Climate change

[sene5hos]

I agree with forest fires, forest management is a major problem.

As for glaciers, difficult to manage. To melt ice, there is heat. Draw the conclusion !!

Massive Chunk of Greenland's Largest Glacier Just Crashed Into The Sea

A massive chunk of ice - larger than the city of Paris - has broken off from the Arctic's largest ice shelf because of warmer temperatures in Greenland, scientists said Monday.

www.sciencealert.com

15 SEPTEMBER 2020
Massive Chunk of Greenland's Largest Glacier Just Crashed Into The Sea

A massive chunk of ice - larger than the city of Paris (113 km) has broken off from the Arctic's largest ice shelf because of warmer temperatures in Greenland, scientists said Monday.
The 113-square-kilometre (43-square-mile) block broke off the Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glacier in Northeast Greenland, which the scientists said had been expected given the rising average temperatures.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Somebof you must realize that the warming accelerates every cycle ( yes we have a bigger one now but it is necessary ).
The last ice age has a tropical equator, the one before slush and the one before that solid ice, that was way before industrial man. We must make pollution to survive, at the moment there is no plan B, not a feasible plan B but no plan B. We are slowing advancing, it will not happen right now as many wish for ( delusional).
This type of change takes time, do not get your panties in a knot, people are working on it. As for Canada, we can not alter climate change be it with a tax or shutting down, on a global scale we are a tiny blip, we make no difference.
Just my opinion.

 

[sene5hos]

Greta Thunberg wants young people out of class to support climate change.
Now is not the time to go on strike in these COVID times.

Because currently the climate has never been so good, why because there is much less pollution due to:
1) Almost no planes.
2) All other travel.
3) Teleworking.
4) Unemployment.

For the next year no need to go on strike, we will see after the pandemic.

 

[minutemenX]

Now is not the time to go on strike in these COVID times.
............................................
For the next year no need to go on strike, we will see after the pandemic.

“Terrible” suggestion. You don’t realize that a lot of people are making good living and business investments based on the climate change scare They already warned public to not let this flame extinguish because of COVID. Should government extend COVID subsidies to them? On other thought, they can always join BLM movement as a side job.

 

[sene5hos]

From what I understand you think climate change is an engine of the economy.

The climate has been doing much better since the start of the pandemic, so why spend our money when everything is better on something or everything is under control.

We will invest next year, if we need.

 

[Fradi]

Must suck big time for all the climate change scare mongers with the Covid scare overshadowing their livelihood.
It must be difficult making all these speeches with a mask on and find that everybody is too busy worrying about something else to listen.

 

[hungry101]

Climate experts say that if we cut all manufacturing in North America until the year 2100 we will reduce the rise in temperature by 0.17F. I, for one, think that it is worth it. Than I could put one of those signs in my lawn that says “In This House We Believe...Science Is Real.”

 

[hungry101]

Those fires are due to record heat, no rain and some stupid behavior (gender reveal parties) which started a few of those fires. The 49ers game may be in jeopardy because of poor air quality. I have a close family member who was in SF area yesterday and said the East Bay area is very, very smoky. Air quality sucks moose balls. It is not good.

Due to poor forest management. What can we change today? End the poor practices used to manage forests in California and the West Coast. Gavin Newsom even said as much. Yes, the climate has increased 3 degrees over the past 100 years and this has played a role but what can California implement today? Manage their forests correctly. What will have no impact? Putting up another bird-killing windmill, forgoing beef for tofu, or erecting a lawn sign that says “In This House We Believe...Science Is Real.”

 

[Fradi]

The people with a wooden sign outside with “ In this House we believe in Science” are probably comfortable in their home with two cars in the garage the AC running full blast in the summer and the heating in the winter.
Their garage more than likely has two large crates of bottled water and they don’t miss any of the comforts they are accustomed to. I doubt they and their children all bicycle or walk to work and school.
Yes the sign looks great on their lawn. The irony of all this is it doesn’t make one bit of difference if they didn’t have any of this as long as China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc... keep spewing all their garbage into the atmosphere.

 

[sene5hos]

It must be difficult making all these speeches with a mask

No Fradi wearing the mask is not difficult, you get used to it quickly.

I speak from my experience, I worked a dozen years due to 3 hours a day, because I had to wear all the protective kit because I was working in a sterile environment.

But for the rest I agree with you, in your next post.

 

[Fradi]

Sen,

That is not what I meant with the wearing of the mask, you still sometimes don’t get sarcasm and interpret things word for word lol.
Then again perhaps the way I write is confusing.

The wearing of the mask already overshadows their whole climate change cause and nobody cares what they are saying and they are not listening is what I meant lol. The covid situation is far more important and news worthy for now.

 

[New Account]

McKritick is an economist not a climate scientist. Further, he is linked to the highly biased right-wing think tank Fraser Institute. Nonetheless, I will not try to contest his claims under the premise that he lacks expertise in the subject matter or because of his affiliations. If you evaluate the claims by their own merit, you find they are remarkably misleading. For instance, what is economic damage got to do with the central thesis that climate change is not causing extreme weather? Why shift the goalposts in an attempt to mislead? Economic damage is not necessarily correlated to extremity of event. You are not even evaluating what you claimed you would at this point. You can dispute the relation between climate change and intense storms but that still does not prove "extreme events" are not happening because of climate change. He is cherry-picking certain extreme events (say storms for instance) whose exact relevance to climate change may be hard to pinpoint and using that under a misleading headline of "proof". What the data shows quite evidently is record warm temperatures caused by elevated CO2 levels. Record heat is an extreme event in and of itself. He is also ignoring other parts of the world and focusing on North America. The mental gymnastics in this article is profound.

 

[sene5hos]

Greenland ice melting at a rate unmatched in 12,000 years — and it could get a lot worse

The Greenland ice sheet is now melting faster than any time in the last 12,000 years, and it is set to increase that rate nearly six-fold by the end of the century under the worst-case emissions scenario, research finds.

www.abc.net.au

Greenland ice sheet loss already 'unprecedented' and set to accelerate.

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet has hit a rate unmatched in the last 12,000 years and is accelerating, scientists have confirmed.

Research published in Nature today predicts that the Greenland ice sheet will be melting by as much as six times its current rate by the end of the century if we don't get emissions down.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Another theory, worth reading IMO

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

 

[sene5hos]

Yes Sol The Nutz, I didn't know this other theory, and sincerely hope it will come true.

 

[sene5hos]

A new Tropical Storm Iota forms in the Caribbean and is expected to become a major hurricane by Monday

Tropical Storm Iota is the 30th named storm of the Atlantic 2020 hurricane season and the 9th named storm from the Greek alphabet list.

www.severe-weather.eu

The Atlantic Hurricane season 2020 is on roll. Yet another Tropical Storm – Iota – has formed over the Caribbean today (Friday, Nov 13th). Iota is a record-breaking 30th named storm of the season.

Model guidance suggests that it will rapidly intensify into a major hurricane prior to landfall in Central America on Monday.
Severe impact with destructive flooding and life-threatening landslides in Nicaragua and Honduras is likely.

It's sad.

 

[CaptRenault]

The Atlantic Hurricane season 2020 is on roll...

You should post this in a thread about hurricanes. It has nothing to do with climate change.

 

[EagerBeaver]

You should post this in a thread about hurricanes. It has nothing to do with climate change.

Some meteorologists would disagree and would say that rising temperatures fuel hurricane conditions, because hurricanes need warm water to start, and to gain steam in intensity heading toward land. I am pretty sure that these are established scientific facts.

 

[CaptRenault]

An article in City Journal about California's preening, pretty-boy, SJW governor, Gavin Newsom, explains how his leftist climate change polices have negatively impacted the state and a majority of its citizens. Though forest fires are a natural phenomenon in California, they were made far worse by state policies. And green policies have led to frequent blackouts and exorbitantly high electric rates.


Governor Preen
California’s Gavin Newsom presides with aristocratic hauteur over a state in crisis.

.

..In addition to woke posturing on race and gender issues, climate change stands as the key driver of this kind of politics. In many regions, notably the Midwest, Democrats face a conflict between siding with the environmental lobby or with workers in fossil fuels, large-scale manufacturing, and construction. That tension is less evident in California, where a draconian tax and regulatory environment has reduced construction, particularly in the big coastal metros, and where manufacturing has stagnated, while policymakers have targeted the heavily unionized oil industry for extinction.

Draconian climate-change policies allow progressive elites to advertise their good intentions without curtailing their economic opportunities. The state’s renewable-energy policies enrich his Newsom’s tech backers even when their efforts—such as the Google-backed Ivanpah solar farm—fail to deliver affordable, reliable energy, and bring severe impacts on sensitive habitats, notably in the state’s deserts. Even the most impressive of the tech masterminds, Elon Musk, can trace a significant part of his fortune—now estimated at over $100 billion, the world’s fifth-largest—to generous subsidy policies for solar panels and electric cars. Policies that raise energy and housing prices, of course, tend to be politically unpopular—so Newsom, like his predecessors, imposes these regulations administratively, or through executive orders, thus freeing the governor to avoid legislative and political tangles and freeing him of any obligation to explain these positions to the public.

Climate issues have also offered Newsom an ideal way to justify failed progressive policies. Newsom and his ally, presumptive Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris, blamed the wildfires on climate change and all-purpose bogeyman Donald Trump. The media echoed the charges: the New York Times suggests that California is “ground zero for climate disasters,” while the Los Angeles Times claims that California now fights not just fires and droughts but also “climate despair.”

In reality, as the usually left-leaning Pro Publica has revealed, the fires were made far worse by green policies including constant lawsuits against local efforts to clean up old growth, particularly dead trees, and stopping even sustainable logging. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office also found that overall, the fires were less driven by global warming and more by policies that allowed for the accumulation of fuel, as well as growing development in certain exurban areas—partly motivated by a desire to escape the extremely high housing prices along the coast.

The fires are certainly not great for the environment or for reaching the state’s super-ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) goals: according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the 2018 fires emitted roughly as much GHG as an entire year of electrical generation. California, though a hotbed of climate extremism, reduced its greenhouse gases between 2007 and 2016 at a rate that ranked just 40th per capita among the states. Even if California wiped out all emissions, it would have an almost-infinitesimal impact on global climate—and in fact, a negative one, if industry relocates to China, where much electricity is still powered by coal...

 

[CaptRenault]

I am pretty sure that these are established scientific facts.

It's definitely not "an established scientific fact," like say, the germ theory of disease or evolution or the theory of relativity.

As this conclusion from a NOAA website concludes, there's much that scientists don't understand about the effect of climate change on the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. The layperson's translation of the quote below is "We don't know anything for sure."

...In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups. A recent study finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic hurricane rapid intensification metric over 1982-2009 is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing. These climate change detection results for rapid intensification metrics are suggestive but not definitive, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions. A slowing of tropical cyclone propagation speeds over the continental U.S. has been found since 1900, but its cause remains uncertain.

Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, there is increasing evidence that the increase in tropical storm frequency in the Atlantic basin since the 1970s has been at least partly driven by decreases in aerosols from human activity and volcanic forcing. However, this does not imply that the increase will continue into the future, as a number of models project that greenhouse gas warming will lead to future decreases in Atlantic tropical storm frequency. Anthropogenic forcing may have already caused other changes in Atlantic hurricane activity that are not yet confidently detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or due to limitations in modeling and physical understanding (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate, uncertainties in simulation of Atlantic multidecadal variability).

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average. In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, coastal inundation levels associated with tropical cyclones should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5.

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our tropical cyclone projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on tropical cyclones at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.