Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[placeholder]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Excellent example of how your belief has distorted your interpretation of what I've written. I've never written that CO2 is not a 'so-called' greenhouse gas, nor that it does not cause at least some degree of warming, depending on its concentration.

 

The illusion I refer to, is the belief that CO2 levels represent a control knob, and that we can reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme and damaging weather events simply by reducing our CO2 emissions.

On the one hand you've "never written that CO2 is not a 'so-called' greenhouse gas, nor that it does not cause at least some degree of warming, depending on its concentration. "

"What don't you understand about the incredible predictive ability of even early climatological studies that predicted the rate of global warming so accurately."

One of the hallmarks of great science is that it simplifies things.

And your control knob metaphor is defective. If it was claimed that reducing CO2 would eliminate extreme and damaging weather events your "control knob" analogy might have some validity. But climatologists know that there have always been extreme weather events. It just that the rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will tend to make them more intense and more frequent.. Some phenomena, like hurricanes are actually predicted to become more intense but less frequent.

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, rabas said:

 

His point is that Earth’s climate is the singular, by far most complex chemical/physical system anywhere in the known universe.  The idea that CO2 (where(!) is the subscript function, TV?) is a single control knob for the climate is not scientific.  And he is correct. Popular attempts to separate the world into deniers and 97% proved is also not very scientific.

 

 

Good thing that no climatologists claims that CO2 is a single control knob. 

 

Here's the definition of straw man:

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

 

 

[placeholder]

 

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Since I'm a very practical and unbiased sort of person, I think I would prefer to do a PhD on the psychological and economical reasons for the alarm about CO2 emissions. ????

 

 

 

For example, one claim that many skeptics make is the economic cost of renewables is not justified. It raises electricity prices, creates additional problems due to the intermittency of supply, and makes it more difficult for poor, undeveloped countries to develop.

 

However, a positive aspect of renewable energy is a reduction of the 'real' pollutants in the atmosphere, which affect human health; the advancement of more efficient technologies such as electric vehicles which are cheaper to service and produce no toxic emissions which can be a major problem in densely populated cities; and a reduction of the risk of fossil fuel supplies becoming scarce and much more expensive in the distant future, especially as currently undeveloped countries use increasing amounts of fossil fuels as they develop, and developed countries also use increasing amounts as they increase the average prosperity of their citizens.
 

For someone who claims to be impartial, you demonstrate a remarkable attachment  to error. Renewables are already making coal power plants obsolete, they are now often outcompeting gas peaker plants and their prices are still declining.  

In addition you talk about fossil fuel as though its use has no cost . The IMF estimated that fossil fuel usage is subsidized to the tune of 5 trillion dollars per year mostly due to the damaging effects it has on human health. Damages which are paid for by others. That's about 6 percent of global GDP.

[placeholder]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Would you care to explain why it is a 'straw man' argument? As I understand, reducing CO2 emissions is the main focus and the main reason for the change to renewable sources of energy, because rising CO2 levels are claimed to be the main driver of the current, modest warming. Have I got that wrong?

 

Water vapour is by far the most prominent greenhouse gas, but the alarmist argument is that increases in water vapour result from increases in CO2 levels which is the initial cause of the warming which creates more evaporation. In other words, there is a positive feed-back. Reducing CO2 emissions is claimed to reduce the warming which in turn reduces the amount of water vapour, and reduces the amount of methane emitted from a warming tundra or permafrost. Have I got that wrong?????

 

Yes you've got it wrong. Climatologists don't attach much importance to water vapor as a source of warming because it's part of a feedback loop. It can't increase beyond it's saturation point when it is wrung from the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. Whereas greenhouse gases don't have a saturation level at which they will precipitate. At least, I'm not aware of any dry ice storms on planet Earth.

 

"The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO₂, with smaller contributions from methane, CH₄, nitrous oxide, N₂O, and ozone, O₃. . Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO₂ (as well as CH₄, N₂O, and O₃) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel."

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html#:~:text=On average%2C it probably accounts,vapor the atmosphere can contain.

 

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Would you care to explain why it is a 'straw man' argument? As I understand, reducing CO2 emissions is the main focus and the main reason for the change to renewable sources of energy, because rising CO2 levels are claimed to be the main driver of the current, modest warming. Have I got that wrong?????

Methane is also a very serious threat. It is actually a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It's just that currently there's a lot less of it in the atmosphere and it doesn't last as long as CO2. But satellite observations revealed that far more methane is leaking from methane wells than previously estimated. And as the permafrost melts in the north, a lot more methane will be released. And then there's clathrates and the warming of the Arctic seas...

