Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google
Imagine if the truth were enough to cause public unrest.
Who would be authorized to tell such a truth ?
The IPCC is telling us as much as the overseers of the UN are willing to tell us. The people appointed to work on these reports are basically government appointees.
Scientists like Hansen are strident believers that the IPCC is guilty of scientific reticence and understating the problem. The IPCC doesn't have a representative who can come forward and debate with Hansen. The IPCC scientists don't have their individual necks on the line. They are moderates.
C.1
There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for
all (very high confidence).
And how are we responding to this rapidly closing window of opportunity ?
We're stepping on the accelerator instead of the brakes. AI Data Centers are the new fashion. Facebook has data centers dedicated to AI that will be used to help them sell more advertising.
It's so sick, it borders on farcical.
Our cheeto POTUS went before the UN today and called climate change a scam.
And how are we responding to this rapidly closing window of opportunity ?
We're stepping on the accelerator instead of the brakes. AI Data Centers are the new fashion. Facebook has data centers dedicated to AI that will be used to help them sell more advertising.
It's so sick, it borders on farcical.
The last I saw from the UN on the Paris targets didn't come across as alarmist or dire. I don't read the science stuff but when I come across the issue in business it's mostly: Southern hemisphere, coastal and the economic impacts and strategies on mitigating or reversing things.
I don't think big business can get their head around the roi with the downscaling. They probably figure whatever happens they're most resourced so they'll relatively win. Geoengineering looks more investable. Looks like that's the basket our eggs are in.
Can you link what you are referring to ?
The UN Secretary General opened today's UN meeting with the following.
The UN Secretary-General opened the General Assembly high-level debate with a stark message: the world is awash with overlapping crises – from wars and humanitarian emergencies to climate breakdown – and leaders must decide now “what kind of world we choose to build together.
‘Something is working’: UN climate chief optimistic about green transition
‘Something is working’: UN climate chief optimistic about green transition
Excerpts from the article ..... (and my rebuttal in parens)
“We’re moving in the right direction,” he said. “Not fast enough, not deep enough,
(Fact: atmospheric GHG levels are rising faster as time goes on)
Stiell knows the NDCs will fall short of the 1.5C target, as many countries are likely to present inadequate responses, These include the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia, all of which have sought to disrupt recent climate talks
China is widely expected to submit an NDC that is much weaker than it should be, and over-conservative in its estimates of how fast the country can drive down its emissions
The EU ...has still not finalised its NDC, and will not meet the end of month deadline
Australia set out its NDC last week, pledging to cut emissions by 62-70% by 2035. That is also too low, compared to the 75% cut analysts said would be in line with a 1.5C limit, and the failure to agree a full phase-out of fossil fuels angered green groups.
“We know [the NDCs] are going to be softer than what science dictates is needed,”
“I see tangible output. But not enough.”
the projection – if all current commitments are fulfilled – is for 2.7C of heating. That is still far too high
(Fact: Countries are nowhere near their commitments)
Hikes in the cost of living around the world have been exacerbated by food price rises resulting from extreme weather. Wealthy regions, including areas of the US and the UK, have had homes and businesses become uninsurable – an experience that until recently was confined to poorer and vulnerable regions.
The bill for climate damage already runs to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and is getting higher. Within little more than a decade, costs of more than 5% of GDP a year are likely to bite. “That means significant recession. It speaks of a level of recession that we’ve never seen before
Covid and the global financial crisis would pale into insignificance”
If this dude from the UN told the truth, he'd be out of a job and he would have to wonder how he would have to put food on his table.
He's trying to put a positive spin on an apocalypse.
An interesting interview with an eco-socialist.
In the last 11,700 years, the earth’s climate has been relatively stable .... Then, in the past century—and really just in the past forty or fifty years—the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has soared .... Changes that took hundreds of thousands or millions of years in the past are now occurring in years or decades.
some people believe humans will invent technology to deal with this. But even the International Energy Agency, formed of thirty-one member countries and thirteen association countries, does not think so.
Part of capitalist ideology is that no matter what the problem, there is a technical fix. Because if there is no technical fix, then there is something wrong with the society, and the defenders of the society do not want to believe this.
Today, a very small number of carbon capture projects are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and the amount collected is the equivalent of taking a few hundred automobiles off the roads. It is nothing compared with the size of the problem.
Justus von Liebig, a German chemist who is known as the father of organic chemistry .... examine(d) the problem. He told them: “You’re taking all of the nutrients out of the soil and you’re not putting any back. You can’t do that forever. There’s a metabolism here that you have to maintain.”
In the natural world, plants grow, they die, animals eat the plants, they die, and their bodies go into the land, which then uses them to grow plants again, but as agriculture became a mass industry, that cycle was broken. Food was shipped to large cities, and then everybody’s waste was dumped in the river. All of those nutrients, instead of going back to the land, polluted rivers and ended up in the ocean.
The main driving force of capitalism is to make a profit, to increase the wealth of a small layer of people. That is its whole objective. Many things follow from that. One of them is a society with a short-term view of everything. From the point of view of a capitalist, if I can make money today, it is better than making money tomorrow, and I am always competing with other capitalists in order to increase my wealth or income, or even just to stay in business. I must constantly find ways to generate more capital, more revenue to make my capital bigger. It is a society that ultimately cannot plan except for short-term gains in wealth.
Only by eliminating the profit motive as the driver of the economy is it going to be possible to stop large-scale destruction of the environment, because ultimately, the way you get richer is by destroying the environment, taking the natural world and converting it into money. That is what socialism aims to change, eliminating the profit motive as the central driver of the economy.
You never see a politician give a speech that does not talk about economic growth. They say we need more, but it is not more leisure time, or more and better medical care for everybody. It is not more literature or a better way of life. It is more wealth, specifically, more capital.
Huge expanses of the natural world are being used mainly to feed chickens and pigs. It is an incredibly inefficient form of production because you are using a high-energy product to feed domestic animals, which are only then used to feed people. You lose energy at every level.
However, history shows that the world can change rapidly. The key question is: Are we going to see large numbers of people start moving for change?
However, history shows that the world can change rapidly. The key question is: Are we going to see large numbers of people start moving for change?
Not nearly enough to hit critical mass. As I said before, if you take a shot at the king, you’d better not miss. The left took their shot with Bernie, missed, and look at the price everyone is paying. I have zero doubt Clinton would have won if not for Bernie, and zero doubt the overwhelming majority of people in the country and the world would agree that the country, the world and our role in it would be in a much better place after two terms of Clinton than where we are now.
If this dude from the UN told the truth, he'd be out of a job and he would have to wonder how he would have to put food on his table.
He's trying to put a positive spin on an apocalypse.
Well we did have Dr Great Thunberg tell us the world was ending from climate change in 2023 .
Well we did have Dr Great Thunberg tell us the world was ending from climate change in 2023 .
Yes we know you commonly trust non scientist or distrust expert to have the real answer .
Probably why you end with the wrong answer on many subject .
Not nearly enough to hit critical mass. As I said before, if you take a shot at the king, you’d better not miss. The left took their shot with Bernie, missed, and look at the price everyone is paying. I have zero doubt Clinton would have won if not for Bernie, and zero doubt the overwhelming majority of people in the country and the world would agree that the country, the world
I have zero doubt that Hillary would have won if she had chosen Bernie as her running mate. But she didn't.
Bernie did end up supporting her presidential run. But that didn't stop something like 15% of his supporters from voting for Trump. My guess is another big % didn't vote at all. Hillary Clinton was not very likeable for many reasons. Mine was her incredible failure during Bill Clinton's presidency to work with others when being put in charge of the Health plan thing. Which failed miserably.
I have zero doubt that Hillary would have won if she had chosen Bernie as her running mate. But she didn't.Bernie did end up supporting her presidential run. But that didn't stop something like 15% of his supporters from voting for Trump. My guess is another big % didn't vote at all. Hillary Clinton was not very likeable for many reasons. Mine was her incredible failure du
That didn't come out right. I wasn't implying that Clinton and the DNC didn't do plenty to lose the Coronation or people voting for Bernie are responsible for our current situation. But at the same time I do think knowing what we know now, if Bernie voters could go back they'd take their chance on what a Clinton presidency would bring over what we ended up with. I'd say the same about a significant enough percentage of Republicans changing their vote to swing the election knowing what they know now.
That didn't come out right. I wasn't implying that Clinton and the DNC didn't do plenty to lose the Coronation or people voting for Bernie are responsible for our current situation. But at the same time I do think knowing what we know now, if Bernie voters could go back they'd take their chance on what a Clinton presidency would bring over what we ended up with. I'd say the sam
I think it's completely unfair to connect Bernie with Hillary's failure as a candidate.
2016 was a change election and American voters were rejecting royalty. For 9 consecutive elections from 1980 through 2012, there was a Bush or a Clinton who was POTUS, VP or Sec State.
Hillary was never a popular person with the public. She had never won a competitive election. Winning a Democratic Senate seat in NY with no competition is not part of a competitive resume. Unlike Biden who invited Sanders supporters on to 6 committees to pretend that they had a voice in policy .... Hillary treated progressives with contempt and called Trump supporters "deplorables". She didn't visit the decisive states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan because Trump was hammering her association there with Bill and NAFTA which sent manufacturing jobs overseas.
People were pissed off with the status quo and Hillary was the embodiment of the status quo.
She couldn't even attack Trump on his misogyny because she is married to someone with a track record as a rapist.
She appealed to coastal elites.
Trump appealed to people who wanted to destroy the status quo. He came in with contempt for the establishment (calling Ted Cruz "Lying Ted" and Marco Rubio "Little Marco) and the media .... channeling the contempt that the population felt for the same institutions. Trump is an avatar .... a vessel for people's anger with the status quo which Hillary embodied.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion .... I think Bernie would have beaten Trump. Bernie has a fire in the belly. He can get a crowd of 50,000 young people pumped up. Young people love him. I'm an old man .... I drove 5 hours to canvas door to door for Bernie in the Nevada caucuses. I made 3,000 calls on the robo-dialer to Democratic voters with a crew of people hanging out at Pizza Hut or someone's apartment. There was passion.
