|
Post by the Scribe on May 5, 2020 16:46:46 GMT
The thing that I find hypocritical beyond words is that the technological know how for creating free energy has been there for decades - MANY decades. Even good old Tesla was already working on free (and wireless) energy for everyone. He was getting very close - some argue that he was already there. But at that point JP Morgan (of banking fame) withdrew his financial support of Tesla because he was the main producer of copper wiring in the world. In short, he made billions from producing wiring for electricity. If he had allowed Tesla to complete his work JP Morgan could have kissed that money goodbye. Since Tesla there have many many other people that came up with devices that could produce free energy for EVERYONE on the planet. Imagine how that would have changed the entire world. So much misery in the world is caused by people not having access to energy. And even we in the much richer (in the fake figures on a screen version we're supposed to believe in anyway) western world wouldn't have to work our asses off to pay the bills for electricity, gasoline, or whatever - because there would no longer be any need for those things. Energy would be free. But that's of course the reason why these things have never been allowed to get on the market, because there would be no more Exxon Mobile, oil industry, electricity by wire, coal industry - all of that would be gone. It would be the end of a 200 trillion dollar industry. With free energy all us going back and forth about global warming and people being responsible for it or not would go out the door in a matter of months because free energy devices don't have any co2 output at all. But there's no money to be made from that either - and THAT'S the problem. Instead the powers that be take us in the opposite direction. They keep making their massive profits from oil, coal and what have you and then they tax you for it ever more because YOU are poluting the planet.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 5, 2020 16:47:06 GMT
I studied Tesla a bit back in the 70's. I believe he even built one of his towers in New York but there were a lot of unknowns with having electrical currents flying through the air (so to speak). Currently we have a very polluted atmosphere with microwaves, radio waves and who knows what that may be causing lots of health problems. Read about "dirty electricity" that is killing thousands even today. Solar is notorious for its inverters creating dirty electricity. True about the concept of free electricity, Tesla and Morgan and no matter if Tesla were to go forward they would have figured out a way to tax it or make a profit anyway. No one was convinced it was safe. All that being said we have today global warming being created by humans where a considerable part of the American population and lesser so of the worlds population in denial. That is a problem for those who want to do something to curb the damage but are stopped because of politics and ignorance. I don't get it. It may already be too late.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 5, 2020 16:47:28 GMT
I studied Tesla a bit back in the 70's. I believe he even built one of his towers in New York but there were a lot of unknowns with having electrical currents flying through the air (so to speak). Currently we have a very polluted atmosphere with microwaves, radio waves and who knows what that may be causing lots of health problems. Read about "dirty electricity" that is killing thousands even today. Solar is notorious for its inverters creating dirty electricity. True about the concept of free electricity, Tesla and Morgan and no matter if Tesla were to go forward they would have figured out a way to tax it or make a profit anyway. No one was convinced it was safe. All that being said we have today global warming being created by humans where a considerable part of the American population and lesser so of the worlds population in denial. That is a problem for those who want to do something to curb the damage but are stopped because of politics and ignorance. I don't get it. It may already be too late. This is one of those rare issues on which we disagree. I consider human caused global warming a form of fear mongering to give the powers that be an excuse to change society in the way that they want. I know that this is getting dangerously close to right wing rhetoric, but on that one issue I have to agree with them. Having said that - if you are right and I am wrong than it may indeed already be too late. But as I already said previously - my feelings about global warming don't mean that I don't support policies to improve the environment. We need to do that because we're in the process of turning our planet into one giant pile of trash, we're polluting our seas, etc - we're basically on the road to self destruction if we keep going like this. I just don't think that we need the excuse of global warming to implement such policies.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 5, 2020 16:47:52 GMT
The warnings have been coming long before the crisis began and would have been simpler to fix then. You call warnings fear mongering...it is all ones point of view. I don't think global warming warning is a false flag. It is happening because of man. The oil companies knew it and hid it and are still hiding it but now have to admit to it. It has become obvious and now we have written cover up proof that they knew and concealed it. Society is going to change in one way or another anyway. Life is change. We are already global economically like it or not. Why wait until you are wading in ten feet of water to finally do something about it? It would be impossible to make reasonable choices under that kind of duress. What do you mean by the powers changing society the way they want? The banks are already doing that themselves by trying to make us cashless, credit cards, interest rate scams, etc. Ever tried to get a large amount of cash out of a bank? Even if it is your own money? Not so easy. I have even heard having over 10K loose money in your possession could get you into big trouble. They are controlling the way we live. Some in the government want them to remain unregulated. They are called Conservatives and Republicans. Our big problem is Banks, Wall Street and trans global corporations, NOT representative government. Those are the powers, not the elected government. Granted there are many elected well lobbied shills for these banks and wall street in our government. They are called RepubliCons. We (US)went through that problem in our guilded age and it took government led by the right leaders to correct it. Problem is these economic royalists have been picking away at the laws that stopped them over decades through easily fooled Conservatives and Republicans and some willing Democrats thinking "everything is ok now." And here we are again. I believe there are other non-Tesla, non-fossil fuel cheap alternatives that our "secret government" has in its possession. Steven Greer spoke to that a bit in the video I posted in another thread. Problem is our whole economy is based on oil and to suddenly stop it would be catastrophic and create all sorts of political and economic vacuums and crisis. A better, more steady approach is an orderly approach making oil so cheap OR so expensive to clean up it breaks the backs and grip the powers have on the masses making a shift necessary and in due course. I don't want a bunch of armed crazed righties trying to break down my door desperate for food and water that I probably won't have either. If our power grid collapses that is what will happen. In short: 1. global warming IS happening, caused by man's use of fossil fuels and has created an environmental crisis 2. wall street, banks and global corporations through greed and deregulation have created a financial crisis 3. an out of control American Military Industrial Corporate Complex has created self perpetuating wars for profit and has created untold death and misery worldwide 3. right wing well lobbied politicians (Conservatives and Republicans) have enabled all the above. NONE of their legislation has been to help the common man. It is all to help the banks, wall street, the military industrial complex and the elite/wealthy in our society who pay to put them into office. Deniers of this fact need only look to the public record at all legislation offered by each party for proof of that. the cure? stop election theft and get people into our representative government that understand the above issues and are willing to take on the BIG fight.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 5, 2020 16:48:11 GMT
Unfortunately, most countries on the Earth are still living in the dark, religious ages with no representative government like most of the West and have continual war and strife locally and nationally helped along by nefarious outside intelligence agencies and war machines. They are kept too busy "surviving" to even see the BIG picture. And WE have those who wish to destroy our strong US Central government from within. Red states are full of these people who will be very surprised when the checks from the Feds stop which is keeping them going as ALL red (conservative controlled) states are the taker states taking inordinate handouts as compared to blue states. Their reptilian mindset doesn't allow any type of rational understanding. They too are in survival mode and can't seem to get past it.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 5, 2020 16:48:30 GMT
And I might add that in our "guilded age" it was good Republicans (who called themselves Progressives) like Teddy Roosevelt who took on this good fight and his Cousin Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat that finished the fight. Both of these men were wealthy men who had a conscience and an understanding of right from wrong. Possibly both being led spiritually (not religiously) towards a positive direction. I believe we have men like this around today. I just don't know what they are waiting for or why they haven't been prompted into action yet. We NEED leaders in our Presidency and representatives of the people in our Congress....not some well lobbied shills for the wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 21, 2020 10:47:11 GMT
Global warming now pushing heat into territory humans cannot toleratewww.yahoo.com/news/global-warming-now-pushing-heat-175546474.html The Conversation Tom Matthews, Lecturer in Climate Science, Loughborough University and Colin Raymond, Postdoctoral Researcher, California Institute of Technology,The Conversation•May 20, 2020
The explosive growth and success of human society over the past 10,000 years has been underpinned by a distinct range of climate conditions. But the range of weather humans can encounter on Earth – the “climate envelope” – is shifting as the planet warms, and conditions entirely new to civilisation could emerge in the coming decades. Even with modern technology, this should not be taken lightly.
Being able to regulate our temperature has played a key role in enabling humans to dominate the planet. Walking on two legs, without fur, and with a sweat-based cooling system, we’re well designed to beat the heat. But hot weather already limits our ability to work and stay healthy. In fact, our physiology places bounds on the level of heat and humidity we can cope with.
The normal temperature you see reported on weather forecasts is called the “drybulb” temperature. Once that rises above about 35°C, the body must rely on evaporating water (mainly through sweating) to dissipate heat. The “wetbulb” temperature is a measure that includes the chilling effect from evaporation on a thermometer, so it is normally much lower than the drybulb temperature. It indicates how efficiently our sweat-based cooling system can work.
Once the wetbulb temperature crosses about 35°C, the air is so hot and humid that not even sweating can lower your body temperature to a safe level. With continued exposure above this threshold, death by overheating can follow.
A 35°C limit may sound modest, but it isn’t. When the UK sweltered with a record drybulb temperature of 38.7°C in July 2019, the wetbulb temperature in Cambridge was no more than 24°C. Even in Karachi’s killer heatwave of 2015, the wetbulb temperature stayed below 30°C. In fact, outside a steam room, few people have encountered anything close to 35°C. It has mostly been beyond Earth’s climate envelope as human society has developed.
But our recent research shows that the 35°C limit is drawing closer, leaving an ever-shrinking safety margin for the hottest and most humid places on Earth.
Read more: Will three billion people really live in temperatures as hot as the Sahara by 2070?
Heat beyond human tolerance
Modelling studies had already indicated that wetbulb temperatures could regularly cross 35°C if the world sails past the 2°C warming limit set out in the Paris climate agreement in 2015, with The Persian Gulf, South Asia and North China Plain on the frontline of deadly humid heat.
Our analysis of wetbulb temperatures from 1979-2017 did not disagree with these warnings about what may be to come. But whereas past studies had looked at relatively large regions (on the scale of major metropolitan areas), we also examined thousands of weather station records worldwide and saw that, at this more local scale, many sites were closing in much more rapidly on the 35°C limit. The frequency of punishing wetbulb temperatures (above 31°C, for example) has more than doubled worldwide since 1979, and in some of the hottest and most humid places on Earth, like the coastal United Arab Emirates, wetbulb temperatures have already flickered past 35°C. The climate envelope is pushing into territory where our physiology cannot follow.
The consequences of crossing 35°C, however brief, have perhaps been mainly symbolic so far, as residents of the hottest places are used to riding out extreme heat by sheltering in air-conditioned spaces. But relying on artificial cooling to cope with the growing heat would supercharge energy demand and leave many people dangerously exposed to power failures. It would also abandon the most vulnerable members of society and doesn’t help those who have to venture outside.
The only way to avoid being carried further and more frequently into uncharted heat territory is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero. The economic slowdown during the coronavirus pandemic is expected to slash emissions by 4-7% in 2020, bringing them close to where global emissions were in 2010. But concentrations of greenhouse gases are still rising rapidly in the atmosphere. We must also adapt where possible, by encouraging simple behavioural changes (like avoiding outdoor daytime activity) and by ramping up emergency response plans when heat extremes are imminent. Such steps will help to buy time against the inexorable forward march of the Earth’s climate envelope.
We hope that our research illuminates some of the challenges that may await us as global temperatures rise. The emergence of unprecedented heat and humidity – beyond what our physiology can tolerate – is just a portion of what could be in store. An even warmer and wetter world risks generating climate extremes beyond any human experience, including the potential for a whole host of “unknown unknowns”.
We hope that the sense of vulnerability to surprises left by COVID-19 invigorates global commitments to reaching carbon neutrality – recognising the value in preserving conditions that are somewhat familiar, rather than risking what may be waiting in a very novel climate ahead.
Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 24, 2020 12:10:03 GMT
According to Trump and most CONServatives global warming is a hoax and left wing plot just like Covid19. Once the floods reach their own neighborhoods they might change their tunes but for now since it is just in minority communities it is not a problem.Climate gentrification is on the rise Climate gentrification: How extreme weather is displacing low-income residents from their communitieswww.yahoo.com/finance/news/climate-gentrification-how-extreme-weather-is-displacing-lowincome-residents-from-their-communities-182206343.html Yvette KillianProducer Yahoo Finance May 19, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC
Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate — and for Miami-Dade County, situated between 4 and 6 feet above sea level and with a population of over 2.7 million people, that means a lot of real estate at risk to rising waters and extreme weather. oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Miami has the largest amount of exposed assets and the fourth-largest population vulnerable to sea-level rise in the world. Often called ground zero for climate change, Miami-Dade has more people living less than 4 feet above sea level than any U.S. state, except Louisiana. www.wri.org/publication/sea-level-rise-and-its-impact-miami-dade-county
Rising seas are threatening multi-million dollar properties in communities up and down the coast of South Florida. But it’s not only luxury homes at risk. As more and more people are searching for higher ground, lower-income, inland communities are being forced out.
