When it's 2050 you can tell them what you did to stop it.The sad thing is children are being brainwashed at school at this very moment that the end of the World is imminent. Not in 50-100 years, but by 2030. My nieces and nephews between 8-16 are panicking because they literally think they will die very soon from CC. Exactly how they don’t know but it’s very real to them. It’s child abuse.
If I could buy 200 SMRs and dot them around the country I would. Otherwise, I’m irrelevant, you are irrelevant, Australia is irrelevant. It’s completely out of our hands. Enjoy the warm weather while you can.When it's 2050 you can tell them what you did to stop it.
Honestly our generation is not going to be popular to those being born at present. The IPCC has been consistently wrong. Too conservative.
It's seriously going to be very interesting over the next 25 years.
Again, wrong thread.When it's 2050 you can tell them what you did to stop it.
Honestly our generation is not going to be popular to those being born at present. The IPCC has been consistently wrong. Too conservative.
It's seriously going to be very interesting over the next 25 years.
Exactly, but that’s who morons are listening to.Sean you need to separate the politics from the science, Gretta and Al Gore are not scientist...eh.
Interesting Sean . There have been scores of very challenging climate catastrophes in the past few years. Immense fires in the Arctic, record temperatures across the world, climate events that have broken records.Potentially till the end of the Holocene and then it will dramatically cool into the next inevitable ice age which is due in the next thousand years or so.
I have very low confidence in any predictions by the IPCC on what happens with another 1 degree temp rise. The GBR is supposed to be dead but I’ve been diving there for 30 years and it’s in the best shape I’ve seen. I’ve been in the Maldives for the past week and they are still there although it was predicted 30 years ago that they would be underwater. Does this look underwater?
View attachment 152498
Interesting Sean . There have been scores of very challenging climate catastrophes in the past few years. Immense fires in the Arctic, record temperatures across the world, climate events that have broken records.
And yet you choose to show tropical island holiday spot , in lovely weather, as an example of how CC predictions really don't amount to a hill of beans.
Given the known consequences of the effects of a 1 degree increase in temperature I ask if you have any idea of what another degree will do.
But nothing.
I appreciate this will be out of your comfort zone but maybe you could check out the changes that have happened in the last 20years as a result of CC. It could be informative.
Global Maps
The Earth Observatory shares images and stories about the environment, Earth systems, and climate that emerge from NASA research, satellite missions, and models.earthobservatory.nasa.gov
Yet you reference these sources and perpetuate proven nonsense.Exactly, but that’s who morons are listening to.
Yet you reference these sources and perpetuate proven nonsense.
It is difficult for a poster to be more disingenuous.
So why not try to use science?
The best I ever see are non-sequiturs and irrelevances.
FYI what science has done is show the problem, quantify it, and point to how future climate reacts to increasing GHG concentrations.
At the anecdotal level, given climate changes which are rapid occur at a rate of less than 0.1℃/decade, most of us won't notice the temperature difference. However, the climate footprint is a very different story. Most farmers in their lifetimes have noticed growing seasons become longer, precipitation patterns change, and extreme precipitation events increase in frequency and severity.
IPCC reports have detailed various scenarios, and the one the world needs to hit in order to limit warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, plus be reduced by 43% by 2030. That's highly improbable as fossil fuel extraction keeps increasing, and it's being rapidly consumed. So the earlier CO2 chart trend (a page back) is extremely unlikely to flatten.
More likely is that global temperature will stabilise when CO2 emissions reach net zero, and at least we have many on the globe's largest employer targeting this to occur by 2050. China is presently aiming for 2060, although is well ahead of its plans wrt to RE and electrification generally. The greater concern is the increasing CO2 footprint of the developing world - some 5 billion people excluding China - who, in aspiring to western living standards are likely to reach annual per capita emissions around 10 tonnes:
View attachment 152532
This link details the consequences of current global warming. Without an extra degree..
The top 10 global weather and climate change events of 2021 » Yale Climate Connections
The most extreme heat wave in modern history, a record four $20 billion-plus weather disasters, and the hottest month on record globally highlighted a remarkable year in weather.yaleclimateconnections.org
ExactlyMeasuring weather events by cost and deaths is meaningless when not adjusted for development and population growth. That’s extremely poor analysis. I almost spat out my coffee when I got to the tweet by Katharine Hayhoe, climate clown extraordinaire.
Exactly
Roger Peilke Jnr has done stats on this on a risk-adjusted basis. Vis a vis, on a risk adjusted basis damage done by climate events is actually declining.
Insurance companies are like banks.Insurance companies aren't noted for dodgy figures. Their take on climate change caused disasters is realistic.
Climate change and P&C insurance: The threat and opportunity
Many insurance business models must adapt to the effects from climate changewww.mckinsey.com
Insurance companies are like banks.
Known for screwing as much money out of people as possible.
Mick
I can only go on personal experience, but when we built our house 5 years ago, the orignal insurance quote said we were in a fire prone area. Our house is in the middle of a town that is surrounded by open pasture. But they just look at post code data and slap you with extra charges because of an apparent fire risk.I’ve been wondering about this myself. Are insurance companies increasing premiums to take advantage of the clown narrative, or is it truly justified? I personally think if you build a house in a bush fire prone area, or on a flood plain, or on the beach within a few meters of the ocean, or on an earthquake fault, or under an active volcano, you should pay extra. But, if you’re in the burbs above the water line, you pay less. Surely that is the case and there’s not a blanket increase in premiums because morons build a house covered in twigs with a lightening rod on the roof?
I’ve been wondering about this myself. Are insurance companies increasing premiums to take advantage of the clown narrative, or is it truly justified? I personally think if you build a house in a bush fire prone area, or on a flood plain, or on the beach within a few meters of the ocean, or on an earthquake fault, or under an active volcano, you should pay extra. But, if you’re in the burbs above the water line, you pay less. Surely that is the case and there’s not a blanket increase in premiums because morons build a house covered in twigs with a lightening rod on the roof?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?