14 ms·

Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S

207 points by blondie9x 9y ago

stanislavb 9y ago
Don't say...
- stanislavb 9y ago
  " The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration." i.e. if Trump's administration does not approve it, it does not exist :D
  - mirimir 9y ago
    If people care, stuff leaks :)
tradersam 9y ago
Could we get the non-mobile link?
- dovdovdov 9y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-dr...
  - simonebrunozzi 9y ago
    And this is the actual report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dogruck 9y ago
Where can I read the report, and what is the list of scientists?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...
  - dogruck 9y ago
    Perfect, thank you.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I had to lol at "there is significant possibility of unexpected changes."
d--b 9y ago
At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science, it's a matter of people choosing not to believe in science.
- noja 9y ago
  It's belief. Pay people (indirectly or directly) to not understand something and they will do a fantastic job.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    Do you mean pay the scientists or a different group?
    - noja 9y ago
      People who will be disadvantaged by efforts to reduce climate change (by driving less/walking more, eating less red meat, etc.).
- Banthum 9y ago
  Conflation and a strawman. What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists. Nobody disputes this. The headline describes "drastic impact of climate change on U.S" happening today. "X exists" != "X is drastically affecting America today"
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
    - Banthum 9y ago
      I think it'd be a challenge to even dig up a serious Internet comment that clearly stated this. If you think someone's saying this, be sure you're not just inferring it to make a strawman. In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses. This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.
Fej 9y ago
At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.
- mirimir 9y ago
  At this point, I'm not sure that anything will make much difference. Or at least, for anyone now alive. There's just too much inertia, at all levels.
  - simonh 9y ago
    There's no way to change the directional trend, but there are lots of things we can do to affect it's slope. Many of these things are also worth doing anyway for reasons such as energy security, resource and environmental preservation, reducing pollution, protecting biodiversity, etc. I do not believe crash course change in the global economy and our technology base is possible or desirable, were just going to have to live with and manage many of the negative consequences of climate change, but we can achieve a lot with sensible, moderate and achievable environmental policies provided they are pursued determinedly and consistently.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      It would be great if you're right. But I've been watching this issue for decades. And I'm not optimistic. National US policy is worse than ever. China is starting to switch to renewables. But they're also cutting SO2 emissions, and that will increase radiative forcing.
    - honestoHeminway 9y ago
      One can prepare- build a bunker that could survive on venus.
    - _up 9y ago
      We can also cool the earth via Sulfur Injection in the Stratosphere (like Vulcan eruptions demonstrated). German Spiegel[1] had an Article a few weeks ago that also mysteriously threatened international sanctions or war to countries who try that. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-geoengineering-als-plan-b-fuer-eine-zu-heisse-erde-a-1159027.html http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-geoengi...
microcolonel 9y ago
> WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets? No credible person denies that the global (and U.S. local) mean temperature has increased, this is not news. > The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited. These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President). (Edit: I should clarify that I'm talking about the link between the two clauses in this paragraph, which makes it seem like one supports the other when this is not the case) > and that the ability to predict the effects is limited. It is limited, the report details the limits, as do many other great sources. The climate models we have are about as good as the economic models; that is to say, they're basically useless for genuine predictions. They do not fit historic data without piles of corrections, some of which are dubious. There is work to be done. If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is. The reason that there are so many people skeptical about the alarming claims, is because the presentations have been so dishonest and manipulative. Public figures frequently grossly overstate the certainty of statements which are not really settled, and some climate scientists and academic administrators have been caught basically ganging up on people who do not present alarming news. I understand why some of you feel, as Fej says elsewhere in this thread, that "At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.", but it's important that we be honest in presenting what we know to the public. Every time you present an opinion as a fact, somebody somewhere no longer trusts you, and those people will be vocal and active in letting people know that you've been dishonest.
- 9y ago
mirimir 9y ago
One trusts that the National Climate Assessment will also be available publicly, one way ot the other.
- ryanchoi 9y ago
  AFAIK drafts are already viewable (if this is what you meant?), ex: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum... With the public draft already released, I think it would be especially surprising if the administration tried to impose non-trivial changes to the document.
adwhit 9y ago
Astroturfers... it's going to be a busy day! Put on your concerned faces!
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I don't think @microcolonel is an astroturfer, he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views. I'm always a bit surprised by this, you would think the right would be fairly conservative about environmental issues. I guess it's because big business/oil has done such a good job of buying the politicians off.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Frankly I'm just annoyed that the way climate issues are presented is basically perfectly engineered to convince deniers that they're on to something. In addition, there's a smugness high horsery which doesn't appeal to the kinds of folk who get swept up in these delusions. I notice the same problem with the anti-vax crowd, where a lot of the public has basically resorted to brushing them off and engaging in ritual defamation, instead of trying to be persuasive. The poor kids who grow up with anti-vax parents who will become less and less interested in vaccine the more people tell them they're dumb. > ...he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views. I'm a Liberal Conservative. That is to say, I am interested in conserving Classical Liberalism: equal opportunity, free markets, free expression, personal sovereignty. For example, I see border protection as begrudging but necessary, and only because we have attractive social programmes. If the social programmes are not attractive then we can go back to 1918 (on that issue alone) when there was effectively no border. On social matters (consensual goings on in private bedrooms, the purchase of goods and services such as drugs and sex or guns and hair styling) I don't think the government should have a say. Ideally a society should have some voluntary social core though, since it seems societies without some level of social cohesion tend to collapse into nothing rather quickly.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      Frankly I'm just annoyed that the way climate issues are presented is basically perfectly engineered to convince deniers that they're on to something. I don't think there is much you can do once an issue has been associated with a particular political contingent. Also if you think there isn't a smugness and high horsery from the other side then you are mistaken.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
narrator 9y ago
Saving the environment is great. However, why does the solution always seem to involve the U.S paying hundreds of billions to a supranational entity that is unaccountable as was outlined in the Paris accord? The rubber always seems to hit the road on climate change with a global tax, levied mostly on the U.S, paid to a global government. Let's fund solar power and electric cars and ways to use energy more efficiently, great. However, why is it that if one thinks it's a bad idea to set up an unacountable global entity with a multi-billion dollar budget one is accused of being anti-science?
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  So you're turning being held accountable into somehow furthering lack of accountability. Not that I think the agreement is super perfect, but that still sticks out like a sore thumb. > Let's fund solar power and electric cars You've always been free to do that. You still are. Instead of, say, waging a war of aggression for control of oil, littering the world with military bases, all the while complaining about the specter of a "world government" -- which is anything but the US desires of hegemony, right? No problem with the main superpower being a brute instead of a boon, but a huge problem with the means to defend ourselves. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s , and for now in general I'll just say "no". Not good enough. Too little, too late.
  - narrator 9y ago
    It's weird how some people seem to think the only two alternatives are neo-con world empire or give all our money to some other guys who aren't accountable to the U.S taxpayer or hardly anyone at all. Can't the American government do pro-climate things itself instead of paying money to someone else whose only qualification is that they don't have any reputation yet for corruption because they haven't done anything yet?
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      I actually agree, I would prefer more voluntary action, too. But what's keeping the US from doing these things, other than "the" US itself?
canoebuilder 9y ago
If there was a small corporation or govt project that came up with some technology to really put a dent in the whole climate change thing, but the demography was typical of these things, that Manhattan project, not real "diverse!" (sidenote: What exactly is the metric by which climate change is solved?) So in this hypothetical scenario of this small group of world saving engineers, would the whole thing fail to get off the ground because some blue hair SJW would take umbrage with some aspect of the groups's identity and twitter mobs would rain down on them like hell fire?
jpao79 9y ago
Does this proposal from a conservative group represent a good solution? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-ca... https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win/reading-list https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh... If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits are that it would: - Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the rest of the developing world. - It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions. Would love to hear other people's opinions.
- aoeusnth1 9y ago
  A carbon tax is the single best possible carbon policy. If implemented well, it - simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending. - and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been created from scratch by the market?). It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are nowhere near as dire.
  - ehnto 9y ago
    I feel as though you may be implying the carbon tax is applied to industry and in policy that's correct, but in practice the carbon tax is passed onto the consumer. Sometimes unashamedly so. I'm not saying it's a bad thing mind you, less consumption is what we need. Australia trialled this. I say trialled, because our government has been such a flip flop of agendas (and indeed leaders) for nearly a decade and it was only around for 3 years before being repealed. No doubt we'll see it again soon, and I look forward to rehashing the same tired debates, albeit in slightly warmer weather, when that occurs.
jrapdx3 9y ago
I'm certainly not an expert in the domain of "climate change", but it doesn't appear to be difficult to find reviews of the subject that come to different conclusions than reached by the NYT. For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers [0]. Bottom line was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that "... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record setting warming." This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not "conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is interpreted and used for predicting future trends. It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the processes of Nature that we call "climate". [0] https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data...
- nl 9y ago
  It's published on wordpress.com, non-peer reviewed etc. There is a range of credible opinions on some aspect of climate change (for example, the impact of water vapor around cities on measurement). It's probably worth concentrating on the ones which have at least been peer reviewed.
  - seren 9y ago
    Googling the author's names, you'll quickly find a snopes article in the first results: http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
    - jrapdx3 9y ago
      True enough, I didn't check out the authors or those endorsing the report. The report wasn't from a peer-reviewed journal, but then neither is the NYT or Snopes. The analysis could be considered on its merit. I'd leave that to people better qualified in that field than I am. We'd expect bias, that's entirely normal in all research. But the deep polarization of the scientific community considering climate data and findings is symptomatic of the absurd political influence on the field. The extreme level of viciousness surrounding climate research has to render all of it suspect in any honest observer's mind.
mnm1 9y ago
The conclusions here are obvious to anyone that's been living in the US in the last decade or two. It's not that difficult to see/feel the changing weather patterns. So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval? If the government agencies want to dispute this, let them put forward a different hypothesis from the data. This authoritarian monopoly that various government agencies have on science has got to stop. It's not just climate change. Facts like cannabis being a safe substance, lead being dangerous, etc. are/were ignored for decades. It seems to me government funds studies and then ignores their conclusions. This is clearly not in the interest of society. At the very least it's an absolute waste of money. Will the government ever represent the people and their interests or is it just too far gone for that to the point that we're stuck with the interests of a few assholes controlling and ruining everything?
- s_kilk 9y ago
  > So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval? One word: Capital. There's a hell of a lot of money tied up in the carbon industry, and maintaining the status-quo for that section of the capital class is predicated on not acknowledging climate change.
  - specialist 9y ago
    Political. Industry is asking for a carbon tax. Some of the players on the losing side just need to be bought off.
- 7952 9y ago
  Because it is not really about the science. What people differ on is the level of moral responsibility we hold. Some people simply reject the moral imperative to protect the environment. And science does not help in that argument. You cannot scientifically prove that someone should care about a moral issue. They have to understand at a more intuitive and emotional level first. This takes time and is messy (see every contentious political issue ever).
cool_look 9y ago
It got hotter until 1998 and plateaued until today 2017+, occasionally setting small new highs (0.1C when margin for error is 0.4C). That was already accepted and should not be trumpetted as further "proof".
RickJWagner 9y ago
I see arguments here that people can readily feel a change. I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years. If anything, it's been less hot. But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.
- toxican 9y ago
  Only thing I could really point to is a number of incredibly mild winters a few years in a row. But even then, I was under the impression that climate change wasn't particularly measurable on a year-by-year scale. Maybe I'm wrong.
  - Goronmon 9y ago
    Just because the individual changes aren't going to be noticeable year over year, doesn't mean the cumulative changes won't hit tipping points for noticeable effects to occur in certain cases. Just like people won't notice the sea levels changing each year. But at some point, flooding is going to go from a rare occurrence to a regular occurrence once the sea level raises past a certain point.
  - saiya-jin 9y ago
    In Europe, we're facing ridiculously hot summer back where I come from and very mild winters for a few years in a row. To give an example - parents have a small garden, living in the valley under mountains. Till about 2-3 years back it was impossible to plant outside twice a year like near mediterranean, it was simply too cold for too long. My 90 year old grandparents never ever could do that, now they can. We're facing bugs (ie ticks) which were never there before. Winters moved from +-4 months of solid snowy winter to few weeks of snow and a lot of cold rain. And of course glaciers are retreating at ridiculous rate, ie 10m/year.
- jnwatson 9y ago
  It is hard to notice the gradual changes, and we tend to give too much weight to the natural variance in the weather. A conversation I had with an older East coast snow ski instructor was illuminating. The ski season is a few weeks shorter than it was 30 years ago. That's real economic impact.
toxican 9y ago
Does anyone else get irked when articles use photos of nuclear power plants when talking about pollution or climate change? I'm certainly no expert, but my understand was that the 'exhaust' from nuclear plants is just water vapor and with the exception of finding a place to store spent rods, it's an incredibly green source of energy and has little to no bearing on climate change?
- roenxi 9y ago
  Are you sure that is a nuclear plant? It looks like coal to me. The big thick columns are water vapour - you are right there, but the tall thin exhausts are for carbon. They don't look like they are being used, but they are (they often don't produce anything visible even when they are running at a fair clip).
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    I was under the impression that any power plant that uses a source of high temperatures to operate would also benefit from a water cooling system with a hyperbolic cooling tower. It improves the efficiency for whatever it is you're doing on the hot end. They're just iconic for nuclear power plants for some reason, to the point where some people mistake the cooling tower for a building containing a nuclear reactor. And this discourages their construction at other types of power plant, because people freak out about nuclear plants in their backyard. And obviously they aren't used where water cooling would be prohibitively expensive.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      Not any. I used to live near nuclear and coal power plants (two different plants about 15 miles away from each other). Both were located right on the Mississippi river to take advantage of the river water for cooling. Most neighbors when asked where the nuclear plant was would point to the smoke stacks on the coal plant even though the nuclear plant was only a mile away and the coal plant was 15 miles away.
    - UncleMeat 9y ago
guscost 9y ago
> The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. The enormous effort put toward finding "confirmations" of the hypothesis has always been a big reason why I'm reluctant to trust the authorities in this case. I don't see the point of going through this again. Where are the falsifiable predictions? Will the Arctic Ocean be ice-free next month? We're back to point number one from Karl Popper's essay: "It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations."
- kristopolous 9y ago
  If you drive blindfolded do you know exactly how your car will be dented or precisely where the collision will take place? Does not knowing these answers make the activity fundamentally safe and concern about blindfolded driving to be alarmist? It's certainly possible to see something as absurdly dangerous without having crystal ball level predictive accuracy.
  - guscost 9y ago
    Option A: This crisis is so important that we don't have time to wait for science stuff like falsification. Option B: This crisis is known to serious scientists, and everyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragging moron. You can only pick one of those options...
    - kristopolous 9y ago
      That's the argument tobacco companies used. They'd find one counterexample of someone who smoked 70 years and say "Aha! No cancer here! Tobacco is safe!" I mean seriously, find a new strategy, that one is from the 60s.
diafygi 9y ago
I work in cleantech, and here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" So what can _you_ do about it? Work at a new energy technology company! Many cleantech sectors are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). See my comment history for links to cleantech jobs. As for dealing with skeptics, remember that you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into. Focus on emotion, and don't tell them what to do (instead, paint an environment where they naturally come to aligned conclusion). Here's several ways to work with climate skeptics: 1. If you know them well and they have kids or grandkids, learn their names and talk about how life is going to get much harder for them if we don't make the energy transition. Talk about how many jobs the energy transition will make (solar already outnumbers coal jobs). Focus on the opportunity for their kids. Try to paint climate change as a us-vs-the-harsh-fucking-world (rather than what they currently think of as an us-vs-liberals-and-hippies). This perspective can make them feel like they are betraying their kids and grandkids. I've seen this work for family members and close friends. 2. If they like focusing on the economic/subsidy arguments, make it competitive and selfish. Talk about how it's going to be their loss and your gain ("if you're not going to do anything about climate change, that's more money and work for me, so thanks!"). Focus on building a situation where they get left behind. Then pile on that more Republicans have installed solar than Democrats (which is true, by the way), so it feels like their own team is already on board. Shrug off all the economic and subsidy arguments with a, "Meh, if you don't want in on it, more upside for me. You complaining just makes me richer." I've seen this work for tea party friends.
- SamPhillips 9y ago
  Another great resource: Bret Victor's "What Can A Technologist Do About Climate Change" http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
  - botondus 9y ago
    Thanks for sharing it, it's an amazing resource!
ethbro 9y ago
How inconvenient.
geiseric 9y ago
I wonder how valid this is? http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6 http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-de...

207 points by blondie9x 9y ago

stanislavb 9y ago

Don't say...

stanislavb 9y ago
" The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration." i.e. if Trump's administration does not approve it, it does not exist :D
- mirimir 9y ago
  If people care, stuff leaks :)

tradersam 9y ago

Could we get the non-mobile link?

dovdovdov 9y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-dr...
- simonebrunozzi 9y ago
  And this is the actual report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dogruck 9y ago

Where can I read the report, and what is the list of scientists?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...
- dogruck 9y ago
  Perfect, thank you.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I had to lol at "there is significant possibility of unexpected changes."

d--b 9y ago

At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science, it's a matter of people choosing not to believe in science.

noja 9y ago
It's belief. Pay people (indirectly or directly) to not understand something and they will do a fantastic job.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Do you mean pay the scientists or a different group?
  - noja 9y ago
    People who will be disadvantaged by efforts to reduce climate change (by driving less/walking more, eating less red meat, etc.).
Banthum 9y ago
Conflation and a strawman. What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists. Nobody disputes this. The headline describes "drastic impact of climate change on U.S" happening today. "X exists" != "X is drastically affecting America today"
- DanBC 9y ago
  > What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists Plenty of people, even on HN deny that climate change is happening.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    I think it'd be a challenge to even dig up a serious Internet comment that clearly stated this. If you think someone's saying this, be sure you're not just inferring it to make a strawman. In any case, it's verifiable that nobody of consequence in the public policy debate on climate change is saying that the climate is perfectly static. The disagreements are about degrees, certainties, consequences, timelines, and appropriate responses. This insistence on debating such a strawman looks really bad, I have to be honest. Why not "steelman" your opponent and argue against his best points, instead of "weakmanning" the dumbest things anyone on that side has ever said? It'd be a lot more productive.

Fej 9y ago

At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.

mirimir 9y ago
At this point, I'm not sure that anything will make much difference. Or at least, for anyone now alive. There's just too much inertia, at all levels.
- simonh 9y ago
  There's no way to change the directional trend, but there are lots of things we can do to affect it's slope. Many of these things are also worth doing anyway for reasons such as energy security, resource and environmental preservation, reducing pollution, protecting biodiversity, etc. I do not believe crash course change in the global economy and our technology base is possible or desirable, were just going to have to live with and manage many of the negative consequences of climate change, but we can achieve a lot with sensible, moderate and achievable environmental policies provided they are pursued determinedly and consistently.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    It would be great if you're right. But I've been watching this issue for decades. And I'm not optimistic. National US policy is worse than ever. China is starting to switch to renewables. But they're also cutting SO2 emissions, and that will increase radiative forcing.
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    One can prepare- build a bunker that could survive on venus.
  - _up 9y ago
    We can also cool the earth via Sulfur Injection in the Stratosphere (like Vulcan eruptions demonstrated). German Spiegel[1] had an Article a few weeks ago that also mysteriously threatened international sanctions or war to countries who try that. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-geoengineering-als-plan-b-fuer-eine-zu-heisse-erde-a-1159027.html http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-geoengi...

microcolonel 9y ago

> WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets? No credible person denies that the global (and U.S. local) mean temperature has increased, this is not news. > The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited. These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President). (Edit: I should clarify that I'm talking about the link between the two clauses in this paragraph, which makes it seem like one supports the other when this is not the case) > and that the ability to predict the effects is limited. It is limited, the report details the limits, as do many other great sources. The climate models we have are about as good as the economic models; that is to say, they're basically useless for genuine predictions. They do not fit historic data without piles of corrections, some of which are dubious. There is work to be done. If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is. The reason that there are so many people skeptical about the alarming claims, is because the presentations have been so dishonest and manipulative. Public figures frequently grossly overstate the certainty of statements which are not really settled, and some climate scientists and academic administrators have been caught basically ganging up on people who do not present alarming news. I understand why some of you feel, as Fej says elsewhere in this thread, that "At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.", but it's important that we be honest in presenting what we know to the public. Every time you present an opinion as a fact, somebody somewhere no longer trusts you, and those people will be vocal and active in letting people know that you've been dishonest.

9y ago

mirimir 9y ago

One trusts that the National Climate Assessment will also be available publicly, one way ot the other.

ryanchoi 9y ago
AFAIK drafts are already viewable (if this is what you meant?), ex: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum... With the public draft already released, I think it would be especially surprising if the administration tried to impose non-trivial changes to the document.

adwhit 9y ago

Astroturfers... it's going to be a busy day! Put on your concerned faces!

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I don't think @microcolonel is an astroturfer, he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views. I'm always a bit surprised by this, you would think the right would be fairly conservative about environmental issues. I guess it's because big business/oil has done such a good job of buying the politicians off.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Frankly I'm just annoyed that the way climate issues are presented is basically perfectly engineered to convince deniers that they're on to something. In addition, there's a smugness high horsery which doesn't appeal to the kinds of folk who get swept up in these delusions. I notice the same problem with the anti-vax crowd, where a lot of the public has basically resorted to brushing them off and engaging in ritual defamation, instead of trying to be persuasive. The poor kids who grow up with anti-vax parents who will become less and less interested in vaccine the more people tell them they're dumb. > ...he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views. I'm a Liberal Conservative. That is to say, I am interested in conserving Classical Liberalism: equal opportunity, free markets, free expression, personal sovereignty. For example, I see border protection as begrudging but necessary, and only because we have attractive social programmes. If the social programmes are not attractive then we can go back to 1918 (on that issue alone) when there was effectively no border. On social matters (consensual goings on in private bedrooms, the purchase of goods and services such as drugs and sex or guns and hair styling) I don't think the government should have a say. Ideally a society should have some voluntary social core though, since it seems societies without some level of social cohesion tend to collapse into nothing rather quickly.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    Frankly I'm just annoyed that the way climate issues are presented is basically perfectly engineered to convince deniers that they're on to something. I don't think there is much you can do once an issue has been associated with a particular political contingent. Also if you think there isn't a smugness and high horsery from the other side then you are mistaken.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

narrator 9y ago

Saving the environment is great. However, why does the solution always seem to involve the U.S paying hundreds of billions to a supranational entity that is unaccountable as was outlined in the Paris accord? The rubber always seems to hit the road on climate change with a global tax, levied mostly on the U.S, paid to a global government. Let's fund solar power and electric cars and ways to use energy more efficiently, great. However, why is it that if one thinks it's a bad idea to set up an unacountable global entity with a multi-billion dollar budget one is accused of being anti-science?

thinkfurther 9y ago
So you're turning being held accountable into somehow furthering lack of accountability. Not that I think the agreement is super perfect, but that still sticks out like a sore thumb. > Let's fund solar power and electric cars You've always been free to do that. You still are. Instead of, say, waging a war of aggression for control of oil, littering the world with military bases, all the while complaining about the specter of a "world government" -- which is anything but the US desires of hegemony, right? No problem with the main superpower being a brute instead of a boon, but a huge problem with the means to defend ourselves. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s , and for now in general I'll just say "no". Not good enough. Too little, too late.
- narrator 9y ago
  It's weird how some people seem to think the only two alternatives are neo-con world empire or give all our money to some other guys who aren't accountable to the U.S taxpayer or hardly anyone at all. Can't the American government do pro-climate things itself instead of paying money to someone else whose only qualification is that they don't have any reputation yet for corruption because they haven't done anything yet?
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    I actually agree, I would prefer more voluntary action, too. But what's keeping the US from doing these things, other than "the" US itself?

canoebuilder 9y ago

If there was a small corporation or govt project that came up with some technology to really put a dent in the whole climate change thing, but the demography was typical of these things, that Manhattan project, not real "diverse!" (sidenote: What exactly is the metric by which climate change is solved?) So in this hypothetical scenario of this small group of world saving engineers, would the whole thing fail to get off the ground because some blue hair SJW would take umbrage with some aspect of the groups's identity and twitter mobs would rain down on them like hell fire?

jpao79 9y ago

Does this proposal from a conservative group represent a good solution? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-ca... https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win/reading-list https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh... If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits are that it would: - Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the rest of the developing world. - It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions. Would love to hear other people's opinions.

aoeusnth1 9y ago
A carbon tax is the single best possible carbon policy. If implemented well, it - simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending. - and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been created from scratch by the market?). It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are nowhere near as dire.
- ehnto 9y ago
  I feel as though you may be implying the carbon tax is applied to industry and in policy that's correct, but in practice the carbon tax is passed onto the consumer. Sometimes unashamedly so. I'm not saying it's a bad thing mind you, less consumption is what we need. Australia trialled this. I say trialled, because our government has been such a flip flop of agendas (and indeed leaders) for nearly a decade and it was only around for 3 years before being repealed. No doubt we'll see it again soon, and I look forward to rehashing the same tired debates, albeit in slightly warmer weather, when that occurs.

jrapdx3 9y ago

I'm certainly not an expert in the domain of "climate change", but it doesn't appear to be difficult to find reviews of the subject that come to different conclusions than reached by the NYT. For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers [0]. Bottom line was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that "... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record setting warming." This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not "conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is interpreted and used for predicting future trends. It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the processes of Nature that we call "climate". [0] https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data...

nl 9y ago
It's published on wordpress.com, non-peer reviewed etc. There is a range of credible opinions on some aspect of climate change (for example, the impact of water vapor around cities on measurement). It's probably worth concentrating on the ones which have at least been peer reviewed.
- seren 9y ago
  Googling the author's names, you'll quickly find a snopes article in the first results: http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
  - jrapdx3 9y ago
    True enough, I didn't check out the authors or those endorsing the report. The report wasn't from a peer-reviewed journal, but then neither is the NYT or Snopes. The analysis could be considered on its merit. I'd leave that to people better qualified in that field than I am. We'd expect bias, that's entirely normal in all research. But the deep polarization of the scientific community considering climate data and findings is symptomatic of the absurd political influence on the field. The extreme level of viciousness surrounding climate research has to render all of it suspect in any honest observer's mind.

mnm1 9y ago

The conclusions here are obvious to anyone that's been living in the US in the last decade or two. It's not that difficult to see/feel the changing weather patterns. So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval? If the government agencies want to dispute this, let them put forward a different hypothesis from the data. This authoritarian monopoly that various government agencies have on science has got to stop. It's not just climate change. Facts like cannabis being a safe substance, lead being dangerous, etc. are/were ignored for decades. It seems to me government funds studies and then ignores their conclusions. This is clearly not in the interest of society. At the very least it's an absolute waste of money. Will the government ever represent the people and their interests or is it just too far gone for that to the point that we're stuck with the interests of a few assholes controlling and ruining everything?

s_kilk 9y ago
> So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval? One word: Capital. There's a hell of a lot of money tied up in the carbon industry, and maintaining the status-quo for that section of the capital class is predicated on not acknowledging climate change.
- specialist 9y ago
  Political. Industry is asking for a carbon tax. Some of the players on the losing side just need to be bought off.
7952 9y ago
Because it is not really about the science. What people differ on is the level of moral responsibility we hold. Some people simply reject the moral imperative to protect the environment. And science does not help in that argument. You cannot scientifically prove that someone should care about a moral issue. They have to understand at a more intuitive and emotional level first. This takes time and is messy (see every contentious political issue ever).

cool_look 9y ago

It got hotter until 1998 and plateaued until today 2017+, occasionally setting small new highs (0.1C when margin for error is 0.4C). That was already accepted and should not be trumpetted as further "proof".

RickJWagner 9y ago

I see arguments here that people can readily feel a change. I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years. If anything, it's been less hot. But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.

toxican 9y ago
Only thing I could really point to is a number of incredibly mild winters a few years in a row. But even then, I was under the impression that climate change wasn't particularly measurable on a year-by-year scale. Maybe I'm wrong.
- Goronmon 9y ago
  Just because the individual changes aren't going to be noticeable year over year, doesn't mean the cumulative changes won't hit tipping points for noticeable effects to occur in certain cases. Just like people won't notice the sea levels changing each year. But at some point, flooding is going to go from a rare occurrence to a regular occurrence once the sea level raises past a certain point.
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  In Europe, we're facing ridiculously hot summer back where I come from and very mild winters for a few years in a row. To give an example - parents have a small garden, living in the valley under mountains. Till about 2-3 years back it was impossible to plant outside twice a year like near mediterranean, it was simply too cold for too long. My 90 year old grandparents never ever could do that, now they can. We're facing bugs (ie ticks) which were never there before. Winters moved from +-4 months of solid snowy winter to few weeks of snow and a lot of cold rain. And of course glaciers are retreating at ridiculous rate, ie 10m/year.
jnwatson 9y ago
It is hard to notice the gradual changes, and we tend to give too much weight to the natural variance in the weather. A conversation I had with an older East coast snow ski instructor was illuminating. The ski season is a few weeks shorter than it was 30 years ago. That's real economic impact.

toxican 9y ago

Does anyone else get irked when articles use photos of nuclear power plants when talking about pollution or climate change? I'm certainly no expert, but my understand was that the 'exhaust' from nuclear plants is just water vapor and with the exception of finding a place to store spent rods, it's an incredibly green source of energy and has little to no bearing on climate change?

roenxi 9y ago
Are you sure that is a nuclear plant? It looks like coal to me. The big thick columns are water vapour - you are right there, but the tall thin exhausts are for carbon. They don't look like they are being used, but they are (they often don't produce anything visible even when they are running at a fair clip).
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  I was under the impression that any power plant that uses a source of high temperatures to operate would also benefit from a water cooling system with a hyperbolic cooling tower. It improves the efficiency for whatever it is you're doing on the hot end. They're just iconic for nuclear power plants for some reason, to the point where some people mistake the cooling tower for a building containing a nuclear reactor. And this discourages their construction at other types of power plant, because people freak out about nuclear plants in their backyard. And obviously they aren't used where water cooling would be prohibitively expensive.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Not any. I used to live near nuclear and coal power plants (two different plants about 15 miles away from each other). Both were located right on the Mississippi river to take advantage of the river water for cooling. Most neighbors when asked where the nuclear plant was would point to the smoke stacks on the coal plant even though the nuclear plant was only a mile away and the coal plant was 15 miles away.
  - UncleMeat 9y ago

guscost 9y ago

> The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. The enormous effort put toward finding "confirmations" of the hypothesis has always been a big reason why I'm reluctant to trust the authorities in this case. I don't see the point of going through this again. Where are the falsifiable predictions? Will the Arctic Ocean be ice-free next month? We're back to point number one from Karl Popper's essay: "It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations."

kristopolous 9y ago
If you drive blindfolded do you know exactly how your car will be dented or precisely where the collision will take place? Does not knowing these answers make the activity fundamentally safe and concern about blindfolded driving to be alarmist? It's certainly possible to see something as absurdly dangerous without having crystal ball level predictive accuracy.
- guscost 9y ago
  Option A: This crisis is so important that we don't have time to wait for science stuff like falsification. Option B: This crisis is known to serious scientists, and everyone who doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragging moron. You can only pick one of those options...
  - kristopolous 9y ago
    That's the argument tobacco companies used. They'd find one counterexample of someone who smoked 70 years and say "Aha! No cancer here! Tobacco is safe!" I mean seriously, find a new strategy, that one is from the 60s.

diafygi 9y ago

I work in cleantech, and here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" So what can _you_ do about it? Work at a new energy technology company! Many cleantech sectors are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). See my comment history for links to cleantech jobs. As for dealing with skeptics, remember that you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into. Focus on emotion, and don't tell them what to do (instead, paint an environment where they naturally come to aligned conclusion). Here's several ways to work with climate skeptics: 1. If you know them well and they have kids or grandkids, learn their names and talk about how life is going to get much harder for them if we don't make the energy transition. Talk about how many jobs the energy transition will make (solar already outnumbers coal jobs). Focus on the opportunity for their kids. Try to paint climate change as a us-vs-the-harsh-fucking-world (rather than what they currently think of as an us-vs-liberals-and-hippies). This perspective can make them feel like they are betraying their kids and grandkids. I've seen this work for family members and close friends. 2. If they like focusing on the economic/subsidy arguments, make it competitive and selfish. Talk about how it's going to be their loss and your gain ("if you're not going to do anything about climate change, that's more money and work for me, so thanks!"). Focus on building a situation where they get left behind. Then pile on that more Republicans have installed solar than Democrats (which is true, by the way), so it feels like their own team is already on board. Shrug off all the economic and subsidy arguments with a, "Meh, if you don't want in on it, more upside for me. You complaining just makes me richer." I've seen this work for tea party friends.

SamPhillips 9y ago
Another great resource: Bret Victor's "What Can A Technologist Do About Climate Change" http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
- botondus 9y ago
  Thanks for sharing it, it's an amazing resource!

ethbro 9y ago

How inconvenient.

geiseric 9y ago

I wonder how valid this is? http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6 http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-de...