wowzers, here check out your city's flood plain GIS site. pretty wild. https://www.harriscountyfemt.org i didnt realize it was at such a risk. i figured galveston took the brunt of the storms and provided a bit a barrier. id still live there but might opt for a upper story unit in a condo tower....also did the media even bother to report the amazing 36 inches of rain imelda just dropped??? it barely even made west coast news.....nothing to see here folks...move on.......

I've never ever stated that.

However, have any of those experts ever figured out a way to stop the 18,000 year warming trend?

A] Is it taxes?
B] Is it consuming other products?
C] Is it politics?

Thanks for the post.

In other words, it's just a big ol' giant game that's being played. But hey, to get people on board, you must scare them first.

None of this will lead to a cooler world [and what year are we trying to get back to? Has any expert told us that yet? 1900 AD? 1800 AD? 1000 AD? 2000 BC? 10000 BC? 5 million BC? -- LOL

But back to your post, those players that play the game will most definitely get rich real quick and will rule the world in the future.

Game on!

They are limiting coverage there because there is more exposure there than ever, Florida population has grown immensely in the last 50 years, mass home insurers like Liberty Mutual or State farm have stopped writing standard insurance in Florida because they cannot charge enough to cover all the millions of homes they are responsible for that isn't how their business model works

There are plenty of smaller insurance carriers and specialty writers that love hurricane and windstorm risks in Florida and make money hand over fist. If there was no weather risk they would have no product to sell.

An insurance company is much more likely to bail on a state because of regulation than it is due to weather or because of climate change.

How do I know? Lets say I'm intimately familiar with the insurance industry and have been for many years all across the industry.

Move to Southern Arizona cities!

No hurricanes, no blizzards or snow for that matter, no earthquakes just rare some jiggles, no major wildfires, no power outages, no water restrictions, no riots, suppressed bum activity [compared to CA] ... etc

I think the whole world minus the Americas, Australia, and Sub-Saharan Africa would disagree with that bold statement. The Plague killed off nearly 50% of the population in Europe and similar numbers in other areas across the world. Native Americans died off in insane numbers due to diseases they weren't used to.

You are merely making a prediction. This stuff already happened. When 50% of people in the United States die from Climate Change I'll stop laughing at your hyperbole.

This is the issues I have with people who worship Climate Change as a religion. You guys *hate* anyone challenging you. Even if it's based on actual facts.

Facts, we had an ice age less than 20,000 years ago. In order to END an ice age, you need massive heating. Not saying we aren't warming the planet. But it's important to acknowledge.

I asked a professor of mine, who has written a lot of articles about climate change, "so we all know about the negative consequences of climate change, what are the positives to a warming planet?"

He had no answer. A guy who has spent the last 10 years writing papers and researching this issue has not even thought about the positives of a warming planet. This informs me that this is more than science, this has become a political religion full of dogma.

Yes you did. The denial of anthropogenic climate change is only possible if you think you somehow know better than the world's foremost experts who have devoted their entire academic and professional careers to the study of the climate.

You keep saying this.^ It implies the climate crisis was not caused by human activity and has been naturally occurring for thousands of years. It's a completely bizarre thing to mention in this context and a cringe-worthy display of ignorance.

Have you never seen the goddamned "hockey stick" graph? Here, this just happened to be sitting in my news feed today:

The climate crisis explained in 10 charts

Look at those charts. Obviously what we're discussing is the warming that began during the industrial revolution and the extreme acceleration of that warming over the course of recent decades. Stop referring to the climate crisis as an "18,000-year trend."

Exactly. It's amusing that the Fox News commentators and talk radio hosts/guests, and their followers, believe they know more than the experts. But someone has to show those experts a thing or two.

What, God Forbid, could happen in Houston could be tragic. Many of us no longer evacuate for hurricanes and can't afford hotels for too long. We already saw what happened during Rita and Ike as far as jam packed freeways go.

Low lying areas, various bodies of water right on the coast and millions of people within 50 miles of the coast? Whew...

And yet, after a few recent storms,
I feel confident I could ride out a big storm in Galveston. I hope I don't get overconfident.

I get it. It's a tough pill to swallow - especially in the midst of this culture war. It means - as it pertains to this topic at least - those damn liberals were completely right all along and our side was completely wrong. (I'm assuming you're conservative at this point.)

The fact that there was an ice age tens of thousands of years ago doesn't challenge the scientific consensus regarding the climate crisis in any way whatsoever, and in the context of this conversation, is completely irrelevant. In fact, attempting to present it as evidence that this crisis isn't a crisis, or that it isn't unprecedented and completely anthropogenic, is an unfortunate display of ignorance.

There is no climate religion; there is only appropriate, commensurate concern. And there is no hate, obviously. You're just taking advantage of the opportunity to co-opt that word - likely because you're tired of the left hyperbolically lobbing it around in other, unrelated theaters of this culture war.

This issue really shouldn't be partisan. The only reason it is is because of a certain lobby - the same lobby that for decades successfully obfuscated the truth about rising levels of lead across the globe. The fact that it has somehow become partisan is a travesty of the democratic process.

I for one can understand your sort of thinking.
Actually, some people here in my country are harsh to environmentalists for the same kind of reasons, mostly because they are very worried about the economy and can't figure how the development model we've relied on for over 100 years - which is based on fossil fuels - could ever change positively. That's the fearsome challenge we're facing, definitely one of the hardest in entire mankind history.

So, you're not totally wrong in that everything has to be a subject to criticism, if not downright harshly questioned, except for things that are strictly, scientifically proven since these are no ideological dogma, they are just facts.

And you know what? By now science as a whole is already clear in that matter. Burning fossil fuels at the rate we do so to maintain our established economy releases an excessive amount of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere. Far far more than volcanoes do, and more that Earth can seize by its natural mechanisms to regulate the atmosphere.

Guess your professor couldn't answer your question because there is most likely no positive effect to this phenomenon, at least not for ourselves and most other species. The obvious prediction is that it would trigger a chain of events that would gradually turn Earth into an overheated hellhole, sort of like planet Venus whose atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gasses, CO2 in particular.

There is a whole ton of credible documentation on the topic. So forget about politics, that's the annoying dogma, and just stick to scientific studies and conclusions.

I actually agree with you, this shouldn't be partisan. However, it seems to be that way on both sides.

Look at the GND, it was like 60% about anything but the environment. What does a federal job gaurentee have to do with the environment? Or sexism? Why do people like Bernie say they will not only not allow new nuclear plants(that are MUCH safer) but won't even renew older plants leases? If you TRULY thought climate change was the biggest issue on Earth, wouldn't every necessary step possible to stem the tide be worth it?

I'll explain this as simply as I can...I am a conservative. I know what they think. The phrase "green is the new red" rings true to a lot of people. This is because so much of climate change talk *always* reverts back to the government have massive new powers(and a lot of them having nothing to do with climate change). Bernie, for example, wants to spend 1.6 trillion dollars per year for the next 10 years, nearly doubling our budget. Meanwhile, places like New Delhi have air quality that can only be matched by American cities during extreme forest fires(I think SF came close last year). We ban plastic straws while one Amazon package has more plastic in it then all the straws I use in a decade.

A lot of this is moral posturing. That's why I like Yang's proposals. He is being serious about the issue but actually tackling it head-on and not including stupid things that have nothing to do with climate change. That's how you get the whole country on board.

But really, if you study climate change and can't name ONE positive thing about it, you're not researching climate change, you're researching how to make it look as bad as possible.

Appreciate the post. Yeah, that's why I've come up with my own GND...just waiting for some politician to ask me about it lol

The denialists are hoping that the coastal cities get flooded out which would make those states more red, since any excuse to gain an electoral advantage is all that matters.

Nothing about that statement is true. And there are indeed many studies of the positive effects of global warming. Some countries like Canada and Russia are expected to receive considerable positive benefits from it. The problem is just that the Earth is a sphere so there's a lot more surface area near the equator that would get worse for humans than there is surface area near the poles that would get better for humans. So the net effect is negative even though some regions see a positive benefit. It will be pretty simply to adapt plants to grow in the warmer climates though so food isn't likely to be much of an issue. The only real inescapable issue is sea level rise and the effect it will have on our coastal communities. Global warming is bad, but it's no catastrophe by any means. It's nothing like the threats our ancestors faces like say the bubonic plague.

^ plants can adjust to warmer climates but many places will face intensive desertification we which is harder for plants to adapt with. Anyway it's a weird question to ask since of course even the most reprehensible actions have positives. If we murdered 10% of people at random I'm sure many douchebags would be killed, for example.

It's an entirely relevant question to ask when we're discussing spending many Trillions of dollars to stop global warming. Most rational people would weigh out the pros and cons of even a modest purchase and you're expecting us not to do the same for decisions which would cost Trillions? This sort of thinking is exactly the reason environmentalists are so damn stupid. They get offended at any sort of rational cost/benefit analysis. Their logic is entirely black and white. They deem something bad and they think no amount of money is too much to fix it. That's not how the world works.

I certainly wouldn't bet on any fact that northern regions like Canada or Siberia could ever benefit from the phenomenon already ongoing.

Suppose a 3°C global increase, on average. That is an average, which means temperatures on continents would most often be unbearable in the summer season. In fact, all seasons over land areas would be completely messed up.

Water can seize some heat, so temperatures would likely remain more moderate over oceans, but land areas release the heat they receive, as a return.
It definitely would be hellish. I'm so scared just thinking about it... Far from sure it would be feasible, possible to manage.

Add other factors to the scary issue, like human population constantly increasing, vital resources like phosphorus limited and so on, you get to an equation that no one can solve.

Of course we're all freaked out like nuts now. But who should we blame on? Our own greed, most obviously.
It appears Earth was designed for humans to be fair and friendly, not so greedy or aggressive.
That's all. We got to deal with what we've actually got.

Yeah, it's pretty bad and some of the most expensive homes are on or near waterways or within a mile or so. That doesn't bode well when we get a lot of rain. I am about 2 miles from the river and that's close enough. Homes that were within that range flooded during Harvey. If you're house is built up a little; higher elevation by just a few feet than the street, you're also fairly safe. Galveston gets the brunt of the storm surge and winds but we just flood.

This is because 0.1% of people wondering about the positives of climate change are interested in rational debate on the topic and the other 99.9% are disingenuous denialists.

Yes climate change will make some currently uninhabitable places more habitable at the cost of making many currently intensely inhabited places uninhabitable. Woohoo? I guess everyone from Jakarta can move to Whitehorse and we'll rebuild Manhattan in Yakutsk.

Sure it's possible to do an economic analysis of the issue. We can start with the costs of inaction: https://eiuperspectives.economist.co...inaction_0.pdf

^ Your link goes to a classical 404 - page not found error to me...

I'm wondering whether anyone on here is aware of the tremendous complexity of the problem. It is scary as hell.

I hope some more advanced minds rise from the terrible problem.
Usually, when there's a real bad problem, people suddenly grow smarter.
Ha ha ha.

I'm sure the kids whose best idea is to boycott school to attract attention to the problem will rise to the scientific challenge in due time. :P

(Sarcasm, just so it's clear.)

Ah yes, the new political competition of who can be the most proud of their ignorance. Children trying to talk about science while simultaneously skipping actual science classes is pretty high up there indeed. :haha:

Is that what you did? Boycotting school? Lol, c'est pas bon, hein ?
Sorry...

If you'd been to school, you'd know the poor autistic kid you're thinking of would be bullied in there, at school, so she would feel very uncomfortable and depressed anyway.
I would've bullied her as a kid and teen, myself.
It's not like I'm proud of it.

That's life. :)

I fixed it (I think). People who put spaces in URLs should be taken out back and shot :).

The "classic" economic study of course is the Stern Review, although it is quite old at this point (and many of its assumptions about the rate of climate change turned out to be overly optimistic).

The common result of all serious cost-benefit-analyses has been that action is necessary and of course they differ on how much reduction of carbon is optimal. Unfortunately we are far short of achieving even the bare minimum reduction required by any analysis, which leads to increased costs down the road.

Nobody in this forum, to my knowledge, is an expert on the climate. So we are all just giving our opinion.

stop being reasonable.

didnt you hear? IT RAINED a LOT in Louisiana it means the world is ending. I read about it from a twitter celebrity I particularly like and agree with.

I'm not a medical doctor, but I can still have an opinion that vaccines are good. I'm not an expert in geography, but I can still have an opinion on whether or not the Earth is flat. You don't need to be an expert on something to have an informed opinion.. especially when 99% of people who ARE experts on it all agree on something.

Ha, it makes me thinking, have you guys read the Ecclesiastes in the Bible?
It's some kind of philosophical lesson to teach us how to despise material things.
That's what they call "renoncement" here, which is very disturbing, I'll admit.
It is a pain to me as to anybody.

In a nutshell, the Ecclesiaste says - WTF is that for? I don't need it. I don't care.
If I remember well, it even despises women and sex, which is kind of wrong, though. Lol.
People need sex to be satisfied anyway.

But in the end, I think if we were more inspired by this kind of mindset, it would solve a whole lot of our issues.
Possibly even that of so called "climate change".

Just a note of mine on here. I didn't care much about philosophy when I was younger. I was just a spoiled child, not really intelligent... That's not my fault.
Now, as a grown-up, I find it interesting. It actually carries out some solutions, that's awesome.

Everyone, including experts, is just giving their opinion.

Nice try but if it's based on proper science it's not just someone's opinion. Uneducated people tend to dismiss things they don't understand but that's why we call people like that 'stupid'.

"Denialist"...I'll take them over insane statements like that. What does that even mean? Do you just dislike some people so much that making sense gets thrown out the window?

It's not like all those liberals will die in one epic flood lol they will just move to make other places bluer.

Yes, college is not the right place to think about all aspects of everything. We must just follow the script and get in line.

Since you are talking about my question, I'll explain why I asked:

First, the professor had a full day of us just asking him questions about climate change. People ran out of question as most students don't give a damn, they just want to pass.

Second, the professor pretty much said there is very little we can do as one nation so a lot of what we can do is retrofitting and changing the way we currently live here in the US(we consume too much etc. etc.). So it got me thinking...it will hurt places like the US, but what positives could it bring to other places.

My question was entirely academic. In an academic environment, no question or thought should be off the table. For the record, my professor is a good friend of mine. We are working on a paper together. I'm not some "denialist" or whatever else people here brand anyone who doesn't just follow in step 1000% everything that is said to them.

I think Houston is in a unique situation that has little to do with climate change. It’s been flooding here since people moved to the area and I suspect the recent troubles have more to do with heat island effect and impervious cover than they do with man-made climate change.

There is a (very true) saying about Texas, that it’s a “land of ongoing drought punctuated by spectacular floods”. Earlier this summer it didn’t rain in my part of the city for more than 2 months. Last Wednesday, it rained more than 5 inches in less than one hour. If you look at early maps of the area on thing that is notable is the lack of small creeks and tributaries feeding the larger bayous. Given the flat terrain and inconsistent rain patterns, much of the area drained by sheetflowing. Ditches were installed to channel the sheetflow runoff and as the city grew and more impervious surfaces replaced grassland, the ditches filled faster and couldn’t keep up. This is something that the region has been working on fixing for a while now. Tropical systems (which dump rain very quickly) have always stalled over Texas. They run into high pressure over the desert to the west and get stuck until prevailing winds carry them north or east.

Related to a point I made earlier in this thread, climate change could also be speeding up these flooding events, even though they would eventually happen under "normal" conditions.

Yes, this is true.

So, the statement "97% of climate scientists believe that the earth is warming" is really 97% of scientists hold the opinion that the earth is warming due to human activity. I'd like to see some of them explain why they feel that way, so that I can make my opinion better.

Literally nobody said this.

Besides, have you even thought about this concept? Do you think flooded cities would end liberal politics? Lol.

You're inventing stuff that I never talked about. There is no solution to warming. It's all about redirecting money. That's all it's always been about.

The Earth is warming, as it has for the last 18,000 years. Nobody has a solution on how to cool the Earth. Nobody. Nobody has determined at what temperature the Earth should cool to. What is the baseline? Nobody has established this.

Isn't it extremely unfair to have the Earth warm to a certain point, allowing some nations to reap the benefits of a warm world, while leaving other lands too cold to grow crops? When will we have that discussion? Or is that even a discussion to consider? Think about how much land is too damn cold to do anything with on this planet.

Land on Earth is about 29% of the surface, and human settlements are on about 1%.

Most of Canada, Alaska, most of Asia, Nordic nations, all of Antartica, all of Greenland -- it's so damn cold to use the land, live, or grow crops.

Some still think cigarettes don't cause cancer either. (Lots of industry dollars went into the deception, just like this one).

The sum total of scientific knowledge, and near-unanimous conclusions that humans are causing climate change....vs. random people and industry shills. Some opinions aren't like others.

Ciggs and Global Warming. Boy O' Boy, now that's an analogy!

Humans are not causing Climate Change, lol.

Maybe you weren't paying attention 30 years ago. The pattern was similar: Billions of industry dollars one one side, the public health and medical fields on the other. Industry caused confusion, people got suckered, and cigarette regulations were set back by decades. Only later did industry fess up and pay hundreds of billions in penalties for the lies that helped kill millions of people (smokers and the innocent).

Back then, industry stooges called talk radio shows and wrote letters to the paper. Today they spam social media and hang out on bulletin boards. As do the suckers who believe them, or want to believe them.

The difference is that climate change might kill a lot more people. But the lies (and suckers) are the same.

End result: people still smoke because it's still legal, they pay higher taxes though and now marijuana smoking and vaping* is legal. Great analogy.

*Vaping might not be legal in some states now that people have died.

Because climate didn't kill people in the past?

https://i.imgur.com/YZOXtoZ.png

Cigarettes are a simple recreational drug, but energy forms the foundation of modern civilization, and is overwhelmingly provided by carbon fuels. Cut off all oil, coal and natural gas and after the first local winter most of the world's population would be dead.

Absolutely. The scientists who have made their career out of studying the climate are in nearly 100% agreement that the climate is changing rapidly, and humans are causing it.

Its literally completely acceptable to question scientists, in fact it is the duty of the scientific duty to do so.

The notion that there is a "consensus" on any scientific theory is wrong.

(Some) scientists who have made their career out of studying the climate (many) are /in nearly 100%/ (remove for inaccuracy) in agreement that the climate is changing rapidly (delete rapidly) , and humans MAY BE CONTRIBUTING to it.

** there is very little agreement on what should or even can be done about climate change.

I edited it to make it accurate.

Humans are not causing climate change, lol.

There is only so much brain bandwidth available. You may have asked your question in good faith (I have no reason to doubt you), but from the perspective of the professor, your question, which was was essentially "what are the advantages of climate change?" may have set of his/her bad faith argument alarm (i.e. it may have sounded like a young-earth creationist asking a question about the eyes of the coelacanth in a lecture on evolution). If you meant to ask "what groups stand to benefit from climate change" that would be a less loaded way to ask the question since it doesn't have the implied value judgement :).