Climate Change(d)?

[steve_bank]

And in Teh Gruaniad;

The huge cuts in carbon emissions now needed to end the climate crisis mean it is “crunch time for real”, according to the UN’s environment chief. An unprecedented global mobilisation of renewable energy, forest protection and other measures is needed to steer the world off the current path towards a catastrophic temperature rise of 3.1C, a report from the UN environment programme (Unep) has found. Current carbon-cutting promises by countries for 2030 are not being met, according to the report, and even if they were met, the temperature rise would only be limited to a still-disastrous 2.6C to 2.8C.

Teh Gruaniad

Another last chance to save the world before the climate apocalypse befalls the earth.

Trying to explain physics to a tree stump is rather pointless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

it is causing massive flooding events more commonly.

Is it though? Not hardly.

Now that Trump has come into power I can look forward to the USA exiting the stupid, ineffective Paris Agreement again and access to cheaper energy.

As you say, ineffective. Paris has done basically nothing--which means it isn't raising energy prices.

Now, if he goes through with his tariffs the result is going to be a huge increase.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nature? lol!


Hardly damning evidence. Earth's climate has always fluctuated and has natural variation.

Baffling so many people think that the climate is static.

As Shadowy Man indicated, it'd be a waste of time. I noted Rapid Intensification was becoming more common. You responded like you did above, I cited a source supporting the claim. And then you indicated you weren't able to tell the difference between the words "change" and "trend". So yeah, it'd be a waste of time.

Here is how I responded to your earlier post about "Rapid Intensification" and highlighting the problems with these outlandish claims.


It really is an end of times cult.

Baffling that you think that's a reasonable response. You're dismissing evidence (which is admittedly not the most specific) of change with a response saying that change is normal.

That stop sign is not red because we expect stop signs to be red.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A climate crisis does not equate to 'end times.'

Directly, no. Indirectly through war, possibly. Indirectly through some of those who will die deciding to take their killers with them with a bioweapon, also possibly. We quite routinely synthesize DNA. We have synthesized a virus and demonstrated it worked. Smallpox was sequenced. Most DNA writing is done through big companies that are very careful about not producing known evils, but it doesn't have to be.

And with enough infection points smallpox would take us out. Doesn't even need to be made resistant to the vaccine.

 

[DBT]

A climate crisis does not equate to 'end times.'

Directly, no. Indirectly through war, possibly. Indirectly through some of those who will die deciding to take their killers with them with a bioweapon, also possibly. We quite routinely synthesize DNA. We have synthesized a virus and demonstrated it worked. Smallpox was sequenced. Most DNA writing is done through big companies that are very careful about not producing known evils, but it doesn't have to be.

And with enough infection points smallpox would take us out. Doesn't even need to be made resistant to the vaccine.

It would depend on the severity of the climate crisis. We've had them before and managed, the 536ad event followed by a mini ice age and another one during the middle ages, with much suffering but life went on.

Perhaps given the scale and complexity of our society we are not so resilient, but a total collapse is not inevitable.

 

[TSwizzle]

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

An odd response. I must be missing something. I am nowhere near Camarillo.

 

[steve_bank]

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

An odd response. I must be missing something. I am nowhere near Camarillo.

Out of sight out of mind.

What drug crisis? I don't know any drug addicts. We alwayss had drug addicts.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

An odd response. I must be missing something. I am nowhere near Camarillo.

You keep referring to the temperature in Santa Monica as evidence against global warming while next door Malibu and Ventura are burning to the ground. BTW, the average temperature in Santa Monica in Nov has historically been around 65. 80 is evidence of warming if anything.

aa

 

[TSwizzle]

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

An odd response. I must be missing something. I am nowhere near Camarillo.

You keep referring to the temperature in Santa Monica as evidence against global warming while next door Malibu and Ventura are burning to the ground.

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

BTW, the average temperature in Santa Monica in Nov has historically been around 65. 80 is evidence of warming if anything.

Has the temperature in Santa Monica reached 80 this month? I can't say I have noticed. Right now it is a catastrophic 71f.

 

[Elixir]

There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

Ah good to know. Air temperature and oxidation are unrelated phenomena.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not even sure about the universe"
- A. Einstein

 

[Shadowy Man]

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

why wouldn’t the state of the climate impact wildfires, their likelihood of starting and their rate of spread? On what basis are you saying that?

 

[TSwizzle]

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

why wouldn’t the state of the climate impact wildfires, their likelihood of starting and their rate of spread? On what basis are you saying that?

Because it is a claim without evidence.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

An odd response. I must be missing something. I am nowhere near Camarillo.

You keep referring to the temperature in Santa Monica as evidence against global warming while next door Malibu and Ventura are burning to the ground.

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

BTW, the average temperature in Santa Monica in Nov has historically been around 65. 80 is evidence of warming if anything.

Has the temperature in Santa Monica reached 80 this month? I can't say I have noticed. Right now it is a catastrophic 71f.

Oh noes!!!11!!!;

The world is on track for a 'catastrophic' 3.1°C of global warming by the end of this century, the UN has warned.
Responding to the report, UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, said the world was 'teetering on a planetary tightrope. Either leaders bridge the emissions gap, or we plunge headlong into climate disaster. Mr Guterres said already people were suffering from monster hurricanes, biblical floods and record heat which was turning forests into tinder boxes and cities into saunas.

Daily Mail

Mr Gutterres talks a lot of crap.

It is a catastrophic 80 degrees in Santa Monica today. Nice fall weather.

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

aa

Average for October is 68. But the last thing I want to do is interrupt the hole you are digging - please continue. (I kind of understand how your anti-science brain can't figure out how wildfires relates to climate change. Rake the forests amirite?)

aa

 

[TSwizzle]

Average for October is 68.

The temperature fluctuates at this time of year.

But the last thing I want to do is interrupt the hole you are digging - please continue. (I kind of understand how your anti-science brain can't figure out how wildfires relates to climate change. Rake the forests amirite?)

Surely you must be aware that wildfires in California are a natural and necessary phenomenon?

 

[Shadowy Man]

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

why wouldn’t the state of the climate impact wildfires, their likelihood of starting and their rate of spread? On what basis are you saying that?

Because it is a claim without evidence.

So, your point is that there’s no evidence that the state of a climate has any impact on forest fires? Humidity doesn’t matter. Heat waves don’t matter.

Should all forests have the same kinds and amounts of fires irrespective of the local climate?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A climate crisis does not equate to 'end times.'

Directly, no. Indirectly through war, possibly. Indirectly through some of those who will die deciding to take their killers with them with a bioweapon, also possibly. We quite routinely synthesize DNA. We have synthesized a virus and demonstrated it worked. Smallpox was sequenced. Most DNA writing is done through big companies that are very careful about not producing known evils, but it doesn't have to be.

And with enough infection points smallpox would take us out. Doesn't even need to be made resistant to the vaccine.

It would depend on the severity of the climate crisis. We've had them before and managed, the 536ad event followed by a mini ice age and another one during the middle ages, with much suffering but life went on.

Perhaps given the scale and complexity of our society we are not so resilient, but a total collapse is not inevitable.

It's the interconnected bit that would do us in. Back then society wasn't so dependent on a wide variety of skills. People were fairly replaceable pegs. Low skill workers still are, but the high skill ones are not, especially the high skill ones that know how the systems tick. It doesn't take losing too many of those to cause a collapse--and once the collapse starts it inevitably continues. Without our tech we can't sustain our population, so even more would be lost, lowering the level even more.

 

[steve_bank]

I suppose there are people paid by anti climate change interests to post repetitious simplistic statements.

Similar to Barbos on Russia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

An odd response. I must be missing something. I am nowhere near Camarillo.

You keep referring to the temperature in Santa Monica as evidence against global warming while next door Malibu and Ventura are burning to the ground.

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

Climate change has made the fires worse. We are seeing a lot more of the big fires that make their own weather and the fire crews can do very little against them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

why wouldn’t the state of the climate impact wildfires, their likelihood of starting and their rate of spread? On what basis are you saying that?

Because it is a claim without evidence.

The forest is even more of a tinderbox than normal. I'm next door in Nevada but I've been seeing it here--there are more days that I consider too hot and when I go out the forests are even drier than normal. And I have seen no replacement at all of the stuff that burned more than 10 years ago. Nothing but annuals, no baby trees.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

why wouldn’t the state of the climate impact wildfires, their likelihood of starting and their rate of spread? On what basis are you saying that?

Because it is a claim without evidence.

So, your point is that there’s no evidence that the state of a climate has any impact on forest fires? Humidity doesn’t matter. Heat waves don’t matter.

Should all forests have the same kinds and amounts of fires irrespective of the local climate?

Nobody's saying all forests should have the same amount of fire. What we are saying is that the fires are bigger than normal and there are more of the unstoppable ones that wipe towns off the map.