Global Heat and Climate Extremes Endanger Billions

[susanlea]

3 minutes ago, Katatonica said:

No, you name 20 scientists, I’m off to the pub. Several thousand signed the Kyoto protocol, look it up.

 

I did look it up. Says 196 signed it.

[susanlea]

4 minutes ago, Katatonica said:

off to the pub.

Beer and Pub made using fossil fuels too. 

 

The irony is so funny.

[Hummin]

7 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Yes massive downfall. Houses, cars, planes, hospitals.

 

Fossil fuels are terrible for building all of that 

I think we stop now. Happy to make you feel better and give you a laugh, it makes me laugh to.

Edited June 27 by Hummin

[susanlea]

Just now, Hummin said:

I think we stop now. Happy to make you feel better and give you a laugh, it makes me laugh to.

You don't see the irony? 

[Hummin]

Just now, susanlea said:

You don't see the irony? 

I see the Irony of you pulling my leg

[susanlea]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I see the Irony of you pulling my leg

The clothes you wear were made using fossil fuels. As was the building you live in. The guy who went to the pub is drinking beer which has co2 in it. The keg was made using fossil fuels. 

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, susanlea said:

The clothes you wear were made using fossil fuels. As was the building you live in. The guy who went to the pub is drinking beer which has co2 in it. The keg was made using fossil fuels. 

Do you know making natural carbonating  beer is possible? Making clothes and houses without fossil fuels.

 

Fossil fuels have made some of us more stupid, they even think they know better than scientists. Imagine

 

 

Edited June 27 by Hummin

[GanDoonToonPet]

50 minutes ago, novacova said:

 

What does this have to do with human caused climate change? Nothing...Go Read Some Real Books!! 

 

It's quite simple. The rate of change of speed is dv/dt, or the second derivative of displacement. The rate of change of temperature is dT/dt.

 

Should you keep increasing the speed (rate of change of displacement with time) of your car because you've always gone faster and slower?

 

Should you keep increasing the rate of change of temperature because it's always been lower or higher?

 

If you can't fathom this basic analogy then there is simply no hope of you understanding the complexities of global warming / climate change.

Edited June 27 by GanDoonToonPet

[susanlea]

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Do you know making natural carbonating  beer is possible? Making clothes and houses without fossil fuels.

 

Fossil fuels have made some of us more stupid, they even think they know better than scientists. Imagine

 

 

You do it then.

[stoner]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Making clothes and houses without fossil fuels.

 

unless you make your own hand tools and cut down trees etc with your own power you will always have fossil fuels in everything. directly and indirectly. 

 

a saw that is used to cut down a tree has x amount of oil in it from time of conception to product in hand. this point seems to be eluding a few on here. there is almost nothing in today's world that in one way or another doesn't have fossil fuels associated with it. 

 

manufacturing 

processing

transportation

retail

etc etc 

 

all involve in some way or other the use of oil and fossil fuels. 

[Yagoda]

The Climate Change Crisis (previously Global Warming, previously the Upcoming Ice Age) is made up garbage designed to give cult meaning to the lives of ignorant folks who reject religion and radicals who seek the destruction of capitalism.

 

Warm is good and is conducive to life as we know it. Cold is bad and is not conducive to life as we know it. The Universe doesnt guarantee you much of anything outside the immutable laws of physics and you arent important enough to affect the big picture, so enjoy what you have until *poof* its gone, which is always a possibility that you cant stop.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

 

Your own KSA study concerns Saudi cities only. Now you seem to want to wander off into the desert and evem across the Red Sea!

 

Have a great trip!

 

 

False

The benefit of using the ERA5 is that this dataset is publicly available, which is particularly important for Saudi Arabia, where access to data from weather stations is limited. ERA5 near-surface temperature and dewpoint temperature data correlate well with weather station observations globally (Li et al. 2020; section 3 of the online supplemental material) and over key cities in Saudi Arabia (section 2 in the online supplemental material). Furthermore, our reanalysis allows investigations of climate changes in the locations where instrumental temperature records have been insufficient or absent. 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/60/8/JAMC-D-20-0273.1.xml

[MalcolmB]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Not taking into account the concept of rates seems to be a nearly universal characteristic among denialists. 

