Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the age of climate change, trouble is brewing
http://articles.philly.com/2014-05-...nge-lagunitas-head-brewer#s7sF88HAkXkAWdeS.99

EVAN FRITZ, the head brewer at Manayunk Brewing Co., was smiling but looking kind of shell-shocked one afternoon this week. Around him lay twisted pipe, a disassembled boiler, stacks of muddy beer cans, a pile of electronic point-of-sale equipment.

All ruined.

"I keep joking that this storm didn't even have a name," he said. "What are we going to put on the plaque?"

That would be the marker to show how high the waters from the May 1 flood rose. Irene in 2011 and in 1999 - the high-water marks from those devastating hurricanes are remembered with small signs behind the bar.

This one, the storm with no name, came with no real warning. It dumped 5 inches of rain in one afternoon.
After the coffee horror, this. If we ever do have cause to celebrate what the hell are we going to celebrate with?
 
Perception of risk of natural hazards: a hazard mitigation plan framework

"'Perception of risk of natural hazards: a hazard mitigation plan framework"
A new paper published in the International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management (Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.188-211) finds that the higher the perceived risk of a natural disaster, the more people want to see that risk reduced and the more willing they are to see their tax dollars spent on mitigation and preparation.

by Maura Ann Hurley, Ross B. Corotis
Abstract: A new approach is presented for policy makers to incorporate sociological aspects of human risk perception into their hazard mitigation plans. Previous methods for creating these plans generally used equivalent dollar losses from natural hazard events as the statistic by which to make decisions. Such an approach fails to take into consideration how people view natural hazards, possibly leading to lack of public support and compliance with emergency plans. Such a situation could exacerbate the consequences of a disaster. In this paper, new graphs are presented that combine the typical risk assessment factors, such as death, injury and economic loss, with human perception of risk. The framework includes risk perception by graphing natural hazards on the axes of dread and familiarity. These two variables have been shown in previous studies by social psychologists to explain the largest variance of an individual's risk perception. Understanding how the public perceives the risk for various natural hazards can assist decision makers in developing and communicating policy decisions.

Given that we are starting to see major U.S. insurance companies banding together to file class action lawsuits against local governments for not acting to better prepare communities against the known dangers resulting from climate change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/19/climate-change-get-ready-or-get-sued/), I expect that more and more communities will be looking to find ways to deal with these problems rather than simply trying to find excuses to ignore their responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
"'Perception of risk of natural hazards: a hazard mitigation plan framework"
A new paper published in the International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management (Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.188-211) finds that the higher the perceived risk of a natural disaster, the more people want to see that risk reduced and the more willing they are to see their tax dollars spent on mitigation and preparation.



Given that we are starting to see major U.S. insurance companies banding together to file class action lawsuits against local governments for not acting to better prepare communities against the known dangers resulting from climate change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/19/climate-change-get-ready-or-get-sued/), I expect that more and more communities will be looking to find ways to deal with these problems rather than simply trying to find excuses to ignore their responsibilities.

Love it. Want to see the Warmers actually prove in a Court of Law that their guess work of "AGW". "Climate change" "Climate disturbance" can be measured, the basis of their "science", put that 97% to the test and prove that these floods are different then the olde time flooding, fires and natural disasters of the past. Hope they take the Ocean's temperature too, where the non existent "heat" is hiding. Any hope we can get Mann and Jones on the stand, under oath? Oh and the Hockey Stick and Henson would be nice too.
 
Last edited:
Climate change is divisive. Climate solutions are not.

Climate change is divisive. Climate solutions are not.
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set...change-is-divisive.-Climate-solutions-are-not

Even though almost all climate scientists agree that human activity is warming the planet, climate change remains politically divisive. But the same can no longer be said of climate solutions. A growing body of evidence suggests that people everywhere, of every political stripe, want to use less energy derived from fossil fuels. And now, technology, economics, and science are aligning behind them.

If the public and private sectors can work together and seize this moment, millions of Americans will soon have powerful new tools to reduce their energy consumption and curb our carbon emissions. The four big ideas below outline the space where consumers and companies, government and industry, left and right find that their common interests – saving energy and money – align to help save the planet.

1. Not everyone cares about carbon, but everyone cares about saving energy.
On April 23, 1970, The New York Times wrote of the original Earth Day: “Conservatives were for it. Liberals were for it. Democrats, Republicans, and independents were for it. So were the ins, the outs, the executive and legislative branches of Government.”

Today, I’m not sure you could write the same sentence. But you could about energy efficiency. Our behavior as energy consumers is nearly universal; we don’t like waste. We don’t like throwing money out the window. We want to be good neighbors and good citizens. As it turns out, these things mean as much to people in red states as they do to people in blue states.

There’s plenty of data to prove it, but it’s easier to look at our statehouses. Even at a time of profound political division, energy efficiency laws have quietly swept across more than half the union – from North Carolina to Texas to California. Everyone agrees we shouldn’t be wasting energy, and nearly everyone agrees we should be doing something about it.

2. Information unlocks behavioral change...

3. We can scale up solutions as never before...

4. If we can do good, we can do well.

What you can do
Yes, the moment is dire, and the hour is late. Confronting the environmental issues we face won’t be easy. But that knowledge shouldn’t feed our cynicism. It can and must inspire us toward bold action.

Business owners: Take on a second bottom line because it will strengthen the future of your company. Lawmakers: Ramp up efficiency programs because it will win you votes and grow our economy. Energy users: Look for ways to save, but also let your utilities and your leaders know that you want to, because it’s good for your pocketbook and good for the planet.

And if that doesn’t move you: Embrace energy efficiency, because your neighbors are doing it, too...
(bolding mine - TS)

Alex Laskey is president and founder of Opower, which provides cloud-based software for the utility industry. He was featured in Fortune’s “40 under 40,” has been a Technology Pioneer at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and serves as a commissioner on the Alliance Commission on National Energy Efficiency Policy.

Even without the spectre and demands of climate change, the solutions to climate change are reasonable, profitable and desirable.
 
Science is a "warmer" religion, the insurance industry is a "warmer" business, quite the conspiracy ideation some seem prone to construct within which to cloak their failed world-view.

abstract:

Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.
(“Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation" - http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf )
 
Did you know that the EPA has a list,...and they are checking it twice!

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/top100.htm

EPA Top 100 List
The National Top 100 list represents the largest green power users within the Green Power Partnership. The combined green power usage of these Top 100 Partners amount to nearly 24 billion kilowatt-hours annually, which represents nearly 83 percent of the green power commitments made by all EPA Green Power Partners.

Company GP % of Total Electricity Use

1. Intel Corporation 100%
2. Kohl's Department Stores 105%
4. Whole Foods Market 107%
12. District of Columbia 100% Govt. (Local, Municipal)
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/top100.htm
 
Want to see the Warmers actually prove in a Court of Law that their guess work of "AGW". "Climate change" "Climate disturbance" can be measured, the basis of their "science", put that 97% to the test and prove that these floods are different then the olde time flooding, fires and natural disasters of the past.
Just as natural diasters have always ocurred people have always died of diseases like cancer, so the tobacco companies must have been equally confident that their culpability could never be proved in a court of law. And yet ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
 
Just as natural diasters have always ocurred people have always died of diseases like cancer, so the tobacco companies must have been equally confident that their culpability could never be proved in a court of law. And yet ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
I don't think the natural disasters and disease is comparable at all. Lots of people die from cancer who never smoked. What has extended the average life span from 45 to 78 is vaccines. It's a miracle. In fact, billions have been put into cancer research with small rewards. A natural disaster is quite different in choosing to smoke or exposure to germs and communicable diseases. Preventable disease are still being transmitted person to person that would be avoidable without intimate contact and IV drug use.
 
Last edited:
Just as natural diasters have always ocurred people have always died of diseases like cancer, so the tobacco companies must have been equally confident that their culpability could never be proved in a court of law. And yet ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

Some might expect warmer courts to rule against those poor representatives who were just trying to preserve the right of the fossil fuel companies they represent. Of course, I don't know why those "some" go to such trouble to defend such warmer businesses.

EXXON
Climate Change
Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change.http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy
We believe a well-designed, revenue-neutral carbon tax mechanism provides a cost-effective alternative to a cap-and-trade regime.
- http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-debate/overview

Shell
Climate change
http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html
Population growth and economic development are driving up energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. Shell is taking action across four areas to help secure a sustainable energy future : natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

BP
Climate change
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html
The science
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is in large part due to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities. The IPCC believes that warming of the climate will probably lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable. Its latest report makes clear that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of GHG emissions.

The climate challenge
BP’s analysis suggests that global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels may be 29% higher in 2035 than they were in 2012, partly as a consequence of coal use in rapidly growing economies. This is a projection of what we think is likely to happen, not what we would like to see.

More aggressive energy policies and technologies could lead to slower growth in CO2 emissions than expected but this would still not be enough to limit warming to no more than 2°C, the threshold recognized by governments as limiting the worst impacts of climate change. The International Energy Agency has acknowledged that its 450 scenario, which would put the world on a lower-carbon trajectory, looks increasingly unlikely...

