Politesse and decorum can at times hamstring a debate.
Reminds me of how bureaucracy was defined; "the organization to get things done that keeps things from getting done."
Meanwhile we detect CFCs in the atmosphere from there, and lead them straight to the offending factories.
They can’t actually hide it, same as we know about the damn beaches and everything else terrible they do. We don’t need their data, we can collect it quite easily remotely.
None of this changes that they’re not close to the US and EU who between them would make a colossal difference, yet even our governments try to dump it on “consumer choices” rather than legislating business where it would actually matter.
But if you want to argue hiding data and dialling things back for palatability, every IPCC document has done exactly that, including this one.
Things are actually worse than this “doomsday” document suggests. Read the actual papers it’s based on, the IPCC only ever take the most conservative estimate, never the averages or worse cases.
Last edited by Jessicka; 2021-08-11 at 08:40 AM.
Hmf...out for a jog at 4:30am I had the thought that people will eventually become nocturnal as daytime temps become unbearable. Perhaps even living underground as well.
The fire that no one ever talked about - Siberian wildfires now bigger than all other fires in world combined
Also.
United States of Wildfire
BTW, all the talk about heatwave feels so detached here. We have not had a day over 65F this entire summer.
It's currently 84F here. In Ottawa, Canada. And it's been around that most of the summer.
That's the bitch of climate change; it isn't an homogenous increase in temperature. It's unevenly distributed, and that's worse, because heat waves on top of seasonal highs lead to huge spikes in death from heat stroke and the like, particularly among seniors without AC.
That variability is increasing along with the global average temperature, and that means out-of-scale highs (and lows, in the winter) will become more common, and will occur more often in regions they never have before. Milder temperatures in other places will largely go unremarked, but in the same way that a record storm surge piling on top of a low tide won't overflow sea walls, where it would if it happened to occur at high tide.
'Bird guts all over!' GOP lawmaker warns solar panels will make 'thousands' of birds 'explode'
Dumbest person in US Congress talking on network only idiots watch, OAN.
Last edited by beanman12345; 2021-08-13 at 12:50 PM.
Following multiple record-breaking heatwaves this summer, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held its first-ever hearing on extreme heat. This marks a positive step for the U.S. to seriously and immediately address heat as the nation’s most deadly climate risk.
The Pacific Northwest heatwave in June 2021 was a mass casualty event, estimated to have caused around 600 deaths in Oregon and Washington alone. These extreme heat events are increasingly more frequent, longer in duration and more intense due to climate change. They are also compounded by the urban heat island (UHI) effect, where urban areas are hotter than surrounding rural and natural areas due to how cities are planned, built and operated.
---------
Not a fan of living in "interesting times."
I think more aptly the only case for NOT worrying about Climate Change is that the solutions to Climate Change are eerily similar to other Malthusian ideas our elite wanted to do a century ago before Climate Change was even a thing anyone knew about. So take heart, our rulers don't care that much.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-Louis Brandeis
Larger melt extend in Greenland. More melt means faster ocean rise, although still "slow", relatively speaking it's rising rapidly. The rain might be setting up the ice sheet for a major/huge sea level rise.
@Endus - we're seeing rain in places that's never happened in our known history. Mt. Shasta doesn't have a snow cap, for one of the few times ever. I know we won't know we've hit the turning point until it's already happened, but this and other news seems to point in a bad direction for us all.
I mean, it depends on what tipping point you mean. We've already determined we passed the atmospheric GHG turning point back in the early 2000s sometime; trying to pin down exactly when is a pointless fool's errand, but it's clear both that we're past it, and that it must have been in that period somewhere. That means warming is going to continue for centuries even if we reduce anthropogenic emissions to zero, globally. Which franky isn't reasonable; it's a data point for modelling that demonstrates that we're beyond the capacity for mitigation to be effective. The only way around that warming is some kind of massive carbon-sink operation, to pull atmospheric carbon out and lock it down. There's some startups in that vein, but the needed infrastructure to be effective isn't tens of billions, it's likely tens of trillions of dollars. Or more. And unless we get emissions to zero, it's like trying to purify a pool's water while everyone's pissing in that pool every day.
That doesn't mean there aren't other tipping points to be concerned about. Once warming gets to the point that the vanishing of the icecaps is inevitable, for instance; that'll pull us out of the Quaternary Ice Age, which the planet's been within for a few million years now. While the planet's been warmer, the biosphere is currently adapted to this paradigm, and that kind of rapid shift will be catastrophic. And there's another tipping point; while animal populations are largely mobile, plant populations can only "travel" at the range of their propagation; how far one generation's seeds can travel before germination, and the rate at which they produce said seeds. Most plants have relatively short propagation ranges, and are adapted to fairly limited temperature ranges. To give you an idea, I sat through a study of Toronto's tree populations, in view of warming trends, and based on the species that are currently approved for planting (I can't recall the specific numbers offhand, but it's more than 15 or so), there are currently two species of trees used in the city which are expected to survive fifty years. Not from pollution, but that in 50 years, they expect heat waves to be high enough to kill off 90% or more of Toronto's greenery. It probably won't be that sudden, though, and the point of the paper was that the species list for approved planting should be amended with an eye to this future; it's not so bad if a tree planted now dies in 50 years, but if we don't start changing that planting policy now, there'll be mass die-offs at some point in the future.
Then there's the catastrophic tipping points, which aren't particularly high in terms of chances, but there's multiple, and the chances aren't lottery-winner low, they're critical-hit-in-D&D low. Things like a major land-ice sheet in Antarctica sliding into the ocean, causing meters of sea level rise overnight, essentially a global tsunami that floods in and never retreats. A circumstance which, beyond the immediate human impacts of likely millions of deaths and ridiculous amounts of property damage, would also completely change climate proceedings moving forward in ways that aren't readily predictable, but none of them would be ameliorating factors. The new IPCC AR5 is actually talking about these as real threats, a significant shift over the AR5 which largely minimized them, and the IPCC's conclusions trend to the strongly conservative options.
Scientists detail role of climate change in Ida's intensity
A combination of climate-related factors such as warm ocean temperatures and increased sea level rise helped fuel Hurricane Ida and its path of destruction, scientists said.
According to a recent United Nations report on climate change, hurricanes like Ida are likely to continue to intensify as the planet keeps warming.
Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist and dean of the University of Michigan's School for Environment and Sustainability, told The Hill that the warm ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico appeared to cause Ida to strengthen in such a short amount of time.
"Those warm ocean temperatures are the fuel for these big tropical storms. So with Ida you saw it intensify rapidly to a Category 4 storm, and that's a real classic climate change signal," Overpeck said.
Ocean heat causes evaporation, he said, and that plays a major role in how storms form and their level of intensity. Two other factors are precipitation brought by a warmer atmosphere and storm surge exacerbated by rising sea levels.
"I would be willing to bet money that once the...research is done, it will become clear that this storm was supercharged by climate change in all three ways," said Overpeck.
Those factors are part of a larger pattern, said John Nielsen-Gammon, a professor at Texas A&M University and climatologist for the state of Texas.
"We can't tell with one hurricane, but the records show that - in the Atlantic basin at least - major hurricanes have become more common, rapid intensification has become more common, intense rain from hurricanes has become heavier and the sea level has risen, which makes storm surges higher," Nielsen-Gammon said.
I just wanted to note that, at least as of the IPCC AR5 (I haven't gone through the AR6 with a fine-toothed comb as yet and can't be arsed to double-check this point just for this post), the reason for the qualifier "in the Atlantic basin at least" is not because there is no evidence for similar effects elsewhere; it's solely that there is a lot more effort put into creating data sets and analysis for the Atlantic basic than anywhere else in the world, in terms of storm development. It's a much deeper field of research, particularly historically, and so there's just far more available data from which to derive conclusions.
The expectation is that the same results will be found essentially everywhere, it's just a question of developing enough long-term data to actually confirm that. It isn't because of any supposed material difference in behaviour between the Atlantic basic and any other storm track regions in the world.
I know you didn't say otherwise, I'm just clarifying a bit that might lead people to incorrect assumptions.
No surprises here;
Today’s kids will live through three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, study says
If the planet continues to warm on its current trajectory, the average 6-year-old will live through roughly three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, the study finds. They will see twice as many wildfires, 1.7 times as many tropical cyclones, 3.4 times more river floods, 2.5 times more crop failures and 2.3 times as many droughts as someone born in 1960.
These findings, published this week in the journal Science, are the result of a massive effort to quantify what lead author Wim Thiery calls the “intergenerational inequality” of climate change.
Unless world leaders agree on more ambitious policies when they meet for the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, this fall, the study says, today’s children will be exposed to an average of five times more disasters than if they lived 150 years ago.
The changes are especially dramatic in developing nations; infants in sub-Saharan Africa are projected to live through 50 to 54 times as many heat waves as someone born in the preindustrial era.
The disparities underscore how the worst effects of climate change will be experienced in places that contributed least to warming, by people who have had little say in the policies that allow continued emissions to occur, Thiery said. More than half of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were generated after 1990, meaning that most of the disasters today’s children will experience can be linked to emissions produced during their parents’ lifetimes.
Young people already say climate change has touched their lives and harmed their mental health. In a recent survey of 16- to 25-year-olds, scientists found that three quarters of respondents feared the future and more than half believed they would have less opportunity than their parents. Nearly 60 percent said their governments had betrayed them and future generations — making them feel even more anxious.