ADVERTISEMENT

Climate changes already affecting you

If climate change were ‘natural’ the changes would not be occurring at the rates they are which would allow for adjustments.

As you point climate science may project a range of different projected outcomes, but none are salutary.

Addressing the risks of man made climate change offers us a huge set of new opportunities, yet US policies and public investments largely ignore them compared to other countries among our peer group.

In the ethical terms you suggest, is it ethical for the US to continue to produce twice the carbon emissions than China, yet complain about Chinese pollution?

Or is it ethical to actively import pollution from other countries that undermine the health of Americans. See link

What Could Happen if a $9.4 Billion Chemical Plant Comes to “Cancer Alley”


https://www.propublica.org/article/...-billion-chemical-plant-comes-to-cancer-alley
I agree with TUMe that we shouldn't necessarily respond to climate change as if the most dire predictions are 100% true, but I also agree with you that it is also dangerous to assume that the models showing we have 100 years to respond are true.

There is a middle ground in there somewhere. Investing in solar and nuclear power is something we can do and should do. China is building tons of coal plants, yes. But they are also part of a multi-national agreement which in aggregate should keep CO2 levels at manageable quantities. Those plants are already accounted for in that. And they already are investing WAY more money into solar than we are. If we do not act soon, they will be the undisputed world leaders in solar power pretty quickly. And whether you believe in global warming or not, you'd be a damn fool to not believe that solar power will be an increasingly important and vital source of energy production in future decades. And it will be hard to push them off that pedestal just because "American Ingenuity".

Telling developing nations that they can't pursue the cheapest source of power available is a pretty cruel thing to do. We're not going to get the Rwandans to hold off on a coal plant in lieu of nuclear or solar energy. But we can probably influence the Chinese some. If only we were working on a big trade agreement and could ask the Chinese to hold off on some of those plants and invest in cleaner options instead, and in exchange we can import more xyz to help offset the cost without giving a foreign country a direct subsidy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Watu3
I was watching a show the other day, not having a thing to do with climate change, that showed the waterline on some mountains in the California dessert, where the ocean was once 300 feet deep there. In the 1700’s. They were looking for a pirate shipwreck in the dessert. So yeah, things can change in a hurry on this earth.

As far a carbon emissions, the fearmongers seem to forget that the CO2 greenhouse effect is logarithmic, not linear. So as the concentrations go up, the effect becomes relatively less and less. And besides as a proportion CO2 is not the major driver of greenhouse effect anyway.

Why do these projections of global warming never seem to include solar output? It seems to be treated as a constant. Isn’t the sun the major cause of global warming?
Solar forcing is absolutely a term included into every major model I've ever seen.

It is this attitude that I find most distressing. People who spend very little time on this issue thinking that they have thought of something that literally hundreds of people have dedicated their lives to studying and researching in great detail somehow missed.

Believe me, the sun, and possible variations in its output, is accounted for.
 
Right. The problem is, the accounting they do is egregiously inaccurate. https://www.researchgate.net/public..._direct_observations_and_CMIP5_climate_models

The problem is that the Really Smart People like to project CO2 and methane levels decades into the future, which is great, but trying to predict solar output that far out is gonna be tough, if they can’t even get it right in the present. If the Really Smart People followed the science where it leads, and were honest about their shortcomings and inaccuracies, then I could get behind them. But too many are not honest brokers of true science.

Fossil fuels have increased life expectancy, decreased mortality, and have increased our standard of living more than any other factor in human history. To not recognize that is breathtakingly ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Right. The problem is, the accounting they do is egregiously inaccurate. https://www.researchgate.net/public..._direct_observations_and_CMIP5_climate_models
Let me first say that it is fantastic that you responded with an actual article, published in a mainstream journal, by respected authors. Seriously.

And the coupling between heat forcing, atmospheric response, and then land and sea response is very poorly understood. That is true. That is why it is not a settled science. But there are a great many people who just like to point out the flaws that nobody denies, and then not offer solutions and use it to discount the entire field. And then there are people that point out the flaws and work very hard for years to correct and improve the models to account for them. The authors you cite are clearly in the latter group, as they are trying to determine better values to use for solar fluctuations.

It's important to draw a distinction here. One is science in action, the other is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

I've said on here many times, climate science is in a weird position. Climate is extraordinarily complex and poorly understood, with feedback loops galore interacting with each other. To boot, we can't simulate the entire earth's climate without some big fudge factors. There is NO fully coupled ocean model, atmospheric model, and land and sea ice model. None. People try to cobble results together in various ways, but the computing power necessary to do this all at once is still well beyond our capabilities. Not to mention that even the heating boundary conditions, as you point out, are difficult to determine accurately and vary over the surface of the sphere.

So you have a situation where the models are flawed, and admittedly so. And people are all working very hard to fix that. But they all have a single thing in common: they all show warming as a response to introduction of CO2. The models plus the existing physical evidence suggest very very strongly that warming is occurring due to the industrial era. How much? How quickly? I don't think anybody has any real idea, and anybody that says they can quantify it particularly well is probably a snake-oil salesman.

That's also the reason you don't see a lot of actual climate scientists on CNN talking about this stuff. It's all been filtered two or three times through pundits and talking heads that really have no clue about the state of the industry, all spouting their conclusions.

Anyway, I can see you are actually interested in this and have done a bit of homework (as opposed to some others on this site), so I apologize for my dismissive tone toward you. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
Agee in general. The lost economic opportunities, however, are not just in solar.

The refusal to recognize the problem by our political leaders undermines international cooperation and US global influence. The nature of this threat is similar to nuclear warfare, as it is global and existential and will require international cooperation and leadership to address. Not our strong suit at the moment.
 
WATU thinks global warming is as dangerous as nuclear war. Most people do not.
 
I think we should probably just invade China. We could save some Muslims from that hell hole in the process
 
WATU wants us to spend all our resources on a plan which mathematically has no chance of success. Makes zero sense. Maybe we should come up with a Plan B?
 
Saw this blast from the past the other day. The U.N. Climate Report from 30 years ago.


UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.



Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.



He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.



As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.



Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.



″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.



UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.



Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.



Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.



The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.



The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.



Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″



He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.



″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″



He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.



UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.



Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.



″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.



Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.



Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.



The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.
 
Today's climate report for Tulsa

48 deg. F
Humidity 48%
Wind Speed SW 7 mph
Barometer 29.95 in (1014.2 mb)
Dewpoint 29°F (-2°C)
Visibility 10.00 mi
Wind Chill 45°F (7°C)
Last update 3 Dec 10:53 am CST

Tonight 35 F
 
Really? A 30 year old document which has been peer reviewed and repeatedly updated. How about the study that Exxon circulated to Exxon management in 1982 that accurately predicted the climate damage that carbon emissions would cause?

The Chinese and Europeans are showing that it makes far more economic sense to invest in the businesses of the future instead of those that caused the problem and make it worse. Of course, you have have to funds to invest in R&D and implementation.

Speaking of scientific predictions, look at the projections of renewable energy capability which have changed yearly and still underestimate its capacity. Here's an example.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fenergyinnovation%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F05%2FAEO_solar_forecasts.jpg


If the popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, what does that say about Trump and US policy?
 
The Chinese and Europeans are showing that it makes far more economic sense to invest in the businesses of the future instead of those that caused the problem and make it worse. Of course, you have have to funds to invest in R&D and implementation.

You're correct....China showing the way:


China is set to add new coal-fired power plants equivalent to the European Union's entire capacity in a bid to boost its slowing economy, despite global pressure on the world's biggest energy consumer to rein in carbon emissions.

Across the country, 148 gigawatts of coal-fired plants are either being built or are about to begin construction, according to a report from Global Energy Monitor, a non-profit group that monitors coal stations. The current capacity of the entire EU coal fleet is 149 GW.

While the rest of the world has been largely reducing coal-powered capacity over the past two years, China is building so much new coal power that it more than offsets the decline elsewhere.

___

Also...the most conservative model prediction 30 years ago overstated warming 800% if you take the middle estimate of a 4 degree rise. I would hardly consider this accurate.
 
Last edited:
Saw this blast from the past the other day. The U.N. Climate Report from 30 years ago.


UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.



Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.



He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.



As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.



Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.



″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.



UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.



Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.



Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.



The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.



The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.



Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″



He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.



″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″



He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.



UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.



Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.



″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.



Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.



Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.



The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.
They must not have been using the Gregorian calendar.
 
I know the left will keep their heads buried in the sand on this topic but there really is no amount of money the US can spend to keep the world below the stated drop dead emissions line.
 
What's the evidence that projections ignore solar output and the scientific community is ignoring the CO2 increases are logarithmic? Somehow the entire scientific community missed this? They are all dummies?
 
China could keep its emissions in check. It just has to let people freeze. Pretty easy choice for most governments

 
Demonstrates the different mindset of the Chinese and US and why the current worldwide emissions drop dead line will never be met.
You do realize, that "as much coal as we need" Does not mean they (or the US) are producing EXCESS coal as compared to what would have happened if we hadn't had Covid. They're scrambling to make up for what wasn't mined during covid. Actually I take that back... they will probably use more coal in comparison to the Natural Gas that they would have used.... but in terms of their use of fossil fuels to gain BTU's it will be a similar share of what was planned in 2019 with maybe a different ratio of Coal to NG.
 
I realize they are building more coal fired plants than the rest of the world combined. I realize China isn’t phasing out fossil fuel plants before they have the capacity in the green sector. In fact, they are increasing fossil capacity to meet their demands going forward. I realize China will do what they need to do for China. There are people in this country which still don’t understand the Chinese mindset…or chose to ignore it. Again….there is zero we can do re climate change (drop dead number) as long as China and India are pursuing their current course regarding energy.

Looks like nuclear energy is picking up steam in Europe with France spending over $1B in new plants. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I realize they are building more coal fired plants than the rest of the world combined. I realize China isn’t phasing out fossil fuel plants before they have the capacity in the green sector. In fact, they are increasing fossil capacity to meet their demands going forward. I realize China will do what they need to do for China. There are people in this country which still don’t understand the Chinese mindset…or chose to ignore it. Again….there is zero we can do re climate change (drop dead number) as long as China and India are pursuing their current course regarding energy.

Looks like nuclear energy is picking up steam in Europe with France spending over $1B in new plants. Thoughts?
They’re starting to build micro nuclear plants as explorations in the US. Look up Natrium plants. The problem there is that the resource isn’t truly renewable so you’ll be paying to purchase and dispose of it.
 
As far as China goes, they are also outpacing the rest of the world combined in added wind renewables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
They’re starting to build micro nuclear plants as explorations in the US. Look up Natrium plants. The problem there is that the resource isn’t truly renewable so you’ll be paying to purchase and dispose of it.
I’ve read articles on those micro plants. Pretty nifty. Interested to see if they take off. Very high up front costs.

Wouldn’t China need to be adding more wind renewables than the rest of the work combined to make up for its coal fire power additions which of course are more than the rest of the world combined :)

Truth be told we shouldn’t be adding any news fissile fuel plants online. Keep existing until we have enough green to easily handle demand. Europe obviously missed that memo.
 
I’ve read articles on those micro plants. Pretty nifty. Interested to see if they take off. Very high up front costs.

Wouldn’t China need to be adding more wind renewables than the rest of the work combined to make up for its coal fire power additions which of course are more than the rest of the world combined :)

Truth be told we shouldn’t be adding any news fissile fuel plants online. Keep existing until we have enough green to easily handle demand. Europe obviously missed that memo.
I don't see the next big thing being any generation unit. It's going to be storage... be that pumped, battery, or some hybrid tech. It will allow us to quit wasting excess energy that we generate from Renewables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87
Climate science is more like economics that physics. The question becomes how much risk are you willing to live with when models contain uncertainty? How do you account for the economic harms to some parties by distorting the market with incentives for clean energy or prohibitions against fossil fuels? My dad is a retiree with modest income much of which comes from mineral rights on oil leases. Is it fair to him to create a system that reduces the value of his investment? And what of people who are engineers or oil workers?

Anyone who says this is easy and that oil is bad and solar panels good is not worth listening to imo.
 
Climate science is more like economics that physics. The question becomes how much risk are you willing to live with when models contain uncertainty? How do you account for the economic harms to some parties by distorting the market with incentives for clean energy or prohibitions against fossil fuels? My dad is a retiree with modest income much of which comes from mineral rights on oil leases. Is it fair to him to create a system that reduces the value of his investment? And what of people who are engineers or oil workers?

Anyone who says this is easy and that oil is bad and solar panels good is not worth listening to imo.
Mineral royalties are inherently volatile and should not be seen as a stable source of income for retirement. This is an issue that is not unique to any industry. The government's actions sometimes have detrimental outcomes for people microscopically, but macroscopically they're done for a reason. We're not going to refrain from building a bridge across the river just because the ferryman has a monopoly on the crossing at that part of the stream. How do you think the livery / stable owners in various cities felt about the government allowing / promoting the uses of automobiles?
 
I think compensation should be provided for those harmed by these policies. Otherwise I cannot support it.
 
I think compensation should be provided for those harmed by these policies. Otherwise I cannot support it.
Or those who might be harmed by the policies should have the foresight to see that their mineral rights aren't a cash cow to be milked in perpetuity.

Luckily, now might be a good time to sell to some schlub who doesn't see it that way.
 
Donald Trump drove me away from the Republican party, but I can certainly understand the pushback against this type of liberal arrogance.

The US has been successful with a free market economy with guardrails. I am simply saying that if we introduce governmental distortions meant to diminish a sector of the economy we should provide some type of compensation to those economically harmed. It is a bit like eminent domain. And it goes beyond mineral rights holders, it goes to the many people who have invested their education and careers in oil and gas.
 
I have ownership of mineral rights. (Gas ⛽ & oil) I hate that the income went way down from their heights for my parents.($100 a barrel) I hate that they are still down for myself. (But not rock bottom, fingers crossed this lasts for a while.)

But the government compensating me and the scads of others who own mineral rights, and employees whose livelihood is affected by the government influence on the energy industry would likely bankrupt our government. Just like doing all the things the Democrats support about climate change would bankrupt the economy.

Neither one is possible. I just have to live with my income being affected and move on. It's the reality of doing things to battle climate change where we can. Besides our government hasn't got the power 💪 to affect the industry to any monumental degree. You can blame lots of other institutions and governments equally. But even that small influence would take a big hunk out our governments funds.

If our government compensated every industry we have affected negatively for a greater cause, the government wouldn't be functional in that respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
I believe that Manchin's opposition to the climate change elements of the D spending plan is rooted in this - "how are we to be compensated for agreeing to forward the demise of a key engine of our economy." Or at least "how do we minimize or avoid the economic harm." It us a fair question. He would be a poor representative of his state otherwise.
 
I believe that Manchin's opposition to the climate change elements of the D spending plan is rooted in this - "how are we to be compensated for agreeing to forward the demise of a key engine of our economy." Or at least "how do we minimize or avoid the economic harm." It us a fair question. He would be a poor representative of his state
I acknowledge that it is an supposition with some controversy, but many intelligent scientists would argue that the long term consequences to both the US economy and the economy of WV due would be detrimented to a greater degree by being perpetually obstinate in response to climate change legislation. So he may be doing more of a disservice to his state’s population by taking the self serving / short sighted route.

Even given the necessity for fuels in our current transitional position, coal which is what he’s protecting is hardly a “key engine” of our economy in all but 2.5 states and until covid it was dying a natural death as natural gas supplanted it along with renewables.
 
Mancin may live in a separate state, but WV's environment and health aren't separate. Climate change is a slow rolling disaster that is taking decades to unfold and will last for centuries. Unfortunately those who think solely in terms of their own election cycles (or immediate profits) will make poor long term decisions.
 
The US has been successful with a free market economy with guardrails. I am simply saying that if we introduce governmental distortions meant to diminish a sector of the economy we should provide some type of compensation to those economically harmed. It is a bit like eminent domain. And it goes beyond mineral rights holders, it goes to the many people who have invested their education and careers in oil and gas.
What about the damages that dumping carbon into the atmosphere created? We are in our current situation because the full costs of using carbon based fuels have never been included in the market price. In fact carbon based industries have been heavily subsidized. Cigarette companies and hydorcondone which created private sector, subsidized fortunes are being asked to contribute to rectifying the damages they caused, not given further subsidies. Why should coal be further subsidized?

Having said that, Mancin is likely angling for federal help for coal miners and it would be a small price to pay unless we include those who have already been enriched off of coal.
 
Still waiting for you science deniers and mathematical challenged posters to explain to me how the measures thr Biden Admin are proposing will prevent the world from crossing the stated “point of no return” given the current actions of the rest of the world?

Hint….their a drop in the bucket when it comes to worldwide CO2 emissions over the next 20 plus years.

I support green energy btw. Would simply prefer some honesty in what we’re doing and the effect it will have on the worldwide emission numbers
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
That
What about the damages that dumping carbon into the atmosphere created? We are in our current situation because the full costs of using carbon based fuels have never been included in the market price. In fact carbon based industries have been heavily subsidized. Cigarette companies and hydorcondone which created private sector, subsidized fortunes are being asked to contribute to rectifying the damages they caused, not given further subsidies. Why should coal be further subsidized?

Having said that, Mancin is likely angling for federal help for coal miners and it would be a small price to pay unless we include those who have already been enriched off of coal.
Capitalization on fossil fuels was simply one step in human progress. We would not have automobiles or airplanes today without it. Thank God we did it so that I can take my family on far flung adventures and enjoy my comfortable air conditioned home.

I say this as someone who believes that carbon emissions are resulting in the planet warming. But it is silly to reduce this to "fossil fuels bad, oil and gas evil." Instead we need to give due respect to the backbone of modern civilization and the people who have worked hard and invested their lives in providing the amazing world we live in today. If we start there, we will do better in working together on what comes next.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT