I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest we may have crossed a tipping point. — unenlightened

I too hope you’re wrong, but fear you’re correct. The Amazon and Arctic aren’t far behind.

Update.

I'm not doing a thread on 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind', after all, I'm going for 'Mind and Nature' instead.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14707/reading-mind-and-nature-a-necessary-unity-by-gregory-bateson

New map visualizes entire 2023 wildfire season in Canada, the worst on record
^{— The Weather Network · Oct 15, 2023 · 1m:3s}

It isn't real 'til it's happening in the US.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314607120

It isn't real 'til it's happening in the US. — unenlightened

It is real when the greatest philosophers of all time provide links


https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/video/RuqVGk5I

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314607120

It isn't real 'til it's happening in the US.
— unenlightened

It is real when the greatest philosophers of all time provide links


https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/video/RuqVGk5I

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314607120 — Merkwurdichliebe

Always be sure to include a graph or two that highlight the reality of it all.

This is an example of the problems caused by weather volatility. It's not just a matter of destructive storms. It's that agriculture as we know it can't tolerate weather variability.

Scientists warn Earth warming faster than expected — due to reduction in ship pollution

A new study published in Oxford Open Climate Change, led by renowned U.S. climate scientist James Hansen, suggests one of the main drivers has been an unintentional global geoengineering experiment: the reduction of ship tracks.

As commercial ships move across the ocean, they emit exhaust that includes sulfur. This can contribute to the formation of marine clouds through aerosols — also known as ship tracks — which radiate heat back out into space.

However, in 2020, as part of an effort to curb the harmful aerosol pollution released by these ships, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) imposed strict regulations on shipping, reducing sulfur content in fuel from 3.5 per cent to 0.5 per cent.

The reduction in marine clouds has allowed more heat to be absorbed into the oceans, accelerating an energy imbalance, where more heat is being trapped than being released.

"The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail," said Hansen, whose 1988 congressional testimony on climate change helped sound the alarm of global warming. "And the two-degree limit can be rescued, only with the help of purposeful actions." — Scientists

Question - should we stop trying to reduce air pollution and aerosol pollution until after global-warming/climate-change is under control?

Greta Thunberg and her Gen Z friends owe Baby Boomers an apology over climate change

They said ‘older generations’ had let young people down. Yet a new poll on green lifestyle choices tells a very different story

In the poll, those aged 18-24 claimed to be the most worried about climate change. When it came to doing something other than moan, however, it was a different story. Almost 90 per cent of the over-65s said they recycled “as much as possible”, compared with only half of the young. The old were also more likely to save water, turn down the heating, wash their clothes at low temperatures, buy locally produced food, avoid excessive packaging, buy energy-efficient appliances, switch off the lights when leaving a room, and repair things rather than throw them away. On top of that, more of them had cut down on the number of flights they took.

Greta’s generation were more likely to have given up meat. But otherwise, it seemed to be the old doing most of the work.

What are we to make of this mysterious discrepancy? Perhaps Greta’s generation is in such deep despair about the future of the planet that some of them have simply given up trying to save it. There is, however, an alternative possibility – which is that they care more about being seen to have the “right” opinion on climate change than they do about tackling it. A type of behaviour that older people like to call “virtue-signalling”. — MICHAEL DEACON

:halo:

Of all your attempts to undermine the purposes of this thread, this is undoubtedly the most mean-spirited, spiteful, and useless.

To set one generation against another in this way does nothing but foster useless argument and resentment. Do what you can to help, and support whatever others can do to help, or just fuck off and die.

You might consider for a moment that the young are not householders by and large, and renters cannot invest in green living the way householders can. But you don't want to think, you want to spread poison.

To set one generation against another in this way does nothing but foster useless argument and resentment. — unenlightened

It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". They blame almost everything on the older generation. Your statement "just fuck off and die" is typical of the younger generation's attitude towards the older generation. Are you trying to lead by example?

It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". — Agree-to-Disagree

So it’s the “younger generation” that posted that shallow commentary from Michael Deacon? Damn those younglings.

But you don't want to think, you want to spread poison. — unenlightened

:up:

Your statement "just fuck off and die" is typical of the younger generation's attitude towards the older generation. Are you trying to lead by example? — Agree-to-Disagree

I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. You do know that Deacon is a satirical journalist don't you? Take what he says with a pinch of irony, maybe.

If sea levels rise and catastrophic weather events continue, think of all the money that will be spent repairing infrastructure, relocating climate refugees, and in efforts to make new use of land. That means a massive number of Asians, Africans, Central and South Americans will be forced to relocate to your country and there will be much less tenable space inside it to share. This is because many of the worlds cities will become unlivable, and the least repairable will be those in third world countries. That is what the current models predict will happen if global warming is allowed to continue.

Thunberg — Deacon

If I remember right, those people are mostly concerned with policy.

It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". — Agree-to-Disagree

Or climate activists calling out policymakers.

You do know that Deacon is a satirical journalist don't you? — unenlightened

Many a true word is said in jest.

