Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

V88Dicky

7,302 posts

182 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Higher rainfall, leading to less droughts, good news!
Well, we’re two thirds of the way through April and it hasn’t rained here yet this month in NE England.

Been bloody cold though.....

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
V88Dicky said:
Kawasicki said:
Higher rainfall, leading to less droughts, good news!
Well, we’re two thirds of the way through April and it hasn’t rained here yet this month in NE England.

Been bloody cold though.....
Both of those situations are also due to climate change. Anything slightly unusual can legitimately be attributed to climate change. Because it makes the extremes more extreme, you see. Except extremely nice weather, that is natural.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
V88Dicky said:
Kawasicki said:
Higher rainfall, leading to less droughts, good news!
Well, we’re two thirds of the way through April and it hasn’t rained here yet this month in NE England.

Been bloody cold though.....
Both of those situations are also due to climate change. Anything slightly unusual can legitimately be attributed to climate change. Because it makes the extremes more extreme, you see. Except extremely nice weather, that is natural.
That cold weather, global warming obviously.

More drought - see drought stones, revealing past droughts as per recent years and worse, but it's unprecedented,



More floods - see flood bridges, revealing past floods as per recent years and worse, but it's unprecedented.



Politicians know that more droughts means more floods, and more floods means more droughts, it's a key part of PPE degrees.

Lotus 50

1,009 posts

164 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
That cold weather, global warming obviously.

More drought - see drought stones, revealing past droughts as per recent years and worse, but it's unprecedented,



More floods - see flood bridges, revealing past floods as per recent years and worse, but it's unprecedented.



Politicians know that more droughts means more floods, and more floods means more droughts, it's a key part of PPE degrees.
Interesting to see the Passau (I think) flood history. Of course your suggestion that flooding hasn't got worse completely ignores 200 years of investment in flood defences in the area and their role in reducing flooding over that time...

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
That cold weather, global warming obviously.

More drought - see drought stones, revealing past droughts as per recent years and worse, but it's unprecedented,



More floods - see flood bridges, revealing past floods as per recent years and worse, but it's unprecedented.



Politicians know that more droughts means more floods, and more floods means more droughts, it's a key part of PPE degrees.
Interesting to see the Passau (I think) flood history. Of course your suggestion that flooding hasn't got worse completely ignores 200 years of investment in flood defences in the area and their role in reducing flooding over that time...
You've completely ignored the effect of deforestation around Passau and its role on increasing flooding over that time.

It also looks like Passau also isn't a good candidate for flood defense, as the defenses would need to be so high that living there would "feel like living in Alcatraz".

Finally, the picture is from Passau. It also looks like the highest flood marking is also in the incorrect position, it should be quite a bit higher.


Edited by Kawasicki on Wednesday 21st April 11:20

Lotus 50

1,009 posts

164 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
You've completely ignored the effect of deforestation around Passau and its role on increasing flooding over that time.
Hmm interesting... Could have a part to play in the overall balance of risk, I'd be interested to see your evidence for that. That said, I'm not the one trying to show that flood risk in that area hasn't changed, I was simply pointing out that there's lots of factors involved and TBs post just showing the different flood levels over history is meaningless.


Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 21st April 11:07

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
Kawasicki said:
You've completely ignored the effect of deforestation around Passau and its role on increasing flooding over that time.
Hmm interesting... Could have a part to play in the overall balance of risk, I'd be interested to see your evidence for that. That said, I'm not the one trying to show that flood risk in that area hasn't changed, I was simply pointing out that there's lots of factors involved and TBs post just showing the different flood levels over history is meaningless.


Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 21st April 11:07
It's well established that deforestation leads to flooding. Deforestation occurred in Bavaria over the past 500 years, it's only in the last 50 years that the trend has been reversed. Currently, year on year, forested land area is steadily increasing.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Climate change: EU to cut CO2 emissions by 55% by 2030

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56828383

The EU has adopted ambitious new targets to curb climate change, with a pledge to make them legally binding.
Under a new law agreed between member states and the EU Parliament, the bloc will cut carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
The EU parliament had pushed for a higher target of a 60% reduction.
"Our political commitment to becoming the first climate neutral continent by 2050 is now also a legal one," said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.
"The Climate Law sets the EU on a green path for a generation."........continues

I'm sure that will happen without any issue or problems at all. Job done.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Finally, the picture is from Passau. It also looks like the highest flood marking is also in the incorrect position, it should be quite a bit higher.
Yeah good job it wasn't a lowering - you conspiraloons would be having a fit! biggrin




Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 21st April 13:28

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
Finally, the picture is from Passau. It also looks like the highest flood marking is also in the incorrect position, it should be quite a bit higher.
Yeah good job it wasn't a lowering - you conspiraloons would be having a fit! biggrin
It seems warmists are displeased as it sends out the wrong message.

Here's the corrected markings

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
There's a paper from Macklin on major flooding events in this country throughout the holocene. Major events are identified in data, relating to flooding events which occurred across most regions of the country 11230, 5800, 4910, 4590, 3610, 2800, 2620, 2350, 2020, 1360, 730 and 640 years ago. These days we see flooding as a regional concern, often due to slow-moving depressions.

In the more recent past, on 29 May 1912 five inches of rain fell in three hours near the town of Louth in Lincolnshire, the flood-water practically razed the town killing 22 people. Another event occurred three months later in Norfolk when Brundall experienced more than eight inches of rain on one day in August, as a result much of Norfolk was still under water six months later. On August 15 that year, a depression moving up the Bristol Channel deposited nine inches of rain over Exmoor, spawning the lethal flood that nearly washed away the village of Lynmouth with over 30 fatalities. On 18 July 1955, nearly twelve inches of rain fell on parts of Dorset. The highest 20 rainfall events for England and Wales have the 19th and 18th centuries on top to-date. Forget unprecedented, even if certain politicians can't; they think spanking us for more tax will provide a fix, muppets.

Lotus 50

1,009 posts

164 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Kawasicki - the photo doesn't really send out any messages apart from the fact that the town floods. It also tends to counter your point re deforestation and flooding in this area (I do agree it can cause flooding) given that the two biggest floods happened in the 1500s (before you suggest deforestation happened) and in 2013.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Models say subsurface carbon and total nitrogen will decrease as a result of "global warming" not so according to data. This is from the paper I mentioned recently, with the gradient 'wrong' like satellite data on climate feedbacks cf models. MPs won't get the messages.



Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 21st April 18:47

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
Kawasicki - the photo doesn't really send out any messages apart from the fact that the town floods. It also tends to counter your point re deforestation and flooding in this area (I do agree it can cause flooding) given that the two biggest floods happened in the 1500s (before you suggest deforestation happened) and in 2013.
I didn`t write that deforestation started in the 1500s. I found some data showing deforestation happening since 1500, not that it started then. I couldn´t find anything before that time (except that at the end of he last ice age Bavaria had almost no trees, it was a tundra ecosystem) so didn`t bother commenting on it.

The photo would be regularly plastered on the front page of every newspaper in Germany if it showed a clear pattern of increased flooding. It doesn`t support the narrative, so it isn`t. As it is, it would be an act of climate denial/defiant heresy to publish it on the front page.



mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Climate change: EU to cut CO2 emissions by 55% by 2030

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56828383

The EU has adopted ambitious new targets to curb climate change, with a pledge to make them legally binding.
Under a new law agreed between member states and the EU Parliament, the bloc will cut carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
The EU parliament had pushed for a higher target of a 60% reduction.
"Our political commitment to becoming the first climate neutral continent by 2050 is now also a legal one," said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.
"The Climate Law sets the EU on a green path for a generation."........continues

I'm sure that will happen without any issue or problems at all. Job done.
And here comes Sleepy Joe Biden, bringing up the rear, and an explanation of why he's confused...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/21/the-latest-...

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
robinessex said:
Climate change: EU to cut CO2 emissions by 55% by 2030

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56828383

The EU has adopted ambitious new targets to curb climate change, with a pledge to make them legally binding.
Under a new law agreed between member states and the EU Parliament, the bloc will cut carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
The EU parliament had pushed for a higher target of a 60% reduction.
"Our political commitment to becoming the first climate neutral continent by 2050 is now also a legal one," said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.
"The Climate Law sets the EU on a green path for a generation."........continues

I'm sure that will happen without any issue or problems at all. Job done.
And here comes Sleepy Joe Biden, bringing up the rear, and an explanation of why he's confused...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/21/the-latest-...
Literally fantastic targets. Is this an example of a mass delusion.

Putting aside thoughts on AGW/CAGW, how on earth do these CO2 reduction targets make any sense? Or is the idea that you set the target for 2030, knowing full well it will take until about 2185 for the targets to be met? The politicians are either stupid or lying, that’s the choice.

Diderot

7,263 posts

191 months

Wednesday 21st April 2021
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
mybrainhurts said:
robinessex said:
Climate change: EU to cut CO2 emissions by 55% by 2030

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56828383

The EU has adopted ambitious new targets to curb climate change, with a pledge to make them legally binding.
Under a new law agreed between member states and the EU Parliament, the bloc will cut carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
The EU parliament had pushed for a higher target of a 60% reduction.
"Our political commitment to becoming the first climate neutral continent by 2050 is now also a legal one," said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.
"The Climate Law sets the EU on a green path for a generation."........continues

I'm sure that will happen without any issue or problems at all. Job done.
And here comes Sleepy Joe Biden, bringing up the rear, and an explanation of why he's confused...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/21/the-latest-...
Literally fantastic targets. Is this an example of a mass delusion.

Putting aside thoughts on AGW/CAGW, how on earth do these CO2 reduction targets make any sense? Or is the idea that you set the target for 2030, knowing full well it will take until about 2185 for the targets to be met? The politicians are either stupid or lying, that’s the choice.
Both wink


deeps

5,391 posts

240 months

Thursday 22nd April 2021
quotequote all
Speaking of CO2 reduction, here's the result of 12 months worth of travel restrictions and the associated drop in anthropogenic emissions...



Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Thursday 22nd April 2021
quotequote all
A Dangerous Trap.


Reality dawning...

https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-con...

The Conversation said:
Instead of confront our doubts, we scientists decided to construct ever more elaborate fantasy worlds in which we would be safe. The price to pay for our cowardice: having to keep our mouths shut about the ever growing absurdity of the required planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal.
Cowardice? Why do climate scientists have to keep their mouths shut?

I‘m just baffled by the apparent incompetence...




A dangerous lack of critical analysis + no questions allowed = a new level of stupidity

The Conversation said:


But there is another invisible line, the one that separates maintaining academic integrity and self-censorship. As scientists, we are taught to be sceptical, to subject hypotheses to rigorous tests and interrogation. But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.

In private, scientists express significant scepticism about the Paris Agreement, BECCS, offsetting, geoengineering and net zero. Apart from some notable exceptions, in public we quietly go about our work, apply for funding, publish papers and teach. The path to disastrous climate change is paved with feasibility studies and impact assessments.

Rather than acknowledge the seriousness of our situation, we instead continue to participate in the fantasy of net zero. What will we do when reality bites? What will we say to our friends and loved ones about our failure to speak out now?

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Thursday 22nd April 2021
quotequote all
EU cheating on net zero. Some interesting statements here too.

https://theconversation.com/is-the-eu-cheating-on-...
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED