# Climate change: children taking legal action because adults are complacent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657 "2016-05-02T01:10:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/61 "2016-05-03T20:49:00Z")
From my view HRC seems to be in favor of the status quo; she’s not going to actively attempt to shut down plants (like Sanders) but she’s not pushing them and she’s voiced “concerns” over the waste. She can’t come out stronger than that and hope to be nominated by the Democrats because of the general fear of NP by the left. She’s highly pragmatic, however, and I hold out hope that she’ll at least give ear to NP if she gets elected. Sanders would be a disaster. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/62 "2016-05-03T20:50:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There is nothing to show that she is going to do anything but what Democrats do in general - talk out of both sides of her mouth, and do nothing of substance. > > Regards, > Shodan :rolleyes: > **[Obama says he supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/mar/02/barack-obama/obama-says-he-supported-first-nuclear-power-plant-/)** > > Countering Republican attacks on gas prices, President Barack Obama gave a hard-hitting speech on energy policy in Miami > [@](#): > > Our ruling > > Obama said, “We supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades.” He is right that it’s been that long since a new nuclear reactor has been licensed. However, because it takes so long to construct nuclear power plants, the most recent plant actually opened in 1996. > > The experts we spoke with, both those who support nuclear power and those who oppose it, said that Obama’s statement was largely accurate, given that the last time a nuclear reactor received federal approval was 1978. And, his administration has so far supported the recent approval of new reactors in Georgia with $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees. > > We rate Obama’s statement Mostly True. Again, you only show all that you continue to ignore that Republicans would rather sink bills to deal with the issue of carbon emissions even if the bills include support for nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/63 "2016-05-03T21:03:00Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > We have an entire State who will be coal-fired-electricity free in just 14 years … several _million_ civic-minded lefties … and take a gander at what’s happening in California. We do have time to make these changes, a child born today will be having their own children before we even begin to notice climate change. Uh, the changes are already being observed. > **[This Page Has Moved](https://water.ca.gov/Error-Pages/Error-404-Page?item=%2fclimatechange%2f&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=website)** > > 404 Error: As a result of the 2018 DWR website redesign, many page links are new. Please use the search to find what you are looking for. > [@](#): > > Climate change is having a profound impact on California water resources, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, sea level, and river flows . These changes are expected to continue in the future and more of our precipitation will likely fall as rain instead of snow. This potential change in weather patterns will exacerbate flood risks and add additional challenges for water supply reliability. > > The mountain snowpack provides as much as a third of California’s water supply by accumulating snow during our wet winters and releasing it slowly when we need it during our dry springs and summers. Warmer temperatures will cause what snow we do get to melt faster and earlier, making it more difficult to store and use. By the end of this century, the Sierra snowpack is projected to experience a 48-65 percent loss from the historical April 1st average. This loss of snowpack means less water will be available for Californians to use. > **[California’s Water Supply at Risk From Warmer Winters | KQED](https://www.kqed.org/science/510438/californias-water-supply-at-risk-from-warmer-winters)** > > The Sierra Nevada snowpack is crucial to the state’s water supply, and warmer winters are putting it at risk. > [@](#): > > “I think this has been kind of a wake up call,” said Dan Cayan, who studies climate change at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the US Geological Survey. > > “The last couple years were extraordinarily warm and I think to some extent those are models for what we might expect in the future,” he said. > > Cayan says California’s snowpack has already shrunk by 10 percent on average since World War II, a trend that is likely to continue as the climate warms. > > “By the end of the century, if we’re lucky, we’ll only lose half,” said Cayan. “And if we’re unlucky, we could lose more than that. We’re in an era of unprecedented changes.” For other changes observed already you really need to watch the TED short video on the loss of cap ice linked earlier. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/64 "2016-05-03T21:16:12Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The cap and trade you mentioned was for acid rain reduction. The one Enron was pushing was for global warming prevention from [this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/01/13/enron-also-courted-democrats/db9d5f82-b371-40d2-ae75-6b86dfb47f1a/) "On Aug. 4, 1997, Lay and seven other energy executives met with Clinton, Gore, Rubin and other top officials at the White House to discuss the U.S. position at the upcoming conference on global warming in Kyoto, Japan. Lay, in a memo to Enron employees, said there was broad consensus in favor of an emissions-trading system. > > Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.” Of course Bush decided not to follow Kyoto, but I do not think that Bush stopped that just because of Enron. The problem with that canard from the media then is this one: > **[Blaming liberalism for Enron.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/blaming-liberalism-for-enron.html)** > > With the Bush administration taking heat for its ties to Enron, and pointed questions being raised about whether Enron's collapse suggests that... > [@](#): > > But the mere fact that Enron stood to benefit financially from the Kyoto Treaty, and therefore was pushing energetically for its passage, doesn’t in itself constitute an argument against the Kyoto Treaty. What really worries conservatives like Novak is that other companies might be harmed by the treaty. To the extent that potential harm is real, it needs to be weighed against the potential benefits that would come from reducing carbon emissions. And that has nothing to do with Enron. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/65 "2016-05-03T21:25:50Z")
Of course, the point made before was referring to the unethical moves of Enron. Not sure what this shows regarding what needs to be done because more scandals have been observed coming from fossil fuel companies funding unethical researchers. While there is no cap-n-trade in place or new regulations. The point here is that scoundrels in energy companies will be an issue, with solutions and regulation in place or no solutions and no regulations in place. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/66 "2016-05-03T22:34:24Z")
Really, I think the most abundant energy source readily available is how much we use. Large amounts go into the manufacture of cell phones (that, last time I looked, get retired in the tens of thousands every day), happy meal toys, microwaves, packaging, _et cetera_, _et cetera_. Moving away from a disposable consumerist culture would immensely reduce our carbon footprint, and the “invisible hand” is not going to offer us any help in that. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/67 "2016-05-03T22:59:26Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The cost we are now paying for fossil fuels is less than what we would be paying for an alternative. As already noted, fossil fuels are artificially cheaper because their cost doesn’t account for the environmental damage and costs down the road. The alleged low cost of fossil fuels isn’t even relevant when they approach the threshold of unsustainability in terms of climate impacts, and as the data I linked before clearly indicates, we’re already at the threshold of dangerous climate impacts. > [@puddleglum](#): > > The great thing about the market is if alternatives really are cheaper than the switch will occur minimal disruption as if guided by an invisible hand. Alternatives often become cheaper only by widespread adoption and economies of scale. But the most important point here is that climate just doesn’t work on the sorts of timescales that you seem to imagine. When coastal areas become seriously threatened by sea level rise and major recurrent storm surges and damage to life and property from extreme weather becomes incontrovertibly severe, you aren’t going to get nature to turn around on a dime just because you suddenly realize we have to start cutting emissions. The CO2 imbalance alone will persist for centuries, climate feedbacks and impacts like sea level rise for many centuries more, and significant loss of polar icecaps is a form of slow feedback whose impacts may persist for thousands of years. > [@magellan01](#): > > Sure the data exists. That doesn’t mean that we _know_ what real world changes the very complex systems will result in. If those most concerned about climate change would just admit that, then I think more people would find common cause in taking many of the steps they advocate. So you would like climate scientists to publicly and falsely announce that they don’t have a clue what the climate is really going to do, and then you’ll be willing to join the cause of climate change mitigation? 😃 It looks to me like you’re just looking for an excuse to continue to do nothing. As always, the commentary from the right-wing pundits reveals a lack of understanding of the problem and a disbelief in the science, and is as unhelpful as always. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/68 "2016-05-04T12:59:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, the changes are already being observed. > > [http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/](http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/) > > [California’s Water Supply at Risk From Warmer Winters | KQED](http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/02/08/californias-water-supply-at-risk-from-warmer-winters/) > > For other changes observed already you really need to watch the TED short video on the loss of cap ice linked earlier. That’s a narrow view of the water problems in California. An unsustainable amount of land dedicated to water-intensive crops is the culprit, drive the length of I-5 and that becomes obvious. Besides, that’s a water manager’s issue, average snow level doesn’t define California’s climate. Adding a few degrees temperature to a Mediterranean climate and it’s still a Mediterranean climate, so no changes are observed and none can be projected. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/69 "2016-05-04T13:37:24Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > That’s a narrow view of the water problems in California. An unsustainable amount of land dedicated to water-intensive crops is the culprit, drive the length of I-5 and that becomes obvious. Besides, that’s a water manager’s issue, average snow level doesn’t define California’s climate. Adding a few degrees temperature to a Mediterranean climate and it’s still a Mediterranean climate, so no changes are observed and none can be projected. The idea that no changes are observed is not what research is showing, and if that change was not happening the water situation would be better as a change in climate points to less snow in the mountains that translates on less water available. > **[How climate change is making California's epic drought worse](https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-california-epic-droughtworse.html)** > > California is undergoing a record-setting drought that began in 2012, the worst in at least 1,200 years. It can be seen in many ways: most of the freshwater reservoirs are drying up, crops are wilting in the fields and groundwater is rapidly... > [@](#): > > In 2013 and 2014, the sea surface temperature in the North Pacific was unusually high, which created the conditions for a persistent high-pressure ridge and thus dryness over California. In addition, reduced Arctic sea ice is associated with warmer surface temperature in the Pacific and reduced rain and snowfall in the western part of the US from the northward shift in the storm track. > > Persistent high pressure causes a descending motion of air, known as subsidence, which leads to a lack of cloud cover and eventually hotter temperatures on land. And with higher surface temperatures, soils dry as more water evaporates into the air. > > Higher temperatures combined with somewhat reduced precipitation – sometimes called “warm droughts” – play a critical role in reducing water availability. In the case of California, precipitation this winter fell in the form of rain instead of snow in the Sierra mountains due to high temperatures. Snowpack is critical because it stores water and releases it slowly. Thinner snowpack means less water stored on the ground for use in the summer. So even a normal precipitation amount but fallen in the form of rain means less water is available. > [@](#): > > Still, statistical analysis of past data can help by providing the likelihood of occurrence of particular events. Also, scientists can run climate model experiments that include only natural variability and then include manmade factors, such as greenhouse gases. These tools serve to highlight and distinguish the dominant mechanisms responsible for particular air circulation characteristics. > > These climate model simulations show that the extreme and persistent circulation patterns that have caused droughts on the West Coast this century are due to anthropogenic external forces, not natural causes. > > For instance, in the case of the persistent region of high pressure – nicknamed the “ridiculously resilient ridge” – the likelihood of an event as observed in 2012-2013 is one in every 420 years! > > Studies suggest that climate change might give rise to a new climate regime, one in which the years of low precipitation will be accompanied by warm conditions, creating the aforementioned “warm drought.” > > This prediction suggests a growing risk of unprecedented drought in California, and the western United States in general, driven primarily by warmer temperature, reduced snowpack and late spring and summer soil moisture, even without significantly drier precipitation patterns. > > All of this means that sustaining water supplies in parts of the Southwest will be a challenge this year – and in the future. It is indeed the task of water managers to deal with the issue and even there it is clear that the managers are consulting the scientists and using their projections, not your underwhelming definitions of what “observed” means. [http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/CA\_Climate\_Science\_and\_Data\_Final\_Release\_June\_2015.pdf](http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/CA_Climate_Science_and_Data_Final_Release_June_2015.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/70 "2016-05-04T13:40:21Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Adding a few degrees temperature to a Mediterranean climate and it’s still a Mediterranean climate, so no changes are observed and none can be projected. But the weather impacts resulting from that “small” temperature change can be drastic and persistent, so that by various other measures like precipitation you don’t have the same climate any more. And local temperatures are not the only cause of local climate changes – many of the underlying causes of persistent weather changes are the changing ocean and atmosphere circulation systems caused by rising average global temperatures. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/71 "2016-05-04T14:40:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The idea that no changes are observed is not what research is showing, and if that change was not happening the water situation would be better as a change in climate points to less snow in the mountains that translates on less water available. > > [How climate change is making California's epic drought worse](http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-california-epic-droughtworse.html) > It is indeed the task of water managers to deal with the issue and even there it is clear that the managers are consulting the scientists and using their projections, not your underwhelming definitions of what “observed” means. > > [http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/CA\_Climate\_Science\_and\_Data\_Final\_Release\_June\_2015.pdf](http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/CA_Climate_Science_and_Data_Final_Release_June_2015.pdf) We have to make a distinction between predicted changes and observed changes. The predicted changes were dreadful, but very few of them have panned out. > [@](#): > > New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. > **[FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June...](https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june)** > > New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12,  2015. At least those were the wildly-inaccurate predictions made by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America... > [@](#): > > Polar bears have long been the poster cubs for those who can’t stop telling us that our carbon dioxide emissions are overheating the planet. Man’s selfish ways, they say, are killing these endangered animals — we’re going to wipe out these cute and cuddly beasts. > > “But such depressing prophesies,” says one scientist, “have so widely missed the mark they can now be said to have failed.” > > Susan Crockford, a University of Victoria zoologist, wrote Thursday, “Global population size appears to have grown slightly,” even though the “ominous prophecies” made by members of the Polar Bear Specialist Group said that the population should be falling. “Data collected by their colleagues,” she says, has “refuted their message of doom.” [http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/climate-change-predictions-they-will-always-be-wrong/](http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/climate-change-predictions-they-will-always-be-wrong/) > [@](#): > > In the weeks and months following the storm and catastrophic flooding, the networks repeatedly exploited the Katrina tragedy to push a radical climate change agenda. > > All three broadcast networks claimed multiple times that Hurricane Katrina was not only caused by global warming, but also a sign of bad things to come. CBS made the most predictions including the warning that “since 1990, the number of big hurricanes in the Gulf is up again, and there’s no end in sight.” The networks also worried storms like Katrina could be the “new normal” for the United States. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-larsen/2015/08/26/katrina-anniversary-medias-10-most-outlandish-hurricane](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-larsen/2015/08/26/katrina-anniversary-medias-10-most-outlandish-hurricane) Even the much-ballyhooed loss of arctic ice cannot be blamed on CO2. > [@](#): > > From the 1920s to the 1940s, the Artic experienced significant warming that is comparable to the recent 30-year warming. > **[Early 20th century warming in the Arctic: A review](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965211000053)** > > From the 1920s to the 1940s, the Artic experienced significant warming that is comparable to the recent 30-year warming. The former warming was concen… > **[“During the warming of the early 1900s, variations in the mean area of arctic...](https://realclimate.science/2011/02/06/during-the-warming-of-the-early-1900s-variations-in-the-mean-area-of-arctic-sea-ice-were-roughly-10-to-15-per-cent/)** > > In other words, Arctic ice loss was about the same during the (nearly identical) early 20th century warming. Also, they concluded that changes in Arctic ice were not responsible for changes in clim… The changes that have actually been observed (as opposed to predicted) are mostly positive. > [@](#): > > From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. > **[Carbon dioxide fertilization greening Earth, study finds](https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Carbon_dioxide_fertilization_greening_Earth_study_finds_999.html)** > > Greenbelt MD (SPX) May 03, 2016 - > From a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published > [@](#): > > Around the world, areas that were once icebound, barren or sandy are now covered in green foliage. All told, carbon emissions have fueled greening in an area about twice the size of the continental United States between 1982 and 2009, according to the study. > **[Earth Gets Greener as Globe Gets Hotter](https://www.livescience.com/54579-earth-is-greening-as-globe-warms.html)** > > Carbon dioxide emissions are fueling more verdant landscapes around the globe, but the potentially temporary greening doesn't mean global warming is good. > [@](#): > > In a stroke of luck, no major hurricanes rated Category 3 or higher have struck U.S. soil during the past nine years, a new study finds. > > This is the country’s longest “hurricane drought” in recorded history, or since 1851, the researchers said. The previous record lull lasted eight years, from 1861 to 1868, they said. > **[US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History](https://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html)** > > It's complete luck that no hurricane rated Category 3 or higher has hit the United States during the past nine years, a new study says. > [@](#): > > A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago. > **[Global warming has made the weather better for most in U.S. -- but don't get...](https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-weather-america-20160420-story.html)** > > Since Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970s, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/72 "2016-05-04T14:44:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > [PolitiFact | Obama says he supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/02/barack-obama/obama-says-he-supported-first-nuclear-power-plant-/) > Again, you only show all that you continue to ignore that Republicans would rather sink bills to deal with the issue of carbon emissions even if the bills include support for nuclear power. That’s nice, but we were talking about Hillary Clinton. What is she going to do to promote nuclear power? Any specifics? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/73 "2016-05-04T16:32:33Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But the weather impacts resulting from that “small” temperature change can be drastic and persistent, so that by various other measures like precipitation you don’t have the same climate any more. And local temperatures are not the only cause of local climate changes – many of the underlying causes of persistent weather changes are the changing ocean and atmosphere circulation systems caused by rising average global temperatures. Excellent point … Southern California is at risk of desertification. My point is that this is within the Mediterranean climate. Bakersfield averages 6-1/2" of rain per year, I’m not so sure this becoming a desert could be called drastic, especially over 86 years. One would have to have a fairly long lifetime to even notice that change. Northern California isn’t at risk, Redding averages 35" of rain per year and it would pretty much take the complete collapse of the large scale circulation system to change that very much. Them Westerlies are going to keep the moisture blowing in. The tropical climates will be pushing pole-ward, but not that far and not so fast. California’s water problems start with her expanding population, increased manufacturing and more acreage under agriculture. When they exploit every drop of water during the wet years, things will go to shit during the dry years. That’s the nature of the Mediterranean climate, and why the Romans built all those aqueducts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/74 "2016-05-04T16:51:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s nice, but we were talking about Hillary Clinton. What is she going to do to promote nuclear power? Any specifics? > > Regards, > Shodan Lets remember that we came to this line because you insisted that there was no difference between her and Bernie, it was. Demanding specifics is not the issue here, the point stands that Hillary does support nuclear power. Bernie is not And once again: your answer does remain that you do not care about what the Republicans are doing, and that was the main point I made too. Republicans are not supporting nuclear power in the context of dealing with the issue here. Showing that indeed there is a difference there too, their denial is just telling the Republicans to scuttle any support of solar, wind and other alternatives, including nuclear if the bill deals with the issue. Hence the reason why to not vote for them is one thing to do as requested by the OP. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/75 "2016-05-04T17:28:53Z")
The first part of your post does not deserve a reply because it is based once again on using the popular press and not science as the counterpoint. Also most of the cites you use are coming from denier sources. Once the science enters we can deal with the issue: > [@Flyer](#): > > The changes that have actually been observed (as opposed to predicted) are mostly positive. Not the point, the point for the previous poster was that there were no observed changes, so thanks for showing that once again he was wrong. > [@Flyer](#): > > [Carbon dioxide fertilization greening Earth, study finds](http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Carbon_dioxide_fertilization_greening_Earth_study_finds_999.html) > [Earth Gets Greener as Globe Gets Hotter | Live Science](http://www.livescience.com/54579-earth-is-greening-as-globe-warms.html) > [US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History | Live Science](http://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html) > [Global warming has made the weather better for most in U.S. -- but don't get used to it, study says](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-weather-america-20160420-story.html) And here I have to point out that many times in the past I also pointed at a reduction of the numbers of hurricanes and that some areas will benefit from the change as good, but **unfortunately** the **observed** xenophobia in the world does demonstrate that no mass migration will be allowed, meaning that we can expect thousands if not millions that will die unless the issue is taken care of properly or if we prepare. Again, since the Republicans do think that noting is happening we can expect to be chronically unprepared. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/76 "2016-05-04T17:42:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Lets remember that we came to this line because you insisted that there was no difference between her and Bernie, it was. As long as we also remember that you have produced no specifics about how Hillary Clinton supports nuclear energy. > [@](#): > > Demanding specifics is not the issue here, the point stands that Hillary does support nuclear power. Please cite the specific ways that Hillary Clinton will support nuclear power. Unless you have such specifics, your allegation that she will actually do more than the GOP remains unproven. > [@](#): > > And once again: your answer does remain that you do not care about what the Republicans are doing, and that was the main point I made too. It was a point I made first - Democrats are less interested in specifics to address AGW in practical ways, and more interested in using the topic to bash Republicans. That’s why they tend to respond to questions about specific and practical steps that realistic Democrats would propose by trying to change the subject to bash Republicans. Because actually doing something practical is hard, and might not redound to the credit of the Democrats we are supposed to vote for without question. ‘We should vote for Hillary, because the GOP is bad.’ ‘In what ways is Hillary better, specifically?’ ‘The GOP is bad.’ > [@](#): > > Again, since the Republicans do think that noting is happening we can expect to be chronically unprepared. Also because the Democrats have no practical suggestions, thus we are going to be unprepared to do anything practical. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/77 "2016-05-04T18:15:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As long as we also remember that you have produced no specifics about how Hillary Clinton supports nuclear energy. > Please cite the specific ways that Hillary Clinton will support nuclear power. Unless you have such specifics, your allegation that she will actually do more than the GOP remains unproven. 😕 Already cited and even you acknowledged that Hillary does, if you continue to point at specifics then you are indeed condemning all the Republican congress for not being specific on their solutions for health care and many other issues. The point stands that you are avoiding what the Republicans are doing with bills that propose the same thing as Hillary: that nuclear power will have support as part of the overall solution. That bill that was cited (and the video that showed what the Republicans are doing with the issue) demonstrates that the Republicans will **scuttle** any support for nuclear power under a framework of dealing with the climate change issue. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/78 "2016-05-04T18:34:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > ‘We should vote for Hillary, because the GOP is bad.’ > > ‘In what ways is Hillary better, specifically?’ Well now we do move to why the GOP is bad, besides the bill example there was the demonstration of how Trump wants to not be a leader but a misleader in this issue. [http://climatecrocks.com/2016/03/17/...concern-rises/](http://climatecrocks.com/2016/03/17/...concern-rises/) [March 17, 2016 – This is Not Cool](http://climatecrocks.com/2016/03/17/)…#comment-81896 Woman’s question: “I’m a volunteer with a leading conservation voters group and we want to know about what your plan is to reduce pollution that is driving climate change and endangering public health.” Trump: “That’s an interesting question. Let me ask you a question… Ok, so we have global, let me ask you this, ok to [hissing and some boos from the crowd] take it easy… How many people, how many people here believe in global warming? [Turns around looks for hands up] You believe in global warming? Who believes in global warming? Who believes in global warming? Raise your hand, nobody? \* One person…” - This is worse than ignorance, it is malpractice. **Even professional “skeptics” tell us that global warming is happening** but is natural, so the answer should had been yes, but not even that awareness was demonstrated by Trump. What fake skeptics deny is the climate change that that warming brings and that it is human caused. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/79 "2016-05-04T18:45:05Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Even the much-ballyhooed loss of arctic ice cannot be blamed on CO2. > > > [@](#): > > > > From the 1920s to the 1940s, the Artic experienced significant warming that is comparable to the recent 30-year warming. > > [Early 20th century warming in the Arctic: A review - ScienceDirect](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965211000053) > > [“During the warming of the early 1900s, variations in the mean area of arctic sea ice were roughly 10 to 15 per cent” | Real Climate Science](https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/during-the-warming-of-the-early-1900s-variations-in-the-mean-area-of-arctic-sea-ice-were-roughly-10-to-15-per-cent/) Actually, that time period was well within the boundaries of the recent industrial epoch, so they were already experiencing the early stages of global warming. > [@Flyer](#): > > The changes that have actually been observed (as opposed to predicted) are mostly positive. > > > [@](#): > > > > From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. > > [Carbon dioxide fertilization greening Earth, study finds](http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Carbon_dioxide_fertilization_greening_Earth_study_finds_999.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > Around the world, areas that were once icebound, barren or sandy are now covered in green foliage. All told, carbon emissions have fueled greening in an area about twice the size of the continental United States between 1982 and 2009, according to the study. > > [Earth Gets Greener as Globe Gets Hotter | Live Science](http://www.livescience.com/54579-earth-is-greening-as-globe-warms.html) [However,](http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-climate-co2-plants/43037/) > [@](#): > > … “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,” said Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. > … > > “[The extent of the greening over the past 35 years] has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, a lead author on the climate study. > > So, whilst the favorable effects of CO2 on plants may both improve the capacity and production of vegetation on Earth, it is almost certainly only a short-term beneficial by-product of a much greater problem, particularly when plants can no longer absorb any more and oceans are full to capacity with this gas. At that point we will have a much, much greater problem on our hands, no matter how green our trees may be. And this is just inane > [@Flyer](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago. > > [Global warming has made the weather better for most in U.S. -- but don't get used to it, study says](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-weather-america-20160420-story.html) ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/80 "2016-05-04T18:52:37Z")
Also, as much as we like to discuss water conservation, [we have another water problem](https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/20721/widespread-loss-of-ocean-oxygen-become-noticeable-in-2030s) that is at least as serious, > [@](#): > > A reduction in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans due to climate change is already discernible in some parts of the world and should be evident across large regions of the oceans between 2030 and 2040, … leaving fish, crabs, squid, sea stars, and other marine life struggling to breathe. > … > > Warming surface waters, however, absorb less oxygen. And in a double whammy, the oxygen that is absorbed has a more difficult time traveling deeper into the ocean. That’s because as water heats up, it expands, becoming lighter than the water below it and less likely to sink. > > Thanks to natural warming and cooling, oxygen concentrations at the sea surface are constantly changing—and those changes can linger for years or even decades deeper in the ocean. > > For example, an exceptionally cold winter in the North Pacific would allow the ocean surface to soak up a large amount of oxygen. Thanks to the natural circulation pattern, that oxygen would then be carried deeper into the ocean interior, where it might still be detectable years later as it travels along its flow path. On the flip side, unusually hot weather could lead to natural “dead zones” in the ocean, where fish and other marine life cannot survive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657.md?page=5)