Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XIII 27

[dik]

For earlier threads, see:
thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988
thread1618-498967
thread1618-501135
thread1618-504850
thread1618-506948
thread1618-507973
thread1618-510266
thread1618-512015


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Not at all, exactly the opposite. The US politics is costing human life.

I have no idea what this means. Please clarify.


Maybe it means that the US approach to having health care based on the free market / insurance approach is costing lives? I don't know that this is a valid criticism. The US system certainly costs a lot more than other systems. But, does it really lead to increased mortality rates. I think it's likely the demographics that lead to increased mortality. We live a more sedentary life than most countries. We eat more, and are not as active. Smoking, drugs, suicides, guns.... All kinds of personal lifestyle choices that could lead to higher mortality rates.

Freedom can be scary. Some people don't use it very well. But, that is their choice for the most part.... If the government were to control that choice to extend your life would that even be worth it? If the government had that kind of power, is that a country that anyone would WANT to live in? I don't think so.

If you look at the approximately 200 year history of the US, you'll see a country that most of the world is literally dying to try to get into. If you look at the countries that have that kind of power over personal choices (Socialist / communist, or fascist) those are the countries that people are literally dying to try to leave. But, sure.... handing the government that type of power might work for the first time ever because of.... climate change. And, the governments might (for the first time ever) choose to give that power back to their citizens.

Personally, I will make my decisions based on my understanding of history and choose individual freedoms over government control.

 

[dik]

Not at all... advance warnings are one of the main reasons that fatalities due to weather events have diminished of late.

 

[dik]

Things are starting to heat up....

"
Climate change is raising temperatures to dangerous levels, causing more deaths and the spread of infectious diseases, while worsening drought and food security, a new report by health experts has warned.

In 2023 – the hottest year on record – the average person experienced 50 more days of dangerous temperatures than they would have without climate change, according to the Lancet Countdown, an annual report released on Wednesday based on work by 122 experts, including the World Health Organization (WHO).

Keep reading​

list of 3 itemslist 1 of 3

Global warming worsening deadly flooding in Africa, warn scientists​

list 2 of 3

More than one in three tree species at risk of extinction: Report​

list 3 of 3

Current climate pledges by nations ‘miles short’ of 2030 goal, UN body says​

end of list
The report was released as heatwaves, fires, hurricanes, droughts and floods have continued in full force this year, which is expected to surpass 2023 to become the hottest year on record.

“Current policies and actions, if sustained, put the world on track to 2.7 [degrees Celsius] of heating by 2100,” the report said.

Of 15 indicators that the experts have been tracking over the last eight years, 10 have “reached concerning new records”, the report said, including increasing extreme weather events, elderly deaths from heat, and people going without food as droughts and floods hit crops.

The elderly are the most vulnerable, with the number of heat-related deaths in people over 65 last year reaching a level of 167 percent above the number of such deaths in the 1990s."

Heat-related deaths and diseases rising due to climate change, experts warn

Lancet report says average person experienced 50 more days of dangerous temperatures than normal due to climate crisis.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[GregLocock]

Since many more people die from cold related issues than warm ones, let's just say that that study is written from a particular point of view.

 

[dik]

Do you have a chart for sub-optimal water levels?

 

[GregLocock]

Doesn't your mummy let you use a search engine?

 

[Tomfh]

Since many more people die from cold related issues than warm ones, let's just say that that study is written from a particular point of view.

That’s why they’ve switched to claiming that global warming makes things colder too. It makes the world hotter AND colder.

 

[dik]

EU seems to have got things correctly; we'll see if the US can get in line.

"The headline figure shows an 8.3 per cent drop in greenhouse gas emissions across the EU in 2023 – a decline not seen since the pandemic lockdowns of 2020, when emissions dropped by 9.8 per cent. While this is a positive sign, Europe still has a long way to go, as emissions remain 37 per cent below the baseline year of 1990, well short of the target of at least a 55 per cent reduction by 2030.

Emissions have fallen unevenly across industries​

According to the report, emissions from power stations and factories covered by the EU’s emissions trading scheme have decreased by over 47 per cent since the scheme’s introduction in 2005. In contrast, sectors including agriculture and domestic transport have seen a more modest reduction of only 2 per cent in 2023."

Europe’s greenhouse gas drops by over 8%

Greenhouse gas emissions are on a decline, however, the European Union is still far from meeting its 2030 climate action targets.

euroweeklynews.com

 

[dik]

And from elsewhere... something to look forward to...

"According to recent NASA studies, the situation is dire and climate change is catching up on humanity and the planet quicker than we think. This comes in conjunction with various elements that are being impacted by human behaviours and could be responsible for marking the beginning and end of currently inhabitable areas. NASA experts warn that a series of radical changes are on the way that until now we have perhaps been unaware of. Most poignantly, the rise in temperature which is having and will continue to have severe consequences across the planet. This news is not unheard of. A few years ago, a similar report was issued, warning the world of what would happen in 2050."

NASA warns parts of Spain will be unlivable

NASA has issued an urgent warning for the future of certain parts of Spain, with worrying predictions that they will possibly not be liveable in 30 years time.

euroweeklynews.com

 

[GregLocock]

NASA is already out of the manned mission game, now it seems they are out of the science game.

In Popper's words, science requires testability: “If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.” This means a good theory must have an element of risk to it. It must be able to be proven wrong under stated conditions.

So headlines that include predictions with might or may could equally be replaced by might not or may not.