The 2016 primary was kinda rigged. Hillary's buddy Debbie Wasserman Schultz was running the DNC on Hillary's behalf. They kicked Bernie out of the Democratic Party voter database at one point, disabling his campaign. The Clinton campaign circumvented primary fundraising rules. It was all a fiasco.
https://medium.com/@kylemmoore725/bernie...
I'm linking an article about the massive rallies which Bernie drew.
Imagine if the Democratic establishment had gotten behind the candidate with energy and enthusiasm ....
https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regu...
S&P indicating that it's 50/50 that temperature will increase to +2.3C by 2040.
I have zero doubt that Hillary would have won if she had chosen Bernie as her running mate. But she didn't.Bernie did end up supporting her presidential run. But that didn't stop something like 15% of his supporters from voting for Trump. My guess is another big % didn't vote at all. Hillary Clinton was not very likeable for many reasons. Mine was her incredible failure du
I'm not sure if you remember the PUMA's from 2008 (Party Unity My Ass).
A higher percentage of Clinton supporters (24%) voted for McCain over Obama than Sanders supporters (12%) voting for Trump.
This nonsense about knocking the loyalty of Bernie and his supporters should stop.
I'm not sure if you remember the PUMA's from 2008 (Party Unity My Ass).
A higher percentage of Clinton supporters (24%) voted for McCain over Obama than Sanders supporters (12%) voting for Trump.
This nonsense about knocking the loyalty of Bernie and his supporters should stop.
I loved Bernie Sanders and voted for him in the primaries. I am in no way knocking him or his supporters.
I believe that Hillary Clinton made a huge mistake in not choosing him as a running mate. My guess is that if she had done that there would have been 0% of Bernie's voters voting for Trump and another 0% not voting.
Also, I wouldn't compare Clinton supporters to Bernie supporters. Her world was much closer to McCain's than Bernie's world was to Trump's. And in many ways I can see why Democrats would favor McCain over Trump (for those that didn't like Obama and Clinton)
https://medium.com/@kylemmoore725/bernie...
I'm linking an article about the massive rallies which Bernie drew.
Imagine if the Democratic establishment had gotten behind the candidate with energy and enthusiasm ....
I think the effect of activating the base is wearing off. It’s like advertising: being the first gives you a huge edge but once everyone else starts doing it, the advantage fades. I didn’t dig into the demos much in the last election but it looks like there were some decent size cross-aisle swings.
One attribute of climate change is that formed storms tend to be stronger. Climate scientists don't think more storms will form.
This year we have had 3 Atlantic hurricanes to date, two of which have been Cat 5's and the other a major (Cat 3+).
In the past 11 years, we've had at least one storm with sustained winds of at least 150 MPH. 22 in total. This is unprecedented in the satellite era.
It's the first time in nearly a century (1932) that we have had back to back years with multiple Cat 5's and (1935) the first 3 hurricanes of a season all being majors.
Fortunately, the Atlantic storms thus far this year have not found their way to heavily populated areas.
Well we did have Dr Great Thunberg tell us the world was ending from climate change in 2023 .
First you were exposed to several rage-inducing cases of celebrities in airplanes, and now you suffer through the indignity of an activist speaking. We'll call around and cancel the climate crisis so your feelings can be spared in the future.
Or you could, you know - stop watching political commentators who shovel **** in your face all day.
Na man, how can we function as a society if white dudes in their 50s aren’t furious about a child who is passionate about the climate
The German Meteorological Society is saying that there is a chance that temperatures increase to +3C over the 1850-1900 norm by 2050.
That's higher than any IPCC forecast range .... but not impossible with so many feedback loops engaging and the phasing out of sulfate aerosols from coal and shipping fuels.
Let's take an opportunity to review some of the feedback ingredients.
1) The CO2 from our tailpipes is roughly evenly distributed between the share that stays in the air vs the share which dissolves in the ocean. Solubility of gases in water declines with temperature, so a greater share of CO2 emissions is remaining in the atmosphere to trap heat.
2) Melting ice and snow makes the Earth darker so it absorbs more sunlight which is converted to heat.
3) Melting ice slows the overturning ocean circulation (fresh water is less dense than walt water so it doesn't sink as well) which delivers fewer atmospheric gases such as CO2 to ocean depth.
4) Warmer climate increases drought and bark beetle breeding cycles ..... making tree health decline and increasingly vulnerable to wildfire. Dead trees release their CO2 stores.
5) Cloud cover is decreasing via evaporation. Clouds reflect sunlight.
6) Drought decreases soil retention of CO2.
7) Methane is being released from wetlands and aquatic sources (methane hyrdrates)
All of these natural feedbacks are being amplified by human stupidty as exemplified by bitcoin mining and electricity guzzling AI data centers. A bitcoin transaction uses about 1,000,000x as much electricity as a standard debit / credit card transaction. It's a completely redundant and useless invention which yields no improvement in the lives of humans. AI is an oxymoron. It should be called ES (for Enhanced Stupidity).
If we define intelligence as anything other than an understanding of how we must adapt in order to survive, then we have a stupid definition.
