily said, yes, let's try to implement that plan to see if we can save. But no one cares because there's no profit motive. Money is budgeted from taxes and the agency just spends it.
What's stopping the government and Congress from instituting legislation that allows smart reductions in spending to be allocated in returning bonuses to government employees of that agency. Why not use some economic incentives to encourage government employees to save money? There does not need to be a profit motive like in private businesses to implement these things. But the government doesn't care. (I believe some agencies might have these incentives. I have not researched it. But it should be government-wide. When I worked for a NYC agency, we offered additional payment to contractors who completed their work before the contractual completion date.)
-
It's that disrespect that chases people away.
Have you considered the possibility that it's boredom from seeing the same repetitious talking points parroted over and over endlessly?
-
A short video from Veritasium addressing some of the usual objections re climate change including the global cooling thing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU).
-
Please stop calling my contributions "stupid shit".
But, Alan, that's exactly what they are.
Worse, you persist in making the same stupid shit "contributions" over and over and over.
At the very least, please come up with some new stupid shit.
-
But, Alan, that's exactly what they are.
Worse, you persist in making the same stupid shit "contributions" over and over and over.
At the very least, please come up with some new stupid shit.
Amen!
-
Concerned about climate change, then don't fly a helicopter which pumps out massive amounts of carbon.
Personally, I'm waiting the arrival of the sixth ice age.
Now, play nice.
Cheers,
Bud
-
I'm waiting for the return of the next ice age. It should be good for frozen Margaritas.
According to Al Gore's prognostications from years ago, we all should be dead by now.
Concerned about climate change, then don't fly a helicopter which pumps out massive amounts of carbon.
Personally, I'm waiting the arrival of the sixth ice age.
So, to summarize Bud's understanding of climate change: Margaritas, Al Gore, death, helicopters, carbon, ice age. Thanks for sharing your insights with us.
-
Now, play nice.
Cheers,
Bud
Always.
Have a nice weekend.
-
So, to summarize Bud's understanding of climate change: Margaritas, Al Gore, death, helicopters, carbon, ice age. Thanks for sharing your insights with us.
Cheap shot. He's flagging the hypocrisy of many of those who complain about CO2 while adding 100x as much to the atmosphere as an average person, such as Al Gore.
-
It seems that they're blaming Manchin for global warming and the destruction of the earth. I thought I was hyperbolic. ;) I better go check my storm shutters.
Manchin’s decision provokes fury over potential for warmer world
Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) decision to move ahead with a reconciliation deal that doesn’t involve climate change risks consigning the entire world to a warmer future, scientists, Democrats and advocates said Friday in reacting to the news.
“Joe Manchin is waving the fate of human survival over our heads like a bone to hungry dogs and it’s really quite frightening,” John Paul Mejia, a national spokesperson for Sunrise Movement, told The Hill.
Democrats, activists and scientists reacting to the news worried that the inability of Congress to take meaningful reaction would consign the U.S. to more heatwaves, floods, droughts and intense storms.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3561864-manchins-decision-provokes-fury-over-potential-for-warmer-world/
-
I thought I was hyperbolic.
You were right, but you're so much more.
-
You were right, but you're so much more.
Thanks for the compliment. :)
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/16/1111866383/british-government-emergency-meeting-forecast-record-temperatures (https://www.npr.org/2022/07/16/1111866383/british-government-emergency-meeting-forecast-record-temperatures)
The U.K. gets ready for travel disruptions as temperatures may hit 104 F
July 16, 2022 - NPR/The Associated Press - Excerpts Below
The British government held an emergency response meeting Saturday to plan for record high temperatures next week after weather authorities issued their first-ever "red" warning for extreme heat.
The alert covers large parts of England on Monday and Tuesday, when temperatures may reach 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) for the first time, posing a risk of serious illness and even death among healthy people, the U.K. Met Office, the country's weather service, said Friday.
The British heat record is 38.7C (101.7F), set in 2019...
Rail passengers and users of the London Underground subway system were being advised not to travel on Monday and Tuesday unless it's absolutely necessary. With children and older people considered particularly vulnerable to high temperatures, schools and nursing homes have been urged to take steps to protect students and older residents. Most schools in England are still in session until the end of next week.
The alert comes as scientists say climate change is increasing the likelihood of exceptional heat waves in Britain, a country unaccustomed to such temperatures. Few homes, apartments, schools or small businesses in the country have air conditioning.
Britain usually has moderate summer temperatures. Across the U.K., average July temperatures range from a daily high of 21 C (70 F) to a low of 12 C (53 F).
London Mayor Sadiq Khan met with representatives of the National Health Service, police, fire and other emergency services on Friday to review plans to deal with the heat emergency...
[More at Link Above]
-
Cheap shot. He's flagging the hypocrisy of many of those who complain about CO2 while adding 100x as much to the atmosphere as an average person, such as Al Gore.
It's not hypocritical. Much of climate activism requires travel to implement and communicate.
By far the worst thing to do is nothing.
-
It's not hypocritical. Much of climate activism requires travel to implement and communicate.
By far the worst thing to do is nothing.
It's just another gem from the same tired old red herring yuck fest to distract from the real issue of climate change and its impact. Al Gore has put forth rather substantial effort to reduce his personal carbon footprint and to offset the carbon use of himself, family, and staff. But even if he didn't, the inconvenient truth is... it doesn't matter. It's the total carbon going into the atmosphere that matters, not the footprint of any individual — including Al Gore. The New Republic published a worthwhile article on the topic.
https://newrepublic.com/article/al-gores-carbon-footprint-doesnt-matter (https://newrepublic.com/article/144199/al-gores-carbon-footprint-doesnt-matter)
Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter
Conservatives say environmentalists are hypocrites if they consume more energy than the average American. It's a deceitful, disingenuous argument.
The New Republic - Emily Atkin - August 7, 2017 - A few brief excerpts below...
...let’s set aside the dispute over Gore’s carbon footprint, because the report raises a much bigger question: Should prominent climate advocates be expected to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle? Are they hypocrites if they don’t? Right-wing critics would have you believe so—that these moralizing elitists are making rules for the public that they themselves don’t have to follow. This has a powerful appeal, especially today. But ultimately the argument is deceitful faux-populism, and the real hypocrites here are the purveyors of it...
...The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective, than debunking climate science itself. That’s why you only see groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research releasing “studies” on Gore’s energy use. NCPPR, which has been funded by oil interests, advocates against policies to fight global warming because it denies that global warming exists. “The world isn’t warming,” the group falsely claimed in a 2014 paper arguing against climate regulations. Thus, it’s in their interest to try to undermine one of the most effective advocates of aggressive climate action.
But the hypocrisy charge simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. An anti-abortion advocate who believes abortion is immoral and should be illegal, but gets one herself, is a hypocrite. But climate change advocates who don’t live a carbon-neutral lifestyle aren’t hypocrites because, for the most part, they’re not asking you to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. They’re asking governments, utilities, energy companies, and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please, without contributing to global warming...
-
It's just another gem from the same tired old red herring yuck fest to distract from the real issue of climate change and its impact. Al Gore has put forth rather substantial effort to reduce his personal carbon footprint and to offset the carbon use of himself, family, and staff. But even if he didn't, the inconvenient truth is... it doesn't matter. It's the total carbon going into the atmosphere that matters, not the footprint of any individual — including Al Gore. The New Republic published a worthwhile article on the topic.
https://newrepublic.com/article/al-gores-carbon-footprint-doesnt-matter (https://newrepublic.com/article/144199/al-gores-carbon-footprint-doesnt-matter)
Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter
Conservatives say environmentalists are hypocrites if they consume more energy than the average American. It's a deceitful, disingenuous argument.
The New Republic - Emily Atkin - August 7, 2017 - A few brief excerpts below...
...let’s set aside the dispute over Gore’s carbon footprint, because the report raises a much bigger question: Should prominent climate advocates be expected to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle? Are they hypocrites if they don’t? Right-wing critics would have you believe so—that these moralizing elitists are making rules for the public that they themselves don’t have to follow. This has a powerful appeal, especially today. But ultimately the argument is deceitful faux-populism, and the real hypocrites here are the purveyors of it...
...The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective, than debunking climate science itself. That’s why you only see groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research releasing “studies” on Gore’s energy use. NCPPR, which has been funded by oil interests, advocates against policies to fight global warming because it denies that global warming exists. “The world isn’t warming,” the group falsely claimed in a 2014 paper arguing against climate regulations. Thus, it’s in their interest to try to undermine one of the most effective advocates of aggressive climate action.
But the hypocrisy charge simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. An anti-abortion advocate who believes abortion is immoral and should be illegal, but gets one herself, is a hypocrite. But climate change advocates who don’t live a carbon-neutral lifestyle aren’t hypocrites because, for the most part, they’re not asking you to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. They’re asking governments, utilities, energy companies, and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please, without contributing to global warming...
This crap goes on all the time. Here in Canada David Suzuki was criticized at one point because he lived in a multi-million dollar home in Vancouver. Turns out he bought the place back when he was a prof at UBC in the 1970s when houses were more reasonably priced. The place happened to increase in value in the intervening years.
Think of the personal attacks on Fauci. A similar thing happened to the people who started the anti-cigarette movement. There was a Vimeo documentary film a few years ago (I'll try to look for it) about a medical doctor in West Virginia who began documenting increases in black lung disease (I bet you thought that was gone) when industry there was de-regulated. He was also attacked in various ways, both professionally and personally. That kind of personal attack is probably Step No. 2 in the playbook.
The upside is that when someone makes that sort of argument, then at least you know that there is no point engaging with them. Wastes less time.
-
The possible highest in the UK is now forecast to be 107F on Tuesday the 19th. Quote from the director of the Met office this morning. "These extreme temperatures are only explained as a consequence of global warming". There are fierce fires affecting many countries on the North of the Mediterranean. Portugal, Spain, France, Greece are all affected by the consequences of extreme weather.
The arguments that the rise in temperature can be beneficial don't hold up. As global temperature rises the weather tends more towards periods of destructive extremes as climate systems become unstable.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/16/1111866383/british-government-emergency-meeting-forecast-record-temperatures (https://www.npr.org/2022/07/16/1111866383/british-government-emergency-meeting-forecast-record-temperatures)
The U.K. gets ready for travel disruptions as temperatures may hit 104 F
July 16, 2022 - NPR/The Associated Press - Excerpts Below
The British government held an emergency response meeting Saturday to plan for record high temperatures next week after weather authorities issued their first-ever "red" warning for extreme heat.
The alert covers large parts of England on Monday and Tuesday, when temperatures may reach 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) for the first time, posing a risk of serious illness and even death among healthy people, the U.K. Met Office, the country's weather service, said Friday.
The British heat record is 38.7C (101.7F), set in 2019...
Rail passengers and users of the London Underground subway system were being advised not to travel on Monday and Tuesday unless it's absolutely necessary. With children and older people considered particularly vulnerable to high temperatures, schools and nursing homes have been urged to take steps to protect students and older residents. Most schools in England are still in session until the end of next week.
The alert comes as scientists say climate change is increasing the likelihood of exceptional heat waves in Britain, a country unaccustomed to such temperatures. Few homes, apartments, schools or small businesses in the country have air conditioning.
Britain usually has moderate summer temperatures. Across the U.K., average July temperatures range from a daily high of 21 C (70 F) to a low of 12 C (53 F).
