New Category suggestion. Climate change.

I suspect you have faith in the technology and tools behind elevators and aircraft. I suspect that you have so _much_ faith in them that you trust your life to them. I'm also willing to bet that you do not understand either in great detail. But you are OK with that level of faith.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have we? Yes: we've eradicated more species, faster, and destroyed more habitat, faster, and poisoned more land and water, faster.
The hunded or so people who try to save the rain-forest are up against the millions who insist on eating beef twice a day. Bans on pesticides and effluents are ignored with impunity, office towers are lit up all night, even when empty and kill millions of migrating birds, the new-fashioned fracking proceeds at a breakneck pace.
Nothing has been solved.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...round-the-world-2161-0983-1000e130-99176.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the case of Exxon we have documentary proof that they knew better, and that their denials and financings of denial were for political and economic gain.
Exxon financed early proprietary research into climate change, and kept the data in house.

The disaster predictions are cold-blooded estimations of probabilities based on sound arguments by the best people from the best evidence available. "Faith" has nothing to do with it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which is something for you to keep in mind the next time you try to extrapolate from the local rapid climate changes around Greenland in the paleo record to suggest that the kind of rapid global change currently underway and accelerating is something that has happened routinely in the past, without catastrophic effect.

You ran that garbage argument in various manifestations over multiple threads and for pages of postings. You got the take itself - the extrapolation from good local research findings - originally from Exxon-financed denial sites. You are now extending it via Dorthe Dahl-Jensen's work on the Greenland ice.

Likewise this take, likewise familiar from the wingnut Republican media operations:

It's a forecast, not a hypothesis. Human beings often forecast, even though they won't find out for sure until the time comes. The ability to forecast is often considered to be a major advantage of having large expensive brains.

You mean they were corrected by comparing their output with measured events and carefully acquired information.
That's something you refused to do, when provided with information about the global climate responses to the local Greenland area paleoclimactic events.

The people who do the forecasting know all about them. They built them, they are constantly working on them, and they are honest in their employment of them - ranges, probabilities, different ones compared side by side and with new data as it comes in, errors acknowledged, assumptions detailed, uncertainties described, etc, all published. Nothing kept in house, like Exxon, while peddling deceptions like "climate is always changing" or "what about the 400ky Milankovitch Cycle" to the public.

That's how they earn serious consideration.

 

They
not you?

again
If you have faith in a specific hypothetical model and can quote specific hypothesized climate outcomes.
Please have at it.

 

You are using the word "hypothetical" wrong.
It is not a synonym for "prediction", "forecast", or "uncertain".
You are also using the word "faith" wrong. It is not a synonym for "confidence", "interest", or "acceptance".

Nobody I rely on for information uses one model only, for their forecasts. The IPCC uses dozens - which is one reason its forecasts have been lowballing, consistently. Culling the apparently underperforming models (the ones that least well match the measured past) would result in more dramatic and alarming IPCC forecasts.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ng-forecast-worst-case-best-models-ipcc-study

Nobody I rely on for information forecasts single, specific, climate outcomes.

 

Why are you persisting in this model-witch-hunt?
That's not how it works and that's still not how it works, no matter how many times you repeat the question.

 

Knowledge
somedays:
It don't come easy.

 

Especially when truth isn't truth, and alternative facts are as politically correct as real ones.

 

So, in the past week, since you've been pursuing the "model", how much knowledge have you gained?

 

Super Typhoon Yutu (Rosita), biggest storm ever to hit the Mariana islands, 2nd biggest storm to hit USA territory in history. Lucky it was only a small island group and not USA mainland.

 

It closely tracked Manghut's path into Luzon, a bit south - kind of unusual for two hurricanes to track like that within a such a short time (ordinarily the first one cools the ocean and otherwise shunts the next one). The wind speed slowed by Luzon, but as we have seen in the US that does not reduce the rainfall - my little weather globe has the central agricultural region there getting 20 - 30 inches of rain in less than three hours some places. Not much farming will survive that in good shape.

 

about the models, none
about the people here, some.

 

Is there any imminent verdict on the new category?
One more suggestion, should it happen: Since it's too late to mitigate the damage collectively - and with the fascist domino-cascade under way, no foreseeable positive action - it would be nice if people shared personal experience and sources for individual ways to cope.

 

I think the most important thing a person can do in the extreme heat and humid conditions that are starting to occur with more frequency is to ensure that your place of sleeping, ( bedroom) at the very least has some means to de-humidify the rooms air, so that good sleep can be achieved.
Setting up the bedroom as a secure "panic room" or sanctuary so to speak, so that in the event of a (short time) heat/humidity crisis, you can survive until things settle down.
The greatest threats to the general population are exhaustion due to sleep deprivation. This would be due to the failure of temperatures and humidity to decrease after sunset ( Green housing) causing persons to be unable to cool down enough to sleep. ( hyper-thermia )
This is only a temporary solution ( maybe granting 2-3 years to 2020-21 - Melb Australia) of course, as temperature humidity continues to increase even these actions will not suffice in the longer term.

The greatest weakness is the need for reliable electricity supply and as you know in extreme situations the energy grid can become unreliable and in some cases fail. Especially if extreme flooding or storm events occur.

Mass migration ( attempted*) to more sustainable locations is inevitable. ( in the longer term)

 

It has been suggested by some that the greatest number of fatalities will be among people attempting to migrate, dying on the road or at closed borders and not in their home areas.

 

An example of how climate change might occupy a category of threads:
https://newrepublic.com/article/151700/bank-bailout-hobbled-climate-fight

 

That's a good point. Though a little more specific than I was looking for, I'd like to discuss it further, with considerations such as you mention, and perhaps in the context of mindful architecture, retrofitting, etc. Enough material there, in that one topic, for a whole thread of its own.

For the mo, I just meant to indicate what kind of subject matter a new category would include.
When do you take the vote regarding the category proposal?

 

I personally have no say...
As I mentioned earlier in a post I think the sites staff are in an awkward position regards ANY changes to sciforums.com and given there has been no staff participation in this thread (now 7 pages) I would not hold your breath for any solid discussion about changes to categories.
Perhaps just simply starting threads in Earth sciences is all we can do at the moment. Admittedly it fails to facilitate/encourage discussion about the human aspect of climate change but at the moment it is all we have.

 

Pity.
Still, lots of grist for that mill.
Earth-Science?