Nevertheless, there seems to be pretty wide scientific agreement that the frequency and severity of droughts and flooding events can be and will be adversely influenced by global warming,
That is possible but you don't know that. And NASA not fossil fuel companies has concluded that “the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.” https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/
Couple o’ things:
1. Gunnar is specifically referring to “frequency and severity of droughts and flooding”, whereas you jump over to hurricanes in your response. But let’s look at that anyway. Turns out that while NASA is not seeing an increase in hurricane frequency in the horizon, it is calling for likely increased intensity and rainfall rates from cyclones, due to anthropogenic climate effects. (From same linked source)
2. Your linked page also states that there does appear to be some anthropogenic effect on the phenomenon that Gunnar is referring to - droughts and flooding events.
Also, you never explained how ‘prosperity’ isn’t possible with substitution of alternate energy sources in place of fossil fuels over time.
mikwut wrote:Well I'll go with the UN rather than your hyperdramatic hysteria. The UN studies five different global futures and in scenarios of high fossil fuel use humanity is better off than even in a world where a low co2 output exists. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8016300681
Is the UN a part of your fossil fuel conspiracy?
mikwut
Forgot to mention that this is a somewhat nonsensical statement that misreads the paper’s intent. It’s a given that a society choosing to use cheaply-available fossil fuels will ‘advance’ faster than one eschewing such, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that the same society is better off doing so than choosing to also incorporate or replace FF with alternatives.
The article does address how differing SSP’s are capable of meeting adaptation and mitigation goals, which is not the same as the claim you are making:
... the SSPs differ greatly with respect to the challenges to adaptation as well as the associated effectiveness of possible adaptation policies (O’Neill et al., 2014). For example in SSP1, the capacity to adapt to climate change is high given the well-educated, rich population, the high degree of good governance and the high development of technologies. In addition, also the intact ecosystem services contribute to the adaptive capacity. In SSP3, on the other hand the capacity to adapt to climate change is relative low, given the large, poor population, the lack of cooperation and slow technology development. In SSP4, the capacity to adapt to climate change is relatively low for most of the population due the unequal distribution of resources. And finally in SSP5, the capacity to adapt to climate change is high given a well-educated and rich population as well as the high level of technology development.
I believe Mikwut is engaging in some wishful reading. Neither of the two papers he cited say what he said they say.
What is perhaps more interesting is that he finds a brand new model that he thinks (incorrectly) supports his position authoritative, yet dismisses climate models out of hand. In other words, predictions of a model he agree with are completely trustworthy, while those that he disagrees with are mere speculation.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
canpakes wrote:Forgot to mention that this is a somewhat nonsensical statement that misreads the paper’s intent. It’s a given that a society choosing to use cheaply-available fossil fuels will ‘advance’ faster than one eschewing such, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that the same society is better off doing so than choosing to also incorporate or replace FF with alternatives.
"Cheaply-available fossil fuels?" Does anyone really imagine that the world will continue to have cheaply-available fossil fuels for very much longer, even with continuing massive government subsidies to fossil fuel companies, let alone without such subsidies? Renewable energy is already cost competitive with fossil fuels despite current government subsidization of fossil fuel companies. And this is as of 4 years ago, according to the link provided!
Fossil fuels are being or have been extracted at an exponentially increasing rate for a long time. The supply is not infinite, and is rapidly being used up. Does anyone imagine that their cost can fail to increase dramatically, even in the near future?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Actually, Gunnar, I mangled that, as it should have read, “cheaper, readily-available fossil fuels”. “Cheaply available” was a mash-up. : )
I think that both you and I have the same opinion on how “cheap” fossil fuels really are (not) once their full cost of production, protection and mitigation are considered.
canpakes wrote:I think that both you and I have the same opinion on how “cheap” fossil fuels really are (not) once their full cost of production, protection and mitigation are considered.
I know. I had no doubt of that!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Following the hottest summer on record, 2019 continues to head for the history books. Last month was officially the hottest September on record, just slightly hotter (.04 degrees Fahrenheit) than the previous record-holder, September 2016.
Last month was 1.02 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average September from 1981-2010 and about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial level, according to data released Friday by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization that tracks global temperatures.
The year 2019 was the 2nd hottest year on record globally.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Earth’s most recent rotation around the sun was the second warmest in 140 years of record keeping, with dire implications, according to a study by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
“Rising temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean are contributing to the continued mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica and to increases in some extreme events, such as heat waves, wildfires, intense precipitation,” according to NASA’s report, released yesterday.
Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) found that 2019 was 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit above the the global average established from 1951 and 1980.
Separately and with a similar result, NOAA found that the 2019 global average temperature was 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average from the 20th century, as determined by scientists from the agency’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
NOAA also reported that 2019 saw the second-smallest average covering of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans of any year from 1979 to 2019.
The hottest year on record was 2016, which was just 0.07 Fahrenheit warmer than last year, according to the study.
The NOAA calculation was different than NASA’s because NOAA “used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different interpolation into the Earth’s polar and other data-poor regions,” according to NASA.
NASA estimated with 95% certainty that its findings are accurate to within 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit. The agency used more than 20,000 surface measurements from points on the land, sea and the Antarctic.
Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have come within the last 15 years, the study found. This correlates to the nearly century and a half long trend of steadily rising temperatures.
“Every decade since the 1960s clearly has been warmer than the one before” said Gavin Schmidt, the director of GISS.
The average temperatures of the last few decades have increased faster than earlier decades, according to a study of temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2019 — with a baseline from 1951 to 1980 — conducted by five different organizations.
Brackite wrote:According to Dr. Simon Southerton, our planet is the hottest now than it has been over the last 20,000 years.
"The earth has never been this hot in the last 20,000 years and that’s twice as long as the entire history of civilisation." - Link
Actually, more like the last 125,000 years.
And the CO2 Level is the highest it’s been for 800,000 years.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
