Uncle Sam and Aunt SF will ask you to pay to them for some schemes simimar to huriccane insurance
and earthquake insurance. Stock simbol is GOV
These are the people that a week ago said Irma would hit Miami as a category 5 hurricane. Now it’s hitting Tampa as a category 2. They weren’t even remotely close, but they want us to trust that they can predict the temperature 80 years from now.
Invest in Home Depot
Predicting the big picture 80 years from now is easier. I can tell you the US stock market will be higher in 2097 than today. I can’t tell you whether it will be higher next week.
That’s because of inflation. I don’t think that principle applies to weather. Their models 20 years ago predicted mich higher temps than we have today.
Similarly there is a set of factors behind climate change. It tilts the probability of warmer climate higher. Given long enough time span the probability will converge to 1.
All it takes is one volcano spewing a ton of junk into the air, and you’re looking at a cold spell and no crops when the sun can’t reach the Earth. Predict all you want, but ultimately, nature is in control.
I’d love to know what factors because the CO2 modeling broke 20 years ago. The temp isn’t increasing the way they said it would based on CO2 increase. That’s why they had to pivot to climate change. Now they are pivoting to climate risk. You don’t have to pivot twice if your science is right.
Even though everybody is gonna die some day, most people still go through diet or painful exercise, hoping to live longer. Catastrophe could happen, but that shouldn’t be an excuse not to make some effort based on what we currently know( and not what we currently don’t know).
Fed can print money and change interest rate to affect stock market. What can Fed print to stop the huriccane?
Natural science is not quite the same as “social science”. Communists think they can alter the social and natural law, astromical error.
Will human be powerful enough to alter the nature’s law?
The first problem is that CO2 isn’t the only issue. Methane and probably every other gas contribute something to the equation.
I would not be surprised if the model can be broken simply by shifting the percentage of cows being raised factory farmed vs. cows being raised on grass. My understanding is that less methane is released when the cow is raised properly on grass, plus the manure can be used as fertilizer which puts the Carbon back into the ground.
To me that says the opposite. Science is never “right”. It’s the best we can do today, to the best of our knowledge. Newton was right for 300 years until relativity and quantum mechanics came along. No doubt one day we will look back and marvel how wrong quantum mechanics was.
Climate change due to human actions is the best we know today. Sure, maybe 10 years later we will say it’s all a big misunderstanding. Everything is possible and science is progressing. But what if it were right? That would be a catastrophe of global magnitude. Just for the option value alone we should act today.
If so maybe you should encourage your kids to do the research. Published in top journals will do wonder to their college admission.
LOL! I think the research has actually been done already.
Maybe they could research the effects of paleo vs. a high carb diet on human methane emissions
True. It’s too bad more people don’t internalize this–science is an ever changing field. You’d think after Pluto was demoted, it’d be a wakeup call, but hey.
The ever changing science says it’s less and less of a problem. So if you want to embrace science getting smarter and better, then you should embrace their new conclusions. Warming isn’t nearly as much as they feared it would be. Ice at the poles is increasing not decreasing.
You either embrace the science or you cling to old headlines that are no longer true.
It’s interesting how people that don’t believe the perma bears yelling recession every year believe the climate scientists doing the same thing.
Checkout the lists they reference of doomsday climate predictions.
nasa.gov seems to be very objective since it includes all the facts it collects regardless whether or not it supports popular political view. Can we at least agree on that?
If we agree on that, here is the more complete pictures of the ice extent combining both poles, also from NASA.
You need to also look at snow accumulation which says both have more than ever. Only measuring sea ice is misleading. If I remember right, they were basically shamed into admitting ice was increasing by other scientists questioning their data.