Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

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....

.

) 4 Views 4
18 July 2021 at 08:52 AM
Reply...

910 Replies

5
w


by Nut Nut k

3) What are the consequences for human civilization in the event we go 5C beyond the 1850-1900 baseline ?

I look forward to your answers.

Luciom will say he dgaf about anyone in the world outside his part of Europe. At least, that's what he's said before. He's happy developing paddy fields to cope with the extraordinarily wet climate Northern Italy will get.

Southern Europe, large parts of Africa, South America and Southern Asia...eat **** and die, suckers. LOL


by jalfrezi k

Luciom will say he dgaf about anyone in the world outside his part of Europe. At least, that's what he's said before. He's happy developing paddy fields to cope with the extraordinarily wet climate Northern Italy will get.

Southern Europe, large parts of Africa, South America and Southern Asia...eat **** and die, suckers. LOL

Let's let Luciom answer for themselves.


by jalfrezi k

Luciom will say he dgaf about anyone in the world outside his part of Europe. At least, that's what he's said before. He's happy developing paddy fields to cope with the extraordinarily wet climate Northern Italy will get.

Southern Europe, large parts of Africa, South America and Southern Asia...eat **** and die, suckers. LOL

funny you don't know north western Italy had rice field since like forever and produced more than any other area in Europe by a large margin.

like everyone else combined in Europe doesn't even at the same game.

So given you use "paddy fields" as a metaphor of what could happen for an area which already has them, canalized everything properly centuries ago with 17th century technology and massively exploited that, you should just sit out of this conversation as you have not even the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.

maybe next time you hear the word "risotto" you might come up with the fact that if we have rice dishes in Italy, it's because we... grow rice in Italy.



by Nut Nut k

OK Luciom, you're on.

1) How long (in years) does it take the Earth's atmospheric temperature to reach equilibrium to the heat setting (atmospheric GHG levels) ?

Let me explain by way of analogy. If you have put a pot with a gallon of water on the stove and turn the temperature to high. Does it boil immediately ? No. It might take 15 minutes before the water boils and the heat starts venting off into the room.

The Earth surface is a gigantic pot of water. Over 90% of the additional heat energy f

I think anyone who thinks 1) and 2) can be properly answered within a range narrow enough to be actionable through policy should be sent to an asylum or at the very least permanently removed from any decision making on the topic (and on everything else).

I think 3) depends on when it happens, because, not sure you noticed, we are at the verge of an incredible possibly exponential technological revolution akin to industrialization if not even more impactful (and faster at that).

which means that the tools available to us to deal with everything that can happen will be exceptionally different in 2090 than in 2060 .

I don't think we should care at all about 3) though as 5 Celsius from now is a 4 sigma scenario for 2200.

if you mean 5 Celsius from 1850-1900, well given 1.5 was on net significantly good for humanity (things objectively are better for human life on the planet at current temperature vs 1850-1900, significantly better), no I am not terrified at all.

I actually think it could be on net positive with proper mitigation of negatives and full exploitation of positives.

but as jalfrezi mentioned, I don't model what's proper for me or my country to do on what is good for "humanity". we don't live in the "internationale socialiste" , we don't owe anything at all to anyone we are not allied with, and in general we owe close to nothing to anyone who isn't a close relative.

so I care 95-99% what's good for my immediate family and friends and not that much about anything else "humanity".

as most rational people do through revealed preferences btw.

everytime a "climate change activist" spends 1k for anything for himself or a relative that isn't absolutely indispensable for his survival , he does reveal that.

under that lens I truly don't give any inherent value to the lives of "the global south" in the slightest.

not that they will be worse off with warming than they would be if we suicide our economies to reduce emissions, which is the main point of contention.

question for you: give me the model under which spending tens of trillions to go to net 0 in all first world countries is the best possible allocation of those resources vs all other possible expenses that imporve human welfare (which you see to care about), however defined by you.

that includes you having to demonstrate to me paying for net zero is better than fixing worldwide hunger, or giving healthcare to poor people in india , or researching cancer cures and everything else money can buy.


by Luciom k

I think anyone who thinks 1) and 2) can be properly answered within a range narrow enough to be actionable through policy should be sent to an asylum or at the very least permanently removed from any decision making on the topic (and on everything else).

.

4) Do you have any science background which provides the basis for this response ? Or is your response a reflection akin to a religious belief ?

I do appreciate your acknowledgement that you only give a **** about yourself in the near term and not about humanity as a whole nor in the future ?

5) Do you have any acquaintance with the concept of Tragedy of the Commons ?

6) Do you think that humans should have the unlimited liberty to add CO2 to the atmosphere ?


by Luciom k

we are at the verge of an incredible possibly exponential technological revolution akin to industrialization if not even more impactful (and faster at that).

which means that the tools available to us to deal with everything that can happen will be exceptionally different in 2090 than in 2060 .

so I care 95-99% what's good for my immediate family and friends and not that much about anything else "humanity". as most rational people do through revealed preferences btw.

Luciom, I think these statements reveal some cognitive dissonance on your part.

For one, I absolutely agree that humans are basically selfish in only caring for their family and friends and not humanity as a whole.

Your pointing to future technological development ignores the fact that the people developing are going to be creating and managing the technology are just like you. They'll be developing it for their own benefit. Not for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

We humans are not loyal to the survival of our species. We don't even care about the experience of our children after we are gone.

An anecdote of historical relevance. After World War I, the French and British were completely indifferent to the experience of German citizens and created terms at Versailles which led to German starvation in the 1920's. That indifference comes back around like a boomerang and in that event led to WW2 and a Holocaust. That indifference is a disease.

Humans are going to go extinct because most people are like you. You're normal.


There are already open source AI models around. A particularly cheap-to-run one appeared like yesterday but even before that there were many around.

It's in various companies benefit to have the technology open source so that companies , governments and so on can train their own dedicated AI and then buy compute on the cloud from those companies.

It's already happening right now, not an hypothesis.

And as for mitigation, when a country somewhere manages to show you that hydroponic farming is very cheap at scale , then you can copy wherever you are around the world even if they have patents. Proof of concept is enough to help you, and/or you can just disregard patents. that's just one niche where doing something is going to help if warming made regular agriculture bad in some area of your country.

The same applies for basically everything else from building energy efficient real estate to managing rising sea levels and so on.

As for your example after WW1, the french weren't indifferent to Germans. The french actively tried to destroy the Germans. They took land, mines, they left soldiers inside Germany and they got big reparations in gold every year, all of which crashed the Germany economy and so on.

Keynes the "economic consequences of peace" covers that.

The lesson there is there is no in between. If you want to destroy some group you have to kill all the men like it was normal to do throughout history. Or credibly threaten to do so at any time (like with nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

You don't pickle and tickle, you either go all in and genocide or you don't touch.

Human groups got extinct all the times in human history. That will keep happening.

There is no relationship between that though and the idea the totality of humanity will get extinct at the same time though.

It can happen as long as we live in a single planet and some planet-wide apocalypse appears (not some Celsius of warming though lol, big asteroids and what not).

But it won't happen because of CO2 linked warming


The human race will survive any imaginable CO2 changes - the population collapsed to a few thousand before the move out of Africa. That isn't really what anyone's debating when they talk about climate change.


by jalfrezi k

The human race will survive any imaginable CO2 changes - the population collapsed to a few thousand before the move out of Africa. That isn't really what anyone's debating when they talk about climate change.

LOL

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...

"The risk of global societal collapse or human extinction has been “dangerously underexplored”, climate scientists have warned in an analysis."


by Luciom k

It's already happening right now, not an hypothesis.

And as for mitigation, when a country somewhere manages to show you that hydroponic farming is very cheap at scale , then you can copy wherever you are around the world even if they have patents.

It's interesting that you bounce immediately from a statement about something happening NOW straight into an hypothesis about something imaginary. Hydroponic farming at scale. We can't grow the high calories crops like wheat, oats, barley and corn indoors. We can't get enough calories from the leafy greens grown hydroponically.

Humans are machines. We need energy to function. You can't pump gasoline into a human and make us run like a car. We need energy dense food and we don't yet have the technology to do that on an economically sound basis without reliable weather outdoors.


by Nut Nut k

4) Do you have any science background which provides the basis for this response ? Or is your response a reflection akin to a religious belief ?

I do appreciate your acknowledgement that you only give a **** about yourself in the near term and not about humanity as a whole nor in the future ?

5) Do you have any acquaintance with the concept of Tragedy of the Commons ?

