Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
The same people who claim floods are caused by increased raining because of climate change, also claim drought in Sicily is caused by climate change.
I understand the desperate attempt to try randomly to claim any negative weather event is caused by climate change but at least try to find some coherent narrative, otherwise between that and your troops devastating world class art in museums, you will keep losing.
climate changes will bring more heat, meaning in other terms it will bring more "volatility" , causing more drastic/violent weather events.
yes more drought, more rain, more tornado, etc.
when u warm the water in a pan what happens, does the water stay calm or it create more waves on the surface ?
yes higher temperature will bring "waves" of disturbance in the climate.
differently for different regions since they have different conditions but all will have an increase of unstable climate to what they were accustomed too.
for those saying that one Celsius over the 1850-1900 average has increased the intensity and frequency of bad (for people) weather events, making things a lot worse for human beings, would you then believe that a colder planet (vs the 1850-1900 avg) would be exceptionally better for human beings?
Other people say it's either perfectly normal or nothing to do with climate change.
The intense rain was attributed to a phenomenon known as the gota fría, or “cold drop”, which occurs when cold air moves over the warm waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This creates atmospheric instability as the warm, moist air rising rapidly to form towering, dense clouds capable of dumping heavy rain.
The clouds can remain over the same area for hours, multiplying their destructive potential and, as seen in Spain this week, unleashing fierce hailstorms and tornadoes alongside rain.
In recent years, scientists have warned that the waters of the Mediterranean are rapidly warming, climbing as much as 5C above normal. As hot air can hold more moisture, the potential for catastrophic downpours rises.
“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, leader of world weather attribution at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London.
Luciom?
The intense rain was attributed to a phenomenon known as the gota fría, or “cold drop”, which occurs when cold air moves over the warm waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This creates atmospheric instability as the warm, moist air rising rapidly to form towering, dense clouds capable of dumping heavy rain.
The clouds can remain over the same area for hours, multiplying their destructive potential and, as seen in Spain this week, unleashing fierce hailstorms and tornadoes alongside rain.
In recent yea
Ok so what is the solution when no one is meeting their climate targets and China and India seem to be adding Coal plants at a staggering pace and countries like Canada and the USA are exporting coal at record levels
Who knows? I guess a sharp escalation in climate change related deaths and uninhabitable cities in all of those countries may focus a few minds but by then it will be far too late, if it isn’t already.
That’s why change had to start decades ago, but the sceptics were still in denial, as Luciom still is.
The intense rain was attributed to a phenomenon known as the gota fría, or “cold drop”, which occurs when cold air moves over the warm waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This creates atmospheric instability as the warm, moist air rising rapidly to form towering, dense clouds capable of dumping heavy rain.
The clouds can remain over the same area for hours, multiplying their destructive potential and, as seen in Spain this week, unleashing fierce hailstorms and tornadoes alongside rain.
the bold reminds me about how every area of the planet is warming more than average according to "experts" quoted by the media.
anyway that aside (if the Mediterranean is warming 5 celsius, which places are warming less given the avg worldwide over 1850-1900 is like 1.2?), "world weather attribution" is literally the recently made up "science" (with no scientifical basis) that attempts to claim that events are caused by climate change.
it's like asking the "association of short term rental benefits" if short term rental is bad.
if the "Gota fria" is caused by cold air meeting warm air, if the air gets warmer why would the gap increase? because it's not getting warmer elsewhere? and it can never decrease in any place in the world?
so let's say the dynamic described is real and the gap of air temperature is indeed higher in the Mediterranean sometimes that it was in the past so you can attribute that to climate change a bit, ok, then somewhere else the gap will be smaller (definitionally) and you will have less severe precipitations than in the past, where is the accounting for that?
Who knows? I guess a sharp escalation in climate change related deaths and uninhabitable cities in all of those countries may focus a few minds but by then it will be far too late, if it isn’t already.
That’s why change had to start decades ago, but the sceptics were still in denial, as Luciom still is.
in Europe climate warming is saving lives in aggregate obviously, but ofc "experts" on the media give you the death tolls from hot waves in the summer and not the reduction in mortality during winter because of milder winters, go figure.
there is no "we" btw, the world doesn't act as a monolith. and attempts to fully centralize major decision making like how to basically organize all production with regards to energy, worldwide, require heavy enforcement.
having the structure in place to heavily enforce major policies worldwide that affect every sector of the economy is almost impossible politically, but even if it happened, it would be horrendously worse than climate change can ever be, given centralizing so much power globally will be inevitably exploited to extents we never saw before in history at the world level.
even a 0.1% risk of ending up with a global, centralized socialist dictatorship (which would be worse than humanity extinction) is more than enough to be fully against any attempt to centralize economic regulation and enforcement globally and to prefer ANY other risk to that without blinking.
ICL is a fairly conservative uni and doesn't do fake climate change.
and btw go check again the insane models for COVID ICL produced, if after that you have anything but the deepest contempt for that organization I don't know what to add.
Ok.
Imperial College’s Report 9, which was one of several pieces of modelling to inform the UK government ahead of lockdown measures in March, has been subject to intense scrutiny, and has held up to expert analysis.
A recent Cambridge-led Codecheck into Report 9 confirmed the reproducibility and quality of its underlying code, which is publicly available as part of Imperial’s CovidSim.
A spokesperson for Imperial’s COVID-19 Response Team said: “This provides further independent confirmation that Imperial’s modelling in March was robust, reproducible and sound in its conclusions. We welcome this independent analysis of Report 9 as we continue to advance our understanding of the early epidemic.”
In a commentary, also for the BMJ, the Edinburgh study's author Professor Graeme Ackland said: "Scientific predictions are often published to great fanfare, with retrospective analysis seldom attracting as much attention. Report 9 appeared in March, we completed our study in June, and a lot has happened since. Infections went down steadily during lockdown,as predicted, and at the time of writing are rising again, just as predicted. With hindsight, the Imperial model has proved remarkably accurate. It turned out that the experts really are expert."
lol
Although Sweden was hit hard by the virus, its death toll stood at only a few thousand at a point where the adaptation from Ferguson’s model already expected tens of thousands. At the one year mark, Sweden had a little over 13,000 fatalities from Covid-19 – a serious toll, but smaller on a per-capita basis than many European lockdown states and a far cry from the 96,000 deaths projected by the Uppsala adaptation.
Find a reputable unbaised source, not the AIER.
ICL published forecasts for the UK and USA. Sweden is irrelevant.
The only reputable sources in general are those who never even slightly flirted with leftism, everyone else lost his reputation forever.
ICL published forecasts that we used in Italy as well to close schools and so on.
They were a main source of the problem , they possibly did more damage to humanity than COVID itself
Well that's on Italy then, because ICL only published them with parameters for the UK and US. Italy would have applied them with their own parameters which were obviously not right.
This was the track record of the "expert" who led the ICL modeling efforts
Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Back to Spain.
Who knows? I guess a sharp escalation in climate change related deaths and uninhabitable cities in all of those countries may focus a few minds but by then it will be far too late, if it isn’t already.
That’s why change had to start decades ago, but the sceptics were still in denial, as Luciom still is.
As someone who believes in Climate Change but realistically knows unless its a world issue it may be a losing fight. Its tough for many when the last 50 years we have heard in the next 10 years this will kill us and in the Documentary that predicted many islands would be under water and nothing happened folks tire of the cry wolf.
As someone who believes in Climate Change but realistically knows unless its a world issue it may be a losing fight. Its tough for many when the last 50 years we have heard in the next 10 years this will kill us and in the Documentary that predicted many islands would be under water and nothing happened folks tire of the cry wolf.
Lozen, my brother in Christ, you can't tell us you believe climate change is a serious issue and then in the very next sentence say it's just folks crying wolf.
Funny how often I hear those "but my tabloid told me 30 years ago we'd drown in 5 years" -arguments used to back up anti-science/pseudoscience/podcast bros. Listening to tabloid instead of claims backed by scientific consensus is idiotic in exactly the same way as getting your scientific "knowledge" from Joe Rogan etc., so basically they're saying "I did this thing decades ago and it was really stupid so I'm gonna do it again"
As someone who believes in Climate Change but realistically knows unless its a world issue it may be a losing fight. Its tough for many when the last 50 years we have heard in the next 10 years this will kill us and in the Documentary that predicted many islands would be under water and nothing happened folks tire of the cry wolf.
The media and most people find it impossible to understand the difference between claims like 'we have 10 years to stop island being flooded' and 'islands will be flooded within 10 years if we dont take drastic measures'
Lozen, my brother in Christ, you can't tell us you believe climate change is a serious issue and then in the very next sentence say it's just folks crying wolf.
An issue can be serious (ie worthy of some consideration, not to be fully discarded) without being apocalyptic.
For example a denier would tell you that there is 0 need to do anything because the world isn't getting warmer.
A "it exists but we can deal with it" person would tell you that spending some money to take into account a slightly warmer world is here and will be here is a good investment, depending on which place you are talking about you should do some things to become more resilient to slightly higher temperatures.
Which doesn't mean it makes sense to, for ex, aggressively go toward "net 0" at very high costs.
Funny how often I hear those "but my tabloid told me 30 years ago we'd drown in 5 years" -arguments used to back up anti-science/pseudoscience/podcast bros. Listening to tabloid instead of claims backed by scientific consensus is idiotic in exactly the same way as getting your scientific "knowledge" from Joe Rogan etc., so basically they're saying "I did this thing decades ago and it was really stupid so I'm gonna do it again"
Mainstream media, and theoretically "scientifical" magazines as well, are going completely crazy on the topic, not only "some tabloids".
At this point they have made the switch from climate warming to climate change to climate crisis to climate breakdown (lol).
It is exceptionally cheaper to spend a bit to be resilient than to give up huge portions of gdp pursuing "net 0" for example.
And the trend is clearly one of decreasing problems generated by weather event, not increasing, because we get better and better and dealing with them.
The media and most people find it impossible to understand the difference between claims like 'we have 10 years to stop island being flooded' and 'islands will be flooded within 10 years if we dont take drastic measures'
And most people won't ever have the chance to have it explained to them by someone as clever as you. Sure sucks to be most people.
