Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[wayneL]

Isn't it interesting how some people can completely ignore a terrifying reality like an exponential CO2 increase leading inevitably to an unlivable planet and choose to trash talk the person bringing the situation into view?

Pointing out your cognitive dissonance is trash talking?

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be, in your paradigm?

If, to save the planet, we should all duplicate your future modified carbon footprint, what would our lifestyle look like? If we should all follow your paradigm, what would your lifestyle look like?

 

[explod]

Pointing out your cognitive dissonance is trash talking?

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be, in your paradigm?

If, to save the planet, we should all duplicate your future modified carbon footprint, what would our lifestyle look like? If we should all follow your paradigm, what would your lifestyle look like?

In a very short time our life will be crap anyway and with such evident cynicism soon gone.

 

[rederob]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be, in your paradigm?

That's a "thoughtless" experiment.
If it were me, then the planet would be fine.
I can find another 5 billion people who would have no significant impact...but who is counting ?
Great comedy tho, so thanks wayneL.

 

[basilio]

Pointing out your cognitive dissonance is trash talking?

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be, in your paradigm?

If, to save the planet, we should all duplicate your future modified carbon footprint, what would our lifestyle look like? If we should all follow your paradigm, what would your lifestyle look like?

What typical Wayne crap...

1) You have absolutely no idea what my footprint is. Nor what I do in my life. So why do you choose to make up whatever crap you see fit ?
2) The significant issue is at least recognising we have a serious problem. To date you have steadfastly refused to think there is one. And when the the situation is brought up you chose to shoot the messenger - again.
Explod and Redrob said everything else there is to say on this topic.

Why not just STFU on this topic Wayne ? Unless of course you have something constructive or thoughtful to add. In this case Less is definitely More.

 

[wayneL]

In a very short time our life will be crap anyway and with such evident cynicism soon gone.

You are a very foolish man, Mr Plod.

We have known each other on this platform for several years now and if you haven't figured out that my actual footprint upon this earth is very much smaller than typical (even accounting for my profession) possibly even rivaling yours... possibly even surpassing yours in its diminutiveness, then that can only be accounted for by the stupidity and blindness of your absurd ideology.

As for bas, I will put up $10,000 right here and now that my footprint pales into insignificance comared to it's (or whatever its preferred personal pronoun happens to be today).

I have the data on my side bruh.

 

[wayneL]

STFU?

Not in a million years, Komrade.

 

[basilio]

Thousands could perish annually in US if global heating not curbed, study finds

Every year nearly 5,800 people are expected to die in New York, 2,500 in Los Angeles and more than 2,300 in Miami

Thousands of heat-related deaths in major US cities could be avoided if rising global temperatures are curbed, new research has found.

On current global heating trends, thousands of people are set to perish due to the heat every year across 15 major US cities, in an analysis by a team of British and American researchers.

Once the average worldwide temperature rises to 3C (5.4F) above the pre-industrial period nearly 5,800 people are expected to die each year in New York City during particularly hot years, more than 2,500 are forecast to die annually in Los Angeles and more than 2,300 lives will be lost annually in Miami.

These deaths are predicted for any year that was the warmest for 30 years.

This dire scenario would probably be avoided if the world was able to keep to its commitments made in the Paris climate agreement, where governments pledged to limit the global temperature rise to 2C, with an aspiration to keep the increase to 1.5C.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...could-perish-annually-us-global-heating-study

 

[basilio]

It is absurd to question whether we can afford to keep our planet liveable
Fiona Harvey
The chancellor has warned against cutting UK emissions to net zero. But failing to act will have dire consequences

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has written to the prime minister to warn against adopting the strict targets on greenhouse gas emissions recommended by the government’s advisers.

His intervention, first reported by the Financial Times (£), raises the important question of whether or not it makes economic sense to save the planet.

If the question sounds absurd, that’s because it is. If we fail to move to a low-carbon economy, the consequences will be dire. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world’s leading climate scientists convened by the UN, we must drastically reduce our emissions in the next decade to avoid a catastrophic situation in which droughts, floods, heatwaves and extreme weather across the globe devastate lives, destroy agriculture, lay waste to wildlife and force millions to flee.

