sinkingship @ sinkingship @mander.xyz

Posts

1

Comments

174

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not denying that humanity is responsible for all the climate mess we are in. I'm saying that I can imagine el niño having higher than average CO² releases due to the weather effect it brings looking at a single year, not the climate 30 years.

Of course we humans brought not only ourselves but the vast majority of life into an crisis that seems now to run off. I am very pessimistic about the future as I see still no meaningful reply to this.

Still I find it plausible that in an el niño year there could be more than average CO² emmissions while neutral or la niña years could have less, so they would cancel each other out. If that is so, it would merely be on top of human made emissions, which are still higher than ever.

However, we're probably at a point now where one can't say anything for sure, because no human being has ever experienced 427 ppm CO² and the whole system has an inertia. With this sentence I don't want to say that scientists work not well. I want to say that it is much harder to come to a conclusion to values that have never been seen before compared to data that we can compare with historic data.

Of course that doesn't mean that we can't blame fossil fuel use, because humans emissions are the ones we control most and if we want to continue our lives than we need to stop emmitting.

I could imagine that el niño can contribute to CO² emmissions indirectly.

Maybe there are in an el niño year more wildfires happening compared to other years for example, which would release additional CO². Or maybe swamps get less water or a combination of several el niño weather effects.

You are right. I kind of read your first comment like "Why don't we simply take matters in our hands" instead of "it's strange that many accept this exploitation of environment and even humans as perfectly normal".

It is interesting and depressing to look at. It's also fascinating to see how many people seem to be successfully brainwashed or whatever the reason is they vote against their own interest.

I think your idea is a very fine idea but at the same time very naive.

One can start advocating what you did. Looking at classes like poor and rich, the poor are definitely the majority, so theoretically one should be able to plant the seed of thought.

But in praxis that doesn't necessarily work that way. I believe one will immediately be called 'too extreme' if not 'terrorist' and struggle to gain supporters. It doesn't help that much of the media is owned by few people.

At the same time the rich showed already that they have no intention to stop poisoning our life basis if that would mean less money for them.

So even if one gets people to follow the idea and starts to get political attention, rich corporations that have a threat to their income have also shown many times that it is not too difficult for them to make people disappear or that they 'tragically die' somehow.

Very interesting and ambitious mission.

I just read a little about it. Going to the far side is by far more complicated as going to the side that faces Earth. As communication will be lost as soon as the rocket is behind the moon.

In order to keep contact, there are 2 lunar satellites launched acting as a bridge.

The far side is believed to have a very different composition compared to the near side and part of this mission is to find out why.

Any thoughts, ideas?

I thought maybe the far side receives much more impacts as it's not protected by Earth, so maybe has much more "imported" materials from different areas of space while the near side is still much more Earth like. But that would probably just be surface, I don't know.

Incredible poor title. OP please add a sentence or two explaining the article.

I'll start of doing that so other people don't need to blindly click on a link that could be anything.

It's about a welsh coal mine that got closed (not sure if because of environmental reasons or because of less demand) and then after rains turned into a toxic lake.

Article is questioning if the toxic lake and coal imports are any improvement environmentally compared to extracting coal locally.

I think it's not asking the right questions. So there is a toxic lake now and maybe it's worse than a coal mine, but that shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the coal mine was maybe less bad. Instead it should come to the conclusion that companies need to be held responsible and can't just abandon sites like that. Maybe they need to fill in some land or I don't know, but their mess is their responsibility in my opinion.

That's an article giving hope for sure. I don't know how realistic it is. Maybe there'll be an emmissions peak in 2024 while we should half emmissions by 2030.

The difficulty is: even if we're peaking, we have only a few years to half these emmissions, which means there is no time at all to relax. We need to push even harder.

I'm worried about many countries switching to natural gas and declaring natural gas climate neutral. I believe this could be a big threat.

Sidenote: maybe I'm getting just old, but I did hard concentrate on that article where every other word is bold.

Lol. The Atlantic Ocean is freakishly warm since March 2023, not just now. It's still.

Why should I be surprised now, after another year of hardly climate mitigation politics?

And especially why should I be scared? Scientists tell us what is coming since decades if not centuries. I don't think fear is a good emotion for a response.

I'm neither scared nor surprised. I'm highly worried. Paris goals my ass, I don't trust political leaders to solve this. I'm worried about extreme weather and famine. But most of all I'm worried about our human reaction to these crisis, political instability, conflicts, selfishly "we can't help all" and "you or me".

I haven't read the article. Dumb question anyway. Yes, AMOC is approaching a tipping point, that science has been public since years. Yes, AMOC has already slowed down some dozen or more per cent.

And while we here answering the same questions as always: yes the climate is changing, yes climate change is also occuring naturally, however this one is human made and yes, the outlook isn't good at all. No, we shouldn't continue burning fossil fuels to feed our energy hunger and yes, we need to do something now or better yeaterday. And no, asking repetitive questions isn't action enough.

Edit: excuse me. I got a little emotional. Education about climate change is good. I'm just a little tired of reading the same stuff since decades I guess, while at the same time we continue to burn more and more fossil fuels.

Another update: Interesting Youtube video about this topic.

That's cool, thank you for pointing out that ship. I only knew of the Tres Hombres which runs under Fairtransport. I've seen some videos on Youtube and got the impression they are financially struggling.

I love those sailing ships of the old times. I find them fascinating. If you love them like me, this is a real gem of video material commented by a sailing captain.

Fair point!

All good mate! xD

I just thought it funny sounding, but understood what you wanted to say.

Makes sense environmentally. But that's not the focus of our societies. Everything is about profit and costs.

The last sailing boats didn't stop because they were slower. I'm not even sure if they were, they could go almost 20 knots in ideal conditions.

The main point was labour cost. An engine ship needs just a few men to run it. A sailing ship with dozens of sails needs dozens of men. The work was incredibly hard and dangerous (like being wet and exposed to the weather for days and weeks working 14 hours or something a day and I think it was normal to consider one death per cape horn trip). If you wanted to do something like this today, you'd have to pay high salaries and probably high insurance costs.

Also sailing ships are more difficult to plan a schedule, because they can't go a constant speed. That brings higher costs for storing goods.

You're not wrong and my comment is supposed to be jokingly.

I'm sure you used your example to show how easy it is, it just sounds so terribly distopian. Your point could have been an optimistic outlook into a different future but:

Why? Why of all things that can be used to turn an alternator, why the heck does it have to be child labor?

Exactly! We understand that stopping climate change is possible on paper.

But we also believe that societies won't change as fast as needed and that we won't help each other as needed.

We saw the pandemic. We saw how we reacted. We know we need to voluntarily reduce emmissions faster than that without ever rebouncing. We know richer countries need to finance poorer countries' transmission.

What is happening? During the pandemic poor countries were left behind. Vaccines are still patented and were hoarded by rich countries. A lot of people celebrate the past pandemic economic rebounce. We fight some wars for different stupid reasons. And yeah, it's hot as scientists told us but we make surprised pikachu faces when there is some climate record broken in the news.

Also corporations spread lies about the climate and politicians fail to act while people point at us doomers and say we are bad for action, because we aren't optimistic.

Please, my government, take the money you take from me to make meaningful change! Man, you can even ration my meat and travel or whatever. I know it's time for the rich to step up and do their part, but I'm still ready to sacrifice if it is in the right direction. It's probably late, but as a doomer I am not advocating status quo. Heck, the opposite, let's destroy what destroys our life basis even if it is uncomfortable!

From the article:

In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree. But reliable assessments of aerosol emissions rely on networks of mostly volunteer-driven efforts, and it could be a year or more before the full data from 2023 are available.

I think not yet. Where I live we had a few cases last year. As I understood the virus jumps rarely to humans for example by unclean cooking habits but doesn't jump from human to human yet.

You are correct with both points. I merely wanted to point out, how far we are from reaching the Paris Agreement.

1.5 may or not be a little later than 2028. The fossil consumption lines may or not be a little flatter.

I like this graph from the article:

Wasn't it 2028 when the carbon budget for 1.5 °C runs out? And 2050 or so for 2 °C? Lol