Tornadoes

[DBG8492]

So I ask the deniers to present a theory that proves MMCC is wrong. Explain where it’s inconsistent with observations. Remember to speak to climate not just transient weather.

So far, no one here has denied that the climate changes - of course it does. In my first post, I agreed that it changes all the time.

The bone of contention is whether anything humans do contributes in any significant way, and if so, to what extent?

My position is that humans might be having an effect, but it's doubtful for reasons I've already stated. Furthermore, I assert that unless you can document and prove the specific function and relevance of each system within all of the nested and sub-nested complex systems that make up the overall complex planetary climate system, you should not be trying to make sweeping changes to a single piece of that system because it's impossible to know the results with 100% certainty.

You mentioned how several scientific "knowns" changed as new information emerged. Why should this be any different? Everyone claims to know that humans are changing the climate and CO2 is the primary driver - but what if you're all wrong? You're all humans before you're scientists, and a collection (or consensus) of humans isn't any more intelligent or enlightened than any single one of you. Furthermore, a group of scientists is no less susceptible to group dynamics than any other group.

Think about this for a second. They're not asking everyone to give up plastic drinking straws. They're asking everyone in the world to make drastic changes that will alter their lives forever. The economic effects alone for the majority of people will be crippling, resulting in mental and physical second-order effects. And all of these consequences will be passed on to their children and their children's children. The gravity of what's being asked for cannot be overstated. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that anyone can honestly guarantee with 100% certainty the outcome if they successfully force all of these changes.

Finally, I don't just listen to what people say, I watch what they do. I don't see any true-believer politicians or scientists taking meaningful actions that show there is any urgency with this.

They continue to use their private jets to fly around the globe and attend "climate summits" in air-conditioned five-star hotels and conference buildings with seven days' worth of five-star meals, including the finest meats and fish. They haven't sold their beach houses and moved to higher ground. They haven't sold their boats - and so on. What do they do? They drive a Tesla when not being chauffeured around. They throw a couple of solar panels on their house. They get out of the limo and ride their bicycle the last 100 yards to the office so the press can photograph them doing so. And they make speeches about what the rest of us need to give up to deal with Climate Change.

I'm sorry, but to many of us on the outside, it doesn't look like they believe it; it looks like they're using it for political purposes.

This is my last post on this thread - I shouldn't have posted in the first place. I didn't come here to talk about this stuff; I came to talk about my boat and other people's boats. I don't wish anyone any ill will and don't want anyone wishing any on me. Unfortunately, I've found that given the way things are, minor disagreements over things of this nature are an easy way to lose friends - sometimes close friends. It can also hinder making them in the first place, which runs counter to why I'm here. So, I will keep my big mouth in check from here on out and limit my conversations to more specific boating topics.

Thanks for the discussion Doc (and everyone else) - I hope you don't hold it against me.

 

[mvweebles]

So far, no one here has denied that the climate changes - of course it does. In my first post, I agreed that it changes all the time.

The bone of contention is whether anything humans do contributes in any significant way, and if so, to what extent?

My position is that humans might be having an effect, but it's doubtful for reasons I've already stated. Furthermore, I assert that unless you can document and prove the specific function and relevance of each system within all of the nested and sub-nested complex systems that make up the overall complex planetary climate system, you should not be trying to make sweeping changes to a single piece of that system because it's impossible to know the results with 100% certainty.

You mentioned how several scientific "knowns" changed as new information emerged. Why should this be any different? Everyone claims to know that humans are changing the climate and CO2 is the primary driver - but what if you're all wrong? You're all humans before you're scientists, and a collection (or consensus) of humans isn't any more intelligent or enlightened than any single one of you. Furthermore, a group of scientists is no less susceptible to group dynamics than any other group.

Think about this for a second. They're not asking everyone to give up plastic drinking straws. They're asking everyone in the world to make drastic changes that will alter their lives forever. The economic effects alone for the majority of people will be crippling, resulting in mental and physical second-order effects. And all of these consequences will be passed on to their children and their children's children. The gravity of what's being asked for cannot be overstated. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that anyone can honestly guarantee with 100% certainty the outcome if they successfully force all of these changes.

Finally, I don't just listen to what people say, I watch what they do. I don't see any true-believer politicians or scientists taking meaningful actions that show there is any urgency with this.

They continue to use their private jets to fly around the globe and attend "climate summits" in air-conditioned five-star hotels and conference buildings with seven days' worth of five-star meals, including the finest meats and fish. They haven't sold their beach houses and moved to higher ground. They haven't sold their boats - and so on. What do they do? They drive a Tesla when not being chauffeured around. They throw a couple of solar panels on their house. They get out of the limo and ride their bicycle the last 100 yards to the office so the press can photograph them doing so. And they make speeches about what the rest of us need to give up to deal with Climate Change.

I'm sorry, but to many of us on the outside, it doesn't look like they believe it; it looks like they're using it for political purposes.

This is my last post on this thread - I shouldn't have posted in the first place. I didn't come here to talk about this stuff; I came to talk about my boat and other people's boats. I don't wish anyone any ill will and don't want anyone wishing any on me. Unfortunately, I've found that given the way things are, minor disagreements over things of this nature are an easy way to lose friends - sometimes close friends. It can also hinder making them in the first place, which runs counter to why I'm here. So, I will keep my big mouth in check from here on out and limit my conversations to more specific boating topics.

Thanks for the discussion Doc (and everyone else) - I hope you don't hold it against me.

Clearly you've made up your mind, didn't bother to read the consensus findings embedded in Post #56 above, and find it easier to shoot messengers. No pretense here that you might change.

But there are probably a few folks who are somewhere in the middle due to some lingering questions. To those I say: What is the safe play here? I think it was the philosopher Pascal who used logic, not faith or passion to describe his belief in God and an afterlife. His reasoning was that if he believed and it turned out there was no God, he'd have wasted some time but would be a better person overall. But if he denied God's existence and there was a God, the pearly-gate conversation and afterlife would be hell (I've take a wee bit of liberty here). To him, in the face of the unknown, he took the low-risk approach.

So my question to those either on the fence or are deniers: Which way would you rather be wrong about climate change? I know, the argument is it would be expensive, but there would be some cool stuff that pops out on the other side.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

So my question to those either on the fence or are deniers: Which way would you rather be wrong about climate change? I know, the argument is it would be expensive, but there would be some cool stuff that pops out on the other side.

Peter

The other way to look at it, if you can't convince Asia (primarily China and India) to sign on, then it really doesn't matter whether you believe or not. If you're a believer, and Asia doesn't sign on, it's game over from your perspective.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

The other way to look at it, if you can't convince Asia (primarily China and India) to sign on, then it really doesn't matter whether you believe or not. If you're a believer, and Asia doesn't sign on, it's game over from your perspective.

Ted

Yes, would definitely require leadership, focus, and technology. It's a difficult problem with many barriers. I'm not an advocate of more left voices who want immediate termination of fossil fuels, but there are certainly more aggressive tools that would accelerate a glide path to sustainability - the Paris Accords were a start and a missed opportunity.

We can either proactively make changes in emissions or reactively remediate damages. Either is expensive though playing catch-up is rarely as productive and efficient as controlling your destiny.

"It's hard" is an excuse, not a success strategy.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

Always a this or that......never a little of this and a little of that.

Thus only unilateral mindsets and gridlock.Sometimes with bad side effects.

 

[Wxx3]

There have been 4 tropical storms to hit California in the last 100 years, the most severe in 1939.

The last tornado to touch down in Rhode Island was 2019. The most severe were in 1986 when 3 touched down in a 24 hour period.

Massachusetts has had 152 tornadoes since 1950.

You should probably sell your boat while you still can.

Ted

Extremely well stated.

And by the way, for those doubters, "100 year events" are based on what?
That media says we are now having more frequent "100 year events" only means that the "100 year" significance was wrong in the first place.

Lastly, the key question for human Related Climate Change is how has the rate changed due to humans. Not if the climate is getting warmer, because clearly it has been, otherwise there would still be a thousand feet of ice over Manhattan.

 

[FWT]

Clearly you've made up your mind, didn't bother to read the consensus findings embedded in Post #56 above, and find it easier to shoot messengers. No pretense here that you might change.

