DJL

Aside from the people shitting on the sidewalks I haven't heard much of Californians having trouble paying their electricity bill.

I don't think brother is going to get his mind changed by CNN.

Or if you live far enough North, you care about polar bears, care about your family even more and are seeing too many polar bears because they've lost their habitat. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/12/residents-russian-town-invaded-polar-bears-forced-patrol-streets/ You do realize that people can be concerned about their family in the long term. At the very least you don't want them saying "Our grandparents were idiots". Edit: Do you think the measures to combat climate change represent an existential threat to your family?

Do you not understand that I was describing a combination of increases in sea level and increases in the frequency or stronger storms? Anyway, have Katherine call me, I've already shown examples of all of those to you.

The cost of reversing the effects of Global Warming gets more and more expensive the longer we wait. For example loss of coral reefs worldwide alone could mark a loss of $1 trillion annually is lost revenue. Of note, that doesn't mean that money won't get spent it simply represents a loss to the industries and economies that operate via reefs. But that's a win for you because you can charge a fee for them to visit your basement aquarium. (page 18) https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2017/04/11/CC_Report_1.pdf Why would a country willfully allow its industries to collapse?

This link shows the storm surge in the Bahamas. While I don't want to make a claim that the current elevated sea level or the Hurricane are examples of global warming as that would raise claims of conjecture I wanted to show an example of what happens more and more often in a world of unchecked global warming. There won't be a tsunami that'll fell the world in one swoop but marginally higher tides causing marginally more risk and when a marginally worse storm comes through the deck will stack to do much more damage. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/03/hurricane-dorian-satellite-photos-show-bahamas-underwater.html As a clarification, this is satellite imagery, not photos.

Does that sentence continue with some claim that there will be a single cataclysmic event in the next ten years that will destroy nature and life itself? Edit: In the interest of actual discussion rather than one-liners: You're making an argument that it's OK to ignore these warnings because you think people are over reacting and there's no need to make draconian laws regarding climate change. That's an argument of extremes that simply doesn't exist. There will be events in the next 10 years that will threaten specific people and areas just like there already have been events and those events will increase as global warming continues. There IS a need for the world to act together so that everyone is on board and there WILL be more needed from the wealthier countries and from those countries that can make the most change, it will not be equitable. The dollar signs matter less than the fact that we cannot continue on this path so where WILL be legislation that results in higher prices. BUT that highlights the fact that all countries need to act together so that the cost of a product in China isn't half the price of that product in the US because they use coal instead of renewables.

It sounds like the cost effectiveness of "Green" energy bit them in the ass. They spent a bunch of money building a system so that they could lock in a fixed rate and sell the rest to the grid but because of the statewide move to renewables the buyback value has decreased and they're stuck paying off the capital investment. They're paying $13 more per household not for the cost of their electricity but because they made probably the worst deal you possibly could to maintain a fixed rate AND be on the hook for the construction bill. In the meantime the rest of the state is enjoying rates below the national average. You'd think a Republican led city in Texas would learn a lesson from Venezuela and not let the government have such control over their energy source. They're putting a $63 million proposal to buy themselves out of the contract and it'll be their taxpayers footing that bill too.

Another prediction that came true, instances of fires in the Boreal Forest because of rising global temperatures: Scientific Report: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.02205 News Narrative: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190822-why-is-the-arctic-on-fire

Record after record after record all within the same short time span. But hey, that CO2 sure does make for a marginally better crop yeild! Edit: So do you notice that all of these records we've listed are happening right now but in order for you to find an equivalent you have to go back a century (We'll pretend you didn't go back 500 million years for your coral example). Century storms need a host of factors in place for them to happen yet we have all of these century scale events happening within a very short timespan. Your issue with predictions of "imminent catastrophe" hinge on your complaint that there's no empirical data and that they're wild guesses but when shown actual examples you sound like Baghdad Bob.

By the way, I think it's great that middle aged folks like us know Greta Thunberg's name. That means the next crop of voters definitely know her name.

By the way since you're making a claim about oceanfront property value being an indicator of the risk of sea level rise do you know that the house they bought was listed for $22.5 million but they got it for $14.5? That's from the link you posted above: https://robbreport.com/shelter/homes-for-sale/obamas-marthas-vineyard-estate-15-million-2865341/ So it sounds like the Obamas wanted waterfront property, chose an area that is not as threatened by sea level rise as others and got it for a markdown of $8 million. Sounds like that narrative is fitting the points all of us, including you, are making.

Yup, pretty close to the water, they will also probably get damage from future storms. Do you think that equates to what Miami will experience? This link shows pictures of exactly what was damaged nearest to the Obamas new home during Sandy. So if that's your example of the worst case it still sounds like they made a good choice. https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2012/10/30/coastal-erosion-severe-following-islands-brush-sandy

There are areas in Marthas vineyard that have issues but not on the piece of land where the Obamas bought a house. There is no comparison to the degree to which Miami is threatened and already seeing the effects of rising sea levels.

In the meantime BrentHutch just said, "Fuck all of you...I'm out."

You should wear a CALOSTROPHY bag.

A liquid at liquid will keep liquiding until liquided upon by an equal and opposite liquid. Gotta give a pass here and there.

This is a fairly unverified issue from what I'm seeing, the bank has them but the part about a loan being co-signed by a Putin aligned oligarch is not validated.

Their address is 79 Turkeyland Rd, Edgartwon and their property is not in a threatened area for flooding in a 65 to 100 year timescale. https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/08/21/effects-climate-change-chappaquiddick/ Also, they do not live on "Oceanfront" property, they're about a mile back along an inner bay that is blocked off from the ocean by a breakwater. It's at least 10 feet above sea level whereas sea level rise for that area is projected to be between 12 to 48 inches by 2050 and up to 72 inches by 2100. https://www.topozone.com/massachusetts/dukes-ma/island/marthas-vineyard/ Martha's Vineyard simply isn't in the same category of risk as Miami and that's probably why they chose to buy a house there. Also, the strategy of Democrats isn't simply to abandon the coast and sit back for 100 years until their grandchildren can say "Told you so...". Things like the Green New Deal will save the world and we'll all get a puppy.

You should go read up on what Miami has had to already do and what it plans on doing. Protecting that property value can get pretty expensive and you have to question why they'd spend the money if it weren't an issue.

By getting Republicans voters who are afraid of Socialists to move forward on energy and environmental issues so all the feelgood BS and state employment things don't become a reality.

So you're saying that a change in property value on waterfronts is a metric of whether sea level rise and global warming are relevant?

A rate at least twice that of the natural cycle or previous scale. And BTW, I know you can't stand Mann, which is kind of why I posted that link but here's one from NOAA. Since you have routinely posted NOAA data to support your points you shouldn't have any issue with this. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Please disprove the data.