Scientists Surprised By Weather And Climate Extremes From 1°C Of Warming

[bluewave]

If these extremes are surprising scientists at 1°C of warming, then what is going to happen at 2°C and 3°C?

https://www.axios.com/global-heat-wave-stuns-scientists-as-records-fall-4cad71d2-8567-411e-a3f6-0febaa19a847.html

https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-change-gobal-warming-freak-weather-explained

https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlantification-arctic-sea-tipping-towards-new-climate-regime

 

 

 

[Glenn M]

When Earth is not formally in an ice age period, average global temps are about 17 degrees F higher than todays average of 58 F. So what would things be like then? Could humans even survive?

To me, the whole discussion and focus around climate change is completely off track and way too politicized. We're focused on the "ants" and why there are ants while a herd of T-Rex's loom ahead. 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 8/22/2018 at 10:05 AM, Glenn M said:

When Earth is not formally in an ice age period, average global temps are about 17 degrees F higher than todays average of 58 F. So what would things be like then? Could humans even survive?

To me, the whole discussion and focus around climate change is completely off track and way too politicized. We're focused on the "ants" and why there are ants while a herd of T-Rex's loom ahead. 

I liken it to,  humanity is standing on the railroad tracks and the iron of the rails is beginning to whir ... yet we argue over the color shoes we wear to the engagement - 

In other words, irrelevant agenda ... Pretty much everything in the news is completely irrelevant; if there is no world upon which to celebrate those conceits, why discuss them?

There are really only two reason why that would be the case: 

Not able to wrap minds around the specter of no world;  unwilling to wrap minds around the specter of no world.  

The dilemma facing all of the world, from the Industrial societies to the unfortunate innocent tribal cultures that will parish right along with it all ... is probably a combination of both those factors working simultaneously; they tend to be subjective of one another.

Those not able to get their heads around the danger ... be it, complexity, fear...you name it, find it easier to just be unwilling.  And the resulting unwillingness, therein is an open circuit for fake news to plug into, because the simpleton provincial model it takes to deny reality means a palatability of alternative reality -

But, it's not just a problem with stubbornness as that in part implies... The issues at large in grappling with climate and vitality of biosphere is so complex that to be blunt, it's really not very intellectually tenable to the ballast of the masses.  

And so... cleaving away ignorance for a moment, what remains of the clatter is too often deliberate - it may seem melodramatic, but I call the phenomenon "conditional sociopathy."  It's purposefully done to obfuscation, to confuse ...addle an easy target in the hoi polloi, that same hoi polloi that used to abstractly trust, to be reliant upon leaders, and governing sciences and social policies, morays to ethos, and the talking heads that represented the instinctual totem of rank and file to reassure us all that "our flag was still there."  It would take a sociopath to elide the empirical nature of the problem, and then ...formulate Machiavellian arguments to that suggestive target. 

It may sound like more of a political rant here, but it's not.... The problem with the climate is always in the demand - not because of the Industry that is causing and/or contributing greatly to the problem.  The Industry exists .. because of the demand.  So it is a collective effort ... and the problem with human contribution to climate change and/or disaster, is as much an attitude of civilization and a willingness to learn, and yes... taking some moral initiative in the crisis.  All of those proactive recourse? Those are the only way to protect impressionable society folk.  

[Vice-Regent]

Our #1 mistake was letting capitalism and democracy survive. We had many opportunities to remove it. People say communism is less appealing but one must remember that the Machiavellian manuvering of US-based western governments caused a premature collapse of the USSR and Nazi Germany. It's pretty sad when you realize that the two cesspit countries/societies mentioned beforehand would of been more sustainable than the United States.

Our priorities and hearts have not been in the right place since the early 20th century (some would say never in the right place - aka pre-history). As soon as greed entered everything else was erased from memory.

Politics is relevant but all of the political actions that could have stopped global warming are in the rear-view mirror. Don't like it? Too bad I suppose.

Do you realize that Cuba has the most efficient energy consumption per capita in the world? In my private memoirs. I list FDR as the most dangerous man of the 20th century for reasons you may not expect. The same man who put American citizens in concentration camps to perform manual labor. Alas it's in the past now. Everything comes full circle.

Once FDR entered the world stage. Madness became normalized and we gave unprecedented control to Laissez-faire capitalism. Unrivaled consumption and waste pouring from every orifice. The American system is only good at two things. 1:) Polluting the Earth and 2:) Building bombs (Killing for monetary gain).

The argument for capitalism is that it spurs innovations and responses to problems of significance faster than any economic system to date. What's the purpose of unsustainable innovations causing more unsustainable innovations? This is delusion if not a cleverly disguised form of greed or as the old world would call it - sin.

Put simply - Capitalism is a way to deplete the Earth faster. Nothing more. It's not fun, it doesn't make people happier. It's just more efficient at death.

[Typhoon Tip]

19 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Our #1 mistake was letting capitalism and democracy survive. We had many opportunities to remove it. People say communism is less appealing but one must remember that the Machiavellian manuvering of US-based western governments caused a premature collapse of the USSR and Nazi Germany. It's pretty sad when you realize that the two cesspit countries/societies mentioned

...

The argument for capitalism is that it spurs innovations and responses to problems of significance faster than any economic system to date. What's the purpose of unsustainable innovations causing more unsustainable innovations? This is delusion if not a cleverly disguised form of greed or as the old world would call it - sin.

Put simply - Capitalism is a way to deplete the Earth faster. Nothing more. It's not fun, it doesn't make people happier. It's just more efficient at death.

We've probably ventured too far off the climate-based discussion and into the murky world of, "you can't actually win in a subjective political debate"  -

However, after reading and re-reading your first statement (bold), the statement's impression transcends mere subjectivity.  Sorry, you are completely and utterly off-base historically.  Unless I am miss-reading, ...that first, bold statement above bares no corroboration, whatsoever, with regard to the reality and events that led to drawing the U.S. into the World War II, Global conflict. The truth and facts of that conflict's sociodynamic roots, or the general framework spanning that era of world-based history, just do not provide any sort of scaffold to construct a grand, tactical manipulation by some 'secret' forces of Capitalism.  That is certainly fun fodder for some kind of mash up, Clancy-Orwellian fiction ...sure!  But... the statement as is, comes off like you really think that way? wow. 

So, I'm not sure who I am really speaking to... you're certainly entitled to your own impression of reality.  But, just for morbid, how does the U.S. arrange The Holocaust? And, how was/is all that connected to the thousands that died that fateful December 8, 1941 at Pearl Harbor? ...

Oh, I get it - the U.S. "got" Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so that our collective indignation would serve a grand distraction while they carried out their real deed: the conquestial smearing of the European geo-sociopolitical landscape -  using murder no less!  Man, I can't believe that really worked!

Anyway, one does not know where to begin with all that. The eradication of the Third Reich and ...decades to generation later, the fall of the Soviet Union, those have an immense complexity of moving historical parts and are laughably unlike anything that would support your leading sentiment.  Just leaving it at that.. 

Now...sardonic aside... I do see where you were going with that latter idea with Capitalism, to a point...  In a purely logistical sense, yes...Capitalism could intuitively be proficient at depleting natural resources... It's perhaps endemic to that economically rooted culture therein, that 'freedom' of choice and will and work ...would tend to exploit physical resources  - also - free from regulatory practices at all scales and dimensions of that circuitry.  Okay - sure...

However, I am not ready to condemn Capitalism entirely... The world is what we make it - elegant for it's simplicity, and pure truth.

Firstly, Communism-industry isn't necessarily less guilty of anthropomorphic involvement in the environmental catastrophe talk. That would have to be scienced -

Secondly... isn't it possible, if perhaps merely just beyond presently Human evolution, to be morally and virtuously accountable in Capitalism? 

Before answering that question ... it may be easier, if not coffee-house tripe popular, to throw cynicism at it and say no... However, this is the most successful ( excluding environmental breakdown for a moment) Capitalism in world history - and is thus also... inherently experimental for being the first perceived success of its kind.  It's still an evolutionary process onto itself.  And, that does not mean that Capitalism is intrinsically "evil" and cannot be moral.  It simply means those societies that engage, have yet to find the flavor of it that operates with more righteous design - within which there is respect and conservation for the very nature that it, and all other societal forms, need to survive.

And that's the rub, entirely ... that all societies regardless of form and function (and they are all guilty) have been operating with a disconnect between their goals of survival, and the morality of the environment along those pursuits.  That's all - 

 

[Vice-Regent]

3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

We've probably ventured too far off the climate-based discussion and into the murky world of, "you can't actually win in a subjective political debate"  -

However, after reading and re-reading your first statement (bold), the statement's impression transcends mere subjectivity.  Sorry, you are completely and utterly off-base historically.  Unless I am miss-reading, ...that first, bold statement above bares no corroboration, whatsoever, with regard to the reality and events that led to drawing the U.S. into the World War II, Global conflict. The truth and facts of that conflict's sociodynamic roots, or the general framework spanning that era of world-based history, just do not provide any sort of scaffold to construct a grand, tactical manipulation by some 'secret' forces of Capitalism.  That is certainly fun fodder for some kind of mash up, Clancy-Orwellian fiction ...sure!  But... the statement as is, comes off like you really think that way? wow. 

So, I'm not sure who I am really speaking to... you're certainly entitled to your own impression of reality.  But, just for morbid, how does the U.S. arrange The Holocaust? And, how was/is all that connected to the thousands that died that fateful December 8, 1941 at Pearl Harbor? ...

Oh, I get it - the U.S. "got" Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so that our collective indignation would serve a grand distraction while they carried out their real deed: the conquestial smearing of the European geo-sociopolitical landscape -  using murder no less!  Man, I can't believe that really worked!

Anyway, one does not know where to begin with all that. The eradication of the Third Reich and ...decades to generation later, the fall of the Soviet Union, those have an immense complexity of moving historical parts and are laughably unlike anything that would support your leading sentiment.  Just leaving it at that.. 

Now...sardonic aside... I do see where you were going with that latter idea with Capitalism, to a point...  In a purely logistical sense, yes...Capitalism could intuitively be proficient at depleting natural resources... It's perhaps endemic to that economically rooted culture therein, that 'freedom' of choice and will and work ...would tend to exploit physical resources  - also - free from regulatory practices at all scales and dimensions of that circuitry.  Okay - sure...

However, I am not ready to condemn Capitalism entirely... The world is what we make it - elegant for it's simplicity, and pure truth.

Firstly, Communism-industry isn't necessarily less guilty of anthropomorphic involvement in the environmental catastrophe talk. That would have to be scienced -

Secondly... isn't it possible, if perhaps merely just beyond presently Human evolution, to be morally and virtuously accountable in Capitalism? 

Before answering that question ... it may be easier, if not coffee-house tripe popular, to throw cynicism at it and say no... However, this is the most successful ( excluding environmental breakdown for a moment) Capitalism in world history - and is thus also... inherently experimental for being the first perceived success of its kind.  It's still an evolutionary process onto itself.  And, that does not mean that Capitalism is intrinsically "evil" and cannot be moral.  It simply means those societies that engage, have yet to find the flavor of it that operates with more righteous design - within which there is respect and conservation for the very nature that it, and all other societal forms, need to survive.

And that's the rub, entirely ... that all societies regardless of form and function (and they are all guilty) have been operating with a disconnect between their goals of survival, and the morality of the environment along those pursuits.  That's all - 

 

The debate and subsequent arguments need to be processable by the commoner. There is no point in using such academic language to describe a simple problem with simple solutions. I will be posting more often on this topic in order to prove that the old world is superior to our current arrangement. The idea that we have been progressing forward for 250 years is laughable at best. Life expectancy has increased only because assisted living is more prevalent and the medications are potent enough to prolong the life of someone in a diseased status.

The amount of years in good health has largely stayed the same or declined. Quality of life begins decreasing around 55 years for most people and exponentially further each year as one approaches 70 and subsequently ends catastrophically or stabilizes into further longevity depending on the individual.

As well pediatric deaths have skewed down the average life expectancy for the pre-modern man in the statistical analysis. I merely would like to present more evidence that capitalism has made life less hospitable for the individual. Of course we now know why this relationship has occurred. Largely due to changes in occupation,lifestyle, and diets of the common western man.

Absorb the big picture. Do not get caught up in semantics like most specialists. You are not a systems thinker - don't pretend to be. However your analysis is invaluable. It is a pleasure to discuss a very important topic with a gifted specialist in order to iron out the argument and fill the gaps of missing evidence.

If your goal is to make life optimized for the individual then capitalism is the wrong system. If your goal is to extract as much energy as possible then capitalism is the correct system. It's really impossible to achieve both simultaneously. End stage capitalism requires less manual labor inputs but wealth inequality remains indefinitely.

The hypothetical system favoring individual prosperity over enegy production does not exist at this time. Communism is a response to capitalism and not a separate branch of economics thus it is plagued by limitations.