[jedrider]

If scientists UNDERESTIMATED global warming, you know what that means?

It means we use the scientists projections as a best case scenario and we then guess what may happen with scenarios increasingly dire.

[Plantagenet]

If scientists UNDERESTIMATED global warming, you know what that means?

It means we use the scientists projections as a best case scenario and we then guess what may happen with scenarios increasingly dire.

Sounds good, but back here in the real world there is no real response to global warming. The Paris Accords are a sham, as the emissions targets are voluntary and most countries aren't meeting even those voluntary targets.

Thats why Greta Thunberg is going to Madrid to protest....this is the second time the UN has passed a "sham" accord with no teeth and Greta isn't going to put up with that.

Cheers!

[sparky]

.
The Hadley center is the foremost organism publishing data on Global Warming numbers
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/le ... dleycentre

here is its published numbers
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temp ... UT4-gl.dat

up to September 2019 , warming equivalent to 0.723 degree Celsius since 1980
no acceleration , just a constant rise with some yearly variations

[EnergyUnlimited]

If scientists UNDERESTIMATED global warming, you know what that means?

It means we use the scientists projections as a best case scenario and we then guess what may happen with scenarios increasingly dire.

Sounds good, but back here in the real world there is no real response to global warming. The Paris Accords are a sham, as the emissions targets are voluntary and most countries aren't meeting even those voluntary targets.

Thats why Greta Thunberg is going to Madrid to protest....this is the second time the UN has passed a "sham" accord with no teeth and Greta isn't going to put up with that.

Cheers!

Many major nations are either unconcerned with GW or they may see it as advantageous for them.
Russia certainly may see it as an advantage - Siberia is going to be more pleasant place to live in.
For this very reason some binding global agreement is unlikely.

Countries like Russia, China, Brazil are likely to view entire motion as *western hysteria*.
They will also point out that the West got infested with decadence and gone intellectually retarded (to this end it is enough to point out to gender theories and woke culture) so concerns there are likely to be ill founded.
There will be an immense resistance from certain business and political circles on the West as well.
On the top of it Canada or Alaska may (very much like Russia) benefit of GW.

So IMO any binding and enforceable agreements on global scale are unlikely to be reached.
And increasing climate refugee crisis will at the end result in military and border protection built up, even in decadent Europe.

There is one major nation though, which may well press for a deal: India.

Finally, much broader analysis of the subject shows that Mother Nature will chop off hands risen against growth of entropy.
So for example:
- those who reduce breeding to help with overpopulation or conserve resources will be removed from a gene pool.
- those who disband industry to reduce carbon footprint will be militarily outcompeted by those who don't.
- those who have managed to conserve, accumulate or just possess valuable resources will be a subject of aggression of those who want them (good example is american global thievery of oil).
etc.
So Entropy Rulez.

[Newfie]

Ah, good morning EU, such a cheery perspective to wake up to. Unfortunately it strikes me that there is much to what you say. In a way it’s a refreshing look, a new perspective.

It is though simply a short term perspective that will keep us from cooperating for the maximum amount of time, but eventually CC effects will become unavoidable. Not a pretty picture.

[Ibon]

Cynicism is convenient.

[Newfie]

Said the pot....

[EnergyUnlimited]

I doubt she would "put up" with unrestricted discretionary plane travel either. But go ahead and keep squeeing and gushing over her despite how she'd give you the stink-eye over your lifestyle if she met you face to face.

Asg,
If we have stopped flying from day to day, then aerosols produced by aircraft would no longer be replenished in our atmosphere and this would cause global dimming effect to disappear.
Within few months average temperatures could go up by 1-2*C.
Even Guy McPherson knows it.

To postpone inevitable for a while we need to carry on with flying.
Perhaps we may also need to add niceties like CS2 (carbon disulphide) to aviation fuel.
These would burn to SO2 and that would quickly get oxidised to SO3 in stratosphere, so light reflecting sulphuric acid fog would be produced by reaction of the latter with atmospheric water.

Much more thought need to be given to the way we try to reduce CO2 emissions.
Tackling "close to the Earth surface" sources has IMO higher priority.

This phenomenon (global dimming) was discussed extensively on this and other forums in the past.

[asg70]

Much more thought need to be given to the way we try to reduce CO2 emissions.

These arguments are raised only to stall and defend the status quo.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Much more thought need to be given to the way we try to reduce CO2 emissions.

These arguments are raised only to stall and defend the status quo.

