Is there any study that gives a model what happens during summer time when entire albedo effect of the northern cap is lost?
US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
81–90 of 224 posts
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#82I'm starting to think that governments and people will be unable to fight CO2 emissions for several reasons: * Reducing living standards is counter intuitive when consumerism is the norm, in France the Yellow Vests movement showed that it's very difficult to tax carbon if it punish poor people. Inequality and carbon emissions are deeply intertwined. * People will just consume, feel guilty, maybe take some individual…
I agree. We as humans won't take it serious until some really bad happens. Right now is just inconvenient. Even though you, me and others are willing to take hard steps to allow the problem to get solved, most people are not. It is so externalized that they don't really get it yet. Not to mention the people who don't think it is even a real thing.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#83> beating the previous national high temperature mark by more than 4C in one go, as happened in Canada last week, is virtually unprecedented. This event should be a warning call to all people who believe that a global warming of only 2 degrees Celsius will be barely noticeable. One positive effect is that scientists have collected a lot of data that will help them improve climate models.
On the other hand, proponents of climate apocalypse frequently make a distinction between weather and climate.
Let's say alcohol didn't exist. Then, one day it gets invented...
Traffic deaths would rise because people would increasingly drive under the influence.
In this situation you could say: "This crazy unusual number of traffic deaths near this bar is obviously the result of drunk driving."
In this situation you could not say: "My town had the lowest number of traffic deaths ever recorded last year, so alcohol has not increased accident rates."
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a causal arrow from climate to weather. It just isn't as crude as "warm planet equals warm weather". It would be closer to the truth to say "warm planet equals more unsettled weather, averaging warmer over the large scale, but including unseasonal cold as (for example) wind patterns distort".
I appreciate that. From the perspective of the skeptic the Popper quote comes to mind. Karl Popper — 'A theory that explains everything, explains nothing'
Indeed. It goes both ways, I think of people saying "Well, if you admitted your theory can't explain this one particular thing, that shows that it's useless, and can't possibly be explaining the things you claim it does explain! If there's something it can't explain, that means it's unlikely to be valid!" An argument beloved by both covid and climate deniers. Nope.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#85I've been cranking up my AC and adding ice to my water to combat the heat but I recently read an article about sea-life [0] boiling to death in their natural habitats (oceans, seas) which made me realize that animals in the wild increasingly don't have this option. It made me really sad to think about the fact that we'll probably see mass-extinction events (for animals, etc.) in the near future or at least within my…
>I recently read an article about sea-life [0] boiling to death in their natural habitats (oceans, seas)
This is seriously retarded. The HCO was a whole 6000 years ago.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-p...
"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. "
What are these creatures boiling to death? Did they evolve yesterday?
Six thousand fucking years. The geological equivalent of last week.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is what people who argue against climate change stand to gain. The argument for climate change is: "humans are polluting the planet and it's causing a change in the environment and will have a disastrous effect on the climate." The arguments I hear against climate change always seem to concede that humans are polluting the planet, but argue in different ways (natural cycle/not really happening…
Because it would lead to hindering economic growth, especially in developing nations, more poverty, and more tyrannical governments. And if your nation adopts those policies, and another one doesn't and increases, you're much worse off. It's basically a prisoner's dilemma on a geopolitical scale, and there's no single guaranteed strategy to win it.
Well said. There is a lot of surface level Greta Thunberg type activism but it is a bigger and trickier problem especially for those not in 1st tier countries
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#87I thought we where not supposed to conflate weather and climate change? https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_we... https://www.science20.com/news_articles/stop_conflating_weat... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/dont-be-fool...
Funny how these ideas are touted until there's an hot summer then all the articles talking about how this _weather_ is a _clear example_ of climate change.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is what people who argue against climate change stand to gain. The argument for climate change is: "humans are polluting the planet and it's causing a change in the environment and will have a disastrous effect on the climate." The arguments I hear against climate change always seem to concede that humans are polluting the planet, but argue in different ways (natural cycle/not really happening…
> What I don't understand is why people who argue against climate change stand to gain. I suspect it is something like psychological security (“I’ve only known a history of rapid progress and I’m not emotionally prepared to confront the possibility that life will be worse for my children and grandchildren, nor that I was complicit”). At least that’s the average joe climate denier. For the very wealthy it’s simple gre…
The wealthy will likely gain by climate change, already there is a wall of money looking to benefit from sustainable and transition finance.
Not so well off people might - correctly - see that they will be disproportionately hit. So for them to push against policies (perceived or in reality) making them poorer is not totally insane.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#89Not only is it possible but the worst heat waves on record were experienced in the 1930s: https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36
What I don't understand is what people who argue against climate change stand to gain. The argument for climate change is: "humans are polluting the planet and it's causing a change in the environment and will have a disastrous effect on the climate." The arguments I hear against climate change always seem to concede that humans are polluting the planet, but argue in different ways (natural cycle/not really happening…
> why would it be a bad idea to reduce the level of pollution in the environment
For the record I do believe in climate change, and think we need to deal with it. But to answer your question, if climate change indeed _weren’t_ caused by human CO2 emissions, then why would atmospheric CO2 even count as pollution?
Combating climate change isn’t some simple and easy change. It would require people to dramatically change their way of life, usually for the worse (smaller dwellings, less AC, fewer children, less meat consumption, no non-essential international travel, etc.)
It wouldn’t be worth doing if atmospheric CO2 were benign.
Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've been cranking up my AC What is your power source?
I’m curious why you ask this question. Does the answer matter or in some way lead to a broader point? If so what is that point? Assume it’s the worst possible energy source as far as you are concerned. Then what is your response?
Shaming individuals for the crimes of an entire society and corporations, is so disingenuous and lazy, but it pops up in every single discussion on this subject.