Weather consequences of global warming on your life (and faster than you think)

[Christophe]

One degree, two degrees, three degrees, four degrees… During the next century, the temperature of the planet will continue to rise. The more greenhouse gases humanity emits, the greater the global warming. But why is this climate change a problem? Why do we have to worry about a few more degrees?

Naturally, the rise in temperatures will first and foremost lead to more and more frequent and deadly heat waves. And these heat episodes will be accompanied by droughts that are very problematic for agriculture.

But that's not all. Another mechanism risks being put to the test: the water cycle. Between the melting of glaciers, rising waters and flooding, the consequences could well be deadly for humans, but also for all biodiversity.

This video, created in collaboration with Rodolphe Meyer (from the Le Réveilleur Youtube channel), presents some of the most problematic consequences of climate change and helps to understand why it is a major challenge of the XNUMXst century.

source: https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/video/20 ... _3244.html

[ABC2019]

An article posted on Judith Curry's blog (a professional climatologist who has had many prestigious distinctions and recognitions, but who has distanced herself from the IPCC, see her CV on wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry )


https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-mi ... more-27715

Translation :

How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change and how should we react (especially with regard to CO2 emissions)?

Last week, I participated in a panel for a summer internship at a Canadian school in which engineering students were participating. They were working on the energy transition, and their teacher wanted there to be a debate on this subject that would allow them to exercise their critical thinking. I was the only climatologist member of the panel, the others working in renewable energies. Each of us has had five minutes to present our main points. The text below is what I could find to say in five minutes; it's longer than an elevator talk, but it's still quite short.

Let me start with a brief summary of what is known as the 'climate crisis':

“There is a warming, caused by human activities. This warming is dangerous. We urgently need to switch to renewable energies to stop the warming. Once we do that, the sea level rise will stop and there will be no more extreme weather events ”.

But what is wrong with this story?

In short, we have made both the problem and its solutions super simplified. The complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity of our knowledge about climate change are not taken into account in policies and public debate. The solutions proposed are technologically and politically inapplicable on a global scale.

More specifically, regarding climate science. The sensitivity of the climate (reaction to a doubling of the level of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere) is marred by an uncertainty factor of order 3. The alarming forecasts of climate models for the 21st century are based on a emission scenario (RCP8.5) which is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect natural climate variability, which dominates the regional climate on interannual to multi-decadal timescales. Finally, the reduction in emissions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century, because if we are to believe the climate models, it will only produce its effects in the 22nd century and even beyond.

Whether or not warming is "dangerous" is a subjective judgment on which science has no say. According to the IPCC, there is no evidence yet of an increase in the global frequency or intensity of cyclones, droughts, floods or forest fires. By far the fastest growing states in the United States are Florida and Texas, which are hot southern states. The value of homes built along the coast is skyrocketing. Personal preferences and market prices have not yet taken into account any “dangerousness” of global warming.

Man-made climate change is the bombastic tale of a phenomenon believed to have become the major societal problem. Any new societal problem that arises strengthens our belief that there is only one thing to do, and that is to stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative is misleading us in that we believe that if we can solve the problem of man-made climate change, then these other problems will be solved as well. This belief prevents us from delving deeper into the real causes of these problems. The end result is a narrowing of the views and policy options we are prepared to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters, and national security.

Does all of this mean that we should not do anything about climate change? Certainly not. We must strive to reduce our impact on the planet, which is not easy with a world population of 7 billion people. We must work to minimize air pollution and water pollution. Humans have adapted to climate change since time immemorial. Whether or not we succeed in drastically reducing our carbon dioxide emissions over the next few decades, it will not exempt us from reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

When it comes to energy, all other things being equal, each of us prefers clean energy to dirty energy. But all other things are just not equal. We need secure, reliable and economical energy systems for all countries of the world. This includes Africa where many countries currently lack electricity. We need 21st century technologies for our power and transportation systems to enable continued and growing prosperity. The way we rush towards the renewable technologies of the 20th century risks wasting the resources we invest in inadequate energy infrastructure and thus increasing our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

The evolution of the climate in the 21st century is a subject of deep uncertainty. Once the natural variability of the climate is taken into account, this development may be relatively benign. But we can also be faced with unforeseen surprises. We must increase our capacity for resilience to face whatever future climate it is. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by sacrificing economic prosperity and the overall resilience of society on the altar of urgent transition with technologies of the past.

We should not forget that the fight against climate change is not an end in itself, and moreover, climate change is not the only problem facing the world. The main objective must be to improve human well-being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as possible.

Respect for this great scientist, it is one of the rare rational speeches that we can hear these days on the climate ...

[Janic]

Respect for this great scientist, it is one of the rare rational speeches that we can hear these days on the climate ...

Bad! speeches on one side, facts and their harsh reality on the other!

[ABC2019]

Respect for this great scientist, it is one of the rare rational speeches that we can hear these days on the climate ...

Bad! speeches on one side, facts and their harsh reality on the other!

what Judith Curry does precisely is to recall the facts, in the face of mythological speeches based only on fears and fantasies for the future, but not on realities.

Whether or not warming is "dangerous" is a subjective judgment on which science has no say. According to the IPCC, there is no evidence yet of an increase in the global frequency or intensity of cyclones, droughts, floods or forest fires. In the USA, by far the fastest growing states are Florida and Texas, which are hot southern states. The value of homes built along the coast is skyrocketing. Personal preferences and market prices have not yet taken into account any “dangerousness” of global warming.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Judith Curry

Anthology of the bitch, new muse of Empty Bozo:

Financing fossil fuels

When asked about potential conflicts of interest, it was Curry's response to Scientific American:

“I get funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company… has been doing [short-term] hurricane forecasts… for an oil company, since 2007. During this time, I have been both a strong supporter of the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation between this funding and my public statements.

November 2016

"in terms of climate hoaxes, it may NOT be Donald Trump's pants on fire."

"Trump's election was the occasion for a more rational energy and climate policy."

December 8, 2015

During a hearing entitled "Data or dogma? Promoting the open inquiry into the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth's climate, ”Juth Curry acknowledged that global temperatures are rising, but said the bigger question is whether humans are at blame.

She said temperatures have been on the rise for more than 200 years. "And that's not human," she said, suggesting that something other than industrial greenhouse gases is driving them up.

July 2015

Regarding the record heat waves in Western Europe, and whether they should be blamed on man-made global warming (emphasis added):

“Does it make more sense to provide air conditioning or to limit CO2 emissions? I am voting for more air conditioning in these sensitive regions.

September 24, 2020

Appearing in Marc Morano's 2020 film Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy (climate-denial shit), produced by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT *), Curry questioned the premise of climate change education, stating:

"I see no reason to teach children this, other than… unless you try to brainwash them in some way. You know, take them when they're young.

In bulk:
"I am totally indifferent to anything that has to do with DC and the government."
"The real issue at stake is the national climate assessment."
Curry was ranked # 4 (among climate deniers) among (among others), the deniers noted Marc Morano (# 1), Sen. James Inhofe, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Freeman Dyson, Ross McKitrick, Steven Hayward, John Hinderaker and Roy Spencer
“Man-made climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but the potential magnitude is very uncertain. […] Solutions can have surprising unintended consequences that generate new vulnerabilities. In short, the cure could be worse than the disease.
"Man-made climate change is not an existential threat on a 21st century scale, even in its most alarming incarnation. It is wrong to assume that current wind and solar technologies are adequate for power and the cutting edge economy. The industry leaders I engage with seem eager for a pragmatic, two-party approach to climate policy. "
“Rather than trying to reduce future sea level rise in the distant future by fractions of an inch, policymakers should keep fossil fuels affordable, abundant and reliable to deal with climate and weather events of all kinds. Adapting to the free market, not a futile crusade to “stabilize” the climate, is the obvious choice for a free and prosperous world. "
Etc., etc...
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Well done Bozo for getting that big shit out of your dung heap!

* CFACT is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which rejects climate science, is known to promote lies about climate change. She has been characterized as a leader in efforts to prevent the government from tackling climate change. CFACT protested to defend oil exploration14 and in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. CFACT supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as hydraulic fracturing in natural gas and oil rich regions of the country.

[ABC2019]

Judith Curry

Anthology of the bitch, new muse of Empty Bozo:


Financing fossil fuels

When asked about potential conflicts of interest, it was Curry's response to Scientific American:

“I get funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company… has been doing [short-term] hurricane forecasts… for an oil company, since 2007. During this time, I have been both a strong supporter of the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation between this funding and my public statements.

what is wrong there?

"Trump's election was the occasion for a more rational energy and climate policy."

On the issue of the climate, it's probably true (that doesn't mean that Trump only does good things, the proof he defended hydroxycholoroquine, oops ....

During a hearing entitled "Data or dogma? Promoting the open inquiry into the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth's climate, ”Juth Curry acknowledged that global temperatures are rising, but said the bigger question is whether humans are at blame.

She said temperatures have been on the rise for more than 200 years. "And that's not human," she said, suggesting that something other than industrial greenhouse gases is driving them up.

It's quite true, CO2 was incapable of causing a rise in temperature 200 years ago, according to climatologists themselves.


[Img]
https://cache.media.eduscol.education.f ... 288769.pdf
[/ Img]

Regarding the record heat waves in Western Europe, and whether they should be blamed on man-made global warming (emphasis added):

“Does it make more sense to provide air conditioning or to limit CO2 emissions? I am voting for more air conditioning in these sensitive regions.

it is quite rational, to avoid deaths.

Appearing in Marc Morano's 2020 film Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy (climate-denial shit), produced by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT *), Curry questioned the premise of climate change education, stating:

"I see no reason to teach children this, other than… unless you try to brainwash them in some way. You know, take them when they're young.

totally agree with her.

“Man-made climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but the potential magnitude is very uncertain. […] Solutions can have surprising unintended consequences that generate new vulnerabilities. In short, the cure could be worse than the disease.

she is absolutely right, the IPCC itself recognizes a factor of 3 uncertainty in the assessment of climate sensitivity, plus the uncertainties on the amount of extractable fossil reserves, how could the potential magnitude be anything other than "very uncertain "?

And of course, removing fossils could (and certainly would do) a lot more harm than good, one need only look at the correlation between fossil consumption and standard of living to understand this.

"Man-made climate change is not an existential threat on a 21st century scale, even in its most alarming incarnation. It is wrong to assume that current wind and solar technologies are adequate for power and the cutting edge economy. The industry leaders I engage with seem eager for a pragmatic, two-party approach to climate policy. "

She is absolutely right, CR is not an existential threat on the scale of the 21st century, even the climatologists of the IPCC recognize it.


https://archive.vn/DtwoN

“Rather than trying to reduce future sea level rise in the distant future by fractions of an inch, policymakers should keep fossil fuels affordable, abundant and reliable to deal with climate and weather events of all kinds. Adapting to the free market, not a futile crusade to “stabilize” the climate, is the obvious choice for a free and prosperous world. "
Etc., etc...
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Well done Bozo for getting that big shit out of your dung heap!

[/ Quote]

this "big shit" is a scientist who reasons with facts and arguments, not like some illuminated defending homeopathy, biodynamics, or other eccentric theories, and unable to reason on a rule of three. Normal that you are not too capable of judging her then.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(Here, the septic tank is still leaking and is allowing foul-smelling gases to pass ...)

[ABC2019]

(Here, the septic tank is still leaking and is allowing foul-smelling gases to pass ...)

coming from the one who sprinkles all his posts with "shit", "con", "manure", that must be a pleasant smell for you ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

When you "hang out" with Bozo and some others, you have all the possible odors of excrement, plant and animal rots, not to mention the breath ... they are the source, we the victims. In any case, what a talent for digging up the worst crap that misguided and corrupt science can produce. Pointed hat, "my method"!)

[Christophe]

You really are bad kids ... no way to have a calm discussion between yourselves?

The impacts have already seen them every week in the world: it burns in one place, it tornado or floods in another ...

Yesterday Belgium and Germany were flooded, especially Wallonia ... more than 25% of its surface !!



Stay united brothel! We will have to hold the bar firmly over the next few years ...