Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Tenacious J posted:

Has this been discussed? https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 I just found it this week and have been stuck with it.

The author is quite confident that we are helpless and hopeless. I'll still help things and hope, if for nothing else than my peace of mind, but are his alarming conclusions so certain?

they are not

any presumption of the apocalypse within our lifetimes relies on predictions that are impossible to know, generally predicated on massive non-human emissions that are impossible to predict

the odds of eg the clathrate gun going bang being nonzero are obviously unacceptable, I don't especially like a one in two thousand chance or what have you of the end of the world, but it's very different from being confident the world will end by 2050, because it's impossible to be confident of that

things getting slowly and steadily worse is very boring and the world living longer than i expect to is very upsetting

# ? Jul 26, 2023 06:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

This appears to be a pseudonymous medium post that includes headings like "Why Don�t Scientists Agree?", a section which justifies the author's "insights" based on citing Noam Chomsky to justify the belief that all the scientists who disagree with them are brainwashed by propaganda.

The article is brain poison; in the world of information available to you about everything, you should not have even considered it. You should identify how you came across it and stop using whatever source led you to it. I'm guessing twitter?

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Jul 26, 2023

# ? Jul 26, 2023 07:05

Clarste: Apr 15, 2013; Just how many mistakes have you suffered on the way here?

An uncountable number, to be sure.

I got bad vibes from it the moment they decided to round temperatures to 2 significant figures for no apparent reason. Also somewhere in the middle they quote something that says a 33% chance of something bad, briefly mention that 33% is unacceptably high, and then go on to continue acting like it's 100%.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 07:13

Mega Comrade: Apr 22, 2004; Listen buddy, we all got problems!

I enjoyed how at the end they spent a long time arguing against credentialism, far more then they needed to do so you understand it's fine that the author has none but it doesn't matter ok!

The stuff about metals was interesting, I might read further into that.

I wasn't sure what the authors point is, they take data and extrapolate the absolute worse possible outcomes, provide zero solutions and to what aim? To stir people into communist revolt? The effect is more likely just have people increase their selfish attitudes and speed up global warming, they have already said it's inevitable regardless.

Then you take a look at their mastodon and see they are a self proclaimed 'doomer' and it all makes sense.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 08:08

Clarste: Apr 15, 2013; Just how many mistakes have you suffered on the way here?

An uncountable number, to be sure.

They explicitly argue that a revolution is impossible, so yeah, it's all just doomerism. Nothing we do matters so might as well do nothing.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 08:10

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Here's an article from 15 years ago that I've been thinking a lot about :

James Lovelock: 'Enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'

For those of you who don't know, Lovelock was an extremely accomplished independent scientist who was elected to the British Royal Society in 1974 for his contributions to numerous fields, including Earth sciences. For environmentalists, he's best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system. He invented the electron capture detector and used it to become the first to detect the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. Notably, he was one of those rare (?) breed of pro-nuclear, anti-renewable environmentalists.

I won't bold anything because the whole thing is worth a read. It's not very long.

quote:

The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do?
---

In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and "all sorts of fanciful technological stuff". When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. "It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business," he said.

"And of course," Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, "that's almost exactly what's happened."

Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.

For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his.

As with most people, my panic about climate change is equalled only by my confusion over what I ought to do about it. A meeting with Lovelock therefore feels a little like an audience with a prophet. Buried down a winding track through wild woodland, in an office full of books and papers and contraptions involving dials and wires, the 88-year-old presents his thoughts with a quiet, unshakable conviction that can be unnerving. More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong.

On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."

He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. "Carbon offsetting? I wouldn't dream of it. It's just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you're offsetting the carbon? You're probably making matters worse. You're far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests."

Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? "No we don't. Because we can't." And recycling, he adds, is "almost certainly a waste of time and energy", while having a "green lifestyle" amounts to little more than "ostentatious grand gestures". He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. "Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam ... or if it wasn't one in the beginning, it becomes one."

Somewhat unexpectedly, Lovelock concedes that the Mail's plastic bag campaign seems, "on the face of it, a good thing". But it transpires that this is largely a tactical response; he regards it as merely more rearrangement of Titanic deckchairs, "but I've learnt there's no point in causing a quarrel over everything". He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all - renewable energy.

"You're never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours," he says. "Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time."

This is all delivered with an air of benign wonder at the intractable stupidity of people. "I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they're doing. They want business as usual. They say, 'Oh yes, there's going to be a problem up ahead,' but they don't want to change anything."

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem - the bigger challenge will be food. "Maybe they'll synthesise food. I don't know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco's, in the form of Quorn. It's not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it." But he fears we won't invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects "about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. "But this is the real thing."

Faced with two versions of the future - Kyoto's preventative action and Lovelock's apocalypse - who are we to believe? Some critics have suggested Lovelock's readiness to concede the fight against climate change owes more to old age than science: "People who say that about me haven't reached my age," he says laughing.

But when I ask if he attributes the conflicting predictions to differences in scientific understanding or personality, he says: "Personality."

There's more than a hint of the controversialist in his work, and it seems an unlikely coincidence that Lovelock became convinced of the irreversibility of climate change in 2004, at the very point when the international consensus was coming round to the need for urgent action. Aren't his theories at least partly driven by a fondness for heresy?

"Not a bit! Not a bit! All I want is a quiet life! But I can't help noticing when things happen, when you go out and find something. People don't like it because it upsets their ideas."

But the suspicion seems confirmed when I ask if he's found it rewarding to see many of his climate change warnings endorsed by the IPCC. "Oh no! In fact, I'm writing another book now, I'm about a third of the way into it, to try and take the next steps ahead."

Interviewers often remark upon the discrepancy between Lovelock's predictions of doom, and his good humour. "Well I'm cheerful!" he says, smiling. "I'm an optimist. It's going to happen."

Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when "we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn't know what to do about it". But once the second world war was under way, "everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday ... so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose - that's what people want."

At moments I wonder about Lovelock's credentials as a prophet. Sometimes he seems less clear-eyed with scientific vision than disposed to see the version of the future his prejudices are looking for. A socialist as a young man, he now favours market forces, and it's not clear whether his politics are the child or the father of his science. His hostility to renewable energy, for example, gets expressed in strikingly Eurosceptic terms of irritation with subsidies and bureaucrats. But then, when he talks about the Earth - or Gaia - it is in the purest scientific terms all.

"There have been seven disasters since humans came on the earth, very similar to the one that's just about to happen. I think these events keep separating the wheat from the chaff. And eventually we'll have a human on the planet that really does understand it and can live with it properly. That's the source of my optimism."

What would Lovelock do now, I ask, if he were me? He smiles and says: "Enjoy life while you can. Because if you're lucky it's going to be 20 years before it hits the fan."

The article of course gets a few things wrong. The Gaia hypothesis, for example, does not in fact "form the basis of almost all climate science". But I thought that, with everything in the news today, the things he said and predicted in this interview 15 years ago have been largely accurate: it really does look like the various systems that form the climate are starting to break down.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 16:12

RIP Syndrome: Feb 24, 2016

I'm sure it's fine.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 17:53

The Slack Lagoon: Jun 17, 2008

Trainee PornStar posted:

How much of the current warming stuff is due to c02 & how much is due to methane?
I know methane is a lot more potent but breaks down into co2 over time.

Assuming we made some actual progress towards carbon neutral, would we, in a couple decades notice a drop in temps from methane breaking down into co2 ?

A lot of emissions are reported in terms of CO2e or equivalent of CO2 emisisons (typically measured in metric tons). Each other gas will have a Global Warming Potential, which is a measurement of the impact of that gas over a given time period (usually GWPs will be calculated with a 20 year or 100 year timeframe), so for example the GWP for Methane used by EPA's 40 CFR Part 98 has a GWP100 of 25. So over 100 years, 1 ton of methane emitted to the atmosphere has the same effect as 25 tons of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. If you look at Methane's GWP20 from the IPCC AR6, the GWP for biogenic methane is 80.8, so over 20 years one ton of methane from a biogenic source would have the same impact as 80.8 tons of CO2.

So theoretically as methane ages in the atmosphere, yes it won't impact the greenhouse effect as, but that doesn't help much when we're still pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere, or ever CFCs and HFCs which have much higher GWPs and typically last in the atmosphere for much longer.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 18:05

Koburn: Oct 8, 2004; FIND THE JUDGE CHILD OR YOUR CITY DIES; Grimey Drawer

I love waking up to new depressing climate change news every single day!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-collapse-as-early-as-2025-study-suggests

Honestly surprised to see beef and single use plastics still being discussed like it will make any difference at this point.
The green movement failed miserably and it's time to start preparing for the worst.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 18:43

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Koburn posted:

I love waking up to new depressing climate change news every single day!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-collapse-as-early-as-2025-study-suggests

Honestly surprised to see beef and single use plastics still being discussed like it will make any difference at this point.
The green movement failed miserably and it's time to start preparing for the worst.

Lots of media outlets have been reporting on this particular study, and they always use 2025 in the headline, because stating it more accurately, i.e. "could collapse in the next 70 years" wouldn't get as many clicks.

Not that I have a problem with that kind of reporting, because IMHO absolute panic should be the general attitude towards climate right now, rather than the mild concern that the general populace has started adopting.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 18:50

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Lots of media outlets have been reporting on this particular study, and they always use 2025 in the headline, because stating it more accurately, i.e. "could collapse in the next 70 years" wouldn't get as many clicks.

Not that I have a problem with that kind of reporting, because IMHO absolute panic should be the general attitude towards climate right now, rather than the mild concern that the general populace has started adopting.

Nah, breathless over the top rubbish reporting is a big reason why a lot of people turn off from this sort of thing.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 22:39

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Nah, breathless over the top rubbish reporting is a big reason why a lot of people turn off from this sort of thing.

I mean, they can turn off from the reporting for a while maybe, but they really have no choice but to pay attention when stuff starts to happen to them and their loved ones. And at that point they'll have a come-to-Jesus moment along the lines of "hmm maybe the reporting that I previously dismissed as 'breathless over the top rubbish' was true and I should have paid attention".

Anecdotally, this is exactly what I've been seeing: friends who used to not follow the news now are, because it turns out that the skies turning blood red is not a normal thing.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 22:59

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

I mean, they can turn off from the reporting for a while maybe, but they really have no choice but to pay attention when stuff starts to happen to them and their loved ones. And at that point they'll have a come-to-Jesus moment along the lines of "hmm maybe the reporting that I previously dismissed as 'breathless over the top rubbish' was true and I should have paid attention".

Anecdotally, this is exactly what I've been seeing: friends who used to not follow the news now are, because it turns out that the skies turning blood red is not a normal thing.

So you are saying that when the gulf stream doesn't fall over in 2025 (or 2030), it is still responsible reporting because.....? The same people were all doom and gloom, fire and brimstone, tieing themselves to trucks and conducting "raise the profile" attacks on nuclear facilities about the civilian nuclear industry, the only technology available since the 70's or so that could have made a real dent in carbon generation. Turns out going all out on fabricated hyperbole passed off as fact for META reasons is actually dumb.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 23:11

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Electric Wrigglies posted:

So you are saying that when the gulf stream doesn't fall over in 2025 (or 2030), it is still responsible reporting because.....? The same people were all doom and gloom, fire and brimstone, tieing themselves to trucks and conducting "raise the profile" attacks on nuclear facilities about the civilian nuclear industry, the only technology available since the 70's or so that could have made a real dent in carbon generation. Turns out going all out on fabricated hyperbole passed off as fact for META reasons is actually dumb.

We're decades behind when it comes to stopping climate change. We haven't even begun the process of reversing it. Therefore, anything that gets people to act, and to pressure their representatives to act, is responsible reporting so long as it is based on science and facts. And AMOC collapse being possible by 2025 is based on science and facts, even if the year that appears in the headline constitutes the worst possible scenario within the given range of 2025 to 2095.

What is actually dumb is the idea that 2025 will roll around and people will go "hey, remember that one Guardian article that said AMOC could collapse by 2025? Well, AMOC is still doing okay. What the gently caress? We have been tricked into making the world better! We should roll back our new climate policies immediately!"

The other aspect worth recognizing here is that the current findings are that AMOC will collapse between 2025 and 2095. Judging by how much "such and such is happening much faster than scientists anticipated" and "scientists alarmed by how quickly such and such is happening" we've been seeing recently, I think we can reasonably expect that 2025-2095 range will shrink further as time goes on. In other words, there's a real good chance that what is hyperbole today in terms of media reporting will be a reasonable if not outright conservative estimate in the near future.

# ? Jul 26, 2023 23:58

BRJurgis: Aug 15, 2007; Well I hear the thunder roll, I feel the cold winds blowing...
But you won't find me there, 'cause I won't go back again...
While you're on smoky roads, I'll be out in the sun...
Where the trees still grow, where they count by one...

I personally think anybody who sees this "working" or even lasting much longer* should be on extreme red alert. Of course I admit to not seeing the avenues by which power as we understand it realistically tackles the problems we face.

*like, thinking beyond individual human life experience narrative. "It might not end while I'm still enjoying things" is a common and real attitude amongst your "betters". That thinking is validated by the lack of actual solutions from our systems, leaders and citizens.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 04:18

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Koburn posted:

I love waking up to new depressing climate change news every single day!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-collapse-as-early-as-2025-study-suggests

Honestly surprised to see beef and single use plastics still being discussed like it will make any difference at this point.
The green movement failed miserably and it's time to start preparing for the worst.

The article is garbage and a sensational headline,

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1683956621465079809?s=20

# ? Jul 27, 2023 04:34

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Tenacious J posted:

Has this been discussed? https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 I just found it this week and have been stuck with it.

The author is quite confident that we are helpless and hopeless. I'll still help things and hope, if for nothing else than my peace of mind, but are his alarming conclusions so certain?

His conclusions are incredibly stupid and completely debunked by ClimateTippingPoints.Info

# ? Jul 27, 2023 04:35

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

The article is garbage and a sensational headline,

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1683956621465079809?s=20

drat, this "GlobalEcoGuy" sure nitpicks a lot, even though in the end he admits that in terms of whether AMOC will collapse or not, he has no loving clue:

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1683956642591678464

Will AMOC collapse? Maybe, maybe not. Wow! Deep insight.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 06:03

Adenoid Dan: Mar 8, 2012; The Hobo Serenader; Lipstick Apathy

I can't read that thread without an account but it's totally valid to let people know that there is no evidence for a claim that is being made.

He can't confidently say it won't happen, but that's just the normal response you'll get from a scientist when you ask a question about their field without enough evidence supporting a conclusion. It's important to know that we just don't know.

It's not a firm refutation because apparently there is no firm evidence either way.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 08:40

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

, there's a real good chance that what is hyperbole today in terms of media reporting will be a reasonable if not outright conservative estimate in the near future.

Nah, this is as dumb as the guys that deny climate change on "there's a real good chance that what is hyperbole " after all, they are every bit as right as you are.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 08:58

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Slow News Day posted:

drat, this "GlobalEcoGuy" sure nitpicks a lot, even though in the end he admits that in terms of whether AMOC will collapse or not, he has no loving clue:

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1684379516607639554?s=20

https://twitter.com/AJWVictoriaBC/status/1684340627952263168?s=20

drat, he seems pretty smart to me!

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Jul 27, 2023

# ? Jul 27, 2023 10:19

Mid-Life Crisis: Jun 13, 2023; by Fluffdaddy

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Here's an article from 15 years ago that I've been thinking a lot about :

James Lovelock: 'Enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'

For those of you who don't know, Lovelock was an extremely accomplished independent scientist who was elected to the British Royal Society in 1974 for his contributions to numerous fields, including Earth sciences. For environmentalists, he's best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system. He invented the electron capture detector and used it to become the first to detect the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. Notably, he was one of those rare (?) breed of pro-nuclear, anti-renewable environmentalists.

I won't bold anything because the whole thing is worth a read. It's not very long.

The article of course gets a few things wrong. The Gaia hypothesis, for example, does not in fact "form the basis of almost all climate science". But I thought that, with everything in the news today, the things he said and predicted in this interview 15 years ago have been largely accurate: it really does look like the various systems that form the climate are starting to break down.

He sounds just like every competent engineer I know. People don�t listen to engineers is the problem.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 10:45

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Nah, this is as dumb as the guys that deny climate change on "there's a real good chance that what is hyperbole " after all, they are every bit as right as you are.

The trends are on my side. Things are happening faster and faster, and much sooner than scientists anticipated. You do you, though.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 15:23

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1684379516607639554?s=20

https://twitter.com/AJWVictoriaBC/status/1684340627952263168?s=20

drat, he seems pretty smart to me!

What about these guys? Also climate scientists:

https://twitter.com/Lacertko/status/1683884456027860993

https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1684519055221219328

Even the famously anti-doomer guy signal-boosted it:

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1683983534313340929

Like, if you're reading an article about possible AMOC collapse and it cites the Gulf Stream, and your first reaction is "Hah! The Gulf Stream and AMOC are different things!" then you're... probably missing the point in a huge way.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 15:47

Mega Comrade: Apr 22, 2004; Listen buddy, we all got problems!

Well the first guy said by 2025, the news ones posted are saying by 2050. Which is it?

# ? Jul 27, 2023 16:20

Irony.or.Death: Apr 1, 2009

You can look at the paper yourself and find out, you know. Here's the line that is apparently driving both of those interpretations: "The mean of the bootstrapped estimates of the tipping time is 〈tc〉 = 2050, and the 95% confidence interval is 2025�2095." Here's the paper.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 17:10

jeeves: May 27, 2001; Deranged Psychopathic
Butler Extraordinaire

Society collapses and 99% of non-wealthy humans are starving and without clean water in 2050: �Ha! Those losers said this would happen 2025! Look how wrong they were!�

# ? Jul 27, 2023 17:50

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/saguaro-cacti-collapsing-arizona-extreme-heat-scientist-says-2023-07-25/

Saguaro cacti collapsing in Arizona extreme heat, scientist says

PHOENIX, July 25 (Reuters) - Arizona's saguaro cacti, a symbol of the U.S. West, are leaning, losing arms and in some cases falling over during the state's record streak of extreme heat, a scientist said on Tuesday.

Summer monsoon rains the cacti rely on have failed to arrive, testing the desert giants' ability to survive in the wild as well as in cities after temperatures above 110 degrees Fahrenheit (43 Celsius) for 25 days in Phoenix, said Tania Hernandez.

"These plants are adapted to this heat, but at some point the heat needs to cool down and the water needs to come," said Hernandez, a research scientist at Phoenix's 140-acre (57-hectare) Desert Botanical Garden, which has over 2/3 of all cactus species, including saguaros which can grow to over 40 feet (12 meters).

Plant physiologists at the Phoenix garden are studying how much heat cacti can take. Until recently many thought the plants were perfectly adapted to high temperatures and drought. Arizona's heat wave is testing those assumptions.

Cacti need to cool down at night or through rain and mist. If that does not happen they sustain internal damage. Plants now suffering from prolonged, excessive heat may take months or years to die, Hernandez said.

Cacti in Phoenix are being studied as the city is a heat island, mimicking higher temperatures plants in the wild are expected to face with future climate change, Hernandez said.

# ? Jul 27, 2023 20:23

LionArcher: Mar 29, 2010

jeeves posted:

Society collapses and 99% of non-wealthy humans are starving and without clean water in 2050: �Ha! Those losers said this would happen 2025! Look how wrong they were!�

But enough about this thread in general�

# ? Jul 27, 2023 22:32

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

LionArcher posted:

But enough about this thread in general�

Shouldn't generalize from just two or three posters IMO. There's dozens of us!

