Extreme weather

[RSL]

No/yes.

+1

[LesPalenik]

the coverage is spotty and not complete. There's an unfairness in how they report it

If the little rise in the temperature affects only your A/C bill, I can understand you reasoning.   
However, if two lakes and a river disappear, with all the waterfowl and fish gone, that sounds rather complete to me.

[Alan Goldhammer]

For example, since it's warmed up, an area approximately twice the size of the United States has become green with trees and grass. 
That provide more habitat for animals and plants to expand their territory and for more farming area for men as well.  But you never read about things like this.   Warming is always negative. The fact is the earth and its inhabitants have always done better when it's warmer.

While true, there is also increase in the range of disease carrying insects and invasive plant species.

[RSL]

Better run for the hills, Alan.

[BernardLanguillier]

No/yes.

So you think that the current warming is one of those natural cycles that occurred in the past as well?

How do you explain the the rate of warming is much much much faster this time?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

For example, since it's warmed up, an area approximately twice the size of the United States has become green with trees and grass. 
That provide more habitat for animals and plants to expand their territory and for more farming area for men as well.  But you never read about things like this.   Warming is always negative. The fact is the earth and its inhabitants have always done better when it's warmer.

I'm looking forward to hearing about the new habitat for the polar bears, not to mention the cold-water fish and other mammals. Obviously enough the tiny existing deserts like the Gobi, the Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula, the Atacama are going to expand; much of the rest of Africa will turn brown, and then, as since it's warmed up, an area approximately twice the size of the United States has become green with trees and grass. That (will) provide more habitat for animals and plants to expand their territory and for more farming area for men as well.  But you never read about things like this.   Warming is always negative. The fact is the earth and its inhabitants have always done better when it's warmer.

Have you dug to Australia yet?

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No/yes.

OMG, even your government admits it is human-caused.
You must be in a deep state of denial to not even believe the Trump administration's own reports.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

OMG, even your government admits it is human-caused.
You must be in a deep state of denial to not even believe the Trump administrations own reports...

There are morons everywhere.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There are morons everywhere.

You mean you have proof that their assessment is incorrect, or what do you mean?

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

I think I might rechristen LuLa Alice in Wonderland.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

OMG, even your government admits it is human-caused.
You must be in a deep state of denial to not even believe the Trump administration's own reports.

Cheers,
Bart

Every species affects the environment for "good and bad".  The measure of whether it's good for a particular species has always been expansion of range and population. So on those criteria, humans are very successful.    Sure, there will be pockets of damage that affects particular individuals.   But the species as a whole is what's measured. 

Frankly, having retired and moved to New Jersey farm country, I'm disappointed by how many new developments have been builts around here in the last six years.  I enjoy driving around the farms and ranches and seeing horses, cows and other animals.  But the buildings.  It's we're too damn successful.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You mean you have proof that their assessment is incorrect, or what do you mean?

30 years ago, a United Nations report predicted dire climate consequences for the world: whole islands underwater, sea rise flooding whole coastal areas, blah, blah, blah. None of that happened. Al Gore said a polar cap might melt completely by 2018. Didn't happen. AOC predicts the world will end in 12 years. Wanna bet how that one is going to go?

[Alan Klein]

While true, there is also increase in the range of disease carrying insects and invasive plant species.

Those are minor negatives when comparing to expanding populations of species.   You could argue that since the populations are expanding, there will be more deaths as well.  But arguing that would be just as illogical and superficial.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible?fbclid=IwAR2FpPsBFFmMp7BjwxAn3wqxZ6RpqERKFLkz9lxKn285fbgnxuQbbku88Zg

(Emphasis mine)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”

Among the reasons:

Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.

Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.

The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

[Alan Klein]

The problem is everyone is focused on warming as a negative.  No one talks about the positives.  If you only examine the negatives and highlight them, sure, people get worried.  But we should look at the whole picture.  Then decide what should be done if anything.  Even costs to change climate have an effect.  There's only so much money available.  Using it to change the climate removes funding for other important work - cancer research, feeding people, medical care, etc.  These have to be computed into the formula before you make a commitment to spend trillions and trillions that might be better spent elsewheres.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

30 years ago, a United Nations report predicted dire climate consequences for the world: whole islands underwater, sea rise flooding whole coastal areas, blah, blah, blah. None of that happened. Al Gore said a polar cap might melt completely by 2018. Didn't happen. AOC predicts the world will end in 12 years. Wanna bet how that one is going to go?

Besides the fact that that was not based on scientific evidence, and Al Gore is not a scientist either, you are basically saying you don't have proof or even a theory to share, because you don't trust anybody.

How strange, when even an oil company like Shell knew in 1991 what was happening, and made a video documentary about it:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

It looks like this winter we will be still able to enjoy the South Florida beaches. But Miami mayor is worried.

“We’ve been increasing at a small level every year,” Jane Gilbert said.
Gilbert is the City if Miami’s chief resilience officer. It’s a role meant to literally keep families above water.

The greatest threat now from sea level rise, is flooding especially as Hurricane Season approaches.
“The combination of higher storm surge and more precipitation. That could increase the flood risk,” Gilbert said.

In November 2017, voters approved a $400 Million Miami Forever Bond. Nearly half the funds go toward tackling sea level rise.

Why would they spend unnecessary money on alarmist news?


https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/05/21/faster-than-predicted-rising-sea-levels-coastal-cities/

[Rob C]

Yes, I know; those pesky icebergs sink ships! Let's melt them all; you know nothing will happen. The money spent doing that will create jobs and make America Great Again! There will be more money to fund the gun lobby and less to waste on cancer research which we don't do much of now because it's not cost efficient and hey, we're all gonna die some day anyway, right? Look on the positive side!

The holiday industry will thrive, especially the big cruise liner section: instead of going to the cold seas (brrrr!!!!) to watch whales we can all go to Venice Beach instead, or maybe to New New Orleans and fill the place with fresh day-trippers every day! When that bores, there's always the new thrill of the old North Pole route, now free of ice and bustling with Russian yachts, Chinese junks etc. Bring your large digital camera(s) and get the same photos as everyone else you envied does! Count the hairs! Feel the bokeh!

Mr Trump has pioneered a new company and great plan to raise the whole of Miami on stilts! Then see how great the south will be again, and how envious those Europeans will feel as their own waterways lose visitors to the new, shiny, Technicolor Las Vegas-by-the-Sea.  The rigs in the Gulf? What rigs? The last hurricane cleaned them all away, don't you remember? So environmentally friendly, our Gulf.

Wait: is that a little group of people from a photographic website out in a dighy looking for seals and penguins? No worries, lads; we have an indoor reservation for you to visit - you can sail right in through the airlock - and any number of people dressed in the appropriate costumes will clap their hands, waddle, and/or balance colouted balls on the tip of their nose for you; our staff are better than the uncooperative real things in the old documentaries; did you know it once took weeks to get a couple of minutes of movie? Our backgrounds are authentic scenes specially curated from old National Geographic archives, guaranteed better than real. And get this: our 'bergs are color coded to your sensor setting of choice! Wow! What more could a sane man desire?

[faberryman]

The problem is everyone is focused on warming as a negative.  No one talks about the positives.  If you only examine the negatives and highlight them, sure, people get worried.  But we should look at the whole picture.  Then decide what should be done if anything.  Even costs to change climate have an effect.  There's only so much money available.  Using it to change the climate removes funding for other important work - cancer research, feeding people, medical care, etc.  These have to be computed into the formula before you make a commitment to spend trillions and trillions that might be better spent elsewheres.

At least you admit it is happening.

[LesPalenik]

At least you admit it is happening.

But there are still two more who are denying it.