The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[steve_bank]

I have considered further explanations. They don't change the facts of what you wrote, and they don't make it so that my reaction to what you wrote (not what you meant, I can't mind read so I can only react to what I see) was anything but reasonable. Your attempt to make it look like it wasn't is sleazy.

There's your problem. What I wrote was a brief off the cuff remark. You seize upon the wording of that remark without asking what I meant and worry over it like pup with a bone, or a desperate Lawyer, like the wording is the final draft, once said it's locked in for life and any further explanation is futile. You need to lighten up and get out of your Philadelphia Lawyer Mode.

I do so love effective use of metaphor and analogy.

 

[lpetrich]

Misogyny, meet hypocrisy: Climate deniers go after AOC, Greta Thunberg with sexist attacks | Salon.com by Amanda Marcotte - "Climate skeptics don't have science, morality or simple decency on their side — so they're leaning into sexism"\

The Media Research Center replayed a snippet of a recent video by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a title "More Shallow Thoughts by AOC". She argues in it that the cost of not doing anything about climate change will be MUCH bigger than the cost of doing so.

It's equally clear that Media Research Center doesn't expect its conservative audience to actually listen to what she's saying. Instead, sexist stereotypes are doing the heavy lifting here. Ocasio-Cortez is young, female and pretty, and as such, the target audience for this video is predisposed to think of her as a bimbo, and is ready to write off anything she says as dumb lady yapping, without bothering to absorb the actual contents of her speech.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "I love everything about this GOP attack ad.
Republicans underestimate my intelligence bc I invite people into my home & talk about policy in plain English instead of DC jargon
They think that’s dumb, so they end up paying for ads that spread & explain our policy positions. https://t.co/6XC1YdyKDU" / Twitter
noting
MRCTV.org on Twitter: "WATCH: This time on "Shallow Thoughts, with @AOC," the New York socialist says coastal cities will be underwater due to climate change, and we face "death" if we don't spend trillions of dollars to address it. https://t.co/hQycZQwaQ4" / Twitter
AOC is absolutely right. Check out the elevations of many big cities -- shockingly low. They got that way because the climate over the last few centuries has been very stable -- and we are now ruining it.

Over my life, I have personally lived in or visited several vulnerable big cities: NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland OR, Seattle, London UK, Split HR, St. Petersburg RU.

Some of them are hilly or upland enough to partially escape, some not.


Greta Thunberg has gotten it also.

Unfortunately, Thunberg was also greeted by a wave of misogynist nastiness, largely coming from allegedly grown men in both Europe and the United States. The attacks on Thunberg were in the same vein as those on Ocasio-Cortez, accusing her of being too stupid to know what she's talking about and denying that her voice is one worth honoring. A writer for the conservative Washington Examiner claimed that Thunberg is a victim of "child abuse" and that her mother "pimps their kid out," explicitly drawing a line between forced sex work and climate activism.

Teen Activist Greta Thunberg Getting Harassed by Grown Men | The Mary Sue
Steve Milloy on Twitter: "When you've resorted to a teenage puppet for your public policy argument... you've lost.
Climate bedwetters... the world laughs at this Greta charade. https://t.co/wqdw39KZJp" / Twitter

From someone who called GT a "prophetess in shorts":
Guillaume Larrivé on Twitter: "J'appelle mes collègues députés à boycotter @GretaThunberg à l'Assemblée nationale. Pour lutter intelligemment contre le réchauffement climatique, nous n'avons pas besoin de gourous apocalyptiques, mais de progrès scientifique & de courage politique. https://t.co/Qs4Lna2dXE" / Twitter
Google Translate: I call on fellow MPs to boycott @GretaThunberg in the National Assembly. To fight climate change intelligently, we do not need apocalyptic gurus, but scientific progress and political courage.

David Vance on Twitter: "Yes, Greta. We hear but we're not remotely interested in what you say. We also hear the shrill chorus of your infantile acolytes and laugh at them. https://t.co/QDcOeqZA1a" / Twitter

Arron Banks on Twitter: "Freak yachting accidents do happen in August ... https://t.co/6CPePHYLtu" / Twitter - when GT was traveling across the ocean. He later claimed that that was a joke.

 

[DBT]

I have considered further explanations. They don't change the facts of what you wrote, and they don't make it so that my reaction to what you wrote (not what you meant, I can't mind read so I can only react to what I see) was anything but reasonable. Your attempt to make it look like it wasn't is sleazy.

There's your problem. What I wrote was a brief off the cuff remark. You seize upon the wording of that remark without asking what I meant and worry over it like pup with a bone, or a desperate Lawyer, like the wording is the final draft, once said it's locked in for life and any further explanation is futile. You need to lighten up and get out of your Philadelphia Lawyer Mode.

I do so love effective use of metaphor and analogy.

I was worried about the wording and composition.....a word wrong here or there and the Goose is Cooked, the Lawyers move in and have field day......

 

[Loren Pechtel]

50 million is when the compensation reaches it's limit and the mercury starts to creep up.

Ah, OK, I misunderstood. You did actually say that.

It's a very important threshold because it will require substantial evolution to cope with it--something which won't be a big problem for fast-reproducing things like bacteria, but will be a big problem for slow-reproducing things like large animals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We appear to be failing the Dewing Test.

Ants and cockroaches are the supreme winners.

Either we have been extremely lucky, or there's another filter in front of us that's almost certainly lethal. Since we are close to breaking free of this world if that filter is out there it's very close.

And bacteria will beat both the ants and the cockroaches.

 

[steve_bank]

Yea there is misogyny, but I am tired of hearing it as an excuse whenever a woman meets resistance. Despite the common progressive facade, woman can actually be incompetent and just plain assholes.

 

[steve_bank]

I do so love effective use of metaphor and analogy.

I was worried about the wording and composition.....a word wrong here or there and the Goose is Cooked, the Lawyers move in and have field day......

The only time I see his posts is when somebody replies to his.

 

[Jokodo]

I do so love effective use of metaphor and analogy.

I was worried about the wording and composition.....a word wrong here or there and the Goose is Cooked, the Lawyers move in and have field day......

The only time I see his posts is when somebody replies to his.

Some people do hate it when their shitty arguments get countered.

 

[steve_bank]

In space nobody can hear you scream. On the forum when on ignore nobody can hear you rant.

 

[lpetrich]

NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions have Proven to be Very Accurate, Within 1/20th of a Degree Celsius - Universe Today

The measurements clearly show that Earth is warming in lockstep with our carbon emissions. Since 1880, the Earth’s temperature has risen just over one degree Celsius, or two degrees Fahrenheit. And the most recent years are some of the warmest on record. That makes sense, since our emissions continue to rise.

-

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is what climate change looks like: it hits vulnerable communities first.
I can already hear climate deniers screeching: “It’s always been like this! You’re dim,” etc.
No. This is about science & leadership. We either decarbonize&cut emissions, or we don’t & let people die. https://t.co/paUHKAp03e" / Twitter
About Hurricane Dorian hitting the Bahamas.

Hurricanes Likely to Get Stronger & More Frequent: Study | Climate Central

However, I've found this:
Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change | SpringerLink
Hurricanes won't get much more common, but they will get stronger. Which is still a Bad Thing.

Kerry Emanuel: This year’s hurricanes are a taste of the future | MIT News

In Houston, Hurricane Harvey, which devastated parts of the Texas coastline and produced more total rainfall than any U.S. hurricane on record, would have been considered a one-in-2,000-years event during the 20th century, according to the best available reconstructions of the past record of such storms, Emanuel said. But in the 21st century, that probability could drop to one in 100 years, given the likely trajectory of climate change conditions. Hurricane Irma, with its record-breaking duration as a Category 5 storm, will go from being a one-in-800-years event in the area of the Caribbean that suffered a direct hit, to a one-in-80-years event by the end of this century, he said.

-

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The severity of today’s flash flood “has climatologically <1% chance of occurring in a given year.”
Floods that were once rare (“100-year floods”) are now expected to happen more regularly.
I learned in FSC hearings that certain key flood maps haven’t updated in *decades.* https://t.co/uM2yHJ2HRl" / Twitter
noting
Alex Lamers on Twitter: "Flash Flood Emergency for the District and northern Virginia suburbs. #DCA measured 3.3” in an hour; that has climatologically less than a 1% chance of occurring in a given year. https://t.co/ymzn8SVheC" / Twitter

FSC = Financial Services Committee, a House committee that AOC is in. She's also in the Oversight and Reform Committee.

Floods - Washington Area Floods - DC has been flooded every now and then.

-

Evidence for declining forest resilience to wildfires under climate change - Stevens‐Rumann - 2018 - Ecology Letters - Wiley Online Library - fits with the wildfires that have been in the news recently.

 

[steve_bank]

Watched Tucker Carlson talk today on climate. Scared me that such an idiot is having effect on what people think on climate change.

 

[DBT]

Here's an article by Scientific American;

''In an era of changing climate and sinking economies, Malthusian limits to growth are back—and squeezing us painfully. Whereas more people once meant more ingenuity, more talent and more innovation, today it just seems to mean less for each. Less water for every cattle herder in the Horn of Africa. (The United Nations projects there will be more than four billion people living in nations defined as water-scarce or water-stressed by 2050, up from half a billion in 1995.) Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.) Less capacity in the atmosphere to accept the heat-trapping gases that could fry the planet for centuries to come. Scarcer and higher-priced energy and food. And if the world’s economy does not bounce back to its glory days, less credit and fewer jobs.''

''Population growth constantly pushes the consequences of any level of individual consumption to a higher plateau, and reductions in individual consumption can always be overwhelmed by increases in population. The simple reality is that acting on both, consistently and simultaneously, is the key to long-term environmental sustainability. The sustainability benefits of level or falling human numbers are too powerful to ignore for long.''

A Number of Us
Two big questions present themselves as population reemerges from the shadows: Can any feasible downshift in population growth actually put the environment on a more sustainable path? And if so, are there measures that the public and policy makers would support that could actually bring about such a change?

Nature, of course, couldn’t care less how many of us there are. What matters to the environment are the sums of human pulls and pushes, the extractions of resources and the injections of wastes. When these exceed key tipping points, nature and its systems can change quickly and dramatically. But the magnitudes of environmental impacts stem not just from our numbers but also from behaviors we learn from our parents and cultures. Broadly speaking, if population is the number of us, then consumption is the way each of us behaves. In this unequal world, the behavior of a dozen people in one place sometimes has more environmental impact than does that of a few hundred somewhere else.

''Consider how these principles relate to global warming. The greenhouse gases already released into the atmosphere are likely to bring us quite close to the 3.6 degree F (two degree C) increase from the preindustrial global temperature average that many scientists see as the best-guess threshold of potential climate catastrophe. Already the earth is experiencing harsher droughts, fiercer storms and higher sea levels. If the scientists are right, these impacts will worsen for decades or centuries. Indeed, even if we ended all emissions tomorrow, additional warming is on the way thanks to the momentum built into the earth’s intricate climate system. (The oceans, for example, have yet to come into equilibrium with the extra heat-trapping capacity of the atmosphere. As the oceans continue to warm, so will the land around them.)''

 

[Jokodo]

Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.)

Conveniently forgetting to tell us that those over 900 million hungry (800 by more recent figures) are 100s of millions fewer than there used to be: the number of hungry has been declining in recent decades, even in absolute numbers. https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment

Maybe we're doing something right after all, to offset the lower acres per capita, like maybe higher per acre yields?

 

[DBT]

Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.)

Conveniently forgetting to tell us that those over 900 million hungry (800 by more recent figures) are 100s of millions fewer than there used to be: the number of hungry has been declining in recent decades, even in absolute numbers. https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment

Maybe we're doing something right after all, to offset the lower acres per capita, like maybe higher per acre yields?

The article is talking about future conditions, the consequences of rising consumption rates and climate change and how to deal with the challenge. That being the issue, not our undeniable achievements to date.

 

[lpetrich]

Varshini Prakash and the Sunrise Movement’s plan for the Green New Deal - Vox - "A conversation with Varshini Prakash, the activist leading the charge for the Green New Deal."

I think my generation just hasn’t lived in a period that wasn’t tainted in some significant form by climate breakdown. I meet these young folks, many of whom have never experienced a year on this planet that wasn’t one of the hottest years on record in human history. You have kids growing up who are just 11 and 12 years old watching Hurricane Maria. I appreciate that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it a “climate bomb” that killed over 3,000 people. We’re really growing up as a climate generation.

I remember a conversation I had with a 16-year-old during one of our training programs. She shared a story about how so many young people her age are dealing with depression and suicide that is related to the climate crisis and wondering if humans should even exist in the world. That is the level of depth to the thinking that kids are having to grow up around these days.

Sunrise Movement

Sunrise is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.

We're building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people.

We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country. Everyone has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us - if we unite by the millions we can turn this into political power and reclaim our democracy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Varshini Prakash and the Sunrise Movement’s plan for the Green New Deal - Vox - "A conversation with Varshini Prakash, the activist leading the charge for the Green New Deal."

Sorry but Prakash's BS reads like the spiel of either a religious fanatic or a politically driven fanatic.

 

[Jokodo]

Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.)

Conveniently forgetting to tell us that those over 900 million hungry (800 by more recent figures) are 100s of millions fewer than there used to be: the number of hungry has been declining in recent decades, even in absolute numbers. https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment

Maybe we're doing something right after all, to offset the lower acres per capita, like maybe higher per acre yields?

The article is talking about future conditions, the consequences of rising consumption rates and climate change and how to deal with the challenge. That being the issue, not our undeniable achievements to date.

The article over all may be doing so, but the section I quote and refer to is talking about the present, misleadingly painting current conditions as a dark foreboding of a bleak future.

We can talk about how to mitigate the consequences of climate change, how to face the challenge, what party if any population control can play. But let's not do so under false premises, alright?

 

[DBT]

The article is talking about future conditions, the consequences of rising consumption rates and climate change and how to deal with the challenge. That being the issue, not our undeniable achievements to date.

The article over all may be doing so, but the section I quote and refer to is talking about the present, misleadingly painting current conditions as a dark foreboding of a bleak future.

We can talk about how to mitigate the consequences of climate change, how to face the challenge, what party if any population control can play. But let's not do so under false premises, alright?

I doubt that the author was being deliberately misleading. Be it an error or not, it doesn't negate or alter the overall picture being painted by the article. The issue is still rising consumption and resources use in relation to carrying capacity and climate change. An insignificant error here or there doesn't change a thing.

 

[Jokodo]

The article is talking about future conditions, the consequences of rising consumption rates and climate change and how to deal with the challenge. That being the issue, not our undeniable achievements to date.

The article over all may be doing so, but the section I quote and refer to is talking about the present, misleadingly painting current conditions as a dark foreboding of a bleak future.

We can talk about how to mitigate the consequences of climate change, how to face the challenge, what party if any population control can play. But let's not do so under false premises, alright?

I doubt that the author was being deliberately misleading. Be it an error or not, it doesn't negate or alter the overall picture being painted by the article. The issue is still rising consumption and resources use in relation to carrying capacity and climate change. An insignificant error here or there doesn't change a thing.

It may well be true that the green revolution was a one off event in history and comparable improvements in crop yields will not be achievable in the future. Or not. But it's an argument that needs making. Taking a shortcut pretending that lower per capita acres are a problem in and of themselves (rather than only when not offset by higher yields) is indeed misleading. It turns a well argued article into a poorly argued one when crucial argument chains are missing.

Pretending that 900 million hungry is a sign we're already on a descending spiral when in fact it is the lowest absolute figure since we reached a population of 3 billion and the lowest relative figure in all of recorded history is similarly misleading. It may be counter intuitive, but 900 (or 800 today) million hungry is something to celebrate, not something to bemoan.

Maybe the author is not being dishonest, maybe those are honest mistakes - but if so, if he's making such simple mistakes without realising, we should be taking every thing else he has to say on the topic with a big grain of salt.

 

[DBT]

I doubt that the author was being deliberately misleading. Be it an error or not, it doesn't negate or alter the overall picture being painted by the article. The issue is still rising consumption and resources use in relation to carrying capacity and climate change. An insignificant error here or there doesn't change a thing.

It may well be true that the green revolution was a one of event in history and comparable improvements in crop yields will not be achievable in the future. Or not. B but it's an argument that needs making. Taking a shortcut pretending that lower pet capita acres are a problem in and if themselves (rather than only when not offset by higher yields) is indeed misleading. It turns a well argued article into a poorly argued one when crucial argument chains are missing.

Pretending that 900 million hungry is a sign we're already on a descending spiral when in fact it is the lowest absolute figure since we reached a population of 3 billion and the lowest relative figure in all of recorded history is similarly misleading. It may be counter intuitive, but 900 (or 800 today) million hungry is something to celebrate, not something to bemoan.

Maybe the author is not being dishonest, maybe those are honest mistakes - but if so, if he's making such simple mistakes without realising, we should be taking every thing else he has to say on the topic with a big grain of salt.

In your habitual manner you seize upon a word here or a minor error there and blow it out of all proportion. No article is word perfect, every dot and comma in place, every stat flawless. The real world doesn't work like that.

The issue still remains rising consumption in relation to supply and climate change, ie, carrying capacity of the human population living on the planet under the projected conditions of consumption and climate.

By some estimates;

Our Ecological Footprint

''One way to address the challenges associated with making future projections is to look at current human impact on the planet. The ecological footprint is a measurement of the anthropogenic impact on earth. It tracks how much biocapacity (biological capacity) there is and how much biocapacity people use by comparing the rate at which we consume natural resources and generate waste to the planet’s ability to replenish those resources and absorb waste. Today, our global footprint is in overshoot. It would take 1.5 Earths to sustain our current population. If current trends continue, we will reach 3 Earths by the year 2050.''

Where Do We Grow From Here?

''Our planet does not have the biocapacity to sustain our current levels of growth and resource consumption. So, what can be done to minimize our collective impact on the environment? In his book, How Many People Can the Earth Support?, mathematical biologist Joel Cohen classifies current solutions into three paradigms: those looking for a “bigger pie” (improving technology), those advocating for “fewer forks” (slowing population growth), and those looking to rationalize and improve decision-making though “better manners” (changing global culture). Cohen argues that, standing along, each paradigm is necessary in solving our environmental crisis, but not sufficient. Change must come from a combination of all three. “Promoting access to contraceptives, developing economies, saving children, empowering women, educating men, and doing it all at once,” he writes, is a way to both lower our impact on the planet and improve the quality of life for all. Perhaps Oxford economist Robert Cassen said it best, “Virtually everything that needs doing from a population perspective needs doing anyway”. Adopting human-centered initiatives targeted at addressing both population growth and consumption habits, ranging from the individual to trans-national level, are our best hope for achieving a sustainable future.''