 

As for "the current, modest warming"...

 

Earth Hasn’t Warmed This Fast in Tens of Millions of Years

Scientists just completed one of the most comprehensive investigations of Earth’s climate history—and the findings aren’t favorable.

They found that the planet could eventually warm to levels it hasn’t reached in at least 34 million years.

Earth Hasn't Warmed This Fast in Tens of Millions of Years - Scientific American

[placeholder]

16 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Those who have at least a reasonable understanding of the scientific processes should be aware that all the various disciplines of science require precise definitions of the words used to describe all things, concepts, causes and effects, and so on, that are observed and addressed.

 

Describing those who are skeptical about the bad effects of rising CO2 levels, as 'Denialists', is not even remotely scientific. Skepticism is essential for science to progress.

Your position should give great comfort to Flat Earthers.

 

But I do agree with you that" Describing those who are skeptical about the bad effects of rising CO2 levels, as 'Denialists', is not even remotely scientific." Because such a description has nothing to do with science. Unless you think semantics is a science.

[onthedarkside]

An exchange of personal trolling posts has been removed.

 

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Since I'm a very practical and unbiased sort of person, I think I would prefer to do a PhD on the psychological and economical reasons for the alarm about CO2 emissions. 

 

'How dare you ignore the history of extreme weather events, and pretend we can solve the problem by reducing our CO2 emissions.'

 

Odd how such an unbiased person repeatedly promotes a dishonest caricature of the actual position of climatologists and activists.

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

Another poster has just brought me back to this topic so sorry for being so long the reply to you.

I hope you are up to date on Geodesy and not taken in by a pretty graphic. The Geoid is a mathematical model that approximates mean sea level. As the graphic shows it goes up and down depending on where you are. Sea level is not an equi-potential surface as the are big variations with latitude and longitude. Thus they have have the Geoid to give an approximation of an equi-potential surface.

The problem with the Geoid over time is that they change the datum center for calculations.

And what has this got to do with satellite based telemetry?

[placeholder]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

An example is the story of Dr. Peter Ridd who was a Physicist at the James Cook University in north Queensland. He dared to criticize the soundness of some of his colleagues research methods regarding the Great Barrier Reef. He was consequently sacked by the university, took the matter to court, won his case, and was awarded $1.2 million in damages. However, the university appealed the decision, and the award was overturned.

 

Peter Ridd has now taken the case to the High Court and the case continues. Here's the story.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/sacked-queensland-professor-scores-first-win-in-high-court-appeal-20210211-p571nm.html
 

The judge reiterated, while the media has consistently framed the matter around free speech, that matter was not on trial:

“Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom,” Judge Salvatore Vasta said. “Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views. [36]

“Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.” [36]

https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd

[Stubby]

NO ONE GIVES A RAT'S AR$E ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING… DO THEY?

 

We grow up being told by teachers and scientists that humans... that's you, dear reader... are the most intelligent beings on planet earth. This is due to our unique ability to think, create, and make informed decisions… apparently.

 

WHAT ARE WE... THOUGH?

 

How would a Planet Doctor view us if there were such a thing?

 

Well, it would see man (can you still say that?) as an aggressive, fast-spreading cancer. We have a relentless determination to destroy anything and everything we come into contact with. 

 

ALL IN THE NAME OF SHORT-TERM PLEASURE

 

I would say we're the most intelligent idiots in the universe. As thick as feces... considering what we know and how we act, regardless. 

 

And what's it all for anyway?

 

An unrelenting pursuit of self-centered pleasure? Life... it seems... is one BIG FAT shopping spree.

 

No other creature sets an alarm clock and drags itself off to work to earn $$$ just so that it can stay alive. It's pretty dumb when you think about it.

 

But umm... what do I know. I'm a poorly educated bloke from a lower working-class background. Thus, what I've just written is most likely utter b*llocks, but hey... I'm still entitled to my say... ain't I?

 

Stubby

[Denim]

Hottest day EVER in Europe  119.8 F  48.3 C

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

 

Scorchio

 

 

[Jillie Norman]

Global warming is really happening and we have to something or this planet is doomed. I watched a news recently where it snowed in Brazil.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Jillie Norman said:

Global warming is really happening and we have to something or this planet is doomed. I watched a news recently where it snowed in Brazil.

