Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[etudiant]

21 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

If we see several degrees C of temperature rise then civilization would collapse with the eventual extinction of any remnant populations on a planet to hot to adapt to.

Why do you think that is the case?

India is much hotter than the expected median global temperature after the most extreme Global Warming, yet seems civilized to me.

I've no argument that things will not get very messy, but find the 'we'll all collapse' scenario deeply implausible.

 

[Bhs1975]

Why do you think that is the case?
India is much hotter than the expected median global temperature after the most extreme Global Warming, yet seems civilized to me.
I've no argument that things will not get very messy, but find the 'we'll all collapse' scenario deeply implausible.
 

If we can keep it under around 3C we may avoid that fate.

This book will explain.

https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=1435723767

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, etudiant said:

Think that is over the top, extinction is not in the cards even with the outlier scenarios.

Huge losses and major disruptions though are pretty much baked in the cake.

We could help keep the damage to a minimum, but would need to convince China and India that climate change has greater risks than dire poverty.

Thus far, that has been a ' no sale'.

Ideally, there would to be an alternative, ideally a cheap and reliable nuclear power design, fusion, fission or whatever. so no greenhouse emissions and the capacity to power an electric surface transportation system. Nothing has materialized as yet though.

There are things far worse than a true extinction of the human species.  Let me paint a picture for you.....

A species with a depletion of all natural resources (we currently use the amount of resources that would require 1.7 Earths, so our resource debt is getting worse and worse...), a mass extinction event that wipes out a large segment of our food supply.  Pollinators dying out because of chemicals we use.  Large areas of droughts and on fire (did you hear about the 124 degrees in Sicily, an all time Europe high and snails being burned alive inside their shells?)  Lots of famine, frequent pandemics, and starvation with the land losing its productivity.  Animal farming no longer feasible because of drought.  Food at such high prices it's no longer affordable by most except in meager supplies.....higher food costs coming from weather disasters of course.  And rising income disparities leading to more wars, but this time civil wars, even in developed nations.  Maybe the rich are right to fight the space race.  That may be the only answer to this now.

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

If we can keep it under around 3C we may avoid that fate.

This book will explain.

https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=1435723767

3C is going to make the world a miserable place for most.  Space may be the only answer in that case.

 

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, etudiant said:

Why do you think that is the case?

India is much hotter than the expected median global temperature after the most extreme Global Warming, yet seems civilized to me.

I've no argument that things will not get very messy, but find the 'we'll all collapse' scenario deeply implausible.

 

we could collapse into pre-technological levels, but that isn't complete extinction.  But how many people seriously think we'll still be using fossil fuels after 2050?  Wont the generation that wants them all be dead by then anyway?

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, rclab said:

Good evening Bhs. If your scenario is correct, uninhabitable would apply to the sentient enablers. Other life forms could survive and eventually the innocent would inhabit and thrive. As always…..

one could argue that the planet would be a far better place without humans on it

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, etudiant said:

Think that is over the top, extinction is not in the cards even with the outlier scenarios.

Huge losses and major disruptions though are pretty much baked in the cake.

We could help keep the damage to a minimum, but would need to convince China and India that climate change has greater risks than dire poverty.

Thus far, that has been a ' no sale'.

Ideally, there would to be an alternative, ideally a cheap and reliable nuclear power design, fusion, fission or whatever. so no greenhouse emissions and the capacity to power an electric surface transportation system. Nothing has materialized as yet though.

why dont we apply strong sanctions to China, India and Brazil? Thats how you convince them to stop.  Tell them this is how it has to be and if it isn't we're going to embargo the shit out of you.

[LibertyBell]

On 8/13/2021 at 8:46 PM, etudiant said:

The trade press is reporting surging Asian coal shipments and notes parenthetically that China is building more coal power plants than currently exist in the rest of the world outside of the US and India.

https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/asia-coal-demand-surge-in-stark-contrast-with-u-n-climate-warning/

I guess they are skeptical about the seriousness of climate change.

time to take down their economies since money is all they care about

 

[LibertyBell]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1426298480767684613

 

Sicily hitting 124 degrees, all time Europe high and snails burning to death in their shells.

[LibertyBell]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1425920641119789060

 

Humans using up the earth's resources earlier and earlier each year (we need 1.7 earths to cover our resource debts.)

[LibertyBell]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1426249254956240896

 

Wildfires linked to thousands of Covid cases?

