Climate Change? Nahhh ...

As always with this stuff, I wonder how much can be attributed to more accurate and comprehensive data collection? The first big spike on that graphic comes around World War II, which was when modern weather science really started to become a thing. Better instrumentation, satellites and observation methods certainly could be a factor when you're talking about a one- or two-degree rise that seems like it could be within the margin of error when you're comparing a thermometer from 100 years ago to one today.

 

I saw the WWII spike and thought the same thing. No way there was a spike in temperatures caused by emissions because it was a zero-sum game between military and home front and there was a finite energy supply (which is dwarfed by today's numbers).

Had to be global observations which might have included the Northern Sahara, which was an active U.S. theater and is not exactly Flin Flon.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ur-times-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-planet/?

CLIMATEWIRE | One study after another is coming to the same conclusion about the rapidly warming Arctic: It’s heating up a lot faster than earlier research suggested.


The latest figures indicate that the planet’s northernmost region is warming a whopping four times faster than the Earth as a whole.


That’s a significant update compared to earlier estimates.

 

both pretty great

Climate Change from A to Z

The Blade Runners Powering a Wind Farm

 

likewise

Giant Wind Farms Arise Off Scotland, Easing the Pain of Oil’s Decline

 

One thing that is ignored about wind and particularly solar is that it can be installed very quickly. It is much easier and hence quicker to bring up. Next summer the Europeans will be madly installing renewable energy.
I know there are those who will say that what happens when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine? At that time the Europeans will use fossil fuels for heat and electricity. But overall demand will be reduced and it will help alleviate the logistical bottlenecks the Europeans face with the shutdown of the Russian pipelines.

 

Development of larger and better batteries would help greatly.

The head scratcher to me here in the PNW is the push to remove hydroelectric dams. Yes,I understand and sympathize with tribes’ concerns about declining salmon populations. But many scientists will tell you what’s killing them is happening in the oceans, before they even get the chance to spawn.

 

Always like when the word “whopping” shows up in a scientific article.

 

Come on, boy. Time to take your whoopin

 

I think the science is controversial.

I am only familiar with the Klamath Fish Kill of 2002, which basically wiped out the salmon of the Klamath River. Because of the miracle that allows salmon to return to their original breeding grounds it is damn near impossible to repopulate a salmon stream and that is what happened on the Klamath.

My understanding is that at least in the case of the Klamath this kill was caused because water was held back upstream for agricultural interests, which lead to shallower and warmer water. As a result the salmon stayed nearer the coldwater springs and the subsequent overcrowding lead to basically wiping out the population for the last 20 years and counting. And with it the end of the salmon fishing industry.

The Indians who lived in reservations along the river, and liked salmon fishing, were cut out. The Nez Pierce, who have a handwritten treaty from the 1850's that promised something to the effect of the water of river and the fish in it, are out of luck. But I suppose the treaty is a niue historical artifact.

So if we continue with the hydro dams I think that the tribes need to receive some money.

Something similar is about to occur to the Southern Utes in Colorado where the San Juan River is drying up.

 

Problem is, the various environmental activist groups are not pushing for that logical solution — a solution that I think even American conservatives are in favor of — of supplementing fossil fuels with renewables. They want to make all of the world's energy renewable, and eliminate the use of all fossil fuels, come hell or high water. And they want to do it in the next decade. They're totally oblivious to the realities of the problems and dangers inherent in that and, what's more, they don't particularly seem to give a damn. To a lot of them, whatever human death and suffering results from their flawed agenda is a necessary penance for the damage we've done to Mother Earth.

 

Some do. Because we've waited decades too long to address the problem.

Nuclear? Sure. Where's all the research into safer mining and safer waste disposal?

Or we can just keep complaining that "activists" and "environmentalists" don't know what they're talking about.

Trigger warning: