Government climate report warns of worsening US disasters

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-change-US-report0/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Today, U.S. government agencies released a heavily anticipated new report about how climate change is impacting the United States. The 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA4) lays out a detailed picture of how communities across the country are already feeling the effects of climate change—from intensified risk of wildfires in California, to droughts slowing agricultural production in Iowa and much more.

The report is the second half of a vast effort by scientists, land managers, public health officials, and others to assess the state of the climate across the U.S. The report's first volume, published in 2017, summarized the state-of-the-art knowledge about how climate is affecting temperatures, water resources, sea-level rise, and other natural systems around the country. The second half, published today, focuses on how climate change is already tugging at the economic and social fabric of the United States.

In clear, unwavering terms, the new report states that without "substantial and sustained reductions" in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will hurt people, economies, and resources across the U.S. But the report also highlights how its worst impacts can be avoided, by adapting to our warmer world and by working to lessen future changes in Earth's climate.

I'm guessing that the current US government won't give a sh*t about this report.

They don't, that's why they released it so close to Thanksgiving. They hope that by next week it will be old news.

House might pass some bills "addressing" climate change and they will die a quiet death in the Senate.

Democrats might win the WH in 2020 but, again, the Senate might be more dicey to win.

Even if they get the WH and get a hold of the bureaucracy the courts can still stymie the agenda.

So what I'm trying to say is that it is better to start at the state level (I know some state indeed have started working at that level) and not wait for the federal government.

And remember, even if Democrats gain the House, the Senate and the WH, even then, da' People might be the ones that rise against any radical change in the name of climate change mitigation.

So yeah.

Later on I guess the argument changes to: The climate is already messed up, what could more pollution do to harm it? :P

Man, I can't believe the polar ice caps completely disappeared 10 years ago.

spot on. This should be enacted at a state level as you said otherwise the people will bitch and whine. Need to remember that people are uneducated for the most part and don't know whats best for them. They only see 2 ft in front, even if the fire is raging 100ft behind. A democratic government doesn't work on the large scale because of different opinions and fractures. Focus on the small scale first, and then you can pass changes at the larger federal level. This means that states like Texas, Florida have to join together with Cali and adopt strong climate change regulations. If they don't do it at a state level, then the feds can't do jack.

Just what regulations would you pass that could affect the climate?

Anyone and everyone knows what climate worsening does...what we need is a laid out plan on how to stop it, and reverse it.

You guys seem to at least feign concern for the environment. Are you willing to take the prescribed medicine though?

The plan is to make the majority of the worlds population equally poor to reduce consumption. So are you ready to watch your standard of living drop to save the world?

The alternative is a bit draconian.

@JimB: Revenue neutral carbon tax done at the state level. It won't change things over night and will take over a decade or more to show real results as people change their ways.

So what is revenue neutral carbon tax? You tax all fossil fuels. The majority of the money gets returned as rebates to the poor and middle class. A small but significant amount is invested into public transportation, and the rest into clean energy. In this way, it's not a real tax because most people get their money back. The poor and middle class will adapt by making small changes in their lives. For example, driving less, taking the bus, carpooling, buying an EV instead. If they live in colder climates, lowering the heat setting even 2 degrees and wear warmer clothes inside their homes will have a huge impact. Eat more healthy foods, less meats and more veggies. Stop using single use plastics. These are some of the small things that can be done to lower carbon footprint and a revenue neutral carbon tax would encourage that.

The only thing a revenue neutral carbon tax does is to charge people the real cost of fossil fuels and as a result shift their behaviors. Like I said, changes won't happen overnight, it will take a decade at least for real results to be visible. But it will definitely push us in the right direction.

I just found this video about Global Warming/Climate Change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

@saltslasher: we known this for years. What do you thing the climates change Paris. Agreement was about?

The simple explanation to the climate change solution is to grow more trees cut carbon use

The comples exploration is to convert to car that use less fuel and more electricity , make an extensive plastic recycling program nation to world wide. Control the ammount of waste that come from our farms. And make an extensive program to grow any plant form to deal with the problem.

The issue here we have a money first zealot in the white house and a conservative zealot in Brazil wants to clear forest......foreat moat of the world gets are from.

This is a war. A war that humanity never fought before in its history.

There will be many casualties like in a real war.

Ivar Gaiever isn't a climate scientist, hasn't published any papers on climate science, and admitting knows very little about it. It's probably why actual climate scientists very easily picked apart his entire 'presentation' with little effort. This is what happens when you type in 'Global warming is a hoax' and cherry pick out videos to suit your preconceived notions on how the world works.

Perhaps you missed the 3 dozen other Nobel Laureates at that same conference explicitly stating the exact opposite of this man's views?

Trump says he doesn't believe his administration's climate report

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/trump-doesn-administration-climate-report-181126210505194.html

@JimB: knowing you, it's probably some uneducated right wing nut job conspiracy theory video

it was cold today.

global warming is a hoax

@horgen Blatant trolling going on, come on man.

@n64dd: And gone it is. Thanks for the heads up.

No it is a video of a Nobel Laurent giving his views on climate change and global warming and backing up his views. The only uneducated, are those who refuse to listen to other points of view on a subject.

Just because someone calls bullshit on someone doesn't mean they didn't listen. In fact, it's kinda required to listen to rebuff the bullshit.

World is woefully short of 2 degree goal for climate change, according to UN report

An excerpt:

If there is one consistent message about climate change that has been made abundantly clear in a flurry of recent major assessments on the topic, it is that our planet's climate is already changing, and now is the time to act to avoid devastating impacts.

According to a United Nations report released Tuesday, however, projected emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 2 degree Celsius goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.

In fact, the report states that the current emission targets for all countries would result in an average global temperature rise of 3.2 degrees Celsius (5.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

A 3.2 degree warmer world by the end of this century would bring about many of the dire consequences for human health, global economies and sea level rise that are projected from the "higher-emission" scenarios (also known as worst-case scenarios).

...

Knowing that level of action is extremely unlikely, the 2018 Emissions Gap Report points to the growing potential of "non-state actors" to help reach global emissions goals.

These include smaller governing bodies such as city, state and regional governments, as well as private entities such as companies, investors and civil organizations.

Yup, like I said, lets start at the state level.

LMAO.

We should have gotten Patrick White's views on climate change before he died in 1990. Patrick was also a Nobel Prize winner in 1973 for Literature. Same year as Ivar Gaiever. Same relevance regarding competency on the topic.

Better yet, let's canvas the employee of the month winners for Walmart. Again, same competency for assessing the topic as Ivar.

I mean it's not like Gaiever is employee of the month at the Heartland Institute. You know, the same people that teamed up with Phillip Morris to deny the ills of second hand smoking and fought against all manner of cigarette/smoking regulations. And the same people who are rapid climate change deniers.

Oh wait, I was wrong....because Gaiever is definitely in the running for employee of the month for Heartland where he is a 'science advisor'.

Do you have a clue at all? About anything?

I know man made climate change is based on faulty science. It is all about the money. Right now the climate change industry is approximately a 1.5 trillion dollar industry. Al Gore made a fortune on climate change. The planet is constantly changing the temperature change in the last one hundred and fifty years has been .8 of a degree that is pretty good. The climate has changed through out history and man has been able to adept. I would be more concerned with an asteroid hitting the planet than climate change.

Climate change is a more immediate threat. And it's becoming readily apparent even without listening to scientists. Wearing the tin foil again I see......https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?partner=msft_msn

I know climate change is your religon and alternate facts by you are demissed how ever you are reference a report that is suspect at best. Here are some more facts about the climate of the planet and carbon dixoide has nothing to do with the climate change.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/11/24/ice-ages-and-glacial-epochs-whats-the-difference/

Usually a temperature increased is followed by increase in CO2 levels. This time it is the other way around.

Also... The energy earth receives from other stars can be ignored more or less. Hell I think even Jupiter gives of more energy to space than it receives from the sun.

Here is a post on the latest report on climate change.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/latest_global_warming_lies_from_us_global_change_research_program.html

@JimB: You cite your brain rotting propaganda every time like you think it adds credibility to what you're saying.

That's not a scientific paper, that's someone basically complaining about science. It neither directly nor indirectly addresses the actual science behind the data. Rather, it's a straight, un-supported attack on the methods.

But beyond that, you can tell that the author just threw a bunch of shit together, possibly in a rage. Let me demonstrate:

_________________________________________________________________________________

From your link:

Kevin Trenberth, no climate skeptic: “…none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.”

From the man himself:

And a few years ago, Trenberth was lamenting to his colleagues in an email that the Earth observing system still didn't give them all the data they needed to fully explain the ups and downs of global temperatures.

"I said it was a travesty that we couldn't account for, essentially, the global warming in some sense," Trenberth says.

This email ended up being taken from a British computer and published along with a flood of other private conversations, in an episode dubbed "Climategate." His comment was singled out by skeptics, who claimed scientists were covering up the truth about global warming.

"That email was taken completely out of context and misused in many respects," Trenberth says.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Shit, you people. /eyeroll

If you want to read more about it, Treberth was complaining that there was TOO MUCH WARMING IRL when compared to the models, and he couldn't account for it.

Here is your problem anyone who disagrees whit your position is stupid crazy or some other negative comment. The idea of higher education was to get different opinions. In science theories are challenged to ensure the science is correct. However since the communists took over the education system challenges are no longer acceptable and as a result we have become dumber. The intelligence the left is always bragging about is a farce because you can not consider a challenge to your view, every thing is settled science or law. That is the height of stupidity in which many of you bask in.

No, that's the idea of chatting with your dope smoking buddy in a dorm room. Education is not just about acquiring information, but properly vetting it. As you mention in the next sentence, scientific theories are challenged and reviewed, and those that are found incorrect are discarded. You habitually fail to do that and instead hide behind this notion that your opinion is valid because it's different.

If you used that source in a junior high research paper you'd be laughed out of the classroom.

This is some of the most post modernistic crap I have read in a long time. Opinions do NOT get merit for being different from the mainstream. That is a gateway for pseudoscientific ideas like creationism, geocentrism, flat eartherism, anti-vaxxerism, anti-GMOism, and yes Climate Change Denial. Opinions get merit based on how well they hold up to evidence, and scrutiny, which the brain rotting propaganda you link does not.

Education, is about getting an OBJECTIVE understanding of the world around us, based not only on acquiring information, but also being able to properly scrutinize the data and statistics we do have. In any scientific

Everything is settled in science? Then how come the VERY first course I had in college was to scrutinize and pick apart peer reviewed scientific papers? And dont just take my anecdote for it. Scrutinizing and picking apart your own work goes in pretty much any lab report. And going by how well many other users on this forum were able to rip apart that anti-science article you linked a while back, I am willing to wager they had similar courses training them to do scrutinize actual GOOD journal entries (in addition to bad ones, like the ones you link).

Let's argue about climate change while we are heading towards a cliff.

It's like arguing over someone smoking in a burning building.

That's the thing, your links aren't challenging climate change, they're not presenting counter evidence, and they're not even attempting to drive a debate on the issue or course correct bad models. They're vapid, ignorant, and nonsensical blog articles written by people making incorrect statements, taking things out of context, or even blatantly lying.

One of the things I keep reiterating is that college is supposed to teach you about determining the strength of sources and properly vetting them. We live in an age where anyone can write their opinions on the internet, meaning that misinformation spreads just as fast (or even faster) than normal good information. It allows people like yourself to simply look through a catalog of sites/sources and pick one that backs up your firmly held belief.

School isn't about presenting every side to the issue, it's about explaining the correct side. You're just taking it as an affront to silence critics or a perversion of academia. But at the end of the day they simply aren't standing up to scrutiny.

I post good links which were made by scientists and they are dismissed because they take a different view. Climate change is real but citing only cause and developing policies on that one cause is absurd. This is what I am talking about. In business there is a term ROI (return on investment) Every climate change proposal required vast sums of money mainly from the US as in the Paris Climate Accord and what was the return on the investment .2 of a degree. Science in the Climate Change Cabal is not permitted to be challenged. In most colleges you can have only view if you want to get your degree. If you want to graduate don't have a favorable view on capitalism or the United States. If you support socialism you won't have a problem. College is no longer a venue for the exchange of ideas or learning, but more for indoctrination. Just listen to the recent college graduates when the speak on subjects.

Here is something to think about in 1970 DDT was abolished worldwide because it was supposed to be causing the softening the egg shells of birds causing them not ort develop in the egg. As side effect of banning DDT was onw hundred million people have died world wide mostly in third world countries of malaria and yellow fever. Now we have to battle zika virus and the West Nile Virus. Fast forward thirty years because some scientists believe climate change is caused by man producing more carbon dioxide. We have to have alternate forms of electric power wind mills which are built where the wind currents are found. The same wind currents the birds use to migrate hence thousands of birds are killed by the wind mills. result we have killed one hundred million people to save birds that we are now killing to affect climate change because of science not being challenged.