The Global Warming Thread

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:39 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Good chance we hit a record high today in Chicago. A rainstorm in February. WTF?

We had a thunderstorm a few weeks ago when it was still January. I thought I was seeing things when the first flash of lightning appeared on the horizon, but it got quite zappy out for awhile before it moved eastward.

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:50 pm

I found a tick on my leg 3 weeks ago after golfing. I live in northern Ohio. It was the middle of January. This weather is not right.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:50 pm

Where is your polar vortex now?!

Wrong hemisphere:

SNOWSTORM WARNING: Polar Vortex sends freezing plume from Siberia and Arctic to engulf UK

A COLOSSAL plume of freezing air will sweep down from the Arctic and in from eastern Europe THIS WEEK engulfing Britain in sub-zero temperatures until SPRING.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:18 pm

Scraper wrote:I found a tick on my leg 3 weeks ago after golfing. I live in northern Ohio. It was the middle of January. This weather is not right.

The idea that ticks go away in winter is a myth. They are just a lot less active.
Sorry

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:22 pm

Remus West wrote:
Scraper wrote:I found a tick on my leg 3 weeks ago after golfing. I live in northern Ohio. It was the middle of January. This weather is not right.
The idea that ticks go away in winter is a myth. They are just a lot less active.
Sorry

This was a very young American Dog Tick. In a normal January it would not be out and active. Also it was the middle of January it was 65 degrees and I was golfing. So even without the tick it's not right.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:16 pm

Signs of sanity in the GOP?

A group of prominent Republicans and business leaders backing a tax on carbon dioxide were taking their case Wednesday to top White House aides, including chief economic adviser Gary Cohn.

The group, including former Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and James Baker, is pressing President Donald Trump to tax carbon dioxide in exchange for abolishing a slew of environmental regulations....

...The Republican and business leaders, calling themselves the Climate Leadership Council, lend their stature to an approach for addressing climate change that mirrors an idea already advanced by Exxon Mobil Corp. Supporters say the tax is a conservative solution to climate change that replaces a regulatory regime with a free-market approach for addressing the greenhouse gas emissions...

..."Climate change poses an unacceptable risk to our climate and to our economy," Paulson said in a statement. "Putting a price on carbon is by far the most efficient and effective way to restrict emissions."...

...The group envisions the carbon tax taking the place of an array of Obama-era environmental regulations that raise the cost of fossil fuels. The centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, the Clean Power Plan slashing emissions from electricity, would be immediately repealed, while others would be phased out over time. U.S. companies emitting carbon dioxide also could win liability protections under the deal.

I'm a bit leery of the electrical Clean Power Plan repeal (and how it may impact the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts - specifically, mercury and coal emissions), but at least it's forward thinking, and Trump's more likely to listen to rich GOP'ers saying it...

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:13 pm

Scientists have just detected a major change to the Earth’s oceans linked to a warming climate

A large research synthesis, published in one of the world’s most influential scientific journals, has detected a decline in the amount of dissolved oxygen in oceans around the world — a long-predicted result of climate change that could have severe consequences for marine organisms if it continues.

The paper, published Wednesday in the journal Nature by oceanographer Sunke Schmidtko and two colleagues from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, found a decline of more than 2 percent in ocean oxygen content worldwide between 1960 and 2010. The loss, however, showed up in some ocean basins more than others. The largest overall volume of oxygen was lost in the largest ocean — the Pacific — but as a percentage, the decline was sharpest in the Arctic Ocean, a region facing Earth’s most stark climate change.

[...]

On top of all of that, declining ocean oxygen can also worsen global warming in a feedback loop. In or near low oxygen areas of the oceans, microorganisms tend to produce nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, Gilbert writes. Thus the new study “implies that production rates and efflux to the atmosphere of nitrous oxide … will probably have increased.”

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:19 pm

US Defence Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilising the world

In written responses to questions put during his confirmation hearings, which were not published but were obtained by the ProPublica news website, the former Marine Corps officer indicated he had very different views to other leading members of the Trump administration.

While the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency recently denied that carbon dioxide is causing global warming – an idea scientists have compared to disputing gravity – General Mattis made clear climate change was a serious problem.

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” he told senators.

“It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”
...
Asked by Senator Jeanne Shaheen if he believed “climate change is a security threat”, General Mattis replied: “Climate change can be a driver of instability and the Department of Defence must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.”

Ms Shaheen then asked how the military should prepare “to address this threat”.

