93 Trillion Dollars

[Guest]

1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

hmm...

Interesting...

 

The link explicity says climate change is causing a decrease in snowfall. I don't get how snowstorms can possibly be interpreted as evidence of climate change in light of that.

Quote

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.⁹

 

[Hestia11 572]

Just now, NYrepublican said:

The link explicity says climate change is causing a decrease in snowfall. I don't get how snowstorms can possibly be interpreted as evidence of climate change in light of that.

 

https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/winter-storms/

Intensity and amount, to be exact. 

[admin_270 834]

Anecdotal and regional weather isn't nearly good enough. You have to get to global and statistical analyses of the events in question. Saying 'weather has been crazy in Alberta!' isn't nearly good enough to justify the massive expenditures the Green New Deal advocates are calling for. Saying 'there was a lot of snow in Iowa over the last 2 weeks' isn't nearly good enough. Just as saying 'It was a really cool summer here in England!' is not nearly good enough to show there isn't global warming.

This stuff is immensely complex - just one issue, like, say, the study of and theories relating to increased snow fall, is immensely complex.

[admin_270 834]

The IPCC report is probably the best starting point. It tries to suss out what we know about things like tornadoes, hurricanes, and so on. The general view is that increasing temperatures lead to slightly more moisture being held by the air, and so more rain, snow, and so on. So, hurricanes will hold more moisture, and so could have more extreme flooding damage. However, I repeat, this stuff is *complex* and *full of uncertainties*. Just trying to get an accurate picture of what's happening now is very difficult. Trying to get an accurate picture of all these natural phenomena over the last 100 years is much more difficult. Then trying to go from that to what will happen in the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years, is even more difficult.

[admin_270 834]

The Green New Deal takes as its starting point that imminent, worldwide catastrophe is highly likely without radical change in energy policy. The problem is that going from "Temperatures have been increasing" (broad scientific consensus) to "The end is nigh without massive government spending!" requires a non-trivial amount of leg work.

[vcczar 1,224]

@admin_270 Approximately 97% of climate researchers (i.e. eminent experts in this field) believe in man-made climate change. These people conduct the type of research you are talking about and have found convincing proof of man-made climate change. These are scientists; you are not. They are credible on climate change; you and I are not. But I happen to agree with them just as I would if 97% of brain surgeons recommended that I have a tumor removed from my brain (if I had a tumor). I will also say that if 97% of climate researchers did not believe in climate change, then I would not either. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause

 

[admin_270 834]

@vcczar

The problem is that the question isn't whether there is man-made climate change in some general sense. The question is 1. the likely scope and time range of possible consequences and 2. the best policy responses given an answer to 1.

So, saying 97% of the relevant scientists (say) believe there is man-made climate change *isn't nearly good enough*.

[WVProgressive 56]

4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@vcczar

The problem is that the question isn't whether there is man-made climate change in some general sense. The question is 1. the likely scope and time range of possible consequences and 2. the best policy responses given an answer to 1.

So, saying 97% of the relevant scientists (say) believe there is man-made climate change *isn't nearly good enough*.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[admin_270 834]

@WVProgressive

Yes, that's the sort of report I was referencing. Those are policymaker reports, so you have to treat them carefully, but they're a good starting point.

Have you read the 3rd chapter of that report?

[Kingthero 8]

I'd like to note that until recent years, we were relatively unaware of weather patterns nationwide, especially worldwide. It took an event to be extremely drastic, such as the common occurrence of tornados in death valley, or something like the dust bowl, to be recognized universally. 

 

And, most of the values from back in the day we have to compare are static compared to the dynamic facts of now.

 

Now, I believe climate change is real, but people citing crazy weather from places other than their own is a new thing, and what if weather actually has its radical phases too? We've only been studying the largest coefficients in weather for only a few decades.

 

I'd say we should easily work to target carbon, as that is most definitely a rising problem (see the 100%*x coefficient) of the carbon in the atmosphere in modern history. However, I believe citing standard weather that goes crazy once in a while is, well, shortsighted.

[Patine 468]

1 hour ago, Kingthero said:

I'd like to note that until recent years, we were relatively unaware of weather patterns nationwide, especially worldwide. It took an event to be extremely drastic, such as the common occurrence of tornados in death valley, or something like the dust bowl, to be recognized universally. 

 

And, most of the values from back in the day we have to compare are static compared to the dynamic facts of now.

 

Now, I believe climate change is real, but people citing crazy weather from places other than their own is a new thing, and what if weather actually has its radical phases too? We've only been studying the largest coefficients in weather for only a few decades.

 

I'd say we should easily work to target carbon, as that is most definitely a rising problem (see the 100%*x coefficient) of the carbon in the atmosphere in modern history. However, I believe citing standard weather that goes crazy once in a while is, well, shortsighted.

You, of course, realize meteorologists can retroactively, through statistical analysis and records, trace those old national and global weather patterns like they were unable to at the time.

[Sunnymentoaddict 39]

17 hours ago, admin_270 said:

What are the negative effects currently?

Polar ice caps melting causing fresh water entering the oceans to weaken the ocean currents. Droughts will be more normal. Harsh winters, partially related to the polar ice caps making it harder for warm water to flow more north.  And right now, shipping vessels leaving the ports of China, and Japan can sail through Canada during the summer time, because of the melting ice caps. 

[Guest]

If she cared about climate change she'd be open to a deal that didn't include the non climate change stuff.

[Guest]

On 3/1/2019 at 5:10 PM, vcczar said:

@admin_270 Approximately 97% of climate researchers (i.e. eminent experts in this field) believe in man-made climate change. These people conduct the type of research you are talking about and have found convincing proof of man-made climate change. These are scientists; you are not. They are credible on climate change; you and I are not. But I happen to agree with them just as I would if 97% of brain surgeons recommended that I have a tumor removed from my brain (if I had a tumor). I will also say that if 97% of climate researchers did not believe in climate change, then I would not either. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause

 

97% of people think that Trump's a human being. That tells you literally nothing about whether they support him or not.

[Patine 468]

@NYrepublican Denial of reality, despite abundant and empirical evidence, is a surefire sign of mental illness - and of the very serious and highly delusional type, not simply bipolar, manic-depressive, OCD, or neurotic or compulsive manifestations.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Patine said:

@NYrepublican Denial of reality, despite abundant and empirical evidence, is a surefire sign of mental illness - and of the very serious and highly delusional type, not simply bipolar, manic-depressive, OCD, or neurotic or compulsive manifestations.

I'll grant that humans may play a role in it but to say it's just humans is absurd until further evidence is provided.

[Patine 468]

Just now, NYrepublican said:

I'll grant that humans may play a role in it but to say it's just humans is absurd until further evidence is provided.

Well, shift in climate in climate from the Last Great Ice Age to more moderate temperatures (as he saw them in the 1920's), starting back in the Pleistocene Period, I believe, took a period of time numerous times as great as all of recorded human history (from the first Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform onward). The current process is so immensely and extremely accelerated in comparison, that to say humans are not, in huge majority part, responsible, would be absurd.

[Patine 468]

18 hours ago, Patine said:

Well, shift in climate in climate from the Last Great Ice Age to more moderate temperatures (as he saw them in the 1920's), starting back in the Pleistocene Period, I believe, took a period of time numerous times as great as all of recorded human history (from the first Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform onward). The current process is so immensely and extremely accelerated in comparison, that to say humans are not, in huge majority part, responsible, would be absurd.

I await you're response, @NYrepublican.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Patine said:

I await you're response, @NYrepublican.

I'm a little busy y'know.

[IonicAmalgam 0]

Quote

I'll grant that humans may play a role in it but to say it's just humans is absurd until further evidence is provided

Who cares about if the symptom is man made or not? Arguing over the cause is a red herring and irrelevant. It's happening, and something should be done. It's not relevant the fact that climate change is happening and something needs to be done.

Also this entire poll is a straw man argument.