There is a new report out that has scientists confirming that the global warming currently impacting our earth is not completely a natural phenomena is is driven by humans.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/world/climate-change-5-things/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Quote(CNN) -- The world's getting hotter, the sea's rising and there's increasing evidence neither are naturally occurring phenomena.
So says a report from the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, a document released every six years that is considered the benchmark on the topic. More than 800 authors and 50 editors from dozens of countries took part in its creation.
The summary for policymakers was released early Friday, while the full report, which bills itself as "a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change," will be distributed Monday. Other reports, including those dealing with vulnerability and mitigation, will be released next year.
Here are the highlights from Friday's summary:
Man-made climate change is almost certain
And from NPR on Global Warming.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/27/226746611/its-clear-humans-are-changing-worlds-climate-panel-says
Interesting dilemma... considering the planet is covered in those pesky creatures... 8)
Indeed! On an interesting note, scientists are saying the the world population will max out in the year 2050 and go down incrementally from that point to much lower levels. The global birthrate is down it expected to continue to dwindle. Now the question is what do we do to make sure us pesky humans don't destroy it before it can find it's own balance? I will answer part of my own question. If we don't get it right, we and many other life forms will be destroyed but planet earth will survive, adjust and new life forms will come forward. In the billions of years of our planetary existence could it be that we have had other life form similar to us humans long before the days of the dinosaurs and we blew it back then? Guess we will never know, but the planet will be here long after the "pests" are gone. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on September 27, 2013, 12:15:22 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 27, 2013, 12:10:30 PM
Interesting dilemma... considering the planet is covered in those pesky creatures... 8)
Yeah. Its too bad that they are like insects, with no capability of changing their behavior rationally.
Such a pessimist ...
I think that was a Stephen snark BT. I do believe he is saying people can change their behaviors. I agree with that, I just hope that the behaviors change before too much more damage is done. :) I also worry that the greedy who profit off of industry that is exasperating the warming impacts to the planet just don't give a damn about what happens when they are gone as long as they live rich and high while they are here.
Stephen, I know we were talking about all of this years back at Boomtown. Do you know off the top of your head how many years it has taken just to get some on board with the reality that global warming is real? I am thinking at least two decades.
Yes, exasperating indeed and that "it's not happening" mindset seems to be pervasive nationwide, in the past this seemed especially true among conservatives. The reason I ask is do you think that enough people can wake up to this problem in time to avoid some of the worst damages that are well underway? I completely agree that people can learn but they are often slow to come to grips with what they deny. There is also that mindset that I mentioned above which is driven by powerful people who are profiting off of the damages done to the environment, like oil companies in the rain forests, hell everywhere for that matter along with growing number of automobiles in countries like China for example that are unregulated. Thoughts?
No matter how you look at it, we as humans have certainly screwed up the environment. There are certainly consequences, temperature is likely to be one of them.
Quote from: mbwright on September 27, 2013, 01:33:05 PM
No matter how you look at it, we as humans have certainly screwed up the environment. There are certainly consequences, temperature is likely to be one of them.
Every generation... since the beginning... has made a mark on the planet and each successive generation has had to deal with the conditions the previous generations have left them... both the good and the bad. We generally call it progress. From the disease ridden cities of Europe in the middle ages, to the blackened skies of the industrial revolution, to the carbon burning of today for needed energy and locomotion... each generation changes the way they do things and affect the planet for better and worse... I suspect the same will occur in the future...
On a positive note the U.N. has decided global standards on emissions is needed and has proposed this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?pagewanted=all
Quote
¶ STOCKHOLM — The world's top climate scientists on Friday formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases for the first time, establishing a target level at which humanity must stop spewing them into the atmosphere or face irreversible and potentially catastrophic climatic changes. They warned that the target is likely to be exceeded in a matter of decades unless steps are taken soon to reduce emissions.
Related
Temperature Rising
Articles in this series focus on the central arguments in the climate debate and examine the evidence for global warming and its consequences.
Document: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report Summary
¶ Unveiling the latest United Nations assessment of climate science, the experts cited a litany of changes that are already under way, warned that they are likely to accelerate and expressed virtual certainty that human activity is the main cause.
¶ "Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time," said Thomas F. Stocker, co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-sponsored group of scientists that produced the report. "In short, it threatens our planet, our only home."
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 27, 2013, 01:48:27 PM
On a positive note the U.N. has decided global standards on emissions is needed and has proposed this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?pagewanted=all
Thank god for the UN... 8)
Then there is the "madness" of U.S. politics regarding Global Warming. I find this current political hypocrisy on the part of some GOP conservatives particularly galling and yet another symptom of turning what is a serious issue into a political "hot potato". Now the deniers are claiming Obama cover up. Really?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/gop-hits-obama-on-global-warming-coverup/ (click link for full story)
QuoteSenate Republicans are asking why the Obama administration attempted to convince scientists to downplay data indicating that the earth has not warmed in 15 years.
The Associated Press obtained documents showing that the Obama administration, along with European nations, tried to convince scientists involved with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report to downplay, or even omit, data that showed a 15-year hiatus in global temperature rises.
"The failure of the IPCC climate models is obviously a great embarrassment for a significant number of researchers and politicians who have been demanding costly international and U.S. actions," wrote Republican Senators David Vitter of Louisiana, John Barrasso of Wyoming, and James Inhofe of Oklahoma in a Thursday letter to Todd Stern, the U.S. State Department's special envoy for climate change.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/gop-hits-obama-on-global-warming-coverup/#ixzz2g7JLMRNT
You know, the U.N. importance to me is that it is representative in many ways of the "world" mindset. I know many like to say it is a political quagmire but for me it brings a balance to many discussions. In the case of global warming the unity in their decision takes the discussion beyond the believer/non-believer arguments in the U.S. to the reality that like it or not, there is a serious global warming issue and that recently top world scientists have declared that they are 95% sure the one of the major causes is humanity. What always comes to my mind in these arguments is the reality that none of what is being proposed by scientists to deal with the issue will do anything physically damaging to the environment, quite the opposite is true. The only damage to be done with their fact finding is "economic" and that goes directly to the finances of global power players most of which we know just don't give a damn about environmental damage.
In addition to the warming impacts, we also know as a fact that we are losing plant and animal species at a greater rate than anytime in our history prior to the disaster that caused the extinction of dinosaurs. There is also global agreement with regard to the damage being done to our oceans via everything from pollution to over fishing. Another accepted reality which all leads to the unhappy truth that human actions are indeed exasperating what are normal earthly processes and there is just no getting around that fact.
Quote from: Apache on September 27, 2013, 01:59:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 27, 2013, 01:42:24 PM
Quote from: Apache on September 27, 2013, 01:38:56 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 27, 2013, 01:31:21 PM
Quote from: Apache on September 27, 2013, 01:25:01 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html
Statistics on both sides, the truth as always is somewhere in between
Huh?
Somewhere between science and politics. Probably not, apache.
There are scientists with differing opinions on cause, effect and how we can or can not affect changing climates. You think the scientist on one side are just scientists and the scientists on the other side are republican scientists?
Sounds like you are switching the argument.
Do you think there is some real scientific debate about the fact that climate change is occurring? Or do you think there is debate about its cause?
I'm not arguing.
Climate change is certainly real. Rational people can't deny that. I believe there is debate about how much change in our climate is caused by the pesky humans and how much is natural. And debate as to how much our efforts to change our behavior could help anyway. Previous change in the earths climate has occurred many times and it's severity has been different every time. It's difficult at best for scientists to extrapolate over thousands of years as to the reason why.
To this point Apache you are correct in that there have been many major changes in our global environment and much of it in the past has happened as a result of natural changes on and with the earth and our atmosphere. But science is pretty accurate in it's determination of humanities impact in hastening and making worse what might have been a natural event and that all really began around the time of our industrial revolution. Environmentally, it has been all downhill since then and that is something that can be scientifically as well as historically proven.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 27, 2013, 02:05:31 PM
You know, the U.N. importance to me is that it is representative in many ways of the "world" mindset. I know many like to say it is a political quagmire but for me it brings a balance to many discussions. In the case of global warming the unity in their decision takes the discussion beyond the believer/non-believer arguments in the U.S. to the reality that like it or not, there is a serious global warming issue and that recently top world scientists have declared that they are 95% sure the one of the major causes is humanity. What always comes to my mind in these arguments is the reality that none of what is being proposed by scientists to deal with the issue will do anything physically damaging to the environment, quite the opposite is true. The only damage to be done with their fact finding is "economic" and that goes directly to the finances of global power players most of which we know just don't give a damn about environmental damage.
In addition to the warming impacts, we also know as a fact that we are losing plant and animal species at a greater rate than anytime in our history prior to the disaster that caused the extinction of dinosaurs. There is also global agreement with regard to the damage being done to our oceans via everything from pollution to over fishing. Another accepted reality which all leads to the unhappy truth that human actions are indeed exasperating what are normal earthly processes and there is just no getting around that fact.
CC... I do not disagree with much of what you have said... with this exception...
QuoteThe only damage to be done with their fact finding is "economic" and that goes directly to the finances of global power players most of which we know just don't give a damn about environmental damage.
You have made it clear that you blame "power players", oil companies, giant conglomerates, etc... when in fact the real culprit... and the ones who will suffer the most economic impact to substantially curb GW is you and me.
Why in different thread the other day someone was critical of JEA rates... our local coal burning electricity producer.
These "fixes" are expensive... In the link you posted of a positive note...
QuoteTo keep using fossil fuels beyond the trillionth ton of emissions, companies would have to develop potentially expensive technology to capture and store carbon dioxide from emissions sources like power plants. Such efforts have been lagging badly; only last week, Norway scaled back one of the most ambitious such projects because of soaring costs.
But a considerable body of research suggests that in principle it could be done, and in the United States, the Obama administration is moving toward rules that would essentially require utilities to develop the technology if they want to keep burning coal to produce electricity.
Even our euro hero's are scaling back their efforts and the Kyoto treaty was long ago abandoned. Why??? It is simple... COST. The hit to cost of living, the increase in tax... will cause problems implementing most of the measures suggested.
Now once we can find a way to make sequestering carbon a profit making enterprise... we will solve this issue very quickly... 8)
I don't disagree with your points B.T., but would add that our consumer habits have much to do with what we consume which in the end is almost always produced by major manufacturers. Added to that is our desire for services, as you stated that in the end are harmful to the environment. I guess there is not argument that we need to do better for future generations.
:)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 27, 2013, 02:44:57 PM
I don't disagree with your points B.T., but would add that our consumer habits have much to do with what we consume which in the end is almost always produced by major manufacturers. Added to that is our desire for services, as you stated that in the end are harmful to the environment. I guess there is not argument that we need to do better for future generations.
:)
I think virtually every generation has said...
Quote
I guess there is not argument that we need to do better for future generations.
You mentioned earlier the damage to the earth since the industrial revolution...
Quotehumanities impact in hastening and making worse what might have been a natural event and that all really began around the time of our industrial revolution.
I do not think you are suggesting the progress made to society should be given back and everyone revert back to the pristine environment prior. We developed the steam engine for a reason... and it was not to pollute the earth. We have cars and power plants for a reason... and it is not to pollute the earth.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 27, 2013, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 27, 2013, 02:44:57 PM
I don't disagree with your points B.T., but would add that our consumer habits have much to do with what we consume which in the end is almost always produced by major manufacturers. Added to that is our desire for services, as you stated that in the end are harmful to the environment. I guess there is not argument that we need to do better for future generations.
:)
I think virtually every generation has said...
Quote
I guess there is not argument that we need to do better for future generations.
You mentioned earlier the damage to the earth since the industrial revolution...
Quotehumanities impact in hastening and making worse what might have been a natural event and that all really began around the time of our industrial revolution.
I do not think you are suggesting the progress made to society should be given back and everyone revert back to the pristine environment prior. We developed the steam engine for a reason... and it was not to pollute the earth. We have cars and power plants for a reason... and it is not to pollute the earth.
To you last point. I am certainly not suggesting that progress since the industrial revolution needs to revert. lol The thing is during the industrial revolution people really had no idea about how their actions were impacting the earth. However part of our progress has also been technological and scientific understanding of our world and how our actions impact the environment. I am suggesting that we now have the sophistication to understand environmental cause and effect today to a much greater degree than we did even 100 years ago and since we know better, we should do better. ;)
And we do. We certainly have done better than the generations before us. I expect our children will do better than us.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 27, 2013, 05:08:58 PM
And we do. We certainly have done better than the generations before us. I expect our children will do better than us.
Are you saying doing better by standard of living or better by the environment. Want to be on the same page. :)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 27, 2013, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 27, 2013, 05:08:58 PM
And we do. We certainly have done better than the generations before us. I expect our children will do better than us.
Are you saying doing better by standard of living or better by the environment. Want to be on the same page. :)
All of the above... CC
Okay. I don't agree that our environment is better today than it was even as recent as the 1950's on a global scale. It's much worse IMO. However I would agree that our standard of living has improved much and that fact also is part of the reason the world is in worse shape. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 27, 2013, 05:33:26 PM
Okay. I don't agree that our environment is better today than it was even as recent as the 1950's on a global scale. It's much worse IMO. However I would agree that our standard of living has improved much and that fact also is part of the reason the world is in worse shape. Does that make sense?
Really? So you are saying that all the laws and efforts made since 1950say to mitigate and clean up pollution have been a waste of time? !
No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that in spite of those clean up efforts on a global level our environment is in worse shape. Now I will plead laziness in that it's Friday and right now I am too tired to look up links and facts to back up this statement. But will do so come Monday if you like. lol
Nah... it is Friday for me too! 8)
Interesting piece from Bill Moyers.
http://billmoyers.com/content/2100-will-your-neighborhood-be-underwater/ (click link for full article and map)
Quote
If we continue burning fossil fuels the way we do now sea levels will rise by three feet — and could rise by as much as five feet — by the year 2100. What does this mean for your favorite beach? The map here offers answers. Designed by a physics Ph.D. student, Robert A. Rohde, for his site Global Warming Art, it uses information from NASA to show which areas of America's coastline will be hit the hardest.
Check out the potential fate of New York City, Miami and Sacramento. Like many other cities, large areas are predicted to be under water and some cities may be completely wiped out. And you can forget about a trip to the Bahamas — all the islands will be gone.
The map works like most Google maps. You can use the tools on the left or click and drag the map to navigate. Double click to zoom in. The different colors over potentially affected areas show the elevation of that area and how much the sea would need to rise to cover it. Those areas in red could be under water by the end of this century if we don't change our fossil fuel consumption habits
For BT, I didn't wait until Monday for some information. :) This article is along the lines of what I have been trying to say about the changing environment. The chart is specifically what I was looking at. It is for a single area but I do believe the overall information is applicable globally.
http://66.147.244.135/~enviror4/2013/09/17/turning-point-in-tidewater-virginia/#more-2249
QuoteMaps show old islands in the Chesapeake Bay that today have disappeared beneath a rising sea, Lawrence said. "And people still say, 'Those islands were never there, they're making this up.' "
There are signs that the state could be turning a corner. The once-dominant tea party conservatives now appear to be fading; the states moderates are pushing back against the conservative policies of recent years. Coastal officials and planners hope that they can take advantage of the window and plan a coordinated and rational approach to sea-level rise and storm management.
"We're not retreating," said Dave Hansen, a former Corps of Engineers regional director and now deputy city manager of Virginia Beach. "We're going to elevate."
Added Norfolk's Mayor Fraim: "Someone has to own this issue... The water is coming."
Bill Kovarik is a frequent contributor to The Daily Climate and a professor of communication at Radford University in Southwestern Virginia. The Daily Climate is an independent, foundation-funded news service covering energy, climate change and environmental issues.
Photos, from top: Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim by Linda Burton Kovarik. Flooding in Hopton Holiday Village in Norfolk, Va., courtesy Martin/flickr. Crews working to clear stormwater outflow pipes near Norfolk, Va., courtesy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Quote
Mucking around with climate change
By John D. Sutter, CNN
updated 9:24 AM EDT, Fri September 27, 2013
Shelton Kokeok, whose home is shown in November 2009, lives on the edge of the world in Shishmaref, Alaska.
Shelton Kokeok, whose home is shown in November 2009, lives on the edge of the world in Shishmaref, Alaska.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
U.N. panel releases the first part of its new climate assessment this week
John Sutter: The impact of climate change is obvious, everywhere
Sutter says lawmakers should look to Alaska for evidence of the effects
Villages there are thinking of relocating because of changes in the climate
Editor's note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion and head of CNN's Change the List project. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook or Google+. E-mail him at ctl@cnn.com.
(CNN) -- A U.N. panel on Friday said with 95% certainty that the effects of climate change are real and largely man-made.
To which pretty much everyone in Shishmaref, Alaska, said ...
Well, duh.
If only they weren't so polite.
John D. Sutter
John D. Sutter
The tiny Inupiat Eskimo community in near-Arctic Alaska -- which I was lucky enough to visit on a reporting trip in 2009 and which is home to some of the sweetest and most colorful people you'll meet -- has been watching climate change happen to it for years now.
Locals see the sea ice forming later each year, the coast eroding and the permafrost melting. The hunting seasons have shifted and lakes have dried up.
The coast had become so unstable that one house toppled off the edge of the barrier island that harbors the village. When I was there, the town was considering relocating to more stable ground.
How climate change affects business U.N. climate report points to humans Miami's rising water problem Understanding the climate change report
Now those plans seem to have dried up, too.
Stanley Tocktoo, the mayor of Shishmaref, told me by phone Thursday that residents have tabled their plans to move the town. Money is one reason. Another is that they were unable to find a suitable location upon which everyone could agree.
Potential relocation spots also are hit by the changing climate, he said.
"The island is only a quarter-mile wide by three miles (long), probably narrower now. I don't know how long we'll be able to be on this island," he said.
"These floods get pretty fierce now, worse than before."
It should seem laughable in 2013 that anyone would try to deny the reality of climate change, which is causing tougher droughts, stronger storms, rising seas and melting ice. The effects are scattered, to be sure. It's difficult to attribute any single storm to macro-changes in the atmosphere, for example.
But it's clear things are changing. It's clear that's for the worse.
And it's clear -- has been clear -- that we're to blame for that.
I'm thankful the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continues to update all of us on the latest science and evidence.
But it's already obvious to everyone paying attention that we need to act in new and profoundly urgent ways to blunt the future impact of climate change, and to mitigate the changes that are already taking shape all over the world.
The Marshall Islands and other Pacific nations that could be swallowed up by rising seas have banded together to try to make their economies 50% or 100% renewable.
The urgency is clear to them. They fear for survival.
But in the United States, we're still running around with our eyes shut.
Sure, President Barack Obama has tried, between arguing for strikes on Syria and trying to resurrect the middle class, to make climate change a front-burner issue. But Congress hasn't followed suit. America remains a serious laggard on climate action.
Perhaps we should open our eyes, and turn them to Alaska.
There, the evidence is like a slap in the face.
A wake-up call.
"The town is coming apart, getting smaller and smaller."
That's Shelton Kokeok, a 68-year-old who lives, with his wife, Clara, at the very edge of the Shishmaref coast, which has been thawing and falling into the sea.
A multimillion-dollar U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project has bought Kokeok some peace of mind. The engineers piled rocks high on the shore, as if imploring the land to stay. But even the engineers know that the measures are temporary.
The Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska had $45 million to deal with coastal erosion issues that are related to climate change, according to Bruce Sexauer, chief of planning for the Alaska District. That money ran out though. The rock wall in Shishmaref was planned to be nearly twice as long as it is, but money is now only available if the village can put up 35% of the cash needed to build it. I'm pretty sure a place where people hunt seals for food and harvest ice for water doesn't have millions to spare.
It's a beautiful, generous village. But not a rich one.
The wall, as it stands, likely will buy Shishmaref several years.
But much already has been lost.
When I visited him four years ago, Kokeok told me he blames the death of his youngest son, Norman, on the changes to the climate. Norman fell through a thin sheet of ice on the first week of June several years ago.
That area should have been frozen solid, Kokeok said.
He told me, back in 2009, that he hasn't been the same since.
I was pleased to hear on Thursday that, after two knee replacements, Kokeok was able to go caribou hunting with his grandchildren and daughter this summer.
That's something he hadn't done in years.
The land here, and the community, means so much to him.
Another community, Newtok, which was the subject of a fascinating series by The Guardian, is actually in the process of relocating now, according to Sexauer.
Dave Williams, a colleague of Sexauer's, told me that the permafrost is thawing out from beneath the town, making it nearly unlivable.
"Some of the boardwalks are underwater during the summertime," he said. "You can't step off the boardwalk and walk anywhere without getting wet up to your crotch and covered in muck. You can see that when it floods now, houses that were above the flood level now get water in them or are surrounded by water and (you) can't go anywhere. ... It happens slowly, over years and years."
Slowly, over years and years.
But still, impossible not to notice.
I could think of a few senators I'd like to send up to that village to wade in the muck. Maybe it would alleviate their nagging sense of industry-funded doubt.
Or, at the very least, they'd have to make excuses in a ruined pair of pants.