The Complete List: What Can I Do? (4)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:40 PM GMT on April 21, 2013

Share this Blog
20
+

The Complete List: What Can I Do? (4)

This is the continuation of a series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” Links to the previous entries are listed at the end.

So far, I have introduced the common, easy answer: to be more efficient in the use of energy. I listed the places where we can improve efficiency and in short order reduce expense: insulation improvements in building, fuel efficiency in transportation, elimination of standby losses, and more efficient lighting, air conditioning and water heating. In addition to this common answer, I wrote about a couple of issues that I see discussed less often: barriers, overcoming barriers and how individuals can organize and influence communities, governments and businesses in ways to improve efficiency. My goal is to show that we can develop small, organized efforts that have the potential to grow into large impacts in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We don’t have to wait on federal and global policy, which by all evidence remains far in the future. (EPA Delays Emission Regulations for New Power Plants (from Washington Post), Clean Energy Efforts Stalled (International Energy Agency, from UPI))

In this entry, I look beyond efficiency and provide a list to help organize how to think about reduction of greenhouse gas emissions both individually and collectively.

1. Efficiency
2. Food
3. Alternative Energy
4. Waste Management
5. Behavior, Conservation and Reduced Use
6. Fuel Waste Management
7. Forestry Management
8. Soil Management

This is my list, and I have formed it over the years from a number of sources. For example, if you revisit the figure in the first blog of the series you can pick out these categories. Another place you can look to see these categories is in the influential paper byPacala and Socolow, who argued in 2004 we could, in fact, adequately reduce emissions with existing technology. My list is tuned a bit towards individuals and perhaps a little closer to everyday language. A point: Pacala and Socolow make a convincing argument that we can do a lot with existing technology. To make that happen would be a matter of organizing, breaking down barriers, and changing behavior and practice. For individuals, the fact that there is a realizable possibility for global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should be encouraging and motivating. It is a matter of providing a bridge between the individual and the greater impact of collective behavior.

I have arranged the list, from 1 – 8, in a way that I imagine might be most accessible to individuals. I place efficiency at the top of the list because not only is it intuitive, but it has the possibility to cost less. The second item on the list is food, which will be the subject of the next blog. If you take a slice of our energy use, land use and greenhouse gas emissions through our methods of food production and food provision, then there is opportunity for significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The third item on the list is alternative energy. Many of us in the United States now have the opportunity to make the decision to buy our home energy from sources such as wind and solar. There are choices in vehicles of electric, hybrid electric, natural gas, ethanol and biodiesel. The impact of these choices on climate change is not easy to determine. The fourth item on the list is waste management. There are, of course, personal decisions about what we buy and what and how we throw things away. Waste management is also a place where we can have a lot of influence in our communities and local governments. Globally, there are issues of industry-wide waste management that can have huge impacts. I have deliberately separated the waste associated with energy production, as item 7 on the list.

The remaining items on the list I will describe more in future entries. They are a bit more removed from the individual, although for sure, there are decisions that we make as individuals that directly matter to fuel waste and forestry and soil management. This is especially true if we think about our individual influence: for example, if you are a farmer, you make decisions that influence both a lot of land as well as the people who buy your wares.

The final point I will make in this blog is that the items in the list are not independent of each other. For example, decisions that we make about what we eat will have implications for soil management, forestry management and fuel waste management. What you do with husks of your corn and your moldy bread matters directly to waste management. And all the items have something to do with individual behavior and with collective behavior of individuals – good stewardship of the climate has to become a natural part of the way we behave.

r

Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions


Moderation of comments: I have been getting more and more complaints about what is going on in the comments. WU and I will be addressing this. To start, here is a modified version of Dr. Master’s Blog Contents Rules.

Rood's Rules of the Road

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes.
2. Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil.
3. No spam.
4. Stay on the topic of climate change or the entry topic.
5. Foul language is not allowed.
6. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information.
7. Threats and intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with accordingly.
8. Do not circumvent a ban. Most bans last 24 hours or less; please accept the ban. If you create a new username to circumvent a ban, you will be blocked from the site completely.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

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: 626 - 576

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog Index

626. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
3:38 AM GMT on April 30, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
625. Xulonn
3:10 AM GMT on April 30, 2013
Quoting Daisyworld:
A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs.

The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up.

University of Western Australia psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky based the findings on responses from an online survey posted on eight science blogs.
Careful Daisyworld, ncstorm might come over here from Dr. Masters' blog and demand that you:
Quoting ncstorm:
Can you provide a link for this mental disorder of "climate denialism" that is being studied by psychologists now?..I work in the medical industry and I have never heard of this? Are there clinical trials being conducted on this disorder? You can WU me so we wont clog up the blog.

I don't know if you saw my discussion of the subject at Dr. Masters' blog yesterday, but when I replied:
Quoting myself:
MONSTER STRAWMAN - you are really good at making things up, NCStorm. I never implied or referred to anything resembling a "mental disorder." You are obviously confusing psychology and psychiatry. (I am a former psychiatric technician, and understand the subject well.)

Psychology is "The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in a given context," while psychiatry is "The study and treatment of mental illness, emotional disturbance, and abnormal behavior." You need to learn the difference, or you will become very confused!! ;-)

If you are truly interest in understanding what I posted, and not just lashing out at me, please google "psychology climate change denialism" without the quotation marks, and you will get 20,000 hits! That should keep you busy for a while!

Within the framework of examining climate denialism, I saw this exchange as a frantic attempt to take my statement about the "psychology of climate denialism" and re-define it by creating a strawman. The strawman was implying that I said climate denialism was a mental illness, and ignoring my statements about psychological studies of human actions and responses related to climate change. It was attempt - and a very obvious one - to try to convince everyone at Dr. Masters blog that I was claiming that denialism was a mental illness, and asking me to prove a claim I never made. And then asking me to move it offline, which would have left the ncstorm mental illness strawman visible as the last post in the exchange, and me looking like I was the "loser" in the exchange - a nasty person who called "skeptics" mentally ill.

Not being willing to take that very obvious bait, I again explained the difference between psychology and psychiatry/psychiatric medicine/mental illness, and I received this reply, indicating a blatant refusal to follow my suggestion and use Google scholar to look up "psychology climate change denialism," and a very strange interpretation of the word strawman!

Quoting ncstorm:
well, here come the names..now I'm being a strawman or whatever you call it because I inquired about something that you wrote and put out there as fact as something being studied by pyschologists?...I work with mental disorders studies and mental disorders are grouped with psychology or "pyschologists"..below is a link for you to read up on to the ICD9 where I did not find anything about "climate change denialism" which is where the medical community would look to verify a specific disease, disorders, symptoms..etc..you wont have to google it as I provided it for you....

I posted one last time and repeated my description of the difference between psychology and psychiatry/mental illness, expressed an opinion that I was being attacked. and said I would end the discussion.

The final response to me after that last post was an LOL and an apology. The exchange was an interesting and educational insight into the "psychology of climate denial" and some of the tactics used.

P.S. Thanks for the report Daisyworld - it verifies some of my "opinions" as fact.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
624. bappit
3:08 AM GMT on April 30, 2013
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:
Edited: N/M not wasting my time on Fox. If you are proud to watch them just realize ignorance isn't a badge of honor

In some social circles it is. Just a fact.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6061
622. Daisyworld
12:51 AM GMT on April 30, 2013
Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories

Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience | 7 September 2012

A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs.

The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up.

University of Western Australia psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky based the findings on responses from an online survey posted on eight science blogs. According to the paper, Lewandowsky approached five climate-skeptic blogs and asked them to post the survey link, but none did.

[...]

Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to "believe in" global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers.

Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper. Conspiracy theory beliefs are known to come in clusters — someone who thinks NASA faked the moon landing is more likely to accept the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. So Lewandowsky and his colleagues created an online survey and asked eight mostly pro-science blogs and five climate-skeptic blogs to post a link to the survey for their readers. The respondents were self-selecting, but highly motivated to care about climate science, the researchers noted.

The responses came only from the eight pro-science blogs, the researchers reported. Of 1,145 usable survey responses, the researchers found that support for free-market, laissez-faire economics was linked to a rejection of climate change. A tendency to believe other conspiracy theories was also linked to denial of climate change. Finally, climate-change deniers were more likely than others to say that other environmental problems have been solved, indicating a dismissive attitude toward "green" causes.

[...]

"[T]o our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science," Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded. Psychological research has found that conspiracy beliefs are hard to dislodge, they wrote, but efforts to debunk multiple lines of conspiratorial reasoning at once may help.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 857
621. NRAamy
12:24 AM GMT on April 30, 2013
Ah, Nea..... I missed you....

:)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
620. Neapolitan
12:18 AM GMT on April 30, 2013
Quoting NRAamy:
Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming


Michael Bastasch
Daily Caller
April 28, 2013



Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and environmental groups about the urgency of global warming, climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.

“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-long lull.

This has frustrated some environmentalists who recently sent a letter to major news networks urging them to have more coverage on global warming, and to stop portraying the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring global warming skeptics.
Amy, if you'd like, we can point you to a whole bunch of scientific websites to which you can link so you won't be embarrassed by further citing inane blather from anti-science, intensely ideological websites like the laughable Daily Caller. Let us know; we're here to help. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13571
619. NRAamy
11:44 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming


Michael Bastasch
Daily Caller
April 28, 2013



Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and environmental groups about the urgency of global warming, climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.

“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-long lull.

This has frustrated some environmentalists who recently sent a letter to major news networks urging them to have more coverage on global warming, and to stop portraying the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring global warming skeptics.
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
618. AlwaysThinkin
11:34 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Edited: N/M not wasting my time on Fox. If you are proud to watch them just realize ignorance isn't a badge of honor
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
617. AlwaysThinkin
11:13 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting CEastwood:
"Climate change" will now cause women to become prostitutes:

Link


No the operational word here is 'could' as in it 'could' be that you got that link by going to Foxnews.com.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
616. Xandra
10:59 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Click image for link.



Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
615. Naga5000
10:29 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
The Resolution in question enumerates dozens of climate change effects: increasing extreme poverty, water scarcity, increasingly severe weather, reduced agricultural productivity, food insecurity, destruction of forest resources, oss of arable land, increased conflict and instability, increasing epidemics, and so on. And then it lists many of the effects those things will thrust on vulnerable populations, and disproportionately on women. And then it goes on to list some of the ways women will be forced to cope with those changes--early marriage, HIV, STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and, yes, forced prostitution.

I can't for the life of me see why anyone but the most cynically and ideologically misogynistic--or, you know, just plain stupid--would disagree with a resolution to both recognize that women are more vulnerable than men (which--news flash!--they almost always are in times of stress) and affirm a commitment to thus keep them a part of the policymaking process.

The Hill's headline writer specifically chose (for obvious marketing reasons) to single out the one small part of the resolution, which is pretty shameful and damaging. And compounding it are, of course, small-minded types here and elsewhere who can only look at that headline and snicker and chortle and say, "Gee, look what climate change will cause now!"

The behavior of some is so reprehensible at times as to be mind-boggling. It truly is...


I agree with you completely, I only disagree with pushing very specific possibilities after all the "enumerates dozens of climate change effects: increasing extreme poverty, water scarcity, increasingly severe weather, reduced agricultural productivity, food insecurity, destruction of forest resources, oss of arable land, increased conflict and instability, increasing epidemics". Of course these things disproportionately affect women, but I don't see the need to go as far as forced prostitution etc, the above is enough.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3508
614. Neapolitan
10:15 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting CEastwood:
"Climate change" will now cause women to become prostitutes:

Link
The Resolution in question enumerates dozens of climate change effects: increasing extreme poverty, water scarcity, increasingly severe weather, reduced agricultural productivity, food insecurity, destruction of forest resources, oss of arable land, increased conflict and instability, increasing epidemics, and so on. And then it lists many of the effects those things will thrust on vulnerable populations, and disproportionately on women. And then it goes on to list some of the ways women will be forced to cope with those changes--early marriage, HIV, STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and, yes, forced prostitution.

I can't for the life of me see why anyone but the most cynically and ideologically misogynistic--or, you know, just plain stupid--would disagree with a resolution to both recognize that women are more vulnerable than men (which--news flash!--they almost always are in times of stress) and affirm a commitment to thus keep them a part of the policymaking process.

The Hill's headline writer specifically chose (for obvious marketing reasons) to single out the one small part of the resolution, which is pretty shameful and damaging. And compounding it are, of course, small-minded types here and elsewhere who can only look at that headline and snicker and chortle and say, "Gee, look what climate change will cause now!"

The behavior of some is so reprehensible at times as to be mind-boggling. It truly is...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13571
612. goosegirl1
9:54 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


I woke up this morning to this news also. However, I'm begging my friends on this forum to send me some sympathy. Why, pray tell??

Lamar Smith (R)TX-22 is my Congress Critter!



Cheer up, you could have these two~ Link

While they have both undoubtedly done some good deeds on behalf of WV, hobbling the EPA is not one of them.

added: an excerpt from the article "unnecessary uncertainty undermines" whoo, grammer nazis unite to end awkward sentences!!"
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1231
611. JohnLonergan
9:35 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Carbon Market Crossroads
New Ideas for Harnessing Global Markets to Confront Climate Change
Nigel Purvis, Samuel Grausz, and Andrew Light
April 2013




Introduction and summary
Scientists now believe that absent a major change of course, the planet will warm
4 degrees Celsius by 2100.1 Climate change on that scale would trigger severe
economic, environmental, and social disruptions. The global community would
become more fractured and unequal than today, and human suffering on an
unprecedented scale could ensue, according to the World Bank.
Nations are negotiating in the United Nations a new global climate agreement,
but that treaty may not enter into force until 2020. While such an agreement is
essential, the international community must ramp up climate action now—not
at the end of the decade. Stimulating much stronger climate action would require
creating real political will—a sense of purpose that simply does not exist today.
Although not a panacea, this report examines the contributions global carbon
markets—defined here as the buying and selling of climate-change securities
earned by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in developing nations—could make
to increasing the world’s ambition in addressing climate change.
To date, global carbon markets have played a key role in accelerating climate
action while mobilizing billions of dollars in private-sector investment, encouraging
economic growth, and helping to alleviate poverty. These markets have spread
the revolutionary idea that all countries and communities benefit from fighting climate
change and that domestic policies such as “pricing” carbon make economic
sense. In the process, however, these markets have failed in serious ways including
giving credits for questionable emission reductions and creating slow and opaque
approval processes that have been tarnished with apparent conflicts of interest.
The world’s largest carbon markets, moreover, face severely collapsed prices and a
crisis in confidence. But these failures and crises should not obscure the markets’
more important legacy and opportunities for impact.
With the right political commitment and much-needed reforms, global carbon
markets have the potential to deliver outsized environmental and economic benefits
in the coming years. To harness these benefits, the international community
should take the following concrete actions.
2 Center for American Progress | Carbon Market Crossroads
Over the next few pages, we describe the legacy of international carbon markets.
We then discuss where those markets are likely to go in the coming years and how
the above-mentioned recommendations can further make use of international
carbon markets to fight climate change.




The complete report
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3364
610. JohnLonergan
8:52 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
John Abraham in The Guardian on James Hansen's legacy

What's climate scientist James Hansen's legacy ?

As the scientist 'retires' from his duties at Nasa, John Abraham assesses the impact of a climate change leader.


"Just a few weeks ago, one of the biggest names in climate science made one of the biggest announcements possible. Dr. James (Jim) Hansen said that he will "retire" from his duties at NASA to focus his energies elsewhere. This is a "retirement" that is anything but. Dr. Hansen has made clear that he will become more engaged in communicating climate science to the general public and he will continue to carry out the high-quality work which he is known for.

What does this mean for climate science and the future of the Earth? It is impossible to know now but instead of looking forward, I want to shine a light on what Jim has done for climate science, what he signifies to the larger public, and how he is viewed by current and upcoming scientists.

Within the scientific community, Jim is known for works of impeccable quality and importance. Climate science is a complicated topic, it involves many intersecting disciplines. It is rare indeed for anyone to be knowledgeable about the entire climate system – but Jim is. He is among the small handful of scientists that can speak authoritatively about virtually the entire myriad of climate/energy topics. I have read many of his articles, particularly from the 1980s where he used emerging computational tools and clever intuition to show us how sensitive the climate is to human interactions. More recently, he has expertly delved into the past climate (paleoclimate) to reinforce his earlier predictions with signs and symbols from Earth's history. Throughout these decades, Jim has often been quicker to warn us about human-caused climate change than his colleagues. So far, his predictions have been proven correct.

In recent years, he has expanded beyond the scientific literature to a more popular press approach, writing a detailed yet easy to read book which exudes the concern and care he holds for his family and their future. While reading this book, I could feel the ache Jim has for the foolishness of this generation's actions and the debt we are leaving our children." ....

..."For most of the world, gracious statements honoring a "retiring" scientist may seem a bit like inside baseball. Why should we all care? We should care because Jim exemplifies courage, intellectual brilliance, character, and foresight. He exhausts superlatives and is a standard to which his colleagues aspire. He is emblematic of what the world needs to deal with the current risk of climate change. We are all indebted to him.

Perhaps it is best stated by a young, promising scientist, Sarah Moffitt,


The field of climate science will be fundamentally different. As a young scientist, his career has been a beacon to me and my peers. He is an example of what scientific leadership can look like. His retirement is a call for all of us young climate scientists to integrate our moral and ethical framework with our science fields.

I couldn't have said it better."



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3364
609. OldLeatherneck
8:50 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, dear lord.

I sometimes close my eyes and dream of a nation without a single anti-science Texas conservative in office. It's a very nice dream. But then I wake up, and they're still there.


I woke up this morning to this news also. However, I'm begging my friends on this forum to send me some sympathy. Why, pray tell??

Lamar Smith (R)TX-22 is my Congress Critter!

Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
608. yoboi
8:25 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1:


After reading the link, I'm inclined to say the whole tar sands industry sounds a bit shaky. As for "peak oil", I am not qualified to speak of when it may occur, only that oil is a finite resource that is bound to run out, sooner or later, unless we choose to leave it in the ground. (fat chance of that happening, if someone came make a dime on it!) My biggest concern is how to make the transition- no matter what, someone generation will have to stop depending upon crude oil. Isn't it better if it is done in stages and by choice, rather than when there is no more supply?

So all you climate change skeptics out there, think of this: now and by choice, or later and by starvation and war?


Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
607. goosegirl1
8:14 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


Very good read. Gives an excellent overview of the situation. Interesting that Total have seen fit to get out, taking a $1.65 billion loss in the process. Doesn't inspire confidence.


After reading the link, I'm inclined to say the whole tar sands industry sounds a bit shaky. As for "peak oil", I am not qualified to speak of when it may occur, only that oil is a finite resource that is bound to run out, sooner or later, unless we choose to leave it in the ground. (fat chance of that happening, if someone came make a dime on it!) My biggest concern is how to make the transition- no matter what, someone generation will have to stop depending upon crude oil. Isn't it better if it is done in stages and by choice, rather than when there is no more supply?

So all you climate change skeptics out there, think of this: now and by choice, or later and by starvation and war?
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1231
606. Naga5000
8:10 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


Look is it possible that women would turn to prostitution, etc. in a failing economy/society regardless of the cause of that failing...maybe...but to definitely say it would happen specifically in the case of climate change is misleading, and yes, a disservice to the science.


I just wanted to add that while it is a possibility that the effects in that article could feasibly happen in societal failing/collapse, before that were to occur, greater and more pressing consequences of global warming would happen first. I think it's an miscalculation to single out this one social consequence over all the others as what seems like a political attempt to tug on heart strings. Whatever...must be a slow news day...
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3508
605. schwankmoe
7:47 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting yoboi:



WE THE PEOPLE pay taxes for their salary


now you know how the rest of us have felt for years about the likes of Inhofe.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 682
604. Naga5000
7:43 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

Not too mention a great disservice to the science of climate change. Hasn't Big Al already done enough damage?


Look is it possible that women would turn to prostitution, etc. in a failing economy/society regardless of the cause of that failing...maybe...but to definitely say it would happen specifically in the case of climate change is misleading, and yes, a disservice to the science.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3508
603. Naga5000
7:40 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting yoboi:



I don't want to argue about this right now. WE THE PEOPLE pay taxes for their salary and they are going to say CLIMATE CHANGE will cause this??????? IT"S CRAZY.........I am writing letters to ALL republicans to stand up and strip the funding for this nonsense.....


False rage and great logic. 12 House members used some rhetoric, boo hoo. Hope you also write some letters to the House Science Committee Republican members who have had some gems of a similar fashion. Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3508
602. yoboi
7:33 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


Get off your high horse. It's rhetoric, and bad rhetoric at that.



I don't want to argue about this right now. WE THE PEOPLE pay taxes for their salary and they are going to say CLIMATE CHANGE will cause this??????? IT"S CRAZY.........I am writing letters to ALL republicans to stand up and strip the funding for this nonsense.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
600. pintada
7:23 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting CEastwood:


"science."


I just had a thought ...

You know people have been using the phrase "Greedy Lying Bastards" to refer to the movie, but if one looks closely this means that the people who do that are greedy and liars, and bastards which is not necessarily the case.

They can be:
just greedy liars;
just liars, or;
just lying bastards.

They operative word is liar.

One could add terms like moron so it would be Greedy lying bastard morons. Just as effective and true.
Member Since: July 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 234
599. Naga5000
7:04 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting yoboi:



and they wonder why people reject climate change.......they need to stop ALL funding concerning climate change......THIS IS CRAZY!!!!!!


Get off your high horse. It's rhetoric, and bad rhetoric at that.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3508
598. yoboi
6:25 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting CEastwood:
"Climate change" will now cause women to become prostitutes:

Link



and they wonder why people reject climate change.......they need to stop ALL funding concerning climate change......THIS IS CRAZY!!!!!!
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
597. Neapolitan
6:24 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting RevElvis:
SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding

RawStory.com

A draft bill obtained by Scientific American, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), would strip the peer-review requirement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant process, inserting a new set of funding criteria that is significantly less transparent and not inclusive of the opinions of independent experts.

Smith, sponsor of the highly controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that threatened to fundamentally change how the Internet works, has long been a critic of the NSF grant process. In furtherance of those views, Smith recently conducted a hearing supposedly meant to consider how the grant approval process might be improved, an early indication that such a bill was forthcoming.

Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will “create jobs.” He went on to boast about how much of the House science committee’s $39 billion in agency budgets gets dumped onto nuclear, fracking and “clean coal” projects.
Oh, dear lord.

I sometimes close my eyes and dream of a nation without a single anti-science Texas conservative in office. It's a very nice dream. But then I wake up, and they're still there.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13571
596. yonzabam
6:23 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting weatheringpoints:


Have the Canadian Tar Sands had their Day?


Very good read. Gives an excellent overview of the situation. Interesting that Total have seen fit to get out, taking a $1.65 billion loss in the process. Doesn't inspire confidence.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2933
595. JohnLonergan
6:19 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Yeah but Jim, he's some exotic scientist from a far away land. Clearly he knows more than these smug elitist ivory tower scientists that are paid only through 100s of George Soros grants.


But, Scott, aren't Russians communists? If global Warming is a communist plot, how can the they be against it?

Amazing how difficult it is to be a denier, you have to be able to believe dozens of mutually exclusive postions.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3364
594. CEastwood
6:17 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
"Climate change" will now cause women to become prostitutes:

Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
593. weatheringpoints
6:11 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
.
Member Since: February 26, 2008 Posts: 13 Comments: 2028
592. yonzabam
6:10 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1:


Burning tar sands doesn't release more CO2, but mining them does: Link

What concerns me more is the sudden turn to a dirty, inefficient, expensive way to produce energy. Are crude oil supplies really that low, or are the energy industries concerned about possible carbon taxes? Or is it really just the US trying to produce more domestic energy? Fracking falls under the same umbrella- again, why? Does anyone know?


From Wiki (Peak Oil)

Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin after 2020, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.

Pessimistic predictions of future oil production are that either the peak has already occurred, that oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur shortly. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2006. Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a global recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices


They've been yelling about 'Peak Oil' and the dire consequences for society when it starts to run out, for years. So, you get a bit cynical about it. There always seems to be some big oilfield discovery that no one had expected. The Arctic Ocean is the 'next big thing', but I don't know if it's gas or oil, or both that it's expected to deliver.

Developing the Canadian tar sands has always been seen as a very risky venture, given the high cost of extracting it. An awful lot of infrastructure, including new towns, roads, electricity, pipelines etc would have to be built before commercial extraction could begin.

Then, you'd be at the mercy of the market. If the price of crude dropped below a certain level, all that investment would be down the drain. Who's going to put money into that?
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2933
591. Xandra
5:54 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:

[...] And, we've already reached Pliocene CO2 levels.

"If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era,"
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
590. ScottLincoln
5:46 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yeah, I see this story is making the rounds of all the denialist blogs this morning. It seems that every month or so, almost like clockwork, news of some obscure Russian scientist (Russian, always Russian) with absolutely no formal education or training in climate science, and absolutely no peer-reviewed climatology articles on his or her resume, erupts across the denialosphere with the earth-shattering news that the planet is headed into an ice age any moment now.

What's funny about it, of course, is that the very same thing has been happening for 25 years now--yet we're obviously still waiting to see those massive tongues of ice pushing southward from the North Pole. ;-)

At ant rate, the article's conclusion that we're about to enter an ice age seems to be the writer's flight of fancy; the solar physicist interviewed says nothing of the sort, only speculating that solar activity is expected to drop--and we've known that for quite sometime.

All-in-all, it looks as though Anthony Watts has once again made a fool of himself. TBE...

Yeah but Jim, he's some exotic scientist from a far away land. Clearly he knows more than these smug elitist ivory tower scientists that are paid only through 100s of George Soros grants.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210
589. RevElvis
5:36 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding

RawStory.com

A draft bill obtained by Scientific American, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), would strip the peer-review requirement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant process, inserting a new set of funding criteria that is significantly less transparent and not inclusive of the opinions of independent experts.

Smith, sponsor of the highly controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that threatened to fundamentally change how the Internet works, has long been a critic of the NSF grant process. In furtherance of those views, Smith recently conducted a hearing supposedly meant to consider how the grant approval process might be improved, an early indication that such a bill was forthcoming.

Another indication came in February, when Smith published an editorial in Roll Call describing how his vision of science funding is based not upon the impacts new research may have on the scientific community, but whether that research will “create jobs.” He went on to boast about how much of the House science committee’s $39 billion in agency budgets gets dumped onto nuclear, fracking and “clean coal” projects.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
588. goosegirl1
5:15 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


Well, he obviously thinks it's a very real possibility to make such a song and dance about it. The world will burn what it needs, constrained by economics and government legislation to reduce GHG emissions. Does tar sands oil release more CO2 than Saudi oil?

And, we've already reached Pliocene CO2 levels.


Burning tar sands doesn't release more CO2, but mining them does: Link

What concerns me more is the sudden turn to a dirty, inefficient, expensive way to produce energy. Are crude oil supplies really that low, or are the energy industries concerned about possible carbon taxes? Or is it really just the US trying to produce more domestic energy? Fracking falls under the same umbrella- again, why? Does anyone know?
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1231
586. yoboi
5:03 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yeah, I see this story is making the rounds of all the denialist blogs this morning. It seems that every month or so, almost like clockwork, news of some obscure Russian scientist (Russian, always Russian) with absolutely no formal education or training in climate science, and absolutely no peer-reviewed climatology articles on his or her resume, erupts across the denialosphere with the earth-shattering news that the planet is headed into an ice age any moment now.

What's funny about it, of course, is that the very same thing has been happening for 25 years now--yet we're obviously still waiting to see those massive tongues of ice pushing southward from the North Pole. ;-)

At ant rate, the article's conclusion that we're about to enter an ice age seems to be the writer's flight of fancy; the solar physicist interviewed says nothing of the sort, only speculating that solar activity is expected to drop--and we've known that for quite sometime.

All-in-all, it looks as though Anthony Watts has once again made a fool of himself. TBE...


the russian scientist have been the most accurate so far concerning the climate......)
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
585. yonzabam
5:01 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Xandra:

Note the word "If",

"If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now."


Well, he obviously thinks it's a very real possibility to make such a song and dance about it. The world will burn what it needs, constrained by economics and government legislation to reduce GHG emissions. Does tar sands oil release more CO2 than Saudi oil?

And, we've already reached Pliocene CO2 levels.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2933
584. Xandra
4:34 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:

What percentage of future global fossil fuel use is likely to come from the tar sands? If those quotes are really what Hansen said, I think he's gone off the deep end.

Industry will use whatever's cheapest, and tar sands oil isn't cheap. Moreover, much of it may never be exploited because it will never be economic to get at it.

"Game over for the planet"? It may be that already, but it doesn't help the environmentalist cause to have a leading figure make a fool of himself like this. Just gives Big Oil and their paid government and media shills more ammo.

Note the word "If",

"If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now."
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
583. yoboi
4:25 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting CEastwood:


No formal training in climate "science"? That ought to be a plus! He hasn't learned to fudge, manipulate, and otherwise twist statistics. This climate "science" has reached a point where the so-called scientists stop just short of outright lying and still call what they do, "science."



they have an article about it called greenie lying bastards google it...it just came out a few days ago...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
582. JohnLonergan
4:25 PM GMT on April 29, 2013



Media Matters writes:

Twelve. That’s the combined number of segments that ABC, CBS and NBC’s nightly news programs devoted to climate change throughout all of 2012. This is woefully inadequate. We need coverage that’s consistent with the importance of dealing with this issue.

That’s why we [Media Matters] and the Sierra Club are joining the League of Conservation Voters in asking those three nightly news programs to do a better job covering climate issues in 2013 than they did in 2012.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3364
581. CEastwood
4:22 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yeah, I see this story is making the rounds of all the denialist blogs this morning. It seems that every month or so, almost like clockwork, news of some obscure Russian scientist (Russian, always Russian) with absolutely no formal education or training in climate science, and absolutely no peer-reviewed climatology articles on his or her resume, erupts across the denialosphere with the earth-shattering news that the planet is headed into an ice age any moment now.

What's funny about it, of course, is that the very same thing has been happening for 25 years now--yet we're obviously still waiting to see those massive tongues of ice pushing southward from the North Pole. ;-)

At ant rate, the article's conclusion that we're about to enter an ice age seems to be the writer's flight of fancy; the solar physicist interviewed says nothing of the sort, only speculating that solar activity is expected to drop--and we've known that for quite sometime.

All-in-all, it looks as though Anthony Watts has once again made a fool of himself. TBE...


No formal training in climate "science"? That ought to be a plus! He hasn't learned to fudge, manipulate, and otherwise twist statistics. This climate "science" has reached a point where the so-called scientists stop just short of outright lying and still call what they do, "science."
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
580. yoboi
4:20 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting NRAamy:
‘We Could Be In For A Cooling Period That Lasts 200-250 Years’ Russian Scientists Claim
Date: 29/04/13

Voice of Russia


‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040.’

Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.


Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.

“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”.

Even though pessimists say global cooling will hamper exploration of the Arctic, experts say it won’t. Climate change and the resulting increase in the thickness of the Arctic ice cover pose no obstacles to the extraction of oil and gas on the Arctic shelf. As oil and gas reserves of the Arctic sea shelf are estimated to be billions of tons, countries are demonstrating more interest in the development of the Arctic. Climate change will also have no impact on the Northern Sea Route, which makes it possible to cut trade routes between Europe, Asia and America. Professor Igor Davidenko comments.

“The Northern Sea Route has never opened so early or closed so late over the past 30 years. Last year saw a cargo transit record – more than five million tons. The first Chinese icebreaker sailed along the Northern Sea Route in 2012. China plans it to handle up to 15% of its exports”.


I have been seeing it on the news all morning......I wonder what the new named doom & gloom will be called??????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
579. yonzabam
4:02 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
What percentage of future global fossil fuel use is likely to come from the tar sands? If those quotes are really what Hansen said, I think he's gone off the deep end.

Industry will use whatever's cheapest, and tar sands oil isn't cheap. Moreover, much of it may never be exploited because it will never be economic to get at it.

"Game over for the planet"? It may be that already, but it doesn't help the environmentalist cause to have a leading figure make a fool of himself like this. Just gives Big Oil and their paid government and media shills more ammo.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2933
578. Xandra
3:48 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Canadians! SIGN here to join Sierra Club in apologizing for Joe Oliver.

From Sierra Club Canada:

Sorry Jim

I, like most Canadians, don't like it when a member of the family misbehaves in public and I feel it’s necessary to apologize on their behalf (for the good of the family name).

Well this is one of those occasions. So here goes:

On behalf of Canadians, I would like to extend a full and sincere apology to Dr. James Hansen (or “Jim” as his friends call him). He is owed an apology for recent derogatory remarks by Joe Oliver, the Federal Minister of Natural Resources.

