You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm no left ideologue. I'm just saying the system is broken right now, however you want to look at it.
— ChatteringMonkey

You weigh in by telling me I misunderstand Pikkety - then forgive me for considering you an advocate of his position, and tailoring my remarks accordingly. I cannot comprehend how inequality of wealth is relevant to my proposal - even if I thought it were a problem, which I don't. I'm happy to see someone doing well for themselves - good on 'em! The question is about approaches to climate change, and frankly, the left wing limits to resources approach is factually wrong and requires great suffering to an intangible ideal - and the reply is, "Ah yes, but - if we sustain capitalism, some people will get very rich!" How awful! — counterpunch

I weighed in because you misunderstood Pikkety, which... you know, seems fair game on a philosophy forum.

And it's not only about inequality of wealth, even if you are not left politically, the system isn't working properly, by it's own standards.

Personally I don't think limiting energy is needed to solve this problem long term because renewables, solar in the first place, will be cheap enough to provide the energy... short term it could certainly help to be more energy-conserving though.

But climate change and energy-supply is not the only issue, there will eventually, sooner for some, be problems with other resources that are not renewable.

Either way, a model that relies on perpetual growth isn't sustainable I think, because at some point we will hit a wall of diminishing returns on possible innovations, which is what ultimately drives growth.

And that's only tackling the question of the feasibility, i.e. can or could we do it? The real question - and beyond the scope of this thread - is do we really want this?

You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm no left ideologue. I'm just saying the system is broken right now, however you want to look at it.

Let's take Pikkety's critique, and respond, so what?

"The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future."

Wealth inequality is good. Inequality means that people have been able to develop their talents, and use those talents to create social good, for a profit. Talent is unequally distributed by nature. Equality of opportunity, sure - I'm with Rawl's on equality of opportunity, but denying people the right to profit from their talents, for sake of equality of outcome with the talentless, is profoundly unjust and dysfunctional. — counterpunch

You missed Pikkety's point. The point is that those with capital will only get richer, while others who do produce get poorer in relation. Investors don't develop their talents to create something, they only invest to get more money back. This incentivizes rent-seeking behaviour which makes the economy actually worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

The problem is not with the free-market mechanism as such, markets are good at producing, distributing and pricing goods etc... The problem is that they have 'forgotten' their role and have over the years essentially taken over the state by lobbying and by playing states against eachother after globalization. They have turned a means into the goal.

Seems like BS to me, but I often fall right in with the crowd. :yikes: :blush: — James Riley

A sure sign that you are a philosopher!

yeah it does surprise me that this even needs saying.

I don't understand pride. I'm not saying anything about it, good or bad. I'm looking for insight from others. What good is it? What purpose does it serve? Where did it come from? I have the same concerns about the word "deserve." But that's another thread I reckon. — James Riley

People feel like certain groups, be it nations, sportsteams, parties are part of their identity... that's to say there's no stark difference between them feeling pride in accomplishing something themselves or the group they identify with accomplishing something.

Ok maybe you'd follow this up by asking why one would identify with something other then themselves... at some point the answer will just be because we are that kind of beings, social beings. Individualism is a later ideological invention.

We probably do use a different definition.
— ChatteringMonkey

I'm not going to open the whole systemic racism debate again, but that seems to be our difference. — Isaac

Fair enough, there's no need to go there in this thread. But yes, a lot of what is included under the term systemic racism is I think caused by poverty and its effects. Which I do think is an issue that needs to be resolved to be clear, but I wouldn't call it racism per se. Some of it is.

This is correct for most politicians, at any given time.

But the real question is why there isn't wide spread awareness and powerful movements, or then why the movements that do exist have so far failed. The denialist industry was and still is well funded, but it's not really a given they would win, and they've only really "won" in the US; here in Europe there's not really much climate denialism, but the policies are weak sauce; the "concerned" politicians of Europe never get together and do anything of significance.

I'm honestly not sure; it's not like the information is in secret books that an institution will systematically burn both the books and anyone possessing them. "Truth" seems to have gotten out far worse obstacles. — boethius

People tend to be myopic, it's hard motivate them with something that is gradual and in the longterm. If some accident happens they typically do want to jump into action.

