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....
.
I believe it might have changed some patterns including reducing intensity and frequency of catastrophic events in some areas and I believe the completely bad faithed attempts to blame any flood to climate change are horrific attempts to install global socialism
I don’t think it’s controversial to admit higher energy activities increases heat which increases volatility in any physical experiment we can think of .
Increases volatility means increasing the ranges of those climate events .
It’s means less stability .
I don’t see how u can equal this which some sort of socialism .
It just physics .
Now if u claim it’s because 99% of scientists are all socialist well that is another matter .
I would find this statistically highly suspicious that all the leftish scientist ends up in meteorology science and not in others .
I think we have enough data to claim that the fog in northern Italy dramatically decreased thanks to climate change.
I think we have enough data to claim the world on average is 1.1/1.2 Celsius warmer than the 1850-1900 average and reasonable science to claim a significant portion of that increase is caused by human activity.
I think we have enough data to claim such warming increased the intensity and frequency of heat waves in many places a
The problem is « better » wine and some form of higher level of heat in Canada do not compensate enough for all the cost of climate events we suffer in return .
The problem is « better » wine and some form of higher level of heat in Canada do not compensate enough for all the cost of climate events we suffer in return .
Prove it with numbers listing all the positives (like the money saved on heating, fewer deaths from cold which in cold countries are a massively higher amount than death from heat and so on and on missing none).
Like just the lower need for gas in Germany (and poland and the netherlands and northern italy and so on) and so less money sent to dictators worldwide is an exceptionally good outcome that alone easily surpasses by far all the purported current negatives of a 1 celsius warmer world, for europe.
We probably only managed to stop buying gas from Russia because of a warm winter in 22-23, that is such a big deal, and i never see it listed as an almost miracoulous benefit of a warmer world.
The vast majorities of deaths caused by temperatures in europe come from the cold , decreasing that is exceptionally good as well, but for "some reasons" you only see heat wave deaths listed among the negatives while lower winter deaths because of warmer winters aren't listed as a positive.
And ofc agricultural production is higher than it would have been without a warmer world in cold countries. And you spend less to heat greenhouses. And you have more months per year you can go to the beact in spain and italy. And so on and on and on, which is (or would be) absolutely obvious if there wasn't such a dramatic need to grotesquely exaggerate the negatives: any country where the average year-long temperature is lower than the optimal one for humans (20-25 celsius) benefits from a warmer world, objectively.
I don’t think it’s controversial to admit higher energy activities increases heat which increases volatility in any physical experiment we can think of .
Increases volatility means increasing the ranges of those climate events .
It’s means less stability .
I don’t see how u can equal this which some sort of socialism .
It just physics .
Now if u claim it’s because 99% of scientists are all socialist well that is ano
You have very severe reading comprehension problems.
The 99% of scientists trope is about them agreeing the world is getting warmer, and the main reason for that is human activity. That's it. And personally i don't deny it.
The socialism part comes later when you claim that a warmer world is an incredible disasters for humans (it objectively isn't) and to solve it you need more socialism locally and globally.
And climatologists have 0 expertise about the rest to be clear; their opinion about what to do given the world is warmer is worth the same as that of anyone else. It is not science anymore the moment you have to choose tradeoffs (who pays and how much for what exactly, to try to reduce warming). It's 100% politics only and no "experts" have any superior claim to knowledge about what is right to do given the world is warmer.
That part is very important and it's identical to covid. They can claim they know transmission mechanisms and the rest, that still in no way or form translates to experts having any right to claim "science" tells you you have to lockdown. That's a purely political choice where you confront costs and benefits and science never has any role in that kind of evaluations. Any claim that science does is scientism and is an attempt to rob the people of their political power of choosing between options giving that instead to self proclaimed experts.
Which is what socialism is about, violent anti-democratic attempt to remove decision making from the people and give it to a clerical self-appointed class.
Prove it with numbers listing all the positives (like the money saved on heating, fewer deaths from cold which in cold countries are a massively higher amount than death from heat and so on and on missing none).
Like just the lower need for gas in Germany (and poland and the netherlands and northern italy and so on) and so less money sent to dictators worldwide is an exceptionally good outcome that
Prove this with data please.
And ofc agricultural production is higher than it would have been without a warmer world in cold countries. And you spend less to heat greenhouses. And you have more months per year you can go to the beact in spain and italy. And so on and on and on, which is (or would be) absolutely obvious if there wasn't such a dramatic need to grotesquely exaggerate the negatives: any country where the average year-long temperature is lower than the opt
This is nonsense. Agricultural production has been horribly hit by temperature increases in the warmer parts of Europe and by wetter summers elsewhere, as you know.
I suppose you'll argue that Southern Europe's loss will be Northern Europe's gain but that's just horrible and I doubt the numbers stack up. You might as well argue that human deaths from climate change in low lying poorer areas where people can't migrate from don't matter because other people will do well from climate change, and that the mass extinction of many species doesn't matter either because they'll eventually be replaced.
Prove this with data please.
This is nonsense. Agricultural production has been horribly hit by temperature increases in the warmer parts of Europe and by wetter summers elsewhere, as you know.
I suppose you'll argue that Southern Europe's loss will be Northern Europe's gain but that's just horrible and I doubt the numbers stack up. You might as well argue that human deaths from climate change in low lying poorer areas where people can't migr
I don't think i have to prove anything before you guys prove that the list of positives isn't big enough.
It's claimants that want to force legislation upon us to solve a purported problems that have first to prove the problem is immense beyond reasonable doubt accounting for everything *for the country they want to pass legislation for* THEN we discuss cost/benefits of intervention to try to solve/reduce the problem.
I am claiming there is not a single document written by claimants that "we need to solve the climate crisis" that accounts for the many positives in full. There are here and there elements where there are some admissions that some things are better in a warmer world for cold countries but no quantification and so on. Never in full.
I think every single country has to prove it FOR THE COUNTRY is the claim is "hey citizens, the quality of life of your children will be a lot worse".
Otherwise admit that, for ex, for Canada, everything they do for the climate is actually DAMAGING to canadians (because a warmer canada is objectively a better canada), and they do it as charity for the children of other people elsewhere. That can be true (that you help other people elsewhere), but why not admit it ? because then they wouldn't have the votes to do anything of course.
The legislative body of a country has an imperative moral mandate to put it's citizens first, that's a core idea that until very recently all nations shared. That's the fundamental starting point for the totality of legislation for normal people still. Even when you help others with international aid that's predicated on the idea you gain as a nation doing so in various indirect ways. Which are debatable but at least the express and explicit necessity of every single action of government being based on the idea it benefits it's citizens is there.
Now i get that some parts of the left deny that core value of human societies, but in many places it's also the law (and the constitutional mandate for elected bodies). To do citizens (or at most residents) interest, and that alone.
So any accounting for purported suffering elsewhere is not only to avoid, is an explicitly illegal/immoral depending on the country framing of the issue. And certainly it goes against all values of anyone right of center and it has nothing to do with climate change itself, it would be the same for any other piece of legislation.
It's not that i don't give a **** about bangladeshi lives: it's that i think it's criminal if you do and want to use the state to help them at my expenses. Want to help the bangladeshi while living in a cold country that benefits from climate warming, reduce your carbon footprint. Any attempt to legislate a reduction of mine which costs me in quality of life terms is (or should be) criminalized as treason, unless you prove beyond any reasonable doubt climate change damages THE COUNTRY significantly enough to justify those costs AND that paying those costs will impact climate change enough to matter (which is never true for any small country, but could be for the USA).
Think about proposing to tax a German to pay healthcare for indonesians, well that's exactly what you guys are proposing for the climate.
So it's absurd to pay any cost to reduce climate change if you are a small country EVEN IF you believe th emost tragic grotesquely exaggerated models of climate change damage AND EVEN IF it's already hot in your country. A country like say Malta or Tunisia is far better off never doing anything about climate change anyway and spending to mitigate the effects of a warmer world in their country, even if they believe those effects will be dramatic.
Think about proposing to tax a German to pay healthcare for indonesians, well that's exactly what you guys are proposing for the climate.
So it's absurd to pay any cost to reduce climate change if you are a small country EVEN IF you believe th emost tragic grotesquely exaggerated models of climate change damage AND EVEN IF it's already hot in your country. A country like say Malta or Tunisia is far better off never doing anything about clima
No these things aren't remotely equivalent. It's down to people who have excessive carbon footprints to do what they can to reduce them - use the car less, spend less on unnecessary purchases etc - and industry/corporations to reduce their emissions.
Or we don't vote for socialists and we keep freedom as the fundamental value of society above all (including human life, which has no value absent freedom) and the state as the tool to maximize freedom and not any notion of "common good" the socialists invent with their models.
rising sea levels could actually have a silver lining: “a little more beachfront property.”
He lives in Florida, a state that is literally facing an existential threat in the form of rising sea levels.