Carbon policy
...We also believe that putting a price on carbon – one that treats all carbon equally, whether it comes out of a smokestack or a car exhaust – will make energy efficiency and conservation more attractive to businesses and individuals and lower-carbon energy sources more cost competitive. A global carbon price should be the long-term goal, but regional and national approaches are a good first step, provided temporary financial relief is given to sectors that are exposed to international competition...

warmer industries!
 
Love it. Want to see the Warmers actually prove in a Court of Law that their guess work of "AGW". "Climate change" "Climate disturbance" can be measured, the basis of their "science", put that 97% to the test and prove that these floods are different then the olde time flooding, fires and natural disasters of the past. Hope they take the Ocean's temperature too, where the non existent "heat" is hiding. Any hope we can get Mann and Jones on the stand, under oath? Oh and the Hockey Stick and Henson would be nice too.

You could try reading the IPCC report and see what the case for AGW is. The evidence is all listed there. It's not enough that this has been politicised, now it has to be legalised too.
 
I don't think the natural disasters and disease is comparable at all. Lots of people die from cancer who never smoked.
Exactly. And yet it has been possible to prove that the chances of dying from lung cancer is about 9 times greater for a smoker than a non-smoker, and that the tobacco companies - who deliberately spread misinformation to try to obscure this fact - are culpable.

The comparison with the increased incidence of natural disasters due to climate change, and the culpability of those who deliberately spread misinformation to try to convince the gullible it isn't happening, is exact.
 
Consequences: warmer atmosphere, more water vapor, more intense rains

Balkans Flooding Is Latest In A String Of Severe Rainfall Events"

The epic floodwaters in the Balkans may be receding, but as they go, they are revealing the full scale of the destruction wrought.

The death toll across the affected area is nearing 50, about 100,000 homes have been destroyed, and more than half a million people have been forced to leave their homes. Thousands of landslides have added to the misery and devastation.

On Tuesday, Bosnia declared a day of mourning while Serbia said it would hold three days of mourning starting Wednesday.
One of the more gruesome and dangerous consequences of the flooding are the thousands of dead animals which are now being discovered. Piles of cows, pigs, sheep, and dogs which couldn’t be saved by their owners now pose a serious public health threat.
According to the Associated Press, 140 tons of drowned animals have already been destroyed. Another 1,900 sheep and lambs are known to have died elsewhere in the country.
While no outbreaks of disease have been reported so far, as temperatures rise into the 80s this week, conditions are perfect for the incubation of intestinal ailments, respiratory infections, hepatitis and even typhoid. Some of these diseases take as long as three weeks to show symptoms.

These floods, which dumped three months of rain in just three days, are the most severe in the 120 year record.

And the unprecedented deluge is consistent with climate change predictions.

As the world’s oceans and air warm up, more water is transferred from the ocean into the atmosphere. That’s because warmer water (the world’s oceans have warmed 0.6 degrees Celsius since the 1970s) leads to more evaporation, and warmer air can hold more water. Kevin Treberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told Public Radio International that a basic rule of thumb is that the air holds about 7 percent more moisture for every 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature. That moisture can then be concentrated in fronts, which unleash the rain when they encounter disturbances in the air or land.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/22/3440408/balkans-flooding-update/
 
and we're not even into El Nino yet

April-temps-638x493.gif


Global Temperatures In April Tied For The Hottest On Record
BY KILEY KROH ON MAY 20, 2014 AT 1:40 PM

April may have brought mild temperatures to much of North America, but that wasn’t the case for the planet as a whole. Last month officially tied for the warmest April globally since recordkeeping began in 1880, according to data released by NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center on Tuesday.

This makes it the 38th consecutive April and 350th consecutive month with a global temperature at or above the 20th century average. The last time the planet experienced an April with below-average temperatures was 1976.
Last month’s record-tying global temperatures tracked with the global carbon dioxide emissions that drive climate change, as April became the first month in at least 800,000 years in which CO2 levels were above 400 parts per million (ppm) every day.

more

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/20/3439571/april-temperatures-warmest-on-record/
 
I don't think the natural disasters and disease is comparable at all. Lots of people die from cancer who never smoked. What has extended the average life span from 45 to 78 is vaccines. It's a miracle. In fact, billions have been put into cancer research with small rewards. A natural disaster is quite different in choosing to smoke or exposure to germs and communicable diseases. Preventable disease are still being transmitted person to person that would be avoidable without intimate contact and IV drug use.

There are many people that are facing starvation do to droughts, that never drove a car or even know an AC.
 
