I can tell you haven't read the article. https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/12/21/207026/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

Would you mind quoting the part you think I'm not familiar with?

No. If your take away was that the next ice age is relevant to global warming now then you simply cannot read.

. If your take away was that the next ice age is relevant to global warming now then you simply cannot read. — Benkei

You've been continuously abusive. I've made a normal request in the face of your accusation. You can't engage in good faith. I'm ignoring you from here out.

There's no harm in discussing it. — Tate

I have come to the (easy) conclusion that you are here to disinform people. Personally i see CC disinformation spreading as a crime against humanity. So I think you should be banned from TPF, if not hanged up.

I assumed, in good faith, you hadn't read the article and was friendly enough to actually share the link instead of the quoted blurbs from Joshs. If you have read it, you're either incapable of understanding what you read or have the worst case of confirmation bias I've seen in a long time. Take your pick. Nothing abusive about it but you just like playing victim because it's always somebody else's fault.

https://channels.ft.com/en/rethink/how-to-feed-10bn-people-in-a-sustainable-way/?utm_source=FB&utm_medium=sustainability&utm_content=paid&fbclid=IwAR2As2XXpMDsFlIfkqxlI8sawuNqbU7HkFN5GlDAmhz5GczL1vav4D1Q9Ks

We cannot afford for you to eat meat at every meal any more.

Humanity is the cancer that must cure itself

Fastest growing US cities risk becoming unlivable from climate crisis
Some of the cities enjoying population boom are among those gripped by a ferocious heatwave and seeing record temperatures

Oliver Milman, The Guardian, Wed 20 Jul 2022 10.00 BST

The ferocious heatwave that is gripping much of the US south and west has highlighted an uncomfortable, ominous trend – people are continuing to flock to the cities that risk becoming unlivable due to the climate crisis.

Some of the fastest-growing cities in the US are among those being roasted by record temperatures that are baking more than 100 million Americans under some sort of extreme heat warning. More than a dozen wildfires are engulfing areas from Texas to California and Alaska, with electricity blackouts feared for places where the grid is coming under severe strain.

San Antonio, Texas, which added more to its population than any other US city in the year to July 2021, has already had more than a dozen days over 100F this summer and hit 104F on Tuesday.

Phoenix, Arizona, second on the population growth rankings compiled by the US census, also hit 104F on Tuesday and has suffered a record number of heat-related deaths this year. Meanwhile, Fort Worth, Texas, third on the population growth list, has a “red flag” warning in place amid temperatures that have reached 109F this week.

Cities that stretch across the “sun belt” of the southern and south-western US have in recent years enjoyed population booms, with people lured by the promise of cheap yet expansive properties, warm winters and plentiful jobs, with several large corporations shifting their bases to states with low taxes and cheaper cost of living.

But this growth is now clashing with the reality of the climate emergency, with parts of the sun belt enduring the worst drought in more than 1,000 years, record wildfires and punishing heat that is triggering a range of medical conditions, as well as excess deaths.

“There’s been this tremendous amount of growth and it’s come with a cost,” said Jesse Keenan, an expert in climate adaption at Tulane University. Keenan pointed out that since the 1990s several states have gutted housing regulations to spur development that has now left several cities, such as in Scottsdale, Arizona, struggling to secure enough water to survive.

“The deregulation is really catching up with communities and they are paying that price today,” Keenan said. “We are seeing places run out of water, no proper subdivision controls to ensure there are enough trees to help lower the heat, and lots of low-density suburbs full of cars that create air pollution that only gets worse in hot weather. We’ve reached a crunch point.”

The sprawl of concrete for new housing, mostly within unspooling suburbs rather than contained in dense, walkable neighborhoods, has helped heighten temperatures in many of these growing cities. The spread of hard surfaces has also led to flash flooding, as Houston found to its cost during the devastating Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

Some cities have attempted to respond to the rising temperatures by planting trees, which help cool the surrounding area, and provide emergency centers where people can cool down, but these efforts are often piecemeal and underfunded, according to Sara Meerow, an expert in urban planning at Arizona State University.

“The extreme heat that cities are experiencing now is caused by a combination of climate change and the urban heat island effect,” Meerow said. “Rapid urban expansion, which means more impervious surfaces like roads and buildings and waste heat from cars and buildings, typically exacerbates the urban heat island effect, which means these cities are even hotter.”

As the US, like the rest of the world, continues to heat up, the climate crisis should become more of a factor when choosing a place to live, with retirees already starting to shun Arizona, traditionally a favored spot for older transplants, according to Keenan.

“We are looking at increased premature mortality, even increased diabetes because of dehydration, cardiac impacts and so on,” he said. “Mortgage lenders are starting to look at the risks of lending for somewhere that doesn’t have a water supply, as that’s not a good investment. Capital markets are getting wise to this stuff.

“We are seeing the limits to growth and housing affordability and the impacts of poor-quality decision making of where and how to build. We are paying the price for all that now.”

Capital markets are getting wise to this stuff.

“We are seeing the limits to growth and housing affordability and the impacts of poor-quality decision making of where and how to build. We are paying the price for all that now.” — Olivier5

Capital markets are wise enough to build a facility and entice us with the promise of jobs to take out mortgages on places they know full well are going to become worthless and uninhabitable. "We" will be taught to think it our own folly and to trust the wisdom of the market. Again.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/sowing-hunger-reaping-profits-report.pdf

Capital markets are wise enough to build a facility and entice us with the promise of jobs to take out mortgages on places they know full well are going to become worthless and uninhabitable. "We" will be taught to think it our own folly and to trust the wisdom of the market. — unenlightened

:up:

Having recently experienced a philosophy forum pile on which included you, I'm going to speak up and declare your approach wrong, unfair, and quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish, and I'm strongly opposed. Let's not do that. — Tate

This is not some sort of safe space for your ego, where your arguments and intentions should be protected from scrutiny.

"Arguing" against your positions is not a "forum pile", it's called debate.

Real intellectual debate is a rational framework for an emotional contest.

Always has been.

This particular forum, by the grace of the mods, is for people who want to actually test their beliefs, argumentation, justifications against the most brutal scrutiny that the internet can muster.

Some of us have not only been here for years, engaging in good faith and sharpening our whits, but were also inhabitants of the previous forum (just "philosophyforum") which was far more rigorous (for various reasons) and essentially serves as this forum's Hades. A dark mysterious nether realm from which have sprung some monsters of the deep.

Why expect submitting your beliefs and argumentation skills to actual scrutiny to be a pleasant experience where the rules should be set to allow you to at least "tie"?

There is no reason, especially if the truth is of any value.

You only expect this because echo chambers built to maintain your belief system operate in this way, but here is not an echo chamber: anyone can participate defending any point of view, attacking any point of view.

Some people here have been following or even working on the climate change issue for years and decades.

You "pop in" to insult our knowledge, tell us to get up to speed.

When your knowledge is demonstrated to be delusional (by reference to actual evidence), you then feel insulted, claim I'm "quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish" ... for participating in open debate, free exchange of ideas, not coercing anyone to utter or believe anything by some government force, but simply making my case in the public forum?

If someone is clearly denying climate change, fine, let's pile on. If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that. — Tate

The problem with your arguments is that it does not "widen" our understanding, but is simply wrong.

Increased CO2 emissions more than compensate orbital insolation changes on any relevant time scale. There is zero risk of an ice age happening anytime soon.

Whether you're conscious of it or not, your comments are simply a reflection of the new phase in climate denialism which is to down-play the dangers, muddy the waters, try to paint real analysis as somehow lacking using platitudes and truisms that easily confuse the gullible and (in particular) people who want to engage in magical thinking and believe the situation isn't so bad or then will right itself.

For example, in one single sentence you seem to agree we should reduce our CO2 emissions, but even there it is subtle propaganda in using the word "prudent" rather than "necessary to avoid total disaster". Prudent connotes an over abundance of caution, and is not even necessarily a virtue. A "prudent" person may also miss out on opportunities by avoiding risks.

Framing CO2 reductions as "prudent" impresses upon the mind of the conservative idiot that the outcome is not near-certain and maybe the risks discussed would not be realised in business as usual scenario.

For example, it is prudent to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but forgoing a helmet in no way guarantees a brain injury. Indeed, a brain injury is not even very probable if one is a skilled biker that is unlikely to crash.

The situation with carbon emissions is that of a heroin junky taking more and more heroin each trip. It is not merely prudent to stop taking more and more heroin, it is necessary for survival. The probability of being able to survive heroin doses far in excess of anything anyone has survived before is negligible for decision making.

It is not "prudent" to stop CO2 emissions, it is necessary for survival of most people and most species, and a moral imperative.

A recent internet commentator described this new batch of denialism flooding the brain waves as "lukewarmists", which is a good description, but it also still just plain ol' denialism, muddying the waters, and the denial is the actual state of the climate and consequences.

"I don't deny climate change, just all this other stuff so as to result in the same inaction, same as before," is not somehow wriggling out of the denialism (to then participate as some moral and intellectual equal worthy of respect), it is just updating the denialist strategy to the fact everyone can see the consequences of climate change now and it's no longer effective to straight up claim it's not happening (people can see it's happening), so the next best thing is to downplay the consequences, peddle fantasies such as the ice age cycle may "save the day!" based on a total delusional understanding of the climate, but with a few techno-babble words thrown in to impress the gullible.

All your points, their content, how they are presented, trying to undermine people who do know what they are talking about ... while also claiming to be on the same team of wanting to reduce emissions? Is all just repeating propaganda: either intentionally or then as a useful idiot to propagandists who created all these talking points.

Propaganda is not good faith intellectual debate: it deserves no respect, no invitation, no empathy, and no quarter on the fields of whit.

It is academics, politicians, activists, organisers, journalists, who were otherwise good faith, pandering to propaganda and trying to "meet them half way" so at least "something is done", is what got us to the current crisis in the first place.

For, the propagandists were also selling what environmentalists wanted to believe as well: things aren't so bad.

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/uk-firm-seeking-partner-for-one-of-north-seas-largest-undeveloped-oil-projects/?fbclid=IwAR3tAjU-fi-p8-zDTVlB7sZqbfLz0TmjVWPDWGLLFCLan4akymkY8oUrMDw

:death:

Have you seen the documentary "Biggest Little Farm"?

Never heard of it before, but google tells me it's good. I'll look out for it.

Localized spikes...

Hot summers in the Mediterranean area.
North America is less affected here (temperature).

Jun-Aug is winter in the Southern Hemisphere.

EDIT: link is: https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1553417991408308226

Hot summers in the Mediterranean area. — jorndoe

We have reached 45 C⁰ the month before... it was so damn disgusting and tiresome

Worth remembering: we need to cut about 30 billion tons of carbon — globally — by 2030. This bill cuts 1 billion.

Nevertheless:




This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?

With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.

We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).

That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.

This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.

Military: $7,500,000,000,000.

Climate: $385,000,000,000.

The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

What's interesting are those cooler areas next to the Antarctic.

(And of course my country hasn't gotten warmer in the summer.)

What's interesting are those cooler areas next to the Antarctic. — ssu

It should not be cold in Antarctica in winter (June-August)?

It should not be cold in Antarctica in winter (June-August)? — Banno

It's colder there now than it was in 1970 (in the Antarctic winter).

...except for the bits where it is hotter there now than in 1970?

Point being, this image says little about the antarctic. Overall, temperatures in Antarctica are increasing well above the global mean.

Point being, this image says little about the antarctic. Overall, temperatures in Antarctica are increasing well above the global mean. — Banno

It's kind of hard to judge from that picture. Some of the cold spots appear to be off the coast, which would make me think the ocean is colder in those spots due to melting glaciers, except why would glaciers be melting in the winter?

Do you have a source that says that overall temps in Antarctica are warmer? I'm not contesting the point. I've just been hoovering up good sources lately.

And why are the southern oceans generally cooler? That's weird.

I'm sure you can google it. Without continents to interrupt the flow of wind and water the volume acts as a global heat sink.

I'm sure you can google it. — Banno

Google scholar, yes. Regular Google is useless. Nature is also good.

Australia about to pass a major climate bill.

The bill is expected to pass the Senate next month, after the Labor government secured reluctant support from the Australian Greens, which had pushed for a higher target. And it is being hailed as the most significant piece of climate legislation in a decade, while also being criticized for not going far enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/world/australia/climate-change-bill.html

Sounds familiar. But it’s still some progress.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/08/study-finds-100-renewables-would-pay-off-within-six-years/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

It should not be cold in Antarctica in winter (June-August)? — Banno

If I understood the picture correctly, the places were colder than average. And I've heard this argument that climate change can also make some places colder and rainier, but it's not naturally a topic discussed with climate change.

For example, if the warming stops the Gulf Stream, the climate in my country will transform more to be like the climate of Alaska. :sad:

For example, if the warming stops the Gulf Stream, the climate in my country will transform more to be like the climate of Alaska. :sad: — ssu

Or potentially like this:

New ice age for us? That's unlikely.

Another logical consequence of warming: