Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 2:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
So what government regulations do you find "morally objectionable" ? Fleet fuel efficiency standards?  Emissions standards?  Banning of leaded gasoline?  Is it "punishment of the innocent" to require catalytic converters on vehicles manufactured since 1980?  Provide some detail.

Fuel efficiency standards for sure. Customers who want fuel efficiency above all else have always been able to find product to satisfy that desire. There is zero need to impose standards because competition yields improved performance anyway, including mileage.

The rest, not at all.... due to the *repeatable*, testable, actually science based and falsifiable arguments that they provably harm human health. No consensus as evidence, experts agree fallacies needed, so there is no attempted squaring of circles. Actual science, is science. Arguments are resolvable because proper practice is followed and the science closes the loop without logical fallacies.

You don't see mathematicians claiming a triangle has angles summing to 180 degrees because they all agree. They *show* it to be the case, and therefore end the argument. Same for a heliocentric solar system, or the speed of light, or....

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 3:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
So what government regulations do you find "morally objectionable" ? Fleet fuel efficiency standards?  Emissions standards?  Banning of leaded gasoline?  Is it "punishment of the innocent" to require catalytic converters on vehicles manufactured since 1980?  Provide some detail.

Fuel efficiency standards for sure. Customers who want fuel efficiency above all else have always been able to find product to satisfy that desire. There is zero need to impose standards because competition yields improved performance anyway, including mileage.

The rest, not at all.... due to the *repeatable*, testable, actually science based and falsifiable arguments that they provably harm human health. No consensus as evidence, experts agree fallacies needed, so there is no attempted squaring of circles. Actual science, is science. Arguments are resolvable because proper practice is followed and the science closes the loop without logical fallacies.

You don't see mathematicians claiming a triangle has angles summing to 180 degrees because they all agree. They *show* it to be the case, and therefore end the argument. Same for a heliocentric solar system, or the speed of light, or....

Leaded gasoline wasn't banned in the USA until 1995 largely because of efforts by the Ethyl corporation and Robert A. Kehoe waging a disinformation campaign.   

Studies after the banning of lead showed just how extensive the damage on human health actually was.

Quote:
Effect on crime rates
Main article: Lead-crime hypothesis
A statistically significant correlation has been found between the usage rate of leaded gasoline and violent crime: the violent crime curve virtually tracks the lead exposure curve with a 22-year time lag.[66][87] After the ban on TEL, blood lead levels in US children dramatically decreased.[66]

Reduction in the average blood lead level is believed to have been a major cause for falling violent crime rates in the United States[88] and South Africa.[89] Researchers including Amherst College economist Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, Department of Housing and Urban Development consultant Rick Nevin, and Howard Mielke of Tulane University say that declining exposure to lead is responsible for an up to 56% decline in crime from 1992 to 2002.[90] Taking into consideration other factors that are believed to have increased crime rates over that period, Reyes found that the reduced exposure to lead led to an actual decline of 34% over that period.[91]

When a ban on lead was first proposed in the 1920s and then again in 1973 the industry was able to cast enough doubt about the science to forestall regulation.   In the 1920s Robert A. Kehoe established the "Kehoe Paradigm"  which required that harm be conclusively demonstrated prior to banning the use of lead in gasoline.    Following that Kehoe through Kettering Laboratories tightly controlling scientific studies of the health effects of lead in the environment and effectively blocking any research demonstrating harm.

So while there is clear scientific evidence now that leaded gasoline and lead in the environment is very harmful -- the industry cast enough doubt on this that lead was used for many decades after it was known to be harmful to scientists not in the pocket of industry.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 3:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Leaded gasoline wasn't banned in the USA until 1995 largely because of efforts by the Ethyl corporation and Robert A. Kehoe waging a disinformation campaign. 

Studies after the banning of lead showed just how extensive the damage on human health actually was.

See, you used the words showed, and actually. That's my point.

No one is going to defend subterfuge, lying, or coverups in science.

You cannot show such a thing for human causes for global warming. Logical fallacies and models which are not evidence do not comprise evidence, or close the loop following proper method. They are nothing but logical fallacies being repeated in an attempt to flog non science into looking like fact.

Nobody could block the research into human causes, this issue is not the existence of sufficient money or research. The problem is more existential to the basis of the argument. Models are not evidence, the variations are within the known variations in this interglacial, warming measured in a zillion studies is consistent with natural warming anyway, and if the feedback was so unstable as to be thrown out of whack  by a mere doubling or tripling, we'd already have been frozen solid or boiled alive millennia ago.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 4:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
You cannot show such a thing for human causes for global warming.

