This thread is just to post interesting news, thoughts, opinions about climate change.
Line gets fuzzy though.
That's why people break down the 77-83 or so group into a sub group. They have that independent play outdoor upbringing without Internet like Xers that a lot of millennials don't. But they had Internet as a teenager and are more acclimated to computers, email, etc than those older Xers, fit in with millennials more. And lots of other things but that's some general stuff I've seen repeatedly.
tuffalobuffalo wrote:I believe the biggest heartbreak to come next will be chinook salmon going endangered. It's going to happen sooner or later.
Well, then stop eating them? ;)
In all seriousness, I feel like I'm living in the twilight era of fishing for Chinook salmon. I figure I'll enjoy the last few years of fishing for them before it all gets shut down.
That's why people break down the 77-83 or so group into a sub group.
Skipped Showers, Paper Plates: An Arizona Suburb’s Water Is Cut Off
Sounds like an Onion article. “Arizona homeowners surprised by lack of water in the desert”.
Skipped Showers, Paper Plates: An Arizona Suburb’s Water Is Cut Off
Top commenter wrote:Sounds like an Onion article. “Arizona homeowners surprised by lack of water in the desert”.
Chapter 1 of The Water Knife.
To prevent unsustainable development in a desert state, Arizona passed a law in 1980 requiring subdivisions with six or more lots to show proof that they have a 100-year water supply.But developers in Rio Verde Foothills have been sidestepping the rule by carving larger parcels into sections with four or five houses each, creating the impression of a miniature suburbia, but one that did not need to legally prove it had water.
Here's the important bit. The developer cheated the system and left everyone else holding the bag. I would say sue them for damages but I would bet whatever entity built these houses has long since been dissolved.
Was this the same place that refused to add "more government" or was that yet another AZ burb running out of water?
Pretty sure that was this place since they are an unincorporated area. The thing is if they would allow Scottsdale to incorporate them the city would be obligated to make water accessible to them but given the area this is in I can guess the average mentality at work here. Better to die thirsty than a big government liberal.
Was this the same place that refused to add "more government" or was that yet another AZ burb running out of water?
Appears so.
When some proposed forming their own self-funded water provider, other residents revolted, saying the idea would foist an expensive, freedom-stealing new arm of government on them. The idea collapsed. Other solutions, like allowing a larger water utility to serve the area, could be years off.
Rising seas threaten ‘mass exodus on a biblical scale’, UN chief warns
An increase in the pace at which sea levels are rising threatens “a mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale”, the UN secretary general has warned.
The climate crisis is causing sea levels to rise faster than for 3,000 years, bringing a “torrent of trouble” to almost a billion people, from London to Los Angeles and Bangkok to Buenos Aires, António Guterres said on Tuesday. Some nations could cease to exist, drowned under the waves, he said.
Addressing the UN security council, Guterres said slashing carbon emissions, addressing problems such as poverty that worsen the impact of the rising seas on communities and developing new international laws to protect those made homeless – and even stateless – were all needed. He said sea level rise was a threat-multiplier which, by damaging lives, economies and infrastructure, had “dramatic implications” for global peace and security.
There's a good book on this topic, written by a science journalist. Nomad Century, by Gaia Vince. Ironically, handled correctly, these migrations will be an incredible economic and social boon to the countries that properly prepare for them. A nightmare for those that don't.
So, nightmares for everyone. Got it.
Sigh. Pretty much.
Global efforts to respond to climate change are so far insufficient, making it time to begin studying technologies to reflect sunlight away from the Earth to cool it down temporarily, said a new report from the United Nations published on Monday.Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the only way to permanently slow global warming, but worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are currently “not on track to meet the 1.5° Celsius Paris Agreement goal,” the U.N. Environment Program said in a written statement accompanying the release of the report.
With the world not responding to climate change urgently enough, a “speculative group of technologies” to reflect sunlight back away from the Earth have been getting more attention recently, UNEP said in a written statement accompanying the report. This category of technologies is often called solar radiation modification (SRM) or more broadly solar geoengineering.
The report on these technologies, written by an expert panel brought together by the U.N. program, advised that it’s currently not a good idea to use them in an effort to respond to climate change.
However, “this view may change if climate action remains insufficient,” the report said, signaling that it’s time for rigorous study of both the technologies and the potential international governance.
A similar message came from a group of more than 60 scientists in an open letter that was also (coincidentally) published on Monday.
Fast and doable, but potentially dangerous
Solar geoengineering “is the only known approach that could be used to cool the Earth within a few years,” the U.N. report said, and would cost tens of billions of dollars per year per degree of cooling.While the technology to inject large quantities of aerosols into the upper atmosphere does not exist today, it’s not seen as being terribly complicated: “No show-stopping technical hurdles have been identified,” the U.N. report said, and it could be “developed in under ten years.”
