WEATHER 2050 -- America is warming fast. See how your city’s weather will be different in just one generation.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Our world is getting warmer. This we know.
Just look at Alaska, which experienced all-time record heat in July, topping out at 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Dozens of other cities are in the throes of a heat wave this week, which forecasters have warned will be “prolonged, dangerous, and potentially deadly.”
But how much will temperatures in US cities change by 2050? By then, scientists say average global warming since preindustrial levels could be about twice what it is in 2018 — and much more obvious and disruptive. It’s a world you’ll (probably) be living in. And it’s the one we’re definitely handing off to the next generation.
Our analysis, first published in October 2018, shows that in almost every case, the places we live are going to be strikingly warmer in a few decades.
Every season in every city and town in America will shift, subtly or drastically, as average temperatures creep up, along with highs and lows. Some of those changes — like summers in the Southwest warming by 4°F on average — will mean stretches of days where it’s so hot, it’ll be dangerous to go outside. Heat waves around the country could last up to a month.
The article contains several graphics of the projected differences between now and 2050. It senses your location via your ISP and shows you information for (or near) your location. You can manually check other locations as desired.
You have to visit the article to see the projections, which are for summer highs, winter lows, and yearly rainfall.
Tags
Who is online
684 visitors
2050 isn't all that far away.
The ball is really going to start rolling before long. We can't stop the changes projected in this article, they're already in the bank. The best we can do at this point is work to prevent a continuation of the upward trend beyond the turn of the next century -- unless we're too stupid to do so, of course.
A reckoning is at hand.
The states of MN and ND are really going to be warming up...+ 5 degrees.
Where I live in Florida it will be up 3.7 degrees..
Great article, thanks.
Overpopulation, I have been saying that for a long time
A huge problem. Combine it with highly unsustainable resource usage and consumption and we may indeed be well and truly screwed. If we don't get things under control before long, Mother Nature is going to step in and severely cull the herd. Maybe completely, depending on how far we let things go. Extinction is always on the table. What a horribly sad outcome that would be for such a remarkable species. Look how far we've come, how far our knowledge and abilities have increased in such a short period of time. Why do we have such a hard time when it comes to being rational about sustainability and our own long-term survival? What a shame.
And I've been agreeing with you for a long time. Your solution?
First thing I suggest, is starting to show public that overpopulation is the driving cause of most problems. Next, encouraging acceptance of having fewer or no children.
Borders must be secure and immigration and migration severely limited, or those making the effort will see their progress undone
Research into better and more effective birth control is a priority
Convincing people to reduce population so future generations can survive and live better is going to be hard
Will Michigan winters go away?
No, but many other people will see drastic increases in the occurrence and duration of summer heat crossing over into the fatal range (wet bulb temps of 35C+). Tens of millions in our own southern regions and in Europe, and billions in southeast Asia. Not to mention all of the disruption to global agriculture (via temp and rainfall shifts) that civilization itself depends upon.
Too many crop failures plus too many regions becoming uninhabitable in the summer will create a humanitarian disaster like nothing we've ever seen before. It's a future of massive population displacement, and of suffering, war and death. Think the US and Europe have immigration problems now? It's peanuts compared to what's coming if we ignore climate change.
You're taking all the computer predictions way too seriously. In order to be as scary and foreboding as possible, all the fearful forecasts never contain any qualifying words like might or maybe. Even local forecast models differ in their outlook and start to diverge after just a few days. And we've heard all this before.
If you are really concerned about this issue that very few people care about, then you need to change your tactics, beginning by being less confrontational
What? The actual, published, peer reviewed science on this stuff has been pretty darn accurate, even if some politicians and media outlets haven't. It's also been improved over time, such as the carbon doubling multiplier used in the 80s being modified after more work and observations. If you take the multiplier we use now (~3°C for a doubling of CO2) and figure it into the earliest models they come out even more accurate than they were.
Short term, very specific weather predictions and long-term climate trend predictions are not the same thing.
Apparently it isn't sinking in. Why is that, exactly? Because denial of well-established science has become a political, tribal kind of thing?
Are you kidding me? My patience with this chronic stupidity is all but gone. I don't think certain people in this country realize just how much tolerance their ignorance has been afforded over the years. Things are going to be coming down to the wire in the next couple of decades, and this is not going to be a mostly casual, mostly nonconsequential debate for much longer. Things have to start happening, policies have to start changing, or they won't matter and future generations will be F'd.
Maybe this is the solution to the Fermi Paradox. Maybe intelligence arises and then destroys itself more often than not in the universe. Maybe that's the norm. It sure seems to be the direction we're heading. It will not be hard at all for us to alter the global climate to a point of collapse, not only for our own civilization, but for the global ecology as well. We've already started a period of mass extinction. To complete it all we have to do is nothing.
Yes. It is a partisan issue. Most (I suspect) will simply parrot talking points and never seriously, objectively evaluate the findings thus far.
