Is there anywhere on earth I can move to where it’ll take longer to get terrible?
The concurrence of three climatic events
171–180 of 408 posts
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#172> There is another possible input to this heating worthy of note. Dust from the Sahara typically blows west this time of year, blocking incoming radiation while trapping existing heat. So far this year the dust has not come. The lack of dust is notable and could also be a direct cause of some of the North Atlantic heating. This caught my eye as a potentially much worse catastrophe in the short term than the extreme t…
Fair point, but what if the desert starts greening again? I don't expect it to, but having what nutrients there are NOT blow away would be a start right?
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bill Gates has been buying up water reserves, has investments in polluting industries, and he's got an interest in keeping the public thinking it's "not so bad". It is. Bill Gates is also behind the "our world in data" series on youtube, that consistently misrepresents climate science to make it seem like we can solve it with enough "green industry", when the only real solution is degrowth, we can't afford to keep si…
Degrowth is not a solution. Geo-engineering is our only way out of this mess.
This is an emotional response and not a scientific one. The Haber–Bosch process was the biological equivalent of a deferred-interest loan. It gave us enough food to scale from 2 billion to 8, but now the planet is coming to collect its dues. We never had the natural resources to support humanity's current numbers, and by inflating our Nitrogen supply and stripping the Earth of everything else we need, we've utterly fucked it all up. Degrowth would be the worst tragedy in human history, but it would at least give future generations a chance. Geo-engineering is like paying off one credit card with another. It's a recipe for further disaster and doesn't solve the underlying issue. Humanity has to default.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#174As this post hints at in the discussion of sulfur emissions at sea, all it takes to significantly slow global warming is one country or sufficiently motivated non-state actor deciding to go all-in on geoengineering (like seeding the stratosphere with sulfur dioxides). Compare this to the collective action problem of everyone, including rapidly industrializing poorer countries, spending trillions to decarbonize their…
Every time humans try and fix nature, we tend to make it worse due to not understanding the problem or consequences.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep calm, carry on, adapt. Slow-moving crises are not crises, they're problems, not emergencies. ---- Here, have some literature, down-voters! ---- [1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied prev…
Wake me up when the banks stop giving 30 year loans for coastline property. Who do you trust? Bankers or the "experts".
Bankers are known to be responsible and have a fantastic history of being responsible with others money. There are no reasons why a collection of individuals would make a bad decision which would impact other people 10, 20, or 30 years in the future for an immediate gain.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#176This guy's blog is subtitled "Eliot Jacobson's Collapse of Everything Blog". Is this his schtick? Does he just say the world is ending all the time, or is what he's saying true?
The sea surface temperature data is from NOAA and the sea ice extent data is from JAXA. His claims are not difficult to verify, if you follow the citations.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#177I fear that this is the year "wet-bulb temperature" becomes a term regular households across the world become deeply familiar with. It may be as ubiquitous as the term "social distancing" became. I've always naively thought that climate disaster was still 10-20 years out, but it seems like it's going to begin in earnest now and instead be completely catastrophic after these next 10 years. What can I as an individual…
Unless you live in the select few poor equatorial countries with high humidity and heat you have little to worry about personally.
Climate change is a long term problem. We're going to see hundreds of millions of climate refugees before the end of the century, but the bulk will be after most of us are dead.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps. I never know what to believe. I've heard smart, knowledgeable people like Bill Gates state that he thinks we won't experience a scorched Earth ending, but that we will solve this crisis. I'd like to believe him, but then I see an article like this and I don't know who to believe, the graphs are pretty damning if only to say "that line is way above the other lines, and that is bad."
Oh, I believe him. "We (the ultra-rich) won't experience a scorched Earth ending"
From what I can tell, they'll all be riding it out in New Zealand, to minimize the climate effects they personally experience and keep themselves nice and far away from any political instability (or consequences...) It's the goldilocks-zone country for avoiding climate chaos, if you also need to minimize chances that the government will seize all your stuff (as less-liberal states might).
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#179What's up with the straight line across the equatorial Pacific?
https://climatecasino.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GLOBAL_...
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if scientists agreed that spraying seawater upwards from every ship would mitigate say 10 years of climate change, can you imagine world governments coming to an agreement to do it, and how to fund it?
Also, H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this is prolly not really a great idea
water effects weather differently based on whether its vapor (traps infrared) or suspended droplets/crystals as a cloud (reflects infrared)
sulfur is both a greenhouse gas and a condensate for cloud formation
nature is full of examples where you can add more and more of a single factor and suddenly the effect will flip and contribute to the other direction, before reaching a further threshold and flipping the other way
it is not possible to make blanket statements like "Adding water to the atmosphere increases average temperature"
As I understand it, CO2 is one of the few factors that we can all agree is just straighforward, more CO2 more problems. But chaos is tricky, we can only simulate so much.