There's a lot of confusion about climate change. If a particular region experiences the highest temperature in 100 years or the highest flood level in 100 years, then the media will tend to describe such events as evidence of human-caused climate change. However, using such logic provides the opposite result. If there was an equal or even more severe weather event 100 years ago, before CO2 rises were significant and when the world population was much lower, then that implies the recent, extreme weather event could be entirely natural.

 

The last Ice Age, or Glacial Maximum, occurred around 20,000 years ago when sea levels are estimated to have been 120 to 130 metres lower than today. The Australian continent is estimated to have been about 1/3rd larger in size, as a result, and the Aboriginals were able to walk across the Bas Strait from mainland Australia to Tasmania. No canoes required.

 

To make the math simpler, lets use the estimate of a 120 metres lower sea level. 120 metres is 120,000 mm. Divide that by 20,000, and one gets an average rise in sea levels of 6 mm per year over 20,000 years.

 

Of course, during that period there will have been many centuries when sea level rises were far greater than 6 mm per year, and other centuries when it was less, and significantly falling.

 

Let's consider the current sea level rise during the past century. It's estimated to have been, on average, about 2 mm per year, and in recent decades as high as 3 mm per year. Wow! How alarming! ????

[Thunglom]

 

 

“The climate goes in cycles?” – this is a totally fallacious argument. OF COURSE IT DOES but MMCC is different.

The release rates are unprecedented in 65 million years.

 

THeKEY FACT is that Temperature is rising TEN TIMES FASTER than the last mass extinction 56 million years ago.

 

Science has given good explanations of other long term climate changes too (e.g. ice ages – or short term cool periods. These can be changes in earth orbit and even sudden releasing of ash from volcanoes.

 

 

The old cliche: -  The climate has always changed. It's natural.

No scientist will disagree that the climate changes naturally. It always has and it always will. What makes the recent changes stand out is the unprecedented pace of change.  

Because "the present anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years," as scientists concluded in a 2016 study in Nature Geoscience, the rate of temperature rise is 10 times faster than that of the last mass extinction about 56 million years ago.  

Science has a firm handle on the various reasons why the climate changes naturally. Two examples are long-term fluctuations in sunlight due to changes in Earth's orbit, which modulate ice ages, and shorter-term release of sun-dimming ash from large volcanoes, like Mount Pinatubo, which cooled Earth's surface by 1 degree Fahrenheit in 2001. 

None of these natural changes can explain the spike in heating since the 1800s. In contrast, physics calculates that most of the recent warming stems from heat-trapping greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels. According to climate scientist and data analyst Dr. Zeke Hausfather, "Our best estimate is that 100% of the warming the world has experienced is due to human activities. Natural factors — changes in solar output and volcanoes — would have led to slight cooling over the past 50 years." 

[Thunglom]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

There's a lot of confusion about climate change. If a particular region experiences the highest temperature in 100 years or the highest flood level in 100 years, then the media will tend to describe such events as evidence of human-caused climate change. However, using such logic provides the opposite result. If there was an equal or even more severe weather event 100 years ago, before CO2 rises were significant and when the world population was much lower, then that implies the recent, extreme weather event could be entirely natural.

 

The last Ice Age, or Glacial Maximum, occurred around 20,000 years ago when sea levels are estimated to have been 120 to 130 metres lower than today. The Australian continent is estimated to have been about 1/3rd larger in size, as a result, and the Aboriginals were able to walk across the Bas Strait from mainland Australia to Tasmania. No canoes required.

 

To make the math simpler, lets use the estimate of a 120 metres lower sea level. 120 metres is 120,000 mm. Divide that by 20,000, and one gets an average rise in sea levels of 6 mm per year over 20,000 years.

 

Of course, during that period there will have been many centuries when sea level rises were far greater than 6 mm per year, and other centuries when it was less, and significantly falling.

 

Let's consider the current sea level rise during the past century. It's estimated to have been, on average, about 2 mm per year, and in recent decades as high as 3 mm per year. Wow! How alarming! ????

Oh I see and ALL the world's scientists missed this but you didn't?

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Thunglom said:

Oh I see and ALL the world's scientists missed this but you didn't?

Wow! You know what ALL the world's scientists think! Amazing! You must be like some sort of God. ????

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! You know what ALL the world's scientists think! Amazing! You must be like some sort of God. ????

Exactly! Even the left is only able to speak for 97% of scientists with absolute certainty.

[Thunglom]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! You know what ALL the world's scientists think! Amazing! You must be like some sort of God. ????

You are showing a very limited knowledge of stats and how they and science works - you seem to rely on limited information that is carry-picked to support your own assumptions.

 

Basically, you are using the same reasoning that flat earners use - "it looks flat to me, so it must be".

Top this with a few false syllogisms i.e. "You know what ALL the world's scientists think! Amazing! You must be like some sort of God" and you have as a result a very distorted view of reality.

try this for size - While this isn’t strictly false, it is certainly very misleading.  There are very few scientific issues with 100% unanimity as there will always be those with differing opinions and ulterior motives.

Do you understand what insignificant means is statistical terms? As far as a consensus on climate change, it has been shown that roughly 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming. The most comprehensive study on the matter culminated in a definitive report showing that the greater the expertise among those scientists surveyed, the higher the consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. as for "great expertise", are you aware of cognitive bias and Dunning Kruger effect? this seems to sum up your position pretty accurately

 

 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Thunglom said:

You are showing a very limited knowledge of stats and how they and science works - you seem to rely on limited information that is carry-picked to support your own assumptions.

 

We all rely upon limited information. There are no exceptions, hence my humorous comment about God.

 

The amount of published, peer-reviewed information on climate related matters, including the geological history of past climate changes, evidence from proxy records such as tree rings, sediment analysis, ice cores, and the massive amount of modern data from from temperature readings, satellites, and sea buoys, is far too great for any person to read in a whole lifetime.

 

If you are unable to see the political bias in the climate-change mantra, and the economic biases of those employed by government-funded organizations which were created because of a perceived alarm about human-caused climate change, then I can't help you.
 

[Yellowtail]

17 hours ago, Thunglom said:

You are showing a very limited knowledge of stats and how they and science works - you seem to rely on limited information that is carry-picked to support your own assumptions.

 

Basically, you are using the same reasoning that flat earners use - "it looks flat to me, so it must be".

Top this with a few false syllogisms i.e. "You know what ALL the world's scientists think! Amazing! You must be like some sort of God" and you have as a result a very distorted view of reality.

try this for size - While this isn’t strictly false, it is certainly very misleading.  There are very few scientific issues with 100% unanimity as there will always be those with differing opinions and ulterior motives.

Do you understand what insignificant means is statistical terms? As far as a consensus on climate change, it has been shown that roughly 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming. The most comprehensive study on the matter culminated in a definitive report showing that the greater the expertise among those scientists surveyed, the higher the consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. as for "great expertise", are you aware of cognitive bias and Dunning Kruger effect? this seems to sum up your position pretty accurately

 

 

When you regurgitate the 97% lie you lose a lot of credibility.

 

There is nothing that supports that "...it has been shown that roughly 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming.". 

[Thunglom]

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

We all rely upon limited information. There are no exceptions, hence my humorous comment about God.

You are just displaying your own inability to analyse the media.

As for your use of the word humorous, it just strengthens the evidence - as you claim a purely subjective opinion as fact.

[Thunglom]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

When you regurgitate the 97% lie you lose a lot of credibility.

 

There is nothing that supports that "...it has been shown that roughly 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming.". 

It's a classic sign of the ignorant to dismiss evidence that shows them to be wrong. A combination of ccognitive dissonance. or cognitive measiliness

Read these

 = https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Thunglom said:

It's a classic sign of the ignorant to dismiss evidence that shows them to be wrong. A combination of ccognitive dissonance. or cognitive measiliness

Read these

 = https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

 

I noticed you didn't provide anything that supported the 97% lie, why am I not surprised? 

 

You just regurgitate something else, shocking.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Thunglom said:

It's a classic sign of the ignorant to dismiss evidence that shows them to be wrong. A combination of ccognitive dissonance. or cognitive measiliness

Read these

 = https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

 

Excellent point, but it doesn't apply to me, because I used to accept the alarm about human-caused climate change when the issue first became prominent in the media, a few decades ago, and when I was frequently listening to media interviews of certain famous scientists, such as James Lovelock who were explaining the potential problem of rising CO2 levels.

 

I was rather puzzled at the time why governments were not taking more immediate action, such as providing more assistance to the development of electric vehicles, and setting a moratorium on the manufacture of ICE vehicles, which the UK has now done decades later.

 

However, because I have a curious and questioning mind, as well as a good understanding of the 'methodology of science', I began searching the internet, and Google Scholar, for answers to issues and facts that were never mentioned in the media and during the interviews of climate scientists.

