
Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S - blondie9x
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
======
diafygi
I work in cleantech, and here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we
won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"

So what can _you_ do about it? Work at a new energy technology company!

Many cleantech sectors are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on
scale and growth, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are
lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). See my comment
history for links to cleantech jobs.

As for dealing with skeptics, remember that you can't reason someone out of a
place they didn't reason themselves into. Focus on emotion, and don't tell
them what to do (instead, paint an environment where they naturally come to
aligned conclusion).

Here's several ways to work with climate skeptics:

1\. If you know them well and they have kids or grandkids, learn their names
and talk about how life is going to get much harder for them if we don't make
the energy transition. Talk about how many jobs the energy transition will
make (solar already outnumbers coal jobs). Focus on the opportunity for their
kids. Try to paint climate change as a us-vs-the-harsh-fucking-world (rather
than what they currently think of as an us-vs-liberals-and-hippies). This
perspective can make them feel like they are betraying their kids and
grandkids. I've seen this work for family members and close friends.

2\. If they like focusing on the economic/subsidy arguments, make it
competitive and selfish. Talk about how it's going to be their loss and your
gain ("if you're not going to do anything about climate change, that's more
money and work for me, so thanks!"). Focus on building a situation where they
get left behind. Then pile on that more Republicans have installed solar than
Democrats (which is true, by the way), so it feels like their own team is
already on board. Shrug off all the economic and subsidy arguments with a,
"Meh, if you don't want in on it, more upside for me. You complaining just
makes me richer." I've seen this work for tea party friends.

~~~
ramphastidae
> more Republicans have installed solar than Democrats (which is true, by the
> way)

Can you elaborate please?

~~~
freehunter
I have no facts to back this up (hopefully the other guy does) but intuitively
it makes sense to me. If you think about political maps, which areas are
almost always blue, and which areas are almost always red? Cities lean
democrat, and cities also often have higher density living. If I'm in an
apartment, I can't install solar panels. I have no where to install them.

But if I live in a rural or suburban area and have an acre+ of land and a
single-family house, I have a roof and a backyard I can fill with solar
panels. I probably also have a less reliable electricity grid than in the
city, so getting power somewhere else is helpful. I'm also much more likely to
vote Republican.

~~~
dspillett
Also there is a higher proportion of Republican party supporters in some
southern states, where being closer to the equator improves the value
proposition of installing solar cells - because of lower time to paying off
the investment (so there may be a financial gain in having them installed even
if you don't accept the overall climate argument).

~~~
ythn
Also a huge base for democrats are poor minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, etc)
who likely can't afford solar panels as easily.

------
jpao79
Does this proposal from a conservative group represent a good solution?

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-
ca...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-
climate-action.html)

[https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh...](https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win/reading-
list)

If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits
are that it would:

\- Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change
is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world
to the rest of the developing world.

\- It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed
world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions.

Would love to hear other people's opinions.

~~~
aoeusnth1
A carbon tax is the single best possible carbon policy. If implemented well,
it

\- simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon
emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending.

\- and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every
human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which
too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been
created from scratch by the market?).

It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the
same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are
nowhere near as dire.

~~~
ehnto
I feel as though you may be implying the carbon tax is applied to industry and
in policy that's correct, but in practice the carbon tax is passed onto the
consumer. Sometimes unashamedly so. I'm not saying it's a bad thing mind you,
less consumption is what we need.

Australia trialled this. I say trialled, because our government has been such
a flip flop of agendas (and indeed leaders) for nearly a decade and it was
only around for 3 years before being repealed. No doubt we'll see it again
soon, and I look forward to rehashing the same tired debates, albeit in
slightly warmer weather, when that occurs.

~~~
nl
Of course it's passed on to the consumer.

Then some company works out how to do the same thing in a less carbon
intensive way, and it's cheaper.

That's the whole point. This isn't fixable without pain, no matter how people
pretend.

~~~
specialist
_" This isn't fixable without pain..."_

Reducing waste (CO2) will boost profits.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_\(Japanese_term\))

Industry is asking for a carbon tax. There are few holdouts, for political and
personal reasons. Namely, fear and ignorance.

~~~
wbl
If it did, they would already have.

~~~
thinkfurther
If short term thinking, externalizing costs and psychopathology would not
exist, maybe. But not as is.

------
toxican
Does anyone else get irked when articles use photos of nuclear power plants
when talking about pollution or climate change? I'm certainly no expert, but
my understand was that the 'exhaust' from nuclear plants is just water vapor
and with the exception of finding a place to store spent rods, it's an
incredibly green source of energy and has little to no bearing on climate
change?

~~~
rory096
That's a coal plant. And not just any - the largest greenhouse gas emitter in
the country.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer)

~~~
toxican
oh, fair enough! I didn't realize that style of stack was used for anything
but nuclear.

------
Fej
At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.

~~~
mirimir
At this point, I'm not sure that anything will make much difference. Or at
least, for anyone now alive. There's just too much inertia, at all levels.

~~~
simonh
There's no way to change the directional trend, but there are lots of things
we can do to affect it's slope. Many of these things are also worth doing
anyway for reasons such as energy security, resource and environmental
preservation, reducing pollution, protecting biodiversity, etc. I do not
believe crash course change in the global economy and our technology base is
possible or desirable, were just going to have to live with and manage many of
the negative consequences of climate change, but we can achieve a lot with
sensible, moderate and achievable environmental policies provided they are
pursued determinedly and consistently.

~~~
_up
We can also cool the earth via Sulfur Injection in the Stratosphere (like
Vulcan eruptions demonstrated). German Spiegel[1] had an Article a few weeks
ago that also mysteriously threatened international sanctions or war to
countries who try that.

[1] [http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-
geoengi...](http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-
geoengineering-als-plan-b-fuer-eine-zu-heisse-erde-a-1159027.html)

~~~
kodfodrasz
Wouldn't that result in acid rains eventually?

------
RickJWagner
I see arguments here that people can readily feel a change.

I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm
at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years.
If anything, it's been less hot.

But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.

~~~
toxican
Only thing I could really point to is a number of incredibly mild winters a
few years in a row. But even then, I was under the impression that climate
change wasn't particularly measurable on a year-by-year scale. Maybe I'm
wrong.

~~~
Goronmon
Just because the individual changes aren't going to be noticeable year over
year, doesn't mean the cumulative changes won't hit tipping points for
noticeable effects to occur in certain cases.

Just like people won't notice the sea levels changing each year. But at some
point, flooding is going to go from a rare occurrence to a regular occurrence
once the sea level raises past a certain point.

------
geiseric
I wonder how valid this is?

[http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-
de...](http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-
electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-
story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6)

------
guscost
> The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands
> of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air.

The enormous effort put toward finding "confirmations" of the hypothesis has
always been a big reason why I'm reluctant to trust the authorities in this
case. I don't see the point of going through this again. Where are the
falsifiable predictions? Will the Arctic Ocean be ice-free next month? We're
back to point number one from Karl Popper's essay:

"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every
theory- if we look for confirmations."

~~~
kristopolous
If you drive blindfolded do you know exactly how your car will be dented or
precisely where the collision will take place?

Does not knowing these answers make the activity fundamentally safe and
concern about blindfolded driving to be alarmist?

It's certainly possible to see something as absurdly dangerous without having
crystal ball level predictive accuracy.

~~~
guscost
Option A: This crisis is so important that we don't have time to wait for
science stuff like falsification.

Option B: This crisis is known to serious scientists, and everyone who doesn't
agree is a knuckle-dragging moron.

You can only pick one of those options...

~~~
kristopolous
That's the argument tobacco companies used. They'd find one counterexample of
someone who smoked 70 years and say "Aha! No cancer here! Tobacco is safe!"

I mean seriously, find a new strategy, that one is from the 60s.

------
mirimir
One trusts that the National Climate Assessment will also be available
publicly, one way ot the other.

~~~
ryanchoi
AFAIK drafts are already viewable (if this is what you meant?), ex:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-
Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html)

With the public draft already released, I think it would be especially
surprising if the administration tried to impose non-trivial changes to the
document.

------
tradersam
Could we get the non-mobile link?

~~~
dovdovdov
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-
dr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-
warming-trump.html)

~~~
simonebrunozzi
And this is the actual report:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-
Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html?smid=tw-
nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1)

------
dogruck
Where can I read the report, and what is the list of scientists?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-
Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html?smid=tw-
nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1)

~~~
dogruck
I had to lol at "there is significant possibility of unexpected changes."

------
ethbro
How inconvenient.

------
stanislavb
Don't say...

~~~
stanislavb
" The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and
drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past
1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting
approval by the Trump administration."

i.e. if Trump's administration does not approve it, it does not exist :D

~~~
mirimir
If people care, stuff leaks :)

------
d--b
At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God
did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science,
it's a matter of people choosing not to believe in science.

~~~
deckiedan
I absolutely agree.

As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting.

As a longer thought: God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to
rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially
keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is
obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis
creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses:

From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history,
we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time):

Eon 1: \- The universe was 'formless' and chaotic. \- Pure energy / light and
darkness / vacuum / void become separate.

Eon 2: \- The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin
together into units. \- Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between
'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast
'ocean' of space') from a ).

Eon 3: \- Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise,
continents appear. \- Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up
and spread all over the planet.

Eon 4: \- The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now
visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night.

Eon 5: \- Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds
(dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet.

Eon 6: \- Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up.

Eon 7: \- Now. Beginning of written histories.

The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of
Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting
how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning
of the universe and our planet.

What do you think?

~~~
coliveira
Typical reinterpretation of Genesis 1. Unfortunately, the text also says: "it
was the evening and the morning, the first day." i.e., the text goes out of
the way to affirm that this was the task of a single day, not of an eon.

~~~
deckiedan
Well, kinda. What is an evening or morning when there is no sun, night, day
time? More likely it's just a poetic turn of phrase. What I find interesting
is you can stick to "it's poetic, but modern scientific understanding can fit
in happily" And aren't forced into saying, "science and Genesis are
incompatible".

~~~
logfromblammo
If you're going to claim poetic turn of phrase, you really have to look at the
text in its original languages. There are many examples of strained
translations or outright mistranslations for religious texts.

The word used in the original that was translated into English words for day,
night, morning, and evening could very well be "an unspecified subjective
length of time", "literally 86400 seconds", "literally 43200 seconds", "the
timespan for which any portion of the sun is visible in the sky", "the
interval between waking and going back to sleep", etc.

The objective reality is that Genesis is a myth written by primitive
screwheads that predated the invention of scientific inquiry. Any similarity
to any extant theories on the origin of the universe are purely coincidental,
highlighted by human brains that are hardwired to find patterns and meaning
even where genuine relationships do not exist. There is no shame in having a
religion that makes no sense scientifically, provided that you can keep it
separate from any matters that require rational thought grounded in observable
reality.

Let the religion be what it is. Attempting to reconcile it with scientific
theory is pointless, and ultimately a waste of time, because science may just
discard that theory and take up another any time new data become available.
Indeed, theories like the Big Bang only became widely known _because_ they are
remotely reconcilable with Genesis. It isn't the only cosmology theory capable
of explaining all the available evidence, nor is it necessarily the best one.
Reconciling religion with science makes as much sense as explaining the
biological basis for Harry Potter.

It does not matter if religion is made-up nonsense. The important thing is the
tribal sense of community one gets from knowing all the same nonsense as
everyone else, and the artistic inspiration one may draw from it.

Believing one's religion is the literal truth and also believing that
scientific inquiry is the best method at our disposal for understanding and
affecting our universe is no more difficult than believing that Star Wars is
set a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, while also believing that Star
Trek is set a century or two in the future, in an alternate-history version of
our own galaxy. We can simultaneously believe that all fantasy universes are
separate, and never shall any two meet, and that they all somehow link
together through the Stargate inside the Dark Tower.

Science and Genesis _are_ incompatible. But they _don 't need to be_
compatible.

------
microcolonel
> _WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly
> and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the
> past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report
> awaiting approval by the Trump administration._

If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely
available temperature datasets? No credible person denies that the global (and
U.S. local) mean temperature has increased, this is not news.

> _The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet
> been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of
> climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump
> and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate
> change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is
> limited._

These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that
the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-
made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against
President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT
are now allowed to refer to the President as the President). (Edit: I should
clarify that I'm talking about the link between the two clauses in this
paragraph, which makes it seem like one supports the other when this is not
the case)

> _and that the ability to predict the effects is limited._

It _is_ limited, the report details the limits, as do many other great
sources. The climate models we have are about as good as the economic models;
that is to say, they're basically useless for genuine predictions. They do not
fit historic data without piles of corrections, some of which are dubious.
There is work to be done.

If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a
point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it
seem like it is.

The reason that there are so many people skeptical about the alarming claims,
is because the presentations have been so dishonest and manipulative. Public
figures frequently grossly overstate the certainty of statements which are not
really settled, and some climate scientists and academic administrators have
been caught basically ganging up on people who do not present alarming news.

I understand why some of you feel, as Fej says elsewhere in this thread, that
"At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.", but
it's important that we be honest in presenting what we know to the public.

Every time you present an opinion as a fact, somebody somewhere no longer
trusts you, and those people will be vocal and active in letting people know
that you've been dishonest.

~~~
nl
I think that at this point if you don't believe climate change is happening
and is man made and is significant then it is unlikely anything is going to
convince you.

 _If that 's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely
available temperature datasets?_

It is. Really.

There's even a nice dataset on Kaggle you can play with if you like:
[https://www.kaggle.com/berkeleyearth/climate-change-earth-
su...](https://www.kaggle.com/berkeleyearth/climate-change-earth-surface-
temperature-data)

 _If you have data to back up your points, show the data_

The data is linked, and there is plenty more data out there.

Enjoy.

~~~
yaddddda
"Cleaned" data. Naturally.

~~~
nl
If you want to do the cleaning yourself, the "uncleaned" data is here:
[http://berkeleyearth.org/data/](http://berkeleyearth.org/data/)

 _Source observations are provided as originally reported and will contain
many quality control and redundancy issues. Intermediate data is constructed
from the source data by merging redundant records, identifying a variety of
quality control problems, and creating monthly averages from daily reports
when necessary._

You can choose to use breakpoint adjusted or not, the data is all there.

------
cool_look
It got hotter until 1998 and plateaued until today 2017+, occasionally setting
small new highs (0.1C when margin for error is 0.4C).

That was already accepted and should not be trumpetted as further "proof".

------
mnm1
The conclusions here are obvious to anyone that's been living in the US in the
last decade or two. It's not that difficult to see/feel the changing weather
patterns. So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science
needs approval? If the government agencies want to dispute this, let them put
forward a different hypothesis from the data. This authoritarian monopoly that
various government agencies have on science has got to stop. It's not just
climate change. Facts like cannabis being a safe substance, lead being
dangerous, etc. are/were ignored for decades. It seems to me government funds
studies and then ignores their conclusions. This is clearly not in the
interest of society. At the very least it's an absolute waste of money. Will
the government ever represent the people and their interests or is it just too
far gone for that to the point that we're stuck with the interests of a few
assholes controlling and ruining everything?

~~~
s_kilk
> So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs
> approval?

One word: Capital.

There's a hell of a lot of money tied up in the carbon industry, and
maintaining the status-quo for that section of the capital class is predicated
on not acknowledging climate change.

------
jrapdx3
I'm certainly not an expert in the domain of "climate change", but it doesn't
appear to be difficult to find reviews of the subject that come to different
conclusions than reached by the NYT.

For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified
individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers [0]. Bottom line
was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that
"... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that
recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record
setting warming."

This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not
"conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is
interpreted and used for predicting future trends.

It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around
wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of
authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the
processes of Nature that we call "climate".

[0] [https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-
data...](https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-
research-report-062717.pdf)

~~~
nl
It's published on wordpress.com, non-peer reviewed etc.

There is a range of credible opinions on some aspect of climate change (for
example, the impact of water vapor around cities on measurement). It's
probably worth concentrating on the ones which have at least been peer
reviewed.

~~~
seren
Googling the author's names, you'll quickly find a snopes article in the first
results:

[http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-
warming/](http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/)

~~~
jrapdx3
True enough, I didn't check out the authors or those endorsing the report. The
report wasn't from a peer-reviewed journal, but then neither is the NYT or
Snopes.

The analysis could be considered on its merit. I'd leave that to people better
qualified in that field than I am.

We'd expect bias, that's entirely normal in all research. But the deep
polarization of the scientific community considering climate data and findings
is symptomatic of the absurd political influence on the field. The extreme
level of viciousness surrounding climate research has to render _all of it_
suspect in any honest observer's mind.

