Global Climate Status Report

[babe]

Assuming that the Rhodes and Rockefellers of the world need any kind of "secret cabal" is just stupid, OB. They write books about their plans, they organize multiple broad-based public outreach programs and chatter endlessly about the needs of the world as they see it.

Denying the effectiveness of their strategies is the sort of thing "harebrained" socialists who deny the very origins and perpetrators of world socialism today is the kind of stuff the Obstinately Blind need to do to ignore it all.

There is actually no.... absolutely NO.... "capitalist" political organization on the face of the globe today. Well, no effective organization, no coordinated action. Most of the "Capital" today is controlled by people who finance global fascism/socialism. The fascism part is the part that staffs world organizations of consequence to make corporate elites... well ….the "right" corporate elites.... dominant. The Red Chinese "Army" is a pretty well-integrated "capitalist" sort of organization that effectively coordinates political influence with profitable undertakings the world over, securing the friendliness and favors of people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Elaine Chou, various senators including Biden.... a virtual laundry list of American politicians.... but all that "capitalist" insider influence goes toward a globalist vision of the world's future with the Chinese Master Race running the show.....

You truly have a sort of intellectual stumbling block even mentioning "Capitalism" as the "endemic" problem causing all this misdirection of world resources away from the beneficial use of ordinary people. It is expressly "Socialism" that is effectively doing all that.

The manipulation of the public with ideals we call "socialism" when the fact is it is an extremely well-organized fascism.

 

[Red]

So I guess the ice melt of the Greenland ice sheet is at record levels for mid June:

https://truthout.org/articles/scientists-are-stunned-by-how-rapidly-ice-is-melting-in-the-arctic/

"June has set a record low of Arctic sea ice, while the extent of melting across the Greenland Ice Sheet this early in the summer has never been seen before.

Recently, temperatures in parts of Greenland soared to 40 degrees above normal, while open water (not covered by sea ice) is already being observed in places north of Alaska where it has seldom, if ever, been observed.

The current sea ice coverage in the Arctic is the lowest ever recorded for mid June."


This photo of the Greenland ice sheet has gone viral in recent days...

 

[babe]

I'd have to do some digging to see if these pics are anomalous or what. I've been saying the oceans are worldwide about 1 C above our known norms with any data at all to compare.

meanwhile, some areas are having cooler extremes...… our solar minimum..... As recently as this past week we still had a deep Pacific low north of Hawaii that was bringing tropical air (and moisture) clear up to Alaska. Not the usual very weak zonal flow of the Northern Hemisphere summer. A corresponding deep low over the Hudson Bay/Great Lakes has some folks in Buffalo wondering it there will be any summer at all.

The obvious "viral" evidence for global warming is just popular ignorance. The disappearance of sea ice is correlated with warmer global ocean temps, and suggests it is true at depth and not just on the surface. This is, I believe, the necessary setup for a change in climate patterns towards a new ice age. It might last fifty years. The oceans might get two or even five degrees warmer.

But I think there needs to be another major element to turn things decisively that way. Precessional variations in the earth's tilt on its axis has in the past correlated with Northern Ice Age evens. Just one degree more tilt.... Other events I think positively correlate with the cycle, including solar cycles on longer period than the 22-year sunspot cycle we have some records on…. I suspect possibly the greatest cycle might be our own earth's volcanism. I believe it is about a 35 million year cycle, and might be on the rise now.

polar ice sheets might not be seen again in 25 million years. So maybe we should just accept it and go on with our lives.....

 

[Carbon13]

As risk mitigators, it is in our best interests to work toward decarbonizing our industries, electricity generation, and transportation. The question is at what cost? I think the Energiewende in Germany has had mixed results thus far and has been expensive - especially for the poor and middle class compared to the rich. The answers are difficult.

 

[fishonjazz]

Hottest june ever


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Carbon13]

Hottest june ever


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

That’s correct. Climate change is real and concerning. The question is what are we willing to do about it? I think you also have to consider costs when considering risks. Energy transitions are never easy and are unpredictable.

 

[LogGrad98]

Focusing on carbon is the wrong approach imo. It allows us to invent fake things to "help" the situation, like carbon credits. Al Gore can fly all over in his private jet, maintain multiple houses he hardly ever sees, and do it all guilt free because he just pays (whom exactly?) To "offset" his carbon footprint. Ridiculous. The focus should be on sustainability, not paying carbon credits.

 

[Carbon13]

What do you mean by sustainability?

 

[LogGrad98]

What do you mean by sustainability?

Sustainable renewable sources of energy. That needs to be the focus. If all the time, effort, money, and legislation that goes into all the carbon management ******** were instead focused on driving companies to using and developing more sustainable energy sources the problem would get fixed faster. Most companies are happy to pay a carbon tax with no effort at all, or token PR efforts, at changing their energy usage, and just passing the cost on to the consumer.

 

[Carbon13]

Sustainable renewable sources of energy. That needs to be the focus. If all the time, effort, money, and legislation that goes into all the carbon management ******** were instead focused on driving companies to using and developing more sustainable energy sources the problem would get fixed faster. Most companies are happy to pay a carbon tax with no effort at all, or token PR efforts, at changing their energy usage, and just passing the cost on to the consumer.

Well there’s a difference between a carbon tax and carbon credits. A carbon tax taxes emissions bridging the the price gap between the price of hydrocarbon products and its negative externalities that are not priced in. It effectively closes a market failure loophole. Carbon taxes make a lot of sense because you can lower taxes elsewhere, at once avoiding economic slowdown and lowering emissions through higher pricing.

Renewables are great, but Germany has shown us that a renewable economy is very expensive and they have missed nearly all of their emissions targets. Schedule and budget are king and they haven’t been able to stick to one. Their energy policy is becoming increasingly less popular, especially among the poor and middle class. With that said, they have lowered emissions considerably despite missing targets.

I think the reality is, we will continue to be a hydrocarbon based economy over the next several decades.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well there’s a difference between a carbon tax and carbon credits. A carbon tax taxes emissions bridging the the price gap between the price of hydrocarbon products and its negative externalities that are not priced in. It effectively closes a market failure loophole. Carbon taxes make a lot of sense because you can lower taxes elsewhere, at once avoiding economic slowdown and lowering emissions through higher pricing.

Renewables are great, but Germany has shown us that a renewable economy is very expensive and they have missed nearly all of their emissions targets. Schedule and budget are king and they haven’t been able to stick to one. Their energy policy is becoming increasingly less popular, especially among the poor and middle class. With that said, they have lowered emissions considerably despite missing targets.

I think the reality is, we will continue to be a hydrocarbon based economy over the next several decades.

I think it's a no-brainer that we will be hydrocarbon based for decades to come. My argument is that if you focus on taxes and credits companies will do just enough to minimize or maximize as the case may be. Short-term profits generally reign supreme. If we want real long-term change we need to change the focus to drive more effort in developing and using renewables. Credits for % of renewable energy used or much higher taxes on hydrocarbon use. Don't focus on the emissions, that's the wrong approach. Focus on what causes the emissions, and then you will see new tech and higher use of sustainable energy sources that will, in turn, drive lower emissions. It's like performing a true root cause analysis. So often people focus on the output of the process and not the inputs. Emissions are an output. But focusing on that won't do anything to fix the inputs, which is where the focus needs to be.

 

[Carbon13]

I think it's a no-brainer that we will be hydrocarbon based for decades to come. My argument is that if you focus on taxes and credits companies will do just enough to minimize or maximize as the case may be. Short-term profits generally reign supreme. If we want real long-term change we need to change the focus to drive more effort in developing and using renewables. Credits for % of renewable energy used or much higher taxes on hydrocarbon use. Don't focus on the emissions, that's the wrong approach. Focus on what causes the emissions, and then you will see new tech and higher use of sustainable energy sources that will, in turn, drive lower emissions. It's like performing a true root cause analysis. So often people focus on the output of the process and not the inputs. Emissions are an output. But focusing on that won't do anything to fix the inputs, which is where the focus needs to be.

The thing is, energy transitions are driven by economics. Focusing on emissions brings the economics into balance by pricing in negative externalities. The reality is that renewables are expensive and making them competitive with cheap hydrocarbons will require a combination of taxation, subsidies, and investment in R&D. The question is, acknowledging the risks posed by climate change, how willing are we to commit to a transition and what kind of commitment are we tying ourselves to?