New Satellite Photos Show Climate Change Is Sweeping Europe

> Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or that it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data?

We're arguing that there is a difference between thorough scientific methods and carefully picking out selected data points to show a dramatic situation that isn't.

If you downvoted me, then show your math. At least I put mine out there.

Your freedom to move your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Climate change is hurting many worldwide, and it will get worse base on all available evidence. You are massively cutting the most basic of freedoms (food, water, and livelihood) by not fixing it.

You aren't allowed to drive drunk because it hurts others, and that's not authoritarianism. It's simply not allowing someone to harm others, just as climate change is doing to many.

I don't think any of the restrictions you mention should be called authoritarian. Nations and the world have made many things illegal in the name of the common good before, e.g. child labor, slavery and leaded gasoline: Taking away someone's "freedom" to poison society and nature with leaded gasoline is really _giving_ the freedom to live a healthy life back to everyone else.

All of the problems you have mentioned are solvable. And I think people's attitude towards environmental restrictions will change much more rapidly than you'd expect: https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow...

I agree that it appears unfair that only rich people would end up getting to fly, and that's because it is unfair: we're not used to income/wealth inequality having this particular effect of drastically restricting mobility anymore (though it's only been 50 years[1]).

On the other hand we are very accustomed[2] to inequality having drastic effects in virtually all other respects, including such fundamental ones as how long you live and if you get to have your own room. For both of these, some countries have specialized solutions to absorb some of the shock (e.g. Medicaid, socialized health care, public housing, rent control). I guess it's not inconceivable to have something similar for transportation, no doubt with the same limited effect on inequality as with health care and housing.

But inevitably, global warming is going to affect the lower income groups first and foremost. If we wait, the effects of global warming will just be worse, particularly for them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set [2] bizarrely so, in my opinion

We didn't care that we were not able to create 1:1 replacement jobs when we stopped making buggies and started making cars. I doubt the system will care this time either. I agree with you that convincing people to support these changes would be hard, but fortunately the economy will shift regardless of what the losers want. Electric vehicles are simply better, as are renewable energy sources and other growing technologies. What I'm more worried about is people voting for authoritarians that will artificially prop up dinosaur technology like coal power stations.

One thing I am finding really nuts is that, in spite of what we now know about climate change, North American drivers are currently thirsting for larger and larger, less fuel efficient, very expensive trucks and sport utility vehicles. Auto manufacturers are currently tripping over themselves to design and produce larger vehicles to satisfy that demand.

Given that, I have a really hard time reconciling the "we just can't do anything, sorry, it'll hurt our freedoms" attitude with the "I don't care about my CO2 output" attitude that is evident in the consumption behaviours of most people I see. It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride or immutable entitlement.

> Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?

It's not authoritarianism to simply increase taxes for kerosine to be more in line with car fuels. But the Gores and Schwarzeneggers like flying around the globe to Davos and other places to spread their message.

Solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, today.

There is no reason at all why humans can't continue to use a lot of energy and also cease pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. All that is required is that the changeover be made.

I also have found the combination of personal environmental impact reduction combined with a sort of "Pale Blue Dot" nihilism helpful in my everyday life.

(disclaimer: I am part of a Climate&Energy research group that does some economic modeling of this sort, though this particular solution is still being researched)

> We do not need to reinvent our economic systems, we just need to push back against the political power of a few established special interest groups that want to protect their current profit.

Ironically, with some of the better solutions (e.g. a Carbon Tax), fossil fuel companies may not actually see reduced profit, but that is not well understood by the industry since the reason is slightly subtle.

Since energy demand is relatively inelastic, increasing the price only slightly decreases consumer demand. While that by itself is technically a loss for energy companies, a sensible carbon tax also creates a secondary market to dispose of CO2. The majority of the additional consumer cost of energy is actually paying that secondary market to take the CO2. It turns out that disposing of CO2 is primarily an energy cost, which means the net demand for things like natural gas can actually go up.

At the moment, my personal favorite solution is to implement a "Carbon Rebate"--basically a revenue neutral tax. You tax CO2 emissions (probably at the source), and create a secondary market to offset emissions to avoid paying the tax. Any revenue from the tax is uniformly redistributed to consumers (perhaps as a tax credit), and you have the "tax" rate ramp up year over year. This establishes price discovery and creates an economic incentive to solve the problem without being significantly disruptive to either the industry or consumers (and somewhat exploits the prisoner dilemma). From a US-centric viewpoint, trade agreements would be required to enforce this tax on goods imported from other countries that are not subjected to an analogous carbon price. Since the import tariffs money would be redistributed to US citizens, it creates an incentive for those countries to adopt a similar policy.

> It would take a small political shift

Not sure about the green parties in other countries, but here in Belgium, they're good for one thing: opposition. It's crazy how much they live in their small echo chamber. The whole 'nuclear is bad' is killing us, their great plans to ban cars from city centers with circulation plans only seem to make traffic, traffic jams and co2 levels worse.

Their whole attitude is to change something and then thinking "people should just" - a phrase I hear a lot from them. Take the bike, live closer to work, use less water/electricity/..., work remotely, all live in cities, buy electric cars, ... Bullying people into doing something will not work, but that seems to be their main strategy.

Also, anti-vaxers, 'alternative medicine', essential oils, 'natural/bio, healthy gluten-free bullshit practitioners and 'mainstream science' skeptics seem to be a good portion of their target audience. Sadly I know more than a few examples of those, and the only thing I expect to happen from that political side is that they, with all the best intentions of the world, will just make it a lot worse.

We need a clear plan, backed by numbers and science to get where we want to go, and I don't see any political wing making a serious point about this. We need this yesterday.

I've not understood how this demonstrates unprecedented climate change, since presumably there is past precedent that laid the hungerstones in the first place. This seems to demonstrate this level of warming happened before in the medieval ages, before human caused global warming was possible. Wouldn't this mean hungerstones count as evidence against human caused global warming?

It's not like we have been wrong about this a hundred and twenty-three times before.

In 2014, "science" was telling us for sure that the big lakes would go dry in just a few years due to climate change effects [0].

It is 2019 now and the same lakes that were disappearing, less than five years ago, are now reaching record levels [1].

If something is wrong, someone has to do something, right? We can't just sit on our asses and wait. Hey, government! Go do something!

[0] - https://thinkprogress.org/the-great-lakes-go-dry-how-one-fif... [1] - https://www.weather.gov/mkx/highlakemichiganwaterlevel

That ignores the entire body of climate researches over many decades and probably millenia of person-years of research, ice cores, glacial/polar ice cap melt, etc. It seems like a valid point, but it really isn't.

edit: it really isn't. We know the current warming is without precedent in rate, and has an upper limit around the PETM (about 50 Ma). It's like someone who had never seen a car before presuming it was powered by ghosts. It maybe reasonable within their frame of reference, but it is their frame of reference that is flawed in an objective context.