 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 8/13/2021 at 4:25 PM, jburns said:

We won’t do shit about climate change. Oh, the government might try to implement some changes but I have zero faith that a population that can not even agree to wear a mask during a pandemic will make major changes in their way of life to save the planet.

Great snark take! 

however, the issue is really much more a momentum problem?    One that seems to always come back to that age old observation: Too much population.

It's a threshold exceedance -

Suppose 750 million is a hypothetical 10% of a total planetary population of industrial farters, that cannot diverge from the "save the planet" movement or else said planet will not survive. A total population that then swells to 8 billion, now that lower bounded percentage exceeds that 750. At that point, the lower percentage that continues to fart, represent a sufficiently large negative impact on the miasma that is choking the world.

Not just for us by the way.  As an aside, the Biologists attending the proverbial summit are waving their hands to be heard and no one is picking them for a chance to take the podium.  It's like, 'Hello,'  she knocks on the mike loudly as it triggers a high pitch whir over the speakers over head. She exclaims, 'WE ARE NUMERICALLY IN A MASS-EXTINCTION EVENT ALREADY..'   One that may have begun around the time of the Industrial Revolution, but has insidiously gathered its own momentum while all these other aspects of this 'Anthropocene' epoch are being prioritized and analyzed and popularized ( although too slowly in the latter).

But there's also another issue couched in there ...  It's elementary to visualize, really. There is more difficulty in getting larger populations to motivate change compared to a smaller.  That adds a T variable to an equation that cannot take a big values of T, or else that equation will =      0                   ( uh...we need that hypothetical math to = 1 of course )  

Like, take 100 people.  If you need to motivate 50%.... how hard is it to fill a large conference room for an afternoon with a coffee break and complimentary donuts en route to getting them all on the same page ..etc.   How hard would it be to do the same with 8 billion.  duh. In other words, it not just a mass of toxicity arithmetic, but a piggy-backed is probably an unattainable sociological one because that lower percent drag-population has too much weight.

I think it's too late.  Not sure - or doubt really ... - whether that can be pulled back.

[rclab]

27 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Great snark take! 

however, the issue is really much more a momentum problem?    One that seems to always come back to that age old observation: Too much population.

It's a threshold exceedance -

if even 10% of 8 billion ( rounding ) diverge from the "save the planet" movement, said planet will not survive.  But, 10% of a lower total population may not represent a sufficiently large negative impact.  Once population bloats to 8 billion, that lower percentage because much smaller.   Purely hypothetical, 10% of 800 million - if that were said lower bounded threshold - that is 1% of 8 billion and on and so on... In this sense, the world needs much, much more than a mere 1% of 8 billion, to save this boat from sinking.  

Not just for us by the way.  The Biologists in this summit are waving their hands to be heard and no one is picking them a chance to take the podium.   WE ARE NUMERICALLY IN A MASS-EXTINCTION EVEN ALREADY..  One that may have begun around the time of the Industrial Revolution, but has insidiously gathered its own momentum while other aspect of this 'Anthropocene' epoch are being prioritized.

There's also another issue couched in there ...  It's elementary to visualize the difficulty the difficulty in getting larger populations to motivate change, compared to a smaller.  That also adds a T variable to an equation that cannot take a big values of T, or else that equation will =          0  ( uh...we need that hypothetical math to = 1 of course )  

Like, take 100 people.  If you need to motivate 50%.... how hard is it to fill a large conference room for an afternoon with a coffee break and complimentary donuts en route to getting them all on the same page ..etc.   How hard would it be to do the same with 8 billion.  duh. In other words, it not just a mass of toxicity arithmetic, but a piggy-backed is probably an unattainable sociological one because that lower percent drag-population has too much weight.

I think it's too late.  Not sure - or doubt really ... - whether that can be pulled back.

Good afternoon Tip. What extremes will it take to balance the societal human equation? The atmosphere seems to be trying. I guess the answer may not become apparent until we are in a post apocalyptic dystopian era. As always ….

[LibertyBell]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1426902907392335872

 

This is horrendous.  So these soldiers sacrificed themselves to save 100 people living in a town in Algeria that was burned down in wildfires.  Then a mob of people falsely accused and angrily attacked an artist of setting the fires, when he had only traveled there to help the victims.  He was killed by the angry mob.  No good deed goes unpunished!

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Great snark take! 

however, the issue is really much more a momentum problem?    One that seems to always come back to that age old observation: Too much population.

It's a threshold exceedance -

Suppose 750 million is a hypothetical 10% of a total planetary population of industrial farters, that cannot diverge from the "save the planet" movement or else said planet will not survive. A total population that then swells to 8 billion, now that lower bounded percentage exceeds that 750. At that point, the lower percentage that continues to fart, represent a sufficiently large negative impact on the miasma that is choking the world.

Not just for us by the way.  As an aside, the Biologists attending the proverbial summit are waving their hands to be heard and no one is picking them for a chance to take the podium.  It's like, 'Hello,'  she knocks on the mike loudly as it triggers a high pitch whir over the speakers over head. She exclaims, 'WE ARE NUMERICALLY IN A MASS-EXTINCTION EVENT ALREADY..'   One that may have begun around the time of the Industrial Revolution, but has insidiously gathered its own momentum while all these other aspects of this 'Anthropocene' epoch are being prioritized and analyzed and popularized ( although too slowly in the latter).

But there's also another issue couched in there ...  It's elementary to visualize, really. There is more difficulty in getting larger populations to motivate change compared to a smaller.  That adds a T variable to an equation that cannot take a big values of T, or else that equation will =      0                   ( uh...we need that hypothetical math to = 1 of course )  

Like, take 100 people.  If you need to motivate 50%.... how hard is it to fill a large conference room for an afternoon with a coffee break and complimentary donuts en route to getting them all on the same page ..etc.   How hard would it be to do the same with 8 billion.  duh. In other words, it not just a mass of toxicity arithmetic, but a piggy-backed is probably an unattainable sociological one because that lower percent drag-population has too much weight.

I think it's too late.  Not sure - or doubt really ... - whether that can be pulled back.

It's also about the amount of natural resources this immense population uses up and how quickly it uses them up.  According to the information I posted we actually need 1.7 earths right now for the population we have just to keep the resource debt balanced.  And it's been getting worse since the early 70s.

[Typhoon Tip]

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-climate-scientist-bad.html

 

Peter Huybers Bio and perhaps citations, may be found here: https://eps.harvard.edu/people/peter-huybers

He has a nice way of outlining the perils of CC in terms and metaphor that is probably more tenable to the average populate.  Unlike me LOL ...

Anyway, I particularly like the this paragraph:   "....Studies indicate that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is irreversible in the sense that, after the ice sheet melts, it would not regrow even if we otherwise returned the climate to pre-industrial conditions. The ice sheet is a vestige of a colder climate deeper in Earth's past that is maintained, crucially, by high rates of accumulation on its flanks and cold temperatures atop that its own height affords. In this sense, the melting of Greenland and the consequent rising of sea level are irreversible...."

I suspect this is true the vaster array of Global environmental systems, where they are only deceptively linearly related to global warming. In other words, cool it back down, they can't return to normal because it is not just a matter of that one factor.  Whether the interview/re-draft of it intend to or not, one such region is that western end of Antarctica - if that one succumbs ... uh, riiight -

What makes this particularly scary - to me - is that those hereditary base-lines may be required for maintenance of most species living.  This connects the dots, quite plausibly, with the Biological science aversion, that we are in fact entering/entered a mass-extinction event, already.  

For example, take this turn of phrase from the same article: ".. in describing melting of permafrost as well as the warming, acidification, and deoxygenation of the ocean..."  I personally began warning of this years ago, that if we tip the oceanic chemistry to a point where there is a phyto-plankton ecological collapse, that is roughly 33% of oxygen fixing for the atmosphere above the oceans.  Larger organisms require oxygen?  The reason dragon flies were the size of kites during the Jurassic, was because the oxygen they absorbed through their skin was enough to do so.  That's not a path a species that breaths air really wants to go down ...

Time and science is consummately revealing that these systems are more complex than previous generations of study understood. Part of that complexity is that they are also often intertwined, quasi if not totally codependent. Therefore, as one is teetering with finger tips to hold on while the heredity of past climate and chemistries are eroding, when they let go ... the notion of the cascade collapse becomes academic.  

These geological eras move at invisibly slow paces, unrelentingly, beneath the qualia of the common observer. Even though we are seeing changes now, the momentum was gathering decades ago when there was really no way to see the change. 

