The Uninhabitable Earth

[BoSoxGal]

Calling the global warming induced climate crisis not as great a threat as those that faced humankind in the first half of the 20th century is really arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

That's why I compared it to the 14th century instead—and pointed out that we now have way more in the way of scientific knowledge and technological tools that we can use to cope with the crises.

Arguably true, however - the pandemic has proven that all the science in the world won’t save us from ourselves, our egotism.

In fact the pandemic has convinced me entirely that there is no way humans will get on board in the way that is necessary in the time frame necessary (40 years ago, yesterday, RIGHT NOW) to salvage a livable world for our posterity. The will isn’t there. The common sense isn’t there. The concern for future generations - even one’s own children - just isn’t there. So many good people hoping and wishing and doing absolutely nothing.

How many years until we must act on climate? Zero, say these climate thinkers

[Burning Petard]

Me! ME! I am willing to give up air travel. I hate the entire process from leaving my car in the long term lot to getting on the shuttle van to get to my car when it is over.

Solar powered ships? Sure. We used to call that 'sailing' because that is what it was. I don't think life would be all that bad if we each had only three complete changes of clothing (one to wear while the other two were undergoing maintenance.) It is a sad thing to reflect on--that our world economy depends on disposable everything and so many Americans have so much stuff that personal warehouses are a growth industry here were I live.

snailgate

[ex-khobar Andy]

While following up on BSG's post about the YouGov poll (The Cold War under Politics) I found this gem:



So when asked the question: "Would you get the vaccine if it could protect your family from COVID-19?" - fully 57% of the non-vaccinated with no intention of getting the vaccine answered "No." That's 4 out of 7. j Another 2 of 7 were "I dunno." Not even if it could protect you, the question was about if it could protect your family.

And yet these fuckers vote. I don't want a means test or a property test or a skin colour test or a sex test to determine whether someone can vote, I want a test to determine if they have the slightest notion of empathy or even, if that's too much to ask, what is actually in their own interests.

This post could have gone in the Cold War thread as I originally intended, or in the vaccination thread, or in this one about the end of the world because people are just too fucking stupid to understand the issues.

[BoSoxGal]

Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse

A shutdown would have devastating global impacts and must not be allowed to happen, researchers say

Climate scientists have detected warning signs of the collapse of the Gulf Stream, one of the planet’s main potential tipping points.

The research found “an almost complete loss of stability over the last century” of the currents that researchers call the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). The currents are already at their slowest point in at least 1,600 years, but the new analysis shows they may be nearing a shutdown.

Such an event would have catastrophic consequences around the world, severely disrupting the rains that billions of people depend on for food in India, South America and West Africa; increasing storms and lowering temperatures in Europe; and pushing up the sea level in the eastern North America. It would also further endanger the Amazon rainforest and Antarctic ice sheets.

The complexity of the AMOC system and uncertainty over levels of future global heating make it impossible to forecast the date of any collapse for now. It could be within a decade or two, or several centuries away. But the colossal impact it would have means it must never be allowed to happen, the scientists said.

“The signs of destabilisation being visible already is something that I wouldn’t have expected and that I find scary,” said Niklas Boers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who did the research. “It’s something you just can’t [allow to] happen.”

It is not known what level of CO2 would trigger an AMOC collapse, he said. “So the only thing to do is keep emissions as low as possible. The likelihood of this extremely high-impact event happening increases with every gram of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere”.

Scientists are increasingly concerned about tipping points – large, fast and irreversible changes to the climate. Boers and his colleagues reported in May that a significant part of the Greenland ice sheet is on the brink, threatening a big rise in global sea level. Others have shown recently that the Amazon rainforest is now emitting more CO2 than it absorbs, and that the 2020 Siberian heatwave led to worrying releases of methane.

The world may already have crossed a series of tipping points, according to a 2019 analysis, resulting in “an existential threat to civilisation”. A major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due on Monday, is expected to set out the worsening state of the climate crisis.

Boer’s research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is titled “Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the AMOC”. Ice-core and other data from the last 100,000 years show the AMOC has two states: a fast, strong one, as seen over recent millennia, and a slow, weak one. The data shows rising temperatures can make the AMOC switch abruptly between states over one to five decades.

