Deaths from climate change

[jabe]

The idea that this will make any difference at all is what is being challenged.

The idea that it is intended to make any difference on climate change is a straw man the right conjured up to have something to rant about.

Math. Try it.

Sigh...

Yet CA already has. And California politicians firmly believe that "California leads the way!" Plenty of CA politicians now in DC.

My point was that John was mixing up federal and New York regulations. I'm not clear how you think throwing California into the mix is a counterargument.

Are you powerless except to hound your fellow citizens? Please...

What's that got to do with NYC regulations?

 

[JohnRoberts]

The idea that it is intended to make any difference on climate change is a straw man the right conjured up to have something to rant about.


Sigh...


My point was that John was mixing up federal and New York regulations. I'm not clear how you think throwing California into the mix is a counterargument.

um no... but nice try see post #604

NYC has decided that it needs to filter the carbon out of wood and coal fired pizza oven exhausts to save the planet. This will impose millions of dollars expense on only about 100 small businesses, and not do anything substantive for the planet...

BTW "decided" as in intend, not legislated or mandated (yet).

What's that got to do with NYC regulations?

You appear to be the one conflating jurisdictions to make an imaginary point.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Not sure what other "proposal" you mean. I'd be interested in seeing that. Your initial complaint, in a longer statement about climate change, was that "NYC has decided that it needs to filter the carbon out of wood and coal fired pizza oven exhausts to save the planet". It would appear not after all.

That's the way other mainstream media are reporting it as well. It isn't some right-wing media conspiracy.

https://www.14news.com/2023/06/27/p...ulations-targets-coal-wood-fired-pizza-ovens/
Every news story reads this way. It appears that the defense is now manufacturing alernative reasoning after receiving a negative response from most people.

 

[living sounds]

When someone from another country who has never spent significant time living in the US says this in direct response to me:

"It's understandable that you, living in the countryside, have no idea how bad air quality can be in the city next to one or more restaurants cooking at high temperatures."

After I've posted multiple times about where I've lived and worked, I will respond directly and bluntly. Nothing I said was profane or angry or mean-spirited. His assumptions about my "lived experience" were wrong. He tried to use that fallacious argument to ridicule the messenger. There's a repetitive pattern of this over the past year plus. It gets old.

It's quite absurd that you interpret my remark as criticism of the US or from failure to have lived in the US.

Having a street full of restaurants is a problem typical for a big city, and here in Cologne people in certain areas are having the exact same problem. Wildfires and other external pollution have nothing to do with it, since these can not be regulated at the local level.

Your argument boils down to "it's not that bad" (because you don't seem to understand how bad it is) and "there are other problems, so let's do nothing about this".

It would be nice to have civil and intelligent discussions, but dealing with this woolheadedness is not easy...

 

[jabe]

um no... but nice try see post #604

Um yes, see post #609

BTW "decided" as in intend, not legislated or mandated (yet).

No one was disputing that NYC intends to regulate those oven. The false part was that they were doing so to "save the planet".

Every news story reads this way.

False talking points regularly make their way into the so-called mainstream media. That does not make them true or worth repeating. And even that brief 14News article admits "City health officials say wood and coal-fired stoves are among the largest contributors of harmful pollutants in neighborhoods with poor air quality." No mention of fighting climate change.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Um yes, see post #609


No one was disputing that NYC intends to regulate those oven. The false part was that they were doing so to "save the planet".

In particular, compounds from these types of ovens like black carbon and methan are many times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, Inside Climate News reports.

I found a few that cut and pasted that exact same sentence even misspelling methane.

False talking points regularly make their way into the so-called mainstream media. That does not make them true or worth repeating. And even that brief 14News article admits "City health officials say wood and coal-fired stoves are among the largest contributors of harmful pollutants in neighborhoods with poor air quality." No mention of fighting climate change.

Yup we all hate fake news ....

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Climate model issues:

https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/uploads/2023/06/Eschenbach-Climate-Models.pdf

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Climate model issues:

https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/uploads/2023/06/Eschenbach-Climate-Models.pdf

Cheers

Ian

a good read about programming models problems....

JR

 

[57sputnik]

Once again, like clockwork, another one of my alleged "conspiracy theories de jour" becomes conspiracy fact.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...g-plans-that-deflect-suns-rays-to-cool-earth/

“Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening” is mentioned in the paper that reportedly also sets out unspecified research in “cirrus cloud thinning.”

Officials suggested in a report released Friday that limiting sunlight to rapidly cool the planet, a solar geoengineering process known as solar radiation modification (SRM), could hold a viable future.

Chemtrailing and SAI have been going on for years.
The patents go back decades and LBJ bragged about Wx modification as a weapon back in the 60s.

But oh, no, no , no , no no!
That's conspiracy theory!
Some of you should be embarrassed.
Really.

Dump coal fly ash, barium, aluminum and who knows what else in the atmosphere and then blame coal and you, the carbon-based life form.
Its a scam folks.
You are the carbon they want to eliminate.

 

[JohnRoberts]

oh no no no no....

Since ancient times men(?) tried to control weather for personal gain. I suspect military geniuses wanted to starve some enemy country by stealing their rain to kill their crops.
===
Changing the planet's albedo (to cool it) was proposed by Chicago economists a decade or two ago, but only as a last resort after careful analysis (it's not nice to fool mother nature).
===
If people (government?) has been chemtrailing and S whatever for years ... why hasn't the planet cooled off ( its pretty hot today)? A great conspiracy theory would be that they are actively trying to warm the planet to kill everybody sooner.

[edit] I sure hope the current administration is not arrogant enough to do something without more thoughtful analysis /edit]

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Still, the White House said in a statement accompanying the report, “there are no plans underway to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.”

When the government declares that they aren't doing something that helps me sleep.

JR

 

[user 37518]

When the government declares that they aren't doing something that helps me sleep.

JR

So I just heard that Putin is losing the war in IRAQ, huh?

 

[JohnRoberts]

That isn't exactly news .

JR

PS: I remember when SNL would have fun with stuff like that.

 

[57sputnik]

A great conspiracy theory would be that they are actively trying to warm the planet to kill everybody sooner.

You nailed it.

As well as capture/sequester CO2 and nitrogen.

 

[ruffrecords]

Back to basics:

Over 1 million tress a day are chopped down just to make toilet paper. Totally unnecessary.

Who Gives A Crap + Good Time

At least someone has decided to do something constructive about it.

Instead of "Just Stop Oil" how about "Just Stop Killing Trees" - not as catchy I admit but a lot more positive.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Steve Koonin just published a new editorial in the WSJ.

While the estimates differ, each shows an economic impact of less than a few percentage points for a few degrees of warming. The consensus, apart from two counterbalancing outliers, is that today’s warming of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit has reduced GDP by less than 0.5%. That is trivial, considering real GDP has grown by more than 800% since 1950. If warming reaches 4.5 degrees—about what the United Nation’s climate panel projects for 2100 under plausible scenarios for future global emissions—the consensus reduction amounts to less than 2%. In other words, if the average annual GDP growth rate is 1.5% for the next 80 years, the economy would grow 232%. A 2% climate-change effect would reduce that growth to 225%. As physicists say, that’s a difference “in the noise.”

Uncommon sense... Koonin worked in the Obama white house.

JR

 

[jabe]

Koonin worked in the Obama white house

And for BP before that. Which doesn't make him wrong or right, of course.
Genuine question, since WSJ is paywalled: what are the sources for the consensus in the quote?

 

[JohnRoberts]

And for BP before that. Which doesn't make him wrong or right, of course.

he did some good work while at BP, his whole career is notable.

Genuine question, since WSJ is paywalled: what are the sources for the consensus in the quote?

The report, produced by the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget, assesses how the economic consequences of climate change could be integrated into federal budgeting. The report’s first figure—reproduced nearby—shows 12 independent peer-reviewed estimates of how America’s gross domestic product would decline as the global temperature rises.

As usual Koonin presents the raw data... 12 peer reviewed economic models, are presented graphically for the reader to make sense of by comparison. Ignoring the couple outliers climate change will have a negligible impact on world GDP as I already shared.
====

Koonin, a theoretical physicist, is not a partisan political opinion guy. He is more of a data analysis guy... His book "unsettled" basically uses government and UN data to show that many climate claims are faulty and not supported by the official data.

I continue to see climate impact overstated so often even in the WSJ I am starting to ignore it, while low information readers believe it. This is like the big lie (propaganda) driven into the popular consciousness by repetition.

My larger concern is that this all of government attack against fossil fuel will harm the poorest among us, for no sensible reason.

JR

PS; There is not a dog food crisis in America... this is a pure marketing invention. If your dog scratches, farts, or belches its because that is what dogs do.

The climate drama is a similar mass persuasion effort, asking people to believe weather, or forest fires are somehow a climate crisis.

 

[Matador]

12 peer reviewed economic models, are presented graphically for the reader to make sense of by comparison. Ignoring the couple outliers climate change will have a negligible impact on world GDP as I already shared.

Models have problems. "Projections" cannot be cited as evidence. The models are changed over time, lack a scientific underlying basis, and have artificial limits imposed by the model designers, so cannot be trusted. Koonin is just drinking at the teat of climate denialism.

Did I cover all the modeling bases? This should cut both ways, shouldn't it?

 

[ruffrecords]

Models have problems. "Projections" cannot be cited as evidence. The models are changed over time, lack a scientific underlying basis, and have artificial limits imposed by the model designers, so cannot be trusted. Koonin is just drinking at the teat of climate denialism.

Did I cover all the modeling bases? This should cut both ways, shouldn't it?

Indeed it should but nobody has yet published a model that predicts an ice age but it would be startlingy easy to make any of the existing models do it which says a lot about their usefulness.

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

Stats and modeling suffer from the same problem. They need to be interpreted.

My favorite boutade about this is:

"If DUIs account for 20% of all accidents, we need to get these sober people off our roads, as they cause 80% of accidents".

Obviously, this is an absurd interpretation. But that's how stats and models are often used.

I'm pretty pleased with the model our local meteorologists use. It's precise if you understand a local shower or thunderstorm will happen on occasion without the model picking it up. The model is as global as can be for a little country.