I'm going to prove to you that my beloved bikini models are smarter than academics but first this:
The lovely thing about these climate related studies (and there are tons of them, in any scientific field for reasons that are more than understandable: funding) is that, like with sealevel rise studies, they assume that a climate changes and humans do nothing. So in case of sea levels they just stand there (Bangladesh) and in the case of agriculture they just undergo the changing climate.
1 My grandfather was a farmer: if there's one segment of society that keeps track of what is happening outside its people who depend on the weather. FGS. And if it changes they change with it. But i can fully understand how todays office dwellers who view the countryside as that part of the country where you have your second home are clueless about farming.
2 When unpredictability increases people and gov's stockpile (more).
The IMF study:
'This is less the case in the US, where high temperatures lead to water scarcity in major agricultural centres like California (nuts, fruit, citrus) and Florida (fruit, citrus)'
You can't just write this without mentioning that California's almond production alone takes up something like 30% of Calis water (of course it most comes from other states). They'll adjust when they have to.
A water scarcity problem in Florida is entirely theoretical. (Maybe i should add 'duh') Although i fully understand how two sociologists who do equations, also known as economists, can model that. You can model anything.
But this is obviously the major red flag:
'Although our empirical results do not always show a strong positive link between weather shocks and supply chain disruptions, due to, in part, the use of aggregated supply-side disruptions, ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฌ'
This is how every study that does NOT find climate alarm ends. All of them, including the new study i post below about Antarctica NOT collapsing.
The 1930s US heatwaves, that still trump anything we've seen in recent decades, helped produce significant improvements in US agriculture.
US grain production vs total acreage vs CO2:
The population almost tripled since the late 1920s, grain harvests explode while total acreage declines...
PS. Note how the IMF paper in its exec summary speaks of 'the highest levels of inflation since the 1970s' without even just once referring to Biden's fiscal policies...(of course to what degree one can say Delaware Joe had anyhing to do with it is another matter).
And look at this tripe from the IMF study:
'As human-induced climate change accelerates over the coming decades'
This is not science (the IPCC can't back it up with data) this is activism. So they're probably just working in the spirit of 'the planet is boiling' A Guterres. (Btw: what to say next after such hyperbole?).
Side note: after last year's powerful La Nina saw record ocean temps, they are now declining fast.
Have you read anything about it n your newspapers? No. Weather = climate when temps go up, when temps go down weather = weather.
And then there was this aug 2024 study that showed that the Antarctic doomsday glacier (Twaites), which supposedly would trigger the collapse of an entire Antarctic ice sheet, when modelled better would not 'retreat further in the 21st century. In another set of simulations, we force the grounding line to retreat into Thwaitesโ deeper basin to expose a taller cliff. In these simulations, rapid thinning and velocity increase reduce the calving rate, stabilizing the cliff. These experiments show that Thwaites may be less vulnerable to MICI than previously thought, and model projections that include this process should be re-evaluated'.
When using a high res model - a first - 'the projected sea-level rise in 100 years is about 25% lower than expected from the current simulations'.
And just wait until they run Antarctic data through a couple of bikini models, who are still the best models around, especially high res. Although they are being retired by the woke clique. Just now Verstappen has become the king of F1...
You may giggle about bikini models doing climate science but ask yourself: would a bikini model have produced 'scientific' comedy like this:
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers โ particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge โ remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers.
Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions'.
No. Any bikini model will immediately grasp that the above is nonsense.
Only academics produce this idiocy.
I'd estimate that something like 75% of todays academics are a mere luxury that our wealthy societies can afford. (Maybe Tim Waltz should call them weirdos although i think allowing abortions up til the 9 month - no questions asked - like in his home state is also pretty weird. And he'd insult his voter base of course).
To round off: since academics make more money because of their diploma's they problably produce inflation.
Take your meds today? Re: adaptation, Los Angelenos are already drinking their own piss because because there isn't enough fresh water so they have to treat waste water for their drinking water, which gets recycled.... And to treat the waste water carcinogenic chemicals are being used to make it drinkable, which the EPA hasn't banned because they are in the pockets of the companies that make the chemicals. Adaptation? Err, if that's you're definition of adaptation I'd hate to see a boiling frog syndrome. And that's before any discussion of PFAS 'forever' chemicals in the drinking water. Coming to a water stressed community near you...
What's not so well publicized is the Ogallala Aquifer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer which irrigates nearly 1/3 of the ground water used for irrigation in the United States, which was once thought to be self-refilling, but is drying up as well.
Fossil fuels are bad enough, but fossil water is even worse. Eastern agricultural land with plenty of water is being carved up for development, which has pushed a lot of agricultural production westward.
It appears you are more in need of meds than i am Dr Scott. Or you took them just before writing your reply.
There's nothing dramatic about drinking one's own urine. In fact some people, typically on the left, drink it for it's 'health' effect(s). Ignoring the fact that their body just said 'here, i don't need this'.
The majority of city dwellers in the, at least somewhat, civilised world 'drink' their own excrements, household products like chloride and a lot of drugs. Including massive amounts of cocaine (in the Netherlands mega-high traces of coke are found in the sewage of the hard-core Protestant fishing village of Urk - they work hard and play hard i guess).
And we of course 'drink' 'our' antidepressants. Loads of them, especially in the big cities as liberals are more depressed than conservatives and typically prefer cities where they can be alone with their depression.
Speaking of depression...
Lovely Tufts study here. Correct for depression and you explain the difference in voting preferences in the US:
Why Being Conservative is Correlated with Higher Happiness
'an individual is more likely to be distressed about climate change if they are female, under the age of 35 years, have a proโenvironmental orientation, and possess personality traits such as high levels of future anxiety'
Activism as self-therapy:
Climate change anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism as buffer
'...indicating that CCA (climate change activism) is related to, but not fully accounted by, depression and anxiety symptoms
...those who identify as women, transgender, non-binary, and other gender reporting significantly higher MDD (Major depressive disorder) and GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) symptoms than those who identify as men
...Climate activism moderated the association between CCA cognitive emotional impairment and MDD symptoms
...engagement in individual action was significantly associated with lower levels of GAD symptoms'.
Boing...
(Maybe i should take some meds as well to digest all that).
Of course we do not really drink our dirty deeds since it is, as you wrote, treated. But i understand it works as a dramatic effect.
PFAS are the newest hype here in the Netherlands as well. Sort of the last stand for the ecologically attuned amongst urban middle classes (who typically can't distinguish between a bull and a cow) who like to have their country sides pristine. But apparently it's dangerous out there!
The most PFAS rich place n the NL is the Tata steelworks in IJmuiden. Formerly part of Corus (UK, hopelessly uninnovative) and before that Hoogovens. My mother literally grew up in Hoogovens' smoke as did my whole maternal family - obviously. Some still live there. The plant was a symbol of post WW2 progress and people took pollution as a byproduct (the 19th century was much worse after all).
Like all western nations since the 60s the NL massively cleaned up (compared to today's world my youth was highly toxic, rich in asbestos and my mother smoked. Yes, that warrants a dramatic 'OMG!').
So now drama queens - those 'educated' city dwellers - point at the - literal - last traces of pollution, who have not seldomly become controversial only after new and even tighter regulation was put in place by regional representatves of The Green(s) (devils). Who have also ordered the NL's allowed nitrogen levels to be 300 x more stringent than for instance Germany's.
The chance of dying of PFAS is tiny compared to many more mundane risks. Risks we're used to and/or that are hard to make an impact with in the media.
The nitrogen hysteria ('our nature is changing!'...Really? How unnatural...) has effectively halted infrastructure projects, new neighborhoods, schools and business expansion. But luckily we now have a new right of center gov. Typically portrayed as extreme right by the left.
Yesterday the Volkskrant - one of the vehicles for progressive indignance and ignorance - portrayed the gov as the Klu Klux Klan in a cartoon.
The green fools want degrowth and they're getting it. For others, not themselves. (They mostly work in gov, academia and NGO's).
The bizarre thing: as they trump degrowth they are fundamentalistically in favour of keeping up immigration at todays levels.
A clean and green poor country with atomized communities is their idea of paradise.
Now go fidure: the risk for an immigrant girl to become the victim of a honor killing is greater than the risk for a middle class dramaqueen to die of PFAS.
OK, both of you (jbnn and Scott), please keep it civilised. I know the internet is a place full of insults, but this is not. I think we can all disagree agreeably. Keep smiling and let's all move on :-)
Klement makes a very interesting point on the energy required for cooling versus heating.
In Germany and most of Europe, only 10% of houses have air conditioning versus 90% in the US. But air conditioning accounts for approximately 6-12% of total energy consumption in U.S. homes annually, with regional variations (higher in warmer climates), versus heating typically accounting for a much larger portion, about 25-30% of residential energy consumption, though this can also vary widely depending on the type of heating system and local climate conditions.
So what happens when Europe has to ramp up air conditioning as the climate warms? As Klement says, there may actually be a (perverse?) near-term net benefit to society.
I've found that the best way to address skeptics is to not ask "do you believe in climate change?", and instead ask "what do you understand about climate change?" Farmers and fellow outdoorsmen already see it, so now it's all about adaptation.
I'm going to prove to you that my beloved bikini models are smarter than academics but first this:
The lovely thing about these climate related studies (and there are tons of them, in any scientific field for reasons that are more than understandable: funding) is that, like with sealevel rise studies, they assume that a climate changes and humans do nothing. So in case of sea levels they just stand there (Bangladesh) and in the case of agriculture they just undergo the changing climate.
1 My grandfather was a farmer: if there's one segment of society that keeps track of what is happening outside its people who depend on the weather. FGS. And if it changes they change with it. But i can fully understand how todays office dwellers who view the countryside as that part of the country where you have your second home are clueless about farming.
2 When unpredictability increases people and gov's stockpile (more).
The IMF study:
'This is less the case in the US, where high temperatures lead to water scarcity in major agricultural centres like California (nuts, fruit, citrus) and Florida (fruit, citrus)'
You can't just write this without mentioning that California's almond production alone takes up something like 30% of Calis water (of course it most comes from other states). They'll adjust when they have to.
A water scarcity problem in Florida is entirely theoretical. (Maybe i should add 'duh') Although i fully understand how two sociologists who do equations, also known as economists, can model that. You can model anything.
But this is obviously the major red flag:
'Although our empirical results do not always show a strong positive link between weather shocks and supply chain disruptions, due to, in part, the use of aggregated supply-side disruptions, ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฌ'
This is how every study that does NOT find climate alarm ends. All of them, including the new study i post below about Antarctica NOT collapsing.
The 1930s US heatwaves, that still trump anything we've seen in recent decades, helped produce significant improvements in US agriculture.
US grain production vs total acreage vs CO2:
The population almost tripled since the late 1920s, grain harvests explode while total acreage declines...
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joseph-fournier-7077087_there-are-so-many-factors-at-play-in-this-activity-7238553207906385920-R2Cr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android
The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy
Page 8: Longrun Forces Behind the Changes (in US agri prod); page 11: exports:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44197/13566_eib3_1_.pdf
PS. Note how the IMF paper in its exec summary speaks of 'the highest levels of inflation since the 1970s' without even just once referring to Biden's fiscal policies...(of course to what degree one can say Delaware Joe had anyhing to do with it is another matter).
And look at this tripe from the IMF study:
'As human-induced climate change accelerates over the coming decades'
This is not science (the IPCC can't back it up with data) this is activism. So they're probably just working in the spirit of 'the planet is boiling' A Guterres. (Btw: what to say next after such hyperbole?).
Side note: after last year's powerful La Nina saw record ocean temps, they are now declining fast.
Have you read anything about it n your newspapers? No. Weather = climate when temps go up, when temps go down weather = weather.
And then there was this aug 2024 study that showed that the Antarctic doomsday glacier (Twaites), which supposedly would trigger the collapse of an entire Antarctic ice sheet, when modelled better would not 'retreat further in the 21st century. In another set of simulations, we force the grounding line to retreat into Thwaitesโ deeper basin to expose a taller cliff. In these simulations, rapid thinning and velocity increase reduce the calving rate, stabilizing the cliff. These experiments show that Thwaites may be less vulnerable to MICI than previously thought, and model projections that include this process should be re-evaluated'.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado7794
Models...
Hey, now that were at it, Utrecht UN 2021:
Current climate model simulations overestimate future sea-level rise
https://bit.ly/3H3JsSp
When using a high res model - a first - 'the projected sea-level rise in 100 years is about 25% lower than expected from the current simulations'.
And just wait until they run Antarctic data through a couple of bikini models, who are still the best models around, especially high res. Although they are being retired by the woke clique. Just now Verstappen has become the king of F1...
You may giggle about bikini models doing climate science but ask yourself: would a bikini model have produced 'scientific' comedy like this:
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
https://bit.ly/3JvopKi
Abstract
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers โ particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge โ remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers.
Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions'.
No. Any bikini model will immediately grasp that the above is nonsense.
Only academics produce this idiocy.
I'd estimate that something like 75% of todays academics are a mere luxury that our wealthy societies can afford. (Maybe Tim Waltz should call them weirdos although i think allowing abortions up til the 9 month - no questions asked - like in his home state is also pretty weird. And he'd insult his voter base of course).
To round off: since academics make more money because of their diploma's they problably produce inflation.
Take your meds today? Re: adaptation, Los Angelenos are already drinking their own piss because because there isn't enough fresh water so they have to treat waste water for their drinking water, which gets recycled.... And to treat the waste water carcinogenic chemicals are being used to make it drinkable, which the EPA hasn't banned because they are in the pockets of the companies that make the chemicals. Adaptation? Err, if that's you're definition of adaptation I'd hate to see a boiling frog syndrome. And that's before any discussion of PFAS 'forever' chemicals in the drinking water. Coming to a water stressed community near you...
The issues in the Colorado River watershed are well known https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River , as are the ones surrounding California Central Valley water policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project . The former included the discovery that Arizona was supplying Saudi Arabia with alfalfa! https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/in-drought-stricken-arizona-fresh-scrutiny-of-saudi-arabia-owned-farms-water-use
What's not so well publicized is the Ogallala Aquifer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer which irrigates nearly 1/3 of the ground water used for irrigation in the United States, which was once thought to be self-refilling, but is drying up as well.
Fossil fuels are bad enough, but fossil water is even worse. Eastern agricultural land with plenty of water is being carved up for development, which has pushed a lot of agricultural production westward.
Take a flight over the region on a clear day and look at all the big green circles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center-pivot_irrigation .
It appears you are more in need of meds than i am Dr Scott. Or you took them just before writing your reply.
There's nothing dramatic about drinking one's own urine. In fact some people, typically on the left, drink it for it's 'health' effect(s). Ignoring the fact that their body just said 'here, i don't need this'.
The majority of city dwellers in the, at least somewhat, civilised world 'drink' their own excrements, household products like chloride and a lot of drugs. Including massive amounts of cocaine (in the Netherlands mega-high traces of coke are found in the sewage of the hard-core Protestant fishing village of Urk - they work hard and play hard i guess).
And we of course 'drink' 'our' antidepressants. Loads of them, especially in the big cities as liberals are more depressed than conservatives and typically prefer cities where they can be alone with their depression.
Speaking of depression...
Lovely Tufts study here. Correct for depression and you explain the difference in voting preferences in the US:
Why Being Conservative is Correlated with Higher Happiness
https://equityresearch.tufts.edu/why-being-conservative-is-correlated-with-higher-happiness/
And another one:
Pet Ownership Linked to Depression
https://equityresearch.tufts.edu/pet-ownership-linked-to-depression/
Hello UK...
I just can't stop: did you know climate alarmism is correlated with a lack of knowledge and with anxiety and depression? Activism helps though:
Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety
https://bit.ly/3BJMwAZ
Do concerns about climate change lead to distress?
https://bit.ly/3qgiDpc
'an individual is more likely to be distressed about climate change if they are female, under the age of 35 years, have a proโenvironmental orientation, and possess personality traits such as high levels of future anxiety'
Activism as self-therapy:
Climate change anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism as buffer
https://bit.ly/41ZyWDW
'...indicating that CCA (climate change activism) is related to, but not fully accounted by, depression and anxiety symptoms
...those who identify as women, transgender, non-binary, and other gender reporting significantly higher MDD (Major depressive disorder) and GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) symptoms than those who identify as men
...Climate activism moderated the association between CCA cognitive emotional impairment and MDD symptoms
...engagement in individual action was significantly associated with lower levels of GAD symptoms'.
Boing...
(Maybe i should take some meds as well to digest all that).
Of course we do not really drink our dirty deeds since it is, as you wrote, treated. But i understand it works as a dramatic effect.
PFAS are the newest hype here in the Netherlands as well. Sort of the last stand for the ecologically attuned amongst urban middle classes (who typically can't distinguish between a bull and a cow) who like to have their country sides pristine. But apparently it's dangerous out there!
The most PFAS rich place n the NL is the Tata steelworks in IJmuiden. Formerly part of Corus (UK, hopelessly uninnovative) and before that Hoogovens. My mother literally grew up in Hoogovens' smoke as did my whole maternal family - obviously. Some still live there. The plant was a symbol of post WW2 progress and people took pollution as a byproduct (the 19th century was much worse after all).
Like all western nations since the 60s the NL massively cleaned up (compared to today's world my youth was highly toxic, rich in asbestos and my mother smoked. Yes, that warrants a dramatic 'OMG!').
So now drama queens - those 'educated' city dwellers - point at the - literal - last traces of pollution, who have not seldomly become controversial only after new and even tighter regulation was put in place by regional representatves of The Green(s) (devils). Who have also ordered the NL's allowed nitrogen levels to be 300 x more stringent than for instance Germany's.
The chance of dying of PFAS is tiny compared to many more mundane risks. Risks we're used to and/or that are hard to make an impact with in the media.
The nitrogen hysteria ('our nature is changing!'...Really? How unnatural...) has effectively halted infrastructure projects, new neighborhoods, schools and business expansion. But luckily we now have a new right of center gov. Typically portrayed as extreme right by the left.
Yesterday the Volkskrant - one of the vehicles for progressive indignance and ignorance - portrayed the gov as the Klu Klux Klan in a cartoon.
The green fools want degrowth and they're getting it. For others, not themselves. (They mostly work in gov, academia and NGO's).
The bizarre thing: as they trump degrowth they are fundamentalistically in favour of keeping up immigration at todays levels.
A clean and green poor country with atomized communities is their idea of paradise.
Now go fidure: the risk for an immigrant girl to become the victim of a honor killing is greater than the risk for a middle class dramaqueen to die of PFAS.
But guess what all the fuss is about.
Yes, maybe i do need meds.
OK, both of you (jbnn and Scott), please keep it civilised. I know the internet is a place full of insults, but this is not. I think we can all disagree agreeably. Keep smiling and let's all move on :-)
Klement makes a very interesting point on the energy required for cooling versus heating.
In Germany and most of Europe, only 10% of houses have air conditioning versus 90% in the US. But air conditioning accounts for approximately 6-12% of total energy consumption in U.S. homes annually, with regional variations (higher in warmer climates), versus heating typically accounting for a much larger portion, about 25-30% of residential energy consumption, though this can also vary widely depending on the type of heating system and local climate conditions.
So what happens when Europe has to ramp up air conditioning as the climate warms? As Klement says, there may actually be a (perverse?) near-term net benefit to society.
I've found that the best way to address skeptics is to not ask "do you believe in climate change?", and instead ask "what do you understand about climate change?" Farmers and fellow outdoorsmen already see it, so now it's all about adaptation.
Be careful: you might offend those followers of facial hair persuasion. They might claim you are violating their human rightsโฆ..