6) Do you think that humans should have the unlimited liberty to add CO2 to t

4) I am an economist by training, so i am good at applied statistics and at knowing that modeling the far future in complex systems is a futile attempt if you seek the truth, and invariably it's something that is used to justify political agendas

5) yes and do you realize how racist and genocidal were the people who invented that concept in the 60s, and how wrong they were proven? it's the "population bomb" people

6) I think humans should have unlimited liberty in general, that liberty is the end goal not a tool to a goal, that everything in life should be organized to maximize liberty, that human life has no inherent value lacking liberty, that invariably every time you have to choose a tradeoff between safety and liberty and you choose safety you don't deserve either liberty nor safety

For the climate, there is no climate risk that justifies international enforcement of regulations which is basically the predisposition of a totalitarian world government, which is worse than human exctinction (yes life as a slave is far worse than death)


by Luciom k

LOL

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...

"The risk of global societal collapse or human extinction has been “dangerously underexplored”, climate scientists have warned in an analysis."

There's some risk of chronic and acute disruption to the food supply causing such social and political turmoil that it makes nuclear wars more likely but I still feel that species extinction is off the menu in the foreseeable future apart from the permanent possibilities of meteor strikes and AI etc.


by Luciom k

4) i am good at applied statistics and at knowing that modeling the far future in complex systems is a futile attempt if you seek the truth, and invariably it's something that is used to justify political agendas

The guy who relies on future and as yet not invented agricultural systems to justify his political agenda.


by Luciom k

Human groups got extinct all the times in human history. That will keep happening.

There is no relationship between that though and the idea the totality of humanity will get extinct at the same time though.

It can happen as long as we live in a single planet and some planet-wide apocalypse appears (not some Celsius of warming though lol, big asteroids and what not).

But it won't happen because of CO2 linked warming

So you regard humans as being like Gods ? Immune from self caused extinction ?

Would you have guessed that humans would have their brains and sex organs infiltrated by microplastics ? Would you have guessed that human males would experience a 50% reduction in testosterone levels in half a century ? Who manages the retirement of nuclear reactors and radioactive waste ?

We're no different than bacteria in a petri dish in a microbiology lab. Put us in an environment with a favorable food source and we'll multiply until we exhaust the food source and then die in our toxic (to us) outputs.

The Earth is a closed system. It works well in a circular food chain. Small animals eat bugs and plants, big animals eat small animals, bugs eat dead animals and turn them into compost for plants.

Humans are mega fauna (over 50 kg in weight) and are much more vulnerable to a food chain breakdown. After the asteroid hit 65M years ago, ALL of the megafauna on Earth died except amphibians like alligators and sea turtles. Our surviving mammalian ancestors weighed only an ounce or two.

We're witnessing before our very eyes that our economic system can't afford the replacement cost of climate fueled disasters. Private homeowners insurance is disappearing in huge swathes of America. Sea levels has risen 6 inches on the Florida coast in 15 years.

We have no precedent for dealing with what is coming. It's not so much that we have no experience with the destination. Humans evolved in very harsh conditions. But its a different thing to jump off the roof of a single story home and a twenty story building. The ground is the same. But the impact isn't. We have lost the skills and toughness necessary to live as we did 50,000 years ago. And there will be a lot more people to compete with.


by Luciom k

4) I am an economist by training, so i am good at applied statistics and at knowing that modeling the far future in complex systems is a futile attempt if you seek the truth, and invariably it's something that is used to justify political agendas

5) yes and do you realize how racist and genocidal were the people who invented that concept in the 60s, and how wrong they were proven? it's the "population bomb" people

6) I think humans should have unlimited liberty in general, that liberty is the end

Do you feel like a slave because you are not allowed to spray graffiti or dump your trash at your local city hall or police station or on your neighbor's lawn ? Do you feel like a slave because you're not allowed to rape any woman you choose to ?

Do you feel its appropriate to restrict those kind of liberties ?

How do you feel about making slavery illegal ? Do you feel like a slave because you are not allowed to enslave others ?


by Nut Nut k

Question for the entire forum ....

Name any single factor besides greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) which cause heat (infrared radiation) to remain within the confines of Earth's atmosphere and oceans ??

For reference .... solar radiation coming to Earth is light, not heat. Solar radiation is transformed into infrared radiation after it is absorbed by the Earth's surface. After it is absorbed ... it radiates back out toward space. It is retained in the Earth system as a result of being ab


John Kerry is a politician and a billionaire with a massive personal carbon footprint and never says a word about the privilege of the elites like himself to emit as much CO2 as they damn well please. He is not a credible spokesperson for climate action.

Since you deflected from the original question with an irrelevant post about John Kerry, I'll counter by repeating the question.

Is there any factor other than greenhouse gases which accounts for heat (infrared radiation) begin retained within the Earth's atmosphere ?


by Nut Nut k

John Kerry is a politician and a billionaire with a massive personal carbon footprint and never says a word about the privilege of the elites like himself to emit as much CO2 as they damn well please. He is not a credible spokesperson for climate action.

Since you deflected from the original question with an irrelevant post about John Kerry, I'll counter by repeating the question.

I'll ask the questions

Germany took climate change seriously. Could you give us a summary of how that worked out?


by hole in wan k

I'll ask the questions

Germany took climate change seriously. Could you give us a summary of how that worked out?

Germans are happier than Americans and live longer. while having a carbon footprint which is less than half that of the USA per capita.

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/coun...

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/coun...

Their CO2 footprint is 6.5 tons per capita per year, 30% > the global average. American footprint is 15 tons, 200% > the global average. They are more effective at CO2 reduction, not as effective as the French who went heavily with nuclear power.

Since German is only 1% of the global population and not a global superpower like the US, they are not in a position to make the same contribution that the US is capable of making.

Germany has fantastic public transit. Trains that are clean, efficient and run on time.


It’s illegal to idle your car in your Germany

I love them

Well… technically us; I have dual citizenship


Most powerful passport in the world, whoop


Finally there's some evidence that suggests climate change is caused by man.

https://rumble.com/v6dpg47-forensic-arbo...


by Nut Nut k

Germans are happier than Americans and live longer. while having a carbon footprint which is less than half that of the USA per capita.

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/coun...

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/coun...

Their CO2 footprint is 6.5 tons per capita per year, 30% > the global average. American footprint is 15 tons, 200% > the global average. They are more effective at CO2 reduction, not as effective as the French who went heavily with nuclear power.

Sin

Which material advantages came to german taxpayers in subsidizing hundreds of billions of euros of renewables? emitting less isn't an advantage. You don't live better by emitting less CO2.

You are using the sacrifice as the goal lol, easy that way.

How materially did german lives improve by reducing emissions? and was it the best possible allocation of all those huge sums of money among all possible allocations (including ofc reducing taxes), for german taxpayers?

German electricity prices are among the highest in the world, that's disastrously bad for everyone living in germany and all german companies, for example


Guys, there is actually no need to ever engage Lucy on climate change problem as he has zero interest in long term planning.


More LOL Luciom

Deaths from extreme heat to ‘far exceed’ fall in cold weather deaths across the continent by the end of the century, researchers say.

Rising deaths from extreme heat will “far exceed” reductions in numbers dying from cold temperatures in Europe with climate change, researchers suggest.

A study modelling the change in deaths related to high and low temperatures found that there could be more than 2.3 million excess deaths across hundreds of European cities by the end of the century if urgent action is not taken to cut emissions.

While efforts to adapt cities to rising temperatures would not be enough to curb increased health risks due to exposure to heat, up to 70% of the excess deaths could be avoided if climate change was limited, the researchers said.

The study found that in some parts of the continent, such as the UK and Ireland, there would be a net reduction in deaths, as a fall in people dying in cold weather outstripped a rise in mortality due to extreme heat.

London would see 27,455 fewer deaths by the century’s end in the face of climate change, according to the analysis led by the Environment and Health Modelling (EHM) Lab at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

But the study warned that the lower death toll in some parts of Europe would be massively outweighed by the increase in the rest of the continent – with the Mediterranean, central Europe and the Balkans particularly vulnerable.

Barcelona, Rome , Naples and Madrid would be among the cities with the highest death tolls from rising temperatures by the end of the century, the modelling found, while many other smaller cities in Malta, Spain and Italy would also be badly affected.

This study provides compelling evidence that the steep rise in heat-related deaths will far exceed any drop related to cold

Professor Antonio Gasparrini
The study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, looked at how climate change could affect future heat-related and cold-related deaths in 854 European urban areas and their demographics, under different climate-warming scenarios.

In a scenario with low efforts to curb global warming and low adaptation efforts, deaths could increase by 50%, leading to a cumulative 2,345,410 deaths due to climate change between 2015 and 2099.

Reply...