I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

We could encourage the worldwide expansion of NG usage especially in power generation,shipping and commercial transport(which has and can  drastically reduced our co2) and continue carbon capture research efforts....along with fuel cell advances to generate local power.

 

the east coast sinking and much of Florida washing out from under itself is inevitable ,,,we can debate the rate and ways to address

 

 

[PeterMP]

23 hours ago, twa said:

We could encourage the worldwide expansion of NG usage especially in power generation,shipping and commercial transport(which has and can  drastically reduced our co2) and continue carbon capture research efforts....along with fuel cell advances to generate local power.

 

the east coast sinking and much of Florida washing out from under itself is inevitable ,,,we can debate the rate and ways to address

 

 

 

This might be accurate if it wasn't for the leakage of natural gas.  And preventing the leakage of natural gas, will raise the costs of its use, which makes it less economical, which means prices will go up, which would most easily be offset by decreased consumption.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-u-s-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought

 

"The U.S. natural gas industry is leaking way more methane than previously thought"

 

"Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit."

 

"What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate."

 

(The natural gas industry has a long history of lying or obstructing studies on their leakage rate, and their claimed leakage rates have historically been off by large amounts.)

 

(There's also only so much economically reasonable accessible natural gas.  As natural gas is used more for other things, energy supplies will for other things will rise (e.g. heat by natural gas) and fall accordingly).

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

NG is going to leak whether we use it or not.

 

if the economics don't work other options become more affordable.

 

there is massive supply if the demand exists

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, twa said:

NG is going to leak whether we use it or not.

 

if the economics don't work other options become more affordable.

 

there is massive supply if the demand exists

 

 

Natural gas doesn't naturally leak at the rate it does when we use it.  Much of the natural gas we are using has been trapped in the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years.  

 

Other options include other fossil fuels, including coal.

[twa]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Natural gas doesn't naturally leak at the rate it does when we use it.  Much of the natural gas we are using has been trapped in the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years.  

 

Other options include other fossil fuels, including coal.

 

there are natural seeps all over (much more than thought when we use the technology used to detect methane emissions from production) , does extracting it lessen them?...it does for oil.

 

if you don't want coal it will have to be NG or nuclear until major advances elsewhere.

 

NG plants are cheaper, easier and work better with renewable limitations.

 

pick your poison.

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, twa said:

 

there are natural seeps all over (much more than thought when we use the technology used to detect methane emissions from production) , does extracting it lessen them?...it does for oil.

 

😂

 

Atmospheric methane levels were essentially flat for hundreds of years until we started mining it.

 

https://www.methanelevels.org/

 

(I'll also pretty much bet that there is MUCH more oil on the surface of the Earth today because of leaks from drilling than there was 800 years ago.  Yes, drilling might offset natural seepage, but the leaks from human mining and use more than offsets those natural leakages and oil is leaking from places it wouldn't be leaking form if it weren't for humans.)

[twa]

But there are humans , and we have to provide for them or exterminate them.

 

or return to primitive living and let nature exterminate them.

[China]

Ryrkaypiy: Far-north Russian village overrun by polar bears

 

More than 50 polar bears have descended on a village in Russia's far north.

 

All public activities in Ryrkaypiy, in Chukotka region, have been cancelled, and schools are being guarded to protect residents from the bears.

 

Conservationists say climate change could be to blame, with weak coastal ice forcing the bears to search for food in the village rather than at sea.

 

I will eat you and your whole family

 

Other experts have said polar bear visits are now so frequent, Ryrkaypiy should be permanently evacuated.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

[China]

Climate models have been impressively accurate for decades, study finds

 

Even the rather primitive climate computer models of the 1970s, 80s and 90s were impressively accurate, lending extra credibility to the much more advanced climate models of today. That's the conclusion of a paper released Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters, a peer-reviewed science journal.

 

The study comes as climate skeptics continue to cast doubt on the reliability of climate models and question the validity of human-caused climate change overall.

 

"We often hear that 'models always overestimate warming' from those skeptical of climate change," says the paper's lead author Zeke Hausfather. But Hausfather says that's simply not true. "Climate models have by and large gotten things right. They haven't overestimated warming, but at the same time the warming we experienced isn't worse than we thought, it is what we thought it would be," he said.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Florida Keys Deliver a Hard Message: As Seas Rise, Some Places Can't Be Saved

 

KEY WEST, Fla. — Officials in the Florida Keys announced what many coastal governments nationwide have long feared, but few have been willing to admit: As seas rise and flooding gets worse, not everyone can be saved.

 

And in some places, it doesn’t even make sense to try.

 

On Wednesday morning, Rhonda Haag, the county’s sustainability director, released the first results of the county’s yearslong effort to calculate how high its 300 miles of roads must be elevated to stay dry, and at what cost. Those costs were far higher than her team expected — and those numbers, she said, show that some places can’t be protected, at least at a price that taxpayers can be expected to pay.

 

“I never would have dreamed we would say ‘no,’” Haag said in an interview. “But now, with the real estimates coming in, it’s a different story. And it’s not all doable.”

 

The results released Wednesday focus on a single 3-mile stretch of road at the southern tip of Sugarloaf Key, a small island 15 miles up U.S. Highway 1 from Key West. To keep those 3 miles of road dry year-round in 2025 would require raising it by 1.3 feet, at a cost of $75 million, or $25 million per mile. Keeping the road dry in 2045 would mean elevating it 2.2 feet, at a cost of $128 million. To protect against expected flooding levels in 2060, the cost would jump to $181 million.

 

And all that to protect about two dozen homes.

 

“I can’t see staff recommending to raise this road,” Haag said. “Those are taxpayer dollars, and as much as we love the Keys, there’s going to be a time when it’s going to be less population.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

On 12/1/2019 at 7:19 AM, twa said:

But there are humans , and we have to provide for them or exterminate them.

 

or return to primitive living and let nature exterminate them.

I'll eliminate option 3.

[BleedBNG]

 

 

[mcsluggo]

 

[BleedBNG]

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[PeterMP]

I saw this a while ago and didn't post, but with talk of 6 degrees of warming in the Outer Space thread, I thought it would be worth posting:

 

"For once, the climate news might be better than you thought. It’s certainly better than I’ve thought.

 

You may not have noticed it, amid the flood of bad news about the “Emissions Gap” and the collapse of the COP25 climate conference in Madrid, but over the last few weeks a new narrative about the climate future has emerged, on balance encouraging, at least to an alarmist like me. It is this: As best as we can understand and project the medium- and long-term trajectories of energy use and emissions, the window of possible climate futures is probably narrowing, with both the most optimistic scenarios and the most pessimistic ones seeming, now, less likely."

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/climate-change-worst-case-scenario-now-looks-unrealistic.html

 

(I've never been somebody that thought the higher end estimates were too much to worry about.  I don't think we'll get to 6 degrees at all in this astronomical (e.g. distance from the sun) configuration (i.e. if it does happen it won't mostly because of green house gases, but because of changes in our orbit to the sun, which will play out over 100,000+ years) and if we do it will take thousands of years.  I suspect there might be other non-temperature related consequences though.  In terms of our current infrastructure though a degree or so will mean very large costs.)

Edited January 10, 2020 by PeterMP

[China]

Oceans are warming at the same rate as if five Hiroshima bombs were dropped in every second

 

(CNN) - The world's oceans are now heating at the same rate as if five Hiroshima atomic bombs were dropped into the water every second, scientists have said.

 

A new study released on Monday showed that 2019 was yet another year of record-setting ocean warming, with water temperatures reaching the highest temperature ever recorded.

 

An international team of 14 scientists examined data going back to the 1950s, looking at temperatures from the ocean surface to 2,000 meters deep. The study, which was published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, also showed that the oceans are warming at an increasing speed.

While the past decade has been the warmest on record for global ocean temperatures, the hottest five years ever recorded all came in the last five.

"The upward trend is relentless, and so we can say with confidence that most of the warming is man-made climate change," said Kevin Trenberth, distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The study shows that while the oceans warmed steadily between 1955 and 1986, warming has accelerated rapidly in the last few decades. Between 1987-2019, ocean warming was 450% greater than during the earlier time period.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[twa]

 

Quote

 

Appeals Court Throws Out Climate Change Lawsuit

 

Circuit court judges Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz and District Judge Josephine L. Staton heard the case. In a rare moment of constitutional textualism by the Ninth Circuit, the trio of Obama nominees affirmed in a 2-1 vote that it was not the duty of the court to craft climate change policy, or to tell the legislative branch how to go about making laws. 

“The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a ‘climate system capable of sustaining human life.’ The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to ‘phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.’ Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government,” Judge Hurwitz wrote in the majority opinion.

Dissenting in the decision is District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who claims that this case could be in the scope of the judiciary:

“My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary. Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress. Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province,” Staton wrote.

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/reaganmccarthy/2020/01/17/appeals-court-throws-out-climate-change-lawsuit-n2559706

[CousinsCowgirl84]

On 1/15/2020 at 11:56 AM, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

For most of the planet it’s a 1-2 degree difference from 100 years ago? Am I reading that correctly?

Edited January 18, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

For most of the planet it’s a 1-2 degree difference from 100 years ago? Am I reading that correctly?

 

I read it as Celsius...which is 1.8°F for every 1°C.

 

The problem not discussed really is that ocean temps are where the major problems are going to occur from global warming. Oceans act like a buffer and absorb a lot of heat from trapped manmade ghg's. The cost being a minute ocean temp rise can lead to ocean ecosystems being destroyed, sea level rise and washouts occurring on coastal centers, etc.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by The Evil Genius

[China]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I read it as Celsius...which is 1.8°F for every 1°C.

 

The problem not discussed really is that ocean temps are where the major problems are going to occur from global warming. Oceans act like a buffer and absorb a lot of heat from trapped manmade ghg's. The cost being a minute ocean temp rise can lead to ocean ecosystems being destroyed, sea level rise and washouts occurring on coastal centers, etc.

 

 

 

Yeah, there's a lot of coral bleaching going on.  We probably don't and won't know the full extent of the subtle effects of temperature change in the oceans until it is too late.

[Renegade7]

[EmirOfShmo]

^^ Should also be in the Pwned thread

[China]

It’s T-Shirt Weather in Antarctica as Temperature Breaks Record

 

The temperature at one research base in Antarctica reached a record-breaking 18.3 degrees Celsius (65 Fahrenheit) on Thursday, almost a full degree above the previous high set five years ago.  

 

Argentine scientists on the Esperanza base who confirmed the reading said that wasn’t the only record broken this week. The nation’s Marambio site registered the highest temperature for the month of February since 1971. Thermometers there hit 14.1 Celsius, above the previous February 2013 reading of 13.8 Celsius. 

 

The reports are shocking, but not surprising, said Frida Bengtsson, who is leading a expedition to the Antarctic for the environmental group Greenpeace. 

 

“We’ve been in the Antarctic for the last month, documenting the dramatic changes this part of the world is undergoing as our planet warms,” she said in an email. “In the last month, we’ve seen penguin colonies sharply declining under the impacts of climate change in this supposedly pristine environment.”

 

Click on the link for the full article