I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. — unenlightened

Perhaps you are going through your second childhood. :grin:

just fuck off and die — unenlightened

If you are 71 and three quarters then you are likely to die before me. :halo:

If you are 71 and three quarters then you are likely to die before me. — Agree-to-Disagree

That rather depends on who (if anyone) decides to fuck with you, and how.

But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
You’ll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
"Only a pawn in their game." — Bob Dylan

2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists — Kate Abnett and Gloria Dickie, Reuters

Think carefully about the implications of this statement.

125,000 years ago it was as warm as today, or warmer.

The CO2 level 125,000 years ago was about 300 ppm, and the temperature was a few degrees Celsius warmer than today.

So at the moment we have a higher CO2 level, but a lower temperature than 125,000 years ago.

In fact, the current temperature is lower than the peak temperatures for the previous 3 interglacials.

To put it another way, current temperatures are not higher than they were in the past.

To put it another way, current temperatures are not higher than they were in the past. — Agree-to-Disagree

It's been a lot hotter, yes. There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling. That event was actually due to large amounts of CO2 being pumped into the air from volcanoes, though. So we are headed for increased weather volatility and stress to survive it around the world. Yay!

It's been a lot hotter, yes. — frank

When are you talking about Frank? The graph that I displayed shows the history over the last 420,000 years. Are you claiming that "There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling" at some time in the last 420,000 years?

The graph shows a regular pattern with peaks about every 100,000 years. I don't think that major volcanic activity is likely to happen on such a regular schedule.

The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?

Are you claiming that "There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling" at some time in the last 420,000 years? — Agree-to-Disagree

No, that was 50 million years ago.

The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial. — Agree-to-Disagree

True. There are huge number of variables that go into climate conditions. That's why they use super computers to model it.

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial? — Agree-to-Disagree

They model the climate with super computers and they subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere. That tells us what the climate would be like without our contribution. 100s of scientists did that. That's where the IPCC came from.

2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists
— Kate Abnett and Gloria Dickie, Reuters

Think carefully about the implications of this statement. — Agree-to-Disagree

Look carefully at the graph you posted, and you will see that the previous peak temperature was about 125,000 years ago and was just a tad higher than now. So the quote is an accurate description of what is in the graph.

But what you leave out that is highlighted on the graph with a nice red highlighter, is how very out of the 400,000 year cycle the Co2 level is at the moment. We have thrown a C02 quilt on the planet that will warm it to a level unprecedented in at least the 400,000 years of that graph, it being obvious that the actual temperature lags behind the measure of the insulation. The CO2 level is literally off the scale, and in 50 to 100 years, the temperature will be too.

Not only that, but the steepness of the rise is also unprecedented, meaning that the change in climate will be unprecedentedly fast, making the adaptation of the biological environment more difficult. Forests, for example can only move very slowly, by the reach of their seeds per year.

But kudos for almost finding a mistake in a news item. :roll:

But what you leave out that is highlighted on the graph with a nice red highlighter, is how very out of the 400,000 year cycle the Co2 level is at the moment. We have thrown a C02 quilt on the planet that will warm it to a level unprecedented in at least the 400,000 years of that graph, it being obvious that the actual temperature lags behind the measure of the insulation. — unenlightened

This is usually the elephant in the room when it comes to discussions with climate denialists. Insofar as the denialism is motivated by an emotional need for climate change to not be true, which is often the case, it's usually straight up ignored.

But I do remember that @Agree-to-Disagree did acknowledge the effects of CO2 earlier in this thread, so one does wonder where all of this is going.

But I do remember that Agree-to-Disagree did acknowledge the effects of CO2 earlier in this thread, so one does wonder where all of this is going. — Echarmion

I think he's just here to poke unenlightened in the butt.

I think he's just here to poke unenlightened in the butt. — frank

Always happy to be someone's significant other. :joke:

Always happy to be someone's significant other. — unenlightened

You pitbulls need to stick together.

A wonderful example of how little we actually now about our impact.

But it's the human way of learning (if learning happens at all): learning from your mistakes and simply learning by doing.

Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it?

Climate science: the one domain where a layperson's normal humility goes completely out the window.

You wouldn't find the average person, with no formal (or even informal) training or education walking into a physics or engineering department and lecturing the teachers -- based on a few news articles they've read, or the 30 minutes they've taken to "think critically and skeptically" about the issue, supposedly finding mistakes that all the world's experts have missed.

You wouldn't see this in any other field -- that hasn't been politicized, of course. If something has been manufactured as "controversial," then these ridiculous claims can be made. Suddenly they're "skeptics" just "asking questions." Yeah, sure.

Thus, we have nonsense claims about building structures from 9/11 "truthers," bogus claims about vaccines from anti-vaxxers, laughable statements about geology from creationists, and god knows what from flat-earthers.

You would think these imbeciles would hesitate when it comes to science. Especially science that is so overwhelmingly supported. But it doesn't stop them. They simply must embarrass themselves over and over.

When I was a child, I did the same thing -- it was my way of learning, in the end. Rather than ask questions, I pretended I knew what I was talking about regarding biochemistry. But I grew out of that. It would be nice if climate deniers did the same -- but since it's not about evidence anyway, I won't hold my breath.