The 2020 chart said that Valencia had a risk of increasing the sea level by 10% by floods, and it is astonishing how that graphic nailed what would happen four years later. — javi2541997

Could you please explain what this statement means. In general the rain that falls causing a flood evaporated from the sea in the first place. So the system is a cycle. It would not increase the sea level.

And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll: — unenlightened

I fully accept that climate-change/global-warming (CC/GW) is happening. I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.

I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.

I was talking about Valencia, not Barcelona. Clever guy, trying to switch the topic when you feel trapped in your own views. — javi2541997

I told you that I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia, but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia

Both Valencia and Catalonia are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. They are not very far apart, about 303 km. Do you know of any reason why flood frequency would be significantly different between Valencia and Catalonia?

You gave none. — unenlightened

Perhaps you avoided my evidence because it disagrees with your narrow-minded prejudice. I will repeat my evidence here for you to read. Compare the statistics for the 2024 flood with the statistics for the 1879, 1957, and 1962 floods. There is only 5 years between the 1957 and 1962 floods. All 3 of these historical floods were similar to, or worse than, the 2024 flood.

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? — javi2541997

Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse

“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. — Matt McGrath - BBC

It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.

Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.

For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.

The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour

The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.

The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours

They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people. — Mikie

The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.

Do you still have doubts? Agree-to-Disagree — javi2541997

You posted the following quote from the report:

Large changes in flood frequency mean that what is an extreme event today may become the norm by the end of the century in some locations. The frequency of coastal flooding events is estimated (Fig. 4) to increase by more than a factor of 10 in many European locations, and by a factor of more than 100 or even 1000 in some locations during the 21st century, depending on the emissions scenario.

And you said that Valencia has a red dot on the map of "Projected changes in the frequency of coastal flooding".

Barcelona, which is part of Catalonia, also has a red dot on the map. Both Valencia and Barcelona are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia.

From 1900 to 2011, 277 flood events, mainly flash floods, were recorded in Catalonia, and 61 of these events caused catastrophic damage. — Journal of Hydrology

From the beginning of 1900 to the end of 2011 is 112 years. Over this time period there were on average nearly 2.5 flood events per year. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, 25 flood events per year, or just over 2 flood events per month. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?

If we just look at the floods that caused catastrophic damage, there were 61 in 112 years. That is an average of just over 0.5 catastrophic floods per year (1 catastrophic flood every 2 years). What would the frequency of floods that caused catastrophic damage be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, just over 5 catastrophic floods per year. What would the frequency of catastrophic floods be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?

In summary, it appears that the "scientists" are not aware of the historical flood frequency, or they have overestimated the factor by which flood frequency will increase. What do you think about this? Do you believe that flood frequency will increase by a factor of 10 (or 100 or 1000)?

Just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong. — frank

Just because they could be right doesn't mean they are right.

I have been in the IT industry for the last 40 years. I have been a programmer, a senior programmer, an analyst, a systems programmer, and for the last 12 years I was responsible for testing software and hardware.

It is very difficult to make complex computer software bug free. Climate models deal with systems that are complex and chaotic. Because they have many iterations a tiny bug can have a very large effect on the result. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate modelling and climate projections.

Here is a good introduction to model uncertainty:
https://www.jbarisk.com/news-blogs/modelling-and-uncertainty-the-extra-dimension

Scientists use super computers to model the climate. — frank

Frank, I think that you have too much faith in "super computers". "Super computers" run programs that are designed and written by people, possibly scientists. If the people get something wrong then the "super computer" will still give the wrong answer, just like an ordinary computer. But the "super computer" will produce the wrong answer faster.

What we really need are " super-duper infallible AI genius computers". :grin:

There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble. — unenlightened

Have I touched a sore point?

I gave plenty of evidence to support my view. Why don't you try to refute my evidence? The answer is obvious, you can't refute my evidence. So you respond with abusive name calling.

What is your point of sharing the history and dates of Valencia's floods? — javi2541997

My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse.

There have been floods as bad as, and worse than, the 2024 floods in the distant past, long before climate change was an issue.

