[jedrider]

Regardless of the science the Trump administration cant have Hillary supporting hold overs from the Obama administration running around stabbing him in the back at every opportunity and certainly not in the guise of official policy.

When war is declared on science, every scientist is a 'back-stabber'.

The investor class has spoken.

[Newfie]

In an odd way it’s a good thing. They will likely get much more coverage due to the political angle than they ever would have if they had simply been allowed to talk.

[vtsnowedin]

In an odd way it’s a good thing. They will likely get much more coverage due to the political angle than they ever would have if they had simply been allowed to talk.

That is a very good point. If they stick to the science they may become the go to experts. If they digress into political diatribes everything else they say for decades will be looked at through the political filter and discounted.

[dohboi]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00392/full

The world’s biggest gamble


27 October 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000392

Abstract

The scale of the decarbonisation challenge to meet the Paris Agreement is underplayed in the public arena. It will require precipitous emissions reductions within 40 years and a new carbon sink on the scale of the ocean sink. Even then, the world is extremely likely to overshoot.

A catastrophic failure of policy, for example, waiting another decade for transformative policy and full commitments to fossil-free economies, will have irreversible and deleterious repercussions for humanity’s remaining time on Earth. Only a global zero carbon roadmap will put the world on a course to phase-out greenhouse gas emissions and create the essential carbon sinks for Earth-system stability, without which, world prosperity is not possible.

[jedrider]

In an odd way it’s a good thing. They will likely get much more coverage due to the political angle than they ever would have if they had simply been allowed to talk.

That is a very good point. If they stick to the science they may become the go to experts. If they digress into political diatribes everything else they say for decades will be looked at through the political filter and discounted.

You're BOTH missing the point. The point is that these EPA scientists are discussing the environment. They are NOT trying to win over converts. They're trying to inform people of the CHANGES to the environment that they should be aware of! Their audience are the planners and managers of public land and resources. Not everything is a political game, though it has become that.

[Plantagenet]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000392/full

The world’s biggest gamble


27 October 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000392

Abstract

The scale of the decarbonisation challenge to meet the Paris Agreement is underplayed in the public arena. It will require precipitous emissions reductions within 40 years and a new carbon sink on the scale of the ocean sink. Even then, the world is extremely likely to overshoot.

A catastrophic failure of policy, for example, waiting another decade for transformative policy and full commitments to fossil-free economies, will have irreversible and deleterious repercussions for humanity’s remaining time on Earth. Only a global zero carbon roadmap will put the world on a course to phase-out greenhouse gas emissions and create the essential carbon sinks for Earth-system stability, without which, world prosperity is not possible.

I’ve said this a hundred times here. The Paris Accords were a sham and a fraud. Obama and the other idiots who claimed they were limiting global T increases to 2 C while allowing global carbon emissions to continue to rise were engaging in magical thinking. It continues to amaze me that many people can’t see what a sham it all was

Cheers

[dissident]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000392/full

The world’s biggest gamble


27 October 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000392

Abstract

The scale of the decarbonisation challenge to meet the Paris Agreement is underplayed in the public arena. It will require precipitous emissions reductions within 40 years and a new carbon sink on the scale of the ocean sink. Even then, the world is extremely likely to overshoot.

A catastrophic failure of policy, for example, waiting another decade for transformative policy and full commitments to fossil-free economies, will have irreversible and deleterious repercussions for humanity’s remaining time on Earth. Only a global zero carbon roadmap will put the world on a course to phase-out greenhouse gas emissions and create the essential carbon sinks for Earth-system stability, without which, world prosperity is not possible.

We can stop the discussion or "debate" now. A new carbon sink on the scale of the ocean sink is simply unattainable and is in the realm of sci-fi terraforming. Interesting how this detail was not highlighted. We are officially f*cked.

[M_B_S]

Dissident
We are f....
Wow
Thats why we are here ....

Peak Oil!

[dohboi]

Sorry if this was already posted:

US government agency issues climate change warning as report finds natural disasters cost America $350b

[over the last decade...and going up!]

https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-spent- ... de/233688/

...$350 billion here, $350 billion there...pretty soon you're talking about real money!

(To paraphrase and apocryphal Everett Dirksen quote)

It probably does not include any of the tens of billions of dollars spent on this year's hurricane and wildfire relief.

and...

Climate change is the single biggest global health threat.

http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content ... st-century

[vtsnowedin]

In an odd way it’s a good thing. They will likely get much more coverage due to the political angle than they ever would have if they had simply been allowed to talk.

That is a very good point. If they stick to the science they may become the go to experts. If they digress into political diatribes everything else they say for decades will be looked at through the political filter and discounted.

You're BOTH missing the point. The point is that these EPA scientists are discussing the environment. They are NOT trying to win over converts. They're trying to inform people of the CHANGES to the environment that they should be aware of! Their audience are the planners and managers of public land and resources. Not everything is a political game, though it has become that.

I think you are being very naive there. They are trying to secure funding. The quickest and surest way to do that is to help push Trump out of office by any means fair or foul.

[dohboi]

you are as always totally and utterly full of bullocks. Please cite and link whatever legitimate source you can muster to support your wild and unsubstantiated (as usual) claims, and maybe we can proceed...

[dohboi]

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007 ... 017-0076-8

I'm not generally very optimistic about such things, but I think the linked paper does likely point out some possibilities, at least, that if robust, supportive, cooperative structures are in place, they could lessen the likelihood of violent responses to climate chaos.

Of course, if these structures predominated throughout world culture now, we would likely not be in quite the total and utter sh!thole we find ourselves in now...

So, basically, if pigs had wings, perhaps they could fly...

[Ibon]

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-017-0076-8

I'm not generally very optimistic about such things, but I think the linked paper does likely point out some possibilities, at least, that if robust, supportive, cooperative structures are in place, they could lessen the likelihood of violent responses to climate chaos.

Of course, if these structures predominated throughout world culture now, we would likely not be in quite the total and utter sh!thole we find ourselves in now...

So, basically, if pigs had wings, perhaps they could fly...

Did you purchase this study. I could not access this without paying $ 38 which I wont do. The topic is of interest although I bet whatever is concluded in that report has already been discussed at some point here by somebody.....

[vtsnowedin]

Not everything is a political game, though it has become that.

Can you really be that naive?

[jedrider]

The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program is funded through the E.P.A.’s approximately $26 million National Estuary Program. It funds 28 state-based estuary programs and delivers about $600,000 annually to the Narragansett Bay program. Mr. Pruitt’s proposed budget for 2018 would eliminate the national program.

Under Mr. Pruitt’s leadership the E.P.A. also has removed most mentions of the words “climate change” from its website. He has declined to link carbon dioxide emissions to global warming, and in an interview with Time magazine last week said he intended to assemble a team of independent experts to challenge established climate science because, Mr. Pruitt asserted, it has not yet been subject to “a robust, meaningful debate.”

I guess some would call that leadership. Denialism is getting it's second wind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/climate/epa-scientists.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/MXyJhTynXW?amp%3D1&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=politics

[Plantagenet]

The $600,000 for the Narraganset project sounds like a big deal, but do the math. An EPA grant has to pay overhead— typically about 60%. That leaves only $240,000 for actual work. An academic seniorscientist might earn ca $200k a year, not including benefits. So bxasically this is one salary position —- ie not very important. There isn’t even money there for lab equipment analyses or fieldwork. It’s nothing

[dohboi]

4,9 feet of hail in 15 minutes

https://watchers.news/2017/10/27/extrem ... argentina/

[jedrider]

The $600,000 for the Narraganset project sounds like a big deal, but do the math. An EPA grant has to pay overhead— typically about 60%. That leaves only $240,000 for actual work. An academic seniorscientist might earn ca $200k a year, not including benefits. So bxasically this is one salary position —- ie not very important. There isn’t even money there for lab equipment analyses or fieldwork. It’s nothing

Yes, but a little something is a lot better than nothing. On the Federal level, it is now purely idiological as the costs are really minimal. For the local people and governments, it is still a big deal. Here, a foot bridge falls down and it is a crisis to get piecemeal contributions from all the agencies that have a budget.

[dohboi]

CC is [already] Bad for your Health

... “Climate change is happening, and it’s a health issue today for millions worldwide,” said Anthony Costello, a co-chairman of the commission that produced the report, called The Lancet Countdown.

...climate change is already affecting human health in serious ways, with harms “far worse than previously understood.” The report argues that the health professions have a responsibility “to communicate the threats and opportunities” of a phenomenon that is “central to human well-being.”

...human-caused global warming “threatens to undermine the past 50 years of gains in public health.” But the report also said that a comprehensive approach to slow the planet’s warming could be “the great health opportunity of the 21st century.”

...outdoor labor capacity in rural areas fell, on average, by 5.3 percent over the past 16 years because of heat stress and other conditions making work more difficult. That is a stunning loss of productivity, and directly attributable to global warming during a period when nine of the 10 of the hottest years on record were recorded.

Productivity fell 2 percent from 2015 to 2016 alone.

In 2015, the Lancet report says, an additional 175 million people over the age of 65 were exposed to heat waves, when compared with broad trends of the past 20 years.

... lower-income countries experience far greater economic loss as a proportion of their gross domestic product because of climate-related disasters when compared to higher-income countries.

...From 1990 to 2016, uninsured losses in low-income countries were equivalent to over 1.5 percent of their G.D.P.

...recent gains in combating the spread of these diseases [are] now being threatened by climate change.

The report shows that transmission of dengue fever by just two types of mosquito has increased 3 percent and 5.9 percent, since 1990, the result of a broad range of factors including climate change...

If the report contained just these findings, it would still be an alert to public health officials. But there are dozens of other examples that clearly show that climate change is no longer a distant, future threat.

It is here, now.

This is now a medical and public health fight, not just an environmental one.

(My emphases)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/opin ... eft-region

I also noticed this headline at WaPo, but it's paywalled. Anyone with access there wana copy some of it's juiciest content here??

"Climate change fueling disasters, disease in ‘potentially irreversible’ ways, report warns"

[vox_mundi]

... I also noticed this headline at WaPo, but it's paywalled. Anyone with access there wana copy some of it's juiciest content here?? "Climate change fueling disasters, disease in ‘potentially irreversible’ ways, report warns"

WaPo: Climate Change Fueling Disasters, Disease in ‘Potentially Irreversible’ Ways, Report Warns

... The Countdown, as its ticking-clock title suggests, outlines the way humans are adapting — or not — to a rapidly evolving climate. It was announced last year during the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Morocco. The project, a synthesis of scientific literature and media reports, tracks 40 indicators of human health, including migration, nutrition and air pollution.

Given the profound health dangers posed by a warming climate, the study’s authors focused on a key question: How well is the world responding?

“The answer is, most of our indicators are headed in the wrong direction,” Watts said. “Broadly, the world has not responded to climate change, and that lack of response has put lives at risk . . . The impacts we’re experiencing today are already pretty bad. The things we’re talking about in the future are potentially catastrophic.”

... Between 2000 and 2016, the number of people exposed to heat waves climbed by 125 million vulnerable adults, according to the report. During 2015, the worst year on record, 175 million people suffered through sweltering temperatures.

Watts also cited the rising number of deaths from floods, storms and other weather disasters. Each year between 2007 and 2016, the world saw an average of 300 weather disasters — a 46 percent increase from the decade between 1990 and 1999. In the 25 years since 1990, these disasters claimed more than 500,000 lives.

... And in recent years, the ranks of climate change migrants have grown. Just in the United States, more than 3,500 Alaskans have fled coastal erosion and permafrost melts. Twenty-five homes have been abandoned on Louisiana’s Isle de Jean Charles, which is being overtaken by the Gulf of Mexico. In 2016, its former residents became the first to receive federal funds for a climate change retreat.

Though it might be better to go directly to the source ...

Summary: The 2017 Report of the Lancet Countdown

The Lancet Countdown's 2017 report tracks 40 indicators across five areas, arriving at three key conclusions:

- The human symptoms of climate change are unequivocal and potentially irreversible`
- The delayed response to climate change over the past 25 years has jeopardised human life and livelihoods.
- The past 5 years have seen an accelerated response, and in 2017 momentum is building across a number of sectors; the direction of travel is set, with clear and unprecedented opportunities for public health.

FullText:The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change: From 25 years of Inaction to a Global Transformation for Public Health

Infographics

See also:

New Report Shows that Inaction on Climate Change Has ‘Jeopardised Human Life’

Shortfall in Climate Action is 'Catastrophic': UN

There is a "catastrophic" gap between national pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the actions needed to cap global warming below two degrees Celsius, the UN's environment chief warned Tuesday, days ahead of global climate talks in Bonn.

Even if fulfilled, these pledges—inscribed along with the 2 C target in the 2015 Paris climate pact—would see the world heat up 3 C (5.6 F), unleashing deadly heatwaves, superstorms and rising seas, UN Environment said in its annual [url]Emissions Gap[/url] report, the bleakest ever.

Record-setting extreme weather in 2017—including monsoon flooding, raging fires and deadly hurricanes—likely bears the fingerprint of global warming, it noted.

"One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future," said Eric Solheim, head of the UN agency. "Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap."