Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

[ProdigalSun]

That’s all people concerned about AGW and life on planet earth are asking.

No one is asking those things of people, nor for people to freeze in the dark or bicycle 15 miles to work in the midst of a blizzard or heatwave.
RE safer roads, studies have shown that more small cars on the road makes roads safer. Also from what I understand some of the EVs and hybrids are among the safest cars. For instance our 2012 Chevy Volt (our 2nd new car in our 43 years of marriage, a really great car that saves us lots of money and we run it on our 100% wind-generated electricity) is DOT rated 5-stars in 3 categories and 4-stars only in frontal crash, while the 2012 Ford Taurus my husband wanted rated 5-stars in only one category, and 4-stars in 3 categories, including frontal crash. You can look up safety ratings at safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers (click “5-Star Ratings”).

I also remember some 15 years ago there was a small eco-friendly Chevy (can’t remember the name, and it wasn’t popular) that ranked highest in all categories and was one of the safest cars on the road.

Not to sound flipant about your concerns and what you have been doing to mitigate Climate Change (kudo’s to you) but what are you going to do with those batteries in your car when they decide to loose their charge. I live in Alberta and we have some of the most advanced technology on the market but that everlasting battery is not amoung them. Do you know how much energy is used in making and disposing of Car batteries. Look into it.

I also would like to say that that is not all what people who are concerned with AGW are concerned about. As a matter of fact They would like to see Alberta’s Oilsands projects completely shut down. Killing 10,000’s of jobs across Cannada & the US.

Cheers.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 356,
I have given empirical evidence from well established and validated scientific organizations that all say that temps have increased. You have given me nothing.

 

[kimmielittle]

Response to post 355
Phil Jones NEVER said that the earths temperature has not increased in the last 16 years. Go back and re-read the posts! As a matter of fact he believes (along with NASA and every other legitimate scientific organization ) that in the last 16 years temperatures have increased.

HIS EXACT WORDS:

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just.

1995 - 2013 = ? years.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Do you acknowledge that we are coming out of The Little Ice Age?

 

[kimmielittle]

Response to post 356,
I have given empirical evidence from well established and validated scientific organizations that all say that temps have increased. You have given me nothing.

Actually, no.

I have made counter statements to your claims and have provided links backing my statements.

You ‘parrot’ , provided links saying we are warming up… BUT you have not provided correlation and causation. Something you can not, do.

Many 'parroted" the 'pit-down man"… That, too was a case of no validation of claims. …Your often cited source of National Geographic was one of the worst promoting Pit-down man as authentic ]. There ARE MANY other “scientific” cases that fail to validate.

I have given you links where members of your scientific associations have demanded retraction of the associations "political statements’.

 

[SamH]

Response to post 355
Phil Jones NEVER said that the earths temperature has not increased in the last 16 years. Go back and re-read the posts! As a matter of fact he believes (along with NASA and every other legitimate scientific organization ) that in the last 16 years temperatures have increased.

Don’t you hate being wrong?

He even admits to it cooling:

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

It just isn’t statistically significant. I would think this would be alarming considering the massive solar activity in 2010-2011-2012.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=impact-of-climate-change-hitting-home

Do they mean cyclical climate change or are they referring to cap and trade

 

[lynnvinc]

Climate changes all the time, it has never stopped.

Confusing weather and climate doesn’t make anthropogenic (rapid) climate change go away.

Climate usually changes on time scales that are extremely long-term in human terms (1000s, even 100,000s of years). The past 12,000 years, known as the Holocene, have had a relatively stable climate with a few very minor ups and downs (in geological terms), during which agriculture, then civilization arose. At this point, labelled the Anthropocene, we are changing the climate lickity-split in geological terms, on course to phase out a large portion of agriculture. There is no analog from the past. Even the end-Permian warming, which wiped out 90%+ of life on earth, happened over many 1000s of years – compared to the several 100s years in which we are making the same changes, with similar 6C warming slated for a century or two, or even perhaps end of this century, if we keep pursuing a business-as-usual path and denialists have their way of wiping out most, perhaps all of life on earth.

 

[lynnvinc]

HA ha ha ha!

Yes! Virginia, “Climategate” DID happen. Someone DID release emails from East Angola CRU. The emails were verified, by the parties that sent them, to be TRUE and accurate. The ONLY thing contested, is the context of meaning…i.e. “I didn’t mean it’s a travesty we can’t show warming”.

EXACT WORDS:

Pretty hard to misconstrue the meaning?

algorelied.com/?p=3177

ANOTHER:

ANOTHER:

“Hackers”? Do you have evidence that it was "hacked " and not “released”?

The “hackers” “releaser” NEVER “used” any of the released emails. They just presented them.

It doesn’t prove Correlation - Causation. We would expect the temperatures to rise…JUST because we are coming out of The Little Ice Age.
WE have empirical evidence of that fact.

NO, once again you are trying to shuffle the pea.

That is NOT James Hansen’s’ 1988 graph.

HA ha ha ha!

Calling climate scientists a bunch of evil-doers does not make anthropogenic climate change go away.

 

[lynnvinc]

GOOD Questions:

The hypothesis of AGW - CAGW demands that these two periods not be admitted.

They have denied the Medieval Warm Period…or tried to explain it away.

AND . I feel some here, would have us believe we are not coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Trotting out the MWP and LIA does not make anthropogenic climate change in our era go away – which is slated to go much higher than the MWP and cause tremendous more harm to humans and others of God’s creatures.

 

[lynnvinc]

Don’t you hate being wrong?

He even admits to it cooling:

It just isn’t statistically significant. I would think this would be alarming considering the massive solar activity in 2010-2011-2012.

Mentioning the jagged saw pattern of the warming trend and focusing on a short period (a decade or two) of less warming or some cooling – short term in geological terms & caused by such factors as short-term fluctuations in solar irradiance or ocean uptake of the heat imbalance) – does not make anthropogenic climate change go away.

If a person really wants anthropogenic climate change to go away (and perhaps gloat at the “warmers”), they need to start by turning off lights not in use and the myriad of other steps that save money without lowering living standards; and do those things they can afford that will save them money short or long-term, or have no net cost.

That itself will take some 10 to 20 years and bring down GHG emissions by 50 to 75%. Then we can to a reassessment and see if we might need to sacrifice a tiny bit. Or not. Maybe by then technology will come to our rescue and the high-life party can go on and on, without harming inhabitants of earth.

All that I’m asking is give life a chance. Give it the benefit of the doubt. If you doubt AGW, please just do what you can to mitigate it that will not harm you one iota. That is my fervent prayer. There are plenty of bad guys out that who don’t care about others’ lives and will go on doing whatever evil they please. Which only leaves us church-going types to do what little good we can, with God’s tremendous grace to show us the way, keep us on track, and lift us up when we stumble.

 

[SamH]

Confusing weather and climate doesn’t make anthropogenic (rapid) climate change go away.
.

Why does everything you list conflict with what we know about climate? The Little Ice Age was a huge shift in climate and the initial cooling part actually happened quite rapidly - less than 100 years. The entire cooling only lasted 300 years. The Medieval Warm Period only lasted 300 years also - with a rapid warming (much-much warmer than current temps) that happened in the first 100 years also.

So much for your 1000s or 10,000s year climate claims. The fact that the last 150 years has resulted in a barely measurable increase in temps (within the variable of recording devices and methods used) does nothing to support your claim.

If we buy your claim the current minor warming trend (that has ended) doesn’t even measure on the 10,000 year scale.

 

[SamH]

Mentioning the jagged saw pattern of the warming trend and focusing on a short period (a decade or two) of less warming or some cooling – short term in geological terms & caused by such factors as short-term fluctuations in solar irradiance or ocean uptake of the heat imbalance) – does not make anthropogenic climate change go away.
.

Isn’t that what you are asking us to do with the theory of global warming?

 

[kimmielittle]

Calling climate scientists a bunch of evil-doers does not make anthropogenic climate change go away.

Calling us “deniers” doesn’t make AGW real. Maybe, you should apply your own set of standards to yourself?

Can you provide any validation of the AGW hypothesis? I’ve asked you this many times before, I just thought I’d give you another chance.

 

[kimmielittle]

Calling climate scientists a bunch of evil-doers does not make anthropogenic climate change go away.

I firmly believe, that reading comprehension is an acquired skill.

Please re read the post:

Those are the words of Climategate scientist.

 

[kimmielittle]

Isn’t that what you are asking us to do with the theory of global warming?

IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!

 

[Farsight001]

Why does everything you list conflict with what we know about climate? The Little Ice Age was a huge shift in climate and the initial cooling part actually happened quite rapidly - less than 100 years. The entire cooling only lasted 300 years. The Medieval Warm Period only lasted 300 years also - with a rapid warming (much-much warmer than current temps) that happened in the first 100 years also.

So much for your 1000s or 10,000s year climate claims. The fact that the last 150 years has resulted in a barely measurable increase in temps (within the variable of recording devices and methods used) does nothing to support your claim.

If we buy your claim the current minor warming trend (that has ended) doesn’t even measure on the 10,000 year scale.

Actually it does. Ever since agriculture entered the picture and we’ve been cutting down trees and burning a lot of wood, we’ve been increasing the CO2 in the environment and causing a warming trend. The thing is that roughly the same time this all started, an ice age was supposed to start as well. The warming of global warming and the cooling of an ice age has somewhat offset each other. Now that the “ice age” is ending, and the propensity towards cooling has ended, we can expect the temperature to sky rocket if we don’t do something fast.

 

[SamH]

Actually it does. Ever since agriculture entered the picture and we’ve been cutting down trees and burning a lot of wood, we’ve been increasing the CO2 in the environment and causing a warming trend. The thing is that roughly the same time this all started, an ice age was supposed to start as well. The warming of global warming and the cooling of an ice age has somewhat offset each other.

The Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago - the earth has been warming slightly every since - and even that appears to have stopped.

Now that the “ice age” is ending, and the propensity towards cooling has ended, we can expect the temperature to sky rocket if we don’t do something fast.

Proof of that claim? If you buy into that theory why did it stop warming in 1995? As you state - the temperature should have increased even faster.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why does everything you list conflict with what we know about climate?

The Little Ice Age was a huge shift in climate and the initial cooling part actually happened quite rapidly - less than 100 years. The entire cooling only lasted 300 years. The Medieval Warm Period only lasted 300 years also - with a rapid warming (much-much warmer than current temps) that happened in the first 100 years also.

So much for your 1000s or 10,000s year climate claims. The fact that the last 150 years has resulted in a barely measurable increase in temps (within the variable of recording devices and methods used) does nothing to support your claim.

If we buy your claim the current minor warming trend (that has ended) doesn’t even measure on the 10,000 year scale.

They try to use the 1000 - 10,000 year scales to “shuffle the pea”.

Early Holocene was not the same world. stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleoveg/veg-adams-big.gif

They want us to compare apples to oranges because they can’t validate todays or even 30 years ag.

 

[Farsight001]

The Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago - the earth has been warming slightly every since - and even that appears to have stopped.

Proof of that claim? If you buy into that theory why did it stop warming in 1995? As you state - the temperature should have increased even faster.

There are dozens of important factors that impact warming and cooling trends. Solar flares, supernovas from stars millions and millions of miles away, the rotation of the earth, meteorite impacts, the amount of trees living, the amount of trees being burned, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, ratio of ocean water to sea ice, ocean current, distance of earth from the sun (yes, it varies), wobble of the earth’s axis (yes, it wobbles), latitude of the equinox, milankovitch cycles, and even the position of our solar system in the galaxy. You cannot simply say “well it’s warming now, so we’ve got global warming” or “well, there’s no change right now, so obviously there’s no global warming”. All of these factors have different cycles, or are random, and they work together or against each other quite often. It is far more complicated than just checking a thermometer.

Truthfully, what climate scientists are studying is the past change in the temperatures of the earth. If there had never been an ounce of change for as long as the earth has existed - if from 4.6 billion years ago to today, the temperature over the entire planet were a nice 75 degrees, constantly, always, we should still be worried.

It’s a very simple matter. We know from chemistry that CO2 reflects solar rays and traps heat better than plain air. We also know that Methane is even more effective than CO2 at trapping heat. We also know from simply measuring the levels in the atmosphere that CO2 levels are going up drastically. After that, it’s very simple - more CO2 means more heat. Since there is more CO2, there is going to be more heat. And the more CO2 (and methane) we add, the more heat there will be. Regardless of what has happened during the earth’s history, these very simple facts remain true.

 

[kimmielittle]

If a person really wants anthropogenic climate change to go away (and perhaps gloat at the “warmers”), they need to start by turning off lights not in use and the myriad of other steps that save money without lowering living standards; and do those things they can afford that will save them money short or long-term, or have no net cost.

Should we all go out and buy a tax payer supported $70,000.00 car to drive 2 miles?

DOES IT SAVE CO2?

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

The Committee on Climate Change, the UK government watchdog, has called for the number of electric cars on Britain’s roads to increase from a few hundred now to 1.7 million by 2020.

Britain’s Department for Transport is spending $66 million over the next year giving up to 8,600 buyers of electric cars a grant of $7700 towards the purchase price. Ministers are considering extending the scheme.

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid

READ MORE theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576