CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Wanderer78

Jesus, there's some ignorance on this thread, and the disturbing bit is, from weather geeks! Chomsky is spot on, this administration is potentially one of the most dangerous that's ever been, in regards environmental matters, and it's obvious to!

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

So you have evidence that these unprecedented fires are linked to a neutral ENSO?
Are you taking the piss?

It's is a well-established fact that a combination of a negative PDO with a positive AMO is a driver of dry conditions in the SW USA. Think back to the Dustbowl almost 100 years ago. The PDO has switched to strongly negative this year aftern being mostly positive in recent years. Add to that neutral to La Niña conditions and you add to this effect. So no, I'm not taking the proverbial.

As already stated, you would never have seen photos and videos of those events right as they happened. You would never have even known about them.

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Jesus, there's some ignorance on this thread, and the disturbing bit is, from weather geeks! Chomsky is spot on, this administration is potentially one of the most dangerous that's ever been, in regards environmental matters, and it's obvious to!

So provide the evidence then that this has nothing to do with what I said above.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

So provide the evidence then that this has nothing to do with what I said above.

Seriously couldn't be bothered, and I really don't have a clue what you're on about anyway, I've done my environmental research, I've moved on from it, I've moved onto the complexities of what has actually caused all these issues, particularly economically, politically and socially, I'm done with the environmental arguments, I've accepted we re wrecking the planet

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Seriously couldn't be bothered, and I really don't have a clue what you're on about anyway, I've done my environmental research, I've moved on from it, I've moved onto the complexities of what has actually caused all these issues, particularly economically, politically and socially, I'm done with the environmental arguments, I've accepted we re wrecking the planet

Ah ok, so you're in fact the one who's ignorant.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's is a well-established fact that a combination of a negative PDO with a positive AMO is a driver of dry conditions in the SW USA. Think back to the Dustbowl almost 100 years ago. The PDO has switched to strongly negative this year aftern being mostly positive in recent years. Add to that neutral to La Niña conditions and you add to this effect. So no, I'm not taking the proverbial.

As already stated, you would never have seen photos and videos of those events right as they happened. You would never have even known about them.

The PDO is a description of conditions, it’s not a driver
It’s like calling steam from a Kettle ‘local sudden evaporation’ and then denying that the kettle causes the steam because ‘local sudden evaporation’ is often correlated with steam

The dust bowl era was not a purely natural phenomenon, it was a consequence of human activity
The natural drought would not have had such severe consequences if human agricultural practices didn’t destroy the topsoil

Similarly natural drought cycles on top of the climate change we have caused creates the unprecedented wildfires we are almost getting used to seeing all year round in recent years

Cameras were invented in 1816, we’ve had 200 years to take pictures of the ‘natural’ wildfires that are nothing unusual allegedly

And we have had painting since cavemen, and writing since the sumarians. The images from California would have been recorded in paintings, stories and writing if they happened naturally

Akrasia

Oh and wildfires have been getting worse for years now, regardless of where ENSO is or how negative the PDO is. If wildfires are exacerbated by a combination of La Niña and negative PDO then why were they so bad in recent years when there was a weak El Niño and no negative PDO?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The PDO is a description of conditions, it’s not a driver
It’s like calling steam from a Kettle ‘local sudden evaporation’ and then denying that the kettle causes the steam because ‘local sudden evaporation’ is often correlated with steam

Ok, let me rephrase it then :rolleyes: The conditions that lead to a negative PDO index are likely to cause drought conditions. There, I hope it's clearer now.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiS2oLZ0uDrAhXDxoUKHVOKCwsQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2073-4433%2F10%2F2%2F82%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw0Ih6PBPo_V0NTu8ja8KRGu

