View Full Version : The Heat Wave and Climate Change
Like probably half the people in the country, I've paid extra special attention to the national and regional weather news lately. I live in Colorado where the heat has taken it's toll. As much as I've been listening for it, not once have I heard mention of climate change or global warming in any mainstream report. I know that weather has it's natural cycles and it would be hard to say as a fact that this is global warming. But with so many record breaking temperatures, not to mention wild wind patterns, it would seem that rational minds have to at least wonder? I have seen a couple of short articles tucked back in obscure corners of the news.
It would seem appropriate to say something like, this is what climate change might look like, expect more of this in the future, or this could just at least possibly be an early warning. Because CO2 is basically invisible, the recent weather is something tangible people can experience and connect to their energy use. For some this is probably happening anyway, but a little media mention would help.
It's not like global warming is controversial hearsay anymore. Almost all of the climate scientists are believers and I think more than half of Americans have bought in to some degree.
It just seems odd. Or maybe I've missed something.
I just heard CO2 referenced by an expert on the forest fires. Granted, he was prompted by the NPR news interviewer to speak to climate change as a factor in the recent very large fires (he only named two factors at first) Interestingly, he characterized climate change as not necessarily being hot & dry, but going back and forth from wet to dry in extreme swings. The wet times increase vegetation that causes bigger fires when the hot & dry cycle starts up. The yo yo effect of climate change is wet then dry.
Whereas where I live, in the Pacific NW, it has been uncharacteristically cold and wet, and the last two years June has been referred to as "Junuary".
ApatheticNoMore
7-4-12, 3:23am
It would seem appropriate to say something like, this is what climate change might look like, expect more of this in the future, or this could just at least possibly be an early warning.
Yea basically that is what they're saying:
"The reality of climate change is hitting home. It's time to plan for hotter days and rising sea levels"
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/02/opinion/la-ed-adv-global-warming-20120702
There has been quite a bit of mention of climate change in the press, in a reaction to this season's wild weather all around. But of course, don't forget that climate change is just a made-up liberal conspiracy >8)
Unfortunately, man won't really listen until its to the point of no return, IMHO. Of course I'm hoping otherwise..........
There has been quite a bit of mention of climate change in the press, in a reaction to this season's wild weather all around. But of course, don't forget that climate change is just a made-up liberal conspiracy >8)
Just as the cold June in the NW, SE, UK etc don't disprove climate change, high temps in the plains don't prove or demonstrate anything either. Anyone contending otherwise is a huckster.
ApatheticNoMore
7-4-12, 2:51pm
Another article "Society not ready for heat waves coming with climate change":
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/story/2012-07-03/heat-wave-climate-change/56005710/1?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=206567
To the extent one is interested in local climate mitigation I imagine a lot could be done to mitigate some extremes (depending on how bad it gets - at a certain point the planet ceases to support human life :~)). Plant trees to shade houses and other buildings, have reflective roofing, lessen urban heat island effects so you aren't dealing with that as well, charge people massive tax penalties for settling right in the forest in the southwest due to what they costs fire departments to protect their houses etc. Basically all this stuff and more: http://www.epa.gov/hiri/mitigation/index.htm All can be done locally. The solution to climate change is not local, this is just mitigation.
From what I can tell, it's OK to mention climate change as long as you don't suggest it's influenced by human activity or that we can take steps to minimize the damage. It seems to me we should proceed as if what we do matters, but that doesn't seem to be a popular approach in this country.
That big T-storm on Friday went right thorough Virginia and I experienced it. After a day of 104 degrees in June we had those storms. Close to a million people in SW VA and in WV are still without power.
I can tell you from experiencing it, it was FRIGHTENING and like nothing I've ever experienced before and far more violent than a hurricane. I've lived in Virginia most of my life--this was unique weather. I hope we never experience anything like that again but I'm afraid we will.
Cathy--sadly I believe we've already reached the point of no return.
Does anyone remember back when the Al Gore movie was out and there was so much talk about this? I remember that in addition to changing our consumption/pollution/emission habits there were other possible solutions touted as well.
I remember one interview on cable news that suggested a 25 mile hose secured on Antarctica and raised up into the upper atmosphere. It would have been an engineering marvel and cost billions of dollars. It would have remained aloft with a series of balloons attached to it. (No, not party balloons--think high tech barrage balloons similar to the ones they flew over London during WWII and using steel cables attached to the balloons and the hose.)
According to this scientist, the reason CO2 emissions are having now such a negative impact on the global temperature is because back before the 1960's and clean air emission regulations began most pollution was a combination of CO2 and particulate matter. The two elements in pollution/smog had the effect of mitigating the negative impact of each pollutant upon the other. This is how it worked. CO2 trapped solar energy into the atmosphere so that it couldn't get out, warming the Earth. Sulfuric Acid particles had a different effect. Sulfuric Acid blocked solar energy from entering the atmosphere to begin with and so less solar energy entered the Earth's atmosphere than had been the case pre-Industrial Revolution. So, because less solar energy was entering--the planet would cool. But because more CO2 was being released, the planet warmed. Get it? The counter-balanced each other.
In the 1960's it became very easy to limit sulfuric acid emissions (the main element in smog) and it was done because it was causing us all kinds of pulmonary health problems as well as causing acid rain and killing all the lakes in Canada. So sulfuric acid emissions were greatly curtailed. Presto! CO2 now has no check on its Earth-warming abilities and the Earth starts to heat up.
This scientist said if we were to have this hose thing and release sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere (WAY above weather and the air we breathe) we could start to check the amount of CO2 warming by cooling the planet with basically smog in the upper atmosphere. And the thing with this hose was that it would only have to be turned on once or twice a year to send sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere which would then dissipate throughout the entire upper atmosphere.
Anyway, I heard about this guy 1x about 8 years ago and never heard another word about him or his idea.
Seems to me that we are at a point where we need to start doing something to COOL the Earth, not simply slow down the warming process. Furthermore, even if the US (and that's a big if) does stop its CO2 emissions, we're only 25% of all energy used on the planet. China, India and Brazil (among others) can still pollute the hell out of this planet regardless of how pure our behavior gets.
Has anyone heard of this? This is not something I could have made up. I don't have that much of a science background.
Roger, you should listen to more NPR, just now the news guy interviewed another scientist in the context of this week's weather.
Ok, just did some research on this. The sulfuric acid is part of the particulate matter and the particulate matter (most recently in the case of ash clouds from volcanic eruptions) rains out over a couple of months. The sulfuric acid molecule mixes with one water molecule and this combo is what reflects the solar energy.
All I want to know is WHAT IS THE HOLD UP? Get on it already. It's a lot easier to get a handful of scientists and a couple country's governments to get this idea viable and pay for it than it would be to stop 7 billion humans from living the way that pumps too much CO2 into the atmosphere!
Also (from what I read) it seems there have been so many volcanic eruptions in the past decade spewing all that sulfuric acid laced particulate into the middle (not upper as I originally stated--but still way above weather) atmosphere that these volcanic eruptions have mitigated the impact of increased CO2 emissions of the past decade by a full 1/3rd! So we would have had 33% increased global warming over the past decade if so many eruptions hadn't happened. Can you imagine what kind of impact we'd be able to have if this was done in an organized scientific way and a yearly basis?
this was unique weather. I hope we never experience anything like that again but I'm afraid we will.
Its not that uncommon so odds are you will...
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/derechoclimo1.png
Charlie WA
7-4-12, 11:33pm
bunnys, Sulfer dioxide could be used to mitigate the increase in CO2. There are lots of ideas out there for geoengineering, including a satellite with mirrors that would block a small percentage of sun light from reaching the earth. The biggest problem is getting people to agree to pay for this. With the global economy the way it is, jobs are a much higher priority. The other concern deals with the side effects of geoengineering. We may do something to cool the earth, and as a result, parts of the world may not get the monsoon rains needed to grow crops.
I think that planning and adapting are our best bets at this point in time. This can be done at a local level. A lot of people in the world are already considering growing crops that are more resistant to droughts.
Just as the cold June in the NW, SE, UK etc don't disprove climate change, high temps in the plains don't prove or demonstrate anything either. Anyone contending otherwise is a huckster.
See, bunnys? Nothing we can do about it, and it's not our fault in any way, shape or form. The NOAA finding this is overall the second hottest May on record for the U.S.? Pshaw, doesn't prove a thing. So let's just drop this silly human-influenced climate change nonsense, shall we? I mean, doesn't it make sense? Humankind should be able to dump a gazillion additional tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere of this little rock and nothing bad should happen, right? Sounds perfectly plausible to me. >8)
Whereas where I live, in the Pacific NW, it has been uncharacteristically cold and wet, and the last two years June has been referred to as "Junuary".
I too, live in the PNW. Last June and this were cool and wet. June is usually mild anyway, but these last two were especially so. Today is July 5. Independence day is usually hot. Not this one. 85 degree temps.
Charlie:
There is NO appetite for those kind of programs on a large enough scale locally that it would have an impact on saving the planet.
Let's face it. Even if today we (US) stopped emitting every pound of CO2 that we are currently emitting there would be NO change with China and India who feel entitled to pollute with impunity--and why shouldn't they with us as an example?
We have reached the tipping point--and passed it. Even if everyone on the planet stops spewing out greenhouse gasses today, it's too late. We have to do more, now if we want a chance in hell of not living in hell.
The NOAA finding this is overall the second hottest May on record for the U.S.? Pshaw, doesn't prove a thing.
Regardless of your views no one does public discussion any favors by stetching facts beyond their limits. Single data points don't prove much and people who irresponsibly advocate for conclusions based on them do a disservice to science and common sense. Just as Hurricane Katrina wasn't evidence of global warming, a hot month isn't that useful either. Of course we now know that hurricane activity is at a 30 year low, not exact matching the dire predictions of global warming supposedly foretold by Katrina. As far as temp trends go they have risen but in fact have not risen much recently. It's a very interesting topic that people should read up on and not succumb to the hype.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif
Data points or no data points, we can argue the how and when, but if we continue to eschew nature's perfect way of keeping life in balance by mucking up our soil, air and water, there will be consequences--I do believe that.
Well, all things being equal, in most plant and seed catalogs we have been bumped into solid zone 6 where before we were 5 or 5/6. And this to me is the best acknowledgement of climate change there is. Here is a group not interested in politics, but in classifying their plants in the right zone. Period.
There isn't a lot of room for doubt that a climactic shift is underway. That would happen at some point humans or no humans. Everyone can turn blue arguing their POV whether said humans are actually either responsible for the change or exacerbating it. I've (half) jokingly told people who don't believe fossil fuel use is potentially harmful to start up their car in a closed garage and let me know when they decide for sure. Looking at it that way it makes sense to reduce fossil fuel use regardless of potential climactic impacts.
I'm one that does believe emissions from our activities could, and may already, exacerbate a natural cycle that just happens to be detrimental to a lot of human activity. At the same time looking at pin point, individual events and trying to say they are, by themselves, evidence of a broad change is a flawed way to look at it. This was the hottest May on record here. Our previous record was in the 1930s. Minimal fossil fuel use then, extensive now. However, the use this year wasn't much higher than any of the past ten Mays and none of them set records. We may never know for sure if this year's temperatures were adversely effected by human activity or not. If we continue to have temperatures that are significantly higher or lower than normal combined with droughts then monsoon like seasons and large numbers of significant weather events and if that trend were to continue for ten or twenty years then I think you could dispel a lot of doubt about a warming cycle. In the mean time why don't we just keep looking for alternatives to fossil fuel just because they are poisonous to use?
Because fossil fuel companies have a stranglehold on politicians?
Because fossil fuel companies have a stranglehold on politicians?
