Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[robinessex]

Climate change made US and Mexico heatwave 35 times more likely

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czvvqdg8zxno

Human-induced climate change made recent extreme heat in the US south-west, Mexico and Central America around 35 times more likely, scientists say.......continues

Another guess, but it's still made the Beeb's headlines.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Interesting game of tennis.

Not really

I thought so too. Your cherry picked and rather predictably lazy research was easily countered with a brutal but effective top spin backhand, and, ultimately, you lost without scoring a single point. Tant pis. Better luck next time KP. Maybe some more training is in order.

I wonder who you think you're kidding here. We can all see you clearly don't understand what you're arguing about.

If that was tennis, you were stuck in the changing room wondering which foot the left shoe goes on.

wc98 said:

mike9009 said:

How many years have humans been around? Would humans cope with a +13 degrees C warming?

The world would still undoubtedly exist, but with just a different set of species kicking around......

On a planet with a temperature variance of 150c and a 100c plus swing through the seasons where humans live permanently, i'm sure we would manage.

When the planet was 4-5 degrees colder, Scotland was buried under hundreds of metres of ice but meh, what's a few degrees here and there. No big deal eh.

[durbster]

Randy Winkman said:

And it's how we get to that point that matters. If we think there are problems with migration now it's going to get way worse. And we wont have Nigel Farage to sort it out for us either.

Yeah I do think migration is one potentially big threat from climate change but it doesn't really get talked about much.

People aren't going to stay in places that become unbearable to live and work in, they'll just move. And let's face it, a lot of people moving around is something the world isn't very good at dealing with.

[Essarell]

durbster said:

Randy Winkman said:

And it's how we get to that point that matters. If we think there are problems with migration now it's going to get way worse. And we wont have Nigel Farage to sort it out for us either.

Yeah I do think migration is one potentially big threat from climate change but it doesn't really get talked about much.

People aren't going to stay in places that become unbearable to live and work in, they'll just move. And let's face it, a lot of people moving around is something the world isn't very good at dealing with.

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

[Diderot]

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Randy Winkman said:

And it's how we get to that point that matters. If we think there are problems with migration now it's going to get way worse. And we wont have Nigel Farage to sort it out for us either.

Yeah I do think migration is one potentially big threat from climate change but it doesn't really get talked about much.

People aren't going to stay in places that become unbearable to live and work in, they'll just move. And let's face it, a lot of people moving around is something the world isn't very good at dealing with.

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Alaska, Greenland, South Georgia, Siberia, you name it, get in first before the inevitable boom happens.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Interesting game of tennis.

Not really

I thought so too. Your cherry picked and rather predictably lazy research was easily countered with a brutal but effective top spin backhand, and, ultimately, you lost without scoring a single point. Tant pis. Better luck next time KP. Maybe some more training is in order.

I wonder who you think you're kidding here. We can all see you clearly don't understand what you're arguing about.

If that was tennis, you were stuck in the changing room wondering which foot the left shoe goes on.

wc98 said:

mike9009 said:

How many years have humans been around? Would humans cope with a +13 degrees C warming?

The world would still undoubtedly exist, but with just a different set of species kicking around......

On a planet with a temperature variance of 150c and a 100c plus swing through the seasons where humans live permanently, i'm sure we would manage.

When the planet was 4-5 degrees colder, Scotland was buried under hundreds of metres of ice but meh, what's a few degrees here and there. No big deal eh.

Durbster, I am ever hopeful that you might be able to offer something germane for once apart from throwing insults around .

A question for you, do you agree with KP’s ‘unscientific’ assessment? That it would not be ‘scientifically correct to claim an accuracy to 2 decimal places for *any* year in relation to *any* other year (or baseline) because of the uncertainty bars’.

And yet, as it has been demonstrated that there are myriad examples of such claims.

Yea or nay? Or would you prefer to throw more insults my way?

[Diderot]

Diderot said:

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Randy Winkman said:

And it's how we get to that point that matters. If we think there are problems with migration now it's going to get way worse. And we wont have Nigel Farage to sort it out for us either.

Yeah I do think migration is one potentially big threat from climate change but it doesn't really get talked about much.

People aren't going to stay in places that become unbearable to live and work in, they'll just move. And let's face it, a lot of people moving around is something the world isn't very good at dealing with.

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Alaska, Greenland, South Georgia, Patagonia, Siberia, you name it, get in there first before the inevitable boom happens.

BTW I’ve just looked up the latest apocalyptic wet dream about climate refugees, and the consensus amongst the usual suspects (UN etc) seems to be 1.2 billion (shame it’s not to 2 decimal places but heigh ho) by 2050 (26 years time). Hopefully there’ll be enough space above the arctic circle for everyone. I’m assuming, everyone will be feasting on Reindeer meat, tundra and appreciating the odd Seal and Whale meat when it’s in season as a delicacy.

It won’t happen of course, because by 2035 no one in the UK and Europe will be able to buy an ICE car.

[Randy Winkman]

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Randy Winkman said:

And it's how we get to that point that matters. If we think there are problems with migration now it's going to get way worse. And we wont have Nigel Farage to sort it out for us either.

Yeah I do think migration is one potentially big threat from climate change but it doesn't really get talked about much.

People aren't going to stay in places that become unbearable to live and work in, they'll just move. And let's face it, a lot of people moving around is something the world isn't very good at dealing with.

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Climate migration is when people move away from areas because environmental changes add to the existing challenges of living there. They could move to any number of places for a variety of reasons. Many of them wont be concerned about hot weather and They might easily go to somewhere wealthy and developed like the places you mention. And I dont think they will be looking 100 years ahead.

[Essarell]

Randy Winkman said:

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Randy Winkman said:

And it's how we get to that point that matters. If we think there are problems with migration now it's going to get way worse. And we wont have Nigel Farage to sort it out for us either.

Yeah I do think migration is one potentially big threat from climate change but it doesn't really get talked about much.

People aren't going to stay in places that become unbearable to live and work in, they'll just move. And let's face it, a lot of people moving around is something the world isn't very good at dealing with.

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Climate migration is when people move away from areas because environmental changes add to the existing challenges of living there. They could move to any number of places for a variety of reasons. Many of them wont be concerned about hot weather and They might easily go to somewhere wealthy and developed like the places you mention. And I dont think they will be looking 100 years ahead.

So once again we have a climate catastrophe catchphrase bingo whose definition is on wheels? Like the farmers who can’t seem to handle the heat in India so move to Dubai to work in construction?

[motco]

I rarely am moved to laugh out loud at a news item, but hearing that former Tory energy minister Chris Skidmore declared that he will vote Labour because the Conservatives - Sunak in particular - "Have politicised the climate crisis".

Where the Hell has he been for the last thirty years?

[durbster]

Diderot said:

A question for you, do you agree with KP’s ‘unscientific’ assessment? That it would not be ‘scientifically correct to claim an accuracy to 2 decimal places for *any* year in relation to *any* other year (or baseline) because of the uncertainty bars’.

And yet, as it has been demonstrated that there are myriad examples of such claims.

Yea or nay? Or would you prefer to throw more insults my way?

Well let's weigh it up.

• On the one hand we see several demonstrably knowledgable people who have - for the nth time - patiently gone through the claim to explain why it doesn't hold up. They've provided detailed arguments, they've explained the maths and they have backed up all their points up with lots of evidence and examples.
• Whereas on the other, there's a clueless doofus who keeps squawking one line over and over, ignores every counterpoint and concludes by embarrassingly bragging about how great he was.

Still, it got the attention you crave so maybe for you this is a win...

[durbster]

Essarell said:

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Why do you think they would move to Scandinavia and Alaska?

[Essarell]

durbster said:

Essarell said:

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Why do you think they would move to Scandinavia and Alaska?

The CC narrative is that areas of our molten lava cored rock which is currently and briefly occupied by humans will become unliveable. Vis a vis you’d hedge your bets that the only way to avoid (the inevitable extinction) would be to move to areas of of planet that are currently cold and according to that loon at the EU and David Attenborough are warming at an alarming rate. Its survival of the fittest? Or is that the planet isn’t actually becoming unliveable and is in fact thriving?

Where you been the last few decades?

[durbster]

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Essarell said:

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Why do you think they would move to Scandinavia and Alaska?

The CC narrative is that areas of our molten lava cored rock which is currently and briefly occupied by humans will become unliveable. Vis a vis you’d hedge your bets that the only way to avoid (the inevitable extinction) would be to move to areas of of planet that are currently cold and according to that loon at the EU and David Attenborough are warming at an alarming rate. Its survival of the fittest? Or is that the planet isn’t actually becoming unliveable and is in fact thriving?

Where you been the last few decades?

I've been in reality, where none of this is true. How about you?

[turbobloke]

There's a new paper which reinforces the fallacy and fantasy in claims that today's climate conditions and rate of change are unprecedented. We already have evidence in the literature for 2 deg C or more warmer conditions 2000 years ago (RWP) and 5000+ years ago (HCO) and the latest information revealing the silliness of politically motivated 'unprecedented' comments (pure Hockey Stick faith) come from Kypke and Detlevsen (2024) who show that Greenland has experienced no net warming in the last 90 years, carbon dioxide what were you doing? Also that there were 24 episodes where Greenland warmed between 10 deg C and 15 deg C with each shift taking only a few decades focused around 20,000 to 80,000 years BP. These 24 episodes of rapid climate change were far greater in extent and in rate than today's unremarkable temperatures and pedestrian trend, and happened without humans burning fossil fuels. According to Carbon Brief, Greenland is a hot melting pot which means we're toast too. According to a scary article in The Ecologist, Greenland could freeze the UK. Heads climatewang wins, tails reality loses. Cooling is the new warming. If you want more, now is a good time to polish your dexterity with stochastic differential equations, while bringing your own planetary T grids for 20,000 to 80,000 yrs BP and beyond.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...

[Essarell]

durbster said:

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Essarell said:

Climate migration? Surely we should see humans moving to Scandinavia and Alaska? You know, get in quick and snap up the cheap land / property? Instead areas that are booming are Dubai, Florida & Texas……

Why do you think they would move to Scandinavia and Alaska?

The CC narrative is that areas of our molten lava cored rock which is currently and briefly occupied by humans will become unliveable. Vis a vis you’d hedge your bets that the only way to avoid (the inevitable extinction) would be to move to areas of of planet that are currently cold and according to that loon at the EU and David Attenborough are warming at an alarming rate. Its survival of the fittest? Or is that the planet isn’t actually becoming unliveable and is in fact thriving?

Where you been the last few decades?

I've been in reality, where none of this is true. How about you?

We’re a molten rock hurtling thru an ever expanding universe, our time on earth is mere bagatelle in relation to the age of the planet.

You’re caught up in an unscientific, virtue signalling nirvana, I hope time is on our side to un-cloak this sham.

Oh and jet-setting David “gorilla bothering” Attenborough should have stayed retired.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

...the latest information revealing the silliness of politically motivated 'unprecedented' comments (pure Hockey Stick faith) come from Kypke and Detlevsen (2024) who show that Greenland has experienced no net warming in the last 90 years, carbon dioxide what were you doing? Also that there were 24 episodes where Greenland warmed between 10 deg C and 15 deg C with each shift taking only a few decades focused around 20,000 to 80,000 years BP. These 24 episodes of rapid climate change were far greater in extent and in rate than today's unremarkable temperatures and pedestrian trend, and happened without humans burning fossil fuels.

It's time for what has turbobloke misrepresented this time?.

Where in this paper does it say there was no warming in the last 90 years? Where does it say Greenland warmed between 10-15 degrees C (it says Kelvin)?

There's also this inconvenient part...

misrepresented paper said:

Possible important physical drivers for the transitions include change in sea ice, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels or volcanic events.

Oops.

[Essarell]

durbster said:

Oops.

If the science is settled why didn’t you highlight “possible”?

[turbobloke]

Profs Lindzen, Happer and Wijngaarden have calculated the impact on climate of global net zero by 2050 via CO2 emissions reduction, within the evidence starved CO2 paradigm of the political advocacy group IPCC. The grand total of averted warming = 0.28 deg C. With the unproven positive feedbacks assumed by IPCC omitted, averted warming = 0.07 deg C.

They show their working in this pdf file so identified errors can be sent directly to the authors.

The UK contributes a mere 1% to the current global situation, though UK net zero by 2050 will cost a minimum of £3trillion. Never in the history of human foolishness has so much spending been proposed by so few foolish politicians for so little.

[durbster]

Essarell said:

We’re a molten rock hurtling thru an ever expanding universe, our time on earth is mere bagatelle in relation to the age of the planet.

You’re caught up in an unscientific, virtue signalling nirvana, I hope time is on our side to un-cloak this sham.

Oh and jet-setting David “gorilla bothering” Attenborough should have stayed retired.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're on about but since you've inexplicably started a virtue-signalling rant about BBC presenter, is it fair to say you can't answer why you think people would move to Alaska?