What's new

The Climate Change Thread


Fast-forward to March of this year: 42 percent of U.S. consumption was supplied by nonfossil fuel sources. Solar power, a negligible resource 20 years ago, has surpassed hydroelectric, while wind turbines supply more than twice the power of dams. And the Trump administration’s hostility to some renewables is partly offset by its supportive attitude toward next-generation nuclear power plants, without which the world has little hope of getting its arms around the emissions problem.

Total consumption of electricity in the U.S. was more than 15 percent lower this March than in the same month of 2005, yet during the past two decades the size of the U.S. economy more than doubled. That’s another first: The timeless link between rising wealth and rising energy consumption has been broken; we’ve proved economies can grow robustly without using more power.

I am not suggesting that these headlines add up to Mission Accomplished on the climate. Far from it. Humans continue to create far more carbon and methane emissions through our agriculture, industries, transportation and homes than the atmosphere can store without trapping additional heat. The resulting rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases will have predictable and unpredictable consequences that will challenge humanity for generations.

What the headlines clearly show is that progress is not only possible — it is happening. Dire predictions that changes to the global energy supply would destroy economies and plunge civilizations into reverse have been proved wrong. Europe is three-quarters of the way to a green electrical grid. China is, quite possibly, coming down from peak carbon. In neither place have these achievements noticeably disrupted modern life.

We’re making progress through countless innovations: cheaper solar panels; safer nuclear generators; better batteries; more fuel-efficient cars, trucks and airplanes; smarter appliances; more productive farming; reforestation; and other modes of carbon capture and storage.

And we have good ideas for further innovations — the best of which is a tax on emissions to make the hidden costs of greenhouse pollution plainly visible to the marketplace, thus stirring further innovations.

Impossible? It seems so now. But so much seemed impossible in 2005 that now has come to pass. A carbon tax has strong bipartisan support because it is a far more efficient way to encourage the next burst of progress, compared with doling out government subsidies and incentives. Greenhouse gas pollution is not free. It comes at a price. Make that price plain to the irresistible engine of American capitalism and watch what the market can do. The heartening progress of the past 20 years will be just a prelude to an explosion of invention and discovery.

This is no time to be discouraged.
 
Last edited:

The head of FEMA’s Urban Search and Rescue branch, which runs a network of teams stationed across the country that can swiftly respond to natural disasters, resigned on Monday.

Ken Pagurek’s departure comes less than three weeks after a delayed FEMA response to catastrophic flooding in central Texas caused by bureaucratic hurdles put in place by the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the disaster response agency.

Pagurek told colleagues at FEMA that the delay was the tipping point that led to his voluntary departure after months of frustration with the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the agency, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. It took more than 72 hours after the flooding for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to authorize the deployment of FEMA’s search and rescue network.
 

Fast-forward to March of this year: 42 percent of U.S. consumption was supplied by nonfossil fuel sources. Solar power, a negligible resource 20 years ago, has surpassed hydroelectric, while wind turbines supply more than twice the power of dams. And the Trump administration’s hostility to some renewables is partly offset by its supportive attitude toward next-generation nuclear power plants, without which the world has little hope of getting its arms around the emissions problem.

Total consumption of electricity in the U.S. was more than 15 percent lower this March than in the same month of 2005, yet during the past two decades the size of the U.S. economy more than doubled. That’s another first: The timeless link between rising wealth and rising energy consumption has been broken; we’ve proved economies can grow robustly without using more power.

I am not suggesting that these headlines add up to Mission Accomplished on the climate. Far from it. Humans continue to create far more carbon and methane emissions through our agriculture, industries, transportation and homes than the atmosphere can store without trapping additional heat. The resulting rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases will have predictable and unpredictable consequences that will challenge humanity for generations.

What the headlines clearly show is that progress is not only possible — it is happening. Dire predictions that changes to the global energy supply would destroy economies and plunge civilizations into reverse have been proved wrong. Europe is three-quarters of the way to a green electrical grid. China is, quite possibly, coming down from peak carbon. In neither place have these achievements noticeably disrupted modern life.

We’re making progress through countless innovations: cheaper solar panels; safer nuclear generators; better batteries; more fuel-efficient cars, trucks and airplanes; smarter appliances; more productive farming; reforestation; and other modes of carbon capture and storage.

And we have good ideas for further innovations — the best of which is a tax on emissions to make the hidden costs of greenhouse pollution plainly visible to the marketplace, thus stirring further innovations.

Impossible? It seems so now. But so much seemed impossible in 2005 that now has come to pass. A carbon tax has strong bipartisan support because it is a far more efficient way to encourage the next burst of progress, compared with doling out government subsidies and incentives. Greenhouse gas pollution is not free. It comes at a price. Make that price plain to the irresistible engine of American capitalism and watch what the market can do. The heartening progress of the past 20 years will be just a prelude to an explosion of invention and discovery.

This is no time to be discouraged.
This is awesome and amazing data.
 
Yeah, one of the only good things I've read in a long time.
And of course, trump is doing his best to destroy that good thing


Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Red
Yikes! Plastics…


Millions of tons of plastic in the ocean aren't floating in plain sight—they're invisible. Scientists have now confirmed that the most abundant form of plastic in the Atlantic is in the form of nanoplastics, smaller than a micrometer. These particles are everywhere: in rain, rivers, and even the air. They may already be infiltrating entire ecosystems, including the human brain, and researchers say prevention—not cleanup—is our only hope.
 
Yikes! Plastics…


Millions of tons of plastic in the ocean aren't floating in plain sight—they're invisible. Scientists have now confirmed that the most abundant form of plastic in the Atlantic is in the form of nanoplastics, smaller than a micrometer. These particles are everywhere: in rain, rivers, and even the air. They may already be infiltrating entire ecosystems, including the human brain, and researchers say prevention—not cleanup—is our only hope.
Let's look on the bright side. Maybe this will reduce the global population and finally get us to help save the earth. The only way to save the earth is to eliminate the humans. We are the only species that destroys entire ecosystem so we have have a McDonald's a few blocks closer to our house. Pandas don't do that ****. Neither do titmice. Titmice? Titmouses? Yeah they don't either.
 
Another day, another #@%*! “A dagger into the heart of the climate change religion”. Part of “deconstruction of the administrative state”, in this case, the “coup of the ostriches”, if they get away with it.


The Trump administration has announced a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government's ability to combat climate change.

Known as the "Endangerment Finding", the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards.

The US is a major contributor to global climate change, and ranks second only to China which emits more planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide – and the US still emits more per person.

Experts have warned that the move could have a devastating impact on the environment……

…..Speaking in an episode of the conservative "Ruthless" podcast released on Tuesday, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the move was "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion".

Zeldin said that emissions standards were a "distraction" and that the policy change was "an economic issue". "Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America," he said.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a natural entry for this climate change thread. I think it’s actually an even more natural entry in the New Dark Age thread. The administration’s climate report is 100% pseudoscience. Based on debunked claims. A report that demonstrates this administration is an enemy of human knowledge. And that’s 100% “dark ages” stuff. This is on the level of “Trump says the world really is flat, and his latest EO instructs all new maps to reflect this”.

But, here it is in the climate thread….


A new Trump administration report which attempts to justify a mass rollback of environmental regulations is chock-full of climate misinformation, experts say.

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to undo the 2009 “endangerment finding”, which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. Hours later, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 150-page report defending the proposal, claiming scientific concern about the climate crisis is overblown.

Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe,” wrote the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in the report’s introduction.

The esteemed climate scientist Michael Mann said the report was akin to the result he would expect “if you took a chatbot and you trained it on the top 10 fossil fuel industry-funded climate denier websites”.

The energy department published the report hours after the EPA announced a plan to roll back 2009’s “endangerment finding”, a seminal ruling that provided the legal basis for the agency to regulate climate-heating pollution under the Clean Air Act. If finalized, the move would topple virtually all US climate regulation.

In a Fox News interview, Wright claimed the report pushed back on the “cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science”. But Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University and expert in climate misinformation, said its true purpose was to “justify what is a scientifically unjustifiable failure to regulate fossil fuels”.

“Science is the basis for climate regulation, so now they are trying to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,” she said…..

……Mainstream climate scientists, however, condemned the findings as distorted and inaccurate. “This is a report written by a couple of scientists who are outliers in their arguments for climate change,” said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University. “This document does in no way depreciate the value of previous assessments, but rather just cherrypicks the literature to pretend to create a new review.”

Mahowald said the lack of peer review meant it was “obviously not as robust” as the IPCC report or the US government’s periodic national climate assessment, which the Trump administration recently took offline. The latest national climate assessment, compiled by a dozen government agencies and outside scientists in 2023, concluded that the “effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States”

“If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different,” Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, said of the new report. “The only way to get this report was to pick these authors.”

Hausfather agreed that the authors’ work “might represent their views but is not consistent with the broader scientific literature on climate change”. He was among the scientists whose work the authors cited.

The new paper includes a chart from a 2019 report which he led, claiming it demonstrates how climate models “consistently overestimated observations” of atmospheric carbon. But Hausfather’s research actually showed that climate models have performed well.

“They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,” he said. The energy department did not respond to a request for comment about Hausfather’s concerns.

That approach to research seems to underpin the entire paper, said Hausfather, who is also the climate research lead at tech company Stripe.

“This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,” he said.

(THIS: the administrations climate report should be titled: “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide”):

“The report they produced should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide,” Dessler said. “Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2’s innocence.”

The lack of peer review in the administration’s report led to conclusions that deviated, sometimes wildly, from the scientific literature. Many of its claims are based on long-debunked research long promoted by climate deniers, said Mann.

“It is shop worn, decades-old, discredited climate denier talking points, dressed up in the clothing of some sensible new set of revelations,” he said. “What’s different is that it has the imprimatur of the EPA and the federal government now.”

The report, for instance claims that warming trends have been overstated, despite evidence to the contrary. It was published as extreme heat is affecting millions of Americans.

“They’re literally trying to tell us not to believe what we see with our own two eyes … and instead buy into their denialist framing that rejects not just the science, but what is plainly evident if you look out your window,” said Mann.

————————————————————————————————

All part of Project 2025, as described in this paper. I personally doubt we will avoid the worst effects of a warming planet, but Project 2025, and Trump’s climate report are an effort to help ensure the Earth will be less hospitable to human life as the 21st century unfolds.

 
Last edited:

The White House has instructed NASA employees to terminate two major, climate change-focused satellite missions.

As NPR reports, Trump officials reached out to the space agency to draw up plans for terminating the two missions, called the Orbiting Carbon Observatories. They've been collecting widely-used data, providing both oil and gas companies and farmers with detailed information about the distribution of carbon dioxide and how it can affect crop health.

One is attached to the International Space Station, and the other is collecting data as a stand-alone satellite. The latter would meet its permanent demise after burning up in the atmosphere if the mission were to be terminated.

We can only speculate as to why the Trump administration wants to end the missions. But considering president Donald Trump's staunch climate change denial and his administration's efforts to deal the agency's science directorate a potentially existential blow, it's not difficult to speculate.

Worse yet, the two observatories had been expected to function for many more years, scientists working on them told NPR. A 2023 review by NASA concluded that the data they'd been providing had been "of exceptionally high quality."

The observatories provide detailed carbon dioxide measurements across various locations, allowing scientists to get a detailed glimpse of how human activity is affecting greenhouse gas emissions.

Former NASA employee David Crisp, who worked on the Orbiting Carbon Observatories' instruments, told NPR that current staffers reached out to him.

They were asking me very sharp questions," he said. "The only thing that would have motivated those questions was [that] somebody told them to come up with a termination plan."

Crisp said it "makes no economic sense to terminate NASA missions that are returning incredibly valuable data," pointing out it costs only $15 million per year to maintain both observatories, a tiny fraction of the agency's $25.4 billion budget.

Other scientists who've used data from the missions have also been asked questions related to terminating the missions.

The two observatories are only two of dozens of space missions facing existential threats in the form of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 fiscal year budget. Countless scientists have been outraged by the proposal, arguing it could precipitate an end to the United States' leadership in space.
 
Microplastics are a huge enviornmental problem. For everything living. So much microplastic in our own brains can’t be good….


 
Back
Top