Discussion:
The Reality Of Climate Change
Add Reply
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-16 07:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The videos below represent climate reality -- what IS or what PROBABLY will be REAL as time passes. One of the videos below is an episode of Nova funded in part by David Koch. Another is a lecture by Tim Palmer who addresses the probabilistic nature of climate science along with the reliability of ensemble climate models. There's information in another video on the food security threat from climate change as instances of famine in the World are on the rise.

Admittedly, content below will require far more than a few minutes to view and digest. However, you don't have to view it all at once. If you're not familiar with climate science, you'll learn quite a lot!

This material gets deep into the weeds of climate science. Some of this content is more controversial than other videos in the group below. Much of what you'll view below is dependent on projections or an expectation based on developing trends of more severe and more frequently occurring extremes in weather (e.g.. prolonged drought in Africa or the Middle-East in particular which plays a role in burgeoning World famine, large hail that damages crops, record-setting typhoons such as Haiyan in 2013 or hurricanes such as Sandy in 2012 and Patricia in 2015 along with the recent spate of flash-flooding in some regions of the U.S. while other areas of the U.S. often bake in periods of record-breaking heat or extended drought with periods of extreme heat impacting crop yields as was the case in 2012 and 2016) then over-arching climate as we move toward the 22nd century. This only scratches the surface of climate change issues along with the questionable climate policy of President Trump. (see: https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#! topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ for more details)

Climate change deniers will often contend, as has President Trump at least implied in the past, that the prospect of harmful climate change is a "hoax". Despite many years of supporting scientific research, some of them will offer paranoid conspiracy theories which assert climate change is used as the justification to slowly introduce a "New World Order" promulgating a single government that would rule the World. Ergo, they have nothing but suspicion for whatever comes out of the U.N. and particularly the IPCC on climate change.

Then there are the skeptics who reject peer review, saying "group think" or scientist's greed for grant money colors scientific research and ensures the bulk of research will be biased as contrasting research will be blocked from publication or grant money. Yet, (1) there's no credible evidence peer review has failed as a process or that scientists are being systematically blocked from publication by a cabal of climate scientists who previously towed a government line while (2) somehow, they look beyond private sector funding for research and options to publish independently. (e.g. from websites initiated for the purpose if not directly or indirectly supported by the fossil fuel industry in general or the Koch brothers and/or Heartland in particular.

There are scientists, or at least those using a scientific approach, who support skeptics while having gained some prominence. (e.g. Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr., William Happer and others) Then there's Heartland, the mother of all climate skeptic organizations supporting skeptics in much the same way as Heartland supported the tobacco industry in he last century. It's not like there's zero representation of the skeptic's point of view, even if you erased political support in Congress or the White House and even if you could erase the existence of like-minded organizations and their associated websites or BLOGs.

But are the skeptics deluded, some of them maybe being misled and played by those who pander? (i.e. pandered to by those interests who take advantage of skeptics believing in government plots to take their money and property to fight a "hoax" cause) Do they understand what is real as opposed to whatever may or may not be propaganda from some people? Do they really get what Breitbart.com, WUWT, NO TRICKS ZONE, Climate Depot, The GWPF and so many others are doing?

The significant threat of climate change is real! Although the evidence is not absolute -- climate change deniers and minimalists apparently arguing, more often than not, that nothing less than absolute, 100% accuracy in climate models and 100% proof of the threat is acceptable -- but more in the realm of PROBABLE, it's valid to have concern for that which is demonstrated to be PROBABLE. We pass laws on the basis of that which is PROBABLE rather than requiring there be 100%, irrefutable proof that something will happen as a result of some previous action or lackthereof. For severe weather or the potential for same, and despite there's no absolute proof of a personal threat, we take action to protect ourselves when a watch or warning is issued. When the bulk of climate scientists are warning us we may have a problem -- potentially a BIG problem -- if we don't TRANSITION away from burning fossil fuels, why shouldn't we heed and act on that warning, even though the consequences, or what PROBABLY could happen, might not be undeniable for several more years to several decades? Why take the chance that what we don't do could result in devastation and/or death for future generations, even that's generations 80 or 100 years from now?

And now, here is reality -- a reality of probabilistic outcome. It's up to us whether we respond and to what extent.














Walt In Seattle
2017-07-16 08:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This is the link which was broken by a formatting issue in the 3rd paragraph of the origianal post.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-16 09:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
The videos below represent climate reality -- what IS or what PROBABLY will be REAL as time passes. One of the videos below is an episode of Nova funded in part by David Koch. Another is a lecture by Tim Palmer who addresses the probabilistic nature of climate science along with the reliability of ensemble climate models. There's information in another video on the food security threat from climate change as instances of famine in the World are on the rise.
Admittedly, content below will require far more than a few minutes to view and digest. However, you don't have to view it all at once. If you're not familiar with climate science, you'll learn quite a lot!
This material gets deep into the weeds of climate science. Some of this content is more controversial than other videos in the group below. Much of what you'll view below is dependent on projections or an expectation based on developing trends of more severe and more frequently occurring extremes in weather (e.g.. prolonged drought in Africa or the Middle-East in particular which plays a role in burgeoning World famine, large hail that damages crops, record-setting typhoons such as Haiyan in 2013 or hurricanes such as Sandy in 2012 and Patricia in 2015 along with the recent spate of flash-flooding in some regions of the U.S. while other areas of the U.S. often bake in periods of record-breaking heat or extended drought with periods of extreme heat impacting crop yields as was the case in 2012 and 2016) then over-arching climate as we move toward the 22nd century. This only scratches the surface of climate change issues along with the questionable climate policy of President Trump. (see: https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#! topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ for more details)
Climate change deniers will often contend, as has President Trump at least implied in the past, that the prospect of harmful climate change is a "hoax". Despite many years of supporting scientific research, some of them will offer paranoid conspiracy theories which assert climate change is used as the justification to slowly introduce a "New World Order" promulgating a single government that would rule the World. Ergo, they have nothing but suspicion for whatever comes out of the U.N. and particularly the IPCC on climate change.
Then there are the skeptics who reject peer review, saying "group think" or scientist's greed for grant money colors scientific research and ensures the bulk of research will be biased as contrasting research will be blocked from publication or grant money. Yet, (1) there's no credible evidence peer review has failed as a process or that scientists are being systematically blocked from publication by a cabal of climate scientists who previously towed a government line while (2) somehow, they look beyond private sector funding for research and options to publish independently. (e.g. from websites initiated for the purpose if not directly or indirectly supported by the fossil fuel industry in general or the Koch brothers and/or Heartland in particular.
There are scientists, or at least those using a scientific approach, who support skeptics while having gained some prominence. (e.g. Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr., William Happer and others) Then there's Heartland, the mother of all climate skeptic organizations supporting skeptics in much the same way as Heartland supported the tobacco industry in he last century. It's not like there's zero representation of the skeptic's point of view, even if you erased political support in Congress or the White House and even if you could erase the existence of like-minded organizations and their associated websites or BLOGs.
But are the skeptics deluded, some of them maybe being misled and played by those who pander? (i.e. pandered to by those interests who take advantage of skeptics believing in government plots to take their money and property to fight a "hoax" cause) Do they understand what is real as opposed to whatever may or may not be propaganda from some people? Do they really get what Breitbart.com, WUWT, NO TRICKS ZONE, Climate Depot, The GWPF and so many others are doing?
The significant threat of climate change is real! Although the evidence is not absolute -- climate change deniers and minimalists apparently arguing, more often than not, that nothing less than absolute, 100% accuracy in climate models and 100% proof of the threat is acceptable -- but more in the realm of PROBABLE, it's valid to have concern for that which is demonstrated to be PROBABLE. We pass laws on the basis of that which is PROBABLE rather than requiring there be 100%, irrefutable proof that something will happen as a result of some previous action or lackthereof. For severe weather or the potential for same, and despite there's no absolute proof of a personal threat, we take action to protect ourselves when a watch or warning is issued. When the bulk of climate scientists are warning us we may have a problem -- potentially a BIG problem -- if we don't TRANSITION away from burning fossil fuels, why shouldn't we heed and act on that warning, even though the consequences, or what PROBABLY could happen, might not be undeniable for several more years to several decades? Why take the chance that what we don't do could result in devastation and/or death for future generations, even that's generations 80 or 100 years from now?
And now, here is reality -- a reality of probabilistic outcome. It's up to us whether we respond and to what extent.
http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk
http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM
http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ
http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w
http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk
http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48
http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io
walt...what is your purpose here...to talk about climate change which has been happening since the beginning..for billions or years....or sea level rise...which is not going to be more than a inch or two...which is it...and al gore does not know how much ice is hidden under the water level...it is impossible to know....but it is so much greater than the ice above the sea level...which means that when ice melts..the replacement compacity is so much less..causing the sea level to decrease...ice shrinks in compacity when melted..thats the reason water pipes burst when it freezes...the needed compacity becomes greater when it freezes...and that theory is absolute...as there is nothing can be done to stop it...it is a factor of nature...jon
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-16 20:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Note what was written in my third post. It would be nice if we gave future generations a better environment in which to live and a better chance simply to live......
Post by j***@gmail.com
walt...what is your purpose here...
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-16 19:42:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For the record:

1. Milankovitch cycles may, in the extreme long term, take Earth into the next ice age when humanity might not exist for a myriad of reasons, regardless of whatever happens with ACC in a much shorter term. But the much shorter term, in which a progression to a significantly worse level of ACC could be possible, is the central issue.

