EXTREME WEATHER: Climate change will continue to shift weather extremes, a new report warns.
Image: USFWS Southeast/Flickr
Climate change is shifting weather extremes, increasing the frequency of drought and heat waves and the intensity of rainstorms -- changes that will require the world's governments to change how they cope with natural disasters, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said today.
The report, written by more than 100 of the world's top scientists, recommends taking steps now to increase the world's ability to adapt and cope with climate extremes.
"The report finds much to be positive about, as far as the chance to make the world a better place at the same time we reduce risk and disaster losses," said Christopher Field, a Stanford University professor who leads the IPCC's working group on climate change impacts.
The key, according to the report, is to focus on what Field called "low-regret" strategies to help reduce future disaster risk while improving people's current livelihoods and well-being.
The report, the IPCC's first in-depth examination of extreme weather, was released in Kampala, Uganda, where researchers gathered this week to finalize their analysis.
IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri said he hoped governments gathering later this month in Durban, South Africa, for U.N. climate talks would pay heed to the report's conclusions.
"We need to sensitize the global community to the scientific reality of climate change, because therein lies the basis by which society can take action," Pachauri said. "If we do not give science the primacy it deserves ... I'm afraid you're not likely to get any action."
Tracking human-driven changes since the 1950s
The analysis describes wide-ranging changes in climate extremes since the middle of the last century, and says there is good evidence that some of those changes have been driven by human activities.
Those changes include an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, worldwide -- a shift that researchers said was "very likely," which in IPCC terms signifies 99-100 percent confidence in that conclusion.
The report says it is "likely" -- or a 66-100 percent chance -- that human activities have contributed to that shift.
There have been "statistically significant" changes in the number of heavy precipitation events in some areas, with more areas experiencing increases than decreases.
Researchers say they have "medium confidence" that humans have influenced those changes, and "medium confidence" that parts of the world, including southern Europe and West Africa, have seen more intense and longer droughts. Other areas, like central North America and northwestern Australia, have seen droughts becomes less frequent, less intense or shorter.
Researchers say they have low confidence of any long-term shifts in hurricane and tornado activity, and there is sparse evidence available to determine whether climate change has altered the magnitude and frequency of flooding.
Those trends are likely to continue and intensify through the end of the century, [without efforts to cut the world's output of greenhouse gases], the report says.
It predicts "substantial warming" of temperature extremes by 2100, with the length, frequency and intensity of heat waves increasing over most land areas.
Extreme heat expected by century's end
Extreme heat now considered a 1-in-20-year event will occur every 1-2 years by the end of the century in most parts of the world. In high northern latitudes, such heat waves will occur every 1-5 years by 2100, the report says.
Very hot days now considered 1-in-20-year extremes will grow 1.8-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by mid-century and 3.6-9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the end of the century.
See what we're tweeting about
58 Comments
Add CommentI find this all fascinating. Actually, I'd say there's a 99% chance that their statistics are wrong. I can say with 100% confidence that things are going to change. The climate will get warmer with periods of intense weather, then there will be cooler times with less intense weather and vice versa. We've seen this before; it's called history. The only thing lacking is common sense. I'd also say that the folks making these predictions don't have any skin in the game. They make predictions for a future they won't be alive for, yet they want to influence our behavior. Then if they're wrong, it won't matter, they'll be dead. The sky is falling, the sky is falling...The sky has always been falling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm 100% certain you're wrong about them not having "skin in the game" as you put it. They have just as much "skin in the game" as someone who creates a Will or a Trust. With your attitude, I just hope you don't have any skin in the game.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, those Stanford University professors don't know what they're talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExperts! Phooey!
You are assuming that these folks don't have children or grandchildren. The other thing to remember that not all these predictions are based on computer models - the geologic record also shows what happens when greenhouse gases increase several fold over a geologically very short time. Read up on the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. If you cannot stomach a technical paper on the issue, a good summary appeared in the latest issue of National Geographic that even you could understand. Humans are actually pumping GHG's into the atmosphere an order of magnitude faster than what happened 56 million years ago. The planet will go on as it always has. Whether it remains hospitable to 7 to 9 billion people is another question entirely and the answers so far don't look good. I won't be around in 2100 but MY grandchildren will be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is yet one more example of a very misleading article by unScientific American on the topic of potential climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExamples of the bias in the unScientific American article attempting to spread propaganda.
The articles headline “Climate Change Will Worsen Extreme Weather”
The report actually stated- “Extreme events are rare which means there are few data available to make assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity.”
That is NOT stating the same thing as the misleading SA headline.
Then there are the little scraps of bologna that unScientific American slips in like “written by more than 100 of the world's top scientists” – LOL- what was the evaluation the these scientists are the “top scientists” as compared to other scientists? It is written to try to appeal to the authority and infer that if one disagrees then they must be unscientific.
And finally, upon what data were the conclusions actually drawn? They were based upon GCMs that are demonstrated to not be able to accurately forecast real world conditions. This article is bologna and without scientific merit. Typical of this publication
I don't know what article you are talking about, but the original IPCC article linked here here said that the frequency of extreme events will rise, and that they have different degrees of confidence that different types of extreme event. Would you say what page in the article it says that there is not enough data?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also say that the conclusions are based on GCMs. Would you please cite the page where you find that?
Your real point, of course, is to criticize any and every bit of evidence supporting Global Climate Change, making it look like there is actually a scientific debate about it. Otherwise you would not bother to religiously comment on every single article about Global Climate Change that appears in this "unscientific" magazine. Is there a single other topic in which SA is so consistently derided as unscientific?
I say "religiously" for a reason. Denialists always accuse those who believe that Global Climate Change is happening of being brainwashed or unscientific, while that is exactly what they themselves are. They cannot imagine that those who believe it is happening are actually convinced by the science, because they themselves are not motivated by the science at all. Rather they are motivated by the desire to avoid having to do anything about the problem. It is a religious, ideological, or self-interested belief that the only way to avoid change is to claim that the science must be wrong, even if his means that thousands of climate scientists, are involved in a vast conspiracy. To the denialists it is solely a political, ideological struggle, and ridiculing the science is merely a tactic in that struggle.
Those who believe that Global Warming is happening try to convince the denialists that the science is robust, because they they themselves are convinced by the science. They fall into the denialist rhetorical traps, thinking that the denialists are actually sincere about investigating the science, when what they really want is to score political points.
WRONG!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese guys have PLENTY of skin in the game as they make predictions over a MUCH nearer time horizon than you think. AND, they've already pretty much hit the nail on the head with temperature predictions back in the 80s:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html
So, It's apparent that climatologists have a much better track record than your unscientific guesses. Yes the climate's changed before, but this time it's different:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Oh, and before you dismiss skepticalscience.com out of hand, they are merely and aggregator of scientific papers, so I'm saving you the trouble of finding the actual papers and slogging through all of them. I know, REAL science is HARD. I mean, you're so used to having your beliefs spoon-fed to you from talk radio and Faux News that you would have a lot of trouble reading through REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Unbelievable how many concocted reasons this once was respected magazine comes up with for keeping the need for climate taxes in the news. I wonder how they get their payoff?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAhh the so called evidence is only these gerry mandered climate models. You warmists need to be consistent. When you read SAs article on the PETM and I have posted many times about it, the consensus of you warmists is it doesnt count. Somehow you people have concluded no past event causes an real climate change of a destructive nature because it wasn't human caused. According to your warmist friends only human activity can have the effects you describe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I happen to agree with you. In fact the PETM started at 3 times the amount of CO2 concentration than today and grew to 5 times the amount of CO2. Explanations such as it was an indirect consequence of volcanism is amusing because somehow today volcanism, nor any other natural effect could be causing today's warming. Of course, the real data does show the past has been hotter and has had more CO2 in the air but what is amazing is the CO2 is a symptom of temperature rise not the other way around.
You have it right though, we are in an interglacial warming period and that is all.
The only religion occurring here is you warmists. You people "believe" your own rhetoric as if it was true, when it is based entirely on a flawed computer model. Your so called evidence is entirely based on statistics and guesses, nothing of your so called evidence works in any kind of real test. Then when you do look for evidence or test something, before it begins you have rigged the so called test or statistic to ensure the only outcome is proof of your human caused warming nonsense. It started with the first evidence collected in the 50s. An idiot scientist looks at CO2 and temp data and assumes a causal effect. To "prove" it was humanity he collects old data from the 1800s. Data done by "scientists" who were at best using marginal inconsistent methods and tools to measure with. The 1950s scientists used the criteria of if the 1800s data does not fit their preconceived belief in global warming then the data is ignored, any day that does support it, well that is good data and magically they decide it must be humans. Then make the computer model using this shoddy data and assumed constants like the supposed "perfect" concentration of CO2 or the global average temp, which has to actual meaning at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen you just call denialists, denialists, much the same way a religious fanatic will call evolutionists wuth the same sneer. The problem is we denialists do not have to prove anything. YOU have to prove you are right. We can't prove negatives. All we can do is take your evidence, test it and show the results.
Or observe reality, such as the last decade where your computer models "predicted" a massive heat wave in higher temps between 1998 and today, WHICH NEVER HAPPENED. BUT do you warmists accept the reality as observed? No you don't as a previous SA article demonstrates. Instead you people "tweak" your flawed computer models until the lost heat is found in the deep ocean. Hey it could be true but you warmists refuse to even contemplate you were wrong. It is just as likely the heat was never there but true as any religious fanatic is, reality does not matter only what it says in your computer bible models.
You are consistent I will give you that. Ahh lets see, the SA article posted about the Lost heat from the last decade is according to altered again computer models, in the deep ocean? Did you forget that article posted on SA? You commented on it just as I did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about that warmists from NASA predicting space aliens will smite humans out of existence because we are so dangerous for our lack of care over the environment?
Your predictions are not at all coming true or even remotely accurate. Of course most of these predictions are the world will come to an end due to CO2 sometime in the next 100 to 10000 years. Yeah that is a usable prediction.
BUT lets assume the natural climate change does have an effect with say more intense storms. So what. It is not as if humans will not adapt to this. Well it will be moderately difficult since you warmists are predicting every possible effect simultaneously, ice age, perpetual hurricanes or drought, etc... could you make up your minds on the doom you are predicting so we can prepare?
It is just as likely we merely have better vacation spots and farmland in canada and russia as it is somehow the entire planet will become immersed in a perpetual life killing mega storm that last for 10,000 years or whatever nonsense you people are saying now.
Let me know when you so called scientists move from "statistically significant" to actual results. Statistically significant is not proof of anything, the right math could "prove" elephants can fly and humans will grow gills. Or space aliens will come smite the evil humans because we don't care about the environment.
Besides, if the mild winters and summers we have been enjoying the last decade here in LA is any proof of global warming, I say lets keep it, it is very comfortable.
I think your reply speaks for itself. No data, no science, just a dogmatic repeat of the story of how all the research proves nothing and is all based on a grand conspiracy and flawed computer models. Do you get paid for this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Worsen'....???? not a scintific term. SA needs to keep the agenda out of science. Science is about description and not emotion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate will get warmer and cooler for sure, it always does. The question is how warm and how cool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I turn my oven on it will get warmer and when I turn it off it will get cooler, it always does.
It does not mean that I would want to live in an oven.
"CO2 is a symptom of temperature rise" ???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I drive my car the gasoline and oxygen combine in my engine and create a lot of heat and the energy to propel the car. What comes out of the tail pipe is CO2 and H2O and other gases such as NOx etc.
So yes you're right the CO2 comes out after the temperature rise in the engine but without the carbon there would be no temperature rise in the engine and no CO2 coming out.
In the past, the CO2 has increased in the atmosphere after an initial warming caused by the sun and something like a Milankovich change in the orbit of the earth. But once the CO2 is in the atmosphere it will keep the planet warmer for a long time.
A greenhouse does not work unless there is an initial warming usually by the sun but sometimes by fossil and other fuels. But once the greenhouse has been warmed it will cool down a lot slower than the surroundings because the glass has small insulating and large isolating properties.
That is why greenhouses at the north pole or the south pole are a very rare sight and they could never work in the polar winter unless there is an internal source of heat such as a large stove or a large furnace.
Make no mistake, without the sun the planet would be at least 200 degrees Celsius colder than today BUT with the sun and without greenhouse gasses the temperature would be 30 degrees colder than today.
So, we enjoy the large warmth of the sun (200 degrees) and the additional smaller warmth of the greenhouse gasses (30 degrees) that give us ~15 degrees Celsius as an average temperature for the earth .
BUT without the greenhouse gasses (-30 degrees) we would be freezing in most places on the planet if not everywhere.
Now if you increase the warmth of the sun or the warmth from the greenhouse gasses things could get equally uncomfortable on the hot side.
Both the sun and the greenhouse gasses work together to keep the planet warm. If you increase either one, or heaven forbid, both at once you will be very uncomfortable.
What is so hard to understand?
I think that science and scientists can use all of the english language and all other languages to boot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere does it say that "Worsen" is not a scientific term?
As to emotion, let me tell you that there would be no science without emotion.
I for one am thrilled by science but I guess you would call "thrilled" an unemotional and unscientific term.
When do you guys get off your soapboxes?
To have people believe in predictions like this they are going to have to have seen the change themselves. I remember when the eco-believers tried to sell the case that we had Katrina because Bush wouldn't ratify Kyoto. Of course we've had six years now without a hurricane here in South Florida, Hurricane Central, so true believers in more extreme climate are hard to find around here. In fact each year when the NHC comes out with its gloom and doom forecasts they are increasingly looked upon for what they are - political rather than meteorological. Or alternatively as not knowing what they claim to know. Just like climatologists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"CO2 in the air but what is amazing is the CO2 is a symptom of temperature rise not the other way around" is only true as conditions are changing. In a "normal" transition from glacial to interglacial conditions, changes in the Earth's orbit, and inclination (a.k.a. Milankovich cycles) will initiate the warming and as the oceans warm, CO2 is released from the water. Ya know, warmer water holds less disovled gas than cold water (that's called basic science). This process leads to a synergistic effect (also basic science) wherein increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more warming and more CO2 released and so on. It has been demonstrated over and over again that volcanic activity or changes in solar activity cannot account for the temprature changes that have occurred over the last century, which have been coincident with population growth on our planet and increased industrialization. Only increased GHG's in our atmosphere can explain the facts as we know them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you all think this is so much hocum - why is the U.S. Military doing planning around potential conflicts associated with climate change? Why are the major insurance and re-insurance companys around the world taking this issue seriously and adjusting their risk analyses and rates accordingly?
You don't need sophisticated computer models to predict how increased GHGs in the atmosphere will effect the climate. The physical principles were established over a century ago using nothing more than paper and pencil and mathematical skills. The science here is very sound, the data support it.
Incidentally - warming is not the only problem - it's climate instability. Again, the geologic record shows what happens when things like the North Atlantic circulation shuts down due to melting Arctic ice caps. Read publications by Richard Alley of Penn State, who has studied this issue extensively.
So, go ahead and persist with the ad hominem attacks and arguments unsupported by the data. Does not change the reality of what is happening.
I know writing this won't do any good because people are so entrenched on both sides. My personal opinion is that the science is very good, but this is just a few general observations. Firstly, when did Hollywood become the hallmark of what climate scientists think? Honestly, people are laying accusations based on the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Day after Tomorrow. These were science fiction movies the key word there is fiction. If anyone on either side of the debate are using these movies as "evidence" they really shouldn't be listened to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, the climate does of course change naturally. I'm not sure there is a legitimate scientist on the planet who denies that. In point of fact, many archaeologists believe that the rise of agriculture was an adaptation to a large-scale climate event known as the Younger Dryas. The question today is how much of the current climate change is caused by man made activity. We know from multiple lines of evidence that the planet is getting warmer which to a certain extent has nothing to do with human activity the earth is simply exiting its current ice age (defined as ice existing at the polls) through the regular cycle of interglacial periods. However, there does seem to be an acceleration in warming not explained by traditional climate driving mechanisms such as volcanism or solar output. Additionally, during the same period of time humans have been releasing large quantities of carbon compounds which have not been part of the carbon cycle in a very long time. For instance, coal was largely created during the Carboniferous era and we know increased carbon dioxide has an effect on climate. So the question really isn't does climate change, but how much of the current change is being driven by human activity and can we slow the degree of change sufficiently to allow for natural adaptation?
Inevitably, someone will say that the CO2 data is flawed or all of the predictions are based on models which don't pan out. But all of the data is wrong? Including mud core samples testing the salt concentration of past ice ages, or testing the relative concentration of normal H2O compared with heavier versions of H2O trapped in the shells of deep-sea crustaceans. Because both saltwater and heavywater freeze at slightly lower temperatures than fresh water so the concentration increases as more fresh water becomes landlocked. The point is all of this data tells the story of what normal climate cycles look like over time and we can say that the current climate change is distinctly different. Since scientists believe in a causal world they are looking for the most probable cause which seems to be human activity for this divergence. I only mention it because nobody ever discusses that data and it is probably the great failing of the scientific community including Scientific American. Ultimately, the scientific community is doing a very poor job of explaining all the lines of evidence. This is not based on one study or one scientific discipline, it is multidisciplinary and it is all pointing the same way.
Finally, for the people who say it simply doesn't matter. Most people agree that humans can adapt to severe climate change, however, can our large sources of food do the same? Will corn, rice, barley, wheat, cattle, pigs, chickens be able to do the same? Furthermore, when civilizations reach the carrying capacity of their environment and we are damn close, if not already passed it they tend to fall apart when the climate becomes unfavorable look at the Toltec or ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi). These are specific examples, but it has happened all over the world to multiple civilizations. This is the real concern of the scientific community, not that we won't adapt or that the world will certainly come to an end but rather civilization as we understand it will no longer be sustainable.
Mitigation is MUCH cheaper than adaptation. Don't you think a reasonable tax on carbon emissions is cheaper than building sea walls around NYC, Miami, New Orleans, etc.? I mean, since CO2 traps heat and we've already increased it's concentration in the atmosphere by 40%, shouldn't we take steps as soon as possible to curb our emissions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour line of logic sounds like, "Nah, we don't need to take our foot off the gas before we hit that brick wall up ahead because we've got seatbelts in this car! Eh, and I mean, the car goes faster downhill and slower uphill, so taking my foot off the gas isn't going to do anything, really. You know, even though 98% of scientists say that taking your foot of the accelerator will slow down your car, I'm just going to trust in the 2% of scientists (paid by auto repair companies and hospitals, no less!) and HOPE everything turns out alright!"
To all climate change deniers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf humans aren't warming up the climate, then what natural forcing is? This mysterious climate forcing has to warm days faster than nights, the poles faster than the tropics, warm the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere AND somehow cancel out the 1.7 W/m2 that the 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere WE HAVE CAUSED is forcing on the climate system. (over the entire surface of the earth, this is over 50,000 TIMES the amount of heat given off by ALL fossil fuel combustion EVERY YEAR) It also has to warm the earth by .7C over the course of the 20th Century despite the negative forcing of aerosols present for most of the period.
If you can't do any of those things, then please just point me to the scientific paper(s) that you use to form your opinions on climate change. If you can't, this is merely a political discussion and does not belong on SCIENTIFIC American.
Lol, there is nothing complex to understand. The problem is you people think CO2 is somehow the only factor involved in global warming. It is natural. Now if you want to say the heat we create with engines, cooking, heating homes and 7 billion people with their livestock all generating about 98% of warmth are contributing to the planets rise in temperature then great, I would actually buy that theory. BUT to claim a miniscule amount of a molecule with the least effect on greenhouse effects when compared to say methane or water vapor, an miniscule increase in this molecule is the sole and only reason for the global warming is insane. Even in the PETM, the theory is methane was the initial cause of that rise and there was no explanation as to why it was warmer to before it started.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other problem is you people seem to think the greenhouse effect is one way when it should be reflecting back into space as well as reflecting back to earth. If your belief were true then sunlight would have no effect, which means you people can't explain the past natural warmings because there was no other heat source prior to humans but the sun.
Now if you want to say the heat humans are generating are raising the temperature, then sure go for it but it will have nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with the actual heat we do produce.
As far as evidence for temperature rises occuring before CO2 rising. Well when you dont cherry pick and rig data from ice core samples, then it does in fact show temperature goes up first. Which makes sense, as the SA article speculated that as temps rose more and more methane was released, raising the temperature. As it gets warmer more water vapor will be in the air and sure likely more CO2 but that means the heat source occurs first and you need all three molecules contributing to the heating effect not just one.
How to observe this? Well go outside on a hot day and tell me if the heat index is a measure of water vapor trapping heat near the ground or CO2.
Basically friend, the problem is even if global warming is human caused, you are focusing on the wrong cause.
No I dont get paid. BUT you global warmists and your investments in your snake oil companies with all of your magic methods to mitigate a non-existent problem then tax us for it are certainly getting paid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing how you think observed reality is not data. Just look outside one day instead of your computer model and see that your predictions are not happening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is easy to see the planet appears warmer than say the late 70s when I was a kid. Is this abnormal, no. This happens all through history. Is it human caused, maybe. Is that cause only CO2 and nothing else, unlikely. CO2 does not trap heat as well as other molecules. Also, the heat 7 billion people generate in their cars, houses, buildings, factories, food production, and from their bodies all are likely contributing to the climate change.
My issue is you people have declared one of the 3 molecules that is the base of carbon life on this planet as a toxin and plan to screw around with it. Then while you waste time and money on this, the real problem is not resolved leaving us with the out of control warming you people predict. Plus if I am right and it is natural, as it has been every other time, then these efforts will also do nothing and waste time.
It is better to mitigate the effects and be prepared for warming so we cover our bases weather or not it is natural.
I also have issue with the predictions of war and insanity, since you brought it up. Most humans are not going to wake up one day, throw in the towel and start killing everyone they see as a result of warming. People will migrate to locations where the climate supports life and abandon areas where it does not support life. People who will war, well most of them are in countries in africa and the middle east and the last time I checked those people have been at war for the last couple thousand years and it does not appear like they plan to stop anytime soon. Global warming will have no effect. Middle eastern psycho imams, african warlards and crazed dictators will still be trying to kill everyone post global warming as they do now and the People in the rest of the world will deal with life and continue living.
Mitigation of the effects are what we should do. I agree actually with reducing pollution. Go ahead and make only hybrids and find an alternative fuel and etc... there is nothing at all wrong with this. BUT if you people are wrong and this is natural we are still screwed and we need to be ready. Also, you cant discount previous natural events such as what ever unknown process caused the PETM, which even you have to admit was far worse than anything predicted to happen today. We plan for adaptation then any natural or human caused problem can be dealt with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHell no on a tax. You show me the last time handing the government money amounted to anything but politicians lining the pockets of their buddies. Unless you can prove money decaying into CO2 is causing global warming and taxing it removes the money from the environment you have nothing here going on. Private companies investing in technologies to achieve the goal of less carbon output is the best and only option we have. Government is never the answer to anything.
Why will capitalism do it, simple people like making money and anyone who comes up with alternative fuels, foods and etc... will make tons of money, far more than what is made on fossil fuels.
What I want to know is why you people do not count the heat we generate as a 7 billion population planet and everything we make, have, live in, produce and cook. Could it be possible simply the massive number of people all producing heat from any source is the problem and CO2, methane, water vapor are increasing as a result of our mere existence? something to think about.
As far as cheaper to build walls, move NYC or just abandon it or create new building techniques that allow us to have the city survive in an ocean instead of on land. Assuming of course sea levels will rise at all but as I said, natural occurrence of warming do happen. We may want to consider being able to build cities in oceans anyway just because we will need some place for 14 billion people to live and it is probably better to not use arable land for housing them all.
Ahh the PETM created 5 times more CO2 than your oh so awful 40%, which is .039% of the atmosphere. Plus before the PETM it was 3 times more than today. So clearly some natural effect raised the temperatures and CO2 before the PETM and even more during it and we don't know why but we do know it was not humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo that is one warming event with high CO2 that was definitely natural even if we don't know the cause.
Every interglacial warming period. We have had ice ages, with unknown causes and those end, with a warming period where temp and CO2 rises, for unknown reasons and then drop again into an ice age. Pretty sure none of these warming periods are human caused.
Warming in the medieval period, caused by???
You tell me this Sault, by what scientific proof, method or reason do you accept what the warmists and their computer models claim for the existence of an average global temperature and a normal concentration of CO2? Four billion years of existence for planet earth and you warmists have decided only the last few thousand years matter. When as soon as you go back a few million years, your claims are go away because nothing happening today is unusual for the planet.
priddseren, would you mind saying where you get your information? It is so far from anything scientific that I wonder if it was made up by a Fox news commentator. Seriously, are you making this up or are you getting it from some web site somewhere?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say: "Now if you want to say the heat we create with engines, cooking, heating homes and 7 billion people with their livestock all generating about 98% of warmth are contributing to the planets rise in temperature then great, I would actually buy that theory."
The amount of heat generated by these processes is incredibly tiny compared with the amount of heat trapped by the CO2 generated by these processes.
You say: "BUT to claim a miniscule amount of a molecule with the least effect on greenhouse effects when compared to say methane or water vapor, an miniscule increase in this molecule is the sole and only reason for the global warming is insane."
Show your math. Claiming it is not having an effect means nothing unless you can actually support that claim with calculations.
You say: "Even in the PETM, the theory is methane was the initial cause of that rise and there was no explanation as to why it was warmer to before it started."
Not true. One possible cause of the initial rise was that when Pangaea started breaking up, the enormous heat from the volcanic activity baked the sedimentary layers, releasing vast amounts of CO2 and causing a greenhouse effect. Then the temperature rise heated the oceans so that methane clathrates outgassed from the sea bed, causing a bigger greenhouse effect and a much greater rise in temperature. This process of melting the methyl clathrates could easily happen now, and then it would feed on itself and become unstoppable and cataclysmic. But the earth would survive, of course.
You say: "The other problem is you people seem to think the greenhouse effect is one way when it should be reflecting back into space as well as reflecting back to earth."
But then it would not be a "greenhouse". The way greenhouses work is that the glass admits VISIBLE light which is absorbed on the ground, and then the glass traps the infrared light which is radiated by the warmer ground.
