Should You Feel Guilty for Enjoying Global Warming?

[Ben]

An actual question in The Atlantic, asked of people purporting to be scientists, even though they can't differentiate weather from climate. Also that short term weather in a few states in the US speaks for the world. On the other end, OMG, it hasn't rained this much in CA since.... 1997.

I like that Twitchy is finally using my argument, regarding the difference between planetary timescales and human timescales. Hopefully they'll also start reminding people that CO2 is at one if its lowest points in the last four billion years.

Also, I love the one comment about, "No, you should just be a miserable prick all the time." It covers so much more progressive SJW territory than AGW. 

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/02/23/plagued-with-guilt-because-your-carbon-emissions-brought-you-this-mild-february/

[MechAg94]

Is this about the time a global warming person says local weather is not an indicator of overall average global temperatures?  I guess that is only true when convenient. 

[230RN]

Among others, I've said my piece on relative sample sizes a long time ago.  You can't use a small 200 year precisely measured sample to contradict the regular climate cycles over the past half million years --even if they were assessed only by proxy methods.

They stand out like a sore thumb.

Take it or leave it.  Puck your hockey stick and the mule it rode in on.

Terry

[charby]

If Global warming and/or climate change is real, wouldn't it be smart to plan for it instead of kvetching about it? Like infrastructure changes, moving cities out of potential high water zones if all the sea ice melts? Develop new crops that grow in the changes areas, water management for extremes in moisture? etc?

[Hawkmoon]

When it gets too hot to farm on Greenland I'll consider starting to think about discussing global warming.

[Ben]

If Global warming and/or climate change is real, wouldn't it be smart to plan for it instead of kvetching about it? Like infrastructure changes, moving cities out of potential high water zones if all the sea ice melts? Develop new crops that grow in the changes areas, water management for extremes in moisture? etc?

There is no doubt that climate change is real. It's a scientific fact - climate changes.

You hit on what everyone puts in the background - it's not about the changing climate and "OMG the Earth is going to die!". It's about inconveniencing shortsighted humans. Part of that is not the fault of humanity. When sea level rose, or it got too hot or too cold 10K and 20K and 30K and 40K and 50K years ago, humans picked up and moved. Humans had less of a grasp of science and of the planet, but they were much more practical in the "oh well" sense. Climate change made some areas less liveable, farmable, etc and other areas more so. Humans adapted.

Over the last 100 years (notice the exponential difference), we built complex infrastructure 100 feet from a three dimensional body of extremely dynamic fluid that takes up 70% of the Earth's surface, is way deeper than the highest terrestrial peak, and somehow we get upset when that dynamic fluid fluctuates by 0.0000000001% over a few hundred years.

They like to say it's about the Earth, but it's really about the hubris of humans.

[Perd Hapley]

In the Greater Ferguson Metrolplex, we are currently enjoying a Global Cooling. The temperatures have dropped about 10 degrees F since 9 o'clock this morning. At this rate, we will hit absolute zero in about a week. WE'RE DOOMED!!

[Marnoot]

I found this Quora entry by a UC Berkely professor (of all things) an interesting read on the subject of "97% consensus" on climate change: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-widely-cited-studies-in-the-news-that-are-false/answer/Richard-Muller-3 .

The short of it is he says 97% of climate scientists would probably answer yes to “Do you believe that humans are affecting climate?”, which is the typical survey question asked and then the results touted. However, there is a significant lack of consensus as to the degree, the threat, the severity, etc., of that effect, ranging from "Al Gore was right!" to "eh, nothing to worry about" even though the propaganda would have you believe there's 97% agreement all on the extreme "Al Gore was right!" end of the spectrum.

[Ben]

I found this Quora entry by a UC Berkely professor (of all things) an interesting read on the subject of "97% consensus" on climate change: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-widely-cited-studies-in-the-news-that-are-false/answer/Richard-Muller-3 .

The short of it is he says 97% of climate scientists would probably answer yes to “Do you believe that humans are affecting climate?”, which is the typical survey question asked and then the results touted. However, there is a significant lack of consensus as to the degree, the threat, the severity, etc., of that effect, ranging from "Al Gore was right!" to "eh, nothing to worry about" even though the propaganda would have you believe there's 97% agreement all on the extreme "Al Gore was right!" end of the spectrum.

Very good point. It's difficult to disprove human inputs, but it's also very difficult to prove those inputs are more than statistical noise over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand year climate cycles.

There is a major difference in listening to dimwit "climate scientist" Michael Mann and actual planetary climatologists or physicists (hello Freeman Dyson) on the matter. Which introduces another point that I've made before: Just because someone calls themselves a "climate scientist" doesn't mean they actually have any expertise or education in the discipline. It's kind of like the difference between an "environmental scientist" today, and the definition of "environmental scientist" from thirty years ago. The latter likely took classes in physical science, chemistry, and physics. The former likely took environmental management classes.

I'm telling you right now, half of that "97% of climate scientists" are biologists and similar who added some "climate change" component to a paper on purple tongued tree frogs just so they could get published.

[Andiron]

Can't complain about 75* in northern Ohio on 2/24.  Enjoying the balmy weather seems to just piss off that bunch,  which makes it that much sweeter :D


*made small talk about how nice out it was today,  and got scolded by this dumb bint.  Gave it right back to her and said I couldn't wait until Lake Erie surpassed Miami as a spring break destination.  Is it really that goddamned hard to just enjoy the gorgeous weather and revel that it's not -5 out,  which is more the norm..

[MechAg94]

The 97% number was also only from a very limited number of people who actually responded to a poll.  It is BS number that has been repeated so much some people think it is true.

[MechAg94]

Besides, think of all the new farm land and coast lines in Northern Canada we could move to. 

[MechAg94]

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/02/25/science-status-settled-chelsea-clinton-suggests-method-for-predicting-climate-change/

   Chelsea Clinton
    ✔
    @ChelseaClinton

    Ummm... The scientific method? https://twitter.com/vicenews/status/835296758494347265 …

    Follow
    Bill O'Keefe @DefendWallSt

    I don't think the scientific method means what you think it does

This is entertaining.  

When someone tries to sound smart and says something exceedingly stupid.

[Ben]

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/02/25/science-status-settled-chelsea-clinton-suggests-method-for-predicting-climate-change/This is entertaining.  

Perfect example of someone whose entire knowledge on the subject comes from Slate.

[Doggy Daddy]

Perfect example of someone whose entire knowledge on the subject comes from Slate.

She's nuts.  Also, your link needs a minor ediot.  (joike intenshunell))

[Hawkmoon]

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/02/25/science-status-settled-chelsea-clinton-suggests-method-for-predicting-climate-change/This is entertaining.  

@ChelseaClinton I don't think the scientific method means what you think it does

[Hawkmoon]

She's nuts.  Also, your link needs a minor ediot.  (joike intenshunell))

She's not nuts. She's stupid. She has never had to DO anything in her entire life, so she hasn't had any reason to learn how to, like, think. The big difference between Chelsea and most stupid people is that she doesn't know she's stupid.

[grampster]

  The big difference between Chelsea and most stupid people is that she doesn't know she's stupid.

^^^^This.  When attending college many moon come schawkta ago, I had a history professor who said that "Knowledge is knowing when you don't know."

[charby]

Besides, think of all the new farm land and coast lines in Northern Canada we could move to. 

Probably not the best farm ground, thin soils over a hard rock pan.

[gunsmith]

 Ben correct again, I try to explain the hubris of it all but most of my friends on the liberal side don't get it

[BlueStarLizzard]

Other animals affect the environment, often in bad ways. I'm not sure exactly what we have to feel guilty over when we do it. *shrug*

[Scout26]

It's the damn Martians causing it:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971218090305.htm

[Firethorn]

If Global warming and/or climate change is real, wouldn't it be smart to plan for it instead of kvetching about it? Like infrastructure changes, moving cities out of potential high water zones if all the sea ice melts? Develop new crops that grow in the changes areas, water management for extremes in moisture? etc?

Some areas are already doing this.  I remember reading/hearing that Miami has a plan and is constructing on the idea that sea levels are going to be a meter or more higher, on average.  Construction is being built higher, the roads are being elevated some, drainage systems beefed up tremendously.

On a "best case" GW is fake basis:  It amounts to very good hurricane/tsunami protection. 
If GW goes through as foreseen:  The city will survive, even if buildings before this began might need to be modified or replaced.  Lifting a skyscraper a meter or so is actually doable, but very slow and expensive.  But generally cheaper than having to write off the first floor(see Venice).
GW is much worse:  City needs to be abandoned, all that work is wasted.  Though it'll still give the city decades to figure out another plan.

[MechAg94]

Probably not the best farm ground, thin soils over a hard rock pan.

I thought all the tundra areas were not thin soils at all.  At least that is what I gathered from the stories about the US Army trying to build the road to Alaska.  I imagine there are plenty of areas that fit your description.

The interesting thing to think about also is how much good farmland has had suburbs built over the top of it around major cities.  A lot of the suburbs on the West side of Houston fit that description.  Different topic I guess.

[Triphammer]

If all the ice melted from the South Pole, although it seems to be accumulating, oceans level may be affected by some amount.
North pole ice  is already floating, displacing its own weight. If it were to melt there would be NO change in sea level.