“As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response,” General Mattis replied.
...
He added: “I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:26 pm

Refreshing to hear from Mattis. Unfortunately, back in alternate bizzaro-reality land, Trump set to drop climate change from environmental reviews.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:29 pm

Well, I mean, if it's making us less secure, we need a wall around that shit immediately. Tout suite, motherfracker.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:26 pm

It's due to our politicians' elite risk-management skills.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:00 am

Seventeen conservative Republican members of Congress—10 of them in their first or second terms—are bucking long-time party positions and the new occupant of the White House. They announced on Wednesday that they’re supporting a clear statement about the risks associated with climate change, as well as principles for how best to fight it.

With 17 co-sponsors, the resolution is oceans away from the number of votes it needs to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Fortunately, its likelihood of passage is not what makes it interesting.

These bills are interesting in the way that solar energy is, even though solar makes up 1 percent of U.S. power generation. Like solar power, Republican climate bills are noteworthy not because one is likely to pass anytime soon, but because massive external forces—markets, other governments, and climate change itself—may eventually force it into the foreground.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ate-change

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:10 am

Reality-based GOPism?!? Don't make me actually consider a whole other side of politicians — things in my world are so much easier when I can just write-off half of the options.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:18 am

It's about damn time.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:30 am

It's sad that we have to praise 17 (out of how many?) Republican Congressmen for supporting basic science. I surely hope there are more than that who fight against the ridiculous cuts to science Trump has proposed in his budget.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:42 am

Of course this makes them RINOs as the official GOP position is still "Fuck the planet because we're no hippies."

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:26 pm

Holman wrote:Of course this makes them RINOs as the official GOP position is still "Fuck the planet because we're no hippies."

I thought it was " Damn the science and facts, because the oil industry pays us!" The whole hippy thing is just a way for them to brainwash their voters.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:41 pm

And big money is doing what big money is wont to do, protect itself from risk. We already know the insurance industry is deeply concerned about climate change, but how about the world's biggest fund manager?

The world’s biggest fund manager has threatened to vote out directors of companies that fail to address the risks posed to their businesses by climate change.

In a post on its website, BlackRock, which controls assets worth $5.1 trillion (about £4.2 trillion), said climate risk was a “systemic issue”.

It said it planned to engage with the companies that are “most exposed to climate risk” over this year to help them tell investors – like BlackRock -- about the financial impacts of global warming and the shift to a low-carbon economy.

And, if this was not enough, it promised to use its power to get rid of directors who were part of the problem.

“Ultimately the board is responsible for protecting the long-term economic interests of shareholders and we may vote against the re-election of certain directors where we believe they have not fulfilled that duty, particularly in markets where shareholder proposals are not common,” BlackRock said.

Reacting to BlackRock’s new guidance, Boston-based lawyer Seth Jaffe wrote a blog post called “Investors don’t think that climate change is a hoax: BlackRock is losing its patience” – referring to Donald Trump’s infamous claim that global warming was made up by China.

He highlighted Mr Fink’s comment that BlackRock was not “infinitely patient”.

“I’m picturing James Earl Jones as Darth Vader saying that,” Mr Jaffe said. “I wonder what energy executives are hearing.”

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:23 am

Confirmation bias for the win!

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/mich ... ate-change

I've been telling you all for a while now Climate change has been kickin' ass and here is evidence.

Bring on increased weather ugliness from El Nino and the Polar Vortex, soon my 40,000 in bricks on a tiny patch of land will be worth billions!

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:30 am

I never expected insurance companies and fund managers to actually save the world. I know they're only protecting themselves, as they always do, but the outside result is an unavoidable shift to a more climate-friendly business world.

Toe · Post by **Toe** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:35 am

pr0ner wrote:It's about damn time.

I would be interested to see if 1) Any of these 17 previously got healthy campaign donations from Koch brother PACs and 2) come next elections those donations get shifted to other up-and-coming Republicans in those districts (that of course will not support any climate change stuff).

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:45 pm

This should help.

Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, penned an op-ed in USA Today discussing how EPA regulations suck for automakers.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:58 pm

Zaxxon wrote:This should help.

Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, penned an op-ed in USA Today discussing how EPA regulations suck for automakers.

http://octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewt ... =5&t=94100

Maybe we should move this to the OO Investment Conclave thread? Or move both those threads here...

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:53 pm

One of the most troubling ideas about climate change just found new evidence in its favor

Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes, where hundreds of millions of people live.

The idea is that climate change doesn’t merely increase the overall likelihood of heat waves, say, or the volume of rainfall — it also changes the flow of weather itself. By altering massive planet-scale air patterns like the jet stream (pictured above), which flows in waves from west to east in the Northern Hemisphere, a warming planet causes our weather to become more stuck in place. This means that a given weather pattern, whatever it may be, may persist for longer, thus driving extreme droughts, heat waves, downpours and more.

This basic idea has sparked half a decade of criticism and debate, and at the cutting edge of research, scientists continue to grapple with it. And now, a new study once again reinforces one of its core aspects.

Publishing in Nature Scientific Reports, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and a group of colleagues at research institutes in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands find that at least in the spring and summer, the large scale flow of the atmosphere is indeed changing in such a way as to cause weather to get stuck more often.

The study, its authors write, “adds to the weight of evidence for a human influence on the occurrence of devastating events such as the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 Pakistan flood and Russian heat wave, the 2011 Texas heat wave and recent floods in Europe.”

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:09 pm

Actual tweets from the House Science Committee.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:14 pm

The 'House' part is more important than the 'Science' part. Politicization of climate science? Hello, pot? This is kettle.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:26 pm

Presumably whomever is in charge of that committee is a well-credentialed scientist with a solid education and understanding of the current state of climate change research (as well as all of the other fields of science they lord over).

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:30 pm

Committee Members

Chair: Lamar Smith Texas ~ 21

Lamar Seeligson Smith (born November 19, 1947) is the U.S. Representative (Republican) for Texas's 21st congressional district, serving since 1987. The district includes most of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin, as well as some of the Texas Hill Country. He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act (PCIP). He also co-sponsored the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
...
Smith attended the private high school at TMI — The Episcopal School of Texas and graduated in 1965. He then earned a B.A. in American Studies from Yale University (1969) and a J.D. from Southern Methodist University (1975).

In 1969, Smith was hired as a management intern by the Small Business Administration in Washington, D.C. He was a business and financial writer for the Christian Science Monitor (1970–1972), was admitted to the Texas bar in 1975, and went into private practice in San Antonio with the firm of Maebius and Duncan, Inc.

In 1978, he was elected chairman of the Republican Party of Bexar County. In 1980, Smith was elected to the Texas House of Representatives representing Bexar County, the 57th District.

He's a lawyer and a career politician.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:33 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Presumably whomever is in charge of that committee is a well-credentialed scientist with a solid education and understanding of the current state of climate change research (as well as all of the other fields of science they lord over).

Yeah, world famous scientist and committee chair Rep. Lamar S. Smith from Texas:

Smith attended the private high school at TMI — The Episcopal School of Texas and graduated in 1965. He then earned a B.A. in American Studies from Yale University (1969) and a J.D. from Southern Methodist University (1975).

In 1969, Smith was hired as a management intern by the Small Business Administration in Washington, D.C. He was a business and financial writer for the Christian Science Monitor (1970–1972), was admitted to the Texas bar in 1975, and went into private practice in San Antonio with the firm of Maebius and Duncan, Inc.

Of note:

As of 2015, Smith has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress. In 2014, Smith got more money from fossil fuels than he did from any other industry. Smith is publicly skeptical of global warming. Under his leadership, the House Science committee has held hearings that feature the views of climate change deniers, subpoenaed the records and communications of scientists who published papers that Smith disapproved of, and attempted to cut NASA's earth sciences budget. He has been criticized for conducting "witch hunts" against climate scientists. In his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith issued more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54-year history. In a June 2016 response letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. Smith cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s as valid legal precedent for his investigation. Smith has a lifetime score of 7% on the National Environmental Scorecard of the League of Conservation Voters.

On December 1, 2016 as Chair on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he tweeted out on behalf of that committee a Breitbart article denying climate change.

EDIT: Dammit. Too slow

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:38 pm

I mean...I assume that everyone knew that I was aware of exactly who the Committee Chair was when I posted that...right?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:40 pm

Yes.

Don't worry Lamar is on the case - Climate scientists aren't following the scientific method and have a personal agenda. That is lot of folks with axes to grind.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:43 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I mean...I assume that everyone knew that I was aware of exactly who the Committee Chair was when I posted that...right?

Exactly? No. Did I figure you were being sarcastic? Yes.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:51 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I mean...I assume that everyone knew that I was aware of exactly who the Committee Chair was when I posted that...right?

I did, I was just doing so as a fun exercise for the class. And in full disclosure, trying to beat Isg.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:07 pm

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:12 pm

Big surprise.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:10 pm

EPA chief says Paris climate agreement 'bad deal' for U.S.

The United States should continue to be "engaged" in international climate change discussions but the Paris climate change agreement is a "bad deal" for the country, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Sunday.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt did not confirm whether the United States would remain in the global climate change pact, under which nearly all countries agreed in 2015 to halt or curb their greenhouse gas emissions, even as the world's biggest emitter China reaffirmed its commitment to the agreement.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is due to have his first meeting with President Donald Trump on April 6-7. Xi and other Chinese officials have pledged to remain in the agreement.

"To demonstrate the leadership that we have shown on this issue with China and India and other nations is very important and discussions should ensue," Pruitt said on Fox News Sunday, "but what Paris represents is a bad deal for this country."

Last week, Trump signed an executive order rolling back former President Barack Obama's climate change policies, including the Clean Power Plan to slash carbon emissions from power plants -- a key factor in the United States' ability to meet its Paris commitments.

That thing you're doing? It isn't leadership...

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:55 pm

Trump doesn't understand that the pollution in China is terrible and shows humans impact the environment. If China has to reduce its pollution levels significantly to meet US or European standards, that hurts them more. If we want to curb Chinese manufacturing, getting them to follow global environmental standards was huge.

Small hands, small mind.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:28 pm

Zarathud wrote:Trump doesn't understand that the pollution in China is terrible and shows humans impact the environment. If China has to reduce its pollution levels significantly to meet US or European standards, that hurts them more. If we want to curb Chinese manufacturing, getting them to follow global environmental standards was huge.

Small hands, small mind.

And that LA had similar issues until they passed laws and regulations limiting emissions and air pollution. Amd that before the clean air act, coal power plants were spewing so much crap into the air we had this thing called acid rain in the US which everyone has forgotten about because of regulation and enforcement.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:03 am

Pruitt's rationale for rolling back Obama's clean-energy policies? Because they worked...

“You're talking about regulatory overreach,” Wallace pressed. “But the question is, there are 166 million people living in unclean air, and you're going to remove some of the pollution restrictions, which would make the air even worse.”

Pruitt did not address that question directly, instead asserting that the country's air quality was not as bad as it had been in the past, and that the United States was now “actually pre-1994 levels with respect to our CO2 footprint.”

The back and forth continued. Pruitt's performance on the Sunday show earned the rare distinction of being panned by both climate change advocates and skeptics alike.

“New EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt embarrassed himself repeatedly on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, who kept Pruitt on the hot seat for 14 minutes as he pressed to get past Pruitt’s paper-thin talking points,” Jeremy Symons of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund wrote for the Huffington Post.

Symons went on to fact-check Pruitt's statistics, noting that while the CO2 reductions he cited were accurate, they mostly occurred during the Obama administration as a result of the former president's clean-energy plans.

“It's one thing to dodge the question, but it's especially weak to hide behind the success of Obama's initiative to justify erasing it all,” Symons wrote. “Pruitt’s attempting a complicated trick here — not only trying to sell a bottle of snake oil, but breaking the bottle during the pitch.”

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:31 pm

Any edgy conservatives here who want do something super hip and cool for your country? Join this cohort.

So when Bozmoski enrolled in a climate science class taught by Nathan Hultman, his primary goal was to heckle the professor. But every time he brought up something he had heard on a conservative radio talk show, Hultman asked him to back up those claims with actual scientific evidence. Soon, Bozmoski realized climate skepticism was unfounded, and that climate change is a very serious issue that his own political party was completely ignoring.

“I felt alienated that my tribe has been so out of the loop and not even working on it,” Bozmoski says. “To me, it seemed like just an easy way out, like a coping mechanism more than a governing strategy.”

Sounds about right.

The GOP’s stance is at odds with what many Republicans feel. A poll from last year showed that 71 percent of liberal / moderate Republicans and 47 percent of conservative Republicans believe that our planet is warming — and that number is increasing. (The percentage of conservative Republicans who believe in climate change has jumped 19 percentage points since 2014, more than any other group.) The majority of Republicans also support more funding for energy sources like wind and solar, and believe heat-trapping pollutants like carbon dioxide should be regulated.

Awesome, hold your party's feet to the fire and don't let them off the hook. Rip I'm looking at you. You're a smart puppy, here's a chance for you to make a lasting legacy for your grandkids.