I love climate change

[Omnitheo]

A warmer planet does not mean a more hospitable one. Unless your definition of the planet is the 100km from the US border. There is still the entire rest of the planet, including areas formerly quite hospitable and good for agriculture which now experience such harsh droughts that nothing can be grown there anymore.

Heck even look at Arizona last year where it became too hot for planes to take off, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue due to flight delays. Even in BC, warmer temperatures are allowing pine beetles to thrive, how long until that starts cutting into BCs forestry revenue?

Climate change opponents tend to be influenced by politics, and the politics being that it’s not worth spending money on something that doesn’t have a visible payoff (and of course ignoring the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure). Countries like China however are able to look at the scientific evidence and realize that if their policies go unchanged, they will cause far more harm and financial ruin in the future. As China is a one party state, they know that it is their political party, and perhaps even their president personally who will have to deal with the repercussions in the future. In the US however, they have become shortsighted. Caring only about the next election. What is happening 4 years from now. What happens 20 years, or 100 years from now is unimportant, because they won’t be responsible anymore.

[Glacier]

A warmer planet does not mean a more hospitable one. Unless your definition of the planet is the 100km from the US border. There is still the entire rest of the planet, including areas formerly quite hospitable and good for agriculture which now experience such harsh droughts that nothing can be grown there anymore.

Heck even look at Arizona last year where it became too hot for planes to take off, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue due to flight delays. Even in BC, warmer temperatures are allowing pine beetles to thrive, how long until that starts cutting into BCs forestry revenue?

There you go confusing weather with climate yet again. You are picking specific events, and pretending they present a trend. That's no different the conspiracy theorists who experienced the 3rd coldest year in 30 years in the Okanagan, and say, "look, it's getting colder."

As for warming being good or bad, it can be both for sure depending on where you live, but the evidence I've seen shows it's more good than bad, but hey, if you think otherwise, I'm all ears, but so far you are doing just as I am, and making an educated guess, which is obviously not a scientific answer, but the best we can do without an actual study of some kind.

The same people who don't believe in climate change, will be the ones complaining when you can't grow food in California and their grocery bill goes up.

If you grow less in California, you grow more in Washington and Oregon and BC. Grocery prices would actually go down because they'd be grown closer to home.

At the end of the day we can sit around and discuss this but we can see the results around us. More wildfires, more flash floods, greater snow during snow storms.

This is more anecdotes and opinions. Show me evidence that flash floods, wildfires, and snow storms are increasing.

[TylerM4]

You are right about it being coming far from simple, but I disagree with respect to the weather becoming more violent. I've asked the climate change believers on here and elsewhere for evidence that the planet is getting more "violent" or that extremes are increasing. All I get is crickets because there's not a shred of evidence to back up that claim.

Sometimes someone will do the exact same thing the conspiracy theorists do when they say "oh look, it's cold outside, therefore global warming is bunk," by saying, "look, there was a big hurricane last year," or my favourite, "look, a dead polar bear!" That's utterly meaningless and as stupid as the conspiracy theorists.

In fact, that's exactly what you just did here by pointing to record events last year. That's called anecdotal evidence. You do realize that records happen every single year, right? You have to actually trend the data to show evidence of climate change extremes increasing to show something.

Here are the facts: The globe AND the Okanagan have warmed since records began. Extremes have not become more extreme or more frequent. Some extremes have, like extreme heat, but this has been more than offset by far less extreme cold. A warmer planet means a more hospitable one. That's why 90% of Canadians live within a two hour drive of the southern border.

Here's Penticton as a reference point:

penticton19092017.png

Yes I agree. You'll notice I said "Likely responsible" That's why the word "Likely" was used. Fully agree with you that 1 event does not mean proof. But on the flipside - weather events of last year wasn't just a single record and we moved between record breaking wet/flooding to record breaking heat/drought within a period of 30days. That's a lot to just wash away as coincidence.

As for evidence. Here's a graph from the National Climatic Data Center. On number of tornadoes per year. I think you'll agree that a tornado qualifies as an extreme weather event. The graph shows strong evidence of increasing frequency of Tornadoes. 1st link when I googled "number of tornadoes per year" - data is easily available if you actually look for it rather than asking for others to provide.

[Glacier]

Yes I agree. You'll notice I said "Likely responsible" That's why the word "Likely" was used. Fully agree with you that 1 event does not mean proof. But on the flipside - weather events of last year wasn't just a single record and we moved between record breaking wet/flooding to record breaking heat/drought within a period of 30days. That's a lot to just wash away as coincidence.

As for evidence. Here's a graph from the National Climatic Data Center. On number of tornadoes per year. I think you'll agree that a tornado qualifies as an extreme weather event. The graph shows strong evidence of increasing frequency of Tornadoes. 1st link when I googled "number of tornadoes per year" - data is easily available if you actually look for it rather than asking for others to provide.

Yes, that's exactly what I was hoping for! http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... _time.html

As for flipping from one extreme to another, that's nothing new at all. February 1936 was the coldest month on record; July 1936 was the hottest month on record.

