Ecocentric

Why Dwindling Snow — Thanks Largely to Climate Change — Might Dry Out Los Angeles

Southern California depends on the mountain snowpack for part of its water — and that snow is about to get less reliable

  • Share
  • Read Later
Walter Bibikow / Getty Images

The Sierra Nevada snowpack is a vital source of water for California

While the national government remains slow to deal with climate change, many cities have been moving ahead. Why the difference? Well, cities tend to be more homogenous politically, which makes any kind of decisive action easier to push through. But the real reason is that city managers know they will be the first ones forced to deal with the likely consequences of global warming: rising sea levels and flooding, deadly heat waves and water struggles. New York City didn’t just come out last week with the most comprehensive climate-adaptation plan in the world because Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a global-warming believer. The experience of Hurricane Sandy last year — which cost the city some $20 billion — was instructive. Even in the absence of warming, growing population and property values will put major cities on the front lines of extreme weather. Add in climate change, and it could get ugly.

Just ask Los Angeles. The City of Angels has struggled with the basic fact that it is a desert metropolis since its founding. (Just watch Chinatown.) The first three months of 2013 were the driest for California on record, and there’s no relief in sight. Now a new study from the University of California, Los Angeles, suggests that the local mountain snowfall — vital for water supplies — could fall 30% to 40% below 2000 levels by midcentury, thanks to global warming. And if emissions don’t decline and warming is worse than we expect, more snow will vanish, even as greater L.A. continues to grow.

(MORE: Why a Hotter World Will Mean More Extinctions)

In the business-as-usual scenario — a climate-science term for a model that assumes greenhouse-gas emissions keep growing without any effort to slow them — snowfall levels could fall 42% by midcentury, and over 60% by the end of the century. Here’s lead author Alex Hall of UCLA in a statement:

The mountains won’t receive nearly as much snow as they used to, and the snow they do get will not last as long …We won’t reach the 32ºF threshold for snow as often, so a greater percentage of precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, particularly at lower elevations. Increased flooding is possible from the more frequent rains, and springtime runoff from melting snowpack will happen sooner.

Obviously this will be a major bummer for Southern California snowboarders, who I guess will just have to take up surfing. But snowfall matters for urban dwells — snowpack in the mountains of California is like a bank for water. It holds the precipitation through the winter, then releases it gradually with the spring melt. But if there’s less snow in the first place, and the spring snowfall occurs earlier and more rapidly because of warming, water supplies become that much more difficult to manage. Add in the fact that Los Angeles is expected to grow to 13 million people by 2050, and you have a management situation, as L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement:

This science is clear and compelling: Los Angeles must begin today to prepare for climate change.

And so it will, just as New York will. But cities can only do so much. They can help their citizens adapt to climate change, but there’s little that one mayor — even one as rich as Mayor Bloomberg — can do by himself to change the way we the country and the world use energy. And it’s energy use that decides climate change — and turns the snow to rain.

MORE: Federal Forecast for Climate Change: It’s Getting Hot in Here

66 comments
n7specops
n7specops like.author.displayName 1 Like

Sucks for the world that this is starting to happen. So we really will and are starting to see wars and such over dwindling natural resources? sucks, it won't effect me in my lifetime, but future generations are gonna suffer. In any case, I feel for the rest of the country and the world. As for me, I live in WV, we have a spring box built above our house. (its a concrete box built into the mountain about 30 feet above our house, already purified rain water and winter runoff water flows into it because the back wall of the box is the mountain itself and then water hoses and lines run to our house and works via gravity, so no electric pump needed) so we have free unlimited water that we drink, use to make food, as well as bathe in. I think the greener the world gets, the more we can start to fix things like climate disasters.

BabuG.Ranganathan
BabuG.Ranganathan

THE WHOLE EARTH AT ONE TIME HAD A UNIFORM TEMPERATURE AND CLIMATE. The Bible in Genesis 1:6 teaches that there was water above the sky. This condition doesn’t exist today because that water fell upon the earth during the great Noahic flood.

The water above the sky would have had a greenhouse effect so that the temperature around the globe would have been uniform and tropical, even at the North and South poles.

Please read my popular Internet article, ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?  Evolutionary dating methods are not infallible and far from accurate.

Check out some of my Internet articles and sites: NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition), NO HALF-EVOLVED DINOSAURS, DOES GOD PARTICLE EXPLAIN UNIVERSE'S ORIGIN? THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Bible/Biology)

Author of the popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.

DavidNutzuki
DavidNutzuki

Reporting on the climate blame crisis exaggeration has done to science, journalism and progressivism what naughty priests did for religion.

*Not one single IPCC warning has ever said any crisis will happen only could.*

*They only agreed it COULD be a climate crisis but it the lab coats still say climate change is; "real and happening". * Yes it was a pure war crime!

28 years of "maybe" proves it "won't be" a crisis and science can end this silly debate to save the planet from Human CO2 (not pollution) just by saying their planet endangering crisis is as real as they like to say comet hits are.

And did Bush utter CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children and bully them to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated crisis?

BobShafer
BobShafer

It's just a shame that there isn't a really large body of water next to Los Angeles that people get water from.  Instead we will all just have to go thirsty.

SkipperSam
SkipperSam like.author.displayName 1 Like

@BobShafer  The Colorado river ?  the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson, can make some 400,000 gallons (1,514 cubic meters) of its own freshwater every day

purifying seawater cost roughly five to 10 times as much as drawing freshwater from more traditional sources 

SkipperSam
SkipperSam

Just make the cost of water

Tier 1 actual cost for normal family of 4

Tier 2 25% premiun family of 4

Tier 3 Industrial use Non potable

Tier 4 Industrial use potable

Tier 5 50 % premium family use

Tier 6 Industrial use Non potable 25 % premium

Tier 7 Industrial use potable 25 % premium

Tier 8 75% premiun Family use

Tier 9 Industrial use Non potable 50 % premium

Tier 10 Industrial use potable 50 % premium


awakenthesoul
awakenthesoul

Hurricane Sandy wasn't unprecedented. In 1938, a hurricane hit up there causing the same damage as Sandy. Just fewer people lived there and the news didn't focus on it 24/7 because poor Mayor Bloomberg's metropolis was in a tizzy. Climate change may be happening but some of it is natural and some of the disasters we face are because we have millions living in cities consuming natural resources and eroding the shorelines which had natural barriers against the storms at one point. 

jhoughton1
jhoughton1 like.author.displayName 1 Like

No one is saying that precipitation will drop in California, just the snowpack.  In fact, global warming could produce MORE precipitation.  Thing is, snowpack is a great way to store water.  If temperatures are going to rise and less water is going to fall as snow, we're going to have to come up with new ways to store it.  Which means dams.  Environmentalists -- good people all -- don't like dams.  But if you fly over the Sierra Nevada there are one heck of a lot of canyons that could be dammed and there'd still be plenty -- plenty! -- of wild, undammed canyons left over.  

The other side of the coin is that Southern California has conservation skills that range from lousy to non-existent.  From backyard pools that just sit there and evaporate water month in and month out with maybe a few swimmers a year, to sprinklers that go unadjusted and untimed, too many houses with old-fashioned high-flow toilets and...the most important, people who just don't seem to care and don't make water conservation even a tiny part of their day.  LA could cut its water needs in half with simple conservation.  It's only going to happen, though, when the price of water goes up and no politician wants the price of water going up on his watch.

One way or another, things will have to change. 

wonfish
wonfish like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

The reason for the federal government being slow is not due to inhomogeneity.  It is the buying off the lawmakers my the coal and energy companies.  And the buy-off of the Republican party and their mouthpieces such as Fox news.

rodel
rodel

why the word "THANKS" to climate change or whatever?

jhoughton1
jhoughton1

@rodel Kind of like saying, "Thanks to the number of useless posts, the tenor of the comments section was mediocre at best."

PatrishDehler
PatrishDehler

It doesn't if you believe in global warming or not - are planet is changing.  I believe it is too late to fix the CO2 problem. By the time countries realize there is a real climate problem and want to fix it, it won't matter.  We are getting exactly what we deserve for being so selfish and not working with the planet.  Spend the 1st 35 years of my life in California - it was always dry  .

jdyer2
jdyer2 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

"Add in the fact that Los Angeles is expected to grow to 13 million people by 2050".  Bryan, you report this like this is something that no one has any control over.  If a city was created in a desert, where man is not supposed to live, and the city is expected to run out of water.  Why can't a city take measures to limit its growth?  Why not a ban on new building construction?  This country has a religious zealotry about growth, that it is immoral not to support it.  If a region does not have the resources to support its people, its population needs to stabilize until it can figure the solutions out.



I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT
I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT like.author.displayName 1 Like

@jdyer2 There's an enormous ocean off the coast of Los Angeles. A desalination plant would solve water problems. 

ChrisRapier
ChrisRapier like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT @jdyer2 Desalination is quite expensive and of limited capacity. Far more so than simply collecting snow melt. SO yes, you could just build some desal plants *but* water would still be limited and the costs associated with it would be far higher.

justplncate
justplncate

@ChrisRapier @I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT @jdyer2 Sort of like the warming people's take on gas prices.  Make it so expensive people will change their behavior.  

Think of it as Mother Nature's version of 'Cap and Trade".   Then you greenies can fervently embrace LA's running out of water as a good thing.

I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT
I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT like.author.displayName 1 Like

This underlying (and wildly wrong) assumption is that -small- changes in energy consumption will have magic effect on climate.  If, (and that's a great big if),  the computer models that predict environmental doom are correct, worldwide reduction of excess CO2 would have to be in the range of 80% (no, that's not a typo).  How do you get 80% reduction in excess CO2?  You have replace fossil with something else. What is that something else?  There isn't a solution right now.  Solar and wind are just gimmicks (really, they  account for less than 5% of our total electrical energy production today, 80% of our current electricity generation is fossil). 


Now, let's look at at 80% of -worldwide- production.  The US emits (2011 numbers) about 16% of the world's CO2. China is at whopping 29%.   Does this editor believe that china will reduce their emissions? by 80%? 

The problem with this kind of shallow journalism is that the writer feels morally superior to the rest of us because he believes he understands the problem. That people in the US are just so "stupid" to not do a quick fix to global warming.  He has no idea what he is talking about. Hasn't done basic back-of-the-envelope estimates.  He's a blind faith believer in the models. No questions.  No reason to doubt. No in depth analysis.  Al Gore told him that they were true.  That is good enough for him.  Hallelujah and pass the carbon tax credits.

Oh, and the fact, that for the last 1.5 decades, our warming rate can slowed considerably means that model that this reporter/zealot blindly believes as "truth" are wildly inaccurate.   That inconvenient truth doesn't seem to make it into Time.   Or maybe that according to NOAA, Spring of 2013 was the 38th coldest spring of the last 117 years.    No it's better to promulgate the religion of catastrophic global climate change.

ruraynor
ruraynor

@I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT if Americans and other Westerners consumed less and bought less crap, Chinese factories wouldn't expend so much energy and cause so much pollution manufacturing aforementioned crap. How much of China's carbon output is due to exports?

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT"No it's better to promulgate the religion of catastrophic global climate change."

Ah yes, now we get to the real meat of your argument.  It's got nothing to do with the fact that it will, admittedly, be tough to cut back on CO2 production so completely that we stop making things worse.  And it's got nothing to do with the more nuanced take on things that, if we put even 5% less CO2 in now, that's 5% less we'll have to deal with somehow in the future when we DO have better technological options.  No, your real problem isn't with economics or views of future technology. 

Your real problem is that you don't believe it's happening at all.  You think that, for whatever reason, tens of thousands of individual scientists in a dozen unrelated fields are lying their mouths off.  Maybe you think we're doing it for the money (despite the fact that I could make a LOT more at Boeing than as a science satellite person, for example).  Maybe you think we're doing it because we've been brainwashed into it (despite the fact that most of us have measured some aspect(s) of climate change in our own data).  Maybe you think we're all just evil. 

I don't know.  But I do know that the minute someone starts calling a boatload of evidence from independent sources a "religion", it proves he knows little of science and surely has never actually looked at the mostly-publicly-available data himself.  Maybe you ought to try it sometime.  Take a few years -- a PhD takes 4-8 years, so that's a good estimate of how long it should take -- of study and experience.  THEN maybe your opinion will be informed and worth listening to.  Right now, it's sort of like me arguing the values of painting methods, which I know next to nothing about.

ChrisRapier
ChrisRapier like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT Sorry, the idea is that small changes in energy consumption and generation will have a significant impact is true *if* those small changes are aggregated over the country/world as a whole. 1 person reducing their energy usage by 1 KW is meaningless. 300 Million people reducing the consumption by 1 KW each has a big impact. That's the thing a lot of naysayers don't understand - conservation efforts are a matter of scale.

I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT
I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT

@ChrisRapier @I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT  Sorry, Chris. You fail basic mathematics.  If -everyone- reduces their consumption (or emission) by 1%, you bring the total down by, wait for it, 1%.   Sure if, everybody reduced their consumption by 1KWH/month, it would be some measurable energy savings, it would still only be a tiny fraction of the amount of C02 reduction needed to make any measurable impact.     That's the whole point --- small changes still won't make a difference in overall CO2, difference in terms of having any measurable -impact-.  If you really believe the models, then you understand their argument that total CO2 is THE problem.  And that doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm is the problem.  Estimates are this will happen around 2100.  Do your "1% will make big difference), and this happens in September of 2100 (instead of January).  


I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT
I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ChrisRapier @I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT Here's the problem.  You've been told (brow beaten actually), that 1) climate change is catastrophic and 2) small changes (usually via cap and trade) will make BIG differences.   I won't argue whether 1) is right or wrong.  Simply assume that it is correct, that the models are correct, and that excess CO2 will result in runaway climate change.  Using the "consensus" numbers and simply following what the models say, the reduction in C02 required to substantially impact warming is 80 (eighty) percent.  That is, you have to reduce CO2 emission from all sources: gasoline, diesel, electricity generation  and ALL countries.    Reducing electricity consumption by a percent or two, or improving gas mileage by 10% are all good things. But those small changes simply will not result in any significant changes in CO2 emission. Certainly not large enough to change the climate.  

The simplified climate argument is that doubling of CO2  is catastrophic. That doubling is based upon a 280ppm average of the 19th century.  Current growth rate is about 2ppm/year (parts per million per year). At this rate, doubling will occur around the year 2100 (current values are are in the 380-390 range (Mauna Loa recorded 400ppm). Suppose you reduce CO2 emission by 10%. That's a substantial energy savings. What does it do to  the computation of when CO2 is doubled. take (560 - 380)/2 = years to get the doubling at current time = 90 years.    Now divide by 1.8 (10% reduction) = 100 years.  In other words substantial energy savings still results in CO2 being doubled, only 10 years later.   You don't have to understand climate physics, matrices, partial differential equations, boundary conditions, initial conditions, model spin up, are any assumptions of the models themselves to make the simple calculations.  In other words, it's not an argument of whether the models are right or wrong. Assume they are right, now determine if proposed action has any impact. 

A 10 year delay is no delay when you are considering a process that is projected 100 years into the future.  If anyone is going to propose a solution that makes energy more expensive, that solution better accomplish something measurable. It must have real impact. Raising prices on energy has real (negative) impact on the less well-to-do segments of society.  Double the price of gasoline (in the name of fighting climate change) and a large number of people will have decide between eating, going to the doctor and paying for gasoline so they can get to work.   You cannot answer, "we must do something".  You have to go to the next step. What are the positive and negative impacts of doing a particular something. So far, Europe has tried cap and trade. Their reduction on CO2 growth? 0.   Energy is more expensive than it used to be. A cup of coffee costs more. CO2 growth proceeds apace.  The taxes have been dutifully sent to the government and CO2 continues to grow.    This isn't to say that energy efficiency is bad or useless. Energy efficiency is good. Better gas mileage, lower electricity consumption. more efficient airplanes. All good. Do those changes substantially impact CO2 concentrations at the level of changing climate? No. 

ChrisRapier
ChrisRapier

@I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT @ChrisRapier Is it really necessary to be insulting and dismissive when no insult was offered to you? Are you really that angry about life in general that you have to lash out at everyone? Or is this just one of those "I'm on the internet so I will say things I'd never say to someone's face" things?

Either way, you've lost me. I'm not seeing a coherent thread to your argument. Could you restate it for me? Please keep in mind that the only thing I responded to was the idea that small individual changes don't matter. I countered by saying that small changes add up to what can be significant impacts. I do have the math to back that up and I could go into it if you like. The models can be tricky if you don't have a firm basis in matrices and logarithms but I'm willing to give it a go if you think it might be worthwhile.

RUDucky2
RUDucky2

@I_CALL_BS_ON_THAT 

The first steam engines produced just a few horse-power despite their generous size. As engine power became more in demand engines got smaller and more powerful. To call wind and solar a 'gimmick' at this point in its development is short sighted.


As far as the 'superiority' of the writer... At least the writer has the courage to do something other than claim, "Climate change isn't true and even if it is we can't fix it."


If New York and Los Angeles lead (you know, like America is supposed to do as the greatest country in the world) other cities in other nations will follow.

JimBullis
JimBullis

The only thing that is clear on this subject is that US actions will have no real impact, unless they go beyond the austerity measures that are being discussed.  Even if we throw our economy in the tank, the reasonable plans of developing nations to achieve higher prosperity like ours will cause far more CO2 increase than we would save.

Weather patterns could change, though the only thing that is reasonably certain is that sea levels will rise, some.  There probably will be more moisture in the air but ocean heat content will increase to slow down the atmospheric changes.

But for those who want something to change in a serious way, a path could be to reconsider agriculture as the great opportunity, and an example set by us could be taken up by developing countries.  With due care, we could convert minimally productive land into highly productive land and include standing forests in the new areas.  This would move CO2 from the atmosphere to crop vegetation, a dynamic aggregate of which would represent held carbon.  Part of this could return to the soil as permanently stored carbon.

We could actually work to increase usage of our National agricultural resources, and one way would be to establish universal irrigation to end drought and flood as well as provide means for much expanded agriculture.

While we wait to get around to such projects, we are working to make agricultural work more attractive and to make farm operations more profitable.  For latest progress, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97XQDD3w-cU


wm
wm like.author.displayName 1 Like

Lets keep everything in perspective. 2 years ago we had a record snowfall in california.

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@wm *sigh*

Weather.  Climate.  They are NOT the same thing.

No one, especially not the scientists doing the measuring, denies that there's a LOT of natural variability on the decade-long scale.  But underneath that, there's still a really obvious century-long increase in temperature.  And since we KNOW that we're dumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the atm and we KNOW that that should theoretically increase temperature, it's only prudent to assume that CO2 (and other gasses) really ARE what's causing the real warming we really ARE seeing. 

