Both China and India have CO2 trading schemes that are on the ground and functioning right now. They've stated some relatively ambitious goals for CO2 reduction. We can argue all day over how effective their schemes will be, or if they will follow through on their stated goals, but compared to the US they're forward-looking tree-huggers. They're probably at least 5 years ahead of us (possibly closer to a decade) in this regard.

People that love to point the finger at those third world countries that refuse to do anything about their emissions!!!11!!! need to take a long look in the mirror. The US IS that third world country.

------------

That map of Climate Vulnerability is a little misleading IMO. Part of what they are taking into account for "climate risk" is how rich the country is and therefore how easy will it be for them to adapt or mitigate. That's why all the countries making the "Extreme Risk" list are poor and high population countries. It doesn't mean that they won't feel big effects, only that there is a lesser chance of massive disruption. The current drought in California, which is slowly approaching epic (but could change, time will tell), is a good indication of what they have to look forward to IMO. Real potential for an extremely expensive disaster.

1/10/2014 3:56:57 PM

Quote :

"That map of Climate Vulnerability is a little misleading IMO. Part of what they are taking into account for "climate risk" is how rich the country is and therefore how easy will it be for them to adapt or mitigate. That's why all the countries making the "Extreme Risk" list are poor and high population countries"

Yeah, apparently I wasn't bothering reading. The map is pretty much crap. Fortunes of nations will have changed by the time global warming matters. The only predictive ability is what is obvious from the get-go, mainly that India is screwed.

Apparently I didn't read for sarcasm either...

1/11/2014 1:13:50 PM

tornadoes in january? what more proof for global warming do you need?

1/11/2014 11:50:23 PM

Global warming is proved but storms in january is completely normal.

1/12/2014 4:52:37 AM

Citing tornadoes in January as proof it exists is about as valid as me saying that last week's cold snap is proof that it doesn't exist.

Please take your alias and go back home, whoever you are.

1/12/2014 8:22:11 PM

Is that lewisje?

1/12/2014 8:35:42 PM

It's going to get into the 50's today in new york.

1/13/2014 8:17:49 AM

and that means...nothing.

1/13/2014 9:09:24 AM

It's currently 46 and rainy in Brooklyn.

1/14/2014 10:56:53 AM

1/14/2014 4:33:26 PM

It's warmer in Brooklyn than it is in Raleigh.

The world has gone crazy.

1/15/2014 12:43:56 AM

That happens in the summer too

1/15/2014 8:08:45 AM

^^are you just trying to be funny? You've lived there a long enough time to know what NYC's normal weather is.

1/15/2014 11:23:35 AM

This is [old], but some might find it interesting.

I was talking to a friend about the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" and how they originated. They pointed me to this article:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/1

Apparently back in 1956, Gilbert Plass published an article titled "The Carbon dioxide theory of climatic change." Pretty interesting read. It has a lot of calculations and models that we would consider back of the envelope compared to today's computer models, but they were still mostly in the right direction.

The piece is kinda long, but really good if you like examining how climate science has developed and built on itself.

1/17/2014 10:25:17 AM

^ Very good read. Thanks for posting that.

1/31/2014 3:59:02 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/02/12/brutal-winter-may-see-lake-superior-freeze-over-for-first-time-in-decades/

2/12/2014 12:46:24 PM

Too many people on FB doing the whole "post a pic of the snow and captioning GLOBAL WARMING!!!". I want to kick these cunts in the face.

2/12/2014 2:05:06 PM

no worse than those people posting flooding pictures after hurricanes saying "OMFG SEE GLOBAL WARMING"

2/12/2014 2:40:59 PM

actually, the first is a little worse. they're trying to say that a snow storm disproves global warming. when actually the theory of global warming predicts worse storms (in the summer and winter) and would cause more flooding.

(disclaimer: i'm not saying any particular weather event proves or disproves anything)

2/12/2014 5:06:38 PM

^ please... The AGW alarmists point to every weather event say it's proof of global warming. If it rains more, it's due to global warming. If it rains less, it's due to global warming. And if it rains the same amount, well, you guessed it, it's due to global warming. Anyone pointing to any weather event as proof or refutation of global warming is an idiot

2/12/2014 5:20:52 PM

The heating of the planet is going to change climates everywhere, the only thing left to debate is to speculate on how it might change in a given area and how do the people in those areas adapt to it.

2/12/2014 5:53:23 PM

which leads to non-falsifiable claims and predictions. "It will cause a [non-defined] change in weather everywhere" is absolute and total bullshit and is the kind of statement that would get a scientist laughed out of pretty much any other discipline. It's also why attributions to climate change of an event happen after the event, as opposed to providing warnings about it, in the same way that calamities of old were blamed on God's wrath or something equally stupid

2/12/2014 6:08:18 PM

Quote :

"which leads to non-falsifiable claims and predictions."

False.

Quote :

""It will cause a [non-defined] change in weather everywhere" is absolute and total bullshit and is the kind of statement that would get a scientist laughed out of pretty much any other discipline."

Scientist perform experiments in other disciplines because they can. And obviously with a system as large and complex as the Earths climate it's going to be basically impossible given the amount of data we have to say how the climates are going to change.

Quote :

" It's also why attributions to climate change of an event happen after the event, as opposed to providing warnings about it,"

What are you even talking about? Surely, you aren't confusing whatever dipshits you associate with for actual climate scientists are you? Because the latter group is saying that heating of the Earth up to now and going forward will serve to intensify storms over what would be considered "normal". For any given storm do we know how much of it's "above normal" severity is due to historical deviations or global warming? Of course not. But over any 50 do we? Of course.

2/12/2014 6:31:42 PM

gee whiz i wonder who this alias could be

2/12/2014 7:07:27 PM

Quote :

"False."

No, True. If you say "X causes Y" and "X causes not Y," then you have non-falsifiable claims. Thanks for stopping by.

2/12/2014 7:27:59 PM

Wow, you're the worst. You've seriously heard "AGW Alarmist" claim that average rainfall is a symptom of global warming?

All I said was that one of the FB posts was a little worse than the other. I wasn't saying they weren't both idiotic posts. Please.... thanks for stopping by.

2/13/2014 10:40:11 AM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1

Quote :

"The combined global land and ocean average temperature during January 2014 was... above the 20th century average. This was the warmest January since 2007 and the fourth highest since records began in 1880. This marks the ninth consecutive month... with a global monthly temperature among the 10 highest for its respective month. The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature during January 2014 was also the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest since records began in 1880... above average. The Southern Hemisphere January 2014 temperature departure... was the warmest since 2010 and the fourth warmest January on record."

2/21/2014 1:01:35 AM

is this before or after they push all the temperatures before 1970 down half a degree and then push these numbers up half a degree?

2/21/2014 1:40:48 AM

please, feel free to cite sources for your data

2/21/2014 2:07:03 AM

Why bother? It will likely just come from some climate change denier's blog and then burro will simply challenge you to refute the guy's data that may or may not be valid, but you won't know because the guy does not bother to post anything actually scientific like methods or any of that fun stuff that earns credibility.

2/21/2014 8:00:18 AM

ahh, the old "equate em with a nazi" trick. I've already posted numerous examples where temperatures from the 1970s and before were "corrected" by lowering them by half a degree and temperatures after that are "corrected" by raising them half a degree. Heck, they now make "corrections" to the "corrections", but according to moron, they have to make the numbers match reality


but just out of curiosity, what kind of "scientific method" do you need in order to do X-Y? It's funny that you would mention the scientific method, though. In the scientific method, you change your hypothesis to match the data. In climate science, you change the data to match your hypothesis.

[Edited on February 22, 2014 at 8:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/22/2014 8:30:06 PM

^lol

anyways, there's this from fox: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/

(i didn't watch the video at the top, but why is there a pic of obama on it? the story has nothing to do with obama. also, i need to watch the video to see what this guy says and what he bases his information on. it would have been helpful if the story covered this.)

[Edited on February 24, 2014 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2014 4:02:25 PM

Quote :

"is this before or after they push all the temperatures before 1970 down half a degree and then push these numbers up half a degree? "

Lol

2/24/2014 11:21:06 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/?intcmp=trending

2/26/2014 8:40:43 PM

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/

3/2/2014 10:59:28 AM

^^ That "article" left more questions than answers.

^ Good for him! It's troubling to me that groups on the right have been conditioned to bemoan anything that resembles environmentally sustainable/aware business practices.

3/2/2014 1:27:06 PM

nothing screams "science" quite like calling your opponent a Nazi

3/2/2014 11:41:56 PM

You keep repeating that as if it means something.

3/3/2014 8:51:16 AM

yeah, he'll do that

3/3/2014 9:29:58 AM

http://mashable.com/2014/03/11/gallery-snowless-2014-iditarod/

3/17/2014 10:06:11 PM

3/17/2014 10:34:42 PM

It's cold somewhere on the planet...global warming is clearly a hoax.

3/18/2014 8:10:13 AM

...

3/18/2014 8:28:19 AM

Quote :

"It's cold hot somewhere on the planet...global warming is clearly a hoax threat to the planet."

And yet more proof that the majority of Americans are realizing that most of this is just a scare tactic dog and pony show:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

[Edited on March 18, 2014 at 9:16 AM. Reason : good to see race relations at the bottom!]

3/18/2014 9:09:41 AM

You realize that just because most americans worry more about other things doesn't "prove" they believe it to be a "scare tactic", nor does it discredit the "theory"? I myself don't think it to be a "scare tactic", but I don't worry about it. In fact, I don't really worry a "great deal" or "a fair amount" about most of the things on that list. What good does worrying "a great deal" about any of those things accomplish?


[Edited on March 18, 2014 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ]

3/18/2014 9:21:39 AM

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rising-tides-threaten-former-seafood-capital

3/19/2014 2:27:53 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/scientists-sound-alarm-on-climate.html?_r=0

3/19/2014 3:07:14 PM

^^^really just posted that to show that the public's interest/concern has been trending downward for a while. Not as proof that AGW doesn't exist, etc etc.

^^sea levels fluctuate in different locations all the time. Satellite info doesn't show any alarming rates of sea level rise...

I mean, even the latest IPCC report contains more uncertainty than ever.

[Edited on March 19, 2014 at 3:45 PM. Reason : k]

3/19/2014 3:37:59 PM

http://time.com/42294/amazing-places-visit-vanish/?hpt=hp_t3

4/8/2014 3:24:19 PM

OH GOD THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE GONNA DISAPPEAR SO SOOOOON!!!

4/8/2014 7:43:37 PM