Harvey was a hurricane. It could have occurred anywhere on the Gulf Coast. There is no direct relationship between climate change and any particular named storm.
To argue otherwise is to destroy one's credibility.
The problems that exacerbated the disaster of Harvey are indeed linked to climate change, but not in the simple-minded way that Naomi Klein makes out. The economic factors that lead to high-density construction in flood zones are the same as those that drive the wasteful use of fossil fuel energy. Overpopulation, overbuilding, market-driven urban planning practices, shoddy construction intended to maximize profit and waste while minimizing safety--all of these underlie both climate change and the disaster in Houston.
Raving about climate change as if every hurricane is a direct consequence is both intellectually ridiculous and it ignores the root cause: us and our wasteful, idiotic consumerism. If we understand that we, and not corporations or governments, are the root cause, we can fix climate change almost overnight by two simple expedients: stop having babies and stop buying things that we don't absolutely need.
By doing so, we could exercise power over the corporations that we unfairly demonize. No company is going to dig oil out of the ground if the demand does not justify it.
Klain's worst offence is being a stupid liberal, just like the ones who drove 36 hours or more one-way to join the protest at Standing Rock in gas-powered vehicles. Want to stop an oil pipeline? Stop using oil. It's easy: at least 80% of our energy use is wasted. Just cut the waste.
When stupid liberals write articles like this, a backlash is inevitable. Want four more years of Trump? Want the alt-right marching in the streets? Keep writing articles like this.
Instead, be a smart liberal. Start by having a look in the mirror.
A market is a market, whether it's distorted or regulated or monopolized or captured or unhealthy. The fact that markets can behave poorly because they are embedded in the wider world is absolutely intrinsic to the concept of a market.
Yeah, I think it is a mistake to try and think about the market and the political environment as two separate spheres rather than deeply linked entities constantly influencing each other. There is no such thing as "free market" without a government creating the conditions for one, whether that means subsidizing flood insurance or creating a navy to force other countries to go along with free trade (a development largely coinciding with the rise of laissez-faire theory).
Not all cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking. There's no way to prove that a particular case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. Does that mean we shouldn't talk about lung cancer as a reason to avoid smoking?
I'm more interested in sea level rise and warmer oceans as direct catalysts for more powerful storms with larger impacts occurring more frequently. The fact that we indiscriminately build cities and industries close to the coast obviously doesn't help.
Yes, overall, if you care that deeply about climate change you should not procreate - you may also consider an early exit for yourself. Then there is the eco-terrorist who will justify early exists for others by saving the planet. If you think those that supported Trump were bad now, just wait till "stupid liberals" start telling people who can and can not have babies. Good luck.
> All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.
You say this everywhere, we discussed this already. You have an unfounded, ignorant view of immigration. You are so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position.
And please, tell me why a tech news aggregator is the place for ignorant anti-immigration rhetoric?
What is wrong with immigration? What do you have against people looking to move to new countries. When someone moves, they pay taxes, they work, they contribute to society.
It's not easy to immigrate, and often smarter, better educated people are the ones who get to immigrate. It's a benefit for the country that gets a lot of immigrants (i.e. The US benefits from this a lot), and a detriment to the country that loses them. Often called brain drain.
Employers can choose who to hire, a smart employer won't care if the candidate is born in the same country as you, it has absolutely no bearing on their quality as a human, or the work they complete.
If you live in North America, aside from the aboriginals, everyone is descended from, or directly an immigrant. What makes you so much better than someone else looking to move?
Again, a tech news aggregator is not a place for ignorant opinions on, frankly, humans.
Because it seems you don’t even care to read before you attack.
As I mentioned before the facts are correct at least where I live.
The conclusions you can draw aren't necessarily correct.
But I think it would be correct to say that reducing the number of "native" westerners wouldn't help if they were replaced by an equal amount of other people with the same level of consumption.
The facts are also that it is hard to migrate, and that immigrants normally have to be highly educated.
By "native" you don't mean aboriginal, do you? At the end of the day we are all just people, and it really shouldn't matter to any of us where they were born as long as they are moral and respect laws.
Please don't engage in flamewars on Hacker News, please don't uncivilly attack others, and please don't use HN for political or ideological battle: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, and yours has. Moreover we've warned you before.
And your points are not valid, your point is simply that you don't want immigration. You aren't replying to facts about immigrants and immigration besides that it happens, and that people want it. We've all been immigrants at some point, so I don't see where you could possible come from in feeling so strongly about disallowing people from improving your country.
And s/he did so without accusing anyone of being "unfounded, ignorant".
And without accusing anyone of being "so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position."
Was it anti-immigration? I guess so. Was it off topic? Possibly, I'll let the mods decide.
An anti-immigrant stance is by definition unfounded and ignorant.
This is plain wrong (edit: as can be proved by looking up the definitions.)
If you said racist, then I would agree.
But there are a number of good reasons to be sceptical to certain kinds of large scale migrations.
Edit:
I know s/he is locked in their position because of how often they bring it up in threads all over HN.
You have just admitted to the same in this very thread.
It doesn't matter if I'm making an accusation. The other poster comments frequently on immigration on HN.
Commenting on immigration is not a crime. If you think a comment is somehow against the guidelines then flag it: the mods here are pretty fair (and can flame people way better than anyone of us).
You violated the HN guidelines badly by perpetuating this hellish and tedious flamewar. Please don't do that again.
Moreover, your comment history has many cases of being uncivil to others, as well as using HN for political battle. We ban accounts that do these things, so would you please stop doing them? They destroy the things that this site is supposed to be for.
P.S.: I've participated in a lot of political discussion on HN - topics including anti-trust, surveillance, patents and copyright, worker's rights, corporate corruption of science, law-enforcement overreach, etc. - and only immigration got me a warning and a ban. Perhaps you could lighten your mod load by updating the guidelines :)
I completely disagree with this perspective. If I did the most carbon-neutral thing and jumped off a building tomorrow it still would not make a difference. And it has really grown wearisome to read "this is why Trump won!!" in response to literally any other perspective or action.
We're trying to have a thoughtful conversation here. Name calling, handwavey dismissals, and provocation just start flamewars. Please aim for a higher standard so we can have a better chance at a substantive discussion.
I appreciate your call to take a cause seriously by making changes in one's personal life.
That said, every time I read someone advise "stop having babies" to combat climate change, I am reminded of the South Park episode wherein the overzealous hunters claim that deer overpopulation will cause some deer to die, so they need to kill the deer to prevent overpopulation and future deer deaths.
Climate change is the most likely reason behind rising sea levels, however, Houston is far enough inland to not have gotten any storm surge. What happened was the storm stalled over top of the city instead of moving on through. This meant that it picked up water on the south-east side of the storm and dropped it on the north-west side, right over the neighborhoods. And did it over a couple of days.
What it was .. was a severe rainfall event.
And the photo she led with, with the people walking along the highway divider? Houston's road network is designed to be a last-resort flood buffer to collect rainwater temporarily until it can drain to the east into the ship canal. So yeah, that's going to happen.
The good news is the $700+ million in FEMA money that was spent over the years since Katrina to prevent flooding at the city's medical centers appears to have worked. They stayed open.
See the link I posted above. Before this storm, the last hurricane of Category 3 or greater to strike the United States was Wilma, in 2005. The last Category 5 storm to strike the United States was Andrew, in 1992.
2) The actual topic of discussion here is whether climate change makes hurricanes worse. Unless you have some evidence that climate change was responsible for Sandy's track, its connection with the topic is dubious at best. Do you have such evidence?
It is not just whether it makes them worse but also whether it makes them more frequent. If the country is experiencing more highly damaging storms who cares whether they're category 3 or not?
It's a good thing practically no large cities are built around ocean ports, or else it would be real cause for concern that even minor storms becoming frequent could wreak havoc.
Was Hurricane Sandy not a "Serious Storm?" There have been many others - winter storms, devastating tornadoes, etc. Also, the world is a bigger place than the US. There have been truly catastrophic storms in other parts of the world.
So sure, if you define "serious storm" as "hurricane of cat 3 or higher" and "the world" is "US" then yes, you might have a point, I guess...
Perhaps not more likely, but since they run on heat, hurricanes could possibly become stronger in the future. I haven't seen any articles which reference research on this, as it's hard to filter out the ones with bias (in either direction).
I disagree that organizations such as AAAS, NASA, and NOAA aren't political. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "political." Do you define it as "elected official?"
If a newspaper editor is a democratically elected position because subscribers can cancel their subscriptions and advertisers can pull their ads, then Supreme Leader of North Korea is a democratically elected position, because if you don't like the way they rule you can just leave.
If in fact climate change is man made. There is strong evidence that this is a natural cycle. Are humans contributing greenhouse gasses? Yes, but what effect are they having? We don't really know, contrary to those who say they do. We have an idea, but climate prediction is still difficult and imperfect. So NO! The science isn't final.
You are using a straw man: science is never final.
We however do really know what effect CO2 has, you even use the term "greenhouse gases", that's the effect right there in the name.
You state "strong evidence", please post links to this I have a few debunking minutes left for today. Thank you
Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled...
Proposed responses to supposed man-made climate change are not free.
For example, if you're a rich American, you simply hop on the bandwagon and pay more for stuff. Buy a Tesla, live in the city, pay some extra taxes, etc.
Human CO2 contribution and the basic warming effect are well understood.
Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits, but not enough to offset the amount we are putting out. Thus, the global CO2 concentration has been rising over the past 100+ years, especially in recent decades.
A higher CO2 concentration blocks more thermal radiation from exiting through Earth's atmosphere into space. When this energy is blocked, it stays on Earth, raising the temperature.
Using models that have made successful predictions in recent decades, we can predict that we are in for at least another 1 degree Celsius raise in global temperature, and very likely more if we don't work hard to counteract the issue (and stop emitting so much CO2).
This temperature increase will have very real, significant consequences, and we saw it coming many years ago. There is a reason all other developed countries in the world don't deny climate change.
Ignoring the gratuitous insult, here's the NCA 2014 report
(the report itself is about the impact of climate change; Chapter 2 lays out the case for climate change caused by humans. Citations are at the end of the chapter.): http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/low/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impa...
There's also a web version where you can explore the highlights: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/.
The references are cited right there.
If you don't find this convincing, then I'd like to understand why. Also, if you don't trust this source (a US gov agency), I'd like to understand what kind of sources might you find more convincing.
You're right that we do not know what impact, if any, increased CO2 has on the environment. Of course people are downvoting your comment because cool-headed rational discussion of climate change is not supported on Hacker News.
Since the poles are currently colder, them heating up faster than the equator decreases that temperature differential. I don't think that's precisely the differential at issue with Atlantic hurricanes, though.
> Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Roger A. Pielke Jr in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
OK. I was able to read it with that information. So even the martyr you're holding up believes global warming is real, and man-made, and that it would make sense to limit greenhouse gases on this basis. And it seems he was not merely in trouble because he "didn't think climate change contributed to hurricanes" but because others objected to the way he did and presented his research. Not really compelling, to me.
There are a lot of things more crucial than climate change. There are towns with no building and zoning regulations, bad infrastructure for water drainage and few resources for tragedy prevention.
Low taxes and deregulation are very nice in the short run. But then comes what statisticians call black swans and you understand why you needed them. New Orleans and Houston are Gulf Coast cities, they should expect hurricanes and should build accordingly. Just as much as California builds expecting earthquakes.
France and Germany have a much bigger population density and lots of floods but a lot less fatalities. Maybe they know something about how to build cities.
Funny that you mention zoning - Houston has none. There's a guy living next door to an amusement park and during the summer has to listen to the screams of the adjacent roller coaster riders every 2.5 minutes. It's just an accepted part of living there.
However, Houston does have building codes, and structures must withstand 130-150 mph winds, depending on location and other factors. So new-construction buildings and those undergoing significant renovations must have things like hurricane-rated glazing, and roof ties to prevent them from being blown off.
- Naomi Klein is a well-known leftist activist and author with a clear agenda. Take what she writes with a grain of salt.
- Yes, it's important to think about climate change and how it may impact weather patterns. But no serious climate scientist would ever credit singular weather events to global climate trends, which take decades to evolve. It's lazy to use a hurricane to bolster climate change arguments for the same reason it's lazy to use a blizzard to bolster climate change skeptics.
This is like saying it's lazy to use lung cancer cases to bolster arguments against smoking, since there's no way to prove that a particular case of cancer was caused by smoking.
Obviously, climate change is nowhere near 'the cause' of this storm. However, the pattern of there being more storms and floods is a clear consequence of climate change.
Choosing this moment to drive home the need to reverse climate change makes sense. Which I think is the intention here.
This is more about arguing 'climate change is bad' as opposed to 'climate change is real. And really, we don't need to be discussing the latter, it has been well established.
Also worth noting that from the word "leftist" we know the political agenda of the parent commenter and should take what is written with an equally large grain of salt.
Anyone have proof that man's actions have significantly contributed to this storm's catastrophic power?
The title feels like political click bait, to me. How about proactively preparing for these events?
If you tell me, "there's no way we could prepare" I'll tell you "there's no way we can do whatever you think is required to meaningfully alter our supposed impact on the climate."
Disappointing article. It starts with "don't wait until the event and hype are past, but talk about climate change now. The fact that there are record-breaking events so often isn't normal." Then it continues to elaborate on politics, politics and politics. So, how abnormal is it? How often should we expect record-breaking events? If I remember correctly, the world was warming up already as part of its natural cycle. Maybe these record-breaking events are quite normal in this period.
I don't think so, and I think denying climate change is a dumb thing, but an article that spends ten paragraphs on politics with no exploration of any evidence is just useless and only fuels the political side of the discussion without convincing anyone. My dad for example cares little about this, and numbers like "three degrees Celsius worldwide over a decade" don't sound like much, but the number of times we hear "record-breaking event" on the news is a very tangible thing that could have been a good argument. But alas.
> the world was warming up already as part of its natural cycle
Do you think climate change is man made?
I agree strongly with the rest of your post, the article was way to political and could've supported the claim 'warmer earth -> more storms'. But those positions are easily supported, which makes the lack of such support even more egregious.
Largely. I don't know enough about it to cite any accurate figures, but from what I remember it was warming up perhaps half a degree per century and now, over the last half a century, it increased two degrees. Something in that order. So the climate would have been slowly changing and an ice age would follow the heat period eventually, but extrapolating we'd have an ice age (or something else that's disruptive for mankind) in two centuries or so instead of in a few hundred thousand years.
I'm interested in sea level rise and warmer oceans as direct catalysts for more powerful storms with larger impacts occurring more frequently. It seems like our models for predicting major hurricane events may be flawed.
In Harvey's case there was an intensification in the last day or so before landfall that caught many experts by surprise. It also came back out to sea and was able to reenergize stronger and faster in the warmer waters. These are troubling details that make me question our grasp on predicting the occurrence and strength of these types of storms.
> Which means there is a moral imperative for informed, caring people to name the real root causes behind this crisis — connecting the dots between climate pollution, systemic racism, underfunding of social services, and overfunding of police.
I see the obvious relevance of climate change and perhaps social services, but I don't see how systemic racism is a factor in the tragedy of the storm Harvey. Certainly, the article provides no context.
For rebuilding, it is likely to be an issue, but it is almost defeatist to assume ahead of time and include it in the current tragedy.
These conversations are endless and repetitive. Both sides are fully entrenched in their positions and I don't know how we can come back to having productive discussions on this topic when both sides have already decided what they believe to be true. How can we talk about anything when we don't agree on the facts?
To be honest, I'm learning a lot from the comments on this thread. I appreciate climate change skeptics speaking up because I know it's not a popular position to take. I also appreciate where everyone has added highly credible citations to back up their claims.
For those who struggle to understand skeptics point of view take a look at Michael Crichton's interview on Charlie Rose. This was the first time I came to appreciate the views of climate change skeptics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0
Essentially he says yes the planet is warming but the impact that will have is unclear and models suggesting a high degree of certainty are not being honest. (I don't think this is the same FUD of cigarette companies as some have suggested above).
I guess I feel it would be easier to trust the motives of skeptics if they weren't constantly shifting the goalposts and fighting the data. A couple years ago there was plenty of denial that climate change was happening at all. Now the data has made that position indefensible so now they seek to cast doubt on what the impacts will be.
