WolfStock1

This. I don't think the "sky is falling" people realize just how foolish they look when anyone who doesn't toe the sky-is-falling line must be a denier; and as a result how counter-productive it is to their cause.

Not yet. Sorry - could not let that slide. "Performance" is a multifaceted thing, including speed, driving distance, fueling convenience, costs, build quality, etc. etc. If the performance of the average EV and the average combustion vehicle in the US (what most of us care about) matched, their sales would be roughly equal, but they very much aren't; even before the recent subsidy removal.

Question for those in the know: Since urban heat island is a thing - has there been a concerted effort to place sensors specifically in non-urban areas? If not - it seems like there should be. Of course some areas could transition from non-urban to urban over the course of decades, but such an effort/project would presumably account for this - putting sensors in areas that are protected and would never becomes urban (national parks, wildlife refuges, etc.) and/or just remove any sensors that have become urbanized from the data sets. As it is - it seems like threads like this one - "XXX city sees record warmth", are of questionable veracity; to me what would be more meaningful would be "Badlands NP sees record warmth" or the like. (at first I started using Yellowstone as example but then realized it has its own non-urban heat island)

Much as I like such things - this stunk for me. I've been working on installing windows in a sunroom - was halfway through installing one but hadn't secured it completely yet. Woke this morning to tons of shattered glass. Oh well. Lesson learned. I see it gusted up to 35 mph here.

Yeah this is one of the things I point to for anyone that doesn't believe the planet is warming (e.g. people that try to use heat islands to explain away temperature increase measurements). This plus glacier loss makes it pretty incontrovertible.

Weather vs Climate. When looking at climate looking at single month, or even a single year, is meaningless - it's noise. You have to look at multi-year or even multi-decade averages to determine what's really going on.

Indeed - as has been the case for all of human history, and will continue to be the case for all of the rest of human history. The difference is that increasingly the primary reason for people going hungry isn't food production issues (or climate change), it's political instability. (e.g. see https://agecon.unl.edu/violent-conflict-drives-world-hunger-and-food-insecurity/) If anything attempts to *prevent* climate change will bring about a higher level of food insecurity, as less and less prosperity is available to poor areas, due to increasing pressure to avoid using fossil fuels, e.g. for things like farm equipment, more-abundant electricity to power food processing facilities and transportation, etc. Tugging on "going hungry" heart strings is nice, but one has to also use one's brain. That includes realization that the use of fossil fuels is a big enabler of prosperity; and that prosperity helps bring about - among other things - an abundance of food.

Worldwide food production has increased *four-fold* since 1960. https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production If MMGW was a significant problem for food production I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the case. I wouldn't propose that there will be zero impact on food production - however it is clear to anyone who knows how things work that any such impact will be vastly smaller in scale that mankind's ability to adapt and will more than offset any such negative impact (if there was to be one), such as happened after the big "Population Bomb" food-shortage scaremongering of the late 60's. Such scaremongering has been proven wrong time and again, and as such deserves to to be mocked. (World population grew by 2.7x during this period; thus food production increase outpaced - and continues to outpace - population growth, especially as population growth continues slowing.)

Some people aren't very good students of history, it appears. How many times do predictions of things like "food insecurity" have to be wrong in order for people to learn? Sorry but alarmism like this deservers to be mocked. It certainly doesn't help the cause any.

Weather vs climate. If a football team is down 50-0 and then scores a touchdown - you can't really say that they've turned it around and are suddenly the better team.

Best wishes! Good you were able to get into the hospital OK. You'll have quite the memorable story. Hope the birth goes well.

LCPS now closed. Coming down pretty good.

Gotta figure many places will cancel. LoCo is on 2-hour delay but said "stay tuned". Based on history I bet they'll cancel. Haven't looked at the roads yet but there's lots on the ground and it's snowing now, and it's cold enough the roads won't melt easy.

Thought this bit was kind of odd: "The revised analysis shows economic damages from climate change till mid-century are substantial and outweigh the costs of mitigation" It seems the relationship of the costs shouldn't necessarily be 1:1 or anything like that. Every dollar spent on mitigation doesn't lessen the costs of CC by a dollar - it may be much less or it may be much more; and you may actually want one or the other. E.g. say the costs due to CC (generally storms - wind and flooding) end up being $500 billion in a given area over the next 25 years, if no mitigation was done. You could spend say twice that - say $1 trillion - on sea walls, stricter building codes, river flood mitigation (drainage and walls), and lessen the resulting damage costs from $500B to say $300B. Was it bad to spend the $1 trillion, since the net loss is $700B? Maybe, but maybe not if you consider that there are also lives involved; presumably less lives lost in the do-mitigate case. Looking from a strictly financial standpoint - it seems like you generally would *want* your mitigation costs to be less than the damage costs, right? This is due to the unpredictable nature of storms. If you spend more money to mitigate then the delta between the two is by definition wasted money - generally. That said - there's probably some low-hanging fruit that is worthwhile. E.g. the US built a series of flood-control dams after the big Ohio river flood in 1937; this likely ended up saving money in the long run, so that might be a case where the cost of mitigation reduced the likely cost of non-mitigation damages. Same is true for flood walls in various places - usually it's money well spent. But it's rarely a 1:1 tradeoff though; so comparing the two sets of figures seems odd.

A pretty devastating article in WSJ today on the negative effects of the renewable energy push on the European economy: https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/europes-green-energy-rush-slashed-emissionsand-crippled-the-economy-e65a1a07 While the existence of warming is undeniable (e.g. see new record low Arctic ice extent in other thread), this illustrates how hard of a problem this is to solve.