UN report: Effects of climate change even more severe than we thought

26,709 Views | 400 Replies | Last: 19 days ago by movielover
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

chazzed said:



This won't survive any challenge. And so she sends it back the legislative body that will not pass anything accordingly.

I think climate change is real, but it is like wearing those knitted facial masks during covid. Pointess and purely performative. Montana alone will not impact anything about climate change. It has to be a global alignment without exempting / approving different standards for the worst polluters in China and India. We have to do something but this ruling is like thinking posting on BI where not one opinion has changed in the history of BI is making an impact on political sanity.
Shrugging our shoulders and doing nothing while we point fingers at that country and that country for being so much worse doesn't seem like a constructive solution.

If I'm headed for a tree at 60 mph, I'd still hit the brakes so I could hit it at 30 mph instead.
I don't think that is the right analogy. The right analogy is chopping off your arms and legs so that you can slow down from 60 to 59.9 while, instead of a tree, it's another driver going at you at a faster speed.

Insist that everyone make the same commitment. Don't settle for China and India to get a free pass and become more of a threat to our economic existence. Have some spine and don't fold because we want China and India to sign on as fast as possible and we want some performative display as if, without China and India committing likewise, we are going to make the necessary difference without making ourselves subservient to China and India in 10 years. They are already kicking our ass.

We shut down energy purchase from Russia, and what do China and India do? They purchase at a discount and sell it back to us. We are not dealing with morons. They are playing this smarter because they are not performative actors who need to win brownie points back home.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

chazzed said:



This won't survive any challenge. And so she sends it back the legislative body that will not pass anything accordingly.

I think climate change is real, but it is like wearing those knitted facial masks during covid. Pointess and purely performative. Montana alone will not impact anything about climate change. It has to be a global alignment without exempting / approving different standards for the worst polluters in China and India. We have to do something but this ruling is like thinking posting on BI where not one opinion has changed in the history of BI is making an impact on political sanity.
Shrugging our shoulders and doing nothing while we point fingers at that country and that country for being so much worse doesn't seem like a constructive solution.

If I'm headed for a tree at 60 mph, I'd still hit the brakes so I could hit it at 30 mph instead.
I don't think that is the right analogy. The right analogy is chopping off your arms and legs so that you can slow down from 60 to 59.9 while, instead of a tree, it's another driver going at you at a faster speed.

Insist that everyone make the same commitment. Don't settle for China and India to get a free pass and become more of a threat to our economic existence. Have some spine and don't fold because we want China and India to sign on as fast as possible and we want some performative display as if, without China and India committing likewise, we are going to make the necessary difference without making ourselves subservient to China and India in 10 years. They are already kicking our ass.

We shut down energy purchase from Russia, and what do China and India do? They purchase at a discount and sell it back to us. We are not dealing with morons. They are playing this smarter because they are not performative actors who need to win brownie points back home.
I have no problem insisting that India and China meet higher standards. I thought that's what past climate agreements were trying to do. I just feel we should do what we can now rather than do nothing because <China and India>.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

calbear93 said:

chazzed said:



This won't survive any challenge. And so she sends it back the legislative body that will not pass anything accordingly.

I think climate change is real, but it is like wearing those knitted facial masks during covid. Pointess and purely performative. Montana alone will not impact anything about climate change. It has to be a global alignment without exempting / approving different standards for the worst polluters in China and India. We have to do something but this ruling is like thinking posting on BI where not one opinion has changed in the history of BI is making an impact on political sanity.
Shrugging our shoulders and doing nothing while we point fingers at that country and that country for being so much worse doesn't seem like a constructive solution.

If I'm headed for a tree at 60 mph, I'd still hit the brakes so I could hit it at 30 mph instead.
I don't think that is the right analogy. The right analogy is chopping off your arms and legs so that you can slow down from 60 to 59.9 while, instead of a tree, it's another driver going at you at a faster speed.

Insist that everyone make the same commitment. Don't settle for China and India to get a free pass and become more of a threat to our economic existence. Have some spine and don't fold because we want China and India to sign on as fast as possible and we want some performative display as if, without China and India committing likewise, we are going to make the necessary difference without making ourselves subservient to China and India in 10 years. They are already kicking our ass.

We shut down energy purchase from Russia, and what do China and India do? They purchase at a discount and sell it back to us. We are not dealing with morons. They are playing this smarter because they are not performative actors who need to win brownie points back home.
I have no problem insisting that India and China meet higher standards. I thought that's what past climate agreements were trying to do. I just feel we should do what we can now rather than do nothing because <China and India>.
Nope. That is not what the prior climate agreements did. It created an unfair advantage for China and India as developing countries (as if that reflects reality), allowing them to kick our ass further economically and for global influence.

I believe the 1997 Kyoto Protocol exempted China and India. Each country submitted their proposal under the Paris Agreement, and there is no enforceability for failure to hold up their end of the bargain? Why do we believe that China and India, who clearly were exploiting the Russia/Ukraine conflict to burn / sell more oil they refined from what they purchased from Russia, will not exploit this? And why should India get a subsidiary from us to meet their commitment? China doesn't have to reduce CO2 until 2030 and can reach peak until then. How is this fair in comparison to what US committed to doing before withdrawing?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42


Sounds like a typical August day in Florida

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42

Not credible as an air temperature, it would be like someone claiming they run a sub-7 second 100m, but possible as the temperature on the ground of midsummer asphalt in tropical desert regions.


