Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

Tau.Neutrino said:

Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2

Tau.Neutrino said:

Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

10. 6th mass extinction event. should take care of it.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2

Thanks for that one.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

decreased rainfall.

Bogsnorkler said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

decreased rainfall.

uh uh. Nup. Only increases allowed.

Woodie said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

decreased rainfall.

uh uh. Nup. Only increases allowed.

Unfortunately here in the SW of WA we are on a diminishing quota of water from the sky.

List of climate change global warming effects

These extremes swap with the seasons.

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

These extremes swap with the seasons.

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

These extremes swap with the seasons (Not everywhere so much poles equator) ?

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects
Climate change Natural billions of years, global warming man made last 10,000 years

These extremes swap with the seasons (Not everywhere so much poles equator) ?

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas

List of climate change global warming effects
Climate change Natural billions of years, global warming man made last 10,000 years

These extremes swap with the seasons (Not everywhere so much poles equator) ?

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves and drought
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas
26 Increased flooding and erosion is some areas
27 Declining water supplies in other areas

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You are ignoring the elephant in the room. I would strongly suggest you read the contents of the attached link. Global warming is not the only cause, but is now along with human over-population the main driving force.

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction-has-begun-new-study-confirms/

“Anyway, like I was sayin’, shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. There’s uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There’s pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that’s about it.”

Honestly though, the simplest thing would be for you to read:

International Panel on Climate Change
WORKING GROUP REPORT
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
March 2014

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You are ignoring the elephant in the room. I would strongly suggest you read the contents of the attached link. Global warming is not the only cause, but is now along with human over-population the main driving force.

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction-has-begun-new-study-confirms/

I am aware of global warming which is man made which is due to our global population.

More people on the planet equals more global warming effects

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

You are ignoring the elephant in the room. I would strongly suggest you read the contents of the attached link. Global warming is not the only cause, but is now along with human over-population the main driving force.

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction-has-begun-new-study-confirms/

I am aware of global warming which is man made which is due to our global population.

More people on the planet equals more global warming effects

I’ll leave to your list, as long as you are happy.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

You are ignoring the elephant in the room. I would strongly suggest you read the contents of the attached link. Global warming is not the only cause, but is now along with human over-population the main driving force.

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction-has-begun-new-study-confirms/

I am aware of global warming which is man made which is due to our global population.

More people on the planet equals more global warming effects

I’ll leave to your list, as long as you are happy.

Ill be a bit happier when the list is finished.

I think its a good start anyway.

I wanted to see a list, those that were around were not complete.

So I made one based form other incomplete lists and other stuff that I had read.

dv said:

Honestly though, the simplest thing would be for you to read:

International Panel on Climate Change
WORKING GROUP REPORT
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
March 2014

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

And a lot has happened and been discovered in the last 5 years. Global warming is a rapidly evolving situation.

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

These extremes swap with the seasons.

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe

I could double the length of that list easily. I note that you’re mixing up cause and effect here.

Im not sure the list is important…

• I note that you’re mixing up cause and effect here.

Not to mention the tautology …

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

These extremes swap with the seasons.

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe

I could double the length of that list easily. I note that you’re mixing up cause and effect here.

If you have a feedback, cause and effect are not separate things.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

These extremes swap with the seasons.

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe

I could double the length of that list easily. I note that you’re mixing up cause and effect here.

I am mixing things up a bit

furious said:

Im not sure the list is important…

I’m not sure your opinion of the importance of the list is important.

(yes, we do have an infinite loop here).

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Honestly though, the simplest thing would be for you to read:

International Panel on Climate Change
WORKING GROUP REPORT
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
March 2014

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

And a lot has happened and been discovered in the last 5 years. Global warming is a rapidly evolving situation.

Read the first IPCC assessment report, from 1990. It’s good. The quality has been going downhill steadily since then.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Honestly though, the simplest thing would be for you to read:

International Panel on Climate Change
WORKING GROUP REPORT
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
March 2014

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

And a lot has happened and been discovered in the last 5 years. Global warming is a rapidly evolving situation.

True enough but the major bullet points remain the same.

The next report isn’t due out til 2021.

• I’m not sure your opinion of the importance of the list is important.

You’re right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It’s not going to shift one Roman soldier!

furious said:

Im not sure the list is important…

Crosses furious off the field research team

I think it is, details are important and details can be considered for more information.

plus it helps to connect all the various little things together that make up the bigger picture of how everything works together in a complex environment

I notice you leftist lunatics haven’t included any of the great positive effects.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Honestly though, the simplest thing would be for you to read:

International Panel on Climate Change
WORKING GROUP REPORT
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
March 2014

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

And a lot has happened and been discovered in the last 5 years. Global warming is a rapidly evolving situation.

True enough but the major bullet points remain the same.

The next report isn’t due out til 2021.

Ha, at it’s best the IPCC report is highly conservative in order to get a consensus. Plus you need a lot of spare time to read it.

• I think it is, details are important and details can be considered for more information.

If you know something is bad, you dont need to list al the reasons that it is bad before getting on with addressing it…

furious said:

• I think it is, details are important and details can be considered for more information.

If you know something is bad, you dont need to list al the reasons that it is bad before getting on with addressing it…

Do you like dumbing things down or something?

It helps to understand the problem.

furious said:

• I’m not sure your opinion of the importance of the list is important.

You’re right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It’s not going to shift one Roman soldier!

Agreed brothers.

And sisters.

• Do you like dumbing things down or something?

