Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

23 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Wow.... just.... wow.

Listen to your yourself.

I'll just put this here, and let you struggle with your existential crisis.

 

Let me know when that trend starts upward due to our fossil fuel burning, so I can... run somewhere or something.

We've gotten much better at avoiding deaths in natural disasters through prediction and warnings. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing. The death toll from natural disasters this year could be relatively high due to the European heat wave and the Nepal landslide.  We'll see when the numbers come out next year.

[Brewbeer]

Quote

be willing to bet that a lot of fossil-fuel-burning boats were involved in the process of recovery

this is part of the frustration - focusing on minutia to distract from the elephant 

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

We've gotten much better at avoiding deaths in natural disasters through prediction and warnings. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing. The death toll from natural disasters this year could be relatively high due to the European heat wave and the Nepal landslide.  We'll see when the numbers come out next year.

 

The increased economic damage is due to the huge increase in building on the coasts, in particular of luxury properties.   I lived right on the coast in both FL and CA over the past few decades, and have seen in firsthand.    Much of it also is due to generally increased economic prosperity (and population increase), and due to inflation.   As your economy grows, you're going to have a lot more stuff that can get damaged.

Not an indicator of "world death" but actually the opposite in fact.

 

Re: European heat wave

Much of that could have been prevented if a lot more people had air conditioning, as they do in places like the US.

 

[chubbs]

6 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

The increased economic damage is due to the huge increase in building on the coasts, in particular of luxury properties.   I lived right on the coast in both FL and CA over the past few decades, and have seen in firsthand.    Much of it also is due to generally increased economic prosperity (and population increase), and due to inflation.   As your economy grows, you're going to have a lot more stuff that can get damaged.

Not an indicator of "world death" but actually the opposite in fact.

Re: European heat wave

Much of that could have been prevented if a lot more people had air conditioning, as they do in places like the US.

 

You are handwaving. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing.

[WolfStock1]

16 minutes ago, chubbs said:

You are handwaving. The number and intensity of climate-related disasters is increasing.

It is?

[chubbs]

56 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

It is?

Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting". The science consensus is clear that climate change is going to lead to increased disaster risk, mainly due to increased event intensity.  Here's a report on climate impacts by the US insurance industry. 

https://coalitionforaninsurablefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Climate-impact-on-insurance-May-2026.pdf

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting". The science consensus is clear that climate change is going to lead to increased disaster risk, mainly due to increased event intensity.  Here's a report on climate impacts by the US insurance industry. 
https://coalitionforaninsurablefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Climate-impact-on-insurance-May-2026.pdf

Give this recorded breaking (cc enhanced) Nino a chance to do its work. Not that I wish disaster on anyone but we have only just started. Ask the marine iguanas that are left (if any) how they felt about this event.


.

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting".

 

Yes - specifically referring to the pre-1990s period when a lot of disasters went unreported, due to lack of detection (satellites) or mechanisms (internet).  (it's talked about elsewhere on the page that's from)

Surely you wouldn't propose that detection/reporting rate has gone *down* would you?   What would be the reason for such a thing?

Re: insurance - obviously the financial damages from disasters has gone up tremendously.   

And FWIW - I wouldn't propose that there isn't at least *some* increase in actual disaster levels in the works due to CC (despite the chart I posted); it's hard to tease out the level due to the noise of natural random variation.   I'm just illustrating that it's clear that there's not some kind of world-threatening trend here, by any stretch.

 

[WolfStock1]

3 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

this is part of the frustration - focusing on minutia to distract from the elephant 

There are many elephants here.

In this case I'm just giving an example of how the world benefits from fossil fuel use.   Multiply that times a couple billion, and you can see how it has brought prosperity - including things like the ability for humanity to help the world in various ways - including helping to do things like preserve endangered species.   And... doing things like flying hundreds of jets each year to climate conferences (?)

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Yes - specifically referring to the pre-1990s period when a lot of disasters went unreported, due to lack of detection (satellites) or mechanisms (internet).  (it's talked about elsewhere on the page that's from)

Surely you wouldn't propose that detection/reporting rate has gone *down* would you?   What would be the reason for such a thing?

Re: insurance - obviously the financial damages from disasters has gone up tremendously.   

And FWIW - I wouldn't propose that there isn't at least *some* increase in actual disaster levels in the works due to CC (despite the chart I posted); it's hard to tease out the level due to the noise of natural random variation.   I'm just illustrating that it's clear that there's not some kind of world-threatening trend here, by any stretch.

 

What you are illustrating is that you are not well informed about climate science. Science says we should expect an increase in a variety of natural disasters. What we have seen so far is consistent with that expectation. That's why the insurance industry is more concerned about climate science than you are.

[Typhoon Tip]

14 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Re: reefs

Generally hitting record levels these days, e.g.:

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2023-24

There's only been significant record-keeping since the 1980's, so we don't know what the trend is, or whether or not bleaching events that we've seen are normal vs CC-caused or not.

Certainly not seeing any "death of the world" trending there.

Re:  Extinctions - let's look at that, shall we?

Here's a database of recent extinctions:

https://recentlyextinctspecies.com/database/most-recent-global-extinctions

Starting from the top:

Achatinella apexfulva - land snail; native to Hawaii; made extinct by introduction of predator by the rosy wolfsnail, deforestation, and the Jackson's chameleon.  Not climate change.

Ecnomiohyla rabborum - Rabb’s fringe-limbed treefrog; made extinct by chytrid fungus.  Not climate change.

Microcolpia parreyssii parreyssii - Parreys' thermal snail; existed in only one tiny locaion, made extinct by groundwater extraction.   Not climate change.

etc. etc.   (not about to look up the details on the whole list)

Wikipedia list of extinct species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_species

Cursory search - could not find a single one made extinct by climate change.    There are thousands of them listed though, so maybe there are some I didn't see.

The vast majority of extinctions happening, by far, are due to things *other* than climate change.   Hunting, fishing, habitat loss due to deforestation, introduction of new predators, etc etc.   Most of these are human-caused, yes, but not climate change.

Bottom line: Fearmongering.

There is no "world death" looming, of any sort.   At least not due to climate change.

That data, particularly how they relate/conveys behavior about the natural setting, are misleading the way you've presented. 

...a basic interpretation skill of the data is needed here:

1 ... systems in nature seldom move along predictable well behaved trajectories.  As an aside, and obvious caution is also needed.  GBR system is one example.  Note,  ~40% of the whole world's reefs are at risk of extinction due to climate change. 

2, logical flaw in you one example anyway:  That GBR system shows recovery; that does not evince any kind of proof of  either sustainability there - certainly there's no logic in using one example that the world is safe from climate change, either.  But we'll let that tacit exception go...  

3, the primary aspects that affect coral:

• Thermal stress and bleaching: heat can kill corals, or weaken them and reduce growth and reproduction—even if they survive.
• Mechanical stress from turbid waters... this arrives from enhancing wave action in the mean energy, as well as specific to tropical cyclones.
• Competing biology.  Example, Crown-of-thorns starfish that eat living coral.
• Specific species ... coral reefs are a vast colony of different species.  Some regions of the world have more(less) phenology. 

      So, you're use in exemplifying the GBR demonstrates a too limited, too linear response mechanism in how/why the affects/effects in the vitality of reef.   'Oh, since there's a recent regrowth' no thermal stress.  Incorrect.  Your are not even aware that a biological competition within the reef, combined with transients in growth offsets - causing temporary rebound, or much in the way of the complexity of how these individually differentiating factors, then interact to create curve behavior that moves up and down but is misleading over larger data sets.  

WRT to GBR example...  studies by AIMS and Yale point to the biggest factor in recent regrowth was particularly fast-growing species, Acropora.  The corals produced were during a relatively favorable interval for species, but that does not represent the vitality of the whole structure.  It can't. Not when the vitality requires a vast phenology of species input.  Overall, bleaching events were still extensive but less intense than those earlier events, causing less mortality. But, the recnet increase was driven mostly by the Acropora. 

So the rise is better explained by rapid coral growth plus a temporary reduction in regional stress factor, not as evidence of a sustained ocean-cooling trend.

.. I don't have time to run down the rest of you list of probably similarly shallow refutation points... I'll stop here. 

Good luck with your debate.

 

 

[Brewbeer]

Quote

There are many elephants here.

this is just more more distraction, and no one here is disagreeing that fossil fuels have contributed to human progress, that's just more distraction

please stay on topic:  the continued use of fossil fuels is progressively impacting climate and ecosystems and accelerating the rate of climate change, and what we are going to do about it (hint on the second part: not much)

[WolfStock1]

1 hour ago, Brewbeer said:

this is just more more distraction, and no one here is disagreeing that fossil fuels have contributed to human progress, that's just more distraction

please stay on topic:  the continued use of fossil fuels is progressively impacting climate and ecosystems and accelerating the rate of climate change, and what we are going to do about it (hint on the second part: not much)

 

Well except that wasn't the topic, if you follow the discussion back.   The topic was existential crisis, which is not the same as progressive or even accelerating levels of impacts.    ("Exist" of course being the root of "existential") 

To equate those two would require a third assumption - that the progression would either continue forever, or that it would reach a pace where adaptation is impossible.   The first is physically impossible.   For the latter - given the adaptability level of humans - our ability to live in both in the arctic and the extreme tropics, and the fact that earth has transitioned through *all* extremes several times in the past, with life still thriving, it will certainly not be happening.   

 

[GaWx]

5 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Well except that wasn't the topic, if you follow the discussion back.   The topic was existential crisis, which is not the same as progressive or even accelerating levels of impacts.    ("Exist" of course being the root of "existential") 

To equate those two would require a third assumption - that the progression would either continue forever, or that it would reach a pace where adaptation is impossible.   The first is physically impossible.   For the latter - given the adaptability level of humans - our ability to live in both in the arctic and the extreme tropics, and the fact that earth has transitioned through *all* extremes several times in the past, with life still thriving, it will certainly not be happening.   

 

What do you think about the possibility of unmodeled negative feedbacks eventually stopping the warming and thus causing at least the most extreme climate model solutions to end up being way overdone? Is this a realistic possibility?

[WolfStock1]

4 hours ago, GaWx said:

What do you think about the possibility of unmodeled negative feedbacks eventually stopping the warming and thus causing at least the most extreme climate model solutions to end up being way overdone? Is this a realistic possibility?

 

Why would a negative feedback be required to stop warming?   Warming is by definition not a state of equilibrium.  Cessation of warming would only require removal of positive influence, not the introduction of a negative influence.

Specifically - at some point we're going to run out fossil fuels to burn (albeit slowly).   Unless I miss my guess - that will result in CO2 growth in the atmosphere slowing to a halt, and then probably reversing some as it gets re-absorbed by existing plant life.   (That offset is already taking place to some extent vis a vis the greening that's being seen; though the effects are small right now).

That aside - surely you understand that there are all kinds of as-yet-unmodeled effects that can happen, right?   Despite the growth of AI - we are not yet omniscient.  

(Of note: Your question isn't actually relevant to the question at hand, since we're talking about world death, and even the most extreme models e.g. RCP 8.5 don't call for that.     I don't believe *any* models call for that.)