Climate Change Mega Thread

[captkirkcanada]

No that isnt true , heatwaves are part of the bigger picture it isnt just local when it covers thousands of square miles . Who you calling a dummy ? Maybe lay off the booze in the morning ? And yes kindergarten kids do know heatwaves and local rain showers are not same process

Forest fires cover thousands of square miles too. *removed*

Yes forest fires do cause widespread damage . How does that have anything to do with what i said ? If you are talking about why wildfires happen with greater intensity, then it would be on topic atleast to what i posted .


My point still stands , local weather and the earths climate are not the same thing. Local weather is a componant of the larger climate . Our atmosphere is like a bubble that surrounds the earth .

How that larger climate dome heats up or cools off the earth through ghg blocking or not is measured by year over year data on human levels , millions of years on the earths scale .

The fact we are seeing changes in human scale time scales , is proof we are adding to a problem . It is really that simple .

[captkirkcanada]

Aussies biggest solar farm starts pumping that good green power to its grid

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/22/ ... g-to-grid/

[captkirkcanada]

France bans fossil fuel ads

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/ ... w-go-far-e

[alanjh595]

France bans fossil fuel ads

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/ ... w-go-far-e

Click bait! Stay away if you value your online privacy.

[oldtrucker]

Doing my best to put as much CO2 in the air as I can but I can only work so much

[rustled]

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear. But it's promising!

The headlines:

UNPRECEDENTED CATASTROPHE
Deadly flooding in Pakistan has hallmarks of global warming https://www.castanet.net/news/World/382 ... al-warming

"Has hallmarks of"! After that unusual (in these days) beginning, we see the usual appeal to emotion over reason in the first sentence:

The familiar ingredients of a warming world were in place: searing temperatures, hotter air holding more moisture, extreme weather getting wilder, melting glaciers, people living in harm’s way, and poverty. They combined in vulnerable Pakistan to create unrelenting rain and deadly flooding.

Second paragraph, vacillating between emotion and (gasp!) uncertainty! about the science, ending with appeal to emotion:

The flooding has all the hallmarks of a catastrophe juiced by climate change, but it is too early to formally assign blame to global warming, several scientists tell The Associated Press. It occurred in a country that did little to cause the warming, but keeps getting hit, just like the relentless rain.

So a bit of the expected alarmism, and a bit of the unexpected - uncertainty - and back to the expected. Scroll down a bit and:

While scientists point out these classic climate change fingerprints, they have not yet finished intricate calculations that compare what happened in Pakistan to what would happen in a world without warming. That study, expected in a few weeks, will formally determine how much climate change is a factor, if at all.

Interesting! The Canadian Press managed to avoid presentation of theory as fact!

Scroll down more to see a scientist publicly displaying confirmation bias:

“Clearly, it’s being juiced by climate change,” said Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Massachusetts.

Scroll down more for an extraordinary admission for our times, PLUS musings on the lack of interest in actually applying available first world resources where they would save human lives:

Not all of the problem is climate change.

Pakistan saw similar flooding and devastation in 2010 that killed nearly 2,000 people. But the government didn’t implement plans to prevent future flooding by preventing construction and homes in flood prone areas and river beds, said Suleri of the country's Climate Change Council.

But then, with no apparent attempt at irony, give alarmism the last word:

The disaster is hitting a poor country that has contributed relatively little to the world's climate problem, scientists and officials said. Since 1959, Pakistan has emitted about 0.4% of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, compared to 21.5% by the United States and 16.4% by China.

“Those countries that have developed or gotten rich on the back of fossil fuels, which are the problem really,” Rehman said. “They’re going to have to make a critical decision that the world is coming to a tipping point. We certainly have already reached that point because of our geographical location.”

Still: baby steps!

[Jlabute]

All the hallmarks of a fingerprint, of a sign, of an indication, that the ingredients for this catastrophe is DEFINATELY caused by the omen of a supposed manifestation of CO2! LOL. I too would say the same thing if I had no science to back me up. Castanet reposts insultingly dumb articles. It doesn't matter how much CO2 Pakistan emits as if mentioning it was important. CO2 mixes globally. What sounds like irony is actually irrelevant stupidity, and unwittingly fake.

Of course Pakistan has had major floods MANY times before, such as in 2010. The last three years have had a pronounced difference in global weather because of an extended La Nina. La Nina is different every time it occurs. This has brought floods to Pakistan, and droughts to China and California, like clockwork. La Nina was strong back in 2010 when Pakistan had 20,000,000 displaced, unlike the 500,000 displaced today.

Amazingly the 2010 flood was not attributed to climate change like the current flood. Science articles pointed to weather. Current media releases do not mention La Nina or weather patterns, or dry soil conditions. Politicians and mass media and anonymous sources immediately attribute changes in climate to the weather they don't like, without scrutiny. The first people chiming in are politicians and policy makers, long before science can make a determination, which they can't with any accuracy. Models have no way of predicting chaotic weather, or modelling clouds and rain. The entire premise of attribution by model is a farce. The article is full of many different opinions, LOL.

This makes the entire article completely unbelievable when it blames climate, just like all the articles before it, and ones to come.

Scientists: but it is too early to formally assign blame to global warming

The “recent flood in Pakistan is actually an outcome of the climate catastrophe ... that was looming very large,” said Anjal Prakash.

Back in 2010, scientists never said the flooding was about a changing climate.


https://atmos.uw.edu/MG/PDFs/BAMS11_Hou ... kistan.pdf

[Jlabute]

Arctic Sea Ice Extent is currently higher than what is was back in 2010.



https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/31/ ... s-explain/

Capture.PNG

[sitting rabbit]

FYI: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62689707

[captkirkcanada]

Worlds largest windfarm turned on today. Will power 1.3 million homes with that good clean green power .

https://interestingengineering.com/cult ... perational


Next up part 3 which uk says will power millions more homes and no ghg being pumped to poison our planet . So lovely really . Tea anyone ?

[Catsumi]

Sure, tea sounds fine. Can we have some chopped eagles, pelican parts and diced songbirds with it?

[Babba_not_Gump]

This windfarm will produce 1.3 GW of electricity.

By comparison, the Gordon Shrum generating station produces 2.73 GW and the generating station for Site C will produce 1.1 GW.

[captkirkcanada]

This windfarm will produce 1.3 GW of electricity.

By comparison, the Gordon Shrum generating station produces 2.73 GW and the generating station for Site C will produce 1.1 GW.

Site c will produce ghg thru out its life time as fish will have to be trucked past the dam every year it is there . There is no comparason

[77TA]

This windfarm will produce 1.3 GW of electricity.

By comparison, the Gordon Shrum generating station produces 2.73 GW and the generating station for Site C will produce 1.1 GW.

Site c will produce ghg thru out its life time as fish will have to be trucked past the dam every year it is there . There is no comparason

The wind farm will produce more ghg throughout it's life with ships constantly back and forth to maintain them and to haul away the used giant blades to bury them in a toxic hole. Yes, no comparison...

[Babba_not_Gump]

This windfarm will produce 1.3 GW of electricity.

By comparison, the Gordon Shrum generating station produces 2.73 GW and the generating station for Site C will produce 1.1 GW.

Site c will produce ghg thru out its life time as fish will have to be trucked past the dam every year it is there . There is no comparason

I'm sure the powers that be will use an electric truck.