What's really going on out in the country? Why

[Metric Mouse]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

In Miami Florida they are installing large drain pipes and pumps to pump water away from the increasingly flooded roads. The mayor expects it will buy them about 50 years after which they are not sure what to do. Made even tougher when you have a governor who thinks it's all a bunch of liberal bologna. They had to raise taxes to pay the $400 million price tag. Yikes!!

To be fair, from the same source, an equal area of the world is 36 Degrees COLDER than average. The air mass that usually sits above the artic is just shifted this year.  Of course there are arguments about artic sea ice and what not; just offering perspective.

As far as pumping water and disappearing islands:  http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/climate-change-increases-island-size-scientists-say/story-e6frfq80-1225874903902

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

(Notes: Same study)

This source says that pacific islands are ADDING land mass.  They're not disappearing, they're fucking growing!  (TL;DR note: this is averaged over the islands studied. Some are shrinking - these are the islands that have infrastructure on them that has not been designed to 'grow naturally, and thus are washing away.  Islands that have less infrastructure are adding land mass.)

So yeah, despite the fact that global warming is getting much worse much faster than anyone predicted, it's not ALL bad...

[MrMoogle]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

Mr. Moogle - you perfectly call out the major problem right there. All this fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is being generated by people who have no expertise in the field of climate science. This FUD is drowning out voices of the majority of actual experts.

The thing that is terrifying to many of us, is that the ultimate FUD-flinging non-expert has been appointed to head up the EPA transition team.

I think I'm allowed to have doubts when I'm told that this is "settled science" but then they cant predict something as simple as yearly average temperature.  The theories are not solid.  This field is relatively new, and the system is complex.  I believe the earth is getting warmer, and I believe part of it is likely manmade.  I'm not convinced it can be expected to continue to rise at the current rate indefinitely.  I'm definitely not convinced we can stop it, or we know how to stop it. 

Since this has potential to be devastating, and since the theories are not solid, we need to learn more, and I'm certainly willing to spend more funding on it.  I fear that too much is spent on agreeing with each other and not trying to advance the science, but again, I don't know.  I'm all for "reasonable" environmental restrictions.  I personally try to minimize my impact, but I'm sure I could do better.

[mtn]

Sigh. Really folks? We are pretty good at predicting the path, even if we are not predicting specifics.

The science in the comics checks out. Edit:can't make them work. Go to the links. [img]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png[\img]

[img]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png[\img]

[Malaysia41]

Yeah - the evidence is strong enough for me to consider the issue of man-caused global warming adequately 'settled.'

Note the x axis on this graph from NASA. It extends back 400,000 years and covers multiple earth axis tilts / ice ages / warming ages.  http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/:



We understand the mechanisms by which CO2 warms the earth. We also know how it acidifies the oceans. The fact that the concentrations are in historically unprecedented territory*, and climbing, should alarm us all into action, not just further study. 

*We haven't seen these CO2 levels in upwards of 15 million years:

For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch. - http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

[Kansas Terri]

What is going on in the country?

Well, to start with, the tax code now gives tax breaksfor people who set up factories overseas. And, in response, they are closing factories in the Midwest and opening them overseas.

One good factory used to give entry level jobs to several small towns, and with the factories gone the towns are dying. To combat this many towns are GIVING LAND AWAY FOR FREE, but it isn't enough as there are few takers, as people need to work to support themselves.

Also, in the "Rust belt" there are large areas of third-world conditions.

And, the government has been unresponsive.

So Trump said "I will bring the jobs back". Clinton said "I will close the coal plants" which means we will have to rebuild many electrical plants, and right now we cannot afford it.

We are the overlooked. They want us to vote for them, while they do not CARE that so many communities are dying and that some areas are having trouble getting clean water.

I did not vote for Trump: I voted libertarian. But I know why he won. He went to each section of the country, identified their greatest need, and promised to deliver it. Clinton did not.

In my opinion

[waltworks]

The coal plants are going away because natural gas is cheap and plentiful in the age of fracking. No president is going to be able to do anything about that, unless you want to start subsidizing the crap out of coal production or something.

Lots of renewables are getting pretty competitive too, so I'd assume coal is dead forever.

-W

[Metric Mouse]

The coal plants are going away because natural gas is cheap and plentiful in the age of fracking. No president is going to be able to do anything about that, unless you want to start subsidizing the crap out of coal production or something.

Lots of renewables are getting pretty competitive too, so I'd assume coal is dead forever.

-W

A president could set it up to fast-track permitting for coal plants. (or something comparable) That's one of the major barriers - it's much easier to get a LNG plant permitted; it wouldn't reverse the course on coal falling out, but it could slow it down.

[Kansas Terri]

Just leave the coal plants alone for now. It will take years before a rebuilt plant goes into the black.

And the Midwest has cash flow problem right now. The last few months I have noticed that fewer stores and homes are boarded up, but if the electric bills go up that will change. Too many people are holding on by the skin of their teeth.

[waltworks]

A president could set it up to fast-track permitting for coal plants. (or something comparable) That's one of the major barriers - it's much easier to get a LNG plant permitted; it wouldn't reverse the course on coal falling out, but it could slow it down.

No, it doesn't matter. Gas is practically free, and gas turbines are crazy efficient (and from a public health/particulates standpoint, nice and clean). Technology killed coal, not politics.

Likewise, technology killed the 1960s factory economy that so many people want back. Low skill/high paid manufacturing jobs are never coming back, folks. Period.

-W

[Metric Mouse]

A president could set it up to fast-track permitting for coal plants. (or something comparable) That's one of the major barriers - it's much easier to get a LNG plant permitted; it wouldn't reverse the course on coal falling out, but it could slow it down.

No, it doesn't matter. Gas is practically free, and gas turbines are crazy efficient (and from a public health/particulates standpoint, nice and clean). Technology killed coal, not politics.

Likewise, technology killed the 1960s factory economy that so many people want back. Low skill/high paid manufacturing jobs are never coming back, folks. Period.

-W

I think the biggest hurdle to massive natural gas generation is the infrastructure. Right now natural gas is so cheap it's flared off as waste at many sites. There's not enough pipelines to move it properly to where it is needed.  Yes, Natural Gas is the way of the future (barring some presidential ban on fracking, to tie into earlier comments) but it will take some time to get there.

Agreed technology killed coal; that doesn't mean that forces outside of the market have not had an influence.

[Kansas Terri]

The buildings and machinery are NOT free. How are you going to break ground?

The cities do not have the cash, the counties do not have the cash, the state does not have the cash. And, the last time they sold bonds the response was not very good.  Because a large chunk of the population does not have it, either. So how will you break ground? Lay off the REST of the police?  Expect Washington to cover the building costs? (as if)

If the jobs return people will be paying enough in taxes to replace the coal fired plants. Until then, the costs of building it is something that nobody has any longer. I agree that AFTER it is built it would be cheaper to run, but we cannot GET it built in this economy: nobody has the money and we cannot borrow enough

[waltworks]

What? Power companies and utilities are in the *business* of building capital-intensive infrastructure with a long payback period. In fact, it's super easy to finance right now since interest rates are so low. Probably the best time in history to build gas-fired power, really.

-W

[Kansas Terri]

What? Power companies and utilities are in the *business* of building capital-intensive infrastructure with a long payback period. In fact, it's super easy to finance right now since interest rates are so low. Probably the best time in history to build gas-fired power, really.

-W

Banks do not loan to people-OR-_to businesses- that are over extended. And we are overextended.
In my immediate area we still get about 25% of our power through coal. Are you able to borrow millions of dollars for each plant that needs replacing across the entire state? Can we expect the first payment next week so we can hire engineers and architects to draw up the plans? No? And what about the OTHER coal plants in other Midwestern states?

Neither can Kansas borrow that much. A family that is just managing on unemployment cannot afford to have their utility bills go up much more, they will leave.  Everybody out here knows it: We can tell by the abandoned houses. And I live in a relatively prosperous area

[Metric Mouse]

Banks do not loan to people-OR-_to businesses- that are over extended. And we are overextended.
In my immediate area we still get about 25% of our power through coal. Are you able to borrow millions of dollars for each plant that needs replacing across the entire state? Can we expect the first payment next week so we can hire engineers and architects to draw up the plans? No? And what about the OTHER coal plants in other Midwestern states?

Neither can Kansas borrow that much. A family that is just managing on unemployment cannot afford to have their utility bills go up much more, they will leave.  Everybody out here knows it: We can tell by the abandoned houses. And I live in a relatively prosperous area

Umm... if banks don't loan to people or to businesses, how is it that they have become over-extended?

I would guess that your local G&T has engineers and architects on staff working on their next power plant.  I'm not certain that they would wait until they need the plant tomorrow to start planning it. I would assume they have a 10-15 year plan that includes all of the assets they are planning on building, or power they are planning on purchasing, over that time frame.  I would bet a year's power bill that they those plans do not include any NEW coal generation.

[Kansas Terri]

Umm... if banks don't loan to people or to businesses, how is it that they have become over-extended?

I would guess that your local G&T has engineers and architects on staff working on their next power plant.  I'm not certain that they would wait until they need the plant tomorrow to start planning it. I would assume they have a 10-15 year plan that includes all of the assets they are planning on building, or power they are planning on purchasing, over that time frame.  I would bet a year's power bill that they those plans do not include any NEW coal generation.

