Slashdot Mirror
US Climate Report Says Global Warming Impact Already Severe
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "Darryl Fears reports in the Washington Post on the U.S. government's newest national assessment of climate change. It says Americans are already feeling the effects of global warming. The assessment carves the nation into sections and examines the impacts: More sea-level rise, flooding, storm surge, precipitation and heat waves in the Northeast; frequent water shortages and hurricanes in the Southeast and Caribbean; more drought and wildfires in the Southwest. 'Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snow melt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.' The report concludes that over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly and that increased scrutiny has led to increased certainty that we are now seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. 'What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.'"
It looks like they are having a hard time discerning predictions and actual events. The 2013 Atlantic season had ZERO major hurricanes, and only TWO total hurricanes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
It's extremely difficult to accept at face value a report that says every possible outcome from climate change is bad.
Especially when it comes from an administration that campaigned on the theme of change.
Several of the items they cite are not even principally related to climate change, but to population and
population density increases, and to past fire suppression policies. People being people, not people changing the climate.
The flood and crop damage we are experiencing are covered by federal insurance programs, but the extra damage is caused by growing emissions. We should not be raising premiums in response to this, but rather we should impose climate damage tariffs on imports from countries that are increasing emissions to try to gain advantage in world markets. GATT Article XX provides for this. http://www.wto.org/english/tra... Using greenhouse gas emissions as a weapon to disadvantage our agricultural exports and damage our manufacturing infrastructure near flood plains must be stopped.
It's an F-350. It's tornado-proof.
See, this is why I don't think global warming matters much after all. We're collectively incapable of preventing it because our minds just aren't made to care about long-term issues that can only be understood analytically. But by the same token, when thousands of people die and trillions of dollars are wasted unnecessarily, we also won't care about that, because it will happen over many decades, and we'll never know for sure which individual people died unnecessarily, or by what percentage our bank balances would have been larger without global warming, and anyways the TV reporting will be interesting to watch and we can fly Old Glory over the wreckage and take pictures of stuffed animals in the rubble and so forth. So, it's all good.
This report is also reviewed over at Slate by the Bad Astronomer.
so you hope my F-150 is hit with an F5? well F1 you!!
Interesting that just today, I also read this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
It claims that a full 1/3rd. of the warming in the 1990's, on record, was actually due to water vapor in the air, vs. CO2 emissions and the like. Yes, it's not saying this is cause to deny the phenomenon, but it shows how we're still really in the early stages of understanding the details..... The statements of fact about exactly what's happening are largely premature.
My 2014 Mustang GT (Premium) has 425 horsepower and runs like an ape with his ass on fire. I'm grilling steaks this weekend and drinking beer on the deck in my back yard. Every night I sleep with my air conditioner set to 70 and I water my lawn daily. I'm having way too much fun to care about this subject. The climate will change and we'll adapt and even if we don't I'll be dead in a few decades and won't give a shit then either. I'm also not paying back any of that money my elected representatives borrowed from China. Sadly none of that was meant to be sarcastic. It's all true. That last part was sarcastic. There's nothing sad about it. Have a beer and pull up a chair on the deck. It's going to be a long drought and/or ice age. Might as well get comfortable.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
While I believe this report is overall truthful, I can't help but think of Clair Cameron Patterson. It took him 20 years of fighting corporations and their "bought and payed for" scientists to convince enough people in our government that the nation was dying due to lead poisoning to actually do something about it. This despite the fact that the reality of it was in-your-face blatant the whole time. We should all consider him a hero and be thankful that he solely lead the charge against the ridicule he faced. Although a largely unsung and unknown hero, he really did save the nation. The convincing that needs done now is a bit more diverse and politically complicated. Lets hope we come to our senses in time on the issue of climate change as we did with lead.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Latest episode of Cosmos broadcast on Fox TV:
"We just can't seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we'd be home free climate wise. Instead, we're dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn't seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can't seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves. All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can't we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?"
The show:
http://www.cosmosontv.com/watc...
The news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
At least here in the west, the increased wildfire issues are also partially caused by lack of proper forest-management. Wildfires are a natural phenomenon that allow forests to rebuild themselves - but in our zeal to prevent them, and also to prevent forest thinning via logging over the last few decades, we are breeding wildfire territories.
As for water shortages in California - we have been court-ordered to drain reservoirs and dump extra water into our rivers in order to flood the delta so that "endangered" smelt can survive. As such, we have also depleted agriculture of the much-needed water to grow plants - water that floods the land and seeps into the ground to refill the water table that is used for wells.
We are messing with things every year in the name of "environment", and causing other unintended consequences - but yet when these problems crop up, we just label them all "climate change" and blame something else.
Funnily enough, a large amount of people seem to care..... I care. I bet that guy over there cares too. Plenty of people are taking everyday action to help, even if in small ways. So, basically, you're making excuses because that's easier than caring, let alone doing small things that aren't even that hard.
Streets and rivers are flooding more so it MUST be global warming. It can't have anything to do with the millions of square miles (guesstimate) of asphalt and buildings we construct each year which prevent water from entering the ground and funnel them into concrete ditches instead.
I think the President should go on a few more golf outings, you know, fly in his big old 747 to somewhere far away and play a round or two, and then fly back to DC. Then, we need to have a UN Climate Summit somewhere tropical, and figure out how to solve the logistics problems inherent in having a meeting in a remote location, like how to make sure adequate supplies of caviar are flown in fresh daily and where to park all the jets ferrying individuals to their destination.
I'll believe it's a problem when the people who are telling me it's a problem start acting like it's a problem. When the logistics problems go from caviar to videoconferencing bandwidth. When the President decides that golfing locally is a better idea than flying somewhere.
"Oh, you just don't understand international diplomacy and the need for face-to-face communications to achieve consensus!"
You're asking me to change my life and not accepting any changes in the way you live yours. Hypocrisy at its finest.
We could fix this problem easily with barely any significant change to our style of life. Sure there will be winners and loser, and the losers will be big oil/coal companies -- some of the most powerful institutions in the world -- and that's why nothing is being done. It is really easy to throw mud and claim there is "confusion" on whether AGW is happening. Meanwhile, they tell themselves a story about how CO2 isn't a pollutant, and doing anything would be communism, and therefore morally wrong.
AGW is easy to solve compared to the little lies we tell ourselves about what is moral, in order to protect our little empires.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The science was in for "peak oil" scare all the way back to 70s and the same kinds of people were calling deniers "stupid" and "cowards" and calling for urgent massive government spending on green projects and massive destructive regulation of job creating industries as a response. 45 years later and the peak oil has been exposed as a hoax, only for global warming to take its place.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Cooling trend? Not sure where you come up with that. Here is the temperature trend over the last 15 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
That's a change of + 0.18 C over the period. That is a rather large increase for 15 years.
The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health came out in 1964. It clearly and undeniably showed the evidence that smoking was harmful. Now, 50 years later, only about 1/2 of the states have actually banned smoking in enclosed public spaces.
Why does anyone expect America to respond to AGW any quicker or more effectively?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Let's pretend that a tiny tiny sampling of hurricane frequency matters a whit.
If so, then plainly climate change is REDUCING the frequency of hurricanes. So then why again should we panic about climate change if in fact it makes coastal life calmer?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When the international communities remark with amazement at how recalcitrant american business, government, and even its own people are to even the suggestion of climate change I cant help but wonder if, as an american, people from other countries have a full understanding of just what it would mean for us to change...Everything we do, and all that we are, is prediacted upon cheap reliably supplied oil. this was a decision made after world war 2 and reinforced by the carter doctrine of foreign policy. it was a horrendous mistake.
We dont have local farms or slaughterhouses. everything is created in one place, and delivered by trucks that run on roads subsidized by american taxpayers from one of maybe a handful of factory farms dotted throughout the midwest. American markets have no season; if you want a jackfruit, it can and will be delivered more than two thousand miles to you and the ramifications of that is not even a cursory consideration. Drinks are kept cold, constantly. Ice is plentifully and liberally added to nearly any beverage you get. Beer hovers somewhere around the freezing mark. We can do this because the way we approach energy is just as we had in the 50's.
our rail system is no different than it was in the early 50's. slight modifications have been made to handle larger cargo, but the system runs at around 40 miles per hour and carries only the most cumbersome goods. Cars, Coal, shale oil and natural gas are the chief passengers. toxins too dangerous to transport by semi truck, things like hydrofluoric acid, are also frequently transported. Corridor rail systems used in boston and LA that do in fact transport people are powered exclusively by diesel, as are all our rail systems. We have minimal and fiercely debated electric light rail systems in some cities, and some have transitioned their busses to natural gas, however outside our largest four or five metropolitan areas every transportation request you have will be granted by the automobile.
Im not trying to justify what we do or why we do it. Its sad, and unsustainable in my opinion but whats important to understand is that acknowledging climate change and doing something productive about it in America means infrastructure overhaul not seen since Franklin Delano Rosevelt. It means the average 1 hour american car drive to work has to stop. Perpetually illuminated office buildings have to stop. Cities like phoenix will have to stop landscaping bluegrass lawns and water features into communities and we as a nation will have to swallow a nice big slice of 'we did it wrong' pie. The reasons we dont do anything about this problem are mostly political, but under the politics and the money, you have a system of society that is at its foundation based on conspicuous, questionless consumption and the planned obsolescence of nearly everything. anything to retard or stymy consumption is seen as a natural threat.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Who the fuck mods this +anything, much less "interesting"?
Aside from the fact that it's a wildly ignorant and blindly regurgitated talking point that we've all seen a trillion times, it fails to address the even remotely basic question of what this report actually studied, which is about long term trends outside of the inter-annual noise levels, of specific classes of negative climatic events like flooding and drought.
How does anyone see something that profoundly and purposely ignorant of the very basic of what is being discussed and go "oh how clever!". I need someone to explain to me what possible mental process leads to this kind of post being treated as anything other than purposeful flamebait that adds less than zero to the discussion.
Help me out here.
Peak (US) oil happened. It's part of why we're doing the whole hydraulic fracturing thing.
The historical data of actual oil prices maps pretty damn well to the supposedly "bogus" Hubbert curve.
Oil production has been plateauing despite more drilling in even more remote areas and deeper waters, with new methods of extraction being deployed (shale fracking - it's not just for gas y'know). We keep drilling more holes just to keep up with the diminishing returns.
The quality of the crude has declined, and it's gotten so bad in the past few years that now tar sands are economically viable because there's no place else to get it.
Or did you think "peak oil" means it would all run out in one night?
=Smidge=
Peak oil is not a hoax - it's mathematical fact. It'll happen at some point as the resources of this world are not limitless. Rising cost/barrel means some sources which are not financially viable become viable (as happened with the oil sands in Alberta). Fracturing will generate a lot of production in the short term but they are not long term sources.
While we have not hit peak oil, we have hit peak oil per capita (back in 1979).
Climate is made up of weather. Any particular instance is weather. A statistical clump of pieces of weather is climate. When they say particular pieces of weather are becoming more common, they are talking about climate.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There was indeed a cyclical climatic phenomenon, 1936 N. American Heat Wave. The high temperatures and drought were not caused by human action. sad you instead ape the fact that poor soil management practices at the time made the dust worse but still ignore the reality of a recurring weather pattern
See, this is why I don't think global warming matters much after all. We're collectively incapable of preventing it because our minds just aren't made to care about long-term issues that can only be understood analytically.
It is also very, very, very difficult to do anything about it. Even if we (humans everywhere) reduced emissions to zero, global warming would continue for quite some time. And .what are the chances we could drop to zero emissions overnight, even if everyone agreed we should? Yes, we need to reduce fossil fuel use where we possibly can. It has all kinds of benefits. Just keep in mind that reversing global warming is not among those benefits. Not for some time.
Dark Reflection
Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!
According to the government's own figures, 78% of the United States has been experiencing the coldest year (i.e., 2014 so far) since 1937. About the only exception has been the SW like the LA region right now. Great Lakes have record ice for this time of year. Arctic is at normal sea ice levels and Antarctic levels are above normal. Which wouldn't be worth mentioning if it hadn't been a strong trend for well over a year. But what's really educational is to look at the actual record of past years, rather than just taking other peoples' word for it.
This guy is a very good source of historical comparisons to todays weather AND climate.
When you know a little actual history of our climate, you look at these "warming" scares and go "Pffffft. Baloney."
He posts some really great, actual historical stuff like THIS and THIS and THIS.
Alarmists can say what they want about skeptics, but the historical record is the historical record.
Good luck trying to rebut the actual thermometers in, say, 1940 for example. They said what they said.
Oh, you picked the wrong dataset. I forget which of those it is, but one of them. You gotta cherrypick real hard.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
No one can predict the future.
I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, and also the next day.
I predict the average temperature where I live will be warmer in August, and it will be cooler in January.
I predict a full moon on May 14, and a partial solar eclipse on October 23.
I predict that next year's calendars will (in America) mostly bear the year "2015".
I predict that in 2015 the Earth's atmosphere will still contain about 78% nitrogen.
I predict that, this coming June, elephants will be unable to fly under their own power, but sparrows will.
Of course people can predict the future. We can't predict everything. That doesn't mean we can't predict anything.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
No. It's not even that.
The really big problem is, "Okay. It's happening. Now what do we actually DO about it?"
Right there the knives start coming out. Because everyone has a different idea of what should happen.
And there are very few concrete plans, based on actual, proven science.
Most are just variations on "lets tack on a bunch of fines and taxes to make doing certain things unpopular". Which doesn't ACTUALLY address the problem.
Then you have all the people proposing stuff like carbon sequestration through iron doping of algae and all sorts of unproven schemes based on pseudoscience.
Not to mention the fact that we STILL don't have a computer simulation that ACCURATELY models the phenomenon. In short, we can't even properly quantify THE PROBLEM. How the hell are we supposed to come up with a "solution"?
On top of that, everyone in the US could stop producing greenhouse gasses RIGHT NOW, and it wouldn't do a damn thing. Because everyone else is still putting the stuff out. SPECIFICALLY China. Unless we have government buy-in representing the majority of the world's population all that's happening is that we're trading one set of bad actors for another.
And everyone's so precondition to fight over the smallest detail on this that I honestly feel that nothing will ever TRULY be done about it.
Not through lack of care for the long term. But over-abundance of inflexible actors working at cross purposes.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
So you're saying that because we can't predict the future, we shouldn't plan for it? Or make any effort to influence it in a positive way?
As a conservative I do not believe in borrowing from future generations. We would all benefit now from running massive deficits but future generations would suffer. Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" but that is clearly not true. At some point the hammer must fall.
That's what we are doing with the climate. We all enjoy the benefits of cheap fuel while our kids are forced to bear the brunt of climate change and make the transition to new energy sources. It is not a good legacy.
My F's go to 11. (keyboard is missing a key)
I agree with what you say, but at some point we are going to need to make the transition away from fossil fuels. The impacts up front are relatively mild. Even if we start now we won't be able to avoid them, but we may avoid the worst impacts down the road.
Fascinating. While I can't comment on all of these points, I did a bit of searching regarding the second LINK about global sea ice: That graph shows the global sea ice area, not the volume. The area slightly increased while the volume has steadily gone down over the same period of time.
This is what makes it impossible for the armchair scientist to understand this. Inevitably, someone will reply telling me why my link is a bunch of dumbutts and how that graph is irrelevant, we should be looking at something else.
When the topic is climate change or guns, you can't reason with most of them.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
You don't know what peak oil is.
We are not finding new oil reserves faster than the rate of growth of oil usage.
We are always finding new oil, but the Chinese and other emerging industrial countries are consuming it faster than we are finding it.
New forms of energy are being stifled / legislatively hindered by oil interests. Why else are states trying to pass laws to tax solar panel installations?
As nerds, the first thing we should check is the power requirements of our technological gadgets in our daily activities.
Print with PLA instead of ABS, use a tablet or low-end computer instead of a gaming PC to read Slashdot and watch YouTube, stream Netflix via an Apple TV instead of a PS4/Xbox One, etc. The list is endless.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
See my issue with the entire Climate Change debate is that we argue it as if its a moral obligation to our planet to fix this. At the end of the day, its only us that suffers. Let all the oceans dry up, and lets pump the air full of CO2, Earth honestly doesn't care. It will use all of that to make something else, and life will prevail. Its us humans that will die off, and I promise you the Earth doesn't give two shits about that. Yet anyone who I talk to gets all indigent about how heartless I am for not worrying about this. I don't deny climate change, and while I do question the amount that is caused by humans I just don't care about it. I see it a few ways: 1) I will be dead by the time this screws me over, and its likely that humans were to face extinction at some point no matter what. 2) we achieve a level of technology that makes this entirely moot. Like we fuse with computers meaning we don't need breathable air or drinkable water. So yeah, get over it. Solar and wind energies simply arent ready for the big stage, and when they are they will find their ways into our daily lives.
Jimmy Carter in 1977:
"Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce⦠Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that."
It is now 37 years later and we are only now starting to make "profound changes to lower oil consumption" and only because it is becoming economically justifiable to do so, not because of any peak oil propaganda. I didn't notice the sky falling yet.