London Mayor Sadiq Khan met with representatives of the National Health Service, police, fire and other emergency services on Friday to review plans to deal with the heat emergency...
[More at Link Above]
-
The Cartoon in today's issue of The Times newspaper in the UK. It refers to the candidates for the post of leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. One of the candidates did say that Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide levels are more than a national issue as air moves and so it is a global issue with action required by all countries.
Jonathan
-
Further to the cartoon I have just posted, here is a NASA graph published by them on July 10th 2020. The graph is accompanied by this text,
"The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy received by the Earth (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels, while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious."
Jonathan
-
Further to the cartoon I have just posted, here is a NASA graph published by them on July 10th 2020. The graph is accompanied by this text,
"The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy received by the Earth (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels, while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious."
Jonathan
Thanks for your input, it's appreciated. It's unfortunate that there is no type or amount of evidence that will matter to those that believe it's all just hysteria, a scientific hoax, or conspiracy with "the" media.
-
This crap goes on all the time. Here in Canada David Suzuki was criticized at one point because he lived in a multi-million dollar home in Vancouver. Turns out he bought the place back when he was a prof at UBC in the 1970s when houses were more reasonably priced. The place happened to increase in value in the intervening years.
Think of the personal attacks on Fauci. A similar thing happened to the people who started the anti-cigarette movement. There was a Vimeo documentary film a few years ago (I'll try to look for it) about a medical doctor in West Virginia who began documenting increases in black lung disease (I bet you thought that was gone) when industry there was de-regulated. He was also attacked in various ways, both professionally and personally. That kind of personal attack is probably Step No. 2 in the playbook.
The upside is that when someone makes that sort of argument, then at least you know that there is no point engaging with them. Wastes less time.
People don't trust hypocrites and phonies.
-
People shouldn't trust phony charges of hypocrisy or the people that make them.
-
The possible highest in the UK is now forecast to be 107F on Tuesday the 19th. Quote from the director of the Met office this morning. "These extreme temperatures are only explained as a consequence of global warming". There are fierce fires affecting many countries on the North of the Mediterranean. Portugal, Spain, France, Greece are all affected by the consequences of extreme weather.
The arguments that the rise in temperature can be beneficial don't hold up. As global temperature rises the weather tends more towards periods of destructive extremes as climate systems become unstable.
Hurricans have not increased. What about winters? As they get warmer, fewer people die from exposure, and less fuel is needed to heat. More geographic areas are open to food production for man and other species. Population of all kinds of species expand into them. The earth is one-third greener in the last hundred years, many claim because of more CO2. Canadians up north appreciate a little warmer winters. Why begrudge them? Think of all the poor sheep that won't have to be sheared to provide wool for winter coats. :)
-
Further to the cartoon I have just posted, here is a NASA graph published by them on July 10th 2020. The graph is accompanied by this text,
"The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy received by the Earth (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels, while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious."
Jonathan
Climate has been changing for 4 billion years. What's the point of the article?
-
What article? There is no article. You're replying to something it appears you haven't looked at again.
-
People don't trust hypocrites and phonies.
Hurricans have not increased. What about winters?...
Climate has been changing for 4 billion years. What's the point of the article?
Exhibits A, B, and C ⬆︎...
It's unfortunate that there is no type or amount of evidence that will matter to those that believe it's all just hysteria, a scientific hoax, or conspiracy with "the" media.
-
Coming from a Trump apologist, that's rich.
Ididn't know Techtalk was a Trump apologist. ;)
-
The possible highest in the UK is now forecast to be 107F on Tuesday the 19th. Quote from the director of the Met office this morning. "These extreme temperatures are only explained as a consequence of global warming". There are fierce fires affecting many countries on the North of the Mediterranean. Portugal, Spain, France, Greece are all affected by the consequences of extreme weather.
The arguments that the rise in temperature can be beneficial don't hold up. As global temperature rises the weather tends more towards periods of destructive extremes as climate systems become unstable.
https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-france-fires-heat-waves (https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-france-fires-heat-waves-b7c3ecaba66d9851ba0381e68d207784)
Europe broils in heat wave that fuels fires in France, Spain - Excerpts Below...
Associated Press (AP) - July 18, 2022 - Bob Edme and John Leicester
A heat wave broiling Europe spilled northward Monday to Britain and fueled ferocious wildfires in Spain and France, which evacuated thousands of people and scrambled water-bombing planes and firefighters to battle flames in tinder-dry forests.
Two people were killed in the blazes in Spain that its prime minister linked to global warming, saying, “Climate change kills.”
That toll comes on top of the hundreds of heat-related deaths reported in the Iberian peninsula, as high temperatures have gripped the continent in recent days and triggered wildfires from Portugal to the Balkans. Some areas, including northern Italy, are also experiencing extended droughts. Climate change makes such life-threatening extremes less of a rarity — and heat waves have come even to places like Britain, which braced for possible record-breaking temperatures.
The hot weather in the U.K. was expected to be so severe this week that train operators warned it could warp the rails and some schools set up wading pools to help children cool off.
In France, heat records were broken and swirling hot winds complicated firefighting in the country’s southwest...
Climate scientists say heat waves are more intense, more frequent and longer because of climate change — and coupled with droughts have made wildfires harder to fight. They say climate change will continue to make weather more extreme and wildfires more frequent and destructive.
“Climate change kills,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said Monday during a visit to the Extremadura region, the site of three major blazes. “It kills people, it kills our ecosystems and biodiversity.”
Teresa Ribera, Spain’s minister for ecological transition, described her country as “literally under fire” as she attended talks on climate change in Berlin.
She warned of “terrifying prospects still for the days to come” — after more than 10 days of temperatures over 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), cooling only moderately at night.
At least 748 heat-related deaths have been reported in the heat wave in Spain and neighboring Portugal, where temperatures reached 47 C (117 F) earlier this month.
The heat wave in Spain was forecast to ease on Tuesday, but the respite will be brief as temperatures rise again on Wednesday, especially in the dry western Extremadura region.
In Britain, officials have issued the first-ever extreme heat warning, and the weather service forecast that the record high of 38.7 C (101.7 F), set in 2019, could be shattered.
“Forty-one isn’t off the cards,” said Met Office CEO Penelope Endersby. “We’ve even got some 43s in the model, but we’re hoping it won’t be as high as that.”...
[More at link above with many photos]
-
People don't trust hypocrites and phonies.
That's rich, coming from a Trump supporter. :)
-
If you want to fix that, I can delete this message and the previous one as well.
I removed my earlier posts and added a new one. I'd hate for an archivist to get the post sequence wrong. :)
-
Much of the infrastructure of the UK has been built on the assumption that it has a temperate climate. For example the railways were built to withstand a temperature range of -10C to +35C. Today the temperatures in the Midlands and East of England are forecast to exceed 40C. As a consequence rail traffic on the East coast mainline has been suspended today. This is a very busy line that connects London with the cities of the North East and Scotland. There are speed restrictions and reduced services over most of the network. Yesterday a busy airport was closed for a time because of heat damage to a runway.
I write this to make the point that extreme weather caused by global warming has economic consequences. Another example - cereal crops are being damaged and were already reduced because spring in the UK has been exceptionally dry.
https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-france-fires-heat-waves (https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-france-fires-heat-waves-b7c3ecaba66d9851ba0381e68d207784)
Europe broils in heat wave that fuels fires in France, Spain - Excerpts Below...
Associated Press (AP) - July 18, 2022 - Bob Edme and John Leicester
A heat wave broiling Europe spilled northward Monday to Britain and fueled ferocious wildfires in Spain and France, which evacuated thousands of people and scrambled water-bombing planes and firefighters to battle flames in tinder-dry forests.
Two people were killed in the blazes in Spain that its prime minister linked to global warming, saying, “Climate change kills.”
That toll comes on top of the hundreds of heat-related deaths reported in the Iberian peninsula, as high temperatures have gripped the continent in recent days and triggered wildfires from Portugal to the Balkans. Some areas, including northern Italy, are also experiencing extended droughts. Climate change makes such life-threatening extremes less of a rarity — and heat waves have come even to places like Britain, which braced for possible record-breaking temperatures.
The hot weather in the U.K. was expected to be so severe this week that train operators warned it could warp the rails and some schools set up wading pools to help children cool off.
In France, heat records were broken and swirling hot winds complicated firefighting in the country’s southwest...
Climate scientists say heat waves are more intense, more frequent and longer because of climate change — and coupled with droughts have made wildfires harder to fight. They say climate change will continue to make weather more extreme and wildfires more frequent and destructive.
“Climate change kills,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said Monday during a visit to the Extremadura region, the site of three major blazes. “It kills people, it kills our ecosystems and biodiversity.”
Teresa Ribera, Spain’s minister for ecological transition, described her country as “literally under fire” as she attended talks on climate change in Berlin.
She warned of “terrifying prospects still for the days to come” — after more than 10 days of temperatures over 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), cooling only moderately at night.
At least 748 heat-related deaths have been reported in the heat wave in Spain and neighboring Portugal, where temperatures reached 47 C (117 F) earlier this month.
The heat wave in Spain was forecast to ease on Tuesday, but the respite will be brief as temperatures rise again on Wednesday, especially in the dry western Extremadura region.
In Britain, officials have issued the first-ever extreme heat warning, and the weather service forecast that the record high of 38.7 C (101.7 F), set in 2019, could be shattered.
“Forty-one isn’t off the cards,” said Met Office CEO Penelope Endersby. “We’ve even got some 43s in the model, but we’re hoping it won’t be as high as that.”...
[More at link above with many photos]
-
Concerned about climate change, then don't fly a helicopter which pumps out massive amounts of carbon. Personally, I'm waiting the arrival of the sixth ice age.
Bud just discovered Leica. Leica can do that to the ‘arrivistes’ - gives them a feeling of superiority and encourages superciliousness in abundance. Old Leica diehards know better.
-
ITM, UK just recorded its hottest day in history 40.2C and on track to reach 41C (104.36F and 105.8F).
Anyone who remembers the heatwave in the UK back in 1976 can compare it to today’s heat map.
Not, IMO, time to be ‘cute’.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52226760671_60fc2cdefb.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52227246185_e96404d966.jpg)
-
I'm posting the following because I'm concerned about the damaging psychological effects that the alarm about heat waves, and their connection with climate change, might have on the young and the gullible.
In the current, very gradual global warming warming phase of around 1 degrees C during the past 150 years, it is to be expected that the occasional heat wave during the present times, might break the historical record of recorded temperatures going back as far as 150 years, especially considering the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI), which is due to the rapid develpment of towns, cities, airports, factories and roads which absorb far more heat than grasslands and forests.
However, what many people, perhaps most people, don't seem to understand is that far more people, world-wide, die from extreme cold than extreme heat. Therefore, as the planet gradually warms, one would logically expect that the increased number of deaths from heatwaves would be far less than the reduced number of deaths from extreme cold.
The following study is from the Lancet Public Health, which appears to be a well-respected publication.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/the-lancet-public-health/about/aims-and-scope
"As the global leader for essential original research in public health practice, outcomes, and policy making worldwide, The Lancet Public Health provides a clear, independent perspective. The journal is committed to tackling the most pressing issues across all aspects of public health and has a strong commitment to using science as an important means to improve health equity and social justice.
The Lancet Public Health takes a broad and inclusive approach to public health and emphasises interdisciplinary research."
Here's a summary of their findings, comparing deaths from heat waves with cold spells.