2. Clearly, Earth has been hotter in the past and with more CO2 as well as other GHGs in the atmosphere. Yet, in the absence of humanity, along with its burning of fossil fuels and removing from consideration scenarios where there were massive supervolcanic eruptions or deep impact from NEOs if not other sudden as well as catastrophic events, the speed at which warming or cooling in tandem with concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere has occurred has been comparatively slower, thus allowing the various species of animals and plants to adapt. The added warmth of ACC (note the A part of ACC and that humanity's existence, along with its organized civilization, is relatively brief in geological time)is happening so quickly, or is projected to happen so quickly, that many species will not be able to adapt, humanity in particular. View the provided links, including the material cited in the link from my second post, for details.

3. Few people suggest the solution for curbing ACC is for humanity to return to a stone age existence. To the contrary, most, who recognize a problem, recommend creation and transitioning to new technologies which limit or eliminate carbon emissions. However, restricting or eliminating emissions is not a total solution. Although there are some exciting techniques under research, at some point, we may need technology we presently do not have to extract and sequester some of the CO2 residing in the atmosphere -- enough to bring concentrations down to 320 to 350 PPM. We shouldn't go any lower because such could evoke global cooling to an unwarranted and inadvisable extent.

4. But none of the above is meaningful if the bulk of society does not recognize a problem to the extent they're willing to take substantive action, including action to limit their personal carbon footprint.

5. This is not a problem exclusively of concern to those outside President Trump's cabinet. If it were, General James Mattis -- now Secretary of Defense Mattis -- would not see it as the problem it most likely is or will be.
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-17 23:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is information about which everyone should know....

http://theweek.com/articles/712207/donald-trumps-10-trillion-climate-mistake
________________________________________
[...] Climate change skeptics claim that the science is unsettled while simultaneously proposing to end studies that would settle it. This posture would be ironic and slightly amusing if it wasn't so flagrantly dangerous to the future of human civilization on Earth. The latest iteration of this ludicrous hypocrisy was on full display last week when the House appropriations committee carved another $50 million from NASA's Earth science division, on top of the already severe 2018 cuts requested by the Trump administration. If eventually endorsed by Congress, the reductions will leave Earth scientists unable to fill gaps in data considered crucial to understanding the state of the planet, thus perpetuating the "unsettled science" that deniers profess to abhor. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Marin-San-Mateo-County-sue-big-oil-over-climate-11294549.php
________________________________________
[...] Two Bay Area counties and a Southern California city concerned about rising sea levels sued 37 of the world’s biggest oil and coal companies Monday, claiming the fossil fuel giants are literally putting them under water and should pay for the damage. Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach (San Diego County) filed separate but nearly identical lawsuits in their respective Superior Court offices. The suits are the latest in a small but growing effort to hold Chevron, ExxonMobile, BP, Shell and other major energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Lawyers for the three communities worked together to make the case that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel development are directly tied to the climate-related problems facing coastal areas, from more frequent flooding and beach erosion to the possibility that water will inundate roads, airports, sewage treatment plants and other real estate. The defendants had no immediate response to the suits. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-stronger-west-antarctic-ice.html
________________________________________
[...] Researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science found that the winds in East Antarctica can generate sea-level disturbances that propagate around the continent at almost 700 kilometers per hour via a type of ocean wave known as a Kelvin wave. When these waves encounter the steep underwater topography off the West Antarctic Peninsula they push warmer water towards the large ice shelves along the shoreline. The warm Antarctic Circumpolar Current passes quite close to the continental shelf in this region, providing a source for this warm water. "It is this combination of available warm water offshore, and a transport of this warm water onto the shelf, that has seen rapid ice shelf melt along the West Antarctic sector over the past several decades," said lead researcher Dr Paul Spence. "We always knew warm water was finding its way into this area but the precise mechanism has remained unclear. That remote winds on the opposite side of Antarctica can cause such a substantial subsurface warming is a worrying aspect of the circulation at the Antarctic margin." [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

I reiterate, in conjunction with what is posted above, the following information taken from the inititial post under this discussion topic:

