Northwest "heat dome" signals global warming's march

[ch33zw1z]

It seems like there is allot of talk amongst the leading nations about climate change, but no one REALLY want's to go first.

America First!



Nailed it.

 

[Muse]

It is a shame we don't have any party that would want to stop our population increase.
Rather, America is full steam ahead. Regardless of our vote.

At least The Democratic Party is not anti-abortion. That is more than significant in this arena. If a woman decides she'd rather not have that baby, the Demos say, OK, you can abort. The Repugs are full on retard, no choice, baby, have that baby, you're a woman, and mind your husband to boot.

 

[Muse]

Heat Domes. Covid. Climate Change. Election results.

All hoaxes!

Last year saw the worst hurricane season ever in the USA. What we're seeing this year so far exceeds last year. Apartment complex at Miami collapses in seconds. 1st full hurricane bearing down on FL right now, "rescue efforts" probably to be suspended. Other high rise apartment complexes there likely at high risk, it's being said. Ho ho hohx.

 

[hal2kilo]

At least The Democratic Party is not anti-abortion. That is more than significant in this arena. If a woman decides she'd rather not have that baby, the Demos say, OK, you can abort. The Repugs are full on retard, no choice, baby, have that baby, you're a woman, and mind your husband to boot.

It has little to do with protecting life. It's about controlling women.

 

[Ajay]

Could we please *not* turn this into an abortion thread!!

 

[Ajay]

America First!



Nailed it.

SMH.

 

[Muse]

Logical progression? So you're claiming the bulk of climate scientists believe in an end to human society by the end of the this century? Just want to be sure what it is you're claiming.

Because if that is what the scientific community is saying, it confuses me that they are urging us to curtail emissions, because it's over, right, so what is the point?

All out effort will/would make it possible to salvage humanity, but it won't be the trajectory we've been on. And a lot will have to change. There's going to be migration and major changes in terms of what happens where on the land surfaces.

There are quite a few good books around about these things now.

 

[dank69]

It is a shame we don't have any party that would want to stop our population increase.
Rather, America is full steam ahead. Regardless of our vote.

You can't have government control reproductive rights. You just can't. Same as you can't have the death penalty or intelligence tests for voting. These are fundamentals.

 

[woolfe9998]

All out effort will/would make it possible to salvage humanity, but it won't be the trajectory we've been on. And a lot will have to change. There's going to be migration and major changes in terms of what happens where on the land surfaces.

There are quite a few good books around about these things now.

There's quite a lot of scholarly articles online as well. The mainstream scientific opinion is that the apocalyptic scenario is where we do nothing, not where we don't do enough fast enough.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You can't have government control reproductive rights. You just can't. Same as you can't have the death penalty or intelligence tests for voting. These are fundamentals.

Education is the only real answer, IMO, and each of us doing what we can to reduce our carbon footprint.

 

[rommelrommel]

Sadly, growing droughts and ocean acidification pretty much guarantee food wars. They will lead to drop in land a sea food production both.

I suspect a good proportion of Americans are okay with this. They envision it as some sterile foreign war that they’ll mostly win.

 

[Muse]

You can't have government control reproductive rights. You just can't. Same as you can't have the death penalty or intelligence tests for voting. These are fundamentals.

But the government can promulgate people's access to information about fertility and ways they can manage reproduction including the means and mechanisms of managing their particular reproduction. Given our circumstances, these things are requisite for our survival. Repression will not work in our all out attempt to survive the 21st century.

 

[Muse]

There's quite a lot of scholarly articles online as well. The mainstream scientific opinion is that the apocalyptic scenario is where we do nothing, not where we don't do enough fast enough.

I disagree. Plenty of scientific thought is talking about how intense we must be in addressing GW. You see the dates discussed all the time. 2030, 2050, 2100. Will humanity be struggling just to survive in 2100. Will 2050 be a world spinning out of control with no possibility of resolutions? What's this talk of throwing in the towel and going full hedonist, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we all perish? That's not my attitude. Do as you want, but if that's you, you are fully part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[Jaskalas]

You can't have government control reproductive rights. You just can't.

I struggle to find why you say that in response to me.
Are you aware that the entirety of our population increase is via immigration, not reproduction?

We have to focus our economy, our entire way of living, on sustainability. And stability. Of changing our system so it does not want growth. It may be too little too late. But it's the least we can do to start making progress on our end of the larger problem.

 

[dank69]

I struggle to find why you say that in response to me.
Are you aware that the entirety of our population increase is via immigration, not reproduction?

We have to focus our economy, our entire way of living, on sustainability. And stability. Of changing our system so it does not want growth. It may be too little too late. But it's the least we can do to start making progress on our end of the larger problem.

Well I assumed you were talking about reproduction because immigration makes no sense in this context. What difference does it make what side of what border a person is on?

