- Last post
- 553 Responses
Map projects where climate change will kill the most people.
Climate change is projected to cause higher mortality in many parts of the United States, according to a new report published in the journal Science.
The country as a whole could see about 5.4 more deaths per 100,000 people for every degree Celsius the temperature rises. But the South is expected to be hardest hit, with many counties in Texas and Florida seeing 20 to 40 more deaths for every 100,000 residents by the end of the century.
- Ironic how Texas and Florida will be the first to go.formed
- ironic? no. more like telling.
- etc. etc.
- yes ironic, considering they've outlawed teaching actual science about the issue theremonospaced
- You mean global warming?Hayoth
- i feel globally warmer.ApeRobot
- so the north drives industry, the south suffers yet the south are the loudest climate change deniers. perfect lol._niko
- Isn't that map fairly close to where guns kiil most people, if you bump up the red in the northeast (Chicago, etc.)?BustySaintClaire
- also the areas most in need of universal healthcare, but it's loudest opponents. Retarded._niko
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
See a Wall Street Journal article here.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.
More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.
- fact 1 - what happens if you put an ice cube in your tea that's on fire, the tea cools down for a period before boiling up again. if it's not warming up nowBeeswax
- it's because you're melting your ice cubes.Beeswax
- Regardless of your view of cause, environmental problems and weather severity are on the rise and still need to be addressed in some form.ETM
- Even if it were 100% natural, we can work to not exacerbate the situation through better practices, and we still need to work to address the net results,ETM
- despite cause or origin.ETM
- ^ agreed.mugwart
- A lot of these "facts" are just not true at all.monospaced
- FACT: Putting the word "Fact" at the beginning of the sentence instantly makes it a true fact.Chimp
- MYTH: People Care.imbecile
- young dumb and full of cum!moldero
- Whatever you believe or not in human global warming... trying to reduce CO2 emission is not a bad idea. Precautionary principle...gonzalle
Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts.
It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.
- Fail of the day?Maaku
- who in the fuck would put it there?teh
- The scientists' who never would of thought that the North Pole would melt...but global warming is proving everyone wrong, except Trump and the GOP.utopian
- lol fucking shit. fail of the century.sarahfailin
- what's the problem? plant these seeds near the vaultdrgs
- lol at not making it water proofset
- Haha, stoopid HumAnzrobthelad
- One job!!!futurefood
- And this thing was only built what, 8 years ago?ETM
- Because melting ice caps is funny.face_melter
- It's okay, warm ice is make water, we iz water mostly. Winz.robthelad
- The seeds are safe. Sensationalist headline. Just look it up.ESKEMA
Rapid warming and disintegrating polar ice sets the stage for ‘societal collapse
Carbon pollution is destabilizing both the Arctic and Antarctic.
The Arctic and Antarctic are seeing an accelerated collapse of both sea and land ice.
When you add in Trump’s aggressive agenda to undo both domestic and global climate action, we are facing the worst-case scenario for climate change — and one new study finds that the worst case is “societal collapse.”
The unprecedented drop in global sea ice we reported on last month has continued. Arctic sea ice reached a new record low, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reports.
"Drill Baby Drill" - GOP
Iceberg the size of Delaware to break off from Antarctica
A large sheet of ice is set to break away from Antarctica and scientists say it will be one of the largest breaks of its kind recorded.
Larsen C -- a sprawling sheet of ice in western Antarctica -- is currently attached to its parent shelf by 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of ice, according to UK-based research team Project MIDAS.
Once it splits, the crack will produce an iceberg around 5,000 square kilometers (1,930 square miles) -- approximately the size of the state of Delaware.
Scientists disprove global warming took a break
Washington (AFP) - A reported pause in global warming between 1998 and 2014 was false, according to US-British research published Wednesday that confirmed the findings of a controversial US study on ocean warming.
Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of York, England, corroborated the results of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) research paper in 2015.
Their findings were reported in the US journal Science Advances.
The NOAA paper had shown ocean buoys now used to measure water temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems.
The switch to buoy measurements had hidden some of the real-world warming during the 1998-2014 period, the NOAA scientists concluded.
The NOAA paper had drawn outrage from some scientists who insisted there had been a "global warming hiatus" and from critics who consider global warming a hoax.
The US House of Representatives, controlled by the Republican Party, had even demanded the NOAA scientists provide lawmakers with their email exchanges about the research.
The US government agency agreed to transmit data and respond to scientific questions but refused to hand over the emails of the study's authors, a decision supported by scientists worried about political interference.
"Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books," said Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group and lead author of the new study.
- 'Hiatus' debunked -
The International Panel on Climate Change, in a report published in September 2013, said the average global warming between 1951 and 2012 had been 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.
But between 1998 and 2012, warming had amounted to only 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade, indicating a 'global warming hiatus.'
The 2015 NOAA analysis, which was adjusted to correct for the "cold bias" of buoy measurements, found there was no detectable slowdown in ocean warming over the previous 15 years.
Reporting in the journal Science, the NOAA scientists said the oceans has actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as the earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade.
That brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.
The new study uses independent data from satellites and Argo floats, a worldwide satellite-based location and data collection system, as well as from buoys.
The information gathered confirmed the NOAA results in 2015 were correct, the scientists said.
"We were initially skeptical of the NOAA result, because it showed faster warming than a previous updated record from the UK Met Office," said Kevin Cowtan of the University of York.
"So we set out to test it for ourselves, using different methods and different data. We now think NOAA got it right, and a new dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees," he said.
Science is not a belief system...it's a system of facts.
- don't worry too much about this shit, look at your "California has 1 year of water stored" post from over a year ago._niko
- the 5 year stretch was the worst ever but it's had its ups and downs historically.
- Thanks for posting fake news again.Hayoth
- I found the article on Breitbart Newsutopian
Brian Cox vs. a climate change denier.
- If I ever wanted to become a dictator and have a country full of surfs I would make sure the members of QBN were citizens of my great country,Hayoth
- Does this NASA link mean anything to you or are you going to go from global cooling to global warming to climate change?Hayoth
- LOL chill. I'm not Brian Coxmonospaced
- ah yes, hayoth the Alex Jones loyalist.inteliboy
- because out of all the manipulation and scheming that surrounds climate change it's those evil scientists at Nasa.inteliboy
- Things can only get better?Chimp
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'
- And the environmentalists attempting to "Save the Rainforests" cheer loudly!!! Hooray...drake-von-drake
- Hmmm thought you guys were saying above it wasn't caused by CO2 and just "natural warming cycle"...yuekit
- Its more along the path that plant life benefits from co2's im not sure about the other info they are throwing in, in trying play up the warming.yurimon
- nothing to see here, just your average, cyclical shit, previously captured in the rock recorddrake-von-drake
- If CO2 emissions cause such a dramatic change in plant growth, why wouldn't it affect climate as well?yuekit
- there is talk that we are preventing an ice age but i dont know. I think there are so many factors for climate, im not sure we will have down in a decade.yurimon
- climate models are faulty. so you guess as good as any, only thing as big concern is false politics in all this driving this issue more then the science.yurimon
- No doubt there are some green and alternative energy companies that stand to benefit. But overall self interest would lie much more on the side of not doingyuekit
- anything so that you don't slow economic growth. No politician wants to be the one that slows the economy, even if the long term consequences end up havingyuekit
- a much higher cost. So there's your conspiracy, much more realistic than a bunch of scientists around the world all making stuff up.yuekit
- Such the contrarianutopian
- you mean the email debacle with fake data being used to prop up global warming? stuff like that?yurimon
- There was no fake data, just emails showing scientists debating over what their research showed, exactly what you would expect.yuekit
- when you examine how money, politics, university grants, corps work together with science you will understand.yurimon
- What part of the science do you think is wrong? It's well established that gases like CO2 and methane produce a greenhouse effect when added to atmosphere.yuekit
- That's one of the reasons why the Earth's climate is different from those of other planets, and also different from how it was in the past.yuekit
- Considering the amount of CO2 and other emissions pumped into the air by billions of people driving cars, factories, etc. it's a pretty basic cause and effect.yuekit
- how many particles per billion?yurimon
Big Oil Finally Admits Climate Risks — To Its Business AND The Planet
For decades, oil companies have tried to ignore the truth about climate change.
After decades of denial, and in some cases outright coverup, a few of the world’s largest oil companies may be waking up to the realities of climate change.
American giants Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Valero Energy have started to tell investors that they face financial and physical risks as the planet warms and the world begins to use smaller amounts of fossil fuels, according to a review of their recent public filings with securities regulators.
These risks include increased government regulation aimed at making dirty energy more expensive to produce or limiting how much of it can be burned. Extreme weather, another danger, could disrupt operations or damage company assets.
A report published last November found that more than half of the 20 largest public U.S. energy and industrial companies had not disclosed information about the potential risks of climate change to their businesses. Since then, negotiators have reached a historic agreement in Paris to try to limit climate change, a new report found that sea levels could rise even faster than researchers had previously anticipated and state attorneys general continued to investigate companies that may have withheld information about the dangers of climate change.
Influence Map, a nonprofit group that examines the corporate influence of climate change policies, released both the November and April reports.
The recent disclosure by Exxon is perhaps the most significant. The story that the company tired to hide evidence of climate risks was first revealed by the L.A. Times and Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental reporting program and is now the subject of investigations by state attorneys general.
“ExxonMobil believes the risk of climate change is real and warrants action. ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options,” said company spokesman Alan Jeffers.
In its annual report to investors, released in February, Exxon said it assumes “governments will enact policies that impose rising costs on energy‑related CO2 emissions.” It also assumes carbon emissions will be priced at $80 per ton in 20 years, as governments around the world enact policies to make fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energy even more competitive.
Currently, there is no stated, national price on carbon in the U.S., but some states have implemented carbon pricing plans, and hundreds of companies are using internal carbon prices to make investment decisions.
U.S. companies are not currently required to disclose climate change risks to investors.
Financial regulators are doing “almost nothing” to push companies to disclose climate risk, Mindy Luber, head of sustainable investing coalition Ceres wrote earlier this month. Previously, the Securities and Exchange Commission seemed poised to enact rules requiring that companies tell investors about the climate risks their businesses face. But that was in 2010, when the SEC was headed by Mary Shapiro. Under the current leadership of Mary Jo White, the agency has not moved forward with that effort.
In contrast, the Financial Stability Board, a group of national regulators, is working with executives to develop voluntary climate change disclosure standards.
“It’s encouraging to see the energy sector providing greater disclosure,” Timothy Smith of Walden Asset Management, a sustainability-focused investment firm, said in a release. “This is an indicator that post-Paris, companies are increasingly aware of new realities that will inevitably affect their business.”
Reached for comment, Chevron referred The Huffington Post to its proxy statement, where it recommends investors vote against proposals requiring additional climate change reporting. ConocoPhillips, Valero and the SEC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Sanders' Energy Policies Would Actually Increase Global Warming
“Wouldn’t those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?” Errol Louis, one of the debate moderators, asked Sanders during Thursday’s debate in Brooklyn, New York.
“No, they wouldn’t,” Sanders shot back. He called for a massive increase in the use of renewable energy, especially solar power, and said that if the United States took the climate threat as seriously as it did the Nazis in World War II, the country could in a few years radically transform its entire energy system.
Energy analysts, if not Sanders supporters, view askance his proposals that could undermine the twin pillars of the progress that the United States has made. Fracking for natural gas has helped utilities mothball dirty coal plants. And nuclear power provides 20 percent of U.S. electricity — and all of it is emissions free. Both energy sources would be targeted by Sanders, yet very hard to replace.
“There is a basic reality here, which is that nuclear energy is the single-largest source of zero-emissions electricity in the United States,” Josh Freed, vice president of clean energy at Third Way, a centrist think tank, told Foreign Policy. “If you care about climate change, that should be a very significant influence on your policy.”