Global warming… …er, I mean “Climate Change…” …will take care of that first issue, and the cascade effect of humans moving northward due to such will take care of the rest.
Unfortunately climate change makes many northern communities, that are dependent in permafrost to allow trucks to pass, less accessible. At least in the short and medium term.
That I knew, but the phrasing seems sarcastic towards climate change, that’s mainly what i wanted clarity on.
Building on your answer, if the Gulf Stream were to break, Europe’s temperatures would drop, and at the moment there is still no understanding of how close we are to the Gulf Stream collapsing.
The science is still very unclear, both from a modeling perspective (what are the pieces of the puzzle and how to connect them), a simplified perspective (what pieces are most important) and a theoretical perspective (what typical behavior should we detect close to the collapse).
Unfortunately, the latter one’s answer seems to be that close to bifurcations in statistical differential equations the variance of a system increases. Decrypting the math: close to a sudden change, we should experience a wider variety of events that usual, in particular more extreme events. This seems to be happening to the AMOC, but support for the claim is still weak and unclear (because the modeling is unclear, so we don’t know what pieces should be included in the problem).
To answer your question, it was indeed a sarcastic comment on the BS surrounding CC being somehow more politically acceptable than the truth of GW. I’ve never been a proud American (in part because of the truth in “pride goeth before a fall,” even though I’m not religious), but I’ve never been less proud than I’ve been forced to become over the past couple of decades.
As the other commenter said, Global Warming fell out of favor because it underlines only one part of the full problem. The weather in most places is getting warmer, but other things are also happening connected to it: extreme events are becoming more and more common, such as drought, flooding and forest fires, that might not seem included in the wording global warming but is clearly described by climate change.
While that’s true, in America at least the fact that average global temperatures are rising in large part due to human activities has been a significant point of contention with conservatives who seemingly instinctively deny responsibility for anything negative that they and/or their preferred policies are contributing to. They fought against “Global Warming” tooth and nail despite the documented facts. They more begrudgingly accepted “Climate Change” because it could at least be spun more easily into outcomes that didn’t make them look so bad.
I see… thanks for explaining where you were coming from! I honestly only vaguely remember the times when Global Warming was the naming, and here countries are mostly springing in action when talking about the ramifications of Climate Change. Even if we hardly tackle the root cause… :/
Yeah but it’s cold and groceries are expensive and amazon doesn’t deliver.
None of us want to make Bezos and his plastic doll richer anyway.
I cancelled my (Amazon Canada) Amazon Prime account after I saw Bezos standing behind Trump at the inauguration.
Amazon delivers, just not same-day. I’ve lived north of 55’ my whole life, and usually it takes 3-5 days.
Global warming……er, I mean “Climate Change…” …will take care of that first issue, and the cascade effect of humans moving northward due to such will take care of the rest.Unfortunately climate change makes many northern communities, that are dependent in permafrost to allow trucks to pass, less accessible. At least in the short and medium term.
Why did you cross out global warming for “climate change”? (Genuine question, this seems a debate i have overlooked)
Global warming fell out of favor, while true: morr energy in the system, higher average temperatures; it confuses some people.
I.e. more energy means more extreme extremes. So cold events can also get worse and more frequent. To a lay person that’s a contradiction.
Climate change gained favor as a more lay friendly name.
Also there was some idiot US congressman/senator who brought a snowball into the house as evidence that global warming was a hoax.
That I knew, but the phrasing seems sarcastic towards climate change, that’s mainly what i wanted clarity on.
Building on your answer, if the Gulf Stream were to break, Europe’s temperatures would drop, and at the moment there is still no understanding of how close we are to the Gulf Stream collapsing.
Let’s not forget this very real threat
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/rivers-oceans/collapse-of-key-atlantic-currents-may-be-held-off-by-newly-discovered-back-up-system-study-finds
The science is still very unclear, both from a modeling perspective (what are the pieces of the puzzle and how to connect them), a simplified perspective (what pieces are most important) and a theoretical perspective (what typical behavior should we detect close to the collapse).
Unfortunately, the latter one’s answer seems to be that close to bifurcations in statistical differential equations the variance of a system increases. Decrypting the math: close to a sudden change, we should experience a wider variety of events that usual, in particular more extreme events. This seems to be happening to the AMOC, but support for the claim is still weak and unclear (because the modeling is unclear, so we don’t know what pieces should be included in the problem).
To answer your question, it was indeed a sarcastic comment on the BS surrounding CC being somehow more politically acceptable than the truth of GW. I’ve never been a proud American (in part because of the truth in “pride goeth before a fall,” even though I’m not religious), but I’ve never been less proud than I’ve been forced to become over the past couple of decades.
As the other commenter said, Global Warming fell out of favor because it underlines only one part of the full problem. The weather in most places is getting warmer, but other things are also happening connected to it: extreme events are becoming more and more common, such as drought, flooding and forest fires, that might not seem included in the wording global warming but is clearly described by climate change.
While that’s true, in America at least the fact that average global temperatures are rising in large part due to human activities has been a significant point of contention with conservatives who seemingly instinctively deny responsibility for anything negative that they and/or their preferred policies are contributing to. They fought against “Global Warming” tooth and nail despite the documented facts. They more begrudgingly accepted “Climate Change” because it could at least be spun more easily into outcomes that didn’t make them look so bad.
I see… thanks for explaining where you were coming from! I honestly only vaguely remember the times when Global Warming was the naming, and here countries are mostly springing in action when talking about the ramifications of Climate Change. Even if we hardly tackle the root cause… :/
I’m a fan of climate destabilization myself.