Town Square

Post a New Topic

Panel features local experts on changing climate

Original post made on Mar 25, 2019

While the event is free, reservations for the April 2 "Living Locally, Acting Globally: Celebrating Local Climate Leaders" panel discussion by local climate experts are due by March 26.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, March 25, 2019, 7:59 AM

Comments (14)

Posted by FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Mar 25, 2019 at 11:02 am

Great panel!

Before the Deniers chime in, citing random numbers, let's look at what organizations acknowledge Climate Change and it's dangers, from the FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, as noted in earlier threads.
______

CHAPTER 1

Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.
The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur.

Google: "FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT" for links and much, much, more.


Members:

Department of the Interior

Department of Energy

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Agency for International Development

Smithsonian Institution

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Agriculture

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of Energy

Department of Transportation

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of the Interior

Department of State

National Science Foundation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Geological Survey

Add in:

Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources
... and many, many more.


Posted by cedar closet
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 26, 2019 at 10:16 am

Well, there ya go...

List the department of energy, the department of defense, the state department, and a gazillion universities... and the conspiracy theorists don't seem to want to play their usual game anymore?

Thank heavens we can all agree on climate change and now start to do something about it.

Happy to read about this panel. Please continue to share more information.


Posted by Mark
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Mar 26, 2019 at 6:32 pm

Fellow commenters: “denier”, really? It is beyond arrogant to proclaim your knowledge is beyond reproach and those who disagree are simply “deniers.”

Think about how that would apply to another issue, like vaccinations; would you like being called a “vaccine side effect denier” for supporting vaccines?

I’m fine with this little panel taking place, even if it’s an echo chamber. Let them drum up their own panic and virtue signal to their hearts content. But you dont need to denigrate your neighbors to do it.


Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 26, 2019 at 9:09 pm

Mark -
I don't see where anyone is claiming their knowledge is beyond reproach. There's clearly much to learn about climate change since it's something the Human race has never experienced before. However, if the projections from our best climate scientists are even approximately correct, we don't have the luxury of waiting until every detail is fully understood. If we do, it will be too late and the world we've known for millennia will no longer exists, millions will die and the quality of life for survivors will be much worse. If you're looking for a taste of what that world might be like, look at Madagascar - still reeling from the unprecedented cyclone that ravaged the country over a week ago. Or the farmers of Nebraska. Yeah, it might just be weather -and we all know weather is variable - but what if, as our brightest minds suggest, it's an indication of a changing climate? Isn't the conservative approach to plan for the worst and be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't happen?


Posted by FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Mar 27, 2019 at 8:46 am

Steve: nice try. Seriously - well written. Alas, you are wasting your time - deniers have their 'beliefs' which they FEEL are stronger than the evidence surrounding them.


Deniers believe they are smarter than:

Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Agency for International Development
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey

Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources

FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
Web Link

Please read it. Don't be afraid.


Posted by cedar closet
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2019 at 10:49 am

"It is beyond arrogant" to note scientific consensus?

Yet you somehow compare all the above scientific community to vaxxers?

Yeah, no arrogance there, eh, what?


Posted by WildCat
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2019 at 2:57 pm

WildCat is a registered user.


Steve's comment, "something the Human race has never experienced before," could not be further from the truth. The earth's climate has always been changing. Just recently we had the Medieval Warm Period. During the period from 950 to 1250 the earth was warm. In fact, the Norse farmed in Greenland. This is fully detailed in the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Their civilization collapsed due to many factors, including climate change (the earth got colder). We later had the Little Ice Age. The period where the earth cooled in the 16th through 19th centuries. Humans have experienced many changes in global climate, long before fossil fuels became ubiquitous.

Humans may contribute to climate change, but there are many other factors, including the sun. What makes "deniers" skeptical is the way proponents of AGW consistently cherry pick data or ignore conflicting facts. The "science is settled" arguments are ridiculous. Science is never settled! Follow the money!


Posted by cedar closet
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 27, 2019 at 3:27 pm

"Humans MAY contribute to climate change..."

The following say your statement is wrong:

Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Agency for International Development
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey

Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources

h/t 4nca


Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 28, 2019 at 3:46 pm

WildCat -
You're right. Climate does vary naturally and the Medieval warming period may be an example of that. However, more recent studies of that warming period indicate it was not global in scope but more of a regional effect as the western North Atlantic was actually cooler at the same time Europe was experiencing the warming.
In addition, temperature records for the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2,000 years show this anomaly was at most around 0.2 degrees Celsius during the 300 year period of warming. Last year, the global temperature anomaly was 0.8 degrees Celsius, a sharp rise since just 1980. So, the medieval warming period is not at all comparable to the global climate change we're experiencing now in either coverage or temperature range.
Moreover, we know that the greenhouse gasses our civilization has been pumping into the atmosphere do actually trap heat in the atmosphere. This is a property of these gases first understood at the time of the Civil War. The first to consider that man-made gasses could affect climate was a Swedish scientist back in 1896. There's absolutely nothing new or controversial about this - it's just basic physics.
What's changed is that we've been accelerating the amount greenhouse gas discharge in recent decades as oil fields across the globe have been discovered and tapped to feed our appetites for cars, jet travel and air conditioning. That average global temperatures have risen was totally predictable.
As to your admonition to "Follow the money", I'd suggest you do just that. Who has the most to gain by questioning climate change? It's the oil companies, the coal companies and Wall Street investors who have gotten fat & wealthy off of exploiting fossil fuels and want to keep the profits coming in, the health of the planet be damned. I can show you thousands of millionaires in these industries but I can't think of any scientists who have gotten rich by doing research on global warming.
Be honest with yourself and really follow the money.


Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 28, 2019 at 4:33 pm

This is what climate change looks like.

An iceberg twice the size of New York City is about to break off Antarctica.

Web Link


Posted by WildCat
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 28, 2019 at 10:39 pm

WildCat is a registered user.

Steve,
Thank you for your thorough and considerate response. I have the following additional comments:

1) fossil fuels do not explain the numerous ice ages and subsequent warming periods
2) I am sorry, but there is no way that a scientist could claim with certainty that global temperatures were 0.2 degrees warmer 2,000 years ago. It could not be that precise since there is no way to effectively measure historical global temperatures (it is claims like these that make “deniers” skeptical. The weatherman is not that precise.) I could believe a range estimate, but not a precise number. Using these precise numbers reduces scientific credibility.
3) is Greenland not part of the Western North Atlantic? It was very warm 1,000 years ago.
4) there was an article today about a glacier that has now begun to grow after many years of shrinking. Again, you cherrypicked the Antarctic story and ignore the conflicting story.
5) it would be a lot easier to rely on the scientific forecasts if the previous forecasts had been correct. However, all the previous forecasts have been wrong. Al Gore said all the Artic ice would be gone and that Manhattan would be under water by now. If all their past forecasts have been wrong why should we trust their current forecast and spend $93 trillion while destroying our economy? The climate is always changing, with or without humans!


Posted by FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Mar 29, 2019 at 9:38 am

> fossil fuels do not explain the numerous ice ages and subsequent warming periods

But they *do* explain the rapidity of change, and that's the problem.

> there is no way that a scientist could claim with certainty

No concept of numbers? You must be hoot when it comes time for doctors to explain your lab results.

> Al Gore said ... that Manhattan would be under water by now.

Your drivel about cherry-picking one number or one glacier is at least understanable - you have nothing else to argue. But to just make stuff up even further belittles your low standing as a Denier.

Why do Deniers never use a link to prove their crazy claims? Please link to Al Gore saying "that Manhattan would be under water by now."


- - - - -


It still comes down to your cherry-picking random data to try and tell us you are smarter than the following:


Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Agency for International Development
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey

Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources




Posted by Steve
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 29, 2019 at 11:10 am

WildCat-
I notice you didn't address the money question. Who has the most to gain by doubting climate change? It's those who profit from fossil fuels. Heed your own advice: Follow the Money!


Posted by FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Mar 29, 2019 at 1:37 pm

> Who has the most to gain by doubting climate change?

Steve: too many Deniers have commented in the past that it's those wily-wascals, the scientists, that are doing this for the money!

It's the GRANT money they seek, making them virtual THOUSAND-AIRES, with benjamins falling from their pockets as they go clubbing and living large! Big Oil isn't making *anything* by denying science - they're just victims to those dastardly, money-grubbing scientists and their "measurements"!

Here's a list of the money-grubbers below; go check them out on a Friday night - they are the toast-of-the-town with their free spending ways!

Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Agency for International Development
Smithsonian Institution
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of State
National Science Foundation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Texas Tech University
University of Washington
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of Illinois
Rutgers University
North Carolina State University
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
University of California, Irvine
University of Massachusetts
California Department of Water Resources


Be especially careful - you know what they say about those local USGS partiers down on Middlefield!

The chants of "USGS" echo thru the hottest spots in town!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

James Beard Award winning chef Traci Des Jardins' restaurant el Alto abruptly closes its doors in Los Altos months after highly anticipated opening
By The Peninsula Foodist | 14 comments | 9,057 views

Palo Alto's bold proposal to jumpstart home electrification
By Sherry Listgarten | 21 comments | 5,257 views

San Bruno Wins Food Trend Craze with First Plant-Based Gas Mart
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 2,796 views

How Much Time do You Spend Outdoors?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,145 views

Is Palo Alto Utilities ready for our increasing demand for more electricity?
By Diana Diamond | 8 comments | 2,054 views