“People are now looking at developing inland, where it’s safer, where it’s a little bit higher altitude. And so that could create gentrification pressures inside. We’re starting to see that,” Miami Mayor Francis Suarez said in an interview with Yahoo Finance.
In the case of Miami, rising sea levels have real estate developers eyeing inland communities like Little Havana, Little Haiti and Liberty City, which are landlocked and at higher elevations. For generations, these communities have been home to people of color, who are now finding themselves priced out of their homes.
‘It’s the gentrification of high-elevation, low-income areas’ “Coincidentally, these happen to be the places that are experiencing the greatest amount of gentrification and they also happen to be Miami’s lowest income communities. That basically is what climate gentrification is. It’s the gentrification of high elevation, low income areas,” said Adrian Madriz, a community activist with SMASH (Struggle for Miami’s Affordable and Sustainable Housing.)
Palm trees blow in the winds of hurricane Irma in Bonita Springs, Florida, northeast of Naples, on September 10, 2017. (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
And it isn’t just happening in coastal areas. With so-called “once-in a lifetime” weather events occurring more frequently, hurricanes, heatwaves, wildfires and flooding have forced people to reconsider taking up residence in areas exposed to extreme weather. www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-extreme-weather-events-linked-to-climate-change/
In a 2018 interview with The Guardian, Coral Evans, mayor of Flagstaff, Arizona, noted a 25% uptick in second-home owners buying up real estate in the region, which is located in a cooler, mountainous area, 144 miles north of Phoenix. The mayor described those fleeing the heat as “climate refugees” and lamented the squeeze put on low-income people who’ve seen their cost of living and real estate prices escalate. www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/25/climate-gentrification-phoenix-flagstaff-miami-rich-poor
“We don’t talk much about what climate change means for social justice. But where are low-income people going to live? How can they afford to stay in this city?” she said.
As climate change reshapes communities around the world Madriz reflects on current migration trends calling it the “irony of ironies” as people move away from waterfront properties in search of safer investments.
Yvette Killian is a producer for Yahoo Finance’s On The Move.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 25, 2020 2:43:38 GMT
A world redrawn: US coronavirus response fatally 'chaotic,' says Noam Chomskywww.yahoo.com/news/world-redrawn-us-coronavirus-response-fatally-chaotic-says-013458602.html Laura BONILLA AFP May 25, 2020, 1:34 AM UTC
For two months the influential scholar Noam Chomsky has been confined in Tucson with his Brazilian wife Valeria, his dog and a parrot who can say "sovereignty" in Portuguese (AFP Photo/Heuler Andrey) New York (AFP) - The United States is on a chaotic path with no federal plan against the coronavirus pandemic as it reduces public health funding and ignores the advances of climate change, according to activist scholar Noam Chomsky, considered the founder of modern linguistics.
What follows are extracts, edited for clarity, from an AFP interview with the 91-year-old leftist intellectual, who has authored more than 100 books and is currently a professor at the University of Arizona.
For two months he's been confined in Tucson with his Brazilian wife Valeria, his dog and a parrot who can say "sovereignty" in Portuguese.
Question: How do you read the current situation in the United States, where coronavirus has killed more residents than any other nation in the world?
Answer: There's no coherent leadership. It's chaotic. The presidency, the White House, is in the hands of a sociopathic megalomaniac who's interested in nothing but his own power, electoral prospects -- doesn't care what happens to the country, the world.
The president himself has said that it's none of his business. He's said that the federal government can't do anything.
Nothing really matters except his personal power and gain. Of course he has to maintain the support of his primary constituency, which is great wealth and corporate power.
