Climate Strike September 20

[thollandpe]

let me re-state and agree with you: ALL scientist agree the temperature is rising.

Maybe its supposed to.

God only knows how many cycles the planet has been through. Modern man can only make educated guesses on exactly what has happened before.

And since everyone with a crystal ball (or crystal iPhone) believes our great grandchildren are doomed, I'm confident that that either technology at that time, or Mother Nature itself will take care of the planet.

Thanks for your reply. That's why my response included the bit about seeing 100 dermatologists and believing the 2 or 3 dissenting voices. It's like believing the melanoma is supposed to be there.

It's a gross mis-read of what's happening, equating the atmospheric carbon run-up over the last 150 years with natural cycles that have occurred over hundreds of millions of years. And it also requires dismissing many of the warning signs and symptoms that the scientists have been discussing and tracking for decades. That's one reason I think that Elizabeth Kolbert's book Field Notes from a Catastrophe was so effective, that instead of merely explaining the science, she traveled to places and talked to the people who have been living these warning signs and symptoms every day.

It's also nice to know you're not one of Greta's detractors. Thanks for including that detail.

[guido]

But what about what the asteroid crash predicting scientists are being paid? Surely George Soros is involved with this...

I'm on the beach too.

[monadnocky]

Let's say instead of global warming, scientist discovered an asteroid which was on a collusion course to hit earth in 5 yrs. Would Humanity be able to respond? Or will we endlessly argue about who should pay what, or focus on the small probability the asteroid orbit will miss us, etc etc . or argue that the earth had been hit by an asteroid before and mother nature copted, etc etc.

I suspect given the current climate of scientific skepticism and lack of global leadership, the answer is the later in my opinion.

I'm on the beach.

Let's take this asteroid scenario one step further that I think more closely approximates our current situation:

Let's suppose that this potential planet-killer is many (let's say 50) years out, and, due to its extremely low albedo, cannot be optically detected. But the vast majority of astronomers are quite confident that it's out there, as evidenced by its gravitational pull on nearby objects, prior orbits that appear to be getting closer to the earth, and so forth (I'm hardly an astronomer so bear with me).

Since the asteroid cannot be optically detected (i.e., using the sense that has been most reliable for us evolutionarily) and the impact of which can only be inferred (albeit with a very high degree of confidence), what would we, as a species whole, do?

It's my belief that we would be doing the same thing we are doing right now. In other words: it's a Chinese plot; It's the scientists getting paid to adhere to the orthodoxy; Catastrophic meteor impacts have not happened for millions of years, so it's very unlikely that this one will hit us; God will save us, and so on. Those in power would rather use the crisis to increase their own power as opposed to actually doing anything constructive. Life would go on largely as it had been. The collective denial would be much more powerful compared to the push for collective action.

[King Of Dirk]

OK. I said that choosing to wear your politics on your hat (in a public mall in the nation's capital) is attention-seeking behavior. It's neither private behavior nor the opposite of what Greta is doing, as it was characterized in the comment I was responding to.

Same behavior. Same standard.

I also said he shouldn't be pulled back into the light by people who disagree with her.

And now, having attempted to re-re-dispose of the double standard, I will exit to my beer.

I appreciate the consistency and your point of view. I hope that beer was/is delicious, and that we can share a round one day.

[mzilliox]

Greta, and every other child, has a right to be angry. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone is offended by her "uppity attitude." Their generation and those that follow will see environmental degradation and resultant strife worse than we can imagine.

This is an existential threat, full stop. I live this issue day in and day out and have for 30 years. Look at the latest birds in North America analysis: 3 billion less. This is not only an extinction crisis , it is an abundance crisis in that its not just the most imperiled species that are in free fall, its all species. Pick any species' class - mammals, insects, invertebrates - they are all in a state of sharp decline, why? Because we, the most invasive species on earth, have decimated and devoured this place. Climate change is simply the cumulative effect of all that we are and for decades decision makers and world leaders have willingly, and knowingly refused to do anything meaningful to change the free fall trajectory of life on earth. They richly deserve to be lectured by children. And as I think King of Dirk said a few pages back, her anger is rightly directed at all of us as we all contribute, fundamentally there are too many of us consuming too much, particularly in first world countries. But truly those in power and those with the power to curtail political action, like the kingpins of coal and oil and gas, deserve most of the that punch.

The latest, saddest phrase among conservation biologists - dead species walking. Example: polar bears. The question, to which our actions in the next decade or so hold the answer, is whether **** sapiens sapiens is in that class. Disparaging a 16 year old girl for being scared for her future - classic case of shooting the messenger.

yeah, but shouldnt we just chill and revisit for a beer in a decade and laugh or something? i mean so what, its not like we are a dead species walking... oh wait, you mentioned that didnt you...

[King Of Dirk]

yeah, but shouldnt we just chill and revisit for a beer in a decade and laugh or something?

No way man, that level of basic human decency, camaraderie and respect would hinder a person's ability to take passive-aggressive swipes at the deplorables!

[caleb]

The collective denial would be much more powerful compared to the push for collective action.

Sometimes I wonder if the left hasn't enabled the collective denial by developing a tradition of letting people "evolve" instead of holding them to account for their words and actions. Joe Biden on busing and the crime bill are good examples. Obama on gay marriage, and Paul Wellstone voting for DOMA, too. Somehow they were all let back into the fold of polite company as people who got onto the right side of history.

But that charitable dynamic can also create its own perverse incentive among elites, i.e. why buck the trend now, when I can wait until the winds change, find religion, and all will be forgiven? I think there are plenty in the know-nothing/do-nothing climate caucus who know climate change is real, but they aren't going to stick their necks out because there's no anticipated cost for dragging their feet.

Maybe the internet could or will change that dynamic. It's going to be harder to just forget the past when it's all written out and there's plenty of video evidence. I'm guessing someone could pretty easily automate the creation of an archive of climate deniers, complete with quotes and video. The archive could also make it known that it's set up in future generations to auto populate with the deniers' future family trees, so that there will be no forgetfulness about the fact that great great grandpa was one of the people actively resisting change that could have alleviated suffering. Maybe if it were clear that our decisions right now are for keeps and forever we'd see very different attitudes among elites.

[ides1056]

Corso-

Thanks for taking the time to read the review.

Kate Manne was well worth listening to.

[Greg Costello]

Maybe the internet could or will change that dynamic. It's going to be harder to just forget the past when it's all written out and there's plenty of video evidence. I'm guessing someone could pretty easily automate the creation of an archive of climate deniers, complete with quotes and video. The archive could also make it known that it's set up in future generations to auto populate with the deniers' future family trees, so that there will be no forgetfulness about the fact that great great grandpa was one of the people actively resisting change that could have alleviated suffering. Maybe if it were clear that our decisions right now are for keeps and forever we'd see very different attitudes among elites.

Doesn't seem to be making a difference on say, impeachment standards or under what circumstances in year 4 of a presidential cycle it is ok to move a Supreme Court nomination forward. No one in politics seems the least bothered by indisputable proof of hypocrisy among "elites" and power brokers regardless of political affiliation. I do like the auto populate family tree feature though lest anyone ever forget.

We rail in moral outrage, and rightly so, at mass murder done for political gain and power; at ethic cleansing whether in the 1940s, 1990s or 2000s; at terrorist attacks on innocents. When death can be witnessed and actions immediately seen as an atrocity, humans react; sometimes we take meaningful action, other times we send thoughts and prayers. It's easy when there is an "other" who is the bad actor. It's easy when death is shoved in our face and the immediate cause apparent. Much harder when the deaths are here and there, of vague causality, often latent.

Thus we let off easy those whose callous disregard of decades of evidence of the impact of our intentional acts done for economic gain or convenience, whether its disposing of toxics that foul our water supply and air eventually causing cancer and other environmentally caused diseases, or the calculated disinformation that has stalled out meaningful action on climate change. These acts are and will continue to result in indiscriminate death around the world and the current response? We deny, we deflect, we throw up our hands - what can we do? Many of us will take small individual acts, others will disparage the "alarmists" including youth who see the future clearly, perhaps shaken by the notion that future generations will hold us accountable and that history will not be kind to us.

What we don't do, collectively, is deal with the threat appropriately. Rather than force our representatives and businesses to take action to protect us, our kids and future generations, we choose to vote for candidates who enable the polluters and natural resource campaign conributors because we prioritize other issues -
pro-life voters (I've always found that self selected label tragically ironic - how can you care for human life and fail to value all other life forms) or pro business growth or pro-whatever makes our immediate lives "better" etc., etc., while kicking the inconvenient environmental truths down the road.

Maybe we do this because dealing with something like climate change would force us to change our ways on such a massive scale that is just too inconvenient or maybe its because we lack the courage to accept responsibility for the harm we are causing particularly when the magnitude of that harm is hard to determine and much, not all of it, yet to come home to roost. With climate chanbe there's no crazy totalitarian with a swastika holding sway over an entire nation or foreigners hijacking airlines and throw bombs to blame - there's only us, well meaning folks trying to get ahead and live the good life. I don't think it's in our nature to have the degree of altruism necessary to make the immediate sacrifices necessary to prevent the possibility of disaster to future generations when most of us may not be living. The immediate and tangible trumps the projected and intangible.

Fatalistic outlook, yeah I guess so - too many years focused on evolution, population dynamics, ecosystem function, and thinking and observing animal behaivor, including the most clever of monkeys, **** sapiens sapiens. If I had to bet I would bet that **** sapiens as a species will get through this, but the cost will be very, very high and I'm not talking about $$.

[Greg Costello]

We rail in moral outrage, and rightly so, at mass murder done for political gain and power; at ethic cleansing whether in the 1940s, 1990s or 2000s; at terrorist attacks on innocents. When death can be witnessed and actions immediately seen as an atrocity, humans react; sometimes we take meaningful action, other times we send thoughts and prayers. It's easy when there is an "other" who is the bad actor. It's easy when death is shoved in our face and the immediate cause apparent. Much harder when the deaths are here and there, of vague causality, often latent.


If I had to bet I would bet that **** sapiens as a species will get through this, but the cost will be very, very high and I'm not talking about $$.

To put some numbers out there - a few years ago the WHO estimated that over 12 million people die each year from environmentally related causes. Granted WHO has an expanive view of causation, but still, that 2x, each year, as many as killed in the holocaust. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year concluded that due to climate change-related food shortages alone, the world could see a net increase of 529,000 adult deaths by 2050. Climate change could force 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 and poverty makes people more vulnerable to health problems.

[Dallas Tex]

I was looking for data on how much the earth temperature has actually increased in the last hundred years and how much it’s predicted to increase in the next hundred. Surprisingly most face-to-face interactions with staunch believers of climate change yielded a “I don’t know”. I’m just curious how many folks here could tell me (without checking google)?

Anyway, in my google search to find the numbers, I found this link speaking to past accuracy of past climate model predictions.

I’m generally not a big proponent of posting links in these discussions, but I’ll post it anyway. Definitely not looking for a huge back and forth debate or similar, would just like to hear your thoughts.

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up? - WSJ

[Matthew J]

Big money quietly takes a side in the debate.

As Climate Crisis Threatens to Put More Homes 'Literally Underwater,' Study Warns Big Banks Offloading Risky Mortgages Onto Taxpayers | Common Dreams News

Those taxpayers on the ‘no big deal’ side aren’t too worried about footing the bill, yeah?

[mjbabcock]

I was looking for data on how much the earth temperature has actually increased in the last hundred years and how much it’s predicted to increase in the next hundred. Surprisingly most face-to-face interactions with staunch believers of climate change yielded a “I don’t know”. I’m just curious how many folks here could tell me (without checking google)?

Anyway, in my google search to find the numbers, I found this link speaking to past accuracy of past climate model predictions.

I’m generally not a big proponent of posting links in these discussions, but I’ll post it anyway. Definitely not looking for a huge back and forth debate or similar, would just like to hear your thoughts.

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up? - WSJ

It isn’t much, but it also isn’t evenly distributed. The poles have seen marked changes, while the mid latitudes have seen less. That said, didn’t Texas just have two record breaking (like 4 feet of rain) rainfalls in the last three years?

[ides1056]

My wife lost fifty pounds gained by having two kids very simply: she ate half. That was it.

What can we do? Consume half. Everyone.

[Corso]

What can we do? Consume half. Everyone.

But drinking a 3-pack doesn't sound quite right...

[caleb]

I was looking for data on how much the earth temperature has actually increased in the last hundred years and how much it’s predicted to increase in the next hundred. Surprisingly most face-to-face interactions with staunch believers of climate change yielded a “I don’t know”. I’m just curious how many folks here could tell me (without checking google)?

In my neck of the woods - Minnesota, the northernmost state in the Lower 48 - much of our area is already beyond the 2.5*C threshold. It's not hypothetical; it's obvious by looking at the landscape. We're now growing corn on the Canadian border, which is 100+ miles north of where corn was grown even ten years ago. Or, we do not have consistent natural snow during the winter in Minneapolis. In order to ski, we've spent millions of dollars to make artificial snow. Minneapolis is now playing make-believe at winter, with a climate more like what Chicago had fifty years ago. I could go on with examples. This is my real life, and it's obvious that the world is radically different than 20 years ago.

This isn't some quiz show where it somehow matters if people can cite the exact degree. We have possums in Minneapolis now, although we never did before. Sometimes they freeze to death, sometimes they lose their ears or tails to frostbite, but they're here. A hypothermic possum on your doorstep that wants to get inside so that it doesn't die is more evidence than citing some temperature differential that the climate is changing. The change is concrete; it's here.

For those who are interested, here's a map from the Washington Post of average temperature change in the United States since 1895:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hange-america/

People in the south and southeast haven't seen the temperature change yet. But it's coming, and they're already seeing the storms. Up north, we're seeing it all the time.

[HorsCat]

People in the south and southeast haven't seen the temperature change yet. But it's coming, and they're already seeing the storms. Up north, we're seeing it all the time.

Anecdotal, but...

I have lived in Atlanta since 1998. About ten or so years ago, I noticed the buds on some trees starting to emerge about ⅔ of the way through January. I thought it odd at the time and chalked it up to an aberration. It has happened every year since. As well, we are days away from October and it still feels like summer here.

[thollandpe]

In my neck of the woods - Minnesota, the northernmost state in the Lower 48 - much of our area is already beyond the 2.5*C threshold. It's not hypothetical; it's obvious by looking at the landscape. We're now growing corn on the Canadian border, which is 100+ miles north of where corn was grown even ten years ago. Or, we do not have consistent natural snow during the winter in Minneapolis. In order to ski, we've spent millions of dollars to make artificial snow. Minneapolis is now playing make-believe at winter, with a climate more like what Chicago had fifty years ago. I could go on with examples. This is my real life, and it's obvious that the world is radically different than 20 years ago.

Wyoming is feeling the bite of climate change too. Especially the ski industry. This from a three-year-old piece in Powder Magazine:

“The snowpack from 7,500 to 11,000 feet has been below average since 1999, by 15 to 20 percent. It’s warming up earlier in the spring, two to three weeks ahead of schedule. The snowpack calendar used to run from mid-October to the middle of May, now it’s mid-November or early December to early May or late April. That’s a month and a half to two months less snow accumulation. That’s a big deal. Call it global warming or whatever you want, but there is some kind of change happening with the climate. It’s a whole new ballgame.”

Deep: The Future of Skiing in America | POWDER Magazine

The climate doesn't play politics, because it hits red-state Wyoming and blue-state California too:

In the media: IC3's Executive Director highlights impact of climate change on ski industry | Interdisciplinary Centre on Climate Change | University of Waterloo
How ski resorts in California are preparing for warmer winters - San Francisco Chronicle

The irony of the ski industry and climate change is the response, artificial snow. Making snow requires a big lineup of air compressors, which results in even more greenhouse gas emissions and a big fat energy bill. Often that energy bill will have a year-round demand charge, another cost that further imperils the viable operation of the business.

[vertical_doug]

I was looking for data on how much the earth temperature has actually increased in the last hundred years and how much it’s predicted to increase in the next hundred. Surprisingly most face-to-face interactions with staunch believers of climate change yielded a “I don’t know”. I’m just curious how many folks here could tell me (without checking google)?

Anyway, in my google search to find the numbers, I found this link speaking to past accuracy of past climate model predictions.

I’m generally not a big proponent of posting links in these discussions, but I’ll post it anyway. Definitely not looking for a huge back and forth debate or similar, would just like to hear your thoughts.

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up? - WSJ

3 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

Google Scholar
a link to the original papers

Hansen Senate Testimony, June 23, 1988
a link to the original testimony

The Guardian give a critique of the WSJ opinion piece. I also post the links to the original papers and testimony.
The WSJ piece definitely cherry picks the paper to show which data was wrong. Even then, the best they can say it is wrong in size not in direction.

More importantly, even in the original paper Hansen lays out areas which they haven't been able to model (ocean heat absorption etc) which may slow the rise.

Considering it is 30 years later, I'd say his predictions have held up remarkably well.

More importantly, people often cite source of funds for dismissing research findings. Using that criteria, aren't scientist for NASA/NOAA probably more neutral than people working for an institute which receives 40% of its funding from fossil fuel industry.

[Dallas Tex]

More importantly, people often cite source of funds for dismissing research findings. Using that criteria, aren't scientist for NASA/NOAA probably more neutral than people working for an institute which receives 40% of its funding from fossil fuel industry.

Yes, absolutely. Of course. ALL funding definitely comes with unseen, unwritten obligations on both sides. I’m not sure either side qualifies as ‘more neutral’ or immune the effects of funding decisions.