Joe Biden releases 1.7 trillion dollar climate deal

[Zan15]

That "at least it will end up improving the environment" is pretty weak without quantifying how much things will improve.

That said, 1.7 trillion per 10 years is on the lower side of such programs, so if people are willing to "just do something" to feel good, this is not a bad choice of a program.

So now it's just investing money for ha ha's? Boy way to discount it even before it's off the ground and the ink is dry.

So billions on a wall, tens of billions on energy subsidies, trillions on defense investments ..but now you say we should have specific quantification on what and how much things will improve.

Can we apply that to the 2019 budget and save a trillion or two this year??

Just with the ROI on the military spending we could cut 3/4 of that right off the top based on your logic.

Hell with this logic most RD and investment would dry up.

[mojojojo202]

No, if the notion of current abnormal climate change resulting in more catastrophes due to more extreme weather is true, then the number of extreme events should go up, that's a perfectly valid argument.

But sure, let's observe all weather events, like you suggest. There isn't much there.

- - - Updated - - -

You suggested that the lack of new RECORD extreme weather events was evidence that there was not a higher incidence of extreme weather events. That is not necessarily true.

Using as hypothetical situation, where each weather event for some period of time is given a severity rating of 1-10, where an extreme event is considered any event over a score of 8:

P1 has weather ratings: 3,3,2,1,5,4,2,9,6,1
P2 has weather ratings: 8,5,3,6,8,8,7,8,1,4

It would clearly be a nonsense to suggest that there were more extreme weather events in P1 than in P2 simply because the most extreme weather even took place in P1.

[Kaleredar]

Example chart:



Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...clone-activity

Tell me, what trend are you seeing here.

- - - Updated - - -



No, if the notion of current abnormal climate change resulting in more catastrophes due to more extreme weather is true, then the number of extreme events should go up, that's a perfectly valid argument.

But sure, let's observe all weather events, like you suggest. There isn't much there.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me make it quick.

The IPCC report does NOT contain a lot of catastrophes. The portrayal of that report - by the media and by the politically-charged "scientists" who write "overviews" of it - are much scarier than what actually is in the report. And biggest policy documents coming off it are unrelated to the report completely, they mandate something silly like "let's keep the temperature anomaly under 1.5 C" without anything material justifying that in the report.

A very simple illustration - how much of the "warming anomaly" are you thinking humans are responsible for, according to the IPCC? 100% of it, right? Well, no. They think humans are "very likely" (or whatever is the exact wording) responsible for "more than half". I bet you didn't know that.

I'm glad you're a climatologist and are so capable of opining on matters.

Truly, you must have a deep and long-studied appreciation of environmental and climate scientists to formulate an opinion that runs antithetical to the findings of the vast, vast majority of not only your climate scientist peers but also that of the scientifically literate world in general.


Because you couldn't possibly be some nobody on the internet opining on something you know nothing about by cherry picking random factoids while doubting the analysis of thousands of people actually qualified to talk about it for your own political reasons, right?

[Ghostpanther]

I'm glad you're a climatologist and are so capable of opining on matters.

Truly, you must have a deep and long-studied appreciation of environmental and climate scientists to formulate an opinion that runs antithetical to the findings of the vast, vast majority of not only your climate scientist peers but also that of the scientifically literate world in general.


Because you couldn't possibly be some nobody on the internet opining on something you know nothing about by cherry picking random factoids while doubting the analysis of thousands of people actually qualified to talk about it for your own political reasons, right?

You do not need to be if you are looking at that chart. It speaks for itself. And according to it, the number of hurricanes fluctuates a lot. Damages increase of course because a lot more people live along the coasts and a lot more buildings. Unless you are saying the chart is bogus?

[Wyrt]

You do not need to be if you are looking at that chart. It speaks for itself. And according to it, the number of hurricanes fluctuates a lot. Damages increase of course because a lot more people live along the coasts and a lot more buildings. Unless you are saying the chart is bogus?

Now do a graph based on strength of hurricanes and not just number.

[Ghostpanther]

Now do a graph based on strength of hurricanes and not just number.

And how long have hurricanes been happening on the earth and how long have we been able to measure the wind speed of them?

[Kaleredar]

You do not need to be if you are looking at that chart. It speaks for itself. And according to it, the number of hurricanes fluctuates a lot. Damages increase of course because a lot more people live along the coasts and a lot more buildings. Unless you are saying the chart is bogus?

I'm saying that one randomly excised chart, a chart whose bearing is being judged entirely by a person who has no legitimate understanding of the subject, does not hold significant merit to inform an opinion on climate change.

I'll leave that to the scientists whose life work it has been to analyze it, not some random guy citing random charts on the internet.

Anyone attempting to legitimately understand the issue would do the same.

[Shalcker]

I'm saying that one randomly excised fact, a fact whose ostensible weight is being judged entirely by a person who has no legitimate understanding of the subject, does not hold significant merit to inform an opinion on climate change.

Well, which other more pronounced effect on extreme weather events can be used to support "more extreme events" viewpoint if not hurricanes?

Tornadoes, maybe? (honestly, haven't looked ahead of the time, just went with one of first "number of tornadoes in us by year" google search results)





Hmm, seems inconclusive too...

I'll leave that to the scientists whose life work it has been to analyze it, not some random guy citing random charts on the internet.

As long as you acknowledge that this belief is based on some kind of misunderstanding of data... maybe on your part, maybe on media part - they do tend to misunderstand scientists a lot.

Anyone attempting to legitimately understand the issue would do the same.

Anyone attempting to legitimately understand issue would go check the data underpinning expert opinion.

Understanding isn't about blindly repeating what expert said.

[Kaleredar]

Well, which other more pronounced effect on extreme weather events can be used to support "more extreme events" viewpoint if not hurricanes?

Tornadoes, maybe? (honestly, haven't looked ahead of the time, just went with one of first "number of tornadoes in us by year" google search results)

Hmm, seems inconclusive too...

As long as you acknowledge that this belief is based on some kind of misunderstanding of data... maybe on your part, maybe on media part - they do tend to misunderstand scientists a lot.

Anyone attempting to legitimately understand issue would go check the data underpinning expert opinion.

Understanding isn't about blindly repeating what expert said.

Your analysis of a single chart is flawed in that it is just that: a single chart, showing you data you don't necessarily understand or know how it plays into any form of broader analysis.

"Expert opinion" in this matter is not one guy they just entrusted to say whatever he wants about climate science and have his word be law. There are thousands of scientists the world over who have done decades of research on the matter who have formulated these analysis.

I don't hold "here's a chart I googled" as having much weight in the face of those.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I like how tornados and hurricanes are cherry picked as reasons as to why climate change isn't happening, from people who are essentially professional internet con artists.

Unless the posters in this thread are university professors (which, judging from the 16 hours a day they post here, they are most certainly NOT), they do not have access to the data nor the studies to even remotely claim they've seen all the data. And yet here they are, claiming they've done exactly that.

My thesis was on paleoclimatology, and in the process, accessed all relevant recent climate change data. Watching professional "internet posters" on these forums try to hand wave away climate change is like watching blind people try to tell me what a rainbow looks like. They've obviously heard about from other sources, enough to repeat words they've heard, but they have neither seen nor experienced one with their own eyes.

[Shalcker]

Your analysis of a single chart is flawed in that it is just that: a single chart, showing you data you don't necessarily understand or know how it plays into any form of broader analysis.

Well, it's not like google doesn't have any "broader analysis" too...

Abstract
It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?

"Expert opinion" in this matter is not one guy they just entrusted to say whatever he wants about climate science and have his word be law. There are thousands of scientists the world over who have done decades of research on the matter who have formulated these analysis.

Are you sure it's not just one guy? Are you sure you're actually thinking of expert opinion and not media re-telling of it? Can you point out to primary source of this belief?

I don't hold "here's a chart I googled" as having much weight in the face of those.

What would?

Perhaps graphic from this article can be helpful? (and article itself is also quite clear where the problems with confidence lie)

[Ghostpanther]

I'm saying that one randomly excised chart, a chart whose bearing is being judged entirely by a person who has no legitimate understanding of the subject, does not hold significant merit to inform an opinion on climate change.

I'll leave that to the scientists whose life work it has been to analyze it, not some random guy citing random charts on the internet.

Anyone attempting to legitimately understand the issue would do the same.

A simple chart showing what the one he linked does, is easy to read. What you are saying would only apply if the chart was not showing true data. In other words, was false. One can debate the details in the chart, but no amount of debate is going to change the graph, if it is correct. Which shows the simple fact, hurricanes have not increased in numbers any more than what the average shows over the last 200+ years.

[Deja Thoris]

Jeezy, defeated by simple comprehension yet again.

[Jeezy911]

There's a lot of Dems that bend over backwards for corporate lobbyists for sure including the fossil fuel industry such as Manchin, but many more Republicans unabashedly support, enrich and deregulate the fossil fuel industry, and have been voting them into key positions. The DNC has also been pushing for more restrictions on lobbying. You can say "both sides", but only one side has been proposing environmental and sustainable energy bills. Hell, the GOP have pushed for eliminating the EPA entirely.

So you think Joe Manchin should be totally against anything coal related in West Virginia? Yea that's not going to fly if he actually likes being a senator.

- - - Updated - - -

Jeezy, defeated by simple comprehension yet again.

You better check the stats, I really don't ever lose. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on this forums that can put together a well articulated point reasonably defending liberalism.

[Kaleredar]

Well, it's not like google doesn't have any "broader analysis" too...

I'll note briefly that the author of the article is an engineer, not a climate scientist. Furthermore, that person is noted for holding anti climate-change points of view.

I can do research too, you know.

Abstract
It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?

A brief reading of the article seems to indicate that the person, for whatever reason, deemed the data used by bodies like the IPCC to be "not good enough" and instead used his own (basically cherry picked) data for statistical analysis.

Are you sure it's not just one guy? Are you sure you're actually thinking of expert opinion and not media re-telling of it? Can you point out to primary source of this belief?

Yes.

What would?

The conclusions of decades of research.

Perhaps graphic from this article can be helpful? (and article itself is also quite clear where the problems with confidence lie)

Your second source somewhat contradicts the first source.

The first source (from a guy that isn't a climate scientist) seems to imply climate scientists don't know anything about what they're talking about and are using inaccurate data; the second source says they do and can indeed form strong statistical correlations between climate change and certain prescribed aspects of it.

A simple chart showing what the one he linked does, is easy to read. What you are saying would only apply if the chart was not showing true data. In other words, was false. One can debate the details in the chart, but no amount of debate is going to change the graph, if it is correct. Which shows the simple fact, hurricanes have not increased in numbers any more than what the average shows over the last 200+ years.

I'm questioning the relevance of the chart and the relevance it bears on whether anthropogenic ("man-made") is real or not.

The person I raised the contention with seems to be casting this single graph forth in the hopes that it supports his own lay opinion that it is not real.

I'm stating that he has neither the appropriate data nor the scientific understanding to judge whether any data he comes across is relevant, and therefore his opinion on the matter amounts to less than a hill of beans.

[Ghostpanther]

I'll note briefly that the author of the article is an engineer, not a climate scientist. Furthermore, that person is noted for holding anti climate-change points of view.

I can do research too, you know.



A brief reading of the article seems to indicate that the person, for whatever reason, deemed the data used by bodies like the IPCC to be "not good enough" and instead used his own (basically cherry picked) data for statistical analysis.



Yes.



The conclusions of decades of research.







I'm questioning the relevance of the chart and the relevance it bears on whether anthropogenic ("man-made") is real or not.

The person I raised the contention with seems to be casting this single graph forth in the hopes that it supports his own lay opinion that it is not real.

I'm stating that he has neither the appropriate data nor the scientific understanding to judge whether any data he comes across is relevant, and therefore his opinion on the matter amounts to less than a hill of beans.

If it accurate, then it is self explanatory. If it is misleading, thus not accurate, then yeah, you have a good point. Our record keeping in references to how long the weather has been changing and developing over the eons, in terms of hurricanes and tornadoes also, is extremely short.

[Kaleredar]

If it accurate, then it is self explanatory. If it is misleading, thus not accurate, then yeah, you have a good point. Our record keeping in references to how long the weather has been changing and developing over the eons, in terms of hurricanes and tornadoes also, is extremely short.

I'm not questioning its veracity insomuch as I'm questioning its relevance

[breadisfunny]

Are you sure it's just republicans, because it's not?

- - - Updated - - -



That's a major jump. Nobody really supported Ray Moore, remember he lost rather significantly to a democrat in Alabama.

- - - Updated - - -



Also do you still think it's ok to support Governor Ralph? You know the KKK guy who's still the governor. You can't really pull the moral high ground card here, democrats will vote for anyone that helps give them more power.

50% to 48.3% REALLY FUCKING SIGNIFICANT JEEZY. he only lost by 20,000. yep REAL LANDSLIDE THERE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_U...ion_in_Alabama

[rda]

You suggested that the lack of new RECORD extreme weather events was evidence that there was not a higher incidence of extreme weather events. That is not necessarily true.

Using as hypothetical situation, where each weather event for some period of time is given a severity rating of 1-10, where an extreme event is considered any event over a score of 8:

P1 has weather ratings: 3,3,2,1,5,4,2,9,6,1
P2 has weather ratings: 8,5,3,6,8,8,7,8,1,4

It would clearly be a nonsense to suggest that there were more extreme weather events in P1 than in P2 simply because the most extreme weather even took place in P1.

Of course. But we are talking about multiple years, not just one, it is pretty hard to be arguing that we are for some reason keep getting more 8s but not 9s, like in your example. And the argument being pushed is exactly that climate change results in more extreme weather, meaning both higher deviations and bigger range - so we are supposed to both get more 8s and also get 12s and 13s - and it is those extremes, supposedly both more numerous and more serious, that create more catastrophes. I agree that just counting the number of records is not enough - absolutely, we have to look at way more than that. But that's a useful illustration, and, well, you can check the numbers, we don't get them.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm questioning the relevance of the chart and the relevance it bears on whether anthropogenic ("man-made") is real or not.

The person I raised the contention with seems to be casting this single graph forth in the hopes that it supports his own lay opinion that it is not real.

I'm stating that he has neither the appropriate data nor the scientific understanding to judge whether any data he comes across is relevant, and therefore his opinion on the matter amounts to less than a hill of beans.

I linked the chart in reply to this -- "Because the scientific community agrees on it. Warmer weather means more energy in the system which spawns more rain, hurricanes and thunderstorms, exacerbating the common storm systems in a region."

Anthropogenic warming is real. You misunderstood my opinion on it.

[Pendulous]

An OP that A. does not provide a link to the necessary information, and B. Completely misspeaks said information, is not a good way to start a discussion. Since this has basically been about the existence of climate change as opposed to Joe Biden's specific ideas, and that there are a myriad of other places already discussing the topic, I'm closing this.