Climate records tumble, leaving Earth in uncharted territory - scientists

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm not a marxist, I'm a classical liberal.

Well, thanks for outing yourself a leftist. You claim to be "a confirmed believer in the efficacy of free markets..." yet you propose and support massive government intervention in the market.

 

Truth is not a left-wing value. 

No classical liberal would deny the reality of competition.

 

I am a confirmed believer in free markets. Just not an absolute believer..

There is a problem with free markets, though. It's called "externalities"  For example, when companies pollute, who pays for the damages caused by their pollution? In effect, these are what economists call "implicit subsidies". Between implicit subsidies and the other kind...

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb."

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Back to Top-,Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies,generally larger) continues to climb.

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, alex8912 said:

If that little comment makes one a misogynist you must be surrounded by them. Must feel horrible. 

I'd love to see your explanation of the logic in that comment

 

PS - what's a "little" misogyny?

Edited July 27, 2023 by kwilco

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

I'd love to see your explanation of the logic in that comment

 

PS - what's a "little" misogyny?

I'd love to see your explanation of the logic in your comment

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

No classical liberal would deny the reality of competition.

And I am not denying the reality of competition, you just made that up. Again, truth is not a left-wing value.  

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

I am a confirmed believer in free markets. Just not an absolute believer..

Exactly, you pretend to support free markets when it promotes your agenda, but you want the government to manipulate it when it does not. 

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

There is a problem with free markets, though. It's called "externalities"  For example, when companies pollute, who pays for the damages caused by their pollution? In effect, these are what economists call "implicit subsidies". Between implicit subsidies and the other kind...

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb."

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Back to Top-,Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies,generally larger) continues to climb.

This old chestnut? The idiotic energy subsidies lie has been debunked here before. 

 

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

July set to be world's warmest month on record

Amid blistering heatwaves, July is "virtually certain" to be the world's warmest month on record, scientists say.

So hot has the month been to date that researchers are confident the 2019 record will be broken, even with several days to go.

Some experts believe that July might well be the warmest month in the past 120,000 years. Scientists agree the extra heat is mainly linked to fossil fuel use.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-66323843

[placeholder]

49 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And I am not denying the reality of competition, you just made that up. Again, truth is not a left-wing value.  

You clearly didn't understand that a carbon tax would provide businesses an incentive to reduce their carbon emissions.

[placeholder]

51 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly, you pretend to support free markets when it promotes your agenda, but you want the government to manipulate it when it does not. 

What don't you understand about the issue of externalities? How making other parties pay for the damage your industry causes is what economists call an implicit subsidy.

[BenStark]

Just now, placeholder said:

You clearly didn't understand that a carbon tax would provide businesses an incentive to reduce their carbon emissions.

You clearly don't understand that the carbon tax was/is widely abused, and that companies with a large carbon footprint bought/buy credits from companies with a small footprint.

 

 

[placeholder]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

This old chestnut? The idiotic energy subsidies lie has been debunked here before. 

Apparently, you believe that name calling is a substitute for providing evidence. Please refute what I've linked to with some counterevidence. Here is the link again:

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Back to Top-,Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies,generally larger) continues to climb.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, BenStark said:

You clearly don't understand that the carbon tax was/is widely abused, and that companies with a large carbon footprint bought/buy credits from companies with a small footprint.

But there is a limit on how many carbon tax credits there are. What's more, the amount of availabile credits declines over time.

 

"The carbon credit is half of a so-called cap-and-trade program. Companies that pollute are awarded credits that allow them to continue to pollute up to a certain limit, which is reduced periodically. Meanwhile, the company may sell any unneeded credits to another company that needs them. Private companies are thus doubly incentivized to reduce greenhouse emissions. First, they must spend money on extra credits if their emissions exceed the cap. Second, they can make money by reducing their emissions and selling their excess allowances."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon_credit.asp#:~:text=The carbon credit is half,another company that needs them.

 

The biggest problem with carbon tax credits is that in some regions they are too low priced to make a difference.

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And I am not denying the reality of competition, you just made that up. Again, truth is not a left-wing value.  

Exactly, you pretend to support free markets when it promotes your agenda, but you want the government to manipulate it when it does not. 

This old chestnut? The idiotic energy subsidies lie has been debunked here before.

You clearly did not understand "This old chestnut".  When industries "cut" costs by dumping toxins and other waste into the ground, air and water the costs don't disappear, they are shifted to society.  That is a very expensive subsidy allowed polluters.  A carbon tax, done properly, would eliminate that subsidy.

[ozimoron]

 

 

https://climate.copernicus.eu/july-2023-sees-multiple-global-temperature-records-broken

Edited July 27, 2023 by ozimoron

[kwilco]

47 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

https://climate.copernicus.eu/july-2023-sees-multiple-global-temperature-records-broken

Only someone with no argument of their own resorts to posting a graph without a comment.

[ozimoron]

Just now, kwilco said:

Only someone with no argument of their own resorts to posting a graph without a comment.

I didn't think they needed comment. It's very obvious from those graphs that the climate is warming rapidly. We do from basic science that fossil fuels and methane from livestock are the sole causes of the warming. Climate scientists are telling us we need to act. The UN Secretary General said today that the Earth is not just warming, it is boiling. 

 

I don't need an argument. I'm not a climate scientist. I read what climate scientists say and interpret that the best way I can. The preponderance of evidence and opinion of those climate scientists who's work I have read is that humans are 100% responsible for global warming or climate change.

[Eleftheros]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I read what climate scientists say and interpret that the best way I can.

&

We do from basic science that fossil fuels and methane from livestock are the sole causes of the warming

These two statements indicate that your ability to "interpret" what climate scientists say is not very advanced.

 

The IPCC's latest AR6 Synthesis Report (SYR), which you have doubtless read, includes several more causes of man-made warming, such as net CO2 increase produced from land use change and forestry, emissions of nitrous oxide from fertilizer use, and what are called F-gases, fluorinated gases used in refrigeration and air conditioning.

[Bkk Brian]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

https://climate.copernicus.eu/july-2023-sees-multiple-global-temperature-records-broken

The hottest month on record. If anything should get people alert to whats happening are these charts. The world is now experiencing unprecedented climate change due to man made activity and its getting worse.

 

UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling".

US President Joe Biden described climate change as an "existential threat" and that no one "can deny the impact of climate change anymore".

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66322608

 

Scientists declare July world's hottest month and warn future will be worse

likely the hottest month since at least 100,000 years ago.

https://www.axios.com/2023/07/27/july-hottest-month-global-climate-record

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

Only someone with no argument of their own resorts to posting a graph without a comment.

Only someone who is blind will not see the obvious trend in the graph.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

Only someone with no argument of their own resorts to posting a graph without a comment.

Do you think Hebrews should have invented data or a theory? This isn't the fiction forum.

[kwilco]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I didn't think they needed comment. It's very obvious from those graphs that the climate is warming rapidly. We do from basic science that fossil fuels and methane from livestock are the sole causes of the warming. Climate scientists are telling us we need to act. The UN Secretary General said today that the Earth is not just warming, it is boiling. 

 

I don't need an argument. I'm not a climate scientist. I read what climate scientists say and interpret that the best way I can. The preponderance of evidence and opinion of those climate scientists who's work I have read is that humans are 100% responsible for global warming or climate change.

So why post them - we all know that. - if you had something to say it would be different - but you don't

[kwilco]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Do you think Hebrews should have invented data or a theory? This isn't the fiction forum.

I get the impression you a banger short of a barbie? or have I missed something?

Edited July 28, 2023 by kwilco

[kwilco]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Only someone who is blind will not see the obvious trend in the graph.

So what? We all know about global warming, what does that bring to the discussion without a comment?

[kwilco]

We all the basic evidence and theory behind climate change.

So really the that is a moot point - deniers now can be justifiably dismissed out of hand.

The title is "in unchartered territory"

So why isn't that being discussed here?

Going over the previous evidence is a waste of time even childish.

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

Do you think Hebrews should have invented data or a theory? This isn't the fiction forum.

I'm guessing I dictated something into my phone and didn't check it. Or maybe Mr Hyde wrote that one.

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

So why post them - we all know that. - if you had something to say it would be different - but you don't

It very apparent that many here don't know that otherwise this thread would have died long ago. The videos offer irrefutable evidence of a crisis and so you attack the messenger. Well deflected.

Edited July 28, 2023 by ozimoron

[scottiejohn]

36 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The videos offer irrefutable evidence

How can "The videos offer irrefutable evidence"?

Has this been adjudicated by the Supreme Court or similar?

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

How can "The videos offer irrefutable evidence"?

Has this been adjudicated by the Supreme Court or similar?

To anybody who did basic science at school it should be more than obvious. Are you suggesting that you don't see a trend and that the trend is alarming?

[scottiejohn]

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

To anybody who did basic science at school it should be more than obvious. Are you suggesting that you don't see a trend and that the trend is alarming?

That meaningless twaddle of a response does not answer my question regarding'

"How can "The videos offer irrefutable evidence"?

Has this been adjudicated by the Supreme Court or similar?

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That meaningless twaddle of a response does not answer my question regarding'

"How can "The videos offer irrefutable evidence"?

Has this been adjudicated by the Supreme Court or similar?

They are visually self explanatory. The trend is unmistakable and the cause of that trend can only be greenhouse gases. Human activities produce the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases. There's really nothing to debate here.

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The videos offer irrefutable evidence o

you do realise what a huge faux-pas it is to say that?

THe problem with this thread is like that comment it is unbelievably low-brow.

[ozimoron]

Just now, kwilco said:

you do realise what a huge faux-pas it is to say that?

THe problem with this thread is like that comment it is unbelievably low-brow.

What can you say about those charts other than global atmospheric and sea temperatures are rising at an alarming level? That was the intention. So that uninformed people who think it's just another spurious record hot day can crawl back under their respective rocks.