The Optimist’s Time

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:28 AM GMT on January 06, 2013

Share this Blog
22
+

The Optimist’s Time

At the end of my last entry, I said that I anchor optimism in the students I see coming from high schools and colleges. They have environmental science and sustainability as core interests and core values. In this blog I write about time and change.

First, those students: When I was at NASA there was a time I felt that my job was marking the degradation of the Earth. I was in the ozone business at the time, and I remember, distinctly, being in the room where the proverbial smoking gun of chlorine-caused ozone loss was revealed. When I moved to the University of Michigan in 2005, I was not credentialed in climate change, but I was climate interested. Through a clanky chain of events, three students recruited me to start a climate change course that looked at the intersection of climate change and, at that beginning, business and policy. I started that course with a set of preconceptions that students needed to be educated about climate change, and with that, they would set about solving the problems of climate change.

In the first two weeks of that class, I learned that most of the students were quite climate knowledgeable. What they wanted from me was the construction of the science-based foundation on which to place their knowledge and a framework for how to use that knowledge in problem solving. Each year the students who make it to my class are different, but there is no doubt that the ones who make it to me are interested in changing the world in different ways. They see the world of many connected issues; they want to cross disciplines, but they live in a world that still rewards specialization. They know that problem solving requires connecting and rationalizing different interests. With regard to climate and the environment, more and more the sustainability of the planet is a core value.

I am impressed at how quickly this sustainability-focused group of people is emerging. Still though, this has been five years, and it is the result of, perhaps, twenty years of development and teaching of curriculum – plus advocacy. On one hand this is fast, on the other hand, many I know find this intolerably slow. But if we are going to integrate the value of our climate into our policy and behavior, then the length of time to grow the generations that internalize that value into their decisions is one of the most important measures of time.

Time: In my class I have developed a framework for problem solving. One of the essential pieces of setting up problem solving is to know the role of time. It is an easy statement to say that one of challenges of addressing climate change is that consequential change is far in the future (but see). This leads to a set of possible arguments. First, it is difficult to see how a decision we make today has any impact. If there is cost to that decision, then the benefit is far in the future. A second notion is that consequential climate change is so far in the future that we have time to develop the technological fixes. Third, there are so many unknown factors in science and population and economy that surely something will come along and disrupt any rational plans that we make today. I can list more, and the common feature of all of these notions is that they allow us easy rationalizations to do nothing about climate change. Therefore, we need those who have internalized the value of climate into their behavior to be making the decisions of policy and investment.

As a scientist, when I started the course the measures of time that seemed important to me were the ones scientists think about. For example, how long does carbon dioxide stay in the atmosphere? Or more science-policy questions: How much do we have to reduce emissions to make a difference? How long does it take before we know we have made a difference? After teaching for a while, it became clear that though these measures of time were important, they were not especially usable in the communication of the importance of climate change or in motivation in problem solving.

Above, I suggested that an important length of time would be “generational.” When I was in grade school, I was taught that the span of a generation was 35 years. In fact, I found that as a definition at The Free Dictionary. When I was at NASA, with something of a charge to change organizations, it became apparent that an important amount of time was associated with retirement. This leads to a statement most often attributed to Neils Bohr, "science progresses one death at a time." The point, an important amount of time is the human life.

I use the following figure to start to think about time.



Figure 1: Starting to think about time and climate change. Amounts of time that matter to people.

In the figure I divide time into long and short, and I choose 50 years as that division. It is generational, but it is also the amount of time that a person works and saves for retirement. It is about the longest amount of time that we seem to be able to think about. If you start to work with people planning cities and roads and levees, then a number that often comes up is fifty years. It is number to think about for infrastructure development. With respect to climate change, it is long enough that when that infrastructure is planned, we need to think about how the weather will be different.

On the left side of the figure I label energy security and economy. Both of these are issues that we have ample evidence of change over very short amounts of time. I remember feeling pretty good about my retirement savings at the end of 2007 and not so good at the end of 2008. With the onset of recession, any talk of the cost to change to renewable energy was ended – it was too much of a threat to the economy. In fact, one of the first things we wanted to do was to extract fossil fuels. It would provide energy, jobs, and with cheap energy more jobs. We see fracking explode, natural gas booms, and, now, people saying we have achieved energy security, and since we no longer are talking about climate change, there is no need to invest in renewable energy. The short-term has undermined the long-term.

Understanding the role of time in complex problems is an essential step in getting started on solutions. It is important to consider not only the times important to science, but to energy, to the economy, and, perhaps most of all, to people.

r



From the Washington Post. It says something about how we treat time. By Tom Toles.



Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 365 - 315

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

365. ElwynBolstad
12:39 PM GMT on October 23, 2014
Excellent post as it invites a great discussion! I think the image by the Washington Post says it all, but as far as global warming is concerned opinions differ. Some even claim we could be in for a period of global cooling. Regardless if we face warming or cooling I think we can agree that it is mostly caused by humans and that the impacts can be felt already today.
Member Since: October 23, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
364. Daisyworld
5:11 PM GMT on January 26, 2013
Quoting Kermit29:
I have zero doubt regarding our planet's heating climate. Two things trouble me though: One, the data is extensive and convincing for one or two centuries. That alone is not sufficient (nor remotely close enough) for me to say that our hominid mono-culture is the guaranteed causal agent for the observed data. The other thing troubling me is the silly proposals out there regarding legislation to mitigate the effects of our hominid overburden, that is, IF that overburden is the cause.

I think it is foolish to not recognize that our species numbers are destructive to the planet's carrying capacity. I think it is equally foolish to attempt to legislate human behaviors short of addressing our uncontrolled numbers.


Hi Kermit29, and welcome. I've posted this before, and it merits posting again in response to your comment:

The fingerprint of humans on the rising CO2 is very clear, and it's 50-100 times that of natural volcanic origin. The evidence is:

(1) Measurements of the CO2 output from both volcanoes and fossil fuel burning show that fossil fuel burning far exceeds that of present-day volcanoes. (Link)

(2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to a decrease in atmospheric O2, which shows that the CO2 is being created from combustion. (Link)

(3) The carbon isotope signature of the CO2 shows an increase in 12C, which comes from living organisms. There's NO relevant increase in 13C, which comes from melting rocks (volcanoes), and NO increase in 14C, which comes from recently dead living organisms. Therefore, the carbon in CO2 is coming from once living organisms that have been dead for a very long time… aka fossil fuels. (Link)

Dr. Richard Alley says it best:

Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 920
363. Kermit29
10:28 PM GMT on January 19, 2013
I have zero doubt regarding our planet's heating climate. Two things trouble me though: One, the data is extensive and convincing for one or two centuries. That alone is not sufficient (nor remotely close enough) for me to say that our hominid mono-culture is the guaranteed causal agent for the observed data. The other thing troubling me is the silly proposals out there regarding legislation to mitigate the effects of our hominid overburden, that is, IF that overburden is the cause.

I think it is foolish to not recognize that our species numbers are destructive to the planet's carrying capacity. I think it is equally foolish to attempt to legislate human behaviors short of addressing our uncontrolled numbers.
Member Since: July 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
362. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
2:03 AM GMT on January 18, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
361. cyclonebuster
1:13 AM GMT on January 18, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:



Ouch, Pat gonna need to turn up the heat, bayou dun
froze over.



LOL!!! What a dud this storm was today over my house with Zero accumulation when 2 to 4 inches was predicted.... 33 degrees during the event about 3 hours ago and now it is 38 outside.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20668
360. Neapolitan
12:17 AM GMT on January 18, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Ok warmists, even your idol Jimmy Hansen admits there has been no global warming for at least the past decade. I suppose everyone should just ignore all of those predictions of warming, because, as you all believe, it will continue again ...... someday.

Link
Let me help you out a bit, as in your zeal to cherry-pick the update, you missed some very salient passages.

--"Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998."

--"The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been
conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century."


--"The observational data show that the frequency of unusually warm anomalies has been increasing decade by decade over the past three decades."

--"...the decade-by-decade movement of the bell curve to the right, and the emergence of an increased number of extreme warm anomalies, is an expression of increasing global warming. Some seasons continue to be unusually cool even by the standard of average 1951-1980 climate, but the "climate dice" are now sufficiently loaded that an observant person should notice that unusually warm seasons are occurring much more frequently than they did a few decades earlier."

--"The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed
at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread [and incorrect] assertion that "global warming has stopped"."


--"We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance."

--"[O]ur interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade...suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably into the next El Nino phase."

Thanks for playing!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
359. Patrap
11:15 PM GMT on January 17, 2013
Thanx for the B-day Good wishes.

Had a fine quiet one with Family.

Thanx again.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
357. iceagecoming
9:30 AM GMT on January 17, 2013



Ouch, Pat gonna need to turn up the heat, bayou dun
froze over.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1140
356. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:25 AM GMT on January 17, 2013
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Belated Happy Birthday......would have said something yesterday, but figured you were out clebrating.

Sempr Fi!



Happy Birthday, Pat! Are you still sticking with being 39? That gets harder to do when your kids are that old. I know this for a fact.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
355. OldLeatherneck
2:23 AM GMT on January 17, 2013
Quoting Patrap:


Belated Happy Birthday......would have said something yesterday, but figured you were out clebrating.

Sempr Fi!

Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 209
354. cyclonebuster
12:58 AM GMT on January 17, 2013
Quoting LowerCal:
Soot is the second largest contributor to global warming | SmartPlanet
....
“If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions,” says study coauthor Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in a statement, “we could buy ourselves up to half a degree (Celsius) less warming — or a couple of decades of respite.”

Reducing emissions, he adds, “is a no brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits.”

The report was published online by the Journal of Geophysical Research today.


Tunnels are a no brainier also because they remove soot...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20668
353. RevElvis
12:17 AM GMT on January 17, 2013
Deafness at Doomsday
(Why Scientists Should Have a Greater Voice On Global Security)

NYTimes Op Ed

TO our great peril, the scientific community has had little success in recent years influencing policy on global security. Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II.

The problems scientists confront today are actually much harder than they were at the dawn of the nuclear age, and their successes more heartily earned. This is why it is so distressing that even Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world’s most famous living scientist, gets more attention for his views on space aliens than his views on nuclear weapons.Scientists’ voices are crucial in the debates over the global challenges of climate change, nuclear proliferation and the potential creation of new and deadly pathogens. But unlike in the past, their voices aren’t being heard.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 30 Comments: 1085
352. Patrap
10:45 PM GMT on January 16, 2013
Wunderground's Climate Change Position

Earth's climate is warming. This time, humans are mostly responsible, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years. We can choose to take economically sensible steps to lessen the damage of climate change, and the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
351. Patrap
10:43 PM GMT on January 16, 2013

U.S. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios


In early January, NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, NCDC’s parent organization, released a Technical Report covering an analysis of historical climate trends and climate scenarios of the future for eight U.S. regions as well as one for the contiguous United States. Technical Report 142 is comprised of nine parts—142-1 through 142-9—each of which represents a more complete and targeted synthesis of historical and emission-dependent future climate conditions around the specific regions of the National Climate Assessment (NCA). There are two components of these descriptions. One component is a description of the historical climate conditions in the region. The other component is a description of the climate conditions associated with two future pathways of greenhouse gas emissions based on IPCC emission scenarios. As part of a sustained assessment approach, it is intended that these documents will be updated as new and well-vetted model results are available and as new climate emission scenarios become available
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
350. Patrap
10:38 PM GMT on January 16, 2013
NOAA is very specific on the Climate Change indicators page on how Storms are changing. We who live in the High impact areas,of repetitive decadel oscillations have seen it.

A warming Planet will become even mo' evident as we descend into the new atmospheric experiment we are causing.

I roll with the Pro's,or the ones with PHD's u could say.



Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center




Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change.
Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
349. LowerCal
8:08 PM GMT on January 16, 2013
Soot is the second largest contributor to global warming | SmartPlanet
....
“If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions,” says study coauthor Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in a statement, “we could buy ourselves up to half a degree (Celsius) less warming — or a couple of decades of respite.”

Reducing emissions, he adds, “is a no brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits.”

The report was published online by the Journal of Geophysical Research today.
Member Since: July 26, 2006 Posts: 59 Comments: 9693
348. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:58 PM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting RevElvis:
False balance: Fox News demands a recount on US’ warmest year


ARSTechnica.com


Back in 2010, a memo leaked from Fox News in which its managing editor informed his staff that they couldn't even report on basic temperature measurements without noting they were subject to controversy in some quarters, even if those quarters are out past the fringes of the scientific community. That directive is apparently still in force. Just days after NOAA released its reading of last year's US temperatures, Fox responded with a report in which it questions whether NOAA is producing accurate temperature readings.

The report is a classic example of what's been termed "false balance." It presents experts with relevant experience and the official word from NOAA, but it simultaneously surrounds them with quotes from several people who aren't scientists—as well as one scientist who is a notable contrarian about other fields of science. In many ways, the self-labelled skeptics contradict each other in their haste to condemn NOAA. But the Fox article doesn't point any of this out, and it actually ends with a veiled hint that we might consider throwing NOAA scientists in jail for their "manipulations of data."


I wish FOX News would bring charges against the NOAA scientists for their "manipulations of data". Once and for all, the public would know how distorted FOX News channels are on their reporting and then the NOAA scientists could sue FOX News for bringing false charges against them and for defamation of character. Perhaps even the world citizens could bring up charges against the FOX News network for Crimes Against Humanity. .... You go, FOX News! Bring your charges against the NOAA scientists! I would LOVE to see it! On a side note, "Lord" Monckton is just lucky that producing an ID 10 T error is not punishable under law!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
347. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:42 PM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:
Link




I thought 33 f was cold in Austin TX.


Here is your link, iceage - Public Weather Warnings for Canada

33F during January in Austin is not cold or unusual. Austin is in the Texas Hill Country and away from the coast.

What does Austin have to do with Canada's public weather warnings? What is so unusual about weather warnings in Canada?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
346. greentortuloni
8:30 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:
Link

Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780

I do believe this might be the eco-terrorist home base which the heat afflicted get there marching orders.

Meanwhile at the north pole?





I think you underestimate the subtlety of the gowing opposition. The union of concerned scientists are actually good people who want to save the planet. That is the most diabolical strategy of all, in a 1984 doublethink type world that it appears you inhabit.

Not only do they take a name that is politically correct (anyone can do that, i.e. "League of Congressmen who Extort Big Oil for Money while Harming America" becomes "Grand Old Party", or "Psychotic Mental Near Beers" -> "Tea Party") but they actually believe their own BS: they actually are scientists, with publications and degrees and math skills and so on, AND they are actually concerned about the world and are trying to selflessly fix it. That is some damn subtle sneakiness!

By the way, as Nea pointed out: that photo of the North Pole is not from this year as it is still dark there.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
345. greentortuloni
8:26 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
Interesting link, GT. It has a lot of discussion of AGW/CC mitigation ideas, but will the local denialists read the paper and comment on it? My guess is no, although mitigation is a big issue for Cyclonebuster and a couple of other optimists here.

I highly recommend that everyone here follow the global food crisis issue at NESCI, the New England Complex Systems Institute - in their news section.

It's likely that the food crisis may be the first really significant AGW/CC impact on global human civilization. I don't think anyone can predict how things are going to sort out in this critical decade with any accuracy, but I believe that serious impact from a global food crisis based on high prices has a high probability.


I haven't followed your link yet, btu i agree that food will be one of the first problems. Then social unrest, then serious social unrest and then fighting...

What will really piss me off is that the Kock brothers and the GOP creeps will be protected no matter what happens.. unless it really gets so bad that GW gets them, and in that case, we all go down.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
344. greentortuloni
8:23 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting RevElvis:
False balance: Fox News demands a recount on US’ warmest year


ARSTechnica.com


Back in 2010, a memo leaked from Fox News in which its managing editor informed his staff that they couldn't even report on basic temperature measurements without noting they were subject to controversy in some quarters, even if those quarters are out past the fringes of the scientific community. That directive is apparently still in force. Just days after NOAA released its reading of last year's US temperatures, Fox responded with a report in which it questions whether NOAA is producing accurate temperature readings.

The report is a classic example of what's been termed "false balance." It presents experts with relevant experience and the official word from NOAA, but it simultaneously surrounds them with quotes from several people who aren't scientists—as well as one scientist who is a notable contrarian about other fields of science. In many ways, the self-labelled skeptics contradict each other in their haste to condemn NOAA. But the Fox article doesn't point any of this out, and it actually ends with a veiled hint that we might consider throwing NOAA scientists in jail for their "manipulations of data."


I wonder it this will backfire on Fox. I suppose there are a certain set of fox news propaganda consumers, a la iceagecoming's target audience, who will believe it. But for the others, it makes the issue more prominent in their minds. It is a lot easier to change your mind to believe 'maybe the scientists were right' on an issue that is already cognitively embedded than it is to embed that idea in the first place.

Hopefully anyway.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
343. RevElvis
5:54 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
False balance: Fox News demands a recount on US’ warmest year


ARSTechnica.com


Back in 2010, a memo leaked from Fox News in which its managing editor informed his staff that they couldn't even report on basic temperature measurements without noting they were subject to controversy in some quarters, even if those quarters are out past the fringes of the scientific community. That directive is apparently still in force. Just days after NOAA released its reading of last year's US temperatures, Fox responded with a report in which it questions whether NOAA is producing accurate temperature readings.

The report is a classic example of what's been termed "false balance." It presents experts with relevant experience and the official word from NOAA, but it simultaneously surrounds them with quotes from several people who aren't scientists—as well as one scientist who is a notable contrarian about other fields of science. In many ways, the self-labelled skeptics contradict each other in their haste to condemn NOAA. But the Fox article doesn't point any of this out, and it actually ends with a veiled hint that we might consider throwing NOAA scientists in jail for their "manipulations of data."
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 30 Comments: 1085
342. Neapolitan
3:49 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:
Link

Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780

I do believe this might be the eco-terrorist home base which the heat afflicted get there marching orders.

Meanwhile at the north pole?
NP

The sun is shining at the North Pole? Already? On January 15? OMG! We're in deeper trouble than I thought!!!

;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
341. iceagecoming
3:47 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Link




I thought 33 f was cold in Austin TX.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1140
340. cyclonebuster
3:38 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:
Link

Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780

I do believe this might be the eco-terrorist home base which the heat afflicted get there marching orders.

Meanwhile at the north pole?





Correct Iceagecoming...
Meanwhile at the North Pole things are not always as they seem....


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20668
339. iceagecoming
3:30 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Link

Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780

I do believe this might be the eco-terrorist home base which the heat afflicted get there marching orders.

Meanwhile at the north pole?



Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1140
338. cyclonebuster
2:34 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting Xandra:


Click for larger image


Correct.... Same picture on Arctic Methane Emergency Group on FACEBOOK.... Check it out....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20668
337. Xandra
1:34 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting cyclonebuster:

Peter Wadhams of AMEG [...]


Click for larger image
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1830
336. cyclonebuster
1:18 AM GMT on January 16, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
Interesting link, GT. It has a lot of discussion of AGW/CC mitigation ideas, but will the local denialists read the paper and comment on it? My guess is no, although mitigation is a big issue for Cyclonebuster and a couple of other optimists here.

I highly recommend that everyone here follow the global food crisis issue at NESCI, the New England Complex Systems Institute - in their news section.

It's likely that the food crisis may be the first really significant AGW/CC impact on global human civilization. I don't think anyone can predict how things are going to sort out in this critical decade with any accuracy, but I believe that serious impact from a global food crisis based on high prices has a high probability.



Peter Wadhams of AMEG wrote to me and he thinks my idea's about what my Tunnels can do are nice...I think it is time to let the heat back out to space...What say you?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20668
334. Xulonn
5:44 PM GMT on January 15, 2013
Quoting greentortuloni:
"The international community is totally unprepared for the speed of change in the Arctic, the
dramatic effects on global climate and the dire repercussions on food production"


From the strategic plan:

Food Prices Curve:
Interesting link, GT. It has a lot of discussion of AGW/CC mitigation ideas, but will the local denialists read the paper and comment on it? My guess is no, although mitigation is a big issue for Cyclonebuster and a couple of other optimists here.

I highly recommend that everyone here follow the global food crisis issue at NESCI, the New England Complex Systems Institute - in their news section.

It's likely that the food crisis may be the first really significant AGW/CC impact on global human civilization. I don't think anyone can predict how things are going to sort out in this critical decade with any accuracy, but I believe that serious impact from a global food crisis based on high prices has a high probability.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1761
333. greentortuloni
2:52 PM GMT on January 15, 2013
332. Neapolitan
11:22 PM GMT on January 14, 2013
Quoting robodave:
Why does nobody discuss fracking in this blog? It's remarkably clean and affordable and available in the US. Natural gas is increasingly attractive across the world, so why delay? The recent spate with the nuclear disaster in Japan underlines the inability of nuclear to meet increasing energy demands due to its liability in disasters and its waste. In my humbled opinion, we will have to switch over to natural gas in this country if we want a bridge to the future. It's really the only realistic path that I can think of. Nuclear can't do it right now. Solar can't. Coal isn't nearly as clean. Biomass can't do it. Wind can't.

If you really support green technology then you'd support natural gas. Otherwise, you're not helping, so get out of the way. The demands we have ahead of us are real and cannot be confused.

Furthermore, I believe that we're making better choices about the environment every new day. When you look at natural gas and assume X and Y threats in its use 30 years down the road then you're going to make a lot of mistakes because you're not accounting for the sustainability movement and the vast knowledge out there about the dangers of AGW. We can and will use natural gas responsibly and cleanly and our Co2 emissions will drastically fall. This will all happen as our economic activity skyrockets. This is a new world we live in today and we're just barely starting to see the results.

Have some faith in your country and stop chastising fossil fuel working men and woman. They can help our country by making this transition and we should give them the opportunity.

All the while we will make numerous other changes in how we live our lives to adapt to the arming world and to reduce the severity of AGW. I don't want to take away from the importance of all those other things. They're at least as important as this. I just wanted to bring up the natural gas issue in this post.
In no particular order:

1) Fracking has been discussed many times in this forum. It's not a subject at the fore for the moment, but thousands of words have been written about it, both pro and con.

2) No one is "chastising fossil fuel men and women". My beef isn't with Joe and Jill Frackingfield; it's with the leaders in the fossil fuel industry who now how dirty and damaging their product is, yet who continue to lie and deceive and manipulate so their huge profits can be maintained at any cost. (For the record, I have a brother in the oil industry; I have nephews involved with coal and oil; my father worked in coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium; my stepfather worked in the oilfields. I would call none of them evil, nor would I question their ethics or morals.)

3) CO2 isn't the only worry. If it were, then, yes, I believe increased natural gas extraction might be aq good bridge to a fossil fuel-less future. But CO2 isn't. Methane, for instance, is far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2--and there's an awful lot of it escaping into the atmosphere. In fact, a recent study shows that up to 9% of underground methane escapes into the air, "offsetting much of the climate benefit of the ongoing shift from coal- to gas-fired plants for electricity generation".

4) I disagree that "wind and solar can't do it". They could--if the political will were in place. But it's not; so long as it's even incrementally "cheaper" to gouge the earth and punch deep holes in it to get at eons-dead plants and animals, that political will will never materialize. And the aforementioned fossil fuel companies will do what they have to to be sure it remains, indeed, slightly cheaper. (Costs include extraction and processing only; the cost to current health and future generations? Meh...)

5) I personally have no plans to "get out of the way." I can't sit back and let those intent on destroying the planet for my children and grandchildren work unopposed. I guess I'm not built that way.

6) You wrote, "This is a new world we live in today and we're just barely starting to see the results." I'll agree with that--as will, sadly and disturbingly, a lot of very worried climate scientists...

In short, I wish I could share your enthusiasm. But I've seen far too much to be bale to do that at this point.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
331. goosegirl1
10:54 PM GMT on January 14, 2013
Quoting robodave:
Why does nobody discuss fracking in this blog? It's remarkably clean and affordable and available in the US. Natural gas is increasingly attractive across the world, so why delay? The recent spate with the nuclear disaster in Japan underlines the inability of nuclear to meet increasing energy demands due to its liability in disasters and its waste. In my humbled opinion, we will have to switch over to natural gas in this country if we want a bridge to the future. It's really the only realistic path that I can think of. Nuclear can't do it right now. Solar can't. Coal isn't nearly as clean. Biomass can't do it. Wind can't.

If you really support green technology then you'd support natural gas. Otherwise, you're not helping, so get out of the way. The demands we have ahead of us are real and cannot be confused.

Furthermore, I believe that we're making better choices about the environment every new day. When you look at natural gas and assume X and Y threats 30 years down the road then you're going to make a lot of mistakes because you're not accounting for the sustainability movement and the vast knowledge out there about the dangers of AGW. We can and will use natural gas responsibly and cleanly and our Co2 emissions will drastically fall. This will all happen as our economic activity skyrockets. This is a new world we live in today and we're just barely starting to see the results.



There's a discussion about fracking going on right now at Dr. Master's blog, just a few steps to your left :)
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1276
330. robodave
10:43 PM GMT on January 14, 2013
Why does nobody discuss fracking in this blog? It's remarkably clean and affordable and available in the US. Natural gas is increasingly attractive across the world, so why delay? The recent spate with the nuclear disaster in Japan underlines the inability of nuclear to meet increasing energy demands due to its liability in disasters and its waste. In my humbled opinion, we will have to switch over to natural gas in this country if we want a bridge to the future. It's really the only realistic path that I can think of. Nuclear can't do it right now. Solar can't. Coal isn't nearly as clean. Biomass can't do it. Wind can't.

If you really support green technology then you'd support natural gas. Otherwise, you're not helping, so get out of the way. The demands we have ahead of us are real and cannot be confused.

Furthermore, I believe that we're making better choices about the environment every new day. When you look at natural gas and assume X and Y threats in its use 30 years down the road then you're going to make a lot of mistakes because you're not accounting for the sustainability movement and the vast knowledge out there about the dangers of AGW. We can and will use natural gas responsibly and cleanly and our Co2 emissions will drastically fall. This will all happen as our economic activity skyrockets. This is a new world we live in today and we're just barely starting to see the results.

Have some faith in your country and stop chastising fossil fuel working men and woman. They can help our country by making this transition and we should give them the opportunity.

All the while we will make numerous other changes in how we live our lives to adapt to the arming world and to reduce the severity of AGW. I don't want to take away from the importance of all those other things. They're at least as important as this. I just wanted to bring up the natural gas issue in this post.
Member Since: August 9, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 147
329. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:55 PM GMT on January 14, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I agree with no subsidies for oil or any company or industry. No subsidies period.

I am glad you have learned what a subsidy is.


Subsidies were originally set up to help new industries to become profitable and to compete with foreign markets. These subsidies were meant to fade away as these new industries became self supporting and able to compete on the foreign markets. There are legitimate reasons for doing this. Should we not develop the new industries here then the foreign interests will and this puts at an economic disadvantage with other countries. Also, in the case of renewable energy sources, not helping these industries develop here gives us a distinct security risk in the future. As with the oil industry today, we are at the mercy of foreign interests to supply our energy needs. Yes, certainly, we have found newer methods of extraction that opens large(?), domestic reserves of fossil fuels that were not accessible to us before. Even these large(?) reserves will become depleted and we are back at square one trying to supply the energy needs of this nation. You must also factor in that as fossil fuels will become more scarce their price will escalate well beyond their costs to us now. Even now a fast rising cost in the price of the barrel will shut down our economic growth. Your admitting that fossil fuel use adds to the problems of global warming should be enough for you to push for renewable energy sources being developed here and now. Even without AGW, the need to develop renewable energy sources here, in the U.S., and now is imperative for this nation to remain secure in the world's future environment and to ensure that we no longer depend on foreign interests to supply our energy needs. Anyone thinking otherwise is only their expression of foolish thoughts. Period! No, ifs, ands or buts about it! You simply cannot escape the reality that fossil fuels will become depleted and too expensive for daily use before they do. The path that you suggest for us is a path of future economic doom and despair in this nation.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4942
328. goosegirl1
2:06 PM GMT on January 14, 2013
Quoting nymore:


As I posted over on the other blog the graph you posted is a fraud. It shows all fossil fuel subsidies vs only fast track financing for renewables while leaving out all the other subsidies they get.


OK, so you feel the graph is fraudulent. That's fine in and of itself, but it does not change the fact that renewable energy does not receive the same financial support as fossil fuels and has no where near the financial return on investment. That's really what the graph was about.


Link


Link

It should be noted that the subsidies for fossil fuels are on the books forever, but those for renewable energy will expire. That shows where the government really wants to spend its money.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1276
327. Patrap
11:53 PM GMT on January 13, 2013

Fishermen try to dig out a fishing boat trapped in ice in the Jiaozhou harbor in Qingdao, in east China's Shandong province on Jan. 5.
(Photo: AP)

Chinese struggle to stay wired amid cold snap
Calum MacLeod, USA TODAY2:21p.m. EST January 10, 2013


Low temperatures indoor make it difficult to charge iPads and iPhones in south China.


BEIJING – China's coldest winter in almost three decades, including record low temperatures, freezing rain and snow, has left nearly 400,000 people in a "state of disaster" in southwest Guizhou province alone.

Workers there used bamboo sticks Thursday to beat ice off frozen power lines, reported state news agency Xinhua.

But for some Chinese, especially the urban residents of south China, who are denied the state-supplied heating networks of north China, the fierce cold snap poses a new, albeit much less serious problem: how to charge their iPads and iPhones.

Extreme weather has sent temperatures in China diving to a national average of 25 degrees Fahrenheit since Nov. 20, the lowest level for 28 years, according to the China Meteorological Administration.

In south China, that translates into genuine discomfort and has reignited a decades-old debate about the lack of heating. A line drawn in the 1950s split China into a northern half that installed and still enjoys heavily subsidized public heating, and a southern half that shivers through winter without a public heating network and must make do with private, often less effective heating devices.

This month, southerners have again expressed their displeasure at what they view as an unfair and arbitrary divide, and now they have new evidence to offer: Apple products that dislike cold weather.

On China's booming social media networks, south Chinese consumers are busy sharing their frustrations at the extremely long time it takes to charge iPads and other Apple products at low room temperatures.

The many novel, and apparently successful, charging methods that Chinese users have documented with recent online pictures include: stuffing their iPads into sheets, blankets and duvets; smothering them in hot water bags and bottles; clutching them to beating human chests; sticking on heating pads; blasting them with hairdryers and electric fans.

This very minor issue reveals the soaring economic power of Chinese consumers, as many of these iPad owners grew up in homes without even a telephone land line. It also highlights the way they employ China's heavily censored but still serviceable social media to complain about social issues.

"How can failure to charge be normal!" shouted Peng Bin on Thursday on the massively popular Sina Weibo micro-blogging service.

His daughter had bought an iPad recently, but Peng refused to accept the explanations of Apple employees in the southern Chinese city of Nanchang that cold weather meant long charging times.

A fast seller this week has been touchscreen gloves, whose conductive fingertips allow users to access all their digital devices. In Jiujiang city in southern Jiangxi province, the China News Service reported strong sales of touchscreen gloves, selling for under $2 per pair last week, among young users of smartphone and iPads.

"In the winter I can wear gloves to play with my iPad and cellphone, and they only cost $1.80, it's really good," said a female shopper who gave her name as Sun, the news agency reported.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
326. cyclonebuster
11:11 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting Patrap:

A woman wearing a mask crosses a road during severe pollution in Beijing on January 12, 2013

BEIJING (AP) Air pollution readings in China's notoriously polluted capital were at dangerously high levels for the second straight day Saturday, with hazy skies blocking visibility and authorities urging people to stay indoors.

Local officials warned that the severe pollution in Beijing reportedly the worst since the local government began collecting data a year ago was likely to continue until Tuesday.

The Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center said on its website that the density of PM2.5 particulates had reached 700 micrograms per cubic meter in many parts of the city, a level considered extremely hazardous.

By 5 p.m., the center's real-time reporting showed the air quality indexes at or approaching the maximum 500 from some monitoring stations. The index runs from zero to 500 and accounts for the level of airborne PM 2.5 particulates tiny particles considered the most harmful to health.

Generally, the air quality is considered good when the index is at 50 or below, and hazardous with an index between 301 and 500, when people are warned to avoid outdoor physical activities. Those with respiratory problems, the elderly and children are asked to stay indoors.

The air started to turn bad on Thursday, and monitors in Beijing reported air quality indexes above 300 by Friday. The monitoring center said Saturday that the pollution was expected to linger for the next three days and urged residents, especially the most vulnerable, to stay home as much as possible.

The air quality data are the worst in Beijing since the municipal government began to track PM2.5 early last year, said Zhou Rong of the environmental organization Green Peace.

Monitors at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing recorded an off-the-chart air-quality reading of 755 at 8 p.m. Saturday and said the PM2.5 density had reached 886 micrograms per cubic meter. It was unclear whether the embassy's data were the worst since it began collecting and sharing such information in 2008.

Readings are often different in different parts of Beijing. Chinese authorities and the United States also have different ways to calculate the air quality index, although their indexes are "highly similar" at the two ends of the spectrum, said Ma Jun, founder of the nongovernmental Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs in Beijing.

Air pollution is a major problem in China due to the country's rapid pace of industrialization, reliance on coal power, explosive growth in car ownership and disregard to environmental laws. It typically gets worse in the winter because of heating needs.

In Beijing, authorities have blamed foggy conditions and a lack of wind for the high concentration of air pollutants.

Several other cities, including Tianjin on the coast east of Beijing and southern China's Wuhan city, also reported severe pollution over the last several days.





Fossil Fuels are worse than smoking filtered cigarettes......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20668
325. nymore
10:08 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting Xandra:

FYI

I agree with no subsidies for oil or any company or industry. No subsidies period.

I am glad you have learned what a subsidy is.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
324. Xandra
10:00 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting nymore:

you have no idea what a subsidy is either do you.


FYI

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1830
323. Patrap
9:28 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Cold air mass from China forecast to bring temperatures down: CWB

CNA
January 14, 2013, 12:01 am TWN


TAIPEI--A southward-bound cold air mass from China could bring temperatures down in Taiwan, the Central Weather Bureau said yesterday.

Temperatures were predicted to have dropped to possibly between 13 and 14 degrees Celsius in Northern Taiwan and between 15 and 16 degrees in other areas by late Sunday, and areas north of Central Taiwan could see a low of 11 degrees on Monday night, the bureau forecasted.

The approach of this dry, cold air mass is also expected to ease the rain, which began in Taiwan early on Sunday due to the passing of a front, the bureau said.

Temperatures are expected to return to a relatively warmer level from Jan. 15 as the cold air mass weakens, but the approach of another wave of a strong cold air mass from China on Jan. 16 is likely to bring the mercury down again from Jan. 16-19, it said.

The bureau said that temperatures could reach 10 degrees on Jan. 17 and 18 in Northern Taiwan, when the continental cold air mass is expected to be at its strongest.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
322. nymore
8:58 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting Xandra:

See comments 861, 872 and 894 on the other blog.
you have no idea what a subsidy is either do you.

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
321. Xandra
8:49 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting Xandra:

From Oil Change International:

New Analysis: Fossil fuel subsidies five times greater than climate finance

by David Turnbull, 03 Dec 2012

[...] we’ve just released new analysis that shows that fossil fuel subsidies in rich countries are, on average, five times greater than those same countries’ pledges towards climate finance (support to developing countries to address climate change and its impacts). Sometimes pictures speak louder than words, so here’s a graphic that lays it out.

Source

For more information, see a more detailed two-pager here.

"Data Sources: Average Yearly Fast Start Climate Finance Pledges and Commitments calculated from World Resources Institute, “Developed Country Fast-Start Climate Finance Pledges: A Summary of Self-Reported Information,” November 26, 2012, http://pdf.wri.org/climate_finance_pledges_2012-1 1-26.pdf with currency conversion completed by WRI. Fossil Fuel Subsidy Totals calculated from OECD and IEA, “Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Other Support,” http://www.oecd.org/site/tadffss/ with currency conversion from http://www.x-rates.com calculated with exchange rate on last day of the year."
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1830
320. Xandra
8:45 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting nymore:

As I posted over on the other blog the graph you posted is a fraud. It shows all fossil fuel subsidies vs only fast track financing for renewables while leaving out all the other subsidies they get.

See comments 861, 872, 894, and 910 on the other blog.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1830
319. Patrap
7:50 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
National Climate Assessment Details Stronger Evidence Of Global Warming And Its Impacts

Posted: 01/11/2013 4:43 pm EST | Updated: 01/11/2013 6:24 pm EST



A federal committee has published a draft of the nation's third climate assessment report, a comprehensive analysis of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States.

None of the body's findings are entirely new, but the report suggests that evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels. Observed weather extremes are on the rise, and the possible connection between at least some of these events and human-induced climate change is also more strongly supported by the science.

The nation can expect increased impacts on everything from crops to fresh water supplies, and better and broader national plans for adaptation are needed, the assessment noted.

The draft report, which was prepared by the so-called National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee and written and amassed by a group of 240 scientists, will be subject to a three-month period of review and public comment.

"Climate change presents a major challenge for society," the committee's leadership said in a letter addressed to the American people. "This report and the sustained assessment process that is being developed represent steps forward in advancing our understanding of that challenge and its far-reaching implications for our nation and the world."

In an emailed statement, Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the report confirms what many Americans already know. "Hurricane Sandy and the historic droughts, floods and heat waves happening across the country aren't a fluke, but the result of a climate warming much faster than previously thought," he said. "If we put off action on climate change, the costs of addressing its impacts will only rise and this extreme weather will be just the beginning. This report should serve as a wake-up call that it's time to act."

The committee's letter continues:

Summers are longer and hotter, and periods of extreme heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours, though in many regions there are longer dry spells in between.
Other changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snow melt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the year, last later into the fall, threaten more homes, cause more evacuations, and burn more acreage. In Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and fall storms now cause more erosion and damage that is severe enough that some communities are already facing relocation....


These and other observed climatic changes are having wide-ranging impacts in every region of our country and most sectors of our economy. Some of these changes can be beneficial, such as longer growing seasons in many regions and a longer shipping season on the Great Lakes. But many more have already proven to be detrimental, largely because society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate of the past, not for the rapidly changing climate of the present or the future.

The report's roots can be traced to the The Global Change Research Act of 1990, which required that a national climate assessment be conducted every four years, with a report issued to the president and Congress. The legislation led to the formation of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an inter-governmental body involving 13 federal agencies and departments, including the Departments of Commerce, Defense and Energy, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, among others.

The first such assessment was not published until 2000, however, and it was subsequently attacked by conservative groups who claimed that it exaggerated the climate threat. One group, the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed multiple lawsuits arguing that the findings were not subjected to federal guidelines for scientific research.

CEI settled its legal challenges with the Bush administration, which subsequently suppressed use of the report by other branches of the federal government in their implementation of policies.

The next full climate assessment was not published until 2009, after President Barack Obama took office.

"This draft report sends a warning to all of us," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat and chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in an emailed statement. "We must act in a comprehensive fashion to reduce carbon pollution or expose our people and communities to continuing devastation from extreme weather events and their aftermath."
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
318. 1911maker
7:34 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
At one point in my life I was working as a Manufacturing Engineer. There were two of us who had to ride herd on ~120 assembly people. Anything that went wrong generally was because "they" did not do what "they" should have. Kind of like "I do not know in the family Circus".

At one point the other guy, in frustration put up the following sign on our office door:
"If I ever catch that "They F%%Ker", I will will kill him"

In that spirit, who is this "they" that is trying to "push stuff down our throats"?

What is it that "they" are trying to push down our throats?

Please just a short concise list. I see more then one person make reference to this, but I have not seen "The list".
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
317. Patrap
7:14 PM GMT on January 13, 2013

A woman wearing a mask crosses a road during severe pollution in Beijing on January 12, 2013

BEIJING (AP) Air pollution readings in China's notoriously polluted capital were at dangerously high levels for the second straight day Saturday, with hazy skies blocking visibility and authorities urging people to stay indoors.

Local officials warned that the severe pollution in Beijing reportedly the worst since the local government began collecting data a year ago was likely to continue until Tuesday.

The Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center said on its website that the density of PM2.5 particulates had reached 700 micrograms per cubic meter in many parts of the city, a level considered extremely hazardous.

By 5 p.m., the center's real-time reporting showed the air quality indexes at or approaching the maximum 500 from some monitoring stations. The index runs from zero to 500 and accounts for the level of airborne PM 2.5 particulates tiny particles considered the most harmful to health.

Generally, the air quality is considered good when the index is at 50 or below, and hazardous with an index between 301 and 500, when people are warned to avoid outdoor physical activities. Those with respiratory problems, the elderly and children are asked to stay indoors.

The air started to turn bad on Thursday, and monitors in Beijing reported air quality indexes above 300 by Friday. The monitoring center said Saturday that the pollution was expected to linger for the next three days and urged residents, especially the most vulnerable, to stay home as much as possible.

The air quality data are the worst in Beijing since the municipal government began to track PM2.5 early last year, said Zhou Rong of the environmental organization Green Peace.

Monitors at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing recorded an off-the-chart air-quality reading of 755 at 8 p.m. Saturday and said the PM2.5 density had reached 886 micrograms per cubic meter. It was unclear whether the embassy's data were the worst since it began collecting and sharing such information in 2008.

Readings are often different in different parts of Beijing. Chinese authorities and the United States also have different ways to calculate the air quality index, although their indexes are "highly similar" at the two ends of the spectrum, said Ma Jun, founder of the nongovernmental Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs in Beijing.

Air pollution is a major problem in China due to the country's rapid pace of industrialization, reliance on coal power, explosive growth in car ownership and disregard to environmental laws. It typically gets worse in the winter because of heating needs.

In Beijing, authorities have blamed foggy conditions and a lack of wind for the high concentration of air pollutants.

Several other cities, including Tianjin on the coast east of Beijing and southern China's Wuhan city, also reported severe pollution over the last several days.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133389
316. nymore
6:41 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting Xandra:
From Oil Change International:

New Analysis: Fossil fuel subsidies five times greater than climate finance

by David Turnbull, 03 Dec 2012

[...] we’ve just released new analysis that shows that fossil fuel subsidies in rich countries are, on average, five times greater than those same countries’ pledges towards climate finance (support to developing countries to address climate change and its impacts). Sometimes pictures speak louder than words, so here’s a graphic that lays it out.

Source


As I posted over on the other blog the graph you posted is a fraud. It shows all fossil fuel subsidies vs only fast track financing for renewables while leaving out all the other subsidies they get.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2285
315. cyclonebuster
4:14 PM GMT on January 13, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:
California hit by big freeze with temperatures as low as 12 degrees.

Morning temps fell into the 20s and 30s in many areas, and much lower in the mountains. A low of 12 degrees was recorded in the Big Bear mountain resort east of Los Angeles.

By midday Saturday, the temperature had warmed to the mid-50s – balmy for most everywhere else in the country but frigid in Southern California.

In an official weather advisory on Saturday, the National Weather Service wrote: "The bad news for those people who don't like cold temperatures is that any moderation in these frigid conditions is forecast to be slow heading into next week, with below-normal readings continuing."




Snow shut a 40-mile stretch of a major highway north of Los Angeles on Thursday afternoon, forcing hundreds of truckers to spend the cold night in their rigs and severing a key link between the Central Valley and Los Angeles.

The California Highway Patrol reopened the Grapevine segment of Interstate 5 some 17 hours later.





Link

And in the balmy middle east.




OUCH!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 133 Comments: 20668

Viewing: 365 - 315

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.