Scientists know it works quickly, citing the drop in the global average temperature after large volcanic eruptions have spread large quantities of aerosols into the upper atmosphere. These observations of volcanic activity provides “strong evidence that a deliberate injection of large amounts of reflective particles into the stratosphere would cool the Earth rapidly,” the U.N. study said.
“If global warming at some point produces outcomes widely seen as intolerable (e.g. widespread famines, mass migration, mass mortality and destruction of infrastructure) an operational SRM deployment as part of a ‘planned’ emergency response might be able to alleviate some of this suffering within a few years,” according to the report.
But the techniques can also be dangerous.
For example, sulfur dioxide is commonly proposed as an aerosol, but that practice would result in acid rain, the report warned. It also could increase ozone depletion. Specifically, “Antarctic ozone hole recovery could be delayed by a couple of decades and the ozone hole could become deeper in the first decade of SAI [stratospheric aerosol injection] deployment,” the U.N. report said.
So solar geoengineering could be considered a one-time shot to mitigate extreme suffering and death caused by climate change.
Or sunlight-reflection technology could become part of a “phased” longer-term strategy to buy more time to aggressively and permanently reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The risk of rogue actors
Regardless, experts concede that we just don’t know enough about the side effects of these technologies.“We only have one atmosphere. We cannot risk further damaging it through a poorly understood shortcut to fixing the damage we already caused,” wrote Inger Andersen, the executive director of UNEP, in a forward to the study.
And right now, there is not enough reliable information to make an informed decision.
“The review finds that there is little information on the risks of SRM and limited literature on the environmental and social impacts of these technologies,” Andersen wrote. “Even as a temporary response option, large-scale SRM deployment is fraught with scientific uncertainties and ethical issues. The evidence base is simply not there to make informed decisions.”
In addition to needing rigorous scientific study, the report added there needs to be a globally coordinated governance strategy for any potential use of solar-geoengineering technology.
But the relatively low cost — it can be deployed for as little as $20 billion per 1 degree Celsius of cooling per year — means it is “within reach” of many countries and organizations, opening the possibility of a “rogue deployment,” the report said.
The United Nations could be a leader in global discussions of solar geoengineering conversations, the report said, noting that not having international cooperation and governance is potentially dire.
“One can assume that there will never be universal consensus in the broader community on an SRM deployment, which means that communities, nations and societies opposed to SRM deployment would be exposed to its effects against their wishes, raising ethical and legal concern,” the study said.
Time for Mr. Burns' sun shade
While the technology to inject large quantities of aerosols into the upper atmosphere does not exist today, it’s not seen as being terribly complicated: “No show-stopping technical hurdles have been identified,” the U.N. report said, and it could be “developed in under ten years.”
Scientists know it works quickly, citing the drop in the global average temperature after large volcanic eruptions have spread large quantities of aerosols into the upper atmosphere. These observations of volcanic activity provides “strong evidence that a deliberate injection of large amounts of reflective particles into the stratosphere would cool the Earth rapidly,” the U.N. study said.
"It's not seen as terribly complicated" + "No technical hurdles have been identified" = "Hey y'all, watch this!"
We're either going to use too much of it and cool the Earth too fast, or we'll use the right amount but it doesn't leave the atmosphere at the rate we think it should and every year the planet keeps getting cooler and cooler. Either way, we get a shiny new ice age.
When are we going to figure out that trying to find a "quick fix" for complicated problems is a really, really bad idea when we can't be a hundred percent sure what we're doing?
And it still does nothing to address the other problems associated with higher CO2 concentrations, as well as glosses over the drawbacks to decreased sunlight.
It's a stupid, short-sighted "solution" that fixes nothing and just creates new problems.
But the world as a whole has rejected the logical way to solve the issue so is this the best of terrible options? Or should we just do more nothing?
Come on now, let's have some humility here. None of us have the skills or knowledge to adequately assess how smart/dumb an idea it is.
I'm largely on the side of "how can we minimize how f*cked we already are?" and make no mistake, we're gonna be pretty damn f*cked, so all options should be on the table.
And let's remember no-one is suggesting that as the ONLY solution. It would potentially be one of many, many solutions, all of which would be needed to address various aspects of how f*cked we are
As far as humility goes, sure, I'll defer to the folks who specialize in biochem and climate who know far more than I ever will regarding the actual impacts of increasing CO2 and decreasing sunlight throughput. I'll also acknowledge that my reaction is more to the idea of short-term action -- reading the article more carefully and also associated write-ups on the discussion showing that it's more that scientists are pushing for a careful study of the proposal over a ~10 year period gives me a little less fear of a kneejerk overcorrection.