I don’t know why you bother with these loons. The world has moved on, most people are not denialists now,  these loons have been sucked in by the big oil and mining companies.

I just laugh at them. The world has moved to renewables, etc etc. 
They have been proven wrong over the last 30 years.

Climate change caused by humans is not something to “believe in”. It a scientific fact.

[susanlea]

58 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

I don’t know why you bother with these loons. The world has moved on, most people are not denialists now,  these loons have been sucked in by the big oil and mining companies.

I just laugh at them. The world has moved to renewables, etc etc. 
They have been proven wrong over the last 30 years.

Climate change caused by humans is not something to “believe in”. It a scientific fact.

You mean the loons who type on computers made using fossil fuels  

[susanlea]

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

The Climate Change Crisis (previously Global Warming, previously the Upcoming Ice Age) is made up garbage designed to give cult meaning to the lives of ignorant folks who reject religion and radicals who seek the destruction of capitalism.

 

Warm is good and is conducive to life as we know it. Cold is bad and is not conducive to life as we know it. The Universe doesnt guarantee you much of anything outside the immutable laws of physics and you arent important enough to affect the big picture, so enjoy what you have until *poof* its gone, which is always a possibility that you cant stop.

Warm is great. If cold was better why do people go to the tropics for holidays? CC people are the most illogical people for 1400 years.

[novacova]

The so-called climatologist conveniently skip over the fact that the sun and earth are not linear and static, or by definition of their quackery at its sum: the sun and earth is linear and static. Climate is a system of non-static nonlinear complexities. Non-linearity is an inherent phenomenon of the complexities of climate. Pseudo climate science attempts to explain climate in a linear fashion, yet these linear attempts to explain the complexities of climate are inherently doomed to failure. But the “Climate Deniers” here are incoherent and foolish in their debate because of the inherent internal contradictions that they are completely ignorant and unaware of such as the trillions of cracks in the Earths mantle emitting co2, among countless other attributes. Modeling the effects of the Sun and interfacing all of the geological marine and atmospheric systems has yet to be done and completed, it’s a massive colossal undertaking. Yet your quackery pseudo science has actually denied compiling such data because it will expose their fallacy. The utter ignorance of the climate scam is astounding. 

[novacova]

1 hour ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

It's quite simple. The rate of change of speed is dv/dt, or the second derivative of displacement. The rate of change of temperature is dT/dt.

 

Should you keep increasing the speed (rate of change of displacement with time) of your car because you've always gone faster and slower?

 

Should you keep increasing the rate of change of temperature because it's always been lower or higher?

 

If you can't fathom this basic analogy then there is simply no hope of you understanding the complexities of global warming / climate change.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

False

The benefit of using the ERA5 is that this dataset is publicly available, which is particularly important for Saudi Arabia, where access to data from weather stations is limited. ERA5 near-surface temperature and dewpoint temperature data correlate well with weather station observations globally (Li et al. 2020; section 3 of the online supplemental material) and over key cities in Saudi Arabia (section 2 in the online supplemental material). Furthermore, our reanalysis allows investigations of climate changes in the locations where instrumental temperature records have been insufficient or absent. 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/60/8/JAMC-D-20-0273.1.xml

 

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

I don’t know why you bother with these loons. The world has moved on, most people are not denialists now,  these loons have been sucked in by the big oil and mining companies.

I just laugh at them. The world has moved to renewables, etc etc. 
They have been proven wrong over the last 30 years.

Climate change caused by humans is not something to “believe in”. It a scientific fact.

Again…a dog cannot comprehend the insight of a tiger.

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, stoner said:

 

unless you make your own hand tools and cut down trees etc with your own power you will always have fossil fuels in everything. directly and indirectly. 

 

a saw that is used to cut down a tree has x amount of oil in it from time of conception to product in hand. this point seems to be eluding a few on here. there is almost nothing in today's world that in one way or another doesn't have fossil fuels associated with it. 

 

manufacturing 

processing

transportation

retail

etc etc 

 

all involve in some way or other the use of oil and fossil fuels. 

Dont you think we would had solved alternative sources by now for energy? 

 

Hydropower, would had managed to kick off the the heavy industry leading to new technology, nuclear and solar power. 

 

Good sake people made the Pyramids and  The Chineese wall how many thousands year ago

 

[stoner]

38 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Dont you think we would had solved alternative sources by now for energy? 

 

Hydropower, would had managed to kick off the the heavy industry leading to new technology, nuclear and solar power. 

 

Good sake people made the Pyramids and  The Chineese wall how many thousands year ago

 

 

i would imagine there are some vested interests that do not want alternative energy for all. just a hunch. 

 

what do the pyramids and the wall (both made from stone and hand tools) have to do with anything. 

[Roo Island]

On 6/25/2024 at 9:07 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

OK, it's getting hotter. Now tell us how they can reverse it- you can't- well there's a surprise, not.

It can be reversed. But not worth discussing this with deniers. Follow the science

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

I don’t know why you bother with these loons. The world has moved on, most people are not denialists now,  these loons have been sucked in by the big oil and mining companies.

I just laugh at them. The world has moved to renewables, etc etc. 
They have been proven wrong over the last 30 years.

Climate change caused by humans is not something to “believe in”. It a scientific fact.

If I can save just one poor soul....

That said, I do wonder about why I bother. Clearly, some (most? all?) of them are terminal Take this reply from Novacova to the comments of the three of us

 

58 minutes ago, novacova said:

Again…a dog cannot comprehend the insight of a tiger.

It sounds like something out of a grade D Kung Fu movie. Actually, the kind of hokey grandiosity generally voiced by the arch-viilain in the film. Just before he gets his comeuppance

 

1 hour ago, novacova said:

The so-called climatologist conveniently skip over the fact that the sun and earth are not linear and static, or by definition of their quackery at its sum: the sun and earth is linear and static. Climate is a system of non-static nonlinear complexities. Non-linearity is an inherent phenomenon of the complexities of climate. Pseudo climate science attempts to explain climate in a linear fashion, yet these linear attempts to explain the complexities of climate are inherently doomed to failure. But the “Climate Deniers” here are incoherent and foolish in their debate because of the inherent internal contradictions that they are completely ignorant and unaware of such as the trillions of cracks in the Earths mantle emitting co2, among countless other attributes. Modeling the effects of the Sun and interfacing all of the geological marine and atmospheric systems has yet to be done and completed, it’s a massive colossal undertaking. Yet your quackery pseudo science has actually denied compiling such data because it will expose their fallacy. The utter ignorance of the climate scam is astounding. 

How about the claim that there are "the trillions of cracks in the Earths mantle emitting co2". First I've heard of that. It sounds like something out of Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth. Scientists do know that volcanoes emit CO2 and they are able to measure how much thanks to the greater percentage of C13 in the emissions from volcanoes. Maybe that's what was  meant by Novacova in a garbled way? Scientists also know that fossils fuels lack C14. So they know what percentage of atmospheric CO2 and other organic atmospheric gases can be sourced to  fossil fuels. The rest of it is just more grandiose argle-bargle. More of the kind of stuff the arch villain or mad scientist spouts in low budget sci-fi films.

 

 

 

[Roo Island]

3 hours ago, susanlea said:

I did look it up. Says 196 signed it.

192 parties, not scientists.

 

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/marking-kyoto-protocol’s-25th-anniversary

 

But 11,000 scientists did sign this.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-declaration-global-climate-emergency/story?id=66774137

 

11,000 scientists sign declaration of global climate emergency 

 

Humans could endure "untold suffering" if massive changes aren't made.

[Hummin]

53 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

i would imagine there are some vested interests that do not want alternative energy for all. just a hunch. 

 

what do the pyramids and the wall (both made from stone and hand tools) have to do with anything. 

You are good at question Stone, I answered, humans have shown greatness before, and without fossil fuels, we might had been better off by now.

[stoner]

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You are good at question Stone, I answered, humans have shown greatness before, and without fossil fuels, we might had been better off by now.

 

we might be we could be ......without fossil fuels odds are you nor i would be here. 

[Lacessit]

Fossil fuels are the mainstay of many industries, and will remain so. Lubricants, polymers, pharmaceuticals, textiles, fertilizers - the list goes on and on.

 

Having said that, the end effect of BURNING fossil fuels for energy is the production of carbon dioxide, giving rise to global warming. The science is unarguable on that point. Mankind needs alternative sources of energy - solar, wind, tidal, even nuclear. The main technical challenge is storage of said energy to duplicate the baseload function of fossil-fueled power stations.

 

There are vested interests and denialists who want business as usual. They don't care we are sh!tting in our own nest.

[JCauto]

16 hours ago, GarryP said:

Honest question for you here. Many years ago there were very few rubber plantations in the northeast in Thailand, but that started changing in the late seventies and eighties, until by 2015 the number of plantations in this area had increased considerably. They were not only replacing existing forests, but also barren land and agricultural land. Has this had a positive impact on the local climate? Certainly had a severe impact on mosquito infestation, but that is a separate issue.  

 

Always happy to engage in honest discussion.

 

It would have had both positive and negative impacts, depending on the way in which it was done. We've also had a lot of rubber plantation expansion in Laos where I work, and it was one of the main drivers of deforestation for example between 2005 and 2013. 

Positive impacts:

1. The rubber plantations usually are done with care to maximize yields and ease of collection and maintenance so they will often reduce soil erosion compared to previous land uses, particularly if they were using the land for swidden ("slash and burn") agriculture.

2. Rubber plantations keep the local area significantly cooler by providing dense canopy to absorb sunlight and heat compared to regular fallow.

3. Rubber plantations sequester carbon in their tree trunks and in the rubber sap, both of which are processed and used afterwards - this is good, but the ultimate cost is determined by how the product is used and disposed of. Rubber plantations are usually cut down after 25 years or so and replanted in order to improve efficiency. By its nature it will sequester carbon for a significant time because rubber wood is valuable so the old plantation is not simply burned down.

4. Well managed rubber plantations, especially those wishing to be compliant with the new EU Deforestation Regulations, will not be built on land that was previously forest, so contribute to carbon storage.

5. Rubber plantations can provide long-term income for smallholder farmers and laborers that is relatively low maintenance.

6. Rubber prices have been very good recently so farmers and plantation companies are making good money.

 

Negative impacts:

 

1. Rubber plantations act like forest in that they stabilize the ground and sequester carbon, reduce temperatures in the local areas etc. but they're NOT forest and don't have the diverse local flora and fauna that forest does. It further reduces habitat for wild creatures and plants.

2. Poorly managed rubber plantations often convert forest resulting in net negative carbon sequestered and biodiversity loss and dispossess villagers of their subsistence agricultural land and future land for their children which is often not secure.

3. Smallholders take big risks to plant rubber since it takes several years before producing yields and global price drops or local corruption skewing the market can result in economic losses to poor farmers.

4. Poorly managed rubber can result in increases in mosquitos and mosquito-borne diseases because the shells used to collect the sap store casual water that mozzies breed in.

 

So overall I would say it is a fairly neutral plantation crop compared to others such as cassava, corn, pasture, sugar, watermelon and other major cash plantation crops because it is more permanent, long-term and it does provide good cover so reduces soil erosion and heat absorption. Locally it would be better in those respects than land simply left for fallow to be reused at a later date as part of a rotational upland agriculture system. However it doesn't provide long-term permanent land cover and forest since it will eventually be cut down and replanted and causes local biodiversity loss compared to the existing swidden systems or leaving the land to regenerate natural forest cover. It is poor land use practice if the plantations replaced natural forest and the new EU regulation will penalize those operators as a result by restricting their market.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Fossil fuels are the mainstay of many industries, and will remain so. Lubricants, polymers, pharmaceuticals, textiles, fertilizers - the list goes on and on.

 

Having said that, the end effect of BURNING fossil fuels for energy is the production of carbon dioxide, giving rise to global warming. The science is unarguable on that point. Mankind needs alternative sources of energy - solar, wind, tidal, even nuclear. The main technical challenge is storage of said energy to duplicate the baseload function of fossil-fueled power stations.

 

There are vested interests and denialists who want business as usual. They don't care we are sh!tting in our own nest.

When petroleum is turned into products not meant for burning, it's not a fue. It seems a quibble but it really isn't.  It gives denialists undeserved semantic license. Much in the same way that they claim not to deny climate change but claim that climate is always changing. The fact is that petroleum is used overwhelmingly as a fuel. About 15% is used as a feedstock 

https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/KEEP/Documents/Activities/Energy Fact Sheets/FactsAboutOil.pdf

 

In the case of natural gas, it's even less:

In 2015, about 5% was used as a feedstock.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988320303248

 

So cutting them out of the fuel industry would drastically lower their polluting affect. And it should be noted that fossil fuel pollution of the air is a major cause of disease and deaths worldwide. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38030155/#:~:text=An estimated 5.13 million (3.63,by phasing out fossil fuels.

 

[GarryP]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

 

Always happy to engage in honest discussion.

 

It would have had both positive and negative impacts, depending on the way in which it was done. We've also had a lot of rubber plantation expansion in Laos where I work, and it was one of the main drivers of deforestation for example between 2005 and 2013. 

Positive impacts:

1. The rubber plantations usually are done with care to maximize yields and ease of collection and maintenance so they will often reduce soil erosion compared to previous land uses, particularly if they were using the land for swidden ("slash and burn") agriculture.

2. Rubber plantations keep the local area significantly cooler by providing dense canopy to absorb sunlight and heat compared to regular fallow.

3. Rubber plantations sequester carbon in their tree trunks and in the rubber sap, both of which are processed and used afterwards - this is good, but the ultimate cost is determined by how the product is used and disposed of. Rubber plantations are usually cut down after 25 years or so and replanted in order to improve efficiency. By its nature it will sequester carbon for a significant time because rubber wood is valuable so the old plantation is not simply burned down.

4. Well managed rubber plantations, especially those wishing to be compliant with the new EU Deforestation Regulations, will not be built on land that was previously forest, so contribute to carbon storage.

5. Rubber plantations can provide long-term income for smallholder farmers and laborers that is relatively low maintenance.

6. Rubber prices have been very good recently so farmers and plantation companies are making good money.

 

Negative impacts:

 

1. Rubber plantations act like forest in that they stabilize the ground and sequester carbon, reduce temperatures in the local areas etc. but they're NOT forest and don't have the diverse local flora and fauna that forest does. It further reduces habitat for wild creatures and plants.

2. Poorly managed rubber plantations often convert forest resulting in net negative carbon sequestered and biodiversity loss and dispossess villagers of their subsistence agricultural land and future land for their children which is often not secure.

3. Smallholders take big risks to plant rubber since it takes several years before producing yields and global price drops or local corruption skewing the market can result in economic losses to poor farmers.

4. Poorly managed rubber can result in increases in mosquitos and mosquito-borne diseases because the shells used to collect the sap store casual water that mozzies breed in.