"Scientists" attribute every negative event to climate change. But "scientists" seem to have an agenda and don't want to compare recent negative events to historical negative events. This is because the comparison could show that climate change may not have made the negative event worse.

[Added later]
Please note that I am not downplaying the seriousness of this disaster. I am questioning whether it is justified to claim that climate change made the floods worse.

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? — javi2541997

Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse

“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. — Matt McGrath - BBC

It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.

Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.

For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.

The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour

The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.

The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours

They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people. — Mikie

The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.

I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days. — unenlightened

When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? Climate scientists tell the public that plane flights are very bad for climate change, but apparently that doesn't apply to them. People might start taking climate change more seriously if climate scientists "walked the walk", and didn't just "talk the talk".

A total of 83,884 people attended COP28 in person, plus 2,089 online, taking the total number of participants to almost 86,000. This means COP28 was comfortably the largest climate COP in history – topping COP27 by more than 35,000.

I am sure that "scientists" will start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels soon, or when pigs fly, whichever comes first.

I think that most people suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect to some degree. Most people overestimate their own expertise. This even applies to "intelligent" people.

So many people think they need a water heater continuously heating so they can instantly have a shower — frank

How long are you willing to wait to have a shower?

A quickie, something for the weekend, to make you me, anyway, smile. — unenlightened

How can they get such good results when they are being destroyed by climate-change/global-warming?

It appears that the threat from climate-change/global-warming can be greatly reduced without the need to stop using fossil fuels. A little bit of adaptation and conservation work can achieve amazing results.

No. they are supposed to smile at the sarcasm. Like this : :grin: — unenlightened

So should we assume that everything that you say is sarcastic?

Herewith, some more lies and propaganda from the new scientist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iHwEn33I — unenlightened

Please list the things that you think are "lies and propaganda".

The YouTube video that you link to is a New Scientist weekly podcast (Oct 12, 2024). The discussion about overshooting 1.5 degrees of global warming is based on a paper published in Nature that week. The paper has been peer reviewed.

The authors of the paper are:
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Gaurav Ganti, Quentin Lejeune, Biqing Zhu, Peter Pfleiderer, Ruben Prütz, Philippe Ciais, Thomas L. Frölicher, Sabine Fuss, Thomas Gasser, Matthew J. Gidden, Chahan M. Kropf, Fabrice Lacroix, Robin Lamboll, Rosanne Martyr, Fabien Maussion, Jamie W. McCaughey, Malte Meinshausen, Matthias Mengel, Zebedee Nicholls, Yann Quilcaille, Benjamin Sanderson, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Jana Sillmann, Christopher J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Emily Theokritoff, Rachel Warren, Jeff Price & Joeri Rogelj

But you decided that their work is "more lies and propaganda". Are people meant to take you seriously?

It must be global warming leading to an excess of hot air. :nerd: :sweat: — unenlightened

Exactly !!!

There is an enormous lack of critical thinking when it comes to global warming. Many people are gullible enough to accept what they are told without thinking. :vomit:

There has never been an official nighttime temperature of over 50°C recorded ever anywhere. — Baden

Where is your evidence for this? Have you just made up this claim because you want it to be true? I have done a lot of researching about this and the biggest problem is that they don't specify the time of day that the maximum temperature occurs. So you can't tell if the maximum temperature happened during the day or during the night. Can you prove otherwise?

On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C. — unenlightened

The following information describes how the temperature at night can be higher than the temperature during the day. In certain circumstances it is possible for the temperature at night in Kuwait to exceed 50°C.

Yes, there have been instances where nighttime temperatures have been higher than daytime temperatures, especially in certain climates or weather conditions. This phenomenon can occur in desert regions where daytime temperatures soar due to intense sunlight, but at night, the temperature might not drop significantly due to factors like cloud cover or humidity.

In summary, while it is uncommon, there are specific conditions under which the temperature at night can exceed the temperature during the day. — Quora

This could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century.

On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C. — unenlightened

Where is your evidence to support these statements?

So what next, Troll? — unenlightened

You have given me the perfect opportunity to show how leaving out relevant details can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is. In this case it is about global warming.

''The number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century, noted the meteorologist.''

