CA going solar!

http://www.collective-evolution.com/...ar-power-farm/

http://inhabitat.com/massive-579mw-s...in-california/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How much ice is the Greenland Ice Sheet losing?

To analyze how the height of the ice sheet was changing, Csatho and UB research professor and photogrammetrist Anton Schenk, PhD, developed a computational technique called Surface Elevation Reconstruction And Change detection to fuse together data from NASA satellite and aerial missions.

The analysis found that the Greenland Ice Sheet lost about 243 metric gigatons of ice annually -- equivalent to about 277 cubic kilometers of ice per year -- from 2003-09, the period for which the team had the most comprehensive data. This loss is estimated to have added about 0.68 millimeters of water to the oceans annually.

The figures are averages, and ice loss varied from year to year, and from region to region.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1215154522.htm

Roughly a cube of ice 6.5 kilometers on each side -- directly into the oceans every year. But global warming isn't happening -- or it is harmless -- or it is inevitable. Which way is the wind blowing for the AGW deniers today?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Roughly a cube of ice 6.5 kilometers on each side -- directly into the oceans every year. But global warming isn't happening -- or it is harmless -- or it is inevitable. Which way is the wind blowing for the AGW deniers today?

Lots of different directions, but one big hangup seems to be their inability to read graphs; especially the one where 1998 shows a spike in warming, followed by many years a little less warm; they don't even look at the years before 1998, and proclaim a pause in global warming. Just amazing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Lots of different directions, but one big hangup seems to be their inability to read graphs; especially the one where 1998 shows a spike in warming, followed by many years a little less warm; they don't even look at the years before 1998, and proclaim a pause in global warming. Just amazing.

Such shows the some of weakness of American education: that people leave at whatever level they leave intellectually lazy. Worse, some leave American education willing to exploit the intellectual laziness so common in America. One would think that reading a graph would be basic.

Just think of what this chart has to say:



I think that we can all say that you-know-who has done some good stewardship of the American economy.

I probably posted this before, but it's always fun:

There are many complex reasons why people decide not to accept the science of climate change. The doubters range from the conspiracy theorist to the sceptical scientist, or from the paid lobbyist to the raving lunatic.

(this post is a quote from: http://theconversation.com/why-ill-t...-science-34949 )

Climate scientists, myself included, and other academics have strived to understand this reluctance. We wonder why so many people are unable to accept a seemingly straight-forward pollution problem. And we struggle to see why climate change debates have inspired such vitriol.

These questions are important. In a world increasingly dominated by science and technology, it is essential to understand why people accept certain types of science but not others.

In short, it seems when it comes to climate change, it is not about the science but all about the politics.

Risky business

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s differing views on climate science were put down to how people viewed nature: was it benign or malevolent? In 1995 leading risk expert John Adams suggested there were four myths of nature, which he represented as a ball on different shaped landscapes.

1. Nature is benign and forgiving of any insults that humankind might inflict upon it and it does not need to be managed.
2. Nature ephemeral. Nature is fragile, precarious, and unforgiving and environmental management must protect nature from humans.
3. Nature perverse/tolerant. Within limits, nature can be relied upon to behave predictably and regulation is required to prevent major excesses.
4. Nature capricious. Nature is unpredictable and there is no point to management.
Different personality types can be matched on to these different views, producing very different opinions about the environment. Climate change deniers would map on to number one, Greenpeace number two, while most scientists would be number three.

These views are influenced by an individual’s own belief system, personal agenda (either financial or political), or whatever is expedient to believe at the time.

However, this work on risk perception was ignored by mainstream science because science up to now operates on what is called the knowledge deficit model. This suggests that people do not accept the science because there is not enough evidence; therefore more needs to be gathered.

Scientists operate in exactly this way, and they assume wrongly the rest of the world is equally rational and logical. It explains why over the past 35 years a huge amount of work gone into investigating climate change – even though, despite many thousands of pages of IPCC reports, the weight of evidence argument does not seem to work with everyone.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s differing views on climate science were put down to how people viewed nature: was it benign or malevolent? In 1995 leading risk expert John Adams suggested there were four myths of nature, which he represented as a ball on different shaped landscapes.

1. Nature is benign and forgiving of any insults that humankind might inflict upon it and it does not need to be managed.
2. Nature ephemeral. Nature is fragile, precarious, and unforgiving and environmental management must protect nature from humans.
3. Nature perverse/tolerant. Within limits, nature can be relied upon to behave predictably and regulation is required to prevent major excesses.
4. Nature capricious. Nature is unpredictable and there is no point to management.
Different personality types can be matched on to these different views, producing very different opinions about the environment. Climate change deniers would map on to number one, Greenpeace number two, while most scientists would be number three.

While the word "myths" was used above, the word "values" might also apply. People perceive things in a certain way, are often incapable of perceiving or adapting another vision. These are decent reviews of values towards nature, but similar stubborn perceptions exist for other fields of human endeavor.

The vote fell one shy of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster, with 14 Democrats joining all 45 Republicans in backing the project.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3MEmxgo91

Originally Posted by B Butler

While the word "myths" was used above, the word "values" might also apply. People perceive things in a certain way, are often incapable of perceiving or adapting another vision. These are decent reviews of values towards nature, but similar stubborn perceptions exist for other fields of human endeavor.

Yes I agree.

Then again, what if Christians REALLY lived up to their values!

Climate Change Preventing Second Coming of Jesus, Study Says
Nov 14, 2014
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/11/14/c...us-study-says/

Global warming and climate change are harming God’s creations and preventing the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a study released this week has found.

The study, authored by respected Christian non-scientists at Liberty and Bob Jones universities, found that while God still controls the weather, humans are interfering with his work and causing global warming and climate change through sinful, destructive activities. In addition, the study found humans are also committing a sin by ignoring the deadly effects.

“The Bible states, ‘The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters,’ ” the study said. “ 'All things were created by him and for him.’ So it’s clear God would be really pissed off if we destroyed His property. After all, He created the world in six days, and He is technically renting it out to us. We know He evicted His previous tenants, the dinosaurs, as soon as humans were created.”

The study also found it will be impossible for Jesus Christ to return if nothing is done to mitigate human-induced climate change.

“Jesus will have a tough time coming back to judge the living and dead if half the Earth is underwater and people are too busy dying from starvation and conflict over limited resources to pay attention to him,” the study said. “Even Israel will be flooded and experience hotter temperatures, and guys like Jesus tend to complain about the weather.”

Preach to the choir

Since the release of the study, conservative religious groups -- who have traditionally opposed the science behind climate change studies -- are demanding immediate action.

“This study should convince those who deny climate change, as it's obvious God is providing lots of hints that it is for real,” said Nedward Flanders, president of the National Conference of Evangelical Christians. “It’s offensive to me when skeptics say belief in climate change is like a religion, as if religion and belief are bad things.”

Congressional Republicans, who speak for every Christian in America, announced today they will work to pass legislation aimed at curbing global warming.

“As usual, the Republican Party will take the lead and do whatever it takes to reverse and correct these damaging trends caused by global climate change,” Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the incoming Senate Science Committee chairman, said in a statement. “I call on President Barack Obama to quit wasting time and hurry up and sign the Kyoto Protocol.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a potential presidential candidate in 2016 and climate change denier, said he has always supported a global effort to reduce the use of fossil fuels and pollutants and promote environmentally friendly alternatives.

“I am deeply concerned about the effects of global climate change that could take place between now and 2024,” Cruz said in a statement. “Oh yeah, and about our children’s future. I’m also concerned about that.”

Note for information.

Rocky Mountain Institute and Carbon War Room Join Forces

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/..._id=SA_Twitter
….” Let’s start with the big news of RMI and CWR merging. As the CEO of RMI, what do you think this brings to RMI in terms of new capabilities and connections to the private sector, and how will this change the direction or focus of RMI?
We believe the alliance is a tremendous opportunity for the two organizations to accelerate their impact of the transformation towards a low carbon energy future. Both RMI and CWR have had their focus on a market-based approach to the transformations. That is not to say that policy is not incredibly important, and that policy cannot and should not play a big role in driving the change, but the good news is that increasingly market-based solutions are both technically feasible and commercially viable..”…

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

These questions are important. In a world increasingly dominated by science and technology, it is essential to understand why people accept certain types of science but not others.

In short, it seems when it comes to climate change, it is not about the science but all about the politics.

Risky business

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s differing views on climate science were put down to how people viewed nature: was it benign or malevolent? In 1995 leading risk expert John Adams suggested there were four myths of nature, which he represented as a ball on different shaped landscapes.

1. Nature is benign and forgiving of any insults that humankind might inflict upon it and it does not need to be managed.
2. Nature ephemeral. Nature is fragile, precarious, and unforgiving and environmental management must protect nature from humans.
3. Nature perverse/tolerant. Within limits, nature can be relied upon to behave predictably and regulation is required to prevent major excesses.
4. Nature capricious. Nature is unpredictable and there is no point to management.
Different personality types can be matched on to these different views, producing very different opinions about the environment. Climate change deniers would map on to number one, Greenpeace number two, while most scientists would be number three.

These views are influenced by an individual’s own belief system, personal agenda (either financial or political), or whatever is expedient to believe at the time.

It is indeed completely political. Ravaging the environment is good for quick and high profit; those who see the world only as an arena for short-term profit and loss, any constraint upon resource waste, environmental destruction, and exploitation of the workforce are "Enemies of Prosperity" who deserve the right-wing equivalent of the Gulag. This is a question of morality and not science, and the American Right has its own unified view of the world:To Hell with environmentalists, organized labor, moralizing intellectuals, and politicized minorities!

A hint: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an environmentalist on the assumption that if black people and white people are to live together in peace they need a world suitable for living.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/...ea-level-rise/

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.

The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change:

1.Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.

2.Melting of glaciers and polar ice caps: Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. But in the winter, snows, made primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in runoff versus evaporation for the ocean, causing sea levels to rise.

3.Ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with glaciers and the ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Moreover, higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.

Consequences

When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, flooding of wetlands, contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path.

In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely.

How High Will It Go?

Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London.

Media ignores important climate change stories:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ia-fails-2014/

The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial

By Phil Plait
To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).

In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._all_dt_tw_top

http://tarsandssolutions.org/tar-sands/air-water-issues

AIR & WATER ISSUES
The rapid expansion of the tar sands is creating a world-class pollution problem. Industry uses as much fresh water as a large Canadian city and almost none of it is returned to the natural environment. Ninety-five per cent of this water is so polluted it has to be stored in toxic sludge pits that cover 176 square kilometres, held back by two of the three largest dams on the planet. An estimated 11 million litres of toxic wastewater leaks into the Athabasca River every day.
Tar sands oil production also emits twice as much air pollution as conventional oil, which contributes to acid rain and emits significant amounts of heavy metals and other toxic pollutants to the region's lakes and rivers.

CURRENT STATUS:
Governments have failed to live up to promises or enforce regulations to manage pollution

Producing a barrel of tar sands oil creates more than twice as much nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide emissions as a barrel of conventional oil. Every year, tar sands operations spew into the air more than 45,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 115,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, and 74,000 tonnes of volatile organic compounds. According to Environment Canada, tar sands pollution exceeded Alberta’s already weak air quality objectives more than 1,500 times in 2007, 47 times more than in 2004.

Nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide are major contributors to acid rain, which acidify lakes and streams and damage trees and sensitive forest soils. Volatile organic compounds such as benzene are known carcinogens. When combined together, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react to form ground-level ozone, or smog, which contributes to climate change.

Never trust a politician high on "Kochaine".

That's good, brower

Here's a chart that climate science deniers like to ignore or nitpik about:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here's a chart that climate science deniers like to ignore or nitpik about:

I look at that chart, and I see this: that below 320ppm the differences of temperature are cycles of weather. Above 320ppm it is carbon dioxide. That's where the inflection point lies.

I figure that a good analogy is blood alcohol content and vehicle accidents: below about .03% BAC, where one drives and at what time makes the difference. Above .03% it is the BAC. If you drive at 2AM when the bars close you have a higher-than-average chance of a collision because of all the drunks behind the wheel or staggering about as pedestrians. Between about .03% and .08% any anger, tiredness, confusion, or stupidity will add to the effect of alcohol. At .08% or higher you are the drunk.



We are in the driver's seat now, and we are undeniably impaired.

That chart is damning. It needs to be seen by everyone.

And it looks like we are due for another upwards jump.

Guess who is going to take the side of the environment...

Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners.

According to Vatican insiders, Francis will meet other faith leaders and lobby politicians at the general assembly in New York in September, when countries will sign up to new anti-poverty and environmental goals.


In recent months, the pope has argued for a radical new financial and economic system to avoid human inequality and ecological devastation. In October he told a meeting of Latin American and Asian landless peasants and other social movements: “An economic system centred on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it.

“The system continues unchanged, since what dominates are the dynamics of an economy and a finance that are lacking in ethics. It is no longer man who commands, but money. Cash commands.

“The monopolising of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness,” he said.

The Vatican has some very good scientists in its employ and in the vocations.


P.S. There will be some opposition from some Christians:

Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, said Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be “un-biblical” and a false religion.

“The pope should back off,” he said. “The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US.”

Comment: what non-public institution has the most science teachers in its employ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...e-us-rightwing

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Guess who is going to take the side of the environment...

The Vatican has some very good scientists in its employ and in the vocations.

P.S. There will be some opposition from some Christians:

Comment: what non-public institution has the most science teachers in its employ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...e-us-rightwing

Good points. Yeah, The Holy Father is doing exactly the right thing, but I know the deniers are quick to denounce him or anyone else who tells the truth on this issue. I hope some Christians listen anyway. One author says that the Pope is trying to build bridges with evangelicals.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good points. Yeah, The Holy Father is doing exactly the right thing, but I know the deniers are quick to denounce him or anyone else who tells the truth on this issue. I hope some Christians listen anyway. One author says that the Pope is trying to build bridges with evangelicals.

The irony is that American evangelicals are heavily concentrated in some of the states that already have the hottest summers in America -- summers that could become even more brutal. Tending also to be poor, they are especially vulnerable.

No, it will not be enough to turn up the energy-devouring air conditioner!

A new year for US energy.

U.S. Teeters at Turning Point for Energy

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar..._id=SA_Twitter

…”The world is pinning its hopes on renewables to help cap CO2 emissions at a level that will prevent the globe from warming 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels, the point at which the effects of climate change could spiral out of control, scientists warn. 2015 could also be the year energy policies aimed at curbing those emissions could show if they have teeth, including the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan.”…

…”New wind farm power generating capacity is set to double in 2015, contributing nearly 5 percent of all U.S. power generation. Though solar power is expected to account for only a tiny fraction of power generation in the New Year—about 0.6 percent—growth is nearly inevitable as prices, which have fallen about 7 percent each year since 1998, continue to decline.”…

Instead of spreading terror about the cost of green fuels, the deniers need to pay attention to this:

"The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: it’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. The price of Earth’s limited fossil fuels tends to go the other direction. Michael Park, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein, has a term for the staggering price relationship between solar and fossil fuels: the Terrordome. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it doesn’t sound very forgiving.

The chart below shows the price of energy sources since the late 1940s. The extreme outlier, of course, is solar, which only recently became an expensive blip in the energy marketplace. It will soon undercut even the cheapest fossil fuels in many regions of the planet, including poorer nations where billion-dollar coal plants aren’t always practical."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...-to-solar.html