[Discussion] Climate Change

This thread is just to post interesting news, thoughts, opinions about climate change.

'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists

All done with Chinese mirrors and a little slight of hand, of course.

pyxistyx wrote:

'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists

All done with Chinese mirrors and a little slight of hand, of course.

Temperatures go up and down naturally. Don't be alarmist!

Aetius wrote:

Absolutely, because you can't "maintain" anything through beach nourishment - it is, at best, a "spit and bailing wire" approach to coastal management. Beach replenishment is hugely disruptive to the coastal ecosystem, and the more research that gets done the worse it appears. Beach nourishment spews out huge plumes of mud into the water that wreak havoc for miles. Nourishment "sand" is often composed of dredged material from other locations, such as river channels, and can be filled with various contaminants. And sometimes, the millions of dollars in sand are gone within days or months due to a storm.

Floridians have already devastated the Everglades, what makes you think that they will pick a natural coastline over their number one economic driver, tourism? (I know all that stuff, I did a few years of ecology in school before changing majors.)

Let's say all the beaches were privately owned and privately maintained. Do you really think that the owners would deny themselves the revenue to keep microscopic invertebrates and coral animalia happy? Further, in that case, wouldn't you argue that the government could not legitimately stop them, even if it hurt the environment around them?

I'd much rather, personally, that we simply pulled back from the coast a few miles, everywhere, and turned it all into Federal wilderness. Then we would not have the economic burden of idiots who want to be compensated for their losses over the coming century, as well as government expenditures as you talk about. But given their choice, people will pick beautiful scenery and invest in insurance, rather than avoid the obvious risk.

To me, this is another reason government needs to be able to over-ride poor but popular choices.

Donald Trump: Maybe Humans Did the Climate Change After All

In a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Times today, Donald Trump finally admitted that, well, okay, maybe—maybe!—human activity might have something to do with our ever-warming planet.
Aetius wrote:

it is, at best, a "spit and bailing wire" approach

Just as an aside, that's "baling" wire, as in, wire that's used to tie hay into bales. "Bailing" wire would be remarkably ineffective.

Guardian: Trump will likely defund future climate science work from NASA. This is not entirely settled, but given what his science advisor is saying, it's quite possible.

Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.

This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

As if defunding climate research at our only space agency is *not* politicizing science... Really, the hope in this situation is that some of the actual science briefings break through this lunatic's advice.

Not necessarily climate change related, but Here's a new horrible weather related thing I've never heard of happening before...

Thunderstorm causes mass Asthma attack

Monday evening’s thunderstorm saw extreme winds and air moisture break pollen particles up into small enough pieces to enter peoples lungs.

4 people died, 3 more are critical.

This actually explains something that's happened to me a few times. I always attributed it to dust being picked up by the storm.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-worl...

This is great news. With renewable energies undercutting fossil fuels now (not to mention the fact they don't need pipelines to delivery) this is entirely feasible.

I have been very, very pessimistic about our future - even within the span of my lifetime - to the point that I've spent most of the year in a hole of depression and anxiety. This gives me more hope than I've had in a long time.

Maq wrote:

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-worl...

This is great news. With renewable energies undercutting fossil fuels now (not to mention the fact they don't need pipelines to delivery) this is entirely feasible.

I have been very, very pessimistic about our future - even within the span of my lifetime - to the point that I've spent most of the year in a hole of depression and anxiety. This gives me more hope than I've had in a long time.

Yeah. I don't know what the maintenance cost is for renewable energies, but I'm guessing that with prices falling, in the long term it's way less than maintaining a coal plant and paying for the coal. No reason for them to build the infrastructure for an obsolete power source when they can just skip a step.

It also, tangentially, makes things better for re-bootstrapping civilization, should that ever be necessary. One of the deep-time concerns was that replicating the industrial revolution would be impossible without the cheap fossil fuels that drove it. If it's possible to skip to, say, solar power with a relatively small energy investment that makes very-long-term human existance more viable.

pyxistyx wrote:

Not necessarily climate change related, but Here's a new horrible weather related thing I've never heard of happening before...

Thunderstorm causes mass Asthma attack

Monday evening’s thunderstorm saw extreme winds and air moisture break pollen particles up into small enough pieces to enter peoples lungs.

4 people died, 3 more are critical.

It was a very weird day. Asthma sufferers across the city, even those that thought they had grown out of it were all suffering terribly. I was thinking I was going to have to take my eldest to the hospital and it wasn't until the news the next day I saw they might not have been able to help us with the massive queues in emergency rooms.

Robear wrote:

As if defunding climate research at our only space agency is *not* politicizing science... Really, the hope in this situation is that some of the actual science briefings break through this lunatic's advice.

Which is, of course, the natural end-game of this whole farce of a conversation in the US. The science is not politicized at all. The discussion of the science has been split across ideological sides, driven largely on the right by ties to energy companies and a general disdain for environmental issues. The latter play into their rivals' arguments, so you can't just let the science speak for itself. You have to call it into question in order to mitigate the advantage it gives your natural enemy.

What gets me is that no one calls this out for what it is -- base cowardice. If the right in the US were anything other than cowards, they'd admit to the science and just say that the impact of fixing the problem would be too great. They could even add that's perhaps the mechanisms for fixing the warming aren't robust enough to justify their costs economically.

Instead, they obfuscate and lie, distorting the nature of climate science and science in general.

Gremlin wrote:
Maq wrote:

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-worl...

This is great news. With renewable energies undercutting fossil fuels now (not to mention the fact they don't need pipelines to delivery) this is entirely feasible.

I have been very, very pessimistic about our future - even within the span of my lifetime - to the point that I've spent most of the year in a hole of depression and anxiety. This gives me more hope than I've had in a long time.

Yeah. I don't know what the maintenance cost is for renewable energies, but I'm guessing that with prices falling, in the long term it's way less than maintaining a coal plant and paying for the coal. No reason for them to build the infrastructure for an obsolete power source when they can just skip a step.

It also, tangentially, makes things better for re-bootstrapping civilization, should that ever be necessary. One of the deep-time concerns was that replicating the industrial revolution would be impossible without the cheap fossil fuels that drove it. If it's possible to skip to, say, solar power with a relatively small energy investment that makes very-long-term human existance more viable.

If you are interested in some numbers there are myriad studies to be found on the US Energy Information Administration (posting from phone an I fail at adding links when doing so)

firesloth wrote:

What gets me is that no one calls this out for what it is -- base cowardice. If the right in the US were anything other than cowards, they'd admit to the science and just say that the impact of fixing the problem would be too great. They could even add that's perhaps the mechanisms for fixing the warming aren't robust enough to justify their costs economically.

Instead, they obfuscate and lie, distorting the nature of climate science and science in general.

They can't admit climate change is real because if it's real the only way to mitigate it is to do a lot of things that run counter to their political ideology of having a small, weak central government that can't regulate businesses or collect many taxes.

OG_slinger wrote:
firesloth wrote:

What gets me is that no one calls this out for what it is -- base cowardice. If the right in the US were anything other than cowards, they'd admit to the science and just say that the impact of fixing the problem would be too great. They could even add that's perhaps the mechanisms for fixing the warming aren't robust enough to justify their costs economically.

Instead, they obfuscate and lie, distorting the nature of climate science and science in general.

They can't admit climate change is real because if it's real the only way to mitigate it is to do a lot of things that run counter to their political ideology of having a small, weak central government that can't regulate businesses or collect many taxes.

Right. But if they weren't cowards, they'd just say: "Hey, it costs too much to fix it, and, in fact, we don't really want to fix it." They could plausibly make the argument that fixing it would cost more than the cost of riding it out. That'd probably be a dodgy argument, and it would ignore the potential social upheaval aspects of the problem, but at least it would be less cowardly than their current stance.

Yeah, I think I would have slightly more respect for the Republican Party if they at least admitted climate change was real and came out with some terrible oil-friendly toothless plan as their "solution". At least then you could maybe bargain with them halfway and get *something* done, but then I'm also assuming a right wing party that's open to compromise and bargaining. While I'm living in that dream world I might as well ask for a carbon-sequestering unicorn.

@BreitbartNews: Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists http://bit.ly/2gINZNf

First time they've ever cited Breitbart News. A coincidence, I'm sure.

Spoilered for blasphemy and swearing.

Spoiler:

I don't know why this would upset me, it's not like I wasn't expecting it. But Jesus f*cking Christ on a f*cking pogo stick, this makes me sick to my stomach.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

@BreitbartNews: Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists http://bit.ly/2gINZNf

First time they've ever cited Breitbart News. A coincidence, I'm sure.

I'm not a comic writer so I don't know how to spell a scream that comes from primal rage.

But, as Tocqueville said, we get precisely the government we deserve.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

@BreitbartNews: Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists http://bit.ly/2gINZNf

First time they've ever cited Breitbart News. A coincidence, I'm sure.

Lucky for those congressmen they won't be around to see the horrors they will have wrought on their grandchildren.

Mixolyde wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

@BreitbartNews: Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists http://bit.ly/2gINZNf

First time they've ever cited Breitbart News. A coincidence, I'm sure.

Lucky for those congressmen they won't be around to see the horrors they will have wrought on their grandchildren.

well Breitbart already exists...

Climate Change Will Stir 'Unimaginable' Refugee Crisis, Says Military

Climate change is set to cause a refugee crisis of "unimaginable scale," according to senior military figures, who warn that global warming is the greatest security threat of the 21st century and that mass migration will become the "new normal." The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency. Military leaders have long warned that global warming could multiply and accelerate security threats around the world by provoking conflicts and migration. They are now warning that immediate action is required. "Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century," said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change and a former military adviser to the president of Bangladesh. He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. "Weâ(TM)re going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people."
Dimmerswitch wrote:

@BreitbartNews: Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists http://bit.ly/2gINZNf

First time they've ever cited Breitbart News. A coincidence, I'm sure.

Look at the actual https://science.house.gov/ page linked from the Twitter bio. An actual government site talking sh*t about Hillary Clinton in the Jumbotron. Lamar Smith is apparently kind of an asshole.

A Message to Breitbart from Weather.com

BAM!

NASA and NOAA just had a joint live press conference where they discussed 2016 temperature data collected and analyzed by their respective programs.

Lots of great charts and visualizations of the data here:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...

We are so boned.

I bet they've just added "Warmest year of NASA GISTEMP record" to their presentation template now. I'm guessing they're going to need it there more often than not.

Mixolyde wrote:

We are so boned.

If only we took some of the money spent on alternative energy and spend it on technology to reverse the damage, we might not be so boned.

kazar wrote:

If only we took some of the money spent on alternative energy and spend it on technology to reverse the damage, we might not be so boned.

That *is* reversing the damage. Sarcasm, maybe? "Alternative" energy is well on its way to mainstream; even China has cancelled over a hundred new coal plants (120GW worth). The idea that the industry can't stand on its own, or is massively inefficient, is no longer true.

Robear wrote:
kazar wrote:

If only we took some of the money spent on alternative energy and spend it on technology to reverse the damage, we might not be so boned.

That *is* reversing the damage. Sarcasm, maybe? "Alternative" energy is well on its way to mainstream; even China has cancelled over a hundred new coal plants (120GW worth). The idea that the industry can't stand on its own, or is massively inefficient, is no longer true.

China's primary reason for canceling those coal plants wasn't the environment.

It had massively over invested in energy production, building 900GW of coal-fired capacity alone. China was still building two coal-fired plants a week last year--another 200GW of production capacity--even though demand for energy dropped by the same amount. And it had another 150GW of coal plants on the planning books, just waiting for permits (or to weasel through the loopholes of the central government's policy to decrease electrical production capacity).