Once again, Virginia leads the way!

Originally Posted by Scott Harper in the June 10th issue of the Virginian-Pilot

Lawmakers avoid buzzwords on climate change bills

By Scott Harper
The Virginian-Pilot
© June 10, 2012
State lawmakers ran into a problem this year when recommending a study on rising sea levels and their potential impacts on coastal Virginia.

It was not a scientific problem or a financial one. It was linguistic.

They discovered that they could not use the phrases "sea level rise" or "climate change" in requesting the study, in part because of objections from Republican colleagues and also for fear of stirring up conservative activists, some of whom believe such terms are liberal code words.

On its website, for example, the Virginia tea party described the proposed "sea level rise" study this way: "More wasted tax dollars for more ridiculous studies designed to separate us from our money and control all land and water use."

The group urged its members to contact elected officials right away to defeat the measure: "They will pass this without blinking if we don't yell loudly."

So lawmakers did away with all mention of sea level rise, substituting a more politically neutral phrase: "recurrent flooding."

The amended study, while fixed on the same research, sailed through the General Assembly and was signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell, who also has raised questions about what is causing slightly higher temperatures on the planet...

To see the rest of the story, click the headline.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Once again, Virginia leads the way!


To see the rest of the story, click the headline.

I am not going to fret over that because I am convinced that physical reality has a far stronger punch than Tea Party ideology, and those who refuse to accept physical reality will harvest what they planted.

And when coastal Virginians get hit in the pocketbook, or see their homes underwater in both sense of the word, they will respond either at the ballot box, with their pocketbooks, or with their feet (by leaving in droves). Call it Darwin in action on the state level.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I am not going to fret over that because I am convinced that physical reality has a far stronger punch than Tea Party ideology, and those who refuse to accept physical reality will harvest what they planted.

And when coastal Virginians get hit in the pocketbook, or see their homes underwater in both sense of the word, they will respond either at the ballot box, with their pocketbooks, or with their feet (by leaving in droves). Call it Darwin in action on the state level.

Sadly, this is going on right now, and the very region most effected is also the one the votes straight GOP everytime.

Here's a prime example of high tide in a low place:

If global warming deniers had a little better knowledge of basic physics, they would not be so easily fuddled into thinking this was really a controversial idea, or one that depended on abstruse, arcane, uncertain theories. Really, in the end, it comes down to this:

1) Human beings have greatly increased the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and continue to do so.
2) Increasing the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is known to raise temperatures. (This is very, VERY basic physics. It's about as uncertain a claim as "dropping a rock off a roof will cause it to move in the direction of the ground.")

Everything else is just confirming that the planet is in fact warming up as we should expect, and trying to pinpoint exactly how much it will warm under a given set of conditions and what the results will be. That last is tricky, and that is ALL the controversy that remains in climate science circles today. How warm will things get if we do A, or if we do B? How much damage will be done to societies from flooding, changes in weather patterns, droughts, crop failures, increased habitat range of diseases and parasites?

Those are hard questions to answer and there is a lot of speculation and disagreement about them, but about the central questions of whether the earth is warming and whether human activity is causing it to warm there is no significant disagreement left at all, and rightly so. In order for AGW in general (as opposed to any specific and precise prediction on the basis of it) to be wrong, it would be necessary that:

1) The laws of physics be significantly wrong as we know them;
2) History be wrong, so that we have not burned lots of fossil fuels over the past 100 years; or
3) Some unknown factor be at work to exactly counteract human activity and remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and/or lower temperatures in the precise measure needed to counter what we have done.

These are so unlikely as to be dismissible.

No arguments against AGW which do not claim one of those three things have any chance of being valid. That includes, of course, arguments based on scientific malfeasance, e.g. "climategate." Any evidence of misbehavior by scientists is evidence of misbehavior by scientists and that's all it is -- it is literally impossible for AGW to be refuted on that basis. That would not call the laws of physics or our history into question, nor would it amount to evidence of perfect natural counteractive measures.

An implication of Murphy's Law: Man's capacity for constructive action is far exceeded by his ability to screw things up.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, this is going on right now, and the very region most effected is also the one the votes straight GOP everytime.

Here's a prime example of high tide in a low place:

The people trying to prevent this need to use the magic words: "Falling real estate values."

10 Things You Should Know About the Rio+20 Earth Summit

Will we turn environmental protection into a game of profit? What you need to know about the global gathering.

In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit brought world leaders together around the frame of “sustainable development” and launched global agreements on biodiversity, climate change and desertification. Two decades later, the environmental and economic crises they had hoped to stave off—global warming, record extinction rates, depleted fisheries, vast economic inequality—are upon us. And so political leaders and grassroots activists are gathering again in Rio in late June to take up the planet’s most pressing issues.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-rio-20-earth-summit?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=socmed&utm_content =RedmanJ_10ThingsToKnowAboutRioPlus20&utm_campaign =120619_Planet

Do we ever wonder why some call this era the *want it now* generation? The following article includes an amazing video/documentary about the daily does of propaganda that we receive many times a day. I highly encourage you to watch it.

Silent Spring For Us?

By Paul Craig Roberts

Long before the birth of capitalism, greed drove men to barbarous treatment of their fellows.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31638.htm

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Once again, Virginia leads the way!

Yes Virginia, there is a North Carolina.

Originally Posted by SouthernFriedScience

News broke yesterday that NC-20, a lobbying group for coastal development that, among other things, thinks property owners should be allowed to dump chemical waste directly into our watersheds, is sponsoring legislation that would outlaw outlaw sea level rise. Ignoring the fact that you can’t actually sue the ocean, what they’re actually promoting is a law that would prevent the state from using any sea surface model that extrapolates future ocean trends using anything but a linear regression. Essentially, they’re making it illegal for the state to anticipate future changes to the coastline, plan and prepare for potential flooding, or restrict development on transient barrier islands.

Understand that under the new North Carolina law the Atlantic Ocean is not allowed to rise more than 8 inches over a century.
Big government indeed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

(This is very, VERY basic physics. It's about as uncertain a claim as "dropping a rock off a roof will cause it to move in the direction of the ground.")

You are assuming the presence of a gravitational field. Of all space observable by human kind, the vast majority of it contains no measurable gravitational influence. Your statement that rocks move towards the ground might only be relevant because the majority of known roofs happen to be coincidentally near the surface of a planet. Your statement might not be at all be true overall.

Sorry. Your post made too much sense. A denialist response seems required.

Many of those in the younger generation seem to understand the difference between words and actions. These young people walk out of the Rio+20 meetings. They understand what so many of us do not; that they will inherit a deteriorating planet because of greed.
Here's a comment from one of the young demonstrators:

"I want world leaders to represent people, not big industry!"

Youth Walk Out of UN Summit

Slamming leaders' negotiating text as a failure for people and the environment, youth climate leaders stage civil disobedience.



World leaders have delivered something that fails to move the world forward from the first Rio summit, showing up with empty promises and empty pockets at Rio+20" says Mariana Calderon, a young woman from California. "This text is a polluters plan, and unless leaders start listening to the people, history will remember it as a failure for the people and the planet."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/21-10

You can ignore the carbon-emissions claptrap. Still interesting:

http://www.economist.com/node/21556798

The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, says James Astill. The retreating ice offers access to precious minerals and new sea lanes—but also carries grave dangers...

What's Causing Unusually Hot Temperatures in U.S.? (PBS report)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weath...ate_07-02.html

Those who deny global warming, and those who insist the market must be left to take care of this, may have some 'splainin' to do pretty soon. And those who deny who is politically responsible for this situation, may have some splainin' to do pretty soon too.

excerpt:

KEVIN TRENBERTH of National Center for Atmospheric Research: I don't think there has been anything quite like this before.

Back in the 1930s, the Dust Bowl era was very hot and dry. But, you know, I mean, every year is somewhat exceptional. Last year, of course, there was heat waves and all kinds of wildfires in -- centered in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico. And it was extraordinarily hot in Oklahoma.

The previous year, it was in Russia. In 2009, there were exceptional conditions in Southern Australia, in the Melbourne area. And so these areas where the really hot and dry conditions leading to wildfires has -- is moving around. We certainly don't expect them to occur every year, but we do expect more of them.

The odds are changing for these to occur with climate change, with the global warming from the human influences on climate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that's what I wanted to ask you about. To a scientist, what does this say is going on?

KEVIN TRENBERTH: Well, I think it's -- you know, you look out the window and you see climate change in action. This is the way it gets manifested. There's normal weather events. There's the normal seasons.

If we have June temperatures in March, well, you know, we have experienced them before because we get them in June. If we have a very mild winter, actually, people like that, because the winter isn't as cold. But we were breaking records then.

Now we're breaking records, but we're in the peak of the heat season. And now we're going outside of the realm of conditions previously experienced. And so that's when the damage really becomes extreme, and we get all of these wildfires. Houses have been burned, tremendous damage to the environment and, you know, maybe some other consequences to come with regard to things like bugs that have survived the relatively warm winter.

So these are all manifestations of climate change that we expect to see more of as time goes on.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I was just hearing a few minutes ago that the Weather Service reporting more than 2,000 record temperatures matched or broken just in the last week.

KEVIN TRENBERTH: Yes.

Well, of course, the -- it's easy to break an individual record because the weather system just happens at that particular location. With an unchanging climate, you expect that the number of highs and the number of low temperature records are about the same. And that was the case in the 1950s, '60s and '70s.

And then by the 2000s, we were breaking high temperature records at a ratio of 2-to-1 over cold temperature records. But this year, we have been breaking high-temperature records at a rate of about 10-to-1. And, I mean, ironically, there are some still -- still some cool spots mainly in the Pacific Northwest. And cold temperature records continue to be broken.

So, breaking records is not an indication of climate change. But breaking records at a rate of 10 to-1 vs. the cold records, that's a clear indication of climate change.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, this is going on right now, and the very region most effected is also the one the votes straight GOP everytime.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It is sad to see Christians - or at least the adherents of the more "American" forms of Christianity anyway - become almost as anti-rational and anti-scientific as the Muslims they claim to hate.

Judaism seems to stand alone among the three major religions that trace their origins to the Old Testament of the Bible for staking out a sane position on the religion vs science dichotomy.

Just the same, as Ecclesiastes Chapter 3 (and consequentially The Byrds' 1965 hit single Turn, Turn, Turn) leads off, to everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven - and this is most emphatically not the economic "season" to go off willy-nilly and declare war on "fossil fuels." That will have to wait until the economy is next in a strong-recovery-cum-boom phase (by very late in this decade perhaps?).

It's supposed to hit 97F in Fargo, today, and the dew point is in the high 70s F. This weather is just disgusting! My AC can't keep up!

Originally Posted by Odin

It's supposed to hit 97F in Fargo, today, and the dew point is in the high 70s F. This weather is just disgusting! My AC can't keep up!

Yes. Stay hydrated, wash off with cold water often - if you're not at work, a bandanna soaked in cold water and put under your hat has been said to help - if it cools off at night, opening both doors and locking the screen doors and running the fans - go see a movie at the dollar house - you're talking about something that made me sicker this week than penicillin 4 times a day and getting my gum sliced open. Best of luck and may you find ways to cope with the heat, and may the weather break soon.

Pat in Albuquerque, on the edge of the monsoon season, where - joy! It's overcast, breezy, and only in the low 90s! Even the cats are felling better, little desert creatures that they are.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Pat in Albuquerque, on the edge of the monsoon season, where - joy! It's overcast, breezy, and only in the low 90s! Even the cats are felling better, little desert creatures that they are.

Perfect weather for the kitties, they are descended from the African Wildcats of the Sahara, that's why they have those huge satellite dishes (ears) on ther head.

Climate Change: This Is Just the Beginning

Evidence supporting the existence of climate change is pummeling the United States this summer, from the mountain wildfires of Colorado to the recent “derecho” storm that left at least 23 dead and 1.4 million people without power from Illinois to Virginia. The phrase “extreme weather” flashes across television screens from coast to coast, but its connection to climate change is consistently ignored, if not outright mocked. If our news media, including—or especially—the meteorologists, continue to ignore the essential link between extreme weather and climate change, then we as a nation, the greatest per capita polluters on the planet, may not act in time to avert even greater catastrophe.

More than 2,000 heat records were broken last week around the U.S. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency that tracks the data, reported that the spring of 2012 “marked the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record for the contiguous United States.” These record temperatures in May, NOAA says, “have been so dramatically different that they establish a new ‘neighborhood’ apart from the historical year-to-date temperatures.”


In Colorado, at least seven major wildfires are burning at the time of this writing. The Waldo Canyon fire in Colorado Springs destroyed 347 homes and killed at least two people. The High Park fire farther north burned 259 homes and killed one. While officially “contained” now, that fire won’t go out, according to Colorado’s Office of Emergency Management, until an “act of nature such as prolonged rain or snowfall.” The “derecho” storm system is another example. “Derecho” is Spanish for “straight ahead,” and that is what the storm did, forming near Chicago and blasting east, leaving a trail of death, destruction and downed power lines.

MORE: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ning_20120703/

From: Truthout

Climate scientists are warning us that this summer's extreme weather, heat and fires are what global warming looks like. It is staring us right in the face, if we would only choose to see it. Well, this moment is also what the end of America looks like, and it, too, is staring us right in the face.

Will we choose to see it before it is too late?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Climate Change: This Is Just the Beginning

Evidence supporting the existence of climate change is pummeling the United States this summer, from the mountain wildfires of Colorado to the recent “derecho” storm that left at least 23 dead and 1.4 million people without power from Illinois to Virginia. The phrase “extreme weather” flashes across television screens from coast to coast, but its connection to climate change is consistently ignored, if not outright mocked. If our news media, including—or especially—the meteorologists, continue to ignore the essential link between extreme weather and climate change, then we as a nation, the greatest per capita polluters on the planet, may not act in time to avert even greater catastrophe.

More than 2,000 heat records were broken last week around the U.S. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency that tracks the data, reported that the spring of 2012 “marked the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record for the contiguous United States.” These record temperatures in May, NOAA says, “have been so dramatically different that they establish a new ‘neighborhood’ apart from the historical year-to-date temperatures.”


In Colorado, at least seven major wildfires are burning at the time of this writing. The Waldo Canyon fire in Colorado Springs destroyed 347 homes and killed at least two people. The High Park fire farther north burned 259 homes and killed one. While officially “contained” now, that fire won’t go out, according to Colorado’s Office of Emergency Management, until an “act of nature such as prolonged rain or snowfall.” The “derecho” storm system is another example. “Derecho” is Spanish for “straight ahead,” and that is what the storm did, forming near Chicago and blasting east, leaving a trail of death, destruction and downed power lines.

MORE: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ning_20120703/

It has a lot more to do with moving away from back to back La Ninas and a Jet Stream carrying tropical air all the way up into Canada. Predictions are for neutral or El Nino conditions for the rest of the year, however it should be noted that 2 straight La Ninas often turn into 3.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Just the same, as Ecclesiastes Chapter 3 (and consequentially The Byrds' 1965 hit single Turn, Turn, Turn) leads off, to everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven - and this is most emphatically not the economic "season" to go off willy-nilly and declare war on "fossil fuels." That will have to wait until the economy is next in a strong-recovery-cum-boom phase (by very late in this decade perhaps?).

This is the time, it IS the season, indeed; and fossil fuels is the essence of the 4T crisis we face. That is starting to become clear to more observers. We can't continue to do nothing about climate change, and not expect it to affect our economy. The 30s had the dust bowl; we are starting to have ours, as the southwest dries up and explodes into flames, and as the east and midwest gets increasingly flooded out; not to mention all the tornadoes, the ruin of our oceans, and who knows what else. The economy in these places is being affected, and all over the world climate change is a direct cause of unrest such as the Arab Spring. This was pointed out on Democracy Now yesterday by a scientist in the field of climate research. There have been a lot of droughts in these areas, and exports have been cut off to places like Egypt. Food prices are rising fast, and that will lead to protests and revolutions. Climate change is the essence of our 4T, just as I predicted it would be.

And the only way to revive our economy is to stimulate the new green industrial revolution that could take off at any moment, if given a little more of a push. Meanwhile, while we wait, oil and gas prices rise because there's no competition from solar, electric and wind. Gas prices was a big factor in the 2008 crash. As long as you and others continue to claim that we can't change away from fossil fuels, they will get ever-more expensive and our economy will suffer. 4Ts are the time for change, not 1Ts. You can't wait for an economic boom; there may not even be one during a 4T. There could be this time, but ONLY if we embrace the new industrial revolution that could power it. The 2020s could be like the 1860s in that way too, as well in less pleasant ways.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It has a lot more to do with moving away from back to back La Ninas and a Jet Stream carrying tropical air all the way up into Canada. Predictions are for neutral or El Nino conditions for the rest of the year, however it should be noted that 2 straight La Ninas often turn into 3.

You have both of your opposite predictions covered in just one paragraph. Now that's talent!

I sympathize a lot with Eric's perspective, but I think there will have to be less a return to the energy splurge of the late 20th Century than a lower energy expenditure, lower luxury, less working hours economic model. Unless there is instant progress in something like fusion, which I really don't foresee, sustainability is apt to require lower expectations.

And there is no spiral of rhetoric building to that. Before you can have a regeneracy where everyone decides to do what has to be done, everyone has to have talked through and believe that something has to be done. I hope I'm wrong but it doesn't look like that's going to happen this Crisis. Thus, the next generation of prophets are going to be ticked at the current Millennial generation of civics that are apt to get the blame for the upcoming disaster.

Personally, I think there is lots of blame to go around. The Red Boomer's clinging to the 50s that never were and the Xer's selfish cynicism would be a big drag on the Millenials even if they were capable of catching fire. It won't be all the Millenial's fault, but they are apt to get most of the flak from the TNG prophets regardless.

On a shorter term, yes, climate is hitting food production and thus food prices. This did help push the Arab Spring. With the United States turning food to fuel and China looking to turn grain into meat, food supply and prices are going to get worse before they get better. The US and China are very apt to put their own luxuries ahead of Third World Sustenance.

But worse, thus far really awful dictators are being replaced by dysfunctional democracies and military governments that aren't really doing much better from an ecological perspective than the dictators. Early in the crisis when the ecology went into overload and crashed the economy we saw failed states, religious conflicts, genocide, ethnic classing, political famine and organized rape. The Arab Spring is at least replacing dictators with some semblance of democracy. This ought to be an improvement. Yet the Arab Spring movement is focused on achieving democracy rather than achieving ecological sustainability. They might even be right. They have to have responsive government before they can get a sustainable economy / ecology.

But they aren't getting responsive governments yet, not to the point where the new governments are actually working towards something sustainable. They are too worried about maintaining power to attempt to transform their cultures.

But if China and India don't go along, anything we do would be tantamount to turning the air conditioner on while leaving the window wide open when it's 100 degrees outside - and China and India clearly aren't going to go along, since to do so would be to commit economic suicide.