Yeah so global warming huh...

[heyelander]

For the first time in recorded history, three hurricanes have been detected in the Pacific Ocean.



we don't have any RJ members in Hawaii, do we?

Supposed to be an el-nino this year. More pacific typhoons, less rain in India and Indonesia, but California hopefully will get some much needed rain

[The Feral Slasher]

So in June the administration green lights Shell to begin off shore drilling in the Arctic and in September, he returns with new climate change policy.
That takes some pretty big stones.....

Yeah, I guess when one side will criticize anything you do and one side will defend anything you do it makes it easier. Just saw this article related (somewhat) related to the decision to drill in the Arctic.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/what-happened-govt-scientist-whose-findings-stood-way-big-oils-plans-arctic-drilling

[nots]

Granting Shell permission to drill in the Arctic Sea is a huge mistake IMO. Given the climate and the conditions, the chances are much greater of a disaster than they are in the Gulf, and we saw how that turned out. He administration should have at least tied the thing up in the courts for a few years.
Anyone who trumpets this guy as some sort of environmental saint obviously has a set of Pom poms and an agenda,

[nots]

Here's a link from a huge Obama supporter who nonetheless feels the President is a little impotent on climate change. Perhaps he too is shallow and myopic and is just out to play gotcha with the president.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/For-Obama-and-climate-change-Denali-is-denial-spelled-sideways.html

[Kevin Seitzer]

Obama didn't grant Shell permission, he extended the permission that Dubya had already granted them. The only reason they haven't been drilling since they were approved nearly a decade ago is because of injunctive relief granted to environmental groups who filed suit against them. They finally fought through the mess and started efforts in 2012 but were thwarted by a combination of natural disasters (their flagship got run aground during gale force Arctic winds, for example) and the increased regulations put forth by the Obama administration following the Deepwater Horizon spill. The approval just given by the Obama administration, in the form of the Department of the Interior, was to allow Shell to drill deeper than their initial allowances. Obama's stance was and continues to be that prevention of fossil fuel drilling, generally speaking, is far less effective than advancing a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels. Personally, I agree somewhat with this tactic --- reducing fossil fuel demand is far more effective than playing a game of whack-a-mole where you ban one driller and another simply pops up elsewhere. It's a very difficult and complex issue - certainly moreso than it's being portrayed by those here - and requires a good deal of thoughtful planning. While the transition to renewable fuels is well underway and is being aggressively pushed by the Obama Administration, the fact remains that we need fossil fuels in the interim. Not to mention the fact that canceling leases legally purchased by Shell and issued under the Bush administration would have potentially severe legal consequences. We live in a nation of laws and the President is not an emperor who can cancel contracts as he sees fit, especially $2+ billion contracts like this one. Additionally, oil prices are so low right now that a free for all in the Arctic, given the massive costs associated with drilling in that area, is exceptionally unlikely until we see the price per barrel at least double and maybe more. That all said, I would favor a decision to attempt to restrict Shell's drilling efforts in the area. However, it is exceptionally complicated and just playing some gotcha game regarding Obama's environmental policies is shallow and myopic.

This is a much more thoughtful summary of the issue than the Will Bunch article.

[Hornsby]

Obama didn't grant Shell permission, he extended the permission that Dubya had already granted them. The only reason they haven't been drilling since they were approved nearly a decade ago is because of injunctive relief granted to environmental groups who filed suit against them. They finally fought through the mess and started efforts in 2012 but were thwarted by a combination of natural disasters (their flagship got run aground during gale force Arctic winds, for example) and the increased regulations put forth by the Obama administration following the Deepwater Horizon spill. The approval just given by the Obama administration, in the form of the Department of the Interior, was to allow Shell to drill deeper than their initial allowances. Obama's stance was and continues to be that prevention of fossil fuel drilling, generally speaking, is far less effective than advancing a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels. Personally, I agree somewhat with this tactic --- reducing fossil fuel demand is far more effective than playing a game of whack-a-mole where you ban one driller and another simply pops up elsewhere. It's a very difficult and complex issue - certainly moreso than it's being portrayed by those here - and requires a good deal of thoughtful planning. While the transition to renewable fuels is well underway and is being aggressively pushed by the Obama Administration, the fact remains that we need fossil fuels in the interim. Not to mention the fact that canceling leases legally purchased by Shell and issued under the Bush administration would have potentially severe legal consequences. We live in a nation of laws and the President is not an emperor who can cancel contracts as he sees fit, especially $2+ billion contracts like this one. Additionally, oil prices are so low right now that a free for all in the Arctic, given the massive costs associated with drilling in that area, is exceptionally unlikely until we see the price per barrel at least double and maybe more. That all said, I would favor a decision to attempt to restrict Shell's drilling efforts in the area. However, it is exceptionally complicated and just playing some gotcha game regarding Obama's environmental policies is shallow and myopic.

Agree with Mike...nicely put. Well researched, and well reasoned.

[The Feral Slasher]

While the transition to renewable fuels is well underway and is being aggressively pushed by the Obama Administration, the fact remains that we need fossil fuels in the interim. .

At this point I feel like Obama has been more talk than action. Or possibly I just expect too much. I believe the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased the last two years and are expected to increase again this year. It's clearly a complicated and exceptionally difficult problem, but I guess I have a hard time being satisfied with the progress we are making.

EDIT: I'd be curious what you and others think of the progress we are making

[onejayhawk]

Kind of damning with faint praise, but thanks.

Shakespearian insults. Gotta love em.

J

[johnnya24]

Those pesky "experts" are at it again with their science hokus pokus.

World will pass crucial 2C global warming limit, experts warn

Pledges by nations to cut carbon emissions will fall far short of those needed to prevent global temperatures rising by more than the crucial 2C by the end of the century. This is the stark conclusion of climate experts who have analysed submissions in the runup to the Paris climate talks later this year.


A rise of 2C is considered the most the Earth could tolerate without risking catastrophic changes to food production, sea levels, fishing, wildlife, deserts and water reserves. Even if rises are pegged at 2C, scientists say this will still destroy most coral reefs and glaciers and melt significant parts of the Greenland ice cap, bringing major rises in sea levels.


“We have had a global temperature rise of almost 1C since the industrial revolution and have already seen widespread impacts that have had real consequences for people,” said climate expert Professor Chris Field of Stanford University. “We should therefore be striving to limit warming to as far below 2C as possible. However, that will require a level of ambition that we have not yet seen.”

Of course come Paris, as with all the other climate conference, great changes will be agreed and announced ... the media will lap it up ... politicians will do enough to saved face ... and these changes will amount to precisely nothing as usual.

[heyelander]

I'll be dead, so, whatever.

[TranaGreg]

pretty crazy storm ... having been to Puerto Vallarta & surrounding area I'm keeping a close eye on this ...



wave height map:

[onejayhawk]

We're several hundred miles away and we have had a foot of rain in the last 36 hours. This after only five inches since 4th of July. Heaven help the coast when the run-off converges.

This thing went from a tropical storm to a grade 5 hurrican in a day.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

I thought this was interesting and the pictures were really cool

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/27/world/greenland-is-melting-away.html?_r=1

[johnnya24]

So the Paris climate conference is starting. Forgive the skeptic in me, but I expect a lot of back slapping and the celebration of a "ground breaking agreement" that will have precisely no effect on global warming ... like all the rest of them.

[onejayhawk]

So the Paris climate conference is starting. Forgive the skeptic in me, but I expect a lot of back slapping and the celebration of a "ground breaking agreement" that will have precisely no effect on global warming ... like all the rest of them.

Not no effect. Funding will be confirmed for more studies. Color me skeptical of the independence of the results.

J