Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
wanna-b-fanboy

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Thread

Recommended Posts

"Insurance giant IAG has warned a failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could result in a world that is "pretty much uninsurable", with poorer communities likely to bear the brunt of the effects."

 

https://www.afr.com/business/insurance/climate-change-on-track-to-make-world-uninsurable-iag-20181115-h17xu5?fbclid=IwAR19WYEEFc7WfaOpKo_L7KznlyTc0j29bHCCx2v3zG_vxKHdDOjBJTgk0Pc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

a world that is "pretty much uninsurable"

It's time for them to get involved in politics, counter the oil company handouts. 

 parts of the coastal areas in the usa are already uninsurable, and are covered by government funded insurance. 

a lot of those commies down in Florida rely on it. 

 

Edited by Mark F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non scientists having opinions in opposition to those of scientists, on climate change. this is perfect.

Quote

 

Imagine if quantum physics was a multi-billion dollar industry: "I'm no physicist, but have YOU ever seen an electron? I haven't. They say it exists and conducts all kinds of cockamamie shenanigans with 'the nucleus'...I'm sorry (laffs) really? We're supposed to believe this?"

 

 

 

 

LOL !

Edited by Mark F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do need to consider the impact on U.S. jobs — but that’s an argument for action rather than, as Ernst suggests, inaction. The National Climate Assessment warns that global warming could cause a 10 percent decline in gross domestic product and that the “potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century.” Iowa and other farm states will be particularly hard hit as crops wilt and livestock die.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/i-was-wrong-on-climate-change-why-cant-other-conservatives-admit-it-too/2018/11/26/11d2b778-f1a1-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3TkIwYVVAYvnfXFtIc4rstpHECLbQ_0AAuvw3x48STtuIZzI4fXTe5g6U&utm_term=.8f57d4a6792e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not realize that the Koch Brothers have money invested in Alberta.

I heard a  program on the radio a few years ago, after the huge Calgary flood during the stampede. A climatologist was interviewed, he worked in Alberta; He was talking about the cause of the flood, he said "climate....... then he stopped, and moved on. Afraid for his job, to even say the words "climate change"

Edited by Mark F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Phillips, head of environment Canada. 

Canada is not as cold as it once was, with every region and all seasons warmer than ever before. While Canada is still the snowiest country, less snow is falling in our southern regions. Our mountain snowpack and glaciers are disappearing rapidly, and frost-free days are increasing. Our growing seasons are longer, but so are the length and intensity of our wildfire seasons. In the Great Lakes, the past decade has featured both record high and low water levels. When it rains, it often rains harder and longer, with higher incidents of flash flooding, especially in our cities. Storms seem to be getting bigger and moving more slowly, leaving more damage in their wakes.

Scientists from Environment and Climate Change Canada have concluded that the risk of western fires since 2015 has increased two to six times due to human-induced warming and that, in the Arctic, extreme sea-ice minima in recent years would have been extremely unlikely in the absence of human influences. In fact, scientists have made a clear link between climate change and extreme weather events that include heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and sea ice disappearance.

Weather changes in Canada are happening abruptly not subtly, rapidly not gradually. As Canadians continue to experience more and more extreme weather, intense month-long heat waves, suffocating smoke and haze from wildfires, and extreme flooding will simply be the norm mere decades from now. Events that were once rare or unusual for our grandparents are now more commonplace, while we all become more vulnerable due to extreme weather. As the Top Ten Weather Stories of 2018 bear out, Canadians must become more resilient—not only for what lies ahead but also for the variations in climate, which are already here.

 

(Rocky mountain glaciers supply drinking and irrigation water for parts of the praries. Not sure what we'll do for water after they're gone.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-01-07 at 10:55 AM, Wideleft said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marshall-medoff-the-unlikely-eccentric-inventor-turning-inedible-plant-life-into-fuel-60-minutes/

Not only turning Bio-mass into fuel, but creating single-use-plastic substitutes that can bio-degrade in weeks.

Thanks- that was a good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they got this one wrong too, 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8

Here we report, using high-resolution satellite imagery, that woody vegetation cover over sub-Saharan Africa increased by 8% over the past three decades and that a diversity of drivers, other than CO2, were able to explain 78% of the spatial variation in this trend. A decline in burned area along with warmer, wetter climates drove WPE, although this has been mitigated in areas with high population growth rates, and high and low extremes of herbivory, specifically browsers. These results confirm global greening trends, thereby bringing into question widely held theories about declining terrestrial carbon balances and desert expansion. Importantly, while global drivers such as climate and CO2 may enhance the risk of WPE, managing fire and herbivory at the local scale provides tools to mitigate continental WPE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Looks like they got this one wrong too, 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8

Here we report, using high-resolution satellite imagery, that woody vegetation cover over sub-Saharan Africa increased by 8% over the past three decades and that a diversity of drivers, other than CO2, were able to explain 78% of the spatial variation in this trend. A decline in burned area along with warmer, wetter climates drove WPE, although this has been mitigated in areas with high population growth rates, and high and low extremes of herbivory, specifically browsers. These results confirm global greening trends, thereby bringing into question widely held theories about declining terrestrial carbon balances and desert expansion. Importantly, while global drivers such as climate and CO2 may enhance the risk of WPE, managing fire and herbivory at the local scale provides tools to mitigate continental WPE.

How did "they" get "this" wrong?

Who is they?

what is "this"?

Why is it wrong?

 

Please answer as I don't believe you understand the point you are trying to make.... I certainly don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

How did "they" get "this" wrong?

Who is they?

what is "this"?

Why is it wrong?

 

Please answer as I don't believe you understand the point you are trying to make.... I certainly don't.

 

The IPCC.

Because according to the IPCC Africa should be getting more arid. 

If the added green area were effectively used for agriculture, it could produce enough food to feed the African continent. Unfortunately, this is a fact that the doomsday-obsessed media, activists and ruling politicians fear will become publicly known. They instead would prefer that the globe returns to a climate of the 1980s, when drought and famine ravaged the vast North African region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pigseye said:

The IPCC.

Because according to the IPCC Africa should be getting more arid. 

If the added green area were effectively used for agriculture, it could produce enough food to feed the African continent. Unfortunately, this is a fact that the doomsday-obsessed media, activists and ruling politicians fear will become publicly known. They instead would prefer that the globe returns to a climate of the 1980s, when drought and famine ravaged the vast North African region.

That fact, is about as obscure as the fact that there is already enough food to feed the entire global population.  The problem is not a lack of food or agricultural land, the problem is distribution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be good news but most of warmists will probably just shrug it off as some sort of hoax,

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

Quote

 

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

"We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pigseye said:

This should be good news but most of warmists will probably just shrug it off as some sort of hoax,

 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

 

Hoax? No- it's evidence based and going to be further researched... 

Why is this good news? you just underscored the fact climate change is drastically affecting the Earth's water cycle and the changes are happening at an exponential rate - how is that good news? 

 

please stop trolling. I just took you off my ignore list two days ago and I am already regretting that decision. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I just took you off my ignore list two days ago

Well that was your first mistake. 

Quote

coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

That's not supposed to be happening according to AGW theory now is it. Why not just admit that your models got it wrong? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Hoax? No- it's evidence based and going to be further researched... 

Why is this good news? you just underscored the fact climate change is drastically affecting the Earth's water cycle and the changes are happening at an exponential rate - how is that good news? 

 

please stop trolling. I just took you off my ignore list two days ago and I am already regretting that decision. 

 

 

Increase in land due to Aral Sea drying up.  Increase in land lost due to glaciers melting. In Asia, where people will have no water, when the glaciers are gone.

 

Such great news. 

Edited by Mark F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, even without AGW, the temperatures this inter-glacial are going to rise 2 - 4 C higher than today in the Arctic and sea levels are going to rise 6 - 9 meters higher than today. It happened during the last inter-glacial when CO2 levels were only 280 ppm. You can't stop what is coming and the AGW contribution to it won't make a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Well that was your first mistake. 

No ****.... 

 

28 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That's not supposed to be happening according to AGW theory now is it. Why not just admit that your models got it wrong? 

 

That's kinda how science works....  if your observation is not what you thought it might be, you find out why and improve... 

Quote

Modification and improvement[edit]

If experimental results contrary to a theory's predictions are observed, scientists first evaluate whether the experimental design was sound, and if so they confirm the results by independent replication. A search for potential improvements to the theory then begins. Solutions may require minor or major changes to the theory, or none at all if a satisfactory explanation is found within the theory's existing framework.[18] Over time, as successive modifications build on top of each other, theories consistently improve and greater predictive accuracy is achieved. Since each new version of a theory (or a completely new theory) must have more predictive and explanatory power than the last, scientific knowledge consistently becomes more accurate over time.

If modifications to the theory or other explanations seem to be insufficient to account for the new results, then a new theory may be required. Since scientific knowledge is usually durable, this occurs much less commonly than modification.[16] Furthermore, until such a theory is proposed and accepted, the previous theory will be retained. This is because it is still the best available explanation for many other phenomena, as verified by its predictive power in other contexts. For example, it has been known since 1859 that the observed perihelion precession of Mercury violates Newtonian mechanics,[19] but the theory remained the best explanation available until relativity was supported by sufficient evidence. Also, while new theories may be proposed by a single person or by many, the cycle of modifications eventually incorporates contributions from many different scientists.[20]

After the changes, the accepted theory will explain more phenomena and have greater predictive power (if it did not, the changes would not be adopted); this new explanation will then be open to further replacement or modification. If a theory does not require modification despite repeated tests, this implies that the theory is very accurate. This also means that accepted theories continue to accumulate evidence over time, and the length of time that a theory (or any of its principles) remains accepted often indicates the strength of its supporting evidence.

 

The models are crazy complex and need tinkering- to cherry-pick one part out of the entire model and dismiss the entire model because of that is ******* stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

No ****.... 

 

That's kinda how science works....  if your observation is not what you thought it might be, you find out why and improve... 

 

The models are crazy complex and need tinkering- to cherry-pick one part out of the entire model and dismiss the entire model because of that is ******* stupid. 

I couldn't agree more, so let's stop insisting that the science is settled and calling people names (deniers, skeptics, warmists etc.) and get back to work on what matters, getting the science right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×