There's the denialists definitely, but not so much in Europe indeed. I also do think green parties, and the left in general, have been bad strategically in selling their ideas to the public... to much finger pointing blame game, and to little constructive motivating vision put forward.

The real problem I think, at least in Europe, is just a general lack of agency in politics which goes a lot further than just the climate change-issue. They seem to have simply forgotten the art of coming together, making a deal and organizing their party and society to execute it... you know what politician are supposed to do. Its all just skin-deep, marketing games to attract voters for the next election it seems.

Although I hope so, and I've been working in the field for 20 years, I am more pessimistic as you may have gotten. — boethius

I'm kind of oscillating back and forth the more I get into it, but I do see reasons to be somewhat optimistic.

It has been dragging for a long time, and for someone invested in the topic as long as you have been I get that this doesn't exactly fill you with optimism, but I think once things start moving, they might move a lot faster than one thinks. I don't think the conversion to renewables is a linear process. A lot of resistance need to be overwon at all fronts initially. But once the technology is sufficiently improved, the prices start dropping, the science is more clear, there are some nasty events clearly linked to global warming (floods in Europe now, heat wave in Canada) etc etc... people start seeing the urgency of it and politicians and business see the writing on the wall. It all kind of reinforces eachother and gets accelerated.

The EU have announced climate measures this week I think, which one would call, for any other issue, 'unprecedented and draconian'.

China's climate commitments seem less ambitious at first glance, they are still building coal plants and didn't commit to start actually reducing emissions until 2030. But, so I've gathered, they would rather undercommit to a target and seem to usually overshoot their targets when it comes to renewables. They seem to be ramping up production of solarpanels on a scale hard to imagine.

And in the US at least Trump is gone, so there's certainly that.

The surest sign that things are moving though, is that even some of the fossil fuel companies seem to be convinced that they need to exit fossil fuels ASAP or perish.

What I'm more pessimistic about is that reduction of emissions does get harder to more you get to zero. We may have the political will to reduce to relatively low emissions, but what do those bottom percentages entail in terms of measures?

And yes, more importantly, it is/may already be to late to avoid some of the consequence of climate change. If those consequences are bad enough, the real danger is that it will disrupt societies to the extend that they can't do it anymore or that it causes all sorts of knee-jerk our-own-people-first kind of reactions.

Thank you for the detailed response, and the examples. This does make a lot of sense, the models are only a rough approximation of an underlying reality afterall. We kindof know the rough ballpark of where, how and when things will go wrong, but there's still a lot of uncertainty about the specifics, and about what the interaction are between the moving parts. Nevertheless better save than sorry, I agree.

These kind of long term, high impact/uncertain probability risks are difficult to sell politically I suppose, because you do know the impact of the policy measures on your constituency typically. Things do seem to be picking up traction now, technologically, economically and politically.

If say a big group conquers a previously relatvily unknown separate small group that happens to be another etnicity and stays to dominate them
— ChatteringMonkey

It's the second part I'm having trouble reconciling. How is 'staying to dominate them' not racism? We still seem to have this picture of a large powerful ethnic group dominating a less powerful ethnic group, but we're wanting to not call that racism for some reason. It seems to tick all the boxes. — Isaac

But if that small group being dominated were ethnically the same as the big group you wouldn't call it racism would you, even though it is essentially the same thing?

That's why I wouldn't call it racism in this particular example, because the domination of a group, be it ethnically the same or different, needn't have anything to do with race or ethnicity... . It's only becomes racism, I would say, if an ideology is created based on ethnicity or race to consolidate or strengthen that domination.

People seem to tend to stick to their cultural and ethnic roots and band together with other people with the same background. Racism can play a reinforcing role therein, but surely it's not the only cause of separation?
— ChatteringMonkey

Maybe, but you introduced 'domination', not just separation. — Isaac

Yes I did, I think a lot follows from separation, from groups.

Politics typically organise around groups, and once politically active those groups tend to strive for the best political deal for their particular group... and then you can get one group getting the upper hand politically (especially if they are a majority) and maybe they end up dominating the other.

All of this, this whole process, needn't have anything to do with racism. Groups of the same ethnicity fight for political power all the time. That's why I wouldn't equate the two, I think it blends two distinct phenomena together.

We probably do use a different definition.

Well, it's never a guarantee, less fast you're going the more likely to survive.

However, in this analogy, the height is not yet guaranteed to be fatal. Right now it's comparable to just likely breaking a bone, nothing too "serious" (if we did everything we could do engineering wise to stop green house emissions, stop burning the Aamazon etc.).

However, although catastrophe is already "baked in", as I've mentioned by any standard of "catastrophe", there's really big variations. There's also natural variations that can work in our favour or not. — boethius

But purely based on those models we're going from on stable state to another right? That's what crossing those tipping points does, even if we stop emmissions, temperature keeps rising. So then where do the variations come in is what I don't understand. Is it just a matter of slightly delaying the increase of temperature then, to buy more time until you get to the next stable state?

If you're going to jump out of a building, it's still better to jump from a lower floor — boethius

Not if the lower floor is insignificant relative the height you are jumping from... dead is dead.

But thank you for the info, I'm trying to get a handle on the science of climate change, the risks and possible consequences etc... without the political biases weaven through, which is not allways easy.

And Isaac, even within one country or political unit all separation between groups need not be caused only by racism. People seem to tend to stick to their cultural and ethnic roots and band together with other people with the same background. Racism can play a reinforcing role therein, but surely it's not the only cause of separation?

I don't think so. If say a big group conquers a previously relatvily unknown separate small group that happens to be another etnicity and stays to dominate them, the ideology would follow the conquest and domination, and not be the cause of it. The reason for conquering or dominating need not be difference in etnicity, but could simply be that they were separate political units.

I could agree with it's an ideology created in support of organised ethnic groups dominating ethnic minorities.

If you literally mean 'is the same' then I don't agree.

Racism is a bit similar I suppose. You tend to see it where larger organised ethnic groups dominate other ethnic minorities. It's not only whites, that's a bit silly, they are not that special... I already pointed out the Bantu dominating Pygmies, but in China with the Han much of the same dynamic is going on... there's plenty of other examples.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_nationalism

The claim that war is not in our nature by pointing to hunter gatherer groups showing little of it, is either a bit of a truism or an argument that doesn't really cut it... I can't decide.

War, almost by definition, presupposes complex organisation, specialisation and societal structure etc... It shouldn't come as a surprise, I think, that we see little of it in small tribal groups because they just didn't and don't have any of the things that would even enable warfare as a possibility.

You can interpretate it either way it seems to me i.e. they only started with warfare under certain conditions, or as soon as the condition were right they started warfare.... and so I don't see how it showes anything regarding human nature.

Like the expertise certainly!

But what are you actually saying about what the models predict?

The non conservative models show stable states and tipping points, the holocene stable state we are leaving, and a new one we're heading to, several degrees higher (the anthropocene stable state let's say)?

- It to late now to stay in the holocene, because even if we cut emissions entirely (which won't happen anyway in the near future), having crossed tipping point will carry us further to the anthropocene?

- Is the implication then not that only reducing greenhouse gas-levels on a large scale, to maybe get back to holocene stable state, would have a tangible effect on climate, because anything less will just end us in the anthropocene stable state anyway?

Is that about right?

but I do find it hard to believe that violence is only the result of ideology. But sure that's ultimately just a guess I suppose.
— ChatteringMonkey

It's not for animals, anyway. Ideology is more a justification for being violent. I once asked someone who was knowledgeable about Viking culture and history why they pillaged. And they told me because other people had stuff they wanted! How often was that the case for some King or Pope or explorer looking to get rich? — Marchesk

Sure, it does seem ideology is often used merely as a justification... be we do get socialized into a culture too. Part of our nature is that we need to get an education wherein values are transmitted among other things. That's part of the problem of trying to find a 'natural state' of humans, you never find them in an uncultured state. Vikings had their cultural roots too. Also kings might not be all that representative for the species as a whole, but maybe the fact that we tend to follow them is... I dunno, it think it's a mixed bag, humans that is :-).

Basically it comes across to me that there's a certain political aspect to the way early human groups are portrayed, like there's a need for a certain kind of person to find some natural justification for their own personality traits. The view of early man as violent was forged largely by quite privileged white men between two world wars: paleontology and archeology were gentlemanly pursuits practiced by the kinds of people who today you would expect to vote Republican ;)

The actual fossil evidence and studies of the groups most similar to our prehistoric ancestors suggests the polar opposite to this handy "I can't help being a shit" theory. But it'll stick around no doubt. — Kenosha Kid

I can certainly buy that there's a political bias to the way things have been explained historically, and I'll even buy that our war-like nature has been seriously overblown, but I do find it hard to believe that violence is only the result of ideology. But sure that's ultimately just a guess I suppose.

I tend to think there's no one attribute that explains all our behaviour. I think we have both tendencies, we like cute things and have capacity for love, friendship and cooperation etc, but we can also flip out like disproportional maniacs when the things we value are threatened. And you know both makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, because the environment that we adapted too also isn't one monolithic fixed set of circumstances.

From anthropology, pretty much exclusively, wherein the consensus is that small, immediate return HG social groups -- which is how we spent most of our existence -- are pretty uniformly peaceful and cooperative until they have to defend themselves against warlike groups. I didn't think the paleontologist view you mention (axe wounds in skulls sort of thing?) was even still held today. I'll look into that. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah I'm no expert by any means, it's always hard to discuss these things if we get into the weeds, but from what I've gathered it's more of a general picture emerging from the paleontological record in combination with the new insights from population genetics. There are a whole bunch of quasi total population displacement and replacement events in our history, as well as patterns in Y-chromosme lineages that seem to indicate Mongol-style of ravaging in our pre-history.

Because similar groups of people survive to this day, and are a matter of record. Generally traditional societies aren't just tolerant of but cooperate with other groups, and only become warlike once they encounter other warlike groups. The whole intolerant, tribal natural human notion is just rubbish. — Kenosha Kid

I've heard you make that claim before, in your thread about delayed gratification, but I'm unsure about it. While we are certainly very cooperative as a species, current opinion among palaeontologists for example seems to be more that we are also very aggressive compared to other species closest to us. So you know, I'm certainly willing to reconsider this, but I'm not sure why or how you've come to that conclusion.

'Only become warlike once they encounter other warlike groups' could mean warlike most of the time.... we sure had a lot of war in the part of history that is documented.

Yeah or check out how population genetics show Bantu's spread across Africa and how they kept pygmies around as a slave population probably for a couple of millennia.

You're still talking about recent humans, a few thousand years at most. You know we've been around a lot longer than that, right? I mean, a _lot_! — Kenosha Kid

The written record doesn't go back much further does it? How would we know whether they were prone to racisme or not?

I don't know if we've given the functionality enough of a chance--ideally it should begin to indicate those members who make good contributions and who have been around for a while--but I'm interested to know what you think about it. — jamalrob

Like in the last forum, it will be used as an 'I agree with that' button. Or a 'yeah you show that dickhead' button. It won't indicate quality particularly. Just how popular the tings you say are. — bert1

Yes I agree, it doesn't necessarily indicate quality, but popularity one would think.

I could do without the function, but don't mind it that much either.

That's a pity, because I really do think this is the most effective way to turn this around... if we had some of the world players committed to and actively pushing for reduction of emissions, the rest of the world could fall in line pretty quick.
— ChatteringMonkey

But even if that happened, things could easily return to present level emissions in the next generation.

Short term doesn't mean much, does it? — frank

Changing your energy supply systems is not that easy, as is illustrated by China building more coal plants despite renewable energy being cheaper than ever... So presumably once you have made the switch to reduce emissions, there'd be some inherent resistance to switching back to fossil fuels too. And I'd think some of the whole earth ecology point of view will stick in the consciousness of next generations, we just know more now about it than we used to... you typically don't unlearn these kind of things.

The US is still the most powerful country in the world. Even aside from its own contribution to emissions, it gives a signal to the rest of the world.... you can't really go demanding other nations to reduce their emissions if you have among the highest emissions per capita.
— ChatteringMonkey

True, but there's no one to pressure the US, and it's not headed toward limiting emissions in any sort of meaningful way. The Democratic party is weak and the Republicans have become the alternate reality party. The US is going to be exporting stupid and crazy for the foreseeable future, until we have a system reset. — frank

That's a pity, because I really do think this is the most effective way to turn this around... if we had some of the world players committed to and actively pushing for reduction of emissions, the rest of the world could fall in line pretty quick.

From an energy theoretical point of view that might be true, but I suspect there are practical and technological reasons why it isn't used more as of now. I don't know enough about the technology to judge it myself, but I do know one of the research centres of my county has been trying to develop this for years now, with only moderate success. For instance they had some serious setback because drilling apparently caused seismic activity in the region. So sure, by all means why not use a virtually unlimited pool of energy, but you do have to have the technology working first.

Cheaper to whom? Likely sooner or later the iron laws of free market capitalism will take charge, but the transit isn't usually so quick.

I assume that once they have a large coal power plant infrastructure and companies building the power plants, things go with the already input motion. — ssu

Yes ok, that's along the lines of what I'd expect is happening. You've got the knowledge, the technology and the logistics already figured out and fine-tuned, the labour-force already trained, the connections for investments established etc etc... Renewables are maybe "cheaper" now in the abstract, if you'd have to start from nothing, but we're never actually starting from nothing.

I've thinking about it some more, and perhaps I've been understating the importance of the US reducing its emissions a bit.

The US is still the most powerful country in the world. Even aside from its own contribution to emissions, it gives a signal to the rest of the world.... you can't really go demanding other nations to reduce their emissions if you have among the highest emissions per capita.

Edit: I accidentally messed up this post by editing it instead of replying in a new one, ooh well...

https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree

I couldn't quite get a clear reason why they'd go with coal over renewables, but

- Economic growth of 6% a year is still far and above the prime directive
- Those decisions apparently depend on decentralized authorities for a large part and/or the central party isn't all that serious about cutting emissions
- Coal magnates have a lot of influence
- There are some practical/technical reason renewables can't supply their demand for energy?
- They want to use it as leverage in geopolitical negotiations (really?)

Anyway, the official line is that they will keep ramping it up until somewhere in the beginning of the 2030, and then reduce it slowly it to reach neutrality in 2060. If that's the official line, one should what... take the square root of that to gauge their real intentions?

This really won't do it, will it, considering they are good for a third of global emissions?

Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, the author of the report, said: “These last bastions of coal power are swimming against the tide, when renewables offer a cheaper solution that supports global climate targets.

This make no sense at all, why are they doing this? Even if they don't give a damn about effects on climate change, you'd think they choose the cheaper option.

Anyway, there is an very interesting and eye opening Global Coal Plant Tracker , which I advise to people to look at. A lot of info on coal plants! — ssu

Nice.

You can go on comforting yourself with the idea that tipping points and feedback loops are improbable, or whatever else you'd like. But it's pure irrationality, honestly. If the chances of an existential threat were 0.1%, it'd still be absurd to not take that seriously. — Xtrix

If you're really going solely by whether it wipes out every last human on the face of the planet, then I suppose nuclear weapons aren't an existential threat either. Perhaps the aforementioned asteroid (depending on the size) isn't an existential threat.

So it'll only be a radically changed, hell-like earth. But we'll survive in some capacity -- so we can't call it "existential." If you're somehow comforted by that, you're welcome. — Xtrix

You keep saying I want to comfort myself by not calling it an existential threat, but that was never my intention. At every opportunity I said it was going to be very bad... but not an existential threat. I agree that we shouldn't be comforting ourselves by underestimating the risk or ignoring small risks with grave consequences, but at the same time we shouldn't overstate how bad it's going to be either, because really it's bad enough as it is.

Anyway I think we actually agree for the most part, just not on the way we want to communicate the issue. I think you lose credibility by overstating the case and people get desensitized by continual doomsaying (i.e. the boy cried wolf), while you seem to think we need to spur people into action by putting it into the strongest of terms. Maybe this is a result of you living in the US and me being in Europe. Most here, except maybe for that stubborn minority that you'll never reach anyway, seem well aware of the dangers of climate change, while in the US there's probably more ignorance and apathy about the issue still.