There's 90,000 deaths and there will be a lot more.... There's no coordinated plan.
Q: How do you view the political landscape emerging from this crisis in the US and elsewhere?
A: As soon as Trump came in, his first move was to dismantle the entire pandemic prevention machinery. At the start, defunding the Center for Disease Control, which would deal with this. And canceling programs that were working with Chinese scientists to identify potential viruses. So the US was singularly unprepared.
It's a privatized society, very wealthy, with enormous advantages -- far more than any other country -- but it's in the stranglehold of private control.
It doesn't have a universal health care system.... It's the ultimate neoliberal system, actually.
Europe in many ways is worse, because the austerity programs just amplify the danger, because of the severe attack on democracy in Europe, the shifting decisions to Brussels.... So Europe has its own problems, but at least it has the residue of some kind of social democratic structure, which provides some support, which is what I think is lacking in the US.
As severe as this pandemic is, it's not the worst problem. There will be recovery from the pandemic at severe cost ... but there isn't going to be any recovery from the melting of the polar ice caps and the rising of sea levels and the other deleterious effects of global warming.
Q: Several countries are using technology to track citizens, storing DNA to fight the virus. Are we entering a new era of digital surveillance, and what does this mean for privacy?
A: There are now companies developing technology which make it possible for the employer ... to look at what's on your computer screen and to check your keystrokes and if you get up and walk away for a minute, they'll send you a warning.
That's being installed right now.... It's not the future.
The so-called Internet of Things is coming along. It's convenient. It means if you're driving home you can turn on the stove -- but it also means that that information is going to Google and Facebook, to the government, the American government, the French government, it's an enormous amount of potential control ,surveillance and invasion. But this has happened. It's not the future.
If we allow the huge tech companies, the state, to control our life that's what will happen. They'll turn it into something like China, where you have social credit systems and in some cities you get a certain amount of credits, there's face recognition technology all over the place and everything you do gets monitored.
If you cross the street in the wrong place, you can ... lose some credits, and so on.
It's not inevitable, just like global warming, that it's going to happen -- unless people stop it.
Q: Could it be justified to halt the virus' spread?
A. It might be -- during the period of threat. There's controls needed during wartime, you have rationing. But it doesn't have to be permanent.... 'Yes, we'll let you have this authority now, but it can be revoked at any time.'"
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jun 5, 2020 5:09:32 GMT
Why Do Ever Fearful Conservatives Ignore Climate Threat?www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201812/why-do-ever-fearful-conservatives-ignore-climate-threat Some threats are deniable, particularly if you cover your eyes. Posted Dec 04, 2018
A great deal of evidence suggests that conservatives are more attuned to threat than liberals are. They see the world as a threatening place. Yet, they seem impervious to the threat of climate change. How can people who are big on fear in general discount climate risks?
The Evidence
Whether a person is liberal or conservative is affected by their brain biology. This phenomenon is supported by extensive research in psychology and political science. Neuroscientists reported that conservatives possess larger limbic system structures than liberals. Genetics and childhood experiences each account for about half the differences in conservatism (1).
A larger limbic system implies that conservatives register more fear, which helps explain why they tend to be focused on foreign military threats and risks from immigration. The limbic system responds to dangers.
Supportive evidence is broad. People who grow up to be conservatives are more rule-bound and rigid in their childhood behavior (1). They want the world to be more predictable than it actually is, presumably because unpredictability evokes anxiety.
Liberals are more open to different experiences and tolerate greater social complexity (1). This helps explain why they tend to be more pro-immigrant and espouse less restrictive views on sexual diversity.
Conservatives may be more sensitive to threats, but they are not equally sensitive to all dangers.
Even though climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, many conservatives ignore this threat, permitting it to get progressively worse and risking irreversible harm to the planet and its inhabitants.
Climate Denial and Inaction
Conservative tactics on climate change follow a well-worn theme. Deny the reality of climate change and sow confusion about sources of variation in temperature and weather—and their human consequences, such as sea level rises wiping out low-lying islands and floods killing many thousands around the globe. It is the same approach used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health consequences of smoking or what the oil industry did to conceal the adverse developmental effects of lead in gasoline.
The tactics are clear enough, but what of the motive? The general denial of human-induced climate change and the decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord would suggest that conservatives are hostile to the science of climate change.
Hostility to Science?
Hostility to science is real and manifested itself in historical controversies about the teaching of evolution in public schools that continue to this day.
Still, how hostile can one be to science if one lives in a world infused with scientific applications, from penicillin and the polio vaccine to electronic banking and air traffic control? No one is going to criticize the science underlying a medicine if it can save their lives. (Ironically, drugs are first tested on animals and would not work if humans were not products of evolution).
Given that the connection between human-induced climate change and weather is now so clear, sheer hostility to scientific discovery is not really a plausible explanation.
Perhaps climate deniers are just toeing the party line? Instead of counteracting the objective threat, do they seek the security of tribal solidarity?
Tribal Loyalty?
In a dangerous world, safety is found in close relatives and familiar faces who generally help us out in our hour of need. Perhaps for this reason, family and ethnic identity are particularly important to conservatives (1 Tuschman).
The downside is that family and clan are so important that conservatives may willingly assume risk to protect them. Evidently, conservatives are quite willing to go to war if they feel that their families and communities are under threat.
A person's preferred political party is another source of identity and solidarity. Politics today are increasingly tribal in the sense that decisions are made either to strengthen the party, or to counteract the efforts of the opposing party.
If this reasoning is correct, conservatives oppose climate change because that is what their partisan brethren are doing. Beyond tribal loyalty, there are strong economic motives for wealthy people to deny climate change. Of course, this is true only if they look at a brief time horizon.
Economic Motives?
Conservatives may avoid action on climate change because it brings a slew of expensive regulations that increase the cost of doing business and reduce company profits. If they belong to the elite, they may also feel that wealth protects them, for example by purchasing homes well above floodplains.
Moreover, climate-conscious societies are prone to tax energy use in various ways, the most obvious being a hike in gasoline prices. Then there are mandates requiring a switch to alternative energy sources such as wind and solar that are more expensive in most locations.
The logic for business-oriented conservatives being opposed to climate action seems obvious. Yet, this perspective is short-sighted and short-term for two good reasons.
The first is that the costs of environmental degradation are much greater than this view acknowledges. It is not just that the weather becomes more threatening. The value of natural resources, such as rainforests and coral reefs, is diminished in ways that are ignored. The loss of coral reefs has devastating effects on commercial fisheries, for instance. Pollution also incurs many hidden costs, such as the health consequences of city smog. If these costs were added in, alternative energy would become cheaper than fossil fuels.
The second reason is that alternative energy and other climate mitigation technologies offer endless opportunities for new businesses. By ignoring climate change, conservatives would cede these opportunities to the Chinese, who are already the global leaders in solar energy as they cope with choking city smog.
Conclusion
In the end, the perceived costs to businesses of limiting greenhouse gas emissions seem to be the most compelling reason that conservatives prefer to bury their heads in the sand on climate change. Given this penchant, and the fact that their political opponents favor greener policies, there is also a tribal tendency to fall in line on the issue.
References
Tuschman, A. (2013). Our political nature: The evolutionary origins of what divides us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jun 30, 2020 8:03:04 GMT
South Pole warming three times faster than rest of Earth: studynews.yahoo.com/south-pole-warming-three-times-faster-rest-earth-150156003.html AFP Patrick GALEY,AFP•June 29, 2020
For years it had been thought that the South Pole had stayed cool even as the continent heated up (AFP Photo/FERNANDA REBULL) More Paris (AFP) - The South Pole has warmed three times faster than the rest of the planet in the last 30 years due to warmer tropical ocean temperatures, new research showed Monday.
Antarctica's temperature varies widely according to season and region, and for years it had been thought that the South Pole had stayed cool even as the continent heated up.
Researchers in New Zealand, Britain and the United States analysed 60 years of weather station data and used computer modelling to show what was causing the accelerated warming.
They found that warmer ocean temperatures in the western Pacific had over the decades lowered atmospheric pressure over the Weddell Sea in the southern Atlantic.
This in turn had increased the flow of warm air directly over the South Pole -- warming it by more than 1.83C (about 3.3F) since 1989.
Authors of the research said the natural warming trend was likely boosted by manmade greenhouse gas emissions and could be masking the heating effect of carbon pollution over the South Pole.
"While temperatures were known to be warming across West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula during the 20th century, the South Pole was cooling," said Kyle Clem, a researcher at Victoria University of Wellington, and lead study author.
"It was suspected that this part of Antarctica... might be immune to/isolated from warming. We found this is not the case any more," he told AFP.
The data showed that the South Pole -- the most remote spot on Earth -- was now warming at a rate of around 0.6C (1.1F) a decade, compared with around 0.2C (1.4F) for the rest of the planet.
The authors of the study, published in the Nature Climate Change journal, attributed the change to a phenomenon known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).
The IPO cycle lasts roughly 15-30 years, and alternates between a "positive" state -- in which the tropical Pacific is hotter and the northern Pacific is colder than average -- and a "negative" state where the temperature anomaly is reversed.
The IPO flipped to a negative cycle at the start of the century, driving greater convection and more pressure extremes at high latitudes, leading to a strong flow of warmer air right over the South Pole.
Clem said that the 1.83C (3.3F) level of warming exceeded 99.99 percent of all modelled 30-year warming trends.
"While the warming was just within the natural variability of climate models, it was highly likely human activity had contributed," he said.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jul 7, 2020 15:55:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jul 7, 2020 15:57:00 GMT
Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jul 12, 2020 9:08:38 GMT
A couple of months after the Phoenix temp record was smashed in 1990 the Chamber of Commerce persuaded the city that the temp stations around the valley needed to be moved to cooler locations. So now the official temps are several degrees lower than what they really are. For instance the announced high yesterday was 115 but it was actually 119 and that is in the shade.A Brutal Heat Wave Is About to Scorch Many Parts of the Country for WeeksKorin Miller PreventionJuly 10, 2020, 3:22 PM
www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/brutal-heat-wave-scorch-many-202200898.htmlFrom Prevention
An incoming heat wave, dubbed a “heat dome,” will lead to historic temperatures in various parts of the U.S., particularly in the South.
The National Weather Service is warning about “excessive heat” this weekend, noting that “heat indices are likely to be over 110 degrees” in the South and Southwest.
The heat will last multiple weeks and raises concern for heat-related illnesses.
As if 2020 hasn’t thrown enough at you, it’s about to get hot—really hot—in many parts of the country. A historic heat wave, dubbed a “heat dome,” is expected to crank up temperatures in the South, Southwest, and Mid-Atlantic over the next few weeks.
The National Weather Service is warning about “excessive heat” this weekend, noting on Twitter that “heat indices are likely to be over 110 degrees” in the South and Southwest. The heat wave is expected to last for several weeks in some areas, according to CBS News, and more than 80% of the country will see temperatures over 90 degrees within the next week.
The National Weather Service in Phoenix, in particular, is warning that there is a “slight chance” temperatures in the area could get as high as 120 degrees. While the heat dome is currently focused on the South and Southwest, it’s expected to spread north and east in the early parts of next week.
A heat dome happens when strong, high-pressure atmospheric conditions trap hot ocean air like a lid or cap, according to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA). The main cause is usually a strong change in ocean temperatures from west to east in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the winter before.
The NOAA compares it to a swimming pool when the heater is turned on; temperatures rise much faster around the jets while the rest of the water takes longer to heat. Eventually, more warm air—which is heated by the ocean’s surface—rises over the western Pacific and is moved east toward land by the jet stream, where it eventually sinks, leading to a heat wave.
But in general, “a heat wave is the same as a heat dome,” says Jeff Masters, Ph.D., co-founder of Weather Underground and meteorologist for Yale Climate Connections.
But there are a few reasons to pay attention to this heat dome. “The heat wave will be very long-lived, lasting multiple weeks in some areas with only a few days of near-normal temperatures during that span. This will increase the odds of heat illness and heat-related deaths,” Masters explains.
Of course, there’s a pandemic to consider, too. “The heat wave will act to keep people indoors in air conditioning, where the spread of COVID-19 is more likely to occur,” Masters says.
How to prepare for and stay safe during a heat wave This is serious: The Red Cross warns online that excessive heat “has caused more deaths than all other weather events, including floods.”
