Heat waves currently happening in North America, Europe 'virtually impossible' without climate change: Report

submitted by ActuallyNot from (abcnews.go.com)

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Threesrwild 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

No shit, climates change but man made is bullshit. Call me when we can control the sun and how far or close Earth is to the sun.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

No shit,

No.

climates change

Yes. The current change is very fast though.

but man made is bullshit.

You've not heard of the greenhouse effect?

Or is it that you don't know that coal and oil come from under the ground?

Call me when we can control the sun and how far or close Earth is to the sun.

The sun goes through about 11 year cycles. The Earth averages the same distance from the sun over a year.

And yet the predicted warming due to the man made greenhouse effect is still observed.

Maybe it is greenhouse gasses, most importantly CO2, and not us suddenly spiralling in towards the sun?

[–]Threesrwild 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Funny we created greenhouses to help grow more food because of higher CO2 levels but now it is bad. .04% CO2 in the atmosphere? 3% of that is man made? So what .000012 is man made? No, it doesn’t cause warming especially given how high it has been in the past with no “global boiling”.

Also what in the fuck does success look like? What will the temperature be if we go through all of this shit? How many fewer hurricanes, floods, hot days, tornados and thunderstorms? No one can because it is all bullshit. Give me the numbers we will see once we “control” the climate? If you can’t then you know this is all a hoax.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Funny we created greenhouses to help grow more food because of higher CO2 levels but now it is bad.

The greenhouse effect isn't a proliferation of greenhouses. It's an effect by which a planet is warmer because of gasses in the atmosphere that slow down radiative heat loss to space.

.04% CO2 in the atmosphere?

Yeah, about that by volume. 0.0417% for last year.

3% of that is man made?

Nope. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 0.028%. We've increased it about 49%.

So what .000012 is man made?

Total CO2 mass in the atmosphere is about 3260 gigatonnes. About 1071 gigatonnes of that is due to human activity.

Which comes to about 2.1 kg of CO2 over every square metre of the planet that is anthropogenic, if my arithmetic is correct.

It can have an effect. At STP CO2 has a density of 1.87 kg/m3. So at ground level, the human generated CO2 would be a layer about 1.12m deep. A little over 3'11".

Also what in the fuck does success look like?

Fewer destroyed ecosystems, greater biodiversity. Milder floods and droughts, sea levels increasing more slowly. More agricultural and oceanic productivity.

How many fewer hurricanes, floods, hot days, tornados and thunderstorms?

Research on impacts is summarized in the documents here

[–]Threesrwild 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Okay so let’s say all of this is true. What does success look like? How many fewer storms, tornados, hurricanes? How much cooler will it be and will being cool be good for humanity? After all, we know more people die of the cold, food shortages (earth is greener today than anytime in recorded history), wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Solar is good for what 5.5 hours a day? Wind slightly more? No one can give us, if you do this here is how your life will be better, which means it is all bullshit.

If you cannot clearly articulate the outcomes of your actions then all you are doing is experimenting and hoping it will work. This is not some six sigma project where we adjust the inputs to see how outputs change these are peoples lives we are fucking with.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

How many fewer storms, tornados, hurricanes?

Isn't a hurricane a storm?

If you cannot clearly articulate the outcomes of your actions then all you are doing is experimenting and hoping it will work.

Research on impacts is summarized in the documents here

How much cooler will it be and will being cool be good for humanity?

It will be warmer. By stopping greenhouse emissions we can reduce how much warmer.

After all, we know more people die of the cold,

That will happen less

food shortages

That will happen more

(earth is greener today than anytime in recorded history)

Define "greener", and link to these records of it you reference.

wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.

Proven Technologies for storing energy include thermal, gravitational and chemical.

Solar is good for what 5.5 hours a day?

Depends how geographically large your grid is. And the latitude and season.

Wind slightly more?

Depends where.

Nuclear goes 24/7.

No one can give us, if you do this here is how your life will be better, which means it is all bullshit.

Do you believe exercise is good for you, and obesity is bad?

Or that smoking shortens your life expectancy.

If you cannot clearly articulate the outcomes of your actions then all you are doing is experimenting and hoping it will work.

Research on impacts is summarized in the documents here

This is not some six sigma project where we adjust the inputs to see how outputs change these are peoples lives we are fucking with.

Sounds like a good reason not to lie to those people that we've only increased CO2 by 3%, and the impact is negligible, when we've increased it 50%, and the heatwave that is killing people is 96% likely to have been caused by it. And the increase in food prices is contributed to by it.

[–]Threesrwild 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Again, no specifics. That report gives us nothing regarding what to expect in the future regarding how many hurricanes and what intensity should we expect? How many degrees will the temperature fall? Should we expect more or less rain? If you have no metrics it is all bullshit which you have zero. Also, you have no real world examples where any of this will make a difference because it won’t because it hasn’t. Go research Sri Lanka.

Also, no one ever considers the positives from bio-fuel (fossil fuel) and how it has allowed third world countries to easily improve their infrastructures and peoples lives. Go to India and ask them how this will work when they still have people shitting in the fields and streets.

Your wind and solar still have zero hope and again, until we have batteries that can actually store electricity on an industrial scale it won’t work. Hell, even Elon has said we need gas and oil. No way people can afford these and electricity is becoming more expensive because solar and wind are more expensive. Florida raised rates 20% in January (and Florida is moving to wind and solar) add on top a $60,000 car payment and people won’t be able to afford it, so more government subsidies, which means more taxes and more expense.

