Climate change will show no mercy to dithering Thailand

[tartempion]

Man made climate change is a load of bullshit,when Britain was under the ice ,there were no men about ,and when the Sahara desert was a forest ,was it manmade then ,just a way to tax you .

Sure, we humans are doing an excellent job in preserving our planet for generations to come

Edited July 2, 2014 by tartempion

[Daniel Boon]

Mr Boon, do you realize that when the temperature rises ice melts? If so, why are you so amazed that some of the ice is melting? There has been a lot more ice than your images show. Why not show a chart beginning from 12,000 years ago when half the planet was encased in Ice? Then you would see that a relatively small amount of ice has melted since industrialization, And then you are really going to have to think about how much ice was left in 8000, or 7000, or 3300 years ago; periods when the global temperatures were 2.6 C higher than they are now.

And while we are talking about historical (cyclical) warming, I would love to know how the global temps shot up 3.7 degrees in just 400 years about 8200 years ago. When the population of earth was a mere 5 million people.

Because that makes our current rate of warming .85 degrees in the last 130 years seem pretty normal. especially since we are coming of of what they called the little ice age.

Today we are less than one degree Celsius warmer than the little ice age and nearly 3 degrees cooler than (relatively) recent peaks. How can anybody be alarmed at this?

canadianmuck ... you typify the ignorance 'out there' ... you ask me to show a chart you know I don't have and yet within 7 lines you cite unsupported observations of a 3.7 degree rise in 400 years 8,200 years ago ...

we have warmed just under a degree AVERAGE in less than 50 years ... however, the number of concentrated hotter areas have increased ... I am alarmed that people (such as yourself) don't spend a bit of time researching instead of cherry-picking information ...

a bit of useless information (on you most likely) ... when wasps attack bee hives, the bees fight a losing battle; however, if a wasp makes it inside, they crowd around it and beat their wings which raises their and the wasps body temperature by about .8 of a degree; which is about 0.5 of a degree more than the wasp can stand and dies but, about 0.2 less at which time the bees would die of heat exhaustion ...

please don't reply ... spend some time educating yourself ...

[crazygreg44]

I think you are doing quite well with what you are on now, if you honestly believe all bogus clap trap about global warming and the like.

while you might be right in the light of the great scheme, you are so obviously wrong in stating that both Arctic and Antarctic ice is growing. There has never in the recent few hundreds of years been so little arctic ice during the arctic summers , with the amount of ice shelves, polar ice and glaciers spiralling downwards. That's a FACT , prooven by satellite imageries, and not quite underlining your arguments

It is my understanding that one of the so called ice melts in Antarctica was caused by underwater volcanic activity.

Anyway at one point the arctic ice caps extended to nearly the central US, noted by most people in the flat landscape. I am not sure the scope of the ice caps in Europe and Asia. As I understand it human activity did not exist then and certainly satellites did not exist to prove it.

I am thinking that this phenomena does not quite underline your argument either.

Rakman said Arctic and Antarctic ice is growing. I say, that it's quite on the contrary. No more, nor less. You are trying to put things into my mouth which i never said. Fact is that since the "small ice age" all Arctic and Antarctic ice is dwindling. And please proove that the breaking off of large chunks of the Antartic Ice shelf was caused by volcanic activity ( ???? ) when in fact scientists understood that warmer currents had destabilizing effect onto the affected glaciers. I am not a believer of a gradually "global warming" theory,either, because there is so much more that has to be taken into account ( methane levels, currents relocating, weather patterns changing ) but fact is that Earth has always undergone climactic changes in a more or lesser degree. Our current changes are between mild and dramatic, so as to say. However, nobody, not even a computer model, can foresee and predict the exact future.

I am agreeing with Mr. Boon . . . you all better spend some time educating yourself and do some serious research

Edited July 2, 2014 by crazygreg44

[RPCVguy]

Millions of years of Ice and CO2 data in a picture for you

Yes, CO2 has been far higher during the Earth's history, but not in the tiny fraction of a percent since humans and other mammals have evolved to live here.

The Ice Ages of recent paleogeoligic history are now understood to have been due to the repetitive cycles in the shape of the Earth's orbit, and of the angle of tilt in the Earth's axis. Other shorter term but significant patterns are linked solar radiance (sun-spot cycles) and circulation patterns of heat in the oceans between the surface and the deep... (El Nino and El Nina as the Pacific Ocean pattern) Relating to the physical conditions of those patterns are physical feedback loops for reflectivity of ice, snow, and clouds and the concentration of greenhouse gases based upon degree of photosynthesis seasonally. (Thus observed CO2 concentrations in the northern hemisphere go up, then retreat, then go up yet more in annual cycles due to more photosynthesis during the summer months.) Meanwhile volcanic activity is not on a repeating pattern, but when it occurs, it causes changes that add CO2 and also increase albedo (reflectivity of light back to outer space.)
Adding up the human activities compared to the natural activities is depicted in this image:

Again,and again the data computes to increased absorption over radiance of Energy across the surface of the planet. It is a big area, with a large volume of water being heated. Short of including CO2 into the equations, there is a gap between calculated and observed. Using what we know of CO2 as measured brings the forecasts much closer to reality. People may not like the forecasts, but ignoring them is done at the cost to future generations of having a planet in balance with the climate we evolved to thrive within.

Why ignore it? I submit it is to fulfill the desire of a small group to continue the last portion of their affluent ride on our "Titanic"
Not trusting, needing to better control government is a separate problem from facing the science and its consequences of "business as usual"
Is there a PR campaign at play? Absolutely! ... but by whom?

[canuckamuck]

Mr Boon, do you realize that when the temperature rises ice melts? If so, why are you so amazed that some of the ice is melting? There has been a lot more ice than your images show. Why not show a chart beginning from 12,000 years ago when half the planet was encased in Ice? Then you would see that a relatively small amount of ice has melted since industrialization, And then you are really going to have to think about how much ice was left in 8000, or 7000, or 3300 years ago; periods when the global temperatures were 2.6 C higher than they are now.

And while we are talking about historical (cyclical) warming, I would love to know how the global temps shot up 3.7 degrees in just 400 years about 8200 years ago. When the population of earth was a mere 5 million people.

Because that makes our current rate of warming .85 degrees in the last 130 years seem pretty normal. especially since we are coming of of what they called the little ice age.

Today we are less than one degree Celsius warmer than the little ice age and nearly 3 degrees cooler than (relatively) recent peaks. How can anybody be alarmed at this?

canadianmuck ... you typify the ignorance 'out there' ... you ask me to show a chart you know I don't have and yet within 7 lines you cite unsupported observations of a 3.7 degree rise in 400 years 8,200 years ago ...

we have warmed just under a degree AVERAGE in less than 50 years ... however, the number of concentrated hotter areas have increased ... I am alarmed that people (such as yourself) don't spend a bit of time researching instead of cherry-picking information ...

a bit of useless information (on you most likely) ... when wasps attack bee hives, the bees fight a losing battle; however, if a wasp makes it inside, they crowd around it and beat their wings which raises their and the wasps body temperature by about .8 of a degree; which is about 0.5 of a degree more than the wasp can stand and dies but, about 0.2 less at which time the bees would die of heat exhaustion ...

please don't reply ... spend some time educating yourself ...

Here's a chart, a bit small, but you can just make out the numbers

Edited July 2, 2014 by canuckamuck

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The global warming claptrap will be laughable in a decade or two.

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

You are cherry picking your science, a symptom of American Republicans. Are you one of those George Murderous Bush touting, Rush WIndbag worshipping idiots?

The rapidity of the Greenland ice shelf melting is so rapid that the land mass is rising an inch a year -- ask a geologist, and they will tell that is an insane development. Ask the people whose islands are being swallowed by the rising seas -- just pick one out of literally thousands -- and your arguments do not hold water. Ask people in central Virginia, where they will tell you that it snowed every year while they were growing up and now it is once every few years, because they live where snow is neither absent nor constant and can tell you their margin has shifted..

First, industrialists claimed there was no change. Then they claimed there might be change. Then they admitted there was change going on, even rapid change, but it was not from human action. Now the new call to inaction is that 'there is rapid change, but we cannot do anything about it."

I am one of the 97% of the scientists who agree, and I am no bogus lie. At conferences all over the world, in poll after poll after poll, more than 96.2% of all relevant scientists agree on climate change and furiously argue about what should and can be done (some polls only ask physicians, who are neither meteorologists nor climatologists, and are funded by Republican group-think tanks).

You are cherry picking scientific information to fulfill a political agenda.

That is laughable.

btw...Whahatever happened to the hole in the sky?

It served its purpose for a couple of decades...now forgotten.

I quote from the 'Report from Iron Mountain.

The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out-of-control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery

An atmospheric hole in the ozone layer is normally a season phenomina occurring in the Spring and Winter due to more intense sunlight. It occurs when ultraviolet sunlight breaks down the chlorofluorocarbon compounds (CFC) in the ozone that in turn destroys the ozone barrier and allows greater ultraviolet rays to impact the earth's surface. Unimpeded high UV doses can accelerate skin cancers. What was alarming was a sudden widening and longer duration of the hole.

Tentative research has placed blame on various manufacturing chemical processes, CFC leaks from a/c systems and aerosols as the appearance and predominant use of such CFC's coincided with the change in nature of the hole. There has been in the last decade concerted worldwide efforts by developed industrial nations to substitute CFCs with lesser damaging HCHCs and compressed air in aerosols, and it seems statistically coincidental that the hole has returned to its more natural seasonal state. The subject is complex and there is a concensus that not all the casual parameters have been identified. .

[kimamey]

Man made climate change is a load of bullshit,when Britain was under the ice ,there were no men about ,and when the Sahara desert was a forest ,was it manmade then ,just a way to tax you .

You really don't think much do you?

The earth has always gone through climatic cycles which caused the events you mention and will go through them again regardless of what man does or even if humans are still around. The point about global warming is that although in the long term we can't do much to stop these cycles in the short term we can try not to make it worse. That will hopefully give time to develop ways to survive for longer.

Global warming either through nature or man made isn't just about warmer weather but changing weather patterns which may cause some areas to become colder.

It's not really a case of whether some climate change is definitely caused by man or not but the fact that there is evidence that it possibly is. If we just wait and then find out that we are partly the cause it may be too late. If it isn't caused by man then we won't have done any harm.

it's more of a precaution against the possibility or probability than anything else.

Edited July 2, 2014 by kimamey

[A1Str8]

This planet is going to continue healing itself coz that's what it does. It's a self correcting system. By the time they are going to understand this, the cute little human race will be long gone.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[RPCVguy]

Fascinating - that you should be posting a chart by Prof. Richard B. Alley of Penn State University. He is the same person who narrated 2 of the original 3 videos I posted. I also neglected to cite the graphs as being from the IPCC.

Here's a chart, a bit small, but you can just make out the numbers

Dr. Alley worked extensively on the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, and contributed to the Third (2001) and Second (1995) Assessment Reports.
Since he is providing what you believe to be contradictory statements, maybe it is better to allow him to more thoroughly explain the science as he sees it.

He is an animated speaker who is able to laugh at things, while explaining well the details - often via excellent analogy.

His scientific talk is entitled "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

If and when a person listens to and learns from this video, then the long term cycles of climate are understood
... AND so too will the linkage to overall warming we've STARTED by our burning of 100 million years of fossil fuel deposits.

[canuckamuck]

So you have no problem with the chart then? I only mentioned the temperature record, so no need to bring any personalities into this.

We were hotter and it got hot faster in the recent past. And now we are below the last 10,000 year's average temperature. We are possibly slipping into an ice age. Which would be an actual problem. Hopefully we can hang on to this heat for a while longer.

Edited July 2, 2014 by canuckamuck

[3NUMBAS]

they have about 20years tillit hits em like a ton of bricks as eqatorial cities will be hit first

[RPCVguy]

Don't run away from the "personality" of Dr. Alley. He is one of the world's best known researchers. You liked his work enough to post a link to it. Don't just "cherry-pick" what you want to see...

Hear out his analysis of the role CO2 has as the thermostat for this planet. Sure, look at the temperatures over Greenland. Be aware of the "Little Ice Age" - but then get into the details as to why. (Example: "More than a century ago, the Earth was a little on the cold side in what is sometimes called the “Little Ice Age”, because the sun was a bit dim and volcanic eruptions were putting up dust that blocked the sun. The sun brightened early in the 20th century, contributing to warming, as shown by the little red bar extending to the right for natural solar irradiance down near the bottom of the figure posted above. But, over the last 30 years when satellites have given us the best data, the sun seems to have dimmed just a bit." Dr. Alley)

Mostly though, look at the 400ppm CO2, that is headed towards 560 or more ppm under business as usual. Already higher than any other point in 800,000 years, and heading up along the worst of the scenarios the IPCC warned about in 2007. As feedback processes increase, the self amplification of warmth will accelerate. Less ice => less albedo => faster warming. The effects so far are only the beginning. The "fast processes" are half the effect, and they take maybe 40 years to happen. That means the warming so far is what we cooked into the atmosphere back in the 70's. With all the population growth and increased use of energy since then, the mid-Century effects will be a harsh legacy for the current children.

The IPCC is politically gun shy of making waves. While Dr Alley says in the video (that you could not have viewed in the time before commenting) that the value for climate sensitivity is 2.6, he qualifies that to being for the short term. Longer term it looks to be higher. The different lines on this graph are all true. What is not known is the time frame required for equilibrium to be restored. I suspect the reality for the next hundred years will be closer to what Dr.James Hansen is showing than what the IPCC published.

The thermal blanket we've added is an imbalance that is forcing change into the future-on a massive scale.

[fasteddie]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

You are cherry picking your science, a symptom of American Republicans. Are you one of those George Murderous Bush touting, Rush WIndbag worshipping idiots?

The rapidity of the Greenland ice shelf melting is so rapid that the land mass is rising an inch a year -- ask a geologist, and they will tell that is an insane development. Ask the people whose islands are being swallowed by the rising seas -- just pick one out of literally thousands -- and your arguments do not hold water. Ask people in central Virginia, where they will tell you that it snowed every year while they were growing up and now it is once every few years, because they live where snow is neither absent nor constant and can tell you their margin has shifted..

First, industrialists claimed there was no change. Then they claimed there might be change. Then they admitted there was change going on, even rapid change, but it was not from human action. Now the new call to inaction is that 'there is rapid change, but we cannot do anything about it."

I am one of the 97% of the scientists who agree, and I am no bogus lie. At conferences all over the world, in poll after poll after poll, more than 96.2% of all relevant scientists agree on climate change and furiously argue about what should and can be done (some polls only ask physicians, who are neither meteorologists nor climatologists, and are funded by Republican group-think tanks).

You are cherry picking scientific information to fulfill a political agenda.

That is laughable.

The climate has always changed, the sea levels have risen and fallen. The 97% of scientists you talk about are just kissing the butts of the mad railway engineer and his computer programmers because that's where the money is. The arrogance of man to think he can influence the climate,

now That is laughable.

[fasteddie]

I am concerned about the information level which some of the TV members show about climate change.

Go visit Greenland and observe the ultra rapid disappearance of the ice, which by the way - in case all are melted - will increase sea level around 6 meters. And yes, that level increase is of course global as all seas are interconnected. Besides from Greenlands ice we have the poles, and luckily they currently seem not to melt...

However, the change in climate is very different in different regions, some areas seem to get colder. But in average we globally face a warming as well as more fluctuations and more extremes.

I don't care much if the effect is caused by man, but I care if the lower elevated areas become inhabitable. This has enormous costs to many countries...

"I don't care much if the effect is caused by man, but I care if the lower elevated areas become inhabitable."

I assume you mean uninhabitable, there are deserts that once were oceans, mountains that were once sea beds. The climate changes and so does earth and man is just going to have to get used to it.

[fasteddie]

Isn't it strange that CO2 is rapidly increasing yet temperatures are not increasing as predicted? The IPPC itself acknowledges there has been fewer cyclones and other severe weather events over the last few decades. As for sea rises???? Hardly any. If it appears to rise in one part of the globe it would register everywhere as all oceans are linked. Why has the arctic ice sheets grown to record levels recently? Why have all the dud warmist predictions been so wrong? Has anyone ever looked at waterfront real estate prices on these islands that are supposed to be inundated ? This weather of ours has been changing for billions of years. Why do they call greenland green? It once was and may be again.For man to think they can control the weather baffles the mind.

I will not be swayed by out of date you tube presentations but rather by what I see happenning in front of me. The very fact I could produce just as many scientists to refute what you claim means one thing for certain. The science is not settled.

The data as to CO2 acting as a blanket is based upon science researched in the 1950s as the US Air Force was perfecting its heat seeking missile technology.

▶ CO2 & the Atmosphere - YouTube

(

)

We know a great deal about what affects the Earth's balances of absorption vs radiance... and the observations don't track unless we add in the effects of CO2... indeed,we'd be cooling now, except for the blanket effect of the CO2

How do we know the climate is changing because of CO2?

YouTube - Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

(

)

And we know, based upon the math of sheer tonnage of fossil fuels sold and burned annually, but also because of the percentages / ratios of isotopes of Carbon that the CO2 is because of humans and not volcanoes

▶ "It's Us" - YouTube

(

)

I say "we" - speaking as a chemist, and aware of the predominant number of scientists who understand the logic of the above sequence of observations.

For the remainder of humans, there are a portion who claim to be of homo sapiens as a species, who trust their GPS, their satellite TV equipment, maybe even their doctor's reports - but are unwilling to accept evidence that might require them to reduce consumption and shift energy supply options. i.e. not really sapient.

......As for sea rises???? Hardly any. If it appears to rise in one part of the globe it would register everywhere as all oceans are linked. .....

I could see YOU are NOT a scientist...! You should know that the sea level is rising e.g. in Europe every year, but not everywhere the same because of influence by e.g. Gulf Stream, Rotation of our planet and Moon attraction. Also the sea water is moving as in a bath tub...some more water here, some less water there. It's going round the globe...

Please think twice before typing any nonsense

"Also the sea water is moving as in a bath tub...some more water here, some less water there."

Please think twice before typing any nonsense

[fasteddie]

Man made climate change is a load of bullshit,when Britain was under the ice ,there were no men about ,and when the Sahara desert was a forest ,was it manmade then ,just a way to tax you .

You really don't think much do you?

The earth has always gone through climatic cycles which caused the events you mention and will go through them again regardless of what man does or even if humans are still around. The point about global warming is that although in the long term we can't do much to stop these cycles in the short term we can try not to make it worse. That will hopefully give time to develop ways to survive for longer.

Global warming either through nature or man made isn't just about warmer weather but changing weather patterns which may cause some areas to become colder.

It's not really a case of whether some climate change is definitely caused by man or not but the fact that there is evidence that it possibly is. If we just wait and then find out that we are partly the cause it may be too late. If it isn't caused by man then we won't have done any harm.

it's more of a precaution against the possibility or probability than anything else.

"If it isn't caused by man then we won't have done any harm."

You really don't think much do you?

[Choctastic]

Can't believe the carbon commies are trying yet again to breathe life into this dead corpse. There is little real science being conducted these days. Only Science that can be 'manufactured' to support the latest scam the kleptocratic criminals in Washington and elsewhere wish to run. The solution to climate change is not to punish polluting industries or deal with the issue at source but to allow them to swap their pollution for a forest in Botswana. Meanwhile the plebs are criminalized, taxed until they bleed while an army of carbon cops roam the streets looking for illegal toasters.

They've run these climate scares how many times in the last 100 years? 'Scientists' cling to their fudged data and computer models which over-estimate warming and failed to predict the current pause. Dare to challenge their religious fervour and they brazenly tout a 97% consensus, which has already been shown to be a total fabrication. These stupid tools are working on behalf of those who seek to rob and enslave us and they can't see it. Someone needs to scientifically inject a hockey stick right up their arrogant waste disposal tubes.

Mencken had it right...

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

[RPCVguy]

Supplying reports of scientific analysis may have assisted a few of the TV readers.
Good. For their benefit my prior posts were worth the effort.

For those who insist upon supplying their opinions without consistent evidence
- you're lucky if you're old enough to not live to see what lies ahead.

Wishing later that you'd investigated now will be too late.

[VincentRJ]

One thing that's always puzzled me about the solutions proposed to address the perceived threat of human induced global warming, (that is, the proposals to raise the price of cheap, CO2-emitting fuel and energy), is why it is thought that such proposals could ever be accepted by the public at large.

For centuries, we've accepted the economic advantages of building cities in flood plains and on earthquake faults. We insist on building inadequate houses in areas subject to fairly regular cyclones and hurricanes, and houses too close to the sea shore.

When Fukushima built its nuclear reactor on the East coast of Japan, there existed lots of historical records of previous tsunamis that had flooded the area. In some places on that coast there were even stone monuments advising future generations not to build their houses below the markers, the levels of previous floods.

The point I'm making is as follows. If populations at large are not willing to 'collectively' spend more money on building a higher house, if it's in a known flood plain or near the sea shore, or build a stronger house, if it's located in an area subject to cyclones, then why should they be expected to accept proposals to spend money on more expensive energy so that their already vulnerable houses might not be subject to what is no more than a 'perceived risk' of greater storm damage from global warming.

Perhaps the explanation lies in a lack of appreciation of the relationship between energy costs and standards of living. If it costs as much as I can afford to build an adequate house in a flood plain, on tall piers, for example, well above the level of all known previous floods, then such a house would not be affordable if the Government were to raise the price of energy to tackle climate change.

Any increase in energy costs has a flow-on effect throughout the entire economy. Everything becomes proportionally more expensive.

Stated as simply as possible, the choices are between:

(1) Spending money on flood mitigation-dams, and stronger or higher houses, in order to reduce the threat from a repetition of known, past, extreme weather events.

(2) Spending the same amount of money on reducing CO2 levels, through the introduction of more expensive, renewable energy, in the vain hope that the current frequency of flooding and storm damage will not get worse.

Of course, some folks will attempt to refute this argument by claiming we should be spending money on both of those options, apparently oblivious to the fact that one can't spend money (or energy) twice, or perhaps oblivious to the fact that we simply don't have enough resources to adequately or fully address the first option in relation to known, past, extreme weather events.

In other words, if one attempts to address both problems by splitting a limited amount of resources, then one doesn't succeed in fixing either problem.

[Choctastic]

Supplying reports of scientific analysis may have assisted a few of the TV readers.

Good. For their benefit my prior posts were worth the effort.

For those who insist upon supplying their opinions without consistent evidence

- you're lucky if you're old enough to not live to see what lies ahead.

Wishing later that you'd investigated now will be too late.

Where is your humanity? Where is the precautionary principle when it comes to today's problems? NO sign of it when the Empire is blowing up country after country, irradiating the soil and forcing a death and sickness-inducing, industrialized mono-culture, which destroys diversity, on the global population. There's no 30's style dust-bowl in the U.S. today yet we are told it's the hottest ever. Pah! Scientific credibility has been shredded by exaggerated claims, the suppression of dissent, 'climategate', captured government agencies fudging date, zombie sensors, the unscientific IPCC and lead scientists busily 'hiding the decline'. It doesn't matter how many studies are wagged in front of the public. They no longer believe you. Instead of doubling up on a busted flush, you should simply shut up. China and India aren't buying it, so end of.

The problem isn't 'climate change'. It is environmental destruction and pollution. Who cares if temperatures are going to rise 2 degrees when our bodies are poisoned by hundreds of industrial chemicals, our soil is toxic and deficient, our relationships are being undermined, our debts are piling high, our freedoms stripped, our homes have been repossessed, our sons are being maimed in banker 'wars' for control and resources and billions in the thrid world are still living in poverty without electricity and clean water? In the U.S. tens of millions are on food stamps. These are far more pressing issues than having to buy a new pair of swimming trunks.

Instead of waiting another 50 years for the oceans to rise and Noah to return, why not appeal for the far more pressing problems of TODAY to be addressed, that desperately need the trillions that will be shamefully wasted on what still is an 'hypothesis'.

Lock up some bankers and corporate CEO's and watch how quickly they get pollution under control. The fact that they aren't doing that should tell you how seriously they regard this issue.

If you are so convinced Armaggedon is around the corner, feel free to pay my carbon taxes. Good man.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Choctastic

[RPCVguy]

Vincent - you pose the main questions as to why this is so politically tough to handle.
How can resources be garnered to mitigate problems in a society that is already showing strain from aging infrastructure, and with a vast percentage of the population struggling from financial inequality. IF a solution is found that did honestly garner societal resources, experience promises that some people would find ways to siphon off a portion for their private use. It happens in every society - from communist China and the old USSR to the Corporate heads, lobbyists and politicians of DC. It CERTAINLY would be front and center of any "Cap_n_Trade" system, because we've seen what Wall Street did with derivatives (and are still doing)

I participate in mostly US forum discussions, and see viable options being few to none. Using market and pricing incentives seems to be the most likely option - especially IF it is made revenue neutral. Keeping it revenue neutral would be the hard part. Temptation would be extreme to just take a little for ... "

What effect would removing ALL FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES have, if then made the beginning point of a Carbon Tax and Dividend plan? Policy Proposed being:
* Stop subsidizing the energy streams that are most harming the environment, namely fossil fuels. Though this amount is large at $Billions annually, it would NOT be much compared to the price of a barrel of oil or ton of coal. For the first year, apply all of the savings to the first year of the Carbon Fee/Tax Dividend, but in year #2, only 75%, then 50%, 25%, and then use it solely to balance the overall budget which was previously carrying its burden.
* Institute a Carbon Fee/Tax globally, and/or single nations like the USA need begin imposing tariffs on goods produced where the tax was not internally collected/ applied. Start the fee at a modest amount, but build in an annual amounts so as to eventually discourage all such consumption of fossil fuels.
* Educate the populations of each nation with the carbon tax as to its need to convert energy supplies from the fossil fuels to cleaner and renewable energy sources. This step is the make or break aspect/ lesson learned in attempts to reduce fuel price subsidies as reported in an IMF study.
* Simultaneously make the carbon fee/ tax revenue neutral by distributing all revenues back to the people. This could be done by national ID card number in many nations. In the USA the system could be distributed monthly (as done for direct payroll deposits) either on the basis of “per household” or “per person” using existing SS# and tax filing data to group people by households. (The regressive nature of a Carbon Fee/Tax will necessitate quickly helping the poorest segment of the population, thus the need for monthly distributions – which recipients can have directly deposited to financial accounts of their choosing) The idea of dividend payments per household would favor smaller family size – which also begins to undo the unsustainable concept of encouraging population growth.
* Recognize the corporations will use their substantial monetary, media, legal and political clout to block any such implementation. PROMISING: A report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, including Exxon Mobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/energy-environment/large-companies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html?_r=0

The USA is not the only economy to feel corporate control of their government. Australia instituted a Carbon Tax, and the resulting uproar toppled that governing coalition. England is only now second guessing its climate denialists as the floods awakened many there to the problems of having ANY economy - if the climate shifts out from the range of being supportive – and moves into the realm of destroyer.

Choctastic - cheap shots as to my humanity. What I've done and continue doing to protest, slow, defund. vote out those imbedded in the Military/Industrial Complex has been consistent since the 60's. Same goes for decrying the use of glyphosate poison and GMOs from those same industries. The problems grow because the systems greasing the global civilization require constant growth from our finite planet (including in population.) The ecosystem suffers, gets destroyed and any attempt to save what is natural gets bulldozed by the prevailing culture. ...at least it will until it collapses if its own complexity and upon its own waste. The only person I know who both grasps that demise and seems at peace with it is a friend who has more completely adopted a Buddhist philosophy than I can manage. Though I never had children, I've married here in Thailand and now have step-children and grandchildren. For their sake, I still seek a solution.

[snarky66]

The idiot in the OP says "Drastic changes in weather"

What a dufus. 20 something who hasn't been around the block. But she's been listening to the hoaxers who say "WE MUST ACT & WE MUST ACT NOW"

Poist 70.

You are angry that people burned logs to keep warm. Arrogant sod. Disconnect from the grid NOW!!!!!

Do your part.

[jucel]

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and "scientists" are using a few hundred years of data. How can anyone draw any conclusions from such a miniscule amount of data?

[Choctastic]

Choctastic - cheap shots as to my humanity. What I've done and continue doing to protest, slow, defund. vote out those imbedded in the Military/Industrial Complex has been consistent since the 60's. Same goes for decrying the use of glyphosate poison and GMOs from those same industries. The problems grow because the systems greasing the global civilization require constant growth from our finite planet (including in population.) The ecosystem suffers, gets destroyed and any attempt to save what is natural gets bulldozed by the prevailing culture. ...at least it will until it collapses if its own complexity and upon its own waste. The only person I know who both grasps that demise and seems at peace with it is a friend who has more completely adopted a Buddhist philosophy than I can manage. Though I never had children, I've married here in Thailand and now have step-children and grandchildren. For their sake, I still seek a solution.

Why? Scientists aren't supposed to be political activists and you are old enough not to be frightened yourself, or to frighten your children with Polar Bear horror stories...

'The role of scientists is not in speculating on the probabilities of events that cannot be directly measured and tested, nor in promoting a pseudo-scientific “precautionary principle”, nor in engaging in activities which are the proper function not of scientists but of risk managers.'

The rest of what Vaclav Klaus says on this topic should be required reading...

'The Manmade Contribution to Ongoing Global Warming Is Not a Planetary Emergency'

http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3165

[The Deerhunter]

chief of humanitarian organisation CARE USA said that "Aside from funding early-warning signals, CARE is helping vulnerable communities alter their way of life through initiatives such as introducing flood-resistant livestock."

With the above quote makes me question the point of the whole article, sounds more like a sales pitch for CARE. Would love to know more about flood resistant livestock?

Flood Resistant Livestock???? See Monty Python "The Cheese Shop" Venezuelan Beaver milk Cheese.

[The Deerhunter]

chief of humanitarian organisation CARE USA said that "Aside from funding early-warning signals, CARE is helping vulnerable communities alter their way of life through initiatives such as introducing flood-resistant livestock."

With the above quote makes me question the point of the whole article, sounds more like a sales pitch for CARE. Would love to know more about flood resistant livestock?

FISH.

Phanat Nikhom has it nailed! Crocodiles!!

[RPCVguy]

You want the advice of Risk Management experts? Here is access to just such a report.
http://riskybusiness.org/

Most commenters seem unwilling to access links offered. Instead of the report, watch the 5 Min. video message by the same group:

Risky Business: A Climate Risk Assessment for the United States

Includes Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin, Donna Shalala, Michael Bloomberg, Thomas Steyer, Gregory Page, Henry Cisneros, & Alfred Sommer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRTwGMICflc&feature=share

Back to some of the earlier concerns as to humans having lived through warmer periods. We are now within a degree of those prior peaks for the Holocene and within a couple of degrees of the rare peaks from back when humans ancestors were still hunter gatherers in small numbers, migrating to follow the food.

That's maybe why a two degree rise in temperatures is deemed serious, but not human extinction.
Those prior events were NOT driven by CO2, but by the orbital gyrations of the planet. This time the tipping off balance is because of the insulation values of the added CO2 in the air, amplified over decades by the increase of water vapor and reduction in snow/ ice cover. Yes,the amount of added heat absorbed is set to take the planet far beyond the 2 degrees - unless we ace the issue now. Nature does not negotiate its laws of physics.
See the 2 attachments.

[Choctastic]

Staggering you would post anything from this rogue's gallery. Rubin, Paulson and Bloomberg. You jest.

[VincentRJ]

RPCVguy,
You've obviously given the matter a great deal of thought. However, one point which I think needs clarification is this idea that fossil fuels get subsidies. The impression I get in Australia is that such subsidies usually go to the consumers of the electricity produced by fossil fuels, not to the producers of the electricity.

For example, the Aluminium smelting industry consumes a lot of electricity. It's a major portion of the industry's operating costs. In order to encourage such industries to set up business in Australia, the Government has sometimes agreed to subsidise the cost of electricity. The return to the Government in taxes on profits, and the additional income tax from the workers employed in an industry which might otherwise set up operations overseas, justifies the subsidy on electricity.

If such electricity were produced by solar and wind power, the electricity subsidies would have to be even greater in order to encourage such industries to set up operations in Australia, and perhaps could not then be justified.

The bottom line, which I think is a truism which is often overlooked, is that the average prosperity of all people on the planet is linked to the real cost of energy plus the efficiency with which that energy is used. As the cost of energy rises it is sometimes possible to offset the additional cost by using the energy more efficiently, but that has its limitaions. One can't achieve 100% efficiency, or often even close, and certainly not more than 100% efficiency

Of course, the real cost of energy should include the external side effects of pollution. China is now paying the real price of its cheap power from its many old-fashioned coal-fired power plants, in terms of air pollution in its major cities. However, Carbon Dioxide is not one of the pollutants. CO2 is a clear, odourless gas which is necessary for all life. It's actually a tremendous resource. It would be interesting if someone could calculate the total value of increased agricultural production, and forest growth, that has resulted from the gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I bet it would amount to many trillions of dollars in today's money.

My own personal solution for the perceived threat of CO2 induced climate change, which I see as an uncertain threat which is not fully understood because the science is so complex, involves the oasification of Australia.

What I propose (because I'm Australian, and this proposal is of course partly tongue-in-cheek ) is that in place of a Carbon Tax or Emissions Trading Scheme, all developed countries in the world whose people are concerned about climate change, should donate to Australia a sum of money annually which will be spent on the oasification of Australia. We shall use the money to build large dams in areas subject to heavy rainfall, and build long pipes to transport the water to our many deserts (oasification is the opposite of desertification).

One of the effects on plant growth, of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, is a reduction in the size of the pores on the leaves, which results in less evaporation. Plants are thus able to thrive with less water, which is an ideal situation for plant growth in the arid regions of Australia.

It is estimated that the enrichment of the soils in Australia alone could sequester all of that alarming, excess CO2 in the atmosphere. If it subsequently turns out to be the case, in a hundred years' time, say, that rising CO2 levels were never a problem because we were heading into another Ice Age (whether Little or Big), and that by reducing our CO2 levels we have actually made the climate even colder than it otherwise would have been, then at least we will not be accused by future generations of having wasted trillions of dollars fighting an imaginary foe.

We will still have the legacy of a beautiful, forested Australia with rich agricultural lands feeding the world's populations.

Edited July 4, 2014 by VincentRJ

[RPCVguy]

Staggering you would post anything from this rogue's gallery. Rubin, Paulson and Bloomberg. You jest.

Almost jesting Paulson and that team ARE known for their ability to assess risk, which was an earlier request by Choctastic.

Maybe the fact that INSURANCE COMPANIES are finding the historical risk patterns are changing... ?

"When it comes to the calculating the likelihood of catastrophic weather, one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in the game: the insurance industry. And in recent years, the industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters—including floods and wind storms—say they’re seeing something new.

“Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,” says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance companies to calculate risk. “In the past, when making these assessments, we looked to history. But in fact, we’ve now realized that that’s no longer a safe assumption—we can see, with certain phenomena in certain parts of the world, that the activity today is not simply the average of history.”"

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-the-insurance-industry-is-dealing-with-climate-change-52218/?no-ist

So many demands for information, and so few acknowledging what has been provided.

I am looking at the counter arguments listed ... and doubt Vaclav Klaus would agree with any facts that might slow his use of wealth...

His article dismissed as too low (near zero) the the valid economic tool used by all businesses = calculating the discount value of a project. I've attached a page from a White House paper on the "Social Cost of Carbon" ( = the inherent externalized cost to society of carbon pollution as in asthma, but now too the risks being seen by insurance companies - and still ignoring the costs of the military needed to protect the supply lines!)

The problem isn't economists don't know how to calculate it, but rather the policy makers are seeing a different financial outlook for return on investment than is seen by the vast majority of people, including Vaclav Klaus.

There are different classes of people in each society. Those at the top see the future as having a higher value in the discount rate than those at the bottom. They are loath to change the systems of society - it works for them, it is never time to seriously disrupt the status quo.

For those at the bottom (even the middle) the time to adjust is history - their future generations may not survive. They (example Bangladesh even average people along the New Jersey coast) do not have the means to adapt - to move inland from rising seas or farther from a river's flood. The storms and flood difficulties will challenge human society globally - if not directly, then by the food shortages from crop losses or the lack of fuel to heat their homes as prices rise for what fuel remains accessible.

(The source for the attachment is shown in the image.)