[suxs]

After reading Lomborg's book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to GW" I discovered that he intentionally selects his data and citations to mitigate the true state of the world environment. Following are two examples: Lomborg claims "basically most sources estimate just 20%" net loss of the world's forests. As a source for this information he cites a 1993 textbook written by Andrew Goudie in which the author does state a net loss of 20%; however, this source provides no reference or authority for his number, not to mention the data is out of date, if it was correct. The second source as provided in Lomborg's footnote is provided by Michael Williams. Williams provides a figure, according to Lomborg, of net loss of just 7.5%, but a review of the source itself reveals Lomborg has misread 7.5 million square kilometers as though it were a percentage- most sloppy work for someone who represents himself as a scientist. And his previous environmental prognostications have proven to be patently incorrect (his academic training is political science, not biologist or climatologist). Therefore the predictive value of his opinion, which is endorsed by virtually no credible scientist, that global warming is little more than a neutral event is proving overly optimistic.

No amount of prayer, denial, or technological hubris will stop the prescient catastrophic effects of rapid climate change. Lomborg's human-centric "analysis" fails to recognize the disastrous consequences for numerous plant and animal species that are already stressed and on the brink of extinction.

Rapid climate change models generally predict an increase in frequency and severity of droughts, floods, and wildfires.
Lomborg and his proponents tell us not to worry because our techno-genius will save us in the end--- no need to worry or become anxious as our superior intelligence will save us from the pernicious effects of rapid climate change.

If we, the human species, choose suicide via inaction, that should be our problem, but we are rendering the vast majority of the world's biodiversity extinct as well.

Even the climate change denialists must ask themselves this fundamental question: What are the costs associated with action vs. inaction? The inescapably logical conclusion demands immediate and decisive movement.

To quote E. O. Wilson, "If enough species are extinguished will ecosystems collapse and will the extinction of most other species follow soon afterward? The only answer anyone can give is: Possibly. By the time we find out, however, it may be too late. One planet, one experiment."

"The good Earth- we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."- Kurt Vonnegut

[Tanada]

Outcast,

There are 2 arguments against that tactic.

The first is from using a standard risk likely hood/impact matrix. When a threat has a catastrophic impact then it should be mitigated even if the likely hood is low. Its the old “Whats the worse that could happen? question. If we dont mitigate we could exterminate humanity. If we do we spend some money and clean up the environment.

Secondly remember CC is but one manifestation of current unsustainable binge. If CC doesn’t get us then some form of resource depletion will. For example water is a huge problem not just for drinking but also for irrigation. Sooner or latter it will run out because we are using fossil water to run up the population. Hard limits exist to all resources.

Reducing our consumption helps CC and may other problems.

However projecting every problem as the worst case scenario quickly leads to bankruptcy and no action at all. For example, I live in the midwest where tornadoes happen with some frequency. By your standard every structure built here should de designed to withstand a cat 5 tornado so everyone would be safe by retreating indoors. Certainly we know how to build structures that can withstand the very high but generally brief tornadic wind forces, but such buildings cost several multiples over what current structures cost and even if they were cheaper it would take decades of sustained effort to rebuild all residences and then businesses to those standards. You could say the same basic thing about southern California and earthquake proof housing or cities like Fort McHenry Alberta and fire proof housing. In all cases we can build super "safe" structures, but at some point the costs are extreme and the utility of doing so is limited. For example a tornado went through the town where I grew up in 2010 and did some serious damage but thankfully little life lost in the process. By 12 months later the damage had been repaired and the trees destroyed had new saplings replanted in their places. Sure the missing trees will need 30+ years to fully grow in to replace the hundreds lost because unlike the buildings damaged they are living things. However even if every structure had been tornado proof those tress would have still been killed.

I personally advocate adapting to climate change by things like cancelling all insurance on structures built within say 1 meter of average present sea level with a grandfather clause to let current owners remove their portable property from such structures before the insurance evaporates. BTW I have long advocated removing flood insurance from structures along rivers built in well known flood zones. Back in the 1990's and 2000's there were a number of flood events along the Ohio/Missouri/Mississippi rivers where people have built houses right in the zone beside the levies where any break means instant flood of your property. The Federal Government rebuilt these houses with cheap flood insurance even after the same people had filed claims multiple times over two decades, which is crazy IMO. I think we should treat ocean front property by the same standard. You build in the known storm surge flood zone then you get no insurance and take all the risk for your bad decision making.

[Tuike]

Drought all over the world!

This summer has been record dry in Finland -Foreca (link in Finnish)
7/23/2021

Madagascar’s hungry ‘holding on for dear life’, WFP chief warns -un
6/23/2021
Southern Madagascar is experiencing its worst drought in four decades with more than 1.14 million people food insecure, the top UN official said in a statement, from a nutrition centre in the region. Of those, an estimated 14,000 people are already in catastrophic conditions, known as IPC Phase 5, which will double by October. “There have been back-to-back droughts in Madagascar which have pushed communities right to the very edge of starvation”, he explained. Drawing attention to suffering families and people dying from severe hunger, he spelled out that “this is not because of war or conflict, this is because of climate change”. While this area of the world has contributed nothing to climate change, they are “paying the highest price”, he added.


Water crisis protests persist in Iran, with chants in capital -reports -reuters
7/22/2021
Protesters angry about water shortages took to the streets of southwest Iran for a sixth night in a row on Tuesday, with mounting violence, while Tehran residents chanted anti-government slogans, according to videos posted on social media on Wednesday and Iranian news outlets. Iran's worst drought in 50 years has triggered power blackouts.

Argentina creates fund to help ease pain from drought-hit Parana river -reuters
7/18/2021
Argentina said on Saturday it would dedicate $10.4 million to help ease the pain caused by an ongoing drought that has seen the Parana River, a key transport route for the country's precious grain crop, wither to its lowest level in 77 years. Lack of rain in Brazil, where the Parana originates, has sharply reduced cargo traffic and sparked concerns amongst local communities who depend on the river for drinking water and energy. The dryness has also reduced the amount of cargo that can be carried by ships at the height of the Argentine corn and soy export season.

[mustang19]

https://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/16

Temperatures are expected to fall, a colder than average winter.

[Outcast_Searcher]

https://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/16

Temperatures are expected to fall, a colder than average winter.

So you're also a climate change denier? Or just another random post?

And when the overall warming trend, globally, blatantly, doesn't persist for, say, 5 years in a row, be SURE and get back to us.

Because with many records and average temperatures having a very STRONG trend upward, re actual science folks with reputations (unlike you), that is highly unlikely, no matter how many times some idiot makes a snow ball, and then claims global warming is a myth.

BTW, the far right being generally anti-science only makes them less credible to people with a modicum (or more) of education.

[Gmark]

While I don't doubt that circulation patterns can and do change I have to think that they cannot fail completely. As long as the tropics are warmer then the poles and the earth is rotating under the atmosphere, air will circulate from north to south and back again with cyclonic patterns caused by the earths rotation.

Yes, the research has shown that it isn't that the circulation patterns are failing, it's that they're getting weaker.

As you said, the driver is the temperature difference between the tropics and the arctic. But while the average global temperature has increased about 1C, the arctic specifically has warmed about 6C.

That reduced temperature gradient between the tropics and the arctic is what seems to be leading to weaker circulation and more fluctuations in the jet stream.

[Newfie]

Gmark,

Welcome aboard.

[Azothius]

not protests for political rights, not protests for economic reforms, not protests for food, but protests for water - getting pretty far down the hierarchy of needs. The Shape of things to come:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/theres-water ... 05434.html
There's a water shortage in Iran as temperatures hit 120F. Security forces are firing on protesters to stop demonstrations.

Amnesty International in a report Friday said that security forces had killed eight protestors, including a teenage boy, by deploying indiscriminate and deadly force. The clashes have continued since.

Severe droughts have affected parts of Iran since March, with protestors reportedly chanting "I am thirsty" at demonstrations as temperatures rise past 120 F. In an apparent bid to stop word of the protests spreading, Iran has imposed internet blackouts.