But, but, but..... North America. That sounds very similar to the Northern Hemisphere, and that means nearly the whole world, was cool.

Doesn't it?

People just don't understand stuff like this because it is just too simple for them to wrap their over-educated, "common-sense" deprived brains around,...know what the problem is?

Warmer maps!
 
In fact, billions have been put into cancer research with small rewards

off topic but large rewards - leukemia used to be a death sentence for kids and now is just about 100% curable.
Lymphoma was iffy but now a very high cure rate including me.....priceless therefore :D

••

The US Military has grave concerns about the risks of climate change and is working on a number of fronts to eliminate their reliance on fossil fuels AND to warn the government of the world wide security risks climate change entails.

They understand, even Exxon understands.....what's the matter with you??

On the Record: Climate Change as a Security Risk According to U.S. Administration Officials

Under both Republican and Democratic Administrations, leaders in the U.S. foreign policy and national security establishment have recognized the security risks of climate change, and have become increasingly active in arguing for a response commensurate to the threat.
Below is a sampling of statements, and actions, regarding the security risks of climate change, by some of our current and past foreign policy and national security leaders. This is by no means a complete list, but it is a good reminder that climate change is far more than an environmental concern. See Jill Fitzsimmons’ post from last year for more.

Secretary of State, John Kerry (May, 2013)

“And at the top of that list of shared challenges which does not get enough attention…a principal challenge to all of us of life and death proportions is the challenge of climate change…So it’s not just an environmental issue and it’s not just an economic issue. It is a security issue, a fundamental security issue that affects life as we know it on the planet itself, and it demands urgent attention from all of us.”

National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon (April, 2013)

“The national security impacts of climate change stem from the increasingly severe environmental impacts it is having on countries and people around the world…The fact that the environmental impacts of climate change present a national security challenge has been clear to this Administration from the outset.”

U.S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance, Michael Camuñez, (April, 2013)

“Extreme weather events can damage agricultural production as we know, paralyze the transport of goods and services, and result in an economic loss that reverberates across the globe. Therefore, protecting our ecosystem and improving the management of our resources are at the core of our regional security and economic prosperity alike. And certainly participating States, like all nations of the world, face the challenge of climate change and global warming, which is perhaps the paramount existential security threat facing us all today.”

U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper (March, 2013)

“Terrorists, militants and international crime groups are certain to use declining local food security to gain legitimacy and undermine government authority. Intentional introduction of a livestock or plant disease could be a greater threat to the United States and the global food system than a direct attack on food supplies intended to kill humans. So there will almost assuredly be security concerns with respect to health and pandemics, energy and climate change. Environmental stresses are not just humanitarian issues. They legitimately threaten regional stability.”

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear (March, 2013)

Significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

And: “While the Indo-Asia Pacific today is relatively at peace, I am concerned by a number of security challenges that have the possibility to impact the security environment…Examples include, climate change, where increasingly severe weather patterns and rising sea levels, along with inevitable earthquakes and tsunamis’ and super-typhoons, and massive flooding threaten today and will continue to threaten populations in the future in this region.”

Former Secretary of State, George Shultz (March, 2013)

“There are huge changes that are in the works if we don’t moderate what’s going on. Changes in heat levels. Some places can get very, very hot, and we’ve already experienced some of that. Even Vladimir Putin got out of Moscow a couple summers ago. So you’ve got that problem…I’m a marine, and during World War II I flew over the Pacific, and we flew over those islands, and they’re just little islands out there in the ocean…So you can create conditions that lead people to want to fight about things. If I suddenly find that I am losing all my land, I want to get somebody else’s.”

Former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, Tom Ridge (R-PA) (February, 2013)

“The U.S. national security community, including leaders from the military, homeland security, and intelligence, understand that climate change is a national security threat… They’re not talking about whether or not it is occurring – it is… They’re talking about addressing the problem and protecting the American people. It’s time Washington does the same.”

that's a Republican and former Homeland Security officer under Bush talking.

http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/...sk-according-to-u-s-administration-officials/

Move on ABC...the issue is how to deal with it and not make it worse. There is no shame in being wrong.
There is shame in refusing to admit you are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.
 
The US Military has grave concerns about the risks of climate change and is working on a number of fronts to eliminate their reliance on fossil fuels AND to warn the government of the world wide security risks climate change entails.
And he US Republican Party is working on a number of fronts to make them stop.

One can understand why : this messenger is particularly dangerous to AGW denial. Calling out the US military as "watermelons", "deluded" or going by guesswork is not going to play well. McCarthy, we'll all recall, was getting a free run until he turned his gaze on the Pentagon, at which point he was crushed like a kitten's head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom