Europe's record heat wave moves toward Greenland
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
The DOE says 3/4 of American homes have AC, and furthermore, AC uses 6% of all electricity generated in the United States, quite staggering imo and a lot more than I would have expected. Without AC, a lot of America would just be too unbearable to support some major communities.
[0] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/home-cooling-systems/air-...
That's not really an issue: "For a 2014 paper, Francisco Salamanca and colleagues at Arizona State University modeled the effects of air conditioning on surface air temps in Phoenix. They found a nighttime increase of about 2°F (and nothing much during the day)" [0].
If it is powered by gas or coal though, that wouldn't be good.
[0]: https://www.popsci.com/ask-us-anything-does-using-ac-make-it...
We are pretty impressive compared to most other species. One that holds it own, though, is the Yakutian horse [1], a native horse breed of Siberia.
They are kept outside year-round, dealing with temperatures of up to 38℃ (100℉) in the summer, and as low as -70℃ (-94℉) in the winter. That's a range of 108℃ (194℉).
Of course their human owners also handle those temperatures, but they need buildings and clothes and fuel to do it. They couldn't do it standing around naked in a field like the horses can.
A/C is one of the highest wattage circuits that homes have, and it runs for a lot more hours than similar circuits (hot water or cooktops/ovens).
Dunno if they even have measurable inrush demand from the mains as they have capacitors and can't turn on when they fail.
It would literally be a waste of money.
I wonder if window / removable units factor into the DOE's 75% number. From a real estate recordkeeping perspective, my home does not have AC, despite the previous owner permanently building a window unit into the side of the house. If they're not counted, the real number of American homes with AC could be well north of 75%.
This is what a typical catalog of A/C units looks like in Finland on couple of the largest online retailers:
- https://www.verkkokauppa.com/fi/catalog/10597c/Ilmastointila...
- https://www.gigantti.fi/catalog/kodin-tuotteet/ilmastointi-j...
Most ones are $500+ and out of stock for this summer, though I do see at least one "cheap" €499/$550 unit that is still in stock on the second link (Domair DOM100380). The more expensive ones and split heatpumps seem to be in stock as well.
I had a split A/C / heatpump installed in my apartment ~5 years ago for ~$2000 inc. installation. No permit was needed from the municipal facades committee as it is not visible from the outside (outdoor unit sits on balcony), just a permission from the housing company as a hole had to be drilled for the pipes. Without A/C indoor temperatures of well over 30°C (86°F) were typical for weeks during summers.
Huh? 2 months out of the year AC is required? Even if you can not, somehow, stand a week or two of 90-100 degree weather(with NO humidity!) without air conditioning, to months of required AC in Seattle seems like an insane exaggeration.
Hell, modern interior woodwork and wooden furniture's not meant to take the heat either, for the most part. No tolerances for it, no attention to grain and such.
I'm also well travelled, so well used to experiencing the joys of AC in hot countries.
Yet for some reason the thought of buying an AC unit (or even a fan!) has never once crossed my mind!
If I had thought of it though, I would expect the units to be expensive, and installation to be a pretty specialised (and therefore expensive) thing - the number of homes with AC in Scotland could probably be counted on one hand!
It's absolutely fucking horrible just now though, so I might at least look into it...
[1] https://www.homedepot.com/b/Heating-Venting-Cooling-Air-Cond...
Still better than nothing, and cheaper to buy / easier to use, but I'd hope this is one of those kind of tech we'll see replaced by something better rather soon-ish.
While a tipping point tips, government action is still conspicuously absent, and countries (well Russia and Canada mainly) are trying to nail their continental shelf claims in the Arctic for oil exploration.
But increasingly, I just look around, see the news, see the social media, and think why bother? Humanity will never be anything more than this. Things seem to be wrapping up, don’t have kids, don’t try to save the world, just savor what is left till it’s gone.
In the coming decades we will begin to see a loss in the knowledge of mankind, as people become more dependent on machines and fewer and fewer people know how to work them. Progress will begin to slow down, wealth will continue to consolidate, and people will be left working hard back-breaking jobs to sustain themselves. The world of the future will have more farmers and less engineers, and even fewer people who even understand code and how to write it.
I look at my children and their experiences growing up and it’s far better than mine ever were. If I had the choice I’d be born today.
The US has seen a sharp decline in children earning more than their parents. 90% of people born in 1940 earned more than their parents, compared to just 50% in 1985, a trend that we simply aren't doing enough to correct[0]. We're on our way to a new gilded age, but perhaps your kids will among the fortunate and not of the "useless class", as Yuval Harari would say.
As technology and AI continue to progress, it's going to become harder to educate and train the workforce, and perhaps more importantly, re-train them as human skills continue to fall into obsolescence. I look at my baby nephew and hope that he'll be able to find solid-paying work one day, but that just isn't a given anymore.
0: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/504989751...
Regardless of how hopeless our current position might seem to some, there is an absurd amount of sheer panic and terror that you just happen to be exposed to because you are on the internet.
It is a wild gnashing of teeth with little productive thought taking place.
Right now I see some fat kids with necks bent at 90 degrees staring mindlessly into a tablet watching some YouTube video of other people playing video games and shouting nonsense. Or babies and toddlers watching whole playlists of AI generated crap trying to get ad revenue.
These kids are not getting a good start in life. Wouldn’t be surprised if the end of their lives doesn’t look much different from the beginning.
The earth and climate are already driving each other. We disrupted a delicate balance, creating these positive feedback loops.
Usually positive feedback loops run until they exhaust the resources, unfortunately the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered in the oceans, permafrost and glaciers is absolutely massive, when these feedback loops exhaust their resources it’s going to be vastly different planet, and it’s going to happen a lot quicker than anyone expects, we are seeing the acceleration already.
The only thing that disrupt these feedback loops is a global event, like a super volcano erupting, or a huge meteor strike, but both would have devastating impacts to the current life on the planet.
[1] https://www.livescience.com/64546-greenland-ice-sheet-meltin...
Your link talks about how the rate of ice sheet melting is increasing (currently 4x what it was in 2003), so I'm not sure how you arrived at this statement. The whole problem is not that it was never melting in the past, it's that the melting is accelerating, and that even the rate of acceleration may be increasing due to feedback loops; that is what is threatening.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. My point is that we are way past the point of threats.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/05/daily-image/
Artic Sea Ice:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_iq...
Antartic Sea Ice:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_iq...
From: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2019/showyourstripes/
For the record, I drive an electric car and my house is supplied by a purely renewable provider here in the UK. I hate the thought of polluting the planet and I do what I can to live a green life. I really love science and study as much as I can, but reading about global warming is very different to reading about quantum electrodynamics or special relativity. I'll happily watch the oil companies go under and I think dumping tons of crap in to the atmosphere is clearly terrible and shouldn't go unpunished, I just wish I had some better data to back this all up.
Source: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature
Has anyone got good sea level rise data for the last 1,000 years? Again, when I read any article I feel like the sea must have risen by a few meters already as everything is so dramatic, but I can't find a decent dataset that sets out what has actually happened.
I think that the most immediate risks associated with climate change is not sea level rise, but it's extreme weather. We're seeing this in spades already.
It intuitively makes sense at some level: adding more energy to a somewhat chaotic/somewhat stable system (weather over the past 1000 years) will increase the chaos and lessen the stability.
To me, this article about heat moving toward Greenland is less of a cause/risk and more of a symptom. The fucked up jetstreams, caused by a relatively small global increase in temperature, is allowing this heat to move somewhere it would almost never be able to move previously.
I just don’t see how we’re getting out of this alive.
he then proceeded to buy investment property on the beach.
forgive me if i dont give a shit anymore.
The biggest, most gigantic problem, amongst many, is that the food supply seems in serious danger.
right now the most important is leader, but that's a concept not a thing
Rice yields are up 40% since 1988: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/riceyl...
Corn's up 60%: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cornyl...
Wheat is up 48% since '88: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/wwyld....
Cattle inventory looks steady: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Cattle/inv.php
Yeah...hmm, not seeing a reason to panic about food supply.
Food supply go up for now. Will they still go up after Peak Oil? Peak Energy?
These are effectively irrelevant because they are from the time when the climate was still largely the same as it has been for hundreds of years.
The question is - what will be the yields in a world in which the seasons are disrupted?
Even worst case predictions for climate change don't imply the human race will be threatened. But what we will see is massive geopolitical disruption as previously habitable regions become uninhabitable. What happens when coastal Myanmar is underwater or southern India experiences 130 degree days on a regular basis? Climate change is going to make itself felt over the coming decades as increases in migrant crises, regional conflicts, and famines. (Not to mention economic loss as, e.g., the agricultural viability of large areas changes.)
While the "dark ages" were hardly dark and ignorant, the collapse of the Roman empire meant advanced road building and concrete were lost for 1500 years. So there is some historical precedent here.
It’s not like every book in every library would or could disappear.
If you took someone who worked in a steel mill I bet they would have no idea how to produce steel from first principles. They know what their job entails, they know which bits of equipment need serviced an maintained but they don't know how to get from rocks to bar stock.
Similarly if you had a perfectly working steel mill and you cut the supply of coke or iron ore few would know how to get it up and running again. If you cut the supply of the alloying elements you might get a passable mild steel but not one to the exact specifications you require.
I think it's probably surprising how few vital links you have to cut before life as we know it breaks down.
I mean some obviously do https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/world-climate-ch...
here is someone who denies that it is an existential threat but provides a lot of nice links to people saying it is https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/04/i-denier-human-...
Forget about the geopolitcal issues, which will indeed be massive. What about food production?
In 2010 a single heat wave triggered the Arab spring revolts a couple of months later.
> The wildfires destroyed one-third of Russia's wheat harvest. The Russian government refused to export the rest of its harvest and set a grain export ban to fight inflation. This led to extremely high food prices, which led to panicking on the global markets. Many experts including from the International Food Policy Research Institute say that the Russian wildfires in summer 2010 played a leading role in triggering the Arab Spring starting in 2010, especially in Egypt's case. Higher food prices helped to make oppression, poverty, and corruption under autocratic leaders even more aching for the local population. Also, as Russia was not even a member of the WTO at the time, banning exports was not a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires
We are approaching a world were these kind of problems with food production will be globalized and will affect everything but specially the global economy.
That’s silly.
They grow lots of wheat in the US upper midwest, and it gets damn cold there in the winter.
But yes, you likely meant "we're" in the sense of the human race, or modern technological society. I really doubt that the human race is seriously at risk. Although global population could drop substantially. As part of modern technological society crashing.
So it goes. It was probably inevitable.
Edit: As with population boom-and-bust cycles, generally.
1) https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cornyl... 2) https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/riceyl...
Ok, so food looks safe and secure. Um, lets see, what are the other basic needs? Shelter? Water? We've had the rainiest year in 125 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/08/united-sta...
So uhh...water looks good. We also happen to find ourselves on a planet that's covered in 70% water...so there's always that as a back up supply...
Hmm...maybe our 21st century sensibilities require energy as a basic necessity. We've got tons of resources for energy (more than ever in history).
Hmm. I'm really not seeing a reason to panic.
EDIT: Sea level is rising at 3.3 mm a year: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Look, I do think some coastal communities may need to engineer some solutions to prevent damage, or some cities may need to "retract" inland...but it's not like ocean levels have ever been static. http://www.kwaad.net/SeaLevel-MiddleAges-LittleIceAge.html
Honestly, I don't care much, because I'll be dead.
But I do expect considerable lulz, before I die.
Although there's been some progress since -- such as improved energy efficiency, and dramatic increases in solar and wind generation -- it's been overall totally inadequate. We're still heading for civilization-threatening changes in global climate.
Am I not entitled to some "I told you so" lulz?
Also, the "I don't care much, because I'll be dead." attitude has arguably been common among US industrial management. That plus "Hey, we can make good money by gaming the changes."
Europe is already past its peak, and it already has some effects on its economy. (GPD is roughly proportional to the energy we spend: less energy, less stuff.) Unless we have some technological breakthrough, available energy will go down, and the economy will soon follow.
Malthus was wrong only because we found fossil fuels, allowing our crop yields to follow the exponential growth of the population (the growth used to be linear). If we're not careful, we could very well face a Malthusian collapse.Hmm.
> I'm really not seeing a reason to panic.
Certainly. Panicking only makes things worse. And the "time to panic" is precisely the time when we must not panic.
You can't survive on drinking ocean water. There's currently no energy-efficient process to remove salt and other impurities from unpotable water. That's a real issue.
Increased rainfall could be good, but could cause flooding and doesn't do much benefit when it's acidic.
There are ways to remove salt from ocean water. It's just almost always more expensive than extracting from the widely available fresh water sources on the planet.
As long as the water cycle is going, we'll still have fresh water.
Rainfall is good, but flooding is a localized issue. It's not a global concern. CO2 doesn't cause acid rain.
Now, enter climate change. Droughts are bad. Downpours (cf. rainiest year) are arguably worse, because they accelerate soil erosion. Many places have lost half or more of their arable soil over the past half century, and rebuilding soil takes many, many years. No soil, no harvest.
So I don't share your optimism. Perhaps there are high tech solutions to all of the above problems, but they're (currently) too expensive for most of the world.
It was up verbatim and got edited to appear less catastrophic.
And this:
"Scientists already know that the Greenland ice sheet is melting. But the hidden heat source originating from deep inside the Earth partially responsible for that melting has been a mystery. Now, researchers have pinned down evidence of that heat, revealing yet another force pushing glaciers into the ocean."
https://www.newsweek.com/puzzling-heat-deep-inside-earth-mel...
The Saga of Erik the Red from the 13th century tells us Grœnland was chosen as misleading advertising to get people to relocate there.
Only when there is that general understanding can people stop focusing on government as the path to solving this.
Unfortunately however almost everyone focuses on government and elections which is simply wasting more time.
And your response is precisely the problem - people think only government can solve this. But government has not, will not and cannot solve it.
We need to move beyond government as the solution.
The first step in that is to loosen up your certainty that only via government can anything large scale happen.
If you want to do that, you're gonna need to present some plausible alternatives... otherwise you're not truly "challenging" anything so much as saying "this is a belief you have that I will not provide any evidence to counter but merely point out."
Once many people come to accept the truth of this, many minds will think in directions other than obsessing about government and what it is not doing.
People tend to disagree very strongly with new ideas. You can see that right here - this thread is voted to the bottom of the HN topic. That's OK. It's an idea that once planted cannot be unthought - the government is not the solution. Let's start thinking of how we can solve this without any dependence on government.
Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us?
Besides, government or no, the only way to fix the problem is through collective action. Not destroying our environment needs to be a social norm. Whatever is required to stop the current train wreck needs to become mainstream. Otherwise, we'll just continue our merry way until our civilization collapses in a couple decades. Worst case, I'll be alive to see it.
So. Besides begging our governments to do something, what do you propose? Overthrow them? Obsolete them? Ignore them? How? What would we need to succeed?
We can vote with our wallets (or feet) all we want, if we don't get over 80% of the population onboard, it just won't work.
> Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us?
He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government, because the government isn't actually going to do anything (or at least not anything like enough).
So if you're going to argue with his position, I would ask you what evidence you see that the government will ever do anything close to enough to solve global warming? Because, as I look at the current situation, and the last 10 years, I'm with andrewstuart: government isn't going to get it done. That plan shows almost zero evidence that it will ever work.
Now, look, you should keep trying to get government to do what you think needs done. But don't put all your eggs in that basket, because it looks like it's a pretty lousy basket.
I'm asking what. By what should governments be replaced? How? What should we do?
I guess, if I were to pick one thing, I might say "install solar everywhere you can". Not only do you use less fossil-generated power, but you also help manufacturers ride the cost curve down, which makes more people consider installing it.
And by "everywhere you can", I mean some places were you can't actually install it, but you can nudge people that way. Suggest to your boss that they should install it at work. Mention it to the minister at church, or to the manager at the bar (or even both, if you regularly go both places).
Disclaimer: I don't have solar on my house yet...
To be clear: I believe in and support the notion that the government should set the rules (based on established science) and enforce the law. (No, not particularly with physical violence beyond that needed for incarceration of gross offenders.)
The first issue is that everyone else thinks only government can solve this. If you say governments can't, but have no other solution, you're essentially saying "no-one can do this." Which, while depressing, isn't going to achieve much.
The second issue is that, clearly, governments could actually fix this. They most likely aren't going to. But the capital and human investments needed aren't impossible. It's not like a neolithic tribe building a computer for example. Resolving global warming is actually possible with our current resources and technology.
Really? We'd all love to see a plan.
Or by "resolving" did you mean "holding it to only a 2 degree rise"?
> They most likely aren't going to.
Yeah... I think that's kind of andrewstuart's point. They aren't going to. So, given that they aren't going to, what's the next move?
> You seem to be missing out the bit describing which non-governmental actor can fix this.
andrewstuart may not know. I certainly don't. But if the government isn't going to fix it, then the correct move is to stop expecting that the government is going to fix it. I don't know what else to do, you don't, and andrewstuart doesn't. But maybe we ought to start thinking like we've got to figure out how to solve it, because the government isn't going to.
Might work if you throw lots and lots of nuclear reactors into the mix. It's less dangerous than most people think, and is most likely the most efficient way to amortise the energy shortage induced recession.
(Renewables still need massive investment, I'm just saying they likely won't be enough.)
Prioritize. Food, shelter, health. Everything else is expendable. Accept an unprecedented, long term recession on the order of 10% per year, possibly a bit less if we're lucky.
That's the easy part. The hard part is doing that without having a civil war (or just plain war) on your hands. We most probably need to come up with a convincing story where the economy slows down drastically, and we're all happier than we are now.
There's one little snag, though: this plan necessarily involves reducing inequalities. We cannot afford the richest of us. The problem is that they are rich and have a lot of influence. They will throw the army at us (possibly by asking the politicians whose election campaing they funded).
So what is the alternative you are suggesting?
Governments are the only ones with the necessary leverage. Even if we have to wait for some country to elect a Green party government, or there be enough XR style demonstrations disrupting the economy that they have to act.
New ideas are needed.
Clearly government has failed to solve this. And when there's a problem that needs solving, and the current 'solution' ain't working, well you'd be crazy to stick with that being 'the solution' wouldn't you?
What are your new ideas?
Governments aren't very good at difficult problems, but it's not impossible, and we can't give up.
Note that we don't need universal agreement, check out Nordhaus' carbon club.
Thus far governments have been unwilling to solve it. They need to be pressured though political activism and mass protests until the problem for them becomes too inconvenient to ignore.