I have opined about this at length in the distant past - the problem that exist in climate change vs public awareness/urgency, is that it could not be physically registered during the earlier phases of the predictions.  It had no corporeal-based advocate. You don't feel, see, smell, taste or touch it ... Human beings need these tactile "proofs" in the everyday assessment of reality - it's true in all biology.  We have higher order intelligence, but it's at conflict with these senses, whenever the abstraction of esoteric math isn't seen. One irony of our evolution is that we both can predict by powers of that higher intellect, but don't believe it ...  Until time runs out, and that psychology only gets it when we are 'seeing the light'  

[LibertyBell]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1427304933301178369

 

Such repugnant behavior.  The so-called "natural" gas (really methane) industry tricked residents into supporting them over electric trucks in this California neighborhood and paid them (astroturfing) to support their cause.  Fortunately they are now being called out for it by name so hopefully there's time to change it and go electric like NY has been doing.

 

[LibertyBell]

12 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-climate-scientist-bad.html

 

Peter Huybers Bio and perhaps citations, may be found here: https://eps.harvard.edu/people/peter-huybers

He has a nice way of outlining the perils of CC in terms and metaphor that is probably more tenable to the average populate.  Unlike me LOL ...

Anyway, I particularly like the this paragraph:   "....Studies indicate that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is irreversible in the sense that, after the ice sheet melts, it would not regrow even if we otherwise returned the climate to pre-industrial conditions. The ice sheet is a vestige of a colder climate deeper in Earth's past that is maintained, crucially, by high rates of accumulation on its flanks and cold temperatures atop that its own height affords. In this sense, the melting of Greenland and the consequent rising of sea level are irreversible...."

I suspect this is true the vaster array of Global environmental systems, where they are only deceptively linearly related to global warming. In other words, cool it back down, they can't return to normal because it is not just a matter of that one factor.  Whether the interview/re-draft of it intend to or not, one such region is that western end of Antarctica - if that one succumbs ... right -

What makes this particularly scary - to me - is that those hereditary base-lines may be required for maintenance of most species living.  This connects the dots, quite plausibly, with the Biological science aversion, that we are in fact entering/entered a mass-extinction event, already.  

For example, take this turn of phrase from the same article: ".. in describing melting of permafrost as well as the warming, acidification, and deoxygenation of the ocean..."  I personally began warning of this years ago, that if we tip the oceanic chemistry to a point where there is a phyto-plankton ecological collapse, that is roughly 33% of oxygen fixing for the atmosphere above the oceans.  Larger organisms require oxygen?  The reason dragon flies were the size of kites during the Jurassic, was because the oxygen they absorbed through their skin was enough to do so.  That's not a path a species that breaths air really wants to go down ...

Time and science is consummately revealing that these systems are more complex than previous generations of study understood. Part of that complexity is that they are also often intertwined, quasi if not totally codependent. Therefore, as one is teetering with finger tips to hold on while the heredity of past climate and chemistries are eroding, when they let go ... the notion of the cascade collapse becomes academic.  

These geological eras move at invisibly slow paces, unrelentingly, beneath the qualia of the common observer. Even though we are seeing changes now, the momentum was gathering decades ago when there was really no way to see the change. 

I have opined about this at length in the distant past - the problem is climate change is that its urgency could not be physically registered during the earlier phases of the predictions.  It had not corporeal advocate. You don't feel, see, smell, taste or touch it ... Human beings need these tactile "proofs" in the everyday assessment of reality - it's true in all biology.  We have higher order intelligence, but it's at conflicts with these senses ( part of the irony of our evolution that we both can predict by powers of that higher intellect, but don't believe it ...)  Until time runs out, and that psychology only gets it when they are 'seeing the light'  

it's far easier for us who never liked or trusted corporations and knew how much bad they have done to the environment for decades.  Corporations are FAR worse than terrorists in how they damage society and they must be forced to pay for it.

[Jonger]

On 8/13/2021 at 7:25 PM, jburns said:

We won’t do shit about climate change. Oh, the government might try to implement some changes but I have zero faith that a population that can not even agree to wear a mask during a pandemic will make major changes in their way of life to save the planet.

Airplane travel is one fossil fuel usage that will be tough to replace, but power generation and transportation will switch over. Electric cars are cheaper to build, plus battery costs are plummeting. Same with solar output and pricing.

[ChescoWx]

[Typhoon Tip]

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

it's far easier for us who never liked or trusted corporations and knew how much bad they have done to the environment for decades.  Corporations are FAR worse than terrorists in how they damage society and they must be forced to pay for it.

mm, indeed - and while I don't disagree, I would advance the - sort of .. - hypocrisy that corporations deliver a product to a demand.

So that makes Humanities that supple from them almost as culpable.  What perhaps saves their morality by a pubic hair, is that they may not know any better.  They are provisionally dependent upon the Industrial bubble of convenience - this was a easy transition over the temporal boundary in human history, because let's face it, they were sacrificing pestilence and starvation for what must have been a utopia and life by comparison.  Subsequent generations are simply know no other means.   So in these senses, that shits the ballast of onus on the part of the corporations - "Great power brings great responsibility," leaps to mind. 

It's an interesting philosophical debate.  But is side it perhaps 99::1 in the early days of Industrialization, to perhaps 70::30 ... 60:40, and on and so on, shifting ratios as public enlightenment to a large manifold of consequences should require diverging from the teat - so to speak.  This latter facet is a whole 'nother sociological problem with momentum .. I wrote about that a while ago above..

[Typhoon Tip]

3 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Okay, is there a point being made here - LOL

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Okay, is there a point being made here - LOL

From Tony Heller, climate denier. Well known for misleading charts.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Jonger said:

Airplane travel is one fossil fuel usage that will be tough to replace, but power generation and transportation will switch over. Electric cars are cheaper to build, plus battery costs are plummeting. Same with solar output and pricing.

at least for continental travel very high speed trains can replace airplanes

Thats going to be the mode of transport all over Europe

[FPizz]

26 minutes ago, chubbs said:

From Tony Heller, climate denier. Well known for misleading charts.

The chart is real though.  But it doesn't really mean too much.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

mm, indeed - and while I don't disagree, I would advance the - sort of .. - hypocrisy that corporations deliver a product to a demand.

So that makes Humanities that supple from them almost as culpable.  What perhaps saves their morality by a pubic hair, is that they may not know any better.  They are provisionally dependent upon the Industrial bubble of convenience - this was a easy transition over the temporal boundary in human history, because let's face it, they were sacrificing pestilence and starvation for what must have been a utopia and life by comparison.  Subsequent generations are simply know no other means.   So in these senses, that shits the ballast of onus on the part of the corporations - "Great power brings great responsibility," leaps to mind. 

It's an interesting philosophical debate.  But is side it perhaps 99::1 in the early days of Industrialization, to perhaps 70::30 ... 60:40, and on and so on, shifting ratios as public enlightenment to a large manifold of consequences should require diverging from the teat - so to speak.  This latter facet is a whole 'nother sociological problem with momentum .. I wrote about that a while ago above..

Agreed but I would also call attention to the fact that corporations usually take advantage of the poor, the disadvantaged, the third world, etc, with their pollution the most, to deliver those goods to the rest of us.  So it is humanity who is ultimately to blame, because for the sake of some convenience, we look the other way when the downtrodden are being taken advantage of.

[LibertyBell]

28 minutes ago, chubbs said:

From Tony Heller, climate denier. Well known for misleading charts.

Yes, especially after seeing the extremely anomalous western heat this year, I find it laughable.

 

[FPizz]

1 hour ago, Jonger said:

Airplane travel is one fossil fuel usage that will be tough to replace, but power generation and transportation will switch over. Electric cars are cheaper to build, plus battery costs are plummeting. Same with solar output and pricing.

My solar panels are only 8 years old, but the technology is already considered old and they are only producing about 80% of what they once were. It is annoying.  Thankfully the prior owner of my house put them on, so I didn't have to pay anything since he paid the bulk up front.  68 panels.  

[Typhoon Tip]

40 minutes ago, chubbs said:

From Tony Heller, climate denier. Well known for misleading charts.

There are three forms of climate deniers from my experience in dealing with them:

-- can't believe it; the specter is too grand to face; the complexities, too much and is mentally untenable, so it can't be true when combining all these predicates.

-- morally feckless at best, but probably just a form of evading psychosis using either lies to cover fact, or deliberate misrepresentation of small subsets that strategically belies the surrounding reality, all of which so as to not have to face an unsettling truth - there is varied and textured reasons for not wanting to face that reality. 

-- healthy skepticism; this form of denier is rarefying as the evidence/empirical signs of the times forces their hand.  I don't personally have a problem with this group. In a time of media sensationalism run amok - from a bully pulpit that has NO morality - we need these along the way.

 

Not sure why your post triggered me to want to outline this way... but perhaps it is because that charts does strike me as that second bullet point agenda.

In the end, people deny because the can.  Again again again...the specter of CC is a slow moving monster, so slow in fact that it does not register to the observer, until the observer has to forcibly be acknowledging.  That, unfortunately, is a destiny that nears the grave.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

The chart is real though.  But it doesn't really mean too much.

Don't be a sucker - Below is the average latitude of the stations used to make the "real" plot above.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/