If you do not agree that Global Cimate Change is real...

[autoboy]

Hi,

I'm not a climatologist -- are you? There is no scientific controversy; only that caused by those paid by energy companies.

REALLY!

Do you not also think that those who are contracted to study global warming by governments, corporations like GE, and environmentalist groups are also not under pressure to prove it exists? They wouldn't have a job if they proved AGW didn't exist. But that is not scientific and cannot be proven, so those of us who actually study the science of GW chose to ignore it.

You don't even know the science. You just know what you've been told by the Huffington Post. That conspiracies are the only scientific dissenters, that only the religious right doesn't believe in AGW, and that a few degrees of warming will mean the end of civilization.

You don't study science, you BELIEVE in science just like the religious believe in God. Science, and the belief that science is what explains that around you is your faith. You think you are so high and mighty because you believe in Darwin, in AGW, and that science can explain all, but really, you've only replaced 'science' for 'religion'. You still take everything based on faith given to you by your political and environmental idols.

Nobody here that expressed skepticism in AGW has done so using evidence of God. Proving your first post completely false. Yet, you won't let that disrupt your illogical faith in your god-like environmental idols.

You've drank the kool aid and there is no helping you. I was hoping that logic, not idealolgy and conspiracy theories were going to be the topic of the day. I am truely sorry that you are so closed minded about climate theory science.

[spookmineer]

Do you not also think that those who are contracted to study global warming by governments, corporations like GE, and environmentalist groups are also not under pressure to prove it exists? They wouldn't have a job if they proved AGW didn't exist.

And then

But that is not scientific and cannot be proven, so those of us who actually study the science of GW chose to ignore it.

Scientific studies are performed without a preconception. A person who performs a study to reach a conclusion which has been presented to him beforehand is not a scientist, he is a fraud.

You don't even know the science. You just know what you've been told by the Huffington Post. That conspiracies are the only scientific dissenters, that only the religious right doesn't believe in AGW, and that a few degrees of warming will mean the end of civilization.

This doesn't exactly make me think you do.
You are asking Neil for proof while you lack giving it. By your definition, you're in the same boat as he is, but he actually admits he is no scientist of climatology.
["a scientist" doesn't make one an expert in any field, for example a scientist at Lockheed Martin doesn't make a scientist in climatology]

Where is your proof? You need it to debunk his statement or else it's just "yea/nay". You are a believer as well then, at the opposite end.

A good scientist is without emotion when it comes to formulating conclusions (if possible) and will objectively state his findings, but so far, most of your posts have been full of emotions and can hardly be taken as objective.

[nomoon]

I'm not a climatologist

You sound very bold in your assertions for someone who refuses to discuss the science. Many people who aren't climatologist know enough of the science to have meaningful discussions of the science.

-- are you?

I’m not working as a climatologist, but my doctoral dissertation involved thermal modeling and infrared radiation and detection. I built IR detectors and derived new thermal modeling methods. I suspect that I understand the underlying physics more than many climate scientists. I’ve read many climate related papers, and I’ve looked at the data and the calculations used. I’ve looked beyond the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC reports. I’m very skeptical that man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. Many of loudest advocates seem to have little scientific basis for their argument.

There is no scientific controversy; only that caused by those paid by energy companies.

I haven’t received my check. Again, this is another bold assertion (it's actually an ad hominem logical fallacy). On what do you base this assertion? I see idealism, but not a factual argument.

Jason Lewis

[judge56988]

xan_user,

I'll ask this question to you as well?

What specific evidence have you found that convinces you that man made CO2 emissions are causing significant warming beyond natural variation?

There is no specific evidence either way. Take a chance?

CO2 is a trace component of the atmosphere (less than 0.1%). The greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor and clouds.

Jason Lewis

This is true, however the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by around 50% during the last 200 years. That is a significant increase; CO2 is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapour and contributes between 5% - 8% of the total effect. (figures found on various websites that argue against global warming by the way)
If you have any kind of scientific background you will know that the earth's climate is a very unstable chaotic system in which very small changes can cause large effects, complicated by various positive and negative feedback.
The classic example is the ice age scenario whereby a small drop in global temperature leads to the gradual accumalation of ice which causes more sunlight to be reflected from the earth which causes lower temperatures leading to more ice and so on.
The opposite effect happens with a small increase in temperature. The more pressing danger is if the oceans were to warm sufficiently to cause the melting of the deposits of frozen methane on the ocean floors - methane being 20 times more effective than CO2 as a 'greenhouse gas'

The argument that because things are present in small amounts means they have no effect is invalid. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) for example, can be lethal in concentrations of only 320ppm or 0.03% and can be detected by 50% of humans at only 0.0047 ppm

[nyonya]

To those of you that say, prove that our emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is not causing global warming: what those of us who do not subscribe to this theory are against is spending an enormous amount of money and resources to combat this perceived threat. It needs to be proven to really be a threat that we can fight to even discuss undertaking the kind of action that environmentalists argue is needed. We can't fold our economies based on hysteria.

No one fully understands how climate works, and I would say we're not really even close. The 'science' behind our impact on global warming is tenuous at best. This is NOT the cause that I want my tax dollars to be funneled to.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

The key thing about humans "causing" this episode of climate change is the short period of time it has taken to change. We are at 380+ PPM and we have gotten here VERY quickly. Things like the area of the minimum Arctic ice -- and the age of the ice that is left, has accelerated MUCH faster than was predicted just a short while ago.

The rate of melting in both Greenland and western Antarctica is exceeding the earlier expectations. Both of these will affect both the level and the salinity and the pH balance of the ocean. BTW, a recent study shows that if the Antarctica ice melts a lot, this will affect the northern hemisphere to a greater extent (eventually) than it will the southern hemisphere. Why is that, you may ask?

Because there is so much ice in Antarctica now -- that it is affecting the gravitational pull of the Earth, and this is (one of) the reason(s) that the Earth is slightly pear shaped. Once the solid ice becomes liquid water, in about 100 years, it will flow northward and so doing, raise the ocean level more in the northern hemisphere than in the southern.

So, if the salinity and temperature of the northern Atlantic changes to a point where the Gulf Stream current is slowed or stopped -- all bets are off! This will affect the entire earth in ways that we can't even imagine.

We have not even mentioned the things that are happening that are amplifying the effect of global climate change:

Permafrost is not permanent -- it is melting quickly, and this will release an enormous amount of methane; a gas that is 20X worse for trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

The very large northern forests are dying -- 3 out of the 4 main species of trees -- the most productive ones are all dying of new problems. You know the annual "breathing" of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? These forests are largely responsible for this.

Greater numbers and larger, longer lasting fires are having a larger affect than originally thought.

Droughts and rivers drying up have already starting to have HUGE affects. Glaciers in the Himalayas feed six large rivers that about 25% of the world's population depend on. These rivers have diminished flow already, and who knows how quickly they will go away? [Edit: Any significant reduction of flow in a "geological instant" will be devastating to about 1 Billion people.]

[nyonya]

who knows how quickly they will go away?

There's the rub. You say yourself that events are happening at a different rate than what was predicted a short time ago - who's to say that what is being predicted now is accurate either?

[nomoon]

The key thing about humans "causing" this episode of climate change is the short period of time it has taken to change.

Correlation does not imply causation. Otherwise, one could argue that the reduction in pirates has caused an increase in global temperature as this graph shows. I'm sure that we could find lots of trace chemical changes that have happened to the atmosphere quickly in the past 100 years. The key thing is whether the physics will cause a significant effect.

We are at 380+ PPM and we have gotten here VERY quickly.

If we double a very tiny number it’s still a very tiny number. The only thing that matters is whether the changes in this trace component of the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming.

Things like the area of the minimum Arctic ice -- and the age of the ice that is left, has accelerated MUCH faster than was predicted just a short while ago. …
The rate of melting in both Greenland and western Antarctica is exceeding the earlier expectations.

Whether something is “exceeding earlier expectionsâ€

[nomoon]

This is true, however the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by around 50% during the last 200 years. That is a significant increase;

If you double a very tiny number, it’s still tiny number. The only thing that matters is whether this trace component of the atmosphere will make a significant difference beyond natural variation. Each additional increment of CO2 will have less effect that the previous increment. The next 10 PPM of CO2 will have less effect than the previous 10 PPM. The relationship is approximately logarithmic.

If you have any kind of scientific background you will know that the earth's climate is a very unstable chaotic system in which very small changes can cause large effects,

My scientific background tells me that a chaotic parameter is not necessarily unstable outside of the current boundary conditions. We have lots of evidence of variation in our climate history, though variation doesn't necessarily mean intrinsic instability. Variations in external forcings can cause variations in a relatively stable climate.

The classic example is the ice age scenario whereby a small drop in global temperature leads to the gradual accumalation of ice which causes more sunlight to be reflected from the earth which causes lower temperatures leading to more ice and so on.

We apparently passed though the Little Ice Age without runaway cooling. The climate seems to have significant stabilizing effects as well.

The opposite effect happens with a small increase in temperature. The more pressing danger is if the oceans were to warm sufficiently to cause the melting of the deposits of frozen methane on the ocean floors - methane being 20 times more effective than CO2 as a 'greenhouse gas'

I haven’t seen any credible evidence that heating of the oceans due to CO2 is going to cause a significant release of frozen methane from the ocean floors.

The argument that because things are present in small amounts means they have no effect is invalid. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) for example, can be lethal in concentrations of only 320ppm or 0.03% and can be detected by 50% of humans at only 0.0047 ppm

If the small amounts have a negligible effect, then pointing out the there is small amount of something is important. If H2S has a significant affect at 320 PPM (it causes death), then this is a significant amount. If H2S levels are 0.1 PPB, then doubling these levels is insignificant. At current levels of CO2, the greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor and clouds.

Jason Lewis

[judge56988]

Nomoon,

I accept that there is no conclusive evidence either way on this subject, both sides put forward a convincing case. I studied enough geology at university (30 years ago so some theories have probably changed) to know about how significantly the climate has changed over the last 500 million years or so due to natural cycles.
However what I find extremely hard to accept is that the 50% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 200 years has had absolutely no effect on the average temperature. Why would that be the case?

Even a small increase in a balanced system can have a dramatic effect - the proverbial straw that broke the camels back - so if the earths climate can go through cycles, and in fact cycles within cycles, caused by variations in sunspot activity or tiny fluctuations in the earths orbit; the complexity being compounded by irregular periods of intense volcanic activity and/or meteorite impacts; why are you so insistent that an increase in CO2 will have NO effect?

[nyonya]

Nomoon,

I accept that there is no conclusive evidence either way on this subject, both sides put forward a convincing case. I studied enough geology at university (30 years ago so some theories have probably changed) to know about how significantly the climate has changed over the last 500 million years or so due to natural cycles.
However what I find extremely hard to accept is that the 50% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 200 years has had absolutely no effect on the average temperature. Why would that be the case?

Even a small increase in a balanced system can have a dramatic effect - the proverbial straw that broke the camels back - so if the earths climate can go through cycles, and in fact cycles within cycles, caused by variations in sunspot activity or tiny fluctuations in the earths orbit; the complexity being compounded by irregular periods of intense volcanic activity and/or meteorite impacts; why are you so insistent that an increase in CO2 will have NO effect?

At least for me, I don't believe that necessarily it has had no effect - maybe it, in fact, has. But committing resources to fighting a threat that may possibly exist, when the costs are so high, does not make sense to me. It's a question of economics.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

The costs of NOT doing anything to counteract global climate change are much higher, than changing our energy sources from old carbon to renewable!

Besides, we have to change to renewable energy for other reasons: costs of oil and natural gas will continue to go up, and the security issues surrounding keeping them available will also become prohibitive. Lastly, by definition, they are finite, and we will run out...

So, switching over to renewable energy will cost less in the long run, be more available and more secure -- and it will slow down (and hopefully reverse) our affecting global climate change.

[nomoon]

However what I find extremely hard to accept is that the 50% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 200 years has had absolutely no effect on the average temperature. Why would that be the case?
...why are you so insistent that an increase in CO2 will have NO effect?

I've never claimed that there was NO human effect. I don't know of any credible scientist who makes this claim. I'm very skeptical that the effect of man made CO2 is significant compared to natural variation. If the effect is smaller than natural variation, then I don't think that it's something that's worth spending tens of trillions of dollars to combat.

I've become more skeptical after examining some of the science in detail. I haven't be impressed with the quality of the science compared to other fields. I suspect that many of the climate scientists never expected to have their worked examined in detail. It's as if they expect you to accept their graphs without question. The hoarding of data and cherry picking of data is abominable. One prominent scientist is quoted as saying

Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

after receiving a request for his raw data so that his graphs could be reproduced.