There is truth to that, at least in the sense the petro industry is still heavily subsidized even after years of record profits. Voters need to demand an end to that. Consumers need to demand alternatives (and be willing to pony up to get them) and at the same time change the very way in which they consume almost everything. Getting big oil to go along may not be as difficult as people think simply because big oil also happens to own most of the patents for viable alternative energy sources/uses/technology. I'm sure you'll be releived to know they will be fine either way.
Out of curiosity, how many folks here have "green power" available from their electric company?
How much extra, or less, do they charge you for it?
And have you signed up?
Adds a premium of $3.50 per 100 kWh for biomass, $5 for mostly solar. We buy enough to cover us most months.
ApatheticNoMore
7-5-12, 6:08pm
Out of curiosity, how many folks here have "green power" available from their electric company?
yes
How much extra, or less, do they charge you for it?
it's extra, oh I'd have to look at an electricity bill but it's around $10 extra a bill and I'm billed every 2 months. But how much extra it is depends on usage, and usage on a 1 bedroom apartment in California isn't going to be much, even though I do use it for heat and cooling when necessary. I was back looking at the apartment meters a few weeks ago and I had the 2nd lowest usage in the 10 or so apartment units (pats self on back :)), but really other than turning things off when not in use, unplugging unnecessary things for the night, and not owning every electronic gadget on the planet I don't know what I'm doing that's at all special.
And have you signed up?
obviously. I think I had this fear that it was somehow going to cost me a lot more that kept me from signing up for it for years, and it was totally irrational and baseless, I only regret not having signed up many years before I did!
There is truth to that, at least in the sense the petro industry is still heavily subsidized even after years of record profits. Voters need to demand an end to that. Consumers need to demand alternatives (and be willing to pony up to get them) and at the same time change the very way in which they consume almost everything. Getting big oil to go along may not be as difficult as people think simply because big oil also happens to own most of the patents for viable alternative energy sources/uses/technology. I'm sure you'll be releived to know they will be fine either way.
+1
There is truth to that, at least in the sense the petro industry is still heavily subsidized even after years of record profits.
Yeah, to the tune of $54B per year.
I wonder how far out in space that would get my hose from Antarctica...
Out of curiosity, how many folks here have "green power" available from their electric company?
How much extra, or less, do they charge you for it?
And have you signed up?
Not sure if this is the same thing, but our electric company has a voluntary program where you can pay an extra $3/month. That money goes to build solar projects for non-profits including the zoo and botanical gardens, and recently some solar fixtures for some new Habitat for Humanity homes.
I've been paying the extra $3 for years just to do my little part in expanding the use of an alternative energy.
I live in a public power state. The electric utilities are wholly owned by the customers. As a result the primary goal is always to keep the cost of power as low as possible. That part does work; we have one of, if not THE lowest power rates in the country (residential as low as $.051/kWh, commercial at $.055). They accomplish that by burning lots of really cheap coal that comes from Wyoming, which is right next door to us.
Our local utility does not offer a pay for green program yet. They have started a net metering program so there is at least some incentive for people to install their own renewable projects. It isn't enough incentive to make commercial and utility grade installations cost effective so we don't have any real activity in that sector. It's short sighted considering the coal plants need to be sized for 120% of the absolute peak demand (Federal law). That peak happens every year on a hot afternoon in August when commercial air conditioners are still running and people are getting home and cranking the residential units down at the same time. That is also the time when the sun is blasting so generation from solar units would also be at a peak. Rebating the much higher cost of solar could be offset by the need to build power plant capacity that sits idle for almost the entire year. The utility management here hasn't even bothered to propose that to the rate payers yet probably because no expense is viewed as an investment.
ApatheticNoMore
7-6-12, 1:17pm
I live in a public power state. The electric utilities are wholly owned by the customers. As a result the primary goal is always to keep the cost of power as low as possible.
That's an interesting model, the (consumer) co-op model. My electricity company is just city owned (a much simpler model I imagine), green power is an option, rates are reasonable, it works as well as anything out there.
Our utility company offers a "green" billing option for electricity. It can be purchased in blocks of 100 KWH for a $2 premium or you can subscribe to having all your electricity coming from a wind source (theoretically) for what they say would run about $20.00/month extra for the average customer. I don't do this, but probably should think about it. I have done quite a few energy savings improvements to my older home that have made a pretty significant reduction in my overall energy use and if a person only has so much extra to spend, this seems like a better way to go.
