On How The Planet's Going To Shit: The Undeniability Of Climate Change

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,171
Ratings
13,930
Time to pack up and head home. Its all over

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-of-no-return?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

World's carbon dioxide concentration teetering on the point of no return

leave it to my man Ian Welsh to succinctly sum it up:

Yes, if we had any sense, we wouldn’t be here. But let’s emphasize, we’re past the point of no return.

By this point sensible governments not only wouldn’t be allowing things like fracking, coal plants and non-intercontinental air travel (high speed trains, children), they would be shooting people who insist on doing any of those things.

This may seem “hysterical” or “overwrought”, but we are at the point where a billion deaths from climate change is a low bound estimate.

Instead, our governments continue merrily on, acting as if their inaction hasn’t ensured catastrophe.

Amazing.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,171
Ratings
13,930
http://www.ianwelsh.net/surviving-climate-change/

Surviving Climate Change
2016 MAY 15

by Ian Welsh
The news is all bad. You may have seen this graphic already, but it’s worth meditating on.



Yes, this year has been breaking records. Every single month has been the hottest on record.

There is a chance we’ve “broken out” from the trend, and will now see full operation of the vicious cycle.

I am going to suggest that readers start taking this into account in their personal lives. Figure out how climate change is likely to effect where you live. It isn’t always obvious or linear (for example, there’s a chance that Europe could enter a cold-free if the Gulf Stream shuts off, and it’s already lost one-third of its strength).

Effects will also include movements of people from the worst affected areas. Is where you are, or are going to be, one of the places they will flee to? Are you in a “global city” where the richer citizens may want an “insurance property” driving up real-estate prices even more?

What do you want to do about this for yourself, your family, your nation, and/or the world? The answer can be “little to nothing,” but it’s worth thinking on. Pushing for residence requirements for real-estate ownership could save your house or condo, as increased prices will increase taxes. It could also make it possible for your children or other young people to live in the nicer cities where the good jobs are.

Where are the refugee camps going to be set up? Does your country have any realistic possibility of settling refugees fairly rather than in camps?

Are you, conversely, in a place from which people are going to have to flee?

Move before you are required to flee. Really. Take the hit necessary and get out, unless you’re old and without dependents.

Is your area going to run out of water? I recently visited San Antonio, and that city will probably run out of water in a couple decades. It might be able to import enough, but it might not. Water is going to be in short supply all through the south.

As shortages hit, violence will increase. Are you on good terms with the local violent authorities, whoever they are? Dean Ing, the science fiction writer and survivalist, moved to a small town and then made sure to become friends with the police chief and the local base commander.

Are you considering how to get, at least partially, off the grid? Could you eat or drink for a few weeks if there were disruptions? What about alternate heating or cooling arrangements? Do you have a “bugout bag” and a “bugout plan” if you have to leave suddenly? The very basics can be cheaper than one might think.

Some of this may be overblown: yet. But it’s worth thinking this stuff through and making what precautions you can. And remember the #1 rule of surviving bad times and disasters.

Friends and neighbours. Make sure you have friends, locally, and that your neighbours know and like you. People who are well-liked by a lot of people are far more likely to survive bad times than those who aren’t. And having really good friends wherever you may have to flee to, if it comes to that, is wise.

Start cultivating.

both doghouse and John Lee Pettimore III John Lee Pettimore III will enjoy this take.
 

John Lee Pettimore III

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
1,290
Ratings
1,314
The world is regreening due to climate change, which is crazy because I learned on this forum that increased CO2 levels have nothing to do with plant growth.

https://anongalactic.com/arizona-st...is-becoming-greener-thanks-to-climate-change/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/26/climate-change-is-making-deserts-greener.html

Jamarillo has studied the fossilized remains of ancient rainforests and concludes that warmer temperatures went hand-in-hand with greater plant growth and higher species diversity
I fucking love science.

Unless it disagrees with me.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,171
Ratings
13,930
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/25/1...uds-oil-sands-secondary-organic-areosols-yale

Canada's oil sands are a major source of air pollution, airplane study shows




Canada's oil sands are an important source of fossil fuels, but they also emit high levels of air pollutants, according to a study published today in Nature. The emissions equal what's produced by the entire city of Toronto, researchers from Environment Canada say. And that raises concerns over the potential health effects these air pollutants may have.

The data in today's report were gathered by an aircraft that flew over Alberta's oil sands in August and September 2013, following clouds of air pollution for over 70 miles. In the months that followed, researchers from the Canadian government and researchers from Yale University analyzed the findings. They found that the oil sands produce human-caused secondary organic aerosols — a major contributor to air pollution — at a rate of about 45 to 84 tons per day. They also found that these aerosol particles can travel long distances. That makes Canada's oil sands operations one of the biggest producers of so-called secondary organic aerosols in North America.

Inside the aircraft (Environment and Climate Change Canada)
Secondary organic aerosols are an important contributor to fine-particle pollution, which has been linked to lung and heart problems, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. But because this is the first study on the oil sands' impact on Canada's air, the researchers say that it’s too early to tell what kind of health effect these aerosols might have on people. "We know that particulate matter is a health issue," says John Liggio, an aerosol emissions expert at Environment Canada and a co-author of the study. "But we can't say specifically that this is an issue for Alberta or whatever city the plume ends up traveling over."

The researchers also aren't sure how the emissions may affect climate or the ecosystem. "There's an obvious connection between aerosol particles and climate, that we know for sure, in general," says co-author Shao-Meng Li, an air quality researcher also at Environment Canada. But "whether it applies specifically to the oil sands during a regional climate change, we don't know."

The researchers only took measurements during the months of August and September, but it's likely that the rate at which the oil sands produce aerosols is lower during the winter. "You could reasonably argue that rates would be different because temperature's different, sunshine's different and so yeah, we do expect some differences," Li says. That said, the oil sands operate all year, so the emissions certainly continue during colder months.

Even though the study didn't look at the health and environmental effects of these air pollutants, the findings will probably serve as a foundation for future research. "To discuss the environmental effects of the oil sand operations, one has to understand what the relevant processes are in the first place," says Joost de Gouw, a physicist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who didn't work on the study. And "studies that address the health impacts do need the kind of information provided by this study to calculate what populations are exposed to."

The study may serve as an important tool for scientists who are trying to evaluate the environmental impact of other sources of heavy oil. "We think that this is a potential problem anywhere heavy oil is being extracted," Liggio says. But "I don't think it's been considered up to now." As for the oil sands themselves, the Canadian government should consider these aerosols, and their movements, when trying to assess the impact of the oil sands, he says.

Thruth Thruth Arnathor Arnathor Fwiffo Fwiffo you people are ruining everything
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
7,265
Ratings
2,023
I'm against oil sands. I chastise Canadians for continuing to believe economic wealth is generated from digging stuff from the ground. Oil sands is the worst example par excellence. We don't have pipelines or anything efficient to ship it to customers - even within our own country to the Maritime provinces (who import their oil) so we have to sell it at a discount. Why would we want to rebuild all the lost homes at Fort McMurray given I'm unsure we should be there in the first place. Think about the whole setup, we're using high heat to squeeze oil from soil in an isolated place surrounded by forests that are prone to fires. It's capital intensive and you can't shut it down like shale or fracking and come back later. Who thinks that makes sense?

The only reason Canada's greenhouse gas emissions haven't spiraled out of control is because my province shut down all of its coal generating stations. If it weren't for that, we'd be chief climate change offender #1.
 

John Lee Pettimore III

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
1,290
Ratings
1,314

Beautiful. Classic fearmongering gibberish. Let's break this down.

Here's the headline:

We're Fertilizing the Heck Out of Our Planet and That's a Bad Thing

Here's the "evidence" of bad things:

First and foremost, most experts agree that CO2 fertilization is probably a temporary effect.

Well, that sounds legit, if "most experts" agree.

The reason is simple: anything that limits growth, whether it’s sunlight, water, carbon, or even physical space, can only stimulate plants up to a point.


Well, wait a minute. It's not temporary, it's just not unlimited. An increase in CO2 will cause plant growth to increase to a certain point. So it's not "temporary"; that's bullshit. This is like saying that a Food Stamps payment is temporary because people have to eat again. Or saying that Food Stamps is a wasteful program because people can only eat food "up to a point".

CO2 fertilization also stands to impact plant growth in unexpected ways. It’s possible, for instance, that some plants are putting out more leaves at the expense of roots, which could have detrimental effects on their long-term health.

So, it's possible that the plants are getting too leafy (which, by the way, the leaves and berries are what most people and animals eat). But you aren't sure. You're just saying it's possible. So... Food Stamps might be used to buy people sugary foods, so lets discontinue the program.

Finally, some ecologists worry CO2 fertilization will have dramatic feedbacks on the entire climate system. For instance, plants pump a lot of water from the ground into the atmosphere; a process known as transpiration. “When plants have more leaves, they can pump more water into the atmosphere, resulting in more clouds and rainfall,” Myneni said. “This could make the hydrological cycle more vigorous.”

So after years of hearing that global warming will cause drought and famine, you're now trying to scare us that there will be too much rain. Really?

As for what it means? We’ll have to watch and wait as our global climate experiment unfolds.

You don't know what it means, but your headline states it's a "bad thing". Beautiful.

THAT'S ALL!!!!! I JUST WON THE INTERNET, BITCHES!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
7,265
Ratings
2,023
We can also do what Elon Musk suggests. Fire a nuclear missile into Mars to instigate CO2 pollination and start terraforming the planet. We know so much about our planet, in our hubris, we'll ruin someone else's. Although in hindsight, we should test our hypotheses on other planets and ruin their ecospheres before we ruin our own.
 

Arnathor

The Hamiltonian Hung Like a Horse
Supporter
Messages
4,473
Ratings
3,231
I'm Pro oil sands. I do not chastise Canadians for continuing to believe economic wealth is generated from digging stuff from the ground. Oil sands is the best example par excellence. We have pipelines, which are efficient to ship it to customers. We want to rebuild all the lost homes at Fort McMurray. Who doesn't think that makes sense?
 

John Lee Pettimore III

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
1,290
Ratings
1,314
We can also do what Elon Musk suggests. Fire a nuclear missile into Mars to instigate CO2 pollination and start terraforming the planet. We know so much about our planet, in our hubris, we'll ruin someone else's. Although in hindsight, we should test our hypotheses on other planets and ruin their ecospheres before we ruin our own.
"Someone else's" planet? Whose planet is Mars?
 

John Lee Pettimore III

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
1,290
Ratings
1,314
I'm Pro oil sands. I do not chastise Canadians for continuing to believe economic wealth is generated from digging stuff from the ground. Oil sands is the best example par excellence. We have pipelines, which are efficient to ship it to customers. We want to rebuild all the lost homes at Fort McMurray. Who doesn't think that makes sense?
One of the things I think is cool to imagine is how massive wildfires must have been before civilization. There is evidence of huge wildfires sweeping the Great Plains. They must have been an incredible sight - not just the actual fires, but the stampedes of animals.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
7,265
Ratings
2,023
Seine set to peak as more rain forecast


Paris is flooding. Any relation to climate change? I hope my parents can make it - they land on Wednesday. No museum tours so the Louvre and Orsay closures are not an issue but they wanted to cycle to Versailles.

I heard about the rain and floods on Monday from coworkers in Bavaria. I didn't know it was this serious.
 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,445
Ratings
3,959
There are serious bad weather conditions in the Southern parts of Germany.
Granted, there used to be heavy thunderstorms in the past, but not with this frequency and intensity.
They hardly manage to clean up before the next one hits.
So something is clearly happening and it's getting worse. But why worry, just buy property in higher (and drier) regions of the world. Are we really going to miss Florida and a large portion of the Gulf coast states?
I don't think I will. I will, however, miss the large parts of Northern Germany, Denmark and the South of Sweden, when the water levels start rising. Some people might also miss the Netherlands... but I'm not sure.
 

John Lee Pettimore III

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
1,290
Ratings
1,314
There are serious bad weather conditions in the Southern parts of Germany.
Granted, there used to be heavy thunderstorms in the past, but not with this frequency and intensity.
They hardly manage to clean up before the next one hits.
So something is clearly happening and it's getting worse. But why worry, just buy property in higher (and drier) regions of the world. Are we really going to miss Florida and a large portion of the Gulf coast states?
I don't think I will. I will, however, miss the large parts of Northern Germany, Denmark and the South of Sweden, when the water levels start rising. Some people might also miss the Netherlands... but I'm not sure.
105 million tourists to Florida last year, quite a few of whom were thong-wearing, no-tipping Germans.
1,000 people per day move here.

If Florida goes away, other states will have a refugee crisis.
 

Thruth

thicker but more pliant than horsehide
Moderator
Messages
19,195
Ratings
24,038
Were they wearing socks with sandals in the jungle as well?
Of course. Sweat & stunk like a bastard. Could braid his underarm hair. Was a pedophile. Dropped him off in the next Indian village upriver against his will.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
28,171
Ratings
13,930
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...limate-change-emergency-today-scientists-warn

Shattered records show climate change is an emergency today, scientists warn

May was the 13th month in a row to break temperature records according tofigures published this week that are the latest in 2016’s string of incredible climate records which scientists have described as a bombshell and an emergency.

The series of smashed global records, particularly the extraordinary heat in February and March, has provoked a stunned reaction from climate scientists, who are warning that climate change has reached unprecedented levels and is no longer only a threat for the future.

Alongside the soaring temperatures, other records have tumbled around the world, from vanishing Arctic sea ice to a searing drought in India and the vast bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. The UK has experienced record flooding that has devastated communities across the country and scientists predict that the flash floods seen by parts of the country in recent days will increase in future.

“The impacts of human-caused climate change are no longer subtle – they are playing out, in real time, before us,” says Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University in the US. “They serve as a constant reminder now of how critical it is that we engage in the actions necessary to avert ever-more dangerous and potentially irreversible warming of the planet.”

It was just last December when the world’s nations sealed a deal in Paris to defeat global warming but Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, says: “These [records] are very worrying signs and I think it shows we are on a crash course with the Paris targets unless we change course very, very fast. I hope people realise that global warming is not something down the road, but it is here now and it affecting us now.”

“What is happening right now is we are catapulting ourselves out of the Holocene, which is the geological epoch that human civilisation has been able to develop in, because of the relatively stable climate,” says Rahmstorf. “It allowed us to invent agriculture, rather than living as nomads. It allowed a big population growth, it allowed the foundation of cities, all of which required a stable climate.”

But the spikes in global surface temperatures in recent months have been anything but stable. They did not just break the records, they obliterated them. “The numbers are completely unprecedented,” says Adam Scaife, at the Met Office in the UK. “They really stick out like a sore thumb.”

The scorching temperatures mean 2016 is all but certain to be the hottest year ever recorded, beating the previous hottest year in 2015, which itself beat 2014. This run of three record years is also unprecedented and, without climate change, would be a one in a million chance. Scaife says: “Including this year so far, 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have been since 2000 – it’s a shocking statistic.”

Thermometer records go back to 1880, but ice cores, tree rings and corals show global warming driven by humanity’s burning of fossil fuels and forests has left the planet at its hottest for at least 5,000 years. “If we are not above this [temperature] already, we will be in 10 or 20 years’ time and then you have to go back 120,000 years to find higher temperatures than present,” says Rahmstorf.

Another shattered record is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is on course to rise by a record amount this year, leaving the symbolic landmark of 400 parts per million to history. “We know from Antarctic ice cores that go back almost a million years that CO2 was never even remotely as high as this,” says Rahmstorf, and the rate at which humanity is emitting CO2 is thefastest for 66m years.

Fast-rising CO2 levels are almost entirely the reason for the record-busting year. But the natural climate phenomenon called El Niño has played a part. Cyclical changes in ocean temperatures over decades lead to El Niños during which stored heat is released from the oceans, impacting temperatures and weather around the globe.

Scientists agree about a fifth of the temperature rise seen in recent months is due to El Niño. However Scaife says: “I suspect some of the months would have still been records, even without the El Niño”. He points out that 1998 saw an ever bigger El Niño, resulting in a record hot year, but that this has now been far surpassed: “It is not even in the running anymore, falling way down the list.”

El Niño is now waning into to its opposite phase, called La Niña. But that does not allay the scientists’ climate concerns: “The La Niña will not be as cool as the El Niño was warm. We are very, very sure of that,” says Scaife. “It probably means that 2017 will not be a record year, but compared to other La Niña years, it is likely to be much warmer than normal.”

Furthermore, there may be more to the record-breaking series than meets the eye. “There is something more going on than the usual global warming trend and El Niño, because in the past El Niño has led to single years breaking records, but it has not caused several years in a row to break records,” says Rahmstorf.

“There is some unexplained part to this and it is concerning, because we don’t understand it and it is hotter than expected,” he says. “I hope the data coming in the next six months or so will bring us some important clues.”

The heat so far has already had major impacts, including a record temperature of 51C in India amid a serious drought and a record warm autumn in Australia, as well as many in the US. “It is in my view highly unlikely that we would be seeing record drought, like we’re seeing in California, record flooding in Texas, unprecedented wildfires in western North America, and the strongest recorded hurricanes in both the northern and southern hemisphere were it not for the impact of human-caused global warming,” says Mann.

Killer heatwaves are increasing too, which is the clearest impact of global warming, says Rahmstorf: “Our analysis of monthly heat records around the globe shows they now occur five times as often. It is those monthly heat records that are representative of heatwaves that last for weeks on end and they are ones that take the highest death toll.”

“Climate change means more intense rainfall and therefore an increased risk of flooding,” says Bob Ward, policy director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“The government, which got caught out by two record wet winters in the last three, has suddenly woken up to the fact, which is why they have set up theNational Flood Resilience Review. It is now something we are all going to have to come to terms with in the UK.”

Ward says seeing the records broken may mean more people make the connection between action on to cut emissions, such as support for green energy, and the impacts of global warming. He says the global climate deal agreed in December shows every government already knows this is a problem that needs urgent action, but that the high temperatures already occurring will increase the emphasis on adapting to extreme weather events in addition to cutting carbon emissions.

“The impacts we’re beginning to see are just the start and we know we are going to be facing a worsening situation for at least the next couple of decades even if we do cut emissions,” Ward says.

“What’s worrying [about the record-breaking 2016] is that we are in unprecedented territory and we don’t really know what the consequences will be,” he says. “There are likely to be plenty of surprises, some of which will be nasty.”
 
Top Bottom