You are applying the Kehoe Paradigm to global warming -- i.e. that harm must be conclusively demonstrated first.

The Kehoe Paradigm was formulated by industry make regulation of emissions that industry already knew to be harmful to be far more difficult.

The clearest evidence that lead emissions were harmful to human health came 3 decades after leaded gasoline was removed from common usage.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Sep 19, 2019 12:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Nope, I'm applying standard method. If it gets in the way of what you want to argue, that's the first red flag something is fundamentally wrong with your 'science'

One cannot defensibly claim they have facts, when the facts are not derived using proper logic or valid methods.

It sure looks like this "Kehoe" argument is a form of ad hom, via an attempt to conflate support for basic scientific method, with abuses of science formerly committed by some other interest. Even if we take the argument at face value and consistently apply the principle implicitly offered up ( the principle in question was used for evil/wrongdoing/fraud, so it must be suspect)...

then this necessarily applies to everything else used by Kehoe...like mathematics, or logic, or for that matter, words. Is it everything Kehoe used which is problematic, or only those elements which cause problems for pushing human causes to warming?

After all, if Kehoe used X, and X is therefore indefensible, then this should apply everywhere. If Kehoe used mathematics, then mathematics is also suspect.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
coldrain108
Thundering Herd



Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1455 | TRs
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
coldrain108
  Top

Thundering Herd
PostThu Sep 19, 2019 1:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
See, you used the words showed, and actually. That's my point.

and the word "after"...as in the truth came to light only after the obfuscators were removed from the equation.

--------------
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing"  - Albert Einstein
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Sep 19, 2019 1:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
OK sure and 'after'.

And what remained? Facts determined by standard application of valid scientific method, with no gimmes/gotchas or mulligans needed from those methods. Nobody claiming consensus was evidence. That correlation = causation. Or that models were evidence.

Unlike the argument for HCGW, which employs all three, and more. 20+ centuries of known logical fallacies, and yet this 'science' requires the use of them to achieve it's claim of facts.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1590 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 7:24 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
No one is going to defend subterfuge, lying, or coverups in science.

I would propose that it is naive (at best) to say there is no place for greed, corruption or plain old human nature in science.  The same motivators that drive people to commit good or bad in any aspect of life would certainly apply to the field of science. If one believes that subterfuge, lying or coverups might help them attain their goals they would absolutely employ these strategies in the absence of morals. We have seen examples of this behavior throughout our lives.

Kehoe himself orchestrated each of these three violations, and was heartily endorsed for decades by some of the organizations and branches of government we would least expect to defend such acts. Money was, is and shall always be the decider when discussing the causes and solutions in this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1311 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 7:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The IPCC has released a new report

IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate

Headline Statements

A. OBSERVED CHANGES AND IMPACTS
Observed Physical Changes
A1. Over the last decades, global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere,
with mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers (very high confidence), reductions in snow cover
(high confidence) and Arctic sea ice extent and thickness (very high confidence), and increased
permafrost temperature (very high confidence). {2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, Figures SPM.1, SPM.2}
A2. It is virtually certain that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and has taken
up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system (high confidence). Since 1993, the
rate of ocean warming has more than doubled (likely). Marine heatwaves have very likely
doubled in frequency since 1982 and are increasing in intensity (very high confidence). By
absorbing more CO2, the ocean has undergone increasing surface acidification (virtually
certain). A loss of oxygen has occurred from the surface to 1000 m (medium confidence). {1.4,
3.2, 5.2, 6.4, 6.7, Figures SPM.1, SPM.2}
A3. Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising, with acceleration in recent decades due to
increasing rates of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (very high confidence),
as well as continued glacier mass loss and ocean thermal expansion. Increases in tropical
cyclone winds and rainfall, and increases in extreme waves, combined with relative sea level
rise, exacerbate extreme sea level events and coastal hazards (high confidence). {3.3; 4.2; 6.2;
6.3; 6.8; Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.4, SPM.5}
Observed Impacts on Ecosystems
A4. Cryospheric and associated hydrological changes have impacted terrestrial and freshwater
species and ecosystems in high mountain and polar regions through the appearance of land
previously covered by ice, changes in snow cover, and thawing permafrost. These changes have
contributed to changing the seasonal activities, abundance and distribution of ecologically,
culturally, and economically important plant and animal species, ecological disturbances, and
ecosystem functioning. (high confidence) {2.3.2, 2.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, Box 3.4, Figure SPM.2}
A5. Since about 1950 many marine species across various groups have undergone shifts in
geographical range and seasonal activities in response to ocean warming, sea ice change and
biogeochemical changes, such as oxygen loss, to their habitats (high confidence). This has
resulted in shifts in species composition, abundance and biomass production of ecosystems,
from the equator to the poles. Altered interactions between species have caused cascading
impacts on ecosystem structure and functioning (medium confidence). In some marine
ecosystems species are impacted by both the effects of fishing and climate changes (medium
confidence). {3.2.3, 3.2.4, Box 3.4, 5.2.3, 5.3, 5.4.1, Figure SPM.2}
A6. Coastal ecosystems are affected by ocean warming, including intensified marine heatwaves,
acidification, loss of oxygen, salinity intrusion and sea level rise, in combination with adverse
effects from human activities on ocean and land (high confidence). Impacts are already
observed on habitat area and biodiversity, as well as ecosystem functioning and services (high
confidence). {4.3.2, 4.3.3, 5.3, 5.4.1, 6.4.2, Figure SPM.2}
Observed Impacts on People and Ecosystem Services
A7. Since the mid-20th century, the shrinking cryosphere in the Arctic and high-mountain areas
has led to predominantly negative impacts on food security, water resources, water quality,
livelihoods, health and well-being, infrastructure, transportation, tourism and recreation, as
well as culture of human societies, particularly for Indigenous peoples (high confidence). Costs
3
and benefits have been unequally distributed across populations and regions. Adaptation efforts
have benefited from the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge (high
confidence). {1.1, 1.5, 1.6.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.4, 3.5, Figure SPM.2}
A8. Changes in the ocean have impacted marine ecosystems and ecosystem services with
regionally diverse outcomes, challenging their governance (high confidence). Both positive and
negative impacts result for food security through fisheries (medium confidence), local cultures
and livelihoods (medium confidence), and tourism and recreation (medium confidence). The
impacts on ecosystem services have negative consequences for health and well-being (medium
confidence), and for Indigenous peoples and local communities dependent on fisheries (high
confidence). {1.1, 1.5, 3.2.1, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, Figure SPM.2}
A9. Coastal communities are exposed to multiple climate-related hazards, including tropical
cyclones, extreme sea levels and flooding, marine heatwaves, sea ice loss, and permafrost thaw
(high confidence). A diversity of responses has been implemented worldwide, mostly after
extreme events, but also some in anticipation of future sea level rise, e.g., in the case of large
infrastructure. {3.2.4, 3.4.3, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.4.2, 5.4.2, 6.2, 6.4.2, 6.8, Box 6.1, Cross Chapter
Box 9, Figure SPM.5}
B. PROJECTED CHANGES AND RISKS
Projected Physical Changes1
B1. Global-scale glacier mass loss, permafrost thaw, and decline in snow cover and Arctic sea
ice extent are projected to continue in the near-term (2031–2050) due to surface air temperature
increases (high confidence), with unavoidable consequences for river runoff and local hazards
(high confidence). The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are projected to lose mass at an
increasing rate throughout the 21st century and beyond (high confidence).The rates and
magnitudes of these cryospheric changes are projected to increase further in the second half of
the 21st century in a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario (high confidence). Strong
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades are projected to reduce further
changes after 2050 (high confidence). {2.2, 2.3, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 2, 3.3, 3.4,
Figure SPM.1, SPM Box SPM.1}
B2. Over the 21st century, the ocean is projected to transition to unprecedented conditions with
increased temperatures (virtually certain), greater upper ocean stratification (very likely),
further acidification (virtually certain), oxygen decline (medium confidence), and altered net
primary production (low confidence). Marine heatwaves (very high confidence) and extreme El
Niño and La Niña events (medium confidence) are projected to become more frequent. The
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is projected to weaken (very likely). The
rates and magnitudes of these changes will be smaller under scenarios with low greenhouse gas
emissions (very likely). {3.2; 5.2; 6.4; 6.5; 6.7; Box 5.1; Figures SPM.1, SPM.3}
B3. Sea level continues to rise at an increasing rate. Extreme sea level events that are
historically rare (once per century in the recent past) are projected to occur frequently (at least
once per year) at many locations by 2050 in all RCP scenarios, especially in tropical regions
(high confidence). The increasing frequency of high water levels can have severe impacts in
many locations depending on exposure (high confidence).
Sea level rise is projected to continue beyond 2100 in all RCP scenarios. For a high emissions
scenario (RCP8.5), projections of global sea level rise by 2100 are greater than in AR5 due to a
1 This report primarily uses RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 for the following reasons: These scenarios largely represent the
assessed range for the topics covered in this report; they largely represent what is covered in the assessed
literature, based on CMIP5; and they allow a consistent narrative about projected changes. RCP4.5 and RCP6.0
are not available for all topics addressed in the report. {Box SPM.1}
4
larger contribution from the Antarctic Ice Sheet (medium confidence). In coming centuries
under RCP8.5, sea level rise is projected to exceed rates of several centimetres per year
resulting in multi-metre rise (medium confidence), while for RCP2.6 sea level rise is projected to
be limited to around 1m in 2300 (low confidence). Extreme sea levels and coastal hazards will be
exacerbated by projected increases in tropical cyclone intensity and precipitation (high
confidence). Projected changes in waves and tides vary locally in whether they amplify or
ameliorate these hazards (medium confidence).{Cross-Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 1; CrossChapter Box 8 in Chapter 3; 4.1; 4.2; 5.2.2, 6.3.1; Figures SPM.1, SPM.4, SPM.5}
Projected Risks for Ecosystems
B.4 Future land cryosphere changes will continue to alter terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
in high-mountain and polar regions with major shifts in species distributions resulting in
changes in ecosystem structure and functioning, and eventual loss of globally unique
biodiversity (medium confidence). Wildfire is projected to increase significantly for the rest of
this century across most tundra and boreal regions, and also in some mountain regions (medium
confidence). {2.3.3, Box 3.4, 3.4.3}
B5. A decrease in global biomass of marine animal communities, their production, and fisheries
catch potential, and a shift in species composition are projected over the 21st century in ocean
ecosystems from the surface to the deep seafloor under all emission scenarios (medium
confidence). The rate and magnitude of decline are projected to be highest in the tropics (high
confidence), whereas impacts remain diverse in polar regions (medium confidence) and increase
for high emission scenarios. Ocean acidification (medium confidence), oxygen loss (medium
confidence) and reduced sea ice extent (medium confidence) as well as non-climatic human
activities (medium confidence) have the potential to exacerbate these warming-induced
ecosystem impacts. {3.2.3, 3.3.3, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.4.1, Figure SPM.3}
B6. Risks of severe impacts on biodiversity, structure and function of coastal ecosystems are
projected to be higher for elevated temperatures under high compared to low emissions
scenarios in the 21st century and beyond. Projected ecosystem responses include losses of
species habitat and diversity, and degradation of ecosystem functions. The capacity of
organisms and ecosystems to adjust and adapt is higher at lower emissions scenarios (high
confidence). For sensitive ecosystems such as seagrass meadows and kelp forests, high risks are
projected if global warming exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial temperature, combined with
other climate-related hazards (high confidence). Warm water corals are at high risk already
and are projected to transition to very high risk even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C (very
high confidence). {4.3.3, 5.3, 5.5, Figure SPM.3}
Projected Risks for People and Ecosystem Services
B7. Future cryosphere changes on land are projected to affect water resources and their uses,
such as hydropower (high confidence) and irrigated agriculture in and downstream of highmountain areas (medium confidence), as well as livelihoods in the Arctic (medium confidence).
Changes in floods, avalanches, landslides, and ground destabilization are projected to increase
risk for infrastructure, cultural, tourism, and recreational assets (medium confidence). {2.3,
2.3.1, 3.4.3}
B8. Future shifts in fish distribution and decreases in their abundance and fisheries catch
potential due to climate change are projected to affect income, livelihoods, and food security of
marine resource-dependent communities (medium confidence). Long-term loss and degradation
of marine ecosystems compromises the ocean’s role in cultural, recreational, and intrinsic
values important for human identity and well-being (medium confidence). {3.2.4, 3.4.3, 5.4.1,
5.4.2, 6.4}
5
B9. Increased mean and extreme sea level, alongside ocean warming and acidification, are
projected to exacerbate risks for human communities in low-lying coastal areas (high
confidence). In Arctic human communities without rapid land uplift, and in urban atoll islands,
risks are projected to be moderate to high even under a low emissions scenario (RCP2.6)
(medium confidence), including reaching adaptation limits (high confidence). Under a high
emissions scenario (RCP8.5), delta regions and resource rich coastal cities are projected to
experience moderate to high risk levels after 2050 under current adaptation (medium
confidence). Ambitious adaptation including transformative governance is expected to reduce
risk (high confidence), but with context-specific benefits. {4.3.3, 4.3.4, 6.9.2, Cross-chapter Box
9, SM4.3, Figure SPM.5}
C. IMPLEMENTING RESPONSES TO OCEAN AND CRYOSPHERE
CHANGE
Challenges
C1. Impacts of climate-related changes in the ocean and cryosphere increasingly challenge
current governance efforts to develop and implement adaptation responses from local to global
scales, and in some cases pushing them to their limits. People with the highest exposure and
vulnerability are often those with lowest capacity to respond (high confidence). {1.5, 1.7, CrossChapter Boxes 2–3 of Chapter 1, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.4, 3.2.4, 3.4.3, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 4.1, 4.3.3, 4.4.3,
5.5.2, 5.5.3, 6.9}
Strengthening Response Options
C2. The far-reaching services and options provided by ocean and cryosphere-related ecosystems
can be supported by protection, restoration, precautionary ecosystem-based management of
renewable resource use, and the reduction of pollution and other stressors (high confidence).
Integrated water management (medium confidence) and ecosystem-based adaptation (high
confidence) approaches lower climate risks locally and provide multiple societal benefits.
However, ecological, financial, institutional and governance constraints for such actions exist
(high confidence), and in many contexts ecosystem-based adaptation will only be effective under
the lowest levels of warming (high confidence). {2.3.1, 2.3.3, 3.2.4, 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 4.4.2, 5.2.2, 5.4.2,
5.5.1, 5.5.2, Figure SPM.5}
C3. Coastal communities face challenging choices in crafting context-specific and integrated
responses to sea level rise that balance costs, benefits and trade-offs of available options and
that can be adjusted over time (high confidence). All types of options, including protection,
accommodation, ecosystem-based adaptation, coastal advance and retreat, wherever possible,
can play important roles in such integrated responses (high confidence). {4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 6.9.1,
Cross-Chapter Box 9; Figure SPM.5}
Enabling Conditions
C4. Enabling climate resilience and sustainable development depends critically on urgent and
ambitious emissions reductions coupled with coordinated sustained and increasingly ambitious
adaptation actions (very high confidence). Key enablers for implementing effective responses to
climate-related changes in the ocean and cryosphere include intensifying cooperation and
coordination among governing authorities across spatial scales and planning horizons.
Education and climate literacy, monitoring and forecasting, use of all available knowledge
sources, sharing of data, information and knowledge, finance, addressing social vulnerability
and equity, and institutional support are also essential. Such investments enable capacitybuilding, social learning, and participation in context-specific adaptation, as well as the
negotiation of trade-offs and realisation of co-benefits in reducing short-term risks and building
6
long-term resilience and sustainability. (high confidence) This report reflects the state of science
for ocean and cryosphere for low levels of global warming (1.5°C), as also assessed in earlier
IPCC and IPBES reports. {1.1, 1.5, 1.8.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4, Figure 2.7, 2.5, 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 4.4, 5.2.2,
Box 5.3, 5.4.2, 5.5.2, 6.4.3, 6.5.3, 6.8, 6.9, Cross-Chapter Box 9, Figure SPM.5}
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 12:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Despite the howling of doom and gloom, globally averaged human life expectancy and crop production continues to increase every year.   Quality of life has never been better, not once in the entire history of the planet.  There's not even the slightest hint that a little bit of warming can challenge either of these trends in the foreseeable future.

I wonder when the crisis part of the so-called climate crisis will actually appear?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 5506 | TRs
Location: on the beach
Schroder
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 12:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
I wonder when the crisis part of the so-called climate crisis will actually appear?

Well, just one example

As Bering Sea ice melts, Alaskans, scientists and Seattle’s fishing fleet witness changes ‘on a massive scale’
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 12:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
So some fish are going further north, and are being replaced with other fish.  For a species with adaptable stomachs, and that has developed boats with engines, i fail to see how this is a crisis for us.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2267 | TRs
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
  Top

Off Leash Man
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 12:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
globally averaged human life expectancy and crop production continues to increase every year.

Seems like it is because in 3rd world and developing countries the life expectancies are on the rise. This is because of better global distribution of medicines, vaccines, and education.
Most of the Earth's human population is in those 2 categories. However, the USA's, and many other developed countries are experiencing declines in life expectancy.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-lifeexpectancy/life-expectancy-declines-seen-in-u-s-and-other-high-income-countries-idUSKCN1L723R

--------------
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 3:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I believe most of the western world's lifespans are still slowly climbing when you extend that out with the latest data, with the main aberration us and our opioid overdoses.  But ya the bulk of gains are the industrialization of the developing world.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 5506 | TRs
Location: on the beach
Schroder
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 25, 2019 4:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
From Shenk's article:

Quote:
Out of 18 countries in the study, 12 experienced life expectancy declines among men and 11 experienced life expectancy declines among women.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday polecatjoe!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy