The Global Warming Thread

[Max Peck]

For the first time on record, human-caused climate change has rerouted an entire river

A team of scientists on Monday documented what they’re describing as the first case of large-scale river reorganization as a result of human-caused climate change.

They found that in mid-2016, the retreat of a very large glacier in Canada’s Yukon territory led to the rerouting of its vast stream of meltwater from one river system to another — cutting down flow to the Yukon’s largest lake, and channeling freshwater to the Pacific Ocean south of Alaska, rather than to the Bering Sea.

The researchers dubbed the reorganization an act of “rapid river piracy,” saying that such events had often occurred in the Earth’s geologic past, but never before, to their knowledge, as a sudden present-day event. They also called it “geologically instantaneous.”

[Defiant]

"I’m a Tea Party conservative. Here’s how to win over Republicans on renewable energy."

[Hipolito]

"I’m a Tea Party conservative. Here’s how to win over Republicans on renewable energy."

Thanks for posting this impressive video.

This isn't the first time I've heard that message, but it is the first time I've heard it from a Tea Party member. It's easily forgotten and it bears repeating that instead of talking with Republicans about climate change science, we should talk with them about energy freedom, energy choice, competition, national security, and innovation. Climate change science, no matter how correct it is, is no more likely to bring a Republican on board than a pastor's anti-abortion, anti-gay rhetoric would bring me into a church.

[Pyperkub]

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.”

Also, rolling back the Clean Power regulations won't be that easy:

The Trump administration's decision to terminate its predecessor's Clean Power Plan, accomplished via an executive order, would seem to be a carefully crafted decision with an air of finality about it. It neatly avoided rejecting mainstream climate science, opting instead to eliminate the only federal plan for doing anything about it.

The reality is far more complex. Unlike other actions by the Obama administration, which occurred late in his second term, the Clean Power Plan had gone through the entire federal rulemaking process. To get rid of it, the process has to be repeated in its entirety. And the scientific document that formed the foundation for the Clean Power Plan won't be touched by the reversal. Its existence is likely to leave the Trump EPA in a legally awkward position, one where they'll have to come up with some regulation to tackle climate change...

...The root of all the challenges faced by Scott Pruitt's EPA is the greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding. Given that, there would seem to be an obvious path forward: get rid of it. "If they take out the endangerment finding, then the whole house of cards comes down," said Vermont's Parenteau. "It's the linchpin for everything Obama did on climate under the Clean Air Act. You take that out, and you take out the whole infrastructure of carbon regulation."

...But both Parenteau and Doniger are skeptical that this can happen for a variety of reasons, among them is that doing so would involve the same regulatory process and risk of lawsuits that other rule changes would. An even bigger hurdle is that doing so would require some evidence-based reason. Here, the EPA would run up against the very climate science that the original endangerment finding cited. "I don't think there's ever been an environmental issue in which there's a stronger scientific consensus," Parenteau told Ars. Doniger said that reversing the Endangerment Finding "is a fool's errand because the science is so strong in supporting the finding."

[Kurth]

So, Bret Stephens writes an opinion piece -- "Climate of Complete Certainty" -- for the NYT in which he suggests that those trying to make inroads in halting climate change might want to change their tactics:

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

In his column, Stephens draws some parallels between the campaign to halt climate change and HRC's failed candidacy. Paraphrasing, he argues that both were characterized by an over-reliance on data and an over confidence that the data they were seeing would lead to the results they saw as a foregone conclusion. On the climate change front, Stephens suggests that since "nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity," simply throwing more data at them - or worse, giving in to hyperbole about the data - is not going to move the needle in a meaningful way.

I put this out there not to say that I necessarily agree with everything that Stephens says in his piece, but because I find the reason it's making headlines today to be fascinating and sadly telling: New York Times faces wave of criticism over climate column - A new columnist at The New York Times and his views on climate change have prompted some readers to cancel their subscriptions in protest.

From the intro to Stephen's piece:

When someone is honestly 55 percent right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60 percent right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God.

But what’s to be said about 75 percent right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100 percent right? Whoever says he’s 100 percent right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.

— An old Jew of Galicia

[malchior]

I think you might be not seeing the forest from the trees on the criticism. It is more than just the climate change article IMO or liberal orthodoxy or the such. It is about the culture that people are seeing at the Times. When they announced this hire it was stated that the NY Times felt like they needed to add diversity to their op ed page. And a lot of people noted that they had a plum position to offer someone who could bring true diversity of opinion to the op ep page but ended up hiring a worse David Brooks. It didn't help that Stephens had a reputation for touting climate change denial to begin with. So when his first article is a thinly veiled climate change denial article - it confirmed a lot of people's opinions about the declining quality of the editorial board at the Times. Especially after their performance during the election. I wouldn't even bother to attack the article more than point out that comparing decades of climate research with a vast majority of the experts in agreement to the predictions around an election that fell the way this one did is execrable logic.

[RunningMn9]

is not going to move the needle in a meaningful way.

I read the Stephens op-ed when it first came out, and disagreed fundamentally with this premise here.

I don't disagree necessarily that the current strategy isn't going to move the needle in a meaningful way. Where I disagree is that the change in strategy he is talking about not only won't move the need in a meaningful way - it is precisely the strategy that will allow the needle to be moved in the wrong direction.

In other words, the fundamental problem is *not* that Side A has been or is getting too hysterical. The fundamental problem is that Side B lies through their teeth for the sole purpose of creating confusion for their own personal gain.

[malchior]

Just to throw out some additional context that I think is relevant - this came across my Twitter feed. It goes into pretty exhaustive depth discussing some issues with the Bret Stephens hire and why this article struck a nerve. I'm not among the "cancellers" (yet) because I think it is a bit of an overreaction personally. That said I can understand that some people are through with accepting any normalization of this sort of bad faith behavior.

[RunningMn9]

I did not cancel over this (how silly).

[Kurth]

Just to throw out some additional context that I think is relevant - this came across my Twitter feed. It goes into pretty exhaustive depth discussing some issues with the Bret Stephens hire and why this article struck a nerve. I'm not among the "cancellers" (yet) because I think it is a bit of an overreaction personally. That said I can understand that some people are through with accepting any normalization of this sort of bad faith behavior.

Thanks for that link. I didn't have any of the context surrounding Stephens and his position at the NYT, so that was helpful. I especially liked:

Stephens is playing a bit part in a very, very old strategy. It goes like this:

Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: [questions answered]
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “Yeah, we answered those. Here’s a link.”
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “We answered the questions. A bunch of times. Please acknowledge our answers.”
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “Okay, we went back over our answers, double-checked and peer-reviewed them, compiled them in a series of reports with easy-to-read summaries, all of which we have broken down into digestible bits via various blog posts and visual aids.”
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “It’s beginning to seem like you don’t really care about this issue and are just jerking us around.”
Q: “Hey, we’re just asking questions! Galileo asked questions, didn’t he? Why are you being so intolerant and rude?”

I've certainly seen that play out many, many times. That said, I didn't see Stephens' most recent piece to be throwing doubt on climate science. I thought his gist -- and the reasons for the parallels he drew to the Clinton campaign -- was that a change in approach was called for, one that relied less on the 100% certainty of the data and more on making compelling and convincing arguments to a group of people who, for whatever reason, resist internalizing what that data says beyond all reasonableness. In other words, I saw Stephens as saying that it didn't matter how many times Clinton told Trump's supporters that he was a misogynist and a racist and someone dangerously unfit to be president and that they were culpable and would be equally tarred if they voted for him. That message just didn't resonate, or maybe it did resonate and had the opposite of the intended effect. I thought Stephens was arguing for a change in messaging.

But, knowing the background about Stephens, I can see how readers familiar with him might be primed to miss his point or find him to be disingenuous.

Either way, cancelling a subscription to the NYT because the paper publishes an opinion column you disagree with is crap, IMHO.

[RunningMn9]

making compelling and convincing arguments to a group of people who, for whatever reason, resist internalizing what that data says beyond all reasonableness.

Unfortunately this is a fool's errand. That group of people cannot be persuaded by compelling and convincing arguments. They resist those with the same tenacity that they resist data.

Their resistance is beyond all reasonableness (as you say). You will never convince them. These are the sorts of people who see not yielding as a virtue.

[Kraken]

Either way, cancelling a subscription to the NYT because the paper publishes an opinion column you disagree with is crap, IMHO.

I don't know anything about this fellow and I have low tolerance for science deniers, so if he's one of those I can understand hackles being raised. But don't most editorial pages make a point of running opposing viewpoints? The Globe has two regular conservative columnists. Jeff Jacoby's pieces are usually well-written and -argued; even though he is almost invariably wrong he explains himself well, and every now and then I concede that he has a point. The new guy is some state Republican Party shill who has the unenviable task of putting a positive spin on the Trump administration's daily foibles; his columns are good for a grimace when I make myself read to the end of one, but they're so filled with contortions and talking points that I don't often get far. I wouldn't consider canceling my sub because of them.

[Combustible Lemur]

Stephens is playing a bit part in a very, very old strategy. It goes like this:

Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: [questions answered]
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “Yeah, we answered those. Here’s a link.”
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “We answered the questions. A bunch of times. Please acknowledge our answers.”
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “Okay, we went back over our answers, double-checked and peer-reviewed them, compiled them in a series of reports with easy-to-read summaries, all of which we have broken down into digestible bits via various blog posts and visual aids.”
Q: “We’re just asking questions.”
A: “It’s beginning to seem like you don’t really care about this issue and are just jerking us around.”
Q: “Hey, we’re just asking questions! Galileo asked questions, didn’t he? Why are you being so intolerant and rude?”

.

Sorry, didn't read the links, but this so fucking much this.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Jeff V]

:::checks calendar...yep. 2017:::

The Chicago Tribune has resorted to littering my driveway with surplus copies of their archaic rag. Every Wednesday when I put out the trash bins, I collect them all up and pitch them.

[em2nought]

It's funny, there's probably nobody at OO hoping for the $uccess of green energy in the form of windmill$ more than I am. Or is it ironic? I still don't have a handle on that. lol

[Kurth]

It's funny, there's probably nobody at OO hoping for the $uccess of green energy in the form of windmill$ more than I am. Or is it ironic? I still don't have a handle on that. lol

Ok. I'll bite. Why are you so high on wind power?

[em2nought]

It's funny, there's probably nobody at OO hoping for the $uccess of green energy in the form of windmill$ more than I am. Or is it ironic? I still don't have a handle on that. lol

Ok. I'll bite. Why are you so high on wind power?

I'm heavily invested in equipment for the transport of said windmills, there's no funny punchline or anything. Well, OO might get a kick out of it if I failed, but not if wind failed.

[Kraken]

It's funny, there's probably nobody at OO hoping for the $uccess of green energy in the form of windmill$ more than I am. Or is it ironic? I still don't have a handle on that. lol

Ok. I'll bite. Why are you so high on wind power?

I'm heavily invested in equipment for the transport of said windmills, there's no funny punchline or anything. Well, OO might get a kick out of it if I failed, but not if wind failed.

Plus all of those big fans cool the earth.

[em2nought]

Plus all of those big fans cool the earth.

I bet if we placed cut open 2Ls in the border wall we could cool the earth even more. Which way does the wind blow at the border? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2NWr6bRKWU

[hepcat]

I thought you just wanted to plant land mines and simply kill anyone coming over from Mexico, instead of building a wall.

[em2nought]

I thought you just wanted to plant land mines and simply kill anyone coming over from Mexico, instead of building a wall.

That's just a pipe "bomb" dream.

[hepcat]

Yeah, I hear ya. Many of us have the same dream about blocking off Florida before...well...you know.

[em2nought]

Yeah, I hear ya. Many of us have the same dream about blocking off Florida before...well...you know.

Really? What would you do without us? We should have a statue of a senior care center nurse at the border with the inscription “Give me your wackadoodle, your tired of paying extreme property taxes, your too poor to pay northern rent, your huddled masses too cold to sleep on a northern bench in the winter yearning to be warm.”

[hepcat]

Not to worry, Trump/Kushner will allow folks to cross over that border wall for the paltry sum of 500,000 dollars.

...although I suspect folks will be paying to get out.

[em2nought]

...although I suspect folks will be paying to get out.

Don't give Disney any ideas.

[Paingod]

Rep. Grayson has some advice for climate change deniers.

[Defiant]

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signed on Thursday a declaration acknowledging the threat posed by climate change to the Arctic and indicating the need for action to curb its impact on the region.

The move appears at odds with the Trump administration's broad skepticism of climate change and comes at a time when President Trump is weighing a potential withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on fighting its effects.

link

[em2nought]

[NickAragua]

Yeah, that's the great thing about climate change. All of you "ostrich head in the sand" guys are going to die, same as the rest of us. It still sucks, but, somehow, it makes me feel better knowing that you're not going to profit in the long run by your greed and shortsightedness.

[em2nought]

"ostrich head in the sand"

It's a myth, they don't really do that.

[NickAragua]

"ostrich head in the sand"

It's a myth, they don't really do that.

Touche. Still in common use as a metaphor though.

[Paingod]

Until the sea level gets high enough, those beach front properties work for people who have money.

Myself, I've got a nice house on land high enough to become beach front when the ice melts and the seas rise. I'd still rather never see the ocean from my 2nd floor window than to be able to walk out watch the water lap at my retaining wall around the back yard.

[Jaymann]

Until the sea level gets high enough, those beach front properties work for people who have money.

Myself, I've got a nice house on land high enough to become beach front when the ice melts and the seas rise. I'd still rather never see the ocean from my 2nd floor window than to be able to walk out watch the water lap at my retaining wall around the back yard.

Although those newly waterfront homes might lose their luster when the surrounding water is full of destroyed and decaying homes and infrastructure.

[Daehawk]

10 images...some deeper than others

And the US

[Zarathud]

I have a vision of a horde of gun-toting, elderly Floridians standing their ground against a tsunami.

[Isgrimnur]

Stand your ... oops, where did it go?

[Max Peck]

I have a vision of a horde of gun-toting, elderly Floridians standing their ground against a tsunami.

That's what is known as a happy ending.

[Jaymann]

It does beg the question of where are all those Floridians going to relocate...

[Unagi]

I have a vision of a horde of gun-toting, elderly Floridians standing their ground against a tsunami.

[em2nought]

I have a vision of a horde of gun-toting, elderly Floridians standing their ground against a tsunami.

Clearly you don't know what happens when old Floridians fall in the water