Climate Change Is Harming U.S. Economy report says

[nehalem256]

Climate change is having a negative impact on people's everyday lives and damaging the U.S. economy as extreme weather brings flooding, droughts and other disasters to every region in the nation, a federal advisory committee has concluded.

It would appear that this report is short on facts.

Obama’s examples of more extreme weather from droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes are weak examples for the United States. Wildfire may be the only one of these indicators that is increasing in the United States, but to a large degree this is because fire suppression efforts have resulted in more material being available to burn.

The IPCC found that “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America.” A scientific overview published in June in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Societyfound that the severe drought of 2012, which at one point covered 39 percent of the United States, was still much less extreme than droughts in the 1930s (which covered 63 percent) and the 1950s (50 percent). And all those droughts pale next to the six-decade mega-drought in what is now the U.S. West in the 12th century.

Damage from flooding in the United States has declined from 0.2 percent of gross domestic product in 1940 to less than 0.05 percent today. And U.S. hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. It has been more than seven years since the United States was hit by a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. That is the longest such hurricane drought since 1900.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...770d48-117e-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

Even better. Global warming saves lives!

Global warming, in general, will mean higher temperatures. This causes more heat waves — more extreme weather. But it also causes fewer cold waves — less extreme weather. Many more people die from excessive cold than excessive heat, so fewer people will die from cold and heat in the future. By mid-century, researchers estimated in 2006, that means about 1.4 million fewer deaths per year. In the continental United States, heat waves in the past decade exceeded the norm by 10 percent, but the number of cold waves fell 75 percent.

But hey maybe the world just happened to attain the optimal climate right before industrialization took place? What an amazing coincidence!

 

[Chiropteran]

to reverse the current trend is somehow on the level of building a warp drive? We have sufficient technology on both the power usage and generation sides to greatly reduce if not entirely eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

No, we don't.

Not unless your idea of a solution includes step 1: nuke China and India.

We do not yet have the technology required to force other countries to follow our lead.

 

[nehalem256]

Why are you guys using "solutions" and "solve" in quotes like the technology required to reverse the current trend is somehow on the level of building a warp drive? We have sufficient technology on both the power usage and generation sides to greatly reduce if not entirely eliminate the use of fossil fuels. You wouldn't even need to implement a cap and trade system if the government structured incentives/regulations correctly and people get more educated about what's happening.

Hiding behind what you view as "complexity" as a justification for not doing anything is just another dodge.

And have had since the 1960s. Unfortunately environmentalists don't want us to have that energy :\

 

[nehalem256]

No, we don't.

Not unless your idea of a solution includes step 1: nuke China and India.

We do not yet have the technology required to force other countries to follow our lead.

China is actually pretty much a world leader in constructing new nuclear power plants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#Nuclear_power_plants_under_construction

 

[boomerang]

It would appear that this report is short on facts.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...770d48-117e-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

Even better. Global warming saves lives!


But hey maybe the world just happened to attain the optimal climate right before industrialization took place? What an amazing coincidence!

Hey! Stop it right now. We are only to use government approved facts or what is known as the current truth. Don't make me have to turn you in! (Although the extra beet ration would come in handy.)

 

[K1052]

No, we don't.

Not unless your idea of a solution includes step 1: nuke China and India.

We do not yet have the technology required to force other countries to follow our lead.

That's a political problem which is ultimately solvable. Also mass adoption of these technologies by the US/EU will drive the costs down substantially making them competitive (possibly more than) with traditional energy.

 

[K1052]

And have had since the 1960s. Unfortunately environmentalists don't want us to have that energy :\

The economics are probably more to blame at this point, namely super cheap ng. Several utilities had plans in the works to add reactors now only a couple plants are going forward.

 

[Chiropteran]

That's a political problem which is ultimately solvable.

Well sure, everything is. Nearly all the problems we face would be solved if we cut the world population down to 1% of it's current level.

Sometimes the logical solution isn't really realistic, even if it is "solvable".

 

[Chiropteran]

China is actually pretty much a world leader in constructing new nuclear power plants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#Nuclear_power_plants_under_construction

And in pollution, too.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why are you guys using "solutions" and "solve" in quotes like the technology required to reverse the current trend is somehow on the level of building a warp drive?

I put them in quotes because the "solutions" are not really solutions, they are usually part of a political or other agenda.

We have sufficient technology on both the power usage and generation sides to greatly reduce if not entirely eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

No, we do not. We can't force everyone to participate in initiatives, and even if we could, we simply don't have the technology yet to safely and cost effectively eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Nuke power, by far the most likely such technology has it's own issues and is actually becoming less used instead of more used.

You wouldn't even need to implement a cap and trade system if the government structured incentives/regulations correctly and people get more educated about what's happening.

Cap and trade was a perfect example of a "solution", a political agenda and money grab pretending to be a way to solve something. In general, people simply don't care about the macro environment unless it directly impacts them. I'm all for education etc, but lets be realistic.

Hiding behind what you view as "complexity" as a justification for not doing anything is just another dodge.

I'm not hiding behind anything. Nobody needs any justification for not doing anything. If someone wants to take certain actions to solve a problem, then they need to define what the problem is, show what the actions to be undertaken are, how those actions address the problem and then we can discuss the pros and cons. Just saying "we have to do something!" doesn't help.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well sure, everything is. Nearly all the problems we face would be solved if we cut the world population down to 1% of it's current level.

Sometimes the logical solution isn't really realistic, even if it is "solvable".

I agree with this. A solution has to be not just technologically possible, but has to be realistic to be useful.

 

[Jaskalas]

Please provide your alternate theory and data as to why these ten indicators show warming but really don't, or admit it is happening.

Thanks!

Sea Ice, Arctic is losing ice but Antarctic is gaining ice.

"Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" was patently false.

Surface temperatures are paused no matter which data set you look at.

Lower troposphere is just as dull as the surface temp.

Glaciers have been retreating for quite some time.

Ocean Heat content is a very young and incomplete data set. They measure depth once every 10 days.

Which leaves you with Sea level, Sea Surface Temp, and Water Vapor. All three favorable to the argument that we warmed in the 20 year period of the 80s and 90s. 20 years does not make a convincing CO2 correlation.

What I'm willing to accept is that Climate Change is real, and that Climate Sensitivity is a mere 0.3C per doubling of CO2. This would place me among the 97% consensus, as it's plainly obvious man-made CO2 would have some effect. However, at 0.3C per doubling, this effect would be fairly insignificant.

I also believe that not everything on this planet is man made, that natural factors play a very significant role in Climate. The PDO and AMO have apparent 50-60 year cycles which greatly redistribute ocean heat content. No shorter trend can take those cycles into account. There are likely even longer cycles of natural changes we are not even aware of. Hence why the IPCC models continue to overestimate and continue to fail.

My alternative theory? That political activists took a short term (20 year) warming trend and blew it dramatically out of proportion. Climate change is real, but it's also not going to do much.

 

[fskimospy]

The arguments against action on climate change always themselves change, but the refrain is the same.

1.) The climate isn't changing, so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

2.) The climate is actually cooling, so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

3.) The climate is getting warmer, but mankind isn't responsible for any of it so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

4.) The climate is getting warmer and mankind is responsible but we can't fix it so we should do nothing.

We should all be HIGHLY suspicious of any line of argumentation where the facts they accept continually change but the answer to those facts never does.

It reminds me of many conservative arguments on the welfare state:

1.) The economy is booming! That means we don't need the welfare state so we should cut it.

2.) The economy is in recession! That means we can't afford the welfare state so we should cut it.

The circumstances change, their policy agenda never does. That is the sign of someone who is not serious.

 

[PokerGuy]

The arguments against action on climate change always themselves change, but the refrain is the same.

1.) The climate isn't changing, so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

2.) The climate is actually cooling, so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

3.) The climate is getting warmer, but mankind isn't responsible for any of it so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

None of those apply to me, so I'll ignore those.

4.) The climate is getting warmer and mankind is responsible but we can't fix it so we should do nothing.

Of course the reality is much more nuanced than that. "we need to do something, no matter how stupid or useless" is no more intelligent than "if we can't completely fix everything we do nothing!". They are both idiotic positions.

I don't want political power or money grabs, and I'm not interested in 'solutions' where we can't actually demonstrate that the proposed action will actually solve anything. Other than that, I'm willing to listen.

We should all be HIGHLY suspicious of any line of argumentation where the facts they accept continually change but the answer to those facts never does.

Yes, exactly, we should all be HIGHLY suspicious of those types of things. For example, the actual definition of the problem changes, but the proposed solution always includes more taxes and more government power (or both). We should indeed by highly suspicious of that.

It reminds me of many conservative arguments on the welfare state:

1.) The economy is booming! That means we don't need the welfare state so we should cut it.

2.) The economy is in recession! That means we can't afford the welfare state so we should cut it.

The circumstances change, their policy agenda never does. That is the sign of someone who is not serious.

Yeah, kind of like the liberal equivalent arguments:

1) the economy is booming, we should let more people share in this boom, more government handouts are needed!
2) the economy is in recession! We need more welfare for all to solve it!

The answer is always "more government dependence", no matter what the situation.

Aren't strawmen wonderful??

 

[fskimospy]

None of those apply to me, so I'll ignore those.

Of course the reality is much more nuanced than that. "we need to do something, no matter how stupid or useless" is no more intelligent than "if we can't completely fix everything we do nothing!". They are both idiotic positions.

I don't want political power or money grabs, and I'm not interested in 'solutions' where we can't actually demonstrate that the proposed action will actually solve anything. Other than that, I'm willing to listen.

What standard of evidence do you want as to whether or not the proposed action will 'solve anything'? What do you consider 'solving' the problem? Be specific.

Yes, exactly, we should all be HIGHLY suspicious of those types of things. For example, the actual definition of the problem changes, but the proposed solution always includes more taxes and more government power (or both). We should indeed by highly suspicious of that.

You'll be happy to hear that the proposed solution does not always involve those things then! How fun for you!

Yeah, kind of like the liberal equivalent arguments:

1) the economy is booming, we should let more people share in this boom, more government handouts are needed!
2) the economy is in recession! We need more welfare for all to solve it!

The answer is always "more government dependence", no matter what the situation.

Aren't strawmen wonderful??

Well that's certainly not my position. I definitely believe in lower welfare expenditures in booming economic times.

Can you describe to me a situation in which you think the welfare state should expand? I can certainly point you to LOTS of conservatives who think this should never be the case. Does it bother you that a position you consider so absurd that it must be a straw man is one that is actually and currently held by a large number of conservatives?

 

[K1052]

No, we do not. We can't force everyone to participate in initiatives, and even if we could, we simply don't have the technology yet to safely and cost effectively eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Nuke power, by far the most likely such technology has it's own issues and is actually becoming less used instead of more used.

I'm not hiding behind anything. Nobody needs any justification for not doing anything. If someone wants to take certain actions to solve a problem, then they need to define what the problem is, show what the actions to be undertaken are, how those actions address the problem and then we can discuss the pros and cons. Just saying "we have to do something!" doesn't help.

As I've said at least three times before in this thread....the most likely temporary presence of very cheap ng in the energy market courtesy of fracking has had a major chilling effect on the nuclear energy sector. This is of course the wrong direction to go since it isn't in our long term interest to find new ways of cracking open previously inaccessible carbon reserves. Not to mention the as of yet unknown long term environmental issues with such extraction and the strain it is putting other resources.

Simple conservation methods and efficiency standards have kept US electrical demand flat for a number of years while population has grown. Imagine what is possible if the government was actually motivated to make real changes. It is entirely possible to draw down fossil fuel usage.

 

[Jaskalas]

The arguments against action on climate change always themselves change, but the refrain is the same.

1.) The climate isn't changing, so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

2.) The climate is actually cooling, so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

3.) The climate is getting warmer, but mankind isn't responsible for any of it so we should do nothing. When it turns out this is wrong...

4.) The climate is getting warmer and mankind is responsible but we can't fix it so we should do nothing.

I presented a new option:

5.) The climate is getting warmer and mankind is responsible for a very small amount of it. We should do nothing dramatic or harmful to ourselves.

Human civilization is built on carbon. It's going to take decades, at least, in order to begin to correct that at any significant scale. Let's not assault our economy in the mean time. Fusion will likely be ready at some point in the next few hundred years.

 

[fskimospy]

I presented a new option:

5.) The climate is getting warmer and mankind is responsible for a very small amount of it. We should do nothing dramatic or harmful to ourselves.

Human civilization is built on carbon. It's going to take decades, at least, in order to begin to correct that at any significant scale. Let's not assault our economy in the mean time. Fusion will likely be ready at some point in the next few hundred years.

If it's going to take decades then the imperative to act quickly is all the more acute.

 

[Jaskalas]

If it's going to take decades then the imperative to act quickly is all the more acute.

Supporting the science behind solar and fusion is a good place to start. Something we might agree on.

 

[PokerGuy]

What standard of evidence do you want as to whether or not the proposed action will 'solve anything'? What do you consider 'solving' the problem? Be specific.

You've got it backwards. First, you need to define the problem. Then you define your proposed actions, and you define how those actions will address the defined problem. Then you can assess the feasibility, pros and cons of any ideas.

You'll be happy to hear that the proposed solution does not always involve those things then! How fun for you!

Really? That's wonderful, I haven't seen anyone pushing proposals that don't involve those things, but if they do, that's great.

Well that's certainly not my position. I definitely believe in lower welfare expenditures in booming economic times.

Yeah, the expenditures should then just shift to something else, some other form of government expansion.

Can you describe to me a situation in which you think the welfare state should expand?

It should expand and contract based on the number of people who fall within the eligibility guidelines, but the guidelines should not be changed to include more and more people for more and more benefits. For example, if we spend a ton more during a recession on unemployment benefits because people can't find jobs, that's fine, it's working as intended. The only time we need to change who is eligible/for how long/how much they get etc is if the program no longer effectively addresses the problem it was constructed to address.

This is probably for another thread, but I believe once extended government benefits and entitlements tend to only grow over time and become entrenched. Thus, any benefit / entitlement needs to be very carefully considered and measured beforehand, and there need to be rigorous controls in place to prevent abuse and fraud. With more such controls in place, more people would be more willing to increase spending because it would be spending to address an actual need (rather than fraud and abuse).

I can certainly point you to LOTS of conservatives who think this should never be the case.

I agree with the idea that less government dependence is a good thing, so reducing the welfare state is a good goal. Our welfare state has grown to such proportions that a huge segment of the population now gets some sort of assistance or handout -- I don't think we should be making that problem worse.

Does it bother you that a position you consider so absurd that it must be a straw man is one that is actually and currently held by a large number of conservatives?

No, that position is a stawman because the reality is obviously much more nuanced than that.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

It's hard to wrap my head around how someone can be so stupid to believe that global warming or climate change is made up bs. It really reinforces my idea that the world we live in is made up of mostly dumb people.

 

[PokerGuy]

It is entirely possible to draw down fossil fuel usage.

It might be technically possible, but not realistically possible. For example, using solar is great, but if the processes to make all the solar panel are horrible for the environment, are we achieving a net benefit? Nothing happens in a vacuum, there are a lot of factors at play.

Just saying "stop burning fossil fuels!" is not helpful. It's not going to happen, for a variety of reasons. We also have to balance impact to our standard of living with any benefits. If we all go live in huts without electricity, it would certainly decrease CO2 output etc, but it's not a desirable state.

 

[unokitty]

Climate change is having a negative impact on people's everyday lives and damaging the U.S. economy as extreme weather brings flooding, droughts and other disasters to every region in the nation, a federal advisory committee has concluded.

Sniff, sniff...

Our government is led by a politician that promised to close GITMO but didn't.

A politician that promised the most transparent administration in history.

A politician that lied repeatedly about his signature legislative achievement. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

A politician that thinks that marijuana ought to be legal but won't do anything to facilitate that...

And now, we are supposed to believe that this administration that can't work with politicians of a different party. And can't work with politicians of different countries can fix Global Warming, err Climate Change, err Climate Disruption?

Sniff, sniff...

Smells like a lame duck politician desperate to change the public's focus from their political failures.

But hey, if you like your Global Warming, you can keep your Global Warming.

Or is it, if you like your Climate Change, you can keep your Climate Change?

Or is it, if you like your Climate Disruption, you can keep you Climate Disruption?

Sniff, sniff ...

If you like your lame duck politician, you can keep your lame duck politician.

Uno

 

[Newell Steamer]

Ppppfffttt!!

Climate Change!!

What the fuck do these people know ANYTHING about nature and the Earth?! We all know that nature and the Earth act the way they do, because humans are wicked.

Haiti for example; http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/

All of this (your chnage, your 'warming') can be stopped, once people stop being bad.

 

[spacejamz]

Stop burning so much fossil fuel.

You're welcome.

Let me know when China, India and Russia buy into your fool proof plan...