Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[robinessex]

Deadly Dubai floods made worse by climate change

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-688...

Deadly storms that left Dubai under water and killed more than 20 people in Oman were LIKELY made worse by climate change, scientists say.

I wonder why the 'likely' word in the report is missing from the headline. On second thoughts, I know why. The Beeb just wants to continue their CC propaganda agenda. Can't have a guessing word in a headline, can we?

[Pan Pan Pan]

If we continue to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the billions of us already here (as we are doing right now) it will not matter what we use to provide the power, food and products needed by the global population. We will damage our ability to remain on the planet, and not just for ourselves, but also for all the habitats, and other species, that we were `supposed' to have been sharing the planet with.
Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?

[mike9009]

Xenoous said:

robinessex said:

How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-580...

Climate change is the most likely explanation for why Dubai has been experiencing increasingly heavy rainfall events, a new study says.

Here are four ways that climate change is linked to extreme weather.

I ran out of patience counting the guessing words in this article.

So absolutely nothing to do with cloud seeding then. These days I just ignore the BBC as one big agenda setting fictitious news site.

Definitely not natural, so must be cloudy seeding.....

[Kawasicki]

Pan Pan Pan said:

If we continue to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the billions of us already here (as we are doing right now) it will not matter what we use to provide the power, food and products needed by the global population. We will damage our ability to remain on the planet, and not just for ourselves, but also for all the habitats, and other species, that we were `supposed' to have been sharing the planet with.
Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?

The human success story is to be celebrated, especially by humans. I, as a human, am bloody thrilled about it.

In nature there is no “supposed to have been sharing the planet with“, there is survival of the fittest. That’s it. “Sharing“? No. Survival.

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

The human success story is to be celebrated, especially by humans. I, as a human, am bloody thrilled about it.

In nature there is no “supposed to have been sharing the planet with“, there is survival of the fittest. That’s it. “Sharing“? No. Survival.

Where to start???

[turbobloke]

Energy Secretary, Claire Coutinho: “Countries around the world are facing up to the reality: you cannot heap costs onto struggling families to meet climate targets.”

More on abandoned climate targets and kicked-out Greens north of the border.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-...

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If we continue to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the billions of us already here (as we are doing right now) it will not matter what we use to provide the power, food and products needed by the global population. We will damage our ability to remain on the planet, and not just for ourselves, but also for all the habitats, and other species, that we were `supposed' to have been sharing the planet with.
Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?

The human success story is to be celebrated, especially by humans. I, as a human, am bloody thrilled about it.

In nature there is no “supposed to have been sharing the planet with“, there is survival of the fittest. That’s it. “Sharing“? No. Survival.

The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?

[turbobloke]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If we continue to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the billions of us already here (as we are doing right now) it will not matter what we use to provide the power, food and products needed by the global population. We will damage our ability to remain on the planet, and not just for ourselves, but also for all the habitats, and other species, that we were `supposed' to have been sharing the planet with.
Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?

The human success story is to be celebrated, especially by humans. I, as a human, am bloody thrilled about it.

In nature there is no “supposed to have been sharing the planet with“, there is survival of the fittest. That’s it. “Sharing“? No. Survival.

The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?

Tipping in here with 2p worth, the population issue is self-correcting over appropriate timescales, when there's no capacity for survivability tor whatever reasons then humans will die. Rather like what will happen if we stop oil with no ready inorganic fertiliser replacement for petcoke products.

[Pan Pan Pan]

turbobloke said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If we continue to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the billions of us already here (as we are doing right now) it will not matter what we use to provide the power, food and products needed by the global population. We will damage our ability to remain on the planet, and not just for ourselves, but also for all the habitats, and other species, that we were `supposed' to have been sharing the planet with.
Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?

The human success story is to be celebrated, especially by humans. I, as a human, am bloody thrilled about it.

In nature there is no “supposed to have been sharing the planet with“, there is survival of the fittest. That’s it. “Sharing“? No. Survival.

The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?

Tipping in here with 2p worth, the population issue is self-correcting over appropriate timescales, when there's no capacity for survivability tor whatever reasons then humans will die. Rather like what will happen if we stop oil with no ready inorganic fertiliser replacement for petcoke products.

For me it is a double ended issue (without the blind faith that some seem to have, that no matter what, it will all come out right in the end)
We are already bombarded with scare stories from the ecomentalists, about the `Crisis' and doom, the Earth faces, and that all we have to do to `save' ourselves is stop using fossil fuels, grow our own cars from mung beans, and knit our orgasms, and then `everything' will be all right.
If any criticism can be levelled at the use of fossil fuels, it is that it is what has allowed the global population to grow to its current some believe unsustainable size, in what is for the Earth, an unprecedentedly short time frame.
Therefore once we stop using fossil fuels, whether by choice or because (like the rest of the planet) it is a finite resource the global population will crash. This may be what the ecomentalists are actually aiming for??
None of them seem to be able to come up with a viable alternative material, that can provide the power, food, and products needed by the global population, in the variety and volumes currently only made possible by using fossil fuels.
ALL renewable energy systems, (the favourite go-to answer for the blind ecomentalists) are manufactured, transported to site, erected, operated and maintained, even the plastic used, to cover electricity cables using guess what?
So we live in a finite world with finite resources and what are we doing about it? We are adding billions more to the numbers of resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans and then wondering why the issues facing the planet, seem to be getting worse and not better. It does not compute.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If we continue to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the billions of us already here (as we are doing right now) it will not matter what we use to provide the power, food and products needed by the global population. We will damage our ability to remain on the planet, and not just for ourselves, but also for all the habitats, and other species, that we were `supposed' to have been sharing the planet with.
Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?

The human success story is to be celebrated, especially by humans. I, as a human, am bloody thrilled about it.

In nature there is no “supposed to have been sharing the planet with“, there is survival of the fittest. That’s it. “Sharing“? No. Survival.

The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?

Tipping in here with 2p worth, the population issue is self-correcting over appropriate timescales, when there's no capacity for survivability tor whatever reasons then humans will die. Rather like what will happen if we stop oil with no ready inorganic fertiliser replacement for petcoke products.

The bigger saviour is populations declining naturally due to globally falling birth rates. Even China's population declined last year. As countries become more affluent the birth rate drops. Japan and Italy seem to be having some more acute issues.

It will create some interesting economics moving forward, as most economic growth over the last 100 years has been predicated on population and thus affluence growth.

[turbobloke]

Developed nations tend to have a lower fertility rate / birth rate due to the combination of lifestyle choices associated with economic affluence with low mortality rates.

As pointed out by the late Prof Deepak Lal, avoiding the new religious green crusades in developing nations, and instead leaving them alone to burn fossil fuels (no manmade tax gas climate crisis, it's a 'noble' lie) and thereby escape poverty quicker, will be far batter in global population / resource terms. More carbon dioxide will also increase crop yields as confirmed in experimental data as opposed to modelling.

Meanwhile on the global climate politics stage:

German Officials Said To Have Manipulated Documents To Support Nuclear Power Phase Out
https://thedeepdive.ca/breaking-german-officials-s...

How Beijing Buried Western Industry Under a Wave of Cheap Electric Cars
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/24/ch...

[Kawasicki]

Pan Pan Pan said:

The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?

The Earth is the lifeboat of humanity. What capacity does it have? Should we leave some seats unused?

[kerplunk]

Oh it went up again

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

Oh it went up again

Where's the causality to humans again beyond faith / belief / assumption - it's not visible on the plot. Very noble but no cigar.
And when it goes down again?

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Oh it went up again

Call 999. It’s an emergency.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Oh it went up again

Where's the causality to humans again beyond faith / belief / assumption - it's not visible on the plot. Very noble but no cigar.

Given the duff climastrology you're into you're in no position to be talking about religiosity pious one

turbobloke said:

And when it goes down again?

You'll be preaching from the damart catalogue obviously

Troposphere temps likely are peaking now - how far global mean temps will fall back in the year ahead as El Nino melts away is the next interesting.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Oh it went up again

Call 999. It’s an emergency.

Don't worry - the climate system is non-linear chaotic and unpredictable and there have been abrupt climate shifts in earth's past

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 3rd May 11:40

[turbobloke]

Commenting on the April anomaly Dr Roy Spencer at UAH LTT HQ said:

It should be noted that the CDAS surface temperature anomaly has been falling in recent months (+0.71, +0.60, +0.53, +0.52 deg C over the last four months), while the satellite deep-layer atmospheric temperature has been rising. This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/

There's no politics in kerplunk's post beyond the post itself. There's no feasible mechanism by which slow rises in the tax gas level over a hundred years and more can suddenly cause a discontinuity as per what just happened. This event isn't related to the politics of manmade climate change, except in terms of providing blanks to fire off for The Cause (as seen here).

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Commenting on the April anomaly Dr Roy Spencer at UAH LTT HQ said:

It should be noted that the CDAS surface temperature anomaly has been falling in recent months (+0.71, +0.60, +0.53, +0.52 deg C over the last four months), while the satellite deep-layer atmospheric temperature has been rising. This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/

Not sure why you've posted that. Yes troposphere temps usually peak 3-4 months after peak El Nino which was December. That's why I said troposphere temps are likely peaking now.

turbobloke said:

There's no politics in kerplunk's post beyond the post itself. There's no feasible mechanism by which slow rises in the tax gas level over a hundred years and more can suddenly cause a discontinuity as per what just happened. This event isn't related to the politics of manmade climate change, except in terms of providing blanks to fire off for The Cause (as seen here).

I see where you're coming from but then the climate system is non-linear chaotic and unpredictable isn't it.

I think you're tilting at windmills a bit. The reaction I'm seeing from climate scientists about the surge in temps is ...WTF?

Gavin Schmidt scratching his head:

"For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened...

...If the anomaly does not stabilize by August — a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events — then the world will be in uncharted territory. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated. It could also mean that statistical inferences based on past events are less reliable than we thought, adding more uncertainty to seasonal predictions of droughts and rainfall patterns.."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 3rd May 15:03

[turbobloke]

Nelson and Nelson (2024) in "Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change" have added to the increasing number of papers demonstrating the inabiity of carbon dioxide to have any significant let alone dangerous effect on temperature. This collection of objective evidence based on data makes a mockery of gov't policy. As posted earlier the April temperature anomaly is only climate politics when activism uses it to fire blanks. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2024.153015

Nelson and Nelson said:

CO2 is only present in the atmosphere in trace amounts (0.04%) and lacks sufficient enthalpy to have any measurable effect on the atmosphere’s temperature...CO2 lags behind the temperature. This is inconsistent with CO2 being responsible for warming the atmosphere. In 2007, the IPCC admitted that climatic changes preceded changes in CO2. They changed their position to reflect that CO2 enhances, rather than causes, the temperature changes. But they did not present any data showing such enhancements.

Koutsoyiannis and Vournas (2023) and other papers cited (and sidestepped by activism) already pointed out that CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect is so small it cannot be discerned. They indicate clearly in their paper that a 100+ year increase in CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect.” https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047

The Nelson and Nelson abstract points out that looking from 1982 to 2018, research has shown that 89.9% of claimed manmade warming has arise because of cloud effects. Models can't cope with clouds, Svensmark can. Work in progress from Spencer on the Urban Heat Island Effect has shown that UHIE warming is virtually the entire GHCN-reported warming signal since 1880, less since 1980 - but then see above for 1982 onwards, and clouds / albedo are clearly not the only natural forcing. Tax gas is nowhere and has never been anywhere near a planetary thermostat. Inadequate climate models assume otherwise by running on faith and should never be allowed anywhere near policymaking.