Climate Change

Watch a US Senator Cite the Bible to Prove That Humans Aren't Causing Global Warming
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/inhofe-climate-change-bible

Wednesday was a big day for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). In the morning, he officially took the gavel as chairman of the Senate’s Environment Committee. In the afternoon, he took the Senate floor for a long speech about how human-caused climate change is fake.

 
Last edited:
Why I’ll talk politics with climate change deniers – but not science
https://theconversation.com/why-ill-talk-politics-with-climate-change-deniers-but-not-science-34949

There are many complex reasons why people decide not to accept the science of climate change. The doubters range from the conspiracy theorist to the sceptical scientist, or from the paid lobbyist to the raving lunatic.

Climate scientists, myself included, and other academics have strived to understand this reluctance. We wonder why so many people are unable to accept a seemingly straight-forward pollution problem. And we struggle to see why climate change debates have inspired such vitriol.

These questions are important. In a world increasingly dominated by science and technology, it is essential to understand why people accept certain types of science but not others.

In short, it seems when it comes to climate change, it is not about the science but all about the politics.
 
Newly minted Tea Party Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa delivered the official (of five) GOP responses to the President’s State of the Union Address this week.
Her take on climate change.


And Bill Maher’s take(down):
 
Human Nature May Seal the Planet's Warming Fate (Op-Ed)
http://www.livescience.com/49617-human-nature-may-seal-global-warming.html

Slow changes are the bane of humanity. The metaphor of a frog in a pot being warmed slowly seems quite apt for the way humanity is struggling with global warming. 2014 is now the warmest year in the instrumental record. Even as the global warming hiatus continues and its causes continue to be debated — record temperature years have occurred during the hiatus, even though globally averaged surface temperatures have shown little change — the pause is not really a benign blessing to continue with our ways of consuming carbon-based fuels. Instead, we must finally change our entrenched way of thinking about this problem.
 
Marotzke J, Forster PM. Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends. Nature 2015;517(7536):565-70. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html

Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors.

Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and SHOW THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF SIMULATED 15-YEAR TRENDS SHOWS NO SYSTEMATIC BIAS AGAINST THE OBSERVATIONS.

Using a multiple regression approach that is physically motivated by surface energy balance, we isolate the impact of radiative forcing, climate feedback and ocean heat uptake on GMST—with the regression residual interpreted as internal variability—and assess all possible 15- and 62-year trends.

The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale.

For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations.

THE CLAIM THAT CLIMATE MODELS SYSTEMATICALLY OVERESTIMATE THE RESPONSE TO RADIATIVE FORCING FROM INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS THEREFORE SEEMS TO BE UNFOUNDED.
 
Climate Change’s Bottom Line
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/business/energy-environment/climate-changes-bottom-line.html

Mr. Page is not a typical environmental activist. He says he doesn’t know — or particularly care — whether human activity causes climate change. He doesn’t give much serious thought to apocalyptic predictions of unbearably hot summers and endless storms.

But over the last nine months, he has lobbied members of Congress and urged farmers to take climate change seriously. He says that over the next 50 years, if nothing is done, crop yields in many states will most likely fall, the costs of cooling chicken farms will rise and floods will more frequently swamp the railroads that transport food in the United States. He wants American agribusiness to be ready.

 
Another Cause of Climate Change Is Developing

The continuing increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is not the only thing driving global warming; changing land use, such as the conversion of forests to farmland, is adding to the problem, too.

Because increasing population and rising affluence will require more land be farmed in order to supply food to the world, our climate will experience even more disruption in the coming decades.

Ward et al. calculate the climate forcing due to land use and land cover change and find that it is contributing nearly half as much as anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and that could grow in the future.

Their work shows how important land policy will be in efforts to minimize continued climate warming.

Ward DS, Mahowald NM, Kloster S. Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014:14:12701-24. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/acp-14-12701-2014.html

Pressure on land resources is expected to increase as global population continues to climb and the world becomes more affluent, swelling the demand for food. Changing climate may exert additional pressures on natural lands as present-day productive regions may shift, or soil quality may degrade, and the recent rise in demand for biofuels increases competition with edible crops for arable land. Given these projected trends there is a need to understand the global climate impacts of land use and land cover change (LULCC).

Here we quantify the climate impacts of global LULCC in terms of modifications to the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere (radiative forcing, RF) that are caused by changes in long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol effects, and land surface albedo.

We attribute historical changes in terrestrial carbon storage, global fire emissions, secondary organic aerosol emissions, and surface albedo to LULCC using simulations with the Community Land Model version 3.5. These LULCC emissions are combined with estimates of agricultural emissions of important trace gases and mineral dust in two sets of Community Atmosphere Model simulations to calculate the RF of changes in atmospheric chemistry and aerosol concentrations attributed to LULCC.

With all forcing agents considered together, we show that 40% (±16%) of the present-day anthropogenic RF can be attributed to LULCC. Changes in the emission of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and aerosols from LULCC enhance the total LULCC RF by a factor of 2 to 3 with respect to the LULCC RF from CO2 alone.

This enhancement factor also applies to projected LULCC RF, which we compute for four future scenarios associated with the Representative Concentration Pathways. We attribute total RFs between 0.9 and 1.9 W m−2 to LULCC for the year 2100 (relative to a pre-industrial state). To place an upper bound on the potential of LULCC to alter the global radiation budget, we include a fifth scenario in which all arable land is cultivated by 2100.

This theoretical extreme case leads to a LULCC RF of 3.9 W m−2 (±0.9 W m−2), suggesting that not only energy policy but also land policy is necessary to minimize future increases in RF and associated climate changes.
 
Peak coal in China: unimaginable or achievable
http://roadtoparis.info/2015/01/30/peak-coal-china-unimaginable-achievable/

It’s been labelled the “unthinkable”, the https://archive.org/stream/801597-citi-the-unimaginable-peak-coal-in-china/801597-citi-the-unimaginable-peak-coal-in-china_djvu.txt and an “illusion”. Greenpeace calls it the “single most significant determinant for the future of the world’s climate”. After two decades of rocketing demand, could China really be about to hit peak coal consumption?

China has announced plans to cap its annual coal use by 2020. The target could run behind the times, however. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) suggests Chinese coal use will peak in 2016. And it’s not alone – https://archive.org/details/801597-citi-the-unimaginable-peak-coal-in-china, the National Resources Defence Council and financial analyst Bernstein Research all predict Chinese coal consumption could reach its highest point before 2020.

But other analysts disagree. The International Energy Agency (IEA) http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTCMR2014SUM.pdf in December that despite recent government commitments, China will account for three-fifths of coal demand growth over the next five years. Its coal market report predicts a possible peak in the 2020s and its World Energy Outlook says Chinese coal demand may not peak until the 2030s. In a 2013 report, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie also says Chinese peak coal is https://archive.org/stream/801597-citi-the-unimaginable-peak-coal-in-china/801597-citi-the-unimaginable-peak-coal-in-china_djvu.txt before 2030.
 
Climate Calculator Lets You Create a New World
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-calculator-create-a-new-world-18612

Have you always wanted to wield the power of a world leader but been unable find a suitable in? Well, your search may finally be over.

The U.K. government has released its Global Calculator, a climate model hitherto only available to world governments to understand how their actions work in concert to reduce global warming. Now the public can crunch the numbers to see how to keep the planet from warming more than 2°C (3.6°F), a politically agreed upon climate target.
 
New research suggests climate ‘skeptics’ and believers really, really don’t like each other
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...believers-really-really-dont-like-each-other/


Bliuc A-M, McGarty C, Thomas EF, Lala G, Berndsen M, et al. Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Clim Change. advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nclimate2507.pdf

Of the climate science papers that take a position on the issue, 97% agree that climate change is caused by humans1, but less than half of the US population shares this belief2. This misalignment between scientific and public views has been attributed to a range of factors, including political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication. The public is divided between climate change 'believers' (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and 'sceptics' (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community). We propose that this division is best explained as a socio-political conflict between these opposing groups. Here we demonstrate that US believers and sceptics have distinct social identities, beliefs and emotional reactions that systematically predict their support for action to advance their respective positions. The key implication is that the divisions between sceptics and believers are unlikely to be overcome solely through communication and education strategies, and that interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic. Thus, strategies for building support for mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public’s understanding of science, to include approaches that transform intergroup relations.
 
Last edited:
Earth's Dashboard Is Flashing Red—Are Enough People Listening?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ience-public-opinion-evidence-global-warming/

A Pew Research Center survey, released last week as part of a broader report on science and society, found that only 50 percent of Americans believe that humans are mostly responsible for climate change,http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/. This 37-point gap persists even though thousands of scientists during the past few decades have been involved in publishing detailed reports linking climate change to carbon emissions.

Evidence of a human role in climate change keeps piling up. Recent studies of record-breaking temperatures, rising sea levels, and high levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere all point to an Earth under stress from a rapidly expanding human presence.

We are burning record levels of coal, oil, and natural gas to fuel modern society. As a result, we are producing record levels of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere, melt the planet's ice, and cause the oceans to become more acidic-threatening marine life.

And as our numbers and appetites keep growing, we also keep cutting down tropical forests to expand cropland and decimating native ocean fish populations with industrial-scale fishing. We pollute waterways and coastal regions with nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer runoff from those croplands.

Scientists say it's as if the gauges on Earth's environmental dashboard are flashing yellow and red as we put the planet under increasing stress.
 
A Fresh Look at the Watery Side of Earth’s Climate Shows ‘Unabated Planetary Warming’
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ths-climate-shows-unabated-planetary-warming/


A fresh analysis of thousands of temperature measurements from deep-diving Argo ocean probes shows (yet again) that Earth is experiencing “unabated planetary warming” when you factor in the vast amount of greenhouse-trapped heat that ends up in the sea.
 
Why Geoengineering Is "Untested and Untestable"
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/28487-why-geoengineering-is-quntested-and-untestableq

Nature has a new opinion piece up that signals a bold new push for field experiments into techo hacking the climate system, usually known as “geoengineering.” Right now there are all kinds of geoengineering experiments going on in labs and with computer modeling but “outdoor tests” are still frowned upon.

The authors of the piece—fixtures on the “geo-clique” conference circuit—boldly call for these tests to go ahead even in the absence of any regulatory system governing them. They explicitly state that “governance and experimentation must co-evolve”—which is a high-minded way of saying: roll the dice and see what happens.

Amazingly, the article completely fails to mention the most significant problem with small-scale field experiments: the fact that they are structurally incapable of answering the most significant ethical and humanitarian questions raised by these global-scale technological interventions, which relate to how geoengineering in one part of the world will impact the climate on the other side of the planet. Those questions can only be answered through planetary scale deployment.


 
Back
Top