Comments by "Gaza is not Amalek" (@Ass_of_Amalek) on "Why this years extreme weather conditions have scientists in shock | DW News" video.

  1. it really sounds to me like this year's heat records are once more an unexpectedly clear piece of evidence of the global climate changing faster than the high end of the common predictions from the UN climate change panel, which already are extremely alarming if you expect the medium prediction, or even the most optimistic version presupposing mitigation efforts that are guaranteed to not happen. this has been the case with most updated iterations of these predictions basically ever since they began. to me, this indicates that there likely is at least one major not yet identified exacerbating factor, which is missing from the predictive models. that would mean that while we currently already recognise that the insufficiency of our efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions (still emitting MORE every year than the last) is creating the worst catastrophe ever, we are still underestimating the severity. at this point, we're in a full-on "don't look up" situation. we know for a fact that climate change is about to become the greatest catastrophe (by total amount of individual suffering) to ever happen to our species - the only unclear thing about that is whether this threshold will be crossed in closer to 10 or closer to 30 years. the current news of the highest ever global surface temperature, highest ever global sea surface temperature, and highest ever local sea temperature, are the most obvious alarm signals possible for this, and while it is difficult to say for a single occurence, I do think that they once again are worse than we feared. I don't think that the importance of this news is getting through to people. this is not a mere weather report, it is and likely will remain the most important news story of the year. we are incredibly screwed!
    16
  2. @michael-muller I don't buy your numbers, but yeah, the comparison I heard, because part of the nordstream leak was in danish waters, was that the leak's climate impact was equivalent to a year's worth of danish emissions (though I don't recall if this claim was CO2-based only, which could make a big difference given denmark's large pork industry). what really annoyed, but I suppose did not surprise me with that incident, was how that gas took like a week to bubble away, and despite the climate impact being publically discussed, no official of the surrounding countries with any direct or indirect command authority over the navies and coast guards that were observing the release (or any politician that I heard of) showed enough concern and initiative for the climate to order those bubble spots to be ignited. with missiles or incendiary or explosive naval gun fire, drones, or simply towing a floating fire or flare between two boats, towing a drogue from a plane or dropping flares or incendiary bombs from a plane, that could absolutely have been done from a safe distance, it would have had no chance whatsoever to burn below the water surface due to oxygen exclusion (so it would have posed no threat at all of damaging evidence at the blast sites), it would have decreased, not increased, any hypothetical risk to shipping (sailing into invisible methane clouds would be very dangerous, lighting a big fire makes for a very visible and easily avoided danger), and it could even have been slightly beneficial to regional ecology to get rid of the potentially toxic methane pollution. the climate impact of methane vs methane combustion products is such that unburnt methane has a 10 times greater climate impact than its combustion products viewed over a 100 year period, and even more over a shorter period (because methane gets broken down into less bad stuff extremely slowly in the atmosphere). thus they could have prevented 90% of the climate impact going forward from the time of ignition. I think practically, they could have prevented 50+% of the total climate impact by getting to it 2-3 days after the sabotage event, that would no doubt have been doable. the amount of effort and personal initiative required to make this choice and have it urgently evaluated for feasibility and done would have been miniscule in relation to the benefit. it's really upsetting that everyone sat on their hands there. that's an interestingsuggwstion about this year's extreme weather that I had not thought of, but like I said, there is a previous pattern of the climate change prediction ranges being surpassed quite consistently. perhaps natural gas leaks are a good candidate to explain that too - at least I have seen the claim that it is highly unclear how much gas is leaking unburnt in our natural gas production and distribution, which is commonly pointed out in opposition to claims about gas electricity generation being climate-friendly if they replace coal, based on the incomplete calculation that gas (due to its atomic hydrogen content that burns to water vapour) produces less of a climate impact per unit of heat than coal (supposedly half).
    1
  3. and vielen lieben dank to germany for switching from nuclear power to lignite coal!
    1