May is Earth's hottest on record
sciencealert.com
sciencealert.com
Thats a horrible idea. See ocean acidification on Wikipedia.
What we need to invent is cheap, dense, mobile batteries. No amount of blustering by Elon Musk can mask the fact that we can't store electrical power anywhere near as easily, lightly (meaning we need the ability to pack it up and move it around), and small. Yes you can fix it with $50k cars, but electrical cars could be $10k and even less if we assume magic perfect batteries. That'd be great and will get almost every gasoline car of the road.
Batteries are currently about 10% as dense either per liter or per kilogram. A bit of this can be made up because the infrasstructure to "burn" electricity is much simpler and therefore lighter than the infrastructure needed to burn gasoline. So let's say they're 20-25% as dense for locomotion purposes (this makes them not work for powering lights or factories or ... at night though). So we need batteries 4x smaller and lighter than current batteries. Assuming the current rate of improvement in batteries, that would require about 20-30 years (improvement per year is about 5%).
So that's just not good enough. Please invent something to fix it. If we can store energy efficiently, co2 release per year will stabilize probably on less than 10% of it's current value.
I love this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI
It's my favourite episode of the daily show.
The oil industry already gets insane incentives at taxpayer cost. I don't feel like adding to them.
So, for example, electric cars are incredibly useful even if they have the same carbon footprint as combustion cars simply because they move the pollution source to a single point (the power plant).
In addition, there is not a lot that an individual can do that will dramatically affect his carbon footprint. Neighborhoods don't magically become walkable or bikeable. Businesses don't magically implement work-from-home because a low-level employee wills it (see: Yahoo).
Most carbon reducing solutions require buy-in from a group of people, and that takes forever, if you can get them to agree at all.
I don't buy that, that attitude I largely why we're in this situation.
It's the individuals which make up the whole, if each individual did something, then the whole would be better off.
I would say that now is time to panic, but the time to panic was twenty years ago. Perhaps the West will pass from 'apathy' directly to 'resignation' and skip 'panic' altogether. Bring on the apocalypse!
[0] https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/742668462699499520
"How do you have audacity not worrying about our problems", you're probably selfishly asking. Well, I've never seen much caring about my problems.
Important to remember that "Earth" is a valid answer for where you live, as well.
Does it enter the short-list of problems important for me? Definitely not.
Do I think that sticking with pre-industrial climate is the only option? Frankly I don't. Stanislav Lem with his promised palm trees in Greenland is still vivid.
Just saying that because my point of view got to be represented.
Or maybe quite contrary, it's only people of certain coasts that think our current climate was optimal.
Yes we share a common Earth, but we do have conflicting interests on it.
True. But here I was thinking that we're above wanting to cut down the expense on heating for few million of our neighbours at the expense of fucking over the lives of several billion.
And that's what they get for no effort. Do you seriously expect them to show effort for bringing their climate back to worse?
Do you seriously think that any minority should be screwed over just because a larger set of people might benefit from this? For example, imagine they find a deposit of fertilizer on some tropical island. A lot of people could benefit from that fertilizer (and especially the few involved in this operation), should we just confiscate the island? After all, there's just a few thousands of inhabitants, who can be easily moved to a camp in some desert.
It would be a damn shame if technological civilization collapsed into war and famine just because the average temperature on the planet rose a few degrees. But it feels quite likely.
If it's going to happen, then it happens. I'll be reading the news all the way, but really the only thing I can do is to be prepared for the worst.
They may not get there, but at the very least, the measures required to keep them out (police state?) will probably affect you negatively.
Climate change is pretty nice this year. If it wasn't obviously bad, I'd be cheering China and other "developing" countries on. The "West" has nothing on them.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...
Seems to me this is a world wide issue, that calls for a world wide solution.
Actions speak louder than words, after all.
Statistics like these don't account for a countries carbon footprint relative to population; there's no way that Poland, with a GDP of $13k per capita, produces fewer CO2 emissions than South Africa with a GDP of $6k per capita. But it is likely that South Africa has more manufacturing and mining operations to support exports.
This is a global problem, trying to scapegoat any one country is a really bad idea.
But, in any case, if we really wanted to do something about climate change, it wouldn't be difficult. The US is currently negotiating trade deals which would cover about two thirds of the global economy.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=SUM+GDP+Australia+Brun...
All they need to do is include a minimum carbon price, or a requirement to meet the Paris targets, in those deals. You don't need that much of a push for the weight of the global economy to drive forward the alternative technologies. It's not a question of who is going to take the most punishment, it's a question of applying the right pressure so that solar, electric vehicles, etc have the scale to become cheaper than current technologies. And if enough countries undertake that together, they will be leaders in those new industries.
Anything to avoid actually doing anything.
I understand that sea levels will rise, we'll lose some land, have to relocate some people, and weather events will become a lot more violent and energetic. But we're not looking at human extinction?
I really have no influence over global warming, so the only thing I can do is prepare for the fallout.
> a "runaway greenhouse effect" -- analogous to Venus -- appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities. [1]
That line actually serves to frame the discussion in the linked paper: we won't befall the same fate as Venus, but they instead discuss other impacts that are more likely and require our consideration.
From what little I understand: the earth has a lot of carbon dioxide and methane sequestered in permafrost, deep water, and ice. As the average temperature increases, the rate at which these gases are released also increases. So we're in a fairly dangerous positive feedback loop, because it doesn't take much of a temperature change for a lot of the places we live to become uninhabitable.
We know from past experience that previous temperatures are tolerable. If we do not know for sure what would happen with temperatures higher than what we have experience for (if we think it could be somewhat good, but could also be completely devastating), then it is safer to not go to higher temperatures than previously experienced, at least until we have sufficient evidence that higher temperatures would be beneficial, or at least not devastating.
The scientific consensus currently seems to be that the chances of it being devastating are pretty high, and are higher than the chances of it being good instead by the same degree, and therefore, it seems best to avoid the increase in temperature.
That principal is completely unscientific. It's exactly like using Pascal's Wager to convince people to believe in God.
There exist rational arguments to make on behalf of climatic change being an issue, but that is NOT one of them.
What do you mean by this? The principle as I understand it is about what is a good idea to do, not a statement of what will or will not happen in a given situation.
As such, I wouldn't expect it, or things that handle the same questions, to be scientific.
What would it mean for something that plays a similar role to be scientific? (or alternatively, to be not unscientific, if those aren't the same thing.)
> What do you mean by this?
I mean that (and as somebody who believes climatic change is real) the PP is unscientific. It makes intuitive sense to people but deep down it makes no sense at all. It can be used to create infinite technological conservationism for example.
Let's look at Pascal's Wager. Directly from Wikipedia it is:
1. Pascal argues ... if God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).
2. Pascal argues ... whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
The precautionary principal is Pascal's Wager because it follows the same logic.
1. If Climate Change does not exist, then people will only suffer a finite loss (some types of technology, luxury, taxes).
2. Whereas they receive for practical purposes infinite gains if the planet continues to be a livable environment for humans and avoid infinite losses (the earth broiled to completion aka Venus-Earth aka actual hell).
Anything can be justified under Pascal's Wager, from charity to the Crusades, depending on the rhetorical power and motivation of people trying to persuade us to do things. It is worth noting for example, that the precautionary principal was used in arguments that succeeded in the ban of the use of nuclear energy in my country and many others in Europe, but that nuclear is now returning as people realize it's a good fit for preventing further CO2 emissions. Whether you believe in climate change or not is not important here, you have got to find this disconcerting! How can a technology destroy and save the earth at the same time? The answer is that the world is a complex system and not every choice we make reduces to a dualism.
> The principle as I understand it is about what is a good idea to do, not a statement of what will or will not happen in a given situation.
It is neither a good heuristic for policy nor a scientific principal. This is because as I've said, it is illogical. It generates contradictory conclusions. My hunch is that there exists a class of intellectual ideas that predictably lead to a form of civilizational scale suicide. You see it in the present with the Hale-Bop people, with ISIS today, with the Khmer Rouge and so forth. There is a precautionary principal logic behind their evil, which boils down to the simple: If We Don't Do This (terrible deed) Then It Will Be Worse Later.
I don't think that the people who use the PP in debates understand that they inevitably go to the same place as Ted Kazinksy if they take the principal seriously and not merely for rhetorical affect.
> What would it mean for something that plays a similar role to be scientific?
It is simple: it must not fail the test of being able to repeatedly make predictions and test them. There are lots of things that are not science but clothed in scientism by people trying to advance their aims, often with ulterior motives.
> As such, I wouldn't expect it, or things that handle the same questions, to be scientific.
Then you're particularly clear headed and we don't disagree but believe me many people in the world think the PP is a scientific principal. In another post somebody described this quality as the 'truth-adjacent'. It's something that happens when you mix science with politics or the media get hold of something.
I forest or a city located where there will no longer be an ample water supply 20 years hence can't just teleport.
But I don't think you can seriously put this forth as an argument that rapid climate change will have a net positive benefit for human welfare.
Also, no such bright side exists for forests and wetlands.
I personally think it will have a net positive effect. It's already forcing us to invest in renewables which means the economic depression from running out of oil will be less.
Rapid climate change is not as rapid as you may think: https://www.quora.com/profile/Richard-Muller-3/answers/Clima...
Another is that rising water levels means flooding coastal areas, which means mass-scale migrations of people who lived there, which will probably end up in wars, famines and generally whole lot of crap for everyone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Pass_S-1_of_Saint_P...
Of course we aren't 100% sure. Some of the dire predictions may not come true. Some may be worse.
But we have some idea what will happen to various parts of the world when the temperature hits +2.0C, +3.0C, and so on, and it ain't pretty.
I'm for one excited for arctic shipping as it's a huge shortcut between the northern Atlantic and eastern Asia. But at the expense of famine or war brought upon by competition of resources in a changing climate? It's a risky game.
In other words, May 2015 was the warmest May on record, June 2015 was the warmest June on record, same for July 2015, August 2015, September 2015, October 2015, November 2015, December 2015, January 2016, February 2016, March 2016, April 2016, and now May 2016.
Brand, for those unfamiliar, was a key player in the personal computer revolution of the 1970's. He created the "Whole Earth Catalog", which inspired many of the internet's pioneers, and was a hero of Steve Jobs. He later helped create "The Well" -- the first big online community, and was present at countless other cultural moments like the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests, and the forming of the Green movement.
The Whole Earth Discipline chronicles his early participation in the environmental movement, and how he's diverged from that movement over the years.
It's presented as a pragmatic guide for addressing climate change and explores things like urbanization, genetic modification of food, and nuclear power -- and how these things need to be reconsidered by environmentalists.
1: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6411373-whole-earth-disci...
One of the first major cultural moments he participated in was the "Mother of All Demos" - he was the camera operator at Engelbart's Augmentation Research Center in Menlo Park. This was the experience that turned him on to personal computing.
Sigh. It's not as if we were clueless about the effects of emissions 20 years ago, already
Pick a per-capita number and stick to it. Anything else is hypocrisy.
"Meat production is a major contributor to climate change. It is estimated that livestock production accounts for 70 per cent of all agricultural land use and occupies 30 per cent of the land surface of the planet. Because of their sheer numbers, livestock produce a considerable volume of greenhouse gases (such as methane and nitrous oxide) that contribute to climate change. In fact, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that livestock production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases."
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/food-and-our-plan...
(David Suzuki is a biologist and climate change activist here in Canada)
Reducing meat production would help, certainly. But it ain't a blocking requirement to getting global warming under control.
As an aside, while I'm choosing to accept that 18% number, counting methane in that list is a bit misleading as, while it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas, it has a far shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than CO2.
It seems like fixing 82% of the problem is more important and likely than eliminating an essential protein source from the human diet. But that's just my opinion.
Also, I'm willing to limit use of coal, oil, and natural gas. I'm not willing to eat less steak.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.V2WuH8tl...
Can you provide a source for that claim? Thanks
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/polar-vortex-to-v...
Changes in weather patterns brought about by melting arctic ice has brough cold arctic winds south over much of the US.
>Many large users of carbon resources in electricity generation, such as the United States, Russia, and China, are resisting carbon taxation. (Wikipedia)
How will it affect daily life? I've never seen it put in these terms and frankly it seems daily life would stay the same. Wouldn't mind being proved wrong.
https://www.quora.com/What-will-happen-if-global-warming-con...
Consider this. Where I grew up there were birds around every summer that laid eggs. They need a certain temperature range. If it grows hotter or colder they need to migrate south/north.
What happens if the landscape north/south doesn't have any craggy mountains where these birds can build nest? It's all ocean, both northwards and southwards.
Ditto the fish the fishermen used to fish. In principle it can migrate a few kilometers, but the ocean is different a bit further north. Can't swim from the surface to the bottom.
Quite a lot of species get yanked hard by having to move a little. And when 99% of a some species birds disappear, that affects their predators, and it affects the other species preyed upon by the same predators. Before you know it, the grass changes because the grazing species do, and there are landslides where none used to be.
The house where I spent my first month might be at risk of a rock slide. The spot has been safe for a millenium, but might not be any more.
Or the rains flow off differently towards the rivers because of the vegetation changes, and you get droughts where none used to be, or flash floods.
Or, or, or... a few degrees of extra heat and there are a lot of things that can have a surprisingly large impact. We will need a lot of luck to avoid all of the badness.
Are wild animals necessary for daily!y life?
I've already moved a few times in my life. Moving once more is not that frightening to me.
2. Your chance of contracting an infectious disease that used to only live in the tropics will be higher.
3. Depending on where you live it will either be much dryer or much wetter rather than more temperate.
4. Obviously, at that point, energy prices will have to be much higher as there won't be as many fossil fuels. Or else we would have transitioned to renewable sources/nuclear by then.
5. If we're talking about even more worse case scenarios, there's the death of large chunks of life in the ocean as corals will have been bleached and the fish that live there died. Also runaway algae blooms, deaths of birds and other animals that used to live on those now dead fish.
6. Areas near the equator, like the middle east, that supply important resources will be basically uninhabitable for large parts of the year if not the entire year.
7. Areas in the far north that are covered in permafrost will turn into swamps/bogs instead. Also, in some projections, places in Europe that are warmed by the N. Atlantic stream may end up being much cooler and similar to other places at similar latitudes (e.g. Canada/Russia).
But again, many of these are unlikely to happen until late in the 21st century, so you're likely going to not be alive then anyways.
Not including the fish one since it doesn't really affect daily life IMO, or the oil price one since that is just what happens when you run out of something and not a consequence of GW, IMO.
Seems like only daily life effect of GW (assuming you migrated to somewhere else over the course of 50 years) will be higher food prices. Though I'm also curious if over time innovation will make that change rather insignificant.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-co2-hit-...
At least fund research to have some plan and prototypes. Maybe that should have priority over article citing business :-P.
The only thing stopping it is the affluents, nothing else.
FaceTime and like software alone have so vastly increased our family's access to each other across global distances that it's hard to put a number on, let alone having pocket access to the wealth of the world's information nearly instantaneously.
Yes, there are concerns as you mention, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would roll back the way things work now. I'm willing to bet many people would give up cars and meat before the Internet and related technologies.