Climate assessment delivers a grim overview

A draft version of a national report details the accelerated effects of climate change across the U.S., describing battered coastlines, devastating rainfall and drought.

2012 was hottest year on record for Lower 48 states


By Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau
January 11, 2013, 5:43 p.m.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1331482.story

WASHINGTON — The impacts of climate change driven by human activity are spreading through the United States faster than had been predicted, increasingly threatening infrastructure, water supplies, crops and shorelines, according to a federal advisory committee.

The draft Third National Climate Assessment, issued every four years, delivers a bracing picture of environmental changes and natural disasters that mounting scientific evidence indicates is fostered by climate change: heavier rains in the Northeast, Midwest and Plains that have overwhelmed storm drains and led to flooding and erosion; sea level rise that has battered coastal communities; drought that has turned much of the West into a tinderbox.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the report says. "Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and periods of extreme heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer."

Written by 240 scientists, business leaders and other experts, the draft assessment arrives days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued its annual State of the Climate Report, which noted that 2012 was the hottest year on record. Together, the two major reports and a year of drought, wildfires, floods and freak storms have created for President Obama the chance to take substantial steps on climate change, environmentalists said.

The report explicitly addresses the most controversial question in the global warming issue, saying that consumption of fossil fuels by humans is the main driver of climate change.....

"Global Warming: Despite President Obama’s renewed attention to climate change in his inaugural address, the White House on Wednesday ruled out a tax on carbon emissions favored by many environmentalists. White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about legislation that Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to introduce to charge companies a fee for carbon pollution. “We have not proposed and have no intention of proposing a carbon a tax,” Carney said, according to The Washington Times, C-SPAN and Environment & Energy Daily." .... Bernie Sanders

Make climate change a priority

Graphic: A new report prepared for the World Bank finds that the planet is on a path to warming 4 degrees by the end of the century, with devastating consequences. Click here to go to the World Bank for more information.



By Jim Yong Kim, Published: January 24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d5b_story.html

Jim Yong Kim is president of the World Bank.

The weather in Washington has been like a roller coaster this January. Yes, there has been a deep freeze this week, but it was the sudden warmth earlier in the month that was truly alarming. Flocks of birds — robins, wrens, cardinals and even blue jays – swarmed bushes with berries, eating as much as they could. Runners and bikers wore shorts and T-shirts. People worked in their gardens as if it were spring.

The signs of global warming are becoming more obvious and more frequent. A glut of extreme weather conditions is appearing globally. And the average temperature in the United States last year was the highest ever recorded.

Challenges of a changing climate: Rich nations bear historic responsibility for putting carbon dioxide into the air, but are they doing enough to help poor countries steel themselves against emissions’ effects?

As economic leaders gathered in Davos this week for the World Economic Forum, much of the conversation was about finances. But climate change should also be at the top of our agendas, because global warming imperils all of the development gains we have made.

If there is no action soon, the future will become bleak. The World Bank Group released a reportin November that concluded that the world could warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century if concerted action is not taken now.

A world that warm means seas would rise 1.5 to 3 feet, putting at risk hundreds of millions of city dwellers globally. It would mean that storms once dubbed “once in a century” would become common, perhaps occurring every year. And it would mean that much of the United States, from Los Angeles to Kansas to the nation’s capital, would feel like an unbearable oven in the summer.

My wife and I have two sons, ages 12 and 3. When they grow old, this could be the world they inherit. That thought alone makes me want to be part of a global movement that acts now.

Even as global climate negotiations continue, there is a need for urgent action outside the conventions. People everywhere must focus on where we will get the most impact to reduce emissions and build resilience in cities, communities and countries.

Strong leadership must come from the six big economies that account for two-thirds of the energy sector’s global carbon dioxide emissions. President Obama’s reference in his inaugural address this week to addressing climate and energy could help reignite this critical conversation domestically and abroad.

The world’s top priority must be to get finance flowing and get prices right on all aspects of energy costs to support low-carbon growth. Achieving a predictable price on carbon that accurately reflects real environmental costs is key to delivering emission reductions at scale. Correct energy pricing can also provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies.

A second immediate step is to end harmful fuel subsidies globally, which could lead to a 5 percent fall in emissions by 2020. Countries spend more than $500 billion annually in fossil-fuel subsidies and an additional $500 billion in other subsidies, often related to agriculture and water, that are, ultimately, environmentally harmful. That trillion dollars could be put to better use for the jobs of the future, social safety nets or vaccines.

A third focus is on cities. The largest 100 cities that contribute 67 percent of energy-related emissions are both the center of innovation for green growth and the most vulnerable to climate change. We have seen great leadership, for example, in New York and Rio de Janeiro on low-carbon growth and tackling practices that fuel climate change.

At the World Bank Group, through the $7 billion-plus Climate Investment Funds, we are managing forests, spreading solar energy and promoting green expansion for cities, all with a goal of stopping global warming. We also are in the midst of a major reexamination of our own practices and policies.

Just as the Bretton Woods institutions were created to prevent a third world war, the world needs a bold global approach to help avoid the climate catastrophe it faces today. The World Bank Group is ready to work with others to meet this challenge. With every investment we make and every action we take, we should have in mind the threat of an even warmer world and the opportunity of inclusive green growth.

After the hottest year on record in the United States, a year in which Hurricane Sandy caused billions of dollars in damage, record droughts scorched farmland in the Midwest and our organization reported that the planet could become more than 7 degrees warmer, what are we waiting for? We need to get serious fast. The planet, our home, can’t wait.

Economist Stern: ‘I Got It Wrong on Climate Change—It’s Far, Far Worse’

The 2006 review predicted a 75 percent chance that global temperatures would rise 2 to 3 degrees above the long term average. Now Stern says the planet is “on track for something like four.” Other major studies have shown a 6-degree rise is probable.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...worse_20130127

During the hype that built up before Nemo or The Blizzard of 2013, I heard the term 'superstorm' once. It might almost kinda sorta count. The path was similar to Sandy. A northern cold push merged with humidity coming up from the south. Some areas around Cape Cod might be without power for a week. Still, no way Nemo will be remembered as Sandy will be.

The Blizzard of 78 is the storm of recent memory that every other winter storm is gaged against. There have been two storms since that have been comparable in wind and snowfall, including Nemo. Thing is, weather forecasting has gotten a lot better since 1978. A lot of the problems then was because no one expected it. We had nigh on a week's warning for Nemo.

The Blizzard of 78 was a storm of the century. We've had two others since. It's hard to say 'pattern' though. Up until Nemo, we've had virtually no snow this winter, and there was virtually no snow last winter. If any trend is confirmed it's that we are apt to see more extremes.

But one storm is not a statistical anything.

This is whose "convenience" we are protecting by electing Republicans in 2010 and 2012. This is who we are protecting by failing to require the nation and its companies to switch to clean and green energy now. This is who we are protecting by believing all the excuses for not making the switch now.

scientist Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, joins Bill to describe his efforts to galvanize communities over what’s arguably the greatest single threat facing humanity.

Well, this town certainly had the appropriate name all along, eh?

http://grist.org/cities/this-town-wa...rce=newsletter

The Fossil Fuel Resistance
As the world burns, a new movement to reverse climate change is emerging - fiercely, loudly and right next door

By BILL MCKIBBEN
April 11, 2013 8:00 AM ET



It got so hot in Australia in January that the weather service had to add two new colors to its charts. A few weeks later, at the other end of the planet, new data from the CryoSat-2 satellite showed 80 percent of Arctic sea ice has disappeared. We're not breaking records anymore; we're breaking the planet. In 50 years, no one will care about the fiscal cliff or the Euro crisis. They'll just ask, "So the Arctic melted, and then what did you do?"

Here's the good news: We'll at least be able to say we fought.

After decades of scant organized response to climate change, a powerful movement is quickly emerging around the country and around the world, building on the work of scattered front-line organizers who've been fighting the fossil-fuel industry for decades. It has no great charismatic leader and no central organization; it battles on a thousand fronts. But taken together, it's now big enough to matter, and it's growing fast.

The Fossil Fuel Resistance: Meet the New Green Heroes

Americans got to see some of this movement spread out across the Mall in Washington, D.C., on a bitter-cold day in February. Press accounts put the crowd upward of 40,000 – by far the largest climate rally in the country's history. They were there to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run down from Canada's tar sands, south to the Gulf of Mexico, a fight that Time magazine recently referred to as the Selma and the Stonewall of the environmental movement. But there were thousands in the crowd also working to block fracking wells across the Appalachians and proposed Pacific coast deep-water ports that would send coal to China. Students from most of the 323 campuses where the fight for fossil-fuel divestment is under way mingled with veterans of the battles to shut down mountaintop-removal coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky, and with earnest members of the Citizens Climate Lobby there to demand that Congress enact a serious price on carbon. A few days earlier, 48 leaders had been arrested outside the White House – they included ranchers from Nebraska who didn't want a giant pipeline across their land and leaders from Texas refinery towns who didn't want more crude spilling into their communities. Legendary investor Jeremy Grantham was on hand, urging scientists to accompany their research with civil disobedience, as were solar entrepreneurs quickly figuring out how to deploy panels on rooftops across the country. The original Americans were well-represented; indigenous groups are core leaders of the fight, since their communities have been devastated by mines and cheated by oil companies. The Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. of the Hip Hop Caucus was handcuffed next to Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, who recounted stories of being arrested for integrating Atlanta lunch counters in the Sixties.

It's a sprawling, diverse and remarkably united movement, marked by its active opposition to the richest and most powerful industry on Earth. The Fossil Fuel Resistance has already won some serious victories, blocking dozens of new coal plants and closing down existing ones – ask the folks at Little Village Environmental Justice Organization who helped shutter a pair of coal plants in Chicago, or the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, which fought to stop Chevron from expanding its refinery in Richmond, California. "Up to this point, grassroots organizing has kept more industrial carbon out of the atmosphere than state or federal policy," says Gopal Dayaneni of the Movement Generation Justice and Ecology Project. It's an economic resistance movement, too, one that's well aware renewable energy creates three times as many jobs as coal and gas and oil. Good jobs that can't be outsourced because the sun and the wind are close to home. It creates a future, in other words.

These are serious people: You're not a member of the Resistance just because you drive a Prius. You don't need to go to jail, but you do need to do more than change your light bulbs. You need to try to change the system that is raising the temperature, the sea level, the extinction rate – even raising the question of how well civilization will survive this century.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz2QN0Z99HS

Who killed economic growth?



As I read him, Kepi says that without this growth we will suffer a depression by 2100 that makes this 4T seem like a summer picnic. Well, there's another perspective. We can do without today's kinds of growth.

Follow-up video: why the end of growth can mean more happiness
http://youtu.be/cl8ZHDQQY7I

He looks like a boomer, providing guidance for the 4T. But I can't find his birthdate yet. Ah, I found it: 1950. My contemporary.

More guidance
http://youtu.be/_fMWwpI0MMA

Close, but this level of depression isn't about just having less stuff. It's about societal data loss. Think the dark ages. There wasn't room for growth, and over the course of time, there was a pretty significant loss of information.

Now, I don't see that as necessarily a terrible, because we've retained a lot of data we just don't use anymore and nobody appreciates or cares about because it's been superceeded by something better. There's also a lot of stuff we do that won't be sustainable in that environment. So data loss itself isn't a terrible thing.

However, there's a good chance that the people inheriting the world of 2100 will be forced to make some disasterous short term decisions to sustain in the immediate time. Which is why, while we have a growth capable society, we probably should do a few things:

1) Create a society which doesn't punish loss in the 4T, as well as bring out infrastructure up to spec and expand services where possible.

2) In the 1T we should also work on making sure that there are publicly maintained mass data storage intent to preserve technological information, scientific information, and cultural works, and have multiple backups in multiple locations.

While I doubt this will prevent dataloss amongst the common man, it would probably be good as a fallback so some data can be rediscovered, so human progress doesn't have to waste time retreading on old ideas.

I don't know how you get from our current "information overload" and saturation to "data loss." Whut??

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know how you get from our current "information overload" and saturation to "data loss." Whut??

Easy, folks. The meme that "newer is better, older is trash." Hence that data which is confined to older media, whatever its intrinsic value, is lost to us. Notable example: data from the Apollo Missions. Or for that matter, manuscripts that were eaten by mice, lost in fires, or scraped over for pamplisets.

Now add to that the filters everyone installs, physically or mentally, against the raging torrent of data pounding at them - a lot of it either trivial, or selling something (not disjoint sets!), and some very needed data can go by the wayside. Such as some of the clauses in the excruciatingly fine print on various websites.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Easy, folks. The meme that "newer is better, older is trash." Hence that data which is confined to older media, whatever its intrinsic value, is lost to us. Notable example: data from the Apollo Missions. Or for that matter, manuscripts that were eaten by mice, lost in fires, or scraped over for pamplisets.

Now add to that the filters everyone installs, physically or mentally, against the raging torrent of data pounding at them - a lot of it either trivial, or selling something (not disjoint sets!), and some very needed data can go by the wayside. Such as some of the clauses in the excruciatingly fine print on various websites.

Other examples: NBC recycled videotapes for years, so all episodes of the Jack Paar show are lost because they were 'recycled' for use by Johnny Carson. CBS cast the comedy sketches of Ernie Kovacs on early kinetoscope into the ocean over some dispute.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Easy, folks. The meme that "newer is better, older is trash." Hence that data which is confined to older media, whatever its intrinsic value, is lost to us. Notable example: data from the Apollo Missions. Or for that matter, manuscripts that were eaten by mice, lost in fires, or scraped over for pamplisets.

But Kepi who brought this up, is himself an advocate of forgetting and losing the past, as are a lot of younger folks here (and more all the time, it seems). So I don't know what he's getting at.

Now add to that the filters everyone installs, physically or mentally, against the raging torrent of data pounding at them - a lot of it either trivial, or selling something (not disjoint sets!), and some very needed data can go by the wayside. Such as some of the clauses in the excruciatingly fine print on various websites.

Or very inspired but ignored posts.

You could say quality of insight is lost in the quantity or "torrent" of data. It is not a data loss, but a wisdom loss. If you put it that way I entirely agree.

The up side is that no people has ever had as much access to the riches from the past as we have today. It's a question of whether we mine this heritage, and get inspired by it to contribute to it, or not. And what is required for this to occur, is exactly the opposite of more material growth. We already have enough of that to give us this access. What we need is more like Mr. Heinberg says; to shift our interests and priorities away from mere physical growth to fulfillment and creativity.

There's a certain amount of data we want to lose in all this. It makes room for more data in the future. Low value data is not of a major concern. I mean, we'd all be better off without commercials or most of the excessive documentation that has cropped up in the past 80 years.

What is of concern is that we have certain ways of doing things now which maybe unaffordable or unrealistic in the future. However, there maybe a prexisting method that works better for an economy that can't hang with our present output. There's also works of literature and art which aren't something we can just recover. In a dark age, these are the sorts of things you lose, and the level of depression I think we'll get very well could bring on a new dark age.

Originally Posted by Kepi

There's a certain amount of data we want to lose in all this. It makes room for more data in the future. Low value data is not of a major concern. I mean, we'd all be better off without commercials or most of the excessive documentation that has cropped up in the past 80 years.

Prime example: grudges.

What is of concern is that we have certain ways of doing things now which maybe unaffordable or unrealistic in the future. However, there maybe a prexisting method that works better for an economy that can't hang with our present output. There's also works of literature and art which aren't something we can just recover. In a dark age, these are the sorts of things you lose, and the level of depression I think we'll get very well could bring on a new dark age.

Unless it all goes into some "memory hole" by design it is likely to be preserved -- somewhere.

Preserved and accessible. And that's the problem, because what if we change formats seven dozen more times? Creating a "backup" for essential information for society is a really good idea (I'd make five or so, personally), but it's either going to be space intensive, questionable as to it's ability to stand the test of time, or difficult to work with. Not reason to not make the attempt, but still not necessarily the most reliable, either.

I think the best option (which could be used in conjunction to a back-up) is to maximize storage in the here and now, then let subsequent generations decide what proliferates through natural selection of data. Useful information will be copied over and over. Useless will disappear. Providing the opportunity for larger storage just means a higher probability of preserving more data.

Also, what did you mean by grudges?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Preserved and accessible. And that's the problem, because what if we change formats seven dozen more times? Creating a "backup" for essential information for society is a really good idea (I'd make five or so, personally), but it's either going to be space intensive, questionable as to it's ability to stand the test of time, or difficult to work with. Not reason to not make the attempt, but still not necessarily the most reliable, either.

A good idea -- make sure that some of the storage is outside the US. One never knows what can happen here.

I think the best option (which could be used in conjunction to a back-up) is to maximize storage in the here and now, then let subsequent generations decide what proliferates through natural selection of data. Useful information will be copied over and over. Useless will disappear. Providing the opportunity for larger storage just means a higher probability of preserving more data.

Some knowledge will go in and out of fashion. A prime example is musical scores. Music of J S Bach was ignored for about 75 years except among the cognoscenti (mercifully three of those were Franz Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven). It is a great fortune to music lovers that his music is not lost. Likewise, huge volumes of musical scores by Franz Haydn were tucked away in aristocratic cellars in what would eventually become Czechoslovakia and Hungary and were not rediscovered until the 1950s after the Commies nationalized the great estates of those aristocrats and started logging the valuables within them. Whatever you say of Commies, at least they had good musical taste in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

Also, what did you mean by grudges?

When I was in early elementary school, one of my fellow students stole my lunch because his mother often failed to fix him one. He died recently, and my mother reminded me of it. Some things, I said, are best forgotten.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Prime example: grudges.



Unless it all goes into some "memory hole" by design it is likely to be preserved -- somewhere.

I urge you to reread Cahill's How The Irish Saved Civilization and note how many manuscripts simply disappeared in the chaos. I'm suggesting this rather than taking advanced Medieval Studies courses (which go heavily into what manuscripts were preserved and/or found, and the holes in them, and the losses due to, frex, a 17th century fire that destroyed somebody's library) simply because it's extremely accessible.

Another factor: the introduction to the Carmina Gaedelica, collected in the late 19th century, included one old woman saying proudly "We used to sing these old songs, but the missionaries came and taught us better." A comment many modern citizens of cultures and regions seen as "backwards" at that time are now lamenting and trying hard to correct.

Finally - let's take a modern science fiction novel called "Rainbow's End", I think by Vernor Vinge. Near future - next saeculum. Libraries all over the world are physically destroying their books in order to go digital. A librarian's revolt ensues. No spoilers here, but -

Mr. Vinge didn't take into account what might happen if the grid went down, since the insubstantial digital works depend on massive servers that use a lot of electricity. Children, can YOU spell "solar flare"? Or for that matter, "enemy action"?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Preserved and accessible. And that's the problem, because what if we change formats seven dozen more times? Creating a "backup" for essential information for society is a really good idea (I'd make five or so, personally), but it's either going to be space intensive, questionable as to it's ability to stand the test of time, or difficult to work with. Not reason to not make the attempt, but still not necessarily the most reliable, either.

I think the best option (which could be used in conjunction to a back-up) is to maximize storage in the here and now, then let subsequent generations decide what proliferates through natural selection of data. Useful information will be copied over and over. Useless will disappear. Providing the opportunity for larger storage just means a higher probability of preserving more data.

Also, what did you mean by grudges?

As in the tendency in some medieval monasteries to scrape over the dangerously sinful pagan literature in order to preserve what was really important, Brother Trivia's sermon. No to mention some examples out of fairly-modern Islam! Or - and I realize whose Law I am invoking here - a crazy dictator burning all the works by members of his pet scapegoat-minority group, however sublime and valuable. So let's not forget that values change.

Or why the requirement to become a Doctor of the Church in Catholicism requires that the Doctor's teachings be "true at all times and in all places,"
and not just reflect the fad of the moment.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Preserved and accessible. And that's the problem, because what if we change formats seven dozen more times? Creating a "backup" for essential information for society is a really good idea (I'd make five or so, personally), but it's either going to be space intensive, questionable as to it's ability to stand the test of time, or difficult to work with. Not reason to not make the attempt, but still not necessarily the most reliable, either.

I think the best option (which could be used in conjunction to a back-up) is to maximize storage in the here and now, then let subsequent generations decide what proliferates through natural selection of data. Useful information will be copied over and over. Useless will disappear. Providing the opportunity for larger storage just means a higher probability of preserving more data.

Also, what did you mean by grudges?

P.S. I for one am collecting what I think are works I want to see available to those who are interested (including Generations and Fourth Turning) in hardback form where possible. I'd like archival quality, but that's not always possible, and not very affordable.

Awhile there was a thread that discussed a method akin to microfilm-with itsy bitsy writing, but on metal plates. For very long term storage.

Originally Posted by Kepi

There's a certain amount of data we want to lose in all this. It makes room for more data in the future. Low value data is not of a major concern. I mean, we'd all be better off without commercials or most of the excessive documentation that has cropped up in the past 80 years.

What is of concern is that we have certain ways of doing things now which maybe unaffordable or unrealistic in the future. However, there maybe a prexisting method that works better for an economy that can't hang with our present output. There's also works of literature and art which aren't something we can just recover. In a dark age, these are the sorts of things you lose, and the level of depression I think we'll get very well could bring on a new dark age.

I see; that's a valid concern. I don't think we'll reach that level of depression though. Learning to live without constant physical economic growth is the task of our age, and it's the ideal of the Awakening (see visionaries of the consciousness revolution thread) that must steer our course into the 4T and beyond. We are also at a point of upswing and renaissance in our 500-year cycle of civilization, which is more significant than the saeculum.

Plus I replied to you earlier with the economic reasons why such a depression won't occur; eventual lowering of population for example will cure the problem of excess labor and unemployment.

That being the case, I remain optimistic that we will make the adjustments, and that in fact they will be part of the new renaissance itself. The new green sustainability ideals, and the new interest in visionary/new age arts and revival of fulfillment/higher purpose in life, go together. Less obsession with economic growth and prosperity means greater pursuit of creativity, spiritual rebirth, health and community-building. That has been the Awakening Ideal from the 1960s onward. The end of growth is an opportunity to get off the rat race of materialism, and for America to develop a greater American Dream. It will take some people who remain idealistic and not obsessed with survival to see this opportunity; that's why we still need some boomers (like Mr. Heinberg) and not just Xers to lead the 4T, or for un-historically-aware millies to just do it by themselves.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Preserved and accessible. And that's the problem, because what if we change formats seven dozen more times? Creating a "backup" for essential information for society is a really good idea (I'd make five or so, personally), but it's either going to be space intensive, questionable as to it's ability to stand the test of time, or difficult to work with. Not reason to not make the attempt, but still not necessarily the most reliable, either.

I think the best option (which could be used in conjunction to a back-up) is to maximize storage in the here and now, then let subsequent generations decide what proliferates through natural selection of data. Useful information will be copied over and over. Useless will disappear. Providing the opportunity for larger storage just means a higher probability of preserving more data.

I think it's happening. I notice that historic preservation happens these days in a lot of fields. We have more expertise in this than any previous people on Earth.