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

[PeterMP]

Looks like there is at least pressure to prosecute ExxonMobil over what they knew going back to the 1970s vs. what they were telling the public and their share holders.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-investigation-exxonmobil-20151015-story.html

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

 

You might be able to lie to the public, but lying to share holders is a different story.

Edited October 16, 2015 by PeterMP

[DogofWar1]

I wouldn't jump to the assumption that that's a huge smoking gun. To me, that's not much money, and might simply be a legit payment.

 

I suppose that's a possibility but it's extremely suspicious.  It's likely at least a little fire to go with the considerable smoke on the issue.

 

The problem, of course, is that trying to get accurate data is almost impossible since the amount and origin of money can be easily obscured and blocked.  Small bits of payoffs can look like legit payments because the rest is still obscured, and it could be years between each reveal, allowing for plausible deniability.

 

That being said, if the climate denier camp is allowed to claim that there's a vast, multinational, grant money conspiracy for climate change, for which they've conducted tons of investigations yielding nothing, and yet they persist in their demand that the scientific community prove the negative that they aren't fabricating things while constantly setting the bar for scientific evidence of climate change higher and higher, I think we're allowed to call them on this one.

 

And further, ask that they prove the negative that this payment isn't related to payoffs for climate denial writings.

[China]

Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability

 

A human body may be able to adapt to extremes of dry-bulb temperature (commonly referred to as simply temperature) through perspiration and associated evaporative cooling provided that the wet-bulb temperature (a combined measure of temperature and humidity or degree of ‘mugginess’) remains below a threshold of 35 °C. (ref. 1). This threshold defines a limit of survivability for a fit human under well-ventilated outdoor conditions and is lower for most people. We project using an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations that extremes of wet-bulb temperature in the region around the Arabian Gulf are likely to approach and exceed this critical threshold under the business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas concentrations. Our results expose a specific regional hotspot where climate change, in the absence of significant mitigation, is likely to severely impact human habitability in the future.

 

Click on the link for more

Edited October 27, 2015 by China

[Larry]

Peace in the Middle East? 

[China]

Peace in the Middle East? 

 

Yeah, because nobody will live there anymore.  But think of all the refugees (if you think the Syrian refugee crisis is bad...).

[China]

Warming waters a major factor in the collapse of New England cod, study finds

 

For centuries, cod were the backbone of New England's fisheries and a key species in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem. Today, cod stocks are on the verge of collapse, hovering at 3-4% of sustainable levels. Even cuts to the fishery have failed to slow this rapid decline, surprising both fishermen and fisheries managers. For the first time, a new report in Science explains why. It shows that the cod collapse is in large part due to rapid warming of the ocean in the Gulf of Maine - 99 percent faster than anywhere else on the planet.

 

The rapid warming is linked to changes in the position of the Gulf Stream and to climate oscillations in the Atlantic and the Pacific. These factors add to the steady pace of warming caused by global climate change. In the face of already depleted cod stocks, fisheries managers in 2010 had placed a series of restrictions on harvesting this key Gulf of Maine species, but even strict quota limits on fishermen failed to help cod rebound.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[btfoom]

stick and move

stick and move

Exactly.

 

Global warming will run amok and kill everyone (Gore, 2007)

 

Global climate change will cause more Hurricanes (Gore, 2008)

 

Global climate change will cause fewer Hurricanes (Science 2010)

 

But hey, why look at facts when our feelings are so much more fun.

Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability

 

 

Click on the link for more

Wow, that may be the worst article about Global Warming since, well, last year.

 

It is a prediction, based on nothing measurable, and only taking into account the worst case models (which have been almost all been shown to be false).

 

Can I post crap from the World Daily News where Elvis Impersonators have discovered a hidden tribe in Africa who are burning certain trees and causing Global Warming to speed up 10000%?  It is the same crap.

[DogofWar1]

Can I post crap from the World Daily News where Elvis Impersonators have discovered a hidden tribe in Africa who are burning certain trees and causing Global Warming to speed up 10000%?  It is the same crap.

 

Come on now.  It's one thing to question studies and even journal methodology, that's fine, keeping everyone honest is good.  It's quite another to basically say that the 2nd highest rated journal in the environmental sciences area of study, and tied to the very well regarded Nature Publishing Group is crap on par with the World Daily News.

[Hersh]

Exactly.

 

Global warming will run amok and kill everyone (Gore, 2007)

 

Global climate change will cause more Hurricanes (Gore, 2008)

 

Global climate change will cause fewer Hurricanes (Science 2010)

 

But hey, why look at facts when our feelings are so much more fun.

Wow, that may be the worst article about Global Warming since, well, last year.

 

It is a prediction, based on nothing measurable, and only taking into account the worst case models (which have been almost all been shown to be false).

 

Can I post crap from the World Daily News where Elvis Impersonators have discovered a hidden tribe in Africa who are burning certain trees and causing Global Warming to speed up 10000%?  It is the same crap.

