Comments on: What Now?

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:04:54 +0000

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043888.shtml
“… we find that substantial intensification of hot extremes could occur within the next 3 decades, below the 2°C global warming target currently being considered by policy makers. We also find that the intensification of hot extremes is associated with a shift towards more anticyclonic atmospheric circulation during the warm season, along with warm-season drying over much of the U.S. The possibility that intensification of hot extremes could result from relatively small increases in greenhouse gas concentrations suggests that constraining global warming to 2°C may not be sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.”

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:20:20 +0000

http://www.frontiersinecology.org/special_issues.php
http://www.frontiersinecology.org/paleoecology/jackson.pdf
“Yes, history reveals that climate is always changing, ecosystems are always adjusting, and rapid climate change is nothing new. Rather than being a cause for complacency, though, this should sound alarms. Paleoecological and archeological studies indicate that rapid climate change is not a state in which an ecosys- tem – or a society – wants to find itself. Rapid climate change is bad news for many populations, species, and communities. Climate change will lead to ecological surprises that can cascade into agricultural, hydrologi- cal, and economic surprises. It is best avoided, not embraced. Climate change may sometimes be inevitable, but that is not a good reason to invite or accelerate it.
The papers in this Special Issue of Frontiers represent only a fraction of relevant historical studies. Ecological history will be indispensable in meeting the environmental challenges of the coming decades. We can’t know where we are, or where we’re going, without knowing where we’ve been….”
—-
In climate simulations for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change A2 and B1 emission scenarios, novel climates arise by 2100 AD, primarily in tropical and subtropical regions. These future novel climates are warmer than any present climates globally, with spatially variable shifts in precipitation, and increase the risk of species reshuffling into future no-analog communities and other ecological surprises….
Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(9): 475–482, doi:10.1890/070037

By: Barry Woods

Barry Woods — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:42:47 +0000

dhogaza, may just be upset, with the slow realisation, that catastrophy, is NOT going to happen, and has wasted 22 years, on a delusion…

When the REAL issues of the world could have benefited from his commitment.

By: Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:14:16 +0000

clparthemore (71):

I think you're right that this will be a significant part of the policy portfolio going forward. (Folks, Christine Parthemore blogs at Natural Security, an excellent site covering the nexus between national security and the environment, which I highly recommend.)

Additionally, Andy Revkin has a good post up today on some potential paths forward.

By: Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> Suffer the Grandchildren?

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:38:22 +0000

[...] on a ghoulish form when one environmentalist and prolific (but anonymous) blog commenter hoped in this thread that opponents of climate legislation had grandchildren, so these innocent progeny could suffer [...]

By: clparthemore

clparthemore — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:59:07 +0000

For any progress, I’m moving my money to bilateral agreements. They’re an increasingly attractive way for us to conduct ourselves in the world, and they always require building in good-news stories. When I talk to folks at the national labs, in academia, in the business world, etc. the majority of good news is stemming from bilateral collaboration. If only this route were a politically viable policy…

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:07:15 +0000

” legistalting a move from low cost fossil fuel to high cost wind/solar/whatever fuel means: resources currently devoted to creating wealth are redirected to creating energy – energy that we already had. We as a society will be worse off (all other things equal).”

This presumes an infinite supply of low-cost fossil fuel, most especially oil.

There’s another blog you might want to visit: The Oil Drum.

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:01:42 +0000

“Instead of sitting back and the “enjoying the ride” to doomsday which you are convinced of, why don’t you do something to help alleviate the real pain and want of people already living.”

Oh, gosh, it appears that Keith Kloor isn’t aware that I stopped working fulltime in 1988, and in the years since then have spent the equivalent of 3-4 months a year volunteering my time for a variety of non-profits and various projects.

How about you climb down from your holy high horse and start using your bully pulpit to go after the anti-science forces in society who are devoted to inaction on climate change?

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:18:40 +0000

> Only Norman Spinrad could say let them eat goose with
> a straight face.
Chuckle. Maybe wossname up there is right– it’s all part of the rabid anti-market conspiracy by Gaia to ruin the turkey farm industry by flooding the country with socialist freebirds.
With, perhaps, hidden extras: http://www.ducks.org/blogs/1/46/index.html (Warning, flayed duck corpse illustration).

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:14:14 +0000

That advice they used to give new reporters — “follow the money” — I guess now the politicians are followed by the money, so it’s still good advice. Who’s reported on the spending?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/07/lobbying-by-obama-administration-fo.html
“U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with its subsidiaries, spent … $13.4 million on federal, state-level and grassroots lobbying during the second quarter …. on numerous high-profile issues: climate change legislation …. The Chamber also reported lobbying on … a two-year delay to the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to take enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act against stationary sources like coal-fired power plants.
….. Since January, the Chamber has reported nearly $44.3 million in lobbying expenses. During 2009, the Chamber spent more than $144 million on federal, state and grassroots lobbying ….”