I've just run across too many overly-simplistic takes on how to "fix" global warming and am primed to react with strident skepticism.
I mean, the article says the report says "We can do it, but we should wait until the problems are so great that millions are dying directly from climate change effects". This is more of a last-ditch effort than anything reasonable.
Warnings About Humanity’s Future Don’t Get More Dire Than This
Today the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is releasing what may become a pivotal document of human progress—or lack thereof, if we don’t heed its warnings. It’s a “synthesis” report, summarizing the findings from the six previous IPCC reports that laid out the science of climate change, like how the food system spews greenhouse gas emissions and how the oceans and polar regions are transforming. The report is a full-throated call for the massive—yet doable—changes our species must enact to limit the damage that comes with each fraction of a degree of warming. It’s a temporary adieu of sorts, as the next climate report from the IPCC won’t land for at least another five years.
“There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all,” the report notes. “The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years.”
The more warming occurs, the harder it will be to mitigate it—to preserve human health, agriculture, and the natural world. Some effects, like the collapse of ecosystems, will be irreversible. “The Synthesis Report underlines how important it is to not only accelerate climate action, but to do it in a way that helps everyone in the world, not just those in the wealthiest countries and regions,” said report coauthor Christopher Trisos, director of the Climate Risk Lab at the African Climate and Development Initiative, in a statement.
The science of climate change is “unequivocal,” the report stresses: We’ve already warmed the planet by 1.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—spawning fiercer wildfires, heat waves, droughts, and storms, which are killing people and destabilizing ecosystems. But just how much the planet will keep warming, and how quickly, depends on a full deck of wild cards, such as future economic development and poorly understood feedback loops like permafrost thawing and carbon release. Scientists also don’t have a good handle on the global influence of the aerosols produced by burning fossil fuels, which tend to cool the atmosphere—if we decarbonize (and we must), we might actually lose some of that air conditioning.
Still, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we’re going to blow past the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. To avoid that fate, we’d have to cut emissions in half by 2030. In fact, emissions are increasing, the report notes. “By now, even the most optimistic among scientists think that that train has left,” says Claudia Tebaldi, a climate scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, who was a lead author on a previous IPCC report but wasn’t involved in the new synthesis. “We may be able to return to 1.5, but we would need a miracle to be able to stay below 1.5.”
Call me cynical, but by this point I'm taking it for granted that remediation is not going to happen and we're going to get the worst case scenario.
Yeah, this is all going down as badly as expected. Glad I chose not to have children. The only question is if I will be displaced from my home or killed due to the ideal location I am living within my lifetime.
Climate change: Catalonia in grip of worst drought in decades
In the Sau reservoir, teams in small boats are hard at work hauling out fish with nets. The idea is to remove them before they die and rot in the water, making it unusable for human consumption.
The water level has dropped so low here - to below 10% of the reservoir's capacity - that there is already a risk the water will be contaminated by silt. Therefore, while the fish are removed, Sau's remaining water is being emptied downstream to another reservoir.
"We are trying to transfer the water as quickly as we can, because the quality right now in the winter was good [but] in the spring it will become really, really bad, and we're trying to extract all the fish we can find there," said Samuel Reyes, director of the Catalan Water Agency (ACA).
The Sau reservoir, 100km (about 62 miles) inland from Barcelona, has been supplying water to the city and other towns in the north-eastern region of Catalonia for half a century. But in recent months it has become the most visible symbol of the worst drought this area has seen in living memory.
That is because of the now-notorious sight of the 11th Century church of Sant Romà de Sau, which was submerged when the reservoir was created in 1962.
In times of abundant rain, the building - situated in the reservoir - sat below the water level, but it now stands several metres above the waterline, surrounded by parched earth.
Yeah saw a meteorologist on Twitter last night. It was like 23 inches of rain in 7 hours at the airport. Insane.
In the last election, 64.5% of the citizens of Ft Lauderdale voted Blue. Coincidence? I think not!
Re: Ft. Lauderdale, from CNN:
Rainfall of 20 to 25 inches is similar to what the area can receive with a high-end hurricane over more than a day, Torres-Vazquez explained. She described the rainfall as a “1-in-1,000 year event, or greater,” meaning it’s an event so intense, the chance of it happening in any given year is just 0.1%.
Extreme rainfall is a signature consequence of a warming climate, and it is happening more frequently. The deluge in South Florida is just the latest instance after 1-in-1000 year rains struck over the past year in areas including Dallas, St. Louis, eastern Kentucky and Yellowstone.
I shouldn't have to correct them on this, but if it's "happening more frequently", then it isn't 1-in-1000 anymore. More than four in a year? It's becoming the new normal.
In other words, 10 is the new 1000.
Pages