 

So overall I would say it is a fairly neutral plantation crop compared to others such as cassava, corn, pasture, sugar, watermelon and other major cash plantation crops because it is more permanent, long-term and it does provide good cover so reduces soil erosion and heat absorption. Locally it would be better in those respects than land simply left for fallow to be reused at a later date as part of a rotational upland agriculture system. However it doesn't provide long-term permanent land cover and forest since it will eventually be cut down and replanted and causes local biodiversity loss compared to the existing swidden systems or leaving the land to regenerate natural forest cover. It is poor land use practice if the plantations replaced natural forest and the new EU regulation will penalize those operators as a result by restricting their market.

Interesting. Thanks. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

Always happy to engage in honest discussion.

 

It would have had both positive and negative impacts, depending on the way in which it was done. We've also had a lot of rubber plantation expansion in Laos where I work, and it was one of the main drivers of deforestation for example between 2005 and 2013. 

Positive impacts:

1. The rubber plantations usually are done with care to maximize yields and ease of collection and maintenance so they will often reduce soil erosion compared to previous land uses, particularly if they were using the land for swidden ("slash and burn") agriculture.

2. Rubber plantations keep the local area significantly cooler by providing dense canopy to absorb sunlight and heat compared to regular fallow.

3. Rubber plantations sequester carbon in their tree trunks and in the rubber sap, both of which are processed and used afterwards - this is good, but the ultimate cost is determined by how the product is used and disposed of. Rubber plantations are usually cut down after 25 years or so and replanted in order to improve efficiency. By its nature it will sequester carbon for a significant time because rubber wood is valuable so the old plantation is not simply burned down.

4. Well managed rubber plantations, especially those wishing to be compliant with the new EU Deforestation Regulations, will not be built on land that was previously forest, so contribute to carbon storage.

5. Rubber plantations can provide long-term income for smallholder farmers and laborers that is relatively low maintenance.

6. Rubber prices have been very good recently so farmers and plantation companies are making good money.

 

Negative impacts:

 

1. Rubber plantations act like forest in that they stabilize the ground and sequester carbon, reduce temperatures in the local areas etc. but they're NOT forest and don't have the diverse local flora and fauna that forest does. It further reduces habitat for wild creatures and plants.

2. Poorly managed rubber plantations often convert forest resulting in net negative carbon sequestered and biodiversity loss and dispossess villagers of their subsistence agricultural land and future land for their children which is often not secure.

3. Smallholders take big risks to plant rubber since it takes several years before producing yields and global price drops or local corruption skewing the market can result in economic losses to poor farmers.

4. Poorly managed rubber can result in increases in mosquitos and mosquito-borne diseases because the shells used to collect the sap store casual water that mozzies breed in.

 

So overall I would say it is a fairly neutral plantation crop compared to others such as cassava, corn, pasture, sugar, watermelon and other major cash plantation crops because it is more permanent, long-term and it does provide good cover so reduces soil erosion and heat absorption. Locally it would be better in those respects than land simply left for fallow to be reused at a later date as part of a rotational upland agriculture system. However it doesn't provide long-term permanent land cover and forest since it will eventually be cut down and replanted and causes local biodiversity loss compared to the existing swidden systems or leaving the land to regenerate natural forest cover. It is poor land use practice if the plantations replaced natural forest and the new EU regulation will penalize those operators as a result by restricting their market.

In a related topic, timber companies  claim that they are replacing the forests they cut down with new forests. But what they are actually doing is replacing forests with a tree plantation. A monocrop. It makes no more sense to call that replacement a forest than it does to call a field of corn a meadow.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

I'm not a huge fan of individual car ownership simply because there are too many people and too many cars everywhere.

Cities are giant parking lots with all these cars everywhere.

 

Climate change hoax or not notwithstanding. 

 

I'm looking forward to robo-taxis where we can hail a robo taxi cheaply.

 

And once car ownership declines, hopefully the cities will be greener and parking lots are replaced with mini lush forested parks. 

 

And more walkable and cyclable streets without cars everywhere. 

 

I agree. I've said a few times on here that private cars should be banned in cities, but they need good public transport. I never had a motor vehicle in London the 10 years I was there.