Climate change extremes?
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Why are they surprised with computer models that 97% of scientists trusted?
"According to an analysis published Friday, climate scientists found a clear link between climate change and extreme heat in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, although year-to-year variability prevented researchers from making definitive statements."
I wonder what caused the climate to change prior to humans. Did dinosaurs drive cars too?
I wonder what caused the climate to change prior to humans. Did dinosaurs drive cars too?
Freeman Dyson, the physicist who took over the Einstein chair at Princeton said about climate computers, "they are great at telling you what happened, but, lousy at telling what is going to happen" (paraphrased).
"I wonder what caused the climate to change prior to humans. Did dinosaurs drive cars too?"
Huge cars!
Huge cars!
I don't know about cars, but they never went to the Vet. Look what happened to them.
Vets are linked to asteroid strikes. We should reduce the number of vets we have immediately.
Because recent measurements are in the very high end of the best supported models?
Yes, yes it does.
Because what you're potentially proposing is a set of very, very expensive tradeoffs that require worldwide adherence.
Your and my opinion of root cause is moot. Warming is occurring. We can choose to ignore or act on the variables under our collective control including technical solutions and reducing CO2 emissions.
How many chances will humanity have to influence this trend?
You are operating from assumptions I'm not convinced have met the threshold of fact. Further, has a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis demonstrated the end result of all your assumptions?
Which assumptions do you contest:
- Humans thrive in a relatively narrow climate band (temp, moisture).
- Significant portions of our planet are outside that range.
- Human population increases require more not less habital, aerable land.
- Increasing temps and climatic change reduce habitable aerable land.
- C02 emissions correlate and are believed to be significantly causal to warming.
- Human activity significantly contributes to CO2 emissions.
Satisfying your "threshold of fact" benchmark isn't the objective in any case. Scenario it out and pick the course that gives the human race a reasonable probability of continued thriving is IMO.
Yeah, Freeman was a sceptic of the models, not however of the thesis. All those likes I presume affirmed that conclusion as well.
Your presumption is then that a warming planet increases net aerable/habitable land?
With friends like these right @davidallen ?
China, for example, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 119 million tons from 2016 to 2017 – more than any other country in the world – despite its alleged commitment to the Paris Accords. Spain added more than 18.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. France’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 5.5 million tons.
But it’s the Canadian government that might deserve the award for being the world’s biggest carbon dioxide hypocrite. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was critical of the Trump administration for its decision to leave the Paris Accords, saying in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” by the “disheartening” decision.
“Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth,” Trudeau said. “Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.”
So, after those bold words Canada cut its carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, right? Well, not exactly. In 2017 Canada emitted 17 millionadditional tons of carbon dioxide compared to its emissions in 2016.
***
According to a June report by BP – measuring global carbon dioxide emissions from the use of oil, gas and coal – the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 41.8 million tons from 2016 to 2017, marking the third consecutive year Americans’ carbon dioxide emissions fell.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...t-criticize-trump-environmental-policies.html
China, for example, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 119 million tons from 2016 to 2017 – more than any other country in the world – despite its alleged commitment to the Paris Accords. Spain added more than 18.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. France’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 5.5 million tons.
But it’s the Canadian government that might deserve the award for being the world’s biggest carbon dioxide hypocrite. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was critical of the Trump administration for its decision to leave the Paris Accords, saying in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” by the “disheartening” decision.
“Canada is unwavering in our commitment to fight climate change and support clean economic growth,” Trudeau said. “Canadians know we need to take decisive and collective action to tackle the many harsh realities of our changing climate.”
So, after those bold words Canada cut its carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, right? Well, not exactly. In 2017 Canada emitted 17 millionadditional tons of carbon dioxide compared to its emissions in 2016.
***
According to a June report by BP – measuring global carbon dioxide emissions from the use of oil, gas and coal – the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 41.8 million tons from 2016 to 2017, marking the third consecutive year Americans’ carbon dioxide emissions fell.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...t-criticize-trump-environmental-policies.html
In before Toon lol's at BP doing a carbon emissions study despite having no ability to debunk any of the facts or conclusions.
When Gorbachev got friendly with the green movement, that should have been a dead giveaway to the next play for commies.
Green is the new Red.
What with fudged figures, manipulated data, and tactics that bully many honest scientists into towing the "official" line.
Did anyone say this would be easy? If so, they are fools. Head in the sand is no answer however. Doing hard things, once upon a time we were kinda good at that.
So evidence and consequences be damned because Gorby. Do I have your position correct?
You might ask yourself the strategic implications of your statement if it were true... imagine the geopolitical consequences of northern China, Canada, and Siberia becoming the breadbasket of the world.
My family's carbon footprint is microscopic compared to those who are telling us to change.
And the net impact of a single family is microscopic on the overall problem. Both are moot points. Do what you can, do what you will, but the only way things actually change is systemically. Period.
We've been told on this very board that individual contributions don't matter. If that is actually true, then all carbon emissions don't matter because they are all generated for something benefitting individuals.
Except in America we are already doing our part to lower emissions - regardless of the BS Paris accord or other agreements.
Go bitch at China or India or France.
The Green movement is not about environmentalism, it's about control.
Is and always has been a “soak the western nations for every dime you can because there are millions of gullible western hating dip shits living within those same countries that thinks all the worlds ills are caused by capitalism and short of self immolation this is the way we pay back the world for our transgression.”