 

What is the result if those that don't believe in climate change are wrong and we do nothing?

 

Alternatively, what is the result if those that believe in climate change are ultimately wrong and we did something?

[twa]

in the later we will have wasted Trillions

 

 

but we can print more

[Hersh]

in the later we will have wasted Trillions

 

 

but we can print more

 

Where do you come up with the Trillions number? Job creation with new technologies vs job loss?

 

and how about the former?

[DogofWar1]

Where do you come up with the Trillions number? Job creation with new technologies vs job loss?

 

and how about the former?

 

You're asking the wrong guy those questions.  Have you seen the green jobs thread?  He goes out of his way to poo-poo every potential advance as really not good, at best, and terrible, at worst.

 

But yes, you're right, there are plenty of new jobs to be created in the green energy sector, and more importantly, unless humanity gets wiped out sometime in the next 100 years (hopefully not), we will literally NEED to go to renewable fuels, and likely the sun, as humanity's energy needs will outstrip non-renewable supply.  Either they need to figure out cold fusion or we're going to be using solar, because those two sources are basically the only two that could possibly support a civilization that has pulled most nations to the 1st world and likely is space-faring.

 

Edit: Helping with the whole climate change thing is an added benefit of getting where we're going to need to go anyway faster.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DogofWar1

[twa]

Where do you come up with the Trillions number? Job creation with new technologies vs job loss?

 

and how about the former?

 

I pulled it out of my Philly, are you suggesting a cheap ,ineffective solution then? 

 

As to the former the same thing as if we spend trillions.

 

Where do you come up with doing nothing vs this undefined something?

 

We are doing plenty w/o depending on the dreamers who offer hope and change.....and a bill

 

 

You're asking the wrong guy those questions.  Have you seen the green jobs thread?  He goes out of his way to poo-poo every potential advance as really not good, at best, and terrible, at worst.

 

 

 

You are wrong as usual  , but I do obviously have a different view of potential than some......a realistic one.

 

I'm also rather frugal, a dollar wasted can be better used elsewhere.

 

ya wanna propose something detailed we can talk .....cold fusion or solar the only choices is ignoring much.

[DogofWar1]

You are wrong as usual  , but I do obviously have a different view of potential than some......a realistic one.

 

I'm also rather frugal, a dollar wasted can be better used elsewhere.

 

ya wanna propose something detailed we can talk .....cold fusion or solar the only choices is ignoring much.

 

Cute.

 

Plenty of detailed things are happening, solar has gone from a pipe dream with regards to utilities to actually being marketable, and is only going to keep improving over time.  The issues standing in the way are solvable, one simply needs to stop saying we should scrap the whole thing because some issues pop up.

 

And it's not really ignoring much, the energy requirements of a fully developed world would be huge.  Wind, geothermal, tidal, fission, etc. could certainly power us for a time, but eventually even that would be insufficient.

 

World energy needs have increased 10 fold since the early 1900s, and that's just to get the current crop of countries to the first world.  China still has tons of development to go.  India has a long ways.  Africa has many parts of the country with significant development still to go.  And the first world is going to keep developing further and pushing out new technologies that will continue to increase energy needs.

 

It's estimated that about 4 million 5 megawatt wind turbines could provide half the 2030 world's energy, about 7.5 terrawatts.  The thing is, if in 100 years we've multiplied our energy usage another tenfold, that means we'd need 40 million 5 megawatt wind turbines.  Problem is the anticipated maximum energy from wind on land is about 80 terrawatts, and 40 million wind turbines producing 75 terrawatts would presumably by utilizing over 90% of potential land production.  If we could cover the seas in wind turbines, it's another couple hundred terrawatts, but the engineering difficulties increase many fold.

 

So wind is very useful in the 50 year time frame, but on the 100+ year timescale it becomes too small.  Tidal energy, geothermal, hydro, and biomass all in at potentials lower than wind.

 

This is a pretty basic overview in picture form: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Global_Energy_Potential_2014_08_09.svg

 

Thorium based nuclear fission could be a potential option, reserves could presumably last the US around 1,000 years based on some studies.  But that's at current power levels.  If power usage increased several fold that would decrease the time it would work significantly.

 

So what are we left with?  Well, barring some breakthrough elsewhere, we're stuck with fusion, which is not even known to be feasible, let alone mature, and solar, which despite your opposition, is rapidly maturing (the biggest obstacle now is likely energy storage more than anything else).  The latter of which, purely on Earth, provides something like 1,500 times the current world's energy usage, per year.

 

So, one way or another, if you're betting on energy bet on solar, and while we're at it, we can help to reduce global warming, and maybe save ourselves some environmental grief and the costs associated with that.

[Hersh]

I pulled it out of my Philly, are you suggesting a cheap ,ineffective solution then? 

 

As to the former the same thing as if we spend trillions.

 

Where do you come up with doing nothing vs this undefined something?

 

We are doing plenty w/o depending on the dreamers who offer hope and change.....and a bill

 

 

 

That's a terrific non-answer since you say trillions but appear to have no actual documented support.

[twa]

That's a terrific non-answer since you say trillions but appear to have no actual documented support.

 

hard to put a firm number on 'something' 

 

was yours a non question then?

 

 

Cute.

So, one way or another, if you're betting on energy bet on solar, and while we're at it, we can help to reduce global warming, and maybe save ourselves some environmental grief and the costs associated with that.

 

 

unless ya reduce the area needed, make a large leap in storage and come up with huge amounts of materials that are relatively rare solar is lacking to scale.

of course the space mirror might work....kinda curious of the environmental impact of highly focused beams though

 

fuel cells are more likely,or of course gas hydrates

[Hersh]

hard to put a firm number on 'something' 

 

was yours a non question then?

 

 

Only you know what you are now talking about...if you even know.

[twa]

Only you know what you are now talking about...if you even know.

 

post 1109 I'd assume

 

something or nothing

 

you seem to think disaster from nothing, I figure trillions in costs for something

 

so until ya define something it is kind of hard to know.......but I do admire that can do attitude.

[DogofWar1]

Fuel cells have a fair number of technological developmental hurdles to overcome as well.  Certainly there's strong potential there too, but in terms of utility solar will probably get there first, though fuel cells could still have a role to play, as sort of nighttime batteries.

 

But there are at least as many hurdles to the creation of a widespread hydrogen economy as there are to the creation of a widespread solar economy.  I had been hopeful through the mid-2000's to late 2000's, but the growth of the industry started reversing.  Just like solar, the tech wasn't there.  Solar has been making leaps and bounds, I know hydrogen has made some too, but I've heard much less.  Both have hurdles remaining.

 

Of course, there's no reason not to investigate multiple forms of energy.  Invest in solar, fuel cells, thorium fission, and fusion.  Picking one over the other is hardly necessary.

 

Indeed, perhaps a future space faring humanity could utilize mass solar energy through a dyson swarm in the inner solar system, while utilizing fusion/thorium/fuel cells farther from the sun, outside the asteroid belt.

[twa]

Fuel cells as batteries?.....is try the beal rolling things for ya? 

Supercapacitors have made some nice advances though, as has oxide pellet fuel cells

 

I certainly believe in diversity.....I like energy

[DogofWar1]

Not so much batteries, but as nighttime energy.  PV Solar supplies grid during the day, energy from PV solar powers fuel cells at night.  But that's not the only potential setup.

 

We agree on diversity, the future of energy is exciting.

 

Hopefully we can work out the issues and get alternatives rolling before the Middle East has heat waves killing thousands daily.

[PeterMP]

Surface temps look like Oct was the warmest month ever as compared to the average for that month.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/us/october-temperatures-two-degrees/

 

And not just by the NOAA (US federal government), but also by other governments/groups like Japan.

 

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/oct_wld.html

 

And we are track for the warmest year on record.

 

The satellites have it a little different.  Based on UAH, It is just the warmest Oct on record, but not month and is on track to be the 3rd warmest year on record behind the El Nino years of 1998 and 2010 (where the satellites are more greatly affected by El Nino's than the surface temps).

 

The El Nino this year, appears to be heating up (and looks to set records based on ocean temps), but there is a lag between ocean temps and the troposphere temps the satellites measure.

 

Based on the UAH, the troposphere temps for this month are driven to a large extent by northern hemisphere temps, not just tropical El Nino driven temps.

 

Look for the El Nino to drive the satellites up even higher over the next few months as the lag kicks in.  For the satellites, the El Nino is more likely to have a bigger effect next year.

Edited November 23, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

probably gonna be a cold ass winter up north then 

[PeterMP]

This conservative economist makes the case for a carbon tax

 

http://grist.org/climate-energy/this-conservative-economist-makes-the-case-for-a-carbon-tax/

[mcsluggo]

io never understood why greenies don;t push for the carbon tax more... at a very basic intuitive level (ie -- perhaps without digging and getting disturbed by contrary facts?) it seems to me MUCH better than the cap and trade most green people want.  

 

and.... it could conceivably solve some of the whining about loss in competitiveness --- tax imports for carbon as well, and do it right, and it seems like it automatically acts as a tariff against other countries that have lax requirements.  

 

------ because of taxation and transfer pricing regulations, i THINK importers already need to know the ultimate sourcing of their imports (ie which parts and sub parts and sub-sub-parts are made where).   Put together a matrix of countries and NAICS (industrial classification) codes on carbon intensity... and China gets a higher carbon tax on steel than Netherlands does, not because we hate China, but because we hate carbon.    This seems like it could eventually pass WTO scrutiny, because it is neutral and objective (ass opposed to to targeted tariffs or quotas against high carbon emitters, which have the potential to be arbitrary)