But there are probably a few folks who are somewhere in the middle due to some lingering questions. To those I say: What is the safe play here? I think it was the philosopher Pascal who used logic, not faith or passion to describe his belief in God and an afterlife. His reasoning was that if he believed and it turned out there was no God, he'd have wasted some time but would be a better person overall. But if he denied God's existence and there was a God, the pearly-gate conversation and afterlife would be hell (I've take a wee bit of liberty here). To him, in the face of the unknown, he took the low-risk approach.

So my question to those either on the fence or are deniers: Which way would you rather be wrong about climate change? I know, the argument is it would be expensive, but there would be some cool stuff that pops out on the other side.

Peter

Expensive hardly describes it. Experts testified in the Senate a few months ago it would take $50 trillion on top of current spending just by the US. And unless China and India did their part it would not have meaningful impact.

Yeah, expensive.

 

[mvweebles]

Expensive hardly describes it. Experts testified in the Senate a few months ago it would take $50 trillion on top of current spending just by the US. And unless China and India did their part it would not have meaningful impact.



Yeah, expensive.

Do you have a source for this? I'd be interested in the scenario they looked at, Plan B, cost of do-nothong, etc. Not challenging, just trying to understand.

Peter

 

[PierreR]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

Here’s the definition I’m working with. Still mentioned geology. Seem to recall the reason the rabbit hole was dung in the first place was due to repeated observations something was up and unexplained. BTW that’s how science works. Something comes up. Be it observations of Jupiters moons or how bacteria behave around a certain fungus. We want to explain it so offer a theory. Then do studies. If the studies are consistent with the theory we accept it until an observation disproves it or another theory is a better fit. That exactly what happened with MMCC. Do you have an observation that’s inconsistent or a theory that has a better fit?

Please remember the IPCC got going years and years after the theory of MMCC was proposed. It was the cart and never was or is the horse.

There are two definitions out there and you have to be careful to read between the lines to access which on is being talked about.
Definition One;
there is continuous climate change both natural and anthropogenic
Definition Two; There is Catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change where a trigger point is reached from which there is no return.

I accept the first definition and conclude that where we are now has been largely beneficial to man.
I cannot and will no accept that there is a tipping point because I largely accept the theory of evolution. It would be impossible for me to accept both.
To believe even a part of evolution means that I believe the CO2 trigger point would have been hit at least once by nature in the last 4.5 billion years and we would not be here. If there is no CAGW then there is no emergency worth destroying civilization and eradicating 90% of the worlds population to save it. We should not be spending trillions going down the rabbit hole when we have real environmental issues that have far more reaching consequences.

On CO2; Along with no trigger point reached in 4.5 billion years plus, I have found no smoking gun from the IPCC to conclude that CO2 is a significant regulator of plant temperature. Planetary temperatures appear to be regulated by the hydrologic cycle.
By far the biggest Anthropogenic source of climate change appears to be land use and intentional changes in flora and fauna. Introductions of evasive species.

 

[PierreR]

So I ask the deniers to present a theory that proves MMCC is wrong. Explain where it’s inconsistent with observations. Remember to speak to climate not just transient weather.

Lets set the record straight, I am not a denier. I believe the holocaust took place.
I believe that there is Anthropogenic Climate Change therefore I do not have to prove that it is wrong.

What has not been proven at all is that CO2 is the driver and that there are likely to be trigger points.

Much has been proven that IF CO2 is the driver that large increases in CO2 is bad. This is the science everyone refers to as evidence and its a circular augment because the smoking gun (prove of drivers license) does not exist.

 

[FWT]

you have a source for this? I'd be interested in the scenario they looked at, Plan B, cost of do-nothong, etc. Not challenging, just trying to understand.

Peter

Plenty more but here is one installment

 

[Hippocampus]

A recent report from the feds on CO2

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

 

[mvweebles]

Plenty more but here is one installment

Ah, thanks. I was hoping for more of a business case style discussion without the political sideshow (either slant). Where two or three transformation scenarios are compared with a Do-Nothing scenario; with Strength/Weakness/Opportunity/Threat (SWOT) analysis; and appropriate go/no-go gates to evaluate progress against obectives. It's a way to dissect big problems into digestible pieces and isolate the core issues and manage risk.

