US Climate Change Policy

[Johnez]

In the short run, yes-much suffering. But in the long run....well the choice is the same gold bars or earth....hmmmm.

I think mustachianism is closer to environmentalism than driving a Prius or buying organic or signing a petition. It addresses the entire chain of ecological harm we've been responsible for these past few centuries. Don't buy stupid shit. Stop driving to work in a stupid car to pay for stupid shit. Stop working period! It's a perfect circle. I realize MMM has strayed a bit from the original tenants (bought a Nissan Leaf recently I think?) but classic mustachianism applied is still effective.

[MasterStache]

These estimation methods are inevitably shaky, but have indicated that there have been times when carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere have been much higher than at present, but life went on.

Keep in mind this change did not happen overnight (Earth time scale speaking). It took eons and plants and animals were able to adapt. There were also times when the climate shifted quite rapidly and it took a huge toll on the ecosystem.

[jim555]

Next gen nuclear reactors (Thorium/Uranium) that are much safer will be the only way to make a substantial difference in the big picture of CO2 emissions.

[nereo]

Some posters have thought that a warmer Earth will kill off humanity. This will not happen. Below is a link to a discussion of estimated  carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere over geological time, and in the article is a further link to methods of estimating ancient carbon dioxide concentrations.

These estimation methods are inevitably shaky, but have indicated that there have been times when carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere have been much higher than at present, but life went on.

A warmer Earth in the future will mean a more comfortable climate near the poles, and perhaps a lethal climate near the equator. The impact on humanity will be big, and there may even mean a fall in world population, but humanity will continue. At the moment, the climate near the poles is close to lethal.

Canada, northern Europe and Russia will benefit from a warmer world, and these countries know it. The infamous Lord Monckton, a notorious and flamboyant climate denier, comes from Scotland, which he knows will benefit. Countries nearer the equator, nearly all poor, will suffer.

But life goes on.

Well, I'll start by agreeing with your point that humans will almost certainly survive as a species under any climate change scenario. As for the rest of your post, it uncomfortably follows the new talking points of those that think we shouldn't try to address climate change. 

The idea that positive effects of climate change have been overlooked and will offset most or all of its deleterious ones is a false canard. Speaking specifically about habitable land with rising temperatures, there are two flaws with this logic.  First, as temperatures warm and the ice sheets melt sea level will rise substantially both through displacement (more water in the oceans) and by thermal expansion (warm water takes upmore space).  Going back to the previous geological time periods you mentioned, sea level up to 20 meters higher than it is today with a climate 2-4ºC warmer than we have now (which is what may happen should we miss the IPCC targets).  Even a much more modest 3m sea level rise will eliminate about 2% of all available land. 

The second part has to do with where available land is.  Yes, some currently frozen land in high latitudes will become less frozen and more tolerable for both living and farming, but it won't offset the land that's lost.  Currently more than 1/3 of all available land is in the tropics, which as you've said will become largely inhabitable.  bottom line is we stand to lose a LOT more land than we gain, both in absolute terms and for what is suitable for growing crops and living on.  Then of course there's the political fallout that there are only 6 nations with territory in the arctic, whereas there are over 50 which are entirely in the tropics.

[Johnez]

@Leisured that link isn't in your post FYI, kind of curious about it. Was that at a time when agriculture feeding millions would be affected? Or a time where a massive shift in water levels would displace millions of people? If not, I don't think those levels are relevant.

"Life goes on" is an unacceptable approach. Not for the people and populations affected. So there's a toxic waste dump leaking poison into your drinking water-does life go on? Life goes on when that dump is cleaned up, moved, fines are levied and the water is drinkable or people relocated.

[Kris]

@Leisured that link isn't in your post FYI, kind of curious about it. Was that at a time when agriculture feeding millions would be affected? Or a time where a massive shift in water levels would displace millions of people? If not, I don't think those levels are relevant.

"Life goes on" is an unacceptable approach. Not for the people and populations affected. So there's a toxic waste dump leaking poison into your drinking water-does life go on? Life goes on when that dump is cleaned up, moved, fines are levied and the water is drinkable or people relocated.

"Life goes on" is the complacent bromide of the privileged person who is confident his life will never be impacted by the thing he's talking about.

Trump was at least honest about this sentiment when he talked about the looming debt crisis that will explode as a result of his bullshit tax cuts: "Yeah, but I won't be here."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-shrugs-off-future-debt-crisis-i-wont-be-here

[Glenstache]

It is somewhat amusing to me how people that cite the geologic record of prior CO2 levels do not cite any other portions of the geologic record for context. They never seem that interested in the Permian extinction event, for example. In this event massive amounts of CO2 entered the atmosphere and was concurrent with about a 90% decrease in species diversity.  Here's a nice summary from MIT:
http://news.mit.edu/2011/mass-extinction-1118

"It's happened before so it will be fine." is intellectually lazy cherry picking. The state of the science on climate change is not "is AGW a thing?" it is "just exactly how bad will this be and how will it be felt in different places over time?"

There will be costs and winners and losers if we enacted aggressive climate action now. However, the long term cost savings -  as a global society - is a clear benefit. Yes, we will probably not see the full benefits in our own lifetimes. The next generation may be lucky to see the bend in the curve, which will mostly just be "less bad" impacts. Even if we are beyond a tipping point, slowing the rate will make adaptation less expensive and less disruptive. Sol's analogy to a kitchen fire is quite apt.

[GuitarStv]

It's really hard to sell something that you won't see in your lifetime.  People just do not think that way.  Hell, most people are living paycheck to paycheck.  How important do you really think the future is to them?

:P

[Syonyk]

In the short run, yes-much suffering. But in the long run....well the choice is the same gold bars or earth....hmmmm.

Gold bars are pretty environmentally friendly once you get them out... they don't corrode, and just sit around. ;)

I think mustachianism is closer to environmentalism than driving a Prius or buying organic or signing a petition. It addresses the entire chain of ecological harm we've been responsible for these past few centuries. Don't buy stupid shit. Stop driving to work in a stupid car to pay for stupid shit. Stop working period! It's a perfect circle. I realize MMM has strayed a bit from the original tenants (bought a Nissan Leaf recently I think?) but classic mustachianism applied is still effective.

In some ways yes, in some ways... it relies awfully heavily on "business as usual" continuing into the indefinite future.

It does address the chain of purchases and the various clown activities one can engage in (stressing out at work to earn enough money to buy shit to destress being one of those cycles), but I'd argue the zero waste movements are better aligned with the planet - and, importantly, don't rely on never ending market returns.

The "Well, put your money in index funds and when you hit 25x, boom, you're golden!" advice assumes 4% returns going forward - which I tend to think is unlikely to remain for my remaining life (60 years, if all goes well).  The combination of climate change, debt issues, coastal land loss, diminishing returns on investment in technology, etc... one of these is likely to really shake things up, several of them hitting all around the same time (as we're likely to see)... enh.  I'm treating market returns as a "nice bonus" and busy trying to ensure that I'm mostly robust against various things regardless of what markets do.  Will it work?  Probably not as I hope, but it's better to have local resources/energy/food than to rely purely on markets like a lot of people are.

I certainly agree being content on less (or, to borrow a Greer-ism, LESS - Less Energy, Stimulation, Stuff) is going to be helpful, and would make a difference.  The various anti-digital-everything movements (or at least anti-digital-distraction) give me hope that some people will pre-adapt, but, honestly, I don't expect the internet to be as widespread in 50 years as it is now.  I'm one hell of a pessimist (I recognize my bias, as a pessimist-by-career), and am rarely disappointed. ;)

Next gen nuclear reactors (Thorium/Uranium) that are much safer will be the only way to make a substantial difference in the big picture of CO2 emissions.

Technically, I agree with you.  Reality-wise, I don't think they're going to happen.  I think renewables will make enough of a dent that you can't make a nuclear plant pay off, and, yeah, the power grid will be less reliable, but I would bet against any significant new nuclear (at a large scale).  The micro plants (100kW electrical or so?), on the other hand, seem like they'd work well with local micro-grids - a neighborhood could run on a blend of one of those, some storage, and solar for the sunny times.

Going back to the previous geological time periods you mentioned, sea level up to 20 meters higher than it is today with a climate 2-4ºC warmer than we have now (which is what may happen should we miss the IPCC targets).  Even a much more modest 3m sea level rise will eliminate about 2% of all available land.

Yeah, but it mostly floods the coastal elites, and who cares about them? ;)

If you assume a few meters of sea level rise (isn't that one glacier rotting out from underneath on Antarctica able to do a good chunk of that if it slides?), the coastal cities will have major problems - and that's where an awful lot of the economic growth early retirement relies on happens.

[nereo]

Technically, I agree with you.  Reality-wise, I don't think they're going to happen.  I think renewables will make enough of a dent that you can't make a nuclear plant pay off, and, yeah, the power grid will be less reliable, but I would bet against any significant new nuclear (at a large scale).  The micro plants (100kW electrical or so?), on the other hand, seem like they'd work well with local micro-grids - a neighborhood could run on a blend of one of those, some storage, and solar for the sunny times.

Well I spent about two years as an analyst for the decommissioning of two medium-sized nuclear plants.  From an economic standpoint the problem with smaller nuclear plants is the cost of security and the obligatory decommissioning fund (which largely provides for the security of the nuclear material for at least 50 years after shutdown).  If plants didn't have to have redonkulous security protocols in place to subvert terrorists I'd agree with you - but security doesn't scale linearly with power production; even a 'micro-plant' would have most of the same costs as a very large one.  Wind farms or even LNG plants don't have that problem.

To me the biggest area of development over the next two decades will be in mechanical (ie passive/kinetic) energy storage.

If you assume a few meters of sea level rise (isn't that one glacier rotting out from underneath on Antarctica able to do a good chunk of that if it slides?), the coastal cities will have major problems - and that's where an awful lot of the economic growth early retirement relies on happens.

Oh for sure.  Regarding sea-level rise, the biggest challenge we face from a societal standpoint is that we've built the overwhelming majority of our cities and infrastructure along navigable waterways and very often on the coast itself.   Historically this has made commerce relatively cheap, but now these areas are in the greatest danger of flooding. Many island-nations may cease to be above water all-together, and its an open question where those people go particularly when they can't be sent 'back' to their homeland (ie climate refuges).  The latest UN report estimates we may have 100MM such refuges by the end of this century if we carry on with 'business as usual'.