While it's technically possible that the long-term rise we're seeing (via many different methods) is caused by something else, that's a really, really unwise assumption to make, given our understanding of basic physics.  More, even if you think that a lot of the rise IS caused by natural variability, isn't it still smart to ask what more CO2 is going to do ON TOP of that?

MrTimeAttack
MrTimeAttack like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@wm Simply another example of the Boom and Bust cycle of the water supply here in California.


I agree that the precipitation amounts fluctuate from year to year...sometimes quite dramatically, as you pointed out.


However, I also believe that it would be in our best interest in do what is sensible, and prepare for the inevitable "lean" years.


thompstl79
thompstl79 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@wm  But that was to climate change to remember.  LOL

kpennett
kpennett

The article is very misleading and alarmist. In fact, the LA metro has done well with water storage, production of recycled water,  and smarter use of water. All water agencies are planning ahead for a more arid future and a bigger population. So...there is plenty reason to be cautiously optimistic that all will be well with water supplies because of smarter management.  The UCLA study focused on predicted snowfall for the local mountains, by the way, which do not supply the region with much water. The real threat comes from lack of snowfall in the Sierra, the inability of the state government to build a modern canal system, and federal court rulings that may divert Colorado River water to other states.

ukpdx
ukpdx

@kpennett LA uses massive quantities of water from the CO river. Amounts that, if reduced significantly, you could never come close to covering with just conservation. You'd have to look into desalination or something like that.

Just one of the several pumping station on the California Water Project / aquaduct consumes over 800 megawatts to get water to southern california. That's almost the output of a good size nuclear power plant or two of the largest solar installations in the world combined. Truly massive amounts of CO river water are used in LA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonston_Pumping_Plant

MrTimeAttack
MrTimeAttack like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

The fact of the matter is that there are relatively "simple" actions that could be taken to help address the perpetual water shortage here in California. Residents and elected leaders, past and present, here in California have been dealing with water shortages for hundreds of years.

Having lived here in SoCal for 35 years, I find it to be absurd just how much water is allocated to watering lawns. It's been long overdue to place a moratorium on lawns for all new homes... and to gradually roll out outright bans on all existing front lawns by 20XX date.  I'm fine with people having lawns in their backyards... how many people actually use there front lawns for anything even remotely useful? Based on my neighborhood, I'd peg the number at 95% don't...  We chose to tear up our lawn when the water district offered us $1.00/sq.ft. to tear it out.. and replaced it with xeriscaping...  :-)  It sure is nice to have water bills that are 50% lower.

More often than not, the cost of water is also much too cheap. Price water as the scarce resource that it is, and people will use LESS of it.


There are sensible decisions that should be made, than when enacted, truly won't impact people's lives as much as they like to make believe.

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@MrTimeAttack Better yet, use a more complex scale of water pricing.  Everyone needs some water to survive, so price the first X gallons used at a low cost.  That should be enough for the drinking, cooking, and basic showering needs of a family of four.  Anything over that, price at a higher cost. 

That way people who are struggling for money don't get screwed, but those who want to water their lawns at noon pay through the nose for that extra water -- as they should.

chickenlips2007
chickenlips2007 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Go back 100 years and there are both cold and hot records not broken to this day. Cars today put out a fraction of the pollution that vehicles did just a couple of decades ago and far less the further back you go. Everything has had huge emission reductions and America is cleaner than ever before but we cannot control the world. Since the United States is doing more than anyone else, why are we beating ourselves up and in a panic that the world will cease to exist if we don't "heal" the planet. We recycle and have alternative fuels, solar, wind, electric cars, hydrogen, natural gas all are clean sources but it's not enough. It is proven that the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles and now we are in the early stages of a heating cycle of unknown duration. We can only do so much before we cross the line into obsession and bankrupt our economy while destroying America. We cannot count the grains of sand on a beach anymore than we can we can stop climate change with our ideas of turning the American lifestyle and way of life upside down.

sixtymile
sixtymile

@chickenlips2007 Let's try this again. The amount of energy produced by any carbon-based fuel results from the number of oxygen atoms combined with carbon atoms to make CO2, so the only way you get less CO2 from the same process is to use less fuel. And so, yes by making more fuel-efficient cars we get more miles for the same energy. For the amount of CO2 produced by the total of petro-fuels burned (total of all types always increasing), the CO2 relationship is a constant of physics and also increasing. I hope this is not too 'scientific' for  you.

ukpdx
ukpdx like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@chickenlips2007 Pollution and CO2 emissions are the not the same thing. Cars emit less pollution in the form of nasty compounds and are more efficient so they burn less fuel - but per gallon of gasoline they emit just as much CO2 as they ever did and as they ever will. It's freshman year chemistry 101, you can't get around it. 

Vintage-M
Vintage-M

@chickenlips2007

Okay, so you are saying that there hasn't been any increase in standards that effect total gross emissions of CO2?  Because that would be entirely untrue, and now I am going to say you are lying again.

Further, the EPA doesn't just regulate emissions from cars smart guy, look at what the EPA has done with clean coal... pretty much doing everything they can to regulate away all of our coal fired power plants... so you will say, "... what about natural gas, its cleaner..."  Well that's true, but is it as affordable as coal?  Coal is expensive because of all the ridiculous over regulation.  And natural gas, well there is fracing that I don't have a huge problem with, but I assume you do.  So natural gas will be the next major target for EPA regulation because, well, what it boils down to is those un-elected officials need to keep their job, and measure performance.  But with the government you don't measure performance by just actual results, you measure performance by the growth of your department.

People across the US are hungry and without work, because @ukpdx and the like wouldn't let someone pay them to pick up a shovel, and why, because HE knows whats good for them, better than they do.

mtngoatjoe
mtngoatjoe like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Vintage-M @chickenlips2007 There's no such thing as clean coal. It's still an experimental technology. That hasn't stopped the coal industry from trying to convince everyone that coal is clean, but hey, we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good marketing campaign.

Vintage-M
Vintage-M

@chickenlips2007 
No kidding, emmissions are way down.  The EPA standards of 10, 15, 20 years ago have all been more than met, yet they keep raising those standards and hurting Jobs with little real meaningful results.

Vintage-M
Vintage-M like.author.displayName 1 Like

Bryan Walsh should go out on a limb and say it will or won't --- not maybe.  Don't throw a blanket of grey area over everything just in case what you think might be possible and might happen will happen.  Commit to it, that way when it does happen everyone will know Bryan was right, but when it doesn't, and people are starving because guys like this along with the EPA put their work out of business-- Then they'll know also.


Or if he is so concerned about the ability of peoples to get water, he should be up in arms regarding the Colorado river and how it is barely a trickle if at all by the time it reaches Mexico.

I mean look at this guy, Green energy, and Climate Change/ Global Warming religion followers must have him on speed dial.  Just article after article.  Why is it they don't call it Global Warming anymore, wasn't it because they didn't have enough selective scientifically observed evidence to show the world was warming.  Its a giant Marketing campaign and as soon as places felt cooler, they'd could look you and the public in the face and say it's global warming.  This guy talks out the side of his mouth, otherwise he might say it was peculiar how winter hung around the Midwest into May.  Just ask the walleye fishermen.

Bryan, and his ilk, would rather you be out of work, struggling to support your family, relying on the government, while he goes to his socialite eco parties, where everyone thinks they know what's better for you.  Same people that look down on the middle and lower classes and turn their nose up... they wouldn't admit it but come on.  They would rather you struggle, be out of work, and have to figure out how to pay for gas that is high as possible, I'm talking $9 - $10+ a gallon.... That is a fact:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022912-602761-obama-is-not-fighting-to-lower-gas-prices-.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfPbMklrJE

And don't bring up that gas taxes are unchanged- that ignorant and stupid.  There are much bigger tools (regulation) the EPA can just do on its own that can move energy up or down... clean coal anyone, anyone?

I thought these were supposed to be the guys that care about the lower class people.  You all were had, and Bryan is one guy on the list of blame.... Thinking he knows what's best for everyone.

gorks4yes
gorks4yes

Big Bear will be formally known as Big Bare.

bogie2112
bogie2112 like.author.displayName 1 Like

I love that it's not called Global Warming anymore either. Climate Change? When in the history of the Earth has there not been Climate change? I'm all for cleaning things up on this planet but can we loose the Climate scam and go back to the crying Indian overlooking the dirty lake?

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@bogie2112 That's because changes in precipitation patterns aren't generally called "warming" by most people.  It's a more general term which better describes all of the effects of the heating.  (Personally, I agree that it was silly and unnecessary to bother to change the name, but it IS actually more accurate.)

Any before you start claiming it's a "scam", I hope you've actually gone online, downloaded a bunch of publicly available data from any of the dozen of totally independent fields of study which relate to climate change, and done your own in-depth, multi-year analysis of the situation.  Because I have, as have many others.  And our evidence is far different from your claim of "scams". 

bogie2112
bogie2112

@JenniferBonin @bogie2112 I guess we're reading different things. It hasn't warmed since 1998. All of the data available does not match the computer models. This is just a scam. There is a lot of money being made from scaring people about this. I would certainly like to read what your reading because I can't find anything that shows man is causing Global Climate Change other than crappy computer models.

bogie2112
bogie2112

@JenniferBonin @bogie2112 Your link doesn't work. I would like to read it. I'll poke around and see if I can find my way to the article. Oh and a consensus is not science, and maybe you should look up who all the so called "climate"scientists in that consensus are. I guess you think the polar bears are dying off too? I'm sure everyone on here is cherry picking including yourself. My mind is open. As I said before I have not seen anything that leads me to believe Climate Change is anything more than a money grab. Maybe your article will sway me the other way.

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@bogie2112@JenniferBoninThis comment, while extraordinarily common is NOT ACCURATE.  For a full discussion on the topic, I would refer you to this site:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm.  Everything I say is demonstrated there, usually in graphical form.

1.)  First off, actually the mean global temp from various centers including NASA and HadCRUT HAS, in fact, slightly warmed since 1998.  (The plot on my sited page goes to 2007, but it's true since then as well.)  Though it is a relatively small amount of warming, that's true.
2.)  Secondly, did you ever wonder why 1998 is ALWAYS picked for this comment?  I mean, why not start the comparison in 1995 or 2000, or some other even date?  The answer: because 1998 was a tremendously warm year, caused by an unusually large El Nino.  So yeah, when you start with one of the very warmest years in recent history, it's going to be tough to go up from there.  But all that says is that 1998 was really, really hot -- which no one argues.  Start the same plot in 1999 and you see more of a trend. 
3.)  Along those lines, that sort of El Nino-driven decadal variability is precisely why scientists DON'T draw conclusions about long-term climate change without several decades of data.  Because it's too easy to accidentally (or purposefully) cherry pick results using only a few years of data, since there's just that much variability between 1-10 years in length.  That's why the typical climate change plot starts around 1900, rather than 1998 or 2000.  Again, if you look at a century-long plot, it's clear that the overall trend is continuing, even if there IS a slow-down due to the decadal-scale cycle (just as there was from 1930-1950).
4.)  There are plenty of other measurements equally valid to mean air temperature which verify the fact that climate change is continuing.  For example, ice mass loss, sea level rise, and ocean mass heat have all clearly continued to increase since 1998.  So why are you focused on one short record of a highly-variable parameter, when plenty of other data also exists?

Climate change is not a "scam".  It's complicated, yes.  But putting forth a touch of effort will show you how inaccurate this classic "it's not warmed since 1998" claim is.  Most of the other "classic" claims are just as bad.  No, solar irradiance hasn't increased, the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by volcanos is trivial compared to our own CO2 production, and for heaven's sake, YES, there really is solid scientific consensus.  Frankly, it's more than a little tiresome to keep hearing the same disproved theories again and again from people who have never even looked at the actual data themselves.  So do me a favor: shock me by actually paying attention to what I just wrote and looking at the raw (or raw-ish) data yourself in a critical way, with a thorough attempt at understanding time series statistics.  *IF* you actually tried to do so, and came up with your OWN arguments rather than old, disproved ones that you heard from someone else, maybe you'd actually come to realize that climate change is no "scam" but is actually something complex and rather interesting and disquieting.

*sigh*  More likely, you'll just keep repeating the same discredited nonsense, of course.  But I can hope.

ChrisRapier
ChrisRapier

@bogie2112 Bogie, it is completely true that the climate has been changing over the history of the planet. Thatis undeniable and no one can say otherwise. However, what you don't seem to be getting is that previous incidences of climate change happened over march more significant time periods - thousands to tens of thousands of years. What we are dealing with now is a change that is happening over the course of a few generations. That sort of rapid shift is *much* harder to deal with. It's also worth pointing out that the people who say "Sure, the climate is changing. Hasn't it always?" Are often the people who don't seem to think that planning for the change that the acknowledge is worth while. It tends to be a very blase approach to an important subject. Changing weather patterns can have a significant impact on national growth, security, and population health. Why shouldn't we be making plans *now* to deal with what is likely coming? 

ernest.stefan.matyus
ernest.stefan.matyus

@bogie2112 you do know that mass extinctions usually occurred after rapid and radical changes in climate, right?

KebertXela
KebertXela

@ernest.stefan.matyus @bogie2112  

You do realize what you are doing is confusing impact assessments with causality?

Classic strawman technique of the Liberal media, the political organization known as the IPCC and know-nothings on the Internet.

 

 

KebertXela
KebertXela

@ChrisRapier @KebertXela @ernest.stefan.matyus @bogie2112 

I mean, just funny to me - so very predictable.  The Oregon Petition is analogous to your Skeptical Science poll and that is the whole point of inclusion. You have a small, manipulated survey of people who largely do not study causation but impact and you ignore the 30,000 people on the Oregon Petition who largely do not study causation but some tangential field usually.

So, you want to count your little number while ignoring similar other voices in numbers. 

And oh yeah, spare me the next predictable response.  Any credentialed "skeptic" of AGW is really just on the payroll of Big Oil (who by the way, love cap and trade and lobby for its passage as it sets up a carbon derivative trading market for which they can profit greatly.  Enron helped write the first attempted Cap and Trade law in the U.S.).

If you want to play that game, lets play it as all the alarmists and propagandist are on government grants so clearly there is a huge conflict of interest on "you side" that never gets mentioned on your Think Progress sites.

KebertXela
KebertXela

@ChrisRapier@KebertXela@ernest.stefan.matyus@bogie2112

Clearly not a word got processed or through to you.  I am well aware of your fraudulent and totally discredited citation, I just wanted to see if you would go to the obvious well while ignoring the Oregon Petition:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/18/climate-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

No, people in the "field of expertise" are not even close to agreement.  Are you familiar with the author of the 3rd IPCC assessment, Dr. John Christy or Roy Spencer of NASA?

They are the two men who developed ALL THE GLOBAL DATASETS used in every single manipulated climate model (and not a single one of these models is even close to accurate).  You should Google and start reading.

Again, this was the LEAD AUTHOR of the IPCC 3rd Assessment on Climate Change.  

Frankly, there are far too many highly credible and respected climatologists who point to a litany of fraud, misinformation and junk science in the Liberal religion of anthropogenic global warming.

ChrisRapier
ChrisRapier

@KebertXela@ChrisRapier@ernest.stefan.matyus@bogie2112
Kebert,

First off, the Oregon Petition has not been signed by 30,000 environmental scientists. It has been signed by some 30,000 people. Some number of them hold PhDs but the majority of those PhDs are in the field of engineering. There don't seem to be many climate scientists on the petition. As a note: I'm just going by what your linked source says about the petition. 

Now, as for the 98% number that I gave you. That was first laid out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper in 2010.

(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract)

This paper was built from research found here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

A similar survey conducted by SkepticalScience was run on a larger dataset in 2011. Their results can be found here

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article 

A more readable version of their survey can be found here

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html


Really, the people in the field who have the expertise are in pretty close agreement. Climate change is real and it's being primarily caused by humans.

KebertXela
KebertXela

@ChrisRapier@KebertXela@ernest.stefan.matyus@bogie2112 

So let me get this straight, you have no retort for my differentiation between IMPACT ASSESSMENTS and  causality studies so you resort directly to the loser tactic of ad hominem and the old "conspiracy" word.

Let me break this down to your simple little brain in tiny little words to see if you can follow.

98% of climate scientists?  Present your support that 98% of "climate scientists" say global warming is caused by a minor greenhouse gas that is in infinitesimal (whoops, sorry, big word) amounts in the atmosphere is caused by man.

You are a regurgitating parrot (whoops, another big word).  Fact is most of the so-called scientist on the IPCC that make up this beloved "consensus" DO NOT STUDY CAUSALITY!  They study the effects of global warming on polar bears and squirrels.

What happens here is the media and government present people who have ZERO expertise in climatology as climatologist to the public and you sap it up.

 http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

Oh, 98% huh, how about the 30,000 environmental scientist who have signed a petition protesting Kyoto and the IPCC (Oregon Petition)?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

You have nothing, so stick your lying 98% figure back on the wall where you pulled that nonsense from you conspiracy theory whackjob.

Vintage-M
Vintage-M

@ernest.stefan.matyus @bogie2112 -- That is so dumb.  Like we are all suppose to roll over to that myopic idea.  This is another tactic in the Global Warming scam... like the next step is to think climate change = extinctions, or Climate change directly causes extinction.  Nevermind, asteroids or super volcanoes.

Oh and let me point out, "Usually."  i.e. we don't have to be accurate all the time, just maybe most of the time... everything else is an anomaly or a fluke, so don't record it, don't research it, don't report it, don't mention it, OR ELSE.

Ernest, you are so much smarter than all of us.  You must have read so many books, not to mention your amazing wit.

ernest.stefan.matyus
ernest.stefan.matyus

@Vintage-M @ernest.stefan.matyus @bogie2112At first let me state that my previous comment was meant to say that fast and profound changes in climate usually cause mass extinctions, not that mass extinctions are only caused by rapid and profound changes in climate. 

On your second statement I'd like to respond with a quote by Richard Feynman "it is scientific only to say what's more likely and less likely and not to be proving all the times possible/impossible".

Of course it I'm not implying that the current warming trend will cause extinctions on such a large scale, it's just that I believe, given what I know on the subject (which isn't much, but enough to paint a picture) , that this is very likely. 
Also humans may not die off even if this happens. We could build vast systems that will grow the food we need by providing the right conditions for the required plants and animals, pump water out of the sees and desalinize it, use that for drinking and irrigation, or genetically alter the species we eat to survive in the new climate. We already have heating and cooling systems for our homes, all we need to deal with is floods fires and storms, but it is possible to engineer cities to resist these as well.
In fact global warming may do away with some of the nasty parasites out there so we may come better off.

But you see, the thing is, I kind of like our world as it is now, that's why I think we should try to minimize the damages .