The world just marked a year above a critical climate limit scientists have warned about

Global warming surpassed 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 12 months for the first time on record, new data shows, breaching a critical threshold that, if it continues, will push the limits of life on Earth to adapt.

The past year was 1.52 degrees hotter on average than temperatures before industrialization, according to data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate and weather monitoring service. That 12-month average was boosted by the hottest January on record, which was 1.66 degrees warmer than the average January temperature in pre-industrial times.

https://apple.news/Af18UAJ-GRlKmFwVd55H3vA

I spent the first half of this week reporting in Iceland, and I came away convinced that the country provides a window into our collective future in at least three important ways.

Iceland uses remarkably few fossil fuels to power its economy and heat its homes. Instead, 85 percent of the country’s energy comes from domestically produced renewables, primarily geothermal power and hydropower.

Iceland can claim such a high percentage of renewables, the most of any country in the world, thanks to its unique geology. Its land sits atop an incredibly active volcanic zone, and six major geothermal plants tap that subterranean warmth to provide heating for almost all the country’s homes.

Drive around the countryside, and you can’t miss steam billowing from the ground between the majestic fjords. Just this morning, an active volcano began erupting in a town I visited only a few days ago.

Geothermal power also produces about 20 percent of the country’s electricity, with the remainder coming from a robust network of hydroelectric plants. The oil that Iceland does burn is primarily used to power cars and trucks, as well as the boats that comprise the country’s large fishing fleet.

Iceland a small and wealthy country that is unique, to say the least, in having such abundant geothermal and hydroelectric resources. But as we’ve recently reported, new advances gleaned from the oil and gas business are making geothermal feasible in new locales. And as solar and wind power continue to expand at a rapid clip, it may not be long before more countries are powering their economies not with fossil fuels but with local, clean renewable energy.

Iceland is living our future

Interesting stuff.

We’re going to get there — it’s just a matter of how quickly.

- Permitting reform is necessary to accelerate the building of transmission lines so as to transmit the energy from wind and solar (a large segment of which is restricted to certain geographical areas) to other parts of the country.

- Plenty of fossil fuel use will be needed to mine for necessary metals and manufacture wind turbines and solar panels and car batteries. But this is in the short term — once up and running, they’re practically zero emissions.

The inflation reduction act (IRA) provisions are starting to kick in this year, especially the rebates on heat pumps, which will be key to transitioning away from heating homes and commercial buildings with dirty fuels like oil and natural gas / propane. Rebates on EVs and solar panels will also be helpful.

In the meantime, the best strategy is still local involvement in conservation commissions, zoning boards, and city/town councils. Also advocating for going greener at one’s workplace — which, when cost effectiveness is emphasized, is fairly easy.

Anyway — some relevant information.

We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. — Christoffer

We who? Educational? You have shown that you do not even know statistics, how are you going to educate anyone?

Of course not. You are just asking legitimate questions about the science and trotting out fashionable lines from climate “skeptics.” Carry on. — Mikie

"The science". There is no "the science". This is a phrase that is only ever used by people who have last touched an equation more than five years ago — mathematics is the language of science as we know.

My posts at no point were arguments against climate change or environmentalism. My posts were successful attempts at showing how you and others posters here do not know nearly enough, but just parrot what Lindsey McNuggets (intern in communications at BBC) says on her news article. Lindsey, like me and many people on this thread, are not knowledgeable, but Lindsey in special is the kind of people to cause this kind of tragedy. Who is more like Lindsey overall?

I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself. — baker

Because they don't exist.

"The science". There is no "the science". — Lionino

Climate science is actually a thing, yes. But good job using the new line. I guess “the climate is always changing” is thankfully becoming passé.

You're inconsistent.


This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.
What choice, if you plan to "run them over"? — baker

How is that inconsistent? I mentioned what is needed to be done to change course and if people don't make that choice then the only outcome is for everything to collapse until the world's population beg for changes. To speak about different possible outcomes does not make what I said inconsistent.

We who? Educational? You have shown that you do not even know statistics, how are you going to educate anyone? — Lionino

We who actually understand the science, we who understand the problems, we who don't attach identity to this entire subject and use it as punchlines for something else.

And not doing the research that people should actually do on their own is not the same as "not know the statistics". You can search publications yourself, you can dive into all that research, the information is everywhere if you know where to get scientific data. And there are plenty who are trying to educate people, but you know, people don't listen, because they don't care to listen, they decide what they agree with or not before they hear it, they decide based on arbitrary ideals and emotional reasoning.

Then they formulate arguments around such biases and believe they are actually intellectually engaging with the subject matter. But they're not, they're using rhetorical twists and turns not to convince the other side, but to make sure they're never acknowledging themselves to be wrong. It's the same behavior as flat earthers and other conspiratorial behaviors. It doesn't matter that there's a truckload of evidence, that there are educators and experts everywhere that friendly provide their knowledge if they want it, or that the publications are out there to be found if they wanted. The reason has nothing to with what is truth or not for them, it has to do with them.

In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals.

Then they formulate arguments around such biases and believe they are actually intellectually engaging with the subject matter. But they're not, they're using rhetorical twists and turns not to convince the other side, but to make sure they're never acknowledging themselves to be wrong. It's the same behavior as flat earthers and other conspiratorial behaviors. It doesn't matter that there's a truckload of evidence, that there are educators and experts everywhere that friendly provide their knowledge if they want it, or that the publications are out there to be found if they wanted. The reason has nothing to with what is truth or not for them, it has to do with them. — Christoffer

Yep. Which is why at the end of the day, all they have is feelings. When pointed out, they naturally accuse you of having nothing but feelings, and I’m rubber you’re glue, the end. It’s pointless.

But like I said before, this thread is like a fly trap. There’s overwhelming evidence and a de facto 100% consensus, it’s as established as evolution and gravity — and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time.

I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology.

and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time. — Mikie

Yes, how people handle knowledge is a trait transcending specific subjects. I tend to see even within science that people who have biased ideas about something else tend to be biased in their scientific research as well. That's why I'm always skeptical about religious physicists. At most they have to be agnostic, but having a strong belief at the same time as conducting science mostly seem to influence how they treat their own conclusions, sticking to their guns further than others when facing criticism. Thank the gluons we have consensus praxis.

I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology. — Mikie

:lol:

You talked about "running them over":

Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates — Christoffer

How do you plan to do that?

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.

I've met plenty. — AmadeusD

Good for you then.

On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.

Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans.

I think that in order to effectively counteract human-caused climate heating, radical steps would need to be taken. Such as people not having any children for the next 30 years, not eating any animal products, forbidding luxury tourism, forbidding air conditioning, and so on. Obviously, this is not realistic. I suspect that many climate activists actually realize that only such radical steps might prove effective, but this is not something that can be said in polite society. What is currently being suggested as "effective steps to save the planet" (not using plastic bags, going paperless, carpooling, solar energy, etc.) amounts to rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

In order to actually stand a chance at "saving the planet", people would need to change the very nature of their relationship with the planet. That is, they would need to stop having a consumerist, materialist attitude toward it. This isn't happening, of course. Instead, people are being lulled into a false hope that by keeping their fundamental materialistic, consumerist attitudes intact and doing trifles, they can nevertheless "save the planet". And if that doesn't work out, the "solution" is already given: others are to blame.

That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.

People like this are wasting what might very well be the last opportunity to do something that might make a real difference for the planet.

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals. — Christoffer

And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people?

Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans. — baker

If we could remove the people from the cities and recreate an agrarian society, we could get back to our natural roots, and we'd eliminate the class system that has been put in place and get us closer to a utopian society as opposed to our gradual move away from it.

Where is Pol Pot when you need him?

The morality of anti-humanism requires some tough love, but it's well worth it. Just think of all the trees that will grow in the killing fields.

You talked about "running them over":

Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates
— Christoffer

How do you plan to do that? — baker

He will probably do it in fossil fuel cars because EV's need frequent recharging and the queues to use the charge stations are too long. :grin:

If we could remove the people from the cities and recreate an agrarian society, we could get back to our natural roots, and we'd eliminate the class system that has been put in place and get us closer to a utopian society as opposed to our gradual move away from it.

Where is Pol Pot when you need him?

The morality of anti-humanism requires some tough love, but it's well worth it. Just think of all the trees that will grow in the killing fields. — Hanover

I don't think you can avoid the class system. Someone is going to have to do brain surgery, oncology, anesthesia, etc. and if they only make the same as a farmer makes, not enough people will go into those fields.

1. Global temperatures are rising as the result of human activity.
2. Humans ought to modify their activity in order to lower global temperatures.

#2 is a non-sequiter.

#1 is an empirical statement.
#2 is a moral statement.

This is a form of the naturalistic fallacy.

We cannot say that because something is naturally in state X that it ought be in state X.

This is to say the question over the science isn't where the philosophy is. Either the scientific modeling is correct or it isn't. If it says the tides will rise, then they will. That does not mean we can't allow them to rise and deal with the consequences as opposed to stopping the rise.

The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science.

I don't think you can avoid the class system. Someone is going to have to do brain surgery, oncology, anesthesia, etc. and if they only make the same as a farmer makes, not enough people will go into those fields. — RogueAI

I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective.

I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

:up:

We cannot say that because something is naturally in state X that it ought be in state X. — Hanover

100%. I spent a couple of pages badly trying to get that across a while ago. Cest la vie

Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle.

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue, and stop making things worse, merely, instead of keeping on shooting the messengers.

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened

People are reluctant to "form an orderly queue" already at a grocery store.
How do you propose to get them to wait patiently in line for their death?

It's a battle over economic policy, not over science. — Hanover

Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

Good luck trying to discuss this with the climate activists!

I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

A strange sarcasm then, if you advocate classism but also shy back from means needed to put it into action.

Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle. — unenlightened

This is not what the science shows. There are no meaningful models that predict the human response to the climate change as it occurs, as if to suggest you can know what mitigating responses will be available. That would be like predicting in the 1800s that we would one day run out of horse food due to the ever increasing need for transportation. The fact that we can sustain billions of people on the planet would have been unfathomable a few hundred years ago.

Here's where I think we disagree (among other things): I find no virtue in protecting the planet for the planet's sake. I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality.

I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality. — Hanover

This certainty says it all. :up: At least you’re honest about it.

Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever.

It is very interesting doing a search in google news for "climate change exaggerated".

https://news.google.com/search?q=climate%20change%20exaggerated

Here are some of the results:

Third of UK teenagers believe climate change exaggerated, report shows — The Guardian

Bill Gates sees ‘a lot of climate exaggeration’ out there: ‘The climate is not the end of the planet. So the planet is going to be fine’ — fortune.com

Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change
In-depth interviews find some Americans consider crisis language overblown, leading to added skepticism of claims — pewresearch.org

Climate change alarm is exaggerated, we should not demonise oil and gas: Elon Musk — wionews.com

Climate scientist admits to focusing solely on global warming in paper about United States wildfires and ignoring other 'key aspects' just to get published

Brown says studies will get rejected unless they 'support certain narratives' — Daily Mail

Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’ — New York Post

Beware of exaggerated claims of climate harm — Calgary Sun

Electric car mastermind Elon Musk claims threat of climate change is 'overblown' in the short term - despite making a fortune in eco ventures — Daily Mail

Americans Most Likely to Say Global Warming Is Exaggerated — news.gallup.com

This is how many Brits think the threat of climate change has been exaggerated

one in three Britons over the age of 55 think the threat of climate change is over-exaggerated

Analysis of the poll also revealed that men are twice as likely as women to say that it is definitely true that the threat is over-exaggerated — uk.news.yahoo.com

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests — The Telegraph

It’s very interesting doing a Google search of “climate change is a hoax.” Plenty of moronic stuff from all kinds of bullshit sources. So very interesting. At least for those far more interested in denial than anything else…but who definitely aren’t climate deniers.

—

Just as a basic head count on this thread:



@baker

And counting. Far more than I’d expect on this forum, even if a relatively low percentage. Oh well…

Jury awards climate scientist Michael Mann $1 million in defamation lawsuit

More good news.

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures.

The main greenhouse gases that are causing climate change include carbon dioxide and methane. These come from using gasoline for driving a car or coal for heating a building, for example. Clearing land and cutting down forests can also release carbon dioxide. Agriculture, oil and gas operations are major sources of methane emissions. Energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and land use are among the main sectors causing greenhouse gases.

The Earth is feeling the heat.

Humans are responsible for global warming
Climate scientists have showed that humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. Human activities like the ones mentioned above are causing greenhouse gases that are warming the world faster than at any time in at least the last two thousand years.

The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is now about 1.1°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s (before the industrial revolution) and warmer than at any time in the last 100,000 years. The last decade (2011-2020) was the warmest on record, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than any previous decade since 1850.

Many people think climate change mainly means warmer temperatures. But temperature rise is only the beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where everything is connected, changes in one area can influence changes in all others.

The consequences of climate change now include, among others, intense droughts, water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms and declining biodiversity.

The Earth is asking for help.

People are experiencing climate change in diverse ways

Climate change can affect our health, ability to grow food, housing, safety and work. Some of us are already more vulnerable to climate impacts, such as people living in small island nations and other developing countries. Conditions like sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion have advanced to the point where whole communities have had to relocate, and protracted droughts are putting people at risk of famine. In the future, the number of people displaced by weather-related events is expected to rise.

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change

[Worth posting the basics. I’ll refer back to it when the next goofy “skeptic” with 15 minutes of Fox News under their belts comes ambling along. “It’s the clouds, stupid!”]

Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever. — Mikie

How many of those lives do you actually appreciate?