So what’s this all about? Oliver, Canada’s Oil Minister (as the UK Guardian recently dubbed him), was in Washington last Tuesday flogging the Keystone XL pipeline yet again. While speaking, he dropped the veneer of sober economic pragmatist and diplomat, and the real Joe emerged.

Clueless Joe Oliver

You may recall he’s the same minister who calls people radicals, puppets for "foreign interests" and un-Canadian for speaking out against the fossil fuel industry. The same minister who believes scientists ‘aren’t concerned’ about Climate Change any more.

Four years ago Hansen, world-renown and Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist, stated that if we develop the Tar Sands of Alberta “it's game over for the planet.” Oliver told the audience at Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies it was "exaggerated rhetoric” and “frankly nonsense”.

Of course, Oliver is not a scientist -- he’s an oil salesman.

What got Oliver all riled-up, and set off a four year slow burn? It was a recent observation by Dr. Hansen in the New York Times:

“Canada’s Tar Sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.”

I would have thought Mr. Oliver -- who has an MBA -- would be able to understand math because it all clearly adds up.

When you take the amount of carbon in the Tar Sands and translate that into carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and add it to all the other coal, oil and gas we burn, you can calculate the amount of climate change. And what you get is very scary.

This Oliver moment may be just another “gaff” to some observers, but it is embarrassing to me to hear a minister who we are supposed call “the Honuorable” attack an accomplished and distinguished scientist while representing us in another country. I’m also embarrassed he would put his lack of understanding of basic science on display for all Americans to see.

The day after Oliver’s attack Dr. Hansen received the Ridenhour Courage Prize, which is “presented to an individual in recognition of his or her courageous and life-long defense of the public interest and passionate commitment to social justice.” Coincidence?

Dr. Hansen was being honored in part because he told the U.S. Congress: “The global warming now is large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.” The courageous part isn’t what he said, it’s when he said it — 25 years ago (during the sweltering summer of 1988). It was the first high-profile public statement by a U.S. government scientist alerting Congress and the world to the grave threat of climate change.

Dr. Hansen embodies the Ridenhour Courage Prize. When he was still NASA’s top climate scientist, he blew the whistle on government efforts to silence him — and others — on climate change. He’s a modern day Paul Revere … that is if Paul Revere’s midnight ride had taken place in 1750 and the message was, “The British are coming, The British are coming — in 25 years.”

So Jim, on behalf of Canadians, I’m very sorry our spiteful and ill-informed Oil Minister turned the politics of division, slur and disinformation on you. Canadians congratulate you for continuing to speak out for the planet, our children and future generations, and for your extraordinary contribution to the science and public understanding of climate change.

I hope you will join me in offering an apology to this great man.

Yours sincerely,

John Bennett, Executive Director
Sierra Club Canada
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
577. Neapolitan
3:35 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
Quoting NRAamy:
%u2018We Could Be In For A Cooling Period That Lasts 200-250 Years%u2019 Russian Scientists Claim
Date: 29/04/13

Voice of Russia

[snip]
Yeah, I see this story is making the rounds of all the denialist blogs this morning. It seems that every month or so, almost like clockwork, news of some obscure Russian scientist (Russian, always Russian) with absolutely no formal education or training in climate science, and absolutely no peer-reviewed climatology articles on his or her resume, erupts across the denialosphere with the earth-shattering news that the planet is headed into an ice age any moment now.

What's funny about it, of course, is that the very same thing has been happening for 25 years now--yet we're obviously still waiting to see those massive tongues of ice pushing southward from the North Pole. ;-)

At ant rate, the article's conclusion that we're about to enter an ice age seems to be the writer's flight of fancy; the solar physicist interviewed says nothing of the sort, only speculating that solar activity is expected to drop--and we've known that for quite sometime.

All-in-all, it looks as though Anthony Watts has once again made a fool of himself. TBE...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13571
576. NRAamy
3:09 PM GMT on April 29, 2013
‘We Could Be In For A Cooling Period That Lasts 200-250 Years’ Russian Scientists Claim
Date: 29/04/13

Voice of Russia


‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040.’

Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.


Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.

“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”.

Even though pessimists say global cooling will hamper exploration of the Arctic, experts say it won’t. Climate change and the resulting increase in the thickness of the Arctic ice cover pose no obstacles to the extraction of oil and gas on the Arctic shelf. As oil and gas reserves of the Arctic sea shelf are estimated to be billions of tons, countries are demonstrating more interest in the development of the Arctic. Climate change will also have no impact on the Northern Sea Route, which makes it possible to cut trade routes between Europe, Asia and America. Professor Igor Davidenko comments.

“The Northern Sea Route has never opened so early or closed so late over the past 30 years. Last year saw a cargo transit record – more than five million tons. The first Chinese icebreaker sailed along the Northern Sea Route in 2012. China plans it to handle up to 15% of its exports”.
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946

Viewing: 626 - 576

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog 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.