Jason Lewis

[nyonya]

Hi,

The costs of NOT doing anything to counteract global climate change are much higher, than changing our energy sources from old carbon to renewable!

Besides, we have to change to renewable energy for other reasons: costs of oil and natural gas will continue to go up, and the security issues surrounding keeping them available will also become prohibitive. Lastly, by definition, they are finite, and we will run out...

So, switching over to renewable energy will cost less in the long run, be more available and more secure -- and it will slow down (and hopefully reverse) our affecting global climate change.

There is no reason for the cost of oil and gas to go up in any meaningful pattern anytime soon - the price shock last year was driven by fear of a conflict with Iran, not because of any supply issues.

Of course, it would be nice to switch to renewable energy for security concerns and because in a hundred years or so we will run out - but it should be done in a way that makes sense economically, not something ridiculous like the Kyoto Protocol - it has to be a solution that makes sense in every way. Hybrids, ethanol, wind and solar do not make sense for the vast majority of the people on this planet - once a better solution comes along, I'm all for it.

[nomoon]

The costs of NOT doing anything to counteract global climate change are much higher, than changing our energy sources from old carbon to renewable!

That's another bold statement in which several knowledgeable people would disagree. You don't even acknowledge debate and you arrogantly ridicule those with whom you disagree. Do you think that you can win your argument with insults and shouting? Sad.

I suspect that there will be a natural (market driven) migration away from petroleum based energy sources as prices rise and replacement technologies develop and mature. Forcing a migration prematurely would be extremely costly.

Jason Lewis

[judge56988]

Renewable energy is all very nice in a "hippy" sort of way, realistically it's not going to ever replace fossil fuels. Nuclear is the only way - build more fission reactors and put money into the fusion dream.
Bio fuels? - we need the land to grow food.
Wind farms? - ugly eye sores and not enough land, too expensive to build offshore.
Hydro/tidal/wave? - again you have environmental impact from building dams, flooding valleys (think China), wave farms.

I have no idea of the numbers but I've read articles that say the earth is just not big enough to produce the amount of energy we require. Besides, what might happen if we extract all that wind/tidal/hydro energy from the system? Would that in itself cause climate change?

I have always believed that there are too many people on the planet for our desired lifestyle to be sustainable. Our first priority should be population reduction, not by euthanasia or restricting the number of babies a couple can have; but by educating third world countries.
Our second priority should be to reduce our personal energy consumption and reduce waste - Starting obviously in the US. Turn your f**cking AC off and sweat some more! Stop overeating! (How much energy would that save - if people only ate what they needed to? (Fertilizer/Transport/Processing/Packaging) Drive smaller fuel efficient cars and tax your gasoline at the same rate as we do in Britain - that would soon change your ways! (And now is the time to do it, with your car makers all bust)

If there were less people on the planet, we would not need to build cities in deserts where there is no water and it's too hot - what sort of reasoning led to Las Vegas for instance?

It all comes down to over-consumption and greed. We have to live within our means not just as individuals/families but on a planetary level; and not only when it comes to energy but ALL our natural resources.

[xan_user]

There is no reason for the cost of oil and gas to go up in any meaningful pattern anytime soon -

interesting theory, given fossil fuels are a finite commodity.

[judge56988]

There is no reason for the cost of oil and gas to go up in any meaningful pattern anytime soon -

interesting theory, given fossil fuels are a finite commodity.

[nyonya]

There is no reason for the cost of oil and gas to go up in any meaningful pattern anytime soon -

interesting theory, given fossil fuels are a finite commodity.

That's why I said anytime soon - it's hard to get a great estimate, but the general consensus is that we've used up about half the fossil fuel reserves on Earth. It's going to be a long time before supply-related price shocks come. Realistically, by that point we'd have been using alternative energy sources for a while, as oil will get expensive. It's simple economics.

And judge56988, I'm sure it's very easy and convenient for you to say 'oh, all you people in the US, you should make these huge changes in your lifestyle', but that's not exactly the sort of inventive and enforceable solution that actually makes sense. Population reduction won't happen in third world countries where people can't even read, or where birth control is against the prevailing religion. It seems clear that as a nation gets more industrialized, the birth rate drops - look at the US, Japan, Western Europe - so we'll just have to wait out the industrialization of the third world.