I'm all for good science and skepticism, and for legitimate issues with the models. But all of this reeks of the same type of "science" that tobacco companies bankrolled to fight the lung cancer findings decades ago. Their motivations just make it very difficult to take them seriously.
104 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadTo argue otherwise is to destroy one's credibility.
The problems that exacerbated the disaster of Harvey are indeed linked to climate change, but not in the simple-minded way that Naomi Klein makes out. The economic factors that lead to high-density construction in flood zones are the same as those that drive the wasteful use of fossil fuel energy. Overpopulation, overbuilding, market-driven urban planning practices, shoddy construction intended to maximize profit and waste while minimizing safety--all of these underlie both climate change and the disaster in Houston.
Raving about climate change as if every hurricane is a direct consequence is both intellectually ridiculous and it ignores the root cause: us and our wasteful, idiotic consumerism. If we understand that we, and not corporations or governments, are the root cause, we can fix climate change almost overnight by two simple expedients: stop having babies and stop buying things that we don't absolutely need.
By doing so, we could exercise power over the corporations that we unfairly demonize. No company is going to dig oil out of the ground if the demand does not justify it.
Klain's worst offence is being a stupid liberal, just like the ones who drove 36 hours or more one-way to join the protest at Standing Rock in gas-powered vehicles. Want to stop an oil pipeline? Stop using oil. It's easy: at least 80% of our energy use is wasted. Just cut the waste.
When stupid liberals write articles like this, a backlash is inevitable. Want four more years of Trump? Want the alt-right marching in the streets? Keep writing articles like this.
Instead, be a smart liberal. Start by having a look in the mirror.
National Flood Insurance Program subsidizes building in flood-prone areas. Doesn't sound very market-driven to me.
Obviously, the above is ridiculous.
Most of the west has already drastically reduced the number of babies. All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.
You say this everywhere, we discussed this already. You have an unfounded, ignorant view of immigration. You are so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position.
And please, tell me why a tech news aggregator is the place for ignorant anti-immigration rhetoric?
It's not easy to immigrate, and often smarter, better educated people are the ones who get to immigrate. It's a benefit for the country that gets a lot of immigrants (i.e. The US benefits from this a lot), and a detriment to the country that loses them. Often called brain drain.
Employers can choose who to hire, a smart employer won't care if the candidate is born in the same country as you, it has absolutely no bearing on their quality as a human, or the work they complete.
If you live in North America, aside from the aboriginals, everyone is descended from, or directly an immigrant. What makes you so much better than someone else looking to move?
Again, a tech news aggregator is not a place for ignorant opinions on, frankly, humans.
You also haven't answered why you feel this way.
Aren't you are attacking him for something he didn't say here?
> All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead
What do you infer from this? It's pretty obvious.
This isn't the first time I've ran into this person.
Because it seems you don’t even care to read before you attack.
As I mentioned before the facts are correct at least where I live.
The conclusions you can draw aren't necessarily correct.
But I think it would be correct to say that reducing the number of "native" westerners wouldn't help if they were replaced by an equal amount of other people with the same level of consumption.
The facts are also that it is hard to migrate, and that immigrants normally have to be highly educated.
By "native" you don't mean aboriginal, do you? At the end of the day we are all just people, and it really shouldn't matter to any of us where they were born as long as they are moral and respect laws.
We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, and yours has. Moreover we've warned you before.
My feelings are irrelevant - they make my points neither more nor less valid.
And your points are not valid, your point is simply that you don't want immigration. You aren't replying to facts about immigrants and immigration besides that it happens, and that people want it. We've all been immigrants at some point, so I don't see where you could possible come from in feeling so strongly about disallowing people from improving your country.
- western families have fewer kids
- some politicians - at least in some countries in the West - tells people we need immigration
You might not like it and as usual correlation doesn't prove causation.
That still doesn't give you the right to be uncivil here.
And s/he did so without accusing anyone of being "unfounded, ignorant".
And without accusing anyone of being "so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position."
Was it anti-immigration? I guess so. Was it off topic? Possibly, I'll let the mods decide.
But you are the one who bring the accusations.
I know s/he is locked in their position because of how often they bring it up in threads all over HN.
It doesn't matter if I'm making an accusation. The other poster comments frequently on immigration on HN.
This is plain wrong (edit: as can be proved by looking up the definitions.)
If you said racist, then I would agree.
But there are a number of good reasons to be sceptical to certain kinds of large scale migrations.
Edit:
I know s/he is locked in their position because of how often they bring it up in threads all over HN.
You have just admitted to the same in this very thread.
It doesn't matter if I'm making an accusation. The other poster comments frequently on immigration on HN.
Commenting on immigration is not a crime. If you think a comment is somehow against the guidelines then flag it: the mods here are pretty fair (and can flame people way better than anyone of us).
Where was large scale migration ever mentioned? It's hard to migrate, that is a fact.
>Commenting on immigration is not a crime.
Neither is replying to a comment on immigration.
Moreover, your comment history has many cases of being uncivil to others, as well as using HN for political battle. We ban accounts that do these things, so would you please stop doing them? They destroy the things that this site is supposed to be for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Is that what pointing out taboo facts is?
P.S.: I've participated in a lot of political discussion on HN - topics including anti-trust, surveillance, patents and copyright, worker's rights, corporate corruption of science, law-enforcement overreach, etc. - and only immigration got me a warning and a ban. Perhaps you could lighten your mod load by updating the guidelines :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That said, every time I read someone advise "stop having babies" to combat climate change, I am reminded of the South Park episode wherein the overzealous hunters claim that deer overpopulation will cause some deer to die, so they need to kill the deer to prevent overpopulation and future deer deaths.
What it was .. was a severe rainfall event.
And the photo she led with, with the people walking along the highway divider? Houston's road network is designed to be a last-resort flood buffer to collect rainwater temporarily until it can drain to the east into the ship canal. So yeah, that's going to happen.
The good news is the $700+ million in FEMA money that was spent over the years since Katrina to prevent flooding at the city's medical centers appears to have worked. They stayed open.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml#m
2) The actual topic of discussion here is whether climate change makes hurricanes worse. Unless you have some evidence that climate change was responsible for Sandy's track, its connection with the topic is dubious at best. Do you have such evidence?
Edit: No, they're not "more frequent", either.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
So sure, if you define "serious storm" as "hurricane of cat 3 or higher" and "the world" is "US" then yes, you might have a point, I guess...
Luckily the AAAS, NASA, NOAA aren't nearly as political.
Many more layers of indirection for NASA officials. Still, I think NASA has heaps of politics.
That is not the least bit similar to being voted for.
I think money talks -- in journalism and in traditional elections.
I agree to disagree with you.
Also it's the DPRK
Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled...
FUD works both ways.
For example, if you're a rich American, you simply hop on the bandwagon and pay more for stuff. Buy a Tesla, live in the city, pay some extra taxes, etc.
If you're not rich, you have to think carefully.
Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits, but not enough to offset the amount we are putting out. Thus, the global CO2 concentration has been rising over the past 100+ years, especially in recent decades.
A higher CO2 concentration blocks more thermal radiation from exiting through Earth's atmosphere into space. When this energy is blocked, it stays on Earth, raising the temperature.
Using models that have made successful predictions in recent decades, we can predict that we are in for at least another 1 degree Celsius raise in global temperature, and very likely more if we don't work hard to counteract the issue (and stop emitting so much CO2).
This temperature increase will have very real, significant consequences, and we saw it coming many years ago. There is a reason all other developed countries in the world don't deny climate change.
Could you please point me to your most convincing scientific argument, so that I can understand it too?
A google search for "case for climate change" would also give you meaningful results. But, you already knew that.
What are your sources? Care to cite one?
There's also a web version where you can explore the highlights: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/. The references are cited right there.
If you don't find this convincing, then I'd like to understand why. Also, if you don't trust this source (a US gov agency), I'd like to understand what kind of sources might you find more convincing.
They run on heat differential, like any heat engine. A uniform global temperature increase would likely have minimal effects.
Edit: apparently someone doesn't believe me. Here's a source: http://www.npr.org/2014/12/18/371438087/arctic-is-warming-tw...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.
You might have that understanding because the media punishes disention.
Low taxes and deregulation are very nice in the short run. But then comes what statisticians call black swans and you understand why you needed them. New Orleans and Houston are Gulf Coast cities, they should expect hurricanes and should build accordingly. Just as much as California builds expecting earthquakes.
France and Germany have a much bigger population density and lots of floods but a lot less fatalities. Maybe they know something about how to build cities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40554842 - Paris got 54mm of rain - "heaviest July deluge on record", "the equivalent of 27 days of rainfall".
Harvey has dumped 25x that (51" and rising) on Houston.
If you dumped half that on Paris, I guarantee it would be a national disaster on the same scale.
However, Houston does have building codes, and structures must withstand 130-150 mph winds, depending on location and other factors. So new-construction buildings and those undergoing significant renovations must have things like hurricane-rated glazing, and roof ties to prevent them from being blown off.
https://edocs.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/divisions/...
- Naomi Klein is a well-known leftist activist and author with a clear agenda. Take what she writes with a grain of salt.
- Yes, it's important to think about climate change and how it may impact weather patterns. But no serious climate scientist would ever credit singular weather events to global climate trends, which take decades to evolve. It's lazy to use a hurricane to bolster climate change arguments for the same reason it's lazy to use a blizzard to bolster climate change skeptics.
This is more about arguing 'climate change is bad' as opposed to 'climate change is real. And really, we don't need to be discussing the latter, it has been well established.
The idea that there are more (and/or more severe) hurricanes making landfall in the United States in recent years is not supported by the evidence.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
The title feels like political click bait, to me. How about proactively preparing for these events?
If you tell me, "there's no way we could prepare" I'll tell you "there's no way we can do whatever you think is required to meaningfully alter our supposed impact on the climate."
I don't think so, and I think denying climate change is a dumb thing, but an article that spends ten paragraphs on politics with no exploration of any evidence is just useless and only fuels the political side of the discussion without convincing anyone. My dad for example cares little about this, and numbers like "three degrees Celsius worldwide over a decade" don't sound like much, but the number of times we hear "record-breaking event" on the news is a very tangible thing that could have been a good argument. But alas.
Do you think climate change is man made?
I agree strongly with the rest of your post, the article was way to political and could've supported the claim 'warmer earth -> more storms'. But those positions are easily supported, which makes the lack of such support even more egregious.
Largely. I don't know enough about it to cite any accurate figures, but from what I remember it was warming up perhaps half a degree per century and now, over the last half a century, it increased two degrees. Something in that order. So the climate would have been slowly changing and an ice age would follow the heat period eventually, but extrapolating we'd have an ice age (or something else that's disruptive for mankind) in two centuries or so instead of in a few hundred thousand years.
In Harvey's case there was an intensification in the last day or so before landfall that caught many experts by surprise. It also came back out to sea and was able to reenergize stronger and faster in the warmer waters. These are troubling details that make me question our grasp on predicting the occurrence and strength of these types of storms.
I see the obvious relevance of climate change and perhaps social services, but I don't see how systemic racism is a factor in the tragedy of the storm Harvey. Certainly, the article provides no context.
For rebuilding, it is likely to be an issue, but it is almost defeatist to assume ahead of time and include it in the current tragedy.
For those who struggle to understand skeptics point of view take a look at Michael Crichton's interview on Charlie Rose. This was the first time I came to appreciate the views of climate change skeptics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0
Essentially he says yes the planet is warming but the impact that will have is unclear and models suggesting a high degree of certainty are not being honest. (I don't think this is the same FUD of cigarette companies as some have suggested above).
An even quicker way to understand skeptics is to read this blog: http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2017/6/6/the-tribes-of-c.... The 5 points on climate change, and where skeptics vs. scientists differ, is clearly laid out.
Essentially liberals and conservatives largely agree on the facts but differ on the policies that can help.
I'm all for good science and skepticism, and for legitimate issues with the models. But all of this reeks of the same type of "science" that tobacco companies bankrolled to fight the lung cancer findings decades ago. Their motivations just make it very difficult to take them seriously.