It really is remarkable that Trump — with his purportedly high IQ that he
claims to have inherited genetically — doesn’t seem to understand this stuff.
California is out of its drought, the lakes are nice and full lush again. Go **** yourself drought.
I don't think i have to prove anything before you guys prove that the list of positives isn't big enough.
It's claimants that want to force legislation upon us to solve a purported problems that have first to prove the problem is immense beyond reasonable doubt accounting for everything *for the country they want to pass legislation for* THEN we discuss cost/benefits of intervention to try to solve/reduce the problem.
I am claiming there is n
luciom.
its easy to prove .
just look at nature, they dont vote....
if you dont even know that basic information how the warming of ocean creates lot of damages, agriculture as well.
all the insurance companies changed drastically their actuarial model too.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240...
its basic stuff..
furthermore, in science we have amazing advancement in all field and yet u believe in such "normal" field of expertise being done by human for thousands of years we couldnt extrapolate how climate changes would affects those basics human activities...
And u might think its great to have higher temperature in canada but for my part having almost no winter anymore isnt a great thing...
rising sea levels could actually have a silver lining: “a little more beachfront property.”
This was a joke in 1991 in British comedy Only Fools and Horses:
Rodney: When are people gonna realise that we don't own this planet, we're merely leaseholders. It's our duty to maintain our world. But what are we doing? We're suffocating the forests with carbon monoxide! And that's causing the polar icecap to melt, which means the oceans will rise and the Thames will flood - like permanently.
Albert: But we've got the Thames barrier now.
Rodney: That won't do a lot of good when it's 15ft under water! I mean, places like Deptford and Greenwich will be submerged for ever!
Del Boy: But think what it'll do for us.
Rodney: Like what?
Del Boy: Well, when we come to sell this flat we'll be able to advertise it as having sea views!
Rodney: What a ridiculous thing to say.
And population growth estimates have been revised lower because of dropping fertility everywhere except subsaharian africa.
But ofc with media focusing on the thing that goes worst every single time (and across many regions and many crops, there is always some that does badly in a given year), 24/7 barrage of picked worst-case options, with "experts" chosen to comment about it among the most radical activists exclusively, you can convince large swathes of the population that there is a "dramatic crisis" ongoing, especially if they already like socialism at least a bit and you claim that the solution to this crisis is more socialism.
The level of media manipulation of the topic is staggering, there is such an amount of grotesque exaggeration of risks, with full denialism of all the positives, that it's incredible we still have enough people not falling for this coordinated, almost unprecedented scam attempt.
And today we are voting to say "**** you" to many of the most extremist marxist green proposals and policies in the EU, and polls are decently in our favor.
Today it might be the day we start normalizing the topic, as a not-too-significant issue of our times, especially for first world countries, which we can deal with very easily and without needing to change our lifestyles much if at all and certainly without implementing any more socialism
Many countries suffer deeper agriculture problems , Canada included …
No idea what Luciom try to prove shrug
Proof? Is Canada producing more or less agricultural output than 30 years ago when climate change wasn't a thing?
I live here ffs .
Many provinces suffered terrible loss in agriculture due to bad unusual climate and natural cause .
Hell for couple year we even starting to have tornado and **** like that which was never happening before .
We have massive problem with ice rain now as well since winter isn’t cold no more .
Ie:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6936774
2023
More than a dozen agricultural disasters now declared as Alberta's south stays dry for months
This year's declarations followed what was a more promising farm year in 2022. The year prior, however, multiple provincial municipalities declared agricultural disasters amid devastating drought conditions.
[/QUOTE]
"There's some real issues here [with] respect to consecutive years of drought … it's starting to mentally wear on people, and financially wear on them," Malmberg said.
East Canada too
https://www.context.news/climate
-risks/climate-haven-no-more-floods-and-fires-hit-farmers-in-east-canada
Nova Scotia has long been seen as a relative climate haven in Canada, yet farmers in the Atlantic province have faced a series of debilitating hardships recently as extreme weather escalates.
Storms, floods, a cold snap and record wildfires have all battered the eastern province over the last 12 months, devastating crops, harming animals, and leaving farmers such as Matthew Roy increasingly concerned about what could come next.
For many farmers like Roy, Nova Scotia has been an appealing relocation destination due to its historically moderate climate and proximity to the Atlantic - with surrounding waters helping buffer land from weather extremes harmful to crops.
But climate change is now taking its toll on the province and rising average annual temperatures - projected to increase by 2.6 degrees Celsius (36.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050 and 4.5°C (40.1°F) by 2080 - could hike the risk of wildfires and droughts, the local government says.
First, Storm Fiona - one of the worst storms to hit Canada - pummeled farms last year, destroying crops and equipment.
Among other aid efforts, Nova Scotia's agriculture department provided more than C$15 million ($11.1 million) via a special disaster program that helped more than 500 producers.
Then, farmers had to deal with extreme temperature variations as December and January were among the warmest on record before a cold snap hit in February - ruining crops such as grapes that had not been acclimatized for the sudden shift.
And a wildfire that started in May - Nova Scotia's largest blaze in recorded history - forced farmers to evacuate their property, relocate livestock, and pick up the pieces upon their return, only to be hit by a massive deluge of rain last month.
"We've gotten used to having this moderate climate for generations, and we are seeing now a little bit more of these climate extremes," said Steve Ells, president of the Grape Growers Association of Nova Scotia.
Due in part to the temperature fluctuation between December and February, grape growers will not have a crop this year of vines such as Chardonnay and Pinot Noir that comprise more than one third of those planted in Nova Scotia, Ells explained.
"It's going to take us a couple years to get back to full production," he added.
And the trend is getting worst …
This video shook me up a bit. Sabine is very skeptical and while not a climate change denier, she was something of an anti-alarmist in the past.
Tldw: There's still a chance we might have a few decades to work on this, but it looks like we might not.
I live here ffs .
Many provinces suffered terrible loss in agriculture due to bad unusual climate and natural cause .
Hell for couple year we even starting to have tornado and **** like that which was never happening before .
We have massive problem with ice rain now as well since winter isn’t cold no more .
Ie:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6936774
2023
[/B]
East Canada too
https://www.context.news/climate-risks/climate-haven-no-more-floods-and-fires-h
Yes and where are the data on total production?
Because doing this is exactly what I was talking about.
Many provinces have terrible losses, so you should be able to give me numbers showing the total production is a lot lower than 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago right? Right?
It's not that if you live in a place then you have total production data in mind, if the media constantly, 24/7.and exclusively, focus on the negative for very specific reasons
Yes and where are the data on total production?
Because doing this is exactly what I was talking about.
Many provinces have terrible losses, so you should be able to give me numbers showing the total production is a lot lower than 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago right? Right?
It's not that if you live in a place then you have total production data in mind, if the media constantly, 24/7.and exclusively, focus on the negative for very specific reasons
U don’t get the point do you ?
It’s not because agriculture grow over decades due to higher population, globalize markets, etc. That the problems do not exist .
It exist and are increasing .
Loss of yield return are still higher and you have to produce more to compensate and the losses will increase even more .
So your concept that problems isn’t increasing due to climate change makes no sense .
When it cost more money to produce and need more benefits from subsidies from bad harvest isn’t a sign everything is A+ at all…
Ps: for a guy that ask data’s while always rejecting them what’s the point ?
just listen to the farmers here , they know better then you probably on what hardship they suffer …
U don’t get the point do you ?
It’s not because agriculture grow over decades due to higher population, globalize markets, etc. That the problems do not exist .
It exist and are increasing .
Loss of yield return are still higher and you have to produce more to compensate and the losses will increase even more .
So your concept that problems isn’t increasing due to climate change makes no sense .
When it cost more money to produce and need more b
Ok so you don't have any data to support your assertion that Canadian agricultural production is lower.
Just listen to some specific farmers of some specific crops, every year let's ask the worst performing crop growers in the worst area, who cares if in aggregate production is as high as ever right?
You have an objectively false narrative to sell (that Canadian agricultural production is suffering), truth doesn't matter.
I drove a polestar the other day (rental). was pretty fast but not practical
Ok so you don't have any data to support your assertion that Canadian agricultural production is lower.
Just listen to some specific farmers of some specific crops, every year let's ask the worst performing crop growers in the worst area, who cares if in aggregate production is as high as ever right?
You have an objectively false narrative to sell (that Canadian agricultural production is suffering), truth doesn't matter.
Jfc nevermind.
Hey no country in the world have a debt problem because the economy is growing …great logic .
Just look at the gdp growth as a whole , gdp per capita means nothing right ?
Ps: it’s not specific field . I just put some example straight all across the board of Canada to show it’s everywhere …
But what do I know I only live here .
U know better then all American and Canadian living in their own country about everything u dislike obviously….
Fwiw Lucian your claim was about higher temperatures in Canada would be beneficial for the Canadian agriculture and it actually isn’t already …..
We already see devasting effect for many years now .
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-envir...
