World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Huge area of concern. Communities are being wiped out. I recently moved to an area in Florida that I believe will be both water and food sustainable at least over the next 20 years.

Not all tragic catastrophes are weather related.
Those are the insurance losses. Add up the reported weather related costs and it runs about 3/4 trillion annually and rising. As I said in my last post; “we will only know for certain that climate changed when governments and business can no longer afford to repair or replace what was damaged by the weather.”

I learned from you in a previous exchange we had so you know that I appreciate your view.
I have never seen the 3/4 trillion figure, but I suppose it depends on what one adds in, and when one compares to. I suspect the “weather related costs” in northern China alone are staggering because of the overutilization of the soil and microclimate changes due to it. How you would value it would depend on whose prices you use and the baseline you use for comparison.

For example, the net GAIN in corn production was about 3 billion bushels in the U.S. alone from 2012 to 2013. Depending on which year you use for prices, it could be said that the net loss in profits would have been about $9 billion for those who had corn. But if you use 2012 prices alone, the net gain would have been about $21 billion if considered as a whole.

The difference in crop yield really was weather-driven, but the difference in economic value gained or lost depends on what you are using for comparison.

On the other hand, beef production would have shown a “weather related” net loss in 2013, not because of 2013 weather, but because of 2011 and 2012 weather combined with the high 2011 and 2012 corn prices and the fear of more of the same (which didn’t pan out, of course). Beef production has about a 3-4 year lag time between a production drop and a regain, no matter what. But the experience of high feed costs for two years and low beef prices for several years has made cattlemen cautious, and there is little sign of significantly increased herd numbers in the near future despite really high cattle prices presently. So, a man with the same herd in 2013 as he had in, say, 2008 will have a greatly increased production value measured in dollars. But if he sold down in 2011 or 2012, he might be dead even, at a slight gain or at a loss.

Now, nobody really knows what corn and soybean plantings will be like in 2014. Probably corn will be down and soybeans up. There’s more wheat growing in 2014 than in early 2013, which means less corn and more soybeans because you can plant soybeans after wheat harvest quite readily whereas you can’t double crop soybeans after corn most of the time. So, if you use grain, generally, as your yardstick, 2014 will probably show a net gain while showing a net loss in corn. That would be “weather related”, but not because of 2014 weather. It would be due to 2013 weather or even 2012 weather.

And if corn prices spike, poultry production will go down, but not immediately. Hog prices will go down, but less so, since hogs can do as well on distillers’ grain as on corn, whereas poultry can’t.

All of that is weather related in a way, but not directly and not immediately.

I don’t know anything about Florida except that it’s warm and low-lying. This year I gained a greater familiarity with our local geology, so while I am concerned about a return of the 1950s cycle (warm western Atlantic, cold eastern Pacific) and resultant drought in the southern plains and adjacent areas, I do not particularly fear water shortages at any but the depths above where any well or year-round spring is. On adjacent geological features, though, I would be very concerned.
 
One of the main problems with modern natural science (aside from its commitment to naturalism,which is false) is that scientists can make claims of supposed causes and effects,no matter how tenuous,and there is no way for most of us to see for ourselves if the evidence adds up to the claims,or if the evidence really is evidence,or if the methods used for testing and measurement are adequate. But many people are inclined to agree with the scientific claims without scrutinizing them,because they have been led to think that the scientists must know what they are talking about,and because science has developed so many technological products. And many people go along with mechanistic explanations even if the “mechanisms” cannot be shown to exist or to have the power to do what is attributed to them. It’s like listening to a history teacher or sociologist who explains things according to Marxist analysis or a biblical scholar who explains sacred scripture according to anthropological assumptions. They give mechanisms and processes,but not logical causality. We should always insist upon fitting effects with proper causes,as the medieval philosophers did. We should always ask,does this cause have the power to produce that effect?
 
One of the main problems with modern natural science (aside from its commitment to naturalism,which is false) is that scientists can make claims of supposed causes and effects,no matter how tenuous,and there is no way for most of us to see for ourselves if the evidence adds up to the claims,or if the evidence really is evidence,or if the methods used for testing and measurement are adequate. But many people are inclined to agree with the scientific claims without scrutinizing them,because they have been led to think that the scientists must know what they are talking about,and because science has developed so many technological products. And many people go along with mechanistic explanations even if the “mechanisms” cannot be shown to exist or to have the power to do what is attributed to them. It’s like listening to a history teacher or sociologist who explains things according to Marxist analysis or a biblical scholar who explains sacred scripture according to anthropological assumptions. They give mechanisms and processes,but not logical causality. We should always insist upon fitting effects with proper causes,as the medieval philosophers did. We should always ask,does this cause have the power to produce that effect?
👍

Well said.
 
Climate warming / cooling has been happening for millions of years. Things will go either way drastically from time to time.
 
One of the main problems with modern natural science (aside from its commitment to naturalism,which is false) is that scientists can make claims of supposed causes and effects,no matter how tenuous,and there is no way for most of us to see for ourselves if the evidence adds up to the claims,or if the evidence really is evidence,or if the methods used for testing and measurement are adequate. But many people are inclined to agree with the scientific claims without scrutinizing them,because they have been led to think that the scientists must know what they are talking about,and because science has developed so many technological products. And many people go along with mechanistic explanations even if the “mechanisms” cannot be shown to exist or to have the power to do what is attributed to them. It’s like listening to a history teacher or sociologist who explains things according to Marxist analysis or a biblical scholar who explains sacred scripture according to anthropological assumptions. They give mechanisms and processes,but not logical causality. We should always insist upon fitting effects with proper causes,as the medieval philosophers did. We should always ask,does this cause have the power to produce that effect?
Your phasing is confusing. Change ‘claims’ to “hypothesis” and it is less confusing. Like claims, hypotheses are neither true nor false. Scientists apply the ‘scientific method’ to test their hypotheses. The scientific method does determine absolute truth only probability. In our modern culture, Galileo (1564–1642) is generally credited with being the father of the scientific method. The Middle Ages lasted from the 5th to the 15th century so it is unlikely that they were using the scientific method. What you appear to be saying is that scientific studies return to the middle ages. Are you proposing that?
 
As beautiful as this may be, I see it as being a factor in climate issues (and also, human sickness and disease).

http://www.gordoncooper.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Earth_at_Night_America.jpg

Regarding the atmospheric collapse, which happened in 2008, from this article,

“According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

My account of the 60% is … electricity itself.

As a life-long New Englander, I’m happy to say that this winter season has been mostly NORMAL. It truly upsets me when winter is abnormal.
Based on your analysis the North Koreans should be the healthiest people in the world.
 
As beautiful as this may be, I see it as being a factor in climate issues (and also, human sickness and disease).
Based on your analysis the North Koreans should be the healthiest people in the world.
The “Earth at Night” photo was the first thing I thought of when I read gmx’s post (and would have posted a link to it if someone hadn’t beaten me to it). North Korea, central Asia, most of Africa, and a good bit of South America are apparently the healthiest and most-disease-free regions of the planet.
 
FHD (and FOS for that matter) is a TLA I’m not familiar with

(where TLA = Three Letter Acronym)
 
Can we please refrain from posting images wider than FHD?
I have no way of knowing the size of the image and no way of sizing it. But it appears to have been removed anyway. It wasn’t as large on its host website as it appeared here, and I’m not sure why that happened.
 
I have no way of knowing the size of the image and no way of sizing it. But it appears to have been removed anyway. It wasn’t as large on its host website as it appeared here, and I’m not sure why that happened.
It is always a good idea to preview posts with pictures in them before posting. And if you right click on an image and choose view image info (in firefox, and I am sure there is a similar thing for IE). I am unsure of the picture requirements on CA, but I am sure they are posted somewhere. (You can always save an image and resize it (JPEGs are generally smaller than TIFs and other image files).
 
It is always a good idea to preview posts with pictures in them before posting. And if you right click on an image and choose view image info (in firefox, and I am sure there is a similar thing for IE). I am unsure of the picture requirements on CA, but I am sure they are posted somewhere. (You can always save an image and resize it (JPEGs are generally smaller than TIFs and other image files).
The only way to post an image is to provide a link, so for me to save and resize the image, I would have to re-upload it to an image hosting website. The easiest thing to do then is just provide the link to the image.

NASA Global Earth at Night Image
 
The only way to post an image is to provide a link, so for me to save and resize the image, I would have to re-upload it to an image hosting website. The easiest thing to do then is just provide the link to the image.

NASA Global Earth at Night Image
You can post a picture through the attachments option (the little paper clip symbol). This will let you attach a picture that is stored directly on your device rather than the internet. Hope this helps, it took me some time to figure out this message board stuff, in fact, only in the last year did I learn how to quote multiple people in one reply. 😛
 
Your phasing is confusing. Change ‘claims’ to “hypothesis” and it is less confusing. Like claims, hypotheses are neither true nor false. Scientists apply the ‘scientific method’ to test their hypotheses.
How can you say that hypotheses and claims are neither true nor false? They are statements of what is believed to be true. They are either true or they are false.
The scientific method does determine absolute truth only probability.
Science determines many absolute truths about nature,not just probabilities.
In our modern culture, Galileo (1564–1642) is generally credited with being the father of the scientific method. The Middle Ages lasted from the 5th to the 15th century so it is unlikely that they were using the scientific method. What you appear to be saying is that scientific studies return to the middle ages. Are you proposing that?
No. I propose that we scrutinize scientific claims and theories to see if their supposed causes and effects are in accord with reason.
 
Oh no, it’s global warming/climate change! Quick, send Al Gore your money! He’ll put a stop to this!

…
What a scam.
 
The guy quoted, Professor Steven Sherwood, has a Bachelor degree in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…a Master of Science in Engineering Physics from the University of California…and a PhD in Oceanography from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California in 1995.
He did post-doctoral research at Victoria University of Wellington (NZ) and was a Research Scientist at the Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center.

Then he was a Professor at Yale University, then a Professor and Director at the University of New South Wales’ Climate Change Research Centre.

Why do you call him a pseudo-scientist?

What more does he have to do, in your estimation, to be a “full” or “real” scientist?

Who cares what they think?
Everyone living on this planet should indeed care…

.
AGW is fraud cloaked in science. You as a skeptic should have ferreted out this chaff. Let’s assume that humans are warming earth. Is this a bad thing? Then why did Al Gore buy beach front property, and why does he jet-set around the world in his private plane, which spews tons of CO2?
Let’s assume that AGW is true. If you filled a stadium with 100,000 people, all represented by atmospheric molecules, CO2 representatives would fill 38 of those seats, all but 99,962 that is. Let’s also assume that 2 or 3 CO2 infiltrators push the same number of O2 molecules off the upper deck, and seat themselves instead. Would the consistency change of the atmospheric crowd be detectable, aside from a small O2 splatter?
I think you know the answer. 😉 Rob
 
It aways amazes me that the climate change deniers use the fact that its cold and snowing in winter to claim that it means there is no climate change. Apparently they haven’t been paying attention to the fact that we’re talking about a difference of a few degrees; not Alaska becoming a tropical rainforest overnight.
A few degrees? How many? Most of these posts are quite on one side of the argument, and I am on neither yet, therefore right here I am posting a link from NASA that we all can look at.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top