Came across this article today: [link] detailing the political issues regards fighting climate change.
A few pertinent snippets:
"If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.
Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the 'largest temperature departure from average of any season on record.' The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history."
"Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. 'Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,' writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: 'If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.' NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: 'The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster.' At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: 'Some countries will flat-out disappear.' When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a "suicide pact" for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, "One degree, one Africa'."
"Left to our own devices, citizens might decide to regulate carbon and stop short of the brink; according to a recent poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans would back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050. But we aren't left to our own devices. The Koch brothers, for instance, have a combined wealth of $50 billion, meaning they trail only Bill Gates on the list of richest Americans. They've made most of their money in hydrocarbons, they know any system to regulate carbon would cut those profits, and they reportedly plan to lavish as much as $200 million on this year's elections. In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending; the following year, more than 90 percent of the Chamber's cash went to GOP candidates, many of whom deny the existence of global warming. Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, 'populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations.' As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there."
"Meanwhile the tide of numbers continues. The week after the Rio conference limped to its conclusion, Arctic sea ice hit the lowest level ever recorded for that date. Last month, on a single weekend, Tropical Storm Debby dumped more than 20 inches of rain on Florida – the earliest the season's fourth-named cyclone has ever arrived. At the same time, the largest fire in New Mexico history burned on, and the most destructive fire in Colorado's annals claimed 346 homes in Colorado Springs – breaking a record set the week before in Fort Collins. This month, scientists issued a new study concluding that global warming has dramatically increased the likelihood of severe heat and drought – days after a heat wave across the Plains and Midwest broke records that had stood since the Dust Bowl, threatening this year's harvest. You want a big number? In the course of this month, a quadrillion kernels of corn need to pollinate across the grain belt, something they can't do if temperatures remain off the charts. Just like us, our crops are adapted to the Holocene, the 11,000-year period of climatic stability we're now leaving... in the dust."
So I guess I have to ask: What is it going to take for the climate change deniers to accept the hard facts that keep rolling in day after day, before we all fuck ourselves over?
...also, this officially makes the Koch Brothers real-life Captain Planet villains. And you thought a bunch of people busy polluting the planet for greed and evulz was just campy Saturday Morning Cartoon crap.
Wow, that article has the same facts as others, but somehow manages to undersell it. All the global warming movies I've seen have made a point of the ice melt rivers working to break away the 'ice cap' of Greenland. Nearly two weeks ago it was 97 percent gone, and it melted within four days. And it'll re-form? I thought the issue was that, though the melt typically reaches 55 percent in the height of summer, if the core of it went that would be cataclysmic or something?
Guess nobody is worried about that.
Some articles also claim that this happened a hundred and fifty years ago. I'm going to claim BS on that right there! The population of Greenland today is 56,000. That's not enough eyewitness to give any kind of accurate report on the climate. We are only hearing about this (and how many of us even did??) because of modern satellites. How would anyone know what happened to all of Greenland in the 1860s?
"Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover"
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?" Isn't that what they said in The Day After Tomorrow...?
Addendum: What's really hilarious is the people who gripe, "And she dropped out of school and she's lecturing us." And it's like, "Yep, I dropped out of school, and I still apparently understand this shit better than you do. That should tell you something."
Yeah, it's more "This is pretty alarming, but we're waiting to see if it repeats before saying anything definite."
But cue all the deniers pouncing and using it as proof climate change doesn't exist, I wager.
I think the problem is, basically, people assume that reality works in a nice little curve where there's always a perfect pattern, and never any quirks, offshoots, or such. Versus the real world fact that things like this are trends over time, where it can fluctuate on the specific level (especially considering how volatile the weather is to begin with), but an overall pattern exists.
Or, conversely, they assume that because <x> thing happened in the past, <x> thing happening now must be just normal results and never a sign of anything weird. Or if <x> does turn out to be normal, then that means no other weather can be abnormal because it's clearly all the same.
Hence you get the, "Well, it was cool in <x> year, so that proves it wrong", "Well, the temperature is all over the place, so that proves it wrong", "Well, it snowed this year so that proves it wrong", etc. And every single attempt to explain the actual science is, "You'll just say anything to make it look like you're right!"
Science classes have clearly gone down the shitter since I was a kid.
I'm not all in for any of the debates. I think anyone arguing against global climate change, first has to answer exactly how much damage they think man-made pollution is doing. Because a person would have to be pretty foolish to claim we're having no effect on the planet at all.
Greenland may be on a hundred and fifty year cycle. We may be at the height of a cyclic solar activity period. Rapid succession of overdue earthquakes will appear to happen in relatively short times if it just happens they were overdue... There seem to be so many of those soundbites this year, it's all we ever hear!
I've lived in the city of Wellington for all but a couple of months of thirty years of my life. A couple of days before this [link] happened, it was rumored that it might even snow in the city. I explained (wrongly) why snow at sea level here was impossible.
If anyone could've shown my younger self this video from the future, my only reaction would've been "...end of the world right there!"
How strange do things have to get before people begin to worry?
A few pertinent snippets:
"If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.
Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the 'largest temperature departure from average of any season on record.' The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history."
"Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. 'Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,' writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: 'If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.' NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: 'The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster.' At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: 'Some countries will flat-out disappear.' When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a "suicide pact" for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, "One degree, one Africa'."
"Left to our own devices, citizens might decide to regulate carbon and stop short of the brink; according to a recent poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans would back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050. But we aren't left to our own devices. The Koch brothers, for instance, have a combined wealth of $50 billion, meaning they trail only Bill Gates on the list of richest Americans. They've made most of their money in hydrocarbons, they know any system to regulate carbon would cut those profits, and they reportedly plan to lavish as much as $200 million on this year's elections. In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending; the following year, more than 90 percent of the Chamber's cash went to GOP candidates, many of whom deny the existence of global warming. Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, 'populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations.' As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there."
"Meanwhile the tide of numbers continues. The week after the Rio conference limped to its conclusion, Arctic sea ice hit the lowest level ever recorded for that date. Last month, on a single weekend, Tropical Storm Debby dumped more than 20 inches of rain on Florida – the earliest the season's fourth-named cyclone has ever arrived. At the same time, the largest fire in New Mexico history burned on, and the most destructive fire in Colorado's annals claimed 346 homes in Colorado Springs – breaking a record set the week before in Fort Collins. This month, scientists issued a new study concluding that global warming has dramatically increased the likelihood of severe heat and drought – days after a heat wave across the Plains and Midwest broke records that had stood since the Dust Bowl, threatening this year's harvest. You want a big number? In the course of this month, a quadrillion kernels of corn need to pollinate across the grain belt, something they can't do if temperatures remain off the charts. Just like us, our crops are adapted to the Holocene, the 11,000-year period of climatic stability we're now leaving... in the dust."
So I guess I have to ask: What is it going to take for the climate change deniers to accept the hard facts that keep rolling in day after day, before we all fuck ourselves over?
...also, this officially makes the Koch Brothers real-life Captain Planet villains. And you thought a bunch of people busy polluting the planet for greed and evulz was just campy Saturday Morning Cartoon crap.