Back then Carter statement was considered way too mild by the environmentalist who wanted to hugely increase taxes on gas and petroleum products and mandate all kinds of environmental regulation that would have raised prices on everything and made our economy uncompetitive.
Exact same mindset is driving the global warming agenda. They want to put breaks on free market and institute more state control of industry and when they see a plausible excuse to do so they will jump on it but we can look at history as a reminder of who and what they are.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
That first link is quite amusing, because it explains nothing in what the data actually is. His single graph, which he summarizes as "global temperature", is actually the monthly anomalies of the lower troposphere global mean, ie. by how many degrees was that month differing from the average of that month's records. It's also funny to be using a simplistic linear approximation when the data is this noisy; it means nothing.
The troposphere isn't what most people think of when they talk about temperature. If you look at the very site he uses, WoodForTrees.org, pretty much every other graph, again using the simple linear approximation at play here, shows an increase. He pretty much cherry-picked the graph that confirmed his biases. This isn't to say that the graph is wrong or that my analysis is right. It just means that, as so many people have said already, you just CAN'T summarize the whole enormous complex machine that is the climate by a single measurement. What does that graph mean in relation to everything else? I'm not a climatologist, I don't know. From what I can tell, he's not much more recognized in the topic than I am. I won't claim that credentials are all that matters, but I will trust an actual scientific organization (or even just a single researcher in the field) before a random guy using a fake name on WordPress. Again, not because I'm doing an appeal to authority, but because this whole thing is way too complicated to start doing armchair climatology.
We could fix this problem easily with barely any significant change to our style of life.
...so why hasn't anyone proposed this mysterious solution if it fixed the problem that "easily", with "barely any significant change in our style of life"?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
We could fix this problem easily with barely any significant change to our style of life.
Because ponies. Just because you want something doesn't mean it magically becomes a good thing to get, especially for everyone else.
So far, the current efforts to restructure energy infrastructure to cause less global warming have resulted in a doubling of certain types of energy in parts of Europe. For example, petroleum prices have more or less doubled over the US prices in Europe. Similarly, residential electricity prices in Germany (note that Germany and Denmark, both with heavily subsidized, high share "green" power generation, have electricity pricing on par with small island nations), a hotbed of anti-AGW activity have doubled over their more conservative neighbors. That's a lot of losers out there.
and the losers will be big oil/coal companies
In today's world, we have unprecedented efforts to curb global warming and... record oil industry profits. Something's wrong with the model, Jim.
I see a lot of losers in Europe and not many losers in Exxon, for example. Maybe things don't work like you think they work.
Meanwhile, they tell themselves a story about how CO2 isn't a pollutant, and doing anything would be communism, and therefore morally wrong.
While there's another equally valid story about how CO2 is a "pollutant", is set to cause vast harm in the hazy, not-so-distant future which never seems to come around, and anyone who thinks differently holds primitive, chest-beating beliefs that should be mocked.
You know, I hate to be the one to point this out, but nearly every one of those things can be attributed to governmental overreach as much as it can be attributed to the environment. Just look at the water shortage statistics. States that were hit the hardest all had laws against rain water collection. Wildfires, likewise, may also be related to the insane laws we have in place. Insurance companies are being regulated to death, and are playing it as safe as they legally can. It has more to do with this insatiable need to regulate the hell out of them than it does with actual conditions. Sea levels go up and down all year long, and no amount of climate change legislation is going to have any power to control that. Of course the government is going to tell you that climate change is a big problem, and that more of your tax money is needed to combat it. They have a profit motive to do so, duh. The people to listen to here are the ones who have no political or financial agenda.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Just like I said. Ad-hominem.
It doesn't matter who he is. What matters is whether what he posts is factual.
When he was confronted with an error me made, he admits it. Yet that blog post implies that somehow his integrity is in question because he ADMITTED ONE mistake? Sheesh.
As far as I am concerned, people who admit their mistakes are more credible than people who spread obvious bullshit and claim it's the truth.
And as for it being a pseudonym... so what? Is Dorkmunder your real name? If it's a pseudonym, as it appears to be, should I assume you're an incompetent idiot?
Ad-hominem. That's all it is.
Many people in the current political climate believe that any formal, organized response to climate change will hurt the economy, cost jobs, cut growth, and create additional spending. In a larger sense, and if we accept these concerns, is this not borrowing from the future?
If a business has made its money by "borrowing from the future" through unsustainable and environmentally damaging practices, and that business is subsequently put out of business because of legal reform that makes their practices impractical financially, well yes, you are hurting certain current economic concerns, but in the long run those concerns would continue to do more harm than good.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Best estimates are that had we started maybe 10 years ago it would be about 3% of GDP over a defined period to solve the problem. It's a large number and it will take some effort, but so what? Previous generations dealt with problems larger than this. We have the means available with Nuclear power, solar and wind, which will only get cheaper as newer technologies arise through investment.
The problem is, people don't want to admit there is a problem. The honest truth of the skeptical position: "There's a problem but I'd rather leave it for future generations to solve than get off my arse" sounds a bit amoral, and hence we never hear that spoken out loud. Admit you have a problem and move on.
Yep, global warming impact is severe, alright. Coldest winter in recent memory, that warming sure is a bitch!
Ok, that comment was just begging for the obligatory XKCD link.
If the problem is rampent overconsumption, british columbia proves that increasing taxes does make people use less fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Yes, I realize that everyone hates all taxes. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, but the province of BC proves that it is effective at addressing the problem of too much carbon emissions being produced.
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Because we're not supposed to mention the 'N' word. But since you asked; it's NUCLEAR fission!
Life is not for the lazy.
Incredibly well stated, sir. Sadly, nobody who reads proclamations of The Government as if they are gospel truth seems aware of the fact that we are currently extending the all time record interval without a category 3 hurricane making landfall in the US, that like it or not SLR is being measured at the terrifying rate of between 2.5 and 3.5 mm/year, within noise of its 140 year rate (and if anything, is currently actually decelerating, although statistically neither any observed "acceleration" nor "deceleration" is meaningful when compared to the historical record). Tornadoes are way down and have been for several years. We just had a record-setting cold year in the US (with daily cold records outnumber warm records maybe 2 to 1) with a record-setting cold winter. The current projection for midsummer sea ice is pretty close to normal. The antarctic has quietly been setting sea ice records for two or three years running without anyone paying the slightest attention (except maybe when boatloads of tourists travelling there to "document sea ice loss" get trapped for weeks in the ice, the boats that come to rescue them get trapped in the ice, and it takes large amounts of money and risk to rescue them).
But aside from all of that, the assertion that we could deliver all of the world's current energy requirements at all, with almost unlimited investment, without carbon is almost without foundation. Almost because if we invested sufficiently heavily in nuclear power and successfully developed e.g. LFTR (Thorium) as an alternative nuclear power resource, it is barely possible that with enormous investment and the building of hundreds if not thousands of plants and the extensive mining of e.g. Monazite sand we could make it. Assuming, of course, somebody were willing to foot the bill for the third world and the rapidly developing nations like India and China.
As for solar, I love it to death, and as time passes and technology develops it might eventually be a prime-time player. In the meantime, it is expensive compared to carbon, useless above a certain latitude, and useless at night. We do not have any mature, cost-effective technology for storing energy from solar to deliver at night, and we are in all probability at least decades away from having one. Wind power is even more problematic -- you can't even be guaranteed of having power during the day, and it has to be stored/buffered on a minute by minute basis as the wind is highly intermittent nearly everywhere. Long range delivery of electricity is also still not feasible, so we cannot generate electricity in Arizona and ship it to Maine, not without a truly monumental investment in e.g. ultra-high voltage trans-continental transmission lines or the development of new technologies. In the meantime, both of these power sources are completely inadequate as standalone energy resources without substantial backing from fuel-burning resources -- either carbon or nuclear. Even things like electric cars, touted as being better than gasoline, suffer from serious energy density storage problems and have pitiful ranges (as well as numerous other issues). Biofuels do better -- I can actually believe that we might manage to break even or win a bit on biofuels within the next decade, especially if new genetically engineered organisms and improved technologies there help out. But not even biofuels are prepared AFAIK to take on the full burden of generating not only automotive power but general electrical demand, and there are major questions about how scalable they will end up being even produced on an industrial scale.
So precisely how could we eliminate the use of fossil fuels, or carbon based fuels, worldwide, without any negative impact on life style? I track the technologies that are out there pretty closely, and am a physicist (and thereby "probably not an idiot") and I cannot see any possible way we could manage it with a HUGE negative impact as the required technologies simply don't exist yet (and some of the one
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
The Arctic sea ice has melted much faster than anyone was predicting just a decade ago. Ice, aerosols, and cloud cover are not very well understood, when you get a bunch of experts together to agree on a statement about those things in a report like the IPCC, the statement is almost certainly going to be conservative. What has changed recently is our ability to measure the changes in the ice mass of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps to a high level of precision using the GRACE satellite. It doesn't really help scientists make better predictions but it does provide a better test, and allow them to make more confident statements about what is happening now.
A silver lining? - I heard what could be considered good news to everyone (except coal barons). Here in Oz we're busily industrialising the great barrier reef by building a controversial coal mine and the largest coal port in the world. The multi-nationals who were behind the project (BHP, Rio, some banks,..) have all walked away from the project. It's now been reported (on a local business show) that the mine will probably not have the customers in India it expects. Why? - Because wind and solar are now roughly at parity price with imported coal in India and prices are dropping at a rate such that in 2-3yrs time renewables in India will be 10% cheaper than imported Aussie coal. What's is sounding even better is that coal exports have dropped significantly in price since the project was announced and yet it is still neck-to-neck with the price of renewables in India.
If those reports are not a gross exaggeration then it looks like some developing nations really will leapfrog the west and go straight to renewables.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
...so why hasn't anyone proposed this mysterious solution if it fixed the problem that "easily", with "barely any significant change in our style of life"?
They did, it's called "reduce, reuse, recycle" and it's been around since the 70's. People have demonstrated how easy it can be, but to our collective inability to think and plan ahead, it's not commonplace.
Like the Syrian civil war? - Sure social media assisted in the Arab spring once the uprising began but what triggered the uprising? Why did that lone protester set himself on fire in the public square? - Did all these people all suddenly wake up one day and suddenly realise "OMG, I've been living under tyranny my entire life" or could the worst drought ever in the fertile crescent (the birth place of agriculture), and the food riots it caused in major cities such a Cairo have something to do with it?
Prior to the civil war, 10% of Syria's population (2M people) abandoned their farms due to lack of water and moved to the cities looking for work. Food prices across N. Africa and the ME skyrocketed. The leaked diplomatic cables talk about the internal migration and warn about civil unrest, one diplomat went so far as to correctly predict the city where trouble first broke. Yet if you ask a random Joe on the street what are they fighting about in Syria, the answer will almost certainly be "religion".
All wars are resource wars, religion simply provides a moral defence for morally indefensible acts. Water is a scarce recourse in many places around the world, while other places are getting so much water they are quite literally drowning. They say there's a 70% chance of a very strong El-Nino this season, similar in strength to '83 and '98, meaning the mid-west US will get massive floods and Australia will be dry as a tinder-box. Australia ran very low on drinking water during the last drought, the major city reservoirs were around 10-15% of capacity, the rural situation was worse. We spent billions on some of the largest de-sal plants in the world only to have the drought break as they came on line. I think the politicians and their fans who have been bitching about the costs of these "white elephants" will be eating their words in the next year of two..
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You are probably right. It seems he drew exactly the opposite conclusion from Cheney: "As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
If us dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is causing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to increase (and hence the problem)
There is no single "The Problem". And the bigger problems, such as poverty and overpopulation, have solutions that currently depend on elevated generation of greenhouse gases. We can crudely divide countries by whether they're near the bleeding edge in wealth and well being of their citizens or not and whether they care enough about global warming to make any sacrifices. It turns out the only parties willing to make sacrifices are those who are wealthy (such as the EU) or under the climate gun (such as Bangladesh or Micronesia). This leads to the first observation - wealth leads to societies that care about the global environment.
Similarly, it is well known that wealthy societies have a lower fertility and population growth than the poorer societies to the point of neutral and even negative population growth. Eliminating poverty solves overpopulation.
Meanwhile, if we look at the relation between overpopulation and global warming, we see that global warming doesn't even make sense without overpopulation. If the population were a factor of ten less, then everyone could have the living standard and CO2 footprint of a US citizen (among the higher per capita groups out there) and still produce less CO2 than today. Eliminating overpopulation solves global warming.
And that leads us to the great chain of problem solving. Solving poverty at least to the developed world level solves overpopulation which solves global warming and a host of similar global-scale problems.
So my answer to the above is "Don't hold back for global warming". Deal with poverty first and foremost and you cut the head off this particular snake.