The answer is not to restrict people's freedoms and force them to change their lives when they themselves have done nothing wrong - this kind of thing is extremely anti-democratic. We need to invest in technology and let the market price things properly, and everything will be fine. Lest we forget how much sales of SUVs dropped when gas went up to levels that were still below what drivers in Canada and England are paying - this is a self-regulating system.

[judge56988]

And judge56988, I'm sure it's very easy and convenient for you to say 'oh, all you people in the US, you should make these huge changes in your lifestyle'....
The answer is not to restrict people's freedoms and force them to change their lives when they themselves have done nothing wrong - this kind of thing is extremely anti-democratic. We need to invest in technology and let the market price things properly, and everything will be fine. Lest we forget how much sales of SUVs dropped when gas went up to levels that were still below what drivers in Canada and England are paying - this is a self-regulating system.

I didn't say force anything - I did use the word education.
As to restricting peoples freedoms - they are already restricted in that people are not allowed (by laws) to do things that harm other people.
By substantially raising tax on gas combined with a public education programme, the US government could raise much needed funds, reduce energy consumption and by way of a bonus, raise their standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.
You have a great country that is going downhill fast. America used to be a beacon in the world, leading by example. Now it is despised by many as a place of conspicuous overindulgence and greed. (The irony is you can't even afford it - you're in debt up to your eyeballs)
That's just the feeling in Europe - imagine the feeling in the third world.

It's a real shame. (And going off topic)

[nyonya]

And judge56988, I'm sure it's very easy and convenient for you to say 'oh, all you people in the US, you should make these huge changes in your lifestyle'....
The answer is not to restrict people's freedoms and force them to change their lives when they themselves have done nothing wrong - this kind of thing is extremely anti-democratic. We need to invest in technology and let the market price things properly, and everything will be fine. Lest we forget how much sales of SUVs dropped when gas went up to levels that were still below what drivers in Canada and England are paying - this is a self-regulating system.

I didn't say force anything - I did use the word education.
As to restricting peoples freedoms - they are already restricted in that people are not allowed (by laws) to do things that harm other people.
By substantially raising tax on gas combined with a public education programme, the US government could raise much needed funds, reduce energy consumption and by way of a bonus, raise their standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.
You have a great country that is going downhill fast. America used to be a beacon in the world, leading by example. Now it is despised by many as a place of conspicuous overindulgence and greed. (The irony is you can't even afford it - you're in debt up to your eyeballs)
That's just the feeling in Europe - imagine the feeling in the third world.

It's a real shame. (And going off topic)

Me driving an SUV does not harm anyone - if I choose to consume more oil (at a higher cost), that is my decision and mine alone. This is not like a law against murder or robbery. (By the way, I drive an Accord - but my reasons for not wanting an SUV are centered on enjoying driving, not on any perceived environmental impact or cost savings)

Raising taxes and increasing government influence is not a positive thing - in my view, that is the worst thing that can happen as a result of this. Anytime government tries to interfere with the markets, negative results occur - the whole subprime mess starts with the government forcing banks to relax lending standards.

I am all for moving away from using oil - for security reasons, maybe even for environmental reasons - but it has to be done in an economically responsible way that will only raise peoples' standard of living.

More on topic, I support more nuclear plants, but there's a large problem with that - what do our cars run on? They're a good part of the solution though.

[judge56988]

More on topic, I support more nuclear plants, but there's a large problem with that - what do our cars run on? They're a good part of the solution though.

Fuel cells using hydrogen produced using electricity generated from nuclear power and/or battery powered vehicles, especially in cities. Clean air at last! (Of course all that water vapour pumped out of the exhausts might lead to higher localised rainfall... there's always umbrellas.)

Just need a way to dispose of the nuclear waste... fire it into the sun maybe?

BTW, sometimes tough decisions have to made in times of crisis, for the common good. Often a lot of people will get put out by that, but personally, I think it's time to take a longer term view of things.

[nyonya]

More on topic, I support more nuclear plants, but there's a large problem with that - what do our cars run on? They're a good part of the solution though.

Fuel cells using hydrogen produced using electricity generated from nuclear power and/or battery powered vehicles, especially in cities. Clean air at last! (Of course all that water vapour pumped out of the exhausts might lead to higher localised rainfall... there's always umbrellas.)

Just need a way to dispose of the nuclear waste... fire it into the sun maybe?

BTW, sometimes tough decisions have to made in times of crisis, for the common good. Often a lot of people will get put out by that, but personally, I think it's time to take a longer term view of things.

I like fuel cells a lot, but they're not ready quite yet. With time I do think they'll be a viable energy source. The ideal would of course be electric cars - it's far more efficient to produce the electricity at a central location. It's going to be a while though before battery technology gets to where it needs to be - and before it gets economically feasible. The global warming issue is certainly not helped by fuel cells though - water is of course a major greenhouse gas.

It only makes sense to take a view that long-term if you can reliably predict technological developments in the future - which no one has ever been able to do. And the whole 'decisions for the common good' thing - that is a very slippery slope you're on. If something's for the common good, it should be good for everyone.

[judge56988]

And the whole 'decisions for the common good' thing - that is a very slippery slope you're on. If something's for the common good, it should be good for everyone.

Tell me about it!
Trouble is some people (me included) might know what's good for them, (although I'm convinced that a lot don't) but they don't do what's good for them...
A good example would be the state sponsored anti-smoking campaign - I hate state interference in any aspect of my life, but I can also see that it is improving the overall health of the population.

[nyonya]

And the whole 'decisions for the common good' thing - that is a very slippery slope you're on. If something's for the common good, it should be good for everyone.

Tell me about it!
Trouble is some people (me included) might know what's good for them, (although I'm convinced that a lot don't) but they don't do what's good for them...
A good example would be the state sponsored anti-smoking campaign - I hate state interference in any aspect of my life, but I can also see that it is improving the overall health of the population.

I actually have a big issue with that - why should the state tell me what I should or should not do with my body? I don't think there's anyone in an industrialized nation who is not aware of the health effects of smoking - if someone chooses to do it anyway, why does the state need to get involved? Most importantly, why should my tax money be spent on this?

However, this is a discussion for another time and place. Let's return this thread back to global warming, shall we?

[judge56988]

Yeah - sorry.

[NeilBlanchard]

Yeah, nuclear power that will solve all our problems!

Plutonium is only one of the most poisonous and highly radioactive materials known...the half life is ~24,000 years, which is merely longer than recorded history! How many half lives will it take to be low enough levels of radiation to not cause harm?

And guess what? You can make big, bad bombs from plutonium -- we would want any of the bad guys to get a hold of any, now would we?

What about earthquakes damaging a nuclear power plant? Hint: damaged nuclear power plant = very bad thing.


BTW, nuclear power plants do emit carbon dioxide: you have to mine, transport, and process uranium, you have to build the plant using a lot of concrete and steel, you have to build a LONG term storage facility (where, we still don't know!) you have to transport the spent fuel rods and all the other materials to the storage facility -- and HOW long do you need to guard this facility against the bad people? Fifty thousand years? Seventy five thousand years? Probably longer -- maybe by then the Earth will have been able to process some more oil?

[NeilBlanchard]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/06 ... .html#more

Among the key findings are:

1.Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. The emissions responsible for human-induced warming come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) with additional contributions from the clearing of forests and agricultural activities.

2.Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.

US average temperature has increased by about 2º F over the past 50 years, which is more than the global average temperature increase. In the next couple of decades, another degree or so of temperature rise is projected.

3.Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase. Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. ...

[judge56988]

To manufacture hydrogen for fuel, or charge any kind of battery, you need electricity. And what is essential is a reliable power supply producing as little CO2 at source as possible. That is why many experts are now coming around to the idea of nuclear power. Nuclear is back on the environmental menu because it produces very low carbon emissions relative to other power sources. According to British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), with the whole life cycle from mining plutonium to burning taken into account, nuclear power produces around one hundredth of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels.
Is nuclear the way forward?
To put that into perspective, to save the same amount of CO2 as is currently avoided by using nuclear over fossil fuels in the UK, you’d have to cease ALL road transport between January 1 and August 19 next year. Two key objections to nuclear power concern the safety of reactors and the danger of plutonium falling into the wrong hands but experts are quick to dispel these notions. They argue the new ‘fourth-generation’ reactors are profoundly different from older designs incorporating safety features that make meltdown impossible, produce less waste and use fuel not suitable for making weapons.

Taken from nuclear powered Lotus

[swivelguy2]

Who do we think we are? How dare we come along and in the course of a mere few hundred years, pull out ~half of the useful fossil fuels from the earth and burn it? The earth spent millions of years creating that stash, and we sent it up in smoke in record time. What audacity.