Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica hits new record(esa.int)
esa.int
Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica hits new record
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/FutureEO/CryoSat/Ice_loss_from_Greenland_and_Antarctica_hits_new_record
274 comments
I personally just hope we’ll stop before we break cloud formation.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...
This is super frightening. Along with the acidification of the oceans causing the Clathrate Gun [1] theory - it's hard to be optimistic we can overcome (or even adapt to) these scenarios without society as a whole completely breaking down.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Peter Ward: “Oceans - What’s the Worst that Can Happen?”
Scary stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eM1aakTzMw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation#Shutd...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
Scary stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eM1aakTzMw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation#Shutd...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...
Doesn't it say emissions would have to be 3x greater tham today and maybe it's a possibility after that point?
No, concentration. It need 3x the current CO2 in the air to reach it.
Which considering that 50% of total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were emitted in the last 28 years, that doesn't seem to far away
And in those 28 years, CO2 levels have risen < 100ppm. That is less than 1/9th of the rise needed to reach the 1200ppm levels that this model predicts is necessary to disrupt cloud formation.
As the paper itself clarifies, the worst case model for CO2 emissions still wouldn't have us hit those levels for 75 years.
> If fossil fuel use continues to rapidly expand over the remainder of the century, it is possible levels could get that high. The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth’s atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of this century.
So yes, it is a scary theoretical possibility. One that helps show why even minor mitigations of CO2 emissions growth are better than nothing. However, it is a risk that is not imminent and is something that even our current anemic response to global warming will probably avoid.
As the paper itself clarifies, the worst case model for CO2 emissions still wouldn't have us hit those levels for 75 years.
> If fossil fuel use continues to rapidly expand over the remainder of the century, it is possible levels could get that high. The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth’s atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of this century.
So yes, it is a scary theoretical possibility. One that helps show why even minor mitigations of CO2 emissions growth are better than nothing. However, it is a risk that is not imminent and is something that even our current anemic response to global warming will probably avoid.
> the worst case model for CO2 emissions still wouldn't have us hit those levels for 75 years.
Honestly that’s really not reassuring. I would have hoped it take far longer than that
Honestly that’s really not reassuring. I would have hoped it take far longer than that
As the article says, it's hard to reach this amount of CO2 concentration.
Humans have never backed down from hard to reach goals.
In 2010 we needed to act "before 2020" which seemed like plenty of time. I'm convinced we already have met the "tipping point". No one wants to say that though because it would be either admitting climate change is real, or admitting defeat.
There's plenty of billionaires creating bugout fortresses with private security contractors to keep them safe.
For the elites maybe success means something different to us.
For the elites maybe success means something different to us.
> There's plenty of billionaires creating bugout fortresses with private security contractors to keep them safe.
Being locked in a fortress with a few dozen armed men who’s loyalty depends on “currency in a bank” having any value doesn’t seem very safe to me.
But what do I know, I’m not a billionaire.
Being locked in a fortress with a few dozen armed men who’s loyalty depends on “currency in a bank” having any value doesn’t seem very safe to me.
But what do I know, I’m not a billionaire.
Yeah. The article I read had strategies for this, like becoming friends with your security detail.
But I don't doubt the actual result will end up like the Don't look Up satire
But I don't doubt the actual result will end up like the Don't look Up satire
Without exception all the folks that are going in on that particular grift are ignoring 3 really critical facts:
1. Segments of the local population are armed as well or better than their security contractors and outnumber them thousands to one.
2. None of the locals are confused about where the canned goods are being hoarded.
3. Heavy equipment is both ubiquitous worldwide and shockingly simple to operate effectively.
1. Segments of the local population are armed as well or better than their security contractors and outnumber them thousands to one.
2. None of the locals are confused about where the canned goods are being hoarded.
3. Heavy equipment is both ubiquitous worldwide and shockingly simple to operate effectively.
Don't forget that all of the canned goods don't mean shit if there isn't a way to reboot society.
Tins of beans in fallout shelters are there to get you though the worst 30 days, and then rebuild. If there is global ecological collapse, who cares if you're stocked for 2 years? Unless you've got a lot of farm gear, tooled for future environs, and lots of people to use them, then you're only promising yourself a slow death later.
Tins of beans in fallout shelters are there to get you though the worst 30 days, and then rebuild. If there is global ecological collapse, who cares if you're stocked for 2 years? Unless you've got a lot of farm gear, tooled for future environs, and lots of people to use them, then you're only promising yourself a slow death later.
Who? Where?
I've heard this a bunch and even seen a article -- "ultra wealthy creating climate change bunkers" but never heard any specifics. No one named companies building them, or where they are except some nebulous reference to New Zealand.
The whole thing reeks of "can't be proved, must be true" FUD clickbate.
I've heard this a bunch and even seen a article -- "ultra wealthy creating climate change bunkers" but never heard any specifics. No one named companies building them, or where they are except some nebulous reference to New Zealand.
The whole thing reeks of "can't be proved, must be true" FUD clickbate.
Yes it is a hyperbole. Billionaires aren’t literally buying bunkers and armed guards. They are however buying superyachts, private jets, acres of remote property with private airstrips, fenced mansions in heavily policed areas (including inside many dictatorships), etc.
These together function as a bunker with armed guards to protect them against the effects of climate change.
When it is too smokey in Claifornia where one of your mansion is, simply fly your private jet to Kamchatka where you last parked your superyacht. Or if it is also smokey in Kamchatka, you have a smaller yacht parked in Patagonia.
Are you in Florida and another hurricane is on its way? Notify your private chefs in Egypt about your plans to stay in your palace over there for the next 3 weeks.
These together function as a bunker with armed guards to protect them against the effects of climate change.
When it is too smokey in Claifornia where one of your mansion is, simply fly your private jet to Kamchatka where you last parked your superyacht. Or if it is also smokey in Kamchatka, you have a smaller yacht parked in Patagonia.
Are you in Florida and another hurricane is on its way? Notify your private chefs in Egypt about your plans to stay in your palace over there for the next 3 weeks.
I'm not sure why they think they'd be safe with such a thing.
A billionaire is only a billionaire if there's a society to be richer than 99.9999% of everyone else.
If wealth is measured by how much ammo you've got, your bank account or the fact that you have lawyers on retainer won't mean much.
A billionaire is only a billionaire if there's a society to be richer than 99.9999% of everyone else.
If wealth is measured by how much ammo you've got, your bank account or the fact that you have lawyers on retainer won't mean much.
The wealthy have over the past few thousands of years figured out that they can pay half the poor to keep the other half in line. Despotism is the norm, not the exception in human societies.
A brief blip of liberal democracy has only been made possible by a surplus of resources created by industrialization. If that surplus disappears, or gets fully siphoned up by the elites, we'll be right back to times of feudal lords, their knight-enforcers, and everyone else.
A brief blip of liberal democracy has only been made possible by a surplus of resources created by industrialization. If that surplus disappears, or gets fully siphoned up by the elites, we'll be right back to times of feudal lords, their knight-enforcers, and everyone else.
Yeah, but what are they paying the security force in after the apocalypse? More or less, in comfort. Guess what lots of people that are getting paid in comfort are gonna do? They are gonna try to take control.
^ Depressingly accurate.
I'd rather be dead anyway than live in that world compared to the one I live in now.
One likely adaptation is the deaths of a few billion people from famine and resource wars.
Shitty, grim, blood-soaked first thought in response to your comment: I read something 30 years ago that suggested the maximum sustainable "utopian" carry capacity of the planet was something like 3 billion humans. Regardless of the accuracy of that claim deleting a sizeable percentage of the world population is technically the most effective strategy we have for seriously reducing carbon emissions.
We have, arguably, proven that correct -- 7, going on 8 billion isn't sustainable, and most people are broke as fuck. Purging a few hyperwealthy types won't change how much carbon is generated by 8 billion humans.
I wasn't proposing we purge -only- the hyperwealthy.
Bright sides: It’ll make new billionaires and industrial centers.
Oh right, forgot where I was commenting.
Oh right, forgot where I was commenting.
I don't think you're "wrong" but... There is just no way to convince 7bn people to all act together. And the global nature of the problem means you need basically everyone, and there is a HUGE incentive to be the one NOT acting.
You don’t need to convince 8 billion people.
You simply need to convince the handful of people in charge.
Unfortunately, this climate change thing really throws some of those people:
https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8
“Here’s a snowball, it’s very cold out…”
We send some pretty low IQ people to DC.
You simply need to convince the handful of people in charge.
Unfortunately, this climate change thing really throws some of those people:
https://youtu.be/3E0a_60PMR8
“Here’s a snowball, it’s very cold out…”
We send some pretty low IQ people to DC.
Republicans don't all not support climate change just because they don't believe it. Sure some don't believe it. But there's also those that believe it's not going to work out well to adopt aggressive climate saving measures if industrial and military rival nations don't also adopt the same measures.
Yes, the “what about China excuse comes up a lot”. Another worthless excuse for doing absolutely nothing. Ranks up there with “we don’t want to destroy the economy”
“adopt aggressive climate saving measures”
They could have adopted “non-aggressive” measures and not feed the climate deniers. By doing nothing sooner, requires more pain later. We have been discussing the problem for almost 5 decades.
“adopt aggressive climate saving measures”
They could have adopted “non-aggressive” measures and not feed the climate deniers. By doing nothing sooner, requires more pain later. We have been discussing the problem for almost 5 decades.
How would you address nations such as China then? A lot of finger pointing here without addressing the point
We know how to address China, and other nations. By international agreements and trade.
We have already done it multiple times. Does really no one remember the refrigerator gases, the CFCs?
The same economic doomsday arguments were made at the time, without them food production would suffer globally, and it won't matter anyway since it is a global problem and what about all the countries that will keep using them?
The onus on making a similar argument with greenhouse gases today would be on the ones saying it's impossible this time. The greenhouse situation may be so much more complex but the economic arguments are the same. We know how to solve them, by trade agreements and international tariffs.
We have already done it multiple times. Does really no one remember the refrigerator gases, the CFCs?
The same economic doomsday arguments were made at the time, without them food production would suffer globally, and it won't matter anyway since it is a global problem and what about all the countries that will keep using them?
The onus on making a similar argument with greenhouse gases today would be on the ones saying it's impossible this time. The greenhouse situation may be so much more complex but the economic arguments are the same. We know how to solve them, by trade agreements and international tariffs.
One strong option is tying large tariffs to failure to hit emission reduction targets or failure to implement other globally determined necessary policies.
Like with everything, the problem isn't a lack of practical solutions, it is a lack of willpower to pay the short term polical / economic costs needed to avoid massive long term harm.
Like with everything, the problem isn't a lack of practical solutions, it is a lack of willpower to pay the short term polical / economic costs needed to avoid massive long term harm.
There are probably more than a billion up and coming people in China, India, and other developing countries that would love to take advantage of lower flight and hotel prices in tropical destinations.
I'm not really sure China needed to be addressed. Simply putting significant money into green tech would have had a variety of effects - build out the sector earlier and faster; threaten control of the sector without competitive investment in other countries; demonstrate that the largest economy in the world is willing to put its money where its mouth is.
China invests a significant chunk more into renewable energies than the US. More than double actually.
In fact, a higher percentage of their total energy is met by renewables than for the US. They have 3x the capacity of the US while their per person energy usage and emissions are still significantly lower than US.
Let's not pretend China does nothing.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/ranked-10-countries-e...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-renewables
In fact, a higher percentage of their total energy is met by renewables than for the US. They have 3x the capacity of the US while their per person energy usage and emissions are still significantly lower than US.
Let's not pretend China does nothing.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/ranked-10-countries-e...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-renewables
there are several ways to deal with countries that aren’t good citizens. I’d rather skip the conversation for the 100th time. Maybe you could come up with some common sense solutions? The funny thing about dealing with climate change, deniers, etc. is that once all the questions have been answered, they start all over again at the beginning.
The sort answer is: It’s really not an excuse for us not doing anything.
The sort answer is: It’s really not an excuse for us not doing anything.
Realistically, through something like strong(er) accords and negotiation. But the first step is understanding the problem, recognizing it, and declaring an intent to address it with international cooperation. Saying "but my neighbor won't help" doesn't seem effective to get anything done. The mixed signals regarding thew science also don't help.
One of the principles of negotiation is showing goodwill, so let's all just start by doing our part, and then the international community can have a strong negotiating position with defectors. Being a defector ourselves doesn't help! (I prefer to suffer while striving for a good, than suffer slightly less knowing I'm part of the problem)
One of the principles of negotiation is showing goodwill, so let's all just start by doing our part, and then the international community can have a strong negotiating position with defectors. Being a defector ourselves doesn't help! (I prefer to suffer while striving for a good, than suffer slightly less knowing I'm part of the problem)
This is old, but he was on science committee. If this is what they put on a 'science' committee. Then what else are they capable of.
U.S. House Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, doesn't believe in evolution, the Big Bang theory, or the teachings of embryology. In fact, in a Sept. 27 talk at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga., the member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, who is also a medical doctor, called those areas of science "lies straight from the pit of hell."
U.S. House Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, doesn't believe in evolution, the Big Bang theory, or the teachings of embryology. In fact, in a Sept. 27 talk at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga., the member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, who is also a medical doctor, called those areas of science "lies straight from the pit of hell."
USA, China, India and pretty much everyone else in the "global south" will be more affected by climate change than, say, northern Europe.
Believe it or not, the small handful of people in charge got to their position by serving people to a certain extent. Any substantial reduction in emissions is going to cause substantial economic deadweight losses, which would be politically disastrous. This is why even the New Green Deal only proposes to throw money into projects rather than actively reduce emissions.
We also send smart people with smart teams that know how to appeal to the below-average voters back home, and they’re very successful at that. Are there dumb politicians? Absolutely. But I strongly believe that many play it up so their bases identify with them more strongly as a way to secure power then go on to do whatever benefits them and their wealthy donors / friends.
You don’t even need to convince the handful of people in charge. Independent geoengineering will become a thing faster than you expect.
[deleted]
I personally think idiots get elected because people want them in charge. If they suddenly got smarter, they'd be replaced. That was my conclusion from Brexit and Trump voters: they're choosing to be arseholes, but want to pretend they're just ignorant. This is a variation on the "trump gives his followers something no one else can: permission to be their worst selves".
The same applies to Global warming but on both sides.
That's just my opinion though.
The same applies to Global warming but on both sides.
That's just my opinion though.
I find hope in surprising places. For instance: have you ever considered how unlikely it is that the lounge suit, in the specific form it takes, should be quite as pervasive as it is?
That's massive, global, collective, directed, and specific choice. Now if we could just get the exact same class of people who wear lounge suits by default to consider acting on climate change as the same sort of default...
That's massive, global, collective, directed, and specific choice. Now if we could just get the exact same class of people who wear lounge suits by default to consider acting on climate change as the same sort of default...
This is the way.
I think you're agreeing. The adaptation won't be based on collective action, but individual necessity.
Has been done before, and can be done again.
When have we ever gotten 8bn people to agree to painful, expensive changes simultaneously over a long term?
* Ban on leaded gazoline
* Ban on non-indigenous whaling
* Ban on ozone depleting gasses
* Several human rights treaties
* Nuclear non-proliferation
* Ban on mineral extraction and military activities on Antractica
* etc.
* Ban on non-indigenous whaling
* Ban on ozone depleting gasses
* Several human rights treaties
* Nuclear non-proliferation
* Ban on mineral extraction and military activities on Antractica
* etc.
None of those are painful or expensive though?
Leaded petroleum was such an easy, local problem that solving it just happened at the national level, no need for binding international agreements.
I actually think the smart approach to serious action to prevent global warming would be similar to that taken for Nuclear non-proliferation: The big, strong countries force the others to accept they cannot have emissions and anyone who doesn't agree gets (at least) sanctioned into poverty or maybe "liberated"...
But most countries are much more interested in cheap energy (and meat and construction and other CO2e sources) than they ever were in nukes. Most citizens don't personally care if their leaders have nukes, but they care if they can afford meat and electricity.
And of course, for this to work, we would need those strong countries to ALSO give up their CO2e, something no world power has done and which the US and China are actively headed in the OPPOSITE direction of.
The ban on whaling is also a good example of a few bad actors ignoring the consensus and making the whole thing much less efficient. And that's (again) only for "whale meat", hardly as interesting a product as <almost everything that causes climate change>...
Leaded petroleum was such an easy, local problem that solving it just happened at the national level, no need for binding international agreements.
I actually think the smart approach to serious action to prevent global warming would be similar to that taken for Nuclear non-proliferation: The big, strong countries force the others to accept they cannot have emissions and anyone who doesn't agree gets (at least) sanctioned into poverty or maybe "liberated"...
But most countries are much more interested in cheap energy (and meat and construction and other CO2e sources) than they ever were in nukes. Most citizens don't personally care if their leaders have nukes, but they care if they can afford meat and electricity.
And of course, for this to work, we would need those strong countries to ALSO give up their CO2e, something no world power has done and which the US and China are actively headed in the OPPOSITE direction of.
The ban on whaling is also a good example of a few bad actors ignoring the consensus and making the whole thing much less efficient. And that's (again) only for "whale meat", hardly as interesting a product as <almost everything that causes climate change>...
As the international whaling ban has demonstrated, it doesn’t matter if one or two bad actors (even large and powerful ones like Japan and Norway) don’t comply, as long as the majority and the most powerful nations do. Many whale species became critically endangered and it looked for a moment like they all would and we would simply loose whales from our oceans. That didn’t happen because the world came together and made the decision to kill the whaling industry instead of the whales.
With regards to global warming the responsibility of inaction lies solely on one bad actor, the USA, and only [initially] one political sub-faction in the USA. In 1997 all the world (including USA and China) came together and approved the Kyoto protocol, and made this painful discussion that would deeply affect our fossil fuel industry but save our climate. It was on its way to be ratified everywhere, public support was in its favor, so was the Clinton Administration, all European powers, and the Communist Party of China. Everybody agreed that the cost of climate change was greater than the benefits of cheap energy.
However at some point the oil industry in the USA fought against it, it got stalled in the USA senate and finally killed by the George Bush administration, in order to save their fossil fuel industry. If the USA hadn’t killed it, and even if they would have only half-assed the implementation, and even though China would come to ignore it, we would still be much further along the way of reducing our emissions.
You see, the world can come together and make painful decisions that affects all of us. It has done so multiple times in the past (even with respects to climate change) and it will in the future. It is really only because a certain industry has a disproportional hold over a certain country’s discourse that despite these agreements we have failed to act.
With regards to global warming the responsibility of inaction lies solely on one bad actor, the USA, and only [initially] one political sub-faction in the USA. In 1997 all the world (including USA and China) came together and approved the Kyoto protocol, and made this painful discussion that would deeply affect our fossil fuel industry but save our climate. It was on its way to be ratified everywhere, public support was in its favor, so was the Clinton Administration, all European powers, and the Communist Party of China. Everybody agreed that the cost of climate change was greater than the benefits of cheap energy.
However at some point the oil industry in the USA fought against it, it got stalled in the USA senate and finally killed by the George Bush administration, in order to save their fossil fuel industry. If the USA hadn’t killed it, and even if they would have only half-assed the implementation, and even though China would come to ignore it, we would still be much further along the way of reducing our emissions.
You see, the world can come together and make painful decisions that affects all of us. It has done so multiple times in the past (even with respects to climate change) and it will in the future. It is really only because a certain industry has a disproportional hold over a certain country’s discourse that despite these agreements we have failed to act.
It's easy to say China, or even India, agreed to the Kyoto protocol when that didn't bind them to any goals. It just encouraged developing countries to adopt policies that encouraged reductions.
Aside from that, the US is currently below its 1990 levels while China is 4x its 1990 levels and double the current US production. It doesn't seem to line up with what you're saying about the US not taking action.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
You can create a nice graph here and add counties to compare.
Aside from that, the US is currently below its 1990 levels while China is 4x its 1990 levels and double the current US production. It doesn't seem to line up with what you're saying about the US not taking action.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
You can create a nice graph here and add counties to compare.
I didn’t say that USA didn’t take action. Arguably Biden’s 2022 Climate and Spending bill is the most ambitious climate bill by any country (if so, then god help us, we need 100x that and 100x more). What I did say was that USA was very hostile to any international pact which would have enabled collective action. It is USAs fault that “8bn people [haven’t] agree[d] to painful, expensive changes simultaneously over a long term”, despite the fact that USA did agree to it before it changed its mind.
I’m not listening to the China argument, I’ve heard it many times before, it is always the same, and it is always done in bad faith. It was even the reason claimed by the USA senate to stall the Kyoto protocol over 20 years ago. We now know it had nothing to do with the supposed unfairness and everything to do with the fossil fuel lobby muddying the water,
I’m not listening to the China argument, I’ve heard it many times before, it is always the same, and it is always done in bad faith. It was even the reason claimed by the USA senate to stall the Kyoto protocol over 20 years ago. We now know it had nothing to do with the supposed unfairness and everything to do with the fossil fuel lobby muddying the water,
> With regards to global warming the responsibility of inaction lies solely on one bad actor, the USA
Sure sounds like you’re saying the US isn’t taking action. And in calling them a bad actor you’d think that emissions are going up out of control instead of down below levels that predate the protocol by 7 years. It sounds like your arguments are in bad faith.
Sure sounds like you’re saying the US isn’t taking action. And in calling them a bad actor you’d think that emissions are going up out of control instead of down below levels that predate the protocol by 7 years. It sounds like your arguments are in bad faith.
> With regards to global warming the responsibility of inaction lies solely on one bad actor, the USA.
> I didn’t say that USA didn’t take action.
It sure does sound like I just moved the goalpost here doesn’t it. However if you continue reading the paragraph it surely should be clear I’m talking about inaction in commit to an international agreement. That was also what my parent was talking about, getting people to agree to act, not the action it self.
However even if you didn’t misunderstand me, and I’m actually being disingenuous here, you’d still be wrong. The Kyoto protocol called for industrialized nations to reduce 8-20% of their 1990 emissions by 2012. Most countries stayed within their targets, with a notable exception of Canada. Canada notable followed USA and withdrew the protocol after USA failed to ratify it. USA was still at +4% emissions in 2012 and didn’t go back to 0% until 2020, where Covid pushed them over the edge. 2020 was supposed to be the second target with most nations targeting -20% reduction. USA will not reach that in another decade.
USA is responsible for a huge part of historic emissions, prior to 1997 China was responsible for almost none of it. Had the Kyoto protocol held, China could still be a party to the 2020 target.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?t...
This is the graph you should be looking at, when judging fairness of the protocol, and bad actors. You should ask your self in 1997 when China had the population of Europe and USA combine, while still only responsible for the equivalent of the UK alone. If in 2001 USA and Europe would start to flatten out while China stay under Europe. You should look at the top line, the biggest historic emitter, and ask, why were the USA the first country to bail on the protocol, and why have subsequent trials of another protocol mostly failed.
> I didn’t say that USA didn’t take action.
It sure does sound like I just moved the goalpost here doesn’t it. However if you continue reading the paragraph it surely should be clear I’m talking about inaction in commit to an international agreement. That was also what my parent was talking about, getting people to agree to act, not the action it self.
However even if you didn’t misunderstand me, and I’m actually being disingenuous here, you’d still be wrong. The Kyoto protocol called for industrialized nations to reduce 8-20% of their 1990 emissions by 2012. Most countries stayed within their targets, with a notable exception of Canada. Canada notable followed USA and withdrew the protocol after USA failed to ratify it. USA was still at +4% emissions in 2012 and didn’t go back to 0% until 2020, where Covid pushed them over the edge. 2020 was supposed to be the second target with most nations targeting -20% reduction. USA will not reach that in another decade.
USA is responsible for a huge part of historic emissions, prior to 1997 China was responsible for almost none of it. Had the Kyoto protocol held, China could still be a party to the 2020 target.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?t...
This is the graph you should be looking at, when judging fairness of the protocol, and bad actors. You should ask your self in 1997 when China had the population of Europe and USA combine, while still only responsible for the equivalent of the UK alone. If in 2001 USA and Europe would start to flatten out while China stay under Europe. You should look at the top line, the biggest historic emitter, and ask, why were the USA the first country to bail on the protocol, and why have subsequent trials of another protocol mostly failed.
It sounds like doublespeak to me. Inaction is a lack of action. You're saying they didn't act, but you they did act and therefore what you said is correct. You're argument is quite convoluted at this point.
That graph is good at pointing out that historically the US has contributed more than anyone. I didn't dispute that. It just seems like a silly argument to go back hundreds of years before any powers recognized it was an issue and use that as a basis for what should be done going forward so that other countries can catch up to the US's historically awful record. You see something, you fix it.
That graph is good at pointing out that historically the US has contributed more than anyone. I didn't dispute that. It just seems like a silly argument to go back hundreds of years before any powers recognized it was an issue and use that as a basis for what should be done going forward so that other countries can catch up to the US's historically awful record. You see something, you fix it.
after the ultimate changes in climate, will there still be 7bn people?
No. But by then it will be way too late to matter for the purposes of mitigating climate change. We've blown through 1.5C. 2C will be next. 3, 4, 5, 10, how far will we get before the results catch up with the causes?
birth rates are going down and if current trends continue total population should start decreasing at some point. But everything comes down to that. Human societies existed and even slowly grew in much worse conditions. So I’m sure what could happen because of climate change to offset modern medicine/agriculture/transportation/etc.
The better question would be whether they would still be alive.
in what other manner did you interpret that?
That having a few hundred million corpses lying around would put a bit of a strain on funeral services...
Mass die offs have happened historically but nothing short of the black plague is in line with the range of possibilities before us.
Mass die offs have happened historically but nothing short of the black plague is in line with the range of possibilities before us.
> but nothing short of the black plague is in line with the range of possibilities before us.
What do you mean? Now I'm scared...
Why would people just suddenly start dropping dead?
What do you mean? Now I'm scared...
Why would people just suddenly start dropping dead?
I really don't want to spoil your dinner but the chances of millions of dead per year are fairly high, and that's up to 2100, not many models look beyond that (the uncertainty is too large). The extremes of those models (things that could happen but with a much smaller likelihood) are enough to make you miserable.
The good news is that there are similar possible outcomes that things won't be that dire.
250K dead / year by 2050, 5 million / year or so by 2100.
The tough part is that such models have a lot of uncertainty and that it is very well possible to be alive but to be utterly miserable. I'm normally fairly optimistic about our ability to influence our lives but on this one I'm not, this will happen and we're along for the ride, it's a rearguard action at this point where we can try hard to minimize the damage but not avoid it completely.
The good news is that there are similar possible outcomes that things won't be that dire.
250K dead / year by 2050, 5 million / year or so by 2100.
The tough part is that such models have a lot of uncertainty and that it is very well possible to be alive but to be utterly miserable. I'm normally fairly optimistic about our ability to influence our lives but on this one I'm not, this will happen and we're along for the ride, it's a rearguard action at this point where we can try hard to minimize the damage but not avoid it completely.
Not to trivialise it, but those 250k/year or 5 million/year are against the ordinary level of 67 million deaths per year worldwide, UN data:
https://bigthink.com/the-present/births-and-deaths-per-year/
When we think how many of those deaths - and the suffering leading up to them - could be changed by reducing obesity, reducing sugar intake, increasing exercise, reducing air pollution, reducing smoking, increasing vitamin D levels, reducing alcohol consumption, reducing stress by any means (city noise to hypercompetitive workplaces to ragebait media), improving road safety, and "we" don't act on most of that. And then how much more we would have to act to hold or reverse climate change to save comparatively fewer people, it seems ... not a bad idea, but a sadly unlikely one.
(Incidentally, 67 million -> 72 million is about a 7% increase in deaths. Which is in the region of the excess deaths in 2022 which correlate with COVID vaccination in 2021 in European countries. A study from a Norwegian University finds a correlation of 1% increase in population vaccinated in 2021 -> 0.1% increase in excess deaths in 2022. Not caused by COVID which they excluded, not caused by a bounceback after a year of fewer deaths which they accounted for, and as far as the authors can tell not caused by delayed access to health care which was widespread and not linked to vaccination levels in different countries; and if that's roughly in the region of the expected climate change deaths, you can see that not only are we not doing much about this, we are barely even talking about it in public, which doesn't bode well for the climate change equivalent: Dr on YouTube citing studies and evidence and not conspiracy theories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyo2UNQcdpQ )
https://bigthink.com/the-present/births-and-deaths-per-year/
When we think how many of those deaths - and the suffering leading up to them - could be changed by reducing obesity, reducing sugar intake, increasing exercise, reducing air pollution, reducing smoking, increasing vitamin D levels, reducing alcohol consumption, reducing stress by any means (city noise to hypercompetitive workplaces to ragebait media), improving road safety, and "we" don't act on most of that. And then how much more we would have to act to hold or reverse climate change to save comparatively fewer people, it seems ... not a bad idea, but a sadly unlikely one.
(Incidentally, 67 million -> 72 million is about a 7% increase in deaths. Which is in the region of the excess deaths in 2022 which correlate with COVID vaccination in 2021 in European countries. A study from a Norwegian University finds a correlation of 1% increase in population vaccinated in 2021 -> 0.1% increase in excess deaths in 2022. Not caused by COVID which they excluded, not caused by a bounceback after a year of fewer deaths which they accounted for, and as far as the authors can tell not caused by delayed access to health care which was widespread and not linked to vaccination levels in different countries; and if that's roughly in the region of the expected climate change deaths, you can see that not only are we not doing much about this, we are barely even talking about it in public, which doesn't bode well for the climate change equivalent: Dr on YouTube citing studies and evidence and not conspiracy theories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyo2UNQcdpQ )
Yes, obviously the number of expected deaths is ~ the number of people alive / average lifespan.
But the number of people dying due to climate change is a difficult to pin down number. Do you or do not include for instance people dying in wars when the proximate cause for the war was climate change or mass migration? Some believe you should, others say that wars have always been fought. So it's a tricky problem for many intrinsic reasons and it is an even trickier problem because there are so many ways to interpret the data.
All this adds up to us doing nothing until it is way too late.
But the number of people dying due to climate change is a difficult to pin down number. Do you or do not include for instance people dying in wars when the proximate cause for the war was climate change or mass migration? Some believe you should, others say that wars have always been fought. So it's a tricky problem for many intrinsic reasons and it is an even trickier problem because there are so many ways to interpret the data.
All this adds up to us doing nothing until it is way too late.
> 250K dead / year by 2050, 5 million / year or so by 2100.
Can that be fully offset by increase standards of living and improving healthcare/medicine? 250k is not a lot statistically on a global scale (and I really doubt the capability of these models to accurately predict what's going to happen in 50+ years)
> The tough part is that such models have a lot of uncertainty and that it is very well possible to be alive but to be utterly miserable.
I'm not saying it's going to be tough for a lot of people in some places. But I don't really see how for humanity as a whole it can be much more than a slowdown than potentially can be fully compensated by further technological progress. Of course increasing economic inequality can likely only make it worse rather than better
Can that be fully offset by increase standards of living and improving healthcare/medicine? 250k is not a lot statistically on a global scale (and I really doubt the capability of these models to accurately predict what's going to happen in 50+ years)
> The tough part is that such models have a lot of uncertainty and that it is very well possible to be alive but to be utterly miserable.
I'm not saying it's going to be tough for a lot of people in some places. But I don't really see how for humanity as a whole it can be much more than a slowdown than potentially can be fully compensated by further technological progress. Of course increasing economic inequality can likely only make it worse rather than better
pstuart(1)
What you're saying is that mankind needs a benevolent dictator to solve the problem. An empowered and effective benevolent dictator.
Unless they were some sort of Superman, they'd just be overthrown. It would be a big effort to convince people to go for actually cutting CO2e. And that is without people (republicans, conspiracy theorists and 1001 other groups) poisoning the well...
Thanos was right ;)
[Sorry, couldn't resist, please downvote]
[Sorry, couldn't resist, please downvote]
This has become a very popular opinion lately. The mainstream skepticism of if climate change exists has been replaced with it. But it's false. If we can't adapt to consuming or driving less how are we going to adapt to e.g. cycles of droughts and floods?
It's become such a popular opinion that I wonder if it's being pushed.
It's become such a popular opinion that I wonder if it's being pushed.
I think it’s kind of obvious. We can’t adapt to consuming less because there is no immediate cost. We can adapt to droughts because it would force migration of people away from areas without water because those that won’t will either not have access to water or spend a lot for water (a direct cost).
Mitigation might be cheaper, but disasters that already happen have more clear incentives.
Mitigation might be cheaper, but disasters that already happen have more clear incentives.
I'd say it's "we think we can adapt to climate change".
At the end of the day, earth will not become entirely uninhabitable. The rich portions of humanity will have to migrate and pay expensive mitigation, the poor portions will suffer and many will die.
It’s terrible that we aren’t addressing issues early but it’s hard to see how we fail to adapt. At worst I think we see total excess deaths around two billion (which is a lot! but basically let’s us discount most of Africa and a few hundred mil from Asia and Americas).
It’s terrible that we aren’t addressing issues early but it’s hard to see how we fail to adapt. At worst I think we see total excess deaths around two billion (which is a lot! but basically let’s us discount most of Africa and a few hundred mil from Asia and Americas).
It's the easy way, going straight from disbelief to declaring defeat relieves you from the impetus to take a stand, make life changes etc.
Considering the oil economy is literally the hub around which all global finance revolves I'd say there's both motive and finance available for unlimited astroturfing.
It's easy to say when others feel the same way, but I'd like to believe it's mostly a matter of adapting expectations to reality since there's no realistic way to get 8 billion people agree to what the proper way forward is.
We have less than 100 million people living a lifestyle that 7900 million people try to achieve. A few prominent people on the top blames it on the 1500 million or so, that have managed to achieve what most of us call basic decent living. Yes, the bar has gone up the last 30 years. Significantly. Yes, many would be fine on 1990-levels. Many wouldn't. The next 5 billion or so work hard to catch up regardless, and they're offsetting anything the smaller part does, by the sheer amount of growth. The poorest 1½ billion that's left are mostly trying to survive. The rest of us could have done _something_, but it's the ones who are worst off that'll take the worst blow.
I'm over 40, and learnt about this in school over 30 years ago. My grandparent's generation knew, and did nothing. My parent's generation are still struggling with basic things like throwing glass and metal in a separate container for recycling. The time for solving this with wonderful technological innovation has come and gone. We _could_ try to force some kind of return to sustenance farming, but previous attempts at such social engineering have ended in near-genocide. And so, all that is left is to deal with the consequences of deciscions that were taken long ago.
The good thing is that more and more people agree about climate change being real. We might have screwed up preventing disaster, but at least we still have a chance to dampen the impact.
We have less than 100 million people living a lifestyle that 7900 million people try to achieve. A few prominent people on the top blames it on the 1500 million or so, that have managed to achieve what most of us call basic decent living. Yes, the bar has gone up the last 30 years. Significantly. Yes, many would be fine on 1990-levels. Many wouldn't. The next 5 billion or so work hard to catch up regardless, and they're offsetting anything the smaller part does, by the sheer amount of growth. The poorest 1½ billion that's left are mostly trying to survive. The rest of us could have done _something_, but it's the ones who are worst off that'll take the worst blow.
I'm over 40, and learnt about this in school over 30 years ago. My grandparent's generation knew, and did nothing. My parent's generation are still struggling with basic things like throwing glass and metal in a separate container for recycling. The time for solving this with wonderful technological innovation has come and gone. We _could_ try to force some kind of return to sustenance farming, but previous attempts at such social engineering have ended in near-genocide. And so, all that is left is to deal with the consequences of deciscions that were taken long ago.
The good thing is that more and more people agree about climate change being real. We might have screwed up preventing disaster, but at least we still have a chance to dampen the impact.
[deleted]
Some years ago I got to the point where I think it's inevitable that we'll burn all the oil, coal, etc, and we'll just engage in geoengineering to try to mitigate it. And people in the low income world will suffer the worst effects while the wealthy continue to live in air conditioned glass towers.
[deleted]
Might seem a bit misanthropic, but us humans probably are just going to be a blip on Earth's history, being the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot. But I suspect that cockroaches will carry on just fine. So at least there is hope for the future.
The asteroid that caused the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event was also just a blip on Earth’s history, it did however succeed in making life on earth miserable for a few thousand years, wiping out 75% of the all the species in the process.
In your analogy we are not the frog though, we are the pot, and we are the asteroid, since we are the ones causing the catastrophe. Except on geologic timescales, the pot isn’t slowly being boiled, it is being pressured cooked on a thermo-nuclear reactor. Extinction events are seldomly this sudden and extreme as climate change is currently.
In your analogy we are not the frog though, we are the pot, and we are the asteroid, since we are the ones causing the catastrophe. Except on geologic timescales, the pot isn’t slowly being boiled, it is being pressured cooked on a thermo-nuclear reactor. Extinction events are seldomly this sudden and extreme as climate change is currently.
>Extinction events are seldomly this sudden and extreme as climate change is currently.
How do you figure? An asteroid impacting the planet "making life miserable for a few thousand years, wiping out 75%" in seconds of an impact, or a cataclysmic volcanic eruption that happens in seconds/minutes/hours. All of that near instant destruction compared to the 100-200 years of man made pollution on industrial scales.
How do you figure? An asteroid impacting the planet "making life miserable for a few thousand years, wiping out 75%" in seconds of an impact, or a cataclysmic volcanic eruption that happens in seconds/minutes/hours. All of that near instant destruction compared to the 100-200 years of man made pollution on industrial scales.
Geologically speaking that is an instant roughly the equivalent of an asteroid impact. Even if for those living through it looks entirely different the outcome is the same.
Sure, speaking cosmological terms, it's like humans never happened. But speaking in terms of what is controllable by those humans, we just had a successful test that we might be able to save ourselves from an asteroid if we have significant amount of notice. Can't really do too much about volcanoes though. Man made pollution is definitely something we have control over and we've had half a century of warnings. Let's not lose sight of the actual conversation when it is still within our control even if we've decided to ignore it. Human extinction is the most probable outcome but that doesn't mean we have to accelerate it and then just shrug our shoulders
Since COVID-19 I have absolutely zero confidence in mankind pulling the same cart together no matter if it would kill them if they didn't.
"The asteroid that caused the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event was also just a blip on Earth’s history, it did however succeed in making life on earth miserable for a few thousand years, wiping out 75% of the all the species in the process."
Sure, but that leaves a heaping helping of the remaining 25% to carry on to eventually repopulate the planet with more glorious life. It's happened before, it'll happen again, and whether we're the reason or the victim doesn't really matter. Life finds a way, with or without humans.
Sure, but that leaves a heaping helping of the remaining 25% to carry on to eventually repopulate the planet with more glorious life. It's happened before, it'll happen again, and whether we're the reason or the victim doesn't really matter. Life finds a way, with or without humans.
Some of us are attached to our current civilization and would like to preserve it. Others would like to continue enriching themselves.
A cursory look at the history of the planets temperature [1] makes this sentiment seems ridiculous.
We're still in below average temperatures. Considering our dummy ancestors were around 50 million years ago, when averages were 30 degrees hotter, I don't see why man, as we are now, wouldn't survive. The poles will be nice tropics, once again [2].
Society as is, is doomed, but man is probably fairly permanent.
[1] https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt...
from
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropi...
We're still in below average temperatures. Considering our dummy ancestors were around 50 million years ago, when averages were 30 degrees hotter, I don't see why man, as we are now, wouldn't survive. The poles will be nice tropics, once again [2].
Society as is, is doomed, but man is probably fairly permanent.
[1] https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt...
from
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropi...
In the past this happened over timescales that allowed nature to adapt. We're now doing it many times faster, and at a time when nature is already greatly diminished due to human resource extraction.
We're just desertificating vast regions of the planet, not turning them into "nice tropics".
We're just desertificating vast regions of the planet, not turning them into "nice tropics".
> our dummy ancestors were around 50 million years ago
While true, this vague statement may be misinterpreted by readers. Per Wikipedia[0], about 55 million years ago is the first fossil evidence of any apes. The 'homo' genus, which is what I'd consider "our dummy ancestors", doesn't appear until 2 million years ago (and anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
While true, this vague statement may be misinterpreted by readers. Per Wikipedia[0], about 55 million years ago is the first fossil evidence of any apes. The 'homo' genus, which is what I'd consider "our dummy ancestors", doesn't appear until 2 million years ago (and anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
I just don't understand why people make these arguments.
When people speak of "humanity" they don't mean "the human species". They/we mean of "human society", our current variant, which just invented computers, artificial intelligent, and until very recently seemed set on ending all resource scarcity, curing all diseases, and becoming inter-planetary.
Will humans survive somewhere in the climate as our ancestral species did before us? Of course.
But losing 2000 years of societal progress is not something to just waive away as nothing.
As long as we are succeptible to a tiny rock floating in space swiping our little planet and wiping out all of us, we must progress technologically, and a regression to merely surviving and dying of a broken ankle is not an answer.
When people speak of "humanity" they don't mean "the human species". They/we mean of "human society", our current variant, which just invented computers, artificial intelligent, and until very recently seemed set on ending all resource scarcity, curing all diseases, and becoming inter-planetary.
Will humans survive somewhere in the climate as our ancestral species did before us? Of course.
But losing 2000 years of societal progress is not something to just waive away as nothing.
As long as we are succeptible to a tiny rock floating in space swiping our little planet and wiping out all of us, we must progress technologically, and a regression to merely surviving and dying of a broken ankle is not an answer.
> but us humans probably are just going to be a blip on Earth's history
They were clearly talking about humans, the animal, not society.
They were clearly talking about humans, the animal, not society.
I see this argument a lot on conservative news, "humans will adapt". Well, yes, humans will adapt, and there probably will be humans carrying on for thousands of more years.
But not US, WE, todays societies will be gone. Why is this an argument with 'conservatives'? The stupid 'woke' should stop worrying about climate, because humans will adapt.
But why is this a 'conservative' argument, when all of their religions will also be gone. When we are back in the stone ages, there will be humans, but not 'Republican'. Unless, in the dystopian future, the Christian Right does devolve into a Taliban like Ameri-stan where they can go 'Old Testament' on gays. But that does seem like a pretty long game argument. Is it really: "Deny Climate Change so we can destroy civilization back into bronze age so we can just wander the desert worshiping god, like we were supposed to"
But not US, WE, todays societies will be gone. Why is this an argument with 'conservatives'? The stupid 'woke' should stop worrying about climate, because humans will adapt.
But why is this a 'conservative' argument, when all of their religions will also be gone. When we are back in the stone ages, there will be humans, but not 'Republican'. Unless, in the dystopian future, the Christian Right does devolve into a Taliban like Ameri-stan where they can go 'Old Testament' on gays. But that does seem like a pretty long game argument. Is it really: "Deny Climate Change so we can destroy civilization back into bronze age so we can just wander the desert worshiping god, like we were supposed to"
I had a light-switch moment listening to some conservative or other on a rant about how the left is making up climate change in order to justify government control of business/society. It's the kind of comment that says more about the person making it than those they are accusing. If you loathe the idea of collective action, then an existential problem that requires collective action to solve poses a problem for you, and denial seems to be the simplest route out of any cognitive dissonance.
I was just responding to the comment "but us humans probably are just going to be a blip on Earth's history", which you also seem to disagree with.
I don't know why conservatives think that, but I think it's silly to think that humans, the animal, will be wiped out within the next 1000 years, due to the very real climate change that is happening.
I don't know why conservatives think that, but I think it's silly to think that humans, the animal, will be wiped out within the next 1000 years, due to the very real climate change that is happening.
That thought actually frightens me, because we would get away with negligently exterminating all these other life forms, part of which has already happened. If there's any justice in this universe we will follow them.
Civilizations collapsed under less stress. Billionaires exist only if there is a highly organized society. Actually most tech exists only if there is a highly organized society.
I agree. I think we will see some countries degrade, as we do today from climate and conflict. I think there will be more of them and some will be worse.
Fundamentally, if you look at the level of suffering due to conflict and climate that already exists, I'm just saying we'll all be more aware of that, and HN readers are much more likely to experience that, vs saying we're all going to end up with Mad Max scenarios.
Fundamentally, if you look at the level of suffering due to conflict and climate that already exists, I'm just saying we'll all be more aware of that, and HN readers are much more likely to experience that, vs saying we're all going to end up with Mad Max scenarios.
> as we do today from climate
What is this in reference to? Climate deaths are at an all time low [1].
[1] https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate...
What is this in reference to? Climate deaths are at an all time low [1].
[1] https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate...
Metrics like this are skewed by 'warning'. Today there are far fewer deaths by hurricane, but not because hurricanes have gotten smaller, but because we are better at predicting and evacuating. So someone saying 'hey hurricane deaths are down, no problems here', is misleading.
This is why I ask what they were referring to when they say "see some countries degrade, as we do today from climate". I don't want to have to guess about the specific metric, incorrectly most likely.
Bye bye Las Vegas…
I think that's a huge worry. There is a huge population there that as far as I can tell, can't just 'move a bit north' or something. Plenty of them are not very wealthy so don't have a lot of cash to spend on mitigation. It could get really ugly.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/23/climate-change-unprecedente... ("Nearly 2 billion at risk from "unprecedented" climate conditions")
> Of note: The study found that if countries only meet existing emissions reductions based on current policies, and warming were to reach 2.7°C by 2100 (4.8°F), the top 5 countries most vulnerable to unprecedented heat (based on the number of people exposed) would be India, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
> In this scenario, up to a third of humanity would be exposed to such extreme heat and be well outside the human climate niche, the study found. The heat would not hold off until the end of the century, but ratchet up noticeably over time.
> The study concludes that for every 0.1°C (0.18°F) increase in global average surface temperatures, another 140 million people will be exposed to dangerous heat.
> Of note: The study found that if countries only meet existing emissions reductions based on current policies, and warming were to reach 2.7°C by 2100 (4.8°F), the top 5 countries most vulnerable to unprecedented heat (based on the number of people exposed) would be India, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
> In this scenario, up to a third of humanity would be exposed to such extreme heat and be well outside the human climate niche, the study found. The heat would not hold off until the end of the century, but ratchet up noticeably over time.
> The study concludes that for every 0.1°C (0.18°F) increase in global average surface temperatures, another 140 million people will be exposed to dangerous heat.
The Black Plague was a huge population stabiliser in Europe/Asia in the middle ages.
Expect something quite equivalent at world scale.
Note: btw, it was an absolue nightmarish period to live in !
Note: btw, it was an absolue nightmarish period to live in !
Apocalyptic in truest sense of the word, followed by post-apocalyptic for a bit.
Funny so, that even back then society didn't really collapse into the sorry state TV wants us to believe it would today.
Funny so, that even back then society didn't really collapse into the sorry state TV wants us to believe it would today.
I doubt Pakistanis will ever allow them to just "move north".
A global war would ensue, where everyone would try to defend their southern borders from the intruders and try to "go north". And billions of deaths will happen out of necessity, since "the north" can't sustain enough food production for 7-8bn of people.
And since many would die anyways, every nuclear power will make sure to use their nukes to destroy the ones trying to come from the south and to break up north.
In the end, it would be a nuclear war between the USA and Russia trying to use the situation and extend the full control over the Arctic.
A global war would ensue, where everyone would try to defend their southern borders from the intruders and try to "go north". And billions of deaths will happen out of necessity, since "the north" can't sustain enough food production for 7-8bn of people.
And since many would die anyways, every nuclear power will make sure to use their nukes to destroy the ones trying to come from the south and to break up north.
In the end, it would be a nuclear war between the USA and Russia trying to use the situation and extend the full control over the Arctic.
> It could get really ugly
Indeed, and not just there.
What pains me the most is that we collectively could be mitigating this with far more vigor but that would be in conflict with the worship of the quarterly profit report.
Indeed, and not just there.
What pains me the most is that we collectively could be mitigating this with far more vigor but that would be in conflict with the worship of the quarterly profit report.
There's plenty of local action that can be taken that aren't really about 'quarterly profits'.
Does your city have parking mandates, for instance, where developers are required to furnish N parking spots per dwelling unit or store?
That kind of thing locks automobile usage in place in suburbia, so that many people are stuck in a lifestyle where they are forced to use an automobile all the time, for everything. And transportation is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
Does your city have parking mandates, for instance, where developers are required to furnish N parking spots per dwelling unit or store?
That kind of thing locks automobile usage in place in suburbia, so that many people are stuck in a lifestyle where they are forced to use an automobile all the time, for everything. And transportation is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
Things like fighting parking mandates nibble on the problem at the edges, are net-positive, but are largely trying to push on a rope.
Something like carbon taxes or caps would actually deal with the problem. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of pushback on them.
Something like carbon taxes or caps would actually deal with the problem. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of pushback on them.
The alliances being forged to eliminate things like parking mandates (we just did this in Bend, Oregon!) are great ones to keep pushing for more things.
I do like this idea, and other ideas like this, but can't help but observe that it's inducing a sort of functional privation without a corresponding counterbalance. We can't just work to "eliminate automobile usage in [...] suburbia" when suburbia's physical affordances don't really allow suburbanites to contend with anything else...
Sure, there's a lot going on. Another thing that we should do is re-legalize things like "neighborhood commercial". Things like corner stores or barber shops that people can walk to are functionally illegal in vast swathes of American suburbia. Part of what makes them difficult to build, even if you've solved for zoning, is oppressive parking mandates.
Books like https://islandpress.org/books/arbitrary-lines and https://www.brookings.edu/book/fixer-upper/ are decent starting points for more in-depth discussions of all this.
Books like https://islandpress.org/books/arbitrary-lines and https://www.brookings.edu/book/fixer-upper/ are decent starting points for more in-depth discussions of all this.
What makes them functionally non-starters is if I go to a corner store I expect that I'm paying 20-50% more than if I went to a supermarket and if I go to a supermarket I expect to pay 10-20% more than if I went to a big box store. Your solution is to not only make a network of less price efficient stores, but have me walk to those store three to four times as often. This doesn't even account for the increased truck traffic, through our neighborhoods, that has to deliver to all of these stores instead of the handful. It also will greatly limit the options of what is for sale at particular stores because serving 100 families versus serving 10000 families will have drastically less shelf space and not make low volume items worth carrying.
If they're 'non starters', then there is no need to make them illegal via zoning.
One just reopened near me, and it's been quite successful so far:
https://www.bendbulletin.com/lifestyle/bruno-s-6th-street-ma...
It's not just a store, sure, but the entire reason the commercial space exists is because it was a market before we got a zoning code making that sort of thing functionally illegal in most residential areas.
No one is saying you have to always go to the corner store, either. Who knows what the market would provide. They aren't high margin businesses. But at the very least, we should re-legalize them and see. This stuff isn't black and white: if you skip a few trips by going to a local barber, but still drive to work, that's still progress.
Where I lived in Italy, there was a smaller neighborhood grocery store we went to for most things. It was a little bit more expensive than the big box one, but not the kind of corner store prices you're talking about. They had fresh fruit, veggies and meat, so I often stopped there to pick up some things to make dinner with, nice and fresh, rather than a weekly run to Costco or something, as is more common in the US.
One just reopened near me, and it's been quite successful so far:
https://www.bendbulletin.com/lifestyle/bruno-s-6th-street-ma...
It's not just a store, sure, but the entire reason the commercial space exists is because it was a market before we got a zoning code making that sort of thing functionally illegal in most residential areas.
No one is saying you have to always go to the corner store, either. Who knows what the market would provide. They aren't high margin businesses. But at the very least, we should re-legalize them and see. This stuff isn't black and white: if you skip a few trips by going to a local barber, but still drive to work, that's still progress.
Where I lived in Italy, there was a smaller neighborhood grocery store we went to for most things. It was a little bit more expensive than the big box one, but not the kind of corner store prices you're talking about. They had fresh fruit, veggies and meat, so I often stopped there to pick up some things to make dinner with, nice and fresh, rather than a weekly run to Costco or something, as is more common in the US.
They haven't been illegal anywhere I've lived. A few survive, but none thrive. Mostly they seem to get by selling drinks and to smokers.
Try and set one up in most US suburbs and then get back to me. In other words: look at your city's zoning map. They're not allowed in most places in most cities.
Haunting expleration of how it could happen at https://www.orbitbooks.net/orbit-excerpts/the-ministry-for-t...
[deleted]
Upside is it’s certainly reversible climate change. Downside is humans might not be around to see the reversion. (Possibly the upside if you take the perspective of all other life on earth)
Not gonna lie, based on what the pandemic revealed to me about real human nature I think it'd be in everyone's best interest for our species to go extinct and give evolution a few hundred million years to take another crack at sentient tool-using apex predators based on some other gene line. Primates just aren't panning out.
Maybe apex predator is the problem. I imagine sentient tool using rabbits wouldn’t do this sort of stuff.
No argument there.
I'm looking forward to the end of this ice age.
undersuit(3)
I see zero reason why humans could not succeed in dealing with climate change. Will we be able to control the climate fully - no, but probably get closer to engineering our planet properly rather than by accident.
It's totally feasible. Is it reasonable? As we pour more energy into our climate it's going to become more chaotic and as more people become displaced by weather events our production capabilities will be diminished and redirected.
Not acting now means we'll have to act more aggressively in the future under more adverse conditions... like controlling the weather to make sure we get a successful harvest of food.
Not acting now means we'll have to act more aggressively in the future under more adverse conditions... like controlling the weather to make sure we get a successful harvest of food.
The current approaches often don't sell well politically, so we need to plan for different contingencies.
That doesn't mean the decarbonization won't happen but that it might need different political agreements, perhaps different technological setups, cost sharing mechanism etc. - but that will delay things, highlighting again the need for contingency approaches.
That doesn't mean the decarbonization won't happen but that it might need different political agreements, perhaps different technological setups, cost sharing mechanism etc. - but that will delay things, highlighting again the need for contingency approaches.
Meanwhile, Sea Surface Temperatures remain far, far, far above normal. The gap between this year and the second-hottest is striking.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Max by year, since it's hard to see:
https://imgur.com/a/YTiDmbc
edit: no idea why imgur thinks my plot is erotic. But, if anyone is too afraid to click, it's a linear looking increase, up to the right, from 20 to 21C.
https://imgur.com/a/YTiDmbc
edit: no idea why imgur thinks my plot is erotic. But, if anyone is too afraid to click, it's a linear looking increase, up to the right, from 20 to 21C.
Am I reading it wrong? We're 4 standard deviations away from the average?
It's a regular yearly event these days. How soon will the record ice loss be posted this year? Did we beat it last year?
Some times it feels like we're re-arranging deck chairs. The US administration plans more drilling in Alaska, Russia continues to seek new natural gas and oil sources; human civilization continues on as if nothing is happening.
I hope we can end all use of fossil fuels in the energy sector before 2030 but I remain doubtful.
It seems like we may simply end up with no polar caps and have to survive the next few thousand years without them.
Some times it feels like we're re-arranging deck chairs. The US administration plans more drilling in Alaska, Russia continues to seek new natural gas and oil sources; human civilization continues on as if nothing is happening.
I hope we can end all use of fossil fuels in the energy sector before 2030 but I remain doubtful.
It seems like we may simply end up with no polar caps and have to survive the next few thousand years without them.
I wish we could end all fossil fuel use by 2050, but even that won't happen. I do think we'll be using substantially less than we are today by 2050 though, so that's something. 2030 is impossible.
The ice in Antarctica won't completely melt, it's been there a very long time and it would take a very long time and a very dramatic change to cause that. If we manage to cause that we're really fucked, because the changes to everything else would be catastrophic. But Greenland could happen over the course of a millennia. That would have far reaching consequences, as it would likely disrupt the Gulf Stream (I know that's not the right name for it, but everyone knows it by that name).
The ice in Antarctica won't completely melt, it's been there a very long time and it would take a very long time and a very dramatic change to cause that. If we manage to cause that we're really fucked, because the changes to everything else would be catastrophic. But Greenland could happen over the course of a millennia. That would have far reaching consequences, as it would likely disrupt the Gulf Stream (I know that's not the right name for it, but everyone knows it by that name).
We might need to reduce our fossil fuel consumption in 2050 because it might be too expensive to use them as we might have pass the peak oil (even unconventional ones)/gas/coal by then.
peak oil: More recently, the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2015 indicated no production peak out to 2040. However, this required a future Brent crude oil price of $US144/bbl (2013 dollars) "as growing demand leads to the development of more costly resources" source: https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_050420...
peak gas: "One forecast is for natural gas demand to peak in 2035." source: https://www.power-technology.com/features/energy-transition-...
peak coal: Most main coal exporters peaked already. China is scrapping the bottom of the barrel: "In 2021, the government ordered all coal mines to operate at full capacity at all times, including holidays; approved new mines, and eliminated restrictions on coal imports." source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-takes-the-brakes-off-coal...
I am getting concerned about the impact on increasingly expensive fossil fuel and climate impact on economies. The sooner countries stop to rely on fossil fuel the better, period.
peak oil: More recently, the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2015 indicated no production peak out to 2040. However, this required a future Brent crude oil price of $US144/bbl (2013 dollars) "as growing demand leads to the development of more costly resources" source: https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_050420...
peak gas: "One forecast is for natural gas demand to peak in 2035." source: https://www.power-technology.com/features/energy-transition-...
peak coal: Most main coal exporters peaked already. China is scrapping the bottom of the barrel: "In 2021, the government ordered all coal mines to operate at full capacity at all times, including holidays; approved new mines, and eliminated restrictions on coal imports." source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-takes-the-brakes-off-coal...
I am getting concerned about the impact on increasingly expensive fossil fuel and climate impact on economies. The sooner countries stop to rely on fossil fuel the better, period.
What are we supposed to be calling the Gulf Stream nowadays?
I believe PP means AMOC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturn...
Yes, that's the one.
>Some times it feels like we're re-arranging deck chairs
That's because we are. Action on this should feel at least as global, as desperate and as uncomfortable as what was done during the pandemic. It should have a very tangible economic impact, because the measures require a big reorganizing of the economy. Which is why nothing is being done about it.
That's because we are. Action on this should feel at least as global, as desperate and as uncomfortable as what was done during the pandemic. It should have a very tangible economic impact, because the measures require a big reorganizing of the economy. Which is why nothing is being done about it.
I recall briefly holding a spark of hope that the lockdowns would convince enough of us that altering our economic system drastically was possible and that we wouldn’t all die in breadlines or something.
But boy does capitalism have its chokehold on our imagination. Economists, academic and arm-chair alike, seem to think our current system is a fundamental law of the universe like thermodynamics or something.
Ah well. As always it seems what we believe is more influential and important than what is real.
But boy does capitalism have its chokehold on our imagination. Economists, academic and arm-chair alike, seem to think our current system is a fundamental law of the universe like thermodynamics or something.
Ah well. As always it seems what we believe is more influential and important than what is real.
While melting is a very high levels historically and a very real concern, your comment is hyperbole.
While we do lose ice every year and do so at rate much higher than the historical average, we don't actually set a new record every year.
> Melting peaked in 2019, when the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a staggering 612 billion tonnes of ice.
It doesn't seem like we will end up with no polar caps (at least not in our lifetimes), but they will be greatly reduced in size and lead to very significant rises in ocean level.
While we do lose ice every year and do so at rate much higher than the historical average, we don't actually set a new record every year.
> Melting peaked in 2019, when the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a staggering 612 billion tonnes of ice.
It doesn't seem like we will end up with no polar caps (at least not in our lifetimes), but they will be greatly reduced in size and lead to very significant rises in ocean level.
I'm old enough to remember when Antarctic sea ice extent set a record high in 2014. The cause? Probably global warming.
"So as counterintuitive as expanding winter Antarctic sea ice may appear on a warming planet, it may actually be a manifestation of recent warming."
[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarc...
"So as counterintuitive as expanding winter Antarctic sea ice may appear on a warming planet, it may actually be a manifestation of recent warming."
[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarc...
Right, as that article explains: The increasing melting of the antarctic ice cap makes it easier for the sea ice to expand because it leads to more fresh water (with a higher freezing point) on the surface of the ocean.
> How does the melting of land ice matter to sea ice formation? The resulting meltwater is fresher than the seawater. As it mixes with the seawater, the meltwater makes the nearby seawater slightly less dense, and slightly closer to the freezing point than the ocean water below. This less dense seawater spreads out across the ocean surface surrounding the continent, forming a stable pool of surface water that is close to the freezing point, and close to the ice onto which it could freeze.
> How does the melting of land ice matter to sea ice formation? The resulting meltwater is fresher than the seawater. As it mixes with the seawater, the meltwater makes the nearby seawater slightly less dense, and slightly closer to the freezing point than the ocean water below. This less dense seawater spreads out across the ocean surface surrounding the continent, forming a stable pool of surface water that is close to the freezing point, and close to the ice onto which it could freeze.
> Antarctic sea ice extent
This article is about loss of ice mass.
This article is about loss of ice mass.
Funny that I don't see any of the commenters who wax poetic about their wonderful convenient car centric lifestyle in every post about the costs of car infrastructure in here telling us how great it is they can drive to their sprawl-town's Costco once a week.
Well all you have to do is ask :)
I live in a spectacular suburb of Denver, probably the nicest part of city that's still somewhat affordable for normal folks. My car-centric lifestyle is indeed convenient, but it's also efficient and resilient. I fucking love Costco.
I drive a 1996 Honda minivan for which I paid $2000. This minivan does 25-30 mpg in the city. I fill that minivan right to the gills on my monthly trips to Costco, which allows me to minimize my miles driven, gas consumption, and time wasted on the mind-numbing task of buying staples. The less frequent trips to the store naturally requires us to store more food at home, so we end up having enough to last at least a couple of months in case of an emergency.
Now, I could move to one of them fancy "walkable" neighborhoods they're building, and further cut down my car usage by taking light rail to a more expensive neighborhood grocer three or four times a week. This would require me to waste dozens of hours and spend hundreds of extra dollars simply to save a pint of gasoline per month.
I'm interested to hear your case for why I should want to make that trade?
I live in a spectacular suburb of Denver, probably the nicest part of city that's still somewhat affordable for normal folks. My car-centric lifestyle is indeed convenient, but it's also efficient and resilient. I fucking love Costco.
I drive a 1996 Honda minivan for which I paid $2000. This minivan does 25-30 mpg in the city. I fill that minivan right to the gills on my monthly trips to Costco, which allows me to minimize my miles driven, gas consumption, and time wasted on the mind-numbing task of buying staples. The less frequent trips to the store naturally requires us to store more food at home, so we end up having enough to last at least a couple of months in case of an emergency.
Now, I could move to one of them fancy "walkable" neighborhoods they're building, and further cut down my car usage by taking light rail to a more expensive neighborhood grocer three or four times a week. This would require me to waste dozens of hours and spend hundreds of extra dollars simply to save a pint of gasoline per month.
I'm interested to hear your case for why I should want to make that trade?
The obvious response is that you are trading your grandchildrens' future for a bit of convenience and quality-of-life improvement today.
If you think that's a good trade, there's no convincing you of any moral duty to make sacrifices for future generations.
I'm don't think moralizing is an effective way of changing minds, of course. I'm just generally disappointed that we haven't decided, collectively, that change is important enough to plan for and execute with minimal inconvenience for most people. That was my view 22 years ago, and it was very naive.
If you think that's a good trade, there's no convincing you of any moral duty to make sacrifices for future generations.
I'm don't think moralizing is an effective way of changing minds, of course. I'm just generally disappointed that we haven't decided, collectively, that change is important enough to plan for and execute with minimal inconvenience for most people. That was my view 22 years ago, and it was very naive.
> If you think that's a good trade, there's no convincing you of any moral duty to make sacrifices for future generations.
Goodness. So not only is my judgement incorrect-- I'm also irretrievably immoral? What could I do differently to redeem myself in your eyes?
Goodness. So not only is my judgement incorrect-- I'm also irretrievably immoral? What could I do differently to redeem myself in your eyes?
Again, I honestly don't give a shit about your personal choices, I just think that, collectively, we should disincentivize general behaviors that are exceptionally bad for the climate. The fact that you care that I care is exactly the type of anti-partisanship hostility that makes organizing on this subject so difficult.
Any theory of moral sentiments must be universal (this is my background in academic philosophy talking), so an moral sentiments I have must apply to you as well, otherwise they wouldn't actually be moral sentiments. That doesn't mean that I think anyone making different choices than I do is a "bad person" or anything (my other comment in this thread specifically discusses how difficult the tradeoffs for urbanism have become in this country), I only mean that I think that you should generally care about other people, even people that aren't born yet, at least collectively (gasp: how pearl-clutching of me).
Again, I'm a fatalist at this point, simply because the level of push back to any non-symbolic change has been much more than I thought it would be for all collective changes needed. We have a few tricks up our sleeves in the form of geoengineering, and the eventual dominance of effectively free electricity in the future, but as it stands, I think it's going to get much worse before it starts getting better, and caring about whether someone lives in the suburbs isn't worth the energy.
Any theory of moral sentiments must be universal (this is my background in academic philosophy talking), so an moral sentiments I have must apply to you as well, otherwise they wouldn't actually be moral sentiments. That doesn't mean that I think anyone making different choices than I do is a "bad person" or anything (my other comment in this thread specifically discusses how difficult the tradeoffs for urbanism have become in this country), I only mean that I think that you should generally care about other people, even people that aren't born yet, at least collectively (gasp: how pearl-clutching of me).
Again, I'm a fatalist at this point, simply because the level of push back to any non-symbolic change has been much more than I thought it would be for all collective changes needed. We have a few tricks up our sleeves in the form of geoengineering, and the eventual dominance of effectively free electricity in the future, but as it stands, I think it's going to get much worse before it starts getting better, and caring about whether someone lives in the suburbs isn't worth the energy.
You clearly do care very much about other people's personal choices, and you're not shy about calling them immoral if they come to different conclusions about, say, finding a life balance between between time, money, and minimizing externalities. In your mind, my willingness to use an extra pint of gas each month in order to have more time for my family indicates that I don't "generally care about other people". That makes me sad.
I'm curious: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your pet dog's consumption of food resources, including the environmental destruction of factory-farmed meat, packaging waste, and transportation costs?
I'm curious: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your pet dog's consumption of food resources, including the environmental destruction of factory-farmed meat, packaging waste, and transportation costs?
I'm not going to participate in this nonsense nerd sniping.
I don't have a dog.
I think other forms of environmental destruction can be relevant in general, but generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change.
I think it's perfectly sensible to be concerned about climate impact on a macro scale and for people to make reasonable trade offs. I don't think "car=bad", only that in many areas (including where I live in CA) it's the highest single-source of greenhouse gas emissions, so it should be paid the appropriate amount of attention to.
I don't have a dog.
I think other forms of environmental destruction can be relevant in general, but generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change.
I think it's perfectly sensible to be concerned about climate impact on a macro scale and for people to make reasonable trade offs. I don't think "car=bad", only that in many areas (including where I live in CA) it's the highest single-source of greenhouse gas emissions, so it should be paid the appropriate amount of attention to.
> I don't have a dog.
Ok, that's funny! Sorry, your girlfriend's dog, with whom you live, and on whose behalf you seek to move nearer to a dog park.
> generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change.
You think the factory-farmed meat that your girlfriend's dog consumes is irrelevant to climate change? If not, then I'll reiterate my question: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your girlfriend's dog's consumption of resources?
Ok, that's funny! Sorry, your girlfriend's dog, with whom you live, and on whose behalf you seek to move nearer to a dog park.
> generally irrelevant to any discussion of climate change.
You think the factory-farmed meat that your girlfriend's dog consumes is irrelevant to climate change? If not, then I'll reiterate my question: how do you feel my monthly pint of gas compares to your girlfriend's dog's consumption of resources?
The concept that you think that I can't have an opinion about things without having zero emissions is obviously ridiculous.
I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the systematic sources of GHGs, and then am just getting whataboutism deflection in every response.
I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be.
If you want to keep asking me to make arbitrary GHG comparisons (that only a PHD researcher would be able to accurately calculate), then I'm not going to respond. Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith.
I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the systematic sources of GHGs, and then am just getting whataboutism deflection in every response.
I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be.
If you want to keep asking me to make arbitrary GHG comparisons (that only a PHD researcher would be able to accurately calculate), then I'm not going to respond. Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith.
> you think that I can't have an opinion about things without having zero emissions
I neither said nor implied that, and in fact I'm saying the opposite. You absolutely have a right to your moralizing regardless of your GHG emissions.
> I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be.
Well thank God, I thought it was just me. FWIW I also have family members who are dogs, and I spent countless hours developing a vegetarian dog food recipe, and I spend countless more making the shit. I learned the AAFCO guidelines (which are woefully inadequate IMO), and made a spreadsheet to make sure my dogs get what they need from calcium to taurine. I, my wife, and my kids are all vegetarians, and my kids were horrifed to learn how many animals have to die to feed our pets.
> Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith.
If I were pointing out hypocrisy only to justify my own life choices, then that would qualify as whataboutism. But I assure you that's not the case. I personally find factory animal farming to be the nearly the most repugnant, immoral thing that humans do. But I also understand that not everyone wants to spend a chunk of their life making vegetarian dog food, so I'm not about to accuse you and your girlfriend of immorality if you make different choices.
I neither said nor implied that, and in fact I'm saying the opposite. You absolutely have a right to your moralizing regardless of your GHG emissions.
> I do think GHG heavy meat-consumption that is associated with climate change should be disincentivized just as much as I think GHG heavy fuel-consumption should be.
Well thank God, I thought it was just me. FWIW I also have family members who are dogs, and I spent countless hours developing a vegetarian dog food recipe, and I spend countless more making the shit. I learned the AAFCO guidelines (which are woefully inadequate IMO), and made a spreadsheet to make sure my dogs get what they need from calcium to taurine. I, my wife, and my kids are all vegetarians, and my kids were horrifed to learn how many animals have to die to feed our pets.
> Whataboutism is only an effective rhetorical device if your intentions are in bad-faith.
If I were pointing out hypocrisy only to justify my own life choices, then that would qualify as whataboutism. But I assure you that's not the case. I personally find factory animal farming to be the nearly the most repugnant, immoral thing that humans do. But I also understand that not everyone wants to spend a chunk of their life making vegetarian dog food, so I'm not about to accuse you and your girlfriend of immorality if you make different choices.
>I personally find factory animal farming to be the nearly the most repugnant, immoral thing that humans do.
I certainly agree with you there. It's good to find some common ground.
I think there are perfectly good reasons for you to hold moral views over my decisions. I do think that moralizing isn't effective, I just think that if we have a systemic problem, which I believe that GHG emissions is, than making it more painful to participate in that system is an effective way to stop people from accidentally participating.
The entire point of this discussion is that the convenience and affordability of suburbia and sprawl is part of it's proliferation, and systematization (similar to consuming factory-farmed foods). It sensible for us, if we care about these issues, to want to change the convenience and affordability itself because they create path dependencies.
You can very sensibly swap your automobiles' carbon footprint with a vegetarian lifestyle. The problem is that by being a stakeholder in the automobile-first system, it's important to be politically active in making that system less affordable and convenient to begin with. It's definitely possible to do, even with misaligned incentives (lord knows I've got some strange behaviors considering my views), but abstinence-only in a systemically broken system is merely a symbolic change.
Edit: my girlfriend (who happens to be vegetarian) said "I would like to know more" about your vegetarian dog food. If you have a website or anything about it I will pass it along.
I certainly agree with you there. It's good to find some common ground.
I think there are perfectly good reasons for you to hold moral views over my decisions. I do think that moralizing isn't effective, I just think that if we have a systemic problem, which I believe that GHG emissions is, than making it more painful to participate in that system is an effective way to stop people from accidentally participating.
The entire point of this discussion is that the convenience and affordability of suburbia and sprawl is part of it's proliferation, and systematization (similar to consuming factory-farmed foods). It sensible for us, if we care about these issues, to want to change the convenience and affordability itself because they create path dependencies.
You can very sensibly swap your automobiles' carbon footprint with a vegetarian lifestyle. The problem is that by being a stakeholder in the automobile-first system, it's important to be politically active in making that system less affordable and convenient to begin with. It's definitely possible to do, even with misaligned incentives (lord knows I've got some strange behaviors considering my views), but abstinence-only in a systemically broken system is merely a symbolic change.
Edit: my girlfriend (who happens to be vegetarian) said "I would like to know more" about your vegetarian dog food. If you have a website or anything about it I will pass it along.
My recipe is in a spreadsheet, and I'm hesitant to publicize it before re-examining it in detail, because I don't want to be responsible for anyone else's health. But I can give the broad strokes.
I have pages of my own notes, but here's a good resource, probably all you need to put together a good recipe:
https://www.aafco.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Pet_Food_Re...
My recipe does NOT give you a complete dog food. It's more of a protein supplement. I also feed my dogs other stuff. They get a lot of scrambled eggs, and I give them soup that I make for us humans if it doesn't have too much garlic or onion in it. Otherwise, they eat no refined carbs or sugar, ever.
Note there is no fat or oil in this recipe. I add the fat later at meal time. I did it this way because it's much much easier to deal with this stuff if it's not greasy. Without fat or oil, I don't even have to wash out the bucket in between batches; I just let the residue dry and it all just flakes off with a spatula.
When I feed my dogs, I scoop out the servings with a stout measuring cup, and I smear it around the dog dish. If I don't smear, they'll just swallow the ball of food whole and then throw it up later. I then add some oil to give the dogs their fat. I keep two different mixtures of oil handy for cooking in repurposed Heinz ketchup squeezy bottles. One is a mixture of half coconut oil and half sunflower oil (or canola). I keep this in a cabinet, and it stays squeezable at room temps. I keep another bottle with olive oil and a little canola in the fridge. The canola keeps the olive oil liquid enough to squeeze in the fridge.
Any oil will give the dogs their required fat, and I just grab whichever is handy and give each bowl a healthy shot.
I also make a mineral supplement for them which is similar to a recipe I use for myself. It's mostly to supplement calcium and magnesium, since this food recipe is heavy on the phosphorus and a bit short of AAFCO recommendations for minerals. My mineral recipe is a whole other topic, but you can easily supplement this recipe with some calcium citrate and epsom based on the AAFCO guidelines. I buy all my supplements from bulksupplements.com, except epsom which I get at walmart.
I also supplement with taurine and L-carnitine. Dogs require both and cannot synthesize them, and their deficit is theorized to be behind the recent cases of cardiomyopathy seen in dogs fed a legume-heavy diet.
I also supplement with beta-alanine and a little creatine.
And just for good measure I grind up a few Kirkland multivitamins for old people (no iron) that I take myself and add those. Like half a dozen. Everything ends up being well within the AAFCO recommendations.
Recently I've been adding more salt to get the dogs to pee more. Retail dog foods generally use about 1% salt by dry weight, and that's what I'm aiming for. Dogs can handle a much wider range of salt than humans, and peeing enough is important for kidney health. Dogs don't drink more just because you tell them it's healthy.
Here's the equipment I use:
- 2 gallon plastic bucket. Home depot sells them. I got mine free from a walmart bakery. - Coffee grinder to grind flax seed - Waring Big Stick commercial immersion blender. These are expensive, but indispensible for my recipe. I got mine on Ebay for a hundred or so. - 8 gallon pressure cooker. Any cheap pressure cooker will do.
Ingredients:
- Beans, dry, 10 C (2 kg) - Yogurt, whole milk, unsweetened, 2 C - Flax Seeds, 2 C (336 g) - Tomato paste, 10 Tbsp - Protein isolate, soy, 1 packed C (120 g). I order this in bulk wherever I find it, usually ADM brand. - Salt, 2 Tbsp (18-36 g). Lately I've been using more.
The beans can be any beans, but avoid red beans because of the high lectin content. I use whatever I have handy, usually lentils, chickpeas, or black beans.
I always soak the beans over night, and if I'm using chickpeas I'll go ahead and sprout them for a couple of days. It's not a lot more work, and I do it anyway when I make hummus for the humans. Soak them overnight, empty into a colander, and be sure to rinse several time a day or else they'll turn really nasty. They should stay smelling sweet and fresh like water. If they start smelling bready then you'll never get rid of the taste. This is more advice for hummus; dogs give a shit about bready beans. If it starts growing mold then throw it away. I don't fuck around with mold.
I cook the beans for at least half an hour in the pressure cooker at full pressure. Boil with the top off at first, and skim the foam off the top before putting the lid on. This will help keep foam out of the valve.
After the cooker depressurizes, transfer to a bucket, add the salt and tomato paste, and blend with an immersion blender. It's important to blend while hot; as the beans cool they will rapidly thicken and become unblendable.
Let the stuff cool enough that it won't kill the yogurt. Wait till it's cool enough to stick your hand in.
Grind the flax in a coffee grinder. Combine flax, soy protein, and any supplements you're using in a separate bowl. Add this and the yogurt to the bean mush, and knead thoroughly. There's no easy way through this part. You just to get in there with both hands and knead the shit out of it. Play some loud music and enjoy the forearm workout.
A batch will feed my dogs (70 pounds of total dog weight) for about two weeks. But here's the coolest part: because of the yogurt, it doesn't have to be refrigerated. It will just ferment in place. I've been doing this for years and I've never refrigerated it. I take a bite myself now and then just to be satisfied that I'm not poisoning them. It's not what I'd call "good" but it's not nauseating either. Of course, if I had to keep a batch for longer than a couple weeks I'd probably refrigerate it.
I should also note that I make my own yogurt, and that might contribute something to longevity out of the fridge. I use a 6-gallon insulated cooler with a Cobalt Aquatics Neo-Therm 50 watt aquarium heater set to 96 deg F. I cook two gallons at a time. It's the easiest thing in the world; I open a gallon of milk, pour in Lifeway brand kefir (which isn't real kefir but but makes fine yogurt) till it hits the very rim, put the cap back on, give it a few shakes and twirls at the end of my arm, and put the bottles in the cooler with a few inches of water in the bottom. Plug the heater in and cook for a couple of days. Makes some great sour yogurt. I make gallons of this stuff every week. I'm sorry about the dairy cows, but we rely on yogurt too much to abandon it.
IMO, making your own dog food is only sustainable if you don't have to treat it like human food. Remember that dogs can and will happily eat feces without ill effects, so don't worry too much about hygiene or taste. If stuff falls on the floor or gets hair in it, don't worry about it. The dogs won't care. The only think I'm cautious about is mold; I won't feed them visible mold. Otherwise, treat the job like slopping pigs.
I have pages of my own notes, but here's a good resource, probably all you need to put together a good recipe:
https://www.aafco.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Pet_Food_Re...
My recipe does NOT give you a complete dog food. It's more of a protein supplement. I also feed my dogs other stuff. They get a lot of scrambled eggs, and I give them soup that I make for us humans if it doesn't have too much garlic or onion in it. Otherwise, they eat no refined carbs or sugar, ever.
Note there is no fat or oil in this recipe. I add the fat later at meal time. I did it this way because it's much much easier to deal with this stuff if it's not greasy. Without fat or oil, I don't even have to wash out the bucket in between batches; I just let the residue dry and it all just flakes off with a spatula.
When I feed my dogs, I scoop out the servings with a stout measuring cup, and I smear it around the dog dish. If I don't smear, they'll just swallow the ball of food whole and then throw it up later. I then add some oil to give the dogs their fat. I keep two different mixtures of oil handy for cooking in repurposed Heinz ketchup squeezy bottles. One is a mixture of half coconut oil and half sunflower oil (or canola). I keep this in a cabinet, and it stays squeezable at room temps. I keep another bottle with olive oil and a little canola in the fridge. The canola keeps the olive oil liquid enough to squeeze in the fridge.
Any oil will give the dogs their required fat, and I just grab whichever is handy and give each bowl a healthy shot.
I also make a mineral supplement for them which is similar to a recipe I use for myself. It's mostly to supplement calcium and magnesium, since this food recipe is heavy on the phosphorus and a bit short of AAFCO recommendations for minerals. My mineral recipe is a whole other topic, but you can easily supplement this recipe with some calcium citrate and epsom based on the AAFCO guidelines. I buy all my supplements from bulksupplements.com, except epsom which I get at walmart.
I also supplement with taurine and L-carnitine. Dogs require both and cannot synthesize them, and their deficit is theorized to be behind the recent cases of cardiomyopathy seen in dogs fed a legume-heavy diet.
I also supplement with beta-alanine and a little creatine.
And just for good measure I grind up a few Kirkland multivitamins for old people (no iron) that I take myself and add those. Like half a dozen. Everything ends up being well within the AAFCO recommendations.
Recently I've been adding more salt to get the dogs to pee more. Retail dog foods generally use about 1% salt by dry weight, and that's what I'm aiming for. Dogs can handle a much wider range of salt than humans, and peeing enough is important for kidney health. Dogs don't drink more just because you tell them it's healthy.
Here's the equipment I use:
- 2 gallon plastic bucket. Home depot sells them. I got mine free from a walmart bakery. - Coffee grinder to grind flax seed - Waring Big Stick commercial immersion blender. These are expensive, but indispensible for my recipe. I got mine on Ebay for a hundred or so. - 8 gallon pressure cooker. Any cheap pressure cooker will do.
Ingredients:
- Beans, dry, 10 C (2 kg) - Yogurt, whole milk, unsweetened, 2 C - Flax Seeds, 2 C (336 g) - Tomato paste, 10 Tbsp - Protein isolate, soy, 1 packed C (120 g). I order this in bulk wherever I find it, usually ADM brand. - Salt, 2 Tbsp (18-36 g). Lately I've been using more.
The beans can be any beans, but avoid red beans because of the high lectin content. I use whatever I have handy, usually lentils, chickpeas, or black beans.
I always soak the beans over night, and if I'm using chickpeas I'll go ahead and sprout them for a couple of days. It's not a lot more work, and I do it anyway when I make hummus for the humans. Soak them overnight, empty into a colander, and be sure to rinse several time a day or else they'll turn really nasty. They should stay smelling sweet and fresh like water. If they start smelling bready then you'll never get rid of the taste. This is more advice for hummus; dogs give a shit about bready beans. If it starts growing mold then throw it away. I don't fuck around with mold.
I cook the beans for at least half an hour in the pressure cooker at full pressure. Boil with the top off at first, and skim the foam off the top before putting the lid on. This will help keep foam out of the valve.
After the cooker depressurizes, transfer to a bucket, add the salt and tomato paste, and blend with an immersion blender. It's important to blend while hot; as the beans cool they will rapidly thicken and become unblendable.
Let the stuff cool enough that it won't kill the yogurt. Wait till it's cool enough to stick your hand in.
Grind the flax in a coffee grinder. Combine flax, soy protein, and any supplements you're using in a separate bowl. Add this and the yogurt to the bean mush, and knead thoroughly. There's no easy way through this part. You just to get in there with both hands and knead the shit out of it. Play some loud music and enjoy the forearm workout.
A batch will feed my dogs (70 pounds of total dog weight) for about two weeks. But here's the coolest part: because of the yogurt, it doesn't have to be refrigerated. It will just ferment in place. I've been doing this for years and I've never refrigerated it. I take a bite myself now and then just to be satisfied that I'm not poisoning them. It's not what I'd call "good" but it's not nauseating either. Of course, if I had to keep a batch for longer than a couple weeks I'd probably refrigerate it.
I should also note that I make my own yogurt, and that might contribute something to longevity out of the fridge. I use a 6-gallon insulated cooler with a Cobalt Aquatics Neo-Therm 50 watt aquarium heater set to 96 deg F. I cook two gallons at a time. It's the easiest thing in the world; I open a gallon of milk, pour in Lifeway brand kefir (which isn't real kefir but but makes fine yogurt) till it hits the very rim, put the cap back on, give it a few shakes and twirls at the end of my arm, and put the bottles in the cooler with a few inches of water in the bottom. Plug the heater in and cook for a couple of days. Makes some great sour yogurt. I make gallons of this stuff every week. I'm sorry about the dairy cows, but we rely on yogurt too much to abandon it.
IMO, making your own dog food is only sustainable if you don't have to treat it like human food. Remember that dogs can and will happily eat feces without ill effects, so don't worry too much about hygiene or taste. If stuff falls on the floor or gets hair in it, don't worry about it. The dogs won't care. The only think I'm cautious about is mold; I won't feed them visible mold. Otherwise, treat the job like slopping pigs.
I primarily ride a bike and have been low-car since college in the early 2000's... hell, I've been a mod on /r/bicycling since around 2010. I took some Earth Sciences back when the professors just assumed people would act rationally and care about their climate impact. That seems adorably naive in retrospect. I think one of the biggest issues... as is always... is the housing shortage.
I'm currently trying to find new housing that is low-car friendly (my lifestyle), and also dog-friendly (my gf's lifestyle). Yes, we live in the bay area, but this applies to every single major tech hub in America. If we want to get a two bedroom unit, that's both safely bikeable to central SF, but also a few blocks from a dog park, we're going to probably need to pay about $4000 per month. That's about $50,000 per year; it's about 40% of the SF median household income.
As much as I hate the way our sprawl is infecting climate change... the real reason sprawl has taken over is that we've blocked urban housing construction for 70 years.
I hardly blame younger folks for their exurban lifestyles at this point. I can barely afford being an urbanist, over 40, without having roommates... and I consider myself fairly well off. And I'm counting down the days until I say 'fuck it' and just move to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh where I could basically retire (not at all a slight, just the extremely rare affordable urbanist cities). I can't imagine what it would be like with kids.
If you pretend to care about the environment, you need to be at your city council meetings demanding high-density, mixed-use, housing in your neighborhood.
I'm currently trying to find new housing that is low-car friendly (my lifestyle), and also dog-friendly (my gf's lifestyle). Yes, we live in the bay area, but this applies to every single major tech hub in America. If we want to get a two bedroom unit, that's both safely bikeable to central SF, but also a few blocks from a dog park, we're going to probably need to pay about $4000 per month. That's about $50,000 per year; it's about 40% of the SF median household income.
As much as I hate the way our sprawl is infecting climate change... the real reason sprawl has taken over is that we've blocked urban housing construction for 70 years.
I hardly blame younger folks for their exurban lifestyles at this point. I can barely afford being an urbanist, over 40, without having roommates... and I consider myself fairly well off. And I'm counting down the days until I say 'fuck it' and just move to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh where I could basically retire (not at all a slight, just the extremely rare affordable urbanist cities). I can't imagine what it would be like with kids.
If you pretend to care about the environment, you need to be at your city council meetings demanding high-density, mixed-use, housing in your neighborhood.
Hear hear! Another option is to move somewhere better. Happy to discuss emigration.
I would very much consider immigration to western Ireland, Scotland, or the Netherlands if I hadn't built a life for myself in Northern California. As of now, the only reasonably affordable (not actually affordable) areas to live in with a temperate climates are in parts of Sonoma and Humbolt Counties, and Salinas.
Any serious move would take some convincing, especially with a partner who is from the area. As someone who prefers the cool fog to warm sun, there aren't a lot of friendly climate zones friendly that don't involve the pacific northwest, but that's a tough sell to normal folks that think grey skies are unpleasant.
As someone pretty much fatalistic about stopping climate change, I think the fortunes may favor the pacific northwest over Northern Europe in the next 50 years. It's an awkward gamble to make, but it's one that takes a lot more than just weather into account.
Any serious move would take some convincing, especially with a partner who is from the area. As someone who prefers the cool fog to warm sun, there aren't a lot of friendly climate zones friendly that don't involve the pacific northwest, but that's a tough sell to normal folks that think grey skies are unpleasant.
As someone pretty much fatalistic about stopping climate change, I think the fortunes may favor the pacific northwest over Northern Europe in the next 50 years. It's an awkward gamble to make, but it's one that takes a lot more than just weather into account.
In the Irish midlands now (came from California) but working on a move to NL.
Just curious, because I daydream about doing these sorts of things and consider the same places. Do you have a family with you?
Email is in my bio if you want to chat.
I do, but when moving here it was just my wife (then gf) and I on working holiday visas. Ireland is wonderful in many respects but also a deeply frustrating place, it's extremely car-dependent outside the middle of Dublin and perhaps what's harder is that most people see that as fine. Climate breakdown is viewed as a far away problem for other people, and rural communities can be insular. I have heard that some areas in Clare and West Cork are transforming, though.
That being said, I live in a beautiful house on 3.5 acres a 15 minute bike ride from the train station and we want to move to the Netherlands so our kids can have actual freedom before learning to drive. Also a lot more jobs on climatebase.org are in NL (and DE), they're never in Ireland.
I do, but when moving here it was just my wife (then gf) and I on working holiday visas. Ireland is wonderful in many respects but also a deeply frustrating place, it's extremely car-dependent outside the middle of Dublin and perhaps what's harder is that most people see that as fine. Climate breakdown is viewed as a far away problem for other people, and rural communities can be insular. I have heard that some areas in Clare and West Cork are transforming, though.
That being said, I live in a beautiful house on 3.5 acres a 15 minute bike ride from the train station and we want to move to the Netherlands so our kids can have actual freedom before learning to drive. Also a lot more jobs on climatebase.org are in NL (and DE), they're never in Ireland.
I like Costco.
It's most interesting that the current sea level rise is mostly due to thermal expansion of the water, not the melting ice. When learning about sea level rise in school, the focus was definitely on the latter.
The proportion of sea level rise from melting ice is significantly increasing though.
> In the early 1990s, ice sheet melting accounted for only a small fraction (5.6 %) of sea-level rise. However, there has been a fivefold increase in melting since then, and they are now responsible for more than a quarter (25.6 %) of all sea-level rise.
It is a bit strange how much melting ice caps get attention more than the thermal expansion of water, but I expect that is because a melting ice cap is much more visceral and easily understood and explained than the thermal expansion of water.
> In the early 1990s, ice sheet melting accounted for only a small fraction (5.6 %) of sea-level rise. However, there has been a fivefold increase in melting since then, and they are now responsible for more than a quarter (25.6 %) of all sea-level rise.
It is a bit strange how much melting ice caps get attention more than the thermal expansion of water, but I expect that is because a melting ice cap is much more visceral and easily understood and explained than the thermal expansion of water.
And just think how big the oceans are! That's a lot of heat!
Earlier this week there was a shareholders meeting at Shell. They'll continue to heavily invest in fossil fuel exploitation including finding new wells. No sense of urgency or even the slightest hint of a correction.
As expected, activists disrupted the protest. Intensely. The meeting concluded with 80% of shareholders signing and approving Shell's plans.
Dutch politicians confronted Shell's leadership:
What you're doing directly opposes what should happen and even accelerates the climate issue. It's highly immoral.
Shell: well, that's just your opinion, dude.
Either we all don't care or we wake up: self-regulation will not happen. Stop being so naive about it.
As expected, activists disrupted the protest. Intensely. The meeting concluded with 80% of shareholders signing and approving Shell's plans.
Dutch politicians confronted Shell's leadership:
What you're doing directly opposes what should happen and even accelerates the climate issue. It's highly immoral.
Shell: well, that's just your opinion, dude.
Either we all don't care or we wake up: self-regulation will not happen. Stop being so naive about it.
Is there anything to even be remotely positive about with regards to climate change? It's getting very depressing.
Plants will grow more easily... due to increased temperature and CO2, just like in a greenhouse
This in the long run will reverse the climate change, so after we go extinct, the remaining species will thrive :)
This in the long run will reverse the climate change, so after we go extinct, the remaining species will thrive :)
There is, but it's not welcome to speak of here. Just keep in mind that modelling weather is extremely difficult to do, and this worsens as timescales get larger. Dovetailing with that,
the popular science has a long history of failed predictions.
Pretend that long term net energy increases aren't happening because modelling short term turbulent fluctuations is hard, got it. That is a big positive.
>> There is, but it's not welcome to speak of here.
I mean, if your reason for optimism is "science has a long history of failed predictions" then yes, that kind of shit will not be looked upon kindly on this forum.
I mean, if your reason for optimism is "science has a long history of failed predictions" then yes, that kind of shit will not be looked upon kindly on this forum.
[deleted]
If you can invest now in the right real estate - say, 70 or so meters above sea level on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island - that might turn out very positively for you.
Otherwise not so much.
Otherwise not so much.
Energy required to melt all this ice is so huge it’ll take a looooong while.
I know people don’t want to hear about it, but here’s a review of the various satellite temperature measurements:
https://reason.com/2023/04/27/global-warming-trend-is-only-o...
If you don’t like the source, click through to the original data sources.
https://reason.com/2023/04/27/global-warming-trend-is-only-o...
If you don’t like the source, click through to the original data sources.
I don't think this is what you want to hear but in some places, warmer climate is just going to be more pleasant. Although a changing climate brings surprises and challenges of adapting to most.
This is one of the most flawed arguments that get made. I’ve been to many places in North America and Europe. Everywhere you go, direct sunlight above 65F is nearly unbearable. Air temperature is one thing, but we are super heating the entire air column between you and the outer atmosphere. Places that used to be pleasant with lots of sunshine like the SFs East Bay are now searing hot in direct sun. Yes, Maybe Quebec is more pleasant than it used to be, but it will be uncomfortable most of the summer in 5 or 10 years. Humans will certainly migrate North but Eventually we will just run out of latitude. Climate Change isn’t linear. Each year will be getting hotter faster than it did the year before. We’re toast.
Well, this is why it's boring to speculate about potential upsides because people want to bring in the downsides again. I'm not trying to argue for anything, but I think it will in fact be more pleasant to live in some places. That's not an argument that climate change is a good thing, but the question was asked, is there any upside.
You’ll probably be dead before the worst of it so it’s not all bad.
In fairness this statement can also be true if you die from climate-induced causes....
Sure but since we're using the word "probably" here...
He (most probable pronoun) probably has kid(s) as well.
He (most probable pronoun) probably has kid(s) as well.
It'll drive us towards advancements in geoengineering.
Great new business opportunities opening up in the mobile crematoriums market.
Saw this posted the other day, and it seems like a potential way to offset some of the ice melt:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/seaflooding
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/seaflooding
The idea of flooding some desert at first seemed gobsmackingly useless to me. The article talks about a 6mm drop in ocean levels.
The article does say it could potentially increase total water evaporation by up to 6% though, and that could be useful.
The article does say it could potentially increase total water evaporation by up to 6% though, and that could be useful.
If it's increasing local rainfall that means it's contributing a cooling effect via the albedo of the clouds, too. Don't know if it would be measurable other than locally, though.
Someone just posted an article above about how our climate models just got precise enough to model cloud layer changes as CO2 increases. Somehow I doubt we can model things effectively enough to really predict that more evaporation will make things better instead of worse. Moisture can also be effective at raising the wet bulb temperature above what we can survive if it hasn't condensed into clouds.
It will also contribute to a heating effect, because water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas.
The increased evaporation wouldn't really do that much re: sea levels. That water doesn't vanish, it falls as rain and goes back into the ocean, buffering a (relatively) miniscule additional amount of water in clouds.
It would do tons for the local ecosystem, though. That evaporated water would fall as rain across eastern Egypt and the Middle East.
Not to mention of course the truly incredible amount of hydropower.
It would do tons for the local ecosystem, though. That evaporated water would fall as rain across eastern Egypt and the Middle East.
Not to mention of course the truly incredible amount of hydropower.
A lot falls on earth & is absorbed too, is my understanding. There's plenty of talk about farmers flooding fields & what not to restore groundwater.
100% I think the main benefit of this project would be to restore some ecology & create power. There may be some small benefit to the earth as a whole too, but it seems silly to make this effort for somewhat enhanced evaporation.
100% I think the main benefit of this project would be to restore some ecology & create power. There may be some small benefit to the earth as a whole too, but it seems silly to make this effort for somewhat enhanced evaporation.
Yeah this is cool
All else being equal, and no large external cooling events occur as mentioned in the comments, in time we will witness a change in what seasons the majority of people look forward to. I recall over my duration of time to date that in the heart of winter the majority of people hating the cold have stated "I cannot wait for Summer to be here" however my recollection of the inverse memory from the heart of Summer with people stating "I cannot wait for Winter to be here" is slim at best yet YMWV. Consider in the last few years the large number of Americans which have relocated to Florida - why not Alaska which also has no State income tax? One thing I learned growing up as a country boy hunting game in those Winters to put food on the table is one can always put on more clothes to warm up but the inverse is certainly not true in the Summer. We only need to look at existing cultures that have evolved through millennia of evolution to realize how temperature impacts chosen residency and the Inuit's are the defining example. They have evolved to survive in extremely cold environments by using available resources to keep warm, referencing 'one can always put on more clothes', however where are the mass population of cultures that live off the land as the Inuit's do but solely in the extreme desert? Yes, they do exist but are they as prosperous as those groups living in the extreme cold?
The majority of society resists change as this is just a fact of life however when that change is forced that resistance often surfaces in negative ways and here we are in 2023 with so much 'change' beyond that of just the climate.
The majority of society resists change as this is just a fact of life however when that change is forced that resistance often surfaces in negative ways and here we are in 2023 with so much 'change' beyond that of just the climate.
Let's just admit it. We're f@cked.
If we can convince governments and corporations to step up, that's something.
But there's such a huge percentage of people who either couldn't give af, or if there is even the smallest disturbance to their daily life will resort to conspiracy theory.
People would rather lie to themselves than face a minor inconvenience or change to to their lives for the greater good.
Where are all the heroes? Are they just p!ssing around on Tiktok?
If we can convince governments and corporations to step up, that's something.
But there's such a huge percentage of people who either couldn't give af, or if there is even the smallest disturbance to their daily life will resort to conspiracy theory.
People would rather lie to themselves than face a minor inconvenience or change to to their lives for the greater good.
Where are all the heroes? Are they just p!ssing around on Tiktok?
I'm not depressed about the changing climate. We could adapt to changing conditions.
But I'm depressed about the lack of will and capacity. We don't manage to come together and decide what to do or to deliberatey control our behaviour. (I.e help ourselves avoid climate change.) So we are in general not very sophisticated as a civilization, this whole thing is just going to happen to us.
A trancendentally smart organism would understand and avoid the crisis before it hits, but we will hit the resource usage ceiling knowingly.
But I'm depressed about the lack of will and capacity. We don't manage to come together and decide what to do or to deliberatey control our behaviour. (I.e help ourselves avoid climate change.) So we are in general not very sophisticated as a civilization, this whole thing is just going to happen to us.
A trancendentally smart organism would understand and avoid the crisis before it hits, but we will hit the resource usage ceiling knowingly.
I think we are to some extent. But it cannot be a reason for inaction. Because the extent on how we are f*cked can go from collapse of the economy to mass extension, from in 10 years or in 50 years.
Governments only act on pressure from the base, especially when it is take difficult decisions that would most likely impact in the short term the economy (e.g. diverting $B to new energy sources, optimization for homes, transportation, etc.). It is an investment for the next decades.
Governments only act on pressure from the base, especially when it is take difficult decisions that would most likely impact in the short term the economy (e.g. diverting $B to new energy sources, optimization for homes, transportation, etc.). It is an investment for the next decades.
> But there's such a huge percentage of people who either couldn't give af, or if there is even the smallest disturbance to their daily life will resort to conspiracy theory.
Or think that it will just solve itself.
Or think that it will just solve itself.
There are several comments about "oh well, whatever species replaces us will have a new chance".
Unless the cockroaches want to wait 300 million years, they won't have the easy coal and oil reserves to jumpstart them to an 'advanced' civilization.
Which might be a good thing? Maybe some future inhabitants will invent an oil-producing algae because they didn't have an easier option like we did.
Unless the cockroaches want to wait 300 million years, they won't have the easy coal and oil reserves to jumpstart them to an 'advanced' civilization.
Which might be a good thing? Maybe some future inhabitants will invent an oil-producing algae because they didn't have an easier option like we did.
My take is that advanced civilization isn't an evolutionary inevitability nor is it of any objectively higher value or importance.
Imagine a planet with just grass. One species. It's thriving. Highly successful. Who needs "intelligence"?
Imagine a planet with just grass. One species. It's thriving. Highly successful. Who needs "intelligence"?
Know what happens to your drink when it runs out of ice? I wonder what happens to the oceans?
GHG do not have any impact on the temperature until they reach the high troposphere (the way GHG work is nothing like a greenhouse btw). C02 surplus at ground level takes 20 years to reach the level it has an impact on, and have a 'half life' there of almost ten thousand years.
Today, the climate is impacted by emissions made in 2003. Emissions from today won't have an impact before 2043 (on the climate. Still have an impact right this moment on the oceans acidity btw).
I'm not doom and gloom though. Your kids will suffer, but I'll probably make it just fine. Still, I'm making all I can to preserve future humans some pain, but I feel like I'll stop making efforts soon.
Today, the climate is impacted by emissions made in 2003. Emissions from today won't have an impact before 2043 (on the climate. Still have an impact right this moment on the oceans acidity btw).
I'm not doom and gloom though. Your kids will suffer, but I'll probably make it just fine. Still, I'm making all I can to preserve future humans some pain, but I feel like I'll stop making efforts soon.
I'm horrified by the negativity and fatalism in this thread.
Do things seem dire? Yes.
Is this the time to give up? No!
We all already know what needs to be done. What we lack is the political will to do so because 50% of our political leadership has refused to acknowledge any necessary action and instead keeping everyone busy with distractions like threatening trans people and re-banning medical procedures.
There is an appalling lack of focus on the big picture from the percentage of the population that, let's face it, is motivated by religion and nothing else.
We have a rising threat of authoritarian fascism worldwide, and it's NOT in order to save humanity by enacting sweeping societal change to address our warming planet, but is instead to reintroduce hierarchical societal roles based on gender, race, and sexuality, and give those at the top of the food chain another generation of blissful prosperity while the planet burns.
Our ancestors overthrew governments, assassinated leaders, and uprooted whole societies over far less.
I realize a community of technologists and startup enthusiasts benefit from capitalism, but it needs to be asked whether the system that brought so much prosperity to humanity over the last 100 years will be the same that brings us atrocities and gloom in the next 100.
Painful revolution must not be considered off the table.
Do things seem dire? Yes.
Is this the time to give up? No!
We all already know what needs to be done. What we lack is the political will to do so because 50% of our political leadership has refused to acknowledge any necessary action and instead keeping everyone busy with distractions like threatening trans people and re-banning medical procedures.
There is an appalling lack of focus on the big picture from the percentage of the population that, let's face it, is motivated by religion and nothing else.
We have a rising threat of authoritarian fascism worldwide, and it's NOT in order to save humanity by enacting sweeping societal change to address our warming planet, but is instead to reintroduce hierarchical societal roles based on gender, race, and sexuality, and give those at the top of the food chain another generation of blissful prosperity while the planet burns.
Our ancestors overthrew governments, assassinated leaders, and uprooted whole societies over far less.
I realize a community of technologists and startup enthusiasts benefit from capitalism, but it needs to be asked whether the system that brought so much prosperity to humanity over the last 100 years will be the same that brings us atrocities and gloom in the next 100.
Painful revolution must not be considered off the table.
Not time to give up, for sure.
But brace for impact, probably.
The impact on the global economy could be severe, and we might all have to rethink our lives and our plans.
The concern to me is that if we manage to break the current stable climate, the impact could be extreme. It looks tens of thousands of years to get the extra 5 degrees to make earth livable, and now we might add an extra 5 degrees in the coming decades. It will be very hard to rollback. And we might extinct so many species in the process, that will not come back.
But brace for impact, probably.
The impact on the global economy could be severe, and we might all have to rethink our lives and our plans.
The concern to me is that if we manage to break the current stable climate, the impact could be extreme. It looks tens of thousands of years to get the extra 5 degrees to make earth livable, and now we might add an extra 5 degrees in the coming decades. It will be very hard to rollback. And we might extinct so many species in the process, that will not come back.
> Painful revolution must not be considered off the table.
Enjoy presiding over the rubble of civilisation. Any mass revolution is going to end with destruction of humanity as the nukes go off.
Enjoy presiding over the rubble of civilisation. Any mass revolution is going to end with destruction of humanity as the nukes go off.
The video and graphics presented with this are really well done. I think it helps educate people when you show them well-made visuals like this. It's a good way to show information in a short period of time without a lot reading required.
I don’t want this to happen, but I have a theory about how this is all going to play out over the coming decades.
We are going to continue to see yearly records be set. Bigger fires, more ice melting, worse droughts, etc. Eventually, the global poor will be forced to relocate and even the leftest leaning countries will realize that it is infeasible to accept all these immigrants (looking at Europe in particular). Mass riots will occur along those borders, but eventually eco-immigrants will die off and the more wealthy countries will “just” adapt and move on.
As we see mass casualties due to food shortages and violence, I’d imagine we will see a drop in greenhouse gases from those regions which, ironically, will help the climate change problem.
We are going to continue to see yearly records be set. Bigger fires, more ice melting, worse droughts, etc. Eventually, the global poor will be forced to relocate and even the leftest leaning countries will realize that it is infeasible to accept all these immigrants (looking at Europe in particular). Mass riots will occur along those borders, but eventually eco-immigrants will die off and the more wealthy countries will “just” adapt and move on.
As we see mass casualties due to food shortages and violence, I’d imagine we will see a drop in greenhouse gases from those regions which, ironically, will help the climate change problem.
We're committing acts of war against those countries and leaving their people to die. If we were putting poison in their water, blowing up dams to flood valleys, or destroying their crops directly it would be an atrocity, but apparently doing it with a layer of indirection in the middle makes it OK.
I’d like to reiterate that I don’t want my prediction to happen. It’s just my guess as to how things will play out.
Any time you see a comment about over population, one must ask themselves, "who does this person want to see less of?".
Eco-fascists are abound
Eco-fascists are abound
At that point global economy will collapse. Even Europe or US would be poor.
The "west" will need to lift all the boats, in its own interest.
Now we should feel the sense of community and humanity, facing a global challenge. Every country should take it seriously if only for their own national security.
We all need sustainable energy, and fossil fuel is not going to do it because
1. it is a increasingly limited resources, with geopolitical implications that will only increase in intensity as the quantity will decrease and price will increase.
2. it makes the climate issues only worse.
Either one or both would bring chaos globally. We very seriously need to rely on other source of energy.
The "west" will need to lift all the boats, in its own interest.
Now we should feel the sense of community and humanity, facing a global challenge. Every country should take it seriously if only for their own national security.
We all need sustainable energy, and fossil fuel is not going to do it because
1. it is a increasingly limited resources, with geopolitical implications that will only increase in intensity as the quantity will decrease and price will increase.
2. it makes the climate issues only worse.
Either one or both would bring chaos globally. We very seriously need to rely on other source of energy.
Speaking of collapsing ice sheets and this comically, tragically obvious oncoming train of utter climate doom heading mankind's way I've been building an educational, comedy adventure game [SB] about it.
Set a mere 80 years in our fictional future, it assumes as a core premise that we failed to take the kind of big bold sustained collective action necessary to prevent it from happening.
----
[SB] - https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz
Set a mere 80 years in our fictional future, it assumes as a core premise that we failed to take the kind of big bold sustained collective action necessary to prevent it from happening.
----
[SB] - https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz
"hits new record" is a cheap headline that people have learned to ignore. It's far better to say "25% of ice cover lost in 10 years" and show two satellite images.
The important thing is that we all keep telling ourselves how much progress we have made because emissions keep growing but by slightly less than before covid.
Hey, I’ve bought three EVs since 2008 and have put solar on all my vacation homes! I’m doing my part!!
Do not worry, we, the Germans, are finally starting to hold those responsible accountable: https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-swoop-on-last-generation...
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
> Two of the suspects also allegedly planned to sabotage an oil pipeline linking the Bavarian city of Ingolstadt to the port of Trieste in Italy.
Assuming this is a plausible threat, would you prefer the government to simply decriminalize vandalism?
Assuming this is a plausible threat, would you prefer the government to simply decriminalize vandalism?
That's beside the point: The German government did not act against those responsible for climate change, they acted against those protesting for laws that are slightly stricter than those we have right now.
Whether the ends justify the means is a different question and maybe one reserved for more severe crimes? In another century, the relation whether blocking traffic for a protest is acceptable vs. 4 K increase in temperature will look quite differently than it does today. However, history will remember what we do now, not in ten years, as we have done far too little for decades and are now quickly approaching the tipping points our grandchildren will learn about in school.
Whether the ends justify the means is a different question and maybe one reserved for more severe crimes? In another century, the relation whether blocking traffic for a protest is acceptable vs. 4 K increase in temperature will look quite differently than it does today. However, history will remember what we do now, not in ten years, as we have done far too little for decades and are now quickly approaching the tipping points our grandchildren will learn about in school.
Ok, but you posted a news story about the German government trying to stop some people from blowing up oil pipelines, which is presumably illegal in Germany. You appear to believe that's unjust. So my question for you is, should the government allow activists to blow shit up?
That is not in the news story I posted. They "allegedly planned to sabotage". I can't find an English source here and the Letzte Generation web page has been shut down, so here's a German source from a right-wing online newspaper about the sabotage [1]. I'll try to translate what they write, including a quote from a Letzte Generation publication:
> In einer Pressemitteilung teilte die Gruppierung mit, es seien in ganz Deutschland „Rohöl-Pipelines abgedreht und damit der Ölfluss unterbrochen“ worden. In Zweierteams hätten Aktivisten die Notfall-Absperr-Stationen der Pipelines betreten und „mit ihren eigenen Händen die Sperrventile“ aktiviert, die in Notfällen ein sicheres Abdrehen des Öl- und Gasflusses ermöglichten.
> In a press release, the group [Letzte Generation] announced they "turned off crude oil pipelines" all across Germany "and thus disrupted the flow of oil". Supposedly, the two-person activist teams entered emergency valve stations of pipelines and manually activated the shut-off valves, which are responsible for safely turning off oil and gas transmission.
If the right-wing media already acknowledges that there is no "blowing shit up" but "safely turn[ing] off", I'm pretty sure you'll find it hard to frame it otherwise. It also would not fit the picture: Letzte Generation has been explicitly non-violent.
You'll also find that this happened over a year ago. There was definitely no emergency, as "blow shit up" would imply.
1: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article238407383/Let...
> In einer Pressemitteilung teilte die Gruppierung mit, es seien in ganz Deutschland „Rohöl-Pipelines abgedreht und damit der Ölfluss unterbrochen“ worden. In Zweierteams hätten Aktivisten die Notfall-Absperr-Stationen der Pipelines betreten und „mit ihren eigenen Händen die Sperrventile“ aktiviert, die in Notfällen ein sicheres Abdrehen des Öl- und Gasflusses ermöglichten.
> In a press release, the group [Letzte Generation] announced they "turned off crude oil pipelines" all across Germany "and thus disrupted the flow of oil". Supposedly, the two-person activist teams entered emergency valve stations of pipelines and manually activated the shut-off valves, which are responsible for safely turning off oil and gas transmission.
If the right-wing media already acknowledges that there is no "blowing shit up" but "safely turn[ing] off", I'm pretty sure you'll find it hard to frame it otherwise. It also would not fit the picture: Letzte Generation has been explicitly non-violent.
You'll also find that this happened over a year ago. There was definitely no emergency, as "blow shit up" would imply.
1: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article238407383/Let...
You're dancing around my question. Do you believe governments should allow climate activists to vandalize, sabotage, destroy, or disrupt infrastructure or public property?
Germany is such a bafflingly inconsistent country. Freiburg prides itself on reusable cups but they're very quick to replace nuclear with coal for no clear reason.
And don’t forget to “offset” those emissions when you go on your 8th foreign holiday this year
Don't get me wrong, "adapt" is going to be painful. But I think it will be painful in the way the industrial revolution was painful: Lots and lots of cultural displacement, shifts in lifestyles, etc. But it'll also make some new billionaires and powerhouse industrial centers based around the need to fundamentally change our society to stop making it worse and to solve the problems a heating globe produces.