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....
.
Okay, you have to admit that the video is at least good for a raised eyebrow or two.
I can get on board with the air temperature and lack of moisture hitting certain breakpoints that encourage combustion of some specific material scattered around the local area, but someone should link to a guy in a lab coat explaining the specifics.
Because otherwise, it's pretty clearly those jewish space lasers I've been hearing so much about on the interwebs.
Okay, you have to admit that the video is at least good for a raised eyebrow or two.
I can get on board with the air temperature and lack of moisture hitting certain breakpoints that encourage combustion of some specific material scattered around the local area, but someone should link to a guy in a lab coat explaining the specifics.
Because otherwise, it's pretty clearly those jewish space lasers I've been hearing so much about on the interw
The problem is the guys in the lab coats that avtually know what they're talking about get banned and fact checked (lying to say their info is false).. That's the world we're living in today.
What I don't get is how pro-lifers (on the right) are OK with roughly 7 million people a year dying from air pollution
i don't know I am not pro life in the sense Americans mean it (I am ok with no question asked abortion in the first trimester).
that said, I deny any validity of models which attribute causes of death to single factors like that, the fraud in that kind of publishing is immense. no one can believe 7% of world mortality is linked to air.
and if you checked all possible causes of death and summed those "models" up you would get a total in the several hundreds of not thousands.
in general any science published to push leftist ideas is to be completely discarded, especially when it's epistemologically ******ed, like cause of death attribution is. if you go check the small lines in those models they basically use insane unproven and unprovable assumptions all the times
.
.
extreme heat in Miami - records have been broken - and it's only May
"Not only is it insane it's dangerous" said John Morales a meteorologist
"It's completely crazy what just happened," said Brian McNoldy a senior research analyst at the U. of Miami
from the article:
"the heat index reached 112 this past Saturday and Sunday breaking the previous daily record by an astonishing 11 degrees"
.
the sea is indeed getting a lot hotter nowadays, and it's a very recent phenomenon, unfortunately for some of you guys the cause is actually the "fight against air pollution", c02 emissions matter very little for the recent increases.
So your fanatic attempt actually caused the very disaster you otherwise claim to want to avoid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2...
Ofc as expected, you cause a big jump in temperature then blame it all on emissions to futher socialism, nothing new under the sun. Create or exacerbate the problem on purpose (like housing scarcity) to claim capitalism is bad and more socialism is needed
the sea is indeed getting a lot hotter nowadays, and it's a very recent phenomenon, unfortunately for some of you guys the cause is actually the "fight against air pollution", c02 emissions matter very little for the recent increases.
So your fanatic attempt actually caused the very disaster you otherwise claim to want to avoid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2...
Ofc as expected, you cause a big j
Stating this as a fact is nonsense. Your cited article even states
Other scientists argue there’s no data to show that the pollution reductions are to blame for such dramatic ocean warming, however.
The only peer-reviewed research exploring it, a paper published in 2009, found a minimal link between the pollution and ocean temperatures, Mann said — with an effect on the order of 0.05 degrees Celsius, a small fraction of the warming observed lately.
Maybe try reading the whole article you're linking to next time?
.
extreme heat in Mexico has caused 147 howler monkeys to drop dead - they're falling out of the trees as many as 10 at a time - people are tripping over them
they are critical to the country's envirornment - the article explains how and why
26 people have also died from the heat also
temps have topped 113 degrees
from the article:
"severe drought has parched most of Mexico leaving parts of the country grappling with an acute water crisis"
.
Stating this as a fact is nonsense. Your cited article even states
Maybe try reading the whole article you're linking to next time?
oh jesus, maybe i gave you the WP in 2023 admitting there are doubts, which is like the catholic church publishing doubts about the virginity of Mary ok? the slightest admission that current warming events aren't entirely caused by previous and present co2 emissions by people who pushed that for 10+ years is more than enough.
ofc non biased sources are already reporting the "war against sulfur" is what caused that increase.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how...
Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions
2 years of 2019 emissions-equivalent in 30 years. That's 6% of total emission 2020-2050 if emissions stay at 2019 levels, if they go down it's more. It's like more than 3 times all planes, like half of all agriculture, in 2019.
And that's only the SHIPPING FUEL regulations, not all anti-sulfur regulation worldwide.
oh jesus, maybe i gave you the WP in 2023 admitting there are doubts, which is like the catholic church publishing doubts about the virginity of Mary ok? the slightest admission that current warming events aren't entirely caused by previous and present co2 emissions by people who pushed that for 10+ years is more than enough.
ofc non biased sources are already reporting the "war against sulfur" is what caused that increase.
Your article goes on to state
While this will contribute to warming and make it even more difficult to avoid exceeding 1.5C in the coming decades, a number of other factors are likely contributing to the ocean heatwave.
These include a massive eruption of an underwater volcano in the south Pacific, an unusual absence of Saharan dust and a growing El Niño.
It's likely having some effect but possibly isn't the major factor despite you desperately wanting it to be.
Your article goes on to state
It's likely having some effect but possibly isn't the major factor despite you desperately wanting it to be.
It's the major factor for the recent spikes in ocean temperature.
But whatever, it's enough you admit it's a factor. Now can we avoid using that factor to justify more economic sacrifices wrt CO2 emissions? or rather, can we go back to use a lot of sulfur and if anything use more than we did in the past, to cause cooling? and put a ban on further sulfur regulations for a couple of decades at the very least? do you actually care about reducing global warming or "it depends" ?
Yet again you have no data to support your assertion that its the largest factor.
In the recent spike yes, including climate change models themselves, according to which current ocean temperatures couldn't have happened basically.
Ofc the most radical bat **** crazy fanatics use these to claim "climate change is actually worse than we thought!!!", everyone else goes hm well wait we have this huge event happening immediately before with clear causal connection
i don't know I am not pro life in the sense Americans mean it (I am ok with no question asked abortion in the first trimester).
that said, I deny any validity of models which attribute causes of death to single factors like that, the fraud in that kind of publishing is immense. no one can believe 7% of world mortality is linked to air.
and if you checked all possible causes of death and summed those "models" up you would get a total in the se
This is basically the same situation that happened in the 1960's where tobacco companies pretended that smoking cigarettes wasn't causing premature deaths. They did this to make money when their own scientific studies had already told them that it was indeed causing cancer. Similarly today oil, gas, and coal companies know that the air pollution they are in part causing is killing millions of people a year.
Here is an NBC article on this
World Health Organization (WHO) article
It is scientific studies that are showing 7 million+ people are dying each year as a result of air pollution. It is leftist organizations that are making sure the information is known. And its not just leftist organizations. It is also basic news organizations that aren't affiliated with Fox News.
This is basically the same situation that happened in the 1960's where tobacco companies pretended that smoking cigarettes wasn't causing premature deaths. They did this to make money when their own scientific studies had already told them that it was indeed causing cancer. Similarly today oil, gas, and coal companies know that the air pollution they are in part causing is killing millions of people a year.
No this has nothing to do with tobacco (which anyway was historically demonized grotesquely and is still being discussed with widly exaggerated claims).
the 7 m figure from the link is *half indoor* and from the link *overlaps with other causes of death* (so it's grotesquely exaggerated) AND it's mostly in poor countries (ie, changing things in rich countries doesn't affect that).
You can know that using coal for heating is bad for health (and i am not denying it), *but the alternative is freezing* in rural china in winter or kirghizistan, do you get that part?
you can know that using wood ovens to cook is bad for health (and i am not denying it), *but the alternative is heating raw* in rural Congo, do you get that part?
how horrifingly in bad faith can an institution be to take those health problems (that aren't "fossil fuel industry caused problems", rather simply poverty problems) and mix them with the purported, far less measurable, effects on health of you driving to go to the restaurant in Colorado or me taking a plan from Italy to the UK?
Tobacco good! Pollution good! Scientists bad!
They lied to you about the purported massive damage of second hand smoke, which was and is exaggerated grotesquely.
Try to find quantitative claims in literature about how much exactly your risks increase if you spend one hour per week in a smoke filled room. That number must be higher than all other activities we do not ban, to justify the ban surely? Is it provably riskier than eating a lot of cakes every week?
Deflection.
Uh? I say risks have been grotesquely exaggerated. Answer from two posters is "tobacco good".
I say which part was the insane exaggeration .
Shouldn't have answered at all at the completely bad faith approach of "tobacco good" maybe.
I am deflecting?
As for the private individuals risks that's a different topic given the government should never have a say about those in general
Remember this is a thread about climate change and which legal mandates are justified given that, so a reference to tobacco is a reference to the managing of externalities (IE second hand smoke) not in general about tobacco individual, private, not externalized damage.
Good post.
I wouldn't argue that the world has collectively caused a lot of the climate issues that we face today. The US, India and China has caused a literal shitstorm alone.
My argument is the direction you propose in order to eleviate some of these issues. We need a stricter carbon tax, a higher tax on the wealthy as well a smaller things like incentivizing folks to replace their furnace and gas powered heaters with heat pumps and such, incentivize local community-based shopping and how people receive and eat food. Stricter business practices while allowing us to keep our trees as well as our home owners insurance.
It's all good when you mentioned a carbon tax or taxing the ever loving **** out of the rich and educating the public but you're still working under the umbrella of capitalism in that manner. If you want to throw out capitalism for another system that would be better for all, discuss it. But a lot of improvements and technological innovation that you mention, that you would like to see first world countries partake in, in order to slow down or prevent the issues with climate change, are going to be fabricated far quicker, if at all in the economic system that we have now. Its the govt's job to figure out how to put that revenue towards creating a more self sustaining world.
I think chez was kind of eluding a long those line as well as suggesting that it's essentially better to use our advancements in science for good instead of just shutting **** down.
There has been a few pop up accounts that have suggested things like tacking climate change in the name of sweetness and community love, or is capitalism outdated and many of those have quickly turned into fire breathing DPRK death to america folk that you never see again so that is why I am asking you to specify specifics that you feel would work better in practice for all of humanity. Because again, there are a lot of smart people out there and we dont just walk into a casino and tell Phil Ivey how to play poker because we watched some Michael Parenti clips.
Meanwhile, in the real world, looks like I am not alone in thinking some political action is actually criminal
Good post.
I wouldn't argue that the world has collectively caused a lot of the climate issues that we face today. The US, India and China has caused a literal shitstorm alone.
The issue I see with heat pumps is the increased demand on electricity. As well heat pumps are great in mild climates but once you get past -20C /-4F than you are required to have a backup heat source as well like a gas furnace. Also many homes are only 100 AMP and may not be able to handle a heat pump
Unless any country adds a huge amount of electrical power to the grid the though of electric cars and heat pumps seems a stretch
Also Canada has had a carbon tax that has done nothing to reduce emissions and only seems to be a wealth distribution system