http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk

http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM

http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ

http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w

http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk

http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48

http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io

https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-17 23:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
Here is information about which everyone should know....
http://theweek.com/articles/712207/donald-trumps-10-trillion-climate-mistake
________________________________________
[...] Climate change skeptics claim that the science is unsettled while simultaneously proposing to end studies that would settle it. This posture would be ironic and slightly amusing if it wasn't so flagrantly dangerous to the future of human civilization on Earth. The latest iteration of this ludicrous hypocrisy was on full display last week when the House appropriations committee carved another $50 million from NASA's Earth science division, on top of the already severe 2018 cuts requested by the Trump administration. If eventually endorsed by Congress, the reductions will leave Earth scientists unable to fill gaps in data considered crucial to understanding the state of the planet, thus perpetuating the "unsettled science" that deniers profess to abhor. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Marin-San-Mateo-County-sue-big-oil-over-climate-11294549.php
________________________________________
[...] Two Bay Area counties and a Southern California city concerned about rising sea levels sued 37 of the world’s biggest oil and coal companies Monday, claiming the fossil fuel giants are literally putting them under water and should pay for the damage. Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach (San Diego County) filed separate but nearly identical lawsuits in their respective Superior Court offices. The suits are the latest in a small but growing effort to hold Chevron, ExxonMobile, BP, Shell and other major energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Lawyers for the three communities worked together to make the case that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel development are directly tied to the climate-related problems facing coastal areas, from more frequent flooding and beach erosion to the possibility that water will inundate roads, airports, sewage treatment plants and other real estate. The defendants had no immediate response to the suits. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-stronger-west-antarctic-ice.html
________________________________________
[...] Researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science found that the winds in East Antarctica can generate sea-level disturbances that propagate around the continent at almost 700 kilometers per hour via a type of ocean wave known as a Kelvin wave. When these waves encounter the steep underwater topography off the West Antarctic Peninsula they push warmer water towards the large ice shelves along the shoreline. The warm Antarctic Circumpolar Current passes quite close to the continental shelf in this region, providing a source for this warm water. "It is this combination of available warm water offshore, and a transport of this warm water onto the shelf, that has seen rapid ice shelf melt along the West Antarctic sector over the past several decades," said lead researcher Dr Paul Spence. "We always knew warm water was finding its way into this area but the precise mechanism has remained unclear. That remote winds on the opposite side of Antarctica can cause such a substantial subsurface warming is a worrying aspect of the circulation at the Antarctic margin." [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk
http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM
http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ
http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w
http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk
http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48
http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io
https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ
could be this twenty year drought in the usa and africa is ready to burst the accumalation of moisture in the atmosphere...and at that time reverse the warming config...and rains will come to these regions for many years making growth of crops in the desert without irrigation...jz
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 00:14:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Walt In Seattle
Here is information about which everyone should know....
http://theweek.com/articles/712207/donald-trumps-10-trillion-climate-mistake
________________________________________
[...] Climate change skeptics claim that the science is unsettled while simultaneously proposing to end studies that would settle it. This posture would be ironic and slightly amusing if it wasn't so flagrantly dangerous to the future of human civilization on Earth. The latest iteration of this ludicrous hypocrisy was on full display last week when the House appropriations committee carved another $50 million from NASA's Earth science division, on top of the already severe 2018 cuts requested by the Trump administration. If eventually endorsed by Congress, the reductions will leave Earth scientists unable to fill gaps in data considered crucial to understanding the state of the planet, thus perpetuating the "unsettled science" that deniers profess to abhor. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Marin-San-Mateo-County-sue-big-oil-over-climate-11294549.php
________________________________________
[...] Two Bay Area counties and a Southern California city concerned about rising sea levels sued 37 of the world’s biggest oil and coal companies Monday, claiming the fossil fuel giants are literally putting them under water and should pay for the damage. Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach (San Diego County) filed separate but nearly identical lawsuits in their respective Superior Court offices. The suits are the latest in a small but growing effort to hold Chevron, ExxonMobile, BP, Shell and other major energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Lawyers for the three communities worked together to make the case that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel development are directly tied to the climate-related problems facing coastal areas, from more frequent flooding and beach erosion to the possibility that water will inundate roads, airports, sewage treatment plants and other real estate. The defendants had no immediate response to the suits. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-stronger-west-antarctic-ice.html
________________________________________
[...] Researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science found that the winds in East Antarctica can generate sea-level disturbances that propagate around the continent at almost 700 kilometers per hour via a type of ocean wave known as a Kelvin wave. When these waves encounter the steep underwater topography off the West Antarctic Peninsula they push warmer water towards the large ice shelves along the shoreline. The warm Antarctic Circumpolar Current passes quite close to the continental shelf in this region, providing a source for this warm water. "It is this combination of available warm water offshore, and a transport of this warm water onto the shelf, that has seen rapid ice shelf melt along the West Antarctic sector over the past several decades," said lead researcher Dr Paul Spence. "We always knew warm water was finding its way into this area but the precise mechanism has remained unclear. That remote winds on the opposite side of Antarctica can cause such a substantial subsurface warming is a worrying aspect of the circulation at the Antarctic margin." [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk
http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM
http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ
http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w
http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk
http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48
http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io
https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ
could be this twenty year drought in the usa and africa is ready to burst the accumalation of moisture in the atmosphere...and at that time reverse the warming config...and rains will come to these regions for many years making growth of crops in the desert without irrigation...jz
that is all of the bright side....but..if it happens that way...sadness will be for old journalist dan rather...whom today was on national geografic...pitching what all you liberals are about...and it was obvious that he was really trying hard not to reveal his doubt...but it proves the evolution of folks that everyone on the left is dedicated to...play the music of whatever sounds good at a given time ...and as you go along you lose your common sense and become a sock puppet for crazy ideas....jz
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-18 21:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here is MORE news of which everyone should be aware, including a grim study from James Hansen and a team of scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/climate-change-threatens-an-ancient-way-of-life-in-ethiopia/2017/07/16/c2726a4e-658c-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html
________________________________________
[...] NARDO CAMP, Ethiopia — Zeinab Taher once roamed through Ethiopia’s arid Somali region tending a vast herd of 350 sheep, goats and cattle with her nine children. Then the autumn rains failed and the grass that fed her animals didn’t grow. No rain came this spring, either, and then the livestock began to die. Now, wrapped in her orange shawl, the 60-year-old huddles in a makeshift windblown camp along with several thousand others, depending on food and water from international agencies. Another drought has seized the Horn of Africa, devastating the livestock herders in these already dry lands. Even as the government and aid agencies struggle to help them, there is a growing realization that with climate change, certain ways of life in certain parts of the world are becoming much more difficult to sustain. In Ethiopia, which unlike neighboring Somalia or South Sudan has a strong, functioning government, the emergency effort has kept people alive. Authorities and aid agencies are trying to get beyond the immediate humanitarian response and encourage a shift to livelihoods less vulnerable to drought and climate shocks. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/carbon-dioxide-remove-atmosphere-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-scientists-jim-hansen-a7847426.html
________________________________________
[...] Humans must start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as soon as possible to avoid saddling future generations with a choice between extreme climate change or spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to avoid it, according to new research. An international team of researchers – led by Professor Jim Hansen, Nasa’s former climate science chief – said their conclusion that the world had already overshot targets to limit global warming to within acceptable levels was “sufficiently grim” to force them to urge “rapid emission reductions”. But they warned this would not be enough and efforts would need to be made to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 12.5 per cent. This, the scientists argued, could be mostly achieved by agricultural measures such as planting trees and improving soil fertility, a relatively low-cost way to remove carbon from the air. Other more expensive methods, such as burning biomass in power plants fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage or devices that can remove carbon from the air directly, might also be necessary and would become increasingly needed if steps were not taken soon. An academic paper in the journal Earth System Dynamics estimated such industrial processes could cost up to $535 trillion this century and “also have large risks and uncertain feasibility”. “Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible clean-up or growing deleterious climate impacts or both,” said the paper. [...] The paper said that the Paris Agreement, the tumbling price of renewable energy and the recent slowdown in the increase of fossil fuel emissions had led to a sense of optimism around the world. [...] But, speaking to The Independent, Professor Hansen said he believed this optimism was misplaced. “The narrative that’s out there now … is that we’ve turned the corner,” he said. “On the contrary, what we show is the rate of growth of climate forcing caused by increased methane [and other gases] is actually accelerating. That’s why it’s urgent.” [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
See also:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-18 21:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
Here is MORE news of which everyone should be aware, including a grim study from James Hansen and a team of scientists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/climate-change-threatens-an-ancient-way-of-life-in-ethiopia/2017/07/16/c2726a4e-658c-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html
________________________________________
[...] NARDO CAMP, Ethiopia — Zeinab Taher once roamed through Ethiopia’s arid Somali region tending a vast herd of 350 sheep, goats and cattle with her nine children. Then the autumn rains failed and the grass that fed her animals didn’t grow. No rain came this spring, either, and then the livestock began to die. Now, wrapped in her orange shawl, the 60-year-old huddles in a makeshift windblown camp along with several thousand others, depending on food and water from international agencies. Another drought has seized the Horn of Africa, devastating the livestock herders in these already dry lands. Even as the government and aid agencies struggle to help them, there is a growing realization that with climate change, certain ways of life in certain parts of the world are becoming much more difficult to sustain. In Ethiopia, which unlike neighboring Somalia or South Sudan has a strong, functioning government, the emergency effort has kept people alive. Authorities and aid agencies are trying to get beyond the immediate humanitarian response and encourage a shift to livelihoods less vulnerable to drought and climate shocks. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/carbon-dioxide-remove-atmosphere-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-scientists-jim-hansen-a7847426.html
________________________________________
[...] Humans must start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as soon as possible to avoid saddling future generations with a choice between extreme climate change or spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to avoid it, according to new research. An international team of researchers – led by Professor Jim Hansen, Nasa’s former climate science chief – said their conclusion that the world had already overshot targets to limit global warming to within acceptable levels was “sufficiently grim” to force them to urge “rapid emission reductions”. But they warned this would not be enough and efforts would need to be made to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 12.5 per cent. This, the scientists argued, could be mostly achieved by agricultural measures such as planting trees and improving soil fertility, a relatively low-cost way to remove carbon from the air. Other more expensive methods, such as burning biomass in power plants fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage or devices that can remove carbon from the air directly, might also be necessary and would become increasingly needed if steps were not taken soon. An academic paper in the journal Earth System Dynamics estimated such industrial processes could cost up to $535 trillion this century and “also have large risks and uncertain feasibility”. “Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible clean-up or growing deleterious climate impacts or both,” said the paper. [...] The paper said that the Paris Agreement, the tumbling price of renewable energy and the recent slowdown in the increase of fossil fuel emissions had led to a sense of optimism around the world. [...] But, speaking to The Independent, Professor Hansen said he believed this optimism was misplaced. “The narrative that’s out there now … is that we’ve turned the corner,” he said. “On the contrary, what we show is the rate of growth of climate forcing caused by increased methane [and other gases] is actually accelerating. That’s why it’s urgent.” [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/
i have all these feeds...talk to me about how you feel about climate change...do you think the sea level will rise ...etc...jonZeee
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-19 03:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why would/could anyone trust EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt? Why would Donald Trump?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senator-joins-ethics-probe-could-145646593.html

Aside from ethics, does Pruitt really know the climate science he so easily dismisses?
j***@gmail.com
2017-07-19 04:10:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
Why would/could anyone trust EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt? Why would Donald Trump?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senator-joins-ethics-probe-could-145646593.html
Aside from ethics, does Pruitt really know the climate science he so easily dismisses?
again i must say ...pruitt..trump ...etc..is not my interest here...that is another issue...the issue here is...the reality of climate change...so i know all the opinions of folks with titles...but i am interested about your interest in the subject and if you have formed an opinion..if you have let me hear about it...i feel you do not have an agenda...ie...job ..future job...in this profession of ideas...if you are a professional weather and climate person..i am not interested in that ...we got thousands of those dawgs around...regards..and if you are professor or school teacher of the last thirty or so years...i will be sceptical....regards..jonZeee
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-20 04:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In my opinion, people who haven't faced reality and/or gotten a clue should.
Post by j***@gmail.com
again i must say ...pruitt..trump ...etc..is not my interest here...that is another issue...the issue here is...the reality of climate change...so i know all the opinions of folks with titles...but i am interested about your interest in the subject and if you have formed an opinion..if you have let me hear about it...i feel you do not have an agenda...ie...job ..future job...in this profession of ideas...if you are a professional weather and climate person..i am not interested in that ...we got thousands of those dawgs around...regards..and if you are professor or school teacher of the last thirty or so years...i will be sceptical....regards..jonZeee
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-20 03:56:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Let's get a clue. Many people tend to ignore climate change in the U.S. It's more "comfortable" that way because reality is too harsh for them to accept. Yet, one day, they will have no choice. The only questions now are: Is it already too late to save the human species or will it be too late by the time most people accept we and THEY are in BIG TROUBLE? If we're in big trouble but can get out of it, what do we do?

At bottom, this is about actions implemented by human beings to take undue advantage of natural resources while ignoring what were projected consequences now coming home to roost in real events. Here's a synopsis of the problem as it relates to severe weather.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-the-science-of-extreme-weather/

Notably, there is this as well.

http://time.com/4255428/climate-change-extreme-weather/#.
________________________________________
[...] And for years any reputable scientist, politician or journalist would respond that while global warming might play a role, no specific weather event could be attributed to climate change. That is changing. New research from the National Academy of Sciences suggests that's no longer the case: scientists can now determine with some confidence the degree climate change influenced some extreme weather events. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/climate-change-carbon-emissions-ipcc-extreme-weather
________________________________________
Bob Ward at The Grantham Research Institute
Friday 23 August 2013 06.03 EDT

[...] Shifts in the number, severity and location of extreme weather events are among the most important impacts of climate change. Basic physics suggest that global warming should affect the occurrence of extreme weather. More energy is being added to the atmosphere, and as it warms, it can hold more water vapour. On this basis alone, cold weather events should decline, heatwaves should increase, and there should be changes in the intensity and frequency of the dry and wet periods that cause droughts and floods. However, the Earth's climate system is very complex and natural variability, including El Niño and La Niña events, as well as important local and regional variations, make it difficult to separate out human influence on extreme weather events from other factors. In addition, extreme weather is, by definition, relatively rare and it can take a long time to identify statistically significant trends from small datasets. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

The numbers are beginning to roll in and the "dataset" grows.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
________________________________________
[...] Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. [...] Some risks of climate change, such as risks to unique and threatened systems and risks associated with extreme weather events, are moderate to high at temperatures 1°C to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

As to recordbreaking or simply devastating events of severe flooding in the past several years alone, here's a historical sampling with details.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-louisiana-flooding-20160816-snap-story.html

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/02/record-missouri-flooding-manmade-calamity-scientist-says/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/unprecedented-2-dead-record-rainfall-floods-houston-n557451

http://www.reviewjournal.com/weather/4-rescued-during-record-breaking-rainfall-las-vegas-valley-photos#!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/01/world-weather-2016s-early-record-heat-gives-way-to-heavy-rains

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/us/west-virginia-flooding-deaths/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/maryland-flooding/

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/historic-south-flooding-march-2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2015_North_American_storm_complex

Finally. let's not forget about the increasing intensity of landfalling typhoons and implications for the future...

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2792.html

This is NOT representative of NORMAL climate variability. And remember this is only an ABBREVIATED list which -- apart from flooding while the above list only presents information regarding a SAMPLE of events that do not encompass a myriad of flooding events Worldwide -- does not tackle drought, hurricane/typhoon/cyclone activity Worldwide, extreme as well as extended heatwaves, climate-related crop failures, ice sheet loss from glaciers which eventually will contribute so much to sea level rise that a lot of the World's coastal areas will be inundated and so on. However, some of this is addressed below.

The Evidence For Climate Change Or Information That Strongly Implies Climate Change

http://time.com/4156004/animals-climate-change-forests/

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/the-water-table-is-dropping-all-over-the-world-new-nasa-study-reveals-global-drought

What We KNOW About Climate Change - Kerry Emanuel
MIT Club of Northern California
Published: Apr 11, 2014


Climate Webinar: Climate Change & Harmful Algal Blooms in Maumee Bay
Ohio Sea Grant at Ohio State University
Published: Jun 26, 2014


On climate change but more generally, climate change deniers or minimalists seem in desperate need for reasons to dismiss climate change and the threat therefrom, possibly because it's too uncomfortable to consider climate change to be a burgeoning problem. Thus, some denialists point to, for example, the work of Valentina Zharkova, a highly talented mathematician, on solar cycles. Solar maximums and minimums are difficult to predict. Zharkova has come up with an innovative approach that might prove out. She has projected from her calculations a Grand Solar Minimum sometime in the 2030s. An associated decrease in solar radiation is thought by many, including Zharkova, to bring a period of global cooling. It should be noted, however, that Valentina Zharkova has stated that, even if there is a GSM beginning in the 2030s, that GSM probably will not stop, only slow down, the progress of warming in global climate. Thus, you will not find from her a recommendation of a stand-down on efforts to control carbon emissions.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

And this is the general expectation of most climate scientists as well. Accordingly, let's not overlook reality in favor of the need for climate change denial which often comes to us courtesy of or through support from fossil fuel interests. Let's also not lose sight of prevailing scientific conclusions.

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-earth-isnt-headed-for-a-mini-ice-age-anytime-soon/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html

Lost in much of the debate over whether Zharkova has been telling us to expect another Little Ice Age (LIA) is the debate over whether the LIA occurred because of a GSM or volcanic activity. But would some people rather folks not notice?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/

On the matter of volcanic activity as an alternative to Grand Solar Minimum significant cooling (e. g. the Little Ice Age), note the following links.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm

At the climate4you link, choose the "General" link and read that entire section then the following item:

"The spatial effect of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption on surface air temperature"

In most instances, volcanic activity of large scale will bring cooling. Yet, warming is possible. Whether it occurs depends on what is emitted in what volume from an eruption. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 is widely thought to have added to the LIA and caused the year without a Summer or "Eighteen-Hundred And Froze To Death".

http://www.milbridgehistoricalsociety.org/previous/no_summer.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Volcanic_activity

Warming would probably require a massively HUGE release of CO2 and a relatively low emission of sulfur as well as ash or dust. That's a rare scenario.

Denialists have their excuses for not accepting reality:

{} Perception everything feels fine so why "sweat" ACC?
{} I can't trust scientists; they're in the pocket of big government!
{} Those scientists are corrupting data to match an agenda!
{} Climate is too complex; we just don't know!
{} Computer models are bogus!
{} We can find a way to adapt to ANYTHING!
{} If we're going to die, we're going to die! Don't whine about it!
{} You're asking me to giveup a comfy lifestyle. Not your right!

And on and on it goes. Is any of it true? Are the perceptions valid? If not......

Deniers or minimalists LOVE to forget about or obfuscate, if not distort, what is going on in the Arctic. So, why take note of a village in Alaska which will have to relocate because of climate change, some such people would wonder...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/shishmaref-alaska-elocate-vote-climate-change.html?_r=0

We have to eat, right? That means we have to grow crops for a World population that keeps increasing. Developed nations are barely holding back the negative impact of climate change on our ability to grow food. Yes; some crop yields are still high, thanks to hi-tech farming which includes GM techniques. But for how long? That's what General Mils would like to know. Agriculture across the World is up against increasingly disadvantageous conditions relevant to climate change. Whether modern science can keep pace as ACC worsens is not clear. But it IS clear this will be a battle. The following is about the challenge(s) specific to the U.K.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103504

So, taking it all into consideration: at the end of day, is it reality that interests most of us or something else?
john simmons
2017-07-20 07:46:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
Let's get a clue. Many people tend to ignore climate change in the U.S. It's more "comfortable" that way because reality is too harsh for them to accept. Yet, one day, they will have no choice. The only questions now are: Is it already too late to save the human species or will it be too late by the time most people accept we and THEY are in BIG TROUBLE? If we're in big trouble but can get out of it, what do we do?
At bottom, this is about actions implemented by human beings to take undue advantage of natural resources while ignoring what were projected consequences now coming home to roost in real events. Here's a synopsis of the problem as it relates to severe weather.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-the-science-of-extreme-weather/
Notably, there is this as well.
http://time.com/4255428/climate-change-extreme-weather/#.
________________________________________
[...] And for years any reputable scientist, politician or journalist would respond that while global warming might play a role, no specific weather event could be attributed to climate change. That is changing. New research from the National Academy of Sciences suggests that's no longer the case: scientists can now determine with some confidence the degree climate change influenced some extreme weather events. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/climate-change-carbon-emissions-ipcc-extreme-weather
________________________________________
Bob Ward at The Grantham Research Institute
Friday 23 August 2013 06.03 EDT
[...] Shifts in the number, severity and location of extreme weather events are among the most important impacts of climate change. Basic physics suggest that global warming should affect the occurrence of extreme weather. More energy is being added to the atmosphere, and as it warms, it can hold more water vapour. On this basis alone, cold weather events should decline, heatwaves should increase, and there should be changes in the intensity and frequency of the dry and wet periods that cause droughts and floods. However, the Earth's climate system is very complex and natural variability, including El Niño and La Niña events, as well as important local and regional variations, make it difficult to separate out human influence on extreme weather events from other factors. In addition, extreme weather is, by definition, relatively rare and it can take a long time to identify statistically significant trends from small datasets. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
The numbers are beginning to roll in and the "dataset" grows.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
________________________________________
[...] Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. [...] Some risks of climate change, such as risks to unique and threatened systems and risks associated with extreme weather events, are moderate to high at temperatures 1°C to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
As to recordbreaking or simply devastating events of severe flooding in the past several years alone, here's a historical sampling with details.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-louisiana-flooding-20160816-snap-story.html
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/02/record-missouri-flooding-manmade-calamity-scientist-says/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/unprecedented-2-dead-record-rainfall-floods-houston-n557451
http://www.reviewjournal.com/weather/4-rescued-during-record-breaking-rainfall-las-vegas-valley-photos#!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/01/world-weather-2016s-early-record-heat-gives-way-to-heavy-rains
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/us/west-virginia-flooding-deaths/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/maryland-flooding/
https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/historic-south-flooding-march-2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2015_North_American_storm_complex
Finally. let's not forget about the increasing intensity of landfalling typhoons and implications for the future...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2792.html
This is NOT representative of NORMAL climate variability. And remember this is only an ABBREVIATED list which -- apart from flooding while the above list only presents information regarding a SAMPLE of events that do not encompass a myriad of flooding events Worldwide -- does not tackle drought, hurricane/typhoon/cyclone activity Worldwide, extreme as well as extended heatwaves, climate-related crop failures, ice sheet loss from glaciers which eventually will contribute so much to sea level rise that a lot of the World's coastal areas will be inundated and so on. However, some of this is addressed below.
The Evidence For Climate Change Or Information That Strongly Implies Climate Change
http://time.com/4156004/animals-climate-change-forests/
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/the-water-table-is-dropping-all-over-the-world-new-nasa-study-reveals-global-drought
What We KNOW About Climate Change - Kerry Emanuel
MIT Club of Northern California
Published: Apr 11, 2014
http://youtu.be/7so8GRCWA1k
Climate Webinar: Climate Change & Harmful Algal Blooms in Maumee Bay
Ohio Sea Grant at Ohio State University
Published: Jun 26, 2014
http://youtu.be/oDrnZasOZro
On climate change but more generally, climate change deniers or minimalists seem in desperate need for reasons to dismiss climate change and the threat therefrom, possibly because it's too uncomfortable to consider climate change to be a burgeoning problem. Thus, some denialists point to, for example, the work of Valentina Zharkova, a highly talented mathematician, on solar cycles. Solar maximums and minimums are difficult to predict. Zharkova has come up with an innovative approach that might prove out. She has projected from her calculations a Grand Solar Minimum sometime in the 2030s. An associated decrease in solar radiation is thought by many, including Zharkova, to bring a period of global cooling. It should be noted, however, that Valentina Zharkova has stated that, even if there is a GSM beginning in the 2030s, that GSM probably will not stop, only slow down, the progress of warming in global climate. Thus, you will not find from her a recommendation of a stand-down on efforts to control carbon emissions.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming
And this is the general expectation of most climate scientists as well. Accordingly, let's not overlook reality in favor of the need for climate change denial which often comes to us courtesy of or through support from fossil fuel interests. Let's also not lose sight of prevailing scientific conclusions.
http://www.cnet.com/news/the-earth-isnt-headed-for-a-mini-ice-age-anytime-soon/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html
Lost in much of the debate over whether Zharkova has been telling us to expect another Little Ice Age (LIA) is the debate over whether the LIA occurred because of a GSM or volcanic activity. But would some people rather folks not notice?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/
On the matter of volcanic activity as an alternative to Grand Solar Minimum significant cooling (e. g. the Little Ice Age), note the following links.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm
"The spatial effect of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption on surface air temperature"
In most instances, volcanic activity of large scale will bring cooling. Yet, warming is possible. Whether it occurs depends on what is emitted in what volume from an eruption. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 is widely thought to have added to the LIA and caused the year without a Summer or "Eighteen-Hundred And Froze To Death".
http://www.milbridgehistoricalsociety.org/previous/no_summer.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Volcanic_activity
Warming would probably require a massively HUGE release of CO2 and a relatively low emission of sulfur as well as ash or dust. That's a rare scenario.
{} Perception everything feels fine so why "sweat" ACC?
{} I can't trust scientists; they're in the pocket of big government!
{} Those scientists are corrupting data to match an agenda!
{} Climate is too complex; we just don't know!
{} Computer models are bogus!
{} We can find a way to adapt to ANYTHING!
{} If we're going to die, we're going to die! Don't whine about it!
{} You're asking me to giveup a comfy lifestyle. Not your right!
And on and on it goes. Is any of it true? Are the perceptions valid? If not......
Deniers or minimalists LOVE to forget about or obfuscate, if not distort, what is going on in the Arctic. So, why take note of a village in Alaska which will have to relocate because of climate change, some such people would wonder...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/shishmaref-alaska-elocate-vote-climate-change.html?_r=0
We have to eat, right? That means we have to grow crops for a World population that keeps increasing. Developed nations are barely holding back the negative impact of climate change on our ability to grow food. Yes; some crop yields are still high, thanks to hi-tech farming which includes GM techniques. But for how long? That's what General Mils would like to know. Agriculture across the World is up against increasingly disadvantageous conditions relevant to climate change. Whether modern science can keep pace as ACC worsens is not clear. But it IS clear this will be a battle. The following is about the challenge(s) specific to the U.K.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103504
So, taking it all into consideration: at the end of day, is it reality that interests most of us or something else?
walt...above is an excellent summation of the left side of the political spectrum...but you characterzation of the side is rather immature in my opinion...we the left has been working on this idea since the rocket sent the original climate observation into space...that was the beginning of your new bonuncing baby boy.....but we also on the right are happy that weather scientist can observe the complete total earth staticly..so to speak wher it was a local before...so of course we do not believe what you folks are saying because....and i must note that when trying to spin a new idea..make sure you have all your i.s and t.s crossed and dotted..and of course you havent...ie...al gore is not a good person of example to bring forth an idea..but i suppose at the time he thought he was...but we also note that you folks on the left have the university system in complete control to advocate such shennanagans...the right tries hard to be on the side of a moral oriented base as out favorite baby boy...ie..clinton..gore and on and on with various immoral portrayals immorality..while the republicans have a cleaner record of straight ness and i will admit...could be they do all those things too but just do it more private and hidden.....so without sauntering into a rant...what you have said could have been said by any of your cohorts...i see you are still reluctant to answer the question..if all the ice beneath the ocean water level melted ..would the sea level rise or lower..no or yes would be ok.....see we all know that is the one that makes you guys do long rants and never answer the question...but if you answer it right and with common sense...we would love to hear more from you and al..but this error on you guys part is the one behavior that destructs all new ideas from the start.....regards...jonZeee raw earthy
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-20 14:42:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What was above was a statement of climate reality which you did not specifically address rather than go far afield to left versus right nonsequiturs. Perhaps you can't accept reality or perhaps you're playing a troll's game. I don't know which applies. But whichever does, that's your option.
Post by john simmons
walt...above is an excellent summation of the left side of the political spectrum...
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-23 18:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable. A new report by the Asian Development Bank highlights the impact of climate change on the Asia-Pacific region, noting that it will be among those hardest hit by rising temperatures and the more extreme weather patterns they will create. While governments finally appear to be taking that threat seriously, as was evident in the renewed commitment to the Paris climate accord at this month’s Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, there are quicker moving and more powerful ways to induce changes in behavior to combat this phenomenon. The simplest and most effective are market forces. And indeed, the financial community is waking up to its role in this process. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

As to the evidence for rapid climate change:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/
________________________________________
Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
Lonnie G Thompson

[Note: Lonnie G. Thompson is a Distinguished University Professor in the School of Earth Sciences and a Research Scientist in the Byrd Polar Research Center at The Ohio State University.]

Abstract

Glaciers serve as early indicators of climate change. Over the last 35 years, our research team has recovered ice-core records of climatic and environmental variations from the polar regions and from low-latitude high-elevation ice fields from 16 countries. The ongoing widespread melting of high-elevation glaciers and ice caps, particularly in low to middle latitudes, provides some of the strongest evidence to date that a large-scale, pervasive, and, in some cases, rapid change in Earth's climate system is underway. This paper highlights observations of 20th and 21st century glacier shrinkage in the Andes, the Himalayas, and on Mount Kilimanjaro. Ice cores retrieved from shrinking glaciers around the world confirm their continuous existence for periods ranging from hundreds of years to multiple millennia, suggesting that climatological conditions that dominate those regions today are different from those under which these ice fields originally accumulated and have been sustained. The current warming is therefore unusual when viewed from the millennial perspective provided by multiple lines of proxy evidence and the 160-year record of direct temperature measurements. Despite all this evidence, plus the well-documented continual increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, societies have taken little action to address this global-scale problem. Hence, the rate of global carbon dioxide emissions continues to accelerate. As a result of our inaction, we have three options: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. [..]
--------------------------------------------------------

See also:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/letters_to_editor/evidence-on-climate-change-both-clear-convincing/article_9cdf7eb1-a4c3-5dd4-a37b-4a8a9e6f210a.html
Mr. B1ack
2017-07-23 19:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 11:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle
Post by Walt In Seattle
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable.
Yep ... it'll be a good thing ! :-)
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-24 07:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
Post by Walt In Seattle
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable.
Yep ... it'll be a good thing ! :-)
What, for you, constitutes "a good thing"?
And on what science can you assert "it'll be a good thing"? Or is the smiley to indicate you're just kidding?
Mr. B1ack
2017-07-24 12:06:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle
Post by Walt In Seattle
Post by Mr. B1ack
Post by Walt In Seattle
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable.
Yep ... it'll be a good thing ! :-)
What, for you, constitutes "a good thing"?
Pole to pole rainforest ... like during the last Big Warm.

There's nothing to be done about GW ... whether
humans are speeding it up or not. It's one of those
natural cycles now (actually "normal", for earth, is
really damned warm - look at the gigayear charts).