Are you seriously admitting that you don't even know how a greenhouse works? This is kind of basic to the whole debate, don't you think? If someone is feeding you "information" to post here, maybe you'd better check it out before you post it, because it makes you look kind of silly.
The climate reacts to temperature differences in much the same way as any heat engine. The Carnot Cycle dictates that to perform work a heat engine must have a temperature differential, hot on one side of the equation & cold on the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe claim by the AGW proponents, that it is primarily the temperate & Polar Regions that will suffer increased temperatures, more so than tropical regions, would result in smaller temperature differentials between the tropics & Polar Regions & is much more likely to result in fewer & milder storms. Not the other way around. But then who is going to fund research on a non alarmist proposition?
I agree. Post 25. There is an old German proverb. "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing". In more modern terms, "Follow the money". Billions on the pro AGW side & peanuts to fund critical scepticism. Those who do not understand the imperative necessity of healthy scepticism frequently also fail to understand the necessity of a vigorous opposition in a well functioning democracy, preferring a dictatorship model of governance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"'Worsen'....???? not a scintific term. SA needs to keep the agenda out of science. Science is about description and not emotion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlike "scintific", "worsen" is an actual word.
NO ONE is saying that CO2 is the only thing affecting the climate. However, if you were actually informed on this issue, you would know that our CO2 emissions are throwing the Earth's climate out of the delicate balance it has sustained or around 10,000 years. We're also releasing a lot of methane due to our agricultural practices and from melting the permafrost through our carbon emissions. The methane AMPLIFIES the warming due to CO2 as it's a positive feedback. The same goes for melting ice, especially in the Arctic because the ice cap up there is in a death spiral and we could have a basically ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer by mid-century. Since the open ocean absorbs more sunlight than the reflective white ice, that's another positive feedback that AMPLIFIES the warming caused by our CO2 emissions. Finally, since warmer water can't hold as much dissolved gas as cooler water, the oceans of the world will start to become a carbon source as they warm instead of the carbon sink they are currently. This too AMPLIFIES the initial warming of our carbon emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you actually knew anything about climate science, you would understand that the only real debate going on in the scientific community is about the range of the Earth's climate sensitivity to the equivalent forcing of doubled CO2. Everything else, from the spectral properties of CO2, to our contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere and even the W/m2 that our CO2 keeps from escaping into space is settled and not in question. All climate sensitivity studies point to a value of 2.5C - 4C for a doubling of CO2. From studies of past climate, we know rather well what this increase in average global temperature will do to melting ice and sea level rise. If you actually FOLLOWED the REAL SCIENCE on this issue, you would know what I'm taking about.
Try reading the report-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn page 5 under “CLIMATE EXTREMES AND IMPACTS” the article states
“Extreme events are rare which means there are few data available to make assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity.”
Everything written after page 19 and all the graphs are related to GCMs. None of these models have been able to accurately predict rainfall or temperature 1 or 2 years into the future, but you wish to believe them to be reliable 50 years into the future??? Why? Based on your faith??
Sorry, I have no religious faith. I am not a republican. I am an engineer who has studied the issue and who does not believe that cAGW is proven, or is even likely to be a problem the US should be overly worried about.
sault--you are a fool if you believe mitigation is economically more effective than adaption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it a US problem that India etc do not build infrastructure to protect againest floods or to retain water to protect againest drought? Did the US somehow cause their population growth?
sault--you are a fool if you believe mitigation is economically more effective than adaption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it a US problem that India etc do not build infrastructure to protect againest floods or to retain water to protect againest drought? Did the US somehow cause their population growth?
Ok, but where is the disconnect in your mind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 traps heat -> We've increased it's concentration by 40% -> 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere causes 1.7W/m2 that would normally be radiated away to space to instead stay trapped in the Earth's climate "system" or control volume -> ALL reputable science (paleoclimatology, GCMs, current atmospheric science, etc.) points to the Earth's climate sensitivity being between 2.5C and 4C for a forcing equivalent to doubling CO2 to 560ppm
2.5C - 4C may not sound like much, but that will change the viable habitat range of innumerable species, melt the Arctic Ice Cap along with many of the world's Alpine glaciers while changing which crops can be grown where. The melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of water is already raising sea levels 3mm a year and that will accelerate as the warming speeds up.
Shouldn't we take steps now to reduce our fossil fuel consumption? We import 1/2 or oil and coal destroys $2 of our economy for every $1 it creates in electricity:
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
In addition, these fuels are running out and since no one, not Exxon nor the peak oil crowd, know WHEN oil will peak (the local peak in 2006 could turn out to be a GLOBAL peak, both mathematically and literally), shouldn't we start transitioning to clean energy as soon as we can just so we're prepared when the Saudis say, "Oopsie, we ran out!" or when Peabody Coal says, "Crap, we done run outta coal!"? Since mercury, SOx, ash and particulate matter damage people's health, shouldn't we require our power plants to be as clean as possible, well unless you favor profits over people like CERTAIN political parties... And since carbon traps heat and is contributing to climate change, shouldn't we attach a reasonable price tag to use the atmosphere as an open sewer? I mean, it's only fair and conforms to Free Market principles. I'm just sayin'
Who are you to call me a fool? Where's your degree in economics, atmospheric science or any relevant field? How is adaptation cheaper than mitigation? Do you even KNOW how expensive it is to build sea walls, relocate ENTIRE cities, desalinate water for irrigation or ANY NUMBER of adaptation measures we will need? Besides, WHAT set of climate conditions do you adapt to? Do you know? Does James Hansen know? I'll be the first to admit that they don't, but since CO2 traps heat, the costs will be DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to our cumulative emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this$20 per ton is a pittance to saving even ONE city from sea level rise but would go a long way to correct the numerous market failures that make fossil fuels artificially cheap. You can look at my link about the damages just coal power inflicts on our economy. $20 per ton sounds about right and that's just what Australia did recently. I can't believe the Aussies have better critical thinking skills than Americans, but I guess it goes with the fact that their continent has seen some of the worst effects of climate change so far...
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou actually raised reasonable points here so I will provide reasonable responses.
I do not question the basic physics that show that additional atmospheric CO2 will raise temperatures somewhat. I do question those who claim to be certain as to what the rate of that rise will be over a longer term basis. Imo we are not at all certain of the impact of things such as, but not limited to; the impact of the deep oceans, the changes in non human emissions and absorption rates over time, and the specific radiant value forcing in the actual environment. Again, in summary, yes warming is happening, but Imo the data shows it is at the lower end of the estimates. Btw-it is not GCM’s that report the degree of warming due to CO2, that is programmed into a model to determine the effect on circulation.
Sault writes: “Shouldn't we take steps now to reduce our fossil fuel consumption?”
My response: Yes, the US should reduce our fossil fuel consumption.
Sault writes: “We import 1/2 or oil and coal destroys $2 of our economy for every $1 it creates in electricity“:
My response: The paper you provided a link to offered a “concept” that the US economy does not take into consideration the cost of potential damage to the environment when determining the cost of a “building permit”. The formula they used in the paper to determine the value of the environmental damage is heavily weighted to support the case, as is the numbers they assigned to each sector of the economy. The concept of the paper is fine Imo and the citizenry should make informed decisions about the types of industries that are encouraged based on these types of analysis, although not necessarily with this formula or weightings.
Sault writes: a bunch of stuff about Exxon, peak oil etc to support using non oil technology to produce power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response: I would fully support US activities to eliminate the need to import oil from outside of North America as quickly as possible. It is the specifics on this that matter.
Imo it would be great if the US contracted with companies to build and operate large numbers of very modern nuclear plants. In order for this to be done in a very cost effective manner I’d recommend vastly streamlining the bureaucratic approval process and building multiple plants to standard designs.
In terms of other methods of generating power I support whatever makes economic sense. That usually does not mean the government actually determining the type of power plant that is built, but contracting for a plant of a certain capacity to be built and operated at a certain cost per unit and operating efficiency over a period of years.
Sault: as it happens my undergrad is in aero engineering and I have a masters in macro economics. That does not mean I am always right, but it usually means I will look at the issue based upon sound facts and data.
When you look at the numbers on mitigation you spend a large amount of resources to make pretty small impact on global CO2 levels which ends up having zero measurable impact on the global climate. As an example if you shut down all coal fired power plants in the US at a cost of about 1.5 trillion, it would avoid a temperature rise of less than .08C.
Adaptation on the other hand involves the building of proper infrastructure to prepare for long term variability in the climate. To prevent damage from flooding, build proper drainage systems. To prepare for potential longer dry periods, build larger water retention facilities. The difference in the cost when building facilities initially is very small to build say a bigger dam or to put better pumps in the sewer system. The most damage to humanity due to climate is due to a lack of preparation, and that is most frequently due to corruption.
Sault writes: a bunch about the harms from potential sea level rise and the Aussies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response: sea level is currently rising at less than 1 foot per century and there is no data since we have had accurate information on the subject from satellites to correlate the rise to CO2 levels. There is nothing the US can do to stop the long term worldwide emissions of CO2 to increase. To implement a “fuel tax” or “carbon tax” to raise revenue for a country may well be effective. To do so to try to prevent the climate from changing is foolish, because the impact will be virtually immeasurable.
If you doubt that AGW is a religious movement, or want further confirmation, a little background giving an insight into the beliefs of the head of the IPCC is in order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d6LdX90t50&feature=related
Agreed, no one is sure EXACTLY what our CO2-induced warming will cause, but that's why we make TONS of models and run them TONS of times to come out with a range of projections. Since we are ACTUALLY on the HIGH END of temperature forecasts currently, I don't know where you get the claim that "the data shows it is at the lower end of the estimates."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf
Page 30 of
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process:
"In this regard, our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
So, I don't know where you've read that observed temperatures are on the "low end" of projections, but that source is WRONG.
As for the forcing due to CO2, that's not climate models but the actual physical properties of the gas and the OBSERVED changes in re-radiated IR we've seen since the 70s due to increased CO2 in the air. Therefore, it's apparent that you've been using some bad sources to inform yourself on climate change.
$20 per ton C translates to $120B per year in the U.S. But you want to spend trillions on sea walls and "water retention facilities"...you mean dams with reservoirs? Ok, so if you can do that in a worsening climate, you'll build your "water retention facility" and then the climate will change even more (because you're too lazy to stop emitting carbon) and then, just like Lake Mead, you'll start running low on water. You want us to spend 10x - 100x as much treating the SYMPTOMS of climate change instead of the cause because...why again? Since fossil fuels are running out anyway AND their "traditional" pollution damages destroy so much value in our economy, shouldn't a modest fee on using the atmosphere as an open sewer help a little in correcting Market Failures so the Free Market can make more efficient decisions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat video seems to be an advertisement for a book about living spiritually, and the commentator claims that someone sent a copy to the chairman of the IPCC. The commentator also claims that the chairman said he would try out some techniques in the book, and sent the book to a library. At no point does the chairman appear in the video, or appear to do anything except be polite about receiving an unsolicited gift. You are left to infer, if you wish, that the chairman approves of living spiritually, which would not be surprising in a person from India. What possible role could this have in the context of GCW?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"On page 5 under CLIMATE EXTREMES AND IMPACTS the article states
Extreme events are rare which means there are few data available to make assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity. "
Thank you for pointing out the text.
Taken out of context this seems to say that there is not enough data to make assessments about changes in the extreme events. On the contrary, this section of the report says that some extreme events are rarer than others, and that affects the confidence that the authors have in different trends. Some trends are very clear and the authors have very high confidence in saying they are increasing in severity and/or frequency. Some trends are based on fewer data points and the authors have less confidence that the increases are real. Sounds like the authors are doing what real scientists do, which is make clear what conclusions are strong and which are weaker.
If you were to follow their example, which trends do you have confidence in and which do you have less confidence in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko says: "Sorry, I have no religious faith. I am not a republican. I am an engineer who has studied the issue and who does not believe that cAGW is proven, or is even likely to be a problem the US should be overly worried about."
If you are an engineer, you must be familiar with taking into account the consequences of failure of parts of a construction, whether it be a car, a nuclear power plant, a software program, or whatever it is you build. I'm sure you frequently evaluate the risk of failure, and take steps to make sure that even unlikely failures won't be catastrophic if they happen. For example, no "real" engineer would build nuclear power plants on a seacoast subject to massive earthquakes and tsunamis.
On the other hand, are you one of those optimists that takes risks, even if it has a pretty good chance of killing you, like free soloing mountain climbers? What if it has a pretty good chance of killing your grandchildren? Would you happen to be one of those GE engineers that really did build several nuclear power plants on a seacoast subject to massive earthquakes and tsunamis?
What are you willing to put at risk to avoid the bother of reducing the consequences of Global Warming? Would you bet, say, $100 that GCW is false? How about $100,000? How about New Orleans? Bangladesh? Western Civilization? How about the survival of the human species?
Re post 43. According to the video, the chairman of the IPCC strongly endorsed the book. What I am pointing out is that the head of the IPCC brings his religious beliefs to his job. How come obviously unscientific pronouncements from the head of the IPCC are OK? If a prominent sceptic was putting a religious spin on the subject, there would be outrage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change). http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687815_1_harmony-green-drive-renewable-energy-sources
Here is the entire text of the story about Pachauri:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"COIMBATORE: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change."
"Addressing students at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham on the sixteenth Institution Day Celebrations here on Friday, he lauded the efforts of the administration, pertaining to their green drive."
I see absolutely nothing either express or implied about religion in this, nor derived from it. There is plenty of scientific data proving that humans are interfering with the delicate balance of nature, causing all of those disasters. What do you see in the article that qualifies as "obviously unscientific"?
Climate skeptics put religious spin on the subject all the time. Some Christians have a fundamental belief that humans are not capable of altering the world created by God. Is Senator James Inhofe prominent enough?
It is part of the Hindu faith that humans have a spiritual relationship with nature that crosses over into having a physical influence, even on such things as earthquakes. He is Hindu as is the institute he heads & the book he promotes earlier referred to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not care what religion he ascribes to. I do object when religious beliefs impinge on scientific facts.
If his statement was not based on his religious beliefs, please tell me on what basis was this claim made. Are you saying he is scientifically correct? This is not just anyone, this is the head of the IPCC whose pronouncements have lead to governments spending billions of dollars. AGW is a religion.
I just can't imagine why people don't just trust the science and do as they're told they should do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mean, look at the success we've had in reducing the hole in the ozone layer. We got rid of those nasty ozone-depleting CFCs and replaced them with HFCs, and stopped pumping SO2 into the air, and the ozone hole over the Antarctic has been shrinking.
Never mind the fact that HFCs are greenhouse gasses more potent than CO2, that SO2 was mitigating the effects of CO2 (and geo-engineers even want to pump MORE SO2 into the sky, just higher up). Forget the fact that a new ozone hole is appearing over the Arctic. Science was right about the first ozone hole, and they fixed it!
Just do as Science says and everything will get better. Science is infallible!
For the recore I DO believe in climate change, I DO believe that man has made a major contribution to it. It's the people who claim the solution is simple and easy and without unintended consequences that I'm afraid to trust.
I'm still waiting for a plan that includes WHO has to give up WHAT in order to reduce carbon emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions, and who is going to enforce such decisions, and how?
Preach all you want about the concensus of science about the facts and causes of global warming, I've already stipulated to all of that.
Where is the concensus, even in the scientific community, about how to fix it and what to sacrifice to make the fix happen? Are you going to convert all the deniers and THEN come up with a plan?
And to those of you who don't care WHAT it costs and believe NO sacrifice, whether personal or national, can be too dear a price, good, you go first. Get off the internet (and don't come back), throw away your phone, junk your car and walk everywhere...or does your sacrifice suddenly seem like a burden when it becomes bigger than MY sacrifice...and if so, can you hear me NOW?
I agree that humans don't cause earthquakes and tsunamis directly, but humans can trigger them indirectly. Fracking apparently causes earthquakes, small ones, but they are still earthquakes. Global warming may increase rainfall, which can trigger mudslides and landslides, which cause tsunamis far larger than the ones we have seen caused by earthquakes. And increased rainfall could also cause more water to seep into the enormous rock formations in Hawaii that are poised to fall into the ocean. Previous such rock formations caused tsunamis that may have been a thousand feet high.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't tell if he is using his Hindu background or his scientific background when he is speaking to students, but what matters is his scientific judgment. You seem to be trying to discredit him with these factoids. Have you come across any evidence at all that he uses any religious beliefs when evaluating the science? Is there any evidence that he even is in a position to use his religious beliefs to sway the authors of the reports?
Ken says: "It's the people who claim the solution is simple and easy and without unintended consequences that I'm afraid to trust."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have it backwards. We are increasing the CO2 levels every day and the unintended consequences are enormous. Even if we stopped today, things would get worse for awhile before they get better. So maybe there will be unintended consequences if we stop emissions, but those will be human scale consequences that we should be able to handle much easier than the results of Global Warming.
Ken says: "I'm still waiting for a plan that includes WHO has to give up WHAT in order to reduce carbon emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions, and who is going to enforce such decisions, and how?"
Using energy more efficiently and using renewable resources instead of fossil fuels do not imply a lower life style. Having better insulated houses is not a lifestyle sacrifice. Nor is using electric cars, putting solar panels over parking lots, painting roofs white, etc. They are merely expensive.
The problem is that the only people who actually have to give up anything is the fossil fuel industry, and they currently have the political power to veto any attempts to reduce it.
Ken says: "And to those of you who don't care WHAT it costs and believe NO sacrifice, whether personal or national, can be too dear a price, good, you go first. Get off the internet (and don't come back), throw away your phone, junk your car and walk everywhere...or does your sacrifice suddenly seem like a burden when it becomes bigger than MY sacrifice...and if so, can you hear me NOW?"
You are setting up a straw man here. I have never heard of anyone taking such a stupid, extreme position. I have made sacrifices to reduce emissions and even though I see thousands of people every day who apparently make no attempt to conserve energy at all, I don't regret my sacrifices.
NOBODY thinks it doesn't matter what it costs, or that NO sacrifice is too dear. There are plenty of cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. Putting a solar array on the roof will pay for itself within a few years, even without subsidies. You can hardly call something a sacrifice if it makes you money. Entire school districts have put solar arrays over their parking lots, saving millions of dollars in energy costs. Where's the sacrifice?
Can you hear me now?
Well Done Greenmind. What an elegant and concise summary of the motivations of the denialist lobby. It all boils down to 'sod the future, I want my consumer lifestyle now.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, GreenMind, but you may be suffering from location bias. You said "Putting a solar array on the roof will pay for itself within a few years..." but here in Indiana the cost of solar electric is 4 or 5 times what I would pay the electric company. If Indiana starts to subsidize, then I will pay for it whether I use it or not. Either way, solar is not cost effective overall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther measures, such as insulation, hybrid or electric cars, or (I'm surprised you didn't mention) LED lightbulbs, ARE cost effective here in Indiana, but we are talking about a large investment up front that will take years to even out. In this economy, what percentage of people have several thousand dollars they can spend today in the hope it will pay for itself over 3 or 4 years?
The more energy efficient a car is, the smaller it is, so buying one is a lifestyle change. It can be an even bigger lifestyle change with a pure electric car, because now you have to keep it charged. Changes that are easy for me to make can be very difficult for others. I'm single, I could make a Prius work for me, but Ms Soccer Mom can't and I don't blame her for not trying.
Do you really think people avoid energy efficient measures on principle? There is a hardcore denier in this comment thread who lives as green as he can because it makes financial sense where he lives, and he has the means to make the up front investment.
You said "The problem is that the only people who actually have to give up anything is the fossil fuel industry...", but the fact is they would lose NOTHING until we use absolutely NONE of their products. As consumption goes down, price goes up so that profits can still go up.
Finding a way to "stick it to the fossil fuel barons" sounds nice, but how will that affect the rest of the economy? What happens to our retirement packages if fossil fuel takes a big hit? If you think fossil fuel can take that hit in isolation and nothing else will suffer, you have forgotten what happened when the housing bubble burst.
Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to live greener, of course we should. But, if, as you suggest, NO ONE makes a sacrifice except the coal and oil industries, we will fall pathetically short of accomplishing anything. Meaningful change MUST include sacrifice. All else is little more than lip service.
OK, Phil, I'll repeat the question: What part of my "consumer lifestyle" should I give up? Most of my carbon footprint come from the government I HAVE to pay taxes to, and the next biggest chunk is the industries that produce the goods I consume. If I force those industries to go green, they'll pass on the costs, I have to give something up...goods, services, retirement, or a little bit of each.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, since you know so much about my "consumer lifestyle" and my thoughts and motives, you must know how I can be a better person. What should I give up? And make sure it's enough to fix the problem, not to just take the edge off.
And while we're making decisions about how other people should live their lives, have ANY of you considered that making these changes in the US or UK is NOTHING like making them in China or Russia?
Oh, and try to make it all sound easy and affordable. That's why you guys are arguing with me, right? Because I said it can't be easy or cheap?
Ken said: "Thanks, GreenMind, but you may be suffering from location bias. You said "Putting a solar array on the roof will pay for itself within a few years..." but here in Indiana the cost of solar electric is 4 or 5 times what I would pay the electric company. If Indiana starts to subsidize, then I will pay for it whether I use it or not. Either way, solar is not cost effective overall."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know what you mean by saying the cost of solar electric is 4 or 5 times what you would pay the electric company. The question is really, how long would it take for a solar installation to pay for itself? If it takes less than 25 years, the rated lifespan of a typical array, then you come out ahead. But there are green energy programs in Indiana, I looked at dsireusa.org and it listed dozens of programs for Indiana. Remember, also that it isn't just how long the installation takes to pay for itself, but whether investing the same money in some other way will give a better payoff. In this economy, not likely.
Ken says: "Other measures, such as insulation, hybrid or electric cars, or (I'm surprised you didn't mention) LED lightbulbs, ARE cost effective here in Indiana, but we are talking about a large investment up front that will take years to even out. In this economy, what percentage of people have several thousand dollars they can spend today in the hope it will pay for itself over 3 or 4 years?"
I thought we were talking about sacrifice, not investment. Installing insulation is an investment that probably pays for itself faster than most financial investments these days. But for those who don't have the upfront cash, you still have those programs in Indiana. Even just getting an energy audit of a house (free from my energy company where I live) can help eliminate hotspots that can be fixed without major investment. Putting insulation film on windows, weather stripping on doors, etc., can often save large amounts of money (CO2 emissions).
I repeat, saving money is not a sacrifice.
More later.
Ken says: "The more energy efficient a car is, the smaller it is, so buying one is a lifestyle change."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot true. A regular second or third generation Toyota Prius is actually a very spacious 4 door hatchback that is the equivalent of many station wagons. In fact, Toyota rates it as a wagon. It can get over 50 mpg. Toyota has introduced even bigger models recently.
Ken said: "Do you really think people avoid energy efficient measures on principle? There is a hardcore denier in this comment thread who lives as green as he can because it makes financial sense where he lives, and he has the means to make the up front investment."
I didn't say people avoid energy efficient measures on principle. I said, "I see thousands of people every day who apparently make no attempt to conserve energy at all." No comment on their motivations, and I'm not even sure if my observation is correct. Hence the word "apparently".
Ken said: "You said "The problem is that the only people who actually have to give up anything is the fossil fuel industry...", but the fact is they would lose NOTHING until we use absolutely NONE of their products. As consumption goes down, price goes up so that profits can still go up."
You could hypothesize that the fossil fuel people would lose nothing, but judging by the lobbying by the Koch Brothers and the coal industry, they don't believe that.
Ken said: "Finding a way to "stick it to the fossil fuel barons" sounds nice, but how will that affect the rest of the economy? What happens to our retirement packages if fossil fuel takes a big hit? If you think fossil fuel can take that hit in isolation and nothing else will suffer, you have forgotten what happened when the housing bubble burst."
If fossil fuel declines, it will only be because green technology is thriving. Invest in that.
More later.
Ken said: "Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to live greener, of course we should. But, if, as you suggest, NO ONE makes a sacrifice except the coal and oil industries, we will fall pathetically short of accomplishing anything. Meaningful change MUST include sacrifice. All else is little more than lip service."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, depending on what you mean by sacrifice, we all will need to make meaningful change that includes sacrifice.
For some of us that means solar arrays, electric or hybrid cars and residential insulation, not much of a sacrifice for those who can afford it.
For others it means window film and weather stripping, not much of a sacrifice since it will pay for itself within months.
For large businesses it may mean putting solar arrays on top of office buildings, big box stores and warehouses, all steps that will pay for themselves.
For governments at all levels it may mean providing free energy audits, subsidizing solar energy, putting electric car charging stations in public parking, installing solar arrays over parking lots and office buildings, etc. The cost is placed on the people in the form of slightly higher taxes. That cost will pay for itself in the form of energy savings, not only for the government itself, for individual taxpayers. A public investment that provides private savings, exactly the kind of thing that governments are best at, like fire departments.
But the biggest, most difficult, most meaningful change will be to change the attitudes that prevent us from looking into what each of us can do in our own lives. That's the obstacle that I see here on the SA web site. I don't know if that applies to you, Ken, but I think you may agree that it is expressed here a great deal.
Sorry this took so long, but I was away from home for a while, but I have to at least respond about solar energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver a period of 25 years one would go through several solar installations. They don't last forever. The figures I read were based on the total cost for the expected lifetime of a solar installation in Indiana. Since the information comes from the people who sell solar power equipment, I am inclined to believe them. The total cost for me to get electricity from the electric company is a lot less here than the cost of a solar alternative because our electricity is cheaper here and we get a lot less power from the same installation than people who live in the sun belt.
I have already agreed with you that personal changes are a good thing, but I think that what you interpret as a lack of willingness to consider personal changes is partly due to the up front investment cost and partly due to the belief that consumer level changes aren't enough. I take that belief not from the "deniers" comments, but from the more extreme green activists. Just like individual consumers, the majority of industry and commerce also exist in places where alternative energy is not so economical. If they go green, their costs go up, and that means prices must also go up.
Change is needed, but it is not cheap or easy on a global scale. Green activists are so caught up trying to change opinions that they overlook the fact that nothing changes opinions faster than making the opinion change less painful. "Awareness" won't bring change nearly as fast as plans that reduce up front investment costs and long term operational costs.