 

[Paratus]

Well I assumed you were talking about reproduction because immigration makes no sense in this context. What difference does it make what side of what border a person is on?

None whatsoever. In fact if crossing a border makes it more likely they won’t have as many kids because of improving quality of life that’s arguably a step in the right direction

 

[woolfe9998]

I disagree. Plenty of scientific thought is talking about how intense we must be in addressing GW. You see the dates discussed all the time. 2030, 2050, 2100. Will humanity be struggling just to survive in 2100. Will 2050 be a world spinning out of control with no possibility of resolutions? What's this talk of throwing in the towel and going full hedonist, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we all perish? That's not my attitude. Do as you want, but if that's you, you are fully part of the problem, not the solution.

Not sure you understood the post you were responding to? What I said is that the most common opinion I see is that 5c by 2100 is projected if we do nothing (IPCC), and that is possibly an apocalyptic threshold. So yes, the scientific literature is definitely saying we need to do something.

The people who are saying it's already too late or that we need to reduce emission to zero in 10 years or we're toast are not stating the consensus opinion correctly.

There is also ongoing debate as to the extent of our ability to adapt to various negative consequences. I don't think anyone can predict the future at this point. Science can project a range of possible climate outcomes, but even they cannot predict how we might adapt or not adapt to them in the future.

 

[Muse]

Ok, I've read a few books relevant to this discussion and I recommend them:

Learning to Die in the Anthropocene

We're Doomed: Now What?

The Sixth Extinction

 

[nickqt]

Not sure you understood the post you were responding to? What I said is that the most common opinion I see is that 5c by 2100 is projected if we do nothing (IPCC), and that is possibly an apocalyptic threshold. So yes, the scientific literature is definitely saying we need to do something.

The people who are saying it's already too late or that we need to reduce emission to zero in 10 years or we're toast are not stating the consensus opinion correctly.

There is also ongoing debate as to the extent of our ability to adapt to various negative consequences. I don't think anyone can predict the future at this point. Science can project a range of possible climate outcomes, but even they cannot predict how we might adapt or not adapt to them in the future.

The "consensus" opinion has been optimistically conservative since day 1, and is continually revised to higher and higher temperatures sooner.

The thing is, we already know that we're setting ourselves up for collapse and are not just doing nothing - if only we were as smart of a species.

We're increasing CO2 output.

 

[Paratus]

The "consensus" opinion has been optimistically conservative since day 1, and is continually revised to higher and higher temperatures sooner.

The thing is, we already know that we're setting ourselves up for collapse and are not just doing nothing - if only we were as smart of a species.

We're increasing CO2 output.

We are still increasing CO2 output which has to go to zero & arguably negative.

However, GDP has started to become decoupled from CO2 emissions. It used to be that as GDP grew so did CO2 emissions. That’s not true anymore.

It’s an important first step to fixing this problem and it’s happening.

 

[Muse]

We are still increasing CO2 output which has to go to zero & arguably negative.

However, GDP has started to become decoupled from CO2 emissions. It used to be that as GDP grew so did CO2 emissions. That’s not true anymore.

It’s an important first step to fixing this problem and it’s happening.

Maybe there's hope. The slope of the CO2 emissions there is level now. Maybe we can get it to dive.

 

[nickqt]

Maybe there's hope. The slope of the CO2 emissions there is level now. Maybe we can get it to dive.

It was "level" for a couple of data points.

There was a "low" of 31 billion tons of CO2 in 2020 because of COVID. It's expected to be about 33 billion tons this year. And it's still increasing. It isn't falling.

Also, GDP and CO2 may not be a 1:1 link, but they're most definitely coupled.

 

[Muse]

It was "level" for a couple of data points.

There was a "low" of 31 billion tons of CO2 in 2020 because of COVID. It's expected to be about 33 billion tons this year. And it's still increasing. It isn't falling.

Also, GDP and CO2 may not be a 1:1 link, but they're most definitely coupled.

Dang... it's really looking like we can expect burgeoning catastrophes going forward, as if the news isn't filled with them on an accelerating basis already. The next ten years looks to be quite possibly an OMG what's happening "moment," followed by who knows what! This is not what I expected growing up. What are the kids thinking these days?

 

[rommelrommel]

That it’s hopeless and we’re fucked.

 

[Muse]

That it’s hopeless and we’re fucked.

Not a nice way to grow up. They really think that? I know that some are activists.

Looking ahead to 2050, Americans are pessimistic about many aspects of life in U.S.

Majorities of Americans foresee widening income gaps, tougher financial times for older Americans and intensifying political divisions.

www.pewresearch.org

Opinion | To Be Young and Pessimistic in America

Generation Z is lonelier than millennials and more reluctant to embrace the responsibilities and joys of adulthood. Life online seems to be a reason.

www.wsj.com