lol, yes steering a climate science thread to climate science and not weather. Shame on me
By "something you're more comfortable" with I refer to stuff you just make up", of course, not climate science.
You're desperately trying to extend climate changes to include changes in the weather and the fact is climate is not weather. The changes to albedo due to urbanization and deforestation are much more suited to explaining these extreme weather events than is climate change.
Stuff like that, for instance.
Climate is intimately connected with weather because it is the envelope within which weather happens. Change the climate and weather changes
on the average. In a warmer world there will be more droughts, deluges and wildfires - and in this warmer world that's exactly what we're seeing. Weather which was extreme in one climate may be more likely in another. Some weather which is impossible in one climate is possible in another.
Of course over the years, the continuous change in weather due to changes in albedo get lumped in under the monikur of climate change. The scientists are quick to point out however that they aren't entirely sure what amount of warming is due to emissions and what is due to change in albedo.
Indeed they do; what you don't point out is that the uncertainty is trivial in comparison to the actual warming. It is very well known that directly anthropogenic albedo change (that is, AAC which is not mediated by AGW) cannot explain the climate change we are experiencing. Nor was climate change predicted to occur by that mechanism
before the event based on well-understood physics.
Your albedo fantasy really doesn't survive scrutiny.
That doesn't stop the alarmists though. They'll pick a nice steep slope for some truncated graph, point to some heatwave in Arizona and call for outrageous tax they believe will somehow remedy the problem. lolz.
Ah, the
tax. That's what this is about.
The environment may have "suffered" over the last 150 years due to increased emissions, but people haven't.
Yes they have. Pollution shortens lives and blights what life there is.
The standard of living has gone up, so have longevity and so has food production. The alarmists will continue to point out the few farmers who have lost income from climate change, the few who have died in heatwaves and a few bad crops. The fact is on a whole we're all doing better from a degree increase in average temperature over that time.
You attribute all that improvement to a small change in climate yet cannot accept that any equivalent damage might be caused by AGW.
Standards of living and food production have improved over the last century and a half for a complex of reasons (none of them climate change), not least of which is science. Science now tells us (and has been for some time now) that AGW will make things worse rather than better.
Face it, any way you slice it, this is the cost of doing business.
You seem to be OK with a
cost but not with a
tax. A cost which you probably don't expect to be pay yourself.
One reason for the increased food-supply since the mid-19thCE was the agricultural development of the US Mid-West and South-West, which is not going to remain tenable for much longer. Another reason is Australia, which is also not doing so well. Then there's the Ukraine and Argentina, which are also under stress. Rice harvests have suffered from extreme weather in recent years, which is a cost to a lot of people who aren't you. British harvest are not looking at all promising this year.
Food prices are rising, which does represent a cost to you, but I expect food is a small part of your normal expenditure. For many people food is a major expenditure so the relative deprivation is greater, but hey, they're not you. That's the cost of you doing business as usual for your own benefit.
I'm not making any judgements, just pointing out some facts. I'd be the last person to moralise, sitting comfortably in front of my laptop burning up energy to no constructive purpose.
\
!
