A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twf said:
Even if you deny the science…
Click to expand...
Denying the validity of unsupported claims is not denying science. Given that global temperatures have hardly moved in nearly 20 years, why would we believe heatwaves are suddenly a new problem?

The facts are that the models have significantly overestimated the amount of warming we have experienced so far in this century, a fact finally getting “official” recognition. This is from a paper that came out about two days ago:
  • We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.*
    Ender
 
Roseeurekacross said:
The biggest significant difference in my part of Australia in the last 50 years is in the effect of the heat of the sun.

Yes there is a hole in the ozone layer that contributes to this effect.

So rays of the sun are really intense, no matter the temperature. Famous comments by Africans I had visiting…we get the same temperatures, we have blue sky and sunlight, but the sun here we don’t get.

Btw we are heading into another drought. It’s dry, too dry, winter days are blue sky and sun, early morning frost. It should be wet, cloudy, cold and raining.

Global climate change is just that, Global. It’s real, it’s here, it’s already happening.

Just because you see no change where you are, does that negate its reality?
Click to expand...
There is NOT a hole in the ozone layer.

There is a seasonal THINNING at the south pole ozone layer. However, the ozone layer is STILL thicker at the poles than at the equator.

Read “The Hole in the Ozone Scare” by Maduro.

After Dobson died in 1976, serious scholarship on the ozone layer stopped. After he died, people began ignoring seasonal ozone changes and changes in the ozone density as it varies by latitude.
 
Ender said:
Denying the validity of unsupported claims is not denying science. Given that global temperatures have hardly moved in nearly 20 years, why would we believe heatwaves are suddenly a new problem?

The facts are that the models have significantly overestimated the amount of warming we have experienced so far in this century, a fact finally getting “official” recognition. This is from a paper that came out about two days ago:
  • We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies* in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
    Ender
Click to expand...
Your words ’ in this country’ says it all. Global climate change is just that, global.

I think that’s a hard concept to reconcile to hey it’s always snowed here, still snowing now.

A shift in global temperature of how much is going to cause issues? Do you guys know?

It’s time to stop quoting poorly written and poorly understood coffee table articles, get noses out of literature 'proving or denying ’ the existence of global wtf is going on weather wise,

And put those eyes in front of those noses and look at what’s going on. Talk to old people about changes, question the cultural shift in winter clothing having a shorter sale season, tropical fruit growing in traditionally temperate climates.
 
meltzerboy said:
There is a little more in THAT kind of thought process; in other words, a big distance between " ‘deniers’ won’t listen to reason, which only our side has," and “so we have to get rid of them…” Something further is going on in the disturbed mind that leads the person to take to violence, such as “if they don’t agree with me, they don’t deserve to live,” or “they are making it too hard for the rest of us, so they must be eliminated.” That additional cognitive process makes all the difference.
Click to expand...
Climate change is an existential threat. Using too much energy and living profligately is a crime against humanity. In that case, violence against the despoilers of the planet is not a disturbed response, it’s a perfectly reasonable one.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Your words ’ in this country’ says it all. Global climate change is just that, global.
Click to expand...
The phrase I used was “in this century”, not “in this country”.
It’s time to stop quoting poorly written and poorly understood coffee table articles, get noses out of literature 'proving or denying ’ the existence of global wtf is going on weather wise,
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you actually read what was being said you would have a more enlightened perspective. The “coffee table article” you dismiss was published in the magazine Nature Geoscience, and the lead author was Benjamin Santer who is one of the true believers in MMGW and works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It references 65 other scientific articles and gives the appearance of being as serious an article on global warming as anything else being published. It is ironic that you would on the one hand exhort me to “look at what’s going on” while on the other ridicule my doing just that. How can you believe you have the better claim to the science of global warming when you dismiss articles written by your own champions simply because they don’t advance the chosen narrative?

Ender
 
Roseeurekacross. You mentioned . . .
tropical fruit growing in traditionally temperate climates.
Click to expand...
But I have just the opposite. I have things that used to grow here but it is now too cold.

When I bring THAT up, I get told that’s merely a local phenomenon.
I get told: “That’s weather, not climate.”
Click to expand...
So concerning your “proof” of " tropical fruit growing in traditionally temperate climates." from what the global warming alarmists have taught me, I have to say . . . .
“That’s weather, not climate.”
Click to expand...
 
ucfengr said:
Climate change is an existential threat. Using too much energy and living profligately is a crime against humanity. In that case, violence against the despoilers of the planet is not a disturbed response, it’s a perfectly reasonable one.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a “perfectly reasonable response,” but only to an irrational mind. Even schizophrenic people, as an example, have a “method to their madness.” They think they make logical sense within the framework of their own belief system.
 
I was in a discussion yesterday with a co worker who said there are global maps around 100+ yrs old that show Antarctica being somewhat tropical???
 
meltzerboy said:
Yes, it is a “perfectly reasonable response,” but only to an irrational mind. Even schizophrenic people, as an example, have a “method to their madness.” They think they make logical sense within the framework of their own belief system.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that viewing climate change as an existential threat is irrational, or that dealing violently with an existential threat is?
 
JanetF said:
We can be responsible citizens of the earth while still being somewhat skeptical of the new climate change science IMHO. I recycle, I reuse, and I am careful about my energy consumption, but do I believe that all climate change in man-made…Nope. Climate of the earth has been changing since the very beginning. Is some of the change accelerated by man’s choices, undoubtedly. Just like evolution is a theory, so is climate change. I’m not going to go over-the-top crazy in how I respond to the ever-changing theories. I’d love to have solar panels on my house so that I wouldn’t have to pay for electricity, but they are cost-prohibitive, so I can’t do it.

I don’t believe that withdrawing from the Paris accord was necessarily a bad thing simply because the non-binding aspect of it makes it irrelevant, and I would rather see China make some drastic changes before being asked to cough up more money to help solve the global issue.
Click to expand...
These are my thoughts and actions as well. When my kids were still living at home, we had one car. We took the bus and carpooled. We had a compost pile. When they were babies, I used cloth diapers and hung them on the line. I wonder how many climate fear mongers do this? I don’t use paper towels or paper napkins. I have a setback thermostat. I buy a lot of my clothing and household goods second hand, including my car.

When my kids grew up and moved out on their own, I downsized my housing. No need to keep a big house and all the energy it takes to maintain that.

I agree that the science keeps changing as we learn more. Many of the proposals to “fight” climate change hurt the poor: increase energy cost, used car prices and car repairs skyrocketing due to cash for clunkers, etc. I don’t think they work.

I think it’s possible to disagree with the climate change agenda, but still be a responsible steward of the earth.

People have a tendency to assume those who oppose climate change solutions don’t reuse and recycle. That climate change “deniers” don’t want clean air and water. Not true.
 
ProdigalSun said:
Yes the bolded speaks volumes because ex cathedra will only apply to the faith and Morals. NOT SCIENCE. Morally speaking it is our duty to look after the earth. It is the science that is up for debate!👍
Click to expand...
AND let’s don’t forget, God’s still in charge!! God Bless, Memaw
 
qui_est_ce said:
These are my thoughts and actions as well. When my kids were still living at home, we had one car. We took the bus and carpooled. We had a compost pile. When they were babies, I used cloth diapers and hung them on the line. I wonder how many climate fear mongers do this? I don’t use paper towels or paper napkins. I have a setback thermostat. I buy a lot of my clothing and household goods second hand, including my car.

When my kids grew up and moved out on their own, I downsized my housing. No need to keep a big house and all the energy it takes to maintain that.

I agree that the science keeps changing as we learn more. Many of the proposals to “fight” climate change hurt the poor: increase energy cost, used car prices and car repairs skyrocketing due to cash for clunkers, etc. I don’t think they work.

I think it’s possible to disagree with the climate change agenda, but still be a responsible steward of the earth.

People have a tendency to assume those who oppose climate change solutions don’t reuse and recycle. That climate change “deniers” don’t want clean air and water. Not true.
Click to expand...
It’s usually not the people who are to blame; it’s the politicians who are “deniers.” I hesitate to say that even they “don’t want clean air and water,” but they have other interests, such as the continued profits of the fossil fuel industry, which seem to take priority.

OTOH, you know I find it interesting that liberals were once upon a time great champions of coal workers and fought for workers’ rights and unions to represent their interest. Now they appear to be against their interests in favor of cleaner sources of energy. I can understand the shift based on environmental concerns, but I nonetheless find it curious how one’s supporters change with the times.
 
meltzerboy said:
It’s usually not the people who are to blame; it’s the politicians who are “deniers.” I hesitate to say that even they “don’t want clean air and water,” but they have other interests, such as the continued profits of the fossil fuel industry, which seem to take priority.

OTOH, you know I find it interesting that liberals were once upon a time great champions of coal workers and fought for workers’ rights and unions to represent their interest. Now they appear to be against their interests in favor of cleaner sources of energy. I can understand the shift based on environmental concerns, but I nonetheless find it curious how one’s supporters change with the times.
Click to expand...
That could be said about a lot of policies our politicians on both sides of the aisle support.
 
Memaw said:
AND let’s don’t forget, God’s still in charge!! God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I wish you would elaborate on that. What does it mean for us? What should we do differently, or not do all all, because “God is in charge?”

To me the statement “God is in charge” means that we should be confident in the eventual victory over sin and death which the resurrection of Jesus Christ promises. This confidence should permeate our daily lives. It should dispel the pessimism that says nothing we can do can ever succeed. One of those bold hopes is that God has given man the power to better his environment. We can mitigate global warming and preserve the earth for everyone until Jesus comes.

But maybe you meant something else?
 
meltzerboy said:
I mean the latter. Violent behavior against innocent or unaware people is nearly always irrational.
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about “innocent or unaware people”, we’re talking about people we consciously reject “the Science”, and with full knowledge of the consequences, continue to despoil our planet, all in the pursuit of filthy lucre. How can using violence to protect the planet from those who would destroy it be considered irrational?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top