"This study provides a country-wide evaluation of the health impact of non-optimal temperature, with a comprehensive assessment of mortality risks across the 37,453 small census areas of England and Wales. Our findings indicate that, on average, an excess of 791 deaths associated with heat and 60,753 deaths associated with cold occur every year in England and Wales, corresponding to a standardised excess mortality rate of 1·57 deaths per 100,000 person-years with heat and 122·34 deaths per 100,000 person-years with cold."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00138-3/fulltext
For those who are too lazy to read the study, attached is a graph. ;)
-
Thanks Ray for the data for GB. Apparently, experts in the USA differ on this matter which is why I suspect many scientific claims today. Just being a scientist doesn't mean they got the facts right. A lot of people here fault me for my doubts when I question "experts".
In any case, NOAA says more people die from heat, and the CDC, our Covid experts as well, say it's cold that kills more people. So what's the truth? There are many factors to be considered; they can tilt it any way they want. Considering the gas shutoff from Russia this winter, I think there's going to be a spike in deaths in Europe from cold this winter.
NOAA’s take: heat is the bigger killer
NOAA’s official source of weather-related deaths, a monthly publication called Storm Data, is heavily skewed toward heat-related deaths. Over the 30-year period 1988 – 2017, NOAA classified an average of 134 deaths per year as being heat-related, and just 30 per year as cold-related—a more than a factor of four difference. According to a 2005 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Heat Mortality Versus Cold Mortality: A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States, Storm Data is often based on media reports, and tends to be biased towards media/public awareness of an event.
CDC’s take: cold is the bigger killer
In contrast, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database, which is based on death certificates, indicates the reverse—about twice as many people die of “excessive cold” conditions in a given year than of “excessive heat.” According to a 2014 study by the CDC, approximately 1,300 deaths per year from 2006 to 2010 were coded as resulting from extreme cold exposure, and 670 deaths per year from extreme heat. However, both of these numbers are likely to be underestimated. According to the 2016 study, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States, “It is generally accepted that direct attribution underestimates the number of people who die from temperature extremes.” For example, during the 1995 Chicago heat wave, only 465 death certificates had heat as a contributing cause, while excess mortality figures showed that close to 700 people died as a result of the heat (Figure 2).
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold
-
Of course, climate scientists would never acknowledge cold causes more deaths because that would justify the desirability
of warmer climate and Global Warming.
-
Of course, climate scientists would never acknowledge cold causes more deaths because that would justify the desirability
of warmer climate and Global Warming.
Maybe they can warm up by the wild fires.
-
Everything is blamed on climate change. It's too convenient when you're selling something. There's always been wild fires. It's just that when populations were low, no one noticed much. Now people move into fire zones. Of course, they move on to the tops of hills so they have a good view. That's the most expensive property and most dangerous. Fire rises. Duh.
-
...Duh.
-
It never crossed my mind that the efforts to combat climate change are to limit excess deaths, regrettable as they are, as opposed to protecting our environment.
-
It never crossed my mind that the efforts to combat climate change are to limit excess deaths, regrettable as they are, as opposed to protecting our environment.
It seems strange that people are more concerned about the death of polar bears than people. Isn't that misplaced priorities?
-
.
"This study provides a country-wide evaluation of the health impact of non-optimal temperature, with a comprehensive assessment of mortality risks across the 37,453 small census areas of England and Wales. Our findings indicate that, on average, an excess of 791 deaths associated with heat and 60,753 deaths associated with cold occur every year in England and Wales, corresponding to a standardised excess mortality rate of 1·57 deaths per 100,000 person-years with heat and 122·34 deaths per 100,000 person-years with cold."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00138-3/fulltext
Ray,
Have you ever been to the UK? I assume not, ‘cos otherwise you’d know that ir’s the beneficiary of a miserable climate - cold, wet, humid a dearth of sunshine (such that it’s oft been mooted that bread should have added VitaminD to make up for a nationwide deficiency) - where else would one sing ‘mud,mud glorious mud …’?
Checking google, as at 2019 (pre-covid) in a country of 67 million, there were 219,000 homeless households (some 260,000 individuals, approx 0.388% of the population.)
Given their undoubted poor health and unfortunate circumstances, no, those figures don’’t surprise me. Sad, very sad and you may not have noticed that there’s a bugger’s row going on exactly over this issue (poverty, soup kitchens, diminishing health care etc) which the current government have done their utmost to sweep under the carpet.
Whether this is relevant on the context of climate change, either real or perceived, is entirely another story.
-
... It's too convenient when you're selling something. ...
What, pay tell oh wise one, are they selling?
-
Of course, climate scientists would never acknowledge cold causes more deaths because that would justify the desirability
of warmer climate and Global Warming.
You say that by way of asserting that it's true, when in fact it's an asinine statement.
Good thing you don't live in London UK, quite a few fires raging there today I see on the news. Maybe we could airlift all those people who are freezing to death to London for the summer.
-
2 quotes from the BBC in the UK today:
A large swathe of eastern England, from Surrey to South Yorkshire, saw temperatures between 39C and 40C, and 29 weather stations exceeded the previous UK temperature record.
Met Office chief of science and technology Prof Stephen Belcher said exceeding 40C was "virtually impossible" in an undisrupted climate, but due to climate change "driven by greenhouse gasses" such extreme temperatures had become a reality. He said if there continued to be high emissions "we could see temperatures like this every three years".
Jonathan
-
I'm posting the following because I'm concerned about the damaging psychological effects that the alarm about heat waves, and their connection with climate change, might have on the young and the gullible.
Well, it's awfully kind of you to volunteer your time to protect "the young and the gullible" from "damaging psychological effects". So when Grandma dies from heat stroke, we can comfort little Suzie with statistics showing that more people die from cold to ease her psychological pain.
On second thought, children actually respond pretty well to being told the truth at a level they can understand. Children have managed to live thru wars, plagues, and disasters of all sort thru the years. What they might need some psychological protection from are con men selling conspiracies and cults.
-
What, pay tell oh wise one, are they selling?
everything from EVs to research money to carbon credits.
It reminds me of the quip somebody made back in the days when poverty programs had gotten very popular and everyone was getting rich off of them. "there's a lot of money to be made in poverty"
-
A lot of people here fault me for my doubts when I question "experts".
What people fault you for are your frequent: false assertions, misrepresentations, lack of comprehension, knee-jerk reactions, repetitive talking points, and disingenuous non-responsive replies...
-
Of course, climate scientists would never acknowledge cold causes more deaths because that would justify the desirability of warmer climate and Global Warming.
...and nutty bullshit like this.
-
Much of the infrastructure of the UK has been built on the assumption that it has a temperate climate. For example the railways were built to withstand a temperature range of -10C to +35C. Today the temperatures in the Midlands and East of England are forecast to exceed 40C. As a consequence rail traffic on the East coast mainline has been suspended today. This is a very busy line that connects London with the cities of the North East and Scotland. There are speed restrictions and reduced services over most of the network. Yesterday a busy airport was closed for a time because of heat damage to a runway.
I write this to make the point that extreme weather caused by global warming has economic consequences. Another example - cereal crops are being damaged and were already reduced because spring in the UK has been exceptionally dry.
ITM, UK just recorded its hottest day in history 40.2C and on track to reach 41C (104.36F and 105.8F).
Anyone who remembers the heatwave in the UK back in 1976 can compare it to today’s heat map.
Not, IMO, time to be ‘cute’.
2 quotes from the BBC in the UK today:
A large swathe of eastern England, from Surrey to South Yorkshire, saw temperatures between 39C and 40C, and 29 weather stations exceeded the previous UK temperature record.
Met Office chief of science and technology Prof Stephen Belcher said exceeding 40C was "virtually impossible" in an undisrupted climate, but due to climate change "driven by greenhouse gasses" such extreme temperatures had become a reality. He said if there continued to be high emissions "we could see temperatures like this every three years".
Jonathan
Thank you for bringing news and information from the UK to our attention.
-
everything from EVs to research money to carbon credits.
...
That's one hell of a conspiracy you've dreamed up. Climate scientists, environmentalists, libtards, Democrats, leftists, foreigners, and who knows who else, are spending their lives dreaming up expensive ways to screw you. That's one scary world you live in. Instead of complaining, buy some stock in Tesla, get the last laugh.
-
Well, it's awfully kind of you to volunteer your time to protect "the young and the gullible" from "damaging psychological effects". So when Grandma dies from heat stroke, we can comfort little Suzie with statistics showing that more people die from cold to ease her psychological pain.
Only if little Suzie joins protests in the streets, demanding that we reduce CO2 emissions because her Grandma recently died from a heat stroke. We can then explain to her, if the climate were colder, her Grandma might have died much sooner from hypothermia.
We should also explain that the health, safety and prosperity of everyone is dependent upon reliable and affordable supplies of energy, to cool the home during heat waves, and warm the home during cold spells.
-
Ray,
Have you ever been to the UK? I assume not, ‘cos otherwise you’d know that ir’s the beneficiary of a miserable climate - cold, wet, humid a dearth of sunshine (such that it’s oft been mooted that bread should have added VitaminD to make up for a nationwide deficiency) - where else would one sing ‘mud,mud glorious mud …’?
Checking google, as at 2019 (pre-covid) in a country of 67 million, there were 219,000 homeless households (some 260,000 individuals, approx 0.388% of the population.)
Given their undoubted poor health and unfortunate circumstances, no, those figures don’’t surprise me. Sad, very sad and you may not have noticed that there’s a bugger’s row going on exactly over this issue (poverty, soup kitchens, diminishing health care etc) which the current government have done their utmost to sweep under the carpet.
Whether this is relevant on the context of climate change, either real or perceived, is entirely another story.
I was born and raised in the UK so I'm very familiar with the climate there. When I travelled to SE Asia in my early twenties, I really enjoyed the warmer and more tropical climate, which is one reason why I eventually emigrated to Australia.
It's currently winter in Australia, and despite my living in a semi-tropical area near the Queensland coast, it sometimes feels uncomfortably cold, but it's not a major problem because I have airconditioners in the house which can be set to heating or cooling, and of course my car has an airconditioner which can also be set to heating or cooling.
The winters in the UK during the Little Ice Age, from around 1400 AD to 1850 AD, when the river Thames would occasionally freeze over completely, must have been awful for those homeless and/or poor people who didn't have adequate heating resources. Imagine if one could go back in time and whisper in the ear of a homeless person sitting in the street, and freezing to death, 'Would you prefer a warmer climate?'
Fortunately, due to the supply and use of fossil fuels, those dire circumstances were significantly improved during the Victorian period. Unfortunately, due to the current disruption of the supply of fossil fuels, people in Europe and the UK might be in dire circumstances again this coming winter.
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, amongst many in the population, that modern civilizations are crucially dependent on reliable supplies of affordable energy.
-
Imagine if one could go back in time and whisper in the ear of a homeless person sitting in the street, and freezing to death, 'Would you prefer a warmer climate?'
No thanks. I'll just continue living in the real world and leave the imaginary fantasies to those that enjoy those kind of games.
-
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, amongst many in the population, that modern civilizations are crucially dependent on reliable supplies of affordable energy.
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, among the shortsighted, that fossil fuels are a limited resource which will become increasingly less affordable over time as supply declines. The sooner human beings develop a sustainable and renewable system of energy production and use, the better it will be in a great many respects for everyone — except for those whose financial wealth rests on the continued use of fossil fuels.
The good news is that modern civilization continues to make great strides in that direction, despite the shortsighted and the purveyors of fossilized fairytales.
-
...
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, amongst many in the population, that modern civilizations are crucially dependent on reliable supplies of affordable energy.
Sorry, no sale, there's essentially NO ONE who doesn't understand how important energy is.
-
The fossil fuel industry has been running a long and successful campaign to deny the impact of burning fossil fuels on the worlds climate. In many ways it is the same as the campaign run by the tobacco industry through the 1960s onwards to deny the impact that smoking has on health.
Check this out for your self but there are countless articles on the strategies being used. I link to a couple for starters.
Some of the arguments I have seen in this thread, for example, the climate has always changed are non sequiturs, completely meaningless but sound convincing to the ignorant.
The other arguments that the economic consequences of dealing with change are challenging may well be true. However by holding them to be true does not change the truth of climate change and the impact it is already having around the world.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing
-
The fossil fuel industry has been running a long and successful campaign to deny the impact of burning fossil fuels on the worlds climate. In many ways it is the same as the campaign run by the tobacco industry through the 1960s onwards to deny the impact that smoking has on health.
Check this out for your self but there are countless articles on the strategies being used. I link to a couple for starters.
Some of the arguments I have seen in this thread, for example, the climate has always changed are non sequiturs, completely meaningless but sound convincing to the ignorant.
The other arguments that the economic consequences of dealing with change are challenging may well be true. However by holding them to be true does not change the truth of climate change and the impact it is already having around the world.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing
One of the problems is the financial cost to change over to more non-carbon CO2-producing energy, assuming that we are impacting the climate to the extent claimed. There aren't open and meaningful discussions going on about this. It will cost trillions to switch over. Those resources will not be available for other things such as feeding the hungry, providing proper medicare care for everyone, and helping the poor. Less money is available for R&D. In Germany where they spent billions to switch over much of their electricity production to renewables, the cost for users is 2 1/2 times per kilowatt of what the average American pays. Apparently, free energy is not cheap. And unlike most of America, Germans hardly use air conditioning.
In the USA, we already have 9.1% higher prices this year due to inflation. We already have a deficit of one trillion dollars in our budget this year and debt of over $30 trillion and growing an average of 1 1/2 trillion a year for the next ten years. Where does the extra money come from to pay for climate change? What impact does it have on the costs of everything else? What other things are we willing to give up to pay for it? These things are not being discussed. Maybe it's cheaper to allow the climate to get a little warmer and spend less money to correct the problem it creates. That could be a cheaper approach. We also do not discuss the advantages of a warmer climate including 1/3 more green earth (already) and more land for food production.
The other big issue is China is having none of it. They are still building hundreds of coal-fired plants in their country and elsewhere in the world for others. China alone produces about 1/3 of all greenhouse gases. Without China and India on board, not much is going to change.
-
One of the problems is the financial cost to change over to more non-carbon CO2-producing energy, assuming that we are impacting the climate to the extent claimed. There aren't open and meaningful discussions going on about this. ...
1. As always, you don't take into account the cost of NOT transitioning. We have been transitioning from one tech to another literally for millennia. Not long ago we all rode horses. Even more recently, our cars spewed filth into the air that we all grew up breathing and we thought that was normal. (Go to a vintage car meet when they start up their engines to go home.)
How odd it is to listen to someone who claims to be a free marketer that supposedly is in favour of entrepreneurial innovation argue against technological progress.
2. There are countless "open and meaningful discussions" going on about these issues every day all over the world.
-
1. As always, you don't take into account the cost of NOT transitioning. We have been transitioning from one tech to another literally for millennia. Not long ago we all rode horses. Even more recently, our cars spewed filth into the air that we all grew up breathing and we thought that was normal. (Go to a vintage car meet when they start up their engines to go home.)
How odd it is to listen to someone who claims to be a free marketer that supposedly is in favour of entrepreneurial innovation argue against technological progress.
2. There are countless "open and meaningful discussions" going on about these issues every day all over the world.
I agree with you that we should look into the costs of not transitioning. Most of the discussions are in fact on that. How much seas level will rise, how some animals and people will be affected with health, etc. But few people are talking about the cost to implement and how that would reduce spending on other projects such as medical care, infrastructure, medical R&D, etc. There's only so much to go around.
Secondly, I never advocated the private industry should not spend money on green or whatever else they wish to spend on. I'm advocating that the government, however, should not be spending our tax money on it. Frankly, there is none left for it. We're already broke. Biden tried to create a bill for the climate that failed. Sen. Manchin, a Democrat, was having none of it claiming it's going to increase inflation at a time when it's already out of control. He's right.
-
We're already broke.
That's silly on the face of it.
-
That's silly on the face of it.
Manchin agrees with me, especially regarding inflation. That's why he's not going along with spending more on most things.
-
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, among the shortsighted, that fossil fuels are a limited resource which will become increasingly less affordable over time as supply declines. The sooner human beings develop a sustainable and renewable system of energy production and use, the better it will be in a great many respects for everyone — except for those whose financial wealth rests on the continued use of fossil fuels.
The good news is that modern civilization continues to make great strides in that direction, despite the shortsighted and the purveyors of fossilized fairytales.
I understand this issue quite well. It makes complete sense that we should spend a portion of our current energy resources in developing the technology to explore new, additional sources of energy, such as solar power, nuclear power, hydro electricity, and so on.
However, the materials currently used to make solar panels, windmills, batteries, and so on, are also a limited resource. We need to concentrate more research on alternative batteries which use minerals which are more plentiful.
Imagine a battery which is half the price of current Lithium-ion batteries, half the weight, double the capacity, double the durability, does not use scarce materials, and is completely safe from spontaneous explosion. That would go a long way to solving the unreliability problem of renewables, wouldn't it? But that's just a fairy tale, isn't it? ;D
-
Some of the arguments I have seen in this thread, for example, the climate has always changed are non sequiturs, completely meaningless but sound convincing to the ignorant.
What a strange comment. Perhaps I should thank you for providing an excellent example of a 'true climate change denier'. ;D
Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, which is the lack of awareness of previous changes in climate and previous extreme weather events. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat the mistakes of history. There have been numerous examples throughout the history of human civilization, of communities collapsing due to a failure to adapt to a changing climate.
A recent example is that fascinating Khmer civilization in Cambodia, famous for it's Angkor Wat, which is just one major temple in a huge area with dozens of other temples overgrown by forests. During the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age (which 'climate change deniers' believe was not a global event), there were several years of severe droughts when the tradtional monsoons never arrived. This caused much of the population to leave the area. The droughts were followed by a number of years of severe floods, which caused yet more people to leave. The civilization was severely weakened and the Kmer's traditional enemy, the Thais, took that opportunity to invade, resulting in the remaining population leaving. The entire civilization became overgrown by the jungle until it was rediscovered by the French colonialist in the mid 19th century.
-
Thanks for reminding us that climate change has huge impacts on civilisations.
-
Nobody denies that there have been climate changes in the past. The key question in the current debate is whether the changes we are seeing are caused by humans. Scientists across the world are saying that they are, and that the cause is greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane that stop heat from escaping from the earth. As we pump more and more into the the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels across the world the effect will only get worse. If you question the science then you are questioning a world wide huge set of data.
Jonathan
-
Nobody denies that there have been climate changes in the past. The key question in the current debate is whether the changes we are seeing are caused by humans. Scientists across the world are saying that they are, and that the cause is greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane that stop heat from escaping from the earth. As we pump more and more into the the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels across the world the effect will only get worse. If you question the science then you are questioning a world wide huge set of data.
Jonathan
But the more important question is what changes occur because of it? Beavers build dams that change the environment tremendously. For some animals it's a catastrophe as they drown due to rising waters. For others, the pond the dam creates provides a place for fish to grow, water plants, and water to drink for many other species. All animals and plants change the environment. Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad. You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything. While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives. That's what should drive modifications to how we live. Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives. I guess bad news sells better than good news.
We also have to assess the damage we do to other social programs by allocating resources away from them to climate change programs. Do you want to have Medicare and Social Security when you retire? If we spend all that money on climate, you just may be out of luck and stuck with working until you're dead. For what? To reduce sea levels 1 1/2 feet, maybe, for you grandkid who lives in the mountains at 5,000 feet?
-
But the more important question is what changes occur because of it? Beavers build dams that change the environment tremendously. For some animals it's a catastrophe as they drown due to rising waters. For others, the pond the dam creates provides a place for fish to grow, water plants, and water to drink for many other species. All animals and plants change the environment. Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad. You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything. While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives. That's what should drive modifications to how we live. Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives. I guess bad news sells better than good news.
We also have to assess the damage we do to other social programs by allocating resources away from them to climate change programs. Do you want to have Medicare and Social Security when you retire? If we spend all that money on climate, you just may be out of luck and stuck with working until you're dead. For what? To reduce sea levels 1 1/2 feet, maybe, for you grandkid who lives in the mountains at 5,000 feet?
You do the same thing you do all the time, weigh costs and benefits and make decisions. Doesn't the US spend about 1/3 of its GDP on the military. You don't seem to have any problems coming up with that money. You have a large penal system, you find the money for that. This is what all societies do every day. Maybe you're not paying enough in taxes to cover the costs of your collective obligations. But now you're trying to paint the ludicrous picture that Medicare may disappear if you spend money on climate. It never ends with you, does it, just one moral panic after another, always a silly either/or comparison.
You're still looking for the benefits of a global climate imbalance. Trying to balance the discussion, give voice to the "other" side. There are only ever 2 sides in your world. Maybe Canada and northern countries can cut down the entire boreal forest region, truck in some top soil from the prairies before it blows away in dust storms and plant corn in northern Canada and Finland and Siberia. What can go wrong. I know know I'm looking forward to more ticks, opossums and rattlesnakes. What do you think, should we look into importing camels?
Always the same merry-go-round. What's next, rising sea levels will create more deep sea ports? There has to be a benefit to that, surely.
-
Trying to balance your budget is a serious issue for families as well. Do we go to that foreign country for vacation or maybe go someplace locally so we can save some money and put it away for our kids education.
Well governments have the same issue. And I never took spending for the military or anything else off the table. We have to sit down and decide that maybe we have to cut back 50 billion on our defense and put it into the environment or into infrastructure or maybe for research for medical. But all that has to be discussed. When it comes to the environment and climate control, nobody wants to discuss these issues. It's just well let's do it. Damn the consequences. Who cares if we got to cut back on your Medicare and social security. Maybe we'll raise the amount they deduct from your salary to pay for the medicare.
By the way my medicare is not free. My wife and I have to pay thousands out of our social security for so-called free medicare. And it's gone up recently because the cost of Medical Care is gone up. So the government is now charging us more for our free Medicare. By the time you retire you won't get medicare. Of course you're in Canada so you got other problems.
By the way, do you really think if it was a few degrees warmer in Canada most Canadians would complain? :)
-
...
By the way my medicare is not free. ...
No one anywhere think that social programs are free. The ONLY people who even utter those words are right-wingers when they claim that left-wingers think that social programs are free. It's complete fabrication, fake news.
It's close to 40 degrees C in Ottawa today, nobody here wants it any warmer. And there are thousands and thousands of winter sports aficionados who do not welcome warming. Personally, I like how a bitterly cold winter kills off insect larvae and keeps street gangs under control. Why don't you ask Texans if they want it any warmer? :)
-
This WHO article on death rates and climate change is worth a read. If we live in rich developed countries it is easier to mitigate the effects of climate change but stop and think about the impact it has on poor countries and those where climate change is damaging crop production. Starvation and disease is a consequence of climate change. Remember that at the moment global warming over the last 150 years is 1.1C but in parts of the world including subartic regions the rise in temperature is 3C.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
-
...However, the materials currently used to make solar panels, windmills, batteries, and so on, are also a limited resource...
Unlike carbon-based fossil fuel; we don't burn solar panels, windmills, batteries, and so on. Unlike carbon-based fossil fuel, much of the material can be recycled, reused, or repurposed — because we don't burn them up. So, there is that difference.
Additionally, renewable energy sources like solar panels and windmills can produce energy for years. Fossil fuels produce energy for an instant and then you need more fuel — a steady stream of fuel being burned up which cannot be reused or recycled; but the remnants, like CO2, do accumulate and remain in the atmosphere for a great many years. So, there is that difference as well.
...We need to concentrate more research on alternative batteries which use minerals which are more plentiful.
Imagine a battery which is half the price of current Lithium-ion batteries, half the weight, double the capacity, double the durability, does not use scarce materials, and is completely safe from spontaneous explosion. That would go a long way to solving the unreliability problem of renewables, wouldn't it?
There is a vast amount of research and development underway to develop new and more efficient forms of energy storage of all types — battery, thermal, mechanical, cryogenic, air, hydro, etc. — to fit different locational needs. A good source of news on developments is Energy Storage News (https://www.energy-storage.news).
But that's just a fairy tale, isn't it? ;D
::)
-
What a strange comment. Perhaps I should thank you for providing an excellent example of a 'true climate change denier'. ;D
::)
-
Despite the naysayers and downplayers, things are happening in the USA.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/20/weather/deadly-heat-waves-chief-heat-officers-climate/index.html
Jonathan
-
Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, which is the lack of awareness of previous changes in climate and previous extreme weather events.
The lack of awareness by whom? Certainly not climate scientists.
Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, amateur pseudoscience being peddled to the masses — often packaged with smears of dedicated researchers and conspiracy hoaxes.
-
A nothing burger. Where's the Beef?
Biden announces new climate change programs, but no emergency declaration
President Joe Biden announced new executive steps to combat climate change on Wednesday, a move that comes as Democrats urge the administration to issue a climate-emergency declaration amid stalled negotiations over major environmental legislation in Washington.
The initiatives include providing $2.3 billion in funding for a program that helps communities prepare for disasters by expanding flood control and retrofitting buildings, as well as leveraging funding to help low-income families cover heating and cooling costs.
The president also is directing the Department of the Interior to propose new offshore wind areas in the Gulf of Mexico, a plan that could power more than 3 million homes and advance the transition to clean energy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/biden-announces-new-climate-change-programs-no-emergency-declaration.html
-
A nothing burger. Where's the Beef?
Biden announces new climate change programs, but no emergency declaration
President Joe Biden announced new executive steps to combat climate change on Wednesday, a move that comes as Democrats urge the administration to issue a climate-emergency declaration amid stalled negotiations over major environmental legislation in Washington.
The initiatives include providing $2.3 billion in funding for a program that helps communities prepare for disasters by expanding flood control and retrofitting buildings, as well as leveraging funding to help low-income families cover heating and cooling costs.
The president also is directing the Department of the Interior to propose new offshore wind areas in the Gulf of Mexico, a plan that could power more than 3 million homes and advance the transition to clean energy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/biden-announces-new-climate-change-programs-no-emergency-declaration.html
You're right, go buy that big gas-guzzling V8 now that gas prices have decreased again. They dropped another 6 cents per litre here today. Man that Biden is one hell of a President, aren't you proud?
-
One of the problems is the financial cost to change over to more non-carbon CO2-producing energy, assuming that we are impacting the climate to the extent claimed. There aren't open and meaningful discussions going on about this. It will cost trillions to switch over. Those resources will not be available for other things such as feeding the hungry, providing proper medicare care for everyone, and helping the poor. Less money is available for R&D. In Germany where they spent billions to switch over much of their electricity production to renewables, the cost for users is 2 1/2 times per kilowatt of what the average American pays. Apparently, free energy is not cheap. And unlike most of America, Germans hardly use air conditioning.
In the USA, we already have 9.1% higher prices this year due to inflation. We already have a deficit of one trillion dollars in our budget this year and debt of over $30 trillion and growing an average of 1 1/2 trillion a year for the next ten years. Where does the extra money come from to pay for climate change? What impact does it have on the costs of everything else? What other things are we willing to give up to pay for it? These things are not being discussed. Maybe it's cheaper to allow the climate to get a little warmer and spend less money to correct the problem it creates. That could be a cheaper approach. We also do not discuss the advantages of a warmer climate including 1/3 more green earth (already) and more land for food production.
The other big issue is China is having none of it. They are still building hundreds of coal-fired plants in their country and elsewhere in the world for others. China alone produces about 1/3 of all greenhouse gases. Without China and India on board, not much is going to change.
Similar to the cost of Internet and mobile phone charges, USA has much higher energy prices than some other countries. Australia solar installations are much more cost-effective than American ones. According to a recent energy study, the US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar.
The US has more than 10 times the population of Australia, but just two times the annual rooftop photovoltaic (PV) installations. In the US, the residential share of small-scale solar systems is 56%, while in Australia it is 87%. According to Rystad, the discrepancy stems from the higher cost of purchasing in the US.
The cost in Australia is USD 0.96 (EUR 0.876) per watt for a 3-kW system, and even lower if the capacity of the system is greater. In the US, the cost would be USD 4.6 per watt for 3 kW and still over USD 2 per watt for an 11-kW system.
In October the International Energy Agency [IEA] published its latest World Energy Outlook in which [it] states, “In most markets, solar PV or wind now represents the cheapest available source of new electricity generation.”
https://renewablesnow.com/news/rooftop-solar-much-cheaper-in-australia-than-in-us-776941/
https://electrek.co/2022/02/07/us-could-save-56b-a-year-coal-to-solar-study/
-
But the more important question is what changes occur because of it? Beavers build dams that change the environment tremendously. For some animals it's a catastrophe as they drown due to rising waters. For others, the pond the dam creates provides a place for fish to grow, water plants, and water to drink for many other species. All animals and plants change the environment. Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad. You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything. While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives. That's what should drive modifications to how we live. Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives. I guess bad news sells better than good news.
I always liked beavers.
-
Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad. You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything. While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives. That's what should drive modifications to how we live. Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives....
You love repeating this tripe, don't you. We grow the food we do in the places we do because arable land formed in the places it did over millions of years of geological change. Destroying huge swaths of that arable land is relatively easy if climate change outpaces earth's capacity to absorb the changes, which seems to be happening quickly because of man's influence. Forming new arable lands cannot happen so quickly. Your naïve wish that there are positives to global warming is at best a dumb wild ass bet. That bet is based entirely on your ego's need to contradict those who you think are in the wrong tribe. It's an emotional wish, nothing more, but you try to dress it up as healthy skepticism. Ideological contrarianism is not scientific skepticism, no matter how much you try to portray it as such. It's important not to confuse the two, but that requires honest self-awareness.
Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the earth's overall ecology is in danger. The earth will go on in its own way following natural laws and will survive just fine. However, the resulting changes may not be advantageous to human life. We're not trying to save the planet, the planet is fine, we're trying to save us. There is no guarantee that our species will survive. None. If we destroy the ecosystems that are necessary for our survival, we're toast, and whether or not a few Corporations remain profitable or not is a sideshow. There is NO economy without an environment. You seem to be stuck in the 1950s when people thought that environmentalists were the bad guys who were trying to choke enterprise, which the ignorant reframed as ideological and cultural warfare. That's just childish horse shit, time to move on.
We have no dominion over sweet dick all. That was just propaganda, don't fall for it.
-
The lack of awareness by whom? Certainly not climate scientists.
Mainly politicians, journalists, and most members of the public who seem to have little understanding of the fundamental principles of the Methodology of Science and are unable, or can't be bothered, to investigate the issues and think for themselves.
"Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, amateur pseudoscience being peddled to the masses — often packaged with smears of dedicated researchers and conspiracy hoaxes."
Absolutely! It's shocking that qualified scientists will conspire with journalists to present exaggerated claims (pseudoscience) which suggest the 'science is settled' and that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that continued CO2 emissions will cause a devastating climate.
The late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University explained this situation quite well.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
The above statement by Schneider was made in 1989. I recently came across a very detailed history of past changes in climate, worldwide, written in 1995 by members of the Hoover Institution, which is a 'think tank' associated with Stanford University, and which presents a different view to Schneider's. At the end of the article there is a reference to around 80 or more scientific studies which provide the data used in this article.
Perhaps you can read them all and point out the flaws you've discovered, in a year or so. ;D
Following are just a few, short quotes from https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals
The First Climatic Optimum
"Around 9,000 to 5,000 years ago the earth was much warmer than today; perhaps 4deg.F hotter, about the average of the various predictions for global warming after a doubling of CO2.[59] Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common. During this Climatic Optimum epoch, Europe enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far to the north. Not only was the country less subject to severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days sunnier."
"Notwithstanding the less stormy weather, rainfall was more than adequate to produce widespread forests. Western Europe, including parts of Iceland and the Highlands of Scotland, was mantled by great woods.[60] The timber, until average temperatures dipped temporarily for about 400 years between 3,500 B.C. and 3,000 B.C., consisted of warmth-demanding trees, such as elms and linden in North America and oak and hazel in Europe. These species have never regained their once dominant position in Europe and America. Not only did Europe enjoy a benign climate with adequate rainfall, but the Mediterranean littoral, including the Middle East, apparently received considerably more moisture than it does today.[61] The Indian subcontinent and China were also much wetter during this Optimal period.[62]"
"The timing of the medieval warm spell, which lasted no more than 300 years, was not synchronous around the globe. For much of North America, for Greenland and in Russia, the climate was warmer between 950 and 1200.[111] The warmest period in Europe appears to have been later, roughly between 1150 and 1300, although parts of the tenth century were quite warm. Evidence from New Zealand indicates peak temperatures from 1200 to 1400. "
"This record suggests that the Little Climate Optimum began in Asia in the eighth or ninth centuries and continued into the eleventh. The warm climate moved west, reaching Russia and central Asia in the tenth through the eleventh, and Europe from the twelfth to the fourteenth. Some climatologists have theorized that the Mini Ice Age also started in the Far East in the twelfth century and spread westward reaching Europe in the fourteenth."
-
..."Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, amateur pseudoscience being peddled to the masses — often packaged with smears of dedicated researchers and conspiracy hoaxes."
Absolutely! It's shocking that qualified scientists will conspire with journalists to present exaggerated claims (pseudoscience) which suggest the 'science is settled' and that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that continued CO2 emissions will cause a devastating climate.
The late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University explained this situation quite well...
Yeah. I've already been on this ride with you and am not wasting time on it again. Your smears and conspiracy mind set are of no more interest now than they were the last time, less in fact.
-
Perhaps you can read them all and point out the flaws you've discovered, in a year or so. ;D
::)
-
Yeah. I've already been on this ride with you and am not wasting time on it again. Your smears and conspiracy mind set are of no more interest now than they were the last time, less in fact.
Fair enough! If you're not interested in alternative views, it's your choice. It doesn't worry me. I have an open mind and examine both sides of the argument.
