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
It seems that my plan is unrealistic based on the premise that it is politically unrealistic.
Agreed.
But maybe it's politically unrealistic because no one has the courage to come out and say they prefer it.
Maybe. Who knows?
Are people rejecting my suggestion because it's something they personally don't want or because it's their projection that the masses don't want it ?
In my case, BOTH!
Record heat dome forecast for the upper plains states next week.
not all climate scientists agree on timelines and the ultimate effect of climate change on the world.)
Not all people agree on the next time someone will try to break into your house or that your house will be destroyed in a fire.
But still ... you lock your front door and purchase homeowner's insurance. That's intelligent risk management.
Sunlight blocking doesn't prevent the ocean from continuing to acidify as a result of CO2 absorption. And if the sunlight block is successful in cooling the Earth's surface, the rate of ocean CO2 absorption will increase.
And you're right about it being a desperate plan .... it's a roll of the dice with potentially highly variable regional consequences.
Yes but given the extreme nature of the problem its quite likely to seem an attractive risk compared to the reality that has arrived. How much hotter before the attitude is go for it?
Of course I would still argue for trying harder to try to stop it getting that far.
I didn't say they aren't ANY realistic plans. And I explained why: there aren't any Climate Scientists posting in this thread.
I think you have a distorted view of the world. At this moment there are hundred or thousands of climate scientists each working in their own respective niche which result in published research.
Any layperson has access to all of that published research. Being a climate scientist doesn't make one an expert on the field as a whole or provide any basis in economic policy designed to address the problem.
What they do is measure the changes, explain the feedback loops which have been triggered and where these all lead from a physical environmental perspective in terms of things like heat, wind and ocean circulation, rain, drought and impacts on biodiversity and agriculture.
It's not their job to figure out how to organize society. It's their job to tell us that society as currently constructed will break if we don't make major changes. That's what they are telling us.
I didn't say they aren't ANY realistic plans. And I explained why: there aren't any Climate Scientists posting in this thread.
Probably. (And ofc not all climate scientists agree on timelines and the ultimate effect of climate change on the world.)
I think we would need an interdisciplinary approach, as climate scientists are not always in the best position to determine which policies are most feasible. I think thar’s part of why there has been such a paralysis of action.
I think we would need an interdisciplinary approach, as climate scientists are not always in the best position to determine which policies are most feasible. I think thar’s part of why there has been such a paralysis of action.
There has been a paralysis of action because huge oil, gas, and coal businesses would basically go under if proper action were taken. Instead the stalling of shutting down coal, oil, and gas power plants by massively installing wind turbines and solar panels is the way they can continue to make billions of dollars. They don't care about the millions of people dying each year as a result of air pollution any more than Tobacco companies cared about millions of people dying of lung cancer. Its all about money. I also think that electric companies are standing in the way in some states because of their prior investments in power plants. Its unclear if the cost of electricity going up (because of the loss of use of power plants) would be acceptable to state governments and that would mean that publicly owned electric companies could go under as well if forced to convert.
Its also unclear how car companies would fare if electric cars became required. It is likely that the millions of electric cars made in China would prevail because they cost about half of what the cheapest cars made in the US cost. But for everyday people who own cars, having to exchange them for electric cars would not be financially possible. It would have to be a law that required all new vehicles to be electric or hydrogen powered and that is extremely unlikely to happen because it would take 60 Democrats in the Senate and it isn't just Republicans that prefer looking out for businesses in their state. And there are several hydrogen powered cars (Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda) but they are basically converting hydrogen and oxygen to electricity (with water as exhaust). The recommendations to change gas powered engines to hydrogen powered engines is possible but would be way too expensive for cars. The current idea is to change trucks and bus engines to hydrogen powered engines, which would still be expensive but likely worth it environmentally.
I agree.
But fundamentally .... we've got an open firehouse spilling out over 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. The only time in recent history that volume has declined even a little was during the early days of Covid. We have to close the hose or reduce the flow significantly.
It seems rather obvious to examine the behaviors which create those emissions and ask the fundamental question .... is that behavior necessary ?
If we can't differentiate between needs and desires .... we'll lose what we need.
Our current economic system orbits around desire.
It's not all that complicated.
The current US drought situation. The Colorado River states are especially dry and Glen Canyon Dam is approaching dead pool.
Article on Lake Powell status. Some argue that all its water s/b released to Lake Mead and let the lake be used as a backup reservoir in the event that regional water levels recover.
I agree. But fundamentally .... we've got an open firehouse spilling out over 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. The only time in recent history that volume has declined even a little was during the early days of Covid. We have to close the hose or reduce the flow significantly. It seems rather obvious to examine the behaviors which create those e
Not complicated but probably mistaken. The only seriously meaningful gains come from meeting wants with greener alternatives. The big mistake of too many who do agree on the problem is the idea we can get people to give up what they want rather than focusing on offering much greener ways of providing what they want. Even so, big strides are being made but we needed to move much faster much sooner while too many were (and some still are) trying to piss in the wind (so to speak)
We cant afford to ignore the reality which is that en-mass people will only give up what they want after the **** has hit the fan. They can however be persuaded to switch fairly easily even if they grumble a bit. So we need to focus really hard on developing alternatives.
It's not all tech btw. For example loads of people would use (even prefer to use) good cheap public transport over their car. So much more can be done on this.
It's a race and it's not necessarily all or nothing
Far too late to stop a lot of problems of course but how much and how bad is still unknown and and it's well worth trying as hard as possible.
My best guess it we're going to go through hell but the species will make it through. No-one knows though
I'm just bearing witness to the transition to a version of the planet that is hostile to human civilization.
The planet will become better for human civilization with more CO2 and heat. In fact, it already has; I showed how plant yields have increased 20%, forests are greening globally. The world is a better place, a bit warmer, and humanity is much better off. Deep cold is terrible for both life and human suffering, and global warming reduces the cold more than it increases the heat. We're a cold planet overall.
I've got a hunch that we're going to see some exceptional weather developments in the coming year and I hope to provide some context that helps people make sense of it.
The Science™
If it were 1800 you'd be talking about the demon theory of humors and how we're all doomed if we don't confront satan right now. It's a personality thing.
It's surreal. Feedback loops are kicking in and we're pivoting toward an entirely different version of the planet. The Nino region is now about 0.7C warmer than it ever has been at this time of year.
The larger impacts of the El Nino will occur during the N. Hemisphere winter.
There has been a paralysis of action because huge oil, gas, and coal businesses would basically go under if proper action were taken.
This is comically delusional and shows a complete lack of first-principles thinking and understanding of the world. Oil, gas and coal are largely irreplacable with current tech or anything we can come up with in 10 years. It has nothing to do with profits. China's sole goal for example is to have dominance over global industry and become the greatest power; if there were alternatives, wouldn't they use them? Instead they build 100 coal power stations every single year, because it provides cheap reliable energy without a peer. That's all there is to it.
Instead the stalling of shutting down coal, oil, and gas power plants by massively installing wind turbines and solar panels is the way they can continue to make billions of dollars. They don't care about the millions of people dying each year as a result of air pollution any more than Tobacco companies cared about millions of people dying of lung cancer. Its all about money.
Huge costs have been placed on industry to clean up air pollution over the decades. Your comment is demonstrably false.
I also think that electric companies are standing in the way in some states because of their prior investments in power plants. Its unclear if the cost of electricity going up (because of the loss of use of power plants) would be acceptable to state governments and that would mean that publicly owned electric companies could go under as well if forced to convert.
The conspiratorial delusion is so incredibly strong. Coal provides the cheapest, easiest energy that exists - particularly if already built. If you mandate a new type of energy then costs soar (particularly hard on the poor). There are numerous countries where this has played out recently, including Germany's disastrous green energy push which hurt both the poor and their industrial base.
Its also unclear how car companies would fare if electric cars became required. It is likely that the millions of electric cars made in China would prevail because they cost about half of what the cheapest cars made in the US cost.
Electric cars are front loaded with several years of climate damage before they even break even with ICE.
But for everyday people who own cars, having to exchange them for electric cars would not be financially possible. It would have to be a law that required all new vehicles to be electric or hydrogen powered and that is extremely unlikely to happen because it would take 60 Democrats in the Senate and it isn't just Republicans that prefer looking out for businesses in their state.
Hydrogen economic don't make sense, bro. It has nothing to do with conspiracies or corruption and everything to do with physics. You could have a car powered by Tyrion farts (and burn methane in the process), could even build viable prototypes, but it's not viable at scale.
And there are several hydrogen powered cars (Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda) but they are basically converting hydrogen and oxygen to electricity (with water as exhaust). The recommendations to change gas powered engines to hydrogen powered engines is possible but would be way too expensive for cars. The current idea is to change trucks and bus engines to hydrogen powered engines, which would still be expensive but likely worth it environmentally.
There are no simple solutions. In fact there is no solution for meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions right now. None. The trillions burnt on trying to (for actually negative success globally - renewables made things worse) could have been far better spent on other projects with much higher return for humans or the environment.
Electric cars are however are taking over. Over 50% of new cars in china and rising fast. Even in lol usa its nearly 10%
To address an imo important point I think you are making. We can't start with the perfect product or even a particularly good product. The first few generations of green alternatives are usually poor products and may even be more harmful to the environment. It's still the the path we have to take. We also can't, for example, put all the clean electrical supply and infrastructure in place in advance of the consumer products. Planning is good so we should do what we can but a lot of the supply will come after the demand. Sometimes the supply will come before the demand. And sometimes it wont work out. Nonetheless it's how you get relatively fast progress which is what we need (and needed to do much more of). China is surging ahead because it hasn't relied on market forces anywhere near as much to guide progress - it has looked at the future and gone for it on all fronts. We need to do the same.
Your analysis is missing one critical element chezlaw.
It completely ignores the time pressure associated with passing tipping points to abrupt and cataclysmic climate change.
Your arguments make perfect sense in the absence of that time pressure. But unfortunately, that's not the way the Earth is built.
We have relatively recent evidence from the Younger Dryas about how the Earth's climate system can abruptly lurch into a new regime. Scientists refer to such event as Heinrich Events which were associated with the periodic collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
The Laurentide Ice Sheet doesn't exist any longer. We're digging into a more deeply embedded layer of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.
The high pressure system building in the plains on track to break atmospheric pressure records in 10 states.
It's a different version of Earth.
Why are these omega blocks happening more frequently ?
They are a result of the weakening of the mid-latitude jet stream.
The Arctic is the fastest warming region in the world as a result of albedo (white snow and ice) loss. That warming reduces the temperature gradient between the polar and mid-latitudes which weakens the jet stream.
So instead of a taut wind band circling the N. hemisphere at mid-latitude, you get waves of increasing amplitude which get stuck in place for extended periods.
They allow warm air to travel far north from the tropics fueling heat waves and they allow cold air from the poles to descend further south such as fueled the anomalous Texas winter storm a few years ago.
Dr. Jennifer Francis has some good university lectures on the topic which have been recorded on youtube if you're interested in the PhD explanation.
