if someone can explain how global temps are measured and weighted i’ll give you a cookie
it's satellite photography of infrared emmission, no? combined with ground station measurements to calibrate?
The concurrence of three climatic events
211–220 of 408 posts
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#212So given this context and assuming it is accurate, where do you think would be the most viable areas to live? If I were to consider for the US, I'd say inland northern states like Wisconsin and Michigan thanks to the Great Lakes...
I made a bunch of maps to answer this question! https://www.jtolio.com/2022/07/anthropocene-calamity-part-8-...
Here's my wizard if you want to tweak the maps yourself: https://climatedash.fly.dev/?selection=tmean_avg_2050+&filte...
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millions of migrants seems a massivly optimistic view. I suspect it will be well over a billion in 10 years.
What's your citation for suspecting that more than 1 in 8 living people will be a migrant? That seems pretty alarmist, and well over any number I've seen suggested elsewhere.
Just look at the population figures for the areas of the globe that are projected to become uninhabitable. That's your baseline number and it by itself is over a billion people. Any additional extrapolation for political and social upheavals related to resource conflicts (regardless of how conservative your analysis might be) only add to that baseline.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#214As 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.
Do we though? Up until very recent history, we thought of nature as deadly, and unforgiving. The wilderness would mean almost certain death. We did not master the environment, we were afraid of it.
I wouldn't say we make things worse, I think we make things our own. Is that worse? I'd tend to disagree. I prefer human environments over the deep wilderness. Most of us love nature, but we love the human version of that.. groomed trails, modest temperatures, light breezes, and having all the human comforts within reach. Humanity does certainly do things wrong, but we also do things right.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
Hasn’t all of technological progress been paying one credit card off with another?
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument the OP was really making was, could we at least not scale down sulfur emissions
I don't think it's that simple. Sulpher, causing acid rain, was a big deal and caused a lot of damage. Whole forrests died, public structures and art was damaged, etc... Also, sulpher contributes to ocean acidification. The point is that the earth is a really complex systems, and it's not always clear what technical fixes to use, Let alone getting the political will to implement them.
It also causes ozone damage.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apocalyptic Ideation see also: the book of revelations There will always be people fixated on The End, some because they think we all deserve it, others because they can't seperate their own existential crisis from potential global crises
And still others because they've started looking at the pieces of how our global society functions as a system and realized that it's very possible we have pushed our environment beyond it's ability to support us. Leading ultimately to overshoot which leads to collapse.
Maybe, but they never seem to weigh any of the challenges against humanity's staggering ability to adapt and overcome. Doomerism has planet-sized infomercial hands.
There is a long and embarassing trail of false apocalypses predicted from extrapolations + assumptions of helplessness, often made by otherwise intelligent and scientifically inclined people. We were all going to starve, but then Haber figured out how to chemically fix Nitrogen. Nuclear war was going to end the world, but then MAD actually worked. The ozone hole was going to cook the plant life, but then we cleaned up our refrigerants. We were going to run out of oil by 2010, but then we found more.
Betting against humanity isn't a historically wise move. You don't have a choice in the matter, and it's easy to fixate on this and imagine yourself trapped, but you are "trapped" with one hell of a fighting chance so the truth is you just don't know.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#218As 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…
In which idlewords basically cites the plot of "Termination Shock" by Neal Stephenson... :-)
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#219Can somebody explain this part? > By cleaning up shipping fuels, massive regions of the world’s oceans that were protected from heating by shipping sulfate aerosols are now experiencing rapid warming. This includes the main shipping routes between Asia and the Western US as well as the major routes from the Easter US to Europe and the Middle East. And that’s where the warming is happening. This rapid heating is known…
Certain chemicals in the atmosphere can increase the planet's albedo, meaning that less of the sun's energy is absorbed. When people speak of geoengineering, they are referring to intentionally spraying these elements (sulfur) into the atmosphere to reflect more of the sun's energy and temporarily cooling the earth. However, the problem with this system is that the second you stop, you get a huge bump in temperature.…
I guess this geoengineering has left the ozone stable.
Re: The concurrence of three climatic events
#220He forgot the 4th event - Social Contagion Resulting in Climate Sensationalism. Can we please have a realistic discussion on climate change? I'm so sick of these "scientists" acting like we're in "Day After Tomorrow" and every normal weather event is suddenly a precursor to the Armageddon that'll take us all out in the next decade or less. You scientifically cannot look at individual weather events and determine they…
> every normal weather event San Francisco and the PNW being covered by smoke every summer is not a normal weather event, and now it is starting on the East coast. The east and southeast is also being hit harder by hurricanes, and they are not stopping at the Gulf of Mexico any more. These are just the events people have been able to see in the US in past years and they're not normal and with ever-increasing carbon o…
The Australian wildfire smoke also had climatic effects on ozone when combined with Cl radicals.