What I've given a lot of thought to lately is buying carbon offsets through a non-profit, which initially sounds better than giving the money directly to the utility company. A while back I looked into it and to offset my vehicle and home energy carbon footprint really was not a large sum. I suppose there would be the temptation of falling into the "sin and then ask for forgiveness" category on this.
Sounds like Rogar and I have the same power company. We do the full Windsource block from Xcel (about 20.00/month) and are keeping close eyes on their involvement in solar gardens. Up in Summit County they are doing solar gardens, which are fascinating to me, but nothing around here yet. Our little neighborhood is full southern exposure, there are only about 60 homes, and there are a number of open spaces where we could install a garden for our community; I would love to have the time, money and energy to spearhead that.
I just read an article about global warming and someone said "The time to act was yesterday". How true.
ApatheticNoMore
7-7-12, 12:50pm
Ideally. But that hardly means that nothing should be done now. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is NOW (substititute mitigate climate change for plant a tree - although I think even planting a tree helps mitigate climate change :), still I'm also thinking larger scale). I mean it's possible the human species is already doomed (ha how many people have come mentally close to even processing this - I'm betting very few) but it's not yet certain.
I mean it's possible the human species is already doomed (ha how many people have come mentally close to even processing this - I'm betting very few) but it's not yet certain.
It's pretty darned certain. The Sun will age, and during that process wipe out our kind on Earth. If we have not moved on by then, it's all over for us. And if we escape that, the Universe itself doesn't last forever...
I just read an article about global warming and someone said "The time to act was yesterday". How true.
The time to act -- when it comes to ANYTHING, raising good kids, planting a tree, retiring safely, "fixing" your car i.e. preventative maintenance --- was ALWAYS yesterday.
People who lean on that old crutch are pretty useless, imho (my husband likes to call them "eeyores") Of course it was yesterday. Barring that, there's today. I'm not going to my grave carrying that sorryass excuse for not doing the right thing.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
How many record low vs. record high temperatures have we had in the past 30 years?
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us
There is truth to that, at least in the sense the petro industry is still heavily subsidized even after years of record profits. Voters need to demand an end to that. Consumers need to demand alternatives (and be willing to pony up to get them) and at the same time change the very way in which they consume almost everything. Getting big oil to go along may not be as difficult as people think simply because big oil also happens to own most of the patents for viable alternative energy sources/uses/technology. I'm sure you'll be releived to know they will be fine either way.
I've considered that. I guess their game plan it to wait until the last possible minute--or until they get the best deal.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
How many record low vs. record high temperatures have we had in the past 30 years?
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us
What do you think that means?
What does local weather mean?
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr/cfsr_t2m_2012070700.png
Pug.......of course those weren't words to live by. But it makes change much more challenging. And I believe the person who said them only meant that we are getting way behind because so many are denying it.
How many record low vs. record high temperatures have we had in the past 30 years?
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us
The authors apparently consider climate change a forgone conclusion, but that doesn't make the data any less interesting. It would be really interesting to see what would happen if the data could be compiled a few decades farther back. I would be especially curious to see what the 1930s would look like. In my family history there are no stories of anyone ever being cold in the '30s, but plenty of stories of extreme drought and oppressive heat that spanned almost the entire decade. There are also lots of stories of extended heat/drought cycles going back into the 1800s. When I was a kid in Nebraska we just assumed every 20 years there would be a drought because it had been that way for as long as anyone could remember. Cycles happen, climate change IMO indicates a very long term trend. I still find it curious to see so many people rushing to a long term conclusion with short term data.
Gregg:
The article cited may only go back a few decades and temperature/precipitation/weather records have only been collected since the late 1800's but most climate change theses are made by examining and comparing data from ice core samples obtained in the arctic and antarctic. Climate data from these ice cores goes back tens and tens of thousands of years.
No one doubts climate changes over time. Heck, the end of the Little Ice Age was only 150 or so years ago and we have been warming ever since. The big question is the extent of AGW. The models showing big CO2 effects and positive feedback loops is not holding up well. I'm curious to see of the solar theories hold up any better (see link below for layman's version):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Yossarian, The decreasing sunspot theory has been around for a few years now. If we do see another decrease in sunspot activity, a lot of scientists believe that this will NOT have a big impact on cooling the earth. Check out Realclimate's take on this. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/ They are a site for climate scientists who not only discuss climate change, but all the natural variations in climate. They claim that another new Maunder Minimum in sunspot activity would only result in a drop in temperature of 0.3 C by the year 2100. The rise in temperature due increased CO2 emissions would be much greater than that.
Yossarian, The decreasing sunspot theory has been around for a few years now. If we do see another decrease in sunspot activity, a lot of scientists believe that this will NOT have a big impact on cooling the earth......They claim that another new Maunder Minimum in sunspot activity would only result in a drop in temperature of 0.3 C by the year 2100. The rise in temperature due increased CO2 emissions would be much greater than that.
Yes, that was the theory. As pointed out in the article. , those models have not proven very accurate.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/mauna-loa-co2-vs-uah.jpg
The reasons are unknown, but the biggest factors are probably negative feedback instead of positive feedback, lower CO2 sensitivity, and perhaps a larger role for solar activity.
Also, given that CO2 increases have lagged temp increases the correlations referenced in the article you cited match and are intriguing:
The Maunder Minimum falls within the climatically cooler period of the “Little Ice Age”, during which temperatures were particularly low over continents in the Northern hemisphere (especially in winter). It has long been suspected that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was one of the causes of the Little Ice Age, although other factors like a small drop in greenhouse gas concentrations around 1600 and strong volcanic eruptions during that time likely played a role as well.
I only have my iPad this week, but if someone can copy the chart "Solar Activity 1749-2040" from the story I posted there is some food for thought.
What do you think that means?
What does local weather mean?
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr/cfsr_t2m_2012070700.png
Yes, as shown on the map, it is hot in the Eastern half of the U.S. relative to the rest of the world. The hottest 24 hour mean in 115 years of records in Washington, DC, according to the Washington Post.
The map either has a very unfortunate graphic design or has been redrawn with colors meant to mislead by skewing the perception of mean temperature. The gray colors all represent temperatures above the mean, and only the darkest blues represent distances as far below the mean as the lightest yellows. This is a poor design, as we would expect gray to be centered around the mean. A better choice of color to replace grey would be tan.
Since the most common color on the map is light gray, at first glance it indicates a global temperature on this date about 1 degree C above the 1980-2010 mean.
This matches other climate information available to us.
The map either has a very unfortunate graphic design
Well it is misleading just by virtue of being a map-- areas are distorted as you move away from the equator so I didn't try to average, only observe there is great variability. One man's heat wave is another person's cold snap. I already posted data on global averages from UAH.
Cycles happen, climate change IMO indicates a very long term trend.
The long term trend is up with cycles just as you say. We are currently on the red dot below (see green arrow) and why I posted the graph earlier that shows our position below the projections. These things take a long time to play out but to me the last few years and next few year are very interesting to see which line we are following.
http://joannenova.com.au//globalwarming/graphs/akasofu/akasofu_graph_little_ice-age.gif
Pug.......of course those weren't words to live by. But it makes change much more challenging. And I believe the person who said them only meant that we are getting way behind because so many are denying it.
And from the content of this thread, putting a lot of personal time and energy into denying it. Future generations will not have kind things to say about people who sprayed so much hot air defending dirty, greedy, polluting, finite energy sources, rather than putting that same energy & vigor into evolving toward more lasting solutions while there's still time. "Really? They did what?"
Future generations will not have kind things to say about people who sprayed so much hot air defending dirty, greedy, polluting, finite energy sources, rather than putting that same energy & vigor into evolving toward more lasting solutions while there's still time. "Really? They did what?"
What I don't understand is....why does global warming matter?