Abstract: In this paper, we applied the Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis on a drought index expressed as consecutive dry days (CDD) to identify the drought variability in western United States. Based on the EOF analysis, correlation maps were generated between the leading principle component (PC) of seasonal CDD and sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies to explore the dynamic context of the leading modes in CDD. The EOF analysis indicates that the spatiotemporal pattern of winter CDD is related to an integrated impact from El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), while summer CDD is mainly controlled by PDO phases. We also calculated seasonal CDD anomalies during selected climatic phases to further evaluate the impacts of large-scale oceanic oscillation on the spatial pattern of droughts. We found that AMO+/PDO− will contribute to a consistent drought condition during the winter in the western United States. El Niño will bring a dry winter to the northern part of western United States while La Niña will bring a dry winter to the southern part. During El Niño years, the drought center changes with the type of El Niño events. Considering the future states of the examined ocean oscillations, we suggest possible drier than normal conditions in the western
United States for upcoming decades, and moreover, an intensified drought for the coast areas of the north Pacific region and upper Mississippi River Basin.

The dust bowl era was not a purely natural phenomenon, it was a consequence of human activity
The natural drought would not have had such severe consequences if human agricultural practices didn’t destroy the topsoil

Similarly natural drought cycles on top of the climate change we have caused creates the unprecedented wildfires we are almost getting used to seeing all year round in recent years

Cameras were invented in 1816, we’ve had 200 years to take pictures of the ‘natural’ wildfires that are nothing unusual allegedly

And we have had painting since cavemen, and writing since the sumarians. The images from California would have been recorded in paintings, stories and writing if they happened naturally

Maybe people hadn't been conditioned to treat weather as an impending signal of doom and just accepted it for what it was. And to compare evidence from cameras of 100-200 years ago or cave paintings to the millions of smartphones in daily use now is more than a little laughable.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ah ok, so you're in fact the one who's ignorant.

ive spent a couple years studying this stuff, ive realised since childhood, we re damaging this planet, ive matured and accepted our reality, deniers will probably never accept this reality, so it is simply wasting my time, i have moved onto trying to figure out how humanity has gotten to this point, i do believe i have found the reasons why, it is now time to react

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive spent a couple years studying this stuff, ive realised since childhood, we re damaging this planet, ive matured and accepted our reality, deniers will probably never accept this reality, so it is simply wasting my time, i have moved onto trying to figure out how humanity has gotten to this point, i do believe i have found the reasons why, it is now time to react

You've spent years studying it, yet claim to not understand how the PDO works?

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You've spent years studying it, yet claim to not understand how the PDO works?

nope, i dont feel the need to, again, ive accepted our reality since childhood, ive moved on

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

nope, i dont feel the need to, again, ive accepted our reality since childhood, ive moved on

Birdnuts

Akrasia wrote: »

Cameras were invented in 1816, we’ve had 200 years to take pictures of the ‘natural’ wildfires that are nothing unusual allegedly

San Franciso and the the state of California didn't even exist then:rolleyes: In the meantime the population has gone from a few thousand to 30 million with most of the natural wetlands and groundwater sources lost. But the likes of you claim its all down to "climate change" - newsflash fire is a natural part of the climate there, as is severe droughts including one that wiped out Indian cultures in nearby areas around the Middle Ages.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Maybe people hadn't been conditioned to treat weather as an impending signal of doom and just accepted it for what it was. And to compare evidence from cameras of 100-200 years ago or cave paintings to the millions of smartphones in daily use now is more than a little laughable.

Or maybe people aren’t blinded by their own sense of self importance and take the overwhelming majority of expert scientific findings seriously.

Increases in heatwaves droughts and wildfires were predicted in the models. Now the predictions are coming true, record breaking wildfires all around the world starting earlier and finishing later each year and you just pretend it’s all normal naturally occurring weather

You’re saying it’s neutral ENSO and negative PDO this year, what about last year where we had El Niño and positive PDO and still saw these massive wildfires raging out of control?

Hooter23

Less than 100 people died from extreme heat and cold in america in 2019...meanwhile in 2018 there were 36,560 deaths from car accidents...I think there are alot more things to worry about than a few degrees difference in temperature...keep paying your carbon tax anyway im sure that will fix the problem

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Or maybe people aren’t blinded by their own sense of self importance and take the overwhelming majority of expert scientific findings seriously.