So in our analysis of the impacts of climate change, we must count and quantify the impacts. Tornadoes increase, and that's bad. Droughts decrease, and that's good. Floods increase, and that's bad. Heat extremes go up, and that's bad. Cold extremes go down, and that's good. Since cold causes more deaths than heat, that's a net benefit. A warmer planet is better over time in Canada though because of less frost, but might be bad in Florida. Not sure about drought versus flood plus tornadoes.

[youjustcomplain]

This is more anecdotes and opinions. Show me evidence that flash floods, wildfires, and snow storms are increasing.

This comes across as very disingenuous. Would you change your opinion on the subject if someone provided you evidence? Or would you attempt to argue against it?

One suggests and open mind, and the other only shows that you've made your mind up and will not accept anything that doesn't fit the narrative you prefer.

[Glacier]

This is more anecdotes and opinions. Show me evidence that flash floods, wildfires, and snow storms are increasing.

This comes across as very disingenuous. Would you change your opinion on the subject if someone provided you evidence? Or would you attempt to argue against it?

One suggests and open mind, and the other only shows that you've made your mind up and will not accept anything that doesn't fit the narrative you prefer.

I would change my mind. Wouldn't you? Why on earth would I care either way?

P.S... https://www.wltribune.com/news/fires-us ... -research/

[rustled]

I would change my mind. Wouldn't you? Why on earth would I care either way?

P.S... https://www.wltribune.com/news/fires-us ... -research/

Interesting stuff, Glacier.

Looking at TylerM4's tornado chart, I had several questions about what as happening prior to 1950. (Was this a continuation of a pre-existing upward trend, or did 1950 mark the end of a downward trend? Do we know what was happening in previous centuries? How about in previous millennia?)

I went to NOAA to find context for their tornado chart and although I haven't yet found that particular chart, I did find this https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-infor ... ogy/trends . There's a chart showing what happened after 2011, among others. (The chart they present cuts off the three smallest years shown in TylerM4's chart, though. Interesting, huh?) More importantly (for me anyway) the NOAA provides context for how tornado records have been kept, including the assumptions made about years prior, etc.

The chart you've presented goes back a few centuries, giving us a better (although still very limited) perspective on fire events, their consequences, and the observable trend during the decades of fire suppression. As a bonus, your link also provides the context and shows the assumptions made. Thanks for sharing it.

[AlienSoldier]

A warmer planet does not mean a more hospitable one. Unless your definition of the planet is the 100km from the US border. There is still the entire rest of the planet, including areas formerly quite hospitable and good for agriculture which now experience such harsh droughts that nothing can be grown there anymore.

Heck even look at Arizona last year where it became too hot for planes to take off, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue due to flight delays. Even in BC, warmer temperatures are allowing pine beetles to thrive, how long until that starts cutting into BCs forestry revenue?

There you go confusing weather with climate yet again. You are picking specific events, and pretending they present a trend. That's no different the conspiracy theorists who experienced the 3rd coldest year in 30 years in the Okanagan, and say, "look, it's getting colder."

As for warming being good or bad, it can be both for sure depending on where you live, but the evidence I've seen shows it's more good than bad, but hey, if you think otherwise, I'm all ears, but so far you are doing just as I am, and making an educated guess, which is obviously not a scientific answer, but the best we can do without an actual study of some kind.

The same people who don't believe in climate change, will be the ones complaining when you can't grow food in California and their grocery bill goes up.

If you grow less in California, you grow more in Washington and Oregon and BC. Grocery prices would actually go down because they'd be grown closer to home.

At the end of the day we can sit around and discuss this but we can see the results around us. More wildfires, more flash floods, greater snow during snow storms.

This is more anecdotes and opinions. Show me evidence that flash floods, wildfires, and snow storms are increasing.

If you'd like facts, just look at weather related insurance claims for the US or Canada. Those are direct payouts due to increased weather damage. You will notice the trend over the past 10 years that there has been an increase in the payouts. It was even overlaid and showed the increase of payout being substantially more than the growth of population or increase in values. You can find all this online.

Its not easy moving farms or vegetation. 33 million people live in California, they have designed entire infrastructures around farming of major crops to feed North America. When California has a bad year, you feel it in grocery stores. With extreme weather, you'd feel it more, since Oregon yes would be more hospitable to some vegetation that is grown in Cali, it won't be hospitable to all as extreme weather could destroy more crops.

Also, over 95% of all scientists agree we are affecting the weather in a negative way. You keep asking for facts, those guys have given you facts. Its your choice to ignore them or not.

[AlienSoldier]

Yes I agree. You'll notice I said "Likely responsible" That's why the word "Likely" was used. Fully agree with you that 1 event does not mean proof. But on the flipside - weather events of last year wasn't just a single record and we moved between record breaking wet/flooding to record breaking heat/drought within a period of 30days. That's a lot to just wash away as coincidence.

As for evidence. Here's a graph from the National Climatic Data Center. On number of tornadoes per year. I think you'll agree that a tornado qualifies as an extreme weather event. The graph shows strong evidence of increasing frequency of Tornadoes. 1st link when I googled "number of tornadoes per year" - data is easily available if you actually look for it rather than asking for others to provide.

Yes, that's exactly what I was hoping for! http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... _time.html

As for flipping from one extreme to another, that's nothing new at all. February 1936 was the coldest month on record; July 1936 was the hottest month on record.

So in our analysis of the impacts of climate change, we must count and quantify the impacts. Tornadoes increase, and that's bad. Droughts decrease, and that's good. Floods increase, and that's bad. Heat extremes go up, and that's bad. Cold extremes go down, and that's good. Since cold causes more deaths than heat, that's a net benefit. A warmer planet is better over time in Canada though because of less frost, but might be bad in Florida. Not sure about drought versus flood plus tornadoes.

A warmer Canada is not a net benefit. Warmer weather causes more water to evaporate since there is no ice cover to help stop evaporation. This intern can cause fish migrations to drop, streams and lakes to dry up and so forth. Warmer weather also reduces the amount of invasive species which die off due to the cold. It also helps animals that have not been in Canada to migrate north and cause issues with our ecosystems. Farmers will have to contend with new invasive bugs which can reduce crop yields. Increased heat increases the strain on oil field equipment during movement due to software ground not allowing access to areas when it is frozen.

[CapitalB]

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

My problem here is that the vast majority of all the scientists on the planet have unilaterally agreed that this is a thing and that its going to be very bad over the next decades. Yet we hear non stop from deniers finding a few anecdotal facts to go along with the narrative they want to believe.

The amount of carbon we've pumped into the atmosphere in the last hundred years is a data spike so large that there are like three events in the entire history of the planet where that much carbons gone into the atmosphere. All either series of massive volcanic eruptions or asteroids crashing into the planet, and now theres this.

But hey a few crackpots say everything is fine so whatever lets keep going on with business as usual.

The thing that really bugs me about all this though is; If the crackpots are right and the environmentalists are wrong we're all just making the world a nicer cleaner better place to live.

If the crackpots are wrong and the scientists are right though? Well then we're basically going full genocide on most of the things that live on this planet.

What the hell may as well live dangerously I guess.

[TheBoss]

If people don't relive in humans having an effect on the climate. Look at how many species humans have cause to go extinct in the last 1000 years. We humans are having an everlasting impact on this planet.

[Glacier]

If you'd like facts, just look at weather related insurance claims for the US or Canada. Those are direct payouts due to increased weather damage. You will notice the trend over the past 10 years that there has been an increase in the payouts. It was even overlaid and showed the increase of payout being substantially more than the growth of population or increase in values. You can find all this online.

Its not easy moving farms or vegetation. 33 million people live in California, they have designed entire infrastructures around farming of major crops to feed North America. When California has a bad year, you feel it in grocery stores. With extreme weather, you'd feel it more, since Oregon yes would be more hospitable to some vegetation that is grown in Cali, it won't be hospitable to all as extreme weather could destroy more crops.

Also, over 95% of all scientists agree we are affecting the weather in a negative way. You keep asking for facts, those guys have given you facts. Its your choice to ignore them or not.

Actually, weather related payouts has been in the DECLINE!

[CapitalB]

Actually, weather related payouts has been in the DECLINE!

1990-2017-disgdp2.jpg

They've been in decline as a percentage of GDP, the worldwide gdp however has nearly doubled so after some math...

1990 had approximatly 90.93600 billion dollars (0.24% of the 37.894 trillion dollar GDP at the time) in insurance claims

2016 had about 155 billion dollars (0.2% (because thats the average line drawn through your graph) of the 77.5 trillion dollar GDP) of insurance claims

So yeah as a percentage of gdp Its gone down, GDP howver has gone up way higher way faster making the graph you presented kind of deceptive.

[Glacier]

They've been in decline as a percentage of GDP, the worldwide gdp however has nearly doubled so after some math...

1990 had approximatly 90.93600 billion dollars (0.24% of the 37.894 trillion dollar GDP at the time) in insurance claims

2016 had about 155 billion dollars (0.2% (because thats the average line drawn through your graph) of the 77.5 trillion dollar GDP) of insurance claims

So yeah as a percentage of gdp Its gone down, GDP howver has gone up way higher way faster making the graph you presented kind of deceptive.

GDP is the only real way to measure the economic impacts, if you value math, science, and fair comparisons. It's not deceptive at all.

[CapitalB]

Its deceptive because it hides the actual numbers behind vague percentage values designed to look really small against a number thats in reality growing up. That graph is just there so people can point at it and go "see insurance claims as a portion of gdp are going down. Which ignores the fact that the amounts of the insurance claims are growing hugely, but world gdp has gone up significantly faster than that. All I was getting at is that the insurance claims as a percentage of GDP number is vague and misleading as it lets gullible people believe nothing is wrong.