I am afraid that we as a species wont be able to act together quickly enough to have a real chance of halting the run-away changes that seem to be starting up all over the planet.
I think it's already too late - US is withdrawing from the Paris agreement. Australia is in complete denial it seems
We need to reduce emissions yesterday and reduce our plastic output considerably. We're not doing anything on a scale big/quick enough to matter.
We don't have until 2050 or the targets some governments have set.
We need it done by next year, 2021, but that's unlikely to happen. We need new laws enacting tomorrow and to give everyone a big kick up the ass to get their acts together.
That's not going to happen, no matter how desperate Greta, Attenborough make it seem.
While it's true that individual action is a critical part of mitigating climate change, I think OP was referring to the fact that a tiny portion of people control most money and power on earth, with which they could make positive changes at scale and faciliate said individual actions. We need change from individuals, but also from governments and corporations.
Absolutely. And the governments respond to popular pressure. When I say "It's up to us", I mean we should go out, join popular movements and pressure the government.
Europe is the world's largest source of carbon emissions. Just because europe offshores their emissions to china, etc doesn't make it less so. Where do you think that first world quality of life enjoyed by 800+ million people comes from? Tons of pollution and destruction of the environment.
Europe is just the best at hypocritical virtue signaling. Like how great they are at recycling when they just ship their garbage to china.
Just like how Norway positions itself as pro-environment and anti-fossil fuel nation when they are one of the highest per capita oil producers. But hey, at least you used that oil money to buy a tesla right?
I would like to have a source on the first one, as none of the sources i found do not support your statement in carbon emissions. I really would like to see a source where Europe’s outsources emissions are marked to be the biggest.
> as none of the sources i found do not support your statement in carbon emissions.
Because carbon emissions are measured at their output. So if european shoe/clothing manufacturers move to china, pollute in china and sell the products back in europe, that pollution would be credited to china when in actuality, the pollution was created for european consumption.
The easiest way to tell is by how large the consumer market is. Europe is the largest consumer market in the world. EU + the non-EU european states.
Europe is an 800+ million people market with first world living standards. In the US, we probably slightly out-pollute europe on a per capita basis since our standard of living is slightly higher than europe overall, but since europe has 500 million more people than the US, I can safely say that collectively, europe outpollutes every major country/bloc in the world.
Do you think the clothes europeans wear, the electronics europeans use, etc all were created by a green energy fairy?
Austria might change so, now that the green party is part of the government coalition. Could very well be too little too late, so.
Germany is different matter, we are still building new coal plants while making wind more or less impossible in Bavaria. Hope that changes as well, if nobody seriously starts nothing will ever get done.
1. Is it a bad thing that it is warmer where I live? - my answer is "no"
2. Your question includes presupposition that we should somehow "fight" global warming. I don't think this phenomena is dominantly anthropogenic. From what I read long time ago (before the global warming histeria) this is cyclic - periods of warmer climate intertwined with ice ages.
3. I would like less pollution and I'm in for reducing burning of fossil fuel. But I'm not in for hysterical/religious part of anti-global-warming movement.
The current rise in global temperature is faster than anything seen before.
That's the big problem, it's too fast for the normal adaptation mechanisms.
So while there have been rather elevated temperatures before in geological history, the temperature changes have been very gradual, not the wild rise we've seen in less than 100 years, which is a mere instant in geological terms.
It was, by 1.4 degrees. 1924-25 was similarly warmer than the baseline at that time. The article describes an above-average year on top of a warming trend.
'24-'25 was just similarly much warmer than average at that time. Winters that are 3-4 degrees above average happen every so often. However, since the average is now much higher than a hundred years ago, it was still much warmer than back then.
Can anyone explain how the Northern Hemisphere has snow mass more than two standard deviations above median this winter, despite the local warming in Europe?
Snow forms in the upper atmosphere at about 15,000 feet before it falls to the ground. Temperatures are always about 25C less there than on the ground. It's not strictly true that cold air holds less water vapor. Water vapor is more likely to condense at cooler temps. The likelihood that water will condense to form rain and snow droplets is impacted by the dew point and the amount of particles in the atmosphere to formulate liquid or ice.
Yes, and it's snow mass. If you do manual snow removal in your yard at 0°C or -5°C you feel a huge difference. And even if the mass is there, it melts earlier.
I dont know, but the last glacial periods started after rapid (in geological terms, still long times) increases of temperature. Followed by declining temperature and increasing ice volume over thousands of years.
Bottom line: records are extremely rare if events occur at random. If new records become far more common than the harmonic series predicts, then this is telling us that annual climatic events are no longer independent annual events but are beginning to form part of a systematic non-random trend.
37 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 75.9 ms ] threadI am afraid that we as a species wont be able to act together quickly enough to have a real chance of halting the run-away changes that seem to be starting up all over the planet.
We need to reduce emissions yesterday and reduce our plastic output considerably. We're not doing anything on a scale big/quick enough to matter.
We don't have until 2050 or the targets some governments have set.
We need it done by next year, 2021, but that's unlikely to happen. We need new laws enacting tomorrow and to give everyone a big kick up the ass to get their acts together.
That's not going to happen, no matter how desperate Greta, Attenborough make it seem.
True. Greta alone won't save the climate for us. We need to get afk and go help her.
Let me just point out that we the species also include you. And me. It's up to us.
Absolutely. And the governments respond to popular pressure. When I say "It's up to us", I mean we should go out, join popular movements and pressure the government.
Europe is just the best at hypocritical virtue signaling. Like how great they are at recycling when they just ship their garbage to china.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-recycling-china-trash...
Just like how Norway positions itself as pro-environment and anti-fossil fuel nation when they are one of the highest per capita oil producers. But hey, at least you used that oil money to buy a tesla right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
I think most of the world is pretty much sick of europe's hypocrisy.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
Because carbon emissions are measured at their output. So if european shoe/clothing manufacturers move to china, pollute in china and sell the products back in europe, that pollution would be credited to china when in actuality, the pollution was created for european consumption.
The easiest way to tell is by how large the consumer market is. Europe is the largest consumer market in the world. EU + the non-EU european states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke...
Europe is an 800+ million people market with first world living standards. In the US, we probably slightly out-pollute europe on a per capita basis since our standard of living is slightly higher than europe overall, but since europe has 500 million more people than the US, I can safely say that collectively, europe outpollutes every major country/bloc in the world.
Do you think the clothes europeans wear, the electronics europeans use, etc all were created by a green energy fairy?
Austria has afaik still growing co2 emissions.
Don't know about other countries but at the moment if feels like europe talks a lot but doesn't do much.
EU stands out as the one line that has been trending down.
Germany is different matter, we are still building new coal plants while making wind more or less impossible in Bavaria. Hope that changes as well, if nobody seriously starts nothing will ever get done.
2. Your question includes presupposition that we should somehow "fight" global warming. I don't think this phenomena is dominantly anthropogenic. From what I read long time ago (before the global warming histeria) this is cyclic - periods of warmer climate intertwined with ice ages.
3. I would like less pollution and I'm in for reducing burning of fossil fuel. But I'm not in for hysterical/religious part of anti-global-warming movement.
Comparing scientific evidence as religious makes me believe your view is the hysterical / religious one, not based on facts, but on ignorance.
For a bit of perspective, see https://xkcd.com/1732/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_...
That's the big problem, it's too fast for the normal adaptation mechanisms.
So while there have been rather elevated temperatures before in geological history, the temperature changes have been very gradual, not the wild rise we've seen in less than 100 years, which is a mere instant in geological terms.
so was it or was it not the warmest since records began ( and by how much) ? i don't get it..
'24-'25 was just similarly much warmer than average at that time. Winters that are 3-4 degrees above average happen every so often. However, since the average is now much higher than a hundred years ago, it was still much warmer than back then.
2019-20 is similarly above average for its period, and the average for its period is higher.
https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe...
If it's -20C the water from the ground doesn't go into the air as much and doesn't fall back as a snow.
The article only counts to the end of February. Feels like winter is back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
https://books.google.com/books?id=N0FLSOmeFPsC&pg=PT59
Bottom line: records are extremely rare if events occur at random. If new records become far more common than the harmonic series predicts, then this is telling us that annual climatic events are no longer independent annual events but are beginning to form part of a systematic non-random trend.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/era5-new-dataset-monthly-clima...