Does Anyone Care that July Was the Hottest Month in Recorded History?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Q: Does Anyone Care that July Was the Hottest Month in Recorded History?
A: Not really. Cool story though, bro.
A: Not really. Cool story though, bro.
Per Robert Reich (on Facebook):
Here's the scale and level of ambition we should be aiming for this election year and into the future: rescuing the environment and also providing millions of good new jobs.
Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and his team of experts show conclusively that America could generate 80 to 85 percent of its power from sun, wind, and water by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. The Stanford team has offered similar plans for 139 nations around the world.
This would be enough to slow global warming. If we move quickly enough to meet the goal of 80 percent clean power by 2030, the world’s carbon dioxide levels would fall below the relative safety of 350 parts per million by the end of the century. The planet would stop heating up, or at least the pace of that heating would slow substantially. We’d endure lots of damage in the meantime, but not the civilization-scale destruction we currently face.
To make the plan work, we’d need to turn out thousands of acres of solar panels, wind turbines the length of football fields, and millions of electric cars and buses. The effort would create enough jobs for millions of Americans.
Here's the real way to make America great again. What's stopping us? Regressive Republicans and defeatist Democrats.
Here's the scale and level of ambition we should be aiming for this election year and into the future: rescuing the environment and also providing millions of good new jobs.
Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and his team of experts show conclusively that America could generate 80 to 85 percent of its power from sun, wind, and water by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. The Stanford team has offered similar plans for 139 nations around the world.
This would be enough to slow global warming. If we move quickly enough to meet the goal of 80 percent clean power by 2030, the world’s carbon dioxide levels would fall below the relative safety of 350 parts per million by the end of the century. The planet would stop heating up, or at least the pace of that heating would slow substantially. We’d endure lots of damage in the meantime, but not the civilization-scale destruction we currently face.
To make the plan work, we’d need to turn out thousands of acres of solar panels, wind turbines the length of football fields, and millions of electric cars and buses. The effort would create enough jobs for millions of Americans.
Here's the real way to make America great again. What's stopping us? Regressive Republicans and defeatist Democrats.
Hotter the better!! More short shorts!!
Well that's not gonna happen so the hapless midget will have to come up with a Plan B.
"Recorded" key word in your statement. Do you ever get tired of starting the same old sky is falling BS?
When the majority of academics and wannabe intellects who are shitting themselves in regards to climate change finally quit posting the same old stuff on message boards and actually do something constructive to address their concerns, I'll begin to give more than zero shits.
I'd say it's a good start. Just keep improving on that trend and I may not have to move to Arizona.......might even head north where the fishin's better.
Umm...not everywhere.
Well.....then it's that extra hour of daylight caused by Daylight Savings Time.
Our own fault, really - we should have known long ago what a whole extra hour of sunshine was going to do.
I hope this is realized... seriously. I know people have the capacity to make it happen.
Well.....then it's that extra hour of daylight caused by Daylight Savings Time.
Our own fault, really - we should have known long ago what a whole extra hour of sunshine was going to do.
That;s just July being July. Always trying to one-up the other months.
What the data are showing us is that we have already 'locked in' about 1.5° to 2°C of equilibrium climate warming as of our already emitted CO2.
If we continue at this pace for another few decades, it is practically guaranteed that we will 'lock in' dangerous levels of climate warming for future generations. It may take another 100-200 years for that to fully manifest itself, but that's the thermal inertia of the Earth's mass (oceans, mostly).
Physical chemistry (fundamental laws) tells us that it requires MORE energy to reconvert that CO2 back into something that can be re-sequestered, so every watt of energy we burn in fossil fuels today means that future generations, IF they can figure out an economical and practical way to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, will need to expend most of their available energy resources doing that. It's very analogous to 'entitlement spending' in our national budget - when service on our debt and entitlements take up >50% (and even 70%) of our national budget, we have little money left to spend on infrastructure and defense.
From the budgetary perspective, THAT is the risk to our economy in the near term (and could lead to the US no longer being a world power). From the climate perspective, it can literally mean leaving a broken planet to people many generations out: widespread disruption in food supplies, mass migrations on a scale we've never seen. Only it certainly won't affect any of us directly, and may be too slow acting to affect our grandkids.
We revere the sacrifices the founders of this country made generations ago, which led to the freedoms and benefits we have today. None of them, and none of their grandchildren are around to see any of those benefits today, or the great country that has resulted from their efforts.
Will we choose to do the same for our climate? Or will we continue to ignore the science and leave a gigantic mess for those who will need to deal with it 100 or 200 years from now?
If we continue at this pace for another few decades, it is practically guaranteed that we will 'lock in' dangerous levels of climate warming for future generations. It may take another 100-200 years for that to fully manifest itself, but that's the thermal inertia of the Earth's mass (oceans, mostly).
Physical chemistry (fundamental laws) tells us that it requires MORE energy to reconvert that CO2 back into something that can be re-sequestered, so every watt of energy we burn in fossil fuels today means that future generations, IF they can figure out an economical and practical way to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, will need to expend most of their available energy resources doing that. It's very analogous to 'entitlement spending' in our national budget - when service on our debt and entitlements take up >50% (and even 70%) of our national budget, we have little money left to spend on infrastructure and defense.
From the budgetary perspective, THAT is the risk to our economy in the near term (and could lead to the US no longer being a world power). From the climate perspective, it can literally mean leaving a broken planet to people many generations out: widespread disruption in food supplies, mass migrations on a scale we've never seen. Only it certainly won't affect any of us directly, and may be too slow acting to affect our grandkids.
We revere the sacrifices the founders of this country made generations ago, which led to the freedoms and benefits we have today. None of them, and none of their grandchildren are around to see any of those benefits today, or the great country that has resulted from their efforts.
Will we choose to do the same for our climate? Or will we continue to ignore the science and leave a gigantic mess for those who will need to deal with it 100 or 200 years from now?
Yes.
The problem is that there will be winners and losers. The main losers are Big Oil and their infrastructure. Which is a huge number of people, a monstrous amount of money and power, and - to make the fight even harder - we subsidize them to the tune of several billion a year according to something I read recently.
Which is to say that Exxon, the Koch Network, and many others have been and will continue to spend as much as it takes to hold onto what they "own" - no matter how dangerous staying on the current path is for all of us (including them and their employees).
The winners - which will include current employees in the fossil fuel industry who will benefit from retraining/education if we do things right - don't have any power. They don't own any senators or reps. They can't spend millions on denier advertising. They don't own any corporate media.
Are people who are fully employed dumber or something? How does that work?
Yes July was hot but August is hotter from what I can tell. It was 90 degrees last night here (NYC) at midnight. What is seemingly getting worse and worse is the amount of humidity. Im not sure how that is occurring but I am sure that I can prove it is getting worse -
-
Yes July was hot but August is hotter from what I can tell. It was 90 degrees last night here (NYC) at midnight. What is seemingly getting worse and worse is the amount of humidity. Im not sure how that is occurring but I am sure that I can prove it is getting worse
August has been much better in my neck of the woods because the daily afternoon thunderstorms have returned, which cools things down significantly. July was unusually hot and dry for us because of a persistent high pressure system blanketing the state.
I agree with most of what you said except this part.
Unless you are referring specifically to middle class and above Iowans and others who are favorably situated, this is simply wrong. Millions of people around the world - including some in the US - are already feeling the leading edge of the disasters that will accelerate during our lifetimes. Even old farts like me aren't going to miss out on the fun.
As for the budgetary considerations, we are going to spend huge amounts of money on climate change, whether we want to or not. The only question is whether we spend it on preparing for it and switching to safer energy forms, or spend it on disaster cleanup and repair. That should be an easy choice.
I don't think any of us will be surprised if August tops July.Yes July was hot but August is hotter from what I can tell. It was 90 degrees last night here (NYC) at midnight. What is seemingly getting worse and worse is the amount of humidity. Im not sure how that is occurring but I am sure that I can prove it is getting worse
Most months in recent years have clocked in as hotter than any same month in recorded history. I'd certainly bet August will continue that streak, at the least.
Will there be a month sometime in the next few years that doesn't break the previous record for the same month? If you believe in "the law of averages" or "regression to the mean" you might bet on that. I won't. I'm with those who think we have passed that point.
For major land-ice losses and well over 6 ft of sea level rise....most likely.
Is that a rational that we should ignore the problem? No. Because business as usual means it will only get much much worse.
And yet Iowa has had a mild summer. Yes, the sky is falling.
Oh by the way, India is adding 1 coal mine per week, and is building coal fired power plants to provide electricity for 400M people that don't have it. They are willing to not do this as long as we give them 2.5 Trillion dollars! Kind of shows me that GW is a scam. Follow the money!
Could you calculate for us the representative land area of Iowa with respect to the entire globe and report back?
This is the equivalent of getting 10/10 on one weekly quiz in your class, but failing every other test and homework throughout the semester, yet believing you deserve an 'A'.....
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Players file lawsuit against state for privacy rights violations
- Latest: WaterlooChazz