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

[Jeffr2]

38 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Of course not. The world is either getting warmer or cooler. That's the nature of climate. It's always changing to some degree. To what extent human activity is contributing to the current, very moderate warming, is not known with any certainty. Nor is it known with any certainty if such warming will have a net, negative effect, globally. There will always be some negative effects from warming in some regions, but also positive effects in other regions, and one, over all, positive effect of increased CO2 levels, plus the slight warming trend, is a greening of the planet and an increase in food production.

 

As I've mentioned in my previous post, there are many place where sea levels appear to be rising at an alarming rate because the land is actually sinking. Reducing CO2 emissions will not stop the land sinking.

Spoken like a true climate change denier.

[Jeffr2]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/14/climate/hottest-year-2020-global-map.html

With the 2020 results, the last seven years have been the warmest since the beginning of modern record-keeping nearly a century and a half ago, Dr. Schmidt said.

“We are now very, very clear about the underlying long-term trends,” he said. “We understand where they come from. It’s because of the greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere.”

The planet has warmed more than 1 degree Celsius (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s, when the spread of industrialization led to rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the pace has accelerated in recent decades.

[Jeffr2]

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html

16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet

[mogandave]

So the other 135 countries credit rating will stay the same or improve, yes?

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Spoken like a true climate change denier.

Where have I stated that climate is not changing? I'm definitely not a 'climate change denier'.

[Jeffr2]

21 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Where have I stated that climate is not changing? I'm definitely not a 'climate change denier'.

If you think it only happens slowly, like over 20,000 years, then that's denying what's happening.  And how the impact of human activity is making this happen.  CO2 baby! LOL

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/scientists-warn-humanity/index.html

16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity over health of planet

The health of the planet is increased with increasing CO2 levels. CO2 is absolutely essential for all life. It's a clear and odorless gas, and increased levels are greening the planet, helping forests to regrow faster, and increasing crop growth.

 

However, there is definitely a problem regarding the pollution of the planet due to the emissions of toxic chemicals, fertilizer run-off, lack of adequate emission controls on vehicles and fossil power plants, plastic and other waste which is just dumped in the environment, and so on.

 

It's very sad that so many people are unable to differentiate between the real pollutants that are a threat to our environment, and that clear and odorless gas called CO2 which is beneficial to the environment.

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

If you think it only happens slowly, like over 20,000 years, then that's denying what's happening.  And how the impact of human activity is making this happen.  CO2 baby! LOL

 

Where did you get the idea that I think climate changes only slowly, like over the past 20,000 years? I stated that the average yearly rise in sea levels, during the past 20,000 years, was over 3 times the average yearly rise during the 20th century, and that during certain past centuries there is evidence that sea levels have risen several metres in just a 100 year period, which is around 10 to 20 times the current rate since industrialization.

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Where did you get the idea that I think climate changes only slowly, like over the past 20,000 years? I stated that the average yearly rise in sea levels, during the past 20,000 years, was over 3 times the average yearly rise during the 20th century, and that during certain past centuries there is evidence that sea levels have risen several metres in just a 100 year period, which is around 10 to 20 times the current rate since industrialization.

But that's a very misleading way to frame the rise in sea levels. The rise actually slowed down greatly about 7000 years ago when the average global temperature reached peaked. From about the year 0 to the late 19th century there was virtually no rise at all. The rate of rise has accelerated from 1.2 to 1.7 millimiters per year to 3.2 millimeters per year and it's still accelerating.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

The health of the planet is increased with increasing CO2 levels. CO2 is absolutely essential for all life. It's a clear and odorless gas, and increased levels are greening the planet, helping forests to regrow faster, and increasing crop growth.

 

However, there is definitely a problem regarding the pollution of the planet due to the emissions of toxic chemicals, fertilizer run-off, lack of adequate emission controls on vehicles and fossil power plants, plastic and other waste which is just dumped in the environment, and so on.

 

It's very sad that so many people are unable to differentiate between the real pollutants that are a threat to our environment, and that clear and odorless gas called CO2 which is beneficial to the environment.

Lots of things are essential for growth. But too much of them not so much. And the rising levels of CO2 average may accelerate the growth of  plants but the rise in temperature not so much.  And an increase in gross tonnage of plant matter is not compatible with the same levels of biodiversity. Already ecosystem are moving towards the poles when they can find suitable terrain. When they can't, they're out of luck. In the tropics one of the most alarming developments is that the average nighttime temperatures are rising faster than average daytime temperatures. That means no opportunities for humans to adequately cool down. As tropical waters grow hotter and hotter fish are fleeing towards cooler waters. There are less fish left behind.

[mogandave]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Where have I stated that climate is not changing? I'm definitely not a 'climate change denier'.

 

Anyone that disagrees with the left’s political agenda is a science denier of some kind.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

But that's a very misleading way to frame the rise in sea levels. The rise actually slowed down greatly about 7000 years ago when the average global temperature reached peaked. From about the year 0 to the late 19th century there was virtually no rise at all. The rate of rise has accelerated from 1.2 to 1.7 millimiters per year to 3.2 millimeters per year and it's still accelerating.

I agree the average rate of rise does appear to have slowed down from around 7,000 years ago because the planet is probably approaching the end of the current interglacial period. However, most graphs based on proxy records tend to show just an average trend and do not include the rapid rises and falls that have often occurred within just a few decades or a century or two.

 

I'll repeat the quote from the Wikipedia article:
"Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 years ago and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years, such that sea levels 5000 years ago were around 3m higher than present day, as evidenced in many locations by fossil beaches."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

 

In other words, between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago there was a period of 140 years when sea levels rose 6.5 metres. That's an average of 46 mm per year. How does that compare with the current rate of rise over the past 140 years, since the year 1880? ????
 

[Scott]

A post from an unapproved source removed along with another violating Fair Use Policy.

 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I agree the average rate of rise does appear to have slowed down from around 7,000 years ago because the planet is probably approaching the end of the current interglacial period. However, most graphs based on proxy records tend to show just an average trend and do not include the rapid rises and falls that have often occurred within just a few decades or a century or two.

 

I'll repeat the quote from the Wikipedia article:
"Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 years ago and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years, such that sea levels 5000 years ago were around 3m higher than present day, as evidenced in many locations by fossil beaches."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

 

In other words, between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago there was a period of 140 years when sea levels rose 6.5 metres. That's an average of 46 mm per year. How does that compare with the current rate of rise over the past 140 years, since the year 1880? ????
 

Nothing in that quote re:oa sea rise of 6.5 meters contradicts what I posted earlier. I'm not sure what you think that proves.

 

I agree with you that the planet should be approaching the end of the interglacial period. Average temperatures have been on a very gradual decline for the last 7 or 8 millenia. But instead of cooling, the sea and troposphere are warming. And the rate of rise in sea levels is accelerating.

[Jeffr2]

11 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Anyone that disagrees with the left’s political agenda is a science denier of some kind.

It's got nothing to do with the left.  Other than liberals tend to be more concerned about the health of our planet than conservatives.  Sadly.  We're all in this together.  And it's a serious problem. 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/weather/climate-change-hotter-summers-trnd/index.html

 

By the end of the century, summer weather could last half a year (and that's not a good thing)

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nothing in that quote re:oa sea rise of 6.5 meters contradicts what I posted earlier. I'm not sure what you think that proves.

 

I agree with you that the planet should be approaching the end of the interglacial period. Average temperatures have been on a very gradual decline for the last 7 or 8 millenia. But instead of cooling, the sea and troposphere are warming. And the rate of rise in sea levels is accelerating.

The point I'm trying to get across is that temperatures and sea levels are always changing and are never static. As I've mentioned before, the climate is a complex, chaotic and non-linear system. Even the IPCC agrees with that.

 

Non-linear means that changes never take place at a regular, constant rate, as the straight lines in many graphs tend to imply. There are always 'ups and downs', and accelerating or decelerating rates.
For example, prior to the scare about global warming that began in the late 1970's, there was a scare about global cooling.
 

"From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode."

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822-300-the-ice-age-that-never-was/

 

We can't be certain about past temperatures and sea levels on a global scale because we have to rely upon proxy records, such as tree rings, sediments, ice cores, and so on, which are examined in relatively few locations that do not necessarily represent the whole globe, as current satellite data does. However, the evidence is clear that in many locations in recent history, there have been changes in climate that have been far more rapid than any changes recorded in the modern era since industrialization.

 

An example is the collapse of the Khmer Civilization in the 14th and early 15th centuries A.D. Angkor Wat, and the many other temples in the area is one of my favourite locations because its history and archeological remains are amazing. It used to be thought that the collapse of this amazing civilization was due to the invasion of the neighbouring Thais, but recent studies of sediments and tree rings in the area show that the civilization was already collapsing due to a rapid change in climate, before the Thais invaded.

 

Around the time of the transition in Europe from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice age, there was a rapid change in climate in SE Asia. The snow and ice in the Himalayas didn't melt as usual in summer, causing very low levels of water in the Mekong River which flows into the Tonle Sap lake. In addition, there were several years when the monsoon rains didn't occur. Extreme and prolonged droughts resulted. Large numbers of the Khmer population began leaving their civilization in search of greener pastures. Whilst the civilization was still reeling from the drought, the Himalayan winter snows began melting again, the monsoons came back, and there were several years of high river levels and exceptionally wet monsoons, which caused yet more of the Khmer population to leave their civilization. This was the ideal time for the Thais to attack.

 

Refer attached link for an overview.
https://phys.org/news/2020-04-climate-collapse-angkor-wat.html

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

It's got nothing to do with the left.  Other than liberals tend to be more concerned about the health of our planet than conservatives.  Sadly.  We're all in this together.  And it's a serious problem. 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/weather/climate-change-hotter-summers-trnd/index.html

 

By the end of the century, summer weather could last half a year (and that's not a good thing)

 

Why do you say that liberals care more about the health of our planet than do conservatives?

 

Some of the most outspoken leftists on the subject live in beach front communities they claim will be under water and fly around in private jets. 

 

 

[Jeffr2]

12 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Why do you say that liberals care more about the health of our planet than do conservatives?

 

Some of the most outspoken leftists on the subject live in beach front communities they claim will be under water and fly around in private jets.

Climate change deniers thrive on the right.  Claiming to be conservatives.  They also deny CV19 is a reality.  And many are anti-vaxx'ers.

 

I doubt there are many liberals flying around in jets that live on the beach.  Too funny...

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The health of the planet is increased with increasing CO2 levels. CO2 is absolutely essential for all life. It's a clear and odorless gas, and increased levels are greening the planet, helping forests to regrow faster, and increasing crop growth.

 

However, there is definitely a problem regarding the pollution of the planet due to the emissions of toxic chemicals, fertilizer run-off, lack of adequate emission controls on vehicles and fossil power plants, plastic and other waste which is just dumped in the environment, and so on.

 

It's very sad that so many people are unable to differentiate between the real pollutants that are a threat to our environment, and that clear and odorless gas called CO2 which is beneficial to the environment.

True. The real threat IMO is the amount of pollution being put into the air and oceans. IMO be good for everyone to severely penalise polluters, and sanctions on countries that won't stop companies using the oceans to dump their garbage.

 

BTW, isn't water vapour the major green house gas? According to wikipedia it's far more prevalent than CO2. Of course can't tax water vapour.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

Compound	Formula	Concentration in atmosphere[29] (ppm)	Contribution (%)
Water vapor and clouds	H 2O	10–50,000(A)	36–72%
Carbon dioxide	CO 2	~400	9–26%
Methane	CH 4	~1.8	4–9%
Ozone	O 3	2–8(B)	3–7%
notes: (A) Water vapor strongly varies locally[30] (B) The concentration in stratosphere. About 90% of the ozone in Earth's atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere.

[thaibeachlovers]

30 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Climate change deniers thrive on the right.  Claiming to be conservatives.  They also deny CV19 is a reality.  And many are anti-vaxx'ers.

 

I doubt there are many liberals flying around in jets that live on the beach.  Too funny...

How about Obama? He bought waterfront property in Martha's Vineyard and I'm pretty sure he flies around in jets.

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How about Obama? He bought waterfront property in Martha's Vineyard and I'm pretty sure he flies around in jets.

Congratulations. Now please, many liberals, not just the one. And yes, I'm sure you can think of a few more. But no, not 'many liberals'.

 

In any case, liberals or not is not related to the topic that many countries' credit ratings will drop due to global warming.

[Jeffr2]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How about Obama? He bought waterfront property in Martha's Vineyard and I'm pretty sure he flies around in jets.

One out of millions.  Perhaps not the best analogy?

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The point I'm trying to get across is that temperatures and sea levels are always changing and are never static. As I've mentioned before, the climate is a complex, chaotic and non-linear system. Even the IPCC agrees with that.

