Scientists 95% Sure Current Global Warming Caused by Humans.

[BridgeTroll]

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...

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.

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...

To 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... 

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

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...

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...

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.

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.

[Cheshire Cat]

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...

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...

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.

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. 

[BridgeTroll]

And we do.  We certainly have done better than the generations before us. I expect our children will do better than us.

[Cheshire Cat]

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. 

[BridgeTroll]

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

[Cheshire Cat]

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?

[BridgeTroll]

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? !

[Cheshire Cat]

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

[BridgeTroll]

Nah... it is Friday for me too!     

[Cheshire Cat]

Interesting piece from Bill Moyers. 

http://billmoyers.com/content/2100-will-your-neighborhood-be-underwater/   (click link for full article and map)

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

[Cheshire Cat]

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

Maps 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.

[duvaldude08]

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.