[Newfie]

Interesting. I have long felt water shortage would become a major issue.

It seems the major news agencies have reported it, if you search for it.

[Gmark]

Interesting. I have long felt water shortage would become a major issue.

It seems the major news agencies have reported it, if you search for it.

One of the effects of a severe drought is that it starts to eat into the cooling water supplies for nuclear reactors. Some of them have had to reduce their power output as a result.

[JuanP]

not protests for political rights, not protests for economic reforms, not protests for food, but protests for water - getting pretty far down the hierarchy of needs.

Severe droughts have affected parts of Iran since March, with protestors reportedly chanting "I am thirsty" at demonstrations as temperatures rise past 120 F. In an apparent bid to stop word of the protests spreading, Iran has imposed internet blackouts.

Did you mean to say pretty far up the hierarchy of needs?

In survival training there is something called the Rule of Threes, which states that you can survive around three minutes without air (drowning/suffocation), three hours without regulating your body temperature (heatstroke/hypothermia), three days without water (thirst/dehydration), and 3 weeks without food(hunger/starvation). Of course, those 3s may change to 4s, 5s, or 6s, but the basic rule order stands, with the consideration that hydration moves up one place in temperate climates were death from exposure is hardly a possibility. Keeping in mind that proper hydration is very important to regulating body temperature, particularly in hot, sunny weather.

Water is more important for human survival than political rights, economic reforms, or food.

[Azothius]

Did you mean to say pretty far up the hierarchy of needs?



In survival training there is something called the Rule of Threes, which states that you can survive around three minutes without air (drowning/suffocation), three hours without regulating your body temperature (heatstroke/hypothermia), three days without water (thirst/dehydration), and 3 weeks without food(hunger/starvation). Of course, those 3s may change to 4s, 5s, or 6s, but the basic rule order stands, with the consideration that hydration moves up one place in temperate climates were death from exposure is hardly a possibility. Keeping in mind that proper hydration is very important to regulating body temperature, particularly in hot, sunny weather.

Water is more important for human survival than political rights, economic reforms, or food.

Hi Juan, I was referring to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, with the basic physical needs to survive at the base:



Yes, i'm very aware of the rule of threes. And I totally agree, and meant to imply, that Water is more important for human survival than political rights, economic reforms, or food.

[JuanP]

Did you mean to say pretty far up the hierarchy of needs?



In survival training there is something called the Rule of Threes, which states that you can survive around three minutes without air (drowning/suffocation), three hours without regulating your body temperature (heatstroke/hypothermia), three days without water (thirst/dehydration), and 3 weeks without food(hunger/starvation). Of course, those 3s may change to 4s, 5s, or 6s, but the basic rule order stands, with the consideration that hydration moves up one place in temperate climates were death from exposure is hardly a possibility. Keeping in mind that proper hydration is very important to regulating body temperature, particularly in hot, sunny weather.

Water is more important for human survival than political rights, economic reforms, or food.

Hi Juan, I was referring to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, with the basic physical needs to survive at the base:



Yes, i'm very aware of the rule of threes. And I totally agree, and meant to imply, that Water is more important for human survival than political rights, economic reforms, or food.

Got it! I thought so. Yes, we totally agree. I think freshwater availability, melting glaciers, depleting aquifers, floods, and droughts are what will do many of us in. Many people are not aware of the importance of water or how much we depend on having the right amount of water in the right place at the right time to grow our food. I am horrified by how we waste water in most places.

I wasn't thinking in terms of Maslow's pyramid; that's why I was confused by your post.

[Newfie]

Argentina having a hard time also.

https://gcaptain.com/argentinas-soybean ... drying-up/

[theluckycountry]

With all the dams in America no one is going to die of thirst, but a few lawns might wither and die.

[JuanP]

"Brazil’s Fierce Drought"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/03 ... e-drought/

"The Amazon rainforest is arguably the world’s premier asset. Indeed, it’s the world’s most crucial asset in a myriad of ways, nothing on Earth compares. Yet, it is infernally stressed because of inordinate drought. The bulk of the Amazon rainforest is located in Brazil, where, according to the title of an article in NASA, Earth Observatory, the country headline says it all: “Brazil Battered by Drought.”

Moreover, the planet is becoming a drought-besieged planet (see- Drought Clobbers the World, August 27, 2021). As for the Amazon, according to NASA, it has been battered by serious bouts of drought every 5 years 1998, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020-21. As such, the normally resilient forest does not have a chance to catch breath and repair damage.

Sassan Saatchi, NASA JPL claims; “The old paradigm was that whatever carbon dioxide we put up in (human-caused) emissions, the Amazon would help absorb a major part of it… The ecosystem has become so vulnerable to these warming and episodic drought events that it can switch from sink to source depending on the severity and the extent. This is our new paradigm.” (Source: NASA Finds Amazon Drought Leaves Long Legacy of Damage, Capitals Coalition)"

A thoroughly depressing article on the current conditions in Brazil's Amazon jungle and Pantanal wetlands, respectively the largest tropical jungle and tropical wetlands of the planet.

[theluckycountry]

A thoroughly depressing article on the current conditions in Brazil's Amazon jungle and Pantanal wetlands, respectively the largest tropical jungle and tropical wetlands of the planet.

The Paraná River runs from Brazil to Argentina. It is the second-longest, 4,800 km or approx. 3,000 miles, river in Brazil, just behind the Amazon. It supplies electricity and water to 40 million people. At the current hydro flow rate, blackouts are likely this year, especially during peak hours.

And that's the problem with relying on alternative energy sources. Hydro is the best by far, but a drought is all it takes.
Good article

[Outcast_Searcher]

A thoroughly depressing article on the current conditions in Brazil's Amazon jungle and Pantanal wetlands, respectively the largest tropical jungle and tropical wetlands of the planet.

The Paraná River runs from Brazil to Argentina. It is the second-longest, 4,800 km or approx. 3,000 miles, river in Brazil, just behind the Amazon. It supplies electricity and water to 40 million people. At the current hydro flow rate, blackouts are likely this year, especially during peak hours.

And that's the problem with relying on alternative energy sources. Hydro is the best by far, but a drought is all it takes.
Good article

OTOH, having LOTS of differing energy sources, and good backup systems (like affordable batteries that don't burn hot and explode, hopefully before too long with solid state batteries) makes the energy system FAR more robust and stable overall. But doing something like being completely dependent on hydro for large cities near rivers sounds like a VERY bad idea indeed, even if AGW weren't a thing.

Of course, human planning being what it is, we tend to do whatever's cheapest in the short run. Which likely is NOT robust. Trade-offs.

I have a whole-house NG generator for a backup. When they get much better and cheaper, I also plan to have a battery backup system (the generator can have a part fail occasionally as it ages). Down the line, if I can get some solar without voiding my roof warranty, I'd like some of that to have another way to charge the batteries, etc.

Unfortunately such equipment isn't free, and if people would rather take fancy vacations and drive fancy cars, wear fancy clothes, eat at expensive places, yadda yadda, then they won't invest in such things. Again, trade-offs. For me, having had a 2 week power outage with a foot of water in the basement in the winter after a nasty ice storm, not having power backup is unacceptable.

[Tuike]

Nearly all of Portugal faces 'severe drought' after hottest May in 92 years -euronews
The average temperature (19°C) was more than 3°C higher than usual, it added. It makes it the hottest May on record in 92 years. At the same time, the average rainfall of just under 9 millimetres was just 13 per cent of what would normally be expected.

[Tuike]

Italy's Po Valley rations water amid record drought -france24
Italy's rich northern Lombardy region prepared to declare a state of emergency Thursday over a record drought which is threatening crops and has forced towns in the Po Valley to ration water. ... The drought is putting over 30 percent of national agricultural production and half of livestock farming in the valley at risk, Italy's largest agricultural association, Coldiretti, said Thursday.