The AMOC is driven by dense, salty seawater sinking into the Arctic ocean, but the melting of freshwater from Greenland’s ice sheet is slowing the process down earlier than climate models suggested.

Boers used the analogy of a chair to explain how changes in ocean temperature and salinity can reveal the AMOC’s instability. Pushing a chair alters its position, but does not affect its stability if all four legs remain on the floor. Tilting the chair changes both its position and stability.

Eight independently measured datasets of temperature and salinity going back as far as 150 years enabled Boers to show that global heating is indeed increasing the instability of the currents, not just changing their flow pattern.

The analysis concluded: “This decline [of the AMOC in recent decades] may be associated with an almost complete loss of stability over the course of the last century, and the AMOC could be close to a critical transition to its weak circulation mode.”

Levke Caesar, at Maynooth University in Ireland, who was not involved in the research, said: “The study method cannot give us an exact timing of a possible collapse, but the analysis presents evidence that the AMOC has already lost stability, which I take as a warning that we might be closer to an AMOC tipping than we think.”

David Thornalley, at University College London in the UK, whose work showed the AMOC is at its weakest point in 1,600 years, said: “These signs of decreasing stability are concerning. But we still don’t know if a collapse will occur, or how close we might be to it.”

[ex-khobar Andy]

It's worth recalling that GB is on the same general latitude as Labrador. If the Gulf Stream fails just look straight west to understand what the climate will be. Not pretty. The Daily Mail will be in fits because they will have to knock a zero off all those house prices they so love to quote. Scandinavia will be uninhabitable.

[BoSoxGal]

I understand in general about the Gulf Stream and how it enables temperate climates, but with all the cold places warming so dramatically - record high temperatures in places like Siberia and the Arctic circle - would the broken Gulf Stream override the warming in those regions or would it just create a much more intense global weather weirding than what we are already seeing?

Also last month was the worst July in recorded history - which in this case is only since 2003 - for global wildfires and the megatons of carbon released by them.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think that the general opinion is that the collapse of the Gulf Stream would bring local temperatures down more than global warming might raise them. It's factors like this that caused the climate community to abandon the 'global warming' phrase for 'climate change' which is more accurate.

[Jarlaxle]

It's worth recalling that GB is on the same general latitude as Labrador. If the Gulf Stream fails just look straight west to understand what the climate will be. Not pretty. The Daily Mail will be in fits because they will have to knock a zero off all those house prices they so love to quote. Scandinavia will be uninhabitable.

Notably, Labrador is affected by a COLD ocean current. (Called, appropriately, the Labrador Current.)

[Joe Guy]

....It's factors like this that caused the climate community to abandon the 'global warming' phrase for 'climate change' which is more accurate.

I remember many times when people referred to something like an unusually intense snowstorm that was taking place and they seemed to think that proved that global warming is a lie or a joke. It's the same type of thinking used by anti-COVID vaxxers. Many self-identified "Patriots" seem to think vaccinations and the idea of climate change has something to do with liberals attempting to control people.

[ex-khobar Andy]

In other news, Mendocino is running out of water. Many factors at play including, possibly, over exploitation of existing resources but its hard not to conclude that climate change and its effect on icepack etc is not at least partially the problem.

Interestingly, Mendocino was also in the news recently for having the most expensive gas (petrol) in the country at $6.73 per gallon. That's almost up to Cornwall pricing.

[Gob]

But not quite.

Supermarket prices for unleaded now average 130.0 p/litre.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Based on today's forex $1.00 = £0.72 and 1 US gallon = 3.785 liters, $6.73 per gallon = £1.28 per liter. So yes: not quite.

Edited to correct a typo.

[Gob]

Close, but no cigar!

(In Cornwall you can add a penny or two onto the "average" litre cost, as we are "remote.")

[Long Run]

In other news, Mendocino is running out of water. Many factors at play including, possibly, over exploitation of existing resources but its hard not to conclude that climate change and its effect on icepack etc is not at least partially the problem.

If only Little River weren't so little!