We have a rich history of solving big problems. But it takes leadership. I'll leave you with the words of JFK:

But why some say the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why 35 years ago fly the Atlantic? We choose to go to the moon. We chose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we’re willing to accept. One we are unwilling to postpone. And therefore, as we set sail, we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure that man has ever gone.​

Mind you, this was 1962. Almost a quarter of households had no phone and those that did, had rotary dial, perhaps a party-line connection. 20% of households had no car (60% had one car). Computers were punch-card programmable, elevator-sized behemoths. And yet the goal to go to the moon in this decade was achieved - just 80-months later from a cold-start.

What was the ROI of going to the moon? Incalculable - literal rocket fuel for the computing/chip industry; Internet; and military advances. Had there been no Apollo program, where would SpaceX/Starlink be? These 'art-of-the-possible' improvements have a seat at the Business Case table alongside the costs.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

China and India account for much of the world’s population. They must be involved. China is currently experiencing a major economic downturn with new construction way down. Inadvertently this will decrease greenhouse gases but is no long term answer. The conversion from fossil fuels needs to be part of the equation especially coal as technology has yet to develop a cost effective way to to scrub coal burning electrical plant’s emissions. China’s car fleet currently has more EVs than other countries including our own. They are in a position given distances travelled and their existing manufacturing base to continue to continue. However agriculture, power generation and petrochemical production remain major contributors. They are also currently more favorably placed for manufacturing solar panels. So it will be some bad and some good.

India in large measure is still a second world country but rapidly entering a first world power consumption for its population. The incentive for them as well as us is to make the conversion revenue neutral and protect themselves from dependency on foreign sources for energy. They have had a long standing relationship with Russia and longstanding animosity with China.

As an aside did a projected cost of ownership for our next vehicle. It’s nearly revenue neutral. My state has a gas tax which I won’t pay. It had yet to add a tax on EVs to replace that gas tax. I choose an expensive vehicle which is heavy. It will eat tires faster than an equivalent ICE pickup as its heavier accelerates much faster and performs much better. EV tires are more expensive. For me home charging costs me nothing other than some loss of income as I will be selling less electricity back to the grid. I expect EVs to depreciate faster. Unlike ICE where engines can be rebuilt once battery capacity is gone it’s gone forever. My warranty is for 70% at 8y or 175000 miles. So used 175k miles as projected estimate of service life with an estimated residual value of 20% or less. My batteries are ion not LFP in order to achieve the high performance and 350m range. ( you really want to keep batteries between 80% and 20% soc to improve battery life and use regen braking so usable range is less than that stated by the feds). But can achieve home charging for 85-90% of my use. The other 10% to 15% will be bought. About 5% will be fast charging which negatively effects battery life. Still bought electricity on the road is 50-60% less expensive than petrol or diesel. Service costs are tires and brakes and suspension. Tires will be more, brakes less and suspension the same. Still with the absence of an engine and complicated transmission service costs are less than with ICE.
For me the EV measures favorably against ICE even in the absence of tax rebates. But the projected difference isn’t that great due to depreciation. There’s insufficient history to get a handle on depreciation so I may have over estimated. For those who are not electricity generators or whose home consumption is high ICE may remain more expensive. I don’t know where the numbers lay.

You can do the same type of calculation for nation states. The vid above suggested a $5 trillion cost of conversion. It doesn’t offer any firm information as to length to payback. I knew how many years it would be to pay back the additional expense of geothermal and the installation of solar. I think (but don’t know) the conversion will be expensive and prolonged but eventually cost cost neutral. We reworked our road system to support ICE transport. We need to do the same for our grid. Both for national security in this day of cyber warfare and to support EVs. In Utah and Germany geothermal is currently being used for electricity generation. Such conversations away from fossil fuel production will continue. I expect as new technologies are added if not if but when the conversion is completed. As individuals we can choose to be the grass or the tree as the winds of the conversion continue.

 

[FWT]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/more-1600-scientists-including-nobel-laureates-declare-climate-crisis

 

[mvweebles]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/more-1600-scientists-including-nobel-laureates-declare-climate-crisis

Interesting - this paper states "The declaration does not deny the harmful effect of greenhouse gasses, but instead challenges the hysteria brought about by the narrative of imminent doom."

On one hand, they agree that excess CO2 would cause global warming. What they dispute is notion of unusual warming in the first place - current trends can be explained-away by cyclical changes. There is no data to support this supposition which is why this is not a study but rather a 'declaration,' an opinion piece. Too bad - I would like to understand how they reconcile CO2 measurement that clearly show a severe increase (NOAA chart re-attached for convenience - doesn't look cyclical to me in the least) In general, CLINTEL is unconvinced by any of the evidence, dismissing it as biased ('shoot the messenger' response).

So what to do with this type of information? Well, a 2021 study by Cornell University (HERE) looked at 88K studies of climate change found that 99.9% of the studies are in alignment. So is this CLINTEL declaration part of the 0.01% of naysayers? Would it even be included in the 88k Studies since its an opinion paper with no underlying research cited?

Bias in research is definitely a problem - you have to look where people sit before you accept where they stand. Its why serious studies are peer-reviewed and indpendently repeated. But its also fair to look at CLINTEL to see if there is bias. If this "fact check" article is correct (HERE), definitely does NOT pass the sniff-test: of the signatories,

• less than 1% describe themselves as climatologiests or climate scientists.
• Several signors are dead
• A handful work for Shell Oil or are lobbyists
• The Nobel Laureate was recognized for superconductors and has never published on climate related topics

So a third set of deniers have emerged on this thread (1) agree there is global warming, but the cause could not be correlated to human-caused CO2 increase; (2) agree there is global warming but remediating it is too difficult and expensive; and now (3) CLINTEL who do NOT agree the earth is warming above natural cycles; but that human-caused CO2 would cause global warming. Oddly, the three factions agree on very little except being united in their opposition to any action.

Peter

 

[PierreR]

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=141790&d=1693320017

Again, here is a graph from the above post where paleo evidence is tacked onto very short empirical data from the present. The present data is monthly and the paleo data has a resolution of about 2,000 years. Whenever you see this it's pure political science.
Look at graphs with a resolution of +- 5 million years and you will see that in the last 500 million years there were times when the CO2 was more than 16 times as high as it is today and man would not have been able to exist at those levels. Why no runaway green house effect? Life existed and thrived then.

 

[KnotYet]

PR, you imply that in order to compare data to other data, which is all a graph does,
the data has to be derived with identical time gradients? In what imaginary world
does that happen? In what way does it make the comparison invalid?
Don't like the graphical representation? Fine. Compare raw numbers to raw numbers.

Since it will never be possible to have absolute values for all points between the
measured data points, lines connecting the existing data, which are assumptions,
will always exist whether in columns of numbers or graphs of those data points.
To imply that to do so is 'political science' is aberrant at best, deceitful at worst.

Your question of why a very high atmospheric CO2 percentage millions of years ago
did not result in a runaway greenhouse effect reflects only one aspect of what was a
very different Earth and may not be applicable to our planet as it is today.

 

[mvweebles]

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=141790&d=1693320017

Again, here is a graph from the above post where paleo evidence is tacked onto very short empirical data from the present. The present data is monthly and the paleo data has a resolution of about 2,000 years. Whenever you see this it's pure political science.
Look at graphs with a resolution of +- 5 million years and you will see that in the last 500 million years there were times when the CO2 was more than 16 times as high as it is today and man would not have been able to exist at those levels. Why no runaway green house effect? Life existed and thrived then.

I think you grabbed the wrong picture - shows 900k years, not 5m.

But in an effort to understand, I did a quick Google search and found a NOAA Nat'l Center for Environmental Information article on paleo climate trends. I do not see what you see - the CO2 spikes (320ppm) do not come close to reaching today's (>400ppm) level let alone 16x, at least in the +/- 1m year horizon. I'll take your word for it that it may happen 5m years ago, but the world has changed a bit since then.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/climate-change-context-paleoclimate

While I think I understand what you are trying to say - that CO2 was much higher a very long time ago, it seems you are saying humans (or our predecessors) did fine back then, so what's the problem? No one died, right? I'm sure there are whackos who say we'll all die from climate change, but the prevailing thoughts I've seen overwhelmingly say our way of life is changing, not that our lives are ending. There's a big difference. Mass displacement and relocation is harder with 7-billion inhabitants, most of whom have a permanent residence of some sort, than it was 10,000 years ago when there were a few hundred thousand human-esque nomads.

The NOAA conclusions based on paleo-climate indicators:

• Temperatures have increased over the last 50 years at an unprecedented rate.
• Warmer than average temperatures are more widespread across the Northern Hemisphere since the mid-20th century than in any previous time.
• Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are experiencing.

Citations from credible sources please.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

The declaration has reached 1107 signatures, many of which come from individuals who have ties to the oil and gas industries or dubious scientific credentials.

From
https://www.thenational.scot/news/2...ergency-clintel-declaration-debunked-experts/


So sure sounds like the tobacco industry response to cancer risk.


Problem with the net is you can find anything to want to believe supported by some group. So you have a particle physicist talking about MMCC. Kind of like me talking about autoimmune GI disease. Sure I’m of some intelligence but I’m not an expert. But the underlying biology is known to me. Still I have no detailed knowledge autoimmune GI disease comparable to that of a board certified gastroenterologist. Unfortunately people have lost the ability to accept there is merit to expertise and without training and experience they aren’t experts. The rest seem to either have no training and haven’t worked in the field or have been employees of the oil and gas industry. This isn’t just funding bias but lack of expertise. The critique asks the same two questions I have. Where is the MMCC theory inconsistent to observations? Can you offer any that’s a better fit?
Even for scientists you can know a lot about a little or a little about a lot. As a non expert at a minimum you need to be able to critique the studies. That requires a deep understanding of the scientific method, statistics and educating oneself to the involved terminology of that field.
Science doesn’t care what you believe.

 

[FWT]

“Ah, thanks. I was hoping for more of a business case style discussion without the political sideshow (either slant).”

Fine, but what you asked for was a citation on $50 trillion in cost and that clip gave it. From the mouths of cabinet secretaries.

That’s $50 trillion for the US representing 15% of the world’s problems. Assuming the problems actually exist. And per testimony it’s money down the drain if only we and Europe does it. And 50 for us implies $333 trillion worldwide.

Since there isn’t nearly enough money to do it, from a practical standpoint it’s academic. Can’t be done.

If that causes someone to sell the boat and go prepper, their choice.

 

[mvweebles]

“Ah, thanks. I was hoping for more of a business case style discussion without the political sideshow (either slant).”

Fine, but what you asked for was a citation on $50 trillion in cost and that clip gave it. From the mouths of cabinet secretaries.

Those guys said a dozen times "I don't know" but finally pulled a number out of their butts. If they had said $2-million and it could be done by next June, would you have believed them?

Look I realize their statements are really convenient for folks predisposed to a certain point of view - that there is no problem to be solved. But there are a lot of people in the middle who believe there is a problem and are interested in a measured, reasonable approach to defining and addressing the problem without a lot of arm waving. Folks with open minds and ears.

Peter

 

[FWT]

It’s perfectly ok and expected for guys like us to say we don’t know. Those are cabinet secretaries who want to spend your money and THEY say they don’t know. They have an army of staff and access to every bit of data and they say they don’t know.

Fine Mr Secretary. When you do know, a conversation can begin. Until then the whole topic is pull it out of butt conflating huge conclusions from fragments of data.

 

[O C Diver]

But there are a lot of people in the middle who believe there is a problem and are interested in a measured, reasonable approach to defining and addressing the problem without a lot of arm waving. Folks with open minds and ears.

Peter

Yes, we have already done a great deal. Those of us with open minds also recognize that if China doesn't change their trajectory, nothing we do will matter. Are you open minded enough to concede that?

Ted

 

[Northern Spy]

Yesterday 4 tornadoes went through RI and southern MA. Strong enough to pick up a car and damage infrastructure/homes. A tropical storm is due to hit SoCal. With the expectation that due to man made climate change these previously unheard of events will continue has it changed your thinking about boating?

...

As climate continues to change where is the point for you where it no longer becomes economical feasible? I expect insurance will continue to rise in expense and availability will continue to decrease with some primary berthing areas being uninsurable as well as some boats. Also expect further restrictions on cruising grounds by time of year, number of crew, and specific boat. Also further obligations as regards storm plans. What impact do you think these changes will have on the used boat market? Is the era of the middle class family cruising boat coming to an end?

Back to the original topic. I'm disappointed that you, an intelligent individual co-opted bad weather into an alarmist climate discussion.

Re-read Chapter 11 of IPCC-AR6. Have your insurer read it too.

There is low confidence in past changes of maximum wind speeds and other measures of dynamical intensity of extratropical cyclones. Future wind speed changes are expected to be small, although poleward shifts in the storm tracks could lead to substantial changes in extreme wind speeds in some regions (medium confidence). There is low confidence in past trends in characteristics of severe convective storms, such as hail and severe winds, beyond an increase in precipitation rates. The frequency of spring severe convective storms is projected to increase in the USA, leading to a*lengthening of the severe convective storm season (medium confidence); evidence in other regions is limited. {11.7.2, 11.7.3}.

In the overview of assessed events, the ENA region show a mixed signal of extreme heat and extreme cold with low confidence of both observed trends and attribution. Precipitation does show an increase, with a high confidence level of observation but a low attribution.

Even the projected changes in the frequency of extreme temperature and precipitation models doesn't increase much for North America unless the warming exceeds 2C.

Generally speaking, North America is poised to benefit from a warmer climate. It's the equatorial regions that are likely to suffer. It will be a disruptive change for Northern Canada however, as greenhouse warming itself, is felt most strongly at night near the poles.

Weather shouldn't be politicized. The CBC has essentially linked every Canadian recent weather event to climate change, and has completely ignored the El Nino Southern Oscillation. We are just coming off of a triple dip La Nina which has greatly affected our weather, and it would appear that a strong El Nino is developing currently which will definitely affect the hurricane season and the South East's winter (orange juice futures anyone?).

ENSO is neither a cause nor effect of climate change. However, there is a 66% likelihood that the annual average near-surface global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will temporarily be more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year because of it. I doubt it will get the headlines and/or credit it deserves from the media.

I'm a bit concerned as my wife will be going to Ecuador this fall. Not a great place to be during a strong El Nino.

 

[sunchaser]

A tropical storm hitting SoCal is not an unheard of event. In the old days heavy offshore winds and several inches of rain were welcomed. Now they’re climate change politicized for establishing agendas.

 

[mvweebles]

Yes, we have already done a great deal. Those of us with open minds also recognize that if China doesn't change their trajectory, nothing we do will matter. Are you open minded enough to concede that?

Ted

Of course - if a barrier is so intractable that it makes a good outcome impossible, it would make no sense to keep going. Thats why I was hoping FWT's $50T post would have a rational business-case approach where everything is on the table - risks, costs, sacrafices, etc. All compared to a Do-Nothing scenario. Instead it was a red-meat clip from a research pool of one of the cable talking head shows.

Are you open minded enough to consider that if a non-carbon path (and technology) develops traction and acceptance, that India and China would not only participate, but compete fiercely?

Peter

 

[sunchaser]

Here is something to think about. -

China has 80 gigawatts of new coal plants in the pipeline from engineering design to near startup. This is about 80 new plants. India is not too far behind.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,

• The top five destinations of U.S. coal exports, the amount exported—in million short tons (MMst)—and their percentage shares of total coal exports in 2021 were:
• India 15.36 MMst 18%
• China 12.81 MMst 15%
• Japan 7.57 MMst 9%
• The Netherlands 7.14 MMst 8%
• South Korea 6.38 MMst 7%

Looks like US coal may be fueling China and India. Caught between a rock and a hard place, unfortunately.


I can't see the US shutting down coal production as traditional coal mining areas are already economically devastated.

 

[Northern Spy]

Here is something to think about. -

China has 80 gigawatts of new coal plants in the pipeline from engineering design to near startup. This is about 80 new plants. India is not too far behind.

I mentioned that earlier Tom.

China now has 243GW of coal power under construction and permitted. Another 149GW announced but not permitted yet.

https://energyandcleanair.org/publi...nues-as-more-provinces-jump-on-the-bandwagon/