
This thread is just to post interesting news, thoughts, opinions about climate change.
While I don't think we can do much about the current state of the climate, and that we're way beyond reversing anthropogenic climate change, I do think that 'green' technologies play a vital role in moving us (as a species) towards surviving both the consequences of our own actions and long term sustainability.
Short of devastating nuclear war, I don't believe that humanity as a whole will meet its end on account of the changing climate. Certainly, we will see a huge portion of the population collapse, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a regression akin to the dark ages (but much larger in relative scale) for quite some time.
I'd wager that some mix of well connected, wealthy, and intelligent members of the species will keep just enough folks alive to tide the worst of what's to come. We will look back on our negligence of climate change with chagrin and embarrassment. There will be too many dead to mourn, and one can only guess how bad Earth will suffer ecologically.
That said, it's fascinating how often I hear people talking about how 'weird' the weather is 'these days', how it 'usually snows' or 'doesn't rain like this' in the summer around the globe. I'm always reminding folks of the pointed reason as to why, but I wonder if it even truly registers sometimes.
Also - fusion seems more promising than ever. As a physicist, I never doubted its (eventual) feasibility, and I loathe the reductive argument that 'it's always been XX years away for the last YY number of years'. The recent results at Lawrence Livermore are only a sliver of what's to come - I remember going to a seminar in grad school last year where one of the principal project scientists detailed how there is atleast ~50% energy gain to be had within the next year. The laser which ignited fusion inside of a small fuel cell was actually not centered properly, and we still got net energy gain within the reaction itself (of course, charging the capacitors is another story, but those are old tech as well). Then there's consideration for the quality of the fuel cell, the precision of the lasers, more supercomputer simulations to better predict angles of attack, and so on. It's incredible that they've done so much with so little, and part of why I remain optimistic for the species, but not necessarily for most people.
I don't think humanity will go extinct either, but I do think that the longer we resist making necessary changes, the harsher and more rapid (or worse, relatively sudden) the experience will be when we find that civilization ceases to be sustainable in a recognizable form.
And this:
I'd wager that some mix of well connected, wealthy, and intelligent members of the species will keep just enough folks alive to tide the worst of what's to come.
Is one of the things that pisses me off the most, because the people who contributed most heavily to our downfall will be the very people who sequester themselves in safety while the rest of us suffer at their expense.
But what really pains me is not the loss of human lives or the collapse of modern human civilization. No, what pains me is the destruction of our biosphere. Nothing makes me angrier than "the earth will survive." Well, of course it f*cking will. But the recent geological epoch and its amazing diversity of wildlife and habitats won't. That's already suffering permanent damage, and it's accelerating. No one species, ourselves included, is so important as to justify an artificially induced mass extinction.
But what really pains me is not the loss of human lives or the collapse of modern human civilization. No, what pains me is the destruction of our biosphere. Nothing makes me angrier than "the earth will survive." Well, of course it f*cking will. But the recent geological epoch and its amazing diversity of wildlife and habitats won't. That's already suffering permanent damage, and it's accelerating. No one species, ourselves included, is so important as to justify an artificially induced mass extinction.
Indeed, the current biosphere will suffer (and is already suffering) as a result of our actions. We have little idea how badly we'll ruin it for the rest of living species in the long run. It's silver lining to me that, even if we screw absolutely everything up, the only cradle of life in that we know of in the entire universe won't stop supporting more life.
Let's say humanity does meet its end. In a few million years, some other ape or some porpoise/corvid evolves and truly appreciates the ruin of human civilization. Hopefully, their science progresses to the point where they can understand our strengths and learn from our failures and weaknesses. That is what I envision when someone says 'life will go on.' Our turn ends, but another's' begins on a new playing field.
The thing that worries me is that we don't have many attempts left, the sun continues to churn through Hydrogen and will eventually reach the red giant phase, after which it's unlikely that the Earth can continue to support life (without some advanced level of technological intervention). But that will happen on the scale of billions, not millions of years.
Another unknown is what the future of the magnetosphere is, but that's too far away to raise any real concern as well.
I think there is a start up (Hellion?) making headway with non self sustaining fusion. I believe you set up a single reaction and store the energy gains.
And Toyota may actually has a production solid state battery.
So we will probably see a further divide between first world and third world and/or rural and urban use and availability of green technology.
Even if we had working fusion we'd have to fight to make Red states actually use it.
Even if we had working fusion we'd have to fight to make Red states actually use it.
Texas produces the most renewable energy of any state, and Iowa uses the most renewable energy as a percentage of their total usage (source), so unlike what they like to scream on gettr, red states are actually pretty cool with renewables.
Counterpoint: Kentucky.
red states are actually pretty cool with renewables.
If the wealthy in the state can make money from it.
If we had fusion, red staters would somehow find a way to "roll coal" with limitless electricity.
It is one of my greatest fears (and the subject of a unwritten short story of mine) that when we get fusion, it is going to be Vegas and Times Square everywhere. Or Coruscant if that floats your boat.
Texas has more wind power going because of its size. It does not, however, have the advanced power transmission system that would tie it into the rest of the country, or provide the obviously needed resiliance and reliability in times of extreme weather. Further, it allows predatory pricing.
Don't move to Texas for Green power. Get the hell out because it is just going to get worse over time.
If we had fusion, red staters would somehow find a way to "roll coal" with limitless electricity.
It is one of my greatest fears (and the subject of an unwritten short story of mine) that when we get fusion, it is going to be Vegas and times Square everywhere. Or Coruscant if that floats your boat.
Oooh, the history of the adoption of super cheap led lighting lends credibility to this!
Oooh, the history of the adoption of super cheap led lighting lends credibility to this!
Note also the popularity of bedazzling...
Experts at odds over result of UN climate talks in Dubai; ‘Historic,’ ‘pipsqueak’ or something else?
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The climate negotiations that just finished in Dubai hit upon the essence of compromise, finding common language that nearly 200 countries accepted, at times grudgingly.
For the first time in nearly three decades of such talks, the final agreement mentioned fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — as the cause of climate change and said the world needs to be “transitioning away” from them. But it did not use the words “phase out,” sought by advocates and more than 100 countries who argued it would provide sharper direction for the world to move quickly toward renewable energies that don’t produce the greenhouse gas emissions that heat the planet.
For an agreement so steeped in compromise, what experts thought of it, including what impact it could have in the years to come, was as polarizing as can be.
The Associated Press asked 23 different delegates, analysts, scientists and activists where they would rank COP28 among all climate conferences. More than half said COP28 was the most significant climate talks ever. Yet a smaller but still large chunk dismissed it as awful. Even some who deemed it the most significant also highlighted what they characterized as big problems.
Thirteen of the 23 said they’d rank what COP28 president Sultan al-Jaber calls the UAE Consensus in the top five of negotiations and deals. Several called it the most significant since the 2015 Paris talks, which set specific goals to limit temperature increases and was the nearly unanimous choice for the most meaningful climate meeting.
The two weeks of negotiations at COP28 also put into effect a new compensation fund for nations hit hard by the impacts of climate change, like cyclones, floods and drought. Called loss and damage, the fund drew nearly $800 million in pledges during the talks. Nations also agreed to triple the use of renewable fuel, double energy efficiency and adopted stronger language and commitments to help poorer nations adapt to worsening extreme weather from climate change.
Leaders, mostly non-scientists, said Dubai kept alive the world’s slim and fading hopes to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures, the goal adopted in Paris. The world has already warmed 1.2 degrees (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit). Many scientific calculations that look at policies and pledges project at least 2.5 to nearly 3 degrees of warming (4.3 to nearly 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), which could lead to more extremes and make it harder for humans to adapt.
Negotiators, who spent late Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning in special closed-door meetings with al-Jaber before the agreement was reached, were especially proud, using the word historic frequently in public pronouncements. When asked where COP28 fit in that history, they stayed on message.
“I think it ranks very high,” said Zambia Green Economy and Environment Minister Collins Nzovu, who headed his nation’s delegation. “Loss and damages is there. GGA (the adaptation agreement) is there. We talked about fossil fuels, as well. So I think we’re going somewhere.”
German climate special envoy Jennifer Morgan, who has attended all these talks either as an analyst, environmental activist and now negotiator, said it “is very significant” and not just for the list of actions agreed to.
“It shows that multilateralism works in a world where we are having trouble cooperating in a number of different areas,” Morgan told the AP hours after the agreement was gaveled through.
Former U.S. special climate envoy Todd Stern, who helped craft the Paris deal, put the UAE agreement as number five in his list of significant climate meetings, with Paris first.
Stern’s colleague at the RMI think-tank, CEO Jon Creyts, put this year’s deal second only to Paris “precisely because the message is comprehensive, economywide. It also engaged the private sector and local communities at a scale that is unprecedented. The U.S. and China were once again united in leadership mode while voices of the most vulnerable were heard.”
Power Shift Africa’s Mohamed Adow also thought it ranked second only to Paris: “This COP saw the loss and damage fund established, it finally named the cause of the climate crisis — fossil fuels — for the first time and it committed the world to transition away from them, with action required in this decade. That is a lot more than we get from most COPs.”
Johan Rockstrom, a scientist who heads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, praised what happened, but like so many others who ranked it high, also saw problems.
“Finally, we have a plan the world can work with towards a phase-out of oil, coal and gas. It is not perfect, by far, and not entirely aligned with science, but it is something we can work with,” Rockstrom said in an email. “Will it deliver 1.5°C (even if implemented)? The answer is no.”
The problem is the agreement has too many loopholes that allow countries to continue producing and even expand use of fossil fuels, said Center for Biological Diversity’s Jean Su. She also cited a portion of the text that allows for “transitional” fuels — a term the industry often uses for natural gas that isn’t as polluting as coal but still contributes to warming.
“Politically it broke a major barrier, but it also contained poison pills that could lead to the expansion of fossil fuels and climate injustice,” she said.
Joanna Depledge, a climate negotiations historian at Cambridge University in England, said the idea that the weak language is “somehow seen as a triumph” shows the world is in trouble, Depledge said.
“The yawning chasm between science and policy, between intention and action, barely shifted in Dubai,” she added.
Scientists were among those who ranked the UAE deal low.
“In the context of these previous, truly significant COPs, Dubai is a pipsqueak,” said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who is also a professor of international affairs.
The agreement language was “like promising your doctor that you will ‘transition away from doughnuts’ after being diagnosed with diabetes,” said University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann. “The lack of an agreement to phase out fossil fuels was devastating.”
Mann, like former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, called for a dramatic reform of the COP process. For his part, Gore said it’s too early to judge this COP’s significance, but he’s unhappy with the slow progress.
“It’s been 31 years since Rio, and eight since the Paris Agreement,” Gore said. “Only now are we even summoning the political will to name the core problem, which has otherwise been blocked by fossil fuel companies and petrostates.”
Gore and others still have hope, though.
“I think 1.5 is achievable,” said Thibyan Ibrahim, who led negotiations on adaptation on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. “You need to ensure that people are going to do the things that they have said they’ll do, that the pledges will be actually reached and that commitments will be followed through.”
“I think 1.5 is achievable,” said Thibyan Ibrahim, who led negotiations on adaptation on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. “You need to ensure that people are going to do the things that they have said they’ll do, that the pledges will be actually reached and that commitments will be followed through.”
It is one of my greatest fears (and the subject of a unwritten short story of mine) that when we get fusion, it is going to be Vegas and Times Square everywhere. Or Coruscant if that floats your boat.
Just look at how "green energy" adoption has gone in several of the biggest CO2-emitting nations, where gains in green energy adoption aren't actually replacing -- or preventing the expansion of -- fossil fuel consumption. It's the same phenomenon that occurs when roads or highways are expanded -- traffic actually only increases as the added capacity is reflected in ever-greater demand.
I think that fear of yours is quite well-founded with our history.
Hell, even with the way I've reduced my personal carbon footprint over the past few decades, it's not as great a reduction as it could be since reductions are often accompanied by some degree of substitution. As one example, I work from home so I no longer use my car nearly as much (and I've stuck by my plan of keeping my light compact fuel-efficient car -- which I've owned for nearly 11 years -- until it is no longer sustainable), but my energy use at home has increased in multiple ways. I run the heat/AC more during the day than when there was no one home during workdays (though I try to gradually run at a themostat level that is less "perfect comfort" than I once did -- I'm sitting here bundled up as I work rather than bumping up the thermostat to a warmer temp, for example), I use lights that would be turned off if I weren't home (though that's mostly just during the poorly-lit winter months; most of the year I don't need artificial light during the daytime for work), etc.
Most of my own reduction has been in the form of consuming less in general: consolidating consumption where possible (so running errands in one combined go rather than running around separate trips for each separate need), virtually eliminating air travel, choosing my last vehicle purchase (that aforementioned car) not only as a fuel-efficient vehicle but also choosing a light compact (so less material consumed in production) that I intended to own indefinitely (so no material consumed for replacements, rather than the average US consumer habit of replacing a vehicle every 5-8 years which I fell into in the past), generally decreasing any non-essential consumerism habits I previously had (especially for my personal fun pasttimes -- no more computer replacements/upgrades every couple years or so, no more getting one of each console like I used to up through the XBox360/PS3/Wii generation, sticking with my current phone now for 5 and 1/2 years with no intention of replacement in the foreseeable future -- a veritable eternity in modern smartphone-driven culture, etc), shifting my personal diet to more sustainable foods and especially decreasing meat consumption, etc etc etc.
There are a plethora of ways we can each reduce our burden on our planet's natural resources and our share of consumption of fossil fuels, and it's an ongoing lifelong effort I will continue to pursue. And sure, I could lean hard into major life changes if I was willing to sacrifice my marriage and career and lifestyle. But given that so very few people are willing to even put the modicum of thought and effort I have into changing their lives as well, and given that the carbon footprint of any one COP28 participant's attendance of that conference in person outweighed several years of my life... what's the f*cking point? I could go all stoic and nearly nullify my carbon footprint, and it would make an infinitesimal difference to the situation. So while I have made many small to moderate changes and will continue to do so -- i.e. I've done the "put up" part of "put up or shut up" -- I'm not going to totally trash my current life for what has proven to be ultimately a hollow and hopeless gesture.
I'm not just impotently angry and resentful. I'm angry and resentful because in spite of my fatalism, I have tried. f*ck, even with how relatively small an impact I make, I've done quite a lot more than most of the people who have gotten pissed at me for my "negativity", which I find incredibly galling and hypocritical.
Emphasis mine:
Crowther, who says his message was misinterpreted, put out a more nuanced paper last month, which shows that preserving existing forests can have a greater climate impact than planting trees. He then brought the results to COP28 to “kill greenwashing” of the kind that his previous study seemed to encourage—that is, using unreliable evidence on the benefits of planting trees as an excuse to keep on emitting carbon.
Hey you, put on some pants.
Emphasis mine:
Crowther, who says his message was misinterpreted, put out a more nuanced paper last month, which shows that preserving existing forests can have a greater climate impact than planting trees. He then brought the results to COP28 to “kill greenwashing” of the kind that his previous study seemed to encourage—that is, using unreliable evidence on the benefits of planting trees as an excuse to keep on emitting carbon.
Given that most products in stores around here say "climate neutral" on their plastic packaging, I don't understand how we haven't solved this thing yet.
/sarcasm
Maybe now some of my extended family will take climate change serio--oh who am I kidding. They'll find some way to blame "the liberals" and "America turned away from God" and whatever else is le bouc émissaire du jour.
We don't have any crawfish because of your atheism Farscry.
Colombia, a Usually Wet Nation, Reels Amid Widespread Wildfires
(NYT Paywall)
Helicopters hauling buckets of water fly toward the mountains where fires burn, a thick haze periodically covers the sky, and residents have been ordered to wear masks and limit driving because of the poor air quality.
For a full week, firefighters have been battling fires in the mountains around Bogotá, Colombia’s capital, as dozens of other blazes have burned across the country, in what officials say is the hottest January in three decades.
The president has declared a national disaster and asked for international help fighting the fires, which he says could reach beyond the Andes Mountains and erupt on the Pacific Coast and in the Amazon.
Colombia’s fires this month are unusual in a country where people are more accustomed to torrential rain and mudslides than fire and ash. They have been attributed to high temperatures and drought exacerbated by the climate phenomenon known as El Niño.
Ricardo Lozano, a geologist and former environment minister of Colombia, said El Niño was a natural phenomenon that occurred cyclically, but that with climate change, “these events are more and more intense and more and more extreme.”
This month brought record temperatures to Colombia, including 111 degrees Fahrenheit in Honda, a colonial town between the cities of Medellín and Bogotá. It has dried out forests, savannas and normally damp highlands known as páramos, turning parts of the country into a tinderbox.
As dozens of fires have burned, more than 100 square miles have been scorched, and with temperatures continuing to soar, officials say more fires are likely before the rainy season begins in April.
Fires have also broken out in neighboring Venezuela and Ecuador, including in an ecological preserve.
Edit: Removed due to legitimate concerns of the presenter's track record on youtube content. She's not the first time I've run across the info, so I'll update when I find a better resource.
There's a little nuance this time, but the key takeaway is that, as has happened too often with regard to climate change research, "those numbers are too bad, they can't be real so we should ignore them" won the day for far too long.
3.6 Roentgen? Not great, not terrible.
Just a reminder that while Sabine Hossenfelder may be entertaining, she has a habit of making videos on subjects far outside her area of expertise (theoretical physics). In these non-Physics videos her lack of expertise can be an issue. For example, she rather infamously made a pretty misleading video about trans teens, and other videos spreading common misconceptions about sexual identity.
Details here: https://www.transgendermap.com/polit...
Gender issues are not the only topic she has covered with her foot in her mouth, as it were. Unfortunately, her videos about physics are quite good and can be entertaining. But other subjects... well, just be aware. Climate science is not her area of expertise, but she does like to make videos about it, for obvious reasons.
I haven't watched the one in this thread because I decided a while back not to support her by watching until she makes it clear that some of her videos are more opinion pieces than science.
Just a reminder that while Sabine Hossenfelder may be entertaining, she has a habit of making videos on subjects far outside her area of expertise (theoretical physics). In these non-Physics videos her lack of expertise can be an issue.
A theoretical physicist overestimates their expertise in unrelated fields? I realize that life imitates art but why did it have to imitate about a dozen episodes of The Big Bang Theory
Just following in Neil Degrasse Tyson's footsteps.
A theoretical physicist overestimates their expertise in unrelated fields? I realize that life imitates art but why did it have to imitate about a dozen episodes of The Big Bang Theory
Next thing you'll tell me that a Jungian psychiatrist has somehow risen to intellectual fame by making all sorts of pronunciations on topics that are decidedly not about psychiatry (including climate change, somehow)!
Thanks, Badken, I was unaware. What do you think, take it down?
Oh, she's not a youtuber I particularly endorse (frankly I don't care for her presentation style... just rubs me the wrong way). She just happens to have hit upon an important element in climate science this time around. I'll remove the video and when I run across a better source I'll post that instead.
Pages