Climate records tumble, leaving Earth in uncharted territory - scientists

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

I've read the IPCC report once. Never understood the value of it. The basic idea throughout the report was "at +3°c things would be worse than at 2°c and at 2°c things would be worse than at 1.5°c". No way? Really? Thank you captain obvious. Plus nothing is properly defined. What is a "reason for concern"? What is considered a "risk"? etc... Without proper definition and the use of cryptic language what is one supposed to do with this crap ?

 

On top of that - and this is to me the biggest flaw - it does take into account the ability of humans to adapt. Let's say there is an increased risk of tornados - like super massive scary ones. What does it tell us about the future for humans? Nothing. Why? Because there is no way to know how humans will adapt. Maybe AI will make it incredibly easy to predict those monsters and maybe humans will build their homes underground in those areas. If so the result might be less deaths than ever before and super low insurance costs. Who knows? Nobody.

 

The truth is we lve in a pretty generic world right now. A condo in Miami, in Paris and in Bangkok are roughly build the same way. Maybe tomorrow humans will start to build differently depending on where they live? Some will be underground, others will live at night, others might even live under the sea for all we know.

 

That's the reason I can't stand alarmists. They are unimaginative morons and I suspect they secretly enjoy living in their little inner drama because modern life has become so boring for them. lol

 

Anyway I could go on and on...

 

Here is another rule to be used in manipulating people. When you don't really know what you're talking about, use cryptic language and remain evasive. Essentially behave like an economist you know.

"The economy is fine but I can see clouds on the horizon"

Hahahahaaaaaaaaa!! Yeah, right...

 

Thanks for revealing that your claims to rationality were just a facade. Comments like "Captain Obvious" "unimaginateve morons" show where you really stand.

Had you really wanted to know what the five areas of concern are all you would have had to have done is do a search in Google. It took me less than a minute to find this:

"The IPCC's five reasons for concern are: threats to endangered species and unique systems, damages from extreme climate events, effects that fall most heavily on developing countries and the poor within countries, global aggregate impacts (i.e., various measurements of total social, economic and ecological impacts),^[2][3] and large-scale high-impact events."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_for_concern#:~:text=The IPCC's five reasons for,%2C economic and ecological impacts)%2C

ANd of course, that was a summary of what they had gone into in more detail before in the few pages before.

 

Had you actually read the report,  or even glanced at its table of contents, which clearly you haven't, you would know that the those "unimaginative morons" in the IPCC have not ignored the very issue of adaptation:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/

 

But given what the consequences of anthropogenic climate,  I'm not sure what effect building condos to withstand tornadoes is going to have on ecosystems. Or why one wouldn't want to avert as much change and degradation of the environment as is possible to spare that damage and to reduce expense of adaptation..

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. 

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

Really depends what you mean by serious I guess.

The war in Ukraine is causing far more damage than global warming for example.

And the war in Ukraine isn't WW2 - far from it.

The number of hungry people has doubled in 10 countries. A new report explains why

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/09/16/1123523622/the-number-of-hungry-people-has-doubled-in-10-countries-a-new-report-explains-wh

 

How climate change paved the way to war in Syria

https://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-paved-the-way-to-war-in-syria/a-56711650

 

Conflict and Climate

https://unfccc.int/blog/conflict-and-climate#:~:text=Sudan's civil war is often,conflict%2C but along indirect pathways.

 

Climate Change Is Fueling Migration. Do Climate Migrants Have Legal Protections?

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/climate-change-fueling-migration-do-climate-migrants-have-legal-protections

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. 

Who in this thread said "the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2." Try being truthful for a change.

And why do you think climate change is only a concern of the left? Just because it's taken a perverse turn in the USA, that doesn't mean that whole word is divided on left right lines on this issue. And even in the USA, not too long ago, it was conservatives who proposed a carbon tax as a way to deal with global warming.

Edited July 25, 2023 by placeholder

[Scott]

Baiting, bickering, off-topic posts and replies removed.  Continue and face a suspension.  

