FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

[JPA Cate]

The basic problem is that people don't want to give up *stuff* that makes their lives pleasant. Like huge houses and high fuel consumption cars, and private aircraft. How else can they count coup?

Legislation to encourage everyone to give up what they want to some extent or other is unpopular not only with the recipients of the legislation (you & me) but also with the legislators who are threatened with giving up more than we, their jobs, when we vote them out. If we are to accept limitations on our own consumption, we want others, who have as a result of their lifestyle more carbon emissions give up proportionally for their emissions. The problem is that the rich and the super-rich are unwilling as the average joes and janes to give up anything. It is the 'tragedy of the commons" multiplied many times.

I'll bet if the French people mentioned above were shown that their wealthier folks were giving up as much as the lower income ones (whom the raised fuel prices hurt the most), they wouldn't be rioting, they'd be figuring out more car pooling.

People will lend a hand to help, mostly, but imho, A 64's right, with his implications: we need incentives, as well as dis-incentives, and that will require us to select people to run for office and elect them who will support such actions. So we need to quit being so lazy and become political, and we need to accept that we were never promised a rose garden, and I really do think the people who use the most should pay an emissions tax that reflects their usage above a survival base line, just like the rest of humans.

The real problem is human nature and greediness, which is unlikely to change, especially quickly, and that is why so many people feel so hopeless and angry.

Ann

The foregoing has been written by me as me. What follows is from me as a moderator.

Some of you may have noticed there is a lot of moderator participation in this thread. There has already been some rudeness. Challenge ideas, do not denigrate other members. Please refrain from straw man arguments, and from rudeness with your posts. Thank you.

[a64pilot]

It works like this.
We have right at 250,000 miles on the Prius. It gets really 50 mpg, if you use $3 as a number for fuel cost it has cost $15,000 in fuel to drive.
Same 250,000 in a 12 mpg SUV or truck would have cost $62,499 to drive.

The difference is the Prius cost in fuel alone $47,499 less to drive than an SUV or pickup truck.
Yet, people stand in line to buy SUV’s and pickups.

Logically the Prius, or any other high mpg automobile needs no tax incentive, yet they don’t sell.

The snob value or whatever you call it that has everyone buying designer coffee and carrying the Yeti cups etc., is that strong.

No, you need I think Hollywood etc to make it fashionable to not burn fossil fuels, apparently being fashionable is a very powerful force.

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by NoTies

It appears from the "caibre" of the people arguing against climate change, its causes and its effects that one of the biggest problems is an exceptionalist and nationalist attitude. I have a God given right to drive my absurdly over powered gas guzzling truck, just like my God given right to own unlimited numbers of semi automatic rifles. I wonder if there are any scientist who are willing to undertake research into the correlation between gun ownership and climate change denial.

The best part about all of this and your hatred towards my "caliber" and opinion, is that no matter how much you hate my Big SUV and the large amount of "Semi Automatic" rifles that I own with the 10's of thousands of rounds that I have to feed those rifles, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change and or take either of them away or get me to stop using them. In fact I'm going to use my remote start to turn on my truck right now just to let it run and burn gas. If Al Gore can fly his private jet to Europe to talk about global warming.....wait oops I mean climate change, my SUV shouldn't make that big of a difference in your theory now should it.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Great,
What’s the plan?

Can't really be called a plan, since the solution is inevitable; resumption to a geologically balanced lifestyle. It will happen regardless of what anyone wants because, last I checked, we inhabit a finite planet, with a lifestyle made possible by a very delicately balanced ecosystem. What should be the plan, and is something that is hotly debated by those that live in the real world and see that the effects we're seeing now are only going to get worse, even with the most stringent efforts at reducing carbon emissions, is how best to essentially eliminate (a 100% reduction is impossible) those emissions in time to avoid the worst of their effects.

If the top 10% of emitters reduced their outputs to those of the rest, there would be a reduction of 50% of emissions globally.

Kinda suggests a plan I'd think, but since I try to live in the real world, don't think any of that 10% are gonna agree...

Originally Posted by GordMay

Climate change is a more comprehensive term than global warming, and, hence, more scientifically inclusive and accurate.

Global warming refers to the upward temperature trend across the entire Earth since the early 20th century, and most notably since the late 1970s, due to the increase in fossil fuel emissions since the industrial revolution.

Climate change refers to a broad range of global phenomena created predominantly by burning fossil fuels, which add heat-trapping gases to Earth’s atmosphere. These other phenomena include the increased temperature trends described by global warming, but also encompass changes such as sea level rise; ice mass loss in Greenland, Antarctica, the Arctic and mountain glaciers worldwide; changes in precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events, et al.

Not to mention that 'Climate Change' was actually put forward by a Republican political consultant Frank Lutz, in an effort to --- well I'm not sure what his propagandizing was supposed to do...


"It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation…“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”…While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge".


Though climate change was the term used by scientists as early as the 1950's.

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Sorry but substituting climate change for global warming is wanting your cake and eating it too. You can't blame every hot and cold anomaly on global warming, but you can on "climate change."

By the way I'm still waiting for the ocean to swallow up coastal cities, you know with the rise and all that has been predicted forever. No honestly I really am, being that the certain affiliations most city dwellers have that are opposite to mine I wouldn't cry over a new coast line.

And no credible scientist does "blame every hot and cold anomaly on global warming" or climate change either, for that matter.

Meanwhile, sea level continues to rise as predicted by scientists, but not as
erroneously reported by 'news' sources, especially those of the yellow flavor, who you apparently rely on for your misinformation.

Accurate and informed information is readily available for anyone who is interested enough to look for it. The realists are waiting for any that contradicts that which is being put out by scientists trained in their respective fields. Surely some of you 'sceptics' can provide something supporting your view...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

No, Tesla is not, their battery is nothing more or less than thousands of Panasonic 18650 Li-Po cells. Now years later, the new battery, is a larger 18650 cell, cause I’m sure it cost less money to use less, but bigger cells.

Ignoring anything else, the sheer volume of cells required by EVs drives manufacturers to produce better cells, more efficiently. As well as improvements in charging technology (cost, reliability).


When reasonably priced Li batteries finally reach our boats, it will be through efficiencies generated in the EV channel.

It works like this.
We have right at 250,000 miles on the Prius. It gets really 50 mpg, if you use $3 as a number for fuel cost it has cost $15,000 in fuel to drive.
Same 250,000 in a 12 mpg SUV or truck would have cost $62,499 to drive.

The difference is the Prius cost in fuel alone $47,499 less to drive than an SUV or pickup truck.
Yet, people stand in line to buy SUV’s and pickups.

Logically the Prius, or any other high mpg automobile needs no tax incentive, yet they don’t sell.

There ARE good reasons to own a truck or SUV... but many own them simply as "statements". Of course, absurdly cheap fuel makes it more attainable too.


But vehicles are a derail; legislating 100% EVs isn't going to solve the problem we have.

[Lake-Effect]

Just revisiting this chestnut from page 1:

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

The issue which has always been avoided is how much of the current warming trend is actually attributable to human causes. As that fraction is the only portion we can control, it is fundamental to any discussion but typically omitted from the debate.

You're joking, right?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I was kind of thinking this thread was actually a gift to you - a chance for you to once again share the nuanced and informed opinion from your years on the inside. (something something cult, i think was the chorus)

I do share your desire to see this thread disappear from CF. The anti-AGW crowd here usually don't bring up anything other than distorted or discredited and frankly OLD BS. And of course, AlGoraphobia and gummint conspiracy and soshulizm! You can find that noise in any reactionary corner of the web.

But I've been told that this attitude is selfishness and intolerance on my part. Fair enough. This post is founded on a new summary of the current state of the science. So - has anyone got any NEW info which casts fresh doubt on AGW? Surprise me.

this whole report is based on studies like this

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1031141515.htm
Most of the other links for it have been deleted after it was found to be wrong by a factor of 10.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...113-story.html

I'm sure if others were truly studied they would find errors as well.
But some refuse to release their data for peer replication and review.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

A list of some of the grant money generated by ONE climate scientist. If you think money isn't a factor, you are sadly naive.

Funded Proposals

2015-2018 Quantitative Reconstruction of Past Drought Patterns in Western North America Using Lakes, Stable Isotopes, and Modeling, NSF-P2C2 Program [Principal Investigators: B. Steinman (Univ. of Minnesota-Duluth), M. Abbott (Univ. of Pittsburgh), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $145,002

2012-2017 WSC-Category 2 Collaborative: Robust decision-making for South Florida water resources by ecosystem service valuation, hydro-economic optimization, and conflict resolution modeling, NSF-Water Sustainability & Climate Program [Multi-institution award (Univ. of Central Florida/Univ. of Florida/Univ. of Hawaii/Michigan Tech. Univ/Univ. South Florida/Univ. of Miami/Univ. of Penn/Penn State Univ). Principal Investigator (Penn State Univ): J.D. Fuentes; Co-Investigator (Penn State Univ.): M.E. Mann] PSU award (J.D. Fuentes/M.E. Mann): $300,514


2011-2014 Megadrought: Local vs Remote Causal Factors for Medieval North America, NSF-Paleo Perspectives on Climate Change Program [Principal Investigator: S. Feng (Univ. of Nebraska); Co-Investigators: Q. Hu, R.J. Oglesby, C.M. Rowe (Univ. of Nebraska), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $151,755

2011-2014 Advanced Regional And Decadal Predictions Of Coastal Inundation for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, NOAA-Improving NOAA’s Climate Services for the Coastal Zone (Special Competition) [Principal Investigators: B. Horton (Univ. of Pennsylvania), J. Donnelly (WHOI), Reide Corbett (East Carolina Univ.), A. Kemp (Yale University), K. Lindeman (Florida Inst. Tech.), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), D. Peltier (Univ. of Toronto, Canada), S. Rahmstorf (University of Potsdam, Germany)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $120,463

2011-2014 Climate and Society – Innovative and Sustainable Collaboration with Senegal, Penn State University-AESEDA program [Principal Investigator: J.D. Fuentes; Co-Investigators: P. Tschakert, J. L. Evans, A. M. Thompson, and M.E. Mann] PSU internal award: $75,000

2010-2013 Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: Q. Hu, S. Feng, R.J. Oglesby (Univ. of Nebraska), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $249,800

2010-2012 Climate Literacy Zoo Education Network, NSF-Arctic Research & Education [Principal Investigators: A. Grajal (Chicago Zoological Society), S.R. Goldman (Univ. of Illinois-Chicago), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $32,733

2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991

2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184

2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000
2008-2009 AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship (Anthony Sabbatelli), American Meteorological Society [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $23,000

2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928

2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000

2006-2009 Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech Univ.), N. Graham (Hydro. Res. Center), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), Hoerling (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center), Alexander (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $68,065

2006-2007 Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), NSF-EAR [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: R. Alley, M. Arthur, J. Evans, D. Pollard (Penn State Univ.)] $100,000

2003-2006 Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U.Va), J. Cole (U. Arizona), V. Mehta (CRCES)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $102,000

2002-2005 Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: S. Rutherford, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $315,000

2002-2005 Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, NSF-Office of Polar Programs, Antarctic Oceans and Climate System [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U. Va), E. Steig (U. Wash.), D. Weinbrenner (U. Wash)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $133,000

2002-2003 Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, NOAA-Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) Program [Principal Investigators: Rosanne D'Arrigo, Ed Cook (Lamont/Columbia); Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $14,400

2002-2003 Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: Malcolm Hughes (Univ. of Arizona); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann; J. Park (Yale University)] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $20,775

2001-2003 Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700

2001-2002 Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, Office of Naval Research [Principal Investigator: P. Wiberg (U.Va), Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] $20,775

1999-2002 Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, NOAA-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (U.Va), Co-Investigators: R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $381,647

1998-2000 Validation of Decadal-to-Multi-century climate predictions, DOE [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: H.F. Diaz, M.E. Mann]

1998-2000 The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change, NSF-Hydrological Science [Principal Investigator U. Lall (U. Utah); Co-investigators: M.E. Mann, B. Rajagopalan, M. Cane] $266,235

1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of GloballyDistributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000

1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000

yup Mr hockey stick himself.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ignoring anything else, the sheer volume of cells required by EVs drives manufacturers to produce better cells, more efficiently. As well as improvements in charging technology (cost, reliability).


When reasonably priced Li batteries finally reach our boats, it will be through efficiencies generated in the EV channel.






There ARE good reasons to own a truck or SUV... but many own them simply as "statements". Of course, absurdly cheap fuel makes it more attainable too.


But vehicles are a derail; legislating 100% EVs isn't going to solve the problem we have.

here is an example of co2 emissions and ev cars vs gasoline cars.

[newhaul]

This is for all those who just don't seem to understand the sun is the key.

[CatNewBee]

climate change is real.

the whole inka society extinct in south america due to climate change long before we invented the diesel and burned fossile fuel. it was man made too, btw. they did not sacrifice enough enemies to the gods, the taxes were too low too.

now we have learned our lessons.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I just wanted to thank you for the consideration you're showing me by hastening thread death with your pseudo-cretin act. I know that you aren't one by any stretch of the imagination, but your willingness to debase yourself here to achieve that goal is noble and selfless.

So what was my Sin folks? What was "pseudo-cretin act"?
Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY
Looks like the French are Rioting over the higher fuel taxes that the MMFWC is saying we need to save mother Gia.
French police fire tear gas at fuel price protesters

There you go folks, so sure of themselves in their "settled science" that anyone....ANYONE who dare question the Church of MMGW is a Heretic, a sinner, someone to be singled out for attack. Why not ignore me....why attack me if what I'm saying is harmless to the Church?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Speak for yourself. Some of us are ok with paying a more realistic price for fossil fuel, and with other incentives like carbon trading schemes. Then again, not all of us live in places where the economy has been propped up by artificially low fossil fuel prices.

Interesting viewpoint.

Because the U.S. doesn't burden energy consumers with excessive taxes the cost to consumers is " artificially low" but taxing the hell out of people for the fuel they consume does not render the prices "artificially high"??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Interesting viewpoint.

Because the U.S. doesn't burden energy consumers with excessive taxes the cost to consumers is " artificially low" but taxing the hell out of people for the fuel they consume does not render the prices "artificially high"??

There is little disagreement from economists that the price of gas in the US does not accurately cover the full lifecycle cost of consuming it. Nor do fuel taxes cover 100% of the costs of roads, highways etc. Of course there could be good macro-economic reasons for keeping fuel costs low. But you have to call it for what it is.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So what was my Sin folks? What was "pseudo-cretin act"?
Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY
Looks like the French are Rioting over the higher fuel taxes that the MMFWC is saying we need to save mother Gia.
French police fire tear gas at fuel price protesters

There you go folks, so sure of themselves in their "settled science" that anyone....ANYONE who dare question the Church of MMGW is a Heretic, a sinner, someone to be singled out for attack. Why not ignore me....why attack me if what I'm saying is harmless to the Church?

A post that rebuts itself.