Off the charts’: UN report highlights rapid climate breakdown

[ralfy]

View attachment 67446099

Actually, businesses and political cronies earn more by doing the opposite.

 

[longview]

There are recommendations at the end. If you click on the link provided, it goes into detail. Only, of course, if you are interested – which I don’t think you are.

I know what the recommendations are, but also know what they are based on!
I’m sorry but starting with flawed assumptions, is not a good basis for policy!

 

[ataraxia]

I know what the recommendations are, but also know what they are based on!

You don’t know better than all the experts from around the world, from industry to academia, working in the field today. You have no credentials or experience in the field.

No one with any serious experience in the field is saying this is no big deal and we can just blow it off.

If you disagree with all these experts and professionals, you need to take a class and try to figure out where your understanding of the topic is going awry.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you think physicists got duped by government agencies and don't read peer reviewed papers?

Maybe. People who don't study this specific aspect of the sciences are like the rest of us. They trust some authorities and not others. Just like some people trust CNN but not Fox, or vice-versa.

I can tell you that from the several hundred, maybe over a thousand papers I have read to date, that the scientists rarely ever state what the activists turn around and say.

Do you think professionals in another field of science take the time to read all the papers necessary to form their own conclusions?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I did not limit the consensus statement, NASA and Cook did!

And Cook is a cartoonist with less scientific experience than I have.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So if a doctor tells you you are getting chest pain and the cause is narrowing of the arteries in your heart, you would just say "great, thanks for the interesting info, doc", and go home?

For me, this is interesting proposal. my father had a condition in his 80's requiring stints, but it may have only extended his life a year, or not at all. He passed away earlier this year, and this was done last year. I saw him degrade with the medications used. Different people will make different decisions, but I don't want my life artificially extended if there are adverse results. Depending on what the doctors wanted to do, I would likely say from family experience, that I want them to do nothing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Must be why countries are spending billions on green energy

You mean billions of other nations money?

 

[ataraxia]

Maybe. People who don't study this specific aspect of the sciences are like the rest of us. They trust some authorities and not others. Just like some people trust CNN but not Fox, or vice-versa.

These are physicists studying the climate for a living. All sorts of different kinds of scientists study the climate for a living, but just from different persectives: physicists, chemists, biologists, medical doctors, public health specialists, geologists, oceanologists, etc, etc.... They are all considered experts in climate, just from their own perspective. This is not "scientists studying another field of science".

This is what they do for a living. They are the ones writing the papers, making all the observations, testing the models and hypotheses, arguing with each other all day long, critiquing each other's papers, etc, etc...

I can tell you that from the several hundred, maybe over a thousand papers I have read to date, that the scientists rarely ever state what the activists turn around and say.

The unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the planet is not "activists".

 

[ataraxia]

For me, this is interesting proposal. my father had a condition in his 80's requiring stints, but it may have only extended his life a year, or not at all. He passed away earlier this year, and this was done last year. I saw him degrade with the medications used. Different people will make different decisions, but I don't want my life artificially extended if there are adverse results. Depending on what the doctors wanted to do, I would likely say from family experience, that I want them to do nothing.

That sounds pretty crazy to me. But anyway, the problem here is that YOU are making the decision for me and my children.

 

[ataraxia]

You mean billions of other nations money?

How are they doing that? And why would they do even that if it's useless?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are still arguing that human activity is causing climate change, which is not in contention!

You seem to think we are the major cause, and I think otherwise. If we break it down more specifically, I think we agree more. Am I wrong?

I think our major contributions are dirty aerosols melting the ice and land use changes skewing the observed temperature readings. I think CO2 has caused, at best, 1/4 of the warming the IPCC et. al. attributes it to do.

I also think that we are destine to alter the climate even more as we expand wind power. Wind power produces a resistance to the natural flow of wind, and will alter it course. Now to what significance, I cannot say. But I think using wind power is a dangerous path for other reasons as well.

Thoughts?

 

[Lord of Planar]

No one with any serious experience in the field is saying this is no big deal and we can just blow it off.

Can you cite scientists "working in the field" that study it extenmmsivce and write papers on it that claim we must do something outside? In this question, you must exclude those that benefit from being on the IPCC parole?

 

[Lord of Planar]

These are physicists studying the climate for a living. All sorts of different kinds of scientists study the climate for a living, but just from different persectives: physicists, chemists, biologists, medical doctors, public health specialists, geologists, oceanologists, etc, etc.... They are all considered experts in climate, just from their own perspective. This is not "scientists studying another field of science".

This is what they do for a living. They are the ones writing the papers, making all the observations, testing the models and hypotheses, arguing with each other all day long, critiquing each other's papers, etc, etc...


The unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the planet is not "activists".

An I am among the scientists that study it.

Do you have any papers that explicitly state what the pundits do?

Not media statements, but actual peer reviewed papers.

 

[ataraxia]

An I am among the scientists that study it.

Do you have any papers that explicitly state what the pundits do?

Not media statements, but actual peer reviewed papers.

it’s going to be hard to find one that DOESN’T:

https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19D1441.pdf

Climate Change and Health of Children: Our Borrowed Future - PubMed

Children are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because of physiological, developmental, behavioral, and social factors. In addition, they are likely to bear the consequences of these impacts over their life course. This paper reviews the health impacts of climate...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Climate Change, Health and Existential Risks to Civilization: A Comprehensive Review (1989⁻2013) - PubMed

<span><i>Background:</i> Anthropogenic global warming, interacting with social and other environmental determinants, constitutes a profound health risk. This paper reports a comprehensive literature review for 1989⁻2013 (inclusive), the first 25 years in which this topic appeared in scientific...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ataraxia]

An I am among the scientists that study it.

Do you have any papers that explicitly state what the pundits do?

Not media statements, but actual peer reviewed papers.

Here are some more:

Allen, M. R., Frame, D. J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C. D., Lowe, J. A., Meinshausen, M., & Meinshausen, N. (2009). Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458(7242), 1163-1166.

Solomon, S., Plattner, G. K., Knutti, R., & Friedlingstein, P. (2009). Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(6), 1704-1709.

Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., & Tebaldi, C. (2005). Understanding future patterns of increased precipitation intensity in climate model simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(18).

Stott, P. A., Stone, D. A., & Allen, M. R. (2004). Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature, 432(7017), 610-614.

Trenberth, K. E., & Fasullo, J. T. (2013). An apparent hiatus in global warming?. Earth's Future, 1(1), 19-32.

Dessler, A. E., & Davis, S. M. (2010). Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D19).

Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Flato, G. M., Scinocca, J. F., & von Salzen, K. (2012). Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(7).

Seneviratne, S. I., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C. M., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., ... & Zhang, X. (2012). Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (pp. 109-230). Cambridge University Press.

 

[ataraxia]

An I am among the scientists that study it.

Do you have any papers that explicitly state what the pundits do?

Not media statements, but actual peer reviewed papers.

1. “The frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and tropical cyclones are increasing due to climate change, leading to widespread damage to infrastructure, property, and ecosystems, as well as loss of human lives and livelihoods." (WMO, 2021)
2. "Climate change is causing widespread and accelerating permafrost thaw in the Arctic, which is destabilizing landscapes, releasing carbon and methane into the atmosphere, and posing significant risks to infrastructure, ecosystem services, and indigenous peoples' livelihoods and culture." (AMAP, 2021)
3. "Ocean warming, acidification, and deoxygenation are causing profound changes in marine ecosystems, including loss of biodiversity, shifts in species distribution and productivity, and increasing vulnerability to disease, harmful algal blooms, and invasive species, with significant impacts on human societies and economies." (IPBES, 2019)
4. "Climate change is exacerbating water scarcity and variability, as well as increasing the intensity and frequency of floods and droughts, leading to food and water insecurity, displacement of people, conflict, and even more severe impacts on vulnerable populations, such as women, children, and indigenous peoples." (IPCC-SRCCL, 2022)
5. "Climate change is causing irreversible loss of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to rising sea levels, coastal erosion, flooding, and saltwater intrusion, which are threatening low-lying and small island states, as well as coastal cities and communities, with severe consequences for human well-being and socio-economic development." (SROCC, 2019)

 

[longview]

You don’t know better than all the experts from around the world, from industry to academia, working in the field today. You have no credentials or experience in the field.

No one with any serious experience in the field is saying this is no big deal and we can just blow it off.

If you disagree with all these experts and professionals, you need to take a class and try to figure out where your understanding of the topic is going awry.

If you bothered to take the time to read and understand the actual peer reviewed publications,
you would understand that the combination high end predictions have so much uncertainty as to
make them unworkable. The experts know this and express the uncertainty in their works.
The writers who report on the studies and places like the IPCC put out the high end predictions and
downplay the low end and the uncertainty.

 

[longview]

These are physicists studying the climate for a living. All sorts of different kinds of scientists study the climate for a living, but just from different persectives: physicists, chemists, biologists, medical doctors, public health specialists, geologists, oceanologists, etc, etc.... They are all considered experts in climate, just from their own perspective. This is not "scientists studying another field of science".

This is what they do for a living. They are the ones writing the papers, making all the observations, testing the models and hypotheses, arguing with each other all day long, critiquing each other's papers, etc, etc...


The unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the planet is not "activists".

So when a peer reviewed publication like this,
Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC
come out you choose to downplay it correct?

A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC’s climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Ah there they are, the usual denialists spring into action.

I wonder if the fossil fuel companies years ago realized that their oil funded denailism would go on to have such a life of its own, with people making it part of their personality…

So bizarre.

 

[longview]

You seem to think we are the major cause, and I think otherwise. If we break it down more specifically, I think we agree more. Am I wrong?

I think our major contributions are dirty aerosols melting the ice and land use changes skewing the observed temperature readings. I think CO2 has caused, at best, 1/4 of the warming the IPCC et. al. attributes it to do.

I also think that we are destine to alter the climate even more as we expand wind power. Wind power produces a resistance to the natural flow of wind, and will alter it course. Now to what significance, I cannot say. But I think using wind power is a dangerous path for other reasons as well.

Thoughts?

Because there is no definitive value of 2XCO2 forcing, I attempt to use the existing 3.71 W m-2,
and based on that some 60% of the observed warming could be due to changes in greenhouse gases,
based on the warming to energy imbalance ratio used by the IPCC and ACS of 0.3°C per W m-2.
That said the forcing is not in line with the stated greenhouse effect, nor is the ratio of Imbalance to warming.
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
If 33°C in total Greenhouse effect is a result of an imbalance of 150 W m-2,
then the ratio of the greenhouse effect is 33/150 = 0.22°C per W m-2.
Also the 3.71 W m-2 is simply based on the idea that CO2 causes 20% of the total greenhouse effect,
when estimates range from 11% to 26%.

 

[longview]

Ah there they are, the usual denialists spring into action.

I wonder if the fossil fuel companies years ago realized that their oil funded denailism would go on to have such a life of its own, with people making it part of their personality…

So bizarre.

The big oil companies want regulations to hurt their competition.
That is why Exxon says something need to be done.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The big oil companies want regulations to hurt their competition.
That is why Exxon says something need to be done.

Ah Longview, you are one of the denialists that does put more effort into your nonsense I’ll give you that, I’d be embarrassed by your comrades though if I were you, they’re very low effort by comparison.

 

[longview]

Ah Longview, you are one of the denialists that does put more effort into your nonsense I’ll give you that, I’d be embarrassed by your comrades though if I were you, they’re very low effort by comparison.

What is it that you think I am denying?

 

[vegas giants]

You mean billions of other nations money?

No their own money

 

[ataraxia]

If you bothered to take the time to read and understand the actual peer reviewed publications,
you would understand that the combination high end predictions have so much uncertainty as to
make them unworkable. The experts know this and express the uncertainty in their works.
The writers who report on the studies and places like the IPCC put out the high end predictions and
downplay the low end and the uncertainty.

You keep talking of predictions. This is no longer about predictions. We’re already facing those as current events.and it turns out the reality we are facing is even worse than even some of the high end predictions.

Global warming seen worse than predicted

The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

Climate change: It's even worse than we thought | New Scientist

www.newscientist.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/01/06/climate-change-scenarios-extremes/

Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

Latest IPCC climate report warns that rising greenhouse-gas emissions could soon outstrip the ability of many communities to adapt.

www.nature.com