By which I mean, even if there were *no* global climate change from our activities, wouldn't we want to transition to sustainable technologies ASAP *anyways*, to preserve finite supplies of precious-to-future-generations resources, and prevent the environmental degradation that occurs from the extraction and use of these materials?
It seems like sound engineering to proceed in this direction, if you are thinking long term.
http://www.naturalstep.org/the-system-conditions
What I don't understand is....why does global warming matter?
By which I mean, even if there were *no* global climate change from our activities, wouldn't we want to transition to sustainable technologies ASAP *anyways*, to preserve finite supplies of precious-to-future-generations resources, and prevent the environmental degradation that occurs from the extraction and use of these materials?
It seems like sound engineering to proceed in this direction, if you are thinking long term.
http://www.naturalstep.org/the-system-conditions
Exactly! +1
ApatheticNoMore
7-9-12, 4:38pm
And from the content of this thread, putting a lot of personal time and energy into denying it. Future generations will not have kind things to say about people who sprayed so much hot air defending dirty, greedy, polluting, finite energy sources, rather than putting that same energy & vigor into evolving toward more lasting solutions while there's still time. "Really? They did what?"
+1
Even if one can't be absolutely positively sure that climate change is human caused (and by nature I tend not to put 100% certainty in almost anything), there is enough evidence to take action as if it was. Are you a gambling (wo)man? Which side has more to lose: doing nothing about climate change and it ending up being human caused or taking action to reduce carbon and it turns out not to be human caused? As for the bet well if you think that the economy EXACTLY as it is right now is sacrosanct you take one tack. But that is sure as heck not my religion! Granted an economy of some sort is necessary, of course, but that's broad.
I read this poetic (not absolutely scientific) prediction and it rang true: all the western forest will be gone and burned up and destroyed by pine beatles, the entire midwest farmland destroyed and all aquifiers dried up, all the electricity wires buried (so storms don't knock them out)and so people can still have their ACs, all the trees near buildings cut down for storms again etc., the rich will have moved to Alaska or somewhere and living it up there. And what then? Will we still be arguing whether or not it was human caused, forever, when there's nothing left to even argue over and arguing still?
It seems the powers that be (yes including the Obama administration for sure) have decided to let it all happen, the entire thing unfold to the fullest possible extent, no limits set on the carbon extracted and burned ever, and the poeple are too busy arguing with each other to pose the slightest resistence.
Maybe it will take down the U.S. (oh please let it be so, so the U.S. government can no longer terrorize the world), maybe it will take down western culture, shrug, let it happen. If all western culture is good for is to make people incapable of moral ACTION of any sort but only capable of arguing (and frankly that is the BETTER parts of it!), then let it collapse. Let it all pass (some might say even the human race), but how much pain between here and then in the meantime?
ApatheticNoMore
7-9-12, 4:43pm
What I don't understand is....why does global warming matter?
By which I mean, even if there were *no* global climate change from our activities, wouldn't we want to transition to sustainable technologies ASAP *anyways*, to preserve finite supplies of precious-to-future-generations resources, and prevent the environmental degradation that occurs from the extraction and use of these materials?
That is also true. So the whole gulf coast has been permanently harmed (BP lies when they say otherwise), still we approve more drilling there. Drilling in the arctic going forward (why Obama said so). The whole U.S. being fracked, water supplies everywhere will be contaminated by this fracking. I mean seriously folks people worry about how much clean water we will have when fracking is done with us! All our water sacrificed for a little more fuel. Madness, never even mind global warming.
Maybe it will take down the U.S. (oh please let it be so, so the U.S. government can no longer terrorize the world),
All it would take would be an act of will by our citizens in one election cycle to dismantle this insane military apparatus we have, that is consuming our resources and wealth at a tremendous rate, and that is used to impose our will on others.
But our citizens do not elect representatives to do so. They don't even seem to make the effort to do so.
I can only assume they at some level support our current policies. And so are morally culpable.
ANM - have you read any of Derrick Jensen's works? In particular his Endgame series, or "Resistance Against Empire"?
