Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change? 462
Hugh Pickens writes "David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate. But behind the scenes, a different story is emerging that offers reason for optimism: the world's largest economies may be in the process of creating a climate-change response that does not depend on the politically painful process of raising the price of dirty energy. Despite some high-profile flops, like ethanol and Solyndra, clean-energy investments seem to be succeeding more than they are failing. 'The price of solar and wind power have both fallen sharply in the last few years. This country's largest wind farm, sprawling across eastern Oregon, is scheduled to open next month. Already, the world uses vastly more alternative energy than experts predicted only a decade ago,' writes Leonhardt. Natural gas, the use of which has jumped 25 percent since 2008 while prices have fallen more than 80 percent, now generates as much electricity as coal in the United States, which would have been unthinkable not long ago. Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible which, while far from perfectly clean, is less carbon-intensive than coal use. The clean-energy push has been successful enough to leave many climate advocates believing it is the single best hope for preventing even hotter summers, concludes Leonhardt, adding that while a cap-and-trade program faces an uphill political battle, an investment program that aims to make alternative energy less expensive is more politically feasible. 'Our best hope,' says Benjamin H. Strauss, 'is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.'"
In the good ole' USA it's dead (Score:0, Informative)
And mainly because of the great job of idiots who can't seem to make any decisions for themselves unless it's tied to money, power and greed (e.g. politicians). Never mind that 1/2 of Greenland just fell off last week and into the ocean, or that the oceans are actually rising or that the wildfires this year were the worst ever, or the worst drought in the USA since 52, or that the inland lakes and waterways are mostly
off-limits to dangerous levels of algae and e-Coli.
Nothing is wrong - nothing is strange - and 85 degrees for a week is common in the upper-Midwest (sorry Apple, Cherry, Plum, Peach and Pear farmers) in the middle of February....
What a joke this country has become in so many senses!!!
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have reading comprehension problems? The quoted text says "on record". Go look back how far we've been keeping temperature records. Nobody was sitting around with thermometers in the Paleozoic era.
FWIW, Antarctica is still a desert.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:4, Informative)
Bear in mind, those years where during a period where normal cycles should have been flat of slight cooler.
That's why they are more proof of Man Made Climate change.
It's also important to remind people like that because some conservatives make the bald face lie that the last decade or so was cooler. When presented with the actual facts, they refuse to reconsider their opinion. So we need to counter the people spreading that lie as well.
Could it be more precise? probably. OTOH if you want that level or precision there are plenty of excellent scientific papers on the subject
Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:5, Informative)
Natural gas is not clean energy. I seem to remember that the greenhouse gasses emitted during extraction and processing of shale gas, which is the source of most of our current boom IIRC, offsets any benefits. Does anyone know?
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that the U.S. also wasn't around in the Mesozoic. It's not even 250 years old.
Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change? (Score:2, Informative)
That's an easy one:
"No."
Next question please.
Re:In the good ole' USA it's dead (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it's perfectly clear that the "on record" qualifier still applies to the immediately appended parenthetical about the 13 warmest years, goldfish brain.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Informative)
The 13 years are those for which we have records. When the Earth was covered with lava, I don't think anyone had a thermometer, smarty pants.
The vast majority of scientists in the applicable field believe the Earth is warming. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
The vast majority of those scientists believe that the warming is being significantly accelerated by human processes, and that the trend line is far sharper than standard climatic cycles would ordinary produce. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
Most outcome predictions based on the rate of change we're seeing include massive effects on humanity. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
But sadly, you are our problem. People who, despite growing evidence, fail to grasp the urgency of the matter will be our collective downfall. Even though I tend to get very frustrated at the ignorance, I've pretty much just come to accept it. The thing that really ticks me off is that my children will suffer because of people like you, spreading the "it's not that bad" schtick.
And by the way, industry can mean a lot of things. A clean energy industry would be awesome.
It's science, not hyperbole. (Score:5, Informative)
thank you, at least someone gets it. We have only been keeping detailed weather records for around 100 years and now were supposed to believe that this is the hottest its ever been, thats crazy.
No, he doesn't "get it". Have you never heard of paleoclimatology? Scientists down in Antarctica have sampled cores of ice that have been trapped for millennia, and have been able to correlate the temperatures of the ice as well as trapped atmospheric particles with the time they were trapped. From them, they have determined an approximation of the average global temperature back through time, as well as estimates of things like the percentage of Earth's surface covered by wetlands based on methane levels indicating decomposed bacteria.
The Antarctic ice sheet has a pretty good record going all the way back to the previous ice age and a bit earlier. It's not like an almanac, where they can ask "what was the temperature on July 4th, 4004 BC", but they can see slow moving trends. For example, they can see a small dip that correlates to the Little Ice Age, and a more dramatic dip from an earlier ice age.
And the ice sheets aren't the only evidence. Geological records also contain clues about the earlier weather, in the forms of rock scratchings where they were pushed by glaciers, glacial moraines, ancient dried lake beds, etc. And the distribution of fossils can show where climates went from "hospitable" to "inhospitable" to certain forms of ancient life.
It's just the kind of data you need to have if you are trying to figure out if this decade is warmer than all previous decades in the last 40,000 years.
There is nothing crazy about it. It's just science.
Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob (Score:1, Informative)
Hotter summers AND colder winters are BOTH validation of the scientific theory of anthropogenic global climate change. Indeed, that's EXACTLY what the theory precisely predicted. More CO2 means more heat absorption. More heat absorption means more atmospheric internal energy.
More internal energy means more entropy and extremer extremes. So we'll get records on both ends: higher highs and lower lows. Wetter floods and dryer droughts. Et cetera.
We are seeing exactly, almost down to the year, what was predicted by the rigorous scientific models of the impact of increased anthropogenic (not anthropomorphic) CO2 emissions.
So when you wonder why the "warmists" (whatever that means) "ignore" every time there's a cold winter, they don't. They know that it's exactly what the theory was predicting all along.
Frankly, I'm not waiting for the invasive species to come out in force before we start junking the SUVs.
Re:It's always been TOO LATE (Score:5, Informative)
From 2009, Obama has four years to save the world [examiner.com].
From 2009, Global Warming is now irreversible [slashdot.org]
From 2006, the end of the world as we know it [smh.com.au]
2005, Past the Point of No Return [independent.co.uk]
2004, Damage becoming irreversible [commondreams.org]
1989, We Have 10 Years [newsbank.com].
Personally I think we've missed a huge opportunity to fund fusion [imgur.com] research [slashdot.org]. It wouldn't actually take that much from a global community perspective. If Copenhagen had focused on funding Fusion instead of trying to make transfer payments to 3rd world countries, they could have gotten support and actually accomplished something. It would have been great. Oh well.
Re:Speaking of hyperbole... (Score:2, Informative)
Personally, I'm a lot sicker of people talking about "crazy-eyed alarmists" preaching that "the fucking end is nigh." Who, specifically, are these "crazy-eyed alarmists" and where are they making such predictions?
Hey, and I'm sick of people who are sick of things without even using sick Google! Here's one example of what an alarmist said [nytimes.com]:
Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.....If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.
He's trying to be alarmist, he's not hiding or denying that; he wants you to think it's apocalyptic. If you look at his predictions, a lot of them are wild and not backed up by science. "Over the next several decades,....California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated." There is absolutely not scientific consensus on these ideas, and climate models are known to be inaccurate at such small scales.
And this is one of the world's most prominent climatologists.
Re:Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:5, Informative)
The more subtle point is that on the one hand it is notably better than burning coal for energy, but on the other hand CH4 is such a potent greenhouse gas that if very much at all is leaked in the process of drilling/shipping/storage, then all the benefits are lost.
Re:It's always been TOO LATE (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What are we doing about it? (Score:5, Informative)
Solar attic vent made a big difference to me. The air started blowing colder in seconds after it startted.
If you are in the south, EER matters more than SEER.
I found that wrapping the ductwork in radiant barrier was cheap and highly effective.
I mostly went straight to LED. 3000kelvin is a better quality light than 2900 (too orange).
The new 3500 kelvin CFL light from Home depot (red box) is nice. Real white- not blue- light.
My bill is down from 1500kwh to 1243 kwh.
I recently bought a "Spinray" solar panel. These only make sense at $500 a panel. With federal tax credit they currently run $1000. They were $700 with credit when I bought mine but they shot up in price.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:2, Informative)