McKinsey: Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If anyone bothered to read the last ipcc report they would know that even a 1.5C temperature increase by 2100 is considered unlikely.
So a 5 degree increase by 2050 is insane baseless fear mongering.
Then these guys say they are only going to focus on the very scary and unlikely rpc8.5 scenario. More fear mongering.

They also say "climate hazards manifest locally". So does stupidity. When people build their houses below sea level, in a known chronic flood zone, on the water in a tropical coast region, build houses right up to the edge of the woods and homes get destroyed, that's a 100% man made disaster. Don't even need climate change for that. It's only a matter of time.
 
Oilpan4 said:
If anyone bothered to read the last ipcc report they would know that even a 1.5C temperature increase by 2100 is considered unlikely.

Sign is incorrect.

Less than a 1.5C temperature increase is unlikely, close to impossible. Carbon released by melting permafrost might make 1.5C before 2100 unavoidable without some magic to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere even if today was the last day humans burned any fossil fuels.

Lots and lots of details.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

I don't see any practical way to keep at or below the path to 1.5C.

Figure-2.18-1024x788.jpg
 
That shows how ridiculous the 5 degrees in 30 years is.

Last time I checked the US was leading the way in CO2 reduction.
Maybe those climate change protesters can go tell China.
 
Oilpan4 said:
If anyone bothered to read the last ipcc report they would know that even a 1.5C temperature increase by 2100 is considered unlikely.
So a 5 degree increase by 2050 is insane baseless fear mongering.
Then these guys say they are only going to focus on the very scary and unlikely rpc8.5 scenario. More fear mongering.

They also say "climate hazards manifest locally". So does stupidity. When people build their houses below sea level, in a known chronic flood zone, on the water in a tropical coast region, build houses right up to the edge of the woods and homes get destroyed, that's a 100% man made disaster. Don't even need climate change for that. It's only a matter of time.

Holy Moly

Looking for the wink here.

So stupidity is why people built houses with Asbestos? Or hurricane clips? Or circuit breakers? Copper wires?
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Then we can wait for the 2026 report, and so on. Until the PIG cuts loose, eh? Or do you know about the PIG?

I plead ignorance of this acronym, and google just brings up references to (lower case) pigs. Care to enlighten us?
The PIG's neighbor might act up first.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/climate/thwaites-glacier-antarctica-cavity.html
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Then we can wait for the 2026 report, and so on. Until the PIG cuts loose, eh? Or do you know about the PIG?

I plead ignorance of this acronym, and google just brings up references to (lower case) pigs. Care to enlighten us?
The PIG's neighbor might act up first.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/climate/thwaites-glacier-antarctica-cavity.html

Okay. I was aware of concerns about them both, but don't recall ever seeing the acronym before. Thwaites has always been the one that stuck in my mind, both because it was the more interesting name, and also as it was considered the more likely to go first. I recently read this:
The Ice at the End of the World: An Epic Journey into Greenland's Buried Past and Our Perilous Future
https://www.amazon.com/Ice-End-World-Greenlands-Perilous/dp/0812996623


Although it's mainly concerned with the history of early exploration of the Greenland Ice sheet (Nansen, Peary, etc.) and later scientific research (from Alfred Wegener, the guy who also gave us the theory of continental drift: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener, up to the present day) it also describes some of the concurrent ice sheet research going on in Antarctica, including the two aforementioned glaciers. A fair number of the scientists have done work in both places.
 
Meh, new climate models show almost no warming with 4 times as much CO2 as we have now.
Yay science.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Meh, new climate models show almost no warming with 4 times as much CO2 as we have now.
Yay science.

No warming must explain why the last 10 years have broken 9 records for hottest year ever recorded... :lol:
 
Oh so now we shouldn't believe in computer models all of a sudden?

The new climate data set throws out all of those temperature stations that have had towns turn into cities around them. Or that were in cities at all.

Plus 10 years of warmer weather isn't considered climate by any rational person. If you ever read any ipcc report you would know they like to lump weather into 30 year blocks before they put several of those 30 year blocks together then call it climate.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Oh so now we shouldn't believe in computer models all of a sudden?

The new climate data set throws out all of those temperature stations that have had towns turn into cities around them. Or that were in cities at all.

Plus 10 years of warmer weather isn't considered climate by any rational person. If you ever read any ipcc report you would know they like to lump weather into 30 year blocks before they put several of those 30 year blocks together then call it climate.

I don't "believe" in computer models. Never have, never will. Computer models are wrong, in details, every one of them. Some of them are useful for understanding. If you want to convince then you best start with understanding. You need a "computer" model you can understand and compute. Want to develop one?

Here are some pictures for you to look at. Not urban locations.

https://weather.com/photos/news/glaciers-before-and-after-climate-change#1

You see, ice doesn't care about your political opinions.
 
And just like that, no one wants to talk about computer models any more. Wow.

I would be more worried if the glaciers were getting bigger.
 
Oilpan4 said:
And just like that, no one wants to talk about computer models any more. Wow.

I would be more worried if the glaciers were getting bigger.

I wanted to talk about computer models. A model simple enough so you can compute it yourself. Do you want to discuss computer models?
 
I don't care for computer models much either. They can be made to show literally anything.
With out the source data or access to the programing there's reason to base major life decisions or changes on it.
 
Back
Top