Global warming strikes again...

[Valka D'Ur]

I was just being outrageous. This is too dangerous.

Dangerous to make sure that anyone who might be responsible for science-related legislation or social policy at least has some basic understanding of what they should know, in order to make intelligent decisions?

Believing that the world is 6,000 years old is far less dangerous than believing in the free market.

A great big area in my province looks like a post-apocalyptic hell because there are some politicians who wave away basic science. All they care about is the oil, and don't give a damn about the environment, or that they're causing damage that will take many decades at least for the environment to recover.

But what's a river full of water that can't be drunk, fish with cancer, the forests wrecked, when you can have even more plastic doodads that nobody needs? Our previous Prime Minister decided that environmentalists should be classified as terrorists. Even if you're just out participating in the annual bird count on Boxing Day, stumble across some problem like a leaking pipe, take a picture of it, it means big trouble... for you, not the company that owns the pipe.

Shouldn't that be the job of a states basic education system?

What - to educate the politicians?

You'd think so. But education is a provincial responsibility and what's taught in one province might not be taught in another, or at least on the same level. Same with the public, Catholic, and private schools. There's a provincial curriculum that's supposed to be followed, but the systems don't follow it the same way.

There was once a leader of a federal party (the Canadian Alliance, back in the 1990s) who sincerely believed - still does - that the world is only 6000 years old. He used to be my MLA when he was in provincial politics. It was a pleasure to finally have the chance to tell him off when he came doorknocking one day, looking for votes.

I have no idea how such people can reconcile fossil fuels with such a belief. They're called "fossil" fuels for a reason.

 

[Michkov]

What - to educate the politicians?

You'd think so. But education is a provincial responsibility and what's taught in one province might not be taught in another, or at least on the same level. Same with the public, Catholic, and private schools. There's a provincial curriculum that's supposed to be followed, but the systems don't follow it the same way.

I was thinking long term, as in a having a populace that is properly educated, can make more informed decisions. Further you can draw better politicians from it. As I said long term, say couple of 100 years should to that.

As for curricula I assumed Canada has a single one for the whole country. Sad to hear its fracture like the USs.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I was thinking long term, as in a having a populace that is properly educated, can make more informed decisions. Further you can draw better politicians from it. As I said long term, say couple of 100 years should to that.

As for curricula I assumed Canada has a single one for the whole country. Sad to hear its fracture like the USs.

Well, it's a bit of a necessity that the provinces are responsible for education. Since I live in a landlocked province (it's a two-day drive from here to the nearest ocean), I didn't really need to learn the same things that people in the Maritime provinces need to learn (about the fisheries, for instance). But the curriculum at the county school I attended (for rural students) was geared toward how the material could be applied to farming and ranching.

There was enough of a cultural divide between city and rural schools that when I transferred to a city school in Grade 5 (in 1972), the language/social studies teacher looked down her nose at me as though she expected me to be barely literate and only know how to slop pigs. I showed her, though. I finished that year with an A average and ranked #1 in the class.

It's a diverse country, with regional economic issues, language issues, and cultural issues. One-size-fits-all just won't work here. That said, of course there are some things that people should know, no matter where they live, and that aren't selectively true based on where people live.

 

[Lexicus]

Dangerous to make sure that anyone who might be responsible for science-related legislation or social policy at least has some basic understanding of what they should know, in order to make intelligent decisions?

And who will you put in charge of deciding what's on the test? What happens when a conservative government gets in power and suddenly the qualifications are that you don't believe in evolution or climate change?

A great big area in my province looks like a post-apocalyptic hell because there are some politicians who wave away basic science. All they care about is the oil, and don't give a damn about the environment, or that they're causing damage that will take many decades at least for the environment to recover.

The politicians are waving away basic science because they are beholden to interests to whom it is profitable to wave away science under certain circumstances.

 

[Angst]

Shouldn't that be the job of a states basic education system?

Sadly while a benevolent institution, it often fails to meet its goals. It should afflict people with reason but somehow it fails often enough to procure resistance against basic scientific facts.

 

[carlosMM]

Which is exactly what the graphic does.

It's trying to cope with the fact that GHG do not adequately explain global warming by throwing other anthropic issues on the pile. But, to do that, they have to play games with graph scales to get things to look pretty. So, lacking solid facts, it's blowing smoke. Put another way, it's all polish and no substance.

All that said, it is a positive step. Someone is finally admitting GHG are not an adequate explanation, even if they try to bury the admission in other things.

J

It seems you do not understand the graph. Sorry.

 

[Angst]

Good news everyone!

http://politiken.dk/udland/art6129833/Kloden-står-stadig-til-at-redde

The article is in Danish, but refers to this article by New York Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...hange-can-be-avoided-say-scientists-k9p5hg5l0

The title is kind of misleading, so here it is: Basically the Earth is warming just slightly slower than expected - meaning that we have about 15 more years of a breather to stop emissions before cutting down.

Now, this is almost politically impossible, but hopefully it adds up in the end. Every little break counts.

 

[Lexicus]

Good news everyone!

http://politiken.dk/udland/art6129833/Kloden-står-stadig-til-at-redde

The article is in Danish, but refers to this article by New York Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...hange-can-be-avoided-say-scientists-k9p5hg5l0

The title is kind of misleading, so here it is: Basically the Earth is warming just slightly slower than expected - meaning that we have about 15 more years of a breather to stop emissions before cutting down.

Now, this is almost politically impossible, but hopefully it adds up in the end. Every little break counts.

a new study has found.

Careful now.

 

[Angst]

Careful about what? It seems 9 days old, isn't it?

I know that Breitbart basically gutted the news and hid most of the stats to advance their idiocy ("GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE"), article is pretty clear that the lesser warming is miniscule (and really, it should be, as 15 years is very, very little on a geological scale)

What are you inferring?

Not trying to be rude, jsut curious.

 

[Lexicus]

Careful about what?

The results of one study should generally not be presented as fact. That one study found we have a bit more breathing room doesn't necessarily mean we actually do. The only time I'll take the findings of one study really seriously are if they are already in line with the bulk of work being done in the field, or if I see lots of other scientists in the field raving about the study. One example would be that study back a month or two ago that showed sperm counts declining in the Western world. I saw a lot of reporting that scientists who studied sperm were saying this was a very good new study and the methodology represented a significant advance over most previous studies on the same subject.

Otherwise it's best to take a wait and see approach with any single new study. Perhaps the results will be borne out and absorbed into the mainstream consensus, or maybe in a couple of weeks the authors will say "we messed up".

 

[Angst]

Oh of course, that makes perfect sense. The stupid thing is that I continually remind myself that one study doesn't matter. I'm better than this.

Reminding yourself of this is also the bulwark against pure denier stupid.

 

[stfoskey12]

Here's an article on that topic you can read in English without having to sign in. I personally like the Washington Post's reporting on climate change because they seem to do their best to be true to the science and don't have an obvious strong bias. It basically says the study says we will have locked in 1.5C of warming in 20 years instead of 5 at current emission rates, which still isn't a lot of time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-time-if-theyre-right/?utm_term=.181db1234475

 

[El_Machinae]

That's a good article. Basically, we have 700 more gigatonnes available before we've deadlocked the international consensus of 1.5 C.

Quick math says that's 100 tonnes per capita.

People in the States will burn through their fair share in ~6 years. People in China will burn through theirs in about 14. As the article says, the globe projection is that we'll have burned through that buffer in about 20 years. So, obviously some entities are seizing much more than their fair share.

 

[Hrothbern]

Some info I like to share, more an awareness actually

Airplanes are increasing the amount of bio-fuel, pushing fossil out.
Somewhere in a couple of decades that will make sense at the time bio-fuel is no longer used for cars. Cars being electric.
But for now an increase in bio-fuel means more and more palm oil is used, causing more and more tropical forest to be replaced by palm oil plantations.
And that is real bad.

On a side note:
From health considerations there is a growing concern about using trans fats as hard (non liquid, not so liquid) fats for certain processed food products where it is desired to have no oily surface.
For example cookies, powdered spice mixes, snacks (like crisps/chips), etc.
Reducing and banning these trans fats is likely to happen, if not by regulations then by consumers choosing.
The food processing industry will typical replace those trans fats with palm oil. The other natural hard fats like chocolate fat, coconut fat and dairy fat too expensive.

That makes actions to reduce the palm oil use for non-food demand all the more important.
I find the use of bio-fuel to give a green flavor more a trendy feel good act, than a solid improvement.
My country uses bio-fuel more as a quick fix to meet Paris masking the lack of timely investments in renewables.
bad mechanism.
bad for tropical forest.
bad for climate and natural habitats.

 

[tuckerkao]

I think Global Warming strikes Antarctica again, the ice land melts as the result of as the steep temperature rising -
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/giant-hole-reopens-in-antarctica-ice-for-the-first-time-in-40-years/

 

[carlosMM]

if roofs are painted white wont that just bounce the rays back up into the ghgs to be trapped?

we want to trap the rays on the ground without them heating the surface too much if thats possible, solar panels for energy

nah, we just need to put some sunscreens in orbit

A white roof reflects back a lot of visible light (which is why you see it as white), which largely passes out of the atmosphere.
A black roof absorbs most of the visible light and emits infrared instead, which is trapped by the GHG.

 

[Lexicus]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...rming-american-south/532200/?utm_source=atlfb

View attachment 481919View attachment 481920

 

[Lexicus]

https://www.archaeology.org/news/6131-171130-sea-level-rise

 

[stfoskey12]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...rming-american-south/532200/?utm_source=atlfb
View attachment 481918


View attachment 481919View attachment 481920

That's very interesting, but considering this sort of thing is still in its infancy, I feel like it should be taken with a grain of salt.

https://www.archaeology.org/news/6131-171130-sea-level-rise

This is definitely a concern.

 

[Lexicus]

That's very interesting, but considering this sort of thing is still in its infancy, I feel like it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sure: it likely underestimates the economic impact for reasons given in the accompanying article.