Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

Post by drorh » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 10:41 PM UTC

mr_overalls wrote: post #95

randyrand wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will primarily move more inland within their own countries. Some cities will be raised. Neighboring countries will absorb some. Small border shifts may happen, as have happened for centuries.

You have no reason to believe this. From: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25422366/trump-ambass... "The fourth and latest National Climate Assessment put together by 300 scientists from 13 agencies of the U.S. government and released last month found that climate change is real, man-made, and will cost the U.S. 10 percent of its economy by 2100. Midwestern farmers will lose 75 percent of their crop yields, and…

Post by Comevius » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 11:12 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #56

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #16

After solving global warming, should we be more concerned by the approaching end of the current interglacial period? The next glacial period of the current Ice Age is going to be terrible for our stage of technology and civilization. If we are serious about the current issues of climate change, and about potential asteroid impacts, why should we not also be planning for the mid- to long-term risk of the return to an…

This is an interesting question. Haven't there been much warmer periods in our planet's history that were followed by an ice age? It is hard to sort out exactly what climate change means.

Post by Comevius » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

skosch wrote: post #75

apo wrote: post #63

The problem with many discussions around global warming is not scientific, but cultural. Advocates of change often take a sanctimonious attitude toward anyone expressing the slightest doubt. Have a look at the episodes of the Netflix series "Bill Nye Saves the World" on climate change. If you can watch without cringing, congratulations. I can't. Or take this interview Nye did with Tucker Carlsen: https://www.youtube.…

If this was 1980, then I'd be right with you. But it's 2018. We've had 40 years of unmistakable data, and at this point, anyone pushing this "the science isn't settled" talking point – adopted from the tobacco industry – either has a vested interest in denialism or simply falls really far left on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

Post by robotrout » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

Comevius wrote: post #99

robotrout wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible for temperature increases on Earth, Mars, Triton, Jupiter, and Pluto. While CO2 promoters point out the fact that solar irradiance changes are relatively small over time, they ignore that those same irradiance changes correspond to changes in solar magnetism, which means changes in cosmic ray incidence on planetary atmospheres. It is well known that…

"There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible" The solar constant in the past 400 years has varied less than 0.2 percent. "It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation." Not well known, because the research is still ongoing. Henrik Svensmark's research in a dust- and impurity-free atmosphere contributed to our understanding of aerosol microphysics, but others agree that the effect i…

    This work offers a new understanding of global particle 
    formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than 
    binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant 
    role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming 
    aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate 
    from nucleation

Post by Comevius » Fri, Dec 07, 2018, 12:16 AM UTC

drorh wrote: post #101

mr_overalls wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no reason to believe this. From: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25422366/trump-ambass... "The fourth and latest National Climate Assessment put together by 300 scientists from 13 agencies of the U.S. government and released last month found that climate change is real, man-made, and will cost the U.S. 10 percent of its economy by 2100. Midwestern farmers will lose 75 percent of their crop yields, and…

Wow, by 2100 it will cost the US 10% of its economy? You mean a small size recession? And you all are such a fuss about? And for that you want to deprive 3rd world people from gaining the same benefits you get from energy? This is alarmism on the grandest scale and a horrifying hypocritical at that. There is nothing we can do about CO2 right now. We can just continue to work on safer and cleaner ways to generate elec…