I can’t wait for a tornado, storm or hurricane to wipe out a solar field or wind field and now you are without X% of your grid for an extended period of time. Good luck.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You claimed "earth is greener today than anytime in recorded history", and you have avoided questions about it

Please link to your source, and explain how you are measuring "greener".

That report gives us nothing regarding what to expect in the future regarding how many hurricanes and what intensity should we expect?

Research on impacts is summarized in the documents here, and include a break down of changes to climate by region.

How many degrees will the temperature fall?

It won't fall. It takes a few decades for 60% of the warning due to an increase in CO2 to take effect.

So it will continue to warm rapidly for a few decades if we stop all greenhouse emissions tonight. Then it the warming will slow.

Also, you have no real world examples where any of this will make a difference

Research on impacts is summarized in the documents here

Also, no one ever considers the positives from bio-fuel (fossil fuel) and how it has allowed third world countries to easily improve their infrastructures and peoples lives.

For the year 2000, the anthropogenic part of climate change killed about 160,000 people, mostly from the poor parts of sub saharan Africa and South East Asia.

http://www.regionalclimateperspectives.com/uploads/4/4/2/5/44250401/humanmortalityfactors.pdf

The numbers will be increasing since then on average.

Your wind and solar still have zero hope and again, until we have batteries that can actually store electricity on an industrial scale it won’t work.

Proven energy storage systems in use now include molten salt and pumped hydro. Batteries are also economic but not for the amounts of energy that would carry the grid for days.

No way people can afford these and electricity is becoming more expensive because solar and wind are more expensive.

No they're becoming cheaper. It's fossil fuels that are becoming more expensive.

Florida raised rates 20% in January

They should rely less on fossil fuels. And they should let the market set the price. Communism is economically inefficient.

add on top a $60,000 car payment and people won’t be able to afford it, so more government subsidies, which means more taxes and more expense.

Recover the costs of flood insurance from fossil fuel sales. The taxpayer shouldn't be covering Florida's FEMA debt.

I can’t wait for a tornado, storm or hurricane to wipe out a solar field or wind field and now you are without X% of your grid for an extended period of time. Good luck.

You think coal and had power generation plans are immune to hurricanes storms and tornados?

How?

[–]Threesrwild 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://youtube.com/shorts/XV9ijKAubfU?feature=share

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://youtube.com/shorts/XV9ijKAubfU?feature=share YouTube

Please link to a peer reviewed source that backs up these speculations. There is a lot of fossil fuel funded PR on the internet, and being able to link to some of it doesn't actually prove anything other than it exists.

Also, You claimed "earth is greener today than anytime in recorded history", and you have avoided questions about it

I see that you're unable to explain what you mean by that, or provide proof.

If you have no metrics it is all bullshit which you have zero.

[–]Ethnocrat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Without fossil fuels billions would starve, which is fine by me because the vast majority of the victims would be in the Global South. However, leftists like you are supposed to care about all the shitskins in the world.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Without fossil fuels billions would starve

No, that's food.

Moreover without global warming, agricultural and ocean productivity would be greater.

[–]Ethnocrat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You might want to look up where we get modern fertilizer and pesticides from.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You don't know about electrolytic ammonia production?

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c00455

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/green-ammonia

[–]Ethnocrat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You don't know this can't be done at scale? You can link me any type of experiment you like. Call me when this works at scale.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What limits the scale?

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

its more the sun intensity shifts in cycles (not distance)

the really telling thing is that the temperature on mars was increasing at the same time as the earths

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

its more the sun intensity shifts in cycles (not distance)

And the earth warms as the intensity goes up or down.

the really telling thing is that the temperature on mars was increasing at the same time as the earths

Whoa! Don't start that speculation! There's people in here that don't believe in the measurements of the earth's surface temperature. Imagine trying to convince them that we've got reliable martian global mean surface temperatures!

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

most of these studies are warped to meet the preexpected result

so basically what you base your assumptions on are more like intentional lies

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It's concentration has been increasing.

This will increase the greenhouse effect.

What's the "assumptions"?

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

unless you actually extend the patterns examined back ~200 years (the report uses data only back to 1950 )

and stop cherrypicking your 'evidence'

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Cherrypicking when you leave out specific data that doesn't fit the narrative you want to tell. Taking all the data since 1950 is not cherrypicking. It's choosing a start point.

Choosing a start point is necessary because records of heatwaves don't go back forever. And because the quality of the records improves with time, there's reasons that you might make a certain call. (And why the report looks at Southern Europe and America, and not Africa.)

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

try to get the idea that two different lines might be expressing two separate ideas/proposals

and notice you are quibbling about wordings when you got the ideas but dont actually counter them

1950 - you ever hear the espression about hitler going into russian and facing the worst winter in 50 years which also was said about when napoleaon did ??

so possibly they avoided a span of data which showed a trend which doesnt fit their agenda

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

try to get the idea that two different lines might be expressing two separate ideas/proposals

Can you elaborate on what these two ideas/proposals are?

and notice you are quibbling about wordings when you got the ideas but dont actually counter them

The attribution research shows that the European heatwave is a 1 in 10 year event. Without AGW, it would have been a 1 in 250 year event.

I don't see what to counter. What are the numbers that you claim are correct?

1950 - you ever hear the espression about hitler going into russian and facing the worst winter in 50 years which also was said about when napoleaon did ??

Nope. But if you think a cold winter in eastern Europe will reduce heatwaves in the following years ... or even that year ..., show me by how much.

so possibly they avoided a span of data which showed a trend which doesnt fit their agenda

Nope. They just took the largest data set they could and have it be reliable.