Harvey Didn't Come Out of the Blue. Now Is the Time to Talk about Climate Change
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
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.
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.
- 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
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/...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."