20 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Worst flood in history-
worst fire season in decades-
worst drought in a century-
worst tornado season ever recorded-
worst this-worst that................

We're hearing it all too often these days-
http://www.huffingto...=green&ir=Green

http://www.huffingto...=green&ir=Green

I'd rather be hearing the Beatles song-
"Getting Better"
I've got to admit it's getting better (Better)
It's a little better all the time (It can't get no worse)
I have to admit it's getting better (better)
Getting so much better all the time!

*sigh

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I don't know if anyone remembers this.  Back in the 1990s, President Clinton ordered a Congressional study on Global Warming.  It was the Hart-Rudman Commission and was a bipartisan effort.

The conclusion of that study was the United States needed to be a leader in fighting climate change.  It made a somewhat dire conclusion.  They concluded that we had 10 years to make changes voluntarily.  After the 10 years, the changes would be mandatory because changes in our environment would be set in motion.  When President Bush came into office in 2001, he shelved the study and issued another one that wasn't released until 2006 or 2007.  In that time, the country made no movement towards dealing with climate change.  We typically dragged our feet when worldwide efforts were attempted.

Now, it's 2012 and we have been seeing some changes in our environment that are pretty phenomenal.  Are they normal cycles that we see in weather patterns over decades or are they due to climate change?  I don't know all the answers.  What I do know that it's a heck of a lot better to make the necessary changes than to wait and see.  Let's say climate change isn't the cause.  What is the harm done by changing our emissions standards, getting rid of ozone depleting chemicals, moving towards alternative energy, and so forth?  It's a win win situation as far as I can tell.  We end up with better air, better water, and other rewards.  Doing nothing gets us nothing.

[still learning]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 26 June 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

.....What is the harm done by changing our emissions standards, getting rid of ozone depleting chemicals, moving towards alternative energy, and so forth?  It's a win win situation as far as I can tell.  We end up with better air, better water, and other rewards.  Doing nothing gets us nothing.

Expense is the harm.

Getting greenhouse gas emissions to a low enough level soon enough to head off the worst of climate change will cost money and it will make fossil fuel companies, especially coal companies, much less profitable.

The expense of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while almost certainly less than the eventual expense of increased climate change damage that will result from not reducing greenhouse emissions, will be considerable.  Not outragous, but considerable.
.
The Merchants of Doubt ( I recommend a book with that title, google it), hired by fossil fuel interests, have been successful so far in keeping the US Congress ineffective, partly by casting enough doubt on the science of climate change so that too many think measures to deal with it, like subsidizing non-fossil energy (an expense), is money wasted,  tax money wasted.

(The ozone depleting chemicals have been dealt with adequately, and they aren't much of an issue regarding climate change anyway)

The real harm of dealing with climate change is that doing so would eat into fossil fuel company profits, especially coal company profits.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The zillionaires would rather spend their money on campaign ads than do something that would help us.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

That's true that it would harm someone's profit margin.  Certain industries are sure to continue to fight any kind of innovation.  Then again, someone who is investing heavily in wind or solar can't wait for the day when people jump on the bandwagon so their profits will go up, too.   It will happen eventually.  Change is the only constant.  We don't make wheels out of stone anymore ;)

I was thinking more in terms of what harm would be done to humans or the environment when I posed that question.  When it comes to the planet and the environment, if we implemented far reaching changes,  and then climate change was proved wrong, we would still win.  The benefits as in cleaner air, cleaner water, certain health issues would undoubtedly decrease.

[steph84]

I think everything is progressively getting worse. But when wasn't it pretty horrible? I don't think there ever was this magical golden age and I think we are working towards it. I'm optimistic.

[still learning]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 26 June 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I was thinking more in terms of what harm would be done to humans or the environment when I posed that question.  When it comes to the planet and the environment, if we implemented far reaching changes,  and then climate change was proved wrong, we would still win.  The benefits as in cleaner air, cleaner water, certain health issues would undoubtedly decrease.

Regarding human and environmental health effects of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, all positive as far as I can tell.
Well, on second thought, guess some people can't stand the sight of windmills.....

Cutting greenhouse gasses enough to head off climate change will impose some costs on folks besides the fossil fuel companies..
California has a plan signed into law, AB32, intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2050.   http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
I've seen a very believable analysis of what it'll take to implement AB32: lots of conservation of energy, the decarbonization of electricity and the electrification of transportation.  Will be costs, not large at first, but escalating to non-trival amounts.  That analyis was in Science http://www.sciencema...x=31&submit=yes  unfortunately the full report isn't publically viewable online without fee, as far as I know (the magazine is available in college libraries pretty universally)

[zararina]

Yes, sad to see/hear/know that things get worst as our earth and us grow older.
The lake that we used to swim and even get some food before is now polluted, the trees we used to climb before are gone and all disasters are becoming record breaking (of being worst). It means the worst may still have the worst just like a storm that seems to get stronger and more devastating each year.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

still learning, on 30 June 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Regarding human and environmental health effects of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, all positive as far as I can tell.
Well, on second thought, guess some people can't stand the sight of windmills.....

Cutting greenhouse gasses enough to head off climate change will impose some costs on folks besides the fossil fuel companies..
California has a plan signed into law, AB32, intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2050.   http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
I've seen a very believable analysis of what it'll take to implement AB32: lots of conservation of energy, the decarbonization of electricity and the electrification of transportation.  Will be costs, not large at first, but escalating to non-trivial amounts.  That analysis was in Science http://www.sciencema...x=31&submit=yes  unfortunately the full report isn't publicly viewable online without fee, as far as I know (the magazine is available in college libraries pretty universally)

Listened to part of what Bill Gates had to say on C-Span yesterday, and he's optimistic too. He thinks the brains
of our country will figure this out. I'm not religious, but I'll say-from his lips to gods ear.

[ACSAPA]

I live in Florida and I've noticed that the heat and hurricanes get worse every year. When Hurricane Wilma hit, 4 million Floridians had no electricity or trash pickup , so we were sitting in the dark for 2 weeks ,surrounded by piles of trash. It was like freakin' Lord of the Flies here. People were looting. I don't know how people can say climate change isn't real when we are experiencing crazy extremes of weather and old people are dropping dead from the heat.

[kalasin]

I don't know how anyone's profit margin can come before leaving a better world for their children.  Do NONE of these people have children?  I look at my sweet son and just can't imagine money getting in the way of making the world a sustainable place for him.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

kalasin, on 30 August 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I don't know how anyone's profit margin can come before leaving a better world for their children.  Do NONE of these people have children?  I look at my sweet son and just can't imagine money getting in the way of making the world a sustainable place for him.

You have a heart sweetie, they don't. Simple really. $$$ above all.

[kalasin]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 30 August 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

You have a heart sweetie, they don't. Simple really. $$$ above all.

I am glad I will never understand that.  I seriously can't fathom it.

[ACSAPA]

Apart from leaving a gutted, trashed world for their children, I'm surprised that these billionaires aren't worried about destroying the environment that they presently have to live in. Even an animal knows not to foul its own nest with excrement. They can't hide in their mansions forever. How will they play golf with their buddies in hundred degree heat on crunchy brown grass with lakes of toxic goo?
Where will they take fancy vacations when the fancy vacation spots become polluted and start having crazy weather conditions?

[artistry]

Al Gore was right, he gave us a time frame on climate change for either or.. I can't remember when it was. I remember thinking at the time, it's late. Now it's here. They still  doubt, but the changes keep coming.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Another "worst" (although I don't know for sure how accurate their headline is.) But it was bad.
http://www.huffingto...tm_hp_ref=green

[Shortpoet-GTD]

penny, on 27 December 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

What is the NOAA graph saying in that article , I can't make head nor tail of it?

They're reporting 2011 tornado numbers as 1692 total for the year-up 392.
2012's at 886 for the year-down 382 for the year. (Based on their average of 1300)
Hope that helps.

We had less tornadoes in 2012-but having them in December is a bit weird.

[F.Tnioli]

still learning, on 26 June 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

Expense is the harm.
...
The real harm of dealing with climate change is that doing so would eat into fossil fuel company profits, especially coal company profits.

This is short-sighted; please pardon my ruthlessness, alas i could use even much stronger word to be fair.

Anyhows, the real harm of dealing with climate change is much more than just monetary expense. To keep it under 2 degrees celcius would require not just stopping some 90%+ of man-made CO2, CH4 and N20 emissions - it would also require prompt removal of hundreds of gigatons of CO2 and other GHGs already present in the athmosphere. Only then climate change will indeed be dealt with.

Now to drop 90%+ of GHG emissions in a matter of a few years, it'll be required to simply shut down not just "luxury" things like big SUVs - but also majority of power plants worldwide (80% of electricity is still fossil-fuel-generated), to stop forever majority of agriculture machinery, home heating, transport. It is impossible to change current world infrastructure, which is fossil-fuel-based, into anything green ("renewable") in a matter of few years, - in fact, impossible even in 2 decades, even.

That's how "dealing with climate change" - if it's indeed stopping it at tolerable values, - brings tremendous harm: billions will be found without food to it, without transport to travel, without heat to their homes. They will die because of it. If it's not harm, i don't know what is.

Current mankind's infrastructure was built gradually during last 50+ years. It was gradual process not because countries were willing to do it "bit by bit" - no, there were and still are huge pressures from populations which seek to live better, to eat better, and in many cases, to simply SURVIVE. Objective difficulties in building technological infrastructure, - all the power plants, cars, railroads, indutrial agriculture complexes, factories, you name it, - these difficulties were, and still are, and will be a main factor why the infrastructure can't be built from zero to hero, so to say, in just a few years.

The infrastructure which is zero-carbon is, technologically, MUCH more complex than one mankind built to this day. It demands much more capable engineers, much cleaner processes of manufacturing, much more complex devices, much more complicated logistics, rarer elements to build from, very complex laws and above all, it demands agreement of powers that be that growth has to be not jsut stopped, but reversed for a couple decades, and it demands whole populations to stop being "personal gain and profit is the most important thing" attitude.

So, how can we expect new, green, zero-carbon transport, agriculture, industries and housing to appear world-wide in anything less than a century - is beyond me. It took us 50+ ears to build it "dirty" way, and STILL ~2 billions people are still starving or malnourished.

We don't have a century to deal with climate change. We barely have a decade now, before summer (june...august) sea ice over shallow methane clathrates would give up. When it does, Sun, which is high up in the sky 24/7 during those months in Arctic, will stop to be reflected by ice and much of its energy will get straight to the water, some of it straight to the sea bed of those shallow continental shelves. It won't take any many years in this mode to make clathrates to start emit methane on a Gt scale every year there. Huge 1st-year local warming potentail of Methane will then accelerate the process tremendously, and it's it; runaway, catastrophic global warming as most of that methane spread around the globe in a few years. It is well know that emission of just 1 (one!) Gt (gigaton) of methane into the athmosphere dwarfes ALL CO2 emissions made by mankind up to date. Shakhova et.al estimates total methane amount in ESAS (East Siberia Arctic Shelf) being over 1000Gt, of which about 50Gt is being "ready for ubrupt release at any time"... Of those 50, some 3-5Gt of methane gets out in a matter of 1 decade or faster, and that's it - further huge Arctic warming, further massive releases on a scale of hundreds Gt (ESAS is just _one_ of shallow Arctic shelves - others have much methane and methane clathrates under the sea bed too, stabilized by (so far, nearly sufficiently) low temperatures).

As for removal fo GHGs from the athmosphere, - personally, i doubt it is at all possible to do on a scale of hundreds Gt with technology and economy we have presently. Even if it is, it would require war-like effort of several leading countries - and war-like efforts usually come with much harm to citizens...


Bottom line is: to deal with climate change now means direct, massive harm to billions of people now alive in the form of death for some, starvation and forced migrations for more, massive decrease in quality of life for nearly everyone on the planet, inevitable losses of technologal know-how as nearly whole industries close, while others fail to function as a result. It means getting back to plowing with horse and bull, it means transportation costs rising by thousands percent worldwide, both short-distance and long-distance, most likely martial law, unprecedented uprisings, political chaos, wars (at least in much of 3rd-world), and it means empty super-market shelves for sure, world-wide.


What the author of this whole topic meant, i think, has nothing to do with actual, practical "dealing with climate change"; with - or most likely, without, - realising, the author of this topic spoke about efforts which are possible without above described massive harm - such as developing and installing cleaner technologies as fast and as effectively as at all possible without dramatic losses of human life and quality of life. In this sense, yes, it'd be a win-win. However, such efforts are now by FAR not enough to "deal" with climate change; at best they just slow slimate change a little - just a little. Nothing more, and nothing less; slowing it, even a tiny little, is indeed a good thing, - the faster it goes, the worse effects are. However, end result would be just about the same, just would arrive a little bit later, thus i do not see how it is any much important whether Bush decided to participate in international efforts about climate change, or not; granted, if he would do it best he can, may be it'd bought mankind some few months, may be even a year or two, before Arctic Clathrate Gun would do the BOOM and doom most of mankin anyways; but does it matter SO much?


P.S. It amazes me how so many people know SO DAMN LITTLE of physics and still think they can have an opinion about climate change. Gee, go learn about thermal capacity of air and water, go learn about phase transitions and amounts of heat needed for them to happen, go learn how greenhouse effect works and what wavelengths are involved and why it matters, go learn how spectrums of water vapour, CO2 and CH4 have important maximums complimenting each other, go learn how things melt (for Christ's sake, energy required to melt anything - ice, metal, anything, - is defined by VOLUME of that "anything", not by EXTENT); in other words, before voicing your opinion about REAL WORLD and REAL PROCESSES happening in it, go and learn at very least some little bits about how real world WORKS! This P.S. is to noone in particular, just a call "to everybody", if you will; amount of nonsense spelt about physical processes which are at the core of global climate change is just mind-boggling, even in this very forum...

[Shortpoet-GTD]

A recent worst-
Here

[Dustoffer]

The first effect of AGW was supposed to be climate fluctuation beyond historic.  20K in 2011 in the US and 40K in 2012, the fires and floods here this year.
For more on the four tipping points approaching, and the links, read here(I am Johhny Electriglide, from my acid rock/blues/metal guitar playing);
http://www.envirolin...php?f=3&t=24375