A key problem is that the R party categorically denies climate change. I think many presume that if all R leaders are convinced this is absolute bullshit that it must not be important.
W a aaaaa y too much trust in politicians.
There are republicans who believe in climate change, but then again, they educated themselves and took the politics out of this.
Then I think those are Independents who are registered Republicans.
I'm thinking it might be the other way around. The R leaders are a reflection of the voters who give them their jobs. I think the problem might very well be hordes of ignorant voters, as 'elite' as that may sound. Then again, ignorant might be the wrong word. With all of the information out there and so many years of talking about it, ignorance of the subject matter can't really be the issue, can it? Maybe to some degree, but not for all of it, right?
Doubt, intentionally manufactured by special interest groups has to be the answer for the rest of it. There's an entire mediasphere out there actively regurgitating and spreading misinformation sourced from a small number of propaganda think tanks that have been set up for the sole purpose of protecting huge profits on huge investments, everything else be damned. Power corrupts, and money is power, thus money corrupts. The more money at play, the more corrupt some players are sure to be.
I think it is human nature to accept what is told by authority. Those who have interests satisfied by curtailing attempts to moderate and to pursue alternate technologies and practices exploit what might be called genetic gullibility.
Further, it takes energy to think critically. It is much easier to simply accept from authorities one trusts.
Finally, I do not hold that the political leaders (of either party) are representing their constituents. Rather it is more (nowadays) a dynamic of the leaders manipulating the apathy and ignorance of the electorate. An easy example of manipulation is this: Donald Trump was elected PotUS.
It certainly isn't my nature. I almost never accept things just on someone else's say so. I've been told it's a failing on my part. Some people find it rude, apparently. I understand that, but I really can't help it. I have to be able to connect the dots for myself.
Fair warning... I'm stealing that one and tucking it away for later use.
I don't know about that. Didn't you notice how many R politicians were scoffing at the sheer ridiculousness of Trump running for President, and then how quickly they altered their behavior as the wind starting filling his sails? Lindsey Graham practically turned on a dime, and it was totally in response to the sentiments of the voting base. Once he and most of the others got a sense of what was happening they adjusted accordingly and toed the new line, dress right dress. The ones who didn't have been, or are in the process or being purged.
But if we're talking about Trump himself, then yeah, he's the gaslighter in chief. It is unbelievable how some people believe everything that comes out of his mouth. Scary even. Genetic gullibility might be dead on when it comes to that, and he is exploiting it as much as he possibly can.
( The concept underlying that term came from Professor Robert Sapolsky in his book Behave which goes into details on why we behave as we do. Part of our behavior is genetic based on what was required to survive. )
So, when does the United States begin prioritizing building factories to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines? When does the United States begin the push to produce the resources needed to manufacture alternative energy? The United States does not have a shortage of sand, carbon, iron, copper, or rare earths to meet its needs.
Science may be good at identifying problems but applied engineering is necessary to solve those problems. When does the United States begin prioritizing educating engineers? Where are the new and expanded engineering schools?
You know only three guys went to the moon in July, 1969. But it required tens of thousands of engineers and blue collar workers for a successful moon shot. The moon shot required building an infrastructure of manufacturing to become a reality. Where is that effort to address climate change?
Of course, it this is just about winning elections by scaring voters then it can easily be ignored. Science has proven effective at scaring voters. The lack of any effort to establish an infrastructure necessary to address the problem is clear proof that all of the hype is nothing more than politics.
Butt embossed leather upholstery in the halls of government seems to be the only goal. The lack of serious effort is clear, direct proof that climate change is a political hoax. The fear mongers aren't doing anything except creating fear to win elections.
I would not conflate political actions with science. That is, do not judge the validity of scientific findings and estimates based on the action (or inaction) of slimy politicians.
Science is not action. Scientific findings only provide justifications for action or inaction. Science will not address climate change.
Science competes for resources that could be used for action. Successful competition for resource in the political arena provides a political justification for inaction. Political support for science can be touted as an effort directed toward the problem. But science is not action to address the problem.
IMO political over emphasis on science becomes an obstacle to take action. Science provides the excuse for ineffective political recognition of the problem and unworkable political remedies. At this point we need fewer scientists and more engineers if effective action to address climate change is to be undertaken.
Strawman. This does not address what I wrote (and you even quoted it).
That is not science. That is economics 101. Science does not compete for resources, industry does. The fact that somehow you have conflated the two is actually disturbing to me since I am wondering how many other people are so misinformed.
No, it is a direct response to an equivocation about the role of science. Science is not going to address climate change.
I did not equivocate anything Nerm. Read what I wrote:
That means that we should not presume that AGW is correct or incorrect based upon what politicians say or do. Period.
Yes, science is directly competing with industry for political support and allocation of public resources. Public money spent on science cannot be spent on industrial action to address climate change.
Climate change is a public problem that will require dedicating public resources to addressing the problem. Siphoning public resources into activities that will not provide action to address climate change diminishes the effectiveness of the public response.
Economics 101: middlemen take resources away from productive activities while not contributing to productivity. Middlemen are an unproductive cost. In the competition for public resources, scientists are middlemen.
Why do you exclusively seek to address funding by pulling from science?
There are all sorts of areas to pull from to fund engineering. Why do you seek to defund climate science?
The validity of the science does not alter the fact that political support for science is being touted in lieu of political support for action to address climate change.
Political support for science has become a political obstacle to address climate change. It doesn't matter if the scientific findings are right, wrong, or meaningless. Political attention is focused on science rather than engineering. Science is not going to mitigate climate change; only applied engineering can do that.
It's like spending public money on bridges to nowhere. The government can spend money on a national mural project. Art is nice and should receive some public support. But political support for art shouldn't be touted as effective action to address climate change.
Science isn't going to mitigate climate change. And political support of science isn't effective political action to address climate change. Science has become a political obstacle to addressing the problem.
Actually, they are correct
The left and the media always focus on the part of Eisenhower’s farewell speech warning of the potential for problems from what he termed our necessary military industrial complex. While always ignoring his equal warning about the potential danger of an out of control scientific research elites
“In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.”
You think that climate science is finished? That our scientific understanding of the climate cannot improve??
LFOD,
We are long past Eisenhower's days when climate change wasn't even a thought.
My daughters both went to a STEM University, and research on this was done on campus sponsored NOAA and NASA. And while they both belong to gov agencies, there is no profit involved as implied by Nerm's comment. Students do work and report as with most of the other science done on campus. There is nothing nefarious going on.
Sometimes I wonder why some of you find this so hard to believe or at least even give some thought to. It's like you would rather pretend it's not going on.
As a religious man, you are supposed to be a caretaker of this planet. Do you not feel any obligation to that law?
Thomas Edison had to create an industrial infrastructure for his inventions to provide any benefit. Bell Labs churned out some amazing science. But Bell Labs was integrated into an industrial infrastructure to apply that science and provide a benefit for society. NASA is touted as being the main contributor for the availability of miniaturized computers. But NASA had to create a manufacturing infrastructure before the miniaturized computer could be used for the moon shot.
Any benefit derived from science requires manufacturing. Science without an industrial infrastructure is a public arts project; it's nice to look at but doesn't actually provide any benefit beyond public enjoyment.
Are we supposed to wait until the science is finished? We'll never get anything accomplished that way.
Wind and solar energy were widely used at the turn of the 20th century. 110 years ago there were electric automobiles and public charging stations. Public money spent on those old technologies would actually do something to mitigate climate change. What is pouring more public money into science going to provide?
How long do we need to wait for science?
I'm saying we can't wait any longer. We can't wait for more science. We don't have that luxury any longer.
Science isn't contributing to mitigating the problem. We must begin manufacturing and deploying the things that will directly contribute to mitigating climate change. That's where public resources need to be focused. Our schools need to be training engineers and blue collar workers. Our public money needs to be directed toward producing what is needed to mitigate climate change.
Deploying an imperfect solution accomplishes more than waiting for a perfect solution.
Who has suggested such a thing?
Without science, would we know there's a problem? Without science, how do we decide what to manufacture? What will be most beneficial? What only seems beneficial at first glance?
You mentioned public charging stations. How do we produce the electricity to power those stations? If it's with fossil fuels, what are we accomplishing? Are we possibly producing even more greenhouse gases, when we take into account the fact that we "lose" a bit of energy every time it changes forms or is transferred from place of production to place of consumption? Is industry going to tell us that, or is science?
Did I suggest anything even remotely close to that?
Good grief man, one strawman after another. You started by wanting to defund climate science. You jumped to the extreme and I am suggesting we not defund the science (which is clearly continuing to make progress) in order to fund the engineering.
I have not even hinted that we should 'wait' until science is 'done' before acting.
Science has informed us of the problem. Thank you very much but your services are no longer needed. We need to begin working to address the problem.
Where do the solar panels and wind turbines come from? At some point we really are going to need factories. That's unavoidable.
We could depend on China to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines. But Chinese air pollution will still affect the United States. That NIMBY approach isn't going to keep the environment of the United States clean. We don't have the luxury of sweeping the problem under the carpet or forcing our pollution onto other countries any longer.
Nerm,
I think we are all in agreement in that we should be working towards a solution on how to reduce, not only our greenhouse gasses but also the rubbish we make. But again, this does fall under the realm of science, since engineers are the people who do that.
How much of GW is anthropogenic? What is the most pressing GW contributing factors that we should work on? How much of a reduction or nullification of anthropogenic effects on these factors is necessary to avoid the consequences of GW? How much time do we have to stabilize (if even possible)?
You see no reason to continue the science to provide more accurate answers to these questions??
Nerm wants to defund climate science to fund more climate engineering. He thinks the scientific contribution is done: as if AGW is decided science and there is nothing more to learn.
Why do we think we might need them?
Science.
You seem to think that anybody here is arguing against solar or wind energies. I defy you to quote anybody saying as much.
We need science to help direct us in intelligently addressing the problem that science identified.
I'm curious to know how you think our education system can turn out engineers without the aid of science.
What further science do we need?
The scientific method is only one component of the engineering design process. Engineers actually do science, too. But the science is limited to contributing to a tangible result. Engineers do science but that science isn't just for the sake of doing science.
The solutions are fairly straight forward. Restrict hours and days of operation or prohibit activities that emits greenhouse gases. Bring back blue laws. Restrict international travel. Limit operations of tourist attractions and recreational entertainment. Impose curfews. All these types of actions will reduce the carbon footprint. But everyone will scream about loss of freedoms and scream even louder about the loss of money.
We also know that climate change is a self correcting problem. Climate change will cause an increase in human deaths; thereby reducing the human activities that cause climate change. But everyone will scream about the inhumanity and immorality of allowing that to happen.
So, the only viable option is to deploy alternative technologies. But that is going to require building factories. That is an unavoidable step. Creating that industrial infrastructure is going to require more engineers and blue collar workers, not more scientists. At this point, we don't need to throw more public resources at science because that diverts those resources away from building an industrial infrastructure which slows our public response to the problem.
And who's going to tell us if those methods are working? Industry, which has a vested interest in continuing to manufacture whatever it's set up to manufacture? Or science, which doesn't?
Who looks for flaws in our thinking regarding solutions to climate change? What if car charging stations powered by fossil fuel combustion only reduce auto emissions, and not overall CO2 emissions? Do you think the makers of car charging stations or electric cars have an incentive to reveal this?
What if manufacturing (of whatever solution) makes things worse, and not just in the short term? Will manufacturers tell us so? Or will scientists?
Too much. That's all we need to know at this point.
All the factors contribute. That's all we need to know at this point. Pick the low hanging fruit first to provide immediate results.
More than is being accomplished now. By reducing the impact now we have more time to determine how much will be enough. There isn't an urgent need for an answer to that question.
Delaying action now will require more time in the future. That's all we need to know at this point.
How will answering those questions contribute to manufacturing a solution? We can argue about doing more science or we can put on work boots. Which would do more to address the problem?
That is not how engineers approach problems Nerm. The better the quality of information the more effective the solution. We should not cease scientific research into climate change because we 'have enough information'. Engineering should proceed based on the information we have and adjust as the information improves.
Get off your friggin strawman. I am not arguing that we wait until science is done but rather I am arguing that ceasing scientific research is irresponsible and irrational.
Good grief, I am now officially disgusted. We are done.
You have been told repeatedly that nobody here is advocating for that. I believe it's dishonest to pretend that we have.
Stock markets and businesses will tell us if we have reduced consumption of fossil fuels or other products with a larger carbon footprint. We don't need scientists to monitor production data.
Climate change is either caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide or it is not. At present science tells us it is. That's all we need to know at this point.
If we see increased fossil fuel production then we know something isn't quite right. Industry will tell us, perhaps indirectly, if the effort is making progress. Industrial production data will actually be more informative than anything science generates.
That would be indicated by consumption of fossil fuels; industry will tell us if something isn't working as it should. If we can't manufacture solar panels and wind turbines without increasing fossil fuel consumption then more science is not going to address the problem. We already know that increasing fossil fuel consumption will exacerbate climate change. What more do we need to know?
You don't think we need to know if a proposed "solution" actually increases CO2 emissions?
Industry is still pushing the idea of "clean coal" and "carbon-neutral coal".
Why would it? Industry whose profits depend on the belief that its products are beneficial is incentivized to make them appear beneficial, whether they are or not.
Prioritizing public funding for science really is advocating to delay building the necessary industrial infrastructure. That industrial infrastructure is a lower priority. But at this point, the industrial infrastructure is a larger requirement to address climate change than is further science.
Good grief. You'd hand taxpayer money to the same manufacturers who are currently screaming about fossil fuel regulations killing them, and trust them to honestly address climate change? Without the input of scientists? You want taxpayers to subsidize manufacturers who profit from making and selling products, but don't want taxpayers to pay for information about whether that product even does what it's intended to do?
Industrial representatives for the alternative energy industry participated on IPCCC panels. What was their vested interest? It really doesn't matter since industrial production data indicates how much alternative energy is being deployed. The problem with production data for alternative energy is we don't know if the manufacturing process has increased or decreased consumption of fossil fuels. Science has suggested that short term increases in fossil fuel consumption to manufacture alternative energy would provide a long term benefit of reduced consumption of fossil fuels.
Do we or do we not need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels? Which is it? Industrial production data for fossil fuels will tell us if we are making progress. How would science improve upon that industrial data?
Science would determine whether reduction if fossil fuel consumption correlates with a slower rate global temperature rise. Science would seek to identify other causes of climate change, instead of putting all our eggs in one basket (alternative energy). Science would look at the effects of agriculture, clearing of land for farming, raising of livestock for consumption, etc. Science would consider that maybe the problem is multifactorial, and therefore may require more than one solution (alternative energy). And science would strive not to be biased toward subsidizing one solution on which its profits rest, unlike industry.
Maybe we should avoid jumping the gun and doing that again, yes? Or at the very least, if we're going to subsidize manufacturing, we should have some idea what we're about.
I can totally agree with this comment, but not being able to wait for more science doesn't mean we should defund it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your main point is that we need to get off of our asses and actually start doing big things to address the problem, right?
I'm almost positive that the people you're arguing with here agree with that sentiment.
The problem isn't the people you're arguing with, it's that a special interest-funded misinformation campaign has been fully embraced by one of the two major political parties in this country, and the huge policy roadblock that creates in government.
Put simply, the inaction problem currently rests squarely on the shoulders of Republicans in government, who are actually trying to take us backwards on climate and the environment.
People can of course make changes in their private lives to reduce emissions, but only a handful seem willing to do very much of that on their own at the moment. Policy changes that lead to big action and big results are going to require government action, and the only way to get that is to vote the evil out.
Yes. I'm also stating what that is going to require.
We need 1,000 factories, 10,000 trained engineers, and 1,000,000 trained blue collar workers. How is public money spent on climate science providing what we need?
The political opponents and proponents of climate science are debating the science while deliberately avoiding investing in the factories and workers that will be required to address the problem of climate change. As long as the science remains at the center of public attention, the politicians will avoid taking the necessary actions to address the problem. We can spend $30 billion a year on climate science (according to government estimates) or we can spend $30 billion a year building the industrial infrastructure that will be required to address the problem.
Democrats aren't blameless. Democrats are claiming that increasing funding of science is actually accomplishing something. Whatever happened to NASA's Orbital Carbon Observatory? That one program has cost $1.5 billion plus. And there are sixteen other orbital observing programs. NASA is arguing for more public money. But what has NASA actually accomplished in reducing our fossil fuel consumption?
NASA has only provided something to argue over. It doesn't matter if NASA is producing data that is right, wrong, or meaningless. NASA is being used by both Republicans and Democrats to politically avoid committing to building the necessary industrial infrastructure.
Government can impose rationing, restrictions, and prohibitions. That wouldn't cost very much at all to implement and could significantly decrease the carbon footprint. It doesn't cost anything to NOT burn fossil fuels. But people would start screaming about loss of freedom and loss of profits. And politicians would worry about loss of political donations.
Another NASA satellite isn't going to do anything to address the problem at this point. More science will only mean more delay. It's time to admit that science has done its job and move on to the next phase of producing a solution.
To me, those advocating for continued and increased funding of climate science have become a large obstacle that must be overcome.
Exactly. Acting now does not require that we defund the science and certainly I disagree with the notion that climate science has nothing further to offer.
Why doesn't climate science go carbon free? Climate science is receiving adequate public money to remove carbon from its research activities and operations.
Solyndra was the direct result of supply-side economics. Thank you Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The political hoax of supply side has been allowed to continue by arguing over economic theories and predictions. A small consensus of economists utilized selected data to fabricate a biased political policy that has proven itself incapable of providing the forecast solutions. Supply side economics has become a self perpetuating political hoax that has become an obstacle to overcome. That self perpetuating hoax has allowed the economy to deteriorate to a point where revitalizing the economy will be enormously disruptive. The United States has lost the capacity to produce and the political hoax of supply side economics is preventing any attempts to manufacture a solution.
The political hoax of climate change is following the same political playbook.
https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/6674/watermelons-use-green-new-deal-paris-treaty-to-impose-socialism
We don't need scientists to refine our understanding of the problem.
Oh, well, since you posted a meme... Clearly, there's no arguing with a meme.
It's all about cars, then?
Transportation is responsible for a third of emissions. Science and industrial production data has already explained that. What more do we need to know?
We don't need to know about the effects of, for example, deforestation?
Deforestation isn't caused by consumption of fossil fuels. Has science explained to us that planting more trees eliminates the problems caused by consumption of fossil fuels?
Do we or do we not need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels? What more do we need to know?
We simply can't transition away from fossil fuels without manufacturing alternatives. We need more factories; we don't need more science. Science has done its job. Time to take the next step.
Thank you for making your myopia clear.
Deforestation in the southern United States is happening at a higher rate than deforestation in the Amazon. The southern United States is being deforested to provide biofuel for the United Kingdom. Biofuel is still considered an alternative energy source that reduces consumption of fossil fuels. The UK is using wood products to meet its targets for addressing climate change.
