The Global Warming Thread

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:14 pm

The shipping industry's carbon footprint is greater than Germany's. Although they are extranational, companies like Maersk are working to build more efficient ships and use cleaner fuel. Although LNG is the leading near-term contender, one line (Dutch, IIRC) is deploying a fleet of sailing vessels next year that can carry 1,000 tons using 1/10 the fuel of a conventional freighter. The sails will be controlled by AI. Another concept under development is molten salt reactors. A plant the size of a refrigerator could power a ship safely and with no emissions. The main drawback there is world acceptance -- essentially every major port would have to welcome nuclear vessels.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:54 pm

COP26 isn't even cold yet-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... AIH9OZSrCY

US auctions off oil and gas drilling leases in Gulf of Mexico after climate talks

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:29 am

This video makes it more obvious that the actress is lipsynching to the narration. Whether it's her own voice is still up for grabs. Still amusing, even as the voice/actor mismatch is distracting.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:41 am

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:54 pm COP26 isn't even cold yet-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... AIH9OZSrCY

US auctions off oil and gas drilling leases in Gulf of Mexico after climate talks

Incredibly disappointing.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:50 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:29 am This video makes it more obvious that the actress is lipsynching to the narration. Whether it's her own voice is still up for grabs. Still amusing, even as the voice/actor mismatch is distracting.

That's not even the same actress as the previous videos. The youtube site says

Acted by Zoë Amanda Wilson
Voiced by Lucy Cahill

Apparently the actress I am used to is Ellen Burbidge

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:13 pm

So...this is bad.

A few weeks ago, scientists participating in the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, a $25 million five-year-long joint research program between the National Science Foundation in the U.S. and the Natural Environment Research Council in the U.K., presented their latest research. They described the discovery of cracks and fissures in the Thwaites eastern ice shelf, predicting that the ice shelf could fracture like a shattered car window in as little as five years.
[...]
If Thwaites Glacier collapses, it opens the door for the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet to slide into the sea. Globally, 250 million people live within three feet of high tide lines. Ten feet of sea level rise would be a world-bending catastrophe.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:31 pm

It wouldn't be all bad, it'd probably be the end of JFK, LGA, EWR, PHL, DCA, and BOS.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 12:08 am

Is global warming still political? OK, fine, this goes here then: Extreme heat in the oceans passed the point of no return in 2014.

The scientists then examined temperature records from 1920 to 2019, the most recent year available. They found that by 2014, more than 50% of the monthly records across the entire ocean had surpassed the once-in-50–years extreme heat benchmark. The researchers called the year when the percentage passed 50% and did not fall back below it in subsequent years the “point of no return”.

By 2019, the proportion of the global ocean suffering extreme heat was 57%. “We expect this to keep on going up,” said Van Houtan. But the extreme heat was particularly severe in some parts of the ocean, with the South Atlantic having passed the point of no return in 1998. “That was 24 years ago – that is astounding,” he said.

The proportion of the ocean experiencing extreme heat in some large ecosystems is now 80%-90%, with the five worst affected including areas off the north-east coasts of the US and Canada, off Somalia and Indonesia, and in the Norwegian Sea.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:34 am

I looked at a map of the impact of a 10 foot rise in sea level. Santa Cruz will be an inland sea and Orlando will be on the coast. Some places I could conceive of building a sea wall. Florida is not one of them.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 5:46 pm

The edges are underwater, the left side is on fire, the bottom half is melting, the bottom right side keeps getting blown and flooded, and the middle is drying out and is due for Dust Bowl II. In a few decades of this accelerating?

We're rapidly running out of places to go.

Chraolic · Post by **Chraolic** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 5:53 pm

Yeah. It's probably no coincidence all the billionaires have their eyes on space.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:01 am

The timeless wisdom of Joe Manchin. It's almost like he hasn't been a major blocker of action on green technology and isn't personally benefitting from it.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:15 am

He thinks you have to get a new battery every time your charge runs down.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 12:34 pm

One of my bizarre pet peeves is people who complain about batteries. "I'm not going to buy an iPhone because you can't change the battery." How many f-ing times did you change the battery in your flip phone, grandpa?

Having to change batteries is not a feature, it's a flaw. Because it tells you that the batteries aren't good enough to last for the lifecycle of the product they're in.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:40 pm

To be fair, in this precarious world economy - the procurement of lithium in order to supply the predicted future needs is still a creature they do not have under control. We don't have the production/supply line set up at all.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:45 pm

It's what he meant to be sure. Still people like Manchin in particular stand in the way of R&D and economic incentives to figure out solutions to that issue.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:52 pm

Manchin wrote:"I'm very reluctant to go down the path of electric vehicles," Manchin said. "I'm old"

FTFY

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:51 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 12:34 pm One of my bizarre pet peeves is people who complain about batteries. "I'm not going to buy an iPhone because you can't change the battery." How many f-ing times did you change the battery in your flip phone, grandpa?

Twice in my S4 because it was cheap and easy to do. And I just had a new battery installed in my S10 a couple of weeks ago. I got it for the price of the part since the shop had my phone open to replace the charging port. I like fresh batteries, sonny.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:03 pm

Kraken wrote: I like fresh batteries, sonny.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:19 pm

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed May 04, 2022 8:35 pm

Is it time for Biden to go it alone?

The most recent United Nations climate change report indicates that without significant action to mitigate global warming, the extent and magnitude of climate impacts—from floods to droughts to the spread of disease—could outpace the world's ability to adapt to them. The latest effort to introduce meaningful climate legislation in the United States Congress, the Build Back Better bill, has stalled. The climate package in that bill—$555 billion in funding for climate resilience and clean energy—aims to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by about 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the nation's current Paris Agreement pledge. With prospects of passing a standalone climate package in the Senate far from assured, is there another pathway to fulfilling that pledge?

Recent detailed legal analysis shows that there is at least one viable option for the United States to achieve the 2030 target without legislative action. Under Section 115 on International Air Pollution of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could assign emissions targets to the states that collectively meet the national goal. The president could simply issue an executive order to empower the EPA to do just that. But would that be prudent?

...

The researchers calculate those net benefits by combining the estimated total cost of carbon dioxide emissions reduction under the policy with the corresponding estimated expenditures that would be avoided as a result of the policy's implementation—expenditures on health care due to particulate air pollution, and on society at large due to climate impacts.

Assessing three carbon dioxide emissions allocation strategies (each with legal precedent) for implementing Section 115 to return cap-and-trade program revenue to the states and distribute it to state residents on an equal per-capita basis, the study finds that at the national level, the economic net benefits are substantial, ranging from $70 to $150 billion in 2030. The results appear in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

"Our findings not only show significant net gains to the U.S. economy under a national emissions policy implemented through the Clean Air Act's Section 115," says Mei Yuan, a research scientist at the MIT Joint Program and lead author of the study. "They also show the policy impact on consumer costs may differ across states depending on the choice of allocation strategy."

Uh...wow. That would be nothing short of amazing.

Of course, it's difficult to imagine that this would survive in Court if Biden were to try, and there's always the risk that the estimates are a little too rosy for reality. (not to mention, revamping your energy supply at a time of great inflation is definitely a gamble for any head of state) But should Biden swing for the fences anyway?

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed May 04, 2022 8:59 pm

Little Raven wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 8:35 pm But should Biden swing for the fences anyway?

Probably the last inning and either way it looks like the park is about to close. Swing away, I say.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed May 25, 2022 10:43 pm

A computer model suggests that climate could become chaotic. The model and methodology are described in the link. It concludes:

in the worst cases, the researchers found that Earth's climate leads to chaos. True, mathematical chaos. In a chaotic system, there is no equilibrium and no repeatable patterns. A chaotic climate would have seasons that change wildly from decade to decade (or even year to year). Some years would experience sudden flashes of extreme weather, while others would be completely quiet. Even the average Earth temperature may fluctuate wildly, swinging from cooler to hotter periods in relatively short periods of time. It would become utterly impossible to determine in what direction Earth's climate is headed.

"A chaotic behavior means that it will be impossible to predict the behavior of Earth System in the future even if we know with great certainty its present state," Bertolami said. "It will mean that any capability to control and to drive the Earth System towards an equilibrium state that favors the habitability of the biosphere will be lost."

Most concerning, the researchers found that above a certain critical threshold temperature for Earth's atmosphere, a feedback cycle can kick in where a chaotic result would become unavoidable. There are some signs that we may have already passed that tipping point, but it's not too late to avert climate disaster.

But relax, worst-case scenarios never happen.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed May 25, 2022 10:52 pm

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed May 25, 2022 10:59 pm

"It's not too late" isn't really a statement of practical fact so much as 'technically true.' It's not to late - if we act now, all of us, together, and effectively. Since there's a near-zero chance of that happening*, it's effectively too late.

*It's inconvenient and expensive, and it reduces profits, all to eliminate a problem that won't be in full swing until the people benefiting from the status quo are dead. And the people that make the decisions are financially reliant on those same people. Since self sacrifice for benefits you won't personally see isn't in our collective nature anymore, we won't act.

Climate change is like COVID. There are the things that we could be doing, and the things that we should be doing, but the only real response we have left is to figure out how to prepare for when things go wrong (and I have no idea where to even start.)

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed May 25, 2022 11:34 pm

The Planet will survive the Humans. We just won’t like it when it’s our turn to go Extinct.

And what’s left is likely going to be Hell, not Eden.

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Wed May 25, 2022 11:52 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 11:34 pm The Planet will survive the Humans. We just won’t like it when it’s our turn to go Extinct.

And what’s left is likely going to be Hell, not Eden.

Be fair! Probably only for a few hundred thousand years. Sheesh.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Thu May 26, 2022 12:18 am

How the World Really Works

Whereas Gore sought to alarm his audience into action, Smil offers something akin to a timeout for reflection. His goal is to steer climate debate between what he considers equally unproductive extremes of “catastrophism” and “techno-optimism.”

“We are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life, and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon,” Smil declares, “and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years.”

To be clear, Smil writes more in sorrow than in anger. He is no climate denier. An environmental scientist affiliated with the University of Manitoba and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada’s Academy of Science, he comprehends and acknowledges the risks posed by accumulating atmospheric carbon dioxide.

You might call him a climate complexifier. Smil reminds us that, as damnably carbon-intense as they are, fossil fuels are undeniably useful, and versatile. That is why the world adopted them to replace other energy sources over the past 150 years or so.

Specifically, humankind uses 17 percent of the world’s primary energy supply just to make four materials — ammonia (for fertilizer), steel, cement and plastic — resulting in 25 percent of all global carbon emissions. These substances, Smil explains, are “pillars of modern civilization,” crucial to feeding, housing, transporting and — through medical devices or hospital construction — healing billions of people.

Not only are there no readily available substitutes for these materials, but also there are no practical low-carbon ways to produce enough to meet current demand. And the world must actually expand their production as Africa and Asia modernize.

We will never conserve our way out of this. We're going to have to engineer this thing.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu May 26, 2022 12:19 am

I don't see humanity going extinct from this. We're too spread out and too adaptable. But a massive die off and a societal collapse? That I could see.

Widespread starvation, disease, whole regions becoming uninhabitable? Sure.

But a few of us will survive, and maybe even rebuild civilization - in a few thousand years. And what will those people think of us for letting this happen? Will we be the cautionary tale that lets humanity become something more? Or will it just be an endless cycle of growth, greed, collapse that explains the Fermi Paradox.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sat May 28, 2022 3:45 pm

There is one way to lessen the demand for these materials - fewer people. This is why I scoff at people who bemoan low birth rates. It could be the one factor that saves humanity.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat May 28, 2022 7:59 pm

Narrator: It won't.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 2:34 pm

If this doesn't perfectly summarize the state of everything - The White House doesn't trust Manchin and Manchin doesn't trust the White House.

OK so for all 6 of your who still have the stomach for this story here’s what my reporting says about the White House-Manchin climate bill/BBB saga dynamics & why it may be intractable

Long thread … sorry sorry

So, the White House is willing to give Manchin approval for fossil fuel projects (a 300 mile gas pipeline in WV, eg, drilling in Alaska) – IF it means he votes yes on a big climate/energy package w/ lots of renewable $, solar & wind etc. The potential swap here makes sense. Climate experts say the renewable $ in Congress is the most important thing. They say: Some oil/gas projects, even if bad for emissions, is dwarfed by upside of climate bill.

But Manchin has not told WH that he'd make this deal 1-1. He’s just saying he really wants it as part of a broader push. That makes the WH nervous. They do not want 2 greenlight oil/gas sites – only for Manchin to THEN block bill w/ renewables $

Worst case scenario for climate

So they’re not approving these projects yet, & not blocking them either. Limbo. That's a problem for Manchin b/c if he votes for the climate bill his leverage dissipates. Manchin could pass the climate bill -- only for WH to then rescind oil/gas approvals

I’ve heard this from sources but you can tell how important these projects are to Manchin by reading his public statements. This is him criticizing the Biden admin in April for holding up the Mountain Valley Pipeline in WV:

Critically important here is Manchin & the WH actually can’t just agree to put both in the bill & pass it.

That's bc the permitting/project approvals that Manchin seeks *fall outside of the reconciliation rules.*

No legislative route to both getting done simultaneously.

So this is a vexing impasse. Remarkably, both sides have a similar outcome my reporting suggests it seems they’d be happy to get to: Approve oil/gas projects + Dem climate bill

But that requires a leap of faith.

Is the trust b/w Manchin & the WH there?

In closing:

While we wait, the planet is warming catastrophically.

The consequences of failure are fatal, permanent, and global.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 2:40 pm

We passed upon the stair
We spoke of was and when
Although I wasn't there
He said I was his friend
Which came as some surprise
I spoke into his eyes, "I thought you died alone
A long long time ago"

[Chorus]
Oh no, not me
I never lost control
You're face to face
With the man who sold the world

I laughed and shook his hand
And made my way back home
I searched for form and land
For years and years, I roamed
I gazed a gazely stare
At all the millions here
We must have died alone
A long long time ago

[Chorus]
Who knows? Not me
We never lost control
You're face to face
With the man who sold the world
Who knows? Not me
We never lost control
You're face to face
With the man who sold the world

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 2:49 pm

This trust issue is 95% Manchins fault but he is too big of a turd to recognize it.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 2:51 pm

Oh, absolutely. I wouldn't trust him to do anything.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 3:33 pm

Also, the WH's priorities are all fucked up. Reconciliation this year *needs* to be Voting Rights IMHO. Not Dobbs, not BBB. w/o Voting Rights anything done can and will be undone by both the Supremes (Moore v. Harper) and the guaranteed MAGA majorities the failure will create.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:01 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 3:33 pm Also, the WH's priorities are all fucked up. Reconciliation this year *needs* to be Voting Rights IMHO. Not Dobbs, not BBB. w/o Voting Rights anything done can and will be undone by both the Supremes (Moore v. Harper) and the guaranteed MAGA majorities the failure will create.

Reconciliation doesn't work that way. Under Senate rules, only budget issues are eligible for reconciliation, and I very much doubt the Senate Parliamentarian is going to allow a voting rights bill to qualify.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:58 pm

Little Raven wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:01 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 3:33 pm Also, the WH's priorities are all fucked up. Reconciliation this year *needs* to be Voting Rights IMHO. Not Dobbs, not BBB. w/o Voting Rights anything done can and will be undone by both the Supremes (Moore v. Harper) and the guaranteed MAGA majorities the failure will create.
Reconciliation doesn't work that way. Under Senate rules, only budget issues are eligible for reconciliation, and I very much doubt the Senate Parliamentarian is going to allow a voting rights bill to qualify.

Just tie it to voting machine security spending and (the original) Voting Rights bill audits/compliance funding and support. Done. Not as much of an obstacle as you present, IMHO.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:09 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:58 pmJust tie it to voting machine security spending and (the original) Voting Rights bill audits/compliance funding and support. Done. Not as much of an obstacle as you present, IMHO.

Yes, of course you can make literally ANYTHING a budget issue if you stretch it far enough. "Immigration? Well, immigrants who become citizens will contribute future tax revenues. This is TOTALLY a budget issue!" "Criminal justice reform? Getting people out of prison early will boost the economy and lower penal spending. This is TOTALLY a budget issue!" "Sending humans to Mars? Previous attempts to push the boundaries of human exploration have yielded fantastic technical advances that have totally revamped our economy. This is TOTALLY a budget issue!"

Which is precisely WHY we have a Senate Parliamentarian, to determine whether or not an issue can be considered for reconciliation. Now granted, Elizabeth MacDonough has not, to my knowledge, concretely ruled out passing voting rights via reconciliation, but I suspect Schumer knows what she would say.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:41 pm

Little Raven wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:09 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:58 pmJust tie it to voting machine security spending and (the original) Voting Rights bill audits/compliance funding and support. Done. Not as much of an obstacle as you present, IMHO.
Yes, of course you can make literally ANYTHING a budget issue if you stretch it far enough. "Immigration? Well, immigrants who become citizens will contribute future tax revenues. This is TOTALLY a budget issue!" "Criminal justice reform? Getting people out of prison early will boost the economy and lower penal spending. This is TOTALLY a budget issue!" "Sending humans to Mars? Previous attempts to push the boundaries of human exploration have yielded fantastic technical advances that have totally revamped our economy. This is TOTALLY a budget issue!"

Which is precisely WHY we have a Senate Parliamentarian, to determine whether or not an issue can be considered for reconciliation. Now granted, Elizabeth MacDonough has not, to my knowledge, concretely ruled out passing voting rights via reconciliation, but I suspect Schumer knows what she would say.

Eh, if it's enforcement/support funds for an existing law (provisions the Supremes have said Congress needs to do something about in the VRA), IMHO it gets a LOT easier. But yeah, in general, that is a hurdle, but the bigger hurdle is Manchin/Sinema, as always. Hell, Manchin even said on his infamous donor call that he didn't think he could keep the filibuster for Voting Rights. Thus far, those donors are definitely getting their money's worth...