Interesting the NASA presser that the linked report was based on doesn't mention Spain. Funny that. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/clim...-change-may-make-some-places-too-hot-to-live/ Yet somehow the linked article claims "It warns that some parts of the planet and more pertinently, certain regions of Spain may become no-go areas within several decades including Madrid, the autonomous community of Valencia and Andalucia...".

/it_is_getting_better-how-climate-change-may-make-some-places-warm_enough-to-live/
/too-hot-to-handle-how-climate-change-may-not-make-some-places-too-hot-to-live/
/journalists_make_scary_stuff_up_and_dik_falls_for_it_again/

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I am pretty convinced about the science that supports that increased CO2 levels will lead to warming temperatures. The real question (in my mind) is what can we do about it?

The people who think that we have to drastically reduce our CO2 levels don't really understand human nature. We (developed nations) have built our lifestyles around fossil fuels and the cheap energy they provide. We can (to some extent) switch over to less CO2 heavy forms of power. But, only because we have the wealth to do this. Right? In many ways, this is already happening. Western nations are significantly reducing our use of coal and greatly increasing other forms of energy. We certainly need to do more with nuclear if we want to really make a difference.

But, anyone who thinks that this is the "answer" to global warming is kidding themselves. How many billions of people live in nations whose populations are desperate to increase their standards of living? Those countries are NOT going to move away from fossil fuels because they can't afford to do so. They will increase their CO2 emissions at such a rapid rate that global CO2 emissions are not going to go down any time in the next few decades.

The key reason why this doesn't worry me so much is that we (i.e. the human race) are greatly capable of adaptation. We can build sea walls in low lying area (see Denmark, New Orleans and other places) that are vulnerable to flooding. We will move to other areas when this isn't possible. One can argue that warmer temperatures will lead to GREATER food production, more fresh water and fewer climate related deaths.

The fact of the matter is that this is certainly NOT an existential crises for humanity. A crises, sure. But, it's no where near the other crises we've faced. Our two world wars were far more of a crises. So was the cold war. So is the global war on terror.

 

[BridgeSmith]

Well said, JoshPlumSE. The other reason that higher CO2 levels shouldn't worry us is that the geeening of the planet will mitigate much, if not all of the increases. We're already seeing it happen, everywhere from the areas near the poles to the Sahara desert.

If the pattern we see in the ice ages and interglacial periods holds, in a few generations, people may think we were nuts to not enjoy the warmth while it lasted, because they're freezing their butts off as the Earth moves back into the next ice age.

 

[TugboatEng]

Josh, why can't we take an infrared camera and aim it towards the sky and somehow quantify the amount of heat being reflected back at us by CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Josh, why can't we take an infrared camera and aim it towards the sky and somehow quantify the amount of heat being reflected back at us by CO2 in the atmosphere?

Good point. I think we can take satellite measurements on heat and radiation and such. The data doesn't go back 150+ years, of course. I am not 100% familiar with the satellite data. It seems to me that the biggest issue is not how to "stop" global warming... But rather, how to MITIGATE it. Meaning how to spend our resources to slow the temperature increases and more importantly how to deal with it in a cost effective way.

Looking at it another way. Say that you live in an area which may be subject to flooding in the future. What's the most efficient way (cost wise) to prevent the loss of your house.
a) Do you move?
b) Do you raise your house up so that it can resist the flood waters when they come?
c) Do you try to prevent the flooding by building dikes, dams, and all kinds of engineering work up and down stream to try to control the floods that will happen.

Which one is the best use of your limited resources?
Option (a) requires some expense on your part. The cost of a new house minus the cost of selling your old one. But, it is pretty much guaranteed to work.
Option (b) requires some construction work. Possibly less expensive than option (a). It's not guaranteed to work. But, it is likely to reduce that damage that occurs if/when the flood comes.
Option (c) costs an amazing amount of money. Not just from you, but from people in cities and states far away from you as well. They all have to spend the money in a way that will protect not just themselves, but you and your property as well. It's also not likely to work for you because the other cities and states are most likely to spend their money in a way that protects them, but pushes the flooding down stream towards where you live. The best way to get this to work is to use violence to take over these other areas and force them to spend their limited money in a way that you want them to.... in a way that protects what you think should be protected.

The problem with the Global Warming Alarmist community is that they seem focused on something comparable to option (c), when the real practical (i.e. efficient) solutions are more like option (a) and (b). Meaning each country, each person, each province needs to operate in a way that addresses their own self interest and stop trying to force everyone else to do things that are against their own self interest.

 

[dik]

Good point. I think we can take satellite measurements on heat and radiation and such.

You'd have to point it at the ground, else would be catching the incident radiation, not the reflected.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I believe there is at least satellite data related to the pre-atmosphere solar input into our system. Because I think this is how most of the satellites maintain power.

Also, most satellites do point towards the ground don't they? Much more to see there. The only ones that point outwards are ones that are exploring our solar system and such. I have to think that there are not too many of those as there just isn't much money in it.

 

[GregLocock]

Solar flux (or irradiation) and the reflected energy are both measured, so as to estimate the albedo

Measuring Earth’s Albedo

The global picture of how Earth reflects sunlight is a muddle, though several regional trends emerge.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[dik]

journalists_make_scary_stuff_up_and_dik_falls_for_it_again

Not at all... the recent storms in the southeastern states may only be a precursor to what may be coming... unfortunately we will have to wait and see. I hope it is just a perturbation of regular climate, but don't think so.

 

[GregLocock]

Shrugs. Meaningless statement.

 

[dik]

Somebody seems to be taking this stuff seriously..