The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© The ConversationClimate change intensifying water cycle, bringing more powerful storms and flooding
By Mathew Barlow LOWELL, Mass©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
14 Comments
Login to comment
Sven Asai
History books are full of warming periods, heavy rainfalls and devastating floods, long before any emissions caused by humans. They shouldn’t just stop to mix up all those developments, only to propagate their de-industrialization efforts from the green agendas. And it also won’t help, because even in the best scenario it only could postpone those effects a little bit, not avoid them.
venze
Climate change intensifying water cycle, bringing more powerful storms and flooding:
That must have been a long foregone conclusion for a number of years.
Yet how many people, particularly those blockheaded and pugnacious leaders, are taking any serious note..?
virusrex
If there is enough scientific evidence that proves human activity is the cause of the current climatic change, so much that the scientific community is in overwhelming consensus about it, what makes you think you can prove the experts are all wrong based only on your personal beliefs.
There are many kinds of strategies being put forward to correct the problem, including some that bring a lot of scientific advancement. Misrepresenting the movement as if it was just "de-industrialization efforts" clearly shows your bias.
With that logic there is no point in any medical treatment either, after all it can only postpone the death of the patients, not avoiding it.
painkiller
Sven AsaiToday 11:44 am JST
Good point.
Except there is no scientific evidence that proves human activity is the cause of any climate change.
There is nothing that says climate change is a problem. Just as historical records showing heavy rainfalls and devastating floods existed and might have been a problem; those incidents themselves would be the problem.
This is fallacious reasoning on many levels, and on one, people only have one life and one death whereas the environment has many cycles and so if there is a climate change, it does not mean the death of the earth, as evidenced by the fact there is still an earth that has endured historical warming periods, etc.
virusrex
You could not be more wrong
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change
How do you explain that the whole scientific community says there is enough evidence to prove beyond any rational doubt that human activity is the cause of climate change? are you going to being discussing semantics?
Once again completely wrong
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change
The problems originated by climate change are listed in an easy to understand way, you are proved wrong again
That does nothing to disprove the analogy, if the argument is that postponing something is worthless it does not matter what, so medical treatment is also worthless.
Climate change do not have to be the death of the earth to be worth posponing it, that is all your strawman.
OnTheTrail
This is an interesting way to put it. Indeed, I have already decided that if I were to have an illness that is anything like I have seen family and friends struggle with treatment, pay a bunch and then die early anyway that I won't do that.
There is an opportunity cost to money spent on anything, including giving $100B a year (is that what is proposed?) to countries like China to use to adapt to change. That is only the straight cash spending, with very dubious expectations that it would be spent wisely. One could argue very easily that the opportunity spend would also be wasteful, but it would be debated as it is spent in smaller increments. Currently, if you question the climate spending, you are labeled a "denier" and the conversation is over.
Hervé L'Eisa
Speaking of increased water vapor in the Stratosphere, "the Tonga eruption sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere."
And next, are the climate alarmists going to blame human activity for the Hunga-Tonga Hunga-Apia volcanic eruption? That would be some very interesting mental gymnastics!
Hervé L'Eisa
And just to be clear that the data I referenced is not from some "fringe" source (though I did misspell the name of the volcano : it's Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai) please refer to :
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere
painkiller
You are wrong.
Just because "scientists agree" that doesn't mean there is scientific evidence!
The whole scientific community?
Let's see the source for that claim,
You are wrong again. NOTHING in that source says "climate change is a problem".
Wrong.
You made a fundamental illogical analogy, plain and simple.
Strangerland
You thought this was an intelligent statement? Ouch, you can read a LOT into the fact you thought that was an intelligent statement. Although it would take intelligence to be able to do that reading.
painkiller
StrangerlandToday 11:23 pm JST
Hilarious!
Just to confirm, because scientists agree on something, that makes the something a fact, right?
virusrex
Yes that is what it means, that is what scientist use to agree, do you have evidence of the contrary? if you don't that means you are still wrong.
Is was already presented, that is the whole point of the reference, do you think CalTech is lying? based on what? that you think differently so they must be wrong? because that is not an argument, that is just being in denial.
The source includes a list of problems cause by climate change, thus it proves your position as clearly irrational.
Since you have given up trying to argue how this is so, it is clear there is no problem with the analogy, just you trying to criticize something without having the arguments to do it.
painkiller
Just because "scientists agree" that doesn't mean there is scientific evidence
Wrong.
Any laymen knows that scientists agreeing on something doesn't make it scientific evidence. When scientists in the field of biology agree on something in the field of physics, their biology background does not qualify them to make conclusions from experiments or studies conducted according to scientific method in the physics field. That ability would go to the physics experts.
It's like Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry agreeing with Syukuro Manabe, Nobel Prize in physics and telling people they should take more than the daily recommended dose of Vitamin C to ward off sickness.
Classic appeal to authority fallacy.
Fallacy of small sample.
Small sample, appeal to authority.
Circular reasoning fallacy.
virusrex
The wrong part is you trying to misrepresent the comment with the opposite causal relationship, when the whole of the scientific community agrees on something it is precisely because there is enough scientific evidence, pretending you can do the job of interpreting the evidence available better than the whole scientific community makes no sense. That is what their job is, believing all of them are doing it wrong just because they reached a conclusion you refuse to accept is simply irrational, and obviously wrong.
That would be on your case, that appeal to your own authority to oppose the perfectly valid appeal to authority to the whole scientific community.
The references is there, and the sampling is not small,
Small sample, appeal to authority.
Do you even understand what you try to use as an argument? even one single example would prove climate change is a problem, having a list of serious problems that can be confirmed without any difficulty clearly shows your opinion is false, also there is no appeal to authority, the problems are not being decided according to anybody's authority but the evidence that proves they exist.
There is nothing circular about it, if an argument proves something and you fail to produce any argument against it that means your criticism is invalid, and baseless.