The ice IS gonna melt, there WILL be forests in
antarctica again and the polar bears had better
trend towards brown. It's happened before and
it'll happen again. The status-quo isn't sacred ...
it never existed.

Cope.
Post by Walt In Seattle
And on what science can you assert "it'll be a good thing"? Or is the smiley to indicate you're just kidding?
The smiley means I think you're just another
Gore-suckin' panic-monger ..........
w***@gmail.com
2017-07-25 06:47:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
The ice IS gonna melt, there WILL be forests in
antarctica again and the polar bears had better
trend towards brown. It's happened before and
it'll happen again. The status-quo isn't sacred ...
it never existed.
Cope.
Post by Walt In Seattle
And on what science can you assert "it'll be a good thing"? Or is the smiley to indicate you're just kidding?
The smiley means I think you're just another
Gore-suckin' panic-monger ..........
Your expertise comes from where; the breitbart.com school of climaology? Maybe Prager U.? Go read the several climate-related webpages of the American Institute of Physics for better information.

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm

Perhaps you should read this as well:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

Oh... and there's this too.......

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Let me know if you need any more RELIABLE information..... ;-)
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-24 09:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Note that the Trump Administration may soon forge ahead with their "red team" approach to replacement of or attacking scientific peer review of scientific research and research papers. Reportedly, The Heartland Institute -- a stronghold for climate change skeptics and the same organization that defended the tobacco industry's products until medical science as well as insider revelations unmasked what the industry was doing in regard to lack of transparency along with deception on the safety or lackthereof in their products -- will provide advice to the Trump Administration on who should be chosen to serve on such Red Team(s).

I suspect this could herald the creation of what, in effect, shall be a government propaganda bureau which will tell us we can go back to polluting air and water to a much greater extent than in recent years, provided the perps aren't too obvious and in too much disregard for public safety, saying too, whether it's correct or not, that carbon emissions are no big deal. In other words: "Don't worry your pretty little heads! We're going to make America GREAT again!" They'll also say "America is being crippled by rules and regulations. We need less of them to be GREAT!"

Of course, they won't tell you it's "a good thing" for frackers of oil and gas not to inform the public what chemicals and methods they use on federal land to frack, and they won't say it's good for coal mining operations to remove mountaintops to get at coal seams while resulting debris chokes a body or bodies of water below. But Trump already has enabled or endorsed these actions by executive order.

Heartland may become an important tool for the Trump Administration as it looks for ways to say: "You see; a little more CO2 in the atmosphere isn't so bad. We don't have to make manufacturers create products at squeaky-clean factories, and a little mess here and there is a small price to pay for making America GREAT again." They will promise publicly that "REAL" pollution shall be prohibited as we see development of such things as "clean coal". Nevermind the failure of the Kemper project!

All of this will come as insinuation, implied subtext or as direct statements from the Trump Administration while Red Teams will provide sophistry cloaked in the jargon of science to back up what the Trump Administration and Scott will say or tweet regarding climate.

The administration-desired bottom line perception for the public shall be: "It's time to make big piles of money. We'll worry about the environment later when America is GREAT again!" And being "GREAT AGAIN" means making the rich and powerful American oligarchs much richer and more powerful. That's kind of the formula Vladimir Putin used to ensure his rise to power. What else is Trump borrowing from Putin's playbook?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-lining-up-climate-change-red-team/article/2629124
john simmons
2017-07-25 09:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
Note that the Trump Administration may soon forge ahead with their "red team" approach to replacement of or attacking scientific peer review of scientific research and research papers. Reportedly, The Heartland Institute -- a stronghold for climate change skeptics and the same organization that defended the tobacco industry's products until medical science as well as insider revelations unmasked what the industry was doing in regard to lack of transparency along with deception on the safety or lackthereof in their products -- will provide advice to the Trump Administration on who should be chosen to serve on such Red Team(s).
I suspect this could herald the creation of what, in effect, shall be a government propaganda bureau which will tell us we can go back to polluting air and water to a much greater extent than in recent years, provided the perps aren't too obvious and in too much disregard for public safety, saying too, whether it's correct or not, that carbon emissions are no big deal. In other words: "Don't worry your pretty little heads! We're going to make America GREAT again!" They'll also say "America is being crippled by rules and regulations. We need less of them to be GREAT!"
Of course, they won't tell you it's "a good thing" for frackers of oil and gas not to inform the public what chemicals and methods they use on federal land to frack, and they won't say it's good for coal mining operations to remove mountaintops to get at coal seams while resulting debris chokes a body or bodies of water below. But Trump already has enabled or endorsed these actions by executive order.
Heartland may become an important tool for the Trump Administration as it looks for ways to say: "You see; a little more CO2 in the atmosphere isn't so bad. We don't have to make manufacturers create products at squeaky-clean factories, and a little mess here and there is a small price to pay for making America GREAT again." They will promise publicly that "REAL" pollution shall be prohibited as we see development of such things as "clean coal". Nevermind the failure of the Kemper project!
All of this will come as insinuation, implied subtext or as direct statements from the Trump Administration while Red Teams will provide sophistry cloaked in the jargon of science to back up what the Trump Administration and Scott will say or tweet regarding climate.
The administration-desired bottom line perception for the public shall be: "It's time to make big piles of money. We'll worry about the environment later when America is GREAT again!" And being "GREAT AGAIN" means making the rich and powerful American oligarchs much richer and more powerful. That's kind of the formula Vladimir Putin used to ensure his rise to power. What else is Trump borrowing from Putin's playbook?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-lining-up-climate-change-red-team/article/2629124
walter...when one is trying to offer an idea...is it not feasable or correct to be damned sure you dont add a corney lie that completely makes you look like an idiot...it really is what folks are looking for...to absolutely ignor the fact that if all ice melted uunder the sea and ocean water ..the sea level would go down below its present level...but walt and even you do not want to admit this fact...so why be the idiot you appear to be.... like al gore and all the rest that is looking for a hoax to pitch..jeesh..yes the democrats need money and a something to sell the college students so they will vote for ya...but give it up man and tell em to get a real job ...jz
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-25 15:05:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<LO[freakin']L>

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:

<<<...if all ice melted uunder the sea and ocean water ..the sea level would go down below its present level...>>>
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-26 23:51:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thursday through Saturday, Alaska's Northern-most city, Barrow, will experience what, for them, will be a dramatic heatwave -- in the mid-to-upper 60s on Friday. These temps will be *WAY* off historic averages.

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/USAK0025:1:US

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USAK0025

It's not like Barrow, which is well inside the Arctic Circle, has to deal with dramatic temperature rise every day. And yes; it's true that the number of days Barrow recorded temps way above the norm last year outpaces this year in a big way. But the trend is clear if you run the numbers for a span of several decades. It's not like Barrow is now a vacation resort -- not that it could be as it currently exists because it probably will be flooded by sea level rise before the end of the century. But I expect you'll find, if you run the numbers, that Barrow, over the past 5 to 10 years, has endured what is, for them, extreme heat more frequently than several decades ago.

The trend likely will, at times, be reversed or run neutral. But it's also probable that, over a period of decades, the trend for increasingly frequent heatwaves, lasting longer and getting hotter over the long term, will be evident. Barrow is ahead of the curve for the lower 48 as to the rate for warming of climate. While not a precise analogy, mostly because warming will always be more dramatic at the poles, Barrow is nevertheless a good indicator for what is to come for the lower 48 on rishing temperature. Apparently, warming in the lower 48 will occur at a somewhat slower pace and with less frequency for heatwaves as compared to the Arctic. But warming WILL happen and, by 2100, we'll all consider that wqarming to be dramatic.
john simmons
2017-07-27 00:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
Thursday through Saturday, Alaska's Northern-most city, Barrow, will experience what, for them, will be a dramatic heatwave -- in the mid-to-upper 60s on Friday. These temps will be *WAY* off historic averages.
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/USAK0025:1:US
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USAK0025
It's not like Barrow, which is well inside the Arctic Circle, has to deal with dramatic temperature rise every day. And yes; it's true that the number of days Barrow recorded temps way above the norm last year outpaces this year in a big way. But the trend is clear if you run the numbers for a span of several decades. It's not like Barrow is now a vacation resort -- not that it could be as it currently exists because it probably will be flooded by sea level rise before the end of the century. But I expect you'll find, if you run the numbers, that Barrow, over the past 5 to 10 years, has endured what is, for them, extreme heat more frequently than several decades ago.
The trend likely will, at times, be reversed or run neutral. But it's also probable that, over a period of decades, the trend for increasingly frequent heatwaves, lasting longer and getting hotter over the long term, will be evident. Barrow is ahead of the curve for the lower 48 as to the rate for warming of climate. While not a precise analogy, mostly because warming will always be more dramatic at the poles, Barrow is nevertheless a good indicator for what is to come for the lower 48 on rishing temperature. Apparently, warming in the lower 48 will occur at a somewhat slower pace and with less frequency for heatwaves as compared to the Arctic. But warming WILL happen and, by 2100, we'll all consider that wqarming to be dramatic.
sooo nature has provided for a regrowth of the forest that has been descimated by man...by slightly warmer temps...higher humidity...and when it is lush with greenery in the jungle regions and the deserts...then the weather will change back the other direction..with out most folks even taking notice...jon
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-28 03:10:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Water, water all around you.. But a drop to drink?

https://www.wired.com/story/climate-change-fueled-storms-could-leave-less-water-for-drinking/

And what's to eat?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/27/how-the-climate-crisis-could-become-a-food-crisis-overnight/

While we're thinking about what we'll drink and eat at some point in the future, let's also think about the impact of increasing wildfires. They can destroy food/crops as well.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-climate-wildfires-experts.html
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-28 21:12:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Feeling like some music would be nice?

