"If climate change were happening, we would feel morally compelled to control our CO2 emissions; we don't want to control our CO2 emissions, therefore, climate change must not be happening."
They aren't as bad as the Republicans, but let's not try and pretend that the Democrats are particularly great either. If the Green New Deal is what they'd actually attempt to do, we're fucked.
No, we'd be making progress toward eliminating the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, but making it slower than if they'd also embrace nuclear power.
> making sure that Africa never industrializes
Is that even part of the public debate? I mean, outside of Ron Paul's newsletters or something equally crazy?
Ehhhh... We might be making progress on eliminating the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere from the US, but that's a rather different statement. Unless you can get everyone else to agree to emissions restrictions far more restrictive than the Paris Agreement, we'd be worse off than before. (yes, this is a tragedy of the commons problem)
This is part of why I mentioned geoengineering as an option, because unlike with emissions reductions geoengineering may actually be sufficient to prevent climate change without the cooperation of the rest of the world.
> > making sure that Africa never industrializes
> Is that even part of the public debate? I mean, outside of Ron Paul's newsletters or something equally crazy?
Perhaps not to ensure it never industrializes, but a refusal to limit the emissions growth of the third world soon is part of why the Paris Agreement was insufficient. (How to get the third world to agree to this is, of course, a wee bit of a problem)
That's not a different statement. Making progress in (subtask of A) means we are making progress in (A). Besides, it's not like everyone else isn't making lots of progress too.
Not always, but I will grant that it likely does in the case of emissions reduction. (consider a thought experiment - US reduces emissions from power generation by building a ton of coal plants over the border in Mexico)
The point was more that the Green New Deal can only address a small fraction of future world emissions, and that fraction is not large enough to prevent catastrophe. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce emissions! Just that unilateral reductions might not be the way to go. (Imagine the US unilaterally giving up nukes in the 1960s and then trying to convince the Soviet Union to do the same - it would be far less likely than agreeing to both disarm at the same time. IMO negotiations on emissions reduction are like this)
You see what happens if you drive up prices for gasoline in France: People start rioting in the streets.
If you had gasoline prices like that in the US, whole states would stop functioning.
Also, most CO2 emissions are from countries where people are far poorer than in developed nations. Are you expecting them to become even poorer?
If you don't have a solution to these economic concerns, don't be surprised when world leaders adopt a "devil may care" attitude.
86% of CO2 emissions are created by people in upper-middle income and high income groups.
Citation needed. I don't know of many 90- to 100- year old people collecting pensions.
There are some professions, mainly police/military, that permit retirement after 20 years of service. Those pensions are managed to expect longer payout periods albeit using the actuarial stats of their members which are not the same as the general population.
The obvious thing would be investing in green technology, but what else? Are HVAC equipment producers about to see a big uptick in sales?
This is really terrifying.
Google ‚Methans craters‘...
Warsaw is today 27C, Minsk 21C, Smolensk 18C, Moscow 22C. So not entire Europe is baking in heatwave only the Western part.
The same circulation is heating Western Europe and cooling Eastern Europe.
It would often only have been really impactful for one or two weeks a year. Not really worth the investment.
With temperatures climbing this high, and being maintained for longer periods, I recently bought my first mobile AC unit and am thinking about installing a permanent one after the summer.
1. Set up AC company in Europe
2. Wait for panicked calls from sweltering people
Having lived in south France, where temperature was always over 30C in summer for long period of time. There simply wasn't air conditioning in homes or offices. It's not that it isn't needed. It's just not there. If you want to change job to an office job with AC, good luck finding one.
You're just burning down in summer? being completely unproductive at work? People just live with it. Dress in short tshirt and drink a lot of water. There can be 50 employees asking to get a AC unit for the floor, doesn't matter, management is just nope.
It's evolving slowly as new office constructions have air conditioning and it's being retrofitted to some places.
I don't have AC at home in the Bay Area -- when it gets hot I just go to a public air-conditioned space for the day.
It's not exactly irony; these vicious feedback loops are a big part of what has gotten us into this mess.
