patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
750,909 comments in 77,178 posts by 11,010 registered users, 2 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, HEY YOU

new post

You heard it on Patrick.net first folks but now everyone is finally getting it

By iwog   Jun 20, 12:12am   3 links   4,063 views   108 comments   watch (0)   quote      

Unfortunately 2100 is FAR too optimistic. Also it's nice to see wet bulb temperature death being talked about from sources other than us 'lunatics'.

By 2100, Deadly Heat May Threaten Majority of Humankind

http://www.popsci.com/deadly-heatwave-climate-change
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/heatwaves-climate-change-global-warming/

Up to 75 percent of people could face deadly heatwaves by 2100 unless carbon emissions plummet, a new study warns.

A new study has found that 30 percent of the world’s population is currently exposed to potentially deadly heat for 20 days per year or more—and like a growing forest fire, climate change is spreading this extreme heat.

Without major reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, up to three in four people will face the threat of dying from heat by 2100. However, even with reductions, one in two people at the end of the century will likely face at least 20 days when extreme heat can kill, according to the analysis, published on Monday in Nature Climate Change.

“Lethal heatwaves are very common. I don’t know why we as a society are not more concerned about the dangers,” says Camilo Mora of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, the study’s lead author. “The 2003 European heatwave killed approximately 70,000 people—that’s more than 20 times the number of people who died in the September 11 attacks.

« First     « Previous     Comments 69-108 of 108     Last »

69   Straw Man   712/717 = 99% civil   Jun 21, 1:18pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

As the earth warms, the energy available to drive the jet stream increases. Also the amount of moisture the air can hold increases. (high school physics) Wetter air combined with stronger winds pushing cold air south results in record snowfall.

But fuck science, am I right?

Are you arguing with me or some strawman you built in your imagination? I personally love both science and record snowfalls.

70   Straw Man   712/717 = 99% civil   Jun 21, 1:23pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

I don't really care. I just care about what's true.

Fact: Hot air holds more water than cold air.

Fact: Hotter air results in stronger winds. Rising hot air columns power the jet stream.

Knowing the two easily provable scientific facts I listed above, what do you think that might do to snowfall levels?

They will fluctuate from year to year?

71   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Jun 21, 1:26pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Straw Man says

Are you arguing with me or some strawman you built in your imagination? I personally love both science and record snowfalls.

Again..........a straw man ALWAYS can be stated thus: "But You said X and therefore X is wrong because..........."

Now here's what you said:

Straw Man says

... but record-braking snow levels were dismissed as "weather ergo irrelevant".

Which represents the argument I was addressing. It may not be YOURS, but I wasn't addressing a straw man. I was directly and effortlessly replying to exactly what you stated.

72   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Jun 21, 1:26pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Straw Man says

They will fluctuate from year to year?

Correct and the fluctuations will be more extreme.

73   Straw Man   712/717 = 99% civil   Jun 21, 1:42pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Straw Man says

... but record-braking snow levels were dismissed as "weather ergo irrelevant".

Which represents the argument I was addressing. It may not be YOURS, but I wasn't addressing a straw man. I was directly and effortlessly replying to exactly what you stated.

I only stated the fact that the very same people who dismissed record snow as "weather" accepted a heat wave as something very relevant to GW. So your reply in the vein of "snow is relevant to GW too" is kinda irrelevant to my argument. Can't comment on whether it was effortless - you're the one to judge the amount of effort it took you.

74   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jun 21, 3:13pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Straw Man says

Dan8267 says

You often site short-term weather in your faulty attempts to discredit global warming.

This is BS unless many links are provided.

Straw Man says

... but record-braking snow levels were dismissed as "weather ergo irrelevant".

Straw Man says

I only stated the fact that the very same people who dismissed record snow as "weather" accepted a heat wave as something very relevant to GW. So your reply in the vein of "snow is relevant to GW too" is kinda irrelevant to my argument. Can't comment on whether it was effortless - you're the one to judge the amount of effort it took you.

Straw Man says

I see. It's OK to cite a weather event as a proof of climate change and not be considered an idiot if it lasts at least 2 weeks. What about last year's unusually cold and snowy weather in March and April in (Eastern) Europe? Does it count? That anomaly lasted more than 2 weeks for sure.

Straw Man says

Goran_K says

zzyzzx says

Al Gore was wrong!

Yeah, take that guy's nobel prize back. I was freezing putting the garbage cans out last night in August.

+1

When kids refuse to go into pool in August because it's too cold an I'm forced to fire up that heater, we have a problem, Al.

By the way, it's the long-term global temperature trends, not the regional ones. A few broken records in local areas is not evidence of a long-term climate trend. Many repeated years of breaking records across the globe is evidence of a long-term climate trend. And climate change includes more severe weather, not just overall a hotter Earth, although that is a crucial part of the picture particularly related to rising sea levels and the spread of malaria.

75   Straw Man   712/717 = 99% civil   Jun 21, 5:12pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Made you work. Good.

PS. Jeebus, apparently the TV dorks who need sarcasm alert do have their prototype IRL. :rolleye:

76   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jun 21, 5:42pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Straw Man says

Made you work. Good.

Made you look like a fool by taking two minutes. Better.

Also made you admit you are a trolling and lying. This destroys your credibility. Also better.

77   Rew   1136/1136 = 100% civil   Jun 21, 10:08pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Straw Man says

Made you work. Good.

Dan8267 says

This destroys your credibility.

Dead on.

78   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jun 26, 9:09am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Straw Man says

Yes. For you. You see how small that piece of pie that belongs to the US? 17% fucking percent.

The U.S. is 5% of the population. And you tried to censor that response. That's an admission of guilt.

79   Straw Man   712/717 = 99% civil   Jul 11, 11:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Straw Man, less lying.

Where the fuck did I lie?

80   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jul 11, 12:33pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Straw Man says

Where the fuck did I lie?

The world is heating up due to man-made pollution. We are changing the climate, melting the polar ice, raising sea levels, raising the mosquito line, and altering rainfall patterns. These are cold, hard, indisputable facts proven by tens of thousands of lines of independent evidence.

These facts are not political opinions. If you say these facts are wrong, then you are lying. It is a lie to say that the warming of the planet is due to natural or cyclic causes. It is a lie to say that the science is inconclusive or undecided. It is a lie to say that the effects are not happening right now. It is a lie to say that the effects are not increasing exponentially. It is a lie to say that people will not be harmed by these effects.

Finally, it is a lie to say that the economy is better off allowing massive pollution to make one arbitrary set of goods cheaper. Making goods like coal and oil cheaper makes clean, independent energy more expensive by hindering investment into the development of those technologies. And since oil also makes us dependent on hostile states that sponsor terrorism, massive economic resources are wasted on needless war.

Even ignoring the destruction of environmental wealth, which is clearly worth at least quadrillions of dollars and is the vast majority of the world's wealth store, allowing pollution still is an economic drag. Pollution makes the Earth less productive. It poisons seafood. It increases health care costs. It reduces able-bodied workers.

To oppose pollution control requires greed, ignorance, and stupidity. Anyone lacking even one of these attributes would oppose pollution. For example, a person who is greedy and ignorant, but not stupid, would learn and realize that, unless he's an oil or coal tycoon, his own wealth and future wealth is being diminished by pollution.

There is no up side to pollution. It does not make goods or services cheaper. It shifts the costs of those goods and services to everyone else. That's socialism, and the one truly bad use case of socialism. It sure as hell ain't free markets to allow some products to shift their costs to non-consumers, but not others. Doing so distorts markets and causes misallocation of resources. This is economics 101. Even if you don't give a shit about the environment or other people and only care about money, you should at least have the intelligence to realize this.

#pollutionIsAnEconomicCost

81   BayAreaObserver   1054/1055 = 99% civil   Jul 19, 12:37pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

July 19 (UPI) -- New research suggests larger and more persistent fluctuations in sea surface temperatures are linked with extreme weather patterns on land, encouraging prolonged droughts.

When temperatures fluctuate wildly in the ocean, scientists found, so too do temperatures on land.

When climate scientists analyzed sea surface temperatures recorded between 1957 and 2002 in the North Pacific and North Atlantic oceans, they found more dramatic fluctuations and prolonged extremes. Further analysis revealed a link between sea surface temperature patterns and persistent droughts in North America and the Mediterranean.

Even if a region isn't getting drier overall, researchers say, prolonged droughts can still have a significant impact.

"For instance, a long heatwave can have greater impacts on human mortality than the sum of individual hot days, and multi-year droughts can have greater agricultural economic impacts than the sum of individual dry years," Tim Lenton, a professor at the University of Exeter, said in a news release.

NASA has described an ongoing drought in the eastern Mediterranean as the region's "worst drought of the past nine centuries."

Until a barrage of rainstorms pummeled the California coast over the last two years and repaid the region's water debt, California suffered one of its worst droughts in history.

The Pacific Ocean continues to experience a variety of sea surface temperature anomalies.

Researchers shared their latest analysis of sea surface temperatures and drought patterns in the journal Scientific Reports.

More: https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/07/19/Climate-scientists-find-link-between-sea-surface-temperatures-and-droughts/2471500477697/?utm_source=fp&utm_campaign=ts&utm_medium=16

Report Cited in Above Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06382-x

82   Ceffer   865/865 = 100% civil   Jul 19, 12:52pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The vast majority of heat wave casualties are old croakers, anyway, with one step in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

I guess you could call it "Heat Wave Euthanasia".

83   FortWayne   867/873 = 99% civil   Jul 19, 1:02pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

It's the sun

84   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jul 19, 2:51pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

FortWayne says

It's the sun

Either you are lying or you are stupid. Take your pick. Only an idiot could possibly believe that man is having zero effect on the temperature after all the greenhouse gases we've emitted. That's just batshit crazy.

85   komputodo   220/221 = 99% civil   Jul 19, 5:34pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Guam has even worse problems than climate change. It could possibly tip over and capsize according to the honorable dem. congressman from the great state of georgia.

86   TwoScoopsMcGee   1705/1705 = 100% civil   Jul 19, 6:49pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

I'm only voting for environmentalists if they get honest about the solutions and stop promising techno-magic that isn't in the cards.

87   FortWayne   867/873 = 99% civil   Jul 19, 7:49pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

It's the sun

Either you are lying or you are stupid. Take your pick. Only an idiot could possibly believe that man is having zero effect on the temperature after all the greenhouse gases we've emitted. That's just batshit crazy.

That's dumb, you don't understand basic physics.

88   jazz_music   876/877 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 12:44am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

FortWayne says

you don't understand basic physics.

When you say that, you must explain what is not understood and why this concept is crucially relevant otherwise you remain a simpleton flinging poo using a shiny new word you heard of.

89   errc   714/723 = 98% civil   Jul 20, 4:52am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

How dare you question Fort Waynes knowledge of physics!!!

90   YesYNot   1135/1136 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 5:53am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I'm only voting for environmentalists if they get honest about the solutions and stop promising techno-magic that isn't in the cards.

Stop making shit up. There will always be some environmentalist proposing a solution that you don't think is feasible. So, if that is all it takes for you to write off the whole problem, you will always have an excuse to do so.

91   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jul 20, 7:53am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

FortWayne says

That's dumb, you don't understand basic physics.

Honey, I'll go with the physics that NASA, every scientific organization in the world, and 99.999999% of climatologists use instead of your Jesus physics that says two of every 7.77 million species of animals onto a Bronze Age boat. Anyone who believes in a god has no credibility when it comes to describing how our universe works.

As for the physics itself, this is something well understood by anyone who doesn't believe in childish fairy tales. But here's a video that will explain it on your level.

Once more FortWayne demonstrates that Christianity is a greater threat to the world than Islam. Sure, worse case scenario, Muslim terrorists get a nuke and destroy a city killing several million people. Worse case scenario, Christianity wipes out our entire species with ecological collapse. Christianity wins at evil.

Islam may be more repugnant, but Christianity is more dangerous because it greatly affects our policies.

92   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jul 20, 7:57am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

jazz_music says

When you say that, you must explain what is not understood and why this concept is crucially relevant otherwise you remain a simpleton flinging poo using a shiny new word you heard of.

FortWayne is physically incapable of backing up his assertions.

You'll notice that he never presents evidence or refutes it.

YesYNot says

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I'm only voting for environmentalists if they get honest about the solutions and stop promising techno-magic that isn't in the cards.

Stop making shit up. There will always be some environmentalist proposing a solution that you don't think is feasible. So, if that is all it takes for you to write off the whole problem, you will always have an excuse to do so.

The solution isn't some magic technology that's just around the corner. The solution is to tax polluters enough to pay for cleaning up the pollution they create. The free market will handle the rest one way or another. It's funny how the people who most advocate free markets do their damndest to make sure it's not applied to stopping pollution.

93   komputodo   220/221 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 8:22am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

A lot of it has to do with "who do you believe". If I had a personal friend that is a nasa physicist and he gave me his "off the record" opinion about climate change, that would carry a whole lot more weight with me than the second hand, filtered, and spun "facts" coming from the MSM. I do understand that some people can't help themselves and continue to believe the MSM propaganda.

94   jazz_music   876/877 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 12:07pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

The solution isn't some magic technology that's just around the corner

When you look at all those "future" presentations form the 1950's in black and white with appliances, cars, infrastructure, the biggest conglomerates strived to make the future look so glorious and now look back at the last 65 years at the draconian extraction of all value by those same big conglomerates and what that did to the country WOW all the time they were carrying out their greedy plans they were propagandizing the masses from fear of us bringing them down.

Look what happens when you buy into the dream of a great future!

Unless I miss my guess I think the congress has recently developed a healthy fear of the electorate, if true that might make this government the most responsive government we had in 50 years. I mean they are actually getting shot at and the security can't be made any tighter, look how much money and effort it takes to keep people from killing the president and similar front men. wow!

Demonstrations, marches, phone calling, not vacations, spas, and cocktail parties, everywhere, Activism works.The people are waking up to their power and even congressmen etc. least inclined to represent their electorate must start representing out of fear.

95   jazz_music   876/877 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 12:13pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

komputodo says

If I had a personal friend that is a nasa physicist and he gave me his "off the record" opinion about climate change

This NASA statement is way better than hearsay from a respected friend: NASA Goddard's indisputable explanation of climate change data since 1850.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Very clear and sourced too. Are you going to dismiss it as fake news? --lots of right wing did just that here on patnet, which in itself was extremely revealing about what people will do when confronted with an indisputable presentation of data.

96   BayAreaObserver   1054/1055 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 12:57pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

FW aka 3WG (three word guy) That's dumb, you don't understand basic physics.

A public service message

97   TwoScoopsMcGee   1705/1705 = 100% civil   Jul 20, 1:17pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The solutions include:
An end to planned obsolescence
Abandoning Privately Owned Vehicles through skyhigh taxes and reg fees that increase over time. We CANNOT introduce mass EV usage while trying to shift to renewable power simultaneously.
Density with Federal Powers to override Local Landlords in "Crucial Areas" like the SFBA where provincial putzes fight high rises and ruin America's competitiveness by discouraging workers from working in that industry, while making America more dependent on imported fuels
Child Licensing Laws
More Charity to expand renewable use, less for medical and food aid.

Pretend that outsourcing industry to third world countries that don't enforce any of their enviro laws wasn't the main reason pollution declined. Start having enviro standards for imports, to be verified by the importer, not the exporting nation.

98   FortWayne   867/873 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 1:23pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

FortWayne is physically incapable of backing up his assertions.

Oh I can all right, it's just no point to tell you because just like Iwog you will posture no matter what. So what's the use?

99   YesYNot   1135/1136 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 2:58pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

TwoScoopsMcGee says

More Charity to expand renewable use,

Subsidies for renewable use are not charities. The subsidies are merely a vehicle to fund technological development, which will eventually make solar much cheaper than fossil fuels. Without the subsidies, there is less money for development, and the revolution will never happen - or it will take much longer. It might not be the optimal way to fund R&D, but it's not bad. It funds the development (manufacturing know how) more so than research, which might be a cheaper way but would not ramp up manufacturing know how.

Electric cars may or may not be a help. But if world energy demands continue apace, it will be hard to match total demand even with full on fossil fuel, alternative fuels, and a large nuclear increase. I think that e-cars are being developed (encouraged) to improve the options available. We just don't know how useful they will be.

100   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jul 20, 3:08pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

komputodo says

If I had a personal friend that is a nasa physicist and he gave me his "off the record" opinion about climate change, that would carry a whole lot more weight with me than the second hand, filtered, and spun "facts" coming from the MSM.

Ever heard of Google? You can find and download any peer reviewed paper with it. If you can't understand the paper, and that's fine since you aren't a scientist, you can find many reputable scientific magazines written for the general population. They will all tell you the same damn things.

1. Climate change is real.
2. Global warming is real.
3. Both are man made.
4. Both are serious.
5. We're fucked if we don't deal with the situation now.

101   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jul 20, 3:13pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

FortWayne is physically incapable of backing up his assertions.

Oh I can all right, it's just no point to tell you because just like Iwog you will posture no matter what. So what's the use?

Honey, I back up everything I say with evidence and refute your bullshit with evidence all the time. I don't do this in order to convince you since that is both impossible and pointless. I do this to convince the audience that you are a fool spouting lies so they don't fall for your lies. If I was lying or mistaken, it would be in your position to refute my incorrect position in order to convince the audience not to accept it.

Convincing your opponent to change his position is almost certainly impossible if your opponent is a human as most humans don't care about truth but only immediate self-interest. Rationalists like myself are the exception. In any case, convincing your opponent of his error is not the purpose of debate. The purpose is to convince the audience.

102   WookieMan   33/33 = 100% civil   Jul 20, 8:00pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Dan8267 says

5. We're fucked if we don't deal with the situation now.

No we're fucked now. 150 years ago our emissions were practically only wood fires with no electricity production, vehicle exhaust, etc. I'm sure there were other pollutants, but just stop now cause it doesn't matter. and it's only splitting hairs what we were doing 150 years ago. The only way to stop this is to go back to that time. Solar, electric vehicles, etc all need massive amounts of "stuff" that produce infinitely more emissions than pre-industrial age technology. We'll carbon ourselves out of existence before we are a zero emission society.

So if this is man made, specifically first world man made, we're fucked. Get over it. If we're the titanic we still haven't hit the iceberg, but we're just about to. Enjoy the ride cause there's ZERO, nada, zilch anyone is gonna do about this IF it's truly man made. That's what I don't get. There's no turning this ship around, lets just get fucked up while we can!

103   Cuck_Cuckster   6/6 = 100% civil   Jul 20, 10:13pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Yeah I guess before the SUV, it was cold in Arizona and India, right?

104   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Jul 20, 10:44pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

WookieMan says

Solar, electric vehicles, etc all need massive amounts of "stuff" that produce infinitely more emissions than pre-industrial age technology.

This is not true at all.

The reason we're doomed is that you can't reason with a mob.

105   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   Jul 20, 11:29pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

WookieMan says

So if this is man made, specifically first world man made, we're fucked. Get over it. If we're the titanic we still haven't hit the iceberg, but we're just about to. Enjoy the ride cause there's ZERO, nada, zilch anyone is gonna do about this IF it's truly man made. That's what I don't get. There's no turning this ship around, lets just get fucked up while we can!

Are you an American or an American't?

106   FortWayne   867/873 = 99% civil   7:50am today  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Dan8267 says

Honey, I back up everything I say with evidence

No, not evidence. Just walls of SJW nonsense.

107   Dan8267   3631/3679 = 98% civil   9:04am today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

FortWayne says

No, not evidence. Just walls of SJW nonsense.

Show one piece of evidence I presented that is SJW nonsense. Go on. I'm waiting.

« First     « Previous     Comments 69-108 of 108     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home