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/22/2023 at 2:42 PM, Cory1848 said:

My neighbor’s brother died last week of heat stroke -- 59 years old, a rice farmer. Working in his field on a particularly hot day, he felt woozy and sat down, then just collapsed and died. I’ll find out more from my neighbor once she’s gotten over the shock -- whether he had preexisting conditions, what the death certificate said, etc.

"My neighbor’s brother died last week of heat stroke..."

"I’ll find out more ...whether he had preexisting conditions, what the death certificate said"

 

So you don't have any idea whether he died from heatstroke, then!

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/22/2023 at 5:42 PM, digger70 said:

Global warming

That phrase was abandoned a long time ago!

I do agree with the rest of your comment, though.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Who in this thread said "the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2." Try being truthful for a change.

Per ozimoron, our resident STEM major, the warming is caused 100% by burning fossil fuels. Is not the problem with burning fossil fuels primarily that it generates CO2? If not, that, what? 

 

So is climate change ending the world as we know it or not? 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And why do you think climate change is only a concern of the left.

Because every alarmist I hear from is a leftist, though many claim to be centrists and whatnot.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just because it's taken a perverse turn in the USA, that doesn't mean that whole word is divided on left right lines on this issue. And even in the USA, not too long ago, it was conservatives who proposed a carbon tax as a way to deal with global warming.

The idiotic carbon tax is just a permit the rich (left and right) can buy so they do not have to alter their lifestyle. 

 

And how would the carbon tax do anything to "...deal with global warming..." if CO2 is not causing it? 

 

So, what is the plan, if not to reduce our CO2 output by a few percentage points? And how is that going so far? 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Per ozimoron, our resident STEM major, the warming is caused 100% by burning fossil fuels. Is not the problem with burning fossil fuels primarily that it generates CO2? If not, that, what? 

I don't think your question makes sense. Are you claiming that ozimoron is denying that CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels is not causing global warming?

[Liverpool Lou]

43 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

46 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You claimed: "...warming is 100% caused by burning fossil fuels." 

 

That is just wrong on so many levels, arithmetically being a just one. 

 

Expand  

Prove the math.

He doesn't have to prove it, you're the one who made the "100%" claim initially so you're the one who should prove it.   

[Keep Right]

On 7/22/2023 at 2:13 PM, ozimoron said:

There will be a climate change denier along in a minute to tell us this is just part of a natural cycle.

I am not a climate change denier but realize that climate records have only been kept for a few hundred years. A drop in the bucket compared to the earths age of perhaps 4.5 - 5 billions years. Our climate has been changing for millions of years. The city that I was born in was once (10,000 years perhaps) buried in two miles thick of ice. According to scientists, the antarctic was once a tropical rain forest. This all occurred without the existence of man. So does anyone want to dispute that it was not a natural cycle?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So is climate change ending the world as we know it or not? 

Trying to pull a fast one? You concluded before thusly:  "So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2," Now you've changed the meaning to "climage change ending the world as we know it"

And if your referring to the natural world,, the answer to that is a big fat abvious yes. Glaciers are disappearing. Coral reefs are  beginning to vanish, etc. Southern Europe is drying up. And if you're referring to the human world, the answer to that is yes too. Climate change is causing humans to migrate, helping to foment wars, making cities in warm climes a lot less liveable..

[ozimoron]

36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. 

You haven';t established or even hinted at the existence of another reason for climate change. Nobody's saying we need to reduce the carbon dioxide level by "a few percentage points". It's more like 40%.

 

The level of Co2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in the last billion or so years, give or take a millennia or two.

 

https://www.co2levels.org/

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

41 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. 

"...and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points..."

For that read, "reducing the amount of CO₂ by bu99er-all points!

Edited July 25, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

I am not a climate change denier but realize that climate records have only been kept for a few hundred years. A drop in the bucket compared to the earths age of perhaps 4.5 - 5 billions years. Our climate has been changing for millions of years. The city that I was born in was once (10,000 years perhaps) buried in two miles thick of ice. According to scientists, the antarctic was once a tropical rain forest. This all occurred without the existence of man. So does anyone want to dispute that it was not a natural cycle?

Another person substituting semantics for science. The issue isn't change. It's rate of change. The earths surface is warming at an accelerated rate of change.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The idiotic carbon tax is just a permit the rich (left and right) can buy so they do not have to alter their lifestyle. 

The carbon tax is a tax on industry not individuals. It was meant to reflect the real cost of pollution and climate change. You know, externalities.

[Jacques Clouseau]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for revealing that your claims to rationality were just a facade. Comments like "Captain Obvious" "unimaginateve morons" show where you really stand.

Yeah "captain obvious" and "unimaginative morons" really say a lot about me. More than the twenty comments that I've left so far.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Had you really wanted to know what the five areas of concern are all you would have had to have done is do a search in Google.

That kind of defeats the purpose of a summary though.

Please don't pretend you don't understand what I meant.

Concepts must be precisely defined. Period.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Had you actually read the report

As stated previously, I read one of their reports and I felt like I didn't learn much.

It was pretty vague and clearly didn't aim at giving people a clear understanding of the world of tomorrow.

Reason for that I suspect is because they don't really know where we're going.

The world is gonna change for sure.

Does it mean we are headed towards the collapse of the modern world or the extinction of our species?

I didn't read that anywhere in that report.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

those "unimaginative morons" in the IPCC have not ignored the very issue of adaptation

I said climate alarmists were morons. I never talked about the IPCC members being morons. Stop trippin', bro.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I'm not sure what effect building condos to withstand tornadoes is going to have on ecosystems.

Well pretty normal cause I never talked about condos withstanding tornadoes and even if I did it would have had nothing to do with protecting ecosystems. I don't even understand your point.

 

55 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The number of hungry people has doubled in 10 countries. A new report explains why

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/09/16/1123523622/the-number-of-hungry-people-has-doubled-in-10-countries-a-new-report-explains-wh

 

How climate change paved the way to war in Syria

https://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-paved-the-way-to-war-in-syria/a-56711650

 

Conflict and Climate

https://unfccc.int/blog/conflict-and-climate#:~:text=Sudan's civil war is often,conflict%2C but along indirect pathways.

 

Climate Change Is Fueling Migration. Do Climate Migrants Have Legal Protections?

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/climate-change-fueling-migration-do-climate-migrants-have-legal-protections

1/3 of the food we produce is being thrown away.
People don't get the food they need because of greed.
Blaming climate change for this misery is lame.

 

Read the first sentence of your article on Syria.

Climate change can't be blamed for this mess.

Human greed (again) is responsible.

 

Anyway. I don't see anything as bad as WW2 in all this. It is sad, yes.

But all these atrocities were avoidable.

People decide not to take the necessary decisions.

 

Climate change makes a convenient scapegoat for sure with you...

Says a lot about who you really are !! (lol)

Edited July 25, 2023 by Jacques Clouseau

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, what is the plan, if not to reduce our CO2 output by a few percentage points? And how is that going so far? 

Who says the plan is to reduce CO2 output only by a few percentage points. You think we can we just snap our finger and eliminate the use of fossil fuels? 

[Puwa]

On 7/22/2023 at 11:54 PM, pomchop said:

Why do so many people seem to want to go out of their way to dig up obscure reports or deep web conspiracy theories to try and "prove" that very well educated scientists world wide who have spent decades studying weather and climate patterns, measuring air particulates, etc apparently are involved in some massive conspiracy to convince people that climate change is some kind of hoax and that humans have little if anything to do with the changes in the ozone layers and atmosphere?

 

Common sense would tell you that the ones who have a giant financial stake in promoting such claims are the PR firms executives and stock holders  that are paid by massive profits by big oil, big coal, industries that of course do not want people to stop burning dead plants?

How dare you make sense!

[Jacques Clouseau]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The carbon tax is a tax on industry not individuals. It was meant to reflect the real cost of pollution and climate change. You know, externalities.

It amounts to a tax on individuals to be fair as industries would pass on the cost of that tax to customers. I disagree with that carbon tax idea as it would affect poor people the most.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

Yeah "captain obvious" and "unimaginative morons" really say a lot about me. More than the twenty comments that I've left so far.

 

That kind of defeats the purpose of a summary though.

Please don't pretend you don't understand what I meant.

Concepts must be well defined. Period.

As stated previously, I read one of their reports and I felt like I didn't learn much.

It was pretty vague and clearly didn't aim at giving people a clear understanding of the world of tomorrow.

Reason for that I suspect is because they don't really know where we're going.

The world is gonna change for sure.

 

Unfortunately, slinging insults like that does say a lot about someone. And as for it not being directed at the IPCC. My entire comment was about the IPCC. So you went off on some unexplained tangent?

 

"As stated previously, I read one of their reports and I felt like I didn't learn much."

Given the exhaustive details the full report goes into, your comment about it being vague is bizarre.

No you didn't. Here's what you claimed "I've read the IPCC report once. "

 

 

 

"Concepts must be well defined. Period"

And are you someone who wants to understand a text or a schoolmarm giving out grades. 

 

And you specifically said that the IPCC report doesnt address adaptation. It does. And you've clearly got no answer for how adaptation addresses the destruction of ecosystems.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

It amounts to a tax on individuals to be fair as industries would pass on the cost of that tax to customers. I disagree with that carbon tax idea as it would affect poor people the most.

Clearly, you're not familiar with the economic concept of externalities.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

It amounts to a tax on individuals to be fair as industries would pass on the cost of that tax to customers. I disagree with that carbon tax idea as it would affect poor people the most.

Think of burning fossil fuels as borrowing from future generations which must now be paid back. Preferably before it's too late. The cost of carbon dioxide reduction is rising as carbon dioxide levels rise.

[Jacques Clouseau]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Think of burning fossil fuels as borrowing from future generations which must now be paid back. Preferably before it's too late. The cost of carbon dioxide reduction is rising as carbon dioxide levels rise.

I agree. I just think the carbon tax isn't a fair way of doing it.

[Jacques Clouseau]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Clearly, you're not familiar with the economic concept of externalities.

"Externality" seems to be pretty self-explanatory.

But yeah maybe I'm missing something. Please enlighten me.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

I agree. I just think the carbon tax isn't a fair way of doing it.

You might not. Most economists do.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-tax-favored-by-most-economists/

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

"Externality" seems to be pretty self-explanatory.

But yeah maybe I'm missing something. Please enlighten me.

a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved

[Jacques Clouseau]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Unfortunately, slinging insults like that does say a lot about someone

Pretty superficial way of evaluating people but that's really up to you.

 

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

My entire comment was about the IPCC. So you went off on some unexplained tangent?

I didn't went off any tangent. Since the beginning I'm criticizing climate alarmism. As for the IPCC the only thing I'm saying is that the report I've read was pretty vague and didn't mention any catastrophe for humans. I'm not denying climate change and its challenges. We gonna go through big changes for sure. I'm just saying we have the ability to adapt to these changes. The real catastrophe is gonna be for lifeforms unable to adapt. Those are gonna go extinct. But then again, it's up to us to protect ecosystems and help them adapt to a new world. It's all about will and fear isn't gonna help getting the work done. That's why I hate alarmists and their end-of-the-world bull<deleted>. You think like that, it's over before it starts.

[Jacques Clouseau]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved

In a free market economy I don't see how this is doable. If you tax a company, the company has the right to pass on the cost to customers. Trying to prevent this would result in rigged prices and eventually severe market problems. I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

In a free market economy I don't see how this is doable. If you tax a company, the company has the right to pass on the cost to customers. Trying to prevent this would result in rigged prices and eventually severe market problems. I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here.

What you're missing is that some countries benefited greatly by burning cheap fossil fuels since the industrial revolution and they created a problem in that mitigating the effects of burning that fuel was never factored into the equation or even considered. Now that has to be paid for because that carbon must be reduced or we are finished as a species. That process isn't going to be free.

Edited July 25, 2023 by ozimoron