Have we reached a tipping point?

[Ashful]

So local weather is not climate so it is not relevant. However, localized methane bubbles in Siberia (article linked in your original post) is?

When one company fails to meet their predicted growth (while ironically still making a lot of money), and their stock tanks as a result of it, it doesn’t mean we’re in a depression. Likewise, weather for one week in one location has only a small effect on annual global averages.

Here’s an interesting one, modeling done almost 20 years ago predicted that the anticipated rise in global temperatures over the next 25’ish years had the potential to stall the Gulf Stream. This would plunge Europe into a mini ice age, effectively normalizing their temperature for their latitude, while global temperature was actually rising. I’m not sure what the models, undoubtedly somewhat refined over the last 20 years say about this today, but it’s a demonstration of the loose and sometimes contradictory relationship between local and global conditions.

 

[revicam2]

When one company fails to meet their predicted growth (while ironically still making a lot of money), and their stock tanks as a result of it, it doesn’t mean we’re in a depression. Likewise, weather for one week in one location has only a small effect on annual global averages.

Here’s an interesting one, modeling done almost 20 years ago predicted that the anticipated rise in global temperatures over the next 25’ish years had the potential to stall the Gulf Stream. This would plunge Europe into a mini ice age, effectively normalizing their temperature for their latitude, while global temperature was actually rising. I’m not sure what the models, undoubtedly somewhat refined over the last 20 years say about this today, but it’s a demonstration of the loose and sometimes contradictory relationship between local and global conditions.

this is a twit from a local weather met.
weather sure was 'extreme' from 1883-1885 and thousands of years before and thousands of years going forward once in a lifetime weather happens somewhere everyday. bc our life cycle is so small compared to weather cycles

Just puts the lifetime of climate and weather together in our lifetime? Local weather met is Tim Kelly, NECN Boston.

 

[woodgeek]

Sorry, I've been having access issues...

Capt, I think we agree that New England needs access to more Nat Gas. But it seems that there are two stories...one that 'environmentalists' and NIMBYs are blocking new pipelines. The other story is that existing pipelines were running way below capacity during recent polar vortex events, due to utilities (legally) booking access to pipelines, and then cancelling the use the day before, shich looks like profiteering.

I don't know which, of either or both are true. I know a similar situation prevailed in LA in the early 2000s, resulting in blackouts. And history showed that it was not enviros or NIMBYs, but some bros are ENRON profiteering. So I tend to prefer the second scenario.

 

[CaptSpiff]

I don't know which, of either or both are true. I know a similar situation prevailed in LA in the early 2000s, resulting in blackouts. And history showed that it was not enviros or NIMBYs, but some bros are ENRON profiteering. So I tend to prefer the second scenario.

ENRON was a pipeline management company way before they got in the Electric Energy market "game". That's where they learned the game. So who knows!?!

What I do know is a "constrained market" is never good for the customer, and a new pipeline or two would drop NG prices in New England significantly.

 

[ABMax24]

ENRON was a pipeline management company way before they got in the Electric Energy market "game". That's where they learned the game. So who knows!?!

What I do know is a "constrained market" is never good for the customer, and a new pipeline or two would drop NG prices in New England significantly.

Hey I have a solution! We have more gas than we know what to do with, producers are almost giving it away! Draw us a line on the map and it'll be there by next winter!

 

[begreen]

The UN has officially warned that 2020 must be an action year to avoid the point of no return.

UN chief warns of ‘point of no return’ on climate change

MADRID (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Sunday that the world’s efforts to stop climate change have been “utterly inadequate" so far and there is a danger global warming could pass the “point of no return.”

apnews.com

Meanwhile, Australia is still in springtime and the eastern forests are afire. This is home to the koala. 85% of their habitat has been destroyed and summer hasn't started for them yet.

 

[Ashful]

The UN has officially warned that 2020 must be an action year to avoid the point of no return.

UN chief warns of ‘point of no return’ on climate change

MADRID (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Sunday that the world’s efforts to stop climate change have been “utterly inadequate" so far and there is a danger global warming could pass the “point of no return.”

apnews.com

.

If you Google “environmentalist point of no return” and scroll down past the advertised links, two of the top four hits say that (1) we already passed it a few years ago, and that (2) we will hit it in 2035. Digging farther down you’ll see mention of scientists agreeing we will hit this magical tipping point almost every year of the last four decades.

I don’t think it’s a useful term to use as broadly as this. There likely are tipping points, with regard to many separate and distinct criteria, but it’s pretty clear that the “15,000 scientists” who agreed we had already passed it two years ago must disagree with this latest UN statement.

 

[CaptSpiff]

...., but it’s pretty clear that the “15,000 scientists” who agreed we had already passed it two years ago must disagree with this latest UN statement.

OUCH! (palm raised to forehead)

 

[Highbeam]

OUCH! (palm raised to forehead)

But I’m totally cereal this time.

 

[begreen]

If you Google “environmentalist point of no return” and scroll down past the advertised links, two of the top four hits say that (1) we already passed it a few years ago, and that (2) we will hit it in 2035. Digging farther down you’ll see mention of scientists agreeing we will hit this magical tipping point almost every year of the last four decades.

I don’t think it’s a useful term to use as broadly as this. There likely are tipping points, with regard to many separate and distinct criteria, but it’s pretty clear that the “15,000 scientists” who agreed we had already passed it two years ago must disagree with this latest UN statement.

Agreed. There are a lot of moving pieces here including where the goal post is set. Still, arguing about whether we are already screwed or about to be is as weak as arguing whether to bail faster or just not care. There is a lot that can be done and most regrettably the biggest offenders on the planet are the ones doing far less than their fair share.

 

[Ashful]

Agreed. There are a lot of moving pieces here including where the goal post is set. Still arguing about whether we are already screwed or about to be is as weak as arguing whether to bail faster or just not care. There is a lot that can be done and most regrettably the biggest offenders on the planet are the ones doing far less than their fair share.

Agreed on that. I see the tide of social pressures turning, though. Owning a power yacht, private jet, or even a little Hellcat may soon be akin to putting a “kick me” sign on one’s back. Social awareness and moral pressure are a mighty powerful force for change.

 

[begreen]

One of the main issues that make this a moving target is not bad science, it's bad politics. The nationally determined contributions set out by the 2015 Paris Accord have not been realized. China, India, Japan and the US are not doing their fair share. Emissions are accelerating atmospheric and ocean carbon at a time by which we should now be slowing down. That means more aggressive targets are needed to stabilize global climate systems. Additionally, we are learning more and have a lot more data accrued. Also, the role of some large systems, like the oceans and agriculture, for example, were underestimated.

 

[CaptSpiff]

One of the main issues that make this a moving target is not bad science, it's bad politics. The nationally determined contributions set out by the 2015 Paris Accord have not been realized. China, India, Japan and the US are not doing their fair share. Emissions are accelerating atmospheric and ocean carbon at a time by which we should now be slowing down. That means more aggressive targets are needed to stabilize global climate systems. Additionally, we are learning more and have a lot more data accrued. Also, the role of some large systems, like the oceans and agriculture, for example, were underestimated.

Ah, "fair share" is a concept we have all been trying to manage since we were 2 years old. Probably was even part of the family table conversation at last week's Thanksgiving get together. How did that settle out?

Truth I've found is few are willing to pay the cost of "fair share". What I believe people will pay for is "hard" solutions. They will come in the form of technological innovations as we experience more weather deviations which directly affect us. NYC for example has concluded that future "sea gates" will likely be needed across the Varrazzano Narrows to prevent storm surge type flooding which we experienced during Sandy. Unfortunately the folks on the hi-water side will likely have to raise their homes by 8 feet. When locals were asked, they thought it was "fair" only if the Federal Govt paid for it.

The technological innovation is coming,... and we will pay for it. Whether we think we got (or paid) our fair share will continue to be discussed.

 

[begreen]

Ah, "fair share" is a concept we have all been trying to manage since we were 2 years old. Probably was even part of the family table conversation at last week's Thanksgiving get together. How did that settle out?

Truth I've found is few are willing to pay the cost of "fair share". What I believe people will pay for is "hard" solutions. They will come in the form of technological innovations as we experience more weather deviations which directly affect us. NYC for example has concluded that future "sea gates" will likely be needed across the Varrazzano Narrows to prevent storm surge type flooding which we experienced during Sandy. Unfortunately the folks on the hi-water side will likely have to raise their homes by 8 feet. When locals were asked they thought it was "fair" only if the Federal Govt paid for it.

The technological innovation is coming,... and we will pay for it. Whether we think we got (or paid) our fair share will continue to be discussed.

You’re right that sovereign states can and will be selfish unless they realize that this is a global issue that doesn’t give a damn about National interests. Technology may provide some solutions for some problems but that is treating the symptoms and not the causes.

 

[SpaceBus]

We need to stop converting minerals/fossil fuels into carbon. Unless there's a large shift in the way humans use energy resources I can only see nuclear power being capable of supporting demand without destroying the planet with carbon.

 

[WinterinWI]

You’re right that sovereign states can and will be selfish unless they realize that this is a global issue that doesn’t give a damn about National interests. Technology may provide some solutions for some problems but that is treating the symptoms and not the causes.

Sounds like you are proposing a global ruling class to whom all must answer to their superior wisdom and carry out any request in the name of climate preservation.

 

[SpaceBus]

Sounds like you are proposing a global ruling class to whom all must answer to their superior wisdom and carry out any request in the name of climate preservation.

That's what we have now, but with petrochemical companies at the helm.

 

[begreen]

Sounds like you are proposing a global ruling class to whom all must answer to their superior wisdom and carry out any request in the name of climate preservation.

The banking industry already has that role whether we like it or not. This is more about the preservation of life itself.

 

[Sodbuster]

98% of other networks is Liberal opinion. CNN is 98% liberal opinion. 2% news. I watch them both ,just to see how whacky they can get. Also the waters continue to get muddy conflating climate deniers with those who absolutely accept the science but also accept the science about just whats possible and probable to be done about it. For all the screaming i dont see masses of people on either side giving up their modern day carbon creating lifestyle.

Exactly, follow the money, unless the scientist say it's not about the money, then it's really about the money. If there was little to no climate change, what grants would fund theses scientists, what would they study? And they are heavily subsidized by grants. I've also noticed that Spring came late last year and winter really early. Climate change or cyclical cycles? Were did the ice sheet go that covered almost all of North America. Must have had a cooling, then a long warming period. Almost everything in nature is cyclical. The weatherman can't predict the weather more than 3 days out, yet we're supposed to believe they know what happened millions of years ago? Give me a break!

 

[begreen]

Climate is being studied because the impact of the anthropogenic change will affect everything. This report came out last Friday. It is endorsed by NASA, NOAA, the Department of Defense, and 10 other federal scientific agencies.
Take a moment to at least read the summary:

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

 

[WinterinWI]

That's what we have now, but with petrochemical companies at the helm.

Oil companies hardly have the ability to directly create international law. What they do have is a lot of $ and resources to lobby for their agenda, which is not the same.

You suggested earlier in this thread (or maybe it was another thread) that "free" education and health care would go a long ways in fighting climate change. So do you think that this global ruling class should be able to mandate "free" education and healthcare for all in the world in the name of fighting climate change? Of course this theoretical ruling class would need the ability to force all to follow their ways, or it would be powerless and fail. Sounds like they would be much more powerful than oil companies' wildest dreams.

As far as "Big oil", I think it's is past it's prime and likely that industry will be starting a long slow decline. Even if it were magically gone tomorrow, I doubt the "10yrs left" climate change alarmism would stop. The movement seems to be much more about advancing socialism/communism than anything else.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Its not just China and India that will be slow to curb carbon use,its 50% of americans that live day to day with zero disposable income. Everything in that sector will be cost driven. Even the well off in the US are talking the talk, but most are not walking the walk. Nuclear would go a long way to fix this but cant seem to shake its bad boy reputation.

 

[SpaceBus]

Who would need force when a subsidized lifestyle and a clean planet are the outcome?

 

[begreen]

Oil companies hardly have the ability to directly create international law. What they do have is a lot of $ and resources to lobby for their agenda, which is not the same.

They can do much more than lobby. They can insert those lobbyists and their ex-execs into key government offices and positions, thus becoming the ones that write and sign legislation and choose the judges in the court reviewing cases pertaining to them. This is what is happening now.

In the meantime, carbon emissions have hit record highs in 2019. Exactly the wrong direction we need to be seeing. This is in spite of declining coal emissions and the trend will continue until fossil fuel use is reigned in. It's like having a champagne party on the Titanic as the boats are being lowered.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Hit a Record in 2019, Even as Coal Fades (Published 2019)

Global consumption of coal declined unexpectedly this year, but a surge in oil and gas pushed up greenhouse gas emissions over all.

www.nytimes.com

 

[WinterinWI]

Who would need force when a subsidized lifestyle and a clean planet are the outcome?

Yes the utopia...