The honest truth of the skeptical position: "There's a problem but I'd rather leave it for future generations to solve than get off my arse" sounds a bit amoral, and hence we never hear that spoken out loud. Admit you have a problem and move on.
That's not the honest truth of the skeptical position. And how much moral responsibility should we have to future generations? I don't think it is right for us to make sacrifices for paltry benefits for future generations and some of the alleged sacrifices today probably impoverish those future generations rather than help them.
Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!
According to the government's own figures, 78% of the United States has been experiencing the coldest year (i.e., 2014 so far) since 1937. About the only exception has been the SW like the LA region right now. Great Lakes have record ice for this time of year. Arctic is at normal sea ice levels and Antarctic levels are above normal. Which wouldn't be worth mentioning if it hadn't been a strong trend for well over a year. But what's really educational is to look at the actual record of past years, rather than just taking other peoples' word for it.
This guy is a very good source of historical comparisons to todays weather AND climate.
When you know a little actual history of our climate, you look at these "warming" scares and go "Pffffft. Baloney."
He posts some really great, actual historical stuff like THIS and THIS and THIS.
Alarmists can say what they want about skeptics, but the historical record is the historical record.
Good luck trying to rebut the actual thermometers in, say, 1940 for example. They said what they said.
So the first link is the infamous trick of showing no warming by starting with 1998, the hottest year ever. Doing so obscures the fact that we've spent the last 15 years almost matching the hottest year ever!
The second link is an unsourced graph of percentage of weather stations experiencing 100F days. The implied interpretation is that 100F days are less frequent. The unaddressed question is how has the composition of weather stations changed in the last 100 years, are there more outside of urban centres, more in Alaska?
The third is a plot of global sea ice area, this sounds like a rebuttal of the scientists talking about the loss of sea ice, an attentive person might remember scientists are usually talking about multiyear sea ice at the north pole...
The final one reprises the short lived scientific discussion, and massive media hyping, of global cooling from the 1970s. Of note is the fact that global cooling was never the scientific consensus but was merely the hypothesis of a handful of scientists before the field worked out how anthropogenic factors would balance out. It only became a big thing because the media was playing its same game of finding a paper or two and declaring it to be the latest truth from science.
I do agree with Mr. Goddard we can learn something from the global cooling debacle. The obvious lesson is ignore the media, listen to the scientific consensus and take global warming seriously!
I stole this Sig
By that logic, investing in your 401K is silly. Predicting that you will reach old age is pure arrogance; nobody can predict the future. It's likely that you will die of cancer, heart attack or stroke before you use up your savings. Many people predict how and when they will die. But no one has ever gotten it right yet.
i think i'd rather go here for analysis of data http://nipccreport.org/ as its collated data from thousands of reports by thousands of scientists rather than someones blog.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Well, as humanity has done in the past, we should probably listen to those who know most about this topic - the scientists who work on it day in, day out, who understand the mechanisms at play far better than anyone else. But lots of people don't because they don't like what the scientists have to say, so we are screwed. Your questions are easily answered by those in the relevant field - will you listen to their answers, or ignore answers you don't find acceptable?
You can't predict anything meaningful or useful. Telling me next year will have a spring and summer isn't useful, it's a given....
The statement I was responding to was "No one can predict the future." Not "predictions of the future aren't meaningful or useful."
However, I will state that my prediction that summer will follow spring and will be warmer than winter is useful, in that it tells me that I should plant my tomatoes in spring, rather than in autumn. Predictions of the future are, in fact, very useful, and we make them all the time.
The other commenter wasn't predicting anything of consequence. On the contrary, he was simply extrapolating from the past. Those are two very different things. Extrapolating from known cyclical behavior can indeed be useful, but as a "prediction" it's pretty much a joke.
Extrapolating from the past is one way to predict the future, yes; I'm not sure why you think it's a "joke".
Extrapolating from the past is a much better way to predict the future if you have a good statistical data set to base your prediction on, and understand the statistics and error margin.
Extrapolating from the past is a much much better way to predict the future if in addition you have a well-validated model that allows you to understand the behavior of the system, as well as a base of observed data. When I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, for example, I am not merely extrapolating from the fact that the sun rose today, and yesterday, but I have knowledge of the law of conservation of angular momentum, and an understanding of the dynamics of the solar system. This is a pretty solid prediction. ...and, since I made that prediction yesterday, it was proven correct. I not only can predict the future, I did predict the future.
As I said: We can't predict everything. That doesn't mean we can't predict anything.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com