5 ms·

I love good visualizations, this one is neat. Unfortunately the visuals don't carry much data with it. That is, it didn't tell me anything that I didn't already

by josho 12y ago

I love good visualizations, this one is neat. Unfortunately the visuals don't carry much data with it. That is, it didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know--climate change will provide more extreme (hot/cold) weather patterns. Even worse, viewing this almost makes me less inclined to worry about climate change. That is in nearly a decade the leading headline is jellyfish closing down a power plant. Hmm, ok, let's spend trillions of dollars to fix climate change, or a few million to upgrade power plant water intake systems to protect against jellyfish swarms. So, seeing this I sadly now understand why politicians and companies are greenwashing everything. Talk is cheap and will get you support, but the consequences of the problem won't be seen until you are well into retirement.

mckoss 12y ago
Do you have any reference for an IPCC claim that global warming will cause deeper cooling??? I've not seen it, though I've read all the IPCC summaries. Reference, please.
- jakethedog 12y ago
  It is not deeper cooling in the global average temperature but periods of intense cold during the winter. There is debate in the scientific community with some arguing that melting sea ice causes an increase in frequency of polar vortex events while others think these events are controlled by pacific ssts.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    Melting polar ice is really screwing with the jetstream and that's altering winter weather patterns pretty severely.
- josho 12y ago
  In the last few years many in north america we were introduced to a new phrase 'polar vortex' which has been unstable and resulted in colder winter storms, yet as I understand a milder winter overall. Read more here on it's relation to climate change http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci... Regardless you are getting hung up on 'colder', the key is more extreme weather. To that point the IPCC does mention more extreme storms, if you want a reference googling that yourself will bring up plenty. I'll assume you live in sunny California and extreme weather to you means rainstorms not crazy ass cold polar vortex dumps of snow and ice.
tj_reed 12y ago
it's probably pretty useful for ppl who can't really bother to read up on climate change. probably a lot of ppl. so yeah, sure, some jellyfish close down a power plant, but it probably causes loads of financial losses... i think this actually already happened? we are probably looking at complete collapses in housing, transport, sanitation and health in the coming decades if politicians and companies keep at the greenwashing. as an anarchist i don't care, but too bad for all those suckers who got kids and worry about their future.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  >we are probably looking at complete collapses in housing, transport, sanitation and health in the coming decades Right. You won't need a retirement fund because you will rule the apocalyptic wasteland.
  - tj_reed 12y ago
    probably not. suppose what kinda retirement plan you got? i'm not hedging my bets on my state pension plan, that stuff will go bankrupt long before i get to see any kind of pay off.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tjradcliffe 12y ago
The proliferation of jellyfish in the oceans may be a fairly bad sign, although to what extent the problem is climate change vs all the other bad things humans do to the oceans is up for grabs. The science--like the science of climate itself--is not even remotely close to "settled", but there is cause for concern: http://www.wunderground.com/news/oceans-may-be-primed-jellyfish-takeover-20131106 http://www.wunderground.com/news/oceans-may-be-primed-jellyf... It's also worth remembering that the Earth's climate over most of the 20th century was amazingly stable by historical norms. Year-to-year variation was fantastically small compared to the kind of thing seen pretty routinely in the past few thousand years. There were no multi-decadal mega-droughts, no dramatic swings in northern hemisphere temperatures of the kind seen in the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, and so on. It follows from this that even a return to natural variability is going to be challenging for us, and it's unlikely that the 1.6 W/m^2 that anthopogenic greenhouse gasses are adding to the mix is going to make things any calmer. Adding energy to chaotic systems rarely makes them more stable, and while the detailed consequences of the additional energy are unclear (despite what the "science is settled" folks claim) there is very little doubt that we are adding 1 - 2 W/m^2 to the Earth's energy budget. That said, here's a relatively agnostic argument for carbon taxes, which the data show are pretty effective at curtailing greenhouse emissions: most carbon tax schemes are designed such that the revenue they generate allows governments to lower corporate taxes and person income taxes. Now, unless you're a wild-eyed socialist revolutionary who hates wealth and capitalism, you're likely in favour of lower corporate taxes and personal income taxes. I know I am. I would far rather have a tax on something bad (dumping waste into the atmospheric commons) than something good (income!) So I think there's an argument to be made for carbon taxes that even the most ardent capitalist can like, if not love.

by josho 12y ago

mckoss 12y ago

Do you have any reference for an IPCC claim that global warming will cause deeper cooling??? I've not seen it, though I've read all the IPCC summaries. Reference, please.

jakethedog 12y ago
It is not deeper cooling in the global average temperature but periods of intense cold during the winter. There is debate in the scientific community with some arguing that melting sea ice causes an increase in frequency of polar vortex events while others think these events are controlled by pacific ssts.
- astrodust 12y ago
  Melting polar ice is really screwing with the jetstream and that's altering winter weather patterns pretty severely.
josho 12y ago
In the last few years many in north america we were introduced to a new phrase 'polar vortex' which has been unstable and resulted in colder winter storms, yet as I understand a milder winter overall. Read more here on it's relation to climate change http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci... Regardless you are getting hung up on 'colder', the key is more extreme weather. To that point the IPCC does mention more extreme storms, if you want a reference googling that yourself will bring up plenty. I'll assume you live in sunny California and extreme weather to you means rainstorms not crazy ass cold polar vortex dumps of snow and ice.

tj_reed 12y ago

it's probably pretty useful for ppl who can't really bother to read up on climate change. probably a lot of ppl. so yeah, sure, some jellyfish close down a power plant, but it probably causes loads of financial losses... i think this actually already happened? we are probably looking at complete collapses in housing, transport, sanitation and health in the coming decades if politicians and companies keep at the greenwashing. as an anarchist i don't care, but too bad for all those suckers who got kids and worry about their future.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
happyscrappy 12y ago
>we are probably looking at complete collapses in housing, transport, sanitation and health in the coming decades Right. You won't need a retirement fund because you will rule the apocalyptic wasteland.
- tj_reed 12y ago
  probably not. suppose what kinda retirement plan you got? i'm not hedging my bets on my state pension plan, that stuff will go bankrupt long before i get to see any kind of pay off.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tjradcliffe 12y ago

The proliferation of jellyfish in the oceans may be a fairly bad sign, although to what extent the problem is climate change vs all the other bad things humans do to the oceans is up for grabs. The science--like the science of climate itself--is not even remotely close to "settled", but there is cause for concern: http://www.wunderground.com/news/oceans-may-be-primed-jellyfish-takeover-20131106 http://www.wunderground.com/news/oceans-may-be-primed-jellyf... It's also worth remembering that the Earth's climate over most of the 20th century was amazingly stable by historical norms. Year-to-year variation was fantastically small compared to the kind of thing seen pretty routinely in the past few thousand years. There were no multi-decadal mega-droughts, no dramatic swings in northern hemisphere temperatures of the kind seen in the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, and so on. It follows from this that even a return to natural variability is going to be challenging for us, and it's unlikely that the 1.6 W/m^2 that anthopogenic greenhouse gasses are adding to the mix is going to make things any calmer. Adding energy to chaotic systems rarely makes them more stable, and while the detailed consequences of the additional energy are unclear (despite what the "science is settled" folks claim) there is very little doubt that we are adding 1 - 2 W/m^2 to the Earth's energy budget. That said, here's a relatively agnostic argument for carbon taxes, which the data show are pretty effective at curtailing greenhouse emissions: most carbon tax schemes are designed such that the revenue they generate allows governments to lower corporate taxes and person income taxes. Now, unless you're a wild-eyed socialist revolutionary who hates wealth and capitalism, you're likely in favour of lower corporate taxes and personal income taxes. I know I am. I would far rather have a tax on something bad (dumping waste into the atmospheric commons) than something good (income!) So I think there's an argument to be made for carbon taxes that even the most ardent capitalist can like, if not love.