So it is best not to think at all, ban air travel from tomorrow onwards, get rid of dimming components in air, face 1-2 *C warming within few months and bash on regardless from one knee jerk reaction to another.

[Newfie]

Personal attack deleted.

[jedrider]

Who's to gain from global warming?

Russia? Perhaps. They have the territory in the right place.
Canada? No. They'll have the U.S. all over them in that case.
China? They want to be the last man standing. They probably will be.

[Newfie]

It’s not who has what to gain, it’s who THINKS they can game the system to their advantage at least through the next quarter.

And there is the rub, it’s all for short term gain.

Sucks.

[Ibon]

I was considering something that in its naked truth pretty much destroys the last vestiges of hope of some wisdom coming along and saving humanities sorry state of affairs.

Back in 2005 this site was humming with hundreds of switched on posters deeply engaged in the topic of peak oil as this game changing force.

15 years later it has proven itself impotent.

The same is now happening with climate change.

In fact, the same is happening with all of these external threats that we consider as somehow representing a game changing catalyst to shift the direction.

What I am considering is that as we have done for the past couple hundred years so will we do for the next couple of hundred.

There is no catalyst of consequences. There is no collective epiphany.

We will just continue myopic and short term in our thinking and just continue to waddle through.

The human condition always looks for external forces to be the savior, whether it be a creator, technology or the dystopian force of peak oil or climate change. This great moment around the corner when all will be corrected.

This is all an illusion.

[vtsnowedin]

The human condition always looks for external forces to be the savior, whether it be a creator, technology or the dystopian force of peak oil or climate change. This great moment around the corner when all will be corrected.

.

More likely the great moment around the corner when all will be undone and destroyed.

[Ibon]

The human condition always looks for external forces to be the savior, whether it be a creator, technology or the dystopian force of peak oil or climate change. This great moment around the corner when all will be corrected.

.

More likely the great moment around the corner when all will be undone and destroyed.

Same coin. Just the other side. Redemption either way.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Who's to gain from global warming?

Russia? Perhaps. They have the territory in the right place.
Canada? No. They'll have the U.S. all over them in that case.
China? They want to be the last man standing. They probably will be.

China will benefit most.
While Russians are drinking and aborting themselves to extinction China will gradually (and peacefully) take control of their warming Siberian territories and populate them with their own peoples. No war will be needed.
Chinese were always considering Siberia to be only under temporary Russian control.
Most of people living there do not look Slavic at all only more Chinese alike.

[dissident]

Who's to gain from global warming?

Russia? Perhaps. They have the territory in the right place.
Canada? No. They'll have the U.S. all over them in that case.
China? They want to be the last man standing. They probably will be.

No country can benefit from global warming. That is the sort of nonsense belief that is delaying action. We have the same BS in Canada as is assumed for Russia. Supposedly there will be a windfall for the tourism industry and agriculture from warming. This BS is not based on reality.

1) Agriculture is not just temperature. It is soil and rainfall. The current distribution of agricultural zones reflects the climate we have had over the last 10,000+ years. People are clueless about this. They think that soil is something that is just there. No, it is a function of biotic activity on top of the non-organic content.

2) Rainfall is not going to just shuffle around and move to high latitudes giving us new farmland. There is already evidence that the ambient temperature increase and the IR surface flux is acting to dissipate clouds faster. So instead of Lindzen's cloud albedo offset, we have the warming induced reduction in cloud albedo thanks to reduced persistence of clouds.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1423-9

Naive first pass ideas are being slowly debunked by observations and analysis. The ironic pattern for rain is that as water accumulates in the atmosphere and induces warming, there is less formation of fogs and stratiform clouds. In addition shallow convection clouds dissipate faster. As the background low level rain attenuates, we have the appearance of super-storm deluge events. So when convective systems do organize into substantial rain producing patterns, these patterns are more intense than in the past. This makes sense, since there is actually more water available for condensation under warming conditions. But warming makes condensation harder.

---

Deluded people around the world make implicit linearizing assumptions. They think that there will be a gradual shift in weather patterns and dependent systems such as agriculture. No, there will be cataclysmic shifts and any stable equilibrium such as we have had over the past 10,000 years is not going to be seen for several hundred thousand years as the warming inducing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) are slowly removed by chemical weathering. Humanity's industrial civilization will have been long gone by the time stability is restored.

[Ibon]

. Humanity's industrial civilization will have been long gone by the time stability is restored.

So there will be a benefit from climate change!

[sparky]

.
There is simply no cost to global warming , its results would be overall positive
the Armagedon moaning is little more than hysterical noise