 

Non-linear means that changes never take place at a regular, constant rate, as the straight lines in many graphs tend to imply. There are always 'ups and downs', and accelerating or decelerating rates.
For example, prior to the scare about global warming that began in the late 1970's, there was a scare about global cooling.
 

"From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode."

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822-300-the-ice-age-that-never-was/

Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic

To sum up, anthropogenic sulfur emissions appear to be the main cause of the mid-century cooling.  These emissions decreased the mean global surface temperature by approximately 0.5°C during this period, while anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused a warming of approximately 0.4°C.  Therefore, even though greenhouse gas emissions continued to have a warming effect during this period, it was more than offset (hidden) by anthropogenic aerosol emissions, until those emissions were brought under control by government intervention while greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase unabated. 

https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

An example is the collapse of the Khmer Civilization in the 14th and early 15th centuries A.D. Angkor Wat, and the many other temples in the area is one of my favourite locations because its history and archeological remains are amazing. It used to be thought that the collapse of this amazing civilization was due to the invasion of the neighbouring Thais, but recent studies of sediments and tree rings in the area show that the civilization was already collapsing due to a rapid change in climate, before the Thais invaded.

 

Around the time of the transition in Europe from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice age, there was a rapid change in climate in SE Asia. The snow and ice in the Himalayas didn't melt as usual in summer, causing very low levels of water in the Mekong River which flows into the Tonle Sap lake. In addition, there were several years when the monsoon rains didn't occur. Extreme and prolonged droughts resulted. Large numbers of the Khmer population began leaving their civilization in search of greener pastures. Whilst the civilization was still reeling from the drought, the Himalayan winter snows began melting again, the monsoons came back, and there were several years of high river levels and exceptionally wet monsoons, which caused yet more of the Khmer population to leave their civilization. This was the ideal time for the Thais to attack.

 

Refer attached link for an overview.
https://phys.org/news/2020-04-climate-collapse-angkor-wat.html

The problem with referencing  phenomena like the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice age, and the drought in SE Asia is that they are all regional. But this is about global climate change. This major piece of research established that from the year 0 up until some time after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, there was no long-term trend of global warming or cooling.

 

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

Though the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence⁶, the spatiotemporal coherence of climate epochs earlier in the Common Era has yet to be robustly tested. Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

And the proxy sources for temperature are more numberous more than you seem to  believe:

 

PAGES2k Global 2,000 Year Multiproxy Database

Here we present a community-sourced database of temperature-sensitive proxy records from the PAGES2k initiative. The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins. The records are from trees, ice, sediment, corals, speleothems, documentary evidence, and other archives. They range in length from 50 to 2000 years, with a median of 547 years, while temporal resolution ranges from biweekly to centennial.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/21171

[mogandave]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How about Obama? He bought waterfront property in Martha's Vineyard and I'm pretty sure he flies around in jets.

 

He’s a centrist...

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

One out of millions.  Perhaps not the best analogy?

Are not both coasts the bluest states? Last time i looked the coasts were closest to the water, no?

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Why do you say that liberals care more about the health of our planet than do conservatives?

 

Some of the most outspoken leftists on the subject live in beach front communities they claim will be under water and fly around in private jets. 

 

 

Thanks for the detailed statistical analysis in your report. "Some of the most outspoken leftists" is clearly an irreproachable and objective measurement.

[mogandave]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

Congratulations. Now please, many liberals, not just the one. And yes, I'm sure you can think of a few more. But no, not 'many liberals'.

 

In any case, liberals or not is not related to the topic that many countries' credit ratings will drop due to global warming.

How many is many? 

 

And yes, 60 countries credit ratings may drop. That leave 130 countries that will not drop and that could well improve, yes?

[placeholder]

On 3/23/2021 at 3:32 PM, VincentRJ said:

Where have I stated that climate is not changing? I'm definitely not a 'climate change denier'.

How about anthropogenic climate change denier?

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, mogandave said:

How many is many? 

 

And yes, 60 countries credit ratings may drop. That leave 130 countries that will not drop and that could well improve, yes?

Here's the first sentence of the article:

 

A new algorithm-based study by a group of UK universities has predicted that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.

 

And even if it was only 60 out of 190, would you seriously rate a 6 notch decline in the credit rating of China as no more important that that of Andorra?

If you total up the populations of the 10 countries mentioned in the article that would suffer a serious decline in credit ratings, that would amount to about half of all humans. And that's without including the populations of the other 50.