[Guinevere]

Go read Cadillac Desert - subtitled “The American West and its Disappearing Water” - written by Mark Reisner in 1986. We all knew this was coming, but kept on sticking our heads into the ever-increasing sand.

[Long Run]

True, but there is an endless supply of water for a place like Mendocino, it just will cost twice as much+ than the traditional methods of wells or dams.

[BoSoxGal]

I was waiting to see if anyone else would post about today’s IPCC report.

Had an interesting conversation today with a psychologist about the peculiar quirks of the human brain that are allowing our magnificent species to commit slow motion mass suicide/extinction.

Anyway the science is clear it’s inevitable - as a species we are simply not capable of making the changes necessary to preserve a human-habitable planet for the long term. That second part is my opinion, but mark my words - my opinion on this isn’t wrong.

I’m glad I won’t be alive for the worst of it. I am already very sad about what I’ll have to witness over the next couple decades.

[Joe Guy]

. .....Anyway the science is clear it’s inevitable - as a species we are simply not capable of making the changes necessary to preserve a human-habitable planet for the long term. That second part is my opinion, but mark my words - my opinion on this isn’t wrong......

I fear that you are correct. "Big Money" businesses (examples) don't appear to be banking on what's going to happen to the Earth 100 years from now. They're putting their money in whatever they can to maintain and/or increase profits now. I know that's nothing new but type of thinking is more dangerous and shortsighted now than it has ever been.

[liberty]

Me! ME! I am willing to give up air travel. I hate the entire process from leaving my car in the long term lot to getting on the shuttle van to get to my car when it is over.

Solar powered ships? Sure. We used to call that 'sailing' because that is what it was. I don't think life would be all that bad if we each had only three complete changes of clothing (one to wear while the other two were undergoing maintenance.) It is a sad thing to reflect on--that our world economy depends on disposable everything and so many Americans have so much stuff that personal warehouses are a growth industry here were I live.

snailgate

You know, if jet air travel disappeared, air travel would still be available. We would go back to propeller-driven aircraft. They would fly slower at a lower altitude and be noisier and more dangerous, but the plane would produce less carbon and be faster than anything on the ground. Of course, there is the possibility of space planes in the future, but I don’t know how much carbon they would contribute. They might produce a lot, but only for a short distance until it would reach space.

[ex-khobar Andy]

True lib to an extent (turboprops better than jets for GHG production) but I'm not sure its a distinction with much potential for major savings. The airline industry is much more efficient than it was even 20 years ago when there were allegedly the equivalent of 50 empty jumbos crossing the Atlantic every day. I was once one of six on an AA flight to London maybe mid-nineties, and again on a Riyadh to London flight 1983 or so. (Stewardesses [as we called them in those days] decided that serving two cabins was too much like hard work and sent us all up the front where the lone lady who had paid for a first class seat was glad of the company of the rowdy oicks from the back.) But it's years since I was on anything but a full - = 100% - flight.

The number I found on line for air transportation was 2.8% of fossil fuel. Sounds about right - it's not nothing and any saving is worth having, but I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time on. I wouldn't mind seeing jet fuel doubled or tripled in price which would help to reduce the amount of cargo air shipped which would have the knock on effect of improving local manufacture and agriculture. There are ridiculous examples of food being flown from A to B at a unit per calorie cost of around three times the intrinsic value of the food. And flowers!

Concrete production is one of the worst offenders. I used to live in Buffalo NY. A quote from Wikipedia about the home of the Bills (my underlining):

Highmark Stadium (originally Rich Stadium, then Ralph Wilson Stadium from 1998 to 2015, then New Era Field from 2016 to 2020, and Bills Stadium from 2020 to 2021) is a stadium near Orchard Park, New York, in the southern portion of the Buffalo metropolitan area. The stadium opened in 1973 and is the home venue of the Buffalo Bills of the National Football League (NFL).

And now the Bills want to knock it down and build a new stadium for $1.4 billion. That's $1400 million. And of course (this is secondary to my argument but about as galling) they want the Erie County taxpayers to pony up. How can a stadium 48 years old be past its best? Westminster Abbey is around 750 years old and still functioning. This is the kind of nonsense which has to stop.