Politicians need to seem to be doing SOMETHING, even if it is ill-advised, profligate, and futile, endangers Americans' standard of living and the nation's security. It applies to much of today's policymaking, from mitigation of climate change to the regulation of chemicals and genetic engineering.
Discussions of “climate change” or “global warming” tend to focus on increasing temperatures in summer, especially the current run of severe heat waves. The 85-page summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report mentions “winter” only once, the surname of one of the authors, but the adverse health effects of cold winters have long been recognized. Can the health benefits of warmer winters compensate for the damaging effects of hotter summers?
The chemistry of global warming (GW) driven by heat-trapping air pollutants is measured and reported. Various mathematical models have been used to project future global scenarios. Since natural sources of greenhouse agents are largely beyond our control, here we focus on anthropogenic sources mainly involving combustion – typically byproducts, rather than end products. I use statistical methods to estimate the situation in 2050.
The nightly news often brings a surfeit of environmental disasters: forest fires, floods, tornados, drought, iceberg melting. What have we done to deserve them? Here I draw on various sources of climate change data to provide some understanding of what may lie ahead.
Hands began wringing about global warming and subsequent climate change in the 1980s, and those predictions are now being seen. It’s not rocket science; temperature will increase when heat is pumped into a system limited by greenhouse gases. Electric power generation has been the largest source of heat-trapping gases, and the emerging popularity of electric vehicles promises to increase that share. What exactly are the costs and characteristics of electric generating systems?
How good is the evidence implicating climate change as a cause of heart attacks? Not very. Let's take a critical look at some of this research.
Here is the narrative: if we reduce manmade greenhouse gases and their companion aerosols, like PM2.5, we will reduce global warming and improve our health. Unfortunately, the climate is a bit more complex. Our best plans come with unintended consequences. A new study shows that reducing those manmade aerosols also increases the “climate forcing” bringing about global warming.
Climate change is real; we contribute to it. But warmer temperatures aren't driving unprecedented increases in the number of heart attacks we suffer.
What do you get when you mix a warming climate and criminals? According to a new study, you will get more crime. Should you add that to your list of downside events as our world heats up? Not so fast.
Fish sticks, for many a dinnertime staple, cast an environmental shadow. Fisheries contribute 4% of agriculture's 10-to-32% contribution to Green House Gases. And given those ranges, it should be no surprise that the “environmental performance” varies between the fisheries under discussion. How bad is a fish stick? It depends on what you count, and over what time horizon.
New research concludes that the poorest people in the world will be affected the most by higher CO2 levels, which may decrease the nutritional quality of rice. This conclusion, however, is based on at least two flawed assumptions.