Set against that, the costs – of £50bn a year in investment, according to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which set out the case last month for a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, or £70bn a year, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – of maintaining our current lifestyles and orderly existences are trivial. The UK’s economy is worth roughly £2tn a year at present, so Hammond’s estimate of a £1tn cumulative cost by 2050 amounts to less than half of one year’s GDP in three decades.

Doug Parr, the chief scientist for Greenpeace UK, said: “The Treasury is putting their ideology before our wellbeing, and trying to shape the public debate for political ends. If you want to know whether a policy is good, include the benefits as well as the costs. In this case, the benefits include an economy fit for the 21st century, cleaner air, warmer homes, and maximising the chances of civilisation surviving. If reality doesn’t fit with the Treasury models, it’s the models that need to change.”

Yet the question – can we afford to keep our planet liveable? – has dogged debates on climate change for more than three decades. While scientists have issued ever stronger warnings about the likely impacts of climate change, nations have held back on taking action to reduce greenhouse gases, which have remained stubbornly high, though their growth rate has slowed.

The Stern review, conducted by the former World Bank economist Lord Stern for the Treasury in 2006, was supposed to settle this question once for all. Stern found, and his analysis has been widely backed up since, that the cost of dealing with climate change would be the equivalent of shaving 1-2% from GDP growth rates per year, compared with a cost of at least 5% of GDP per year from leaving global heating unchecked.

The CCC, in its recommendation of a net zero target, also estimated a cost of 1-2% of GDP by 2050, which is far outweighed by the costs of not acting. Nor would the UK be alone: the EU is considering a similar net zero target by 2050, while Norway, New Zealand and a few other countries have already done so.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hether-we-can-afford-keep-our-planet-liveable

 

[basilio]

When Rising Seas Hit Home: Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal Communities (2017)

There comes a threshold of chronic flooding that makes normal routines impossible and forces communities to make difficult, often costly choices.

If saltwater regularly soaked your basement or first floor, kept you from getting to work, or damaged your car, how often would it have to happen before you began looking for a new place to call home?

This national analysis identifies when US coastal communities will face a level of disruptive flooding that affects people's homes, daily routines, and livelihoods. It identifies hundreds of communities that will face chronic inundation and possible retreat over the coming decades as sea levels rise.

The findings highlight what’s at stake in our fight to address sea level rise and global warming. They also provide affected communities a measure of how much time they have to prepare.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...t-home-chronic-inundation-from-sea-level-rise

 

[basilio]

Dangerous India heat wave to worsen as temperatures approach all-time highs in New Delhi this weekend

With monsoon rains still several weeks away, intense heat will maintain a firm grip on northern India as well as neighboring Pakistan into the middle of June.

The heat began to build across central and northern India during mid- to late May and peaked last week with the hottest days of the year so far in many locations.

Thursday, May 30, was the hottest day of 2019 in New Delhi as the temperature soared to 46.8 C (116 F) at the capital city's Indira Gandhi International Airport. Temperatures remained dangerously high in New Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) in recent days with daily high temperatures of 42-44 C (108-112
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...time-highs-in-new-delhi-this-weekend/70008472

 

[basilio]

Climate change cripples planet’s glaciers and ice caps
Ice in the world’s Arctic and on mountains is thinning, which could pose a threat to people

Martin Sharp vividly recalls his first slush flow. He spent that June, in 2007, camping on the Devon Ice Cap. This gently curving dome of ice is 140 kilometers (87 miles) across and rises to a height of 1,900 meters (6,200 feet). It sits atop an island in the Canadian high Arctic.

The big melt: Earth’s ice sheets are under attack[/paste:font]
Sharp was riding a snowmobile when he heard a roar. It sounded like the rumble of a subway train. The entire snow slope in front of him was moving: A slow-motion river of waterlogged slush was slurping down the mountainside. A spate of hot, sunny days had melted so much snow that the slope could no longer support itself.