Because they have already borrowed so much already.

I did not say banks made no loans, I said our communities were so far in debt they could not afford to borrow ENOUGH money to replace our many coal plants. Banks expect to be paid back. We are at the stage where the bank says "You cannot borrow that much more".

My husband works for  local government. When there is no more work on their desks the people are laid off. That way the work force is smaller every year, which is the goal. It is also the norm in my area

As for not designing more coal plants, they have a new design from 2006 that they decided they could not afford to build, and it was a coal plant. I do not know why they designed  new coal plant but there you go. (I own stock in the energy company)

[waltworks]

Teri, the power company is not going to get a loan from it's customers, overextended or not. It will go to investors/big banks. Wall Street, in other words - which is in the business of loaning money to businesses that need it to build stuff. That's almost certainly how your current coal plant (unless it's *extremely* old) was financed too.

Or were you saying something else? It sounds like you're not super clear on how big projects get financed but the bottom line is that the end customers aren't going to be loaning/applying for money from anyone.

-W

[waltworks]

Ah, I think I see now. You live somewhere with a declining population. That causes all kinds of problems but are you proposing the government forcibly resettle people to your town or something?

You should be trying to get more immigrants/refugees/etc to settle there, probably. So sort of the opposite of what's likely to happen in the near future.

-W

[Kansas Terri]

Section of the Midwest are dying through lack of jobs. High unemployment causes a lower tax base, which means tending to the infrastructure has been greatly reduced. People buy less because so many folk are barely eating. This further reduces their ability to pay increased utility costs, which is why some of our communities no longer have potable water in their homes. 

Factories used to keep things stable, but the government now gives the factories we used to have tax breaks to go overseas. That increases unemployment, decrease the amount the cities and utilities can collect from the citizens.

When a utility company can sell fewer bonds and/or borrow less money, as they are to be reimbursed by the citizens who are less and less able to pay their bills.

At the moment the Midwest cannot replace any infrastructure unless it is a matter of safety.

*IF* the tax code is changed, (and possibly Trump is right about the tarrifs being needed, though tariffs often backfire)  then perhaps factories will be opened, and our current recession will be over.

An honest question was asked: "What is with he country"? And I he explained about the lack of potable water and how communities cannot keep up their infrastructure.

You can believe me or not. There is a recession on in the Midwest. And Clinton's response was to increase the financial burden while Trump said "I will bring the jobs back". Nothing kills a recession faster than having enough jobs.

Now, my unemployed son and my employed husband are shouting at each other in the living room, so I am going to leave now. If you take nothing else from this, accept that large areas of the Midwest are dying.

Now.

[Kansas Terri]

Ah, I think I see now. You live somewhere with a declining population. That causes all kinds of problems but are you proposing the government forcibly resettle people to your town or something?

You should be trying to get more immigrants/refugees/etc to settle there, probably. So sort of the opposite of what's likely to happen in the near future.

-W

I want our government to stop paying companies to ship the factories overseas.

The end.

Bye!

[dilinger]

Ah, I think I see now. You live somewhere with a declining population. That causes all kinds of problems but are you proposing the government forcibly resettle people to your town or something?

You should be trying to get more immigrants/refugees/etc to settle there, probably. So sort of the opposite of what's likely to happen in the near future.

-W

Actually, given the cost of living in cities, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is what happens.  Right now people with low incomes and immigrants are being pushed out of cities into the suburbs.  Suburban poverty is growing, as well as suburban diversity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050803324.html , http://urbanland.uli.org/industry-sectors/american-demography-bursting-diversity-yet-baby-bust/ ).  If this trend continues, the suburbs may become too expensive, and we can expect recent immigrants/refugees to end up in the exurbs or even more rural areas.  The question is, will it be safe for them there, or will they just be segregated into poverty-stricken areas that lack government services?

[Metric Mouse]

Ah, I think I see now. You live somewhere with a declining population. That causes all kinds of problems but are you proposing the government forcibly resettle people to your town or something?

You should be trying to get more immigrants/refugees/etc to settle there, probably. So sort of the opposite of what's likely to happen in the near future.

-W

Actually, given the cost of living in cities, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is what happens.  Right now people with low incomes and immigrants are being pushed out of cities into the suburbs.  .....  If this trend continues, the suburbs may become too expensive, and we can expect recent immigrants/refugees to end up in the exurbs or even more rural areas.  The question is, will it be safe for them there, or will they just be segregated into poverty-stricken areas that lack government services?

I would guess the poor would be herded into poverty-stricken areas that lack governmental services. That has been the trend for the last century or better.  The ex-burbs have the advantages of land - which is expensive, and thus owned by the wealthy.  If a poor individual can't afford the down-town apartment or the detached in the suburbs or the lot rent in the trailer court, trying to buy an acre and a half next to the horse ranches out of town isn't going to work very well either.

[waltworks]

I want our government to stop paying companies to ship the factories overseas.

The end.

Bye!

Ok, robots will do make stuff right here in the USA instead.

Seriously, want jobs? Get more people to move to where you live. Then the lady at the city who stamps permits keeps her job, and maybe hires an assistant, and they have to build a new grocery store, and etc, etc etc. The factory town model is not the way forward and you aren't going to get that type of economy in the midwest (or anywhere else) again. It was a historical and economic anomaly, really, when the rest of the world's industrial base was so destroyed that we could pay fantastic wages to people to do basic tasks to export all sorts of goods.

You will never again be making widgets or dipping shovel handles in plastic or whatever. Never again. You can get *service* jobs (and construction) back by allowing more immigrants to come settle, though.

For the last time: as providers of jobs, factories are dead.

-W

[Metric Mouse]

I want our government to stop paying companies to ship the factories overseas.

The end.

Bye!

Ok, robots will do make stuff right here in the USA instead.

Seriously, want jobs? Get more people to move to where you live. Then the lady at the city who stamps permits keeps her job, and maybe hires an assistant, and they have to build a new grocery store, and etc, etc etc. The factory town model is not the way forward and you aren't going to get that type of economy in the midwest (or anywhere else) again. It was a historical and economic anomaly, really, when the rest of the world's industrial base was so destroyed that we could pay fantastic wages to people to do basic tasks to export all sorts of goods.

You will never again be making widgets or dipping shovel handles in plastic or whatever. Never again. You can get *service* jobs (and construction) back by allowing more immigrants to come settle, though.

For the last time: as providers of jobs, factories are dead.

-W

Do you think in 40 years all the code monkeys are going to be going through the same painful losses as the factory towns?  "My mom coded software when she was my age, and had enough for a town-house in the Bay Area, and my dad never had to work." It will be interesting to see where the world moves on to; but probably disorientating to imagine.

[waltworks]

Do you think in 40 years all the code monkeys are going to be going through the same painful losses as the factory towns?  "My mom coded software when she was my age, and had enough for a town-house in the Bay Area, and my dad never had to work." It will be interesting to see where the world moves on to; but probably disorientating to imagine.

Yes, the AI is coming for all us smart people too. Which is why it would be a good idea to wrestle with what we want a society where human labor isn't needed for much to look like.

-W

[Kansas Terri]

Peace has been declared! So I am back for a short time.

I live in one of the more prosperous areas of Kansas, by the way. I am speaking of the Midwest in general, which I understand a bit as I live in the Midwest and I see what is going on in my local (not particularly good) as opposed to what happens a few hundred miles away (VERY not good)

About the power plants: I will try to explain one more time.

Supposing it was a car instead of a power plant. Supposing a new "Belchfire 5000" hits the market, and it gets 100 miles to the gallon and maintenance costs are half of what most cars use.

The downside is it costs $75,000

A mustachian has a car that is ALOST paid for and it only has 25,000 miles on it. This mustachian only has $20 in the bank, a credit rating of 300, $20,ooo on Credit card bills,and he is eating ramen noodles for dinner so that he can pay his bills.

Most people would tell the consumer to delay the purchase for another year. Even if the Belchfire 5000 costs less to run.

Natural gas power plants are lovely, and Kansas has some. But, before we try to finance the equivalent o a "Belchfire 5000", we need to see to our budget and our debts.

part of being a mustachian is delaying gratification until we can afford it.

[Kansas Terri]

Peace has been declared! So I am back for a short time.

I live in one of the more prosperous areas of Kansas, by the way. I am speaking of the Midwest in general, which I understand a bit as I live in the Midwest and I see what is going on in my local (not particularly good) as opposed to what happens a few hundred miles away (VERY not good)

About the power plants: I will try to explain one more time.

Supposing it was a car instead of a power plant. Supposing a new "Belchfire 5000" hits the market, and it gets 100 miles to the gallon and maintenance costs are half of what most cars use.

The downside is it costs $75,000

A mustachian has a car that is ALOST paid for and it only has 25,000 miles on it. This mustachian only has $20 in the bank, a credit rating of 300, $20,ooo on Credit card bills,and he is eating ramen noodles for dinner so that he can pay his bills.

Most people would tell the consumer to delay the purchase for at least another year. Even if the Belchfire 5000 costs less to run.

Natural gas power plants are lovely, and Kansas has some. But, before we try to finance the equivalent o a "Belchfire 5000", we need to see to our budget and our debts.

part of being a mustachian is delaying gratification until we can afford it.