This is a serious opportunity for mankind to learn from its mistakes and become a sustainable society. Let's hope it doesn't take more than 100 years and half the population to do so.
Seems like we are 30 years too early
50 years passed and their predictions in some areas match current state and in some preconditions failed because they did not think it will be THAT BAD.
Based on that I know it will be either what they say now or it will be way worse..
Ps. Im talking about the scientists which were hired by oil companies to create prediction maps.
1. Go to universities
2. Go to co-working spaces
Go to any place to flee the heat.
I'm at my university right now, and I'm not even noticing it's as hot as it is since the airconditioning is doing an amazing job here.
> I'm not even noticing it's as hot as it is since the airconditioning is doing an amazing job here.
...just leaves a frustrating and poor taste.
What's powering all that air conditioning? It's not free.
Get safe now, but don't lose sight that it's all inter-related.
The climate change issue in the long-term is gripping me. What are we — as mostly programmers — doing about it. Why isn’t FAANG doing something? For pure problem solvers this seems like a juicy problem to sink your teeth into.
I don't see why that would be a necessary or even good thing? Surely they must have higher demand for power from AC loads with the heat, even if AC isn't quite as prevalent in the EU as the US.
I wonder if "heating water" implies that coolant is being plumbed through buildings to heat them, which could be dangerous to the occupants of those buildings if they were already too hot. Or maybe France is suffering a drought at the moment.
He still doesn't "believe" in it. "Nobody can know if it's happening" and "earth went through countless high and low temperature passes over the years. It's nothing special"
It was a great example of today's reality we live in. It's truly an age of misinformation.
Suppose Iceland were to win the World Cup. Would people be saying that Iceland had spent a bunch of effort training players, or would they be saying that it's natural for different teams to win, and that it had to happen eventually?
One major issue is that probability and statistics are very far down the pecking order of what is considered part of a good education. A huge number of people think "it varies randomly" means the same as "there's no way to know any more".
People would be saying both and they would all be right. It takes both luck and training to win.
Edit: This is what I was trying to remember:
Lifestyle choices won't affect climate change as long as we keep fueling the machine that's chewing through the resources. "It's the economy, stupid" - the modern economy doesn't just depend on consuming many resources as possible, its tenets are fundamentally based around it. Every call for more jobs is a call for more waste. Every push to lower interest rates is a judgment of valuing the present over the future. We've figured out how to make more stuff than we can actually ever use - now we need to figure out how to dial it back instead of throwing the excess away.
It's also important to you because it can help you decide where to work, where to live, and what to do.
I'd argue that the overriding moderator is culture, with global warming being much more inconvenient for the car-based consumption treadmill.
> There is a reason the rest of the world (in places with worse problems than in USA)
It's not about real problems that people directly struggle with, but rather political "problems" that mass media turns into a divisive frenzy.
It’s probably quite a good lesson for everyone, a lot of our beliefs aren’t reached through some process from first principles, they are accepted from what appears to be normal. Our understanding of the world is really not much better than the sources for news and analysis we and those around us expose ourselves to.
Here's a clue:
This year is looking like it will set the record for lowest yet. My guess is that it will be ice-free in September within 5 years because it's an exponential decay. Note "ice-free" is agreed to mean less than 1mil square kilometers.
Agreed by who? You're trying to convince the deniers; giving them a massive out like that isn't tactically sound.
"Oh their prediction was wrong so they changed the terms - climate change is a conspiracy and they're lying to our faces, can't you see?!?!"
I was going to say "It's an endless fight", but it isn't true. The fight will end when we all die. The horrors that are coming are unspeakable. During the famines in Russia during the civil-war starving mothers ate their children. Famine is our future. In the USA, we are already locking up climate refugees, many children, in cages.
Things are already starting to get bad and we aren't at 1.5C, or 2C, or the 3-4C we are projected to hit by end of the century.