“Heat illness, and most notably, heat stroke would be the biggest concern with extreme temperatures,” says Nicholas Kman, M.D., an emergency medicine physician at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), symptoms of heat illness include a body temperature of 103°F or higher, hot, red, dry, or damp skin, a fast pulse, dizziness or confusion, nausea or vomiting, passing out, muscle cramps or weakness, and heavy sweating. “Athletes, outdoor laborers, the elderly, children in vehicles, and military personnel are at greatest risk,” Dr. Kman says.
If you’re in an area that’s expected to be impacted by the extreme heat, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recommends adding insulation and weather-stripping to points of entry in your home, covering windows with drapes or shades, using attic fans to clear hot air, and installing window air conditioners or getting plenty of fans if your home doesn’t have a central air system. If the heat wave has already arrived in your area, the Red Cross has this advice:
Never leave children or pets alone in closed vehicles.
Drink plenty of water, even if you do not feel thirsty. Avoid caffeine or alcohol.
Eat small meals and eat more often.
Wear loose-fitting, lightweight, light-colored clothing.
Avoid heavy exercise during the hottest part of the day (normally in the afternoon).
Schedule outdoor games and activities for another day.
Take breaks as often as you need to if you have to work outdoors.
Check on loved ones who do not have air conditioning or spend a lot of time alone.
Check on your pets often to make sure they are comfortable.
If you suspect someone you love is dealing with heat stroke, Dr. Kman recommends that you “immediately start cooling them” while calling 911. Get them out of the sun or heat ASAP and into the shade, a cool room indoors, or even a cold bath. “This is a medical emergency,” he says. “The sooner the cooling process starts, the better the outcome for the patient.”
It’s unclear at this point when the heat wave will subside completely, so do your best to stay safe and find relief whenever possible.
Support from readers like you helps us do our best work. Go here to subscribe to Prevention and get 12 FREE gifts. And sign up for our FREE newsletter here for daily health, nutrition, and fitness advice.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jul 21, 2020 8:48:57 GMT
Fools for Fossil Fuels: A History of Climate Change Inactionblogs.wgbh.org/innovation-hub/2019/9/27/fools-fossil-fuels-history-climate-change-inaction/ Nadia Lewis September 27, 2019
Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
*This piece was originally published on March 26th, 2019
Just about 40 years ago, a secret group of elite scientists, known as the Jasons, sounded the death knell for climate change. They had consulted a computer model that predicted the destabilizing effects of a warming earth - from droughts, to rising sea levels, to geopolitical conflicts. Their warnings reached the ears of politicians, and, ultimately, during his 1988 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush pledged to solve the problem. But then the story shifted, and climate change was not addressed. Nathaniel Rich, a writer at large for the New York Times and author of Losing Earth: A Recent History, walks us through what happened, and explains how a non-partisan issue became deeply split along party lines. www.mcdbooks.com/books/losing-earth
Three Takeaways:
President Jimmy Carter, known to be an environmentalist, was one of the first few presidents who understood the seriousness of climate change. He installed solar panels on the roof of the White House - which were ceremoniously removed by his successor Ronald Reagan. After President George H. W. Bush promised to end global warming, a dog fight broke out amongst those close to him. John H. Sununu, Bush’s Chief of Staff, was skeptical of climate science and argued that the narrative around it was overblown. Sununu later convinced others within the Republican party that the science was shaky. Despite early setbacks, Nathaniel Rich says that the moment we’re currently living in shows tremendous promise when it comes to dealing with climate change. While earlier arguments appealed to science and rationality, current movements around climate change, led mostly by young folks, emphasize moral claims of decency and justice. More Reading:
Read Nathaniel Rich’s NYT’ magazine piece, “Losing Earth” here. If you want to know more about John H. Sununu, who shaped the debate on climate change, check out this report from New Hampshire Public Radio. More than 80% of parents in the U.S. think climate change should be taught in schools, and 86% of teachers agree. Meanwhile, students are taking to the streets, unafraid to press the government for climate-friendly policies. Where did Jimmy Carter’s solar panels go after Ronald Reagan took them down? Well one of them resides in a museum in China. climate change, Green, environment, Nathaniel Rich
|
|