WTF Climate Change News

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
3,708
SLU Posts
9073
That's obvious to anyone who has studied physics or engineering. In terms of mass per unit area, the atmosphere is equal to 10 meters of ocean depth and 11 meters of ice caps, once you get past the less packed ice near the surface. But the oceans and major ice cap's thickness is measured in km. There is simply much more thermal mass there. So when the atmosphere warms, most of the heat will start moving towards the bigger masses.

Heat transfer between the atmosphere and the surface below is the main driver of weather, even absent climate change. A warmer atmosphere just changes the circulation patterns, so the effects aren't a uniform change in the weather everywhere. You get stuff like that hurricane that was too far north and east recently.

 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
5,730
Location
NJ suburb of Philadelphia
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
The only real solution to climate change is a massive die off of the human population which will surely happen. I would prefer to live a bit longer so hope that doesn't happen in the next 20 or 30 years. It will surely happen though by 2100, which a lot of these studies give as a date. The question then is whether the damage will have been done and there is no near term reversal. The planet has gone through environmental catastrophes before. In about 10 million years life and biologic diversity recovers. --signed, not an expert and won't be here.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,488
SL Rez
2006
The only real solution to climate change is a massive die off of the human population which will surely happen. I would prefer to live a bit longer so hope that doesn't happen in the next 20 or 30 years. It will surely happen though by 2100, which a lot of these studies give as a date. The question then is whether the damage will have been done and there is no near term reversal.
Yup, the root problem is simply too many humans. Even if climate change weren't an issue our overconsumption of everything edible on this planet, our destruction of habitat for our own uses, our abuse of potable water sources, and the toxic pollution of our industries will catch up with us eventually. The longer we persist and the greater the population we carry on a global scale, the more massive will be the carnage at the other end.

As for what finally brings down the house of cards... gosh, so many strong contenders. If I had to pick a favorite, however, it would be a global pandemic cultivated in Asia or the tropics, bolstered by the increasingly warm temperatures.
 

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
4,938
SL Rez
2002
Grizzly bears in Canada are getting thin due to overfishing and climate change:

 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
19,738
SLU Posts
18459
Interesting and thoughtful (and lengthy) article which raises -- and partly answers -- some searching questions about the Extinction Rebellion movement, at least in the UK

 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen 🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
7,912
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
October 2009
SLU Posts
65534
Well, I'm conflicted. I understand we need to act now to substantially reduce our CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. But it's just not something that can be done abruptly. First, our infrastructure just doesn't support it, and second, it's going to drive a lot of people away from even trying.

A couple of years ago, California's then-governor Brown enacted a gas tax increase, the purpose of which was to pay for fixing and improving the state's crumbling and over-stressed road and highway system. Some people protested, so the matter was put to a vote last year, which passed. Although it meant modest increases in our gas prices, already among the highest in the nation, I voted for it. I live in an area where the roads are in bad shape, and have been seeing improvements thanks to the already approved gas tax funds.

Running along the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley is State Route 99, a major north-south freeway connecting Los Angeles with Sacramento, and serves every major town in the valley. It carries heavy volumes of car and truck traffic - even more than Interstate 5, which runs along the western side of the valley. Substantial stretches of the 99 are only four lanes - two in each direction, which is woefully inadequate for the traffic it is carrying, and frequent accidents - many deadly - are the norm. California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has been widening the highway to six lanes little by little, in phases. Much of the funding for these improvements are coming from the gas tax increase.

Governor Gavin Newsom just signed an executive order that shifts much of this gas tax money away from roads and diverts it to trains and "other projects". Great. We need trains, and that would certainly help reduce air pollution and CO2 emissions if they get used. The problem is, much of the state is not well served by a train system. To build such a system would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and take decades to complete. Meanwhile, people are dying on our highways. And, when it comes down to it, that's not the purpose for which California voters approved the tax.

So I guess the question is, just how quickly can we cut CO2 emissions without significantly disrupting vital services and jeopardizing public safety? Should we tax the hell out of private vehicle use to fund mass transportation projects? How much is too much?

Story here:
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Kamilah Hauptmann

Shitpost Sommelier
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
12,517
Location
Cat Country (Can't Stop Here)
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Reluctantly
State Route 99
For those not in the know, the 99 is a hell of a great route stretching from several hours north of Vancouver, Canada all the way to Mexico. It goes through all the towns and even splits into parallel either side of the I5 routes down the Willamette Valley from Portland to Eugene. Both routes are spectacular. I was just on the 99 between Lillooet and Vancouver the other week. Beautiful stretch of road, though an hour straight of 15% hill made my brakes sure smell funny. :)
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
4,938
SL Rez
2002
So I guess the question is, just how quickly can we cut CO2 emissions without significantly disrupting vital services and jeopardizing public safety? Should we tax the hell out of private vehicle use to fund mass transportation projects? How much is too much?
Unfortunately that ship has sailed at least a decade ago; even the goals of Paris 2015 have become obsolete. If we really want to make an impact we need to act until 2030, not until 2050.

Energy consumption in a country typically is splitted between households, transportation, industry and trade/services area. Looking at below graph for example and comparing it to other countries you will notice that the American industry is an energy hog. If we really want to reduce and cut CO2 emissions the only way in a capitalism world is emitting CO2 in the long run so expensive that people finally have to move their lazy asses and look for alternatives; people need to invest. The industry needs to invest, too.



And remodeling those areas at large can only be disruptive, nothing more, nothing less. But disruption must not always be come with bad experiences - the iPhone was disruptive, but in a positive kind of way looking at how ubiquitious it is nowadays.

Only if energy becomes expensive enough and there is suddenly a demand for low fuel consumption cars in America people will get them. Or switch over directly to Tesla. Because that's the simple logic of capitalism, as long as something is dirt cheap people will flock around it; if you want something to change it needs to get much more expensive.

In short I am convinced that it cannot be done without stepping on many peoples toes, who might cry in the short term. But that's the price of doing over three decades doing just "business as usual" and doing nothing to improve the situation.

So in short if cutting down emissions is really the goal, one viable mechanism of choise is an over the years increasing CO2 emission tax. And of course people are going to cry about it, because they always do, but that's the way it is and in the long end the question is: can we just move on like that, or do we need change? If we come to the conclusion that we do need change, our lifestyle has to change and get a much much lower carbon footprint. Period.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
5,730
Location
NJ suburb of Philadelphia
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
The earliest predictor of climate change I know of was Tiny Tim in 1968.

Gliding through the seaweed
What strange things I see below
Cars are waiting
Windshields wiping
Nowhere left to go!

Oh…

The ice caps are melting
Oh, ho, ho ho
All the world is drowning
Ho, ho ho, ho ho
The ice caps are melting
The tide is rushing in
All the world is drowning
To wash away the sin

Now everybody sing!
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,488
SL Rez
2006
In short I am convinced that it cannot be done without stepping on many peoples toes, who might cry in the short term. But that's the price of doing over three decades doing just "business as usual" and doing nothing to improve the situation.
Just for the record, the quote to which you were responding was Katheryne's not mine.

"Stepping on many peoples toes" really dismisses the pain of transition off oil and the political and societal repercussions that would arise from forcing such a change. Infrastructure for housing and roads in the U.S. was built on the assumption of cheap gas and cars for everyone. We're also a country of people who carry high personal debt and a widening income inequality that leaves over half the population barely getting by financially. And lastly, we're at least nominally a democracy, but the vested interests that have corrupted our democracy are on the side of the oil & gas industry.

But let's assume that a party in charge finally does take the bold step of imposing Draconian gasoline restrictions.

Raising the price of gas leaves many Americans without a means of transportation. Intense urban areas have mass transportation, but the rest of the country does not. Switching over to new vehicles simply isn't an option due to the high cost; most people's budgets can't afford higher gas prices, much less the expense of a new car. And I do mean "new" because there aren't many used cars that would be electric or hybrid.

Let's take a typical household of one or possibly two employed parents. It's the end of the month and they're out of cash, two days until a new paycheck hits their bank account. Gas is $15/gallon and they just don't have it. Their family is one paycheck away from financial hardship, and they can't get to work. They don't live close enough to any co-workers to arrange a ride-share, and walking 25 miles takes to long to get to and from work every day. Snide comments about "people who might cry" really doesn't do justice to the situation of so many poor or working class people, who would be ground under the heel of these new policies.

A nation of increasingly angry and/or desperate people elected Donald Trump. Just see what happens to the party in power that tries to enforce new regulations that devastate people's lives. If we end up in a dictatorship, you can bet that it won't be based on Green principles.
 

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
4,938
SL Rez
2002
Let's take a typical household of one or possibly two employed parents. It's the end of the month and they're out of cash, two days until a new paycheck hits their bank account. Gas is $15/gallon and they just don't have it. Their family is one paycheck away from financial hardship, and they can't get to work. They don't live close enough to any co-workers to arrange a ride-share, and walking 25 miles takes to long to get to and from work every day. Snide comments about "people who might cry" really doesn't do justice to the situation of so many poor or working class people, who would be ground under the heel of these new policies.
At the end of the day that's the main problem and reason why so many countries have not done anything about carbon emissions, because they do fear the wrath of the people. The problem was always delayed and not really worked upon; now we are seeing more and more the consequences of it more drastically and more intense than science ever thought upon. And since the adults have been doing "business as usual" there is now an angry child generration with Greta Thunberg as figurehead around blaming us for what we've done and are still doing to the planet they are still doomed to live upon when we are already gone since decades.

So the question is what is more important in the long run: meeting the demands of the current people or ensuring that the future generations has a still somewhat endurable although less cozy planet to live on then we have? This is what is on the table right now, and remains unresolved.

All of your stuff about settling structures and so on - yes, it is like that. But most countries have ignored the problem since the 90s, so no wonder that in America amongst many other countries not much progress has been made.

If you really want to get the ball rolling, there are two possibilities:

* less power consumption and
* usage more efficient machines/engines.

Since America is the "bigger is always better" country this will only happen when energy prices are high enough to make people think about it: do I really want a SUV with normal fuel usage, or a much higher efficient engine? Do I really need to drive to the supermarket three times a week, or would one time buying more be enough? And that's the part that you have been neglecting, there are always push and pull factors on the market. If energy becomes more expensive, suddenly smaller cars become more viable to the customer.

And this can be only be done by taxation; energy is still way too cheap, end of story. Otherwise people will never will start moving their lazy asses around and get going, and all will continue just like that until it really is way too late. Otherwise settling structures will not change. We also know that oil is going to become expensive in this century anyway sooner or later, and latest then this is going to happen without any governmental intervention by itself. And mankind already in the past switched over its main primary energy source from one thing to another: first was wood, then in the 19th century due to steam engines/trains/steel plants coal, mid of the 20th century it became oil and maybe in this century sometime finally renewable energy sources, which would make sense.

Aside that the planet and climate does not care about the social status of families - it only cares about CO2 emissions. And to mitigate some effects for the poorer would be the duty of the country, which I doubt is going ever to happen in America where it is no problem to spend 100 billion dollar more for the military, but not 10 billion dollar more on energy efficiency.

Either way, and this might be unpopular but is the way it is: if we really want to get the stuff rolling our lifestyle has too change drastically, but change does not necessarily mean by the way less comfortable than before.

In Switzerland the ETH Zürich has developed a model of the so called 2000 Watt society. The idea is that in order to reach a sustainable level of living we need to go back from the current energy consumption per day to somewhere in the 1960s; the average in Europe is 6000 Watt per day, and America 12.000 Watt per day. While some have doubts about that model, many towns are trying to achieve that goal in Switzerland, like Zürich itself. They have been working on it over a decade now, and seem to make good progress so far.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,488
SL Rez
2006
So the question is what is more important in the long run: meeting the demands of the current people or ensuring that the future generations has a still somewhat endurable although less cozy planet to live on then we have?
Look, you don't have to convince me that we need drastic action to lessen (if possible) the impact of escalating climate change. But just saying "this needs to be done" isn't an effective strategy, no matter how urgent the need. People are quite capable of completely ignoring "what needs to be done" if it's not palatable and the consequences of inaction are not immediate.

What we're missing is a societal mechanism by which people can be forced (or strongly urged) to upend their lives and adopt very different and uncomfortable new habits, when they themselves don't see the worst of what will happen if they refuse. We simply do not have that kind of leverage in politics or society. So far public opinion is (barely) committed to small, incremental changes that may have some local impact, but not nearly enough, soon enough, to significantly alter our global climate trajectory.

Alternatively, we need a psychological mechanism for motivating people to make a significant sacrifice in their present lives, to avert a danger that looms larger in the future than it does in their day-to-day lives.

We need a Pearl Harbor. And we can only hope that by the time we experience a climate version of Pearl Harbor, we aren't past the point of no return.
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen 🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
7,912
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
October 2009
SLU Posts
65534
At the end of the day that's the main problem and reason why so many countries have not done anything about carbon emissions, because they do fear the wrath of the people. The problem was always delayed and not really worked upon; now we are seeing more and more the consequences of it more drastically and more intense than science ever thought upon. And since the adults have been doing "business as usual" there is now an angry child generration with Greta Thunberg as figurehead around blaming us for what we've done and are still doing to the planet they are still doomed to live upon when we are already gone since decades.

So the question is what is more important in the long run: meeting the demands of the current people or ensuring that the future generations has a still somewhat endurable although less cozy planet to live on then we have? This is what is on the table right now, and remains unresolved.

All of your stuff about settling structures and so on - yes, it is like that. But most countries have ignored the problem since the 90s, so no wonder that in America amongst many other countries not much progress has been made.

If you really want to get the ball rolling, there are two possibilities:

* less power consumption and
* usage more efficient machines/engines.

Since America is the "bigger is always better" country this will only happen when energy prices are high enough to make people think about it: do I really want a SUV with normal fuel usage, or a much higher efficient engine? Do I really need to drive to the supermarket three times a week, or would one time buying more be enough? And that's the part that you have been neglecting, there are always push and pull factors on the market. If energy becomes more expensive, suddenly smaller cars become more viable to the customer.

And this can be only be done by taxation; energy is still way too cheap, end of story. Otherwise people will never will start moving their lazy asses around and get going, and all will continue just like that until it really is way too late. Otherwise settling structures will not change. We also know that oil is going to become expensive in this century anyway sooner or later, and latest then this is going to happen without any governmental intervention by itself. And mankind already in the past switched over its main primary energy source from one thing to another: first was wood, then in the 19th century due to steam engines/trains/steel plants coal, mid of the 20th century it became oil and maybe in this century sometime finally renewable energy sources, which would make sense.

Aside that the planet and climate does not care about the social status of families - it only cares about CO2 emissions. And to mitigate some effects for the poorer would be the duty of the country, which I doubt is going ever to happen in America where it is no problem to spend 100 billion dollar more for the military, but not 10 billion dollar more on energy efficiency.

Either way, and this might be unpopular but is the way it is: if we really want to get the stuff rolling our lifestyle has too change drastically, but change does not necessarily mean by the way less comfortable than before.

In Switzerland the ETH Zürich has developed a model of the so called 2000 Watt society. The idea is that in order to reach a sustainable level of living we need to go back from the current energy consumption per day to somewhere in the 1960s; the average in Europe is 6000 Watt per day, and America 12.000 Watt per day. While some have doubts about that model, many towns are trying to achieve that goal in Switzerland, like Zürich itself. They have been working on it over a decade now, and seem to make good progress so far.
You know we need to address climate change urgently. I know we need to address climate change urgently. The devil in the details is addressing how to get the general public on board with addressing climate change urgently. Beebs is right: Without immediate consequences, people don't see the urgency and are reluctant to leave their comfort zones. However, the most guaranteed way to lose the war on climate change is to force personal and societal change suddenly and drastically, particularly when the average person simply can't afford to make that transition.

Like me, for example: We are literally living paycheck-to-paycheck, and it's about to get worse: My employment contract was not renewed, meaning I am now looking for a new job. I can want to make changes to my carbon footprint all I want, but it does not address the reality that I simply cannot afford to. I can't replace my gas-burning car with an electric model, nor can I even see that in my near future. I could take the bus, but while the bus that runs near my apartment runs every half an hour, the bus I'd need to take to get to work runs an irregular schedule, running at up to an hour and a half between buses, and doesn't start early enough to get me to work on time. In short, public transportation is a no-go. I have to drive my gas-powered car. There's hope that the next job I find is close to a reliable bus route, but I'd still need to rely on the car to meet other personal and family needs, like getting groceries. TL;DR, I am more than willing to make the change; I just don't have the means. I'm afraid my only contribution to change was replacing all the light bulbs in my apartment with LEDs.
 

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
3,708
SLU Posts
9073
Beautiful stretch of road, though an hour straight of 15% hill made my brakes sure smell funny. :)
You're supposed to downshift. Or if traffic is moving too fast, pull over to let the brakes cool down. If there are no turnoffs, the road is poorly designed.