Increases in heatwaves droughts and wildfires were predicted in the models. Now the predictions are coming true, record breaking wildfires all around the world starting earlier and finishing later each year and you just pretend it’s all normal naturally occurring weather

You’re saying it’s neutral ENSO and negative PDO this year, what about last year where we had El Niño and positive PDO and still saw these massive wildfires raging out of control?

Are you denying all the expert scientific findings that link certain natural teleconnections with certain types of weather? Wanderer certainly does as he "couldn't be bothered" learning about it. I hope you're not the same.

There have always been fires in California. After all, it's on the edge of a great big desert. Positive PDO years do not eliminate the probability of fireweather, just reduces it. Just like we got a dry Spring sandwiched in between two very wet periods this year. Is that also down to ghc? I'm sure you'll try to claim that it is, the same way the Clifden and Cork floods were.

I can imagine you sitting at home searching the net for weather headlines, chomping at the bit to come in with your hyperbole every time there's a drought/flood/heatwave/snowstorm/hurricane/record high pressure....

Nabber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

nope, i dont feel the need to, again, ive accepted our reality since childhood, ive moved on

Doing yourself no favours here.
This is common place now or at least it's more visible as there are more areas for people to share their thoughts, were people have accepted a fact to be indisputable, then use opinion to validate their beliefs.

I've posted here about it before. News is 24hrs, Social media 24hrs. Billions of people have a device that can share their stories and experiences.

We are bombarded with everything and anything that will sell a newspaper, get a view or a link clicked. If it fits a narrative it gets pumped out. Whether Left or Right, AGW supporting or not, Global outlets media have little to no accountability.

Regarding California, they closed down their Nuclear plants, opted instead to buy in power from other states. So they look green, but in fact they just shift their carbon footprint else where. Their green energy has cost them billions which is now a tax payer burden, which is disproportionate to the lower classes. It's also failed!

I visited family in Kangroo Valley back in early Feb (Just as Covid hit), which was scorched by Australia fires. The residents blamed the problem on local authorities refusing to have controlled burns. They cited that aboriginals have been lighting controlled fires for 50,000 years, yet now we stop?
I know that is anecdotal, but it's a first hand experience I had with the people impacted. They weren't screaming about CO2 or AGW.

Oregon and CA are very much the same, CA refrains from controlled burns.
Which is mind boggling considering they have no problem draining wetlands and otherwise destroying habitats, but refrain from controlled burns???

The heat wave is weather... Not climate???
I see a lot of cold spells dismissed as 'Weather cherry picking'. Is a heat wave not the same?

Maybe it's time to look local. What has changed in CA over the past 100 years?
Correlate that impact on their local weather.

Wanderer78

Nabber wrote:

Doing yourself no favours here. This is common place now or at least it's more visible as there are more areas for people to share their thoughts, were people have accepted a fact to be indisputable, then use opinion to validate their beliefs.

Again I've moved on, again Ive accepted this since childhood, I do believe it's a sign of incredible immaturity that people are still debating this, of course some of the science will be proven to be false, as we have no working model to go on, and as for a weather forum, we re all big enough to know, 'all models are wrong, some are just useful', so yes, some of the scientific models will more than likely turn out to be wrong, it is interesting to see some of the ipcc work being discredited though

Thargor

Nabber wrote: »

I see a lot of cold spells dismissed as 'Weather cherry picking'. Is a heat wave not the same?

The warmest years ever recorded globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 in that order. 2020 looks like its on course to be the hottest ever just like the climate models predicted, so no, its not a case of cherry picking the hot stuff, the world is being heated to scary levels by our greenhouse gas emissions just like all the climate models predict so carry on dismissing it as weather if it makes you feel better.

Gaoth Laidir

Nabber wrote: »

Doing yourself no favours here.
This is common place now or at least it's more visible as there are more areas for people to share their thoughts, were people have accepted a fact to be indisputable, then use opinion to validate their beliefs.

I've posted here about it before. News is 24hrs, Social media 24hrs. Billions of people have a device that can share their stories and experiences.

We are bombarded with everything and anything that will sell a newspaper, get a view or a link clicked. If it fits a narrative it gets pumped out. Whether Left or Right, AGW supporting or not, Global outlets media have little to no accountability.

Regarding California, they closed down their Nuclear plants, opted instead to buy in power from other states. So they look green, but in fact they just shift their carbon footprint else where. Their green energy has cost them billions which is now a tax payer burden, which is disproportionate to the lower classes. It's also failed!

I visited family in Kangroo Valley back in early Feb (Just as Covid hit), which was scorched by Australia fires. The residents blamed the problem on local authorities refusing to have controlled burns. They cited that aboriginals have been lighting controlled fires for 50,000 years, yet now we stop?
I know that is anecdotal, but it's a first hand experience I had with the people impacted. They weren't screaming about CO2 or AGW.

Oregon and CA are very much the same, CA refrains from controlled burns.
Which is mind boggling considering they have no problem draining wetlands and otherwise destroying habitats, but refrain from controlled burns???

The heat wave is weather... Not climate???
I see a lot of cold spells dismissed as 'Weather cherry picking'. Is a heat wave not the same?

Maybe it's time to look local. What has changed in CA over the past 100 years?
Correlate that impact on their local weather.

Akrasia today was quick to correctly point out that human mismanagement of the land back in the 1930s contributed to the severity of the effects, yet he will not acknowledge that similar activities are happening in many prone parts of the world today. No, today it's all down to driving cars.

I was just commenting on another thread now about Lewis Hamilton's new team in the fledgling Extreme-E racing championship starting next year. They say the objective of the championship is to highlight the climate emergency by racing at locations that are being "decimated" by climate disasters. Starting in Senegal, then Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Greeland and finally Brazil. They claim they will generate 20,000 tonnes of carbon footprint but aim to be carbon-neutral by the end of it. Deliberately generating 20,000 tonnes in order to negate it? Some logic alright. A publicity stunt gone to a new level of madness.

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again I've moved on, again Ive accepted this since childhood, I do believe it's a sign of incredible immaturity that people are still debating this, of course some of the science will be proven to be false, as we have no working model to go on, and as for a weather forum, we re all big enough to know, 'all models are wrong, some are just useful', so yes, some of the scientific models will more than likely turn out to be wrong, it is interesting to see some of the ipcc work being discredited though

But how can you ignore science and deliberately not even try to understand it? The same IPCC will readily agree that teleconnections have always had a strong correlation with certain weather events. Nobody is disputing that except yourself and Akrasia. Maybe your man Oriel36 had a point after all, I hate to say.

Nabber

Thargor wrote: »

The warmest years ever recorded globally have all occurred since 1998, with the top ten being 2016, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2014, 2010, 2013 and 2005 in that order. 2020 looks like its on course to be the hottest ever just like the climate models predicted, so no, its not a case of cherry picking the hot stuff, the world is being heated to scary levels by our greenhouse gas emissions just like all the climate models predict so carry on dismissing it as weather if it makes you feel better.

Don't let Arkaisa catch you printing data without adding the source. :pac::pac:




2017, 2018 and 2019 colder than 2016.
So what ever we did in those 3 years we can repeat? Cause it worked to bring down temperatures? Am I doing this right?
If CO2 is constantly rising, why are we not seeing a year on year compound increase. More CO2 = More heat retention, except for 2017-2019 where more CO2 = Less heat? Surely based on AGW theory it should be in order of hottest 2019, 2018, 2017 ect..
If not, there must be another factor we are missing or don't understand. Or our instruments of measure aren't as accurate as we think.

It's worth noting tho.
The sparse records we do have from the ~1880s to 1970s have been adjusted.
Any temperature recording before that are extrapolated and estimated from ice cores and and decaying plant animals remains ect.

Extrapolation and interpretations, it's really open to interference.

Edit: When I say sparse records, I mean in terms of global coverage. Not how often records were maintained in a particular site.

Nabber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again I've moved on, again Ive accepted this since childhood, I do believe it's a sign of incredible immaturity that people are still debating this, of course some of the science will be proven to be false, as we have no working model to go on, and as for a weather forum, we re all big enough to know, 'all models are wrong, some are just useful', so yes, some of the scientific models will more than likely turn out to be wrong, it is interesting to see some of the ipcc work being discredited though

You formed an opinion at childhood and have maintained through to adulthood and never questioned it.
That's not scientific at all, that's fate based.
I'm sure even the other AGW supporters will distance themselves from that logic.

Thargor

Nabber wrote: »

Don't let Arkaisa catch you printing data without adding the source. :pac::pac:


2017, 2018 and 2019 colder than 2016.
So what ever we did in those 3 years we can repeat? Cause it worked to bring down temperatures? Am I doing this right?
If CO2 is constantly rising, why are we not seeing a year on year compound increase. More CO2 = More heat retention, except for 2017-2019 where more CO2 = Less heat? Surely based on AGW theory it should be in order of hottest 2019, 2018, 2017 ect..
If not, there must be another factor we are missing or don't understand. Or our instruments of measure aren't as accurate as we think.

Wow thats shocking even by the low standards of this thread.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

But how can you ignore science and deliberately not even try to understand it? The same IPCC will readily agree that teleconnections have always had a strong correlation with certain weather events. Nobody is disputing that except yourself and Akrasia. Maybe your man Oriel36 had a point after all, I hate to say.

Again, I've moved on from the environmental science, even though it's continual research is now critical more than ever, and critics such as yourself are important, to continue questioning, but we will need you to try help us resolve these issues. It's important to note, some criticism of ipcc findings believes, that projected models are extremely conservative, which is deeply alarming, if true, and those critics make extremely good arguments for their concerns

Nabber wrote:

You formed an opinion at childhood and have maintained through to adulthood and never questioned it. That's not scientific at all, that's fate based. I'm sure even the other AGW supporters will distance themselves from that logic.

Yes, I've realised since childhood that there was serious problems with the way we were treating the planet, I've spent my life gathering knowledge on the matter, confirming this, realising it is in fact our economic activities that are incompatible with maintaining an element of balance on this planet, noting, it may not be possible to have no negative impacts on the planet while we exist here, but believing we have over extended ourselves, and extinction of many species, including ourselves, is now very possible.

Nabber

Thargor wrote: »

Wow thats shocking even by the low standards of this thread.

I was being facetious to the fact that natural variability is not mentioned as playing any role in global temperatures by the main stream media and the general scientific community. :cool:

Nabber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again, I've moved on from the environmental science, even though it's continual research is now critical more than ever, and critics such as yourself are important, to continue questioning, but we will need you to try help us resolve these issues. It's important to note, some criticism of ipcc findings believes, that projected models are extremely conservative, which is deeply alarming, if true, and those critics make extremely good arguments for their concerns

Politics needs to be removed from the science.
Big name preachers of AGW are buying seafront property
Flying around the globe, shaming others for driving their cars to work.

The predicted extremes are so varying that any change we make today can't be measured in the future.
If the predictions are as bad as they say, well there is nothing we can do about it, maybe go back to stone age technology?

Global warming is only something that peoples and countries of wealth can be concerned about. It requires that people in poverty remain in poverty so as not to increase their energy needs. Then the wealthier move to technology and energy inputs not accessible to the poor. it's a societal disaster pushed in a large part by socialists (go figure). It's all pinned on a prediction that warmer weather means the demise of humans, and that ice core interpretations have shown that climate varies only fraction's of degrees over millennia. It reads like a B movie on the Sci-Fi channel.

There are more concerning matters, like starvation and abject poverty that we need to fix first.

The folks who are are pushing for change do very little to act out what they preach, usually defaulting to "well the government need too..."
Those people should be giving up their modern luxuries, but they don't, they stand on their pedestal virtue signalling to everyone else.

Climate change has made rich countries richer, and poor countries poorer

https://www.fastcompany.com/90338232/climate-change-has-made-rich-countries-richer-and-poor-countries-poorer

Climate change has already made poor countries poorer and rich countries richer

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136009/climate-change-has-already-made-poor-countries-poorer-and-rich-countries-richer/

How global warming has made the rich richer

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer

How are the poor impacted by climate change?

Even the overly BIASed and heavily moderated skepticalscience.com side step the question. Instead opting for the What's better for Humanity :rolleyes:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-poor-poverty.htm

Imagine that in heavily politicised issue, some people are gonna get richer and others poorer. :eek::eek:

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Are you denying all the expert scientific findings that link certain natural teleconnections with certain types of weather? Wanderer certainly does as he "couldn't be bothered" learning about it. I hope you're not the same.

There have always been fires in California. After all, it's on the edge of a great big desert. Positive PDO years do not eliminate the probability of fireweather, just reduces it. Just like we got a dry Spring sandwiched in between two very wet periods this year. Is that also down to ghc? I'm sure you'll try to claim that it is, the same way the Clifden and Cork floods were.

I can imagine you sitting at home searching the net for weather headlines, chomping at the bit to come in with your hyperbole every time there's a drought/flood/heatwave/snowstorm/hurricane/record high pressure....

You have an active imagination and you’re welcome to it.

I am not denying that there are weather patterns that have been linked to oscillating flows of energy between the different energy basins in our oceans and atmosphere, that would be silly, almost as silly as discounting the fact that the AGW has caused quadrillions of additional joules of energy to become trapped in our biosphere and these must, by definition, affect global weather patterns

All weather now occurs in a system with more energy encapsulated in it

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

Don't let Arkaisa catch you printing data without adding the source. :pac::pac:




2017, 2018 and 2019 colder than 2016.
So what ever we did in those 3 years we can repeat? Cause it worked to bring down temperatures? Am I doing this right?
If CO2 is constantly rising, why are we not seeing a year on year compound increase. More CO2 = More heat retention, except for 2017-2019 where more CO2 = Less heat? Surely based on AGW theory it should be in order of hottest 2019, 2018, 2017 ect..
If not, there must be another factor we are missing or don't understand. Or our instruments of measure aren't as accurate as we think.

It's worth noting tho.
The sparse records we do have from the ~1880s to 1970s have been adjusted.
Any temperature recording before that are extrapolated and estimated from ice cores and and decaying plant animals remains ect.

Extrapolation and interpretations, it's really open to interference.

Edit: When I say sparse records, I mean in terms of global coverage. Not how often records were maintained in a particular site.

Because not all the energy is retained in the ocean surface and atmosphere. 90% of the extra energy gets absorbed in the oceans

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/my_pubs/Meehl2011etalNCC.pdf

There are natural processes that sequester some of this heat in the deep ocean, and others that release sequestered heat to the surface again, these currents and oscillations impact on natural variability but the energy imbalance also affects these systems.

There is a worry that the safety valve of deep water heat sequestration is slowing down in its ability to mitigate climate change.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how_long_can_oceans_continue_to_absorb_earths_excess_heat

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

Global warming is only something that peoples and countries of wealth can be concerned about. It requires that people in poverty remain in poverty so as not to increase their energy needs. Then the wealthier move to technology and energy inputs not accessible to the poor. it's a societal disaster pushed in a large part by socialists (go figure). It's all pinned on a prediction that warmer weather means the demise of humans, and that ice core interpretations have shown that climate varies only fraction's of degrees over millennia. It reads like a B movie on the Sci-Fi channel.

Global average temperatures have increased by 1c already. Way beyond natural variability and we know what is causing it

You say poor countries don’t care about climate change? That’s a load of nonsense. It’s like saying a poor pensioner doesn’t care about the hole in her roof and her broken window. It’s not that she doesn’t care, it’s that she can’t afford to do the repairs she needs to prevent more damage from accumulating until her house becomes uninhabitable
Wealthy nations need to make climate action a priority and support the global drive to Transition to carbon neutral economies, for our own sake as much as the benefit of the developing world