Deaths from climate change

[AnalogPackrat]

I wouldn't call being in the military an excellent position to observe the oceans, John. Have you really talked to some of the marine biologists from Columbia?

It's a damn sight better than a landlocked city slicker parrotting media narratives.

Science is constantly evolving. Mankind learns by making mistakes and figuring these out, eventually. It's rather easy to concentrate on the mistakes and use that to undermine everything.

Which is why we should continue with cautious skepticism and not religious fervor while screaming "follow the science!" The science on near future climate has done a 180 in less than 50 years. I'll apply a temporal filter until it settles down.

Recently, a renowned cancer research institute has been caught doin' naughty things. Does that mean all cancer research is tainted? Or maybe all non-profits are dodgy?

No one is arguing that pretty straw man you made.

It's a bit too easy to be negative. Is there anything positive left? When left is right and right is wrong?

Skepticism is often viewed as negativity by the fervent believers. But it is the skeptic who usually has the open mind.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Climate is weather averaged over 30 years...

JR

 

[user 37518]

 

[user 41968]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/un-world-economic-forum-behind-global-war-farmers-experts
The problem with "following the science" is that "the science" follows the money.
The WEF thinks the solution is to kill you.
Problem solved.

 

[scott2000]

 

[living sounds]

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/industry-of-doubt/

 

[scott2000]

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/industry-of-doubt/

few good debates in the comments of this....

 

[user 41968]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...s-said-beaches-east-coast-will-gone-25-years/

 

[Matador]

Interestingly enough, the other two predictions in that original article absolutely came true (we won't talk about those here).

The top 20 counties in the US with the worst beach erosion are all on the east coast, with an average erosion of 550 yards. The worst was Dixie County in Florida, with an average beachfront retreat of over 800 yards.

But you are right, they aren't 'gone' yet, so the whole thing is bunk.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Interestingly enough, the other two predictions in that original article absolutely came true (we won't talk about those here).

The top 20 counties in the US with the worst beach erosion are all on the east coast, with an average erosion of 550 yards. The worst was Dixie County in Florida, with an average beachfront retreat of over 800 yards.

But you are right, they aren't 'gone' yet, so the whole thing is bunk.

The barrier islands along the southern east coast are just big sandbars. They shift around all the time after big storms and hurricanes. Rampant beach development removed sea oats, palmetto, palm, and other vegetation that helped hold sand in place. Add a few hundred square miles of pavement to increase storm runoff and you get more erosion. Has nothing to do with climate change.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Here's some data for CA regarding drought. Where's the trend tracking human-generated CO2 (or anything, for that matter)?

 

[fazer]

Those debates in the comments in the article provided by livingsounds speak reams.

This one by Steve Pitman

Science Basis, for IPCC 6. They are the people with the greatest expertise on the subject in the world. Why should I take your word instead? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/...

Those experts have great record lately, don't they? How could anybody ever doubt them, given all the things they have been proven to be right about? The sad part is you aren't trying to be ironic. You really consider that to be a serious question. It's like the last decade never happened in your world. I mean, without the experts to guide us the response to COVID (that likely was created by experts in a lab) may have been enormously destructive and the world economy might be in serious trouble. Good thing we had them around to prevent all of those bad outcomes, huh?

>>On the topic of solutions, I agree that renewable energy has problems with intermittency and storage

What you studiously ignore is that - far beyond intermittency and storage - the problem with renewables is that they just can't do the job you claim the can. You can't cover the entire surface of the planet with windmills and solar panels, which is nearly what is required to approach the energy output necessary to keep humanity into famine and mass death. Even if you could, in a few years all those solar panels and windmills, that never contributed much in their lifetimes, would be set for the landfill to leach away all the toxic chemicals they were built with in China.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am repeating myself but the Koonin book "unsettled" does an excellent job debunking these existential threat claims with real (UN/Government) data.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

While everyone has mostly been focusing on increasing temperatures, that’s only one product of this extra energy. Only 4 percent of it goes into raising temperatures of land and another 3 percent goes into melting ice, Trenberth and Cheng worked out.

Almost 93 percent is being absorbed by the ocean, they found, and we’re already witnessing the unpleasant consequences. Although less than 1 percent of the excess energy whirls around in our atmosphere, it’s enough to directly increase the severity and frequency of extreme weather events, from droughts to floods.

“Modeling the Earth energy imbalance is challenging, and the relevant observations and their synthesis need improvements,” concludes Cheng. “Understanding how all forms of energy are distributed across the globe and are sequestered or radiated back to space will give us a better understanding of our future.”

https://noshma.com/earth/a-disturbi...hs-delicate-energy-balance-scientists-report/

 

[cyrano]

CO2 is one thing. Methane is around 30 times worse:

https://apnews.com/article/science-...-environment-0eb6880f7c4532a845155a3bd44c2e4b

 

[JohnRoberts]

Since Hurricane Katrina hit MS hard I have paid more attention to hurricanes, while I vaguely recall hurricane Hazel from 1954 while living in NJ.

Warm ocean surface water (from sunlight) is the engine that fuels storm severity.

Since the political spinners decided to rebrand the scaled back BBB, first to "the inflation reduction act", then after the public saw through that lie, again to the "climate and healthcare spending bill".

This repositioning to climate, has triggered a bunch of sloppy news articles touting global warming.

Almost humorously I have seen predictions that the Atlantic hurricane season is due to begin earlier this year because of climate change, and another article citing the slow start this year. Historically right about now is when the hurricanes start popping.

Atlantic tropical activity this year has been slower than in recent seasons and there has not been a single hurricane in the basin since the season started on June 1. In fact, according to AccuWeather hurricane Expert Dan Kottlowski, if there are no tropical storms or hurricanes in August, it will be the first time that's happened since 1997 and just the third time on record.

After the formation of tropical storms Alex, Bonnie and Colin, there hasn't been a single tropical depression or storm in the Atlantic since July

Of course I am tempting fate by poking the weather gods (yes hurricanes are weather not climate). I doubt I will see another hurricane eye pass directly over my house.

JR

PS: I repeat search out commentary from Koonin, Lomborg, and now Epstein. They are smarter and better informed than I am about climate.

 

[crazydoc]

PS: I repeat search out commentary from Koonin, Lomborg, and now Epstein. They are smarter and better informed than I am about climate.

But none of them are climate scientists and not more knowledgeable or better informed than they are, and two of them aren't scientists at all (unless you count "political science".)

Epstein: He is the founder and president of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit organization in San Diego California.

Lomborg: Ph.D. in political science at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994.

I'll take my information from published climate science, as unclear as that sometime is, not from people with a potential axe to grind.

 

[JohnRoberts]

But none of them are climate scientists and not more knowledgeable or better informed than they are, and two of them aren't scientists at all (unless you count "political science".)

classic attack the messenger rather than debate the message (cancel culture). Their bonafides are well established but once more for the cheap seats.

Epstein: He is the founder and president of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit organization in San Diego California.

He identifies himself as a philosopher and the climate change religion is worthy of philosophical inspection. Epstein declares that opposition to inexpensive energy is "anti-human". IMO his arguments have merit. I am only about 100 pages into the Epstein book, but he offers and interesting, dare I say "philosophical" take on the climate issue.

Lomborg: Ph.D. in political science at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994.

Since government climate change policy is very much a political issue, it is in his political wheelhouse. Lomborg has evaluated the climate projections and proposed remedies for actual cost/benefit going out to 2100. According to his analysis the proposed reduction/elimination of fossil fuels has only slight impact on the actual environment, but huge economic costs mostly felt by poor residents, but even citizens of wealthy nations are unwilling to pay the thousands of dollars each these policies could cost if fully executed. His analysis of the recent "climate" bill projects out to a tiny fraction of one degree benefit by 2100.
==
Dr Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the US Dept of Energy under President Obama in 2011, his list of credentials is too long to list here but he was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech. He has more that 200 peer reviewed papers in the fields of physics, astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, and climate science.

Since Dr Koonin was involved in climate modeling he is uniquely qualified as a critic of same. His main beef was with the conclusions attached to climate research data. His book "Unsettled" is full of examples showing how the conclusions offered by "Climate scientists" were not supported by their own data.

I'll take my information from published climate science, as unclear as that sometime is, not from people with a potential axe to grind.

Apparently.... That the globe is warming is an empirical fact and not news. This objective fact is presented as justification for government throttling fossil fuels and cheap energy. I do not trust the government to be good shepherds of the energy economy, and the citizens self interest. They are motivated to accumulate and hold political power. The recent legislation is an attempt to buy votes for the Nov midterm to hold their razor thin margin in congress.

I very much want to learn from political experts, philosophers, and extremely credible climate scientists (with expertise in statistical modeling) to make sense of how we should respond.

We are already seeing bad unintended consequences of shutting down fossil fuel use, before we have green energy capable of picking up the slack. Buy a tesla, but don't charge it during peak energy demand. Germany has just announced they are postponing the planned shuttering of two nuclear power plants.

Trust but verify, I trust these guys more than Senator Schumer or POTUS to lead climate policy.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

I'm ignorant of climate science, as I am of sociology, politics, and economics. All I have is my common sense, which isn't worth much to anybody but me, but it seems the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is trapping more solar energy, thereby heating the air, land and oceans. How is this increased energy affecting the climate? New weather patterns, including higher rainfall/flooding, droughts, wildfires, greater temperature variations, melting ice with sea level rise, and higher energy storms, producing world sociological disruption? I don't know, but it seems if we keep putting more greenhouse gasses into the air, these effects will get worse.

Then there is the argument that stopping carbon based energy production before carbon neutral mechanisms can substitute will disrupt the world economy with the same potential for famine, war, and other devastating sequelae.

Pick your poison, but I think climate disruption has the potential for more devastating consequences. But that's just me, and I don't think anybody has a real handle on what can realistically be done about it.

 

[rob_gould]

There are at least a couple of well researched and presented debunks / rebuttals of that Koonin book online. I haven't read it so I don't really want to get involved in a discussion about it, but it does not appear to be quite as authoritative as it's made out to be.