Here's our current local energy issue. Plans to despoil one of the loveliest regions in the USA, and externalize costs onto underrepresented communities:
http://orcasissues.com/guest-column-the-unseen-costs-of-the-coal-boondogle
What I don't understand is....why does global warming matter?
By which I mean, even if there were *no* global climate change from our activities, wouldn't we want to transition to sustainable technologies ASAP *anyways*, to preserve finite supplies of precious-to-future-generations resources, and prevent the environmental degradation that occurs from the extraction and use of these materials?
It seems like sound engineering to proceed in this direction, if you are thinking long term.
http://www.naturalstep.org/the-system-conditions
+2
And from the content of this thread, putting a lot of personal time and energy into denying it. Future generations will not have kind things to say about people who sprayed so much hot air defending dirty, greedy, polluting, finite energy sources, rather than putting that same energy & vigor into evolving toward more lasting solutions while there's still time. "Really? They did what?"
Not sure what thread you have been reading but looking back over the posts I can't see what you are referring to. I've been involved in building around about 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy projects a year for the past 5 years. I know a lot of people who are doing the things to make a difference. They are honest people who think scientifically. I doubt you have standing to criticize the people on the ground making a difference just because they aren't gullible on your pet dogma.
Here's our current local energy issue. Plans to despoil one of the loveliest regions in the USA, and externalize costs onto underrepresented communities:
http://orcasissues.com/guest-column-the-unseen-costs-of-the-coal-boondogle
Really frightening, bae.
Didn't much of the Northwest's old growth forests go to Asia as well?
And isn't it all, in the infinite wisdom and infallibility of the invisible hand of the market, just fine to do these things?
What's the answer to this? Derrick Jensen certainly thinks he knows the answer (and I do admit I often think of him and ApatheticNoMore in the same thought :D )
Sure wish I knew.
And isn't it all, in the infinite wisdom and infallibility of the invisible hand of the market, just fine to do these things?
Well, in this case, it is likely because the market isn't allowed to function that these things are happening. The government is subsidizing the conversion of our public lands and resources to private profit, while foisting the environmental costs off on the citizens. Fraud and coercion and corruption.
That's not "the market". That's "crime".
My take on "the answer" is increasingly moving towards Jensen's.
ApatheticNoMore
7-9-12, 6:10pm
All it would take would be an act of will by our citizens in one election cycle to dismantle this insane military apparatus we have, that is consuming our resources and wealth at a tremendous rate, and that is used to impose our will on others.
Not entirely unrelated as it seems the U.S. Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S.. Now all the usual caveats apply, much manufacturing of U.S. companies is outsourced so it may not count in the figure etc.. I mean obviously war is not the ONLY thing using petroleum in the world. But it *IS* WASTING IT in massive quantities for sure.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199
ANM - have you read any of Derrick Jensen's works? In particular his Endgame series, or "Resistance Against Empire"?
no
(and I do admit I often think of him and ApatheticNoMore in the same thought :D )
:) I think I've spent way too much time following poltical stuff :). And it and some natural darkness leads to a not very happy systematic view of how things are working (you won't see it reported on your t.v. set it goes without saying (do they tell you the gulf never healed, that shrimp are still being born mutated?), but it's all what is happening in the world now).
The thing about human climate change denial is people are more than sick of how it is USED politically by actors one can definitely conclude don't care about the environment. Local attempts to switch to alternative energy are a fallback plan because we can not seem to get the powers that be to care about it, even though we really do need larger scale consensus (we need larger scale consensus here because so many environmental issues are global issues).
Local attempts to switch to alternative energy are a fallback plan because we can not seem to get the powers that be to care about it, even though we really do need larger scale consensus (we need larger scale consensus here because so many environmental issues are global issues).
This is part of the reason I posted the coal issue above. Public lands stripped of coal for pennies on the dollar, shipped through US communities at great environmental cost to those communities with no mitigation of the harm, then on to China to be burned in what I can presume are coal plants that are not up to the latest environmental standards, further polluting our joint resources.
And then junk shipped back to Walmart for everyone to buy!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.