Making a list and checking it twice makes for a nice fairytale but it doesnt really achieve anything…

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

Climate change, naturally occurring over billions of years, global warming man made last 500 – 10,000 years ?

These extremes swap with the seasons (Not everywhere so much poles equator) ?

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves and drought
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas
26 Increased flooding and erosion is some areas
27 Declining water supplies in other areas
28 Declining biodiversity related to global warming
29 Extinctions related to global warming

furious said:

• Do you like dumbing things down or something?

Making a list and checking it twice makes for a nice fairytale but it doesnt really achieve anything…

creates information for people to consider

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

These extremes swap with the seasons.

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe

I could double the length of that list easily. I note that you’re mixing up cause and effect here.

I am mixing things up a bit

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• Do you like dumbing things down or something?

Making a list and checking it twice makes for a nice fairytale but it doesnt really achieve anything…

creates information for people to consider

Helps people connect more information together for considered reasoning.

• creates information for people to consider

My house is on fire, thats bad, but how?

I wont have anywhere to live
My stuff will get burnt
…

Shouldnt you call the fire brigade?

Shoosh, im listing ways that this is a bad thing…

I think the combination of rising sea levels + increased storm surges will probably have the most obvious harmful effect in the short term.

If only because localised effects that affect a large proportion of people attract more attention than distributed effects that affect a smaller proportion, even if the total number is greater.

furious said:

• creates information for people to consider

My house is on fire, thats bad, but how?

I wont have anywhere to live
My stuff will get burnt
…

Shouldnt you call the fire brigade?

Shoosh, im listing ways that this is a bad thing…

if you want to understand something then you have to look at all its parts

to see how all those parts work together

• If only because localised effects that affect a large proportion of people attract more attention than distributed effects that affect a smaller proportion, even if the total number is greater.

Unless that smaller proportion is a pretty white girl, then itd be front page news…

Too controversial?

• if you want to understand something then you have to look at all its parts

Your house is burning. Put out the bloody fire. It is not rocket science…

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• creates information for people to consider

My house is on fire, thats bad, but how?

I wont have anywhere to live
My stuff will get burnt
…

Shouldnt you call the fire brigade?

Shoosh, im listing ways that this is a bad thing…

if you want to understand something then you have to look at all its parts

to see how all those parts work together

But it is just one big fucking mess!

furious said:

• If only because localised effects that affect a large proportion of people attract more attention than distributed effects that affect a smaller proportion, even if the total number is greater.

Unless that smaller proportion is a pretty white girl, then itd be front page news…

Too controversial?

True enough.

Or even a pretty Saudi girl.

furious said:

• if you want to understand something then you have to look at all its parts

Your house is burning. Put out the bloody fire. It is not rocket science…

To be fair, even if TN stops list making, and goes outside and starts global cooling activities, I don’t suppose it would make a huge difference.

furious said:

• if you want to understand something then you have to look at all its parts

Your house is burning. Put out the bloody fire. It is not rocket science…

Climate change and global warming is a lot more complex than comparing it to a house fire.

if you want ot understand the problem you have to look at its parts

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

• if you want to understand something then you have to look at all its parts

Your house is burning. Put out the bloody fire. It is not rocket science…

To be fair, even if TN stops list making, and goes outside and starts global cooling activities, I don’t suppose it would make a huge difference.

He could try throwing ice cubes at the sun.

• Climate change and global warming is a lot more complex than comparing it to a house fire.

It is and it isnt. You can sp3nd your lifevtrying to understand it or you can spend your life trying to stop it. Choice is yours…

• He could try throwing ice cubes at the sun.

In this regard, the alfoil hat would be helpful to reflect the heat back out…

furious said:

• He could try throwing ice cubes at the sun.

In this regard, the alfoil hat would be helpful to reflect the heat back out…

true, didn’t think of that.

furious said:

• Climate change and global warming is a lot more complex than comparing it to a house fire.

It is and it isnt. You can sp3nd your lifevtrying to understand it or you can spend your life trying to stop it. Choice is yours…

I can spend my life understanding it and trying to stop it

The Choice is for everyone

humanity!

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• Climate change and global warming is a lot more complex than comparing it to a house fire.

It is and it isnt. You can sp3nd your lifevtrying to understand it or you can spend your life trying to stop it. Choice is yours…

I can spend my life understanding it and trying to stop it

The Choice is for everyone

humanity!

“eternity” the man wrote.

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• Climate change and global warming is a lot more complex than comparing it to a house fire.

It is and it isnt. You can sp3nd your lifevtrying to understand it or you can spend your life trying to stop it. Choice is yours…

I can spend my life understanding it and trying to stop it

The Choice is for everyone

humanity!

It is and it isnt.

It is!

no way it isnt!

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• Climate change and global warming is a lot more complex than comparing it to a house fire.

It is and it isnt. You can sp3nd your lifevtrying to understand it or you can spend your life trying to stop it. Choice is yours…

I can spend my life understanding it and trying to stop it

The Choice is for everyone

humanity!

It is and it isnt.

It is!

no way it isnt!

Where’s your field notes furious ?

They didn’t matter so I didn’t write anything down.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

furious said:

• Climate change and global warming is a lot more complex than comparing it to a house fire.

It is and it isnt. You can sp3nd your lifevtrying to understand it or you can spend your life trying to stop it. Choice is yours…

I can spend my life understanding it and trying to stop it

The Choice is for everyone

humanity!

“eternity” the man wrote.