So, climate science bears some responsibility for deforestation.
But that does not address the question. Do we or do we not need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels? If we are going to transition away from fossil fuels then we will need to manufacture alternatives. That is unavoidable.
Has anybody at all argued with you on this point? Has anybody in this conversation proposed opening more coal mines, or drilling more oil, or fracking for more natural gas?
Not a single one.
Now, is climate change multifactorial?
It seems you realize that it is, but want to focus on only one facet, and only through the lens of industry. You can't even address other facets without asking whether or not they're caused by the only facet to which you want to pay attention.
Myopia. You eschew information. You want us to address a problem we both agree exists in deliberate ignorance, and to allocate public funding in an absence of information.
In my southern state most of the deforestation is due to urban sprawl. The want of more subdivisions and strip malls.
National, state and private forests that are culled are not old world forests and are mostly fast growing pine trees. They are culled and replanted in intermittent intervals.
I don’t find any Constitutional authority for the Federal Government fund any science of any kind except as part of national defense which is the highest Constitutional priority of the Government
Secondly, I have hundreds of hours studying the peer reviewed papers of reknowned scientists from around the world who disagree with the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I find their arguments far more scientifically compelling
third. Any scientific approaches that lead to better stewardship of of planet should come entirely outside of government through entrepreneurship and voluntary associations
that is my view as a Christian and a Minarchist libertarian
Several have advocated prioritizing science rather than engineering. Climate science has identified the problem but is not well suited to mitigating the problem. Climate science has served its purpose. Time to move on to the next step. Trying to protect the preeminence of science in political discussion at this point is self defeating.
Coal, oil, and natural gas. Those are the critical factors. All other factors are a lower priority. Climate science has already explained all of this. Repeating the science will not alter our understanding of the three critical factors and their relationship to climate change. What more do we need to know?
I am eschewing distractions and efforts that do not mitigate climate change. Another satellite is not going to mitigate climate change. More data is not going to change opinions; the resistance to taking the next step isn't based upon science. The science is only being used (by both sides of the argument) to avoid committing to manufacturing and deploying solutions.
The only thing science can contribute further is more fodder for argument. And the arguments over science is preventing us from taking the next step. We need 1,000 factories, 10,000 engineers, and 1,000,000 blue collar workers, as a beginning. More science won't alter that need but more science is likely to prevent us from fulfilling that need.
Quotes? Considering your penchant for strawmen, I won't hold my breath.
Deforestation in the US South Is Four Times Greater Than Logging in South American Rainforests
From the article:
"Over the past few years, the South has become the world’s largest exporter of wood pellets to fuel power stations in Europe under the guise of “renewable” energy. Industry and government tout the wood pellet industry as providing “green, renewable energy jobs” despite scientific evidence that burning trees for electricity will exacerbate, not mitigate, climate change."
Good call. I am sure he is reinterpreting disagreement with his call to defund research in the area of climate science as advocating prioritizing science over engineering.
Except national defense is not the highest priority discussed in the Constitution. The highest priority is establishing and maintaining a republic for the benefit of the citizens of the United States. Without a stable central government, national defense would be pointless.
Taking climate change off the table still means that fossil fuels does not have a future. The reserves of fossil fuels are not unlimited; we are going to deplete available fossil fuels. We already know that easily accessible, high grade fossil fuels are being depleted at a faster rate. At some point continued use of fossil fuels will cost more than we can afford. And continued use of fossil fuels will become unaffordable well before all the reserves have been depleted.
Climate change isn't needed to show that we need to begin transitioning away from fossil fuels. We know that alternatives are practical for some applications. Using alternatives will extend the time that we can affordably use fossil fuels for applications where alternatives are not practical.
That Constitution bumper sticker has been perverted to mean free association of dollars. Finance doesn't have anything to do with entrepreneurship; it's all about using free association of dollars to prevent competition. Supply side economics has killed the Constitution.
If science prevents us from taking the next step then it becomes necessary to remove that obstacle. If it is necessary to choose between funding science and building factories that will mitigate climate change, then science is on the losing side of the competition for public support.
Climate science is the victim of its own success. Time to take the next step.
From your article.
In my state most of the virgin forests were wiped out by the 1930's. What we have now is managed tree farms. It is basically an agricultural crop.
One of the world’s largest pellet plants planned in Lucedale. Residents, environmental activists at odds.
As predicted. No quotes. Just strawmen.
Still does not discount what our forestry commission has reported and is reporting.
I don't understand what kind of point you are trying to make about a factory that hasn't even been built yet.
I proved the article you were referencing is false. MS has more forestland now than in the 1930's and even more than 30 years ago.
There are many things in this red state that I hate and would change but this is one thing where they have tried to take a lead and get ahead of.
Why are you trying to make a strawman argument? Accusing me of making strawman arguments is, itself, a strawman.
Go back to my original comment that began this discussion thread. My argument is that we need to move on and begin building the industrial infrastructure that will be necessary to mitigate climate change. That argument is premised on climate science having done its job. Climate science got it right. Tell the climate scientists thanks, hand them a gold watch, and put them out to pasture. Their role in public policy is finished; we don't need more science to take the next step.
I am not arguing about the validity of climate science. What I am saying is that we don't need more climate science, we have all we need to take the next step.
Refute my argument by answering the question: what more climate science do we need?
We know that factories, engineers, and blue collar workers will be required to manufacture and deploy alternatives that allow transitioning away from fossil fuels. How will more climate science contribute to fulfilling that requirement?
Climate scientists have done their job well. But the job is done. Now it's time to take the next step.
Science is not preventing engineering. Politics is preventing engineering.
It is not necessary to stop climate science to fund mitigation. Why do you presume that the only source of funding for climate mitigation lies in the budgets for climate research?
Because you have, repeatedly. Nobody here is arguing against implementing mitigations to climate change, nor prioritizing science over that implementation, but you repeatedly comment as if they were.
Um, no.
I never said you were. That's another straw man, BTW.
We need to investigate, and if possible, determine ways to mitigate, all factors contributing to climate change. Not just stop at fossil fuels and emissions. And once we start to apply what we think we've learned, we need science to verify that we were right.
And its not necessary to continue funding climate science to mitigate climate change. We know all we need to know to begin mitigating climate change. Why do you presume that continued funding of climate science will not compete for money that could be used for mitigation?
If the funding source is tax dollars (not sure what you are presuming) then every federal budget item competes with mitigation. It is nutty to first declare climate science done (as in no further value will come of it) and then second to go specifically after the climate science budget for funding mitigation while ignoring every other budget area.
This is like arguing to stop research into pollution in the 1960s in order to fund removing lead from gasoline. The thought process is just bizarre.
That's what he seems to be referring to in his post #6.1.6:
I have no idea where you get your idea of the Constitution being established to provide benefits to the citizens. There is no such language either in the Constitution, the writings of theFramers, orthenotes from the Constitutional Convention.
*cough* -- "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States [...]"
If environmental sustainability doesn't qualify as general welfare, nothing does. The environment is our life support system.
Are any of them in the public domain? I wouldn't mind taking a look at whichever ones you deem most convincing, as long as they're not behind a pay wall.
How's that worked out so far? The free market got us into this mess. Do you think the fossil fuel industry is going to voluntarily pull the plug on their own cash cow? The money they spend fighting environmental regulation shows where their interests lie, and it's not with better stewardship of the planet. Exxon ignored it's own internal research showing that fossil fuel emissions were causing climate change. The free market isn't going to do it.
Too much faith in markets to always do the right thing is the biggest failing of libertarian schools of economic thought.
The purpose of the Constitution wasn't intended to benefit the citizens of the United States?
Then what was the point of the American Revolution? We could have just remained British subjects if establishing the United States wasn't going to provide a benefit to citizens. What does 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' mean if not to benefit citizens of the United States?
I realize Wall Street pirates hate the Constitution. Maybe the French solution would have been better?
The essence of my argument is that the politics of climate science is preventing engineering.
Unless climate science successfully diverts attention away from political action to mitigate climate change. If continuing public support for climate science acts as a diversion then that diversion should be removed from the political policy debate. What we already know is enough to formulate public policy that begins building the required industrial infrastructure.
Our Constitution was formed to provide for the Sovereign states what they cannot effectively provide individually and to bind up government so it doesn’t intrude on our Sovereign rights as individuals
James Madison Federalist No. 45, Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, Independent Journal, January 26, 1788;
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” –
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
The Confederation, he continued, “being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States.”
James Madison in his paper Vices of the Political System of the United States (April 1787)
“[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights” ~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 2:178
We haven’t had anything approaching free market capitalism since the 19th century
as to the General Welfare, most Americans are ignorant about its meaning which has NOTHING to do with either the welfare state or some vague and undefinable well being of individuals. And it most definitely cannot have anything to do with our everchanging global climate
In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?…For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a 1792 letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
“If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”
James Madison, on the House floor during debates on a Cod Fishery bill [February 1792]
A fair enough answer. But the only factors that we can mitigate are anthropogenic factors. And we know that consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas are the anthropogenic factors that need immediate attention. And we also know that manufacturing and deploying alternatives will reduce consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas.
Political deliberation over what and how much support to provide climate science is an excuse to avoid generating public policy that begins building the industrial infrastructure that is required. Politicians are claiming that acceptance and support of climate science is adequate public policy. Somehow the required industrial infrastructure will build itself by the magic of profit motivation.
Greed got us into this mess. And the politics of climate change has basically claimed that greed will get us out of this mess.
Continued public support for climate science is not adequate public policy. It's necessary to shift that public support toward engineering and away from science.
You can keep repeating yourself, Nerm_L, but that doesn't make your point any more valid, or less nearsighted.
Well, that certainly seems to be your view, if you want to hand over money to companies that produce windmills, solar panels, electric cars, charging stations, and so forth, and depend on those companies to provide unbiased data regarding their effectiveness in mitigating climate change. Do you think they'll likely honestly report data that jeopardizes their funding?
Does anyone dependent upon public money want to jeopardize their funding?
The government collects all sorts of industrial data from a variety of sources. The stock market also monitors industrial performance to determine corporate value. What we need to monitor is consumption of fossil fuels; that's the anthropogenic factor that needs attention. The alternative energy sector is already lying about performance. That really doesn't affect anything since reduction of fossil fuel consumption is the important measure.
And the only one, of course /s
So let's fund them and depend on them to self-report.
Pay special attention to the "shall restrain men from injuring one another" and the "otherwise" parts of that statement.
And with very good reason. It was reproducing a class structure nearly indistinguishable from early feudal society. It was grinding the working class into the ground, while the owner class (employing them and profiting from them) partied on yachts and played croquet on the lawns of palatial New England estates. A lack of worker rights and protections didn't actually turn out to be such a good thing. Laissez faire capitalism doesn't give a damn about people or the public good. It's an all-eat-all, winner-take-all competition for life and death. It's social darwinism. Haven't you ever noticed that?
The general welfare means the general welfare, the general well-being, safety, and security required to prosper and flourish. And like I said, if the environmental life support system that our very existence depends upon doesn't qualify, then nothing does. I'm surprised you don't seem to agree. I did notice that you ignored my comments about private industry not giving a damn about the public good, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
At any rate, you can cut and paste to your heart's delight but none of it will change the power granted to Congress to tax and provide for 'the general welfare' as they see fit, nor the power to regulate commerce.
“How they see fit” is why we have totalitarian Marxist statism here and elsewhere.
congress only has power to legislate for the enumerated powers given them. Not for vague popular opinion trends.
[deleted]
We have totalitarian rule in the USA?
Our system is based on Marxism ??
The statism part is actually accurate.
As usual, your view of Marxism is 180 ° off base. Marx was all about achieving a society where power (control) is democratic and distributed (rather than concentrated in a minority). Think power of the people, by the people, for the people.
An uber powerful government (a concentration of power held by a minority) is the polar opposite of democratic power by the people.
On that point we agree.
You keep using those words, but... you know the rest, don't you?
The rest of your post is gone so I have no idea what you said.
I am of the opinion that we are not living over two hundred years ago.
The people back then would probably think we were space aliens.
Two hundred years ago, even 100 years ago, people did not live the same lives as they do now.
Society will never be like it was, there was never any past utopia.
No matter what anyone says, on some things there will never be a mishmash of laws that would interfere with life and travel and well being between the states.
He said, in effect, that M arxists seek a government of unlimited power.
He has been studying Marxism for over 50 years.
Some people seem to think that "You have nothing to lose but your chains" is somehow supposed to translate to "Let's put ourselves in some new chains."
Go figure.
I won't say this is a useless methodology, but I feel like the article is overconfident in presenting how much we should rely on it. It looks an awful lot like the methodology you see people use to predict stock prices. And we all know how hit-and-miss that can be.
Maybe. It's the method they used, so of course they think it gives the best possible estimate. Maybe it doesn't. Furthermore, even if it is the best possible estimate, that doesn't make it a useful estimate. My fist might be the best available tool for driving a nail, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.
The inverse, however, is: the fact that this is an estimate does not mean it should be ignored as bullshit.
I didn't say it was bullshit, did I. I didn't say it should be ignored either. All I'm saying is I'm not going to blindly accept it as absolute, unquestionable truth just because some guy with a science degree presents it as near-infallible.
I did not imply that you did. I gave the opposite perspective on what you offered.
Plenty of people (you can see that in this seed alone) apparently dismiss climate science as bullshit because it is 'not proven' or 'is based on estimates'. It is as if science would need a time machine to show people what is likely to happen before they will give AGW any credence. This all or nothing nonsense is both irrational and irresponsible.
There's too much partisanship with this issue. You either except every aspect of every prediction of doom (along with the recommended solutions) unquestioningly or you're a "denier." It would be a little more honest if, at minimum, the headline read "See How Your City’s Weather MIGHT Be Different In Just One Generation" instead of "See How Your City’s Weather WILL Be Different In Just One Generation."
Agreed. That is what is stifling progress.
My concern, as always, is getting to the truth. Climate science is properly something that should be understood through science (not politics). It is a scientific question first. But business and political interests have so muddied the water that people actually dismiss the science as nonsense. It is staggeringly irresponsible but here we are.