Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ Eckleburg12
2. I don't think higher average global temperatures necessarily cause more extreme or inclement weather.
Every time a bad hurricane or tornado or wildfire or earthquake or tsunami rolls through, global warming people say "Welp! It's getting worse and worse because of global warming!"
According to wikipedia, the deadliest natural disaster in the world (excluding pandemics and famine) was a flood in China in 1931. The deadliest natural disaster in America was a hurricane that hit Texas in the year 1900.
I don't think
Katrina and Maria are evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger ... wildfires are intensifying ...
???? ...
must be man-made global warming!
I think it's possible that rising temperatures could lead to rising sea levels as polar ice melts, but sea levels are another thing that isn't static over the course of the planet's history. Succinctly, I think the relationship between climate change and inclement weather is poorly understood.
Low hanging fruit first: rising temperature factually will lead to rising sea levels, because water expands as it gets warmer. Much of the sea level rise each year is from thermal expansion. It is true that in the absence of humans, sea levels would very likely be rising, but at a reduced pace.
On extreme weather, the IPCC did an interim report, called SREX, on extreme weather. You can read or skim through the "Summary for Policymakers" at this link, which is designed to be at least slightly readable by a lay person:
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/srex/downloads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf
The long and short of is that we haven't really been able to definitively connect rising temperatures to anything besides more extreme heat and less extreme cold. The most comprehensive study I saw on drought showed a slight decline. No discernible changes in flooding, hurricanes, etc. The media hyping the **** out of storms in relation to global warming has little basis in science, a lot of basis in clicks/eyeballs. It's a view held by some scientists, but it's not a consensus view.
It is postulated that these things will increase/decrease in the future in a warming world, but we're still trying to figure that out.
What is good news, however, is that we've severely reduced human death from natural disasters to
very few these days.
Quote:
1: Global temperatures aren't "supposed" to be anything.
Throughout the history of this planet, average temperatures have changed wildly, in both directions. I see global warming champions point to the rising temperatures, as if it's "supposed" to be one thing, but all those carbon emissions are making it Something Else, and that's Bad.
I've made this point before and I won't belabor it, but I agree with the gist of what you are posting, and I think there is a common misconception that the Earth was in some sort of steady state of perfect climate and then dumb humans mucked it up. It certainly can be said that we deleted huge swaths of life off the planet in service of our growth (principally thinking of huge, huge forests that previously existed), and have killed off species. But temperature is trickier. Zooming out, we're in a long-term cycle of ice ages on this planet, where the usual state is a far, far colder planet that kills off much of the life that springs up in the interglacial period (the current interglacial sprung humanity).
Life on this planet ebbs and flows, and temperature changes. We're making it warmer, no doubt about it. And that will lead to bad things happening some places. But one of the inconvenient facts that I think people ignore is that a warmer planet is more receptive to life, in general, and can bring life to places where it's hard to exist. We've already seen plant life begin to flourish.
Quote:
3. I'm not prepared to stop driving and using electricity, are you? ...Hypocrite.
If you want to learn more about energy, read this long but fantastic blog post about electric cars. Basically, about 40% of the world's total energy flow is dedicated to producing electricity, and 2/3rds of that comes from burning carbon-emitting fossil fuels, which is mostly coal. Transportation is almost a third of developed countries' energy flow, and runs nearly entirely on oil.
Now, there are emerging technologies and alternate energy sources (for electricity production AND transportation) that show promise. I support the innovation that the private sector can bring to market. If Elon Musk really builds a more efficient and cheaper alternative, I'd probably buy one. I'm rooting for him to shift the paradigm and change the world.
But in the meantime, I think it's asinine to punish the industry and economies of the developed world (who are also fueling the research and innovation) for carbon emissions. This is a trade-off I'm willing to make to live in 2019. And if climate change really does shift the landscape, then the changing economic conditions will reflect that.
Current energy usage is not something that concerns me, because the world is decarbonizing their economic growth at a fairly rapid pace. Which is to say, that increased carbon emissions aren't needed for increased economic growth anymore. For instance, I doubt many people know that US carbon emissions peaked 12 years ago. Or that it is now cheaper in many parts of the world to build a new solar plant versus a new coal factory. And it will soon be cheaper in many places to replace an existing coal factory with a new solar factory. Battery costs are also dropping dramatically. And as you mentioned, electric cars are about to absolutely explode in production levels. Oil is not a growth industry.
Bloomberg does a "Bloomberg New Energy Outlook" each year, which is interesting if you're reading about it, link here:
https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/ (I think they're way, way too conservative on electric cars, especially given the amount of money that major carmakers are pouring into it, especially a behemoth like Volkswagen)
The future is right in front of us telling us what is going to grow and what is going to wane, which is why the "business as usual" climate scenarios that people bandy about to scare people are so hilariously misleading. These scenarios are predicated upon massive increases in coal usage, massive increases in oil consumption, etc. They project the world in 2100 will be everyone driving around their gas cars non-stop and burning coal to heat their homes. High carbon emission scenarios are just not, not, not going to happen. It will simply be too expensive to locate, extract, transport, and burn carbon versus the alternative. We're witnessing the death throes of coal right now (which will also severely curtail methane emissions)...oil will be next (as a fuel for cars/trucks), natgas will be last.