[Syonyk]

Well I spent about two years as an analyst for the decommissioning of two medium-sized nuclear plants.  From an economic standpoint the problem with smaller nuclear plants is the cost of security and the obligatory decommissioning fund (which largely provides for the security of the nuclear material for at least 50 years after shutdown).  If plants didn't have to have redonkulous security protocols in place to subvert terrorists I'd agree with you - but security doesn't scale linearly with power production; even a 'micro-plant' would have most of the same costs as a very large one.

True.  I've been mostly assuming that "bury it pretty far down and encase it in a lot of steel and concrete" would suffice, but I'm not familiar with the specific regulations involved.

Wind farms or even LNG plants don't have that problem.

LNG... is fine, if you ignore the leaks during generation and transmission, which seem like they're an awful lot worse than advertised.

To me the biggest area of development over the next two decades will be in mechanical (ie passive/kinetic) energy storage.

The energy density of that sort of system is awful, but it's definitely got potential, and a properly built system should last nearly forever, with a bit of maintenance (and likely have a far lower embodied energy cost in the long run, helped if you can recycle scrap - load construction debris and concrete waste into worn out train cars or something).

[nereo]

Well I spent about two years as an analyst for the decommissioning of two medium-sized nuclear plants.  From an economic standpoint the problem with smaller nuclear plants is the cost of security and the obligatory decommissioning fund (which largely provides for the security of the nuclear material for at least 50 years after shutdown).  If plants didn't have to have redonkulous security protocols in place to subvert terrorists I'd agree with you - but security doesn't scale linearly with power production; even a 'micro-plant' would have most of the same costs as a very large one.

True.  I've been mostly assuming that "bury it pretty far down and encase it in a lot of steel and concrete" would suffice, but I'm not familiar with the specific regulations involved.

Yeah - from a safety perspective there's not much to it other than encase, line and bury.  But since 'bad hombres' would love to get even a few pounds of radioactive material plants have to be designed like super-max prisons in reverse, and at incredible cost.  Do a Google Earth flyover of any nuclear plant - you'll see a remote parking lot outside a large perimeter barrier (usually a high chain-link outside another concrete wall), then a second inner barrier surrounded by more chain-link.  The only vehicle entrance is through double sliding gates and doglegs.  Everyone else (eg workers) enters through security checkpoints.  And that just gets you past the first of several concentric rings of security.  The whole thing is a 'no-go' zone.
Even after the plant is decommissioned much of that security remains in place because no one wants some f-nut jihadist to dig up 20lbs of spent fuel two decades later.  Since we'ev never been able to get a national (or even regional) repositories off the ground (e.g. yucca mountain) each plant is required to pay into a fund annually to the tune of tens-of-millions, regardless of their power output.  That's why plants generating >1MW can be very profitable while those <500MW are not competitive (and in between is the grey zone).

oh yeah - then there's the upfront cost (billion$ in construction) and decades-long permitting (and protesting) which no utility wants to endure to get new plants online.

don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more nuclear reactors to replace all of our fossil fuel plants - but small reactors aren't very feasible unless we can solve the obstacles above.

[Syonyk]

Fair - I've not considered the security aspects in detail.

I wouldn't mind solving that waste problem with breeders, but... see politically infeasible ideas. :/

[Glenstache]

Power generation is a big piece of the pie. The policy methods for addressing it include shifts in the subsidies from petroleum towards renewables, and direct investment and/or seed money for innovation. R&D will pay off in the long run. We may also need transitional base-load solutions such as LNG or big nuclear, with acceptance that these are imperfect.

[Glenstache]

Here is an article in the NYT describing a $400 million dollar bond measure in Miami to adapt to rising sea levels. This is likely a first installment. This is in part based on a prediction that 10% of the city would be flooded at least once a year by normal tides by the year 2100, not including potential additional impacts from hurricanes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/opinion/ban-ki-moon-miami-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Missing is discussion of zoning changes and building codes that would improve resilience, especially in low lying areas.

[Leisured]

@Leisured that link isn't in your post FYI, kind of curious about it. Was that at a time when agriculture feeding millions would be affected? Or a time where a massive shift in water levels would displace millions of people? If not, I don't think those levels are relevant.

"Life goes on" is an unacceptable approach. Not for the people and populations affected. So there's a toxic waste dump leaking poison into your drinking water-does life go on? Life goes on when that dump is cleaned up, moved, fines are levied and the water is drinkable or people relocated.

"Life goes on" is the complacent bromide of the privileged person who is confident his life will never be impacted by the thing he's talking about.

My post was in response to those who suggested that a warmer Earth will drive humanity extinct. When I said 'life goes on' that meant that human life will continue, and we will not become extinct. That was my point! I certainly did not mean that climate change was not a problem. Of course climate change is a problem, but I was talking about whether humnanity will go extinct. Extinction is a larger problem!

I apologise for leaving out a link to estimating past CO2 levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

[Johnez]

Thanks for the update @Leisured .

Interesting graphs. I know it might come off as backpedaling, but I don't see the "warming" as the ultimate problem, or the CO2, but the fact that our current levels of pollution are unsustainable and that our air, water, and habitats are under serious threat. Not to mention the environment around us of lifeforms other than humans. One doesn't have to look very far to see that we in fact make huge impact on the environment. Parts of China are unbreathable right now. In California, even the global warming skeptics acknowledge how much a difference our clean air laws have made in the clarity and cleanliness of our air. Hilariously they still question if the laws were worth it...

[nereo]

My post was in response to those who suggested that a warmer Earth will drive humanity extinct. When I said 'life goes on' that meant that human life will continue, and we will not become extinct. That was my point! I certainly did not mean that climate change was not a problem. Of course climate change is a problem, but I was talking about whether humnanity will go extinct. Extinction is a larger problem!

I apologise for leaving out a link to estimating past CO2 levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

I agree with you that as a species humans will survive somewhere through pretty much anything short of nuclear war, but you are trying to use inherently flawed logic to make this point.  Just because CO2 levels were higher at a time when humans did not exist does not mean humans will survive if the planet returns to something similar.

Interesting graphs. I know it might come off as backpedaling, but I don't see the "warming" as the ultimate problem, or the CO2, but the fact that our current levels of pollution are unsustainable and that our air, water, and habitats are under serious threat. Not to mention the environment around us of lifeforms other than humans. One doesn't have to look very far to see that we in fact make huge impact on the environment. Parts of China are unbreathable right now. In California, even the global warming skeptics acknowledge how much a difference our clean air laws have made in the clarity and cleanliness of our air. Hilariously they still question if the laws were worth it...

What matters here is scope and duration of these various impacts. Point-source pollutants can have severe health and environmental impacts. If you're downwind from an unfiltered coal plant the particulates can cause respiration ailments, dirty the air, kill of wildlife and make crops too contaminated to eat safely. But as you've noted the impacts can dissipate within a few years if the source of pollutant(s) are curtailed, like what happened in the US and most other countries with their various environmental protection laws. Then there's the highly-toxic point-source environmental disasters that have more lasting effects (i.e. 'superfund sites'). Once you contaminate groundwater with toxic metals or get it into the soil it can take centuries to go back to untoxic levels by itself, and can be mindboggling expensive to actively clean up.  Such places routinely become 'no-go' zones.  Those of course are very bad too.

Greenhouse gases and climate change are entirely different threats.  It impacts the entire planet and every living thing on it. Even with our enthusiastic burning of fossil fuels it has taken centuries to get established, and its impacts are likely to persist not just for decades of centuries but quite possibly for megaannum. Unlike with clean air/water acts, curbing emissions will not cause us to revert back to our previous state.  It, too, willl cause mass extinctions to species that cannot adapt.  Marine species with hard (calcified) shells will be particularly vulnerable, as more acidic oceans will make it energetically costly to build their skeletons. Our climate is driven by ocean currents and wind patterns, which in turn are fueled by transfers of heat as warm air and water expand and move.  Here's where concentrating on global averages misses the entire point; not everywhere will go up by ~2ºC, and the extreme events will become more frequently because there's more total energy (heat). So we get more powerful and more frequent storms which not only kill people but destroy vegetation as well.  In truth I could write all day about the impacts a changing climate will have and already has had on our planet, and that's what I do professionally.  But the simple message is that because it acts on a planetary scale and because it its effects will continue for centuries , collectively it has environmental impacts that are far greater than toxic air in Beijing or contaminated groundwater around industrial plants or deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest.

[MasterStache]

Speaking of policy is anyone truly surprised the WH is putting together a panel of folks, led by a climate change skeptic, to study weather climate change poses a national security threat? The infamous William Happer who once compared the "demonization" of CO2 to the treatment of Jews under Adolf Hitler. It will be rather ironic when they dispute their own earlier reports that it is happening and it's consequences are dire. It's like, just keep trying until you get the outcome you want. Fuck facts!

I'm sure Trump is just taking the same approach as with the national debt. He won't be around to worry about it.

[MasterStache]

Greenhouse gases and climate change are entirely different threats.  It impacts the entire planet and every living thing on it. Even with our enthusiastic burning of fossil fuels it has taken centuries to get established, and its impacts are likely to persist not just for decades of centuries but quite possibly for megaannum. Unlike with clean air/water acts, curbing emissions will not cause us to revert back to our previous state.  It, too, willl cause mass extinctions to species that cannot adapt.  Marine species with hard (calcified) shells will be particularly vulnerable, as more acidic oceans will make it energetically costly to build their skeletons. Our climate is driven by ocean currents and wind patterns, which in turn are fueled by transfers of heat as warm air and water expand and move.  Here's where concentrating on global averages misses the entire point; not everywhere will go up by ~2ºC, and the extreme events will become more frequently because there's more total energy (heat). So we get more powerful and more frequent storms which not only kill people but destroy vegetation as well.  In truth I could write all day about the impacts a changing climate will have and already has had on our planet, and that's what I do professionally.  But the simple message is that because it acts on a planetary scale and because it its effects will continue for centuries , collectively it has environmental impacts that are far greater than toxic air in Beijing or contaminated groundwater around industrial plants or deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest.

+1

The poles are actually seeing larger temp increases as are the oceans since they are huge heat sinks. The consequences are dire and already apparent. In 2016 alone the Great Barrier reef lost 30% of it's coral. Every reef around the world is dying and it's projected that in only roughly 30 years we'll be lucky if any coral reefs still exist. As far as mass extinctions, we are already in the midst of a mass extinction event caused entirely by humans.   

[AlexMar]

Greenhouse gases and climate change are entirely different threats.  It impacts the entire planet and every living thing on it. Even with our enthusiastic burning of fossil fuels it has taken centuries to get established, and its impacts are likely to persist not just for decades of centuries but quite possibly for megaannum. Unlike with clean air/water acts, curbing emissions will not cause us to revert back to our previous state.  It, too, willl cause mass extinctions to species that cannot adapt.  Marine species with hard (calcified) shells will be particularly vulnerable, as more acidic oceans will make it energetically costly to build their skeletons. Our climate is driven by ocean currents and wind patterns, which in turn are fueled by transfers of heat as warm air and water expand and move.  Here's where concentrating on global averages misses the entire point; not everywhere will go up by ~2ºC, and the extreme events will become more frequently because there's more total energy (heat). So we get more powerful and more frequent storms which not only kill people but destroy vegetation as well.  In truth I could write all day about the impacts a changing climate will have and already has had on our planet, and that's what I do professionally.  But the simple message is that because it acts on a planetary scale and because it its effects will continue for centuries , collectively it has environmental impacts that are far greater than toxic air in Beijing or contaminated groundwater around industrial plants or deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest.

+1

The polls are actually seeing larger temp increases as are the oceans since they are huge heat sinks. The consequences are dire and already apparent. In 2016 alone the Great Barrier reef lost 30% of it's coral. Every reef around the world is dying and it's projected that in only roughly 30 years we'll be lucky if any coral reefs still exist. As far as mass extinctions, we are already in the midst of a mass extinction event caused entirely by humans.

Just to get this straight...  a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?

[nereo]

Just to get this straight...  a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?

No.  Weather is what you get on a day to day basis.  Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.

(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).

[MasterStache]

Just to get this straight...  a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?

No.  Weather is what you get on a day to day basis.  Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.

(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).

I hope you are right. It's astounding the ignorance some folks display when it comes to differentiating local weather patterns from global climate changes.

[nereo]

... It's astounding the ignorance some folks display when it comes to differentiating local weather patterns from global climate changes.

Well there's confounding local weather patterns with global climate change, but there's also confounding local weather with local (and regional) climate.  That one seems to be really hard for many to differentiate, and it leads people to false conclusions.

For example, people will view a large snowfall and note that similar events have happened several other times in the last hundred years, while also noting that the average annual temperature in that area has increased by 'only' 1ºC over the past century.  They might conclude that very little has changed and we've always had these occasional large snowfalls.  But it isn't the averages or even the records - it's the frequency of the extremes that really drive ecological changes. There's an interesting 'stress point' around 17ºC (63ºF) where colder water species have to expend a lot more energy to not die.  In the southern Gulf of Maine we had roughly 40 stress-degree days each year in 2001.  Today we are experiencing around 150; critters like salmon are stressed 3x as much, even though the annual temperature has gone up 'just' 1.4ºC. Whether or not salmon (and many other animals) can persist in a particular area is often a function of how many extreme weather days there are each year.

[RetiredAt63]

Gardeners also see what Nereo is talking about.  Take Forsythia - when I was a kid it bloomed in Toronto but not in Montreal, because Montreal had a few really cold winter days that killed the flower buds.   Montreal average winter temperatures looked OK, but it was just those few really cold days that mattered for the flower buds.

Some plants need cold - apple varieties have minimum chill requirements before they bloom in spring.  Too few chill degrees and they may bloom in a February or March warm spell and then have the blossoms all killed when winter returns.  This is why we grow different varieties than someone in say North Carolina.

What I am noticing in our weather variability is that we have more warm spells, more freezing rain episodes, than we used to have.  We also still have super cold temperatures, winter temperatures are always pretty variable.  But we notice when it keeps going over 0^oC, because it changes the dynamic of the snow pack.

[AlexMar]

Just to get this straight...  a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?

No.  Weather is what you get on a day to day basis.  Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.

(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).

Of course it's in jest.  I'm well aware of the difference.  I'm just pointing out that when weather phenomena happen that pushes the man made climate change agenda, it's "climate" - and when weather phenomena happen that suggest the opposite, then it's just "weather" and people are stupid and don't know the difference.

The barrier reef suffered some bleaching due to a heat wave.  So now that's catastrophic long term climate that will destroy every reef in the world and kill us all.  Please send your checks to the IPCC, thanks.

The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them.  The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there.  Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago.  When I go diving, the reefs look healthy and great.  Tons of fish.  Consider that in Florida we have everyone screaming about how somehow the Republican governor is causing red tide and destroying the oceans.  This is due to having to drain Lake Okeechobee because we have too much fresh water.  The same people screaming about that issue are the same ones who scream about conserving fresh water, don't water your lawn!  I find that when people get so polarized and on "their side" - they have a hard time rationalizing their positions.  Global warming comes off similarly.  It's so radicalized.  You can't have a middle ground position.  You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier.  The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit.  Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently?  Maybe even a little be more practical?  Just some food for thought.

I know my opinions will be highly unpopular in this thread, but that's ok :)

[bacchi]

The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them.  The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there.  Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago.

You're jesting again, right?

[Glenstache]

The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them.  The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there.  Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago.

You're jesting again, right?

Apparently, they missed this a few posts above:

Here is an article in the NYT describing a $400 million dollar bond measure in Miami to adapt to rising sea levels. This is likely a first installment. This is in part based on a prediction that 10% of the city would be flooded at least once a year by normal tides by the year 2100, not including potential additional impacts from hurricanes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/opinion/ban-ki-moon-miami-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Missing is discussion of zoning changes and building codes that would improve resilience, especially in low lying areas.

Just because a position is in the middle between two alternative points of view, does not mean that it is the most reasonable or correct point of view. If they wish to insulate their position from the "hysteria" of the left or right on this, then they should be referring to the technical literature. This is a technical issue, not a debate about whether Rush or Led Zeppelin is better. The technical analysis says that this is a really big problem, that the problem is not going to be easy to solve, and that the longer we wait to adjust our emissions, the worse the outcome will be for humans and other species.

The post also highlights the problem in communicating how climate change works. It is inherently a complex set of impacts and waiting until we see obvious signs in Miami when walking down the beach on a nice day is not the correct set of tools to evaluate it.

[GuitarStv]

The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them.

I'm just picking a single comment that you made that immediately jumped out as incorrect here, but:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing/

[nereo]

I know my opinions will be highly unpopular in this thread, but that's ok :)

It isn't your opinions that I object to - it's that your 'facts' are completely wrong.

[GuitarStv]

When I go diving, the reefs look healthy and great.  Tons of fish.

I assume that you know that fish are not reefs, and that the structure of coral reefs can remain in place long after the living animals that create them are dead.  There's significant evidence that the reefs do not look healthy and great (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/the-effects-of-climate-change-on-coral-reef-health/, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/great-barrier-reef-93-of-reefs-hit-by-coral-bleaching).

[Kris]

Sigh. Sad little troll is sad.

[MasterStache]

Sigh. Sad little troll is sad.

I was going to respond, but in retrospect, I have to agree with you. I mean polar bears, everything looks fine to me, the scientist are paid. It's like the trifecta of denier talking points.

[MasterStache]

In reference to the coral reefs for anyone interested this is worth a watch (FYI it was tough to watch, at least for me):

https://www.chasingcoral.com/

[Kris]

Sigh. Sad little troll is sad.

I was going to respond, but in retrospect, I have to agree with you. I mean polar bears, everything looks fine to me, the scientist are paid. It's like the trifecta of denier talking points.

Yup, not worth it. Either troll or willfully stupid. Either way, what's the point?

[sol]

You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier.  The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit.  Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently?

If you're keen on fostering empathy for the other side, can you admit that it's possible environmentalists don't want an "economic catastrophe" either?  Both sides of this debate want a healthy and sustainable economy, and the whole point of this "Green New Deal" proposal is that it supports both the economy and the environment, by redirecting government subsidies away from low-employment oil and gas firms to high employment green energy firms.  It's a win for all sides, in theory.

Personally, I think that many "conservatives" want a clean environment but it sure seems that "republicans" do not.  Consider that the republican party, in just the past two years, has...

Increased logging and road building in federal forests.
Gutted the EPA's enforcement arm, reducing criminal prosecutions for polluters by about 75%
Subsidized the construction of new coal power plants by removing pollution control requirements
Gutted the endangered species act like 6 different ways, including opening up protected habitat and changing the rules for listings and delistings
Overturned the verdict blocking the Keystone XL pipeline for tar sands
Opened the arctic ocean for offshore oil drilling for the first time ever.
Disbanded the EPA air pollution review panel
Removed restrictions on methane flare offs at oil wells
Shot down the federal fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars
Cut climate monitoring and research funding at NASA, USGS, NPS, NSF, USFS, NOAA, BLM, etc.
Removed all references to climate change from official government plans
Shrunk a couple of national monuments
Increased offshore oil and gas leases on public lands
Scrapped the clean power plan
Stopped research into health risks of mountaintop mining
Revoked flooding standards that account for rising sea levels
Tried (but failed when sued) to block ozone pollution standards
Cancelled rule to protect marine mammals from fishing nets
Pulled out of the nonbinding and voluntary paris climate agreement
Re-assigned senior scientists working on climate adaptation issues, ending careers
Rejected the ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos on farms, though it's already illegal for household use
Made lead ammunition legal again for hunters on federal lands
Lobbied to allow mine waste dumping in streams
Appointed an oil CEO to be secretary of state.

I can provide additional supporting documents for anything on that list you're not already familiar with.

Taken as a whole, Trump's record on these issues does NOT suggest that he "wants a clean environment" or "recognizes the importance of it".  To me it suggests that he only recognizes the importance of increasing profits for polluters, and will happily destroy our environment in the name of short term profits.  It's an organized and deliberate effort to undermine and degrade the health of our ecosystems, hurry the extinction of vulnerable species, increase the health threats posed to American citizens by toxic chemicals, and delay any attempts to address these problems in the future. 

tl;dr:  Republicans don't appear to want a clean environment at all, if you look at what they've actually done under Trump.

[AlexMar]

You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier.  The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit.  Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently?

If you're keen on fostering empathy for the other side, can you admit that it's possible environmentalists don't want an "economic catastrophe" either?  Both sides of this debate want a healthy and sustainable economy, and the whole point of this "Green New Deal" proposal is that it supports both the economy and the environment, by redirecting government subsidies away from low-employment oil and gas firms to high employment green energy firms.  It's a win for all sides, in theory.

Personally, I think that many "conservatives" want a clean environment but it sure seems that "republicans" do not.  Consider that the republican party, in just the past two years, has...

Increased logging and road building in federal forests.
Gutted the EPA's enforcement arm, reducing criminal prosecutions for polluters by about 75%
Subsidized the construction of new coal power plants by removing pollution control requirements
Gutted the endangered species act like 6 different ways, including opening up protected habitat and changing the rules for listings and delistings
Overturned the verdict blocking the Keystone XL pipeline for tar sands
Opened the arctic ocean for offshore oil drilling for the first time ever.
Disbanded the EPA air pollution review panel
Removed restrictions on methane flare offs at oil wells
Shot down the federal fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars
Cut climate monitoring and research funding at NASA, USGS, NPS, NSF, USFS, NOAA, BLM, etc.
Removed all references to climate change from official government plans
Shrunk a couple of national monuments
Increased offshore oil and gas leases on public lands
Scrapped the clean power plan
Stopped research into health risks of mountaintop mining
Revoked flooding standards that account for rising sea levels
Tried (but failed when sued) to block ozone pollution standards
Cancelled rule to protect marine mammals from fishing nets
Pulled out of the nonbinding and voluntary paris climate agreement
Re-assigned senior scientists working on climate adaptation issues, ending careers
Rejected the ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos on farms, though it's already illegal for household use
Made lead ammunition legal again for hunters on federal lands
Lobbied to allow mine waste dumping in streams
Appointed an oil CEO to be secretary of state.

I can provide additional supporting documents for anything on that list you're not already familiar with.

Taken as a whole, Trump's record on these issues does NOT suggest that he "wants a clean environment" or "recognizes the importance of it".  To me it suggests that he only recognizes the importance of increasing profits for polluters, and will happily destroy our environment in the name of short term profits.  It's an organized and deliberate effort to undermine and degrade the health of our ecosystems, hurry the extinction of vulnerable species, increase the health threats posed to American citizens by toxic chemicals, and delay any attempts to address these problems in the future. 

tl;dr:  Republicans don't appear to want a clean environment at all, if you look at what they've actually done under Trump.

I think I got exactly the snobby, "denier" nonsense responses above as expected.  It's so typical of the left.  My facts are wrong, apparently, but these are the same organizations and scientists who have told us we'll be underwater already.  The problem is, sea level just isn't rising any faster.  It's not accelerating.  And according to governmental data, there is a reason the beaches look pretty much exactly the same as they have for decades... because the seas are not rising in any meaningful way.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580

Key West should ALREADY be gone if we listened to the hysteria.  At this rate, Key West may or may not be in trouble in, oh, a few hundred years, unless we go through a cooling cycle... which may or may not happen.  And when the predictions don't come true, as they never do, it's completely ignored and new hysteria is introduced.  And the global warming squad runs around swearing everything is going to collapse, we need to do something "RIGHT AWAY!!!!" - Miami will be gone in 10 years, I mean 20 years, I mean 50 years, I mean, your great great grand children years....  Maybe the discussion shouldn't be centered around hysterics, but a more reasoned and practical approach to making the planet better.  Kind of like what is already happening.  Cars are vastly more efficient and clean.  Tons of new technology is being introduced.  Power is cleaner.  Solar panels are going up like crazy all over the country and coming down in price. Homes more efficient.  More efficient water heaters.  Cleaner water.  The list goes on.  It's already happening and it's driven by human innovation and capitalism and will continue without massive government takeovers and radical, unnecessary solutions.

Anyways, we see things differently.  When I see your links above, I don't see what you do.  Each one of those is a complicated topic with very well reasoned arguments on both sides.  Just because we build a pipeline doesn't mean we hate the environment.  "Scrapped the clean power plan" - oh, that must mean we want dirty power!!!  I mean, come on.  It's just a lot of intentionally misleading headlines.  You would pretty much have to discuss each one individually.   But again, as you can see from this thread, people are so unbelievably polarized, so radicalized, that finding a reasonable middle ground on the topic and having a rational discussion is all but impossible.  Just look at the poll!  We need to do MAJOR things to fix the climate...  Nuts.

For fun, here is the "predictions" for Miami (page 6) -

http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-Compact-Unified-Sea-Level-Rise-Projection.pdf

Surely we need to spend hundreds of millions, since we will see at least 1 foot of sea level rise in just the next decade... 5 feet by the turn of the century!!!  Oh, by the way, the ACTUAL trend is more like 8 inches over the next 100 years....  These projections are nothing but religion at this point.  Based on models that have failed over, and over, and over.  But people STILL believe them and cite them, and swear by them.

[waltworks]

This is why we need an actuarial understanding of the potential problem.

I don't wear a seat belt because I expect to get in a wreck today, I wear it because even if the odds are against it being necessary, the consequences are unacceptable if I *do* need it. For the religious folks out there, this is just like the famous Pascal's wager. When faced with terrible, low probability outcomes, the rational response is not to ignore the potential problem.

We don't need model certainty to be concerned about climate change. Even if you think there's only a 10% chance Miami is in real trouble - that's not good odds. It would be worth doing some major mitigation and taking our hefty subsidy hand (I'm looking at you, US military) off the oil/gas side of the scale, at least.

-W

[MasterStache]

I think I got exactly the snobby, "denier" nonsense responses above as expected.

Well when you spout long debunked denier talking points, you should expect people to fact check you.
 

It's so typical of the left.

I find that when people get so polarized and on "their side" - they have a hard time rationalizing their positions.

If you don't like the issue being polarized, then why are you polarizing it?

My facts are wrong, apparently...

Multiple folks actually provided evidence that multiple claims you made were wrong. Can you point out where you accepted this new information in an effort to better understand the situation of global warming/climate change? If not then it seems you are guilty of the very absolute polarization you are so upset about. Thus we are back to square 1 and you get responses you don't like. 

[AlexMar]

This is why we need an actuarial understanding of the potential problem.

I don't wear a seat belt because I expect to get in a wreck today, I wear it because even if the odds are against it being necessary, the consequences are unacceptable if I *do* need it. For the religious folks out there, this is just like the famous Pascal's wager. When faced with terrible, low probability outcomes, the rational response is not to ignore the potential problem.

We don't need model certainty to be concerned about climate change. Even if you think there's only a 10% chance Miami is in real trouble - that's not good odds. It would be worth doing some major mitigation and taking our hefty subsidy hand (I'm looking at you, US military) off the oil/gas side of the scale, at least.

-W

Pascals wager is irrational and fails miserably.  So I'm glad you used it to describe the global warming religion as well.  It fits perfectly.

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to take a rational and reasonable approach to the topic since it's so highly politicized.  If you don't believe in the most radical of projections, you are simply outcast from society as some sort of kook denier.

[waltworks]

I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?

-W

[Glenstache]

This is why we need an actuarial understanding of the potential problem.

I don't wear a seat belt because I expect to get in a wreck today, I wear it because even if the odds are against it being necessary, the consequences are unacceptable if I *do* need it. For the religious folks out there, this is just like the famous Pascal's wager. When faced with terrible, low probability outcomes, the rational response is not to ignore the potential problem.

We don't need model certainty to be concerned about climate change. Even if you think there's only a 10% chance Miami is in real trouble - that's not good odds. It would be worth doing some major mitigation and taking our hefty subsidy hand (I'm looking at you, US military) off the oil/gas side of the scale, at least.

-W

Pascals wager is irrational and fails miserably.  So I'm glad you used it to describe the global warming religion as well.  It fits perfectly.

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to take a rational and reasonable approach to the topic since it's so highly politicized.  If you don't believe in the most radical of projections, you are simply outcast from society as some sort of kook denier.

You do realize that at least three people in this sub-thread have science PhDs and direct, practical work experience in fields that address climate change and understanding the impacts, correct?

[AlexMar]

I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?

-W

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

[bacchi]

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?


Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.

[Glenstache]

I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?

-W

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Well, in the 1600s context of Pascal it was pretty much Catholicism or nothing. But, this is a nitpick that diverts from the fact that we are not looking at infinite climate scenarios.

Back on topic, I think this would be an example of the last option in the poll. I'd wager (see what I did there?) that  this thread is unlikely to convert AlexMar's point of view. The assumed policy would be to deal with sea level rise as it is an immediate problem and technology and other fixes will deal with the rest. Is that a fair summation?

[AlexMar]

You do realize that at least three people in this sub-thread have science PhDs and direct, practical work experience in fields that address climate change and understanding the impacts, correct?

That doesn't mean, to me, what you think it should.  There are people with PhD's and direct, practical work experience in fields that address climate change that do NOT agree with these people.  I'm open to hearing differing views and forming my own opinion on the topic.

I am skeptical by nature.  And when the predictions continue to fail, decade after decade, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a view that is skeptical of it.  But as I pointed out, society has become so polarized and radicalized, intentionally by the way, that you aren't really allowed to be skeptical.  Believe it all, every bit of it, or you are an idiot denier Trump loving racist bigot who wants to see children die from global warming or something to that tune.  That's where we are at in the world right now.  It's sad, really.  It goes both ways, too.  The rational middle ground is long lost.  Wacky, soaring nonsense like the Green New Deal vs Trump promises to eliminate $20 trillion in debt.  Everything is so radical nowadays.

I'm not offended by the responses, by the way.  It was expected.  It only proves my point.

[waltworks]

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.

It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.

Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.

-W

[AlexMar]

I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?

-W

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Well, in the 1600s context of Pascal it was pretty much Catholicism or nothing. But, this is a nitpick that diverts from the fact that we are not looking at infinite climate scenarios.

Back on topic, I think this would be an example of the last option in the poll. I'd wager (see what I did there?) that  this thread is unlikely to convert AlexMar's point of view. The assumed policy would be to deal with sea level rise as it is an immediate problem and technology and other fixes will deal with the rest. Is that a fair summation?

I'm definitely more towards the last option in the poll, but I don't like to be characterized that way since I do think we need some intervention.  I think sea level rise IS something that is an immediate problem but nowhere near to the extent of the "alarmists."  I do not buy in to the catastrophic projections that have failed over and over - or at least I'm highly skeptical of them.  I do support the continued science but disagree with how we are using the science to push political agendas.  I think we do need to focus heavily on our environment, but in a pragmatic way.  Which means I'm ok with drilling and pipelines managed carefully, for example.  I'm not all or nothing and certainly not far left or right.

[AlexMar]

Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements.  Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on.  But that's ridiculous.  It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing.  So which wager would you take?  The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.

Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.

It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.

Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.

-W

Curious.  If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?

I'm not happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the prediction from coming true.  Notably because they have a hard time defining exactly WHAT is going to happen.  We lose some islands?  Need to slowly move inland?  Build a levy?  Plants and food might grow faster and in more places?  Climate change is a much slower process than the projections, and we are far more capable of dealing with it as it happens, slowly.  It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't actually know what's going to happen.  You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem.  To me it very much feels like a Pascals Wager and irrational.  Nobody REALLY knows what's going to happen, when, and to what extent - if at all.  So why be so alarmed?

[Davnasty]

As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate.  Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.

What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?


Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.

Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?