Please don't forget Stockholm in 1972... This has been going on for so long with no real results. The world's politicians keep us hanging on to the hope that they will "solve" this problem and that we can continue to live our lives without giving up our "way of life".
The only solution left to us is to STOP PURCHASING ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM FURTHER THAN A SMALL RADIUS FROM OUR HOMES! We need to live SIMPLY. There is no other hope to continue with the human project. The planet will be just fine without us!
The only solution left to us is to STOP PURCHASING ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM FURTHER THAN A SMALL RADIUS FROM OUR HOMES! We need to live SIMPLY. There is no other hope to continue with the human project. The planet will be just fine without us!
2
To be accurate both NOAA and NASA, as I understand the link below both shows that we can not identify any single year as the hottest year. All we can apparently do is assign probabilities to different years being the hottest with 2014 having the highest statistical probability.
"projects that 2015 will be the hottest global year on record, beating the record set in 2014."
On a matter this important, I believe it is critical that facts be communicated accurately. NOAA indicates is ~5 priority that 1998 was the hottest year (which is 16 years earlier).
To me this means that the data is not certain enough to identify a hottest year, and that the hottest year may have been 1998 (~5% probability).
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obama-and-the-warmest-year-on-record/
"projects that 2015 will be the hottest global year on record, beating the record set in 2014."
On a matter this important, I believe it is critical that facts be communicated accurately. NOAA indicates is ~5 priority that 1998 was the hottest year (which is 16 years earlier).
To me this means that the data is not certain enough to identify a hottest year, and that the hottest year may have been 1998 (~5% probability).
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obama-and-the-warmest-year-on-record/
1
There is no doubt that ground temperature data has been altered lowering historical previously published data in an effort to create warming because without changing the data, the last 18 years have none. Satellite data shows no warming and it views the entire planet.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-sum...
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-sum...
4
We are a Ship without Lifeboats.
Nations that do not agree to the Paris initiative will be an indicator their agenda is profit regardless of the adverse effect on the future of the planet, and all life on it.
The Paris initiative is a start, but it does not go far enough, to begin to reverse the damage that has occurred. China, the United States, and Russia, are the largest destroyers of our environment.
For sustainable preservation to occur, these nations must be the vanguard, along with the United Nations, in creating a program that has severe enforced commercial penalties against any nation not adhering to the protocols.
Real initiatives should include an immediate ban on diesel engines, development of electric engines for all commercial traffic, with a deadline for implementation no more than two years away. Immediate mandatory conversion to clean natural gas fuel for home heatimg, and immediate mandatory prohibition of the use of coal and fuel oil in any commercial installation, including power plants, worldwide.
Anything short of the forgoing is useless, and the nation's of the world know it.
Two years hence would see the environment vastly improved, with a major decrease in respiratory illnesses, the elimination of smog worldwide, and an energy program embracing sustainable hydrogen development and use, wind farms everywhere, and affordable solar energy everywhere.
Can it be done ?? It most definitely can; we simply need to begin.
Nations that do not agree to the Paris initiative will be an indicator their agenda is profit regardless of the adverse effect on the future of the planet, and all life on it.
The Paris initiative is a start, but it does not go far enough, to begin to reverse the damage that has occurred. China, the United States, and Russia, are the largest destroyers of our environment.
For sustainable preservation to occur, these nations must be the vanguard, along with the United Nations, in creating a program that has severe enforced commercial penalties against any nation not adhering to the protocols.
Real initiatives should include an immediate ban on diesel engines, development of electric engines for all commercial traffic, with a deadline for implementation no more than two years away. Immediate mandatory conversion to clean natural gas fuel for home heatimg, and immediate mandatory prohibition of the use of coal and fuel oil in any commercial installation, including power plants, worldwide.
Anything short of the forgoing is useless, and the nation's of the world know it.
Two years hence would see the environment vastly improved, with a major decrease in respiratory illnesses, the elimination of smog worldwide, and an energy program embracing sustainable hydrogen development and use, wind farms everywhere, and affordable solar energy everywhere.
Can it be done ?? It most definitely can; we simply need to begin.
2
The Congress, the Supreme Court and all likely winners of the Presidency in 2016 are firmly in the pocket of Wall Street and the 1%, so it's really silly talking about a change in a system that is so beneficial to the rich.
Thing will have to get much worse and an anticorruption Green Party will have to be founded before anything can be done. The chances are not very good but if things get bad enough there may be hope for our Civilization. But looking to history, the Rich never learn, so we very well may be doomed.
Thing will have to get much worse and an anticorruption Green Party will have to be founded before anything can be done. The chances are not very good but if things get bad enough there may be hope for our Civilization. But looking to history, the Rich never learn, so we very well may be doomed.
Humans are crowd followers. Some 500 years ago we were told that the earth is both flat and the center of the universe - that turned out to be nonsense but anybody arguing these believes would be burned alive. Now we are told that the air pollution caused by us will change the climate - anybody openly objecting this won't get hired by the White House or get good grades writing an essay on the subject.
Air pollution certainly will mess up the beauty of the world, same as overpopulation (thank you Pope now in Africa), be almost as messy as plastic waste dumped all over East Timor or Bangladesh because they have no recycling facilities, or pollute the waters all over the Caribbean (except Cuba right now - give it another 10 years when US hotels and tourists have overpowered that place).
Indeed it is great fun to spend time in Paris and have strong opinions about permanent climate change caused by men while staying in classy hotels and have rich dinners in the finest of restaurants. But it is still nonsense.
Air pollution certainly will mess up the beauty of the world, same as overpopulation (thank you Pope now in Africa), be almost as messy as plastic waste dumped all over East Timor or Bangladesh because they have no recycling facilities, or pollute the waters all over the Caribbean (except Cuba right now - give it another 10 years when US hotels and tourists have overpowered that place).
Indeed it is great fun to spend time in Paris and have strong opinions about permanent climate change caused by men while staying in classy hotels and have rich dinners in the finest of restaurants. But it is still nonsense.
2
This is a foolish. The debate is over and we won. There is NO man made climate change occurring.
1
I rarely hear much discussion about the real cause of anthropomorphic climate change: people. As long as we have 7B people on Earth, all wanting a nice standard of living, I don't see how we will combat climate change. We will try, but political pressures to preserve each nations wealth will prevail.
I live in Canada. We have about the same landmass as China or the US, but we have only about 36 million people. We are simply not capable of creating the level of emissions of China.
Nature will cull the herd if we don't address population ourselves first.
I live in Canada. We have about the same landmass as China or the US, but we have only about 36 million people. We are simply not capable of creating the level of emissions of China.
Nature will cull the herd if we don't address population ourselves first.
9
All the hypocritical hucksters are in Paris this week, and the gullible fools of the world cheer them on. How pathetic is this?
1
Until ISIS and the Islamic terrorists are dealt with, this is all for show..........we need to rid the world of terrorists first......................
1
Sisyphus may as well be emblazoned on Paris Climate Change Conference logo. The NYT laments the UN charter requires unanimity and the US Government is a democratic republic requiring a 2/3 majority to ratify a treaty. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama (even when he held both houses) never submitted a climate treaty for ratification because of lack of required political consensus. The political fact is the climate conference only tool is public relations and that is not going well: Gallup says: " Americans' prevailing view that human activity (57%) is responsible for global warming doesn't necessarily translate into concern over the issue. The percentage of Americans worried about global warming (as well as "climate change") still ranks low... and barely a third expect global warming to pose a serious threat in their own lifetime. Public skepticism about the human role in global warming is not based on lack of education. "After Climategate "... those with the highest level of knowledge -- those saying they understand the global warming issue very well -- are the least likely to believe global warming is the result of pollution from human activities." In Greek mythology Sisyphus was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, repeating this action for eternity. You may say "The fault is not in our stars but in ourselves."
I don't give a hoot about the so-called man-made climate changes. The earth's climates are constantly changing, it's natural. And even if there is a worldwide agreement to reign in the perceived abuses of the environment, there will always be rogue nations that ignore the agreement.
1
It's not going to work to turn down the thermostat or drive a Prius. We have to stop consuming. The paradigm must shift. It's capitalism, stupid! That's why Paris has already failed.
One of the biggest problem we have is the monumental amount of trash resulting from packaging, most of which is totally unnecessary. China is the biggest producer of it. Most products don't need to be packaged at all. Shipping junk from thousands of miles away is not only ridiculous it is very damaging to the environment. The other issue is an uncontrollable population growth powered by backward religious believes and the refusal to accept facts.
It is too little too late. When catastrophic outcomes start cascading we will be forced to do something at the hectic pace and perhaps no avail. The planet will survive we won't.
It is too little too late. When catastrophic outcomes start cascading we will be forced to do something at the hectic pace and perhaps no avail. The planet will survive we won't.
Say your prayers, read Revelations and believe the "end of time" is upon us!
Obama embraces a quest, a legacy to save us and the world from its evil ways. He is going to create a new world order and nothing will be the same. We are being manipulated by fear tactics that are calculated and coordinated to accept a good news gospel for salvation. All we have to do is believe and we will be saved.
NOAA's predictions are right out of a science fiction dooms day book. The only thing we can be sure of is that we are being led by the greed of the global economy and not by genuine scientific intervention of global climate change. It will cost us dearly and none of it is designed by scientists to save the planet. ISIS openly uses force to make people pay, while our government covertly leads us like sheep to the slaughter. Sheep who will take a leap of faith, yet will be vicious against any who will not blindly follow with them.
Obama embraces a quest, a legacy to save us and the world from its evil ways. He is going to create a new world order and nothing will be the same. We are being manipulated by fear tactics that are calculated and coordinated to accept a good news gospel for salvation. All we have to do is believe and we will be saved.
NOAA's predictions are right out of a science fiction dooms day book. The only thing we can be sure of is that we are being led by the greed of the global economy and not by genuine scientific intervention of global climate change. It will cost us dearly and none of it is designed by scientists to save the planet. ISIS openly uses force to make people pay, while our government covertly leads us like sheep to the slaughter. Sheep who will take a leap of faith, yet will be vicious against any who will not blindly follow with them.
2
Coral Davenport, your characterization of what is at stake if the Paris talks fail and your descriptions of recent effects of warming are at odds with the most recent report of the IPCC. You are painting an incorrect picture in an attempt to scare people. This is not journalism, it is advocacy masquerading as journalism on the front page of the NYT.
A much better summary of the Paris talks can be found on the editorial pages of the WSJ in an article by Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser.
A much better summary of the Paris talks can be found on the editorial pages of the WSJ in an article by Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser.
2
Sorry, no hope here. All I see is finger pointing.
If you think that educated folks who have decent incomes and don't even fund their own retirements are going to look forward to the needs of the next generation then move over, Pollyanna. Humans don't do that. Even educated humans don't do that. We never act until the last moment. That is who we are.
2
Discussing Climate Change is a good thing, but curbing pollution serves no purpose if nothing is done to curb the expansion of polluters: human overpopulation. All the restrictive eco-regulations, present or to come, will only serve to partially compensate the increase in pollution created by extra human beings.
Basically, unless we tackle the overpopulation problem right now, we're doomed to live more and more uncomfortable lives, calculating and saving every move, just to allow more unneeded humans to share our limited space, resources, and pollution allowances.
Basically, unless we tackle the overpopulation problem right now, we're doomed to live more and more uncomfortable lives, calculating and saving every move, just to allow more unneeded humans to share our limited space, resources, and pollution allowances.
1
There is no sense of urgency among the world leaders. We "hope" they come home with an agreement to set a new floor and then meet every 5 years or so to ratchet up the commitments. As I said. No sense of urgency. That will change when the natural disasters start to really hurt and then will it be too late?
Perhaps a good starting point is to define the problem in less black and white terms. Climate change is a natural process, ok, but it is clearly being accelerated by human industrial activity, and it's clearly leading to more extreme weather conditions. Eventually, once countries become uninhabitable, there will be massive Syria-like exodus and massive social unrest as the wars for water and other critical natural resources intensify.
"Important First Step"?? There's a reason we call it a CLIMATE CRISIS!
If you read the entire article not just the upbeat opening this is much more another fell good gathering of world leaders and their entourages that will not produce any substantial change. All they will do is agree on modest long range unenforceable targets that will in one way address ho these over 170 UN members nations will individually achieve these goals any of these nations without even the capacity let alone the will to do so.
Or put in a different context in The Times article itself ..." Together the more than 170 national plans for Paris would still allow the planet to warm by as much as 6 degrees, according to several independent and academic analyses." Amen,
Or put in a different context in The Times article itself ..." Together the more than 170 national plans for Paris would still allow the planet to warm by as much as 6 degrees, according to several independent and academic analyses." Amen,
It's good they are talking about the problem.
Too bad it's too late. We passed the 'point of no return' some time ago.
Too bad it's too late. We passed the 'point of no return' some time ago.
Oh Goody...More scripted symbolized showmanship for the politicians pretending to be masters of pro-action and engagement which will produce a lot of platitudinal rhetoric but will result in very little, if any, change to the status quo since the business interests of the various nations won't be letting their politicians venture too far off the reservation.
6
Earth existed for millions of years, of which, man existed at best for 50,000 years. Yet he believes he changed its climate. Did he melt the ice age? Did he cause Solar flares to occur at a high frequency than before? Did he influence gravity and dark matter which seems to pull and push galaxies apart, sometimes closer to their stars and sometimes further away? While living for 50,000 years he only told his story for about 10,000 years at best. The best story he ever told was that he created religion. He used it mostly to kill each other and pilfer earth without any generosity towards his fellow creatures from the animal or plant kingdoms. Yet each of his religions have taught him that he must repent, show remorse, and remediate for his actions. He polluted the air we breathe. So he must repent, show remorse, remediate and thus clean it. This is what man owes us. And this man must!
Fuel to cook food and light in nights are two requirements .All we need to see how each nation each provide these two conditions.
Lights can be provided easily by Using solar. Fuel fro cooking is by gas in each house hold .
Lights can be provided easily by Using solar. Fuel fro cooking is by gas in each house hold .
The whole thing is for show. First, I have no doubt whatsoever the climate is getting worse. Second, people may talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Third, people may be long gone from the face of planet Earth, but it will be just fine, no matter how much we screw it up.
Coast lines have been changing for eons. Humans have such hubris to believe that we can exist without a carbon footprint. The science is not complicated: life brings order out of chaos, at a high price. Enjoy our time, the future will inherit less no matter what we do or don't.
Let's follow the money. Who's getting rich from all the hysteria about global warming? So far, it's companies like Solyndra with close political ties. Doesn't that make you suspicious?
1
We are still looking in the medicine cabinet for a band-aid to apply to our severed artery. When will we admit it's too late: the harm is already done, all we can do is await the inevitable outcome.
According to scientists (since this is the basis for every pro agreement advocate's position), not only will this agreement not work but any agreement currently contemplated will still result in disaster. If the rate of change is as described, then nuclear should be on the front burner, climate alteration, and investments in new technologies. The US has three clear and relatively easy approaches to reducing carbon emissions. Go nuclear, increase CAFE standards dramatically (75% of oil goes to transportation), tax cows and other methane producing livestock.
Ultimately, the solution has to come from renewable energy, with renewables becoming so economical that fossil fuels become this decade's buggy whip. Every incentive should be given to those industries developing technologies that give renewables the upper hand over coal and oil. In conjunction, the world needs to literally pay certain nations for the lungs of the globe, meaning paying for the preservation of rain forests in the same manner as we pay the Saudi royal family for oil.
Rising economies, poor countries and wealthy nations will not ultimately come to terms with carbon emissions without practical and economical alternatives. If we found a way to explore Mars, and introduced the internet which is now a global phenomenon, we can certainly find a way to make renewables a basic energy source. The key is making those discoveries economically worthwhile and globally accessible. Political agreements come and go, are not reliable, and really aren't enforceable, albeit with an urgent need, they are better than nothing. However, I like Bill Gates idea of dedicating a billion toward a solution, and if our government came up with a few billion more, I think we'd have that solution and profit well by it. But I think that solution - like the car and the internet - is going to have to come from the U.S. Massive wind farms, solar farms in the south, battery operated cars, mass transit, even the Segway are all here now. They just need honing and financial tweaking.
Rising economies, poor countries and wealthy nations will not ultimately come to terms with carbon emissions without practical and economical alternatives. If we found a way to explore Mars, and introduced the internet which is now a global phenomenon, we can certainly find a way to make renewables a basic energy source. The key is making those discoveries economically worthwhile and globally accessible. Political agreements come and go, are not reliable, and really aren't enforceable, albeit with an urgent need, they are better than nothing. However, I like Bill Gates idea of dedicating a billion toward a solution, and if our government came up with a few billion more, I think we'd have that solution and profit well by it. But I think that solution - like the car and the internet - is going to have to come from the U.S. Massive wind farms, solar farms in the south, battery operated cars, mass transit, even the Segway are all here now. They just need honing and financial tweaking.
So George Bush Jr. was wrong about the existence of Global Warming. Why? Big Business wants to get rich -- the hell with the planet.
We can't trust Republicans: they are greedy and short-term in their thinking about cutting off profits to save the planet from destruction. Destruction that they themselves caused.
People like Bernie Sanders are looking like they are ready for these times. Are we?
We can't trust Republicans: they are greedy and short-term in their thinking about cutting off profits to save the planet from destruction. Destruction that they themselves caused.
People like Bernie Sanders are looking like they are ready for these times. Are we?
Any American believing that the United States will take any effective action must live in a different country than I do. Our Republican controlled legislatures have already indicated that they can and will thwart any actions to mitigate the problem. Given their control the House for the foreseeable future and their filibuster power in the Senate, water will be lapping at the foot of the Empire State Building before they allow our country to address climate change.
Let's be clear. If there is no agreement to set up a verification office on Climate Change by the United Nations, which should have legal powers to go into any country to verify what actions is the country working on to obtain goals set up by the Paris Conference, then we are going to be in a very difficult situation and our survival might be in question.
So leaders of the 190 countries, our future is in your hands and a wise decision is in your brains, can you show the rest the our world that you are wise enough to save our planet?
So leaders of the 190 countries, our future is in your hands and a wise decision is in your brains, can you show the rest the our world that you are wise enough to save our planet?
I keep thinking and have this deep feeling that Pres Obama and some of the other world leaders know much more about this than they let out. Like the sea level rise is much worse than they are letting on. You know, to stop a mass panic attack. Everytime the Prez answers any question lately, pertaining to anything, it always seems to come back to climate change. Like he can't get it out of his mind.
1
World population was around 1 billion in 1800 and 5 billion by 1987 with current estimate at 7.5 billion. with reduction in past century of war, famine and disease to limit population, the biggest threat to human habitation is unlimited population growth. Mass migration and uncontrollable illegal immigration by people who cannot sustain themselves in their native countries will own grow worse due to uncontrolled population growth. I doubt anything said or done at this worldwide conference will change that situation. Only china attempted forced population control and limitations on childbirth which has been condemned and now curtailed because of the resulting effect of an unsupportable elderly population with limited working age employes paying for their support.
Mother natures ability to limit growth of the human species has been curtailed by man and only humans can prevent total extinction of the species just like the dinosaurs. Maybe nuclear war is not that bad after all.
Mother natures ability to limit growth of the human species has been curtailed by man and only humans can prevent total extinction of the species just like the dinosaurs. Maybe nuclear war is not that bad after all.
This is too little too late, and one of the main culprits for the degradation of the environment, the waste of precious soil and water resources, the destruction of vast areas od forests, such as in the Amazon basin, is secondary to Animal Factory Farming, which started in the US and is now spread throughout the word. 55 billion animals are butchered annually wordwide. The resultant fecal matter and gases realeased into the atmosphere contribute more than all of transportation combined to global warming. The massive quantities of fertilizers needed for these crops eventually wash into our waters, as well as toxic substances in the manure, which also makes the lives of these animals confined to live in their excrement highly damaging. The results of global warming on our oceans are staggering, as is the exploitation of the major fishing grounds in the World, many past the point of recovery. It would be one thing to say that the harvesting of the seas was to feed hungry masses but it is not. Fish consumption is relatively flat, especially in the US. Most of the harvest goes to feed livestock and make fertilizers. It takes three pounds of fish food to produce a pound of farmed salmon ( people want the fillets, not the heads and tails).
We are way past the tipping point and it would take decades to reverse the deleterious effects if people had started changing to a predominantly plant based diet. Few people are willing to change in that respect. THAT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!
We are way past the tipping point and it would take decades to reverse the deleterious effects if people had started changing to a predominantly plant based diet. Few people are willing to change in that respect. THAT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!
"There are reasons to believe the Paris negotiations are different from previous failed efforts..."
Oh, these failed efforts will be different from previous failed efforts...
Oh, these failed efforts will be different from previous failed efforts...
Obama goes to Paris for this, but didn't for the march after the previous terrorist attack in Paris. He policy demands that soldiers drop leaflets before bombing oil carrying trucks driven by and for ISIS. He demands we absorb refugees that come from the center of the terrorist activity. After all said and done, he hands Iran a nuclear arsenal and revs up nuclear proliferation in the whole hot bed of the middle east. He alienates our longest and most trusted friend in that very crucial region. He has, in his last year of presidency, a long history of boldly lying to the American people. This man is truly a danger to our future. I know there are many here who would disagree, but to me and others, he is a real threat to our future.
1
No climate agreement in Paris will succeed without concerted efforts, in the U.S. and worldwide, to beat down the false arguments on climate now sadly "believed" by many millions. Every word counts. The Tea Party / Social Conservative Right climate deniers do continue to wield a great deal of political influence. Therefore it is important to consider that there may be a strategic error in the wording of the following sentence found in a NYT article: "Scientists believe most and probably all of the warming since 1950 was caused by the human release of greenhouse gases." The word "belief" actually has two different meanings. It is properly used to mean "faith" - which requires no evidence. It is also properly used to mean acceptance of something as a fact - based on substantial evidence. In the distorted worldview of the climate deniers, they intentionally misinterpret the sentence quoted above as meaning that climate science is a kind of faith, and not the objective fact established by countless measurements.
Too late.
Climate has warmed.
It will continue to warm, no matter what cuts we might implement today. They most radical action could only taper off the things driving warming.
The question now is, How warm? How much will the seas rise? How much will climate zones shift in latitude?
We are in trouble. It is too late to avoid trouble. It is only a question of how much trouble, how bad will it get. The debate needs to shift to these terms, and not some fantasy of prevention.
Climate has warmed.
It will continue to warm, no matter what cuts we might implement today. They most radical action could only taper off the things driving warming.
The question now is, How warm? How much will the seas rise? How much will climate zones shift in latitude?
We are in trouble. It is too late to avoid trouble. It is only a question of how much trouble, how bad will it get. The debate needs to shift to these terms, and not some fantasy of prevention.
The year I was born, 1948, we had around 2.5 billion folks driving cars and using fossil fuels for heat plus a few household items power needs. Today we have almost 7 bilion sharing the same planet.
Climate change is here and it loams over everyones well-being.We switched over to LED lights over the last 2 years and have cut our electric use in half. We include LED lights with our Christmas gift to the town's food drive. They are a bit expensive for some households but they are the gift that keeps on giving for everyone.
Climate change is here and it loams over everyones well-being.We switched over to LED lights over the last 2 years and have cut our electric use in half. We include LED lights with our Christmas gift to the town's food drive. They are a bit expensive for some households but they are the gift that keeps on giving for everyone.
It is really hard reading erstwhile intelligent people opine about a complete fiction. The temperature of this planet is always changing, 14,000 years ago North America was covered in a mile thick sheet of ice. No cars, no coal, no human activity. The concept that humans are responsible for climate change is inane and those who believe it are fools, or worse, sheep, waiting to have their pockets picked by the statists who are running out of other peoples money. The only hope we have is to clean house of this administration and elect another who can go back to ignoring the UN and it's globalist agenda, or better yet, send them packing to Europe where they belong.
Until supporters of action against climate change, global warming, whatever you or they would like to call it rid the movement of corruption and fraud, it will be impossible to sell it to the American public. Poor nations, communists, socialists and other leftists use this issue as a cudgel against wealthy nations. They know that people outside the US and a few other countries in the world are too unsophisticated to understand the gerrymandering of stats to show apocalyptic consequences from modern living. But, when all is said and done, it's a fraud, plain and simple, just a fraud.
Why not hold future climate meetings in the most polluted cities?
That would focus a few minds.
That would focus a few minds.
1
Climate has been changing for 1 billion years and will change over the next billion years. This whole thing is a sham.
Paris is not a good place to held this World meeting on Climate Change.
In this militarily occupied city, people is not allowed to make their demonstrations, which always awaken the official countries' representatives to have a more realistic look to the environmental problems.
Where the free expression right is suppressed to live free hands to the army, where people cannot express its opinion, it is useless to talk of anything, because “Freedom comes first”.
Once again the word will be given to the Presidents and and Prime Ministers only.
A top down approach which has nothing of democratic without Freedom.
In this militarily occupied city, people is not allowed to make their demonstrations, which always awaken the official countries' representatives to have a more realistic look to the environmental problems.
Where the free expression right is suppressed to live free hands to the army, where people cannot express its opinion, it is useless to talk of anything, because “Freedom comes first”.
Once again the word will be given to the Presidents and and Prime Ministers only.
A top down approach which has nothing of democratic without Freedom.
Another deck arranging, while the Titanic sinks: China will commit from 2030, like those drinkers who promise to stop tomorrow. India will not commit, the USA can't pass it to Congress...we're doomed. We'll pass the baton of civilization to ants, who don't have a finance sector, and don't consume more than they need, in order to increase the GDP.
Since the agreement is going to be "voluntary" anyway, why can't the 99 % of the world's nations agree to strive toward the self-established, voluntary goals even if Saudi Arabia or Valenzuela and their OPEC buddies choose to hold out?
you don't need an int'l "climate" conference to know that:
a) China's and India's air is filthy and could be cleaned if they stopped burning coal for power generation
b) Indonesia's semi-annual palm oil plantation fires (which contribute some 12% of global annual carbon emissions) could be stopped by enforcement of local laws
c) trashing of the Amazon rain forest for logs and ranching is abominable and needs to stop
d) enormous quantities of untreated waste and sewage are dumped into the oceans every day by countries too poor to build treatment plants
e) killing rhinos and elephants for the ivory that will boost male Chinese sexual powers is lunacy
g) building cities in coastal areas subject to high tides and hurricanes is asking for trouble - global warming or not
f) gathering representatives from 190 countries in Paris means burning millions of private and commercial jet fuel gallons just to issue useless position papers that could have been shared without pollution on the internet
a) China's and India's air is filthy and could be cleaned if they stopped burning coal for power generation
b) Indonesia's semi-annual palm oil plantation fires (which contribute some 12% of global annual carbon emissions) could be stopped by enforcement of local laws
c) trashing of the Amazon rain forest for logs and ranching is abominable and needs to stop
d) enormous quantities of untreated waste and sewage are dumped into the oceans every day by countries too poor to build treatment plants
e) killing rhinos and elephants for the ivory that will boost male Chinese sexual powers is lunacy
g) building cities in coastal areas subject to high tides and hurricanes is asking for trouble - global warming or not
f) gathering representatives from 190 countries in Paris means burning millions of private and commercial jet fuel gallons just to issue useless position papers that could have been shared without pollution on the internet
1
Every generation has something they must worry about which is then soon forgotten.
I recall the entire talk about population explosions and how birth controls must be increased to stop this. China had a one child policy, for example.
We can see today that the wealthier European/North American/Asian countries like Japan are very low birth rates while the southern countries where it is mainly warm, are experiencing huge increases in population as births are continuing at a mad rate.
This, in turn, is causing a huge flood of people trying to get into the low birth rate countries. Which is causing Europe to put up fences and the US has millions of southern illegal aliens demanding to come in.
Meanwhile, we are supposed to worry, in the northern most countries, of being 'too warm' which is ridiculous. This is not the real problem. We can't have infinite numbers of humans. The fact that the Pope is raging on about 'global warming' while demanding women be forced to have multiple pregnancies is very revealing.
He doesn't give a 'F' about 'saving the planet'.
I recall the entire talk about population explosions and how birth controls must be increased to stop this. China had a one child policy, for example.
We can see today that the wealthier European/North American/Asian countries like Japan are very low birth rates while the southern countries where it is mainly warm, are experiencing huge increases in population as births are continuing at a mad rate.
This, in turn, is causing a huge flood of people trying to get into the low birth rate countries. Which is causing Europe to put up fences and the US has millions of southern illegal aliens demanding to come in.
Meanwhile, we are supposed to worry, in the northern most countries, of being 'too warm' which is ridiculous. This is not the real problem. We can't have infinite numbers of humans. The fact that the Pope is raging on about 'global warming' while demanding women be forced to have multiple pregnancies is very revealing.
He doesn't give a 'F' about 'saving the planet'.
The biggest fraud ever heaped upon the world. Pure poppycock.
1
Talk, talk and more talk, nothing will be done, humanity is doomed, greed rules. Humans are rotten to the core and don't deserve the gift of this beautiful planet that has been given to them.
1
At the risk of being a heretic, I thought we were about to enter a 20-30 year "mini ice age" due to reduced solar activity.
Could it really be the sun and not co2 that drives our climate?
Are these scientists that are predicting A severe cool down wrong?
Could it really be the sun and not co2 that drives our climate?
Are these scientists that are predicting A severe cool down wrong?
1
The campaign for an enforceable global warming grand bargain depends on having a political order that doesn't exist - a world where the largest polluters are ruled by benign, honest and all powerful dictators. Of two of the biggest polluters, China is ruled by a malign, dishonest and all powerful dictator, and the US is ruled by an arguably benign, not consistently honest, elected executive who is a lame duck. For any deal to work China must be trusted to act with good will and Obama must be able to bind the US to whatever terms are reached. And that seems impossible. But the conference will make for lots of nice photo ops and high minded joint statements.
Besides the promising changes in the structure of negotiation and the bottom-up approach of increased commitments is the need for a low-carbon, climate-resilient global governance system. Such integrative, value-based vision is presently lacking, though much reformist thinking and action in economics, banking, finances and commerce is taking place. Needed therefore is transformational thinking to bring such integrative vision into focus and fruition.
One such system has been proposed by Dutch-born sustainability sociologist Verhagen with a background in divinity and international affairs in his 2012 book “The Tierra Solution: Resolving climate change through monetary transformation”. In it he proposes the transformations in the banking, financial, economic and commercial systems that are needed for the emergence of a transformative carbon-based international monetary system that as glue binds them together and in unique way integrates the challenges of climate and development and their financing needs. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and social dimensions of these transformations, particularly the monetary one, are discussed and updated at www.timun.net.
One such system has been proposed by Dutch-born sustainability sociologist Verhagen with a background in divinity and international affairs in his 2012 book “The Tierra Solution: Resolving climate change through monetary transformation”. In it he proposes the transformations in the banking, financial, economic and commercial systems that are needed for the emergence of a transformative carbon-based international monetary system that as glue binds them together and in unique way integrates the challenges of climate and development and their financing needs. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and social dimensions of these transformations, particularly the monetary one, are discussed and updated at www.timun.net.
The core problem is that our economies are built on debt, while saving the planet requires a future-looking investment.
Globally, we are not capable of investing for the general good. Avarice has been come the dominant feature that drives our societies. That must change for our planet to be saved.
Globally, we are not capable of investing for the general good. Avarice has been come the dominant feature that drives our societies. That must change for our planet to be saved.
United States, England, Germany.....these countries have been the major emitters of fossil fuel pollution. China and India are a drop in the bucket compared to the historical emissions. Let the biggest polluters pay for the damage and for the necessary switch to green, clean, renewable energy for the coming century. Read Dr. James Hansen's solution, which includes a carbon fee which increases each year and is rebated to citizens:
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/11/27/isolation-of-1600-pennsylvania-av...
Dr. Hansen is the planet's leading expert in climate science. I think we should listen to him.
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/11/27/isolation-of-1600-pennsylvania-av...
Dr. Hansen is the planet's leading expert in climate science. I think we should listen to him.
the data has been cooked, the satellite data ignored, all in an effort to try an transfer massive money to third world nations and raise taxes. The truth is that there has been no warming in 18 years now and the scientific evidence is irrefutable. Obama is living in his alternative universe and will not change.
1
"Plans..would still allow the planet to warm...6 degrees"
"Allow"?
What absurd hubris!
"Allow"?
What absurd hubris!
1
Lest you misguided souls forget:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516...
Human-caused climate change, and its dire consequences, will prove to be one of the worst cases of pack journalism in history.
1
I am most impressed by the scientific media coverage showing that even if these Paris committments are attained, it won't be enough to ward off the most negative effects of climate change. It would be crazy to pin all our hopes on technological breakthroughs that might transform our energy sector away from fossil fuels. But it might be our only chance. Why not massively increase our R&D efforts across the board - energy, transportation, land use, everything?
2
Indeed it is a very depressing to see the likes of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos spending their untold millions on space race hijinks when there are so much more pressing issues here on earth. Where is the affordable electric car from Tesla? That could be a total game changer.
It's a untrue that ALL scientists agree that there is such a thing as a 'global warming' or a 'global climate change' crisis emerging regarding planet Earth.
It appears to me that it is incredible pretentious and utterly preposterous on the part of Humans to believe that WE tenants of Mother Nature's Planet can impact either positively OR negatively on the climate of this planet. TWO WEEKS?!? Two weeks to discuss what?!? And all the while- Planet Earth is living under the threat of ISIS- radical Islamic zealots! Starting in the White House, something is very wrong here. . . very wrong indeed!
It appears to me that it is incredible pretentious and utterly preposterous on the part of Humans to believe that WE tenants of Mother Nature's Planet can impact either positively OR negatively on the climate of this planet. TWO WEEKS?!? Two weeks to discuss what?!? And all the while- Planet Earth is living under the threat of ISIS- radical Islamic zealots! Starting in the White House, something is very wrong here. . . very wrong indeed!
Something IS very wrong here in the United States, and throughout the planet.
It's called "Avarice", and the current crop of charlatans pretending to be our leaders, are the employees of the corporate / military / industrial alliance running the planet.
And you are wrong, 100% wrong in presuming we are not the current prime cause of climate change.
Look at our use of fossil fuels and use of chemicals in our food and water, and study the adverse such use has on our health and the environment.
You will change your mind.
It's called "Avarice", and the current crop of charlatans pretending to be our leaders, are the employees of the corporate / military / industrial alliance running the planet.
And you are wrong, 100% wrong in presuming we are not the current prime cause of climate change.
Look at our use of fossil fuels and use of chemicals in our food and water, and study the adverse such use has on our health and the environment.
You will change your mind.
There are some simple steps that are urgently required to reduce the global warming. The Paris high level meeting must discuss the following steps and must impose restrictions on all the polluting countries, a mere undertaking given by the countries would certainly be an eyewash.
1) The countries must concentrate on the cleanliness outside the homes and take effective steps to either destroy the trash in a better way or better utilise the same by producing electricity. However no loose thrash should be tolerated outside the surroundings. Trash segregation in bags and trash collection that's practiced in America must be impressed upon by the other countries, which don't indulge in such practice.
2) Prohibiting the thin plastic bags completely.
3) Procuring better quality of coal and improving the generating process in the thermal plants and encouraging alternate source of energy.
4) Taking effective steps in the reduction of pollutants in the case of steel, cement, plastic, chemical, pharmaceutical plants etc. Further steps should be taken to see that the pollutants shouldn't contaminate the rivers, lakes etc.
5) Insisting upon the need to travel by the public transport mostly and making the necessary arrangements thereof.
6) Shifting of the offices and companies from the vicinity of people's residence.
7) Stopping further manufacture of cars and the other vehicles. Also taking effective steps in the reduction of pollution in the existing vehicles.
1) The countries must concentrate on the cleanliness outside the homes and take effective steps to either destroy the trash in a better way or better utilise the same by producing electricity. However no loose thrash should be tolerated outside the surroundings. Trash segregation in bags and trash collection that's practiced in America must be impressed upon by the other countries, which don't indulge in such practice.
2) Prohibiting the thin plastic bags completely.
3) Procuring better quality of coal and improving the generating process in the thermal plants and encouraging alternate source of energy.
4) Taking effective steps in the reduction of pollutants in the case of steel, cement, plastic, chemical, pharmaceutical plants etc. Further steps should be taken to see that the pollutants shouldn't contaminate the rivers, lakes etc.
5) Insisting upon the need to travel by the public transport mostly and making the necessary arrangements thereof.
6) Shifting of the offices and companies from the vicinity of people's residence.
7) Stopping further manufacture of cars and the other vehicles. Also taking effective steps in the reduction of pollution in the existing vehicles.
Population control must also be made one of the top priorities, which will reduce global problems to a larger extent. All the countries must take effective steps in this regard especially countries like India. In addition, effective method of disposal of the electronic wastage must also be looked into.
Coal plays a much bigger role in the thermal plants but also in heating homes, schools, offices, business establishments, hospitals, clinics etc in the emission of greenhouse gases in addition to the vehicular emissions in America.
Therefore it's onus upon the big pollutant countries like China, America and India to play a very constructive and big role in reducing the emissions to a greater extent. They simply can't escape if human survival is the sole goal. Blame game simply won't help.
It will certainly help humanity and Mother Earth if each and every country plays some role or the other to help reduce global warming to some extent.
Coal plays a much bigger role in the thermal plants but also in heating homes, schools, offices, business establishments, hospitals, clinics etc in the emission of greenhouse gases in addition to the vehicular emissions in America.
Therefore it's onus upon the big pollutant countries like China, America and India to play a very constructive and big role in reducing the emissions to a greater extent. They simply can't escape if human survival is the sole goal. Blame game simply won't help.
It will certainly help humanity and Mother Earth if each and every country plays some role or the other to help reduce global warming to some extent.
Certainly, with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at present, climate change cannot be stopped, but at least decelerated. With additional measures (ending use of coal and profligate burning of oil) less carbon dioxide will enter the artmosphere and after a few decades conditions will stabilize , then, after a couple of centuries, very slowly normalize, providing humanity does not deforest further, or continue destroying wetlands.
This will not be a science-fiction-style quick fix, but one which demands we think on the order of centuries, even millennia, and not only think of ourselves, but to accord other organisms the same right to live in a decent environment as we demand for ourselves.
This will not be a science-fiction-style quick fix, but one which demands we think on the order of centuries, even millennia, and not only think of ourselves, but to accord other organisms the same right to live in a decent environment as we demand for ourselves.
Clean energy will do more for world peace than anything else.
Once the middle east becomes irrelevant and we no longer need to kowtow to the Saudis (perpetrators of 9/11 and chief funders of Wahhabist Islam extremists), the west will lose interest in "installing democracy" (bombing the heck out of it) and go away.
It's such a shame the entire region will have been turned into a dog's breakfast by then.
Once the middle east becomes irrelevant and we no longer need to kowtow to the Saudis (perpetrators of 9/11 and chief funders of Wahhabist Islam extremists), the west will lose interest in "installing democracy" (bombing the heck out of it) and go away.
It's such a shame the entire region will have been turned into a dog's breakfast by then.
Blah...blah...blah....Global warming, climate change, failed climate models, phony data, Obama's legacy, imaginary sea rises, the end of the world....
Bottom line? give vast power and money to faceless, unelected, unaccountable international socialists and corrupt third world governments and dictators. Otherwise they might have to get real jobs. China and India don't have to think about climate change until 2030 when maybe they will and maybe they won't. The USA whose economy is bumping along the bottom will use more check kiting to give away billions of dollars as our economic fortunes get bleaker by the week.
Someone once said that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels. They were wrong. The climate change, or is it global warming, religion is.
Bottom line? give vast power and money to faceless, unelected, unaccountable international socialists and corrupt third world governments and dictators. Otherwise they might have to get real jobs. China and India don't have to think about climate change until 2030 when maybe they will and maybe they won't. The USA whose economy is bumping along the bottom will use more check kiting to give away billions of dollars as our economic fortunes get bleaker by the week.
Someone once said that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels. They were wrong. The climate change, or is it global warming, religion is.
3
It is of vital importance that good results prevail in the Climate Talks to lift the dark veil of evil and despair hanging over Paris.
"Be not conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good", The Bible.
"Be not conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good", The Bible.
1
Oh please, this is a media spectacle choreographed by Hollande at the end of which he will declare that he has saved the planet while all the other leaders will create their own narratives of success. There will be much of the journalism of which Coral Davenport's example is a perfect example. The troublingly nuanced, complicated nature of the choices we must make will not really be explained at all, and anyone who dares to challenge the official narrative, is declared a loony, and no-platformed. It's a shame the NY Times has become a partisan in this narrative.
What is really happening in Paris is politicians gathering to fleece their citizens, nothing else. As in all things political, follow the money. What this is all about is transferring large sums of money into the pockets of corrupt politicians. The idea that you can trust any politician to really be concerned about climate change puts you in the delusional safe zone. So, it is not about science, its about money getting to the pockets of dishonest, untruthful, corrupt politicians, all 190 of them. Hey, its a condition of mankind, always has been, always will be.
2
Let's just pray these countries don't only agree to do more, but actually DO more. One thing people don't realise is that once the cameras are turned off and everyone goes home, a lot of these agreements just aren't actioned as more pressing matters arise or a new election swings round. Everyone wants to be seen as actually giving a hoot and making an effort when the world's media's attention is focused on them, but what really counts is what they do when the conference is over.
Have you ever seen a TV show or documentary about both sides of the climate change argument? Are students in schools of any age allowed to question climate science? The answer to both questions is no. Climate change is a political issue that brings with it a militant progressive agenda. No debate is allowed. You will believe what we tell you to believe or we will destroy you.
1
How about a TV show about both sides of the gravity issue?
Or both sides of the flat earth issue?
Let's see, a TV show about both sides of the "does Mars really exist?" issue?
Or, does the earth actually travel around the Sun?
What about, do we really need to breathe, or
We should stop eating food and drinking water and start absorbing energy directly from the atmosphere: Discuss
Gosh, the possibilities are endless. What a great idea, Paul from NJ. Maybe there will be a new column - heck, a new section of the NY Times, dialog freed from political correctness.
Or both sides of the flat earth issue?
Let's see, a TV show about both sides of the "does Mars really exist?" issue?
Or, does the earth actually travel around the Sun?
What about, do we really need to breathe, or
We should stop eating food and drinking water and start absorbing energy directly from the atmosphere: Discuss
Gosh, the possibilities are endless. What a great idea, Paul from NJ. Maybe there will be a new column - heck, a new section of the NY Times, dialog freed from political correctness.
1
V. in Bklyn, NY
I just saw the video clip of marchers in various parts of this world. I can say this. My mother and I participated in the People's Climate March in New York City (Manhattan), in September 2015. We were in the one yesterday, Nov. 29, 2015 also in New York City (Manhattan). If and when there's another, we'll be there. Yesterday, we helped hold a long, beautifully and viscerally decorated banner, to which I added my family's names and the date. I also had the pleasure of walking in front of a darling little girl, who'd been taken out of her stroller by her parents so that she could walk with us. I invited her to help hold it and she did. It was quite a moment--utterly breathtaking.
I said "a little child shall lead them." We took photos of her, ourselves and that banner. Eventually her parents will explain how she, they and the rest of us have, and continue to try to save ourselves and our Mother Earth.
Earthlings, we're all in this together. I bid everyone peace.
Submitted 11/30/15@3:35 a.m. e.s.t.
I just saw the video clip of marchers in various parts of this world. I can say this. My mother and I participated in the People's Climate March in New York City (Manhattan), in September 2015. We were in the one yesterday, Nov. 29, 2015 also in New York City (Manhattan). If and when there's another, we'll be there. Yesterday, we helped hold a long, beautifully and viscerally decorated banner, to which I added my family's names and the date. I also had the pleasure of walking in front of a darling little girl, who'd been taken out of her stroller by her parents so that she could walk with us. I invited her to help hold it and she did. It was quite a moment--utterly breathtaking.
I said "a little child shall lead them." We took photos of her, ourselves and that banner. Eventually her parents will explain how she, they and the rest of us have, and continue to try to save ourselves and our Mother Earth.
Earthlings, we're all in this together. I bid everyone peace.
Submitted 11/30/15@3:35 a.m. e.s.t.
The most effective way to get results is to motivate private industry by charging them for what are now externalities. For example, the US and others could reinsure all weather-related policies at 1970 rates and pass on the resulting large and rapidly increasing losses to the fossil fuel industry. This would convince them to turn to renewables sooner rather than too late.
They might even end up lobbying for renewable energy tax benefits.
They might even end up lobbying for renewable energy tax benefits.
The world, including American republicans, is still subject to magical thinking. Magical thinking includes denial of the reality of climate change. The antidote for the ignorance of magical thinking is an effective public education system that crowds out ignorance with the enlightenment of knowledge.
America's greatest challenge for advancement as a nation is the rebuilding of the schooling system to educate it's youth. Out of that will come freedom from ignorance.
America's greatest challenge for advancement as a nation is the rebuilding of the schooling system to educate it's youth. Out of that will come freedom from ignorance.
1
Don't forget the successful Montreal Protocol, which was passed in 1987 to phase out CFCs and other human-made chemicals that cause the ozone hole. That's an easier problem to solve than global warming, but the phasing out of CFCs in response to the ozone hole it still stands as a major feat of environmentalism and international cooperation. I hope we can have similar success in coming decades with limiting CO2 emissions.
it was an easier solution because we had a technical solution in hand, alternate chemicals that could replace cfc's. For this issue, we don't. We have no solution that matches the mobile energy density of a liquid fuel, it's as simple as that. If we had a replacement for fossil fuels, we'd use it, be using it, already. So rather than waste trillions of dollars in "reparations" to countries that are just going to pis it away, spend it on developing the next hi density energy technology that can replace fossil fuels. We need government to step up and do another "Manhattan project".
When Obama is attending the sessions in Paris, his motorcade will be idling in readiness to transport him to safety or a hospital in case of an emergency. That is not certainly not in keeping with the larger interests of controlling CO2 emissions from automobiles.
And then, these leaders will be feasting, undoubtedly, on expensive meat probably flown in from exotic places. Cattle farming contributes to emissions of noxious gases.
Uncontrolled Population growth does not seem to receive the attention it should. More human beings = more demand for food and other energy resources that contribute to noxious emissions.
There is no use just focusing on fossil fuels as the villain here. All factors that contribute to warming must be addressed. If not, this session will be just as meaningless as all the previous sessions that failed to produce anything meaningful or worthwhile.
And then, these leaders will be feasting, undoubtedly, on expensive meat probably flown in from exotic places. Cattle farming contributes to emissions of noxious gases.
Uncontrolled Population growth does not seem to receive the attention it should. More human beings = more demand for food and other energy resources that contribute to noxious emissions.
There is no use just focusing on fossil fuels as the villain here. All factors that contribute to warming must be addressed. If not, this session will be just as meaningless as all the previous sessions that failed to produce anything meaningful or worthwhile.
1
When you use electricity, a distant power plant has to burn fossil fuels mostly to generate that electricity that flows to your home or business by wires. Turn off anything you can to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide by power plants.
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of combustion in which carbon is combined with oxygen in a rapid reaction that yields heat or flame that is used to produce electricity or heat directly.
When carbon dioxide is emitted into the air, it spreads throughout the atmosphere. After many decades of intense emissions, the atmosphere is now full of excess carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide reflects longer wavelength infrared radiation. The atmosphere allows in sunlight, but traps longer wave infrared radiation within our atmosphere. Thus, we have resulting increases in the temperature of the atmosphere. The science is really simpler than you think.
That lower frequency infrared radiation is better known as "Heat".
The only way to stop a runaway atmospheric temperature increase is to reduce carbon emissions through conservation, and help the Earth's plant life absorb carbon dioxide and convert it to Oxygen by photosynthesis within the plant or tree.
Reduce your use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, and plant some trees.
I'm a bachelor with no kids, but I care deeply about my fellow family members and their offspring. If you don't believe there is global warming, would you risk your offsprings future with your beliefs that are wrong?
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of combustion in which carbon is combined with oxygen in a rapid reaction that yields heat or flame that is used to produce electricity or heat directly.
When carbon dioxide is emitted into the air, it spreads throughout the atmosphere. After many decades of intense emissions, the atmosphere is now full of excess carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide reflects longer wavelength infrared radiation. The atmosphere allows in sunlight, but traps longer wave infrared radiation within our atmosphere. Thus, we have resulting increases in the temperature of the atmosphere. The science is really simpler than you think.
That lower frequency infrared radiation is better known as "Heat".
The only way to stop a runaway atmospheric temperature increase is to reduce carbon emissions through conservation, and help the Earth's plant life absorb carbon dioxide and convert it to Oxygen by photosynthesis within the plant or tree.
Reduce your use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, and plant some trees.
I'm a bachelor with no kids, but I care deeply about my fellow family members and their offspring. If you don't believe there is global warming, would you risk your offsprings future with your beliefs that are wrong?
The two biggest fossil fuel polluters, China and the United States (the U.S. is by far the biggest polluter per capita) are both going into these negotiations with soft proposals. China is not promising any reduction if it interferes with continued economic growth, and no matter what the U.S. and other countries agree to, there will be no enforcement provisions, because the U.S. Senate in its current make up, will not ratify any climate treaty--oil, coal and business as usual electric utility interests own these officials, and it's probably the same in China.
The big change that is needed is that both China and the U.S. need to peg economic growth to switching from fossil fuel to renewables, especially solar and wind. This would mean most job and investment growth--more economic growth overall--would come from this energy switch, which should be massive to achieve near zero emissions (that's the goal) as quickly as possible. The amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere will cause considerably more warming for decades to come. With zero emissions, it will take about 1000 years for CO2 ppm in the atmosphere to reach an equilibrium the same as 1850. Carbon sinks, the planting of trees, might speed this up; perhaps also increasing phytoplankton blooms. The oceans might absorb more heat than models project, but most of the evidence is that the models understate the effects from warming in the future.
A Carbon Tax is needed to finance the switch to renewables, and now.
The big change that is needed is that both China and the U.S. need to peg economic growth to switching from fossil fuel to renewables, especially solar and wind. This would mean most job and investment growth--more economic growth overall--would come from this energy switch, which should be massive to achieve near zero emissions (that's the goal) as quickly as possible. The amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere will cause considerably more warming for decades to come. With zero emissions, it will take about 1000 years for CO2 ppm in the atmosphere to reach an equilibrium the same as 1850. Carbon sinks, the planting of trees, might speed this up; perhaps also increasing phytoplankton blooms. The oceans might absorb more heat than models project, but most of the evidence is that the models understate the effects from warming in the future.
A Carbon Tax is needed to finance the switch to renewables, and now.
7
The article states that, "Without the Paris climate policies, scientists say, the planet is headed toward a far more destructive temperature increase of more than 8 degrees Fahrenheit." This statement is an utter misrepresentation of what scientists know about the effect of increasing greenhouse gases on average global temperatures. The IPCC stated in its last report that the likely increase in average global temperatures from a doubling of CO2 was between 1.5 C and 4.5 C. Since 4.5 C translates into 8.1 F, this author (and this publication) have misleadingly chosen the most extreme end of the IPCC's range. This publication deserves 4 Pinocchios for having made such a claim in print.
I wrote of building weatherization, but what about the use of electricity?
Here are some simple tips to reduce your electric bill for little or no cost;
Replace all your lighting with Compact Fluorescent Lamps or L.E.D. bulbs to use 75 percent or less electricity for lighting.
Use laptop computers instead of desktop computers. Laptops or tablets use much less electricity than desktops.
If you have an electric hot water heater, install an insulation blanket kit and turn down the temperature control to 120 degrees which is sufficiently hot.
Are you in one room at a time? Walk around your place and turn off everything in other rooms.
Remember my slogan...........Is it ON?.....Turn it OFF!
Watch that electric bill shrink and save YOUR MONEY.
Here are some simple tips to reduce your electric bill for little or no cost;
Replace all your lighting with Compact Fluorescent Lamps or L.E.D. bulbs to use 75 percent or less electricity for lighting.
Use laptop computers instead of desktop computers. Laptops or tablets use much less electricity than desktops.
If you have an electric hot water heater, install an insulation blanket kit and turn down the temperature control to 120 degrees which is sufficiently hot.
Are you in one room at a time? Walk around your place and turn off everything in other rooms.
Remember my slogan...........Is it ON?.....Turn it OFF!
Watch that electric bill shrink and save YOUR MONEY.
Our problems as I rank them are; 1. Overpopulation, 2. religious faith, 3. drug abuse, 4. militarism, and somewhere down the line, climate change.
Opinions differ, but I find it remarkable that fans of climate change policy practice a complete disconnect from population control. It's as obvious as hail that it's the number of people wanting goods that drives growth and energy use. Alas, fans of climate change policy are in love with the soft-totalitarian idea of herding human cats into sustainable little corrals, rather than simply empowering women, & slowing growth by teaching reproductive responsibility. Good luck with that.
Opinions differ, but I find it remarkable that fans of climate change policy practice a complete disconnect from population control. It's as obvious as hail that it's the number of people wanting goods that drives growth and energy use. Alas, fans of climate change policy are in love with the soft-totalitarian idea of herding human cats into sustainable little corrals, rather than simply empowering women, & slowing growth by teaching reproductive responsibility. Good luck with that.
1
Energy Conservation in homes and businesses is the route to immediate large scale reductions in carbon emissions and resulting absorption of heat energy by the atmosphere.
The Obama administration made a humungous mistake years ago when they tried to combine job creation with conservation efforts. They presented the idea of home and business weatherization as jobs for businesses and neglected the everyday homeowner or business employees who already possess the basic skills to weatherize a building.
Weatherizing a building is basically sealing many air leaks to the outdoors and adding additional insulation.
The funds that were set aside for subsidized weatherization programs was a poor idea that limited weatherizing to professional businesses.
The task at hand is urgent need of all consumers to do the work themselves after some very basic education. Government funds are better spent educating the entire public on the virtues and methods of building weatherization. Teach everyone instead of just some select craftsmen and from everyone will come all sorts of entreprenuers from handymen to college students, to retirees willing to learn and do the work for others who can't themselves.
Don't try to make such a vital need as energy conservation a political jobs program. Teach the entire population to attain vastly more conservation of energy and resulting widespread drastic and immediate reductions in carbon emissions will occur.
Put a stop to carbon pollution now, not 2025.
The Obama administration made a humungous mistake years ago when they tried to combine job creation with conservation efforts. They presented the idea of home and business weatherization as jobs for businesses and neglected the everyday homeowner or business employees who already possess the basic skills to weatherize a building.
Weatherizing a building is basically sealing many air leaks to the outdoors and adding additional insulation.
The funds that were set aside for subsidized weatherization programs was a poor idea that limited weatherizing to professional businesses.
The task at hand is urgent need of all consumers to do the work themselves after some very basic education. Government funds are better spent educating the entire public on the virtues and methods of building weatherization. Teach everyone instead of just some select craftsmen and from everyone will come all sorts of entreprenuers from handymen to college students, to retirees willing to learn and do the work for others who can't themselves.
Don't try to make such a vital need as energy conservation a political jobs program. Teach the entire population to attain vastly more conservation of energy and resulting widespread drastic and immediate reductions in carbon emissions will occur.
Put a stop to carbon pollution now, not 2025.
It appears to me that we need a game changer. Just lowering greenhouse emissions will only slow down global warming. It will only postpone the disaster.
We need a new energy source that is abundant, safe, and clean. A source that can give us as much energy as we need and when we need it. This source exist. It's called Thorium. Google it and you'll find plenty of reason to be hopeful. That is, if enough people push their leaders to invest in it.
With Thorium we have so much energy we can clean up the atmosphere and actually reverse global warming.
We need a new energy source that is abundant, safe, and clean. A source that can give us as much energy as we need and when we need it. This source exist. It's called Thorium. Google it and you'll find plenty of reason to be hopeful. That is, if enough people push their leaders to invest in it.
With Thorium we have so much energy we can clean up the atmosphere and actually reverse global warming.
During the Miocene epoch, which was several million years before the industrial revolution, the planet warmed up unbearably. Then came the Pliocene epoch when there was global cooling.
So, the history suggests that factors that have nothing to do with human activities contribute to global warming and subsequent cooling cycles.
Only a person ignorant of history of our planet or who has a hidden agenda to scare us to the point of controlling us will predict undesirable consequences of economic growth.
If you are in doubt, do a search for miocene and pliocene epochs and learn about the history of our planet. Do not fall prey to the alarmist rhetoric coming from agenda-driven liberal politicians
So, the history suggests that factors that have nothing to do with human activities contribute to global warming and subsequent cooling cycles.
Only a person ignorant of history of our planet or who has a hidden agenda to scare us to the point of controlling us will predict undesirable consequences of economic growth.
If you are in doubt, do a search for miocene and pliocene epochs and learn about the history of our planet. Do not fall prey to the alarmist rhetoric coming from agenda-driven liberal politicians
1
When there is an extreme local weather event, such as blizzard or flood, people set aside their animosities and prejudices and differences of all kinds, and help each other survive it. What if climate change is the Creator's way of bringing the peoples of the world together in peace for mutual aid and survival? Clearly, it will take every country and all the citizens of each country to respond to this planetary crisis.
The word "population" doesn't appear once in this article. The conference ignores completely the fact that Total CO2 Emissions are the product of 1) per capita Emissions, and 2) Population.
Tragically, surrealistically, they've apparently agreed to NOT offer an opinion on what the world's yearly Total Emissions SHOULD be. Such an estimate should be writ in giant numerals on each wall of the room.
Those emissions have gone from 2 billion metric tons in 1900, to 19.8 in 1980, and 40 billion in 2014. If one chose, for example, the 1980 figure as a goal; and if US per capita emissions, about 15 tons, were cut in half (!), and every developed and developing nation agreed to limit itself to 7.5 tons (China is already past 6, and rising), the planet could support only 2.64 billion "industrialized" people.
Only China has addressed over-population -- its one-child policy is estimated to have prevented 400 million births. But the rest of the world saw only horrific side-effects, and rather than helping China address those problems, pressured it into abandoning the program. They should resume it -- the entire world should adopt it.
Realistically, it may be too late, as we're reminded in today's paper: "We have become so numerous, our technology so powerful...that we are both creating and destroying climates our descendants...will live in thousands of years from now."
But having come to Paris, it's inexcusable to ignore population.
Tragically, surrealistically, they've apparently agreed to NOT offer an opinion on what the world's yearly Total Emissions SHOULD be. Such an estimate should be writ in giant numerals on each wall of the room.
Those emissions have gone from 2 billion metric tons in 1900, to 19.8 in 1980, and 40 billion in 2014. If one chose, for example, the 1980 figure as a goal; and if US per capita emissions, about 15 tons, were cut in half (!), and every developed and developing nation agreed to limit itself to 7.5 tons (China is already past 6, and rising), the planet could support only 2.64 billion "industrialized" people.
Only China has addressed over-population -- its one-child policy is estimated to have prevented 400 million births. But the rest of the world saw only horrific side-effects, and rather than helping China address those problems, pressured it into abandoning the program. They should resume it -- the entire world should adopt it.
Realistically, it may be too late, as we're reminded in today's paper: "We have become so numerous, our technology so powerful...that we are both creating and destroying climates our descendants...will live in thousands of years from now."
But having come to Paris, it's inexcusable to ignore population.
1
I just got a note from the WH. You know one of those notes they send to everyone who gave money to elect Obama. Did I want to follow him as he does great things in Paris, it asked. Who wants to follow a trip to do some photo ops?
We have just witnessed a TERROIST attack on a PP clinic but he's going to Paris. When there was a TERROIST attack in Paris he didn't even both to go but he went to morn the death of the King of Saudi Arabia.
I'm disappointed and dismayed by the theater our president is engaged in as opposed to serious policy work and involvement in our nation's problems. He knows Paris is a sham but he goes anyway because well he is king of the world.
Yep, I'm angry. TPP, whistle blowers in jail or in hiding, more war, attacks on women's rights and a revolving door into government agencies that won't quit spinning. He's even decided that government watch dogs like the Inspector General cannot look at government documents to do their job because, well, he's above reproach and beyond evaluation. If he does it, it its legal.
Don't get me wrong the GOP is even worse which makes you think are there no candidates who are worthy of our vote. I say: Go Bernie.
We have just witnessed a TERROIST attack on a PP clinic but he's going to Paris. When there was a TERROIST attack in Paris he didn't even both to go but he went to morn the death of the King of Saudi Arabia.
I'm disappointed and dismayed by the theater our president is engaged in as opposed to serious policy work and involvement in our nation's problems. He knows Paris is a sham but he goes anyway because well he is king of the world.
Yep, I'm angry. TPP, whistle blowers in jail or in hiding, more war, attacks on women's rights and a revolving door into government agencies that won't quit spinning. He's even decided that government watch dogs like the Inspector General cannot look at government documents to do their job because, well, he's above reproach and beyond evaluation. If he does it, it its legal.
Don't get me wrong the GOP is even worse which makes you think are there no candidates who are worthy of our vote. I say: Go Bernie.
My hometown is a tiny city in north east india which has been rendered practically uninhabitable because of the moist heat. Once home to myriad rare birds during winter or amazing rainy summers, this year the temperatures roared to 90 degrees and humidity stayed at 70 percent. I can't think of seriously living in my own hometown anytime except during winter. That's a sad truth. In ways you can consider me an immigrant , only in our case we all brought this upon us.
Seas are already rising at an increasing clip (at the rate of more than one meter per century in some areas). The British meteorological service says the temperature rise is already one degree Celsius, globally. The question is to avoid a rise of 5 degree Celsius.
Everybody wants a deal. Except the USA. The USA, alone in the world, announced that the Paris COP 21 will NOT be binding…. As far as the USA is concerned.
The USA was made by oil, and intents to keep it that way until the bitter end.
Everybody wants a deal. Except the USA. The USA, alone in the world, announced that the Paris COP 21 will NOT be binding…. As far as the USA is concerned.
The USA was made by oil, and intents to keep it that way until the bitter end.
We’re told that the consequences of our use of fossil fuels will last tens of thousands of years, yet our current global climate hasn’t lasted tens of thousands of years. Our earliest real civilizations aren’t that old that we know about.
The climates that allowed us to engage in a steady development that started with the most primitive subsistence to eventually develop medicine, better nutrition and less labor that allowed us in turn to live longer and better, complex economies that allowed such changes to be increasingly universalized and sustainable … all of this didn’t exist tens of thousands of years ago.
Climate is changing again. Without quibbling that human activity is causing at least some and perhaps a lot of that change, it remains that in order to keep the dance going we must adapt. Certainly, we should be discussing and acting on measures to retard the most damaging effects; but we also should be discussing and planning the actions needed to live with them.
Not in Paris but soon we should finalize identification of regions at greatest risk of no longer sustaining human and other populations, the detailed measures required to counter that loss, right up to evacuations and resettlements; and how to pay for all of it.
And we can wonder as well how it is that climates that changed dramatically over millions of years with no help from humans can now be dramatically altered for tens of thousands of years by less than 300 years of relatively intense human activity.
The climates that allowed us to engage in a steady development that started with the most primitive subsistence to eventually develop medicine, better nutrition and less labor that allowed us in turn to live longer and better, complex economies that allowed such changes to be increasingly universalized and sustainable … all of this didn’t exist tens of thousands of years ago.
Climate is changing again. Without quibbling that human activity is causing at least some and perhaps a lot of that change, it remains that in order to keep the dance going we must adapt. Certainly, we should be discussing and acting on measures to retard the most damaging effects; but we also should be discussing and planning the actions needed to live with them.
Not in Paris but soon we should finalize identification of regions at greatest risk of no longer sustaining human and other populations, the detailed measures required to counter that loss, right up to evacuations and resettlements; and how to pay for all of it.
And we can wonder as well how it is that climates that changed dramatically over millions of years with no help from humans can now be dramatically altered for tens of thousands of years by less than 300 years of relatively intense human activity.
1
Together the more than 170 national plans for Paris would still allow the planet to warm by as much as 6 degrees, according to several independent and academic analyses. Scientists say that that level of warming is still likely to cause food shortages and widespread extinctions of plant and animal life.
------------------------------------------------------
In short, the Paris conference is a cruel travesty: if the planet is going be warmer by as much as 6 degrees, nearly double the dangerous level of 3.6 degrees, then who are these politicians kidding by assembling to adjudicate non-binding wish-list items?
IPCC has never subscribed to the 3.6 degree F warming as the limit beyond which the planet is doomed. None of the papers put out by IPCC refers to this tipping point temperature. So, the hysteria is nothing short of political attempt to scare us all into believing that the doomsday is near at hand.
#Cultish
------------------------------------------------------
In short, the Paris conference is a cruel travesty: if the planet is going be warmer by as much as 6 degrees, nearly double the dangerous level of 3.6 degrees, then who are these politicians kidding by assembling to adjudicate non-binding wish-list items?
IPCC has never subscribed to the 3.6 degree F warming as the limit beyond which the planet is doomed. None of the papers put out by IPCC refers to this tipping point temperature. So, the hysteria is nothing short of political attempt to scare us all into believing that the doomsday is near at hand.
#Cultish
1
Once upon a time, the planet was frozen over and no life existed on the earth.
Then the volcanic eruptions caused massive warming to create water and life.
In short, we owe our existence on this planet to the initial massive warming that was strong enough to melt all the ice covering the planet and to create forms of life that did not exist.
The thinking that all the catastrophes we witness are thanks to human activities in emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is typical of illogical doomsayers who engage in post hoc rationalization.
Enough said.
Then the volcanic eruptions caused massive warming to create water and life.
In short, we owe our existence on this planet to the initial massive warming that was strong enough to melt all the ice covering the planet and to create forms of life that did not exist.
The thinking that all the catastrophes we witness are thanks to human activities in emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is typical of illogical doomsayers who engage in post hoc rationalization.
Enough said.
1
Well, does the Bible write about global warming? It sure writes 'bout fire and brimestone, but not a word about global warming. Who to believe now, the word of God or the Science...? That is the Question, to believe what was written by bearded men in caves thousands of years ago as the righteous now wish, or to take our chances with Science?? Most likely, Evolution will have a word in this...
On the same topic in another article here regarding the Demonstrations Sunday in Paris surrounding the climate change discussions, the French had a brilliant idea to adopt and expand on. Because the authorities there wanted to reduce motor vehicle traffic around the city, they declared mass transit would be FREE Sunday and Monday. Do you see the brilliance in that?
By making mass transit free on a small scale, the public will ride the trains, buses, and Subways and discover what a pleasure it is to ride and take in the sights as a passenger and arrive stress free at their destination instead of being harried by the rigors of driving.
Governments take note of this French idea. It's a very good one to sell mass transit. Once the passengers are there, the ride will sell itself.
By making mass transit free on a small scale, the public will ride the trains, buses, and Subways and discover what a pleasure it is to ride and take in the sights as a passenger and arrive stress free at their destination instead of being harried by the rigors of driving.
Governments take note of this French idea. It's a very good one to sell mass transit. Once the passengers are there, the ride will sell itself.
Global warming climate change is irreversible. Still, we should encourage Obama and the rest's effort to lessen its onslaught.
There are numerous errors and misstatements in this article. Sea-level rise is just about the average for centuries; there are five major temperature indices. The satellite data do not show 2015 to be the warmest on record.
In any case it is wishful thinking that the Chinese have turned the corner. A careful reading of the Chinese INDC (climate plan) permits very large rises in CO2 emissions (at least 50%) over the next 15 years. The only climate plans in sync with the (bogus) science were published by a handful of micro-states.
In any case it is wishful thinking that the Chinese have turned the corner. A careful reading of the Chinese INDC (climate plan) permits very large rises in CO2 emissions (at least 50%) over the next 15 years. The only climate plans in sync with the (bogus) science were published by a handful of micro-states.
The current rise of nationalism in Europe combined with American right-wing xenophobia will not help this process. Distrust of the 'outsider' leads many to fear the UN; fear that some ill-defined 'other' is trying to do us harm by taking control (of our government, our businesses, our economy) for nefarious purposes; and fear any messages coming from the suspect mainstream media. Add to that a not insignificant number of folks who believe that climate change is all a great hoax and any agreement becomes a tough sell in the west - especially if it will cost us money. Let's hope that the conference is a 'success'' and that voices of reason prevail in the US and elsewhere.
6
With an increasing awareness about the climate change phenomenon across the world, and the biggest polluters US, China, and India broadly agreeing to set the carbon reduction targets alongwith gradually shifting to clean energy regime, a broad global consensus seems to have already been reached, which if leveraged cautiously might inspire other nations too to come on board during the Paris summit.
6
China and India do not have to even think about doing anything until 2030 under the agreement.
So the western nations should pay india and china and other nations for reducing their pollution ?
I rather invest in an absolute zero-emission policy in my own country, for this is already expensive, and it will increase the life quality in my country (smog is local). We will have countries with very low emission and countries that suffocate their own citizen.
There is no way i want to pay for putting away someone elses trash, as long as i can have better results at my own doorstep.
I rather invest in an absolute zero-emission policy in my own country, for this is already expensive, and it will increase the life quality in my country (smog is local). We will have countries with very low emission and countries that suffocate their own citizen.
There is no way i want to pay for putting away someone elses trash, as long as i can have better results at my own doorstep.
6
It would also be nice if the United Nations and global leaders would issue a declaration that the world's population of 7.3 billion humans and growing poses the most serious threat to climate and resource stability.
Perhaps an admission that 'being fruitful and multiplying' has very serious drawbacks to it would provide some sobering guidance to the religious masses.
Just stabilizing the human population would be a massive environmental windfall.
A global condom drop and free IUD implants for all women is a relatively inexpensive solution that would have an enormous positive impact on the planet's overall health.
Perhaps an admission that 'being fruitful and multiplying' has very serious drawbacks to it would provide some sobering guidance to the religious masses.
Just stabilizing the human population would be a massive environmental windfall.
A global condom drop and free IUD implants for all women is a relatively inexpensive solution that would have an enormous positive impact on the planet's overall health.
138
Maybe I've missed it, but it would be nice to see the NY Times discuss over population and the effects on the front page. This may sound accidentally existential, but all our problems exist because of us. Less people, less man-made global warming.
3
While controlling population can be an effective check on climate change, the converse is the reality. The devastation rendered by climate change will diminish the world population by 2 billion as a manifestation of a negative feedback loop.
It's natures way of protecting the planet from human infestation.
Catastrophic wars are another mechanism.
It's natures way of protecting the planet from human infestation.
Catastrophic wars are another mechanism.
1
@Socrates,
First off I do agree that the population growth is going to be the nail in the coffin for the inhabitants of this earth. In the next 20-30 years I think the world population is expected to grow by over 2 billion people. Does anybody actually think that over 9 billion people are going to toss aside all of the technology and conveniences we've come to worship? Yes I know a large amount of the world lives in poverty and doesn't have the luxuries we are accustomed to, but if socialists and liberals get their way everyone one will be living prosperous and fruitful lives and all the trappings of that mean more things, cars, computers, Iphones, lights and the list goes on. OK the last sentence was a bit cynical, but sadly true.
As for trying to tell people that they should not have off spring, well.......didn't China try that one? WHO has been handing out condoms in Africa for years to try and stop the spread of HIV and yet the population there is still expanding a midst consistent poverty. I don't have a answer or a real world solution, I'm just rattling off thoughts in my head, but I also know all the people in the picture don't have a real answer either!
First off I do agree that the population growth is going to be the nail in the coffin for the inhabitants of this earth. In the next 20-30 years I think the world population is expected to grow by over 2 billion people. Does anybody actually think that over 9 billion people are going to toss aside all of the technology and conveniences we've come to worship? Yes I know a large amount of the world lives in poverty and doesn't have the luxuries we are accustomed to, but if socialists and liberals get their way everyone one will be living prosperous and fruitful lives and all the trappings of that mean more things, cars, computers, Iphones, lights and the list goes on. OK the last sentence was a bit cynical, but sadly true.
As for trying to tell people that they should not have off spring, well.......didn't China try that one? WHO has been handing out condoms in Africa for years to try and stop the spread of HIV and yet the population there is still expanding a midst consistent poverty. I don't have a answer or a real world solution, I'm just rattling off thoughts in my head, but I also know all the people in the picture don't have a real answer either!
The first alarms about climate change due to carbon emissions were declared back in the 1970's. Here it is now 2015, about 40 years later. There were scientists then that saw the coming floods, droughts, high winds etc.
40 years have gone by without necessary action, mostly scuttled by the energy industry and their shills.
People will finally believe it when billions of acre's of coastline are flooded.
40 years have gone by without necessary action, mostly scuttled by the energy industry and their shills.
People will finally believe it when billions of acre's of coastline are flooded.
30
Whether they believe it was caused by humans is quite another matter.
8
AACNY, being polite, it wasn't caused by the other animals and plants.
On another note........sea levels have risen 8 inches in the last twenty years and will rise another 3 feet by 2050 I believe was the prediction. Even three feet will be a major world catastrophe, so you see, we are in deep in just another 35 years.
On another note........sea levels have risen 8 inches in the last twenty years and will rise another 3 feet by 2050 I believe was the prediction. Even three feet will be a major world catastrophe, so you see, we are in deep in just another 35 years.
1
40 years later we are still waiting for the dramatic events predicted to occur. There is no sea rise forty years later. Hmmm...maybe there is something wrong with the predictions and "science".
Traditionally, negotiators have sought to forge a legally binding treaty ... there is no way to get that in this case, because of the United States. A treaty would be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill without the required two-thirds majority vote in the Republican-controlled Senate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unbelievable that the United States, which fancies itself a world leader, is preventing the adoption of a binding legal commitment to slow climate change. The future of the world is being held hostage by ignorant, short-sighted, ideological, anti-science conservatives in Congress. These mind-numbingly dumb "leaders" are as dangerous to the future of the world as if ISIS got their hands on a nuclear bomb. Hopefully global "peer-pressure" will force us to participate since science and common sense won't sway the Republican ignoramuses taking up space in the Capitol.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unbelievable that the United States, which fancies itself a world leader, is preventing the adoption of a binding legal commitment to slow climate change. The future of the world is being held hostage by ignorant, short-sighted, ideological, anti-science conservatives in Congress. These mind-numbingly dumb "leaders" are as dangerous to the future of the world as if ISIS got their hands on a nuclear bomb. Hopefully global "peer-pressure" will force us to participate since science and common sense won't sway the Republican ignoramuses taking up space in the Capitol.
32
The tragedy is that most of the human species don't even believe this is an immediate problem. Unless the seas rise twenty feet within the next few hours, most people won't care and not much will happen at this summit. Billions of the world survive on less than $2 a day. Even half the U.S. is living day to day. The masses are held at the best of those who think about the future. And many here in this country think climate change is a hoax. The tragedy will be too late to fix when people finally get that it is a problem. In addition, the infrastructure is set up to destroy us all. Why even make gasoline powered cars in today's world? Boggles the mind.
26
It is really not that important to have any agreement on climate. The nature has the ability to self heal. No worries.
5
@Kodali,
Yes you are right! This planet will do just fine without us. The only thing the planet has to worry about is the sun in about 2 billion years!
Yes you are right! This planet will do just fine without us. The only thing the planet has to worry about is the sun in about 2 billion years!
Well, K, if you consider our recurring Ice Ages to be 'healing', when half the planet is under a mile or two of ice, along with the heat equivalent of those temperature extreme! I'd suggest that if human ingenuity and co-operation can create a modifying thermostat to keep the planet reasonably habitable we should at least try.
The important step forward in Paris will (hopefully) be that the nations of the world will move beyond the question of "Should we act?" to the question of "How far can we go?" And although we won't get far enough this round, it's much easier to rachet up commitments than to get them in the first place. It will be politically harder for any nation, the U.S. included, to renege on a commitment than to improve it. Unfortunately, the world will be in much more peril -- we will see more of the devastating effects -- before we move far enough.
17
I hope you are right.
Climate science deniers (or people who don't understand the methodical, peer-reviewed research conducted in the US, EU, and China and by the UN) must immediately stop injecting their selfish financial motives into a debate with literally apocalyptic potential. Enough with Inhofe and co., Exxon, Shell, Exxon, Pickens and the Koch brothers denying reality. I'm very worried about how greed can wipe out life on Earth.
55
i have now read hundreds of articles on the subject and concluded that there is basic agreement on all sides...if we continue to burn fossil fuels we will run out of clean air and water....if we don't continue to burn fossil fuels, we will lose some jobs
29
No worries about the extinction of the human race. The most vile of any organism in existence.
9
One would think that the deniers would like to save money rather than waste it. Reducing energy use saves money and saves the planet at the same time. All the S&P 500 companies are now have programs to reduce energy use ( just not fast enough). It is the individual deniers that are the bigger problem.
The problem will never be effectively addressed because of the power of multinational corporations, but at least we need not surrender the abiity to analyze and critique the corporate oligarchy. One day, when religious fundamentalism has lost its influence on american politics and the free-market fundamentalists can no longer effectively pander by telling them that global climate change can't be true because it's not in the bible or that the end times are too soon for it to matter, the United States may recognize that we can battle this as well. Until then, we will do nothing substantial.
17
Howdy Woolgatherer.........your presence is appreciated. I'm a big fan of wool sweaters with about a dozen of them to stay warm in a cool house. I'm invigorated by the coolness yet warm thanks to people like you who "Gather Wool". But you are incorrect about the power of multinationals which is just another word for "Pirates" with no sense of patriotic duty. Through grass root efforts such as in these forums by people like you and I, change will happen. Take care there buddy!
3
It is in the Bible. Read about it in Genesis, Noah's Ark and the flood story.
I have been reading the commentary in the articles, columns, & editorials on the Climate conference in Paris. I don't anticipate any great success out of these talks but I do I believe that our goal should be to provide the same services that were provided by fossil fuel combustion in the new post-carbon energy era. Since attending the Rio Conference in 1992, I have been disappointed in the politicization of global warming. Therefore, I am not expecting action on the part of government. However, I think the private sector and private investors will sense the investment opportunity of replacing fossil fuel technologies with more advanced technologies for transportation and electric power generation.
My colleagues, Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby, the inventors of superconducting Maglev have envisioned evolving our highway and rail rights-of-way, including commuter rail to the rolling-friction-free travel and carrying freight, freight trucks and autos in Maglev carriers for very efficient and less costly transport.
They also envision using Maglev to launch payload into space at only 1% of the cost of conventional launch making it feasible to position a battery of solar satellites in orbit to beam very cheap electricity to Earth.
Finally, realizing the importance of travel in automobiles we are confident that we can synthesize gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from the carbon dioxide in air and hydrogen in water. This can all be accomplished with private investment.
My colleagues, Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby, the inventors of superconducting Maglev have envisioned evolving our highway and rail rights-of-way, including commuter rail to the rolling-friction-free travel and carrying freight, freight trucks and autos in Maglev carriers for very efficient and less costly transport.
They also envision using Maglev to launch payload into space at only 1% of the cost of conventional launch making it feasible to position a battery of solar satellites in orbit to beam very cheap electricity to Earth.
Finally, realizing the importance of travel in automobiles we are confident that we can synthesize gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from the carbon dioxide in air and hydrogen in water. This can all be accomplished with private investment.
12
This reminds me of the first day of the Obama Administration back in 2009. Mitch and the GOP promised to obstruct any Obama initiative. So has anything changed? No, there Mitch was again, on TV, promising to scuttle anything that Obama might accomplish to assist generations to come in relation to man-made climate change. Too bad that old men like Mitch are so bought-and-sold by the corporate world, but I guess leaving a legacy of partisan obstruction is more important than leaving a legacy of concern for generations to come.
36
One consequence, as seen from the photo, will be beautiful Glenn Canyon will return. The Indians will have enough water, but pity the retirees.
4
With the current line-up of world leaders I do not hold out any hope of any positive moves forward on any issue let alone climate change.
1
CLIMATE CAVEAT for 2016
When Clinton signed Proclamation 6920 designating 1.7M acres in Utah the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the Clintons sold out our country to foreign interests as they promoted the act as one of environmental courage.
The deal, "initiated by the Clintons just 7 weeks before the '96 election," was later characterized in a congressional staff report "as a blatant political act under the guise of environmental protection.... The only thing the president was protecting by designating the Monument was his chance to win re-election. The 'threat' motivating his action was electoral, not environmental."
With the simple stroke of a pen, the Clintons:
–locked up our massive supply of clean-burning low sulfur coal
–gave a global monopoly to Moctar Riady of Indonesia, their benefactor from Dixiecrat Mafia days through the 90s
–decreased our security by increasing our dependence on ME oil...
–increased our future energy costs
–increased future damage to the environment
Clean coal is not carbon-neutral, but sulfur-reduced. (Sequestration reduces the carbon.) While there are certain methods to wash SO3 and SO2, products of coal combustion, they are expensive & difficult. Low-sulphur coal is the vastly preferred option.
After having locked up our massive supply of clean-burning, low-sulfur coal, Mrs. Clinton is now pitching clean coal to solve our energy problems….
Pitching the Clintons would be infinitely more efficient.
When Clinton signed Proclamation 6920 designating 1.7M acres in Utah the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the Clintons sold out our country to foreign interests as they promoted the act as one of environmental courage.
The deal, "initiated by the Clintons just 7 weeks before the '96 election," was later characterized in a congressional staff report "as a blatant political act under the guise of environmental protection.... The only thing the president was protecting by designating the Monument was his chance to win re-election. The 'threat' motivating his action was electoral, not environmental."
With the simple stroke of a pen, the Clintons:
–locked up our massive supply of clean-burning low sulfur coal
–gave a global monopoly to Moctar Riady of Indonesia, their benefactor from Dixiecrat Mafia days through the 90s
–decreased our security by increasing our dependence on ME oil...
–increased our future energy costs
–increased future damage to the environment
Clean coal is not carbon-neutral, but sulfur-reduced. (Sequestration reduces the carbon.) While there are certain methods to wash SO3 and SO2, products of coal combustion, they are expensive & difficult. Low-sulphur coal is the vastly preferred option.
After having locked up our massive supply of clean-burning, low-sulfur coal, Mrs. Clinton is now pitching clean coal to solve our energy problems….
Pitching the Clintons would be infinitely more efficient.
7
The preferred option is a swift transition away from coal - all coal. On the narrow point of access to coal, the designation of the GS-E NM did us all a favor.
They're really going to show those terrorists! What a rebuke the conference will be. (Maybe the rise of the oceans will actually slow too.)
Democrats should stop embarrassing themselves by tying terrorism to climate change.
Democrats should stop embarrassing themselves by tying terrorism to climate change.
10
It is not just Democrats. "The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presen...
The Pentagon and Democrats and some Republicans happen to be smart enough to listen to the experts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presen...
The Pentagon and Democrats and some Republicans happen to be smart enough to listen to the experts.
7
erik:
Sorry, but this climate summit will have no effect on terrorists other than providing a juicy target. (No wonder the French police are imposing such rigid rules.)
I've yet to hear any knowledgeable official claim ISIS sprang into existence because of climate change or that addressing climate change will have any effect on it.
Sorry, but this climate summit will have no effect on terrorists other than providing a juicy target. (No wonder the French police are imposing such rigid rules.)
I've yet to hear any knowledgeable official claim ISIS sprang into existence because of climate change or that addressing climate change will have any effect on it.
3
Try rereading my post.
4
Any deal that doesn't first deal first grapple with a burgeoning population does not seem especially promising. This issue seems, at least to me, critical to addressing climate change as well as most of the world's most difficult challenges. Yet it is rarely mentioned.
21
Easier to be claiming to deal with something as vaguely defined as climate change than the much more concrete birth rate.
2
How much carbon dioxide is being emitted by those 20,000 people flying to Paris (some of them pompous heads of state who won't fly commercial, Economy class, but have their own private airplanes)? Haven't these people heard of videoconferencing?
21
From
Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitori...
"Q4: What corrections are needed to remove known biases in the individual data?
Existing data have well documented biases in them. The most important bias globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures associated with the change from ships throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck, and putting a thermometer in it, to reading the thermometer in the engine coolant water intake. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations so the early data have been adjusted warmer to remove that bias."
So, at least one question here: if the scientists (as NOAA suggests) were so stupid that they couldn't figure how to measure temperature of water in a bucket why are we talking about "science" at all?
Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitori...
"Q4: What corrections are needed to remove known biases in the individual data?
Existing data have well documented biases in them. The most important bias globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures associated with the change from ships throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck, and putting a thermometer in it, to reading the thermometer in the engine coolant water intake. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations so the early data have been adjusted warmer to remove that bias."
So, at least one question here: if the scientists (as NOAA suggests) were so stupid that they couldn't figure how to measure temperature of water in a bucket why are we talking about "science" at all?
7
Really, what's your point?
I looked at the chart on link you attached. When they made the adjustment to the record-keeping before 1945 there's been an increase in the temperature of the ocean since 1910 of +1.53 degrees F instead of +1.89 degrees F.
That's still a big increase in ocean temperature during the last century. Yes, maybe they should have done it differently before 1945. The adjustment that needed to be made was constant over the years before 1945. I think the "science" is good and the conclusions are valid.
I looked at the chart on link you attached. When they made the adjustment to the record-keeping before 1945 there's been an increase in the temperature of the ocean since 1910 of +1.53 degrees F instead of +1.89 degrees F.
That's still a big increase in ocean temperature during the last century. Yes, maybe they should have done it differently before 1945. The adjustment that needed to be made was constant over the years before 1945. I think the "science" is good and the conclusions are valid.
10
How do you explain the FACT that global temperatures have been down, stable for over 20 years?
And just where is this sea level rise we have been hearing about since the 80's!? Our coasts were already supposed to be under water!
Oh, guess you never checked on that. Here, let me help:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st...
And just where is this sea level rise we have been hearing about since the 80's!? Our coasts were already supposed to be under water!
Oh, guess you never checked on that. Here, let me help:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st...
5
Interested,
Maybe you also be interested in accusations of altering global temperature data:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/24/standoff-o...
and some explanations by federal scientists:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/04/fed...
Maybe you also be interested in accusations of altering global temperature data:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/24/standoff-o...
and some explanations by federal scientists:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/04/fed...
Ask yourself: Which has the greater potential to destroy us?
– The Keystone XL pipeline or Obama's Iran nuke deal?
– Carbon non-neutrality or Putin non-neutrality?
– Wiping out an incipient terrorist threat, or directly causing it's actualization and rapid metastasis and then "managing" it to "burnish" one's presidential "legacy"??
The magnitude & frequency of Obama's acts of irreversible damage to America vary inversely and exponentially with his time left in office.
A despot can do a lot of damage in 14 months and a deluded one blinded by his own imagined brilliance will.
– The Keystone XL pipeline or Obama's Iran nuke deal?
– Carbon non-neutrality or Putin non-neutrality?
– Wiping out an incipient terrorist threat, or directly causing it's actualization and rapid metastasis and then "managing" it to "burnish" one's presidential "legacy"??
The magnitude & frequency of Obama's acts of irreversible damage to America vary inversely and exponentially with his time left in office.
A despot can do a lot of damage in 14 months and a deluded one blinded by his own imagined brilliance will.
9
The real test of Obama's authenticity on climate is his position on energy development in the US. He claims to support natural gas, but then his EPA threatens it with new regulations. He is considered terribly inconsistent.
Obama can talk the climate talk, but he can walk the climate walk, especially when it comes to crossing his environmental donors and base.
Obama can talk the climate talk, but he can walk the climate walk, especially when it comes to crossing his environmental donors and base.
3
The reason we won't come to a consensus is that people in those countries that could have led the way feared that they would be paying for someone else to benefit. It is like opposition to Obamacare, where your people don't want to see their premiums help pay the claims of the sick. Unfortunately, we are now either close to, or beyond, the point of no return where cataclysmic events are now a certainty. These events will result in human suffering and displacement the likes of which we have never encountered. What we need to prepare for is how to adapt to these events. The economic hardships that people feared two decades ago, will be nothing compared to what lies ahead due to our shortsightedness. Hopefully these meetings will make it clear that we need to focus on preparing by developing cheap, efficient alternative energy at the household or community level, small-scale water purification technologies and nutritious foods that can be grown in your backyard. We also have to prepare for disaster relief and the influx of eco-refugees, which is beginning now with people evacuating Pacific Island Nations due to rising sea levels. For entrepreneurs there are opportunities, but if we continue to say there is no problem, these economic opportunities will become do or die necessities.
11
The reason we won't come to a consensus is that reasonable people who do accept climate change nevertheless have a problem embracing the notion that in a global biosphere that has seen innumerable naturally occurring and dramatic climate shifts over millions of years, it seems we've brought one on that will precipitate the end of the world with less than 300 years of relatively intense human activity. Even more entertaining is the conviction that two decades ago all that was feared was coming economic hardship, but that a mere twenty more years of atmospheric carbon now heralds the imminent end of the world as we know it and Pacific Island dwellers up to their noses in rising water.
What a lot of hot air. The planet is not being destroyed by climate change. Change has been happening since year dot. Satellite data PROVES the earth has not significantly warmed for over 18 years. Not one prediction by the doomsayers has come true. There is no rise in hurricanes, drought cycles or earthquakes all according to the ipcc itself. Some on here should take a breath and relax. Don't let the big greedy green machine fool you. Lies like pictures of steam chimneys and naturally occurring drought photo's. The earth runs in cycles. This warming is one of them. To think you can change the weather is simply laughable.
23
Here's James Hansen to explain Earth's energy imbalance to you from a 2012 TED Talk:
"Now finally, we can measure Earth's energy imbalance precisely by measuring the heat content in Earth's heat reservoirs. The biggest reservoir, the ocean, was the least well measured, until more than 3,000 Argo floats were distributed around the world's ocean. These floats reveal that the upper half of the ocean is gaining heat at a substantial rate. The deep ocean is also gaining heat at a smaller rate, and energy is going into the net melting of ice all around the planet. And the land, to depths of tens of meters, is also warming.
07:20
The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391 ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to restore energy balance and prevent further warming."
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climat...
"Now finally, we can measure Earth's energy imbalance precisely by measuring the heat content in Earth's heat reservoirs. The biggest reservoir, the ocean, was the least well measured, until more than 3,000 Argo floats were distributed around the world's ocean. These floats reveal that the upper half of the ocean is gaining heat at a substantial rate. The deep ocean is also gaining heat at a smaller rate, and energy is going into the net melting of ice all around the planet. And the land, to depths of tens of meters, is also warming.
07:20
The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391 ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to restore energy balance and prevent further warming."
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climat...
4
i dunno...just going by the last ten years of CIA/Pentagon assessments, sorry.
2
What about China's pollution reported on in recent days? It looks ghastly.
1
Here are some articles that may help to explain what's going on:
Paris Climate Talks Avoid Scientists’ Idea of ‘Carbon Budget’
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/science/earth/paris-climate-talks-avoi...
Obama’s Legacy at Stake in Paris Talks on Climate Accord
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/politics/obama-takes-second-term-re...
NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/nasa-study-indicates-antarcti...
Paris Climate Talks Avoid Scientists’ Idea of ‘Carbon Budget’
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/science/earth/paris-climate-talks-avoi...
Obama’s Legacy at Stake in Paris Talks on Climate Accord
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/politics/obama-takes-second-term-re...
NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/nasa-study-indicates-antarcti...
1
Areader, you did not read the entire article about snowfall and melting in the Antarctic. The amount of melting on the coast is more important.
3
Bevan Davies,
I didn't say the NASA report totally refuted AGW.
But the study contradicts Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
It means that maybe IPPC's conclusions are not the ultimate truth on which we must without any doubts build our actions.
I didn't say the NASA report totally refuted AGW.
But the study contradicts Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
It means that maybe IPPC's conclusions are not the ultimate truth on which we must without any doubts build our actions.
1
I wish the following 4 points weren't true.
1) Global warming is exponential. 1C now, 2C by 2050, 5C by 2100. (you don't even have to consult the climate models to get that. Just fit a curve to the warming that has already occurred and extrapolate it.)
2) Its delayed 40 years by the massive momentum of the oceans. Like a giant iron ball, you have to push forever to get the oceans moving. But, once they are moving... Hence, nothing now can prevent 2C of rise.
3) At 2C, natural feedbacks like melting permafrost become inexorable, eventually adding 4C on top of human warming.
4) 6C is an extinction event.
1) Global warming is exponential. 1C now, 2C by 2050, 5C by 2100. (you don't even have to consult the climate models to get that. Just fit a curve to the warming that has already occurred and extrapolate it.)
2) Its delayed 40 years by the massive momentum of the oceans. Like a giant iron ball, you have to push forever to get the oceans moving. But, once they are moving... Hence, nothing now can prevent 2C of rise.
3) At 2C, natural feedbacks like melting permafrost become inexorable, eventually adding 4C on top of human warming.
4) 6C is an extinction event.
13
No, actually it's logarithmic, something called by professionals the "curve of growth". Too complicated to explain here, but it grows more and more slowly as more greenhouse gases are added.
Google James Hansen non-linear ice sheet disintegration. It's happening exponentially with a doubling time near 10 years. That means about 10 feet of sea level rise in 50 years.
3
Even if the growth model is initially exponential, unbounded growth is not physically realistic and will be limited by previously ignored negative feedback factors that become significant, or the breakdown of underlying assumptions of the exponential growth model, such as continuity or instantaneous feedback.
Believing all this climate change stuff is like believing in evolution or some none existent God. These so called 'scientists' are crying 'climate change!' like some deluded religious nut crying 'the end of the world is coming!'. They have no proof. Every one of their models have been wrong yet they still insist on believing their own delusion... not because they believe it but they get all this free money from the governments... tax payers. Money, money, money. They are just as corrupt as our governments who are just using this to get kickbacks and bleed people dry. I've been around 48 years and nothing has changed. It's called weather. It is random and unpredictable and if they can't predict the weather right even 3 days in advance, you expect me to believe some money grubbing delusioned joke of scientists predictions? Get real!
7
Congratulations for getting everything wrong. As the graph below shows the models are very accurate. Black is temperature and red is the average of 57 model runs. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-8-1-figure-1...
4
I've been around 65, Ryan, and I'll give Fox and talk radio credit. They've mixed the issue of climate change, weather and taxes together so successfully that middle-agers like you think you are going to get a free ride and plentiful jobs by ignoring the situation. You're not, because property insurers are gearing up to sell climate-related products, and you already pay a premium on your homeowner's everytime a hurricane destroys a lot of property. Do you think FEMA operates for free? Everytime a tornado plows through a conservative Midwestern state, the Republican governor can't wait to apply for disaster-relief funds. Yes, weather is unpredictable, but the long-term effects of climate change are more predictable. In a way, it reminds me of the old oil filter commercial... you can pay now, or you can pay later. And later is always more expensive.
6
Save the planet? Some species may perish, most will survive. The planet is much, much more than one or a thousand of species. Homo sapiens may not be adaptable enough but rest of species will manage...
6
Our "safe" 2C target will be a catastrophe according to a new paper written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields. The first line in their paper reads:
"There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today.”
The extreme storms that Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move. So our "safe" 2C target includes enough sea level rise to render all our coastal cities uninhabitable and unsurvivable storms and hundreds of millions of refugees.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
"There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today.”
The extreme storms that Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move. So our "safe" 2C target includes enough sea level rise to render all our coastal cities uninhabitable and unsurvivable storms and hundreds of millions of refugees.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
7
Climate change is like so many other of the Big Issues our politicians can't seem to do anything significant and effective about. The real solution must come from the bottom up, not the top down. Everybody down here at the bottom knows that something has changed about the weather, especially those of us who have lived a few decades. Mass protests might do a bit of good but the best thing to do is start cutting back our consumption of unnecessary products of global industry. It is mass overconsumption of everything from food and housing to disposable shavers and diapers that produces greenhouse gases. If you are 50 or older, compare how much "stuff" was in your childhood home to what you have in your own home today. Compare how much trash your parents put on the curb to how much you put out. We can do something about that and when we do, the politicians, CEOs and Wall Streeters will have to "get it." Yes, it would cause temporary job losses and all the pain that entails, just like those top-down recessions keep causing over and over. But it will be temporary pain for long-term gain: a livable planet for our children and grandchildren. Worth a try, I say.
45
What the Paris climate conference must do first: Stop the dangerous anthropogenic interference with scientific inquiry.
The Left has a stranglehold on academia, research and funding with fascistic, anti-scientific consequences, i.e., science by "consensus."
Science is not done by "consensus" nor is it ever "settled." Ask any scientist.
This pernicious, retrograde, forced religiosity of the Left is self-perpetuating. Creative, ethical scientists are repulsed by this assault; only the fanatics and the corrupt remain to ply their trade.
Just as the misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, the misappropriation of science depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, any resultant scientific theory is necessarily of dubious lineage.
The Left has a stranglehold on academia, research and funding with fascistic, anti-scientific consequences, i.e., science by "consensus."
Science is not done by "consensus" nor is it ever "settled." Ask any scientist.
This pernicious, retrograde, forced religiosity of the Left is self-perpetuating. Creative, ethical scientists are repulsed by this assault; only the fanatics and the corrupt remain to ply their trade.
Just as the misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, the misappropriation of science depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, any resultant scientific theory is necessarily of dubious lineage.
6
The "Left?" In Canada, it was the right (The Harper Government) who restricted scientific inquiry and censored press releases. I assume that if the Republicans get into the White House they will do the same.
10
Didn't the Times explain yesterday that all this is just for Obama's legacy?
10
And of course nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of our Dear Leader's "Legacy".
9
Obama gravitates toward big issues with no immediate solutions. He can be seen as championing them without being personally on the line to resolve them. Notice that implementation always falls to someone else.
5
Indeed. Anyway only a year left of him.
4
Nuclear is the only answer.the subways, elevators and all those electric caars are never going to run on wind and solar.
5
Present Co2 concentrations are 400 ppm or .04% of the atmosphere. Of the 400 ppm 15 ppm or 3.75% are man made. Man made Co2 in the atmosphere is .000015%. Statistically nil. This data comes from research published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in 2014.
NOAA has continuously adjusted it's global temperature data sets to show more recent warming and a colder past than indicated by raw temperature data. This is how they came up with 2014 being the hotest year on record when the 3 other major data sets disagree.
The IPCC's models predicting continued temperature increases that correspond directly with increases in atmospheric Co2 have proven wrong and the IPCC acknowledged this in its most recent report, IPCC AR5. It spends a lot of time in AR5 trying to justify their failed models. Why would any reasonable person make catastrophic economic policybase on failed models. The 97% of scientists figure is bogus and anyone who knows where this figure came from knows it is bogus. It came from a since debunked paper by an Australian named Cook and an e-mail survey with biased questions sent to over 11,000 scientists, of which only 79 replied. Neither could stand up to 10 minutes of scrutiny from a high school statistics class.
NOAA has continuously adjusted it's global temperature data sets to show more recent warming and a colder past than indicated by raw temperature data. This is how they came up with 2014 being the hotest year on record when the 3 other major data sets disagree.
The IPCC's models predicting continued temperature increases that correspond directly with increases in atmospheric Co2 have proven wrong and the IPCC acknowledged this in its most recent report, IPCC AR5. It spends a lot of time in AR5 trying to justify their failed models. Why would any reasonable person make catastrophic economic policybase on failed models. The 97% of scientists figure is bogus and anyone who knows where this figure came from knows it is bogus. It came from a since debunked paper by an Australian named Cook and an e-mail survey with biased questions sent to over 11,000 scientists, of which only 79 replied. Neither could stand up to 10 minutes of scrutiny from a high school statistics class.
7
Let's see, shall I listen to some nobody on the internet or the research results of tens of thousands of Ph.D. climate scientists who've studied this for decades?
Do you really think that your readers are that dumb?
Do you really think that your readers are that dumb?
12
No, actually about 120 ppm are man-made (and more man-made carbon dioxide has been taken up by the oceans and plants).
3
And according to AAAS, the 97% figure is "documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field."
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
7
This is not just the responsibility of nations' governments. It is a paramount responsibility of all world citizens. Educate, don't legislate. Governments should know that energy providers want to make money by selling energy. The key is to educate all consumers how to save energy with the carrot and stick being the consumers money saved.
Starting in 2003, I reduced my home energy use by 30 percent. That's long before Obama's goal in 2025. I educated my already handy mind reading many webpages. Did you know, the average home has so many air leaks to outside that added up, they would equal one open window all winter?
Empowering and educating consumers to conserve energy is the key to attaining immediate large scale reductions in carbon use. A great U.S. government website with overviews of how to weatherize your home or save energy in other many ways is; http://www.energysavers.gov Go there to start, then learn everywhere. Not only will you save tremendous amounts of energy, but also YOUR MONEY.
Although alternative energy means have become remarkably more efficient and cheaper, they are still no reason to delay conservation measures, a terribly underutilized means of immediate and a highly effective means of reducing carbon emissions NOW.
Government funds are best spent promoting energy conservation everywhere for very large scale immediate carbon reductions.
While you're at it........Plant trees everywhere and anywhere.
Remember this; Conserve energy, save money!
Starting in 2003, I reduced my home energy use by 30 percent. That's long before Obama's goal in 2025. I educated my already handy mind reading many webpages. Did you know, the average home has so many air leaks to outside that added up, they would equal one open window all winter?
Empowering and educating consumers to conserve energy is the key to attaining immediate large scale reductions in carbon use. A great U.S. government website with overviews of how to weatherize your home or save energy in other many ways is; http://www.energysavers.gov Go there to start, then learn everywhere. Not only will you save tremendous amounts of energy, but also YOUR MONEY.
Although alternative energy means have become remarkably more efficient and cheaper, they are still no reason to delay conservation measures, a terribly underutilized means of immediate and a highly effective means of reducing carbon emissions NOW.
Government funds are best spent promoting energy conservation everywhere for very large scale immediate carbon reductions.
While you're at it........Plant trees everywhere and anywhere.
Remember this; Conserve energy, save money!
61
Weatherizing your home and making it energy efficient costs money. There's a significant initial outlay that you recoup only very very gradually over time.
I would love to replace my drafty windows, for instance. But where's the money supposed to come from? The cost would be at least $10,000 for my home. Tax credits just reward those who already have the money to pay for improvements. What we need is a program of low-cost loans based on household income, with a lump sum repayment should you sell your house.
I would love to replace my drafty windows, for instance. But where's the money supposed to come from? The cost would be at least $10,000 for my home. Tax credits just reward those who already have the money to pay for improvements. What we need is a program of low-cost loans based on household income, with a lump sum repayment should you sell your house.
1
Is Obama, a one time congressman from the corn growing state of Illinois, about to end the ethanol mandate? No? - then he's just not that into serious political risk in combating climate change.
5
The President was never a Congressman from anywhere.
He was a State Senator in Illinois.
He was a United States Senator from Illinois.
Faux leave this out of the talking points today?
He was a State Senator in Illinois.
He was a United States Senator from Illinois.
Faux leave this out of the talking points today?
11
Charleston will see major flooding from rising sea levels and climate change by that far off date of 2020:
http://tinyurl.com/psega7y
http://tinyurl.com/psega7y
4
When the climate bomb hits the fan, who will take the blame when the Syrian refugee crisis looks like an afternoon picnic. When millions and millions of New Yorkers are looking for high ground,and millions and millions of looking for water in Africa --- who says--- boy I missed that one.
37
There are no emotional solutions to technical problems. All the blame and emotion in these comments are foolish pandering for political purpose. There are only technical solutions to climate control. Please check your emotions at the door and get a technical education so you can actually develop an affordable, non political, non wealth redistribution solution.
2
Climate change continues to reveal the frightening consequences of trends in weather and resulting stresses on the ecosystem. The only things scarier may be the things we have yet to discover.
3
Nonsense. Kyoto made the same claim. Deal? With who? All know that when you deal with politicians, the country does not matter, they will lie, cheat and steal, no different with 'deals' on climate change. Be honest, the group assembled in Paris is nothing short of a corrupt group of people hell bent on fleecing the developed countries. To think otherwise puts you in the delusional zone, where 'stupidness' reins. There is no hoax, all know what s going on.
1
Good grief, and we live on the same planet. It's all a hoax, aimed at "fleecing the developed countries?" Maybe Coolhunter also thinks the U.S. government is "stealing" its citizens' social security, just to make one other guess.
2
Is it necessary to eat so much meat? For most people, it is—simply because of habit, culture, taste.
Many organizations and individuals have acknowledged that animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas production, but nevertheless China's hunger for meat—and thus its meat production—is on the rise. Is this fair? Is it sustainable?
Dairy and egg production also produce greenhouse gases, and this is ultimately hurtful to the biosphere. I'm aware that for most people, the satiation of their hunger is of paramount importance, but this isn't sustainable even in the short term.
Worldwide, vegetarians account for only 3% of the population, a figure that's remained static for well over ten years. This figure will probably go down as the birth rate increases; current projections show the world's population peaking at about 10 billion—not 9, as was previously projected.
I hope the climate talks are taking population growth into account as a factor in climate change.
Many organizations and individuals have acknowledged that animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas production, but nevertheless China's hunger for meat—and thus its meat production—is on the rise. Is this fair? Is it sustainable?
Dairy and egg production also produce greenhouse gases, and this is ultimately hurtful to the biosphere. I'm aware that for most people, the satiation of their hunger is of paramount importance, but this isn't sustainable even in the short term.
Worldwide, vegetarians account for only 3% of the population, a figure that's remained static for well over ten years. This figure will probably go down as the birth rate increases; current projections show the world's population peaking at about 10 billion—not 9, as was previously projected.
I hope the climate talks are taking population growth into account as a factor in climate change.
9
I've heard the projections for world population peak to be more like 11 billion around 2055-60(?). I hope your figure is more accurate than mine.
And as far as meat is concerned I think the price of meat should reflect the extremely costly product that it is. So much of that industry is subsidized either directly or indirectly. I myself only eat Oregon raised 100% grass fed meat, when I eat beef that is. And I don't eat it that often. I get that from a regional market chain here that works hard at sustainability and local sourcing.
Yeah New Seasons! No, I don't work for them, btw. They're just everything Safeway is not.
And as far as meat is concerned I think the price of meat should reflect the extremely costly product that it is. So much of that industry is subsidized either directly or indirectly. I myself only eat Oregon raised 100% grass fed meat, when I eat beef that is. And I don't eat it that often. I get that from a regional market chain here that works hard at sustainability and local sourcing.
Yeah New Seasons! No, I don't work for them, btw. They're just everything Safeway is not.
2
Mother Earth will take care of population growth when there is not enough arable land left to grow food for everybody.
2
I'm sure you don't eat beef every day, but let me respectfully say you're still part of the problem. Cattle are far thirstier than almonds, even if people were trying to point the finger at the almond growers in the earlier stages of the drought.
It's great that you bring up how heavily subsidized the meat—and dairy—industry is; if fruits and vegetables were given equivalent subsidies, they'd be ridiculously cheap—even the organic ones.
It's great that you bring up how heavily subsidized the meat—and dairy—industry is; if fruits and vegetables were given equivalent subsidies, they'd be ridiculously cheap—even the organic ones.
4
The picture used here is out of place. The drought affecting the Colorado has been extensively studied. An 80 page synthesis of existing studies, produced by the American Meteorological Society, concluded that "projections of future climate change impacts on Colorado River streamflow will always be uncertain". Last year, the Times reported on the publication and contents of this synthesis. It also reported an authoritative study that the California drought is a complex matter and that the role of climate change in California is uncertain at best. The Times staff should really read the Times. A picture of a polar bear on melting ice would have been so much better. When climate change is reported on, there is no reason to give ammunition to the lunatic fringe. But that's exactly what happens when droughts of uncertain origin are treated as prime examples of climate change.
7
How many mistakes and how much misinformation does the "lunatic fringe" have to endure before they're not considered either?
1
What are the chances that China will abide by its promises? Any Las Vegas oddsmakers out there?
4
The chances are pretty good. They already lead the world in manufacturing alternative energy technology. The United States could have been, but we can't get past the lunatics who believe that 100 world leaders are meeting in Paris because a bunch of lying scientists want more grant money. They are looking towards the future, without the great mass of delusional obstruction that the U.S. struggles with. They are one of the only countries that are trying to deal with population control. The United States could be leading the world in that regard as well, but we have to deal with a population that actually believes the earth is 6ooo years old and jebus is coming back any minute so it doesn't matter. They are doing a hell of a lot better with climate change than we are.
16
Do you have any idea just how bad the toxic pollution is that is coming from China's solar panel industry? Just their "normal" urban pollution is worse than most anything seen in the US. Nor are they well known for keeping promises that they decide later aren't in their best interests after all.
No cheers for China.
No cheers for China.
2
One wants to hope for the best outcome of the International Climate Conference this week in Paris. If a great undersea volcano erupts there will be untold consequences. If heat waves, cold waves, droughts, fires and unpredictable ocean currents and huge gyres of human waste in the seas continue to plague us, these are more signs of climate change . That the ice sheets are calving, crumbling, melting in the arctic and antarctic and otters dying of strange viruses and polar bears lean and hungry skipping on ice floes seeking fish from a fished out ocean - these are also unhappy signs of changes on Earth. Unless human activity is curbed, the inconvenient truth of a dying planet will occur. But, oh so fortunately for us, here comes the sun!
17
Lower sea levels correlate with more undersea volcanoes. Heat waves, cold waves, droughts, fires and the like are happening no more often. Ocean currents are only unpredictable to the extent that we don't know enough yet. Human waste, while not a good thing, has nothing to do with climate change. ice sheets always calve, That's their normal cycle. The loss of sea ice in the Arctic has slowed and the Antarctic is actually *gaining* ice sheet mass as well as sea ice. There are always new viruses mutations and species transfers. Polar bears over all are doing fairly well. There's more than 5 times as many of them as there used to be.
Why is it that if a person hasn't seen something before, that means it has never happened before? Why is it that lack of knowledge is touted as knowledge and that complexity is passed off as simplicity? Why do we continue to let power hungry people scare us into willingly giving more and more control over our own lives away?
Why is it that if a person hasn't seen something before, that means it has never happened before? Why is it that lack of knowledge is touted as knowledge and that complexity is passed off as simplicity? Why do we continue to let power hungry people scare us into willingly giving more and more control over our own lives away?
2
Diane:
Climate change alarmists are dealing with only the very recent (relatively) past, and even there they have to keep finessing the numbers. History provides its own rebuke, which is why scientific research cannot be disconnected from history.
Climate change alarmists are dealing with only the very recent (relatively) past, and even there they have to keep finessing the numbers. History provides its own rebuke, which is why scientific research cannot be disconnected from history.
1
IF is the biggest word in the English language
The entire world is coming together, for perhaps the first time in history, to take critical action save the habitability of our planet.
The republicans are playing with snow balls.
The republicans are playing with snow balls.
71
Hey, look "conservatives", there's plenty of money to be made trying to limit climate change and mitigate it's horrendous effects. Does that help assuage your resistance to believing the overwhelming science that has confirmed the reality of human caused climate change? I mean, for Pete sakes even Fox News doesn't talk anymore of it being a hoax.
8
How typical of President photo op Obama and all the other hypocrites to jet to Paris. Why not teleconference? Limousine liberals at it again. Sacrifices for everyone else except themselves.
9
Take the fun out of the life of politicians? Don't be silly, all life a good 'dog and pony' show.
3
And what have YOU done to address, or even understand, the problem?
7
Try a teleconference with five people. Now imagine hundreds.
10
Who takes any comfort in this effort that will only mitigate the worst effects of climate change? Who among us imagines that there is, as is oh-so-daintily described, "political will" in the United States to regulate polluters? Republican presidential candidates already promise to reverse any limits on pollution on behalf of Peabody Coal. Because of Republican intransigence on this issue for the last 30 years -- their denial and their lies in obedience to their fossil-fuel clients -- who doubts we will blow through heat records, suffer droughts, resource wars and rising seas, and all the misery scientists and the military has warned us we face? Instead of wasting time and energy imagining otherwise, let us turn our attention to giving Republican leadership the credit they deserve. Before our systems collapse, and ruination sets in, let us thank Republican leadership for their deliberate ignorance, recklessness, and irresponsibility that brought us this suffering. Let us build a Global Warming Wall of Shame as a reminder to their children and grandchildren that their Republican grandparents did the dirty work of lying to the American people and the whole world on behalf of fossil-fuel industrialists, that they ignored the warnings of the world's climate scientists and instead of steering us into safety, guaranteed disaster. Let it be a granite obelisk sited way above sea level, naming names, and preserving the memory of their monumental stupidity forever.
50
The thing that surprises me is the speed and alacrity with which climate change deniers have jumped into this forum. (And the relatively low level of comment from better educated people.)
I think that people who have actually studied our future here have finally concluded that the future is lost now. Only the deluded are still fighting the battle, not realizing that they have lost ... not to science and reason ... but to the inevitable collapse of the environment.
I think that people who have actually studied our future here have finally concluded that the future is lost now. Only the deluded are still fighting the battle, not realizing that they have lost ... not to science and reason ... but to the inevitable collapse of the environment.
5
Science and reason? These are things politicians do not deal in, it is all about political power.
3
V. in Bklyn, NY to Dan Mabbutt in Utah
Low level of comment from a non denier? Ok, I'm late and I'm busted, but maybe my reason will keep me out of the dog house. My family and I were in lower Manhattan, New York yesterday 11/29/15, participating in a Climate Change march. I've got the aching feet to prove it.
,
I figured better to walk the walk, now, and I could read and comment a little later. If that doesn't get me off the hook, nothing will!
BTW, re: "I think." I'll take that literally. You think but you're not sure. Even so, I say don't give up. I won't. I can't. We must continue to do all that we possibly can, for as long as we can. At least we can tell ourselves that we tried. If all we have to show it is our efforts, well, that's better than nothing and so be it. I can live with that and at least I can sleep at night.
I bid you peace.
Submitted 11/30/15@4:57 a.m. e.s.t.
Low level of comment from a non denier? Ok, I'm late and I'm busted, but maybe my reason will keep me out of the dog house. My family and I were in lower Manhattan, New York yesterday 11/29/15, participating in a Climate Change march. I've got the aching feet to prove it.
,
I figured better to walk the walk, now, and I could read and comment a little later. If that doesn't get me off the hook, nothing will!
BTW, re: "I think." I'll take that literally. You think but you're not sure. Even so, I say don't give up. I won't. I can't. We must continue to do all that we possibly can, for as long as we can. At least we can tell ourselves that we tried. If all we have to show it is our efforts, well, that's better than nothing and so be it. I can live with that and at least I can sleep at night.
I bid you peace.
Submitted 11/30/15@4:57 a.m. e.s.t.
Any progress at Paris will be good news for the world. What an unbelievable experience it is to read just some of these early negative (and absurdly uninformed and gratuitous) comments on climate change. Thankfully, at least through 2016, our country is being led by smart people. It's like the Iran deal all over again, etc., etc. Oh well, and after all, we do have a democracy still, and may the expression of opinions stay alive and well, despite what side I personally am on.
17
It would be wonderful if conservatives were not climate deniers. What good is money if we have no inhabitable planet?
21
Silly. No one denies the climate is changing. The issue is what is changing it.
4
There has been no debate among climate scientists for decades as to whether or not AGW is real and bad. They do debate about how fast things are going to get really ugly.
It is only those fooled by the fossil-fuel-funded PR campaign that remain confused about the cause of global warming after the Industrial Revolution.
It is only those fooled by the fossil-fuel-funded PR campaign that remain confused about the cause of global warming after the Industrial Revolution.
22
A fool's errand if there ever was one:
- planet earth = change...geologic, climate, etc.
- ice ages = glaciers...then they melt...(otherwise, from the North Pole to Glen Rock NJ would be under a mile of ice)...until the NEXT ice age.
- planet earth = change...geologic, climate, etc.
- ice ages = glaciers...then they melt...(otherwise, from the North Pole to Glen Rock NJ would be under a mile of ice)...until the NEXT ice age.
5
Misleading? Lake Powell was built in September of 1963. This is the worst drought since that time. And, whether the pictures are the best fit for the article is inconsequential. Climate change is real, and is already responsible for the beginning of the only mass extinction in the history of our planet that was caused by a planetary life form, and not natural climate, or astronomical forces., Or....perhaps you think it's all about grant money. Or maybe some mythical figure will never let it happen. Yes. Ice ages happen. They are very.........very.........slow. We, however, are doing it with the speed, and ignorance, of spitting a wad of gum onto a hot sidewalk. If we cannot change what we have done, or simply refuse to see it, we deserve the extinction we will bring down upon ourselves.
4
What we need in the U.S. is some of our philanthropists to fund research in green energy, and not just solar, geothermal, and wind, but tidal and wave. Perhaps some of the vast fortunes made in exploiting fossil fuels and warming the earth can now be used in reparation and provide such funding? Either we do something now, or our children will blame us and our grandchildren curse us. We continue to live in hope, but we are running out of time to change.
11
Both photographs published with this article-- of "smoke" billowing into the air from a Chinese steel factory, and of the drought-stricken Lake Powell shoreline-- are typical and misleading: That's mostly steam, not smoke, dissipated within 2-3 hundred meters of the cooling towers; and the Lake Powell area has historically been smitten with much more serious and long lasting droughts than the present one, as paleontological records attest.
8
“The cost of action is not $100 billion,” said Prakash Javadekar, the Indian environment minister. “It is trillions; $100 billion is just a reparation.”
...
Unfortunately, the world’s biggest polluters also happen to be the one of the most corrupt. And they know there is trillions to be made, if they play this game right.
The current emission baseline in these countries is not clear. By agreeing to a percentage reduction without committing to absolute numbers, and by fudging the numbers, they can make trillions without actually doing anything about it.
This is quite like terrorism that some countries have specialized in, and have been making billions to restrain their terror cells.
The carbon emissions must be treated much like we should treat terrorism, more so since the two are increasingly intertwined --- (a) demonstrate zero tolerance, and (b) call out these countries to be with us or against us in the global war against these clear and present dangers of terrorism and global warming.
...
Unfortunately, the world’s biggest polluters also happen to be the one of the most corrupt. And they know there is trillions to be made, if they play this game right.
The current emission baseline in these countries is not clear. By agreeing to a percentage reduction without committing to absolute numbers, and by fudging the numbers, they can make trillions without actually doing anything about it.
This is quite like terrorism that some countries have specialized in, and have been making billions to restrain their terror cells.
The carbon emissions must be treated much like we should treat terrorism, more so since the two are increasingly intertwined --- (a) demonstrate zero tolerance, and (b) call out these countries to be with us or against us in the global war against these clear and present dangers of terrorism and global warming.
1
The world used its CO2 budget for 2 degrees celcius global warming, already in 2000. Therefore we need to reduce CO2 production quickly.
Not with divest, but by making CCS a mandatory technology for all 2000 power plants in the world.
With the mineral olivine there is no efficiency reduction, and CO2 is fixed in solid matter. This technology van be profitable export product for countries that have coal or olivine.
The techology wiil also increase the power price, a few cents.
But this means that renewable power does not need any state aid that it can freely compete on price and quality with fossil power.
Not with divest, but by making CCS a mandatory technology for all 2000 power plants in the world.
With the mineral olivine there is no efficiency reduction, and CO2 is fixed in solid matter. This technology van be profitable export product for countries that have coal or olivine.
The techology wiil also increase the power price, a few cents.
But this means that renewable power does not need any state aid that it can freely compete on price and quality with fossil power.
2
Peter Kohler, a scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany who led the study on which the calculation is based, called olivine mining dispersal an”inefficient” solution to climate change. A January 2014 Nature article notes that grinding up that much rock might also create a lot of dust, which would be injurious to humans’ respiratory health.
2
An accord is needed not to save the planet but to save ourselves. The planet is 4.5 billion years old and will survive for another 5 billion years or so until the Sun becomes a red giant. Species come and go and eventual extinction is a probable fate for humanity. New species might find a niche in a warmer Earth. The planet doesn't need us. We need the planet.
155
So, things will take care of themselves. Best the Paris meeting be cancelled, at once. No reason for these politicians to have fun at our expense.
2
Yes, but we need to do things that work. What this conference is about is a large transfer of money from industrialized countries to developing countries, ie: countries that are extremely corrupt run by tyrants and dictators at worst and corrupt political strongmen at best. In other words many of these countries are there for payola. They will throw up a few windmills and steal the rest.
Then there is China and India that are using this conference to get developed countries to raise their costs so that they can compete better. India and China have no intention, nor do we have any way to enforce, their emissions goals.
The only real solution is geo-engineering or something akin to that, but then the big energy solar and wind lobby won't let that happen.
Then there is China and India that are using this conference to get developed countries to raise their costs so that they can compete better. India and China have no intention, nor do we have any way to enforce, their emissions goals.
The only real solution is geo-engineering or something akin to that, but then the big energy solar and wind lobby won't let that happen.
Did you read this? “The cost of action is not $100 billion,” said Prakash Javadekar, the Indian environment minister. “It is trillions; $100 billion is just a reparation.” Watch Obama agree to paying "reparations" at the expense of American taxpayers. He will agree to punish the poorest of Americans with higher energy and product costs rolled down from all the corporations he plans to fine and tax. Meanwhile the rest of the world and the "climate" will do as it pleases. The naive zealots supporting this destruction of the free world economy will surely get what they deserve. Glad I'm a senior citizen.
4
if we were serious I think the president would have already mandated federal buildings to have thermostats set at 65 degrees in winter and 80 in summer. but I bet that hasn't occurred to him
18
What gives me hope is that there is more widespread agreement worldwide that human activity impacts climate and that these impacts are largely negative. This pushes skeptics to the margins and is a necessary precondition to any international agreement.
In North America, our actions at the local, regional and provincial/statewide levels are preparing the groundwork for such an agreement, I think we're nearly there and, together with European and other Nations, we will soon be able to push for a breakthrough.
In North America, our actions at the local, regional and provincial/statewide levels are preparing the groundwork for such an agreement, I think we're nearly there and, together with European and other Nations, we will soon be able to push for a breakthrough.
32
There is also a lot of money behind the green movement. Look how Al Gore Cashed in. The other side never gets reported while the pro-Green movement is always presented in a positive light in the media. NASA just released a photo showing that the ice cap in Antarctica is expanding. And this is settled science?
The 24 chromosome crowd will be gathering in Paris to push through their Lysenko-ism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Science died in the IPCC long ago. The only "consensus" is that government funding turned science into prostitution. Sad that the media had become a left wing lap dog and longer challenges the absurdity of these climate charlatans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Science died in the IPCC long ago. The only "consensus" is that government funding turned science into prostitution. Sad that the media had become a left wing lap dog and longer challenges the absurdity of these climate charlatans.
7
The illustration of Lake Powell on the Colorado River as the icon of climate change immediately caught my interest. I live near there.
This is becoming one of the first American battlegrounds of climate change and it will become more interesting. The main problem is that the agreement dividing up the Colorado River is based on a lie: the Colorado Compact signed in 1922. This was a period of relatively high rainfall and the guarantees of water promised to each state don't exist. The ONLY thing keeping the lie alive right now is that some states haven't figured out how to use their full allotment.
They will!
Utah ... my state has several water using initiatives in the works right now. So does New Mexico.
The Governor of Arizona called out the Arizona National Guard ... to confront California! ... in 1934. History could repeat!!!
This is becoming one of the first American battlegrounds of climate change and it will become more interesting. The main problem is that the agreement dividing up the Colorado River is based on a lie: the Colorado Compact signed in 1922. This was a period of relatively high rainfall and the guarantees of water promised to each state don't exist. The ONLY thing keeping the lie alive right now is that some states haven't figured out how to use their full allotment.
They will!
Utah ... my state has several water using initiatives in the works right now. So does New Mexico.
The Governor of Arizona called out the Arizona National Guard ... to confront California! ... in 1934. History could repeat!!!
6
What you describe is what is in store on a global basis. Think about it, promises and agreements being made that will never be fulfilled. Now, let me see, who will be the 'Global National Guard'? O will call them out, the day before he leaves office. Trust me, I know.
1
I guess Coolhunter doesn't like Obama. Trust him, Obama is awful, as he "knows" so well. Where do people like this come from???
All these "global warming"/"climate change" weirdos are going to accomplish is bankrupting the world's economies and ushering in the next Ice Age.
9
What do you mean? I sincerely don't understand which side of the issue you're on and your comment is vague
2
That's energy industry rhetoric. If you save energy, you will save money while reducing carbon emissions. Why pay energy companies more than you have to?
2
Maitland, Florida is 27 meters above sea level, so you've got a couple hundred years before it goes away...
1
I wish I was in Paris for the Climate Change Conference. Not only to stick my thumb in the nose of the terrorists, but to try to understand the logic of the largest multi-national agreement in the history of the world. Never has 200 let alone 100 countries in the world ever agreed to anything, especially anything enforceable.
Paris 2015 is also the grand party for all of the big alternative energy people, including it's billionaires, who will be out marketing their "global saving" products in force. Here is the issue, since start of these conferences in 1993 they have accomplished nothing. The tyrants and dictators of the third world will all be there looking for their share of the billions that are suppose to be distributed to the developing world to help with climate change. Now, that is what I call a party!
The only thing that will world to help prevent climate change is something real, like geo-engineering. But then that doesn't involved transferring money from real economies to corrupt economies, or trillions into the coffers of big energy, that is big wind and solar energy. I simply don't get why people don't see the tremendous conflict, conflicts of interest that this conference promotes. Indeed, that is what will invalidate this conference in the long run.
The solution to pollution is not political dilution.
Paris 2015 is also the grand party for all of the big alternative energy people, including it's billionaires, who will be out marketing their "global saving" products in force. Here is the issue, since start of these conferences in 1993 they have accomplished nothing. The tyrants and dictators of the third world will all be there looking for their share of the billions that are suppose to be distributed to the developing world to help with climate change. Now, that is what I call a party!
The only thing that will world to help prevent climate change is something real, like geo-engineering. But then that doesn't involved transferring money from real economies to corrupt economies, or trillions into the coffers of big energy, that is big wind and solar energy. I simply don't get why people don't see the tremendous conflict, conflicts of interest that this conference promotes. Indeed, that is what will invalidate this conference in the long run.
The solution to pollution is not political dilution.
4
Seems you are on to something, that being politicians gathered to arrange transfer of large amounts of money to their personal pockets. You would be fool to think otherwise.
3
Obama is going there with an agreement that has no teeth because of our Congress refuses or says they do not believe in global warming, will not allow it to be legally binding! Shame on them!!
35
Why do I sense another world disaster is about to occur in Paris?
5
Obama is already a world disaster.
6
Disaster? Only if you believe this conference is about climate change. It really is about politicians gathered to line their pockets with cash, most American cash.
4
I believe it is going to be crucial to abandon the term "Climate Change" as Big Energy lobbying interests have done such a thorough job of making that a "controversial" topic in the minds of too many Americans. They won, so let's abandon that as we really don't need it, and that term has become so toxic and divisive. It is plenty that carbon fuels will continue to destroy the air, water, and soil we so depend on in order to survive so let's focus on that issue. Clean air, water, and soil are things we can ALL agree upon!
4
I suggest 'Cash Change', for that is really what the matter is all about. We give, they take.
3
But if you disagree with climate change in Paris and say so, you will be tear gassed and arrested. How tolerant they are of dissent. True believers are that way all over the World.
4
FYI it's protestors demanding more be done that are being gassed. There aren't any deniers protesting there.
6
Anthropogenic "interference" is not a vice unique to modernity. In fact, it is not a vice at all. The correct word is not "interference." It is "interaction."
As for anthropogenic contamination, it arguably started c. 10,000 BC, when Homo sapiens began farming.
The pseudo estrogens, discussed in the current (obliquely) related Kristoff piece, exist naturally in many of our food.
Isoflavones in dairy: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html
Isoflavones in soy/legumes: http://www.isoflavones.info/isoflavones-content.php
Theoretically, anything we touch, anything we swallow, anything we breathe, is a potential toxin.
Modernity exacerbates the problem because:
(1) increased anthropogenic interaction increases exposure
(2) increased lifespan and technological advancement increase exposure
(3) a potential toxin actualizes when time since exposure, a function of lifespan, exceeds the toxin's latency period.