And I think accurate assessment of risks matters, for the kind of measures we are willing to take. If it really were an impending existential threat or even "just" a civilization collapsing threat, a la a large asteroid about to impact, we should we willing to contemplate the most drastic of measure, like shutting down all fossil fuels and slaughtering all livestock overnight, pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, declaring war on nations that aren't complying with zero-emissions etc... Some measure would be more or less disruptive for our societies. That's the question for me.... not should we do something about it, but how far and how fast should we be willing to go? How much disruption to current societies do the risks warrant?

Ash/clouds, the effect is the same - no sunshine! Venus is closer to the sun by the way, that must surely mean something. — TheMadFool

It matters what kind of molecules the stuff in the atmosphere is made of. They don't all have the same effect on light coming in and energy radiating out. Some reflect light coming in, like volcanic ash, some trap infrared energy bouncing back from the earth, like greenhouse gasses...

The difference in distance between the earth and Venus matters, but doesn't account for the almost 500 degrees Celsius difference.

That's a non sequitur - Venus is Venus, Earth is Earth. Also, look up Year Without A Summer - volcanic ash clouds over the entire earth caused global temperatures to nosedive to winter levels. Global "warming" is going to blot out the sun with clouds at an even grander scale. Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen. — TheMadFool

This is a non sequitur, volcanic ash is volcanic ash and not clouds and a lot of greenhouse gasses.

Anyway, read up on some science TheMadFool, you seem to be missing the basics.

How do you know that? A lot of that liquid water, a predicted outcome of global warming, means more clouds, more clouds means less sun, less sun means (more) cooling. As a case in point, it's early July, peak summer, where I am and I picked up a cool idiom a coupla months ago - "it'll be a cold day in July when x happens" - and it feels like mid-September, coldish. Who's to blame? Thick cloud cover over the week with mild rain. Global warming is going to, heat up the oceans, and all that water will eventually end up as a vast blanket of clouds covering the skies from pole to pole. No prizes for guessing what happens next. — TheMadFool

Greenhouse gasses trap heat, and causes global warming. This is well documented, from the geological record, and follows from the physics of how light and heat radiation interacts with greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

As for the cloud scenario, Venus is covered in a thick blanket of clouds... should be freezing cold over there then, right?

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat! — tim wood

Come on, put in some effort please. Existential threat is defined as a threat to all human life. It's right there in the article Xtrix linked to. I'm well aware that people will die because of climate change, and that we need to do something about it, I've said so multiple times already in this thread alone.

No it couldn't lead to global cooling
— ChatteringMonkey

Why not? All climate-change-is-real believers (what do you call 'em?) talk about is extreme weather. Ergo, if it snowed heavily (6 - 10 ft) all day for a month (that would be weather) all over the earth, it would be because of global warming but such an event will cause long-term global cooling, no? Ice, snow, cools, right? — TheMadFool

Extreme weather in the form of cold, for a month, 'globally' probably is very unlikely in a global warming scenario.

And even then it does not cause climate cooling. Climate is an average over years. One month would have an impact on that number sure, a month is a fraction of years after all, but not significantly.

Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming.
— ChatteringMonkey

I was talking about the climate, not the weather - global cooling in the form of worldwide snow, freezing temperatures in (say) the Sahara, and so on. Remember climate change is about extremes - that cuts both ways (h9t or cold). Ergo, global warming can lead to global cooling. Paradox or climate change is a hoax, a well-orchestrated one. — TheMadFool

No it couldn't lead to global cooling, then it would be global cooling instant of global warming.

Extremes are possible, temporarily, but then that's not climate, or locally, but then that's not global.

Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature over longer periods, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming.

I recently had a conversation with my brother-in-law and I made a comment about a recent heat-wave and that global warming really is true; he was kind enough to correct me - global warming doesn't necessarily imply heat, it could also manifest as unusual cold weather. — TheMadFool

It could locally and temporarily manifest as unusual cold weather, because of the effects of global warming on phenomena like the gulf stream which gives Northern America and Europa a warmer climate then you would expect based solely on latitude.