Morning Read: Climate change coming to a road near you
I’ve been meaning to link to Jon Alexander’s story about climate change and road construction in the Glens Falls Post Star for several days now. It makes for a fascinating read — again, going beyond the “ifs” to the “what nows?”
[T]he Highway Administration’s own data, driven by concerns of how the warming trend will impact U.S. infrastructure, acknowledges the changing ecological landscape. According to a 2009 Highway Administration study, the amount of annual rainfall in the U.S. increased by 6 percent during the 20th century. Global sea levels rose by 6.7 inches during that time period. While the Earth’s temperatures have been in a constant state of gradual flux for 4 billion years, the sudden temperature swings have scientists concerned.
“Floods and erosion can completely and abruptly shut down a road. In contrast, an increase in the frequency and severity of extremely high temperatures can lead to pavement deterioration and rutting,” the study notes. “It is also important to note that not all climate change impacts are negative. In some areas, climate change could reduce the frequency, duration, and/or severity of some cold-weather extremes, for example.”
Meanwhile, NCPR Natural Selections host Curt Stager is writing this week in the Albany Times Union about flooding on Lake Champlain, asking Is this the new normal?
[E]ven if the recent extreme conditions aren’t necessarily a direct consequence of global warming, they illustrate predictions of the future well enough to offer an important “teachable moment,” especially for those of us who have gone numb over the contentious issue of global warming. Climate change isn’t just about polar bears. Look around you here and now, after the soggy spring of 2011, and you’ll see that it’s about us, too.
Tags: climate change, environment
The U.S. energy information agency estimates that 511 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity were used for lighting by the residential and commercial sectors in this country.
Let’s try to use some of that vaunted common sense that conservatives are always talking about. If you replace several million 60 or 100 watt (or higher) light bulbs with light bulbs that give the same amount of light and use 7-15 watts of electricity, it seems odd to suggest there wouldn’t be any savings. My entire house is lighted with CFR and I’m slowly switching to LED’s. My tv is also LED lit and uses less electricity than non-led lit LCD’s or plasma sets. It shows in my electric bill.
I love to see the evidence that we’ve seen a zero power savings by using more CFR light bulbs. CFR’s have their problems but are a passing phase of technology. LED bulbs are even more cost/energy efficient.
It also seems odd to suggest that cars that get higher gas mileage would be opposed. Saving gas and saving electricity save the consumer money and makes the USA more secure and energy independent. I’m guessing US citizens are patriotic enough that they would be willing to make small sacrifices to help our country. They have in the past.
Bret – I dont really disagree with you on anything just said. But… I dont think your file of massaged data etc included any actual scientific papers. There are lots of people making all sorts of claims on all sides, but claims that the scientists are massaging their data are based on massaged analysis. As to what do we do about it, the one obvious but boring short-term solution is conservation. In the long run who knows. They say the price of solar energy is coming down so fast that within 10 years it should be competitive but as we know, every energy source is going to have things that people dont like. Nuclear? not any more.
PNELba- there are very efficient diesels available NOW and gas vehicles with much higher mileage than we’re allowed to buy too. Those vehicles are opposed by EPA regs and others in the clean air biz. Plus there’s the whole safety/weight issue that is in play. Our crash regs make for heavy vehicles. All I’m saying is we handicap ourselves when we refuse to alter existing regs to fit more efficient and currently available vehicles. It’s a trade off.
I’m not suggesting there are no savings to be had from LEDs, I’m saying our switch to CFRs and our friends and families switch showed zero reduction in usage. Maybe you guys use a lot more lights than we do?
Peter, you have a lot more faith in the character of “the scientists” than I do.
I guess if we can’t agree that becoming more energy efficient by saving electricity and raising CAFE standards will help our country and the climate….the USA really is screwed.
And, I agree with Peter H. I’d love to see some examples of the “outright lies” of climate scientists. I can provide examples of exaggerating, massaging, and mistakes by climate deniers. But the “lying” climate deniers are for the most part not scientists.
I do agree conservation is one of the workable answers! I’m saying that we need to alter some of our current regs and policies and we could have more efficient vehicles NOW.
Climate data has most certainly been massaged. I suppose “lie” depends on your persanl BS meter setting. Look at Britians CRU scandal, the New Zealand scandal, the so called “Swedegate” and the continued (as far as I know) dispute over whether CO2 levels precede or follow temps. If the scientists can’t even agree on something like that…hey, I’m a skeptic.
Will, thanks for the link. Assuming that this “nascent” science is correct it could profoundly change the economic equation regarding climate change and what to do about it. If we need to focus our economic efforts on local expenditures related to climate change than it could very easily limit the efforts that we can pursue on a national or global level. Very scary place we find ourselves in.
And it was a scientist, Claude Lorius, who in 1990 predicted that CO2 increases lagged temperature increase. This was before evidence was found, and reported in Science Magazine, that this seemed to be a fact. In fact Lorius and Hansen, in their 1990 Science paper, were the ones to suggest further investigation of ice core drillings to determine if they were correct in their theory. It’s ironic that climate change deniers are now using this data to distort climate change theory.
One problem is no scientist, I’m aware of, ever said CO2 was responsible for past climate change, although most agree that CO2 always played a role.
For some reason, non-scientist climate change deniers believe that the causes of past climate change were all the same. This allows them to take a bit of accepted science and make a straw man argument out of it.
Bret, have you actually read the Caillon 2003 Science paper that I assume you are referencing? That paper proves Lorius and Hansen’s predictions. Three conclusions in that paper: “This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing” (of an event 240,000 years ago). And, “Finally, the situation at Termination III differs in the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase.” And, “Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere.”
Hmmm, it seems climate deniers are hoping you won’t actually read the paper because there is no disagreement.
Evidence (collected by scientists) shows that past temperature increases preceded CO2 increases (when coming out of a glaciation period) and have explained the likely reasons for those findings.
Today, now, not 240 thousand years ago….the evidence shows that CO2 is initiating warming. It’s rather easy to find this evidence.
As far as the Britain’s CRU “scandal” (New Zealand “scandal” and “Swedegate” are part of the CRU so-called “scandal”), these so-called “scandals” have been extensively investigated (six times). Again, with a little bit of looking, one can read the conclusions of one of the most in-depth investigations by The Independent Climate Change Email Review. Once again, the deniers are hoping you won’t read the conclusions of these investigative panels.
Becoming more energy efficient does not necessarily mean we will use less total energy.
It would be better to focus on overall usage than per-capita, or per-vehicle, etc. Historically there has been an effect that the more efficient you become actually increases total energy usage as more people use the energy and use it more intensely.
P, been real busy, sorry it took so long to respond-
I’m afraid the veracity of the Independent Climate Change Email Review is suspect. Believe what you wish.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html
I realize that what happened in the past may not be similar to what’s happening today. But when you have multiple sources that are supposed to know what they are talking about telling you different things…I tend to be skeptical. You have done your research and made your choice. My choice is to be skeptical of both sides and to keep the vast amount of power and money involved in mind. I simply can not accept tat the Climate Change Industry is any more altruistic than the Oil Industry or Coal Industry.
For fish and wildlife, the first problem is the very presence of a road, which fragments habitat; serves as an avenue for nest predators; and more. Humans like roads because they allow us to burn gasoline, not calories, and serve as conduits for sprawl development.
My choice is to be skeptical of both sides and to keep the vast amount of power and money involved in mind.
As a scientist (not a climatologist) I like to feel I am also skeptical. I like to look at evidence, weigh it’s value, and come to an evidence-based conclusion.
An opinion article written by a well-known climate change skeptic (Patrick J. Michaels), funded by the fossil fuel industry (Western Fuels Association is just one), working for a well-known, conservative, think tank (Cato), heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry (Shell, Exxon, Tenneco, Amoco Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, just name a few) shows where the vast amount of power and money lie. Cato is one of the many conservative think tanks whose only purpose is to sow doubt on behalf of large industries that hate regulations because it may cost them a few billion dollars in profit.
I think I will stick to looking at scientific evidence and largely ignore the Wall Street Journal opinion pieces.
I understand completely P. And I will stick to my gut instinct that all this is a power play of epic proportions, that warming or cooling or staying the same isn’t the actual issue, but rather seizing control, power and wealth is the main goal. I’m not a scientist, I’m just a dumb hick farmer. But I do have 50 years of experience to look back on and the ability to research many eons more. Power and control equal wealth, always has, always will. What instrument you use to gain control and power changes, but the results are always the same.
Meanwhile I will do what I can to foster a sustainable farm, a lower energy consumption and to leave a better world. But I’ll do it because I believe it’s right, not because I believe the UN or Al Gore or the University of East Anglia says the sky is falling.