Global Warming and Harvey

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sometimes the link between climate change and extreme weather is portrayed as nothing more than "Warming means more big storms," and dismissed just as simply. But it's much more complicated than that. One thing is for sure: hurricanes are fueled by warm water and air. The warmer the water and the air, the stronger the storm and the more potential rainfall. Harvey grew over Gulf water that was 2 degrees warmer than normal.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/28/scientists-say-harvey-may-be-soggy-sign-future-storms.html

 

[toastedbread]

Sometimes the link between climate change and extreme weather is portrayed as nothing more than "Warming means more big storms," and dismissed just as simply. But it's much more complicated than that. One thing is for sure: hurricanes are fueled by warm water and air. The warmer the water and the air, the stronger the storm and the more potential rainfall. Harvey grew over Gulf water that was 2 degrees warmer than normal.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/28/scientists-say-harvey-may-be-soggy-sign-future-storms.html

Global warming causes a more unstable, chaotic climate.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Global warming causes a more unstable, chaotic climate.

I don't know about that. I've seen people say it, I haven't seen climatologists actually say it. Not really important. Climate change happens, and there are real effects, whether it leads to more chaos or not.

 

[toastedbread]

I don't know about that. I've seen people say it, I haven't seen climatologists actually say it. Not really important. Climate change happens, and there are real effects, whether it leads to more chaos or not.

That's exactly what the experts are saying. Look at the bizarre weather patterns.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-seeing-global-warmings-effect-on-the-weather

https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/new-noaa-weather-data-show-volatility-as-the-new-normal

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170425182132.htm

Some places will be cooler, some warmer, but the real issue is extreme weather and climate volatility.

 

[cosmickid]

Sometimes the link between climate change and extreme weather is portrayed as nothing more than "Warming means more big storms," and dismissed just as simply. But it's much more complicated than that. One thing is for sure: hurricanes are fueled by warm water and air. The warmer the water and the air, the stronger the storm and the more potential rainfall. Harvey grew over Gulf water that was 2 degrees warmer than normal.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/28/scientists-say-harvey-may-be-soggy-sign-future-storms.html

Ironic that Harvey struck Texas which is full of "climate change denying" politicians,who btw voted against Sandy relief...I'm talking to you Teddy...

"But Texas Republicans latched onto the notion that the Sandy relief package was full of wasteful spending. When the Senate was voting on the bill in early 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) railed against the “unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric airplanes, and more funding for Head Start.”

Again, the Smithsonian repairs ― representing 0.00004 percent of the money appropriated ― were related to Sandy, and the upgrades and repairs to NOAA aircraft were to help with future hurricane forecasting. The money for Head Start, meanwhile, was available only to those facilities damaged by Sandy.

On Monday, when Cruz was asked about voting against Sandy aid in 2013 but now openly seeking help for his state, he said there would be time for “political sniping” later."

That last statement was not said with a straight face,right? If there is anyone that knows about "political sniping" it's our favorite Canadian...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hurricane-harvey-potential-hypocrisy-texas-214741226.html

 

[Capitol Hoosier]

It's only a matter of time...

 

[Lucy01]

It's only a matter of time...

Galveston's already been there!

 

[zeke4ahs]

Why do you guys engage in this nonsense ( not global warming, but Lucy)?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why do you guys engage in this nonsense ( not global warming, but Lucy)?

I could answer for global warming, a handful of people are getting very rich and don't give a care what happens years from now. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we have big problems. Well, if one is wealthy enough I guess they can avoid the problems.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I could answer for global warming, a handful of people are getting very rich and don't give a care what happens years from now. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we have big problems. Well, if one is wealthy enough I guess they can avoid the problems.

No matter how much money you have, unless you literally live in plastic bubble, we all breathe the same air.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No matter how much money you have, unless you literally live in plastic bubble, we all breathe the same air.

True, but there is a difference between Houston air and Palm Springs air ( or Icelandic air if need be).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Why do you guys engage in this nonsense ( not global warming, but Lucy)?

Indeed. I don't know why people find it so hard to not feed the trolls. Let's get this back on track.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I could answer for global warming, a handful of people are getting very rich and don't give a care what happens years from now. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we have big problems. Well, if one is wealthy enough I guess they can avoid the problems.

No, I meant why do they try to engage Lucy in any kind of discussion.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No, I meant why do they try to engage Lucy in any kind of discussion.

I know, I don't have an answer for that one. Its only helping the Russians perfect their chatbots.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I could answer for global warming, a handful of people are getting very rich and don't give a care what happens years from now. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we have big problems. Well, if one is wealthy enough I guess they can avoid the problems.

A question related to your point: What responsibility do you think current human society has to future human society? A lot of people tend to look at climate change as a matter of justice: some countries and classes of people will suffer more than others, and that's not fair. Your comment recognizes that, but also seems more forward-looking. Do you think there is some level of responsibility we have to future humanity, and if so, what is it?

I have my own suggestion, but would like to hear yours.

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

A question related to your point: What responsibility do you think current human society has to future human society? A lot of people tend to look at climate change as a matter of justice: some countries and classes of people will suffer more than others, and that's not fair. Your comment recognizes that, but also seems more forward-looking. Do you think there is some level of responsibility we have to future humanity, and if so, what is it?

I have my own suggestion, but would like to hear yours.

Trillions of dollars of debt are far more important to future generations than climate change. Future human society that is in a depression won't give two chits about a little weather change.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Trillions of dollars of debt are far more important to future generations than climate change. Future human society that is in a depression won't give two chits about a little weather change.

I guess that's why I've heard all those pubs in congress complaining about the debt. Oh, wait, never mind. That's only when a D is in the White House. They are getting ready to raise the debt ceiling. Remember just a short time ago when this was a horrible thing? No, you probably don't.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Trillions of dollars of debt are far more important to future generations than climate change. Future human society that is in a depression won't give two chits about a little weather change.

LOL.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

A question related to your point: What responsibility do you think current human society has to future human society? A lot of people tend to look at climate change as a matter of justice: some countries and classes of people will suffer more than others, and that's not fair. Your comment recognizes that, but also seems more forward-looking. Do you think there is some level of responsibility we have to future humanity, and if so, what is it?

I have my own suggestion, but would like to hear yours.

I think we have a large level of responsibility to the future of humanity. I believe that has been a trait of humanity at both the macro and micro levels. At the micro level, it is why parents sacrifice for their children. Anyone who knows families with kids and without knows that the families without have huge economic advantages. So even without sacrificing, there is sacrifice. But often there is real sacrifice.

At the macro level, this goes to John Adams saying:

I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.

Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.

Using that time period, many of the people involved in the Revolution knew they wouldn't live to recover what they had lost in supporting the revolution. It has always been important to "make a brighter future for our children".

In fact I think it is more important now than ever because of the way our brand of capitalism has played out. Our current model on everything is profit this quarter. There was a time when corporations were valued for safety and security, but now just returning a decent dividend is useless. People want rapid increases in stock value as well. So there isn't much of a mechanism to look 5 years or more down the road. In his book, Iacocca spoke of Ford's problems being summed up by the long range planning committee discussing the bumper height of the next model year car. That IS America today. Not just in business but in government. Setting a plan in motion to salvage Social Security that takes 6 years to pay off is off the table because we will have voted out the person long before the payoff.

So yes, we need to bring back consideration of the future of humanity. It is one reason I am a huge proponent of NASA though I do not believe we will ever have the technology to live elsewhere. Yet NASA is the only hope for that, however slim. I don't know that the future needs be the overriding concern, we don't solve anything tomorrow by going extinct today. But it needs to be a serious consideration. AGW is one prime example. Several years ago I made many posts about our lack of antibiotics in the pipeline as another example. Antibiotics aren't nearly as profitable as a daily maintenance drug, so they aren't researched nearly as much. We will very soon pay a very stiff price for our shortsightedness.

To the point IUBBALLAWOL made, yes, the debt is a consideration. We need to get a handle on it. I don't know how much debt is too much, I don't think we are there yet but I fear we won't know we are there until it is too late. We need to work out the debt problem. Unfortunately it seems slashing taxes to solve debt makes as much sense as cutting out good calories to cure obesity. We need a plan of revenue enhancements and spending cuts. The idea of starving the beast that conservatives came up with has worked in increasing the debt. So both sides are to blame even if they don't want to see it that way. We will need to cut spending, social and military, and raise tax revenue. We would go a LONG way to getting all this under control if only there was some way to reign in healthcare spending. It's too bad every other advanced country hasn't mostly figured this out as a model we could use.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think we have a large level of responsibility to the future of humanity. I believe that has been a trait of humanity at both the macro and micro levels. At the micro level, it is why parents sacrifice for their children. Anyone who knows families with kids and without knows that the families without have huge economic advantages. So even without sacrificing, there is sacrifice. But often there is real sacrifice.

At the macro level, this goes to John Adams saying:

I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.

Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.

Using that time period, many of the people involved in the Revolution knew they wouldn't live to recover what they had lost in supporting the revolution. It has always been important to "make a brighter future for our children".

In fact I think it is more important now than ever because of the way our brand of capitalism has played out. Our current model on everything is profit this quarter. There was a time when corporations were valued for safety and security, but now just returning a decent dividend is useless. People want rapid increases in stock value as well. So there isn't much of a mechanism to look 5 years or more down the road. In his book, Iacocca spoke of Ford's problems being summed up by the long range planning committee discussing the bumper height of the next model year car. That IS America today. Not just in business but in government. Setting a plan in motion to salvage Social Security that takes 6 years to pay off is off the table because we will have voted out the person long before the payoff.

So yes, we need to bring back consideration of the future of humanity. It is one reason I am a huge proponent of NASA though I do not believe we will ever have the technology to live elsewhere. Yet NASA is the only hope for that, however slim. I don't know that the future needs be the overriding concern, we don't solve anything tomorrow by going extinct today. But it needs to be a serious consideration. AGW is one prime example. Several years ago I made many posts about our lack of antibiotics in the pipeline as another example. Antibiotics aren't nearly as profitable as a daily maintenance drug, so they aren't researched nearly as much. We will very soon pay a very stiff price for our shortsightedness.

To the point IUBBALLAWOL made, yes, the debt is a consideration. We need to get a handle on it. I don't know how much debt is too much, I don't think we are there yet but I fear we won't know we are there until it is too late. We need to work out the debt problem. Unfortunately it seems slashing taxes to solve debt makes as much sense as cutting out good calories to cure obesity. We need a plan of revenue enhancements and spending cuts. The idea of starving the beast that conservatives came up with has worked in increasing the debt. So both sides are to blame even if they don't want to see it that way. We will need to cut spending, social and military, and raise tax revenue. We would go a LONG way to getting all this under control if only there was some way to reign in healthcare spending. It's too bad every other advanced country hasn't mostly figured this out as a model we could use.

You answered similarly to how I would. Here's how I see it:

Although it's extremely unlikely our species survives long enough for the planet to become uninhabitable, you never know what danger might be out there lurking. The only way to maximize the long-term survival of our species is to colonize other star systems. The technology for sending generational ships already exists; the ability to identify likely candidate systems is coming soon. But in order for this to happen, we must survive the industrial/fossil fuel age and move into the age of abundant renewable energy. Because of the sheer volume of fossil fuel resources we've already used up, it's quite likely we will only get one shot at this. If the planet suffers any sort of catastrophe that sets us back to, say, a new dark age, it's unlikely we'll ever get out of it.

So I think our primary obligation to the future is to strive to move our society toward the theoretical free energy post-scarcity society (if it's even possible) while we have the chance, because we probably won't get another one.

As to considerations like debt and things like that? In the big picture, they are meaningless. I don't expect to ever live in a Star Trek style socialist utopia, but I have no doubt that in a post-scarcity world, notions of wealth and private ownership will become far less meaningful. Debt isn't real. It's just a social construct we can do away with when we are ready to do so.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You answered similarly to how I would. Here's how I see it:

Although it's extremely unlikely our species survives long enough for the planet to become uninhabitable, you never know what danger might be out there lurking. The only way to maximize the long-term survival of our species is to colonize other star systems. The technology for sending generational ships already exists; the ability to identify likely candidate systems is coming soon. But in order for this to happen, we must survive the industrial/fossil fuel age and move into the age of abundant renewable energy. Because of the sheer volume of fossil fuel resources we've already used up, it's quite likely we will only get one shot at this. If the planet suffers any sort of catastrophe that sets us back to, say, a new dark age, it's unlikely we'll ever get out of it.

So I think our primary obligation to the future is to strive to move our society toward the theoretical free energy post-scarcity society (if it's even possible) while we have the chance, because we probably won't get another one.

As to considerations like debt and things like that? In the big picture, they are meaningless. I don't expect to ever live in a Star Trek style socialist utopia, but I have no doubt that in a post-scarcity world, notions of wealth and private ownership will become far less meaningful. Debt isn't real. It's just a social construct we can do away with when we are ready to do so.

I think the idea that there is only one earth is key. When we discuss the environment I just do not get how unconcerned some are. If they were limited to one and only one car for their life, I suspect they would take damn good care of it. But the world, well, who cares.

I too doubt we have a socialist dream in our future. What I do not get is how it seems one watch stat trek and do not even think that s socialist dream is a good thing.

The debt has a role, it reduces our ability to respond to crisis. It is a far cry from trying to kill the planet, but a problem.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The debt has a role, it reduces our ability to respond to crisis. It is a far cry from trying to kill the planet, but a problem.

My point was really more of a response to AWOL's claim that the debt dwarfs climate concerns, which is just silly. We can decide to change into a society in which debt is meaningless. We cannot decide to change into a society where we don't suffer the consequences of what we are doing to the planet.

 

[wiede]

Trillions of dollars of debt are far more important to future generations than climate change. Future human society that is in a depression won't give two chits about a little weather change.

That's just it. Hanging on to fossil fuels won't spur future job growth, and doesn't help our current situation. Investing and promoting in renewable energy, while moving away from current energy outlets that continue to contribute to climate change not only makes sense in general, but it makes great financial sense also.

And, a little weather change? Surely you're kidding. Ask the folks in Houston & Beaumont whether they care about a little weather change. And we will see more and more of these disasters, ever increasing in scale.

I read where Germany will be completely self sufficient in energy production by 2040 (or somewhere around then). If they can do it, why the hell cant we? Hanging on to the past only puts us further behind.

I can always count on you to repeat whatever the hell Fox News says. I don't even have to tune in anymore- I've got you!

 

[wiede]

I think the idea that there is only one earth is key. When we discuss the environment I just do not get how unconcerned some are. If they were limited to one and only one car for their life, I suspect they would take damn good care of it. But the world, well, who cares.

I too doubt we have a socialist dream in our future. What I do not get is how it seems one watch stat trek and do not even think that s socialist dream is a good thing.

The debt has a role, it reduces our ability to respond to crisis. It is a far cry from trying to kill the planet, but a problem.

Debt is a huge problem, no doubt. But it will pale in comparison to the costs of climate change. We're largely screwed already, but there's still time to lessen the damage. Because if we don't, the cost associated with climate change will dwarf literally everything else.

I know this isn't you, but it amazes me that folks still either deny climate change or accept it, yet claim that it won't be that bad, so it's ok to continue on our current path. Don't these folks have kids or grandkids? I'm terrified of what the future holds for my kids. They certainly deserve better than what we will have left them.

 

[sglowrider]

Trillions of dollars of debt are far more important to future generations than climate change. Future human society that is in a depression won't give two chits about a little weather change.

Here’s how much climate change is going to cost your county
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/here-s-how-much-climate-change-going-cost-your-county

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Here’s how much climate change is going to cost your county
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/here-s-how-much-climate-change-going-cost-your-county

That's just a bunch of so-called scientists. Sarah Palin is just as much of a scientist as anyone who contributed to that article. Hell, I bet she went to more colleges than any of them.

 

[sglowrider]

That's just a bunch of so-called scientists. Sarah Palin is just as much of a scientist as anyone who contributed to that article. Hell, I bet she went to more colleges than any of them.

 

[sglowrider]

Harvey is part of a pattern of extreme weather scientists saw coming. They're still shocked.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/30/16214212/harvey-extreme-weather-science

There is nothing surprising about a hurricane hitting the central Texas coast in late August, as Hurricane Harvey did on Friday night. Hurricanes have been recorded since Christopher Columbus encountered one in 1495. We know they occur with some regularity in the Atlantic at this time of year.

But Harvey soon became an inordinately severe tropical storm, as it pulled water from the atmosphere down to Earth with extraordinary efficiency and intensity, and it stuck around. Since Friday, it has dumped an estimated 21 trillion gallons on the Texas coast, fulfilling all meteorological predictions that it would be “unprecedented” and “catastrophic.”

The National Weather Service reported Tuesday that a preliminary measurement from Cedar Bayou, Texas, recorded 51.88 inches of rain, breaking the rainfall record for a single tropical storm or hurricane in the continental United States. (The last record of 48 inches was set during tropical cyclone Amelia in Texas in 1978.) On Wednesday morning, the agency reported the coast was still under merciless wet assault, with “catastrophic and life-threatening flooding [continuing] in southeastern Texas and portions of southwestern Louisiana.”

Climate scientists have confirmed that climate change made Harvey a worse storm. Because of long-term warming trends, the ocean is warmer, creating more energy for a hurricane to tap. The atmosphere is warmer too, sending more water vapor into the air that can then be pulled back down by a hurricane as rain. Adam Sobel, an atmospheric scientist who directs Columbia University’s Initiative on Extreme Weather and Climate, estimates that 5 to 10 percent of the rainfall was due to global warming (more conservative than the 30 percent estimate from Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research).

 

[Lucy01]

“Climate Change” Yeah right