Reality can be profoundly persuasive. As Americans sweat out one of the hottest summers on record, we've watched in dismay as drought has withered endless acres of crops and pushed the federal government to declare "natural" disasters in more than half the nation's counties.
As temperatures have shot up, so has the number of people accepting the scientific consensus on global warming. Seventy percent of respondents to a recent University of Texas poll believe the climate is changing, and about two-thirds of respondents to a Washington Post poll in July want the United States to be a world leader in addressing the problem.
Even Richard Muller, a Koch brothers-funded climate-change denier, has declared that he now agrees with the position long held by the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organizations. Climate change is real, say the experts - and really dangerous.
The good news is that we may finally be ready to move from debating climate change to actually doing something meaningful about it. The bad news? We've lost many years in which progress should have been made to a corporate-funded disinformation campaign.
Time is running out. Our actions in the next few years will decide whether we can head off climate change's worst effects -- and that makes it critical not to buy into these five dangerous myths:
Myth #1: It's all China's fault.
Reality: America must do far more to cut emissions for both moral and practical reasons. Some U.S. politicians have long used China's growing emissions as an excuse for inaction. But China has dramatically ramped up solar power use and still lags far behind the U.S. in per-capita emissions. On a historical, cumulative basis, we are the world's single largest emitter.
And we're really kidding ourselves when we compare current U.S. pollution levels only to very recent, high-emissions years. The United States agreed, with the rest of the world, to use 1990 as the "baseline year" for comparing emissions levels, to avoid cheating on emissions reduction targets. While it is certainly good that our emissions have fallen recently, we must not forget that our emissions have increased more than 10 percent since 1990 -- nor try to change the rules of the game by insisting on a later baseline year to avoid accountability for our pollution.
China's growing emissions are a problem, of course -- but what's the best way to inspire change? A huge coastline and drought-vulnerable agriculture give China extra incentive to fight global warming, but developing countries rightly insist on meaningful U.S. cuts -- that's the only fair and politically feasible way toward concerted global action.
Myth #2: Cutting carbon pollution would hurt America's economy.
Reality: Fighting climate change is critical to America's prosperity. Drought is already wreaking havoc among U.S. farmers and ranchers. In decades to come, climate change-driven extreme weather and sea-level rise will threaten businesses, key infrastructure and public health around the country. That's why America's Clean Air Cities are urging federal action. At the same time, the cost of emissions reduction is likely much lower than anticipated: Reductions in other dangerous air pollutants over the past 40 years shows that regulation tends to spur innovation and technological advancement, reducing the cost of pollution controls.
Myth #3: Natural gas and fracking will save us.
Reality: Natural gas and fracking pose huge threats to our climate. First, there's growing evidence that natural gas operations leak methane -- an incredibly potent greenhouse gas -- at very high rates. Because of these leaks, some experts conclude that uncontrolled shale gas fracking actually has a greater climate-change effect than coal over the whole production life cycle. Fracking also poses huge additional risks to air, water, wildlife and communities. Second, fracking is also being used to develop vast new reserves of shale oil.
Pushing China to adopt this destructive technology, as Richard Muller has advocated, would be like pouring rocket fuel on a forest fire. We need to transition to truly clean and renewable energy sources, not open up new fossil fuel deposits with damaging new drilling techniques.
Myth #4: Polar bears and other endangered animals aren't really that threatened by climate change.
Reality: A large body of scientific evidence shows that global warming threatens polar bears, who depend on Arctic sea ice for hunting and all of their essential behaviors. The thickness and extent of the Arctic's summer sea ice have declined dramatically over the past 30 years, and this year's levels are currently tracking below record lows.
Based on evidence including declining population numbers, declining cub survival, and the drowning and starvation of individual bears, the government placed the polar bear on the threatened species list. Claims that polar bear numbers are actually rising are false: At least eight of the world's 19 polar bear subpopulations are declining and just one is demonstrably increasing (due to the curtailment of severe overhunting levels), according to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group. Experts say that more than two-thirds of the world's polar bears could be gone in less than 40 years.
Many other wildlife species are imperiled by climate change, posing a threat to our planet's web of life.
Myth #5: A new law is the only way to meaningfully reduce U.S. emissions.
Reality: We already have the Clean Air Act, a potent weapon against greenhouse gas pollution. The Clean Air Act has reduced harmful air pollution for four decades. Courts have repeatedly upheld efforts to apply the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases, but the Environmental Protection Agency has been too slow and timid in using the law to control carbon pollution. Full use of all of the Clean Air Act's successful pollution-reduction programs offers our best hope for quick reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
To head off the worst effects of climate change, we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to no more than 350 parts per million. The United States can't delay any longer. For the sake of our planet and our future, we need to get moving in the fight against climate change.
