Warming Quickly!

The estimate related to climate change seems like it was way too conservative.  That is probably related to the need to build consensus on the published results.

Still with the ice sheets melting, the rainforest vanishing, the tundra defrosting and the continued spewing of carbon and methane the timetable is excelerating..

There are no real precedents for what is happening in the geologic record.

There was a period of significant warming in the past but it took thousands of years.  The area near the equator where most of the current population live would have been unihabitable.

We tend to focus on the rise in sea levels which is one of the early issues.  But worse than that is the release of trapped carbon gases in things like the permafrost.

This is a problem that feeds on itself, it defrosts, released trapped methane, warming the planet causing more defrosting etc.

It may seem like a natural process by it as kicked off by our behavior.

Methane is significantly worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

How soon will This impact us?  Well it has already started but it will escalate quicker.

It's already a crisis but not yet a catastrophe.

Not yet.

How Are We Doing?

When you look at the news of the day it gives you a sense of where we stand as a nation on a number of issues.

Clearly the cases and deaths from the virus are not good indicators.  If the pandemic was simply an unfortunate event that happened to originate in China, we were obviously woefully unprepared.

If on the other hand China is somehow to blame for spreading the virus, we were obviously woefully unprepared.

Placing blame doesn't provide an excuse it provides a diversion.

In the second case of course we might need to do something, but it doesn't change our vulnerability.

Similarly building a wall on the Southern Border is unlikely to do anything to halt illegal immigration.  It might divert them elsewhere but I'm not sure that's worth the billions of dollars.

Meanwhile we see a dam fail in Michigan because our national infrastructure is old and fragile.  Many other structures are at risk but we are diverting a lot of effort into a folly on the border.

The main point is actually that even if it worked, what would it accomplish.  This issue has very little actual impact on the vast majority of Americans and the ones impacted actually like the cheap labor.  Billions wasted to no end.

I don't like to harp on the weather because it is variable but over time weather equals climate and it seems we are starting to see the effects of climate change in daily weather.  In the last decade we have had once in a lifetime events or once in a century events fairly frequently.

We see unemployment that would have been unimaginable just a few months ago and an explosion of the national debt in response.  Still the stock market climbs because in all honesty, the current economy doesn't care about how many are working, just how much they can spend.  Of course it has hurt travel and entertainment companies but the fact that JC Penny or J. Crew is bankrupt is hardly relevant.  They just sold stuff made elsewhere.  Amazon can do that.

Online shopping, but for some reason on-line voting is a problem.  Well maybe for the current administration any voting is bad.

Logic?

Our current position on climate change seems to be that we aren't going to impose controls that hurt our competitive position in the world.

So if a country like India, uses coal to try to provide electricity to its rural population we won't insist that our coal fired plants clean up.

They are anyways since the owners can see the future better than our administration.  It should also be noted that its the wages that move jobs to these countries, not the use of coal.

Certain industries complain to the dotard that they can't compete because of all our regulations.  He believes them and allows them to make a few extra dollars at the cost of the environment.  They still outsource to cheaper locations which remain cheaper because of labor costs.

So no new jobs and we all get a little closer to Armageddon.  The increase in profits help the stock price and a few well to do shareholders benefit..

This is the type of logic we have.

The environmental catastrophes we are seeing today are because of bad policies from the past.

We need to do better for the future.

We aren't.

Science Denyers?

Sometimes people with certain beliefs simply ignore facts they don't like.

Take climate change.  We have plenty of evidence to support it.  Sometimes you hear people argue that it is part of  natural cycle ignoring the science that shows we are reaching unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The glaciers are melting, the sea levels are rising and storms are getting more intense.

Lets even accept the possibility that it is also related to a natural cycle although that hypothesis is iffy.

Why would we continue to pump additional greenhouse gases into the air?

The question is that even if there are other factors involved, why would we want to make it worse?

Unless you simply deny scientific evidence you don't like.  We don't really get to pick and choose.

Individual Decisions

When talking about the environment and climate change it is important to think about the little things as well as the big things.

Most o the emissions are related to big industries and revolve largely around the burning of fossil fuels.

These issues need to be addressed if we are going to make real progress.

However, it doesn't make sense to do thing in our individual lives, when we have good alternatives, that also contribute.

Yes the issues related to things like light bulbs and plastic straws are not the solution.  But if you use an inefficient bulb or straw, you are in a small measure contributing to the problem.

In our everyday life we should make decisions that are good, not bad.

Not just related to the environment, better to walk up a flight of stairs then take the elevator, but these decisions are yours to make.  Some things that are known to hurt the environment or people should probably be banned, but those decisions should be carefully considered.

Just make good decisions about what you are doing, why make it worse?

Biting the Bullet

In general, Hurricane Dorian could have been much worse.

Of course the Bahamas saw the worst of it and it is still battering some areas but it had the potential to be destructive over large population centers, although not in Alabama.

For those of us who live in an area vulnerable to hurricanes, it is sort of like the sword of Damocles each season.

It seems like it is not a question of if as much as a question of when.

There have been strong hurricanes and while they seem to be more common, it is unlikely anything we do can change that in the short term.

However, failure to address climate change means they will continue to get worse and worse in the future.

The hurricane season isn't over so still a lot of risk, but its time we tried to reverse the trend of increasing ocean waters we have caused.

Its time to bite the bullet and take action.

First, Do No Harm

This phrase is generally something that doctors adhere to, but it really should be something we all take into account as far as the environment goes.

Now, in our day to day lives, most of us already do some harm to the environment by driving, using electricity, eating meat, etc.

So it might be better to say, do no further harm.

In decisions we make about everyday things, we should consider the impact on the environment and greenhouse gases.

The climate changes endanger us all and the vast majority of us realize this.

As individuals we can switch to energy efficient items in our everyday lives without much effort, although there is at times some initial extra cost.  We also need to demand that the Government consider climate in its decisions.

The fires in the Amazon right now are a far greater threat to all of us than any immigrants crossing the border.

Amazon Forest

It seems like I've heard forever how we need to save the rain forest.  It absorbs greenhouse gases, releases oxygen and provides a factory of biodiversity which could naturally develop disease resistant plants.

The largest rainforest is in the Amazon basin and it has been under attack for years as local populations want to clear land to raise crops and livestock.

Its easy to understand how these people, many of them poor and hardworking, feel how their own self interests, clearing some land is irrelevant to global issues.

They only want to do what the developed world has already done, replacing the rainforest with "productive" land that provides income and security for their families.

This year with a new President who much like our own ignores the environment, they have started an unprecedented number of fires in the Brazilian rainforest.  It is a potential environmental disaster as land stops absorbing greenhouse gases and is replaced by farms which might even increase them.

Save the rainforest?  It might already be too late.

We certainly had plenty of warning.

Under Attack!

If we were under attack by a world of aliens who were polluting our planet with a noxious gas that would start to make it uninhabitable, I imagine our response would be to stop them at all costs.

Of course the aliens in this scenario turns out to be us as we continue to poison the world we live in.

Most are aware of the danger, including most world leaders, but a few including our dontard refuse to accept the scientific evidence and is willing to risk our future so his pals won't have to lose some profits.

Its a losing battle since every day more and more evidence is convincing more and more people that climate change is real and its impact will be wide ranging and catastrophic.

Some might have thought it would be restricted to some coastal areas, but the increased energy of a warmer earth is going to make changes and increase storms everywhere.

Most of us have taken steps to reduce energy use and help to reduce dangerous emissions, but we need industry to live up to its duty to be good citizens of this planet.

They will have to live here too.

Real Crisis

Forecasts indicate that a spring storm is going to bring significant snow to the middle part of the country.

This is weather, but the intensity of recent storms seems to be increasing.  A weather trend represents climate change.

The storm, named by some Wesley, is another bomb cyclone and will dump significant snow in much of the country.  These are the same areas that were impacted by the last bomb cyclone and which are suffering from floods and the new snow fall will simply exacerbate the problem.

We have seen many trends in weather and no reasonable person doesn't realize that the real crisis we face, worldwide, is climate change caused by or at least contributed to by human activity.

Its already too late to avoid some of the issues but failure to curtail the amount of carbon we release into the atmosphere will lead to even greater issues.

We have probably already altered the interactions that control things like bomb cyclones by warming the waters around the globe.

Maybe the border we should be worried about is the borders between shore and water.  The water is rising and we aren't doing much to stop it.

Our Earth

There are people who oppose renewable energy sources, including the dontard.  The reason for this is pretty unclear, except for those who have a vested interest in carbon based energy sources like oil, gas, and coal.

Creating energy using solar, wind, tides, water flow or any other renewable source eliminates pollution and provides essentially the same energy as the other sources.  In some cases affordability cold be a factor but if you consider our recent past, the use of windmills and water mills were quite common.

We went through a period that we are still in where cheap carbon based energy became inexpensive and transportable.  We were able to have a tremendous expansion of industry, transportation and provided the ability to heat and cool our homes.

The side effect of this was that we saw an increase in pollution and a release of carbon into the atmosphere that creates a greenhouse effect.  Much of the pollution, especially some of the most visible has been controlled or eliminated.

We still rely to a great extent on carbon based energy, but we have taken many steps to be more efficient and we have seen some move towards use of renewable energy.

The point is that we have released so much carbon into the air that we are at a point where we need to change our ways to avoid fairly catastrophic results.  In fact we may be already be at a point where we already face dire consequences.

Each of us needs to continue reducing our use of carbon and require our politicians to accept the reality of climate change.

Propaganda

I was watching a video of a group of children who confronted Senator Feinstein in her office to ask her to vote for the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal is a proposal that goes way beyond climate change and in fact has some fairly radical ideas.  Each of these ideas is worthy of consideration but to package them together and demand an all or nothing response is actually harmful to meaningful climate legislation.

Opposing the Green New Deal is not opposing climate change and in some ways the idea of attaching climate change to some of the other proposals is almost designed to result in failure.

The propaganda move of sending a group of schoolchildren who were clearly coached to say certain things to try to undermine a prominent democratic senator, who by the way is not up for re-election for quite a while is clearly part of some agenda.

The question is who's?

Since the result doesn't actually advance the cause of climate change it might very well be logical to assume it was organized by climate change opponents.

It could also be just misguided progressives, who would rather fail than achieve modest success.

In fact the confrontation, if that is even an accurate word for what happened, was clearly staged to get a negative reaction.  The first video posted was a poor representation of what actually happened.  Further, one has to ask what makes anyone think that schoolchildren between the ages of 10 and 16 or so are experts?

I admire that they are concerned about climate change but they were used to get an effect here and listening to them say pre-coached phrases was pure theatre.

We need to address the issues of climate change and negotiate what we can in the current legislature.  We also need to take action on an individual basis.

We don't need to set up total failure.

How About a Big Fan?

Why are we building a wall on the Southern Border when the Polar Vortex just crossed our Northern Border and was responsible for major disruptions and multiple deaths?

At this time of year I would much rather have weather cross into this country over our Southern Border!

I was thinking about how to stop something like these weather events when we get invaded by cold from the north in the winter and various nasty events from the south in the summer.

Why not a wall of border fans?

It wouldn't probably have any impact on the weather but it would make us feel like we were trying and who is going to run thought a bunch of spinning blades to sneak across the border?

They would have to be reversible so we could blow hot or cold, depending.

I suspect it might impact some migratory animals but I'm sure we can deal with that.

Just blow that Polar Vortex back to where it belongs.

Use warm Mexican weather to combat it, could be part of a trade agreement.

Canada could return the favor in the summer.

Since both would benefit, I'm sure they would be happy to finance the fan walls!

It is pretty clearly something that won't actually work, and it would be very expensive to build and maintain, but it isn't the first such proposal!

Certainly seems easier than actually working the underlying issues impacting climate change.

Brrrrr

The weatherman says we are getting another visit from the North Pole and this one isn't bringing any presents.

Forecasts are pretty grim with lows well below zero in some places and wind chill in very negative numbers.

Of course it is the middle of the winter and cold weather is to be expected, but it just seems we are pretty consistently setting records year after year.

If the climate is stable new records would be a fairly rare event, as random fluctuations play out.

My fairly limited understanding based on a little knowledge (dangerous) is that as the earth heats up, we see both long term and short term consequences.

Long term we see oceans rising as global ice melts.  We may also see disruptions in ocean currents as fresh water enters the water changing some of the dynamics.

Shorter term we see impacts on the weather, as there is more energy in the system and this has a tendency to amplify certain events.

Certainly we are having more once in a century typhoons and hurricanes than once in a century would indicate.

The polar vortex forms in the Arctic during the winter and is contained there by things like the jet stream.  In years when the restraints are disrupted it wobbles and we get cold.

It is also likely due to the warming trend in the Arctic itself as warmer surface temperatures disrupt the vortex behavior.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a trend in which this previously rare behavior is increasing as the Earth warms.

It may confuse some of our leaders, but it doesn't contradict Climate Change.  It actually is a symptom to a certain extent.

Bundle up!

Science or Opinion?

Not everything is a matter of opinion.

For example, we know when water boils, and if you want to hold a different opinion you are just wrong.

The age we live in has in some ways allowed certain people to treat everything as relative.

Most things aren't.

It often doesn't matter when people decide to reject certain facts.  If you want to believe the Earth is flat, go ahead.  You are demonstrably wrong, but who cares?

If on the other hand you fail to vaccinate your children because you believe the proven fallacies of the dangers of vaccination you are risking them and others to dangerous diseases.

Are vaccinations risk free?  Well nothing is risk free really, but the risks are not related to the wild rumors on the Internet, they are extremely rare.

Similarly, the impact of man on the climate is no longer a matter of opinion if it ever was.

Clearly pumping tons of pollutants into the air is not a beneficial thing and while we had trouble measuring the full impact at one time, science can now determine its impacts and consequences.

Science likes to express some facts as ranges, because even when the data is clear, the calculations almost always include some variables that can change the prediction.

The change is a matter of range, not of reversal.

So if the prediction is that something bad will happen in 50 to 60 years, it is not unsettled science, it is the nature of future variability.

The federal government issued a report after detailed studies which spells out the catastrophic consequences of climate change if we don't do something.  In some cases it is probably already too late.

Denial is not really an option and the results are sound science, not opinions.

You can't wish them away.

Political?

There are some things that don't seem like they should be political, but they are.

Take climate change.

Its hard to imagine why anyone would object to reducing pollutants of any type except some businesses that it might add cost to.

Those types of things can be addressed by using regulations or taxes to level the field but we see people attacking the science, which is pretty irrefutable.

The solution is a cleaner world and less greenhouse gases, can't we work commonly towards that?

It isn't some conspiracy to hurt America, the facts and figures are available to all.

Similarly, I'm not familiar with anyone who thinks innocent people getting gunned down is a good thing.  Solutions to that problem don't require confiscating peoples guns but it might involve restricting the types of guns available without special background checks.

Once again the only ones who actually oppose these restrictions are the companies that profit by having unrestricted gun sales.

Profit is not an acceptable substitute for living and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also guaranteed.

What w don't protect is people's right to vote.  Some states have tried to do everything they can to suppress the wrong type of voter.

Of course the ones they consider wrong varies and the justification, usually related to voter fraud is unfounded.  Every citizen should be able to vote and they shouldn't be denied because they might vote for the wrong candidate.

We currently see attacks being made irresponsibly about recounts in some close elections.  Those recounts are observed by both parties and are not fraudulent or manipulated.

Count every vote is really not something we should be disagreeing about.

Its democracy.

Fuel Economy Standards

Using more gasoline to power your car without any extra performance simply costs money and contributes to air pollution.

It does of course benefit oil producers who get to sell you more oil and make more profit.

Vehicles use the public roadways and pollute the air we all breathe, whether we drive one or not.

Requiring these vehicles, no matter what weight class to improve fuel economy has been something that protects the air, protects consumers, encourages auto research.

It reduces the demand for oil, reducing air pollution and reducing oil demand, thereby lowering prices.

So on one hand we have public benefit, earth benefit, consumer benefit.

On the other hand we have oil profits.

We know what side the current administration is on, they eliminated future targets.

These were not targets that the auto industry opposed, it was clearly within their technological ability.

They may not bother now since it will save some research and design effort.

How much will this decision impact the climate?

Well as a percentage, not all that much, but it has a negative impact when we should be reducing the amount of carbon we emit.

Will it prop up oil prices and allow the oil companies to make more money?

Yes, it will.

Weather or Not?

One of the things about science, at least good science, is that it accepts the possibility that new data or new facts might change accepted theories.

Some things are of course much more settled than others, but you will generally never hear scientists say something is 100% certain.

Clearly some science is so well established it approaches that degree of certainty, but a good scientist is always open to the possibility that some new data or event will cause a theory to change.

You see this degree of uncertainty used by some individuals to deny what are probably science facts as "unproven" theory.

We saw this for many years when the tobacco companies tried to argue that they weren't selling cancer sticks.  They knew they were but were able to promote the idea that it was "unproven" science.

Every unbiased experiment and test came to the same result, that smoking was a factor in increased levels of certain cancers but that is only proof beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to "proven".

As I said most things in science can never be proven but we accept that if every observation shows the same result that it is in fact true.

We see this now with a few people arguing that climate change isn't caused by human activities, and in fairness not all of it is.  What we do know is that human activities, primarily the release of previously trapped carbon into the atmosphere contributes to higher worldwide temperatures.

This greenhouse effect has been tested extensively and al the experiments and calculations show it has that outcome. Is it the only factor? No, the earth has gone through multiple climate cycles over its existence caused by natural factors, but we know that industrial age human behavior has an impact.

Every year we observe weather events that are supposed to be exceedingly rare but are happening fairly frequently.  We see the rise in the oceans and the melt of the polar ice caps proceeding.

Lets suppose for arguments sake that only a small percentage of this is the result of human carbon release. Why wouldn't we stop it anyway?

Is a few dollars saved today worth watching our children being forced to move to higher ground?

The potential future cost of the environmental damage will be astronomical, and like most things early efforts can have significant future benefits.

A single weather event is not climate change.  When weather events form a trend it is.

One World

The consequences of our current administration are going to be politically troublesome for quite some time because of the changes to the Supreme Court and some of the damage done internationally to our influence and reputation.

The fact that he seems to have been so easily bamboozled by the North Koreans and is cozying up to the Russians while turning away from our long term allies in the west could be extremely disruptive, possibly leading to potential warfare and destruction.

However, it would seem somewhat unthinkable that the world could go so off kilter, if it hadn't happened so many times before and the biggest danger is that the dontard creates a rallying cry for people like him, to stand up to him, in certain countries.

As dangerous as that may be, the worst damage is what might happen to all of us because of his horrible environmental problems.

It might not be clear what he is doing, but his America first policy contains a formula for disaster.

Consider that the developed countries, including us have been the primary polluters of the world since the Industrial Revolution, while many third world countries were mostly left behind.

Now we see those countries, demanding a better lifestyle for their citizens and in order to get there they will inevitably add to the pollution problems we have.

The Paris climate accords attempted to address this issue by allowing the undeveloped countries more leeway while asking the developed countries to work harder to reduce carbon emissions.

On the face of it, it appears to be a bit of an advantage to the third world countries, except of course they agreed to develop more environmentally friendly technology with the developed world's support.

Economically it does help them a bit, but environmentally it went a long way to addressing climate change.

The dontard ignoring climate change wants to continue letting America increase pollution and environmental damage.

If the third world countries respond by doing the same we will not address climate change but increase it dramatically.

These are consequences that are very difficult to reverse and the damage is going to hurt all of us.

It is after all, just one world.

Energy and Weather

Among the scientific community there is really no legitimate debate about climate change.

The data is clear, there is a warming trend.

There is also almost no debate that human activity in releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere is contributing to this trend.

Sometime we hear people try to argue that there are natural cycles at work, and of course that is true, but in addition to those we have a clear increase in carbon in the atmosphere that is caused by a number of human behaviors.

We really can't do much about the natural cycles but we can alter our behavior.

What is actually happening when we hear about the greenhouse effect caused by this carbon?

Well it creates a reflective barrier which allows solar energy in, but reduces the amount that escapes.

The increased temperatures are causing massive ice melts that in the not so long term are going to flood significant amount of coastline.

Energy also causes weather events.

Now climate and weather are not the same, but they are certainly related.  It may seem counter intuitive that more trapped heat can result if greater blizzards but it does.

The more solar energy we trap the stronger weather systems we create.

Of course ultimately this impacts our climate.

When you read how a particular storm or rainfall was a once in a century event or extremely rare, only to see it repeat well within a century or more than rate, its because our historical data is based on eras when we had less energy.

Their ability to predict frequency of future events is questionable.

That we will see stronger events is though quite predictable,