Here's The Greatest Hits Of Climate Change






john simmons
2017-07-29 00:01:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
Feeling like some music would be nice?
Here's The Greatest Hits Of Climate Change
http://youtu.be/HHP9Rh-ooh0
http://youtu.be/p1RIvTYwPCE
http://youtu.be/skVrKVJb1Sc
go for it...sounds like a man with a plan...start a climate change political party...rock on...jz
Walt In Seattle
2017-07-31 19:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Are we in greater dire straits as to climate change than previously thought? A West coast team has determined it's unlikely we'll act to mitigate carbon emissions quickly enough and to the extent we'd avoid a rise in global average temperature of 2C since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Never mind 1.5C. Is their pessimism warranted as well as supported by good data that has been properly assessed?

http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nclimate3352
________________________________________
[...] Less than 2?°C warming by 2100 unlikely

Adrian E. Raftery,
Alec Zimmer,
Dargan M. W. Frierson,
Richard Startz,
Peiran Liu [...]

[...] [Abstract:] The recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections to 2100 give likely ranges of global temperature increase in four scenarios for population, economic growth and carbon use1. However, these projections are not based on a fully statistical approach. Here we use a country-specific version of Kaya's identity to develop a statistically based probabilistic forecast of CO2 emissions and temperature change to 2100. Using data for 1960-2010, including the UN's probabilistic population projections for all countries we develop a joint Bayesian hierarchical model for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and carbon intensity. We find that the 90% interval for cumulative CO2 emissions includes the IPCC's two middle scenarios but not the extreme ones. The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0-4.9?°C, with median 3.2?°C and a 5% (1%) chance that it will be less than 2?°C (1.5?°C). Population growth is not a major contributing factor. Our model is not a `business as usual' scenario, but rather is based on data which already show the effect of emission mitigation policies. Achieving the goal of less than 1.5?°C warming will require carbon intensity to decline much faster than in the recent past. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

Affiliations:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3352.html?foxtrotcallback=true#affil-auth
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-01 08:25:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Looking at Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen, some areas of India and Southeast Asia, areas of South America over the past year-and-a-half such as Bolivia and Brazil or Chile as well as Peru along with crop failure in Texas last year then checking what the future has to offer, folks should be concerned. But most in the U.S. are not so concerned as to act while people in less fortunate regions of the World ARE.

The difference is that WE, in the U.S., aren't feeling the impact of what others experience now. When we do...... And we WILL! It's a matter of WHEN, not IF.

Significantly, that future, I suspect, is ours, whether we had begun to act to mitigate climate change today or do so eight to ten years from now. But, the earlier we start, the better are our chances for long term survival. With this said, I'm far from optimistic, even for mitigation in the long term.

I have no evidence I can post or warnings from scientists I respect, that our demise -- a human demise -- is nearly upon us, in a geological sense of time. But I nevertheless feel it in my gut, and partly because I know human nature. We'll not substantively act until it's WAY too late! But maybe -- hopefully -- I'm wrong....

But let's start analyzing root problems that get in the way of mitigation if mitigation will ever happen in a big way... That's what you do as a first step to solving a problem.

One of many issues to address is the reality that e-commerce entities, along with entities in the brick & mortar sector of commerce, and one E-Commerce giant in particular, are attempting to do some things that are climate-friendly or that show their respect for livable, sustainable (as long as is possible) climate. Yet, what some or many of these entities do, as a business, is part of the problem.

Consumption, at the level many customers of these entities consume, promulgates production of products in a cycle of replacement that's irresponsible. (too many of us have to have the latest and greatest, even though what we have is just fine!) We chase our tails to have the best immediately and do not consider the consequences for climate. (Landfills are full of the consequences!) Reusing and using longer is more of a priority for some people, and some hand down what they no longer use. But that's antithetical to certain business models. Indeed, ever-increasing consumption is considered by many to be crucial to a growing American economy. It may be. However, if we hope to survive, we have to live life on a different scale under different priorities. It's just that difficult and simple all at once.

This is NOT to say free enterprise/capitalism is our death warrant. But it IS to say that it's now essential that we reconceptualize capitalism's role and priorities in a World seemingly threatened by increasing levels of anthropogenic climate change. The industrial revolution enhanced human civilization; that's not debatable. And fossil fuels were a key component in progress made by civilization.

We -- American society or culture -- didn't know or understand the downsides until recently, although scientific communities have at least had a clue for several decades or more. Now, we have to accept the growing body of evidence we've created a problem we must at least attempt to fix if we hope humanity will survive beyond the next two or three centuries. That's to say we have to accept... *IF*.... the next step will be to mitigate our future.

Some people, of course, NEVER will accept! They'll deny and continue in the delusion nothing is wrong or nothing is wrong over which humanity can have a practical impact. And perhaps it's possible there's no having a practical, positive impact on climate at this point. But why quit before we've seriously started? We have kids who will have kids who will have kids who will have kids whose kids will experience the Hell of threatening climate if we don't get serious about mitigation. We don't owe it to them to at least try? It's not certain but highly probable that, if we stay focused on the here and now rather than on a future for generations more than a few decades out from the present, there may be no long term future for the civilization we've struggled to build, not just in America but the World over...... This is a GLOBAL CRISIS. We must act globally if we hope for our species to survive in the long term.
Albrecht Mehl
2017-08-01 09:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Walt,
Post by Walt In Seattle
The difference is that WE, in the U.S., aren't feeling the impact of what others experience now. When we do...... And we WILL! It's a matter of WHEN, not IF.
This phrase is correct except for 'WE, in the U.S.' This group addresses
politics in general, not just the US one. There are other groups having
USA in their title. So you should better write 'People in the US ...'
Post by Walt In Seattle
Significantly, that future, I suspect, is ours, whether we had begun to act to mitigate climate change today or do so eight to ten years from now. But, the earlier we start, the better are our chances for long term survival. With this said, I'm far from optimistic, even for mitigation in the long term.
I have no evidence I can post or warnings from scientists I respect, that our demise -- a human demise -- is nearly upon us, in a geological sense of time. But I nevertheless feel it in my gut, and partly because I know human nature. We'll not substantively act until it's WAY too late! But maybe -- hopefully -- I'm wrong....
Have a look at

http://gaia.org/

and read books from James Lovelock, especially 'The vanishing face of
gaia, a final warning'.

A. Mehl
--
eBriefe an| mehlBEIiesyPUNKTnet |Spätestens seit der
Fukush.-Katastrophe sollten wir uns alle darüber im Klaren sein, dass
Energie nicht länger endlos zur Verfügung steht, ... Wir werden uns
daran gewöhnen müssen, die anfallenden Kosten zu bedenken, bevor wir ein
elektrisches Gerät in Betrieb nehmen wollen, bzw. bevor wir unser Auto
in Bewegung setzen. Dies wird in den nächsten Jahren ein schmerzhafter,
aber unvermeidlicher Prozess des Umdenkens werden, anders haben unsere
Gesellschaft und unser Planet keine Überlebenschance.
Leserbrf. - nicht von mir - FAZ 26.8.2013
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-01 10:45:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The post was intended for readers in the U.S. I don't believe I'm prohibited from addressing Americans on issues that relate to them. But I did not leave the World out the equation, as you should see from text other than what you quoted from my post.