>>The word Eternity was a graffito tag recorded over an approximate 35-year period from 1932 to 1967, written numerous times in chalk in the streets of Sydney, Australia. The word had been written by Arthur Stace, an illiterate former soldier, petty criminal and alcoholic who became a devout Christian in the late 1940s.<<

Wiki

• Where’s your field notes furious ?
  
  They didn’t matter so I didn’t write anything down.

But i put that fire out like a boss and your used tissue collection is safe…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of climate change global warming effects

Climate change, naturally occurring over billions of years, global warming man made last 500 – 10,000 years ?

These extremes swap with the seasons (Not everywhere so much poles equator) ?

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves and drought
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas
26 Increased flooding and erosion is some areas
27 Declining water supplies in other areas
28 Declining biodiversity related to global warming
29 Extinctions related to global warming
30 increase in human deaths related to global warming
31 migration of people as rain patterns change local drought
32 Changes in crop locations with changing precipitation patterns

List of climate change global warming effects

Climate change, naturally occurring over billions of years, global warming man made last 500 – 10,000 years ?

These extremes swap with the seasons (Not everywhere so much poles equator) ?

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves and drought
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas
26 Increased flooding and erosion is some areas
27 Declining water supplies in other areas
28 Declining biodiversity related to global warming
29 Extinctions related to global warming
30 increase in human deaths related to global warming
31 migration of people as rain patterns change local drought
32 Changes in crop locations with changing precipitation patterns
33 Increases in diseases related to floods and sewage
34 Changes in house prices due to various reasons flooding, rising sea levels.
35 Increase in malnutrition and food shortages
36 Increases in air conditioning cooling and heating use as temperatures soar or plummet

Bogsnorkler said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Putting together a list of climate change effects

1 Increased temperatures
2 Increased rain
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased heatwaves
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 increased damage to fragile ecosystems

I’m looking for other effects

decreased rainfall.

Depends where you live.

Try this for size. I’ve split up first order (most important) and second order (less important) effects.
I’ve also avoided duplication, all the relatively minor amplification and negation effects are ignored.

mollwollfumble said:

Try this for size. I’ve split up first order (most important) and second order (less important) effects.
I’ve also avoided duplication, all the relatively minor amplification and negation effects are ignored.

Very interesting.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Honestly though, the simplest thing would be for you to read:

International Panel on Climate Change
WORKING GROUP REPORT
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
March 2014

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

And a lot has happened and been discovered in the last 5 years. Global warming is a rapidly evolving situation.

Read the first IPCC assessment report, from 1990. It’s good. The quality has been going downhill steadily since then.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml

404

Might be updated site, try https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/ from https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (i haven’t read them all).

People used to talk about this when i was in primary school, but decades later seems we’ve finally reached the same level of agreement as people had back then.

I guess my SCIENCE teachers were useless after all.

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

And a lot has happened and been discovered in the last 5 years. Global warming is a rapidly evolving situation.

Read the first IPCC assessment report, from 1990. It’s good. The quality has been going downhill steadily since then.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml

404

Might be updated site, try https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/ from https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (i haven’t read them all).

People used to talk about this when i was in primary school, but decades later seems we’ve finally reached the same level of agreement as people had back then.

I guess my SCIENCE teachers were useless after all.

Fucking amazing the number of people who were fully aware of Global Warming and the calamitous effects decades ago. I had all these marvelously intelligent people with unrivaled insight within my company and never suspected a thing.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON CROP POLLINATION

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

Read the first IPCC assessment report, from 1990. It’s good. The quality has been going downhill steadily since then.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml

404

Might be updated site, try https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/ from https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (i haven’t read them all).

People used to talk about this when i was in primary school, but decades later seems we’ve finally reached the same level of agreement as people had back then.

I guess my SCIENCE teachers were useless after all.

Fucking amazing the number of people who were fully aware of Global Warming and the calamitous effects decades ago. I had all these marvelously intelligent people with unrivaled insight within my company and never suspected a thing.

I read about it in Scientific American in the 1970s. Then it seemed to go away for a while.

List of climate change global warming effects

Climate change, naturally occurring over billions of years, global warming man made last 500 years

These extremes swap with the seasons (Not everywhere so much poles equator)

Current changes are expected to continue and intensify in the future

1 Increased temperatures bringing heatwaves and drought
2 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity
4 Increased bush fire activity
5 Increased cyclones and storms
6 Increased volcanism in some areas
7 Increased Polar Vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems
10 Effects of climate change on crop pollination
11 Warmer oceans
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2
13 Rising sea levels
14 Reduction of polar ice
15 Reduction of sea ice
16 Reduction of glaciers
17 Reduction of snow packs
18 Thawing permafrost
19 Extra carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere
20 Warmer atmosphere
21 Increased wave activity
22 Reduction of insects across the globe
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas
26 Increased flooding and erosion is some areas
27 Declining water supplies in other areas
28 Declining biodiversity related to global warming
29 Extinctions related to global warming
30 Increase in human deaths related to global warming
31 Migration of people as rain patterns change local drought
32 Changes in crop locations with changing precipitation patterns
33 Increases in diseases related to floods and sewage
34 Changes in house prices due to various reasons flooding, rising sea levels.
35 Increase in malnutrition and food shortages
36 Increases in air conditioning cooling and heating use as temperatures soar or plummet

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

404

Might be updated site, try https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/ from https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (i haven’t read them all).