[waltworks]

Well, sure, so what was your original complaint about the coal plants? If you're not building a new plant, you're not building it. Fine. When the time comes, you'll probably build a gas plant, right?

I am not seeing the issue here, maybe I missed something? Nobody is *forcing* Kansas to build anything.

-W

[Kansas Terri]

I am not seeing the issue here, maybe I missed something? Nobody is *forcing* Kansas to build anything.

-W

As I said earlier, Clinton said she was going to shut down all of the coal plants. And I sid we could not afford it at this time

There was a lot of thread drift

[waltworks]

Huh. That seems like a silly thing to say, but ok.

They provide something like 1/3 of electricity in the US still, you couldn't shut them down by fiat even if you wanted to. Besides, there's no need. They're shutting down on their own as better/cheaper/cleaner fuel sources replace them.

If anything the Trump administration will hasten the demise of coal, I'd guess - more drilling and fracking will mean even cheaper natural gas.

-W

[Metric Mouse]

I am not seeing the issue here, maybe I missed something? Nobody is *forcing* Kansas to build anything.

-W

As I said earlier, Clinton said she was going to shut down all of the coal plants. And I sid we could not afford it at this time

There was a lot of thread drift

Ah. Yes. This was a major issue with the final draft of the EPA's 111(d) rule.

[Kansas Terri]

Clinton says coal plants contribute to global warming. I do not know if she Is  right or not: the scientists keep disagreeing about causes of global warming, or even if it exists at all

[wenchsenior]

Clinton says coal plants contribute to global warming. I do not know if she Is  right or not: the scientists keep disagreeing about causes of global warming, or even if it exists at all

JESUS H CHRIST. Scientists ARE NOT disagreeing about this. They disagree about how fast, how extreme, particulars of effects of climate change. BUT THEY ARE NOT DISAGREEING ABOUT WHETHER IT IS HAPPENING OR WHAT THE CAUSES ARE.

Seriously, where the fuck is this misinformation coming from? It's not coming from the scientific community (I'm married to a research scientist and have spent my whole adult life surrounded by them), that is for damn sure. We aren't really going to have this thread start up for the fifty millionth time are we?

[Kansas Terri]

Seriously, where the fuck is this misinformation coming from? It's not coming from the scientific community (I'm married to a research scientist and have spent my whole adult life surrounded by them), that is for damn sure.

partly from the newspapers, when the reporters interview the scientists.

Take it as you will: is it biased reporting? Confusion in the scientific community? I cannot tell.

[Lagom]

Seriously, where the fuck is this misinformation coming from? It's not coming from the scientific community (I'm married to a research scientist and have spent my whole adult life surrounded by them), that is for damn sure.

partly from the newspapers, when the reporters interview the scientists.

Take it as you will: is it biased reporting? Confusion in the scientific community? I cannot tell.

If a newspaper is quoting a scientist that claims they don't believe human-influenced warming is occurring (and that this evidences some sort of broad confusion in the scientific community), then yes, it is right-wing biased reporting. Global warming has to be by far the least uncertain thing to ever become controversial.

[MasterStache]

Clinton says coal plants contribute to global warming. I do not know if she Is  right or not: the scientists keep disagreeing about causes of global warming, or even if it exists at all

Scientist sometimes disagree on the exact quantification of man's affect. They don't disagree that it's warming or that it is mainly driven by an increase in CO2 through fossil fuel combustion.

[Metric Mouse]

Clinton says coal plants contribute to global warming. I do not know if she Is  right or not: the scientists keep disagreeing about causes of global warming, or even if it exists at all

JESUS H CHRIST. Scientists ARE NOT disagreeing about this. They disagree about how fast, how extreme, particulars of effects of climate change. BUT THEY ARE NOT DISAGREEING ABOUT WHETHER IT IS HAPPENING OR WHAT THE CAUSES ARE.

Seriously, where the fuck is this misinformation coming from? It's not coming from the scientific community (I'm married to a research scientist and have spent my whole adult life surrounded by them), that is for damn sure. We aren't really going to have this thread start up for the fifty millionth time are we?

I think your argument would be much more convincing if presented in a more respectful manner. This is a (usually) polite forum.

[wenchsenior]

Clinton says coal plants contribute to global warming. I do not know if she Is  right or not: the scientists keep disagreeing about causes of global warming, or even if it exists at all

JESUS H CHRIST. Scientists ARE NOT disagreeing about this. They disagree about how fast, how extreme, particulars of effects of climate change. BUT THEY ARE NOT DISAGREEING ABOUT WHETHER IT IS HAPPENING OR WHAT THE CAUSES ARE.

Seriously, where the fuck is this misinformation coming from? It's not coming from the scientific community (I'm married to a research scientist and have spent my whole adult life surrounded by them), that is for damn sure. We aren't really going to have this thread start up for the fifty millionth time are we?

I think your argument would be much more convincing if presented in a more respectful manner. This is a (usually) polite forum.

Doubtful. Apparently there are huge swaths of the American public that refuses to acknowledge reality, despite the fact that this topic has been given extensive research focus (not to mention the subject of increasingly panicked warnings) by scientists and been exhaustively discussed in the media for more than a quarter of a century. But hey, yeah, how about scientists continue to (politely) say the same damn thing over and over and over and over and over for another 25 years while the Titanic sinks?  Because we've seen how well that's worked at getting past cognitive dissonance or willful obtuseness.  Probably nothing can.

[waltworks]

Doesn't matter, we live in a clearly post-fact age.

At this point I'd just like to see research into geoengineering and adaptations for agriculture (ie, get going with the CRISPR and make some super awesome crops that can survive weird conditions). That is beneficial stuff regardless of your feelings on whether climate change is a real thing or not.

The cow left the barn on emissions limits about 25 years ago, it's way too late for the hippy solution.

-W

[Malaysia41]

When people say that scientists disagree about global warming and its causes, they are often referring to studies where anyone with a BS degree was surveyed. Surveys of actual CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are nearly unanimous in saying that climate change is happening, it's a crisis, and it's caused by mankind. Where they disagree are on the finer details - like how much does low lying CO2 contribute vs high stratospheric CO2 - details along the lines of what BeginnerStache and others have mentioned.

Kansas Terri, Please read what I wrote in an earlier post:

Yeah - the evidence is strong enough for me to consider the issue of man-caused global warming adequately 'settled.'

Note the x axis on this graph from NASA. It extends back 400,000 years and covers multiple earth axis tilts / ice ages / warming ages.  http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/:



We understand the mechanisms by which CO2 warms the earth. We also know how it acidifies the oceans. The fact that the concentrations are in historically unprecedented territory*, and climbing, should alarm us all into action, not just further study. 

*We haven't seen these CO2 levels in upwards of 15 million years:

For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch. - http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

If you are one to say, "I'm not a scientist, so who knows," but in the same breath are willing to support politicians who spread disinformation, then please read through the entire Nasa evidence page before you write any more on the subject.

I'm at my wits end on this topic. This should not a political football. This is our home we are talking about here. Please separate the economic realities of coal country from the science of climate change. We can implement economic solutions all while acknowledging the fact that fossil fuels directly contribute to global warming.

I would whole heartedly support free college, retraining, extension of unemployment benefits, incentives for other industries to move in to declining towns (or other solutions). But don't include climate change denial/doubt in the equation. The science is clear.

[Malaysia41]

Clinton says coal plants contribute to global warming. I do not know if she Is  right or not: the scientists keep disagreeing about causes of global warming, or even if it exists at all

JESUS H CHRIST. Scientists ARE NOT disagreeing about this. They disagree about how fast, how extreme, particulars of effects of climate change. BUT THEY ARE NOT DISAGREEING ABOUT WHETHER IT IS HAPPENING OR WHAT THE CAUSES ARE.

Seriously, where the fuck is this misinformation coming from? It's not coming from the scientific community (I'm married to a research scientist and have spent my whole adult life surrounded by them), that is for damn sure. We aren't really going to have this thread start up for the fifty millionth time are we?

This misinformation is coming from organizations such as CEI, which puts out advertisements saying that CO2 is the stuff of life so, hey, let's have more of it! "They call it pollution, we call it life."

Who headed up CEI? That's right, the guy appointed by Trump to lead the EPA transition team.

Myron Ebell wiki

... but the conversation on my facebook feed is about Trump's Hamilton tweet. (a bit on the Bannon appointment, hardly anything on the $25M Trump U settlement for fraud, even less on the meetings with Ivanka and foreign heads of state, and zilch about Myron Ebell). Yeah, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

The political propaganda of the past two decades has my family and others on the right calling me a libtard. And I'm a die hard capitalist! This is the thing that's nuts. The GOP side has successfully yoked topics like climate change belief to communism or socialism.  I received a hateful email from my aunt the other day telling me to renounce my US citizenship and join up with elitist Hollywood types who hate our country too. All because I didn't want Trump to be our president. WHAT!!???

Perhaps I'm getting a off topic. But maybe not. The topic is 'what's really going on in the country?'  Well, from my perspective, the two decades hate media and obstructionism is yielding this result. Name calling, hyperbole and derision on both sides only further pushes everyone into their respective social media bubbles where they hoover up whatever fake news confirms their biases. Scary times. In concert with this, Hillary's failure to spell out a plan for saving communities -  such as Terri's town - did her in. And she's a democrat for goodness sakes. She should have been vowing to implement policies for retraining, unemployment benefits, economic stimulus. What a severe blind spot she had.

Ultimately, in my opinion, it's the two party - PRIVATE party - system, coupled with fake news, social media and the internet - that has us where we are. The parties have our representatives dialing for dollars half the time. They don't have time to read the bills they vote on. As for media - I feel like the majority of stories that come across my newsfeeds are either put there to distract from another REAL story, or are put there to further some commercial or political interest. It's all so disheartening. My sadness is growing deeper and more profound as each post election day passes. Truly gloomy here.

I've chosen to fight for truth in the one area where getting it wrong can have long term adverse consequences - and that is global warming and our energy policy. All the other stuff - yeah - have at it. We can recover. But pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is unacceptable, and I'm going to fight against it with all I've got.

It all starts with convincing the doubters that global warming is real, is caused by humans, and it's a crisis. Every day I'm posting a climate change post on Facebook - mainly intended for my extended family who still haven't come around. I have vowed to keep posting til they come around. Terri, please, I implore you and anyone who is unsure, please read that NASA page. Come back here and post questions. Or maybe we can start a new thread on the topic. I can see there are a lot of MMMers here who can probably field some answers, or point you to other resources. I just ask you keep it civil guys. It's going to take convincing the undecided to save our species. Take each conversation, one at a time.

[Metric Mouse]

The cow left the barn on emissions limits about 25 years ago, it's way too late for the hippy solution.

-W

Yes. This is what interests me most about the discussion; all facts and data point to the fact that it's far, far too late to change the course of climate change, but so few people are addressing how to deal with the effects. Some are so caught up in the fact that Miami has to pump some water that they're missing the fact that without investments in agriculture and geo engineering massive amounts of people that wouldn't have to will literally starve. Riding a bicycle to work isn't going to change that. Putting solar panels on one's roof isn't going to change that. More wind turbines isn't going to change that - it's way too late for these things. And even people who are really passionate about the topic are still contributing to the massive dumping of carbon into the air at rates substantially similar to people who 'don't' care.  Being past the tipping point, it doesn't really matter; there will be enough blame to go around, but it would be nice to see some more development of technologies and food science that could actually make a difference in the future.

[MasterStache]

The cow left the barn on emissions limits about 25 years ago, it's way too late for the hippy solution.

-W

Yes. This is what interests me most about the discussion; all facts and data point to the fact that it's far, far too late to change the course of climate change, but so few people are addressing how to deal with the effects. Some are so caught up in the fact that Miami has to pump some water that they're missing the fact that without investments in agriculture and geo engineering massive amounts of people that wouldn't have to will literally starve. Riding a bicycle to work isn't going to change that. Putting solar panels on one's roof isn't going to change that. More wind turbines isn't going to change that - it's way too late for these things. And even people who are really passionate about the topic are still contributing to the massive dumping of carbon into the air at rates substantially similar to people who 'don't' care.  Being past the tipping point, it doesn't really matter; there will be enough blame to go around, but it would be nice to see some more development of technologies and food science that could actually make a difference in the future.

To be fair to the "common folk" not everyone can contribute to energy research or food science. Solar panels, riding bikes etc. is a great way for an individual to contribute. And it inspires others to do the same. No it isn't going to lower CO2 emissions nor change what we have already done. But doing nothing has never solved anything.

[dilinger]

The cow left the barn on emissions limits about 25 years ago, it's way too late for the hippy solution.

-W

Yes. This is what interests me most about the discussion; all facts and data point to the fact that it's far, far too late to change the course of climate change, but so few people are addressing how to deal with the effects. Some are so caught up in the fact that Miami has to pump some water that they're missing the fact that without investments in agriculture and geo engineering massive amounts of people that wouldn't have to will literally starve. Riding a bicycle to work isn't going to change that. Putting solar panels on one's roof isn't going to change that. More wind turbines isn't going to change that - it's way too late for these things. And even people who are really passionate about the topic are still contributing to the massive dumping of carbon into the air at rates substantially similar to people who 'don't' care.  Being past the tipping point, it doesn't really matter; there will be enough blame to go around, but it would be nice to see some more development of technologies and food science that could actually make a difference in the future.

Climate change is not a binary switch.  Alex Steffan says it better than I can (see the "Game Over" part): https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/there-has-never-been-a-better-time-to-save-the-planet-d290132eaee#.lldtomhrn

Meanwhile, negative emissions should not to be relied upon to "fix" the climate: https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-PB-2016-Negative-emissions-land-based-measures.pdf

And finally, getting back to the thread topic.. Just like in 2008 and 2012, people again voted for change.  This would explain the voters who voted Obama last time that voted Trump this time: http://sccinsight.com/2016/11/20/seattle-headed-middle-class-revolt/

[Metric Mouse]

The cow left the barn on emissions limits about 25 years ago, it's way too late for the hippy solution.

-W

Yes. This is what interests me most about the discussion; all facts and data point to the fact that it's far, far too late to change the course of climate change, but so few people are addressing how to deal with the effects. Some are so caught up in the fact that Miami has to pump some water that they're missing the fact that without investments in agriculture and geo engineering massive amounts of people that wouldn't have to will literally starve. Riding a bicycle to work isn't going to change that. Putting solar panels on one's roof isn't going to change that. More wind turbines isn't going to change that - it's way too late for these things. And even people who are really passionate about the topic are still contributing to the massive dumping of carbon into the air at rates substantially similar to people who 'don't' care.  Being past the tipping point, it doesn't really matter; there will be enough blame to go around, but it would be nice to see some more development of technologies and food science that could actually make a difference in the future.

Climate change is not a binary switch.  Alex Steffan says it better than I can (see the "Game Over" part): https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/there-has-never-been-a-better-time-to-save-the-planet-d290132eaee#.lldtomhrn

I guess this article makes my point. The targets that have been set are not achievable (if they ever were). The Vox article points that out pretty well "It was implausible, but at least there was a story to tell." I think the correct title would be "There will never be a better time to save the planet" - with the understanding that if this is true, it would mean that "There has never been a worse time to save the planet."

I didn't mean to imply that it's 'game over'; but then, it never really was. It's just really really really horrible - and it's way beyond not being really really really horrible. And so, if we're already marching towards lower carbon emissions, which we are, and will eventually have to get there one horrible way or another, which we will, it doesn't do any good to scream that it will be horrible if my neighbor eats meat or flies to Ecuador or travels around the world on a yacht. It's going to be horrible either way. If buying a Telsa vehicle or paying a few cents more to get 'green' electricity makes one feel better, I suppose I accept that as the best anyone can do at this point is whatever makes them feel better. I just feel that being told that putting solar panels on my house will remove one of the reallys in front of the horrible is inaccurate.

[waltworks]

Exactly. It is time to start thinking of the earth as a machine (a ship?) and treat it as such. The machine is in danger of getting broken and the root cause of that problem is something we probably can't retroactively fix, so we need to look at mitigation/other solutions.

Low/no carbon economy will happen eventually, but in the meantime if we want to keep most of the human race alive we should be thinking about how to do that in a warming world.

-W

[dilinger]

The problem with talking about geoengineering and such is that it's used as an excuse to maintain our current course of action.  We can't keep doing what we're doing; geoengineering won't even be enough to fix that, since we're releasing so much carbon right now.  Attempting to mitigate concerns by planning for a warming world assumes we know what a warming world looks like.  We don't.  We are constantly being shocked at how conservative our climate models are.  The things that we should be doing in terms of resiliency are things that we should really be doing even without climate change.  For example, we knew in the '70s (and earlier) that our reliance on oil was a major problem.  Half a century later, we're still burning oil like there's no tomorrow; despite knowing that it's a finite resource.  We're pretending that we'll be okay because we've figured out how to get oil locally, but that is temporary.

[waltworks]

I'd love to do both emissions reductions and mitigation stuff at the same time, but...

Emissions reductions have proven to be economically and politically unfeasible. Period.

I'm not saying it's time to give up, but we need a plan B. Plan B probably involves an awful lot of people (my assumption would be everyone outside of the industrialized world) dying, but it's better than the end of civilization.

Investing a lot of money in basic research on alternative energy and GMO crops is a no-brainer, but both of those items are also politically toxic to different sides of the political spectrum for reasons I still can't comprehend. So even that is basically out.

Sigh.

-W

[Lagom]

The rabidly anti-GMO thing is also quite weird to me. I mean I get Monsanto is evil, but that doesn't negate the also pretty clear cut science on the many benefits genetically modified foods can provide. I suppose I need to remind myself that liberals are also more likely than conservatives to be anti-vaxxers. Sigh indeed.

[waltworks]

Everything should be on the table. Everything. But instead, nothing is.

Insanity. If there's an issue that shouldn't be political, this is it.

-W

[former player]

Plan B probably involves an awful lot of people (my assumption would be everyone outside of the industrialized world) dying, but it's better than the end of civilization.

How are you going to stop those starving billions from inviting themselves into the "industrialised world", when their alternative is sitting and starving?

We're all doomed, I tell you, doomed.

(I'm trying to keep my own environmental footprint low and selfishly hoping that the doom doesn't arrive until my old age.  But it's not looking good for that at the moment.)