________________________________________
[...] It's not certain but highly probable that, if we stay focused on the here and now rather than on a future for generations more than a few decades out from the present, there may be no long term future for the civilization we've struggled to build, not just in America but the World over...... This is a GLOBAL CRISIS. We must act globally if we hope for our species to survive in the long term.
---------------------------------------------------------
Post by Albrecht Mehl
Dear Walt,
Post by Walt In Seattle
The difference is that WE, in the U.S., aren't feeling the impact of what others experience now. When we do...... And we WILL! It's a matter of WHEN, not IF.
This phrase is correct except for 'WE, in the U.S.' This group addresses
politics in general, not just the US one.
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-03 03:44:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
By 2100, some areas of South Asia could be unlivable because of climate change. At the least, warming would present significant health risks.

http://time.com/4884648/climate-change-india-temperatures/

Yet, the U.S., according to a Pew Research survey, ranks ISIS and cyberattacks as top threats to national security while most other nations surveyed ranked climate change and ISIS as top threats to national security

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/01/globally-people-point-to-isis-and-climate-change-as-leading-security-threats/
john simmons
2017-08-03 06:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
By 2100, some areas of South Asia could be unlivable because of climate change. At the least, warming would present significant health risks.
http://time.com/4884648/climate-change-india-temperatures/
Yet, the U.S., according to a Pew Research survey, ranks ISIS and cyberattacks as top threats to national security while most other nations surveyed ranked climate change and ISIS as top threats to national security
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/01/globally-people-point-to-isis-and-climate-change-as-leading-security-threats/
it seems that you are torn between wanting to save the peoples from dying or relocated.vs. creating a political party with climate change being the sole purpose...is it not a 50 50 deal for sure...either way it is a loser...and i must say i am amazed that donald trump is the only leader in the world that seems to be right about the issue...of course the rest of the world is tag along to get along type folks except russia and china...so i can see that the rest of the world will burn out on this issue without the usa going along...jonZeee
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-05 05:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
By 2100, as many as 150,000 in Europe may die each year from extreme weather, mostly heatwaves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663
john simmons
2017-08-05 08:07:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
By 2100, as many as 150,000 in Europe may die each year from extreme weather, mostly heatwaves.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663
i know....po little babies die over here just about every day cuz moma left em in the car while she was having her hair fixed...what a shame...extreme heat does kill..jz
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-08 19:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm not a Twitter kind of guy. Donald Trump likes Twitter because it plugs him into a society with progressively shorter attention spans who live their lives on the basis of information in soundbites -- nothing in-depth because that simply takes too much time for short attention spans -- and advice in fortune cookies
fashion. But, if that HAS TO BE the mode of communication and analysis, here is something you can tweet to or in response to Donald Trump!

Mr. Prez: Your "BUSINESS First" policy over dealing with the threats in worsening climate change WILL *KILL* people! You could care less??

And then you could tweet this link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=1

Yes; Trump's illusion or deception is the notion that "business first" is always and necessarily "America First". That's not true. But you won't hear the truth from Donald Trump on many things but this in particular. After all, this is the president who has stuffed his cabinet as well as staff with American oligrachs. What more could you expect from Donald Trump?
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-13 07:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??

http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html
john simmons
2017-08-13 07:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??
http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html
well after prompting you to simply explain that the sea level rise was not a good thing to talk about because it simply is not true because of the melt effect...but you are not interested in that as i can see and millions of others cant either....so go on and be the al gore you really want to be and see how well it serves you...i am an hon est person and through life i have been made aware of a certain part of my argument that was causing people to turn me off or tune me out...and i retracted what i had previously stated ...and using common sense it ususally works if the rest of your story.... is on solid ground and is correct...but with you guys it seems you just dont want to talk about an issue that is not on solid ground rather to just admit it was not a good idea to push in the first place...regards..jz
john simmons
2017-08-13 07:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john simmons
Post by Walt In Seattle
What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??
http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html
well after prompting you to simply explain that the sea level rise was not a good thing to talk about because it simply is not true because of the melt effect...but you are not interested in that as i can see and millions of others cant either....so go on and be the al gore you really want to be and see how well it serves you...i am an hon est person and through life i have been made aware of a certain part of my argument that was causing people to turn me off or tune me out...and i retracted what i had previously stated ...and using common sense it ususally works if the rest of your story.... is on solid ground and is correct...but with you guys it seems you just dont want to talk about an issue that is not on solid ground rather to just admit it was not a good idea to push in the first place...regards..jz
so to add the obvious like talking to children....sure i am bright enough to realize that you and al gore sez to one another ...hey we can hit em with rising sea level and that is the bulk of the population...and it will scare hell out of em...and then we can watch the results of bullshit turn into many votes for the democrats ...as we gotta have a miracle of some kind..ya know...i guess the chimps are excited now about this post and are celebrating huh...jz
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-13 20:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Turn you off? You have an off switch, John? ... ;-)
Post by john simmons
Post by Walt In Seattle
What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??
http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html
well after prompting you to simply explain that the sea level rise was not a good thing to talk about because it simply is not true because of the melt effect...but you are not interested in that as i can see and millions of others cant either....so go on and be the al gore you really want to be and see how well it serves you...i am an hon est person and through life i have been made aware of a certain part of my argument that was causing people to turn me off or tune me out...and i retracted what i had previously stated ...and using common sense it ususally works if the rest of your story.... is on solid ground and is correct...but with you guys it seems you just dont want to talk about an issue that is not on solid ground rather to just admit it was not a good idea to push in the first place...regards..jz
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-14 21:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The impact of climate change is a topic of debate in almost every instance where assertions are made as to ACC -- Anthropogenic Climate Change or changes occurring in large measure and by comparison because of what human beings do such as burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon in other ways that add to a growing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn trap heat like a blanket as the Earth warms at a relatively fast pace. Yet, it's more difficult for deniers or minimalists to credibly make their case as weather events become more extreme and a trend is revealed over a period of decades.

If people look at the data with an open mind, they'll see where we are headed in the long term. The article below is mainly about U.S. Pacific Northwest changes in climate and the consequences that have followed on as well as what can be expected in the future. But the most important facts for you to digest are that (1) it's happening all over the World and (2) it's happening NOW! We're in the leading edge of dangerously changing climate that probably is more attributable to human activity than natural variability. Some might say: "we can do this. No big deal. Life is tough and weather, even extreme weather, is just a part of it. You make do as best you can but you don't wuss out and you don't make people pay a price for what you've experienced. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps and soldier on." Such would be unfair or disrespectful of those who have been injured and/or lost property or loved-ones if not their own lives in extreme weather when that weather is the byproduct of ACC. It's HERE and it's NOW! It's largely OUR doing. WE have a responsibility to cleanup OUR mess if we can! We at least have to try...... But let's not forget as well the need or responsibility on behalf of the human species to try and save it from extinction, even if such extinction might be some 100, 200 or 300 years further on in consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/08/14/daily-202-evidence-of-climate-change-abounds-amid-extreme-weather-in-the-pacific-northwest/59910b8e30fb0462b8e1a9c4/

You want something more that proves relatively rapid climate change is happening NOW? Look to the Arctic.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/science-fast-melting-arctic-sign-bad-global-warming-49199787

Much of what happens in the Arctic -- the trend toward warming -- will NOT stay in the Arctic or apply ONLY to the Arctic. It can't because warming elsewhere in the World exists NOW! Perhaps what happens in the Arctic will be more dramatic there than in other parts of the World. But warming IS underway and what we'll see across the World will be bad enough for concern NOW!
john simmons
2017-08-14 21:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Walt In Seattle
The impact of climate change is a topic of debate in almost every instance where assertions are made as to ACC -- Anthropogenic Climate Change or changes occurring in large measure and by comparison because of what human beings do such as burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon in other ways that add to a growing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn trap heat like a blanket as the Earth warms at a relatively fast pace. Yet, it's more difficult for deniers or minimalists to credibly make their case as weather events become more extreme and a trend is revealed over a period of decades.
If people look at the data with an open mind, they'll see where we are headed in the long term. The article below is mainly about U.S. Pacific Northwest changes in climate and the consequences that have followed on as well as what can be expected in the future. But the most important facts for you to digest are that (1) it's happening all over the World and (2) it's happening NOW! We're in the leading edge of dangerously changing climate that probably is more attributable to human activity than natural variability. Some might say: "we can do this. No big deal. Life is tough and weather, even extreme weather, is just a part of it. You make do as best you can but you don't wuss out and you don't make people pay a price for what you've experienced. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps and soldier on." Such would be unfair or disrespectful of those who have been injured and/or lost property or loved-ones if not their own lives in extreme weather when that weather is the byproduct of ACC. It's HERE and it's NOW! It's largely OUR doing. WE have a responsibility to cleanup OUR mess if we can! We at least have to try...... But let's not forget as well the need or responsibility on behalf of the human species to try and save it from extinction, even if such extinction might be some 100, 200 or 300 years further on in consequences.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/08/14/daily-202-evidence-of-climate-change-abounds-amid-extreme-weather-in-the-pacific-northwest/59910b8e30fb0462b8e1a9c4/
You want something more that proves relatively rapid climate change is happening NOW? Look to the Arctic.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/science-fast-melting-arctic-sign-bad-global-warming-49199787
Much of what happens in the Arctic -- the trend toward warming -- will NOT stay in the Arctic or apply ONLY to the Arctic. It can't because warming elsewhere in the World exists NOW! Perhaps what happens in the Arctic will be more dramatic there than in other parts of the World. But warming IS underway and what we'll see across the World will be bad enough for concern NOW!
so who ever owns this data compiling robot...is there lots of money to be made by leasing it out...with an operator or without an operator...or simply purchasing it out right....and of course any computor operator can tinker with it a day or so and have it spitting out what ever their heart desires...jz
Walt In Seattle
2017-08-15 16:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40935252/pen-hadow-sets-sail-for-north-pole-as-arctic-ice-melts
________________________________________
[...] British explorer Pen Hadow and his crew have set sail from Alaska, in an attempt to become the first people ever to sail to the North Pole. With Arctic ice melting at an unprecedented rate, previously inaccessible waters are opening up, creating the potential for their planned 5,500 km (3,500 mile) journey for the first time in human history. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

Loading...