LibertyBell

9 minutes ago, cleetussnow said:

Snowed at my house on the 9th/10th in Westchester.  Walked my dog in the woods with leaf out and snowfall.  I don't think I've ever seen May snow, even living Upstate NY for 22 years.

I read about May 1977 when the Catskills were buried in over a foot of snow.  I was in the Poconos in May 1977 and got to see it snow all day, which was pretty amazing.

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I don't understand why more people aren't honest about it being a climate emergency.  When your house is burning do you debate about your next steps or do you take immediate action to stop the fire?

 

Greenskeeper needs to be dissolved in a vat of oil.

Why are illiterate backwards thinking fools even allowed to log on here?

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The fossil fuel industry has warped political and public opinion. It is the beneficiary of $7 trillion in annual subsidies according to the IMF's 2023 report and earns tens of billions of dollars in annual profits. It wants to burn through all fossil fuel resources to maximize the lifetime profits possible from such an outcome, especially as it is not required to pay for any of the damage it inflicts from climate change and its impacts. As a result, it has devoted funds and effort to undermining public understanding of the consequences of its injecting enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year.

The information ecosystem is deficient to the challenge. Social Media has few if any checks on disinformation, hence climate denial continues to prosper there. Unfortunately, a growing share of the public obtains some or most of its information from Social Media. Even the mainstream media with a few exceptions, devotes very little coverage to climate change. For example, aside from a handful of outlets, none connected the recent rains in Dubai/UAE to climate change despite climate modeling calling for an increased frequency of excessive rains in that region, very few noted that the recent extreme heat in Africa's Sahel Region would have been "virtually impossible" without climate change, and few if any have connected the raging heatwave across south Asia to climate change despite a 2023 attribution paper that covered a similar and somewhat lesser April heatwave there. This material omission from sources of information, including credible sources, further undercuts the urgency of addressing climate change at a time when a still relatively smooth transition is possible. By 2030, the transition required to hold warming to 1.5C to 2.0C will be fairly disruptive and painful. By then, policy makers will likely claim that the required changes are "unrealistic"--that the required changes will become drastic would be the payoff on decades of relative policy inaction. Younger people's and future generations' wellbeing would be sacrificed on the altar of fossil fuels and shortsighted status quo thinking.

Finally, even as a number of countries are rapidly expanding their clean energy infrastructure/capacity, those countries are avoiding setting targets for rapidly phasing out fossil fuel burning. In fact, oil and gas production is growing, not shrinking. For all the political rhetoric, the U.S. is a big reason global oil and gas production is increasing, not falling. From the EIA:

Although forecast OPEC+ crude oil production in 2024 decreases by 0.9 million b/d compared with last year, forecast production outside of OPEC+ increases by 1.8 million b/d, led by the United States, Guyana, Brazil, and Canada. Global liquid fuels production in our forecast increases by 2.0 million b/d in 2025 as the OPEC+ production cuts expire and supply growth outside of OPEC+ continues to grow.

An "all of the above" energy approach is a guarantee that the world won't meet its Paris Agreement commitments.

These corrupt cartels are even going after lawyers and countries who sue them for damages and they bribe judges to help them.

Lewis Kaplan needs to be called out as one of these corrupt judges who takes bribes from the fossil fuel cartels (and who used to work for them).  He hired private lawyers to prosecute Steven Donziger who won a 10 billion dollar lawsuit against Chevron because of massive waterway pollution in Ecuador.  Chevron even got a witness to commit perjury and paid this witness 2 million dollars and have not paid one cent of the settlement.  Big corporations in various industries are now using similar methods to avoid paying lawsuits.

5 minutes ago, SACRUS said:

JFK

5/8/2020:  59 / 39
5/9/2020:  49 / 34
5/10/2020:  64 / 39

Thanks Tony, and a Trace of snow on the 9th?

That high of 49 on May 9th with sunshine (most of the time) is pretty crazy too.

Is that an all time low for the month of May for JFK?

30 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

As @GaWx pointed out, we have only had 6 -NAO winters since 1979-1980. Literally ALL of those 6 occurred during solar minimums with a very low number of sunspots and low geomag activity. We have the complete 180 degree opposite of that right now with the solar max/high solar flux/high geomag cycle. Given this fact, predict a -NAO winter at your own risk 

Instead the -NAO are happening in April and May lol.

I didn't know how much fun watching sunspots could be.  The trio of sunspots I photographed near the "top" of the sun have now moved to the middle of the sun.  They moved this much in just a week or 10 days.

46 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

At some point that will decline-I've notice some of his most ardent followers on other boards have started to jump ship...

I jumped ship in 2002 lol

1 hour ago, Brian5671 said:

That was the torch of all torches.   Almost no precip either...

it carried into the spring and summer too, what an absolutely awesome summer that was!

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The last times NYC dropped under 40° after 4-20 was back in 2021 and 2020. The rarest was during early May in 2020 when it snowed. That was probably the most anomalous cold event of the 2020s so far.

 

Time Series Summary for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

Ending Date	Lowest Min Temperature Apr 21 to May 31	Missing Count
2023-05-31	43	0
2022-05-31	40	0
2021-05-31	36	0
2020-05-31	34	0
2019-05-31	41	0
2018-05-31	39	0
2017-05-31	44	0
2016-05-31	43	0
2015-05-31	38	0
2014-05-31	41	0
2013-05-31	37	0
2012-05-31	38	0
2011-05-31	40	0
2010-05-31	40	0

 

34 wow, so close to freezing!  Offhand, do you know the latest it's gotten to 32 degrees since 1974 (so over the last 50 years?)

I know the 34 was on May 9th in 2020, what date did that 36 in 2021 occur on?

Thanks!

EDIT I CHECKED TONY'S POST AND IT WAS 36 ON THIS DATE IN 2021-- SO THIS MUST BE THE DAY!

CHRIS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LOW WAS IN MAY 2020 at JFK, when Central Park's low was 34? They both received a T of snow, right?

There was no measurable snow in our local area?

10 hours ago, bluewave said:

The -30C 850 mb temperature near James Bay is close to the record for late April. It looks like the TPV splits in a few days and a piece heads for Maine. So NYC has a shot at dipping under 40° with the interior northeast having a hard freeze potential.

 

 

 

It's pretty rare to get below 40 degrees after 4/20, it's only happened a handful of times in my memory (and most of those were actually in early May like 2020, 1992, etc, and of course there was 1977.)  1983 stands out with a snowstorm on 4/20.

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

2.9C is still avoidable. Whether it will be avoided remains to be seen.

I don't understand why more people aren't honest about it being a climate emergency.  When your house is burning do you debate about your next steps or do you take immediate action to stop the fire?

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Imho, the large paradox is that human evolution is evolving it's de-evolution.

I like to say that the factors which cause evolution eventually result in the destruction of the evolving species.

49 minutes ago, rclab said:

 

 

 

 

Do two wrongs ever make a right (or it right)? As always ….

No but it's an argument that is increasingly being used (in various political circles too).  I would say that two wrongs create an even greater and self perpetuating wrong.  Whether we're talking about colonialism or climate change.

28 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Any system based on polarities like ours always runs the risk of falling out of balance. I would like to think that we can eventually shift our consciousness to a higher level which recognizes that we are part of nature rather than separate from it. But it may take until sea level rise begins to inundate our coastal cities or major crop failures occur due to extreme weather and climate events. Climate warming is still too much of an abstraction for society at large to begin to contemplate. The best we can do right now is for like minded individuals to take this information and make any adaptations we can for a much more extreme climate in the future.

It’s a bit of a paradox that the very nature of our evolution on this planet has selected more short term gains rather than long term sustainability. That’s how we have wound up with so many environmental degradation issues which are facing us. At some point we need to use our inherent creativity to override these outdated modes of existence which may have served prehistoric societies short term survival needs but have to be modernized for our current situation. Short term thinking served our ancestors coming out of the caves who had to be on guard in order to quickly get away from dangerous animals. Now we need to use our higher nature to shift toward an existence more in alignment with nature and fellow humans.

In a way I feel like it's hardwired into nature.

Think of it like this, for various reasons nature abhors domination by a single species or genus.  Think of what happened in prior mass extinction events and what species went extinct.  Like the dinosaurs for example.  It really seems like there is a tipping point that gets triggered once a species becomes too dominant and nature has created this back channel to ensure its destruction when that happens.

When you think of the planet as a living breathing superorganism that self-regulates, you can see why it would want to eliminate species that become so dominant that they completely take over the biome.

24 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Any system based on polarities like ours always runs the risk of falling out of balance. I would like to think that we can eventually shift our consciousness to a higher level which recognizes that we are part of nature rather than separate from it. But it may take until sea level rise begins to inundate our coastal cities or major crop failures occur due to extreme weather and climate events. Climate warming is still too much of an abstraction for society at large to begin to contemplate. The best we can do right now is for like minded individuals to take this information and make any adaptations we can for a much more extreme climate in the future.

It’s a bit of a paradox that the very nature of our evolution on this planet has selected more short term gains rather than long term sustainability. That’s how we have wound up with so many environmental degradation issues which are facing us. At some point we need to use our inherent creativity to override these outdated modes of existence which may have served prehistoric societies short term survival needs but have to be modernized for our current situation. Short term thinking served our ancestors coming out of the caves who had to be on guard in order to quickly get away from dangerous animals. Now we need to use our higher nature to shift toward an existence more in alignment with nature and fellow humans.

This is why I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to see that we are ALL part of the environment, so whatever we do to it, we are actually doing that to ourselves.

There is a price to pay for convenience, and we are now paying it.  We're mortgaging our future for what we have right now.

36 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

You mean like Hansen?   Not just him ... there are a lot.  Many, many scientists waving their proverbial arms on street corners of the great media-sphere,  warning of Armageddon. 

The problem isn't the scientists.  The problem is whether society treats them now the same way as those disregarded raving religious loons doing the same. 

There's a lot of counter-cultural bias against science in general that has evolved over the last 20 years.  Remember back to the early years of the "fake news" ? That was actually originally, "alternative facts" It was literally called that if anyone can recall.  As though 'facts' can be in two places at once, I guess.

There was (and still is) an unnervingly large number of population that actually believe(d) that made(kes) it okay to deny a given message, out of hand, if/when the message does not agree with their group or individual narratives.  What they want actually becomes the truth, a fate that is sealed when they run out and find others that jive with their personal mind space - "so it must be true".   I heard this phenomenon once referred to as "etho-chambers" - love that expression. Polish enough absurdities by rubbing them off enough kindred minded folk, and you can make just about anything seem real.

I call it 'populist folie à deux'  (folie à deux means shared psychosis).  , and starts transmitting around an enable population ... enabled by industrial powered alternatives - people don't suffer consequences for their mistakes because the former advantages supply too many recourses. So any truth is now negotiable.  

And not all of this is like walking coolly around these messengers of science. There are those that risk being met with actual vitriol if not violent threats - in a "reality" where violence acts without restraint has become relatively common place, no less.  

Considering scientists by trade: it's not hard to imagine their apprehension in that realm. The idea of leaping out in front with any kind of message that doesn't jive with the zeitgeist. Most of them are not hailing from a realm of patent wealth and are yet to make their big splash...etc...etc, with lives they're trying to support.  No need to elaborate further.  But despite this...there are those up on the stage behind the chicken wire.

It really is an inflection point in history as you know well, John.  Little differences can have major long term consequences.  I'm wondering what kind of a world we'll be living in in 2050.  Hopefully we are still around by then (I for one want to see that eclipse in 2045.)

History seems to repeat itself even if we remember it-- this seems so much like the 60s.

13 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Some actually are on the front lines e.g, NASA’s Peter Kalmus. The news media covers even trivial entertainment and business developments (small scale impact) and devotes very little coverage to climate change and related events. Perhaps an extreme heatwave in Paris that coincided with the summer Olympics would bring worldwide coverage. In the meantime, the fossil fuel industry continues to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, receive trillions of dollars in subsidies, and inflict growing harm on human health/lives and ecosystems.

They're also airing commercials now to try and make plastics seem recyclable.

13 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Some actually are on the front lines e.g, NASA’s Peter Kalmus. The news media covers even trivial entertainment and business developments (small scale impact) and devotes very little coverage to climate change and related events. Perhaps an extreme heatwave in Paris that coincided with the summer Olympics would bring worldwide coverage. In the meantime, the fossil fuel industry continues to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, receive trillions of dollars in subsidies, and inflict growing harm on human health/lives and ecosystems.

I notice the media likes to marginalize climate change protests by talking about "young people at the protests"  Today, on the Sunday talk shows they did a segment on Earth Day and what they said is that politicians don't believe that anyone besides the very young care about climate change.  According to polling it ranked at the very bottom of issues that voters care about-- it was at around 2%.  If it was framed as a healthcare and national security issue as it should be, maybe that would be different.

27 minutes ago, roardog said:

So we will combat human induced climate change with human induced climate change? Sounds about right. 

Yep, I think we are headed here too.  The billionaires are already lining up

https://longisland.news12.com/2016-whistleblower-tip-warned-of-barrels-buried-at-old-grumman-property-in-bethpage

Northrup Grumman being Northup Grumman-- yet another case of not doing the right thing when destroying the environment by helping to clean it up.

On 4/12/2024 at 1:12 PM, donsutherland1 said:

On the issue of mitigation vs. adaptation, I would rather see much more attention devoted to mitigation, even at the expense of adaptation. An investment in mitigation would yield far bigger returns than a strategy aimed largely at adaptation. The former would limit the consequences. The latter would delay mitigation and amount to perhaps a down payment into an even worse future. Ultimately, adaptation would be largely futile if the world descends into a Mid-Pliocene-type climate with an irrevocable commitment to extreme heat, devastating floods, and a long-term 25-meter sea level rise. Yet, humanity remains far from making a credible effort aimed at mitigating climate change.

For all of humanity's lofty achievements and acquisition of knowledge (some of which is being rejected by climate change denial and those with a stake in it), humanity is incredibly bad at looking beyond the near-term and in solving complex societal problems. It views the future as little more than a linear extension of the present despite overwhelming evidence that the future is anything but a linear extension of the present. It seeks to sustain an unsustainable status quo where resources are being consumed far faster than they can be renewed. It places blind faith in technological miracles that would arrive just in time to avert the consequences of its choice not to address climate change, among other big issues. It wholesale ignores physics, even as physics as provided insight into the greenhouse effect since the 19th century and a correct long-range forecast from decades ago that an increase in greenhouse gases would lead to warming.

In 1987, Lamont-Doherty scientist Wallace S. Broecker observed:

The inhabitants of planet Earth are quietly conducting a gigantic environmental experiment. So vast and so sweeping will be the consequences that, were it brought before any responsible council for approval, it would be firmly rejected. Yet it goes on with little interference from any jurisdiction or nation.

The failure of COP 28, which convened 36 years after Dr. Broecker's observation and following the IPCC's declaration that it is "unequivocal" that  human activities have warmed the climate, to adopt even a minimal set of targets for weaning the world off its fossil fuel addiction reaffirmed the continuing relevance of Dr. Broeker's observation. Today, as the world still has a choice, its decision not to adopt a credible course of action is one of willful and knowing choice.

2022 and 2023 were defined by extremes in precipitation events, heat, global temperatures, and sea surface temperatures. None of that shook COP 28 or the world's leaders from their lazy complacency, even as technologies already exist for a much faster shift from fossil fuels than had been possible in 1987.

Broecker warned, "We play Russian roulette with climate, hoping that the future will hold no unpleasant surprises." The geological record shows that there have been times where the climate has made rapid, large-scale changes from a preceding state. The sudden enormous spike in sea surface temperatures, which remain near record highs and lack of consensus among the scientific community about the overall cause illustrates the reality that one can't be fully certain about what lies ahead beyond the skillful (to date) predictions about global temperatures.

Broecker advised, "To prepare ourselves, we must take the problem of climatic change as seriously as we take those of cancer and nuclear defense." That has not been the case among the world's political leaders through the opening of 2024.

Sure, there have been words. However, actions speak much more credibly. The absence of binding targets for fossil fuel burning and the lack of a credible path for a reduction consistent with achieving net zero emissions by 2050 speak far more authoritatively than the sum total of all the political rhetoric since climate change first burst onto the political scene in a big way with Dr. James Hansen's June 23, 1988 Congressional testimony.

Then, Hansen declared, "...the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." Political indifference followed when it came to concrete and credible actions.

Energy consumption from fossil fuels rose from 77.9 terawatt hours in 1988 to 13.2 terawatt hours in 2022, a 76% increase. Atmospheric CO2 increased from 351.7 PPM in 1988 to 421.1 PPM in 2023, a 20% increase. Humanity knowingly and deliberately invested in a warmer more unstable climate. At COP 28, it reaffirmed that tragic commitment. 2024 has begun in the shadow of humanity's latest choice to put efforts to preserve an unsustainable fossil fuel-centric status quo ahead of urgent and credible mitigation.

Don, the problem I have with scientists is why aren't they on the frontlines? Why is the burden on young people to go out and protest and boycott?  Scientists should be walking out of their jobs and out in the streets protesting with them if they believe so strongly about climate change.  Merely publishing papers isn't good enough anymore, if it's that much an emergency, they need to make sacrifices too.  Maybe if enough scientists quit work the politicians would have to listen.

On 4/12/2024 at 6:50 AM, bluewave said:

That’s why we probably need to put more focus on adaptation to a warmer climate that we have built our civilization on to date. But it becomes a sticky issue since the topic of money is involved. Increasing extreme weather events are costly to society for numerous reasons including more expensive property reinsurance which directly affects the insurance rates consumers pay. It’s great that we have developed early weather detection methods which save more lives. But the increasing cost burden of a more extreme climate is difficult since the topic of money gets processed through a more polarized societal filter due to the introduction of politics. Plus forced migrations throughout history due to extremes such as droughts or heat have been proven to add a destabilizing factor to societal systems. Can’t even imagine what a future scramble will look like when coastal cities eventually become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. This is not to say that we can’t find ways to adapt since we are such a clever species. But it may very well come with a steep price tag.

WE should not be paying for the costs of climate change, the fossil fuel cartels should be FORCED to pay for them.

1) seize their assets and their property

2) revoke their rights to litigate

3) use their assets and property to pay for the costs of billion dollar disasters

4) make it loud and clear that their continued operation will be seen as a threat to society and put them out of business..... forever

Being in a climate and health emergency and facing an existential threat such extreme measures aren't just needed they are necessary.  The fossil fuel cartel should be treated as enemy combatants if they refuse to comply.

Humans aren't so clever, look at how we seek instant gratification greed over healthy sustainable solutions (like processed food which causes cancer as well as pesticides and plastics which cause organ damage.)

WE should not be paying for the costs of climate change, the fossil fuel cartels should be FORCED to pay for them.

1) seize their assets and their property

2) revoke their rights to litigate

3) use their assets and property to pay for the costs of billion dollar disasters

4) make it loud and clear that their continued operation will be seen as a threat to society and put them out of business..... forever

Being in a climate and health emergency and facing an existential threat such extreme measures aren't just needed they are necessary.  The fossil fuel cartel should be treated as enemy combatants if they refuse to comply.

20 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Reading this makes so angry.

We should be treating the fossil fuel cartels like terrorists and create a war on fossil fuels.

Associated articles about how dirty they fight so we need to fight dirty too.

 

https://www.makechevroncleanup.com/press-releases/2019/6/20/judge-kaplan-ordered-the-seizure-of-his-passport-computer-and-cell-human-rights-defender-steven-donziger-refused-to-turn-them-over-here-is-his-explanation

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-steven-donziger/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-05/chevrons-rico-victory-provides-a-model-for-other-companies?sref=fqqmZ8gi

https://www.wsj.com/articles/litigation-without-end-chevron-battles-on-in-28-year-old-ecuador-lawsuit-11619975500
 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/neye7z/chevrons-star-witness-admits-to-lying-in-the-amazon-pollution-case

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawyer-steven-donziger-ecuador-house-arrest
 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/chevron-amazon-ecuador-steven-donziger-erin-brockovich
 

 

other companies in other cartels also fight dirty

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/business/chemours-dupont-pfas-genx-chemicals.html

 

 

Monsanto/Bayer losing lawsuits is a bright spot in all this

 

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-12-02/bayer-suffering-buyers-remorse-for-monsanto-acquisition/
 

 

 

 

This proves right here that these corrupt cartels have clearly forfeit their rights and should be treated as terrorists and not allowed to have any part in the future.

On 4/12/2024 at 6:50 AM, bluewave said:

That’s why we probably need to put more focus on adaptation to a warmer climate that we have built our civilization on to date. But it becomes a sticky issue since the topic of money is involved. Increasing extreme weather events are costly to society for numerous reasons including more expensive property reinsurance which directly affects the insurance rates consumers pay. It’s great that we have developed early weather detection methods which save more lives. But the increasing cost burden of a more extreme climate is difficult since the topic of money gets processed through a more polarized societal filter due to the introduction of politics. Plus forced migrations throughout history due to extremes such as droughts or heat have been proven to add a destabilizing factor to societal systems. Can’t even imagine what a future scramble will look like when coastal cities eventually become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. This is not to say that we can’t find ways to adapt since we are such a clever species. But it may very well come with a steep price tag.

Chris, the fossil fuel cartels are not part of the solution, they need to be completely eliminated, utterly.  They lie, have always lied and will always continue to lie.  And their power to litigate needs to be taken away from them too (look at how Chevron harassed Donziger and paid a judge to put him under house arrest).  Just like they used to lie about climate change not happening, now they lie about plastic recycling.

These are bad faith actors, just like the tobacco cartels were and they need to be completely and utterly ended before we will see real change.

On 4/11/2024 at 12:43 PM, bluewave said:

Maybe Hansen and Simons will turn out to be correct about marine aerosol reductions having a greater influence on climate than earlier models had shown.

 

This just intensifies the voices who plan to use aerosols to cap warming.  This is going to be widespread starting around 2030.