Quote:

The world record hottest temperature ever recorded is 134F (56.7C) in July 1913 at Furnace Creek, said Randy Ceverny of the World Meteorological Organization, the body recognized as keeper of world records.


Part of the more recent recorded rise in temperature is precisely attributable to the above phenomenon, urban surfaces like tarmacs, asphalt or concrete buildings storing heat and getting warmed up by the sunlight (Urban Heat Island phenomenon). As well, over time, many weather stations especially in local airports that were built in exurbs decades ago now find themselves in more urban settings with lots of concrete around them, which could result in increases in temperature up to 10F vs green spaces in the same region.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

bearister said:

Qeshm Dayrestan International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 178F (81C) today.


https://x.com/us_stormwatch/status/1691596872903979036?s=42

Not credible as an air temperature, it would be like someone claiming they run a sub-7 second 100m, but possible as the temperature on the ground of midsummer asphalt in tropical desert regions.


Quote:

The world record hottest temperature ever recorded is 134F (56.7C) in July 1913 at Furnace Creek, said Randy Ceverny of the World Meteorological Organization, the body recognized as keeper of world records.


Part of the more recent recorded rise in temperature is precisely attributable to the above phenomenon, urban surfaces like tarmacs, asphalt or concrete buildings storing heat and getting warmed up by the sunlight (Urban Heat Island phenomenon). As well, over time, many weather stations especially in local airports that were built in exurbs decades ago now find themselves in more urban settings with lots of concrete around them, which could result in increases in temperature up to 10F vs green spaces in the same region.
You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
That insane 178 degree heat index happened at 8:30 in the morning and the air temperature was only 100 degrees at the time. I doubt the daytime heating of the tarmac was in full affect at that point. The heat index record was largely influenced by the 97 degree dew point and the resultant 91 percent relative humidity at the time. Most likely the Gulf water was incredibly warm and putting vast amounts of moisture into the air.

Also, we don't know anything about the physical layout of the airport. Not all airports have their weather instruments 5 feet from the runway. It could have been 100 yards from the nearest concrete or pavement.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
That insane 178 degree heat index happened at 8:30 in the morning and the air temperature was only 100 degrees at the time. I doubt the daytime heating of the tarmac was in full affect at that point. The heat index record was largely influenced by the 97 degree dew point and the resultant 91 percent relative humidity at the time. Most likely the Gulf water was incredibly warm and putting vast amounts of moisture into the air.

Also, we don't know anything about the physical layout of the airport. Not all airports have their weather instruments 5 feet from the runway. It could have been 100 yards from the nearest concrete or pavement.

You can't possibly have a 78 degree spread between air temperature and a recorded temperature without some kind of physical anomaly or error associated with that station, it's plain common sense. Humidity alone does not result in that kind of a delta.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:


You should explore the differences between the heat index and air temperature. One factors in the effects of humidity (which was extreme in this case) and the other doesn't. You are correct about the heat island effect.

Acres of airport tarmac in an area located almost exactly at the Tropic of Cancer will store and generate a whole lot of daytime heat in midsummer.
That insane 178 degree heat index happened at 8:30 in the morning and the air temperature was only 100 degrees at the time. I doubt the daytime heating of the tarmac was in full affect at that point. The heat index record was largely influenced by the 97 degree dew point and the resultant 91 percent relative humidity at the time. Most likely the Gulf water was incredibly warm and putting vast amounts of moisture into the air.

Also, we don't know anything about the physical layout of the airport. Not all airports have their weather instruments 5 feet from the runway. It could have been 100 yards from the nearest concrete or pavement.

You can't possibly have a 78 degree spread between air temperature and a recorded temperature without some kind of physical anomaly or error associated with that station, it's plain common sense. Humidity alone does not result in that kind of a delta.
The heat index is not a physical temperature like the air temperature. It's supposed to be a perceived temperature by the body. When you get high temperatures and a high humidity, nearly saturated atmosphere, your body can't cool itself by sweating and having it evaporate. So, your body can perceive 100 degrees as feeling much, much warmer than that. It's why 100 degrees in Houston feels much worse than 100 degrees in the desert. I don't know that I believe the 178 degree heat index, but 100 degrees with a 97 degree dew point would surely feel miserable. I suspect the equation exaggerates extreme cases like this one but I have no way to determine that. I know the wind chill equation was altered fairly substantially about 15 or 20 years ago and wind chill values are generally less cold now.

If you want to plug the numbers in yourself, here's a heat index calculator. If you enter an air temperature of 100 degrees and a dew point temperature of 97, it does give 178 degrees as the heat index. If you lower the dew point temperature, it does fall off about 5 times as many heat index degrees, at least based on a few trials.

If you really want to dig deep, you can find the heat index formula and it's special case adjustments (apparently not needed in this recent situation) here. I have no idea why the formula is constructed the way it is. Maybe some day I'll look further, but I think the horse has been beaten dead by this point.

chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"A first-ever tropical storm watch has been issued for California as concern grows that Hurricane Hilary will unleash a prolific amount of flooding and rainfall to parts of the state."

https://abc7.com/hurricane-hilary-category-la-tropical-storm/13667263/
BearHunter
How long do you want to ignore this user?


climate change activists = arsonists?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearHunter said:



climate change activists = arsonists?
It was a controlled burn. Smart forest management.
</s>
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I asked an east bay fire fighter how often they do controlled burns. Once or twice a year. Ridiculous.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.