-
Been there. Done that. I'm not interested in being any part of your smear campaign.
Perhaps I'll link to our previous discussion of your disingenuous deflections and disgusting smears or perhaps I'll leave that dirt lie. But, I'm not going to be dragged thru your conspiracy rabbit holes again.
Meanwhile, you might want to consider offering something more current and written by someone with a science background rather than a paper written 27 years ago by an economist at the Hoover Institution. The Hoover Institution is an independent organization on the campus of Stanford University operating with its own board, income, and endowment separate from the university. Its a conservative political think tank currently under the direction of Condoleezza Rice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Iraq).
-
I am out of this now.
Some are posting the most head in sand views (see my post No 170 in this thread of 18th July which probably also refers to this group). The slight against scientists by Stephen Schneider posted by Ray is untrue of everyone of them I know, the system of peer review and the weight of data. Past climate changes have occurred when there was a much lower global human population, far less infrared absorbing CO2 was put into the atmosphere by humans, and burning and clearing oxygen generating trees by humanity was at a much lower rate than now. We simply cannot continue to carry on as we are. It is a global issue.
I have better things to do, including having sympathy with the increasing number of people who are concerned about the world their children and grandchildren will inhabit and how they will judge us. And yes, I do drive an electric car, have had solar panels for 12 years and have an insulated house. The panels generate about 2500kWhr per year and any that we do not use go into the mains electricity system.
Strangely enough, I do want time to take photographs.
Jonathan
-
Similar to the cost of Internet and mobile phone charges, USA has much higher energy prices than some other countries. Australia solar installations are much more cost-effective than American ones. According to a recent energy study, the US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar.
https://renewablesnow.com/news/rooftop-solar-much-cheaper-in-australia-than-in-us-776941/
https://electrek.co/2022/02/07/us-could-save-56b-a-year-coal-to-solar-study/
$5.6B is almost a rounding error in many of our programs. The government will have to spend trillions to make a dent.
In any case, I don;t see savings if you consider Germany. They changed over their production so that 40% are renewables. Yet they pay higher prices for electricity. There were no savings. Additionally, much of their wind production is now worn out after 20-25 years. They have to replace a lot of it already.
-
I always liked beavers.
That's because you're are a kayaker and canoeist. Well, nudists like global warming.
-
This WHO article on death rates and climate change is worth a read. If we live in rich developed countries it is easier to mitigate the effects of climate change but stop and think about the impact it has on poor countries and those where climate change is damaging crop production. Starvation and disease is a consequence of climate change. Remember that at the moment global warming over the last 150 years is 1.1C but in parts of the world including subartic regions the rise in temperature is 3C.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
Poor countries can't afford green. China is building hundreds of coal-fired electricity plants in many poor countries around the world adding to CO2 production. How would you deal with that?
-
Poor countries can't afford green.
What can they afford?
-
What can they afford?
Unfortunately, China is taking advantage of many poor countries. They're making deals with them to build coal-fired plants in exchange for their resources, military ports, etc. China is stealing their countries blind.
For China, it's about making money and keeping their populace quiet. So we not only have to deal with their 30% of the world's CO2 production but added CO2 from coal plants they build in other countries. Without China on board, attempts to reduce CO2 production will go nowhere.
-
China's coal plants:
Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree
China is building large numbers of coal-fired power plants to drive its post-pandemic economy. The government has promised a CO2 emissions peak by 2030, but the new coal binge jeopardizes both China’s decarbonization plans and global efforts to tackle climate change.
Coal remains at the heart of China’s flourishing economy. In 2019, 58 percent of the country’s total energy consumption came from coal, which helps explain why China accounts for 28 percent of all global CO2 emissions. And China continues to build coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined. In 2020, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation, more than three times what was brought on line everywhere else.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree
China Deepens Its Dependence on Coal by Speeding up Approvals
Greenpeace says over-reliance on the fuel is a mistake
Government stimulus fails to revive the property sector
Bloomberg News
July 19, 2022 at 11:39 PM EDT
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-20/china-deepens-its-dependence-on-coal-by-speeding-up-approvals
CHina is cutting back on overseas projects, or so they claim. WHo trusts them to keep their word?
China’s promise to stop building coal plants overseas is full of caveats and loopholes
China announced the ban last year, but Chinese companies are still pursuing carbon-intensive coal projects abroad.
Lili Pike
China Reporter
April 28, 2022
https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/04/28/chinas-promise-to-stop-building-coal-plants-overseas-is-full-of-caveats-and-loopholes/[/i]
-
$5.6B is almost a rounding error in many of our programs. The government will have to spend trillions to make a dent.
In any case, I don;t see savings if you consider Germany. They changed over their production so that 40% are renewables. Yet they pay higher prices for electricity. There were no savings. Additionally, much of their wind production is now worn out after 20-25 years. They have to replace a lot of it already.
It's $56B, not $5.6B.
The high costs of the renewable electricity plants in Germany were caused by paying high price for the early models solar panels and due to over-complicated permits for building anything. In Germany, 40% of electricity comes now from renewable sources, in USA only 20%. In Spain, renewable energy accounts for over 46%,
-
It's $56B, not $5.6B.
The high costs of the renewable electricity plants in Germany were caused by paying high price for the early models solar panels and due to over-complicated permits for building anything. In Germany, 40% of electricity comes now from renewable sources, in USA only 20%. In Spain, renewable energy accounts for over 46%,
How much will it cost us to save $56B?
In any case, I'm not too sure of the savings if you look at Germany. Why do you think America, Canada, or any other country could do it better than the efficient and technically oriented Germans? If they screwed it up, there's not much hope for us.
Look at Texas which has more wind generation than any other state, interesting in itself since it's an oil state. But they lost power across the state a year or so ago for stupid political and design decisions and could lose it again. Do you think New York State where I grew up and lived until recently is any smarter? They shut down nuclear plants. And now they are going to build offshore wind that will require fossil fuel backup for when the wind stops blowing. How do two plants instead of one save construction money? Think of the maintenance costs when they have to send a repairman in a helicopter or a chartered boat over the ocean burning diesel.
-
...
In any case, I'm not too sure of the savings if you look at Germany. Why do you think America, Canada, or any other country could do it better than the efficient and technically oriented Germans? If they screwed it up, there's not much hope for us.
...
Who says they've screwed up, you?
-
... Think of the maintenance costs when they have to send a repairman in a helicopter or a chartered boat over the ocean burning diesel.
Is sending out a boat out now and then really such a big deal?
-
Who says they've screwed up, you?
I'll let others decide.
ENERGY IS EXPENSIVE IN GERMANY – CAN THIS BE A GOOD THING?
The high cost of energy in Germany is a result of the country’s transition from fossil fuels and atomic energy to renewables. This could be seen as a marker for a poor market environment – or the opposite, as Mathias Röckel explains.
https://www.dotmagazine.online/issues/powering-and-greening-IT/energy-is-expensive-in-germany
What German households pay for power
Power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe. The high costs partly are due to the mandatory support for renewable energy sources – but most customers continue to support the country's energy transition regardless. Wholesale electricity prices on average have been in decline in recent years, but surcharges, taxes, and grid fees raise the bill for Germany's private households and small businesses. However, market observers say that power costs are often not even high enough for customers to look for cheaper alternatives. At the same time, the 2021 energy price hike in Europe is upsetting government plans to ease the financial burden on housheholds by reducing fees and surcharges on consumption.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
-
Unfortunately, China is taking advantage of many poor countries. They're making deals with them to build coal-fired plants in exchange for their resources, military ports, etc. China is stealing their countries blind.
...
Said completely without irony too. :)
-
Is sending out a boat out now and then really such a big deal?
You're cherry-picking. The main costs are construction costs for ocean wind generators and additional fossil fuel plants for backup when the wind doesn't blow. Producing free energy isn't cheap. ;)
-
I'll let others decide.
ENERGY IS EXPENSIVE IN GERMANY – CAN THIS BE A GOOD THING?
The high cost of energy in Germany is a result of the country’s transition from fossil fuels and atomic energy to renewables. This could be seen as a marker for a poor market environment – or the opposite, as Mathias Röckel explains.
https://www.dotmagazine.online/issues/powering-and-greening-IT/energy-is-expensive-in-germany
What German households pay for power
Power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe. The high costs partly are due to the mandatory support for renewable energy sources – but most customers continue to support the country's energy transition regardless. Wholesale electricity prices on average have been in decline in recent years, but surcharges, taxes, and grid fees raise the bill for Germany's private households and small businesses. However, market observers say that power costs are often not even high enough for customers to look for cheaper alternatives. At the same time, the 2021 energy price hike in Europe is upsetting government plans to ease the financial burden on housheholds by reducing fees and surcharges on consumption.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
Who says the main reason for going renewable was to save money? You again. And over what time period would you measure that, 15 years, 150 years?
Energy costs what it costs. Part of the issue with oil is that it has been subsidized so much that we waste it all the time. Higher prices of oil-based fuels is probably a good thing. We should be paying more for it. The fact that millions of people use 3-ton pick-up trucks to buy groceries demonstrates that very well. The fact that our homes here in Canada (developer build tract housing) have such poor insulation is another example of how much we underprice energy. We're just cheating ourselves, well, our children really, because eventually there is a price to pay.
-
You're cherry-picking. The main costs are construction costs for ocean wind generators and additional fossil fuel plants for backup when the wind doesn't blow. Producing free energy isn't cheap. ;)
Then don't bring up moronic examples.
There are costs of construction and maintenance for fossil-fuel plants too, what point are you trying to make. You make it sounds as if we need to build double the number of power plants, renewable ones backed up by fossil-fuel ones. Is that really how it's done? Sounds like another assumption you're making and trying to pass off as fact. You don't have a good track record you know. Almost everything you say turns out to be fact-checked and found wanting.
-
Who says the main reason for going renewable was to save money? You again. And over what time period would you measure that, 15 years, 150 years?
Energy costs what it costs. Part of the issue with oil is that it has been subsidized so much that we waste it all the time. Higher prices of oil-based fuels is probably a good thing. We should be paying more for it. The fact that millions of people use 3-ton pick-up trucks to buy groceries demonstrates that very well. The fact that our homes here in Canada (developer build tract housing) have such poor insulation is another example of how much we underprice energy. We're just cheating ourselves, well, our children really, because eventually there is a price to pay.
You did. Saving costs with green energy was one of the main arguments for it by proponents like yourself. To just shrug your shoulders now because it's convenient in light that it doesn't save money and costs much more, is a poor attempt to deflect criticism. Where did you get the proof that it will be able to save money 15 years from now, much less 150 years? Those are illogical arguments.
-
Then don't bring up moronic examples.
There are costs of construction and maintenance for fossil-fuel plants too, what point are you trying to make. You make it sounds as if we need to build double the number of power plants, renewable ones backed up by fossil-fuel ones. Is that really how it's done? Sounds like another assumption you're making and trying to pass off as fact. You don't have a good track record you know. Almost everything you say turns out to be fact-checked and found wanting.
I provide articles of proof one after another. You never acknowledge the proof I provide just complaining I don't prove it. Meanwhile, you rarely provide backup for your claims.
Here's an article on how California has to add fossil fuel backup. This is a common issue across the country in many states. Of course, all states need to have access to alternatives to green at night and when the wind isn;t blowing.
To avoid blackouts, California may tap fossil fuel plants
A sweeping energy proposal Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Thursday puts the state in the business of buying power to ensure there's enough to go around during heat waves that strain the grid. But some critics say the method of getting there is at odds with the state's broader climate goals, because it paves the way for the state to tap aging gas-fired power plants and add backup generators fueled by diesel.
The debate highlights the challenge some states are facing as they scramble to address heat waves fueled by climate change without compromising on their pledges to transition to non-fossil fuel energy sources like solar and wind.
California gets most of its energy from renewable sources during the day, but doesn't yet have the storage to dispatch enough solar power after the sun goes down. The bill aims to speed up the building of more renewable energy and storage facilities by removing local governments from permitting decisions. Supply chain issues are also slowing down building.
https://www.kcra.com/article/avoid-blackouts-california-may-tap-fossil-fuel-plants/40480270#
-
Meanwhile, you might want to consider offering something more current and written by someone with a science background rather than a paper written 27 years ago by an economist at the Hoover Institution.
I could, but I don't want to because it would be obviously pointless. Your mind is made up. It would be like trying to present an argument to a 'God believer' that the theory of Evolution is a more convincing theory for the 'origins and development of life' than a Creator God.
Goodbye, and may you have a peaceful life despite your concerns about an impending climatic disaster.
-
I provide articles of proof one after another. You never acknowledge the proof I provide just complaining I don't prove it. Meanwhile, you rarely provide backup for your claims.
Here's an article on how California has to add fossil fuel backup. This is a common issue across the country in many states. Of course, all states need to have access to alternatives to green at night and when the wind isn;t blowing.
To avoid blackouts, California may tap fossil fuel plants
A sweeping energy proposal Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Thursday puts the state in the business of buying power to ensure there's enough to go around during heat waves that strain the grid. But some critics say the method of getting there is at odds with the state's broader climate goals, because it paves the way for the state to tap aging gas-fired power plants and add backup generators fueled by diesel.
The debate highlights the challenge some states are facing as they scramble to address heat waves fueled by climate change without compromising on their pledges to transition to non-fossil fuel energy sources like solar and wind.
California gets most of its energy from renewable sources during the day, but doesn't yet have the storage to dispatch enough solar power after the sun goes down. The bill aims to speed up the building of more renewable energy and storage facilities by removing local governments from permitting decisions. Supply chain issues are also slowing down building.
https://www.kcra.com/article/avoid-blackouts-california-may-tap-fossil-fuel-plants/40480270#
All power systems everywhere always provide standby power alternatives for unusual situations. A responsible generation system (not Texas) would never do it any other way. That is standard operating procedure. Accommodating renewables changes the mix and I'm sure the pros can figure out the best way to manage this. I'm certain they know more than you or me on the subject and that no objection that you can dream up would be new to them. I know you don't trust experts, but that's self-delusion. You actually think you know more than they do.
Anyway, who says that all back-ups have to be based on fossil fuels. Things are changing fast and a link was provided above to literature in that subject area. I would prefer to check valid industry sources like that before consulting your opinions. You should too.
-
You did. Saving costs with green energy was one of the main arguments for it by proponents like yourself. ...
Fake news. This is a waste of time. If you're prepared to just lie when it suits you, is there any point to this?
-
I could, but I don't want to because it would be obviously pointless. Your mind is made up.
My mind is made up as to your reliability as a purveyor of trustworthy and accurate information.
It would be like trying to present an argument to a 'God believer' that the theory of Evolution is a more convincing theory for the 'origins and development of life' than a Creator God.
Actually, I would give biologists the credit they're due for their commitment to study and research on the topic. Just like I give credit and weight to scientists in other fields for their efforts. It's the amateur experts populating the internet of which I'm skeptical — and for good reason.
...may you have a peaceful life despite your concerns about an impending climatic disaster.
No one is cowering in the corner, we just do what we can and keep moving forward.
-
(TechTalk)Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, amateur pseudoscience being peddled to the masses — often packaged with smears of dedicated researchers and conspiracy hoaxes.
That and Truth Decay: Lies to reinforce the opinions of the ignorant.
"But with the climate warming, you Canadians will have far more cropland"
Fuck me.
"We have NO IDEA what's going to happen." That's what the scientists say. "But it's going to be extremely disruptive".
-
You're cherry-picking. (expensive boat trips to service offshore wind turbines)
You said it, Alan. YOU brought up the idiotic boat service costs.
If it's cherry picking, they're your cherries.
-
I'll let others decide.
ENERGY IS EXPENSIVE IN GERMANY – CAN THIS BE A GOOD THING?
The high cost of energy in Germany is a result of the country’s transition from fossil fuels and atomic energy to renewables. This could be seen as a marker for a poor market environment – or the opposite, as Mathias Röckel explains.
https://www.dotmagazine.online/issues/powering-and-greening-IT/energy-is-expensive-in-germany
What German households pay for power
Power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe. The high costs partly are due to the mandatory support for renewable energy sources – but most customers continue to support the country's energy transition regardless. Wholesale electricity prices on average have been in decline in recent years, but surcharges, taxes, and grid fees raise the bill for Germany's private households and small businesses. However, market observers say that power costs are often not even high enough for customers to look for cheaper alternatives. At the same time, the 2021 energy price hike in Europe is upsetting government plans to ease the financial burden on housheholds by reducing fees and surcharges on consumption.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
I don't know why Alan posts links to articles which he hasn't read. It appears he just reads the headlines which he puts in bold.
Germany is the Bogeyman he trots out whenever renewable energy comes up. Both of those articles are pretty balanced regarding Germany's transition to renewable energy.
From Alan's dotmagazine article...
Energy is but one factor for companies to consider
If energy is a vital factor to your success, be aware you will pay more for power in Germany than in some other European countries. But high costs are not necessarily a marker for poor market environment. In fact, quite the opposite can be the case. Take, for instance, the data center industry.
Frankfurt is among Europe’s top locations for data center providers -- and data centres are energy thirsty. The data center community in the Frankfurt area has seen continuous growth over the past years, managing to surpass even the Frankfurt Airport (the fourth largest airport in Europe) in terms of power usage. The data center industry example illustrates that energy cost is but one factor to consider regarding your business. In the data center industry, other considerations include security, availability, latency, connectivity and geography. At the end of the day, what is more important to your customers: your production cost -- or the quality you offer in comparison with the price you charge?
Regarding Germany as a business location, look at the the country’s economic statistics and consider this:
While paying more for energy to enable a more sustainable future is something that does make entrepreneurs stop at first and think hard, it would be hard to find an industry prevented from flourishing due to the price of German energy.
From Alan's cleanenergywire.org article...
Although in early 2019 they paid the highest nominal power prices of all customers in Europe, a stable majority of Germans continue to support the energy transition and consider it generally beneficial for the economy. A possible explanation for this carefree attitude is that the financial impact of rising power prices on the household budget is not substantial for many people, since it constitutes only a relatively small fraction of their total income.
If power prices are counted in real terms, the country actually ranks in the midfield compared to fellow EU states. In Bulgaria, for example, power prices are only one third of those in Germany. But not only are power outages much more common, Bulgarians on average also earn only one ninth of the average salary in Germany, newspaper Tageszeitung (taz) reported. In 2015, only 2.3 percent of the households’ disposable income were spent on electricity, similar to mid-1980s levels. In 1998, the respective figure was 1.78 percent, as the liberalisation of energy markets led to a temporary price drop.
Also regarding total energy bills, Germans spend a low share of income in EU comparison, according to the German Economic Institute (IW). German households pay just over 9 percent of their average monthly income for energy, on par with consumers in neighbouring France and the Netherlands. In contrast, Bulgarian households spend more than 25 percent on electricity, gas and petrol. Greeks and Hungarians share second place at 20 percent. The share is lowest in Luxembourg with just 4 percent. The IW notes that its latest report is based on figures from the first half of the year, and therefore does not reflect the recent increases in gas prices.
-
All power systems everywhere always provide standby power alternatives for unusual situations. A responsible generation system (not Texas) would never do it any other way. That is standard operating procedure. Accommodating renewables changes the mix and I'm sure the pros can figure out the best way to manage this. I'm certain they know more than you or me on the subject and that no objection that you can dream up would be new to them. I know you don't trust experts, but that's self-delusion. You actually think you know more than they do.
Anyway, who says that all back-ups have to be based on fossil fuels. Things are changing fast and a link was provided above to literature in that subject area. I would prefer to check valid industry sources like that before consulting your opinions. You should too.
Of course there has always been backup for generator failures. If one or two go down, you can get power from other systems on the grid. But when the wind stops blowing at night, it covers a huge swatch of geography. Add to the problem if it's at night and you can't depend on solar, there's no place to draw from on neighboring green plants. They have no wind either. That's why they need to keep some existing ones and add new alternatives. I agree with you that it doesn't have to be fossil. But in NY, they shut down forever nuclear plants that were perfectly operational because residents didn't like to be near nuclear.
Regarding experts who know what they're doing, Texas is the largest wind-using state in America. Yet their experts screwed up. Germany, with their exacting experts, didn't do much better. They pay 2 1/2 times more than Americans for electricity. They've been subsiding German consumers because the production costs are so high. Their green equipment is failing prematurely. So much for free energy.
The point I'm making is that greenies deceived the public or just didn;t know better early on with how cheap green would be. The fact is it costs, a lot
-
I don't know why Alan posts links to articles which he hasn't read. It appears he just reads the headlines which he puts in bold.
Germany is the Bogeyman he trots out whenever renewable energy comes up. Both of those articles are pretty balanced regarding Germany's transition to renewable energy.
From Alan's dotmagazine article...
Energy is but one factor for companies to consider
If energy is a vital factor to your success, be aware you will pay more for power in Germany than in some other European countries. But high costs are not necessarily a marker for poor market environment. In fact, quite the opposite can be the case. Take, for instance, the data center industry.
Frankfurt is among Europe’s top locations for data center providers -- and data centres are energy thirsty. The data center community in the Frankfurt area has seen continuous growth over the past years, managing to surpass even the Frankfurt Airport (the fourth largest airport in Europe) in terms of power usage. The data center industry example illustrates that energy cost is but one factor to consider regarding your business. In the data center industry, other considerations include security, availability, latency, connectivity and geography. At the end of the day, what is more important to your customers: your production cost -- or the quality you offer in comparison with the price you charge?
Regarding Germany as a business location, look at the the country’s economic statistics and consider this:
While paying more for energy to enable a more sustainable future is something that does make entrepreneurs stop at first and think hard, it would be hard to find an industry prevented from flourishing due to the price of German energy.
From Alan's cleanenergywire.org article...
Although in early 2019 they paid the highest nominal power prices of all customers in Europe, a stable majority of Germans continue to support the energy transition and consider it generally beneficial for the economy. A possible explanation for this carefree attitude is that the financial impact of rising power prices on the household budget is not substantial for many people, since it constitutes only a relatively small fraction of their total income.
If power prices are counted in real terms, the country actually ranks in the midfield compared to fellow EU states. In Bulgaria, for example, power prices are only one third of those in Germany. But not only are power outages much more common, Bulgarians on average also earn only one ninth of the average salary in Germany, newspaper Tageszeitung (taz) reported. In 2015, only 2.3 percent of the households’ disposable income were spent on electricity, similar to mid-1980s levels. In 1998, the respective figure was 1.78 percent, as the liberalisation of energy markets led to a temporary price drop.
Also regarding total energy bills, Germans spend a low share of income in EU comparison, according to the German Economic Institute (IW). German households pay just over 9 percent of their average monthly income for energy, on par with consumers in neighbouring France and the Netherlands. In contrast, Bulgarian households spend more than 25 percent on electricity, gas and petrol. Greeks and Hungarians share second place at 20 percent. The share is lowest in Luxembourg with just 4 percent. The IW notes that its latest report is based on figures from the first half of the year, and therefore does not reflect the recent increases in gas prices.
Germany's energy situation is dire. Their experts are idiots. They built a gas pipeline to Russia and now they have limited natural gas to heat their homes and drive their industries. Even I saw the stupidity of that move two years ago long before Ukraine. They're going to have to shut down 15% or so hurting business and people. The Germans are sheep. Everyone likes green until they have to pay for it more. Don't forget., the government is subsidizing home electricity costs. I believe that's going to end or be decreased. When they see their bills go up more, they won't be so sanguine. Wait till they have no heat this winter and gasoline prices go up more. Even in America, everyone is for green energy until they fill up their tank and have to pay the bill.
-
I could, but I don't want to because it would be obviously pointless. Your mind is made up. It would be like trying to present an argument to a 'God believer' that the theory of Evolution is a more convincing theory for the 'origins and development of life' than a Creator God.
Goodbye, and may you have a peaceful life despite your concerns about an impending climatic disaster.
I wouldn’t normally waste my time in responding to such facetiousness, but that’s bordering on the offensive. TechTalk at no time referred to ‘impending climatic disaster’ and you should know better than to attribute words, dare I say falsehoods, to another.
Time to retract and apologise.
-
I wouldn’t normally waste my time in responding to such facetiousness, but that’s bordering on the offensive. TechTalk at no time referred to ‘impending climatic disaster’ and you should know better than to attribute words, dare I say falsehoods, to another.
Time to retract and apologise.
Ray has always presented his arguments with logic. You don;t have to agree with them. But, it's your side that continually resorts to personal insults and attacks against the posters rather than their ideas. You're self-righteousness is out of place..
-
Regarding experts who know what they're doing, Texas is the largest wind-using state in America. Yet their experts screwed up.
It wasn't experts, it was a free-for-all free market mindset in state government. Texas suffered from too much faith in the free market and too little government regulation and oversight requiring winterization, just like before when they had widespread outages due to lack of winterization — and no regulations requiring it.
-
Germany, with their exacting experts, didn't do much better. They pay 2 1/2 times more than Americans for electricity. They've been subsiding German consumers because the production costs are so high.
Again, you're making it up as you go along and have it backwards. Consumer energy prices are high due to taxes, fees, and surcharges added to the cost of production. This is plain bullshit.
From YOUR cleanenergywire linked article...
Power price components
The average power price for households and small businesses in Germany stood at 32.16 cents per kilowatt hour (ct/kWh) in 2021, according to an analysis by the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW). More than half of the price was due to politically determined components, such as taxes, levies, and surcharges.
About one quarter of the 2021 price (7.8 ct/kWh) resulted from regulated grid fees, which include metering and associated services. Another 7.9 cents were set by the market, meaning the costs accruing from power supply and distribution that also make up the wholesale power price and include the supplier’s margin.
-
The point I'm making is that greenies deceived the public...
You might want to get your facts straight before accusing others of deception. Just a suggestion.
-
Don't forget., the government is subsidizing home electricity costs.
Try reading the articles that you post and link occasionally. You'll find it enlightening.
-
...The Germans are sheep...
...Their experts are idiots....
...it's your side that continually resorts to personal insults...
-
You're self-righteousness is out of place..
*\ yawn
Yes, yes, we know - attributing lies (or falsehoods) to someone is straight out of your playbook. And how long did it take you to man up?
Edit:
and it’s ‘your’ NOT ‘you’re’.
-
To paraphrase a relatively recent, but highly memorable post - "Wake me up when the temperature in London will read 45C".
The U.K. got a preview of what 2050 could feel like this week. The U.K.’s weather-tracking Met Office says the likelihood of temperatures reaching 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) is now 10 times higher than in the pre-industrial era.
Two years ago, with meteorologists quickening the rate at which they try to warn the world of the perils of unchecked climate change, the U.K.’s Met Office — the official weather forecasting agency for the country — posted an alarming, red-splashed temperature map. It was meant as a teaching tool. The Met Office imagined, as a strict hypothetical, what July 23, 2050 might feel like for this far-northern, populous island nation and its Irish neighbors. This was based on climate change projections and what is known so far about global warming’s impact — not in strictly causing weather extremes, but in boosting their frequency and severity.
“Not actual weather forecast,” the graphic made clear. “Examples of plausible weather based on climate projections.” But this week, the Met Office no longer had to pretend. The severe heatwave was here — 28 years earlier than the projection map.
(https://images.mktw.net/im-586680?width=700&size=1.4382022471910112)
Earlier this week, the temperatures in France reached 46C, in Spain 43C and in Greece 48C.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-k-weather-officials-drew-a-scary-heatwave-model-for-2050-this-week-it-came-true-28-years-early-11658254726
-
To paraphrase a relatively recent, but highly memorable post - "Wake me up when the temperature in London will read 45C".
The U.K. got a preview of what 2050 could feel like this week. The U.K.’s weather-tracking Met Office says the likelihood of temperatures reaching 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) is now 10 times higher than in the pre-industrial era.
(https://images.mktw.net/im-586680?width=700&size=1.4382022471910112)
Earlier this week, the temperatures in France reached 46C, in Spain 43C and in Greece 48C.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-k-weather-officials-drew-a-scary-heatwave-model-for-2050-this-week-it-came-true-28-years-early-11658254726
You're not being fair. You're ignoring the benefits to people living in cold places. Once they completely replace their topsoil they'll be able to become the world's bread basket. Time to get into the driverless truck business, as there will dump trucks full of dirt making their way up to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon for centuries to come. We can convert them to run on the thawed methane, thereby creating jobs at Toyota. Global warming might be good for those northern would-be farmers. How hard can it be to orchestrate the wholesale move of the planet's arable land to new latitudes? Time for that can do attitude.
-
The BBC is running a series on how the oil industry has quite deliberately used falsehoods to undermine the science of climate change. The first episode was last night and the most shocking evidence was that EXXON had a research department which by 1979 had clearly demonstrated that a rise in global temperature was being driven by CO2 derived from the burning of fossil fuels. They had started research in to how this was likely to impact the oceans and commissioned an oil tanker to become an ocean research vessel. The top management closed down the research. Since then they and others have run a well organised and funded campaign to undermine the science of global climate change so as to protect their profits.
-
The BBC is running a series on how the oil industry has quite deliberately used falsehoods to undermine the science of climate change. The first episode was last night and the most shocking evidence was that EXON had a research department which by 1979 had clearly demonstrated that a rise in global temperature was being driven by CO2 derived from the burning of fossil fuels. They had started research in to how this was likely to impact the oceans and commissioned an oil tanker to become an ocean research vessel. The top management closed down the research. Since then they and others have run a well organised and funded campaign to undermine the science of global climate change so as to protect their profits.
Everything that man does affects the earth, often in a negative way. We just have so many people on the planet. So, should Tesla do research on the effects of producing and discarding EV batteries? Of course, there are huge negative effects from them. Should we shut down EV manufacturing?
Don't get me wrong. I think research should be done on the various things we do. But once we realize they're negative, what then? Should we stop film use due to all the chemicals used in manufacturing and developing them? Certainly, it could be argued that who needs more chemicals around that could cause cancer.
-
Alan, are you paid by the keystroke for your monologues?
Your lectures in high school economics, demographics, electronics, photochemistry, geomorphology, climate science and a thousand other topics are getting old.
It's not so much your myopic political opinions that are boring, it's their extent and their repetitive, tedious predictability.
Please: attempt concision.
-
No problem at all ;) You could shift the 1.1 billion who live in sub Saharan Africa to move the dirt as their home lands will no longer be habitable.
You're not being fair. You're ignoring the benefits to people living in cold places. Once they completely replace their topsoil they'll be able to become the world's bread basket. Time to get into the driverless truck business, as there will dump trucks full of dirt making their way up to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon for centuries to come. We can convert them to run on the thawed methane, thereby creating jobs at Toyota. Global warming might be good for those northern would-be farmers. How hard can it be to orchestrate the wholesale move of the planet's arable land to new latitudes? Time for that can do attitude.
-
No problem at all ;) You could shift the 1.1 billion who live in sub Saharan Africa to move the dirt as their home lands will no longer be habitable.
Piece of cake. ;)
-
And to be more serious have a read of this article. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/30/total-climate-meltdown-inevitable-heatwaves-global-catastrophe
-
Everything that man does affects the earth, often in a negative way.
"All generalizations are false, including this one." -Mark Twain
So, should Tesla do research on the effects of producing and discarding EV batteries?
The lazy assumption (again) without a lick of your own research they haven't done such research. Did Musk tell you this when you, he and Twain had lunch last?
Don't get me wrong.
That ship sailed years ago. You'd be more accurate writing "Don't get me right". ;)
I think research should be done on the various things we do.
Please start anytime. Like maybe with the idea that Tesla did not do research on the effects of producing and discarding EV batteries. No one here should hold their breath waiting on your 'data' points.
Please: attempt concision.
Easier, faster, more effective inside the bubble to simply assume. But I'm not telling anyone here anything new....
-
"All generalizations are false, including this one." -Mark TwainThe lazy assumption (again) without a lick of your own research they haven't done such research. Did Musk tell you this when you, he and Twain had lunch last? That ship sailed years ago. You'd be more accurate writing "Don't get me right". ;)Please start anytime. Like maybe with the idea that Tesla did not do research on the effects of producing and discarding EV batteries. No one here should hold their breath waiting on your 'data' points.
Easier, faster, more effective inside the bubble to simply assume. But I'm not telling anyone here anything new....
There were already enough such studies, now we need more companies, such as Redwoood Merials who actually do something about it:
Volkswagen Group of America (VWGoA) and Redwood Materials announced a collaboration on recycling Volkswagen and Audi electric vehicle batteries in the United States.
Redwood Materials, the company headed by Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, will remanufacture battery materials from VW and Audi EVs in a domestic supply chain as part of the companies' stated goal to provide accessible and more sustainable electric mobility for American drivers.
Given Redwood's goal of creating the nation's only closed-loop supply chain for lithium-ion batteries and Volkswagen Group of America's strategy to localize all major competencies for its electric transformation, the automaker says the collaboration represents a crucial step in growing North America's domestic EV industry.
https://insideevs.com/news/598003/redwood-materials-recycle-all-batteries-vw-audi-evs-usa/
-
There were already enough such studies, now we need more companies, such as Redwoood Merials who actually do something about it:
https://insideevs.com/news/598003/redwood-materials-recycle-all-batteries-vw-audi-evs-usa/
It's nice to see companies doing this without government involvement and using taxpayer money to subsidize it. I can see this becoming a very competitive business. It reminds me of recycling oil from automobile oil changes and tire replacement recycling, although I think there are some government requirements for these.
-
...The Germans are sheep...
...Their experts are idiots....
...it's your side that continually resorts to personal insults...
-
It's nice to see companies doing this without government involvement and using taxpayer money to subsidize it. I can see this becoming a very competitive business. It reminds me of recycling oil from automobile oil changes and tire replacement recycling, although I think there are some government requirements for these.
The proselytizing never stops. Get over yourself.