301–310 of 439 posts
I was just remarking to a friend in Budapest today that it's already October, but all of the trees are still green like it's the middle of July. Very bizzare.
Noticed the same thing myself today. Not long until winter and it feels like a mild summers day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's an uneducated viewpoint that is supported by the deliberate misinformation of the oil and gas lobby. There are alternatives, there have always been alternatives. Better ones, cheaper ones.
I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit, and the latter of good people who just want the best for everybody. If there are "better and cheaper" alternatives available right now, market forces will…
They've been spreading false information for decades. I'm not sure there's ANY industry that has undercut competing industries to the extent that they have. This is especially damning considering the millions of gallons the oil industry has been responsible for dumping directly into the ocean. All this and they still get massive federal subsidies.
Worst I've seen solar and wind do is over-promise and support existing climate activists.
The solar and wind industries haven't even existed for as long as the oil and gas industries have been spreading misinformation. They're not even in the same league.
Can someone help me understand why when there’s a record cold month, there’s a convo like this > non-believer: “see global warming doesn’t exist” > believer: “you can’t measure this on a monthly scale, it’s too slow of a process” But often when the case is reversed, it’s used as evidence of global warming? I know global warming is real and I am a firm believer in it but this duality seems to cause a lot of issues whe…
Hit them with this fact: In June 2023, none of the Earth’s surface had record cold , year-to-date. Tangent: I have a very good source for this fact, however searching will not reveal it. The current state of search is horrible. I'm interested if anyone can find it. I'll link to it later this evening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the second half of your comment argues against the first. You're right that people are unwilling to make the basic changes that are obviously needed. But we only know precisely that those changes would work to fight against climate change because we are able to say with certainty that those behaviors are contributing factors. Any suggested actions have to have some level of scientific credibility to be taken…
If the "basic changes" are more extreme than the COVID lockdowns, which made the entire world miserable, brought unprecedented economic destruction we'll be dealing with forever, and which also didn't cool the planet at all despite massive decreases in CO2 emissions... no thanks. I'll keep voting against anything that makes me poorer and more miserable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Analysis done back in 2016, back when 2015 shattered records due to El Nino (and completely shattered the argument around a "pause" in global warming due to the El Nino spike back in 1998): https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/el-nino-and-the-2015... https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-...
Seems wortwhile to update this. Maybe even have a running calculation that is updated on each data release? It provides an intersting context for understanding monthly and annual temperature anomalies.
If you disagree, then be the change you want to see in the world... Setup a website, pull the data, build your own model and publish it. Once you've got it going, I'd guess that Tamino would be more than willing to correct all your mistakes in your model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are such obvious first steps we could take without a complete understanding of cause if we really cared. That's the issue, a lot of people just don't care or refuse to believe it. Questions like the one in the parent comment are starting to seriously annoy me because they're demanding an unachievable level of evidence before doing anything, a level that's never asked for in any other kind of intervention (for…
Everyone leaves out a large cohort - people that believe it, but don't want the solutions you're selling. We typically put forth constructive solutions like nuclear, which get shouted down / laughed out of the room instantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do need to urgently discuss the role of the first world towards massive third world calamities. I'm a global warming believer, but I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies. More solar power, less money spent on heating, less dependent on foreign resources etc etc etc. Meanwhile, poor countries will take the brunt of the disasters due to geogr…
The entire biosphere (forests, forest-dwelling animals, ocean life, the crops we grow, us) as well as most human infrastructure rests on an equilibrium so precarious that a couple degrees in mean temperature change is going to have first, second and third order effects we can barely predict. No one and nowhere will be “sheltered” in any broad sense. Like, increased heat is already causing rails to heat up, forcing ra…
This is complete speculation. And the annual variation in temperature of ~50 degrees C many places on earth, does not really support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The debate over exact causes has always felt misguided to me. The planet is extremely complex, human impact on the planet is largely based on estimates and modeling, and at the end of the day an understanding of why it's getting hotter isn't itself a course correction. There are such obvious first steps we could take without a complete understanding of cause if we really cared. We could easily cut our use of fossil f…
It's basically impossible to convince someone to do all those things when they're fighting to stay alive, working terrible conditions and generally being fucked by society as a whole. Fixing economic inequalities and improving overall quality of life for everyone in the planet should be top of that list. Telling rich people to grow their own food won't make any difference.
I expect we would have a lot of agreement related to fixing that system to better serve the average person. Even if we have different opinions on exact details, that core principle can go very, very far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s hard to keep up with the climate change denial propaganda noise machine without stooping to their level. In the end motivated reasoning means people will value cheap hydrocarbon energy over global benefits of less climate change. Just look at the French gilet jaunes protests.
a. X claims he didn't have enough money to live well . and b. The only way for X to reach his workplace is to consume a more and more expensive resource. "Change job", " work more", "live somewhere else" are not good advices because X is often unqualified, works already a lot and cannot afford a place inside the town where he works. What should X do ? The necessity of consumption is a bigger problem than "we consume…
But they won't do that, because X doesn't think the climate is actually changing from human actions because they have picked one of the several half-assed narratives that claim to "prove" it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do need to urgently discuss the role of the first world towards massive third world calamities. I'm a global warming believer, but I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies. More solar power, less money spent on heating, less dependent on foreign resources etc etc etc. Meanwhile, poor countries will take the brunt of the disasters due to geogr…
>I'm a global warming believer, but I'm starting to question whether the planet warming won't actually be posivite for a lot of first world economies. It's not about whether it will be good or bad to live in a warmer climate. Maybe it would be better. But the rate of change is the danger. If we were slowly warming over the course of millenia, it'd be a different story. But 2C of warming over less than 100 years is so…
Anyway, it's very likely that the younger dryas had a much sharper shift in temperature.