• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More ongoing alarmism

longview

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,742
Reaction score
14,481
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/climate-change-could-cut-southern-211747482.html
In today's Yahoo is yet another alarmist story, headlined with,
Climate Change Could Cut Southern U.S. Incomes by 20%
Yet is we go to the actual paper you read the following.
The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average.
By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).
Click to expand...
So how do they get to a 20% drop in income, when the paper stated the loss would be 1.2% per +1°C?
20% /1.2 %per 1°C= 16.66°C.
I was unaware that even the unlikely RCP 8.5 models had an increase of 16.6 °C before the end of the 21st century!
 
longview said:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/climate-change-could-cut-southern-211747482.html
In today's Yahoo is yet another alarmist story, headlined with,
Climate Change Could Cut Southern U.S. Incomes by 20%
Yet is we go to the actual paper you read the following.

So how do they get to a 20% drop in income, when the paper stated the loss would be 1.2% per +1°C?
20% /1.2 %per 1°C= 16.66°C.
I was unaware that even the unlikely RCP 8.5 models had an increase of 16.6 °C before the end of the 21st century!
Click to expand...

Flee, flee for your lives. We are all gona die!!!!
 
PirateMk1 said:
Flee, flee for your lives. We are all gona die!!!!
Click to expand...
It seems any day I look at Yahoo, there is at least one story ringing the alarm bells.
They always seem to glean some paper and pick out the most extreme portions, regardless of how unlikely the chances.
 
The alarmists' principal messaging problem is that climate time scales are long.


[h=2]Nature Unbound IV – The 2400-year Bray cycle. Part A[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on July 11, 2017 | 58 comments[/FONT]
By Javier
The existence of a ~ 2400-year climate cycle, discovered in 1968 by Roger Bray, is supported by abundant evidence from vegetation changes, glacier re-advances, atmospheric changes reflected in alterations in wind patterns, oceanic temperature and salinity changes, drift ice abundance, and changes in precipitation and temperature. This is established with proxy records from many parts of the world.
Continue reading →
 
longview said:
It seems any day I look at Yahoo, there is at least one story ringing the alarm bells.
They always seem to glean some paper and pick out the most extreme portions, regardless of how unlikely the chances.
Click to expand...

As the actual arguments become less and less, Yahoo seems to have come to the conclusion that more is better. All recent Yahoo front pages include articles labeled as opinion on the topics of AGW, gun banning, and President Trump. Generally 3 or 4 each.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/climate-change-could-cut-southern-211747482.html
In today's Yahoo is yet another alarmist story, headlined with,
Climate Change Could Cut Southern U.S. Incomes by 20%
Yet is we go to the actual paper you read the following.

So how do they get to a 20% drop in income, when the paper stated the loss would be 1.2% per +1°C?
20% /1.2 %per 1°C= 16.66°C.
I was unaware that even the unlikely RCP 8.5 models had an increase of 16.6 °C before the end of the 21st century!
Click to expand...

The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average

By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income

This is from the link labeled new study in the yahoo article.

The Yahoo article did use the biggest possible percentage, at 20%, but I think your quick math is putting together apples and oranges. Either way, the study has a possible range from 2 to 20% loss which Yahoo didn't make clear.
 
joG said:
But maybe a little higher than sea level.
Click to expand...

Sea level is good. In spite of the idea that it's all about the money, coupled with the idea that sea levels will rise 10-200 feet within 20 or so years, I can still get a 30 year loan and insurance on a beachfront property. So he smart money is betting it won't happen.
 
jimbo said:
Sea level is good. In spite of the idea that it's all about the money, coupled with the idea that sea levels will rise 10-200 feet within 20 or so years, I can still get a 30 year loan and insurance on a beachfront property. So he smart money is betting it won't happen.
Click to expand...

I would still want to go for the cliff over the sea. ;)
 
MrPeanut said:
The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average

By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income

This is from the link labeled new study in the yahoo article.

The Yahoo article did use the biggest possible percentage, at 20%, but I think your quick math is putting together apples and oranges. Either way, the study has a possible range from 2 to 20% loss which Yahoo didn't make clear.
Click to expand...
The 20% would still be predicated on a greater than 4C increase, which is unlikely.
 
More of the same,
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/82c2e336-561f-37fa-8d3a-ea13a19c6e6b/ss_climate-change-is-going-to.html
From a report of a hot day in Phoenix a week or so ago, we learned that some planes have a takeoff limit of 115 F.
While some very dry areas routinely get flights limited, the vast bulk of the worlds airports are near water where the
temperatures are regulated by humidity.
Even a change in average temperatures of 5F would not most airports, as most of the increase in in evening lows.
 
polgara said:
Happy Saturday, Jack. :2wave:

Great article, but I was astonished to see Hawkings say something so absurd! Was he making a joke at the time to prove a point? :wow:
Click to expand...

Happy Saturday, Polgara.:2wave:

I don't think I'm going to analyze Hawking's mind.:shock:
 
MrPeanut said:
The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average

By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income

This is from the link labeled new study in the yahoo article.

The Yahoo article did use the biggest possible percentage, at 20%, but I think your quick math is putting together apples and oranges. Either way, the study has a possible range from 2 to 20% loss which Yahoo didn't make clear.
Click to expand...

Crime?

How do they drag that into global warming?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Crime?

How do they drag that into global warming?
Click to expand...

All this stuff the alarmist community says is like what we see every election season.

Lies, lies, and more lies!

Political Science at its best!
 
joG said:
I would still want to go for the cliff over the sea. ;)
Click to expand...

GetFile.aspx
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Alarm about alarmism[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/15/alarm-about-alarmism/"]July 15, 2017[/URL] | 194 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
The climate change debate has entered what we might call the “Campfire Phase”, in which the goal is to tell the scariest story. – Oren Cass (twitter)
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I'm happy to see that guidelines for the "Red Team" are being discussed for rational debate on this topic. If nothing else, it's making it possible to see that the "deniers"who have tried to discuss this topic rationally in the past aren't the ones that are the hysterical alarmist "know-nothings" that they have been portrayed as being! They are scientists. also!

I hope the time has finally arrived when scientific evidence replaces "priesthood authority," and they can be questioned and challenged on their "facts." If the US is going to be footing the bill for the rest of the world, which we cannot afford since we are already currently $21+ trillion dollars in debt and climbing, could bankrupting America and forcing us to become part of Maurice Strong's idea of a "one-world-government" be the primary goal of the global elites after all? :thumbdown:

:rantoff:
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I'm happy to see that guidelines for the "Red Team" are being discussed for rational debate on this topic. If nothing else, it's making it possible to see that the "deniers"who have tried to discuss this topic rationally in the past aren't the ones that are the hysterical alarmist "know-nothings" that they have been portrayed as being! They are scientists. also!

I hope the time has finally arrived when scientific evidence replaces "priesthood authority," and they can be questioned and challenged on their "facts." If the US is going to be footing the bill for the rest of the world, which we cannot afford since we are already currently $21+ trillion dollars in debt and climbing, could bankrupting America and forcing us to become part of Maurice Strong's idea of a "one-world-government" be the primary goal of the global elites after all? :thumbdown:

:rantoff:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Keep the faith.:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom