I’m on my phone so can’t post the text but this piece states another troubling aspect of climate change. Native Americans were driven off most of their land and the reservations they were forced onto we’re in many cases marginal land already that settlers didn’t want. That means that issues of climate change are affecting them worse than in many other places where drought is more severe or in coastal places the land was already frequently flooding is now disappearing as sea levels rise. In the Arctic native communities living on permafrost are facing problems as the permafrost melts. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/climate/climate-Native-Americans.html
The arrogance and shear ignorance of this post is hilarious. Butterfly flapping its wings impacts the climate? Get off your Nitrous man. that's not even what the theory is saying. Yes there are benefits to climate change if you live in Canada or Russia. So may you commodore, or should i say comrade, will benefit. Oh, and North Face doesn't produce single use plastics which is the real issue. You do realize that ever human on earth pretty much uses plastics. We don't need to ban the use of plastics to stop global warming. Nearly all the problem comes from the burning of fossil fuels, not using them in plastics.
The fact that Global Cooling was a concern in the 1970's shows that Climate Science isn't something that is fixed and pre-decided but that it does change based upon new information. There is good information that the Earth should be moving into a cooling phase but that empirical evidence has been coming in showing that it isn't is part of the reason why global warming is now more accepted.
Yeah, Siberia will be the next breadbasket of the world.. Calgary is already Texas-like... Might as well add the oppressive heat
According to the report, U.S. coastal communities saw twice as many high tide flooding days than they did 20 years ago — and the trend of near-record high tides is expected to continue through April 2022, as well as in decades to come. Along the Southeast Atlantic and Gulf coastlines, 14 locations set or tied records where rapidly increasing trends in high-tide flooding have emerged. “NOAA’s tide gauges show that 80% of locations where we collect data along the Southeast Atlantic and Gulf coast are seeing an acceleration in the number of flood days,” said Nicole LeBoeuf, director of NOAA’s National Ocean Service. “High-tide flooding disrupts people’s lives when they can’t get to and from work or have to repeatedly deal with a flooded basement. NOAA is committed to working with coastal communities to provide the information and tools they need to tackle the problem of high-tide flooding, both now and in the coming years as sea levels continue to rise.” NOAA’s water level records highlight regions of particular concern in Texas and Florida, with records also broken along the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia. From May 2020 to April 2021, Galveston, Texas; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Bay Waveland, Mississippi set a record of more than 20 days of high tide flooding. These locations would typically only flood 2-3 days each year 20 years ago. Dauphin Island, Louisiana; Grand Isle, Louisiana; Pensacola, Florida; Trident Pier, Florida; Charleston, South Carolina; Port Isabel, Texas; Rockport, Texas; and Panama City Beach, Florida all saw between 10 and 20 days of flooding. In 2000, these locations typically saw between 0-2 days of high tide flooding. Data specific to each NOAA tide gauge included in the report can be found here. Sweet and his co-authors project that from May 2021 to April 2022, the national high tide flood frequency is expected to continue to accelerate, with U.S. coastal communities seeing on average 3 to 7 days of flooding in the coming year, as compared to 2-6 days projected just last year. Regionally, locations along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts may experience even more days of flooding each year. By 2030, long-term projections show 7-15 days per year of high-tide flooding for coastal communities nationally. By 2050, that rises to 25-75 days. These long term outlooks are based on the range of relative sea level rise, using two scenarios of the Fourth National Climate Assessment considered more likely to occur by 2030 and 2050 – Intermediate Low and Intermediate. [NASA] Study Projects a Surge in Coastal Flooding, Starting in 2030s https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01077-8.epdf?sharing_token=bs4TXGRFpfBsZzu77ulThNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MHbPaTLquRPXfAdXV2azSs0ynMBybp4vZoXVcyaozcC528W69gp8pMhWylmtuom9mzDohP67SVqYrzx8ckevuVkZF7GQNg1Gd5fGSePKGSy7u3OhqVPCQJ5s_I6Z2hcxtwdxY9LPOXdDst2gFoMVPGmrRuhW0agMV0zzRrEKXorjUI6etWDPQIbdJRb0NS0No%3D
Billionaire entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson wants you to stop eating beef to help save the planet https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/a...t/news-story/dc27f989c73645dafc4b8c41272d2f2a
I'd be posting videos of Leonard Nimoy too, if I was eating my own ass like this over the years (samples from a long career of repetitive ass-eating posts): 2009: 2015: @MojoMan - stop eating your own ass!
"5 minutes": https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-minutes/ excerpt: How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes? Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy. Each panelist was given 5 minutes to make their main points. The essay below is what i came up with. 5 minutes is longer than an elevator speech, but it is still pretty short. *** How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies. We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can. more at the link
or in the words of Steve Koonin: Practitioners argue that event attribution studies are the best climate science can do in terms of connecting weather to changes in climate. But as a physical scientist, I’m appalled that such studies are given credence, much less media coverage. A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But that’s virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. Its like a spiritual adviser who claims he influence helped you win the lottery — after you’ve already won it. . . .
James Hansen: Let’s be clear: the frequent comparison of the fossil fuel and tobacco industries is nonsense. Fossil fuels are a valuable energy source that has done yeomen service for humankind. One gallon (3.7 liters) of gasoline (petrol) contains the equivalent of 400 hours of labor by a healthy 2 adult. Fossil fuels raised living standards in much of the world. But we now understand that fossil fuel use comes with an unacceptable cost for young people and future generations. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210601_WinningTheWar.pdf
In the article linked in the tweet with another hyperlink to another piece it states that these models have sensitivities that are being assessed with historic data. Anyone who has done predictive modeling will understand this. For example in grad school I did predictive models of structures seeing how they would react on loads and in some cases would get results that seemed off. Would adjust it with other known data to refine the model. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6437/222 " Summary A host of global climate models developed for the United Nations's next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend: They are running hotter than they have in the past. In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" has come in at 5°C or warmer. Many scientists, including the model developers, are doubtful this increased warming is likely to be real. Over the next year, they will be comparing notes on what happened in their models, which in many cases simulate the Earth system better than ever before. It's also possible that climate sensitivities from models will be de-emphasized in the next U.N. climate assessment, further replaced instead by restraints from the ancient climate and modern observations."
I'm curious why you cited that part of a piece that was primarily focused on Carbon fees and addressing mountaintop removal coal mining? Form the piece: "The fastest way to phase down fossil fuel use is via a steadily rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies. If the funds are distributed uniformly to the public, the effect is antiregressive; 70 percent of the public gets more in the dividend than they pay in increased prices. Carbon fee-and-dividend can survive successive administrations, if the collected funds are distributed uniformly, because of its popularity. Also, almost all economists – conservative and liberal – agree that fee-and-dividend is the appropriate, economically-efficient energy policy." ... "MTR is a small battle in the world war on pollution and climate change. MTR provides a small part of U.S. coal. U.S. coal is but a fraction of global coal. Coal is only one of the three big fossil fuels, the others being oil and gas. Fracking to get gas is as bad as coal mining. Winning the climate war requires a rising carbon fee that covers all of these: oil, gas and coal."
400 hours equals 10 work weeks. Most people use more than a gallon of gas to get to work and back for 10 weeks. What am I missing?