Funnily enough, I think this would actually be justified if climate change was going to cause imminent famine as you're suggesting. Given the choice between having the population of the US undergo a mild famine while to the south there's a famine beyond living memory (thanks to preventing climate-motivated migration) or having a famine beyond living memory here (thanks to the extra few hundred million mouths to feed), I know which one I would want the US government to choose. Helping refugees is a good thing, but the US government has an obligation to US citizens first and foremost. That's why we call it the United States government, and not the Mexican government, or Guatemalan government, or Honduran...
If you let too many people get into the lifeboat, you all drown.
I don't think that this is currently the case, though. Famine, when it comes, will affect the rest of the world far more than it will the US, Canada, and Russia. Food will become more expensive, but that will be due to exports rather than having more people than the land can feed - unlike almost every other country on the planet. Also barring further improvements in agriculture, of course.
USA has had the biggest impact on climate in the last 100 years and is responsible for the bulk of climate emissions. In other words, the rest of the world will starve because of us and somehow we can justify building walls to protect ourselves. If there is a thing as "evil" it most certainly is that.
I think that when it comes to total impact on the ability of the rest of the world to feed itself, the US is probably pretty far in the black. Yes the contribution to climate change is negative, but the Green Revolution  is almost certainly very, very positive. Improved agricultural tech, including GMO crops, have fed a lot of people around the world.
EDIT: Replaced "argument" by "fallacy"
I keep saying that ocean acidification needs to be the forefront of the argument more. The data is so much clearer and dramatic that it's so much harder to deny the harm being done by greenhouse gases. "It's hot today" is a terrible way to start a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in global warming, just like "it snowed today" is a terrible counter-argument from them.
I don't know about these polar vortexes in particular, but climate change predicts wider swings in both directions, as there is more energy in the system. In other words, the vortex would not have gone as far south if it had had less energy.
If I may share a simpler analog, it's like when I see people on social media mocking flat-earthers and saying, "how do you think cell phones work if satellites aren't real?" Okay - you agree the earth is near-spherical. That's great. But your lack of actual understanding just gave the flat-earthers a chance to point out that cell phones don't actually use orbiting satellites, make you look like you don't know what you're talking about, and win the argument. Now somebody who also doesn't understand is questioning the scientific consensus even more strongly.
> Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.
It's devastating to think about, very negative, and it almost always means that people need to quit doing things they've come to love.
It's like trying to get someone who's addicted off their drugs and telling them that even if they are successful with quitting, it won't protect them unless all others stop doing drugs simultaneously.
And I'm putting enough solar on my roof to run the house and charge my in-the-near-future EV, so, yeah...
Try selling people a problem without a solution. Good luck!
And even the hypothetical solutions nobody wants to commit to are being disputed in the style you can witness above.
- we know that that effort would result in an uptick in carbon production (need to produce all this new stuff: factories, ship it everywhere, etc.)
- we also know that as energy gets cheaper, people use more of it
- there aren't enough rare earths to replace all transportation with EVs, and even if there were it's like 20% of emissions; this ignores rare earths needed for outside storage batteries/grid tech/...
the only solution - happens to be economic - is massive shedding of consumption by basically the entire population of the earth, and if you think your standard of living won't decrease many-fold you aren't being realistic.
This man had in the past lobbied to forbid the NWS from releasing weather data directly to the public, and gotten Rick Santorum (his home state senator) to propose a bill to that effect.
Any news source that reports "record-breaking temperatures" is, deliberately or not, making these dangerously increasing temperatures sound like a good thing.
This extreme heat is costing us $$$
Plants are of course similarly susceptible to extreme temperatures. There are tactics farmers can apply such as coating their crops but there are limits.
This isn't necessarily an immediate problem for plants, because plants store extra calories generated from photosynthesis for future use, and when the temperature is too hot they can switch from photosynthesis to respiration, consuming their stored sugars for energy. During this time, plants become net producers of CO2 instead of net consumers, taking in oxygen, burning their sugars (in the same slow chemical burn we use) and releasing the CO2 at the end.
This is an immediate concern for us, because those stored calories are what we wanted to eat. Plants may survive higher temperatures, but they produce fewer stored calories in the form of delicious fruits, vegetables and grains for us to eat. Climate change is complicated for agriculture, but extra days above (or close to) 40C is just bad, bad, bad.
For example, crops like wheat benefit from a hot dry period when they get close to harvest time. Same for some vegetables like tomatoes, peppers and eggplant.
The challenge isn't so much that high heat (to an extent) and agriculture is incompatible, it's that unexpected high-heat, or high heat at unexpected times can be damaging.
Don't think that I'm downplaying the risk of climate change to agriculture, there are plenty of very serious negative effects that climate change will have on agriculture, but warmer temperatures on their own, at least at this range, aren't directly a huge issue if they're expected.
Right, because that's your biggest problem.
It couldn't be the fossil fuels used for transportation (29%) or the industry that produces the goods and the raw materials like cement (22%), the production of electricity (28%), or even the commercial and residential emissions (12%).
Oh no, our biggest problem has to be agriculture (9%). And let's not talk about the use of fertilizers, or of the transportation of food for thousands of miles before it reaches the table. Let's also not talk about the practice of burning crop residues, or of the seas of plastic.
The problem has to be meat and the solution is to shame meat eaters.
Unfortunately, I fear that it is too late to turn things around. Climate change has been a known serious problem for at least three to four decades. But politicians do not want to bring the bad news that we need to change our lives drastically in order to get their votes the next election.
But we should still try for future generations. No more holidays by plane. Switch to renewable energy. Live close to work and travel by bike or work remotely. And yes, perhaps eat a little less meat.
- Industrial regulations will take years if not forever to be reformed to offset the damage in that sector. You also have big money in keeping things "business as usual", so good luck with that. Things need to be made.
- Transportation: it will take years to get all the gasoline-fueled vehicles off the road, although there are some good strides being made here. However, the biggest issue is that electric cars are prohibitively expensive, and people still need to get to work.
- Production of electricity: again, good strides being made in this department but it's still years away. We need electricity.
- Meat eating: you, the people next to you, _everyone_ can immediately decide this very second to do their part. Here's the thing about food though - human beings don't need to eat meat. There is plenty of plant-based food out there and at this day and age and depending on your location, highly restricting your meat and dairy use is the easiest it's ever been.
Out of the list of issues you described contributing to climate change, the one you are annoyed at me for bringing up is the only one that you personally can fix, entirely by yourself. Yet, you choose not to, and I don't really understand why.
tl;dr: All those other issues require change at a massive level that the "average Joe" can't do a whole lot about. But eating no or less meat requires minimal effort, everyone can do it starting right this second, and it has a huge payoff. Not just on a climate impact scale, but on a global health level.
If people won't even make that first step that can be done for no effort, how do you think any of those huge issues will get figured out?
Or, with all due respect, I can tell you to fuck off.
My problem with environmental movements is people basically bring their own beliefs and agendas in, with no support from science and then rub it in other people's faces, trying to turn their religion into policy.
We could have a chat about how most vegans are deficient in certain vitamins and proteins, making the vegan diet, in fact, more challenging than any other diet. We could also talk about how animals and plants could be raised sustainably. But there would be no point to it because your mind is already set.
And it's incredibly frustrating to see the minds of Silicon Valley invest in fake meat instead of solving problems that actually matter, but that's not new.
I know, I know - I don't want to soapbox here. But we're spiraling towards disaster in our lifetimes and I can't help but think that hundreds of millions are blissfully unaware.
If you killed every second person and planted a tree things will balance themselves out.
On the positive side without population crashes evolution doesn't work so in some ways things are working as as designed.
>Because, otherwise, what's the point on having these "summer is hotter than it used to be" articles all day up?
Maybe let's do something about it or it will only get worse?
Having grown up in Europe, I do prefer their weather when it's normal for them. If only I could convince my wife to move somewhere with a proper 4 seasons rather than this hideous backwater of heat and humidity.
I also grew up in Europe for a few years at least.
There are also a ton of ex-Texans here.
My preferences would be Vermont, Snoqualmie, WA, Bellingham, WA, or the AK peninsula. Me and the sun are not friends.