National Parks affected by the climate changes

[Robert Roaldi]

But the more important question is what changes occur because of it?  Beavers build dams that change the environment tremendously.  For some animals it's a catastrophe as they drown due to rising waters.  For others, the pond the dam creates provides a place for fish to grow, water plants, and water to drink for many other species.  All animals and plants change the environment.  Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad.  You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything.  While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives.  That's what should drive modifications to how we live.  Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives.  I guess bad news sells better than good news. 

We also have to assess the damage we do to other social programs by allocating resources away from them to climate change programs.  Do you want to have Medicare and Social Security when you retire?  If we spend all that money on climate, you just may be out of luck and stuck with working until you're dead.  For what?  To reduce sea levels 1 1/2 feet, maybe, for you grandkid who lives in the mountains at 5,000 feet?

You do the same thing you do all the time, weigh costs and benefits and make decisions. Doesn't the US spend about 1/3 of its GDP on the military. You don't seem to have any problems coming up with that money. You have a large penal system, you find the money for that. This is what all societies do every day. Maybe you're not paying enough in taxes to cover the costs of your collective obligations. But now you're trying to paint the ludicrous picture that Medicare may disappear if you spend money on climate. It never ends with you, does it, just one moral panic after another, always a silly either/or comparison.

You're still looking for the benefits of a global climate imbalance. Trying to balance the discussion, give voice to the "other" side. There are only ever 2 sides in your world. Maybe Canada and northern countries can cut down the entire boreal forest region, truck in some top soil from the prairies before it blows away in dust storms and plant corn in northern Canada and Finland and Siberia. What can go wrong. I know know I'm looking forward to more ticks, opossums and rattlesnakes. What do you think, should we look into importing camels?

Always the same merry-go-round. What's next, rising sea levels will create more deep sea ports? There has to be a benefit to that, surely.

[Alan Klein]

Trying to balance your budget is a serious issue for families as well. Do we go to that foreign country for vacation or maybe go someplace locally so we can save some money and put it away for our kids education.

Well governments have the same issue. And I never took spending for the military or anything else off the table. We have to sit down and decide that maybe we have to cut back 50 billion on our defense and put it into the environment or into infrastructure or maybe for research for medical. But all that has to be discussed. When it comes to the environment and climate control, nobody wants to discuss these issues. It's just well let's do it. Damn the consequences. Who cares if we got to cut back on your Medicare and social security. Maybe we'll raise the amount they deduct from your salary to pay for the medicare.

By the way my medicare is not free. My wife and I have to pay thousands out of our social security for so-called free medicare. And it's gone up recently because the cost of Medical Care is gone up. So the government is now charging us more for our free Medicare. By the time you retire you won't get medicare. Of course you're in Canada so you got other problems. 

By the way, do you really think if it was a few degrees warmer in Canada most Canadians would complain?

[Robert Roaldi]

...
By the way my medicare is not free. ...

No one anywhere think that social programs are free. The ONLY people who even utter those words are right-wingers when they claim that left-wingers think that social programs are free. It's complete fabrication, fake news.

It's close to 40 degrees C in Ottawa today, nobody here wants it any warmer. And there are thousands and thousands of winter sports aficionados who do not welcome warming. Personally, I like how a bitterly cold winter kills off insect larvae and keeps street gangs under control. Why don't you ask Texans if they want it any warmer? 

[DavidJ]

This WHO article on death rates and climate change is worth a read. If we live in rich developed countries it is easier to mitigate the effects of climate change but stop and think about the impact it has on poor countries and those where climate change is damaging crop production. Starvation and disease is a consequence of climate change. Remember that at the moment global warming over the last 150 years is 1.1C but in parts of the world including subartic regions the rise in temperature is 3C.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

[TechTalk]

...However, the materials currently used to make solar panels, windmills, batteries, and so on, are also a limited resource...

Unlike carbon-based fossil fuel; we don't burn solar panels, windmills, batteries, and so on. Unlike carbon-based fossil fuel, much of the material can be recycled, reused, or repurposed — because we don't burn them up. So, there is that difference.

Additionally, renewable energy sources like solar panels and windmills can produce energy for years. Fossil fuels produce energy for an instant and then you need more fuel — a steady stream of fuel being burned up which cannot be reused or recycled; but the remnants, like CO2, do accumulate and remain in the atmosphere for a great many years. So, there is that difference as well.

...We need to concentrate more research on alternative batteries which use minerals which are more plentiful.

Imagine a battery which is half the price of current Lithium-ion batteries, half the weight, double the capacity, double the durability, does not use scarce materials, and is completely safe from spontaneous explosion. That would go a long way to solving the unreliability problem of renewables, wouldn't it?

There is a vast amount of research and development underway to develop new and more efficient forms of energy storage of all types — battery, thermal, mechanical, cryogenic, air, hydro, etc. — to fit different locational needs. A good source of news on developments is Energy Storage News.

But that's just a fairy tale, isn't it? 

 

[TechTalk]

What a strange comment. Perhaps I should thank you for providing an excellent example of a 'true climate change denier'. 

 

[Jonathan Cross]

Despite the naysayers and downplayers, things are happening in the USA.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/20/weather/deadly-heat-waves-chief-heat-officers-climate/index.html

Jonathan

[TechTalk]

Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, which is the lack of awareness of previous changes in climate and previous extreme weather events.

The lack of awareness by whom? Certainly not climate scientists.

Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, amateur pseudoscience being peddled to the masses — often packaged with smears of dedicated researchers and conspiracy hoaxes.

[Alan Klein]

A nothing burger.  Where's the Beef?

Biden announces new climate change programs, but no emergency declaration
President Joe Biden announced new executive steps to combat climate change on Wednesday, a move that comes as Democrats urge the administration to issue a climate-emergency declaration amid stalled negotiations over major environmental legislation in Washington.

The initiatives include providing $2.3 billion in funding for a program that helps communities prepare for disasters by expanding flood control and retrofitting buildings, as well as leveraging funding to help low-income families cover heating and cooling costs.

The president also is directing the Department of the Interior to propose new offshore wind areas in the Gulf of Mexico, a plan that could power more than 3 million homes and advance the transition to clean energy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/biden-announces-new-climate-change-programs-no-emergency-declaration.html

[Robert Roaldi]

A nothing burger.  Where's the Beef?

Biden announces new climate change programs, but no emergency declaration
President Joe Biden announced new executive steps to combat climate change on Wednesday, a move that comes as Democrats urge the administration to issue a climate-emergency declaration amid stalled negotiations over major environmental legislation in Washington.

The initiatives include providing $2.3 billion in funding for a program that helps communities prepare for disasters by expanding flood control and retrofitting buildings, as well as leveraging funding to help low-income families cover heating and cooling costs.

The president also is directing the Department of the Interior to propose new offshore wind areas in the Gulf of Mexico, a plan that could power more than 3 million homes and advance the transition to clean energy.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/biden-announces-new-climate-change-programs-no-emergency-declaration.html

You're right, go buy that big gas-guzzling V8 now that gas prices have decreased again. They dropped another 6 cents per litre here today. Man that Biden is one hell of a President, aren't you proud?

[LesPalenik]

One of the problems is the financial cost to change over to more non-carbon CO2-producing energy, assuming that we are impacting the climate to the extent claimed.  There aren't open and meaningful discussions going on about this.  It will cost trillions to switch over.  Those resources will not be available for other things such as feeding the hungry, providing proper medicare care for everyone, and helping the poor. Less money is available for R&D.  In Germany where they spent billions to switch over much of their electricity production to renewables, the cost for users is 2 1/2 times per kilowatt of what the average American pays.  Apparently, free energy is not cheap.   And unlike most of America, Germans hardly use air conditioning.

In the USA, we already have 9.1% higher prices this year due to inflation.  We already have a deficit of one trillion dollars in our budget this year and debt of over $30 trillion and growing an average of 1 1/2 trillion a year for the next ten years.  Where does the extra money come from to pay for climate change?  What impact does it have on the costs of everything else?  What other things are we willing to give up to pay for it?  These things are not being discussed.  Maybe it's cheaper to allow the climate to get a little warmer and spend less money to correct the problem it creates.  That could be a cheaper approach. We also do not discuss the advantages of a warmer climate including 1/3 more green earth (already) and more land for food production. 

The other big issue is China is having none of it. They are still building hundreds of coal-fired plants in their country and elsewhere in the world for others.  China alone produces about 1/3 of all greenhouse gases.  Without China and India on board, not much is going to change.

Similar to the cost of Internet and mobile phone charges, USA has much higher energy prices than some other countries. Australia solar installations are much more cost-effective than American ones. According to a recent energy study, the US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar.

The US has more than 10 times the population of Australia, but just two times the annual rooftop photovoltaic (PV) installations. In the US, the residential share of small-scale solar systems is 56%, while in Australia it is 87%. According to Rystad, the discrepancy stems from the higher cost of purchasing in the US.

The cost in Australia is USD 0.96 (EUR 0.876) per watt for a 3-kW system, and even lower if the capacity of the system is greater. In the US, the cost would be USD 4.6 per watt for 3 kW and still over USD 2 per watt for an 11-kW system.

In October the International Energy Agency [IEA] published its latest World Energy Outlook in which [it] states, “In most markets, solar PV or wind now represents the cheapest available source of new electricity generation.”

https://renewablesnow.com/news/rooftop-solar-much-cheaper-in-australia-than-in-us-776941/

https://electrek.co/2022/02/07/us-could-save-56b-a-year-coal-to-solar-study/

[LesPalenik]

But the more important question is what changes occur because of it?  Beavers build dams that change the environment tremendously.  For some animals it's a catastrophe as they drown due to rising waters.  For others, the pond the dam creates provides a place for fish to grow, water plants, and water to drink for many other species.  All animals and plants change the environment.  Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad.  You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything.  While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives.  That's what should drive modifications to how we live.  Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives.  I guess bad news sells better than good news. 

I always liked beavers.

[Robert Roaldi]

Even climate change by itself does not mean it's good or bad.  You have to identify the changes and then assess the positives and negatives and just how much has to be done if anything.  While there are negatives for warming, there are also many positives.  That's what should drive modifications to how we live.  Unfortunately, we tend to only look at the negatives....

You love repeating this tripe, don't you. We grow the food we do in the places we do because arable land formed in the places it did over millions of years of geological change. Destroying huge swaths of that arable land is relatively easy if climate change outpaces earth's capacity to absorb the changes, which seems to be happening quickly because of man's influence. Forming new arable lands cannot happen so quickly. Your naïve wish that there are positives to global warming is at best a dumb wild ass bet. That bet is based entirely on your ego's need to contradict those who you think are in the wrong tribe. It's an emotional wish, nothing more, but you try to dress it up as healthy skepticism. Ideological contrarianism is not scientific skepticism, no matter how much you try to portray it as such. It's important not to confuse the two, but that requires honest self-awareness.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the earth's overall ecology is in danger. The earth will go on in its own way following natural laws and will survive just fine. However, the resulting changes may not be advantageous to human life. We're not trying to save the planet, the planet is fine, we're trying to save us.  There is no guarantee that our species will survive. None. If we destroy the ecosystems that are necessary for our survival, we're toast, and whether or not a few Corporations remain profitable or not is a sideshow. There is NO economy without an environment. You seem to be stuck in the 1950s when people thought that environmentalists were the bad guys who were trying to choke enterprise, which the ignorant reframed as ideological and cultural warfare. That's just childish horse shit, time to move on.

We have no dominion over sweet dick all. That was just propaganda, don't fall for it.

[Ray]

The lack of awareness by whom? Certainly not climate scientists.

Mainly politicians, journalists, and most members of the public who seem to have little understanding of the fundamental principles of the Methodology of Science and are unable, or can't be bothered, to investigate the issues and think for themselves.

"Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, amateur pseudoscience being peddled to the masses — often packaged with smears of dedicated researchers and conspiracy hoaxes."

Absolutely! It's shocking that qualified scientists will conspire with journalists to present exaggerated claims (pseudoscience) which suggest the 'science is settled' and that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that continued CO2 emissions will cause a devastating climate.

The late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University explained this situation quite well.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

The above statement by Schneider was made in 1989. I recently came across a very detailed history of past changes in climate, worldwide, written in 1995 by members of the Hoover Institution, which is a 'think tank' associated with Stanford University, and which presents a different view to Schneider's. At the end of the article there is a reference to around 80 or more scientific studies which provide the data used in this article.

Perhaps you can read them all and point out the flaws you've discovered, in a year or so. 

Following are just a few, short quotes from  https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals

The First Climatic Optimum
"Around 9,000 to 5,000 years ago the earth was much warmer than today; perhaps 4deg.F hotter, about the average of the various predictions for global warming after a doubling of CO2.[59] Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common. During this Climatic Optimum epoch, Europe enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far to the north. Not only was the country less subject to severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days sunnier."

"Notwithstanding the less stormy weather, rainfall was more than adequate to produce widespread forests. Western Europe, including parts of Iceland and the Highlands of Scotland, was mantled by great woods.[60] The timber, until average temperatures dipped temporarily for about 400 years between 3,500 B.C. and 3,000 B.C., consisted of warmth-demanding trees, such as elms and linden in North America and oak and hazel in Europe. These species have never regained their once dominant position in Europe and America. Not only did Europe enjoy a benign climate with adequate rainfall, but the Mediterranean littoral, including the Middle East, apparently received considerably more moisture than it does today.[61] The Indian subcontinent and China were also much wetter during this Optimal period.[62]"

"The timing of the medieval warm spell, which lasted no more than 300 years, was not synchronous around the globe. For much of North America, for Greenland and in Russia, the climate was warmer between 950 and 1200.[111] The warmest period in Europe appears to have been later, roughly between 1150 and 1300, although parts of the tenth century were quite warm. Evidence from New Zealand indicates peak temperatures from 1200 to 1400. "

"This record suggests that the Little Climate Optimum began in Asia in the eighth or ninth centuries and continued into the eleventh. The warm climate moved west, reaching Russia and central Asia in the tenth through the eleventh, and Europe from the twelfth to the fourteenth. Some climatologists have theorized that the Mini Ice Age also started in the Far East in the twelfth century and spread westward reaching Europe in the fourteenth."

[TechTalk]

..."Your comment highlights one of the greatest problems we face in the future, amateur pseudoscience being peddled to the masses — often packaged with smears of dedicated researchers and conspiracy hoaxes."

Absolutely! It's shocking that qualified scientists will conspire with journalists to present exaggerated claims (pseudoscience) which suggest the 'science is settled' and that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that continued CO2 emissions will cause a devastating climate.

The late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University explained this situation quite well...

Yeah. I've already been on this ride with you and am not wasting time on it again. Your smears and conspiracy mind set are of no more interest now than they were the last time, less in fact.

[TechTalk]

Perhaps you can read them all and point out the flaws you've discovered, in a year or so. 

 

[Ray]

Yeah. I've already been on this ride with you and am not wasting time on it again. Your smears and conspiracy mind set are of no more interest now than they were the last time, less in fact.

Fair enough! If you're not interested in alternative views, it's your choice. It doesn't worry me. I have an open mind and examine both sides of the argument.

[TechTalk]

Been there. Done that. I'm not interested in being any part of your smear campaign.

Perhaps I'll link to our previous discussion of your disingenuous deflections and disgusting smears or perhaps I'll leave that dirt lie. But, I'm not going to be dragged thru your conspiracy rabbit holes again.

Meanwhile, you might want to consider offering something more current and written by someone with a science background rather than a paper written 27 years ago by an economist at the Hoover Institution. The Hoover Institution is an independent organization on the campus of Stanford University operating with its own board, income, and endowment separate from the university. Its a conservative political think tank currently under the direction of Condoleezza Rice.

[Jonathan Cross]

I am out of this now.

Some are posting the most head in sand views (see my post No 170 in this thread of 18th July which probably also refers to this group).  The slight against scientists by Stephen Schneider posted by Ray is untrue of everyone of them I know, the system of peer review and the weight of data.  Past climate changes have occurred when there was a much lower global human population, far less infrared absorbing CO2 was put into the atmosphere by humans, and burning and clearing oxygen generating trees by humanity was at a much lower rate than now.  We simply cannot continue to carry on as we are.  It is a global issue.

I have better things to do, including having sympathy with the increasing number of people who are concerned about the world their children and grandchildren will inhabit and how they will judge us.  And yes, I do drive an electric car, have had solar panels for 12 years and have an insulated house.  The panels generate about 2500kWhr per year and any that we do not use go into the mains electricity system.

Strangely enough, I do want time to take photographs.

Jonathan
 

[Alan Klein]

Similar to the cost of Internet and mobile phone charges, USA has much higher energy prices than some other countries. Australia solar installations are much more cost-effective than American ones. According to a recent energy study, the US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar.

https://renewablesnow.com/news/rooftop-solar-much-cheaper-in-australia-than-in-us-776941/

https://electrek.co/2022/02/07/us-could-save-56b-a-year-coal-to-solar-study/

  $5.6B is almost a rounding error in many of our programs.  The government will have to spend trillions to make a dent.

In any case, I don;t see savings if you consider Germany.  They changed over their production so that 40% are renewables.  Yet they pay higher prices for electricity.  There were no savings.  Additionally, much of their wind production is now worn out after 20-25 years.  They have to replace a lot of it already.