Slush flows didn’t used to happen here. The summers weren’t warm enough, notes this glaciologist at the University of Alberta in Canada. But by the time he saw this one in 2007, he had been hearing about them more and more. In one memorable case, a lake of melt water sitting on top an ice cap suddenly drained. This sent a flood of water, slush and ice rampaging 10 kilometers (6 miles) down a valley. It nearly wiped out a camp where scientists had been staying.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/climate-change-shrinking-glaciers-and-ice-caps

 

[basilio]

Could climate change worsen global conflict?
By stressing resources and prompting mass migrations, climate change could be a ‘threat multiplier

There is a region in the Middle East known as the Fertile Crescent. It includes parts of what are now Turkey, Iraq and Syria. In ancient times, it was known as a birthplace of farming. But the area is not so fertile anymore. Marshlands that covered much of the area have largely dried up. Between 2007 and 2010, the region saw very little rain. It suffered the worst drought seen since scientists began keeping records here.

Climate change didn't cause the drought, but it probably made it worse. Crops failed. People went hungry. Many people moved from rural areas to cities, crowding the urban areas.

From September 2007 to December 2009, groundwater levels went up (in blue) and then down (in red) over time, as people increasingly turned to wells for water during a drought that struck the Fertile Crescent.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
A year later, civil war broke out in Syria. That war is still being waged today. Was climate change to blame for the conflict? Scientists do not all agree. But plenty of studies have suggested that such conflicts could become more likely in communities stressed by the weather extremes that are expected to emerge in a warming world.

Climate change is already affecting human communities in many ways. It's been crowding out some regions as sea-level rise shrinks the size of islands and wipes away some coastal towns. It’s bashed and destroyed towns and cities with severe weather or mega-wildfires. It’s started bringing disease and job-robbing heat to some regions. It's even changing what foods are available to eat.

Sherri Goodman is a security expert and board member with the Center for Climate and Security in Washington, D.C. “Climate change is a threat multiplier,” she says. “It aggravates existing tensions around the world,” she explains. “And makes existing threats worse."
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/could-climate-change-worsen-global-conflict

 

[basilio]

Top government officials warn of looming climate change threat
One expert said he'd "be hard pressed to say that it's not in the top two or three" global threats.

Top government security experts (USA) on Wednesday warned lawmakers about the growing threat climate change poses for national security, elevating conversations about the link between global warming and worldwide instability that have already begun to play out among 2020 presidential contenders.

“If you integrate over time, 20, 30, 40 years, I’d be hard pressed to say that it’s not in the top two or three [global threats],” said Rod Schoonover, a State Department intelligence official, responding to a question about the threat level posed by climate change.
Schoonover was one of three intelligence experts testifying before the House Intelligence Committee as part of a dedicated hearing on the national security implications of climate change. He was joined by Peter Kiemel, a counselor for the National Intelligence Council (NIC), and Jeffrey Ringhausen, a senior analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence, who also sounded the alarm on the risks global warming poses for international stability.

Climate change “affects us from a functional issue perspective,” explained Kiemel, who spoke of current issues — including drought and famine that have worsened tensions in the Middle East and Central America — along with future concerns, like water wars and the thawing of the Arctic.
https://thinkprogress.org/national-...xperts-2020-warren-trump-happer-6df357162565/

 

[explod]

It has nothing to do with individual footprints Wayne, we need to get the message across that we are heading for disaster and push the authorities world wide to do something collectively about it.

Stop planes and cars, close the coal mines etc., and do it from now. Some countries are doing it but we must all do it.

 

[qldfrog]

Stop planes and cars, close the coal mines etc., and do it from now. Some countries are doing it but we must all do it.

Really the new Nazis.
Brainwashed, completely out of wack,still believing that co2 is the cause not the consequence
Living in China was scary with its ignorance and manipulation of masses but the west is no better
Not a word in the above in the main cause of issues.overpopulation or any idea on how to feed these 10 billions humans tomorrow wo using fossil energy
Half or better the population and you can give a chance to biodiversity, forest,pollution limitations and the planet can have hope
If not: the doubling or even quadrupling of co2 level is the least of your worries

 

[rederob]

Really the new Nazis.
Brainwashed, completely out of wack,still believing that co2 is the cause not the consequence
Living in China was scary with its ignorance and manipulation of masses but the west is no better
Not a word in the above in the main cause of issues.overpopulation or any idea on how to feed these 10 billions humans tomorrow wo using fossil energy
Half or better the population and you can give a chance to biodiversity, forest,pollution limitations and the planet can have hope
If not: the doubling or even quadrupling of co2 level is the least of your worries

Reading your posts is a source of amusement.
Try adding something credible instead of your uninformed commentary with crazy rants invoking Nazism.
It is proven in science that CO2 causes warming - your claims continue to be bunkum.
China is the world's greatest investor in technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.
The most populous nations have, on average, significantly lower per capita CO2 emissions.
Remove westernised nations and the greenhouse problem goes away overnight - that's about 20% and not half the world's population.
It's really sad that with the internet available to you that basic science and maths eludes you.

 

[basilio]

It's really sad that with the internet available to you that basic science and maths eludes you.

I disagree with this observation.

In my view it's because of the internet that views of Qfrog, Wayne and co flourish.

The deliberate and systemic undermining of science research and basic scientific understandings has been promoted by the fossil fuel lobby and then echoed by climate denial groups.

These in turn have also been funded by the fossil fuel lobby. The widespread promotion of these lies and distortions has been accelerated by the Internet. By now there are millions upon millions of people who fervently believe that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has deceived the world with spurious research on the causes or indeed reality of global heating.
That's a problem..

How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Used “Astroturf” Front Groups to Confuse the Public
The top lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry in the western United States secretly ran more than a dozen front groups in an attempt to undermine forward-looking policy on climate change and clean technologies.

What Happened

This case study appears in The Disinformation Playbook. Read on for further examples and tactics.
“California Drivers Alliance” sounds like a perfectly innocuous name. So does “Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy.” After all, who doesn’t want sound fuel policy?
These groups and coalitions, however, were not what they seemed. Although made to sound like real grassroots consumer movements, these groups—and at least thirteen more like them—were actually “astroturf” front organizations secretly run by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United States. WSPA, which counts BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental among its members, used these fake consumer groups as part of a campaign to exaggerate public support for the lobbying goals of its member companies.
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
https://www.ucsusa.org/using-astroturf-front-groups-hide-fossil-fuel-lobbying-efforts

 

[basilio]

The Climate Deception dossiers
Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

 

[moXJO]

China is the world's greatest investor in technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.
The most populous nations have, on average, significantly lower per capita CO2 emissions.

Is that really true?
If you are measuring carbon on per capita in a nation of poor rural farmers I feel thats a bit of a cop out. If their middle-class continue to grow they will end up worse. Theres also a billion people to spread the true extent of damage they are doing.


Then theres the size of what they are trying to achieve:

The largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 in a move that could single-handedly jeopardise global climate change targets.

It comes as coal-fired power capacity additions in 2018 slowed to their lowest rate since 2004, both in China and globally, though carbon emissions from the sector continued to rise, according to the International Energy Agency.

In its review of the government’s five-year-plan, China Electricity Council (CEC) – the influential industry body representing China’s power industry – recommendedadopting a ‘cap’ for coal power capacity by 2030 — but the 1300GW limit proposed is 290GW higher than current capacity. The target is for the country’s coal-fired capacity to continue to grow until peaking in 2030.

The cap would enable China to build 2 large coal power stations a month for the next 12 years, and grow the country’s capacity by an amount nearly twice the size of Europe’s total coal capacity.

If this happens it could single-handedly end any chance of keeping global warming below 1.5C, and also conflicts with the 2C target, with even a conservative analysis of the goal requiring that China cut its coal capacity by roughly 200GW by 2030.

The Chinese government has not adopted the industry proposal, but it is under consideration.

 

[rederob]

Is that really true?

Yes - lots of data to confirm it.

If you are measuring carbon on per capita in a nation of poor rural farmers I feel thats a bit of a cop out.

No, we are measuring the whole population - rich and poor, just like every other country which has rich and poor.
How about the typical cop out from those who keep forgetting that until the 1990s China's CO2 footprint was barely figuring in CO2 emissions. In other words, the western world had a 200 year head start "industrialising" and folk like you want to blame China because it still has not caught up?

Then theres the size of what they are trying to achieve:

Agreed - it's formidable.
And here's the thing that everyone keeps missing. The western world keeps relocating massive manufacturing capacity to China, or wants cheap Chinese products, and somehow now wants China to be responsible for the consequent energy requirements imposed. Put another way, had westernised economies not sent their manufacturing needs offshore, their emissions would be considerably higher, and China's massively lower.