# ? Jul 27, 2023 22:37

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

the Phoenix botanical garden is loving cool, incidentally

all desert plants plus a butterfly house

# ? Jul 28, 2023 00:13

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Slow News Day posted:

What about these guys? Also climate scientists:

Like, if you're reading an article about possible AMOC collapse and it cites the Gulf Stream, and your first reaction is "Hah! The Gulf Stream and AMOC are different things!" then you're... probably missing the point in a huge way.

This an entirely different claim. What was original posted was just plain old bad incorrect sensational clickbait. It's almost as if you aren't even reading what are you posting. The author has a deeper explanation as well,

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1684669483326091264?s=20

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1684669490401857536?s=20

https://twitter.com/EleanorFrajka/status/1683917521735368704?s=20

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jul 28, 2023

# ? Jul 28, 2023 04:32

His Divine Shadow: Aug 7, 2000; I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do.

It's interesting to note that if the gulf stream shuts down (which is not the AMOC, but a smaller part of it as I understand) some studies have said the result will not be that europe becomes colder. All the time that is, some have said it might become hotter in summers and colder in winters (like alaska or siberian cold for us in the north) and lots more extreme weather all around.

# ? Jul 28, 2023 05:19

Mega Comrade: Apr 22, 2004; Listen buddy, we all got problems!

jeeves posted:

Society collapses and 99% of non-wealthy humans are starving and without clean water in 2050: “Ha! Those losers said this would happen 2025! Look how wrong they were!”

Its important to know! I can't get a bunker built in only 2 years.

# ? Jul 28, 2023 08:19

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

Mega Comrade posted:

Its important to know! I can't get a bunker built in only 2 years.

Buy an old missle silo.

Hell you can even get an entire base! (Gotta let the Air Force have access to keep cleaning up contaminated groundwater/soil).

# ? Jul 28, 2023 14:17

HookedOnChthonics: Dec 5, 2015; Profoundly dull

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1684669483326091264?s=20

drat it feels good to be a gangser

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 29, 2023 00:00

Zeta Taskforce: Jun 27, 2002

HookedOnChthonics posted:

drat it feels good to be a gangser

Dr. Johnathan Foley's salary from this particular non profit is apparently public information. This is useful how?

# ? Jul 29, 2023 00:21

biznatchio: Mar 31, 2001; Buglord

It's standard cretinous behavior; to imply that the guy's saying what he's saying because he's being paid well to do so, without actually having to come out and say that because, of course, there's absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation if it's made outright.

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

# ? Jul 29, 2023 03:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

I had to perform a separate set of 990 searches, but for reference that's his 2019 income from Project Drawdown, not any listed income from the California Academy of Sciences. Nothing else stands out other than they've got some conflict of interest procedure disclosure language that's probably not needed referring to activities in 2011, and one of their entity descriptions has typos because it was lazily copy-pasted, probably from their site.

# ? Jul 29, 2023 04:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:11

Zeta Taskforce: Jun 27, 2002

biznatchio posted:

It's standard cretinous behavior; to imply that the guy's saying what he's saying because he's being paid well to do so, without actually having to come out and say that because, of course, there's absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation if it's made outright.

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

Yeah. I totally get that. $300K will give you a very comfortable life, it's well beyond middle class but it's not a crazy amount of money. These days it takes something like $650K to break into the top 1% of earners. When you get your annual physical the doctor who listens to your heart rate is probably making more. A nurse who works a lot of overtime and picks up shifts on major holidays would approach that.

He's an executive director for a nonprofit. He could take his skill set and connections and make 10 times as much doing the same work at a Fortune 500 community. It's not like he is taking a vow of poverty by doing what he's doing, but his salary is entirely unremarkable.

# ? Jul 29, 2023 04:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

«‹›546 »