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

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Climate change is certainly happening, as the south island of NZ has seen rising snow levels since the 70s, but it's not necessarily getting a lot hotter. The past summer was cooler than the previous one and I even had the heater on around Christmas for a couple of nights, which hasn't happened in my lifetime that I can remember.

Your observations of the weather are a tiny tiny part of what is going on in the global climate.

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your objection to the climate change model was the caveat that excluded ‘social and political factors’ from which you disregard the whole model.

 

It speaks to a lack of the most basic understanding of what you are criticizing.

Quite wrong, as usual.

 

I was referring equally to the phrase "Moreover, our results should be understood as scenario-based simulations rather than predictions."

 

Computer models have a dreadful prediction record, and the authors, quite rightly, are acknowledging that. The model is a useful experiment, and I doubt that the authors intended for it to be any more than that. "Don't blame us if it's rubbish," is the caveat that the authors were giving.

 

Reuters, however, sniffing a climate agenda story, has run the thing without any semblance of balance or perspective.

 

I'm objecting to the story, not the model.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Quite wrong, as usual.

 

I was referring equally to the phrase "Moreover, our results should be understood as scenario-based simulations rather than predictions."

 

Computer models have a dreadful prediction record, and the authors, quite rightly, are acknowledging that. The model is a useful experiment, and I doubt that the authors intended for it to be any more than that. "Don't blame us if it's rubbish," is the caveat that the authors were giving.

 

Reuters, however, sniffing a climate agenda story, has run the thing without any semblance of balance or perspective.

 

I'm objecting to the story, not the model.

The caveat was not ‘don’t blame us if it’s rubbish’.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your observations of the weather are a tiny tiny part of what is going on in the global climate.

 

 

 

Obviously, but if the world is warming, why did I have the heater on at Christmas time, which never happened before, and why hasn't the sea level risen visibly?

No point expecting me to believe that we are doomed if what is claimed isn't born out by the evidence that I see personally..

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Wrong.

 

Climate change is a risk, to economies and societies.

 

The climate change modelers are working to determine the boundaries of that risk.

 

You might not want to pay them but the people who need to set policies to address the risks are.

 

They are not ‘demanding to be paid’ they are paid because there is a demand for their work.

 

So if their models showed they were wrong, and the climate was not actually changing as fast as they thought, would their services no longer be needed? 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously, but if the world is warming, why did I have the heater on at Christmas time, which never happened before, and why hasn't the sea level risen visibly?

No point expecting me to believe that we are doomed if what is claimed isn't born out by the evidence that I see personally..

 

That's weather you fool, everyone knows climate and weather are not related. 

[RickBradford]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Can record temperatures in 9 of ten years not be serious?

Certainly.

 

Do you assume that temperature will inevitably continue to rise? It never has in the past.

Do you assume that warmer is necessarily worse? It never has been before.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously, but if the world is warming, why did I have the heater on at Christmas time, which never happened before, and why hasn't the sea level risen visibly?

No point expecting me to believe that we are doomed if what is claimed isn't born out by the evidence that I see personally..

 

It hasn't been called Global Warming for a decade or so now. Drop the wingnut talking points. A cursory glance at the modern debate will reveal that climate extremes in either direction are the product of climate change and that change has differential effects in different parts of the planet in different years.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Certainly.

 

Do you assume that temperature will inevitably continue to rise? It never has in the past.

 

In the industrial era, it has.

 

Quote

Do you assume that warmer is necessarily worse? It never has been before.

 

Most definitely. Even small changes in weather have strong and adverse effects on ecology. For example, the migration of invasive fish species.

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

something went wrong

 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously, but if the world is warming, why did I have the heater on at Christmas time, which never happened before, and why hasn't the sea level risen visibly?

No point expecting me to believe that we are doomed if what is claimed isn't born out by the evidence that I see personally..

Because local weather is driven by climate conditions beyond the locality.

 

Global warming is increasing the amount of energy in the atmosphere and oceans and that is changing air and ocean currents.

 

Cold air moving into an area at s time it isn’t normally present may be one such change of air current.

 

 

[RickBradford]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The caveat was not ‘don’t blame us if it’s rubbish’.

If you had read as many scientific papers as I have, you would know that is what it amounted to.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

It hasn't been called Global Warming for a decade or so now. Drop the wingnut talking points. A cursory glance at the modern debate will reveal that climate extremes in either direction are the product of climate change and that change has differential effects in different parts of the planet in different years.

Where did I say "Global Warming" and insults do not make you correct.

I am fully aware that when the world apparently stopped warming significantly it was necessary to change the name of the scenario to something else. So much for that prediction.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

If you had read as many scientific papers as I have, you would know that is what it amounted to.

This is the Internet, I could claim to have read twice as many and you’d be none the wiser.

 

I do though read your comments on the climate models and draw my own conclusions.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where did I say "Global Warming" and insults do not make you correct.

I am fully aware that when the world apparently stopped warming significantly it was necessary to change the name of the scenario to something else. So much for that prediction.

 

No, it was when the deniers pointed to anomalies in the data and suggested they proved the whole thing was a hoax, it became necessary to clarify if for those who don't understand what nuance means. You're implying that there is some conspiracy among thousands of climate scientists to change the wording to protect a hoax.

Edited March 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where did I say "Global Warming" and insults do not make you correct.

I am fully aware that when the world apparently stopped warming significantly it was necessary to change the name of the scenario to something else. So much for that prediction.

That’s not why the term ‘global warming’ has fallen from use.

 

The reason is precisely related to your weather observation ‘if the planet is warming why am I seeing colder weather’.

 

Global warming is a measurable fact, in reality (Thermodynamics) tge energy in the global atmosphere and oceans is increasing and that increase in energy is driving increasingly severe weather outcomes.

 

You are correct, insults do not help any discussion.

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because local weather is driven by climate conditions beyond the locality.

 

Global warming is increasing the amount of energy in the atmosphere and oceans and that is changing air and ocean currents.

 

Cold air moving into an area at s time it isn’t normally present may be one such change of air current.

 

 

Yes indeed, it "could be", or "may be".

 

However, some people are making predictions of severe weather changes due to the world warming, and when the world doesn't warm, it leads to people not believing the claims, even if they happen to be true.

 

I could claim that we will be growing grapes on Stewart Island in 5 years time, but when it didn't happen, people would rightly not believe me if I were to make some other claim with regard to climate. The climate people do need to get it right, unless they want people to disregard everything they say.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

No, it was when the deniers pointed to anomalies in the data and suggested they proved the whole thing was a hoax, it became necessary to clarify if for those who don't understand what nuance means. You're implying that there is some conspiracy among thousands of climate scientists to change the wording to protect a hoax.

It’s not so much those who don’t understand the meaning and use of ‘nuance’, rather deniers deliberately misrepresenting nuance as a basis to claim a hoax.

 

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The climate people do need to get it right, unless they want people to disregard everything they say.

You can't let go of this train of thought. If they mostly get it right then they are right. Just like all predictive models, not limited to climate change.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This is the Internet, I could claim to have read twice as many and you’d be none the wiser.

 

I do though read your comments on the climate models and draw my own conclusions.

That does go both ways, of course. People can claim anything they like on the internet ( and often do ), but if the weather outside my door is cold and someone on the internet is claiming it should be hot, what am I to believe?

 

Judging by the number of surfers wearing wet suits a couple of weeks ago, one must assume that the sea is cool/ cold too, despite it being warm at that time of year not so many years ago.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes indeed, it "could be", or "may be".

 

However, some people are making predictions of severe weather changes due to the world warming, and when the world doesn't warm, it leads to people not believing the claims, even if they happen to be true.

 

I could claim that we will be growing grapes on Stewart Island in 5 years time, but when it didn't happen, people would rightly not believe me if I were to make some other claim with regard to climate. The climate people do need to get it right, unless they want people to disregard everything they say.

I think it’s worth examining what predictions climate change modelers are making and what those predictions mean. Then compare this with what is reported in press and the media.

 

I would be extremely surprised if a climate change modeler made a single prediction of a severe outcome.

 

That’s not how modeling works, but it is how news headlines work.

 

The more boring reality is s model will predict a range of outcomes and assign to each a probability together with caveats and notes to the results.

 

The 90% chance of rain tomorrow is an example, if it doesn’t rain the model isn’t wrong but do you want to plan a picnic given the prediction?

 

There’s something else about climate/weather models that is worth understanding, they are constantly being refined and improved.

 

Models running in the 1970s are crude compared to those of today, computing power is one step forward but also input sensor technology and the increase in data sample points.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That does go both ways, of course. People can claim anything they like on the internet ( and often do ), but if the weather outside my door is cold and someone on the internet is claiming it should be hot, what am I to believe?

 

Judging by the number of surfers wearing wet suits a couple of weeks ago, one must assume that the sea is cool/ cold too, despite it being warm at that time of year not so many years ago.

Well there you go.

 

Climate change.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well there you go.

 

Climate change.

Which I've never denied. I just don't think humans can change it by making people drive electric cars etc.

I wish as much energy was put into stopping pollution. That would make a real difference to the world we live in.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Which I've never denied. I just don't think humans can change it by making people drive electric cars etc.

I wish as much energy was put into stopping pollution. That would make a real difference to the world we live in.

And I believe we can.

 

I also believe solving climate change and addressing pollution are part of the same issue, card for the environment, not an either or. But yes I agree pollution too needs addressing.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Which I've never denied. I just don't think humans can change it by making people drive electric cars etc.

 

If 28% of US greenhouse gas emissions are produced by transportation how could that not be so?

 

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wish as much energy was put into stopping pollution. That would make a real difference to the world we live in.

 

I agree. Pollution, especially pesticides, is a more immediate threat to our existence. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant in this context as well though. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher now than they have been for almost a million years.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Models can be made 100% correct in modelling the past,

 

 

Models, by definition do not apply to the past. That's called history. If you are referring to increased knowledge about the past, that's still not modelling.

 

Quote

but in a situation as complex as climate, they are likely to fail more than not.

 

The predictions made by climate models have mostly been useless, little better than random, and so it would be supreme folly to rely on them for ruinously expensive policy decisions.

 

They don't fail, they become more accurate over time. Governments rely on modelling for ALL of their expensive decisions, whether financial or infrastructure planning.

 

Show me an example of a "ruinous policy decision" relating to climate change."

Edited March 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[BritManToo]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Climate change is a risk, to economies and societies.

Destroying the worlds ability to produce electricity and fuel is a worse risk to our civilisation and our lives.

Edited March 29, 2021 by BritManToo

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If 28% of US greenhouse gas emissions are produced by transportation how could that not be so?

Because it's going to take probably decades to convert the entire world transportation to alternative fuel. If they give up on electric/ battery vehicles and go for hydrogen they'd have a much better chance of success IMO, but that's apparently not being looked at seriously at the moment.

Existing engines can be converted to use hydrogen, to my knowledge, but all electric cars can't.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Governments rely on medelling for ALL of their expensive decisions, whether financial or infrastructure planning.

Pity they get it wrong so often then.

[ozimoron]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Because it's going to take probably decades to convert the entire world transportation to alternative fuel. If they give up on electric/ battery vehicles and go for hydrogen they'd have a much better chance of success IMO, but that's apparently not being looked at seriously at the moment.

Existing engines can be converted to use hydrogen, to my knowledge, but all electric cars can't.

 

Given that vehicles are only retained for approx 7 years in the case of cars, how does that matter? Hydrogen has it's problems as well. It permeates steel storage tanks and is explosive. Solid state batteries will be here in 2 or 3 years which will be a game changer but renewable electricity is now much cheaper than electricity produced by fossil fuels. Even without taking into account remediation of mines and tailings. So much so that governments are charging people for excess electricity fed back into the grid from solar panels.