 

It soon became very apparent that there was an obvious bias in the media when reporting the issue of climate science, and/or interviewing scientists on the issue of climate change. Their purpose seemed to be to remove all doubts by excluding the reporting of any contradictory studies, exaggerating the potential harmful effects of rising CO2 levels, and completely ignoring the beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere, which clearly helps to green the planet.

 

In other words, I changed my mind as a result of my own enquiries into the issue, instead of just accepting what is reported in the media, such as the frequent report of a 97% consensus that rising CO2 levels will produce catastrophic changes in climate.

 

As Yellowtail suggested, perhaps you could provide some details about the scientific process that arrived at that 97% figure.
 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Excellent point, but it doesn't apply to me, because I used to accept the alarm about human-caused climate change when the issue first became prominent in the media, a few decades ago, and when I was frequently listening to media interviews of certain famous scientists, such as James Lovelock who were explaining the potential problem of rising CO2 levels.

 

I was rather puzzled at the time why governments were not taking more immediate action, such as providing more assistance to the development of electric vehicles, and setting a moratorium on the manufacture of ICE vehicles, which the UK has now done decades later.

 

However, because I have a curious and questioning mind, as well as a good understanding of the 'methodology of science', I began searching the internet, and Google Scholar, for answers to issues and facts that were never mentioned in the media and during the interviews of climate scientists.

 

It soon became very apparent that there was an obvious bias in the media when reporting the issue of climate science, and/or interviewing scientists on the issue of climate change. Their purpose seemed to be to remove all doubts by excluding the reporting of any contradictory studies, exaggerating the potential harmful effects of rising CO2 levels, and completely ignoring the beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere, which clearly helps to green the planet.

 

In other words, I changed my mind as a result of my own enquiries into the issue, instead of just accepting what is reported in the media, such as the frequent report of a 97% consensus that rising CO2 levels will produce catastrophic changes in climate.

 

As Yellowtail suggested, perhaps you could provide some details about the scientific process that arrived at that 97% figure.
 

 

He's looking for another magazine article...

 

 

[Thunglom]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I noticed you didn't provide anything that supported the 97% lie, why am I not surprised? 

 

You just regurgitate something else, shocking.

those without an argument always resort to crying for citations. There's one in my earlier post - if you care to read it.

[Thunglom]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Excellent point, but it doesn't apply to me, because I used to accept the alarm about human-caused climate change when the issue first became prominent in the media, a few decades ago, and when I was frequently listening to media interviews of certain famous scientists, such as James Lovelock who were explaining the potential problem of rising CO2 levels.

 

I was rather puzzled at the time why governments were not taking more immediate action, such as providing more assistance to the development of electric vehicles, and setting a moratorium on the manufacture of ICE vehicles, which the UK has now done decades later.

 

However, because I have a curious and questioning mind, as well as a good understanding of the 'methodology of science', I began searching the internet, and Google Scholar, for answers to issues and facts that were never mentioned in the media and during the interviews of climate scientists.

 

It soon became very apparent that there was an obvious bias in the media when reporting the issue of climate science, and/or interviewing scientists on the issue of climate change. Their purpose seemed to be to remove all doubts by excluding the reporting of any contradictory studies, exaggerating the potential harmful effects of rising CO2 levels, and completely ignoring the beneficial effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere, which clearly helps to green the planet.

 

In other words, I changed my mind as a result of my own enquiries into the issue, instead of just accepting what is reported in the media, such as the frequent report of a 97% consensus that rising CO2 levels will produce catastrophic changes in climate.

 

As Yellowtail suggested, perhaps you could provide some details about the scientific process that arrived at that 97% figure.
 

It wouldn't would it - try Dunning Kruger instead.

 

what is sad is you don't even realise how cliched and unacademic your post is.

 

Re consensus on MCC......

 Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, Thunglom said:

those without an argument always resort to crying for citations. There's one in my earlier post - if you care to read it.

Hilarious. You regurgitate the 97% lie, and when called on it you regurgitate a magazine article that has nothing to do with what you were called out on on, and then when you get called out on the magazine article that you claim you substantiated the 97% lie in an earlier post. 

 

It it just me or is it not ironic that someone clinging to the 97% lie would link to magazine articles about how people cling to their lies..... 

 

 

[MichaelSulz]

I don;t really believe that humnaity really afects a lot on gloal warming. There have always been change in climate on earh, the were some ice ages as well. It is normal for earth.