That's significant.

(Research time necessary to discover this: 3 minutes) — Baden

The following information took me 10 minutes of research time. Perhaps you should have spent an extra 7 minutes checking the meteorologist's claim.

There’s nothing they’ve said that’s inaccurate. — John McMannis

That is probably correct. The problem is with what they didn't say.

If the number of days over 50C has tripled since 2000, as was pointed out, then that by itself appears significant. — John McMannis

Yes, that does appear to be significant. But what does it signify?

I am not disputing the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. I am pointing out that there is more information that is relevant to the claim and that the meteorologist has not mentioned it.

The meteorologist's claim creates the impression that global warming has caused record high temperatures in Kuwait. But wait, could there be another explanation for the record high temperatures.

First, a few things about Kuwait:
- with the discovery of oil, Kuwait has undergone a transformative urban boom from a small Arab maritime town to a modern-day metropolis in less than half a century
- Kuwait City itself is a concrete metropolis, and as such, retains the heat

I immediately considered the possibility that the record high temperatures were caused by the UHI (urban heat island) effect, rather than being caused directly by global warming.

There are a number of scientific articles about the UHI effect in Kuwait. Here are 2 of them.

Diurnal and seasonal dynamics of the canopy-layer urban heat island of Kuwait
RMets - Royal Meteorological Society
International Journal of Climatology
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.8560?af=R
From Abstract:
Mean positive UHICL intensities, ranging from 1.1°C to 3.8°C at night, are observed consistently across all months, owing to the prevalence of clear skies from winter to summer. Negative UHICL intensities, indicating a typical daytime urban cool island (UCICL), are most prominent on summer days, exhibiting a mean hourly magnitude range between 0.6°C and 2.6°C that extends into the early parts of the evening.

Spatial Distribution of Land Surface Temperatures in Kuwait: Urban Heat and Cool Islands
National Library of Medicine
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246769/
From Abstract:
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was −1.1 °C (95% CI; −1.2, −1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. At night, the temperature difference (urban/suburban versus rural governorates) became 3.6 °C (95% CI; 3.5, 3.7, p < 0.001) indicating a nighttime urban heat island.

Conclusion
If there is a UHI effect at night of up to 3.6 °C or 3.8°C then that could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming.

Why did you bring up Kuwait? — frank

Kuwait has been in the news recently because of the record temperature recorded from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station. A "staggering" 54°C.

Global-warming/climate change (GW/CC) fanatics have gone wild claiming that Kuwait has become "almost unlivable". In truth it has nearly always been "almost unlivable". But GW/CC fanatics don't want to let the facts get in the way of a good story that they want to hear.

But Mr troll is suddenly the world expert on weather station rules on the basis of a photo. — unenlightened

A picture is worth a thousand words. Are you claiming that the photo is not genuine?

And questioning things is better than accepting them with your eyes shut and your brain turned off.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has officially evaluated temperature record extremes of 54.0 °C at two locations, one in Mitribah, Kuwait, on 21 July 2016 and a second in Turbat, Pakistan, on 28 May 2017.

If the WMO accepts the temperature record from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station, given that it obviously doesn't meet the standards set by the National Weather Service, then I have lost all faith in the WMO. The WMO have shown that they cannot be trusted.

I would have banned, ... — unenlightened

So you want to be surrounded by "yes men". Perhaps you should change your name to Donald Trump.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

The absolute truth about something, without omission, embellishment, or alteration.

One of the things that concerns me about global-warming/climate-change is the omission of some information. This can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is.

Take the recent highest temperature record from Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station, a staggering 54°C.

Now look at the Wikipedia article about Mitribah. Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitribah

Look at the picture of the weather station. It appears to be surrounded on at least 2 sides by concrete block walls.

The National Weather Service says this about the proper siting of a weather station:
"When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface."

Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station does not appear to meet the standards. It should not be used as a reliable trustworthy site for temperature measurements. But it is being used to scare and panic people about global-warming/climate-change.

@unenlightened

The world's hottest city whose coast can burn sea creatures to death and whose streets feature air conditioning has been branded "unliveable".

I thought that you would be able to connect the dots. But apparently I was wrong.

People like you try to create the impression that Kuwait has become "unlivable" because of global-warming/climate-change. The truth is that it has almost always been "unlivable".

Compare these 2 Color Temperature Figures. One is for 2022 and the other is for 1989. A difference of 33 years. They look fairly similar to me, with approximately the same "sweltering" area. So Kuwait is about the same degree of "unlivable" in both years.

https://weatherspark.com/h/y/104331/2022/Historical-Weather-during-2022-in-Kuwait-City-Kuwait#Figures-ColorTemperature

https://weatherspark.com/h/y/104331/1989/Historical-Weather-during-1989-in-Kuwait-City-Kuwait#Figures-ColorTemperature

On the subject of air conditioning. Carrier was the first air conditioning company to be present in Kuwait way back in 1946. Mr. Morad Yusuf Behbehani was appointed as authorized distributor and the first air conditioner was delivered to the then Emir of Kuwait in the year 1946.

Before air conditioning Kuwait must have been like living in the fires of hell. That really was "unlivable".

I already told you. Air conditioning. — unenlightened

Air conditioning demand in Kuwait 2011-2021
Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 22, 2024

In 2021, the demand for air conditioning devices in Kuwait amounted to approximately 133 thousand units, the second lowest number of the past decade. Within the observed period, demand for air conditioning peaked in 2015 at approximately 225 thousand units, but has been on a downward trend since then. Especially the past three years saw a significant drop in demand for air conditioners, with 2020 marking the low-point of only 123 thousand units.

In Kuwait the demand for air conditioning devices is dropping significantly while the population is growing rapidly (doubled since 2000).

Your stated that:

Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer. — unenlightened

The statistics don't seem to support you claim.

Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer. — unenlightened

For a country that is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" the population growth is very high.

In the year 2000 the population of Kuwait was 1,991,674
In the year 2023 the population of Kuwait was 4,349,380

That is an increase of 2,357,706 people in 23 years. The population is now 218% of the population in the year 2000. The population has more than doubled since 2000.

Why is the population of Kuwait going up so fast when Kuwait is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" ?

Do you think that article suggests that most of the animal life on land that is larger than an insect wouldn't go extinct if the average temperature was above 86 F? — wonderer1

I like to work in degrees Celsius. Your temperature of 86 degrees Fahrenheit is the same as 30 degrees Celsius.

Here are the average summer temperatures for the hottest countries in the world. They are in degrees Celsius and are sorted from the hottest country to the coldest country.

- Kuwait 44.5
- Iraq 42.2
- United Arab Emirates 40.6
- Chad 40.5
- Qatar 40.4
- Sudan 39.9
- Niger 39.6
- Pakistan 39.3
- Mali 38.8
- Saudi Arabia 38.3

About 397 million people live in these countries. That is over 5% (over 1 in 20) of the total human population.

Remember that we have had about 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming over the last 100 years. So these places were hot even before global warming started.

As far as I know the human species and most of the animal life on land have not gone extinct in these countries.

Don’t waste too much time with climate deniers. — Mikie

You seem to waste a lot of time Mikie. :grin:

Question: What do you call somebody who calls people "deniers" even though they don't deny climate change?

Answer: Mikie. :vomit:

It's crazy that anyone ever believed that the earth would cease to be habitable due to anthropogenic climate change. — frank

There are only 2 sane people in the world, you and me. And I am beginning to have my doubts about you. :grin:

There are many crazy people around. Probably more crazy people than sane ones. Unfortunately the crazy ones have convinced young people that there is no future for them.

Scientists have captured Earth’s climate over the last 485 million years

These are selected quotes from an article in The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet

There is no doubt that Alarmists will interpret this information in a catastrophic way.

An ambitious effort to understand the Earth’s climate over the past 485 million years has revealed a history of wild shifts and far hotter temperatures than scientists previously realized — offering a reminder of how much change the planet has already endured and a warning about the unprecedented rate of warming caused by humans.

At its hottest, the study suggests, the Earth’s average temperature reached 96.8 degrees Fahrenheit (36 degrees Celsius) — far higher than the historic 58.96 F (14.98 C) the planet hit last year.

At the timeline’s start, some 485 million years ago, Earth was in what is known as a hothouse climate, with no polar ice caps and average temperatures above 86 F (30 C).

Temperatures began to slowly decline over the next 30 million years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide was pulled from the air, before plummeting into what scientists call a coldhouse state around 444 million years ago. Ice sheets spread across the poles and global temperatures dropped more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).

Coldhouse climates — including our current one — prevailed just 13 percent of the time. [note - we are currently in a coldhouse climate]

This is one of the more sobering revelations of the research, Judd said. Life on Earth has endured climates far hotter than the one people are now creating through planet-warming emissions.

Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability.

The most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy is interesting because they are (or it is) the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy. :chin:

Otherwise, no: intelligence had to wait until a brain evolved someplace. — Vera Mont

Intelligent Beings Without Brains Are Abundant In Nature–A Growing Scientific Consensus

Levin’s study published last week shows a slime mold, a brainless blob called Physarum, sensing cues in its environment and making a decision about where to grow. The findings suggest it’s “able to build a picture of the world around itself using a kind of sonar. It's a kind of biomechanics,” says Levin. “It's sitting on this gelatin and it's sensing the way that all the objects around it are putting strain on that gelatin. By watching those mechanical signals it figures out where the different bigger and smaller objects are, and then it makes decisions which way it's going to crawl.”

An important feature in the study’s design is that there was no food used in this experiment. Previous studies demonstrating Physarum learning and memory use food (smell and taste), also called chemical sensing. Levin’s study shows Physarum also uses another sense. It uses touch to detect objects at a distance.

It’s only good science to ask whether there could be any other explanation than thinking. Unlike a compass that may spin and then point north, Physarum are capable of processing memories of past experience with competing sensory inputs in real-time while doing computations that can and do change how it will respond.

“Here's what it's definitely doing,” Levin offers. “It's definitely doing decision-making. Because out of the different options in its environment, it always chooses to go towards the bigger distribution of mass.” In addition to decision-making, it’s also sensing and processing information. “For the first few hours, before it grows out in any direction, it's acquiring information and figuring out which way it's going to go.” — Andréa Morris (Forbes)

The new analysis predicts that the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates.

The latest (2019) UN Population Division report estimates that world population is likely to reach 10.88 billion by 2100.

Population forecasts from UN Population Division use just past time trends as the determinant of future trajectories for fertility and mortality. So population forecasts from the UN Population Division are more linear than the new analysis.

In the new study researchers developed a statistical modelling strategy that use past and forecasted trends in drivers of fertility (education and met need for modern contraceptives), mortality (sociodemographic variables and more than 70 risk factors for disease) and migration (sociodemographic variables, deaths due to conflict and natural disasters, and the difference between birth and death rates). Also, their model incorporates uncertainty about migration and accounts for women delaying childbirth as they become more educated.

The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't) — Moliere

The new analysis attempts to handle the situation where a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate.

Population forecasts from UN Population Division don't attempt to handle these situations.

But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on. — unenlightened

World population likely to shrink after mid-century

Improvements in access to modern contraception and the education of girls and women are generating widespread, sustained declines in fertility, and world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study published in The Lancet.

[ Also people with a higher standard of living tend to have less children. Or is it that having less children gives you a higher standard of living? ]

By 2100, projected fertility rates in 183 of 195 countries will not be high enough to maintain current populations without liberal immigration policies

By century's end 23 countries will see populations shrink by more than 50%, including Japan, Thailand, Italy, and Spain.

Continued global population growth through the century is no longer the most likely trajectory for the world's population.

Whether or not you’re a climate denier I don’t know, but every post of yours indicates a slant towards downplaying the risks. — John McMannis

I believe that climate-change/global-warming is happening. I don't deny that.

The reason that most of my posts downplay the risks is that I believe that most of the posts from many other people exaggerate the risks.

I am a very skeptical person and I tend to take the opposite side to other people. However, I don't do this without what I consider valid reasons. My comments are meant to promote discussion and make people think. Something that Mikie doesn't like.

Here is an example. People are concerned about an increase in the global average temperature of 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. But most places on Earth have a difference in temperature between winter and summer of 20 to 30 degrees Celsius. Which do you prefer, winter or summer?

A lot of that difference in viewpoint comes down to the use of temperature anomalies, rather than actual temperatures.

Very few things in life are totally good or totally bad. But you will never hear anything good said about climate-change/global-warming. Why? What about having a longer growing season in many places? Lower winter heating bills? Moscow has an average temperature of 4 degrees Celsius. Wouldn't Muscovites welcome some global warming? Etc, etc, ...

On this thread I can name one: “Agree to Disagree.” Just a climate-denying troll. Maybe he’s been booted off by now, I don’t know. — Mikie

I am still here. Since Mikie has me on his ignore list I can say anything that I like about him. :grin:

Mikie has no idea what he is talking about, and doesn't realize how foolish he is.

- I do not deny the climate
- I do not deny climate change
- people like Mikie exaggerate the effects of climate change
- people like Mikie blame the wrong people
- people like Mikie promote solutions which won't work
- people like Mikie misrepresent other people's views. He calls everybody who doesn't accept his views a "denier", even when they are not denying climate change
- people like Mikie think that abusing people will make them do what Mikie wants
- people like Mikie don't understand human nature
- people like Mikie won't have a discussion (because Mikie thinks that he knows everything)
- people like Mikie underestimate the number of people who don't care about climate change
- people like Mikie enjoy being a troll, while accusing other people of being trolls

Denmark will tax livestock farmers for methane emissions

In 2030, Denmark is set to become the first country to start taxing farmers for gassy pigs, sheep, and cattle — the methane that livestock animals give out is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

The goal is to reduce methane gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels, said Denmark’s tax minister, but the new law does not specify how it will change the economic livelihood of farmers.

Question - will Denmark's methane tax help to reduce global-warming/climate-change?

Here are my thoughts:

- farming of pigs, sheep, and cattle will reduce in Denmark, but will increase in other countries to meet the demand for these things. So no reduction in global methane emissions.

- if the other counties are less efficient than Denmark in farming these animals then global methane levels could actually go up because of the methane tax in Denmark

- there will be additional greenhouse gases produced due to the transport of farm products to Denmark. So global methane levels and CO2 levels could actually go up because of the methane tax in Denmark

Why is Denmark going to introduce a methane tax when it will have no effect, or possibly even make global-warming/climate-change worse than before the tax?

Do you think psychiatric medication belongs to the common person's future? — merloz

In the Year 2525

Song by Zager and Evans

In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find
In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today

‘Inconvenient truths’ for greens

There is a danger environmentalists “get into a bubble of clear-sighted, righteous agreement that if only other people had sufficient political will and shared our views, we’d be well on our way to the promised land”

Environmentalism is much harder than a few slogans and he listed what he called five “inconvenient truths” that need addressing

The first inconvenient truth is that closing polluting industries will in most cases result in imported replacement goods unless there is an equal focus on curbing consumption. Telling consumers they can’t have stuff is an altogether more difficult conversation to have.

The second inconvenient truth is that society must entertain some environmentally damaging activities like mining or the provision of infrastructure. “The question is how much damage? If we are not prepared to examine trade-offs critically, we will be dismissed as the dog that barks at every passing car.” Environmentalists oppose extractive industries but in the transition to zero emissions energy, demand will increase for metals needed for batteries, wind turbines and solar panels.

The third inconvenient truth is the call for green growth, which he said isn’t the easy economic and environmental win some people imagine. Tourism is not environmentally benign and renewable electricity is usually far more efficient and therefore less damaging than fossil fuels but will result in ecosystem damage. “The green growth vision of the future will continually trade one environmental issue for the next. We can’t escape that.”

The fourth inconvenient truth is that change is costly and not the win-win it is pitched as. “Environmentalists have to be conscious of the social impacts of these sorts of transitions.”

The fifth inconvenient truth is that arguing for degrowth is not an easy sell. “As a student of human nature, my hunch is that if we tell people that they can’t have the stuff they’ve grown to expect, they will turn to thinking about how they can take it from others.”