People used to talk about this when i was in primary school, but decades later seems we’ve finally reached the same level of agreement as people had back then.

I guess my SCIENCE teachers were useless after all.

Fucking amazing the number of people who were fully aware of Global Warming and the calamitous effects decades ago. I had all these marvelously intelligent people with unrivaled insight within my company and never suspected a thing.

I read about it in Scientific American in the 1970s. Then it seemed to go away for a while.

Yes it has been around for a long time, but nobody took a great deal of notice and nobody advocated action. It was just something for people to say gosh, then carry on as if nothing had happened. I bet it won’t be long before Tony Abbott will be saying he was concerned about at least three decades ago too.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

404

Might be updated site, try https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/ from https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (i haven’t read them all).

People used to talk about this when i was in primary school, but decades later seems we’ve finally reached the same level of agreement as people had back then.

I guess my SCIENCE teachers were useless after all.

Fucking amazing the number of people who were fully aware of Global Warming and the calamitous effects decades ago. I had all these marvelously intelligent people with unrivaled insight within my company and never suspected a thing.

I read about it in Scientific American in the 1970s. Then it seemed to go away for a while.

Mid 70’s there was a book that projected human energy consumption over a few hundred years, and derived temperatures higher that 100 C (IIRC). I discussed this with a Brazilian friend visiting UK, saying that there wouldn’t be enough fuel to get anywhere near that temperature rise. She agreed, but pointed out that CO2 emissions + feedback effects could have a much greater heating effect than direct energy emission.

So at least some people were aware of climate change problems in the mid 70’s.

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

Off topic, but I’m looking up papers on what controls the rate of carbon capture by plants. It’s complicated.

http://www.academia.edu/download/42983707/CARphotres2003.pdf

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

I am old enough to remember the world wide immediate and successful response to the ozone hole, after banning the use of CFCs..

It’s a disheartening foil to the way we have been held hostage by the conservaties, backed by coal stooge money, stopping us from fixing the global warming problem.

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

I am old enough to remember the world wide immediate and successful response to the ozone hole, after banning the use of CFCs..

It’s a disheartening foil to the way we have been held hostage by the conservaties, backed by coal stooge money, stopping us from fixing the global warming problem.

I’m impressed that people back then believed science, and did something drastic to mitigate the problem. Nowadays it’s all “science is lying” and “the earth is flat” and “money money money”.

Divine Angel said:

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

I am old enough to remember the world wide immediate and successful response to the ozone hole, after banning the use of CFCs..

It’s a disheartening foil to the way we have been held hostage by the conservaties, backed by coal stooge money, stopping us from fixing the global warming problem.

I’m impressed that people back then believed science, and did something drastic to mitigate the problem. Nowadays it’s all “science is lying” and “the earth is flat” and “money money money”.

I doubt that science so-called scepticism is significantly greater now than then, quite likely it’s less.

Stopping the use of CFCs was a way easier problem than stopping the emission of GHGs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Dropbear said:

I am old enough to remember the world wide immediate and successful response to the ozone hole, after banning the use of CFCs..

It’s a disheartening foil to the way we have been held hostage by the conservaties, backed by coal stooge money, stopping us from fixing the global warming problem.

I’m impressed that people back then believed science, and did something drastic to mitigate the problem. Nowadays it’s all “science is lying” and “the earth is flat” and “money money money”.

I doubt that science so-called scepticism is significantly greater now than then, quite likely it’s less.

Stopping the use of CFCs was a way easier problem than stopping the emission of GHGs.

9 July 2018: Ozone hole mystery: China insulating chemical said to be source of rise.

>>The Environmental Investigations Agency (EIA) found widespread use of CFC-11 in China, even though the chemical was fully banned back in 2010.

Scientists have been extremely puzzled by the mysterious rise in emissions.

But this report suggests the key source is China’s home construction industry.

Just two months ago, researchers published a study showing that the expected decline in the use of CFC-11 after it was completely banned eight years ago had slowed to a crawl.

There were suspicions among researchers that new supplies were being made somewhere in East Asia.<<

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m impressed that people back then believed science, and did something drastic to mitigate the problem. Nowadays it’s all “science is lying” and “the earth is flat” and “money money money”.

I doubt that science so-called scepticism is significantly greater now than then, quite likely it’s less.

Stopping the use of CFCs was a way easier problem than stopping the emission of GHGs.

9 July 2018: Ozone hole mystery: China insulating chemical said to be source of rise.

>>The Environmental Investigations Agency (EIA) found widespread use of CFC-11 in China, even though the chemical was fully banned back in 2010.

Scientists have been extremely puzzled by the mysterious rise in emissions.

But this report suggests the key source is China’s home construction industry.

Just two months ago, researchers published a study showing that the expected decline in the use of CFC-11 after it was completely banned eight years ago had slowed to a crawl.

There were suspicions among researchers that new supplies were being made somewhere in East Asia.<<

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952

>>CFC-11 makes a very efficient “blowing agent” for polyurethane foam, helping it to expand into rigid thermal insulation that’s used in houses to cut energy bills and reduce carbon emissions.

Researchers from the EIA, a green campaign group, contacted foam manufacturing factories in 10 different provinces across China. From their detailed discussions with executives in 18 companies, the investigators concluded that the chemical is used in the majority of the polyurethane insulation the firms produce.

One seller of CFC-11 estimated that 70% of China’s domestic sales used the illegal gas. The reason is quite simple – CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives.<<

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

Bogsnorkler said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals

I think it is largely right, but to effect such a change is wishful thinking, there is simply not enough time.

>>None more so than Jeremy Corbyn, whose Labour Manifesto spelled out a redistributive project to address climate change: by publicly retooling the economy, and insisting that corporate oligarchs no longer run amok. The notion that the rich should pay their fair share to fund this transformation was considered laughable by the political and media class. Millions disagreed. Society, long said to be departed, is now back with a vengeance.<<

I think there would be a great deal of opposition for Jeremy Corbyn to take a leading role, even from people within this forum.

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

We would all die of skin cancer amongst other things.

Bogsnorkler said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals

That’s about the crappiest article I’ve ever read the first half page of.

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

I am old enough to remember the world wide immediate and successful response to the ozone hole, after banning the use of CFCs..

It’s a disheartening foil to the way we have been held hostage by the conservaties, backed by coal stooge money, stopping us from fixing the global warming problem.

And that reminds me of my very first question on SSSF. Can’t remember when it was. But I asked if the ozone hole might be normal for Australia, on the basis that the Aboriginal people retained their dark skin pigmentation, even in the Tasmanians.

I can’t actually remember the answer, which is a shame.

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

‘cos we get sunburnt with our European skin? At least I do, with my English/Irish/Scottish mongrel ancestry.

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

‘cos we get sunburnt with our European skin? At least I do, with my English/Irish/Scottish mongrel ancestry.

I think we all would, other animals included.

buffy said:

Dropbear said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

I am old enough to remember the world wide immediate and successful response to the ozone hole, after banning the use of CFCs..

It’s a disheartening foil to the way we have been held hostage by the conservaties, backed by coal stooge money, stopping us from fixing the global warming problem.

And that reminds me of my very first question on SSSF. Can’t remember when it was. But I asked if the ozone hole might be normal for Australia, on the basis that the Aboriginal people retained their dark skin pigmentation, even in the Tasmanians.

I can’t actually remember the answer, which is a shame.

Nope would be the answer; with some added nuance I don’t want to type out.

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

‘cos we get sunburnt with our European skin? At least I do, with my English/Irish/Scottish mongrel ancestry.

and the world was going to end if we didn’t fix it now.

poikilotherm said:

buffy said:

Dropbear said:

I am old enough to remember the world wide immediate and successful response to the ozone hole, after banning the use of CFCs..

It’s a disheartening foil to the way we have been held hostage by the conservaties, backed by coal stooge money, stopping us from fixing the global warming problem.

And that reminds me of my very first question on SSSF. Can’t remember when it was. But I asked if the ozone hole might be normal for Australia, on the basis that the Aboriginal people retained their dark skin pigmentation, even in the Tasmanians.

I can’t actually remember the answer, which is a shame.

Nope would be the answer; with some added nuance I don’t want to type out.

I think we discussed why the Scandinavians went white but the Tasmanians stayed black.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

‘cos we get sunburnt with our European skin? At least I do, with my English/Irish/Scottish mongrel ancestry.

I think we all would, other animals included.

>>If there were no ozone in the atmosphere, writes NASA, “the Sun’s intense UV rays would sterilize the Earth’s surface.” … They weren’t: The ozone layer had been damaged more than scientists could have imagined before Farman discovered the hole.Jan 13, 2016<<

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

I first learned about the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer at primary school in the 80s.

Then CFCs were banned and everyone forgot about CO2.

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

We would all die of skin cancer amongst other things.

It was going to wipe out all life on Earth. Or was it going to generate 100 million refugees, completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef, or wipe out humankind in 150 years?

I remember now.

It was the ozone hole that was going to wipe out all life on Earth
It’s CO2 that is going to generate 100 million refugees
The crown of thorns that was going to completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef
And air pollution that was scheduled to wipe out humankind in 150 years.

I think I prefer the 100 million refugees.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

We would all die of skin cancer amongst other things.

It was going to wipe out all life on Earth. Or was it going to generate 100 million refugees, completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef, or wipe out humankind in 150 years?

I remember now.

It was the ozone hole that was going to wipe out all life on Earth
It’s CO2 that is going to generate 100 million refugees
The crown of thorns that was going to completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef
And air pollution that was scheduled to wipe out humankind in 150 years.

I think I prefer the 100 million refugees.

I guess you are trying to make a point here.

Would you like to tell us what it is?

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Remind me again why the ozone hole was important.

We would all die of skin cancer amongst other things.

It was going to wipe out all life on Earth. Or was it going to generate 100 million refugees, completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef, or wipe out humankind in 150 years?

I remember now.

It was the ozone hole that was going to wipe out all life on Earth
It’s CO2 that is going to generate 100 million refugees
The crown of thorns that was going to completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef
And air pollution that was scheduled to wipe out humankind in 150 years.

I think I prefer the 100 million refugees.

You would be better off reading about the Ozone, it might save you some embarrassment.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

We would all die of skin cancer amongst other things.

It was going to wipe out all life on Earth. Or was it going to generate 100 million refugees, completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef, or wipe out humankind in 150 years?

I remember now.

It was the ozone hole that was going to wipe out all life on Earth
It’s CO2 that is going to generate 100 million refugees
The crown of thorns that was going to completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef
And air pollution that was scheduled to wipe out humankind in 150 years.

I think I prefer the 100 million refugees.

I guess you are trying to make a point here.

Would you like to tell us what it is?

don’t believe everything the media tells you?

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

We would all die of skin cancer amongst other things.

It was going to wipe out all life on Earth. Or was it going to generate 100 million refugees, completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef, or wipe out humankind in 150 years?

I remember now.

It was the ozone hole that was going to wipe out all life on Earth
It’s CO2 that is going to generate 100 million refugees
The crown of thorns that was going to completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef
And air pollution that was scheduled to wipe out humankind in 150 years.

I think I prefer the 100 million refugees.

You would be better off reading about the Ozone, it might save you some embarrassment.

When they found out that jet planes were killing ozone they decided that the hole in the ozone layer wasn’t that important anyway and moved on.

Peak Warming Man said:

When they found out that jet planes were killing ozone they decided that the hole in the ozone layer wasn’t that important anyway and moved on.

Fail.

poikilotherm said:

Peak Warming Man said:

When they found out that jet planes were killing ozone they decided that the hole in the ozone layer wasn’t that important anyway and moved on.

Fail.

Is it ever.

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

It was going to wipe out all life on Earth. Or was it going to generate 100 million refugees, completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef, or wipe out humankind in 150 years?

I remember now.

It was the ozone hole that was going to wipe out all life on Earth
It’s CO2 that is going to generate 100 million refugees
The crown of thorns that was going to completely destroy the Great Barrier Reef
And air pollution that was scheduled to wipe out humankind in 150 years.

I think I prefer the 100 million refugees.

I guess you are trying to make a point here.

Would you like to tell us what it is?

don’t believe everything the media tells you?

Yep.

mollwollfumble said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I guess you are trying to make a point here.

Would you like to tell us what it is?

don’t believe everything the media tells you?

Yep.

OK, but no-one believes everything the media “tells them”, do they?

The big problem with the way (most of) the media present things is that they do not differentiate between best estimate predictions, projections based on specified conditions, conservative estimates of adverse consequences, and worst case scenarios.

So it is easy to select “predictions” from the past that have not happened, and on that basis dismiss all future predictions, regardless of whether they are “worst case”, or best estimate.

But no engineer would do that, would they?

It’s probably better to err on the side of caution when it comes to climate change, our arrogance that we can deal with what gets thrown at us could proof wrong, better to minimise and then try to repair the damage. Beside warming up the planet non renewable energy sources have plenty of other detrimental effects and that’s not even including all the people that die or are exploited to acquire (steal) them.

Cymek said:

It’s probably better to err on the side of caution when it comes to climate change, our arrogance that we can deal with what gets thrown at us could proof wrong, better to minimise and then try to repair the damage. Beside warming up the planet non renewable energy sources have plenty of other detrimental effects and that’s not even including all the people that die or are exploited to acquire (steal) them.

Erring on the side of caution is standard engineering practice, which nonetheless many engineers still think you should ignore when it comes to GHG emissions.

It just needs governments to put a price on future costs to make them visible, and to put a price on resources that recognises that they have a value greater than the cost of digging them out of the ground.

Just as they put a price on money greater than the cost of transferring it from one bank account to another.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

It’s probably better to err on the side of caution when it comes to climate change, our arrogance that we can deal with what gets thrown at us could proof wrong, better to minimise and then try to repair the damage. Beside warming up the planet non renewable energy sources have plenty of other detrimental effects and that’s not even including all the people that die or are exploited to acquire (steal) them.

Erring on the side of caution is standard engineering practice, which nonetheless many engineers still think you should ignore when it comes to GHG emissions.

It just needs governments to put a price on future costs to make them visible, and to put a price on resources that recognises that they have a value greater than the cost of digging them out of the ground.

Just as they put a price on money greater than the cost of transferring it from one bank account to another.

Your “just” is a bit wookie like. With the the developing countries powering ahead in emmissions it’s a bit of a prisoners dilemma, who curtails an increasing standard of living for a carbon benefit. It also imposes costs in this generation for benefits in a next generation which is a hard political task. It’s not just a “just” or it would have been done.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

It’s probably better to err on the side of caution when it comes to climate change, our arrogance that we can deal with what gets thrown at us could proof wrong, better to minimise and then try to repair the damage. Beside warming up the planet non renewable energy sources have plenty of other detrimental effects and that’s not even including all the people that die or are exploited to acquire (steal) them.

Erring on the side of caution is standard engineering practice, which nonetheless many engineers still think you should ignore when it comes to GHG emissions.

It just needs governments to put a price on future costs to make them visible, and to put a price on resources that recognises that they have a value greater than the cost of digging them out of the ground.

Just as they put a price on money greater than the cost of transferring it from one bank account to another.

Your “just” is a bit wookie like. With the the developing countries powering ahead in emmissions it’s a bit of a prisoners dilemma, who curtails an increasing standard of living for a carbon benefit. It also imposes costs in this generation for benefits in a next generation which is a hard political task. It’s not just a “just” or it would have been done.

The “just” was intentionally ironic (although not at all wookie like, possibly inverse wookieist).

But the idea that pricing future costs will inevitably lead to disadvantage amongst the impoverished is a red herring. The price can be set to minimise overall costs.

What they need is some sort of tax business pays for offsetting the costs to the planet, some sort of good conscience/responsible citizen thinking of the future type tax that is accepted as part of doing business in the modern world.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Erring on the side of caution is standard engineering practice, which nonetheless many engineers still think you should ignore when it comes to GHG emissions.

It just needs governments to put a price on future costs to make them visible, and to put a price on resources that recognises that they have a value greater than the cost of digging them out of the ground.

Just as they put a price on money greater than the cost of transferring it from one bank account to another.

Your “just” is a bit wookie like. With the the developing countries powering ahead in emmissions it’s a bit of a prisoners dilemma, who curtails an increasing standard of living for a carbon benefit. It also imposes costs in this generation for benefits in a next generation which is a hard political task. It’s not just a “just” or it would have been done.

The “just” was intentionally ironic (although not at all wookie like, possibly inverse wookieist).

But the idea that pricing future costs will inevitably lead to disadvantage amongst the impoverished is a red herring. The price can be set to minimise overall costs.

I think it’s very wookie, ignore the complexities of a problem, insert a “you just” and it’s problem solved.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Your “just” is a bit wookie like. With the the developing countries powering ahead in emmissions it’s a bit of a prisoners dilemma, who curtails an increasing standard of living for a carbon benefit. It also imposes costs in this generation for benefits in a next generation which is a hard political task. It’s not just a “just” or it would have been done.

The “just” was intentionally ironic (although not at all wookie like, possibly inverse wookieist).

But the idea that pricing future costs will inevitably lead to disadvantage amongst the impoverished is a red herring. The price can be set to minimise overall costs.

I think it’s very wookie, ignore the complexities of a problem, insert a “you just” and it’s problem solved.

The solutions are probably simple (relatively speaking anyway) but people get in the way and make it all very hard.
Perhaps a percentage of income tax is diverted to future funding

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Your “just” is a bit wookie like. With the the developing countries powering ahead in emmissions it’s a bit of a prisoners dilemma, who curtails an increasing standard of living for a carbon benefit. It also imposes costs in this generation for benefits in a next generation which is a hard political task. It’s not just a “just” or it would have been done.

The “just” was intentionally ironic (although not at all wookie like, possibly inverse wookieist).

But the idea that pricing future costs will inevitably lead to disadvantage amongst the impoverished is a red herring. The price can be set to minimise overall costs.

I think it’s very wookie, ignore the complexities of a problem, insert a “you just” and it’s problem solved.

Tackling climate change using a price on emissions is a very simple process so a ‘just’ might be valid IMO.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Your “just” is a bit wookie like. With the the developing countries powering ahead in emmissions it’s a bit of a prisoners dilemma, who curtails an increasing standard of living for a carbon benefit. It also imposes costs in this generation for benefits in a next generation which is a hard political task. It’s not just a “just” or it would have been done.

The “just” was intentionally ironic (although not at all wookie like, possibly inverse wookieist).

But the idea that pricing future costs will inevitably lead to disadvantage amongst the impoverished is a red herring. The price can be set to minimise overall costs.

I think it’s very wookie, ignore the complexities of a problem, insert a “you just” and it’s problem solved.

Only if you misinterpret the intention, but it really doesn’t matter anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The “just” was intentionally ironic (although not at all wookie like, possibly inverse wookieist).

But the idea that pricing future costs will inevitably lead to disadvantage amongst the impoverished is a red herring. The price can be set to minimise overall costs.

I think it’s very wookie, ignore the complexities of a problem, insert a “you just” and it’s problem solved.

Only if you misinterpret the intention, but it really doesn’t matter anyway.

I get the intention, I also agree it is a simple solution, implementing it is not so simple, governments are lots to impose costs in their electoral cycle for a benefit that will not occur not in the next electoral cycle but a generation away.

Lots should be loath.

AwesomeO said:

Lots should be loath.

And loath should be loathe.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

I think it’s very wookie, ignore the complexities of a problem, insert a “you just” and it’s problem solved.

Only if you misinterpret the intention, but it really doesn’t matter anyway.

I get the intention, I also agree it is a simple solution, implementing it is not so simple, governments are lots to impose costs in their electoral cycle for a benefit that will not occur not in the next electoral cycle but a generation away.

I completely agree.

Human stupidity and lack of effort is due to metal poisoning clean that up and it will get better

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bogsnorkler said:

don’t believe everything the media tells you?

Yep.

OK, but no-one believes everything the media “tells them”, do they?

The big problem with the way (most of) the media present things is that they do not differentiate between best estimate predictions, projections based on specified conditions, conservative estimates of adverse consequences, and worst case scenarios.

So it is easy to select “predictions” from the past that have not happened, and on that basis dismiss all future predictions, regardless of whether they are “worst case”, or best estimate.

But no engineer would do that, would they?

yes, the science has been wrong in the past so it is wrong now, fallacy

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

Fucking amazing the number of people who were fully aware of Global Warming and the calamitous effects decades ago. I had all these marvelously intelligent people with unrivaled insight within my company and never suspected a thing.

I read about it in Scientific American in the 1970s. Then it seemed to go away for a while.

Mid 70’s there was a book that projected human energy consumption over a few hundred years, and derived temperatures higher that 100 C (IIRC). I discussed this with a Brazilian friend visiting UK, saying that there wouldn’t be enough fuel to get anywhere near that temperature rise. She agreed, but pointed out that CO2 emissions + feedback effects could have a much greater heating effect than direct energy emission.

So at least some people were aware of climate change problems in the mid 70’s.

They were talking about it in the 50’s and the fifties and probably earlier too.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

I read about it in Scientific American in the 1970s. Then it seemed to go away for a while.

Mid 70’s there was a book that projected human energy consumption over a few hundred years, and derived temperatures higher that 100 C (IIRC). I discussed this with a Brazilian friend visiting UK, saying that there wouldn’t be enough fuel to get anywhere near that temperature rise. She agreed, but pointed out that CO2 emissions + feedback effects could have a much greater heating effect than direct energy emission.

So at least some people were aware of climate change problems in the mid 70’s.

They were talking about it in the 50’s and the fifties and probably earlier too.

I imagine pollution dated back to the industrial revolution with all the problems associated with coal burning

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Mid 70’s there was a book that projected human energy consumption over a few hundred years, and derived temperatures higher that 100 C (IIRC). I discussed this with a Brazilian friend visiting UK, saying that there wouldn’t be enough fuel to get anywhere near that temperature rise. She agreed, but pointed out that CO2 emissions + feedback effects could have a much greater heating effect than direct energy emission.

So at least some people were aware of climate change problems in the mid 70’s.

They were talking about it in the 50’s and the fifties and probably earlier too.

I imagine pollution dated back to the industrial revolution with all the problems associated with coal burning

yes.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sciencefriction/eunice-foote/9990850

What we really need is for everyone to agree to stop fighting and coveting their neighbours resources and all the money spent on the military spent on minimising climate change instead

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yep.

OK, but no-one believes everything the media “tells them”, do they?

The big problem with the way (most of) the media present things is that they do not differentiate between best estimate predictions, projections based on specified conditions, conservative estimates of adverse consequences, and worst case scenarios.

So it is easy to select “predictions” from the past that have not happened, and on that basis dismiss all future predictions, regardless of whether they are “worst case”, or best estimate.

But no engineer would do that, would they?

yes, the science has been wrong in the past so it is wrong now, fallacy

That’s true, but I’m not even talking about the science being wrong.

I’m talking about the science (or rather the engineering) being correct, but being misinterpreted.

i.e. a statement of the type “this is very unlikely, but not impossible, and if it did happen, it would have terrible consequences”
is interpreted as “terrible things are about to happen”.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/

roughbarked said:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/

https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/rn/podcast/2018/07/sfn_20180715.mp3

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/

https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/rn/podcast/2018/07/sfn_20180715.mp3

Happens too often, it needs to change.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/

https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/rn/podcast/2018/07/sfn_20180715.mp3

Why do they think she was a lady?

> So it is easy to select “predictions” from the past that have not happened.

Exceedingly easy. The only apocalyptic prediction that actually came true was AIDS. I could easy name you another twenty that didn’t, starting with the complete destruction of Mediterranean fisheries and livelihoods, as a result of constructing the Suez Canal.

mollwollfumble said:

> So it is easy to select “predictions” from the past that have not happened.

Exceedingly easy. The only apocalyptic prediction that actually came true was AIDS. I could easy name you another twenty that didn’t, starting with the complete destruction of Mediterranean fisheries and livelihoods, as a result of constructing the Suez Canal.

What a strange choice.

AIDS is nowhere near being the largest cause of avoidable deaths in recent times.

mollwollfumble said:

> So it is easy to select “predictions” from the past that have not happened.

Exceedingly easy. The only apocalyptic prediction that actually came true was AIDS. I could easy name you another twenty that didn’t, starting with the complete destruction of Mediterranean fisheries and livelihoods, as a result of constructing the Suez Canal.

It’s most likely something we won’t anticipate, I imagine most if not all civilisations never saw their own declines or downfalls

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/

https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/rn/podcast/2018/07/sfn_20180715.mp3

Why do they think she was a lady?

Because she wasn’t a lord.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

https://abcmedia.akamaized.net/rn/podcast/2018/07/sfn_20180715.mp3

Why do they think she was a lady?

Because she wasn’t a lord.

Should it be women scientist not lady scientist

I’ve started to look at how photosynthesis is being modelled on computer.

There may be two completely incompatible systems, the one used by NASA in analysing results from it’s Terra Satellite (MODIS17) may be completely different to the one used in global climate models. Even though both are trying to predict the same thing. Net CO2 uptake by growing plants.

The Global Climate Model one may not (I’m not sure yet) take into account that different plants grow better at different temperatures, but it takes into account the performance of individual chemical reactions.

The MODIS17 one explicitly takes into accounts that different plants grow better at different temperatures, but ignores all the detailed chemistry.

They are not all that easy to understand, particularly the mathematics of the biochemistry and its translation into computer code.

Wherever you’ve got “increased” list decreased as well, and wherever you’ve got “decreased” list increased as well. Effects are localised.

The equation for ecosystem growth y is

y = (a – b) x – c – d – e

x = atmospheric CO2
a = rate of photosynthesis
b = rate of respiration associated with plant growth
c = plant respiration not associated with growth
d = respiration of fungi and other plant eaters, and things that eat plant eaters
e = respiration of microorganisms that don’t rely on plants

Direct consequences.

• Because c, d and e are positive, an ecosystem grows proportionally faster than the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.
• Because small x makes y negative, drop the atmospheric CO2 too much, and the entire ecosystem dies.
• The time lag between plant growth and animal/fungi populations means that a sudden increase in atmospheric CO2 results in a sudden increase in ecosystem size, followed by a slow decline to a new stable equilibrium with a bigger ecosystem with more plants, fungi and animals than before.

Extreme Weather Is Preventing Plants From Processing Carbon

Plants need carbon dioxide (CO2) to survive, and that’s a very good thing for humans — our activity produces almost 40 billion tons of the gas every year, but only about half of that actually reaches the atmosphere. The rest is processed by plants, stored in soil, or absorbed by the oceans.

more…