Follow Kassie Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CBD_Climate
Robert Walker: The Perfect Drought
There is an impact "global warming" in the countries rich, or even poor countries and communities.
I think we are in a particularly interesting period now where there seems to be a renewed interest in actually changing things, I think, because of the combined impact of the global recession a period of global economic slowdown and the climate risk realization.
In the United States and Europe, I think what you would see is more community awareness, certainly since that became a real key issue. So you know, it’s a little bit this dilemma between the short and slightly longer term issues. I think it’s a bit of a challenge, but it’s also motivation, when you get the opportunity to see what can be achieved through the cooperation between countries, people, civil society, and we have the capacity to address many of the challenges today, really serious ones.
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/08/monsoon-rain-floods-manila/100349/
In spite of the many tragedies, there is a positive element in being involved in something that is so close to people’s lives. The global citizen sense.
Greetings from Brazil.
Polar bears will go extinct from global warming.. There have been periods when it was much warmer than today and the polar bears didn't go extinct or did they.
Are those white bears in zoos just brown bears with a bleach job ?
Zoos don't count much really.
Let's lock you in a zoo and see what your opinion of that is in comparison to your "natural habitat", for example.
[Not trying to be snarky here.... just trying to put into a situation you might be able to comprehend without having to stretch your imagination too much...]
www.uchicago.edu (when you get there search for PhysTodayRT2011)
It's a summary of the science behind the greenhouse effect, and it has references for further study.
You might also like: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
If you think Dr. Clark's paper overturns any of the info in these two references, please tell us specifically which statements in my links you think are wrong and why.
Negative feedback from clouds will reduce that to 1/2 degree or less.
So CO2 causes warming but not much !
"The theory of CO2 is that a DOUBLING would cause 1 degree warming.
Negative feedback from clouds will reduce that to 1/2 degree or less.
So CO2 causes warming but not much !"
This is an outright Oil Company lie. And netdr here well knows it. He is astroturfing.
A doubling of CO2 leads to a degree C of warming, based upon the CO2 contribution only. But POSITIVE feedbacks are involved. The ultimate warming can be 3 or 4 degrees C. And the CO2 accumulation does not stop as long as we keep emitting it. We may double it again before it is all over. Converted to F scale that becomes 12 degrees or more. Your descendents, if any exist, will not survive that.
THINK!!!! THINK!!!! Quit being a parrot!!!!
Starting November 14th....the Leftist in California will be hold the countries first Carbon Auction. Preliminary estimates is it will raise gas prices $2.00-$2.50 and cost the average family $4,500 (after taxes) a year in higher prices for everything associated with energy.
So, screw the Polar Bears...and the smelt in the Sacramento Delta that has shut down ALL farming for us humans to eat....Humans FIRST - Animals SECOND.
Myth #6 They said that if the ice caps melted to the point we are today - we'd all be drowning...that didn't happen not did it?
Economists don't expect cap-n-trade or carbon taxes to end up costing much, about 75 cents per person per week (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm)
For some reason the alarmists don't want you to know that !
It has been cooling for 14 years so it might just be helping who knows ?
"Interesting point is that CO2 has gone down recently without national taxes.
For some reason the alarmists don't want you to know that !
It has been cooling for 14 years so it might just be helping who knows ? "
netdr, in all your thousands of comments here, I have not seen very much reliable science. Let's check with Scripps and see what the Keeling curve is doing. The Scripps Keeling curve is the sterling standard for CO2. We go to Scripps for the CO2 reading, just as we would go to NIST for our meter calibration, or our kilogram.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/atmospheric_co2.html
Sure enough. The CO2 curve is still climbing.
Was that another lie netdr? Or just the usual poor understanding of the science.
The Koch brothers influence on the Republican party ...........
Why the fossil fuel industry has a hold on energy policy.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/energy-policy-follow-the-money/547?tag=nl.e660
The climate and we have but a few short years to begin to drop emissions of GHG- in fact we have already gone too far. If we continue on the path we are on now- disaster will certainly take place- and its starting now,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM5WPl69Z18
tesla - Commented Aug 11, 2012 at 22:15:50 in Green
“With temperatures rising at a rate of 1/2 degree per century why do anything !”
soctates Commented Jun 30, 2012 at 18:57:41
“No one has ever tried to prove that warming hasn't warmed 1/2 degree per century or to prove that warming essentially stopped 14 years ago ! Want to try ??”
jupiter5 Commented Jul 1, 2012 at 12:18:48 in Green
“They also show that the warming has stalled and was only 1/2 degree per CENTURY !!”
Pluto- Commented Jul 9, 2012 at 21:57:55
“In the last 120 years there has been 1/2 degree per century of warming.
That is not scary at all.”
Plato-- Commented Aug 9, 2012 at 12:32:06
“It shows 1/2 degree per century with no warming this century so why bother ?”
Plato-- Commented Aug 9, 2012 at 10:55:26
“Post something which says it has warmed faster than 1/2 degree per century ! "
Plato-- Commented Aug 9, 2012 at 10:36:48
“So 1/2 degree per CENTURY will cause the extinction of humans ?
amazing how ignorant alarmists are. "
What does NASA say about the warming trend?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
http://tinyurl.com/9zsgrqd
tesla- Commented Aug 12, 2012 at 14:21:42 in Green
"Dr Hansen isn't a scientist iif he ever was. He is an activist and that's a big difference."
Plato-- Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 10:32:46
“Dr Hansen is a clown ?”
Plato-- Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 10:26:01
“I respect science, but not some scientists. They have taken the peer review process and destroyed it. Mike Mann is a prime example. They should call it Buddie review.”
Plato-- Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 04:25:34
“Peer review is worthless if your buddies do it ! Ask Mike Mann!”
Plato-- Commented Aug 3, 2012 at 11:49:38
“Hansen does not have any more degrees in climate than Watts.”
tesla- (11:51 AM)
"Hansen doesn't make a very good case for CO2 causing extreme weather does he
My gerbil is smarter than that ! He is a pretty dumb gerbil too !"
Plato-- Commented Aug 3, 2012 at 11:49:38
“Hansen does not have any more degrees in climate than Watts.”
tesla- ( 2:21 PM)
"Dr Hansen isn't a scientist iif he ever was. He is an activist and that's a big difference."
Plato-- Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 10:32:46
“Dr Hansen is a clown ?”
From the standpoint of statistics this is ridiculous. By cherry picking a high data point from the past, they make a statement that amounts to scientific fraud. In science, first of all, you don’t get to chose only the nuggets of information that support your point of view and discard the rest. Second, you had better be up to date with the actual current data instead of what you have been fed by the fossil fuel stink tanks or you will start to look like a cranky old uncle who is running on pre-enlightenment science.
From NOAA..”June 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average June temperature was June 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.”
Also from NOAA…. “The global land surface temperature for June was 1.07°C (1.93°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F), the warmest June on record. This is the second month in a row that the global land temperature was the warmest on record for that month. “
Cooling? No it is not cooling. And those who say it is are the deceivers and the frauds.
My neighbors must be wondering, "What's he building in there?"
Actually, it's a super-insulated attic. New ridge vents and soffit vents, aluminum radiant barrier just under the rafters, then 6 inches thickness of foam insulation finished off by another layer of aluminum radiant barrier.
I already had sealed all the air leaks in the floor of the attic and added R-38 of blown-in cellulose fiber.
Plus, on the back of the house the roof is now painted white.
So it should keep the heat outside during the summer, and keep the heat inside during the winter.
References:
www.ecofoil.com (they seem like nice people, too)
http://tinyurl.com/9ewtmwv (yes, it is OK to use the primer on shingles)
http://tedsenergytips.com/2011/04/03/ultimate-attic-insulation/
So what are YOU building in there???
I'm currently refurbishing a salvaged 4x8 solar thermal panel. Some of the key copper fittings got bent so I have to re-round them, put it back together and mount it on the roof. Had planned to build a vertical wind turbine but have been side tracked by urgent bouts of short term reality.
I want to build a heliostat one of these days to point a bank of light weight mirrors at solar panels on the roof. I also want to work on heat storage salts.... there are plenty of expired patents one can mine for info on them.
So much to do.
I re installed my ducting and aided 6 inches of insulation and I am a skeptic !
Wasting money isn't a good idea even for alarmists !
THIS is even more important.
If you don't know what a 1st and 2nd derivative are... I'll give you a couple of months (some of you are slow) to look at a Calculus book... you should learn. Trends say A LOT.
This is advice to people on both sides of the argument. (Though it is, I believe, a sound judgement that the "nothing is wrong-ers" are more ignorant than the counter-claimers... as they are ignorant of Science and Math in general...)
But don't thoroughly discard the Lesser (side and add-on) Effects. They only add to the problem, on the net.
Anybody interested in the long term trends should review the information at:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators