The latest figures and weather consequences of global warming

[izentrop]

NASA's Infrared Atmospheric Sounder (AIRS) aboard the Aqua satellite captured the polar vortex as it traveled from southern Canada to the midwestern United States from 20 to 29 January. The lowest temperatures are in purple and blue and vary -40 to 40 ° C degrees Fahrenheit (also -40 degrees Celsius) to -10 degrees Fahrenheit (-23 degrees Celsius). As the data series progresses, you can see how the coldest purple areas of the air mass escape into the United States.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7324

[izentrop]

After record heat, record floods. Weather accident or climate change?

[izentrop]

How many trees should be planted to compensate for the pollution of one person?

The most recent estimates consider that each year a French emits between 10.6 and 12.8 tons of CO2. If we consider that a tree stores 35 kg of CO2 per year (which is a rather high range), then to compensate for the annual pollution of a single French, it would be necessary to plant close to 360 trees. In other words,every day, a French person emits about as much CO2 as a tree stores in a year. https://e-rse.net/arbres-stocke-carbone ... s.sbwjvqMR

.... It may be too late, too.

We go back in time:

In June 1972, the year of the publication of the famous report of the Club of Rome, the Nouvel Observateur published a number "special ecology" entitled "Last chance of the Earth" ....
... In an article titled "The Demons of Expansion" André Gorz (under the pseudonym Michel Bosquet) wrote that "industrial civilization will not pass the turn of this century," and even suggested that its collapse was desirable, and urgent ... http://partage-le.com/2019/02/un-apercu ... las-casaux

[Christophe]

[to be chafoin]

... The beginnings of what awaits us in the near future
...

"Ecological catastrophism against democracy"
"It is in this article (...)
https://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16427

Very good article, thank you for this reference which criticizes very aptly and very well argued the rhetoric of catastrophism that has invaded our daily lives and runs continuously, as if empty. The authors show that behind this discourse, which calls for a loophole in everyone's conscience to avoid a catastrophe that is presented as more and more inescapable, hides a (more or less conscientious) political will that is conservative and that works in any case often to the benefits of authoritarian and depolitic state action. The fear of the future makes the present disappear and tends to reproduce and preserve the current social order. The moralising discourse of individual guilt or even police of the mores tends to impose an over-responsability of the consumer and an ascetic ethics of the small daily gestures whose impact can be judged as secondary whereas the decisive choices (of reorientation or important investments by example) are excluded from citizen deliberation. It is insidiously so that the social and collective consciousness of our present, the lucid evaluation of power relations and the discussion of a real possibility of social transformation of what is, vanishes when there is only 2 choice: disaster or disaster avoidance through individual consumption changes and state measures calculated by competent administrative experts. In this regard, I find that reasoning illuminates the news in many ways. In particular, we can say that the movement of the Yellow Vests has signed a re-emergence of the social present in this smokescreen of catastrophist and authoritarian discourse adorned with the finery of ecology.

The authors also clearly show the link between these discourses with antagonistic political implications and the equally antagonistic conceptions of time associated with them. On the one hand, there is a definite time that corresponds to social heteronomy (the future is certain or highly predictable because of religious, scientific, etc. precepts, so political power is delegated to a small group, for example of experts), on the other hand, the fundamental uncertainty of time which is intrinsic to a democratic conception of collective political deliberation, of autonomous responsibility and of emancipation. We do not know what our future will be. We can certainly get an idea from our past and our present, this future will depend in part on what we decide today but it remains largely indeterminate. This is why we must deliberate in order to cross our opinions and to make political decisions (in the full sense) that we want to take in all responsibility, in the present situation.

[izentrop]

To be chaffoin, you are mistaken about the subject, here we think we are going into the mature but not yet how fast ... it is precise
http://embedftv-a.akamaihd.net/8b4efaba ... a1fbaf7270

[Bardal]

... The beginnings of what awaits us in the near future
...

"Ecological catastrophism against democracy"
"It is in this article (...)
https://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16427

Very good article, thank you for this reference which criticizes very aptly and very well argued the rhetoric of catastrophism that has invaded our daily lives and runs continuously, as if empty. The authors show that behind this discourse which calls in loop to the good conscience of each one to avoid a catastrophe however presented as more and more ineluctable hides a political will
... / ...
We do not know what our future will be. We can certainly get an idea from our past and our present, this future will depend in part on what we decide today but it remains largely indeterminate. This is why we must deliberate in order to cross our opinions and to make political decisions (in the full sense) that we want to take in all responsibility, in the present situation.

Even if I share a number of your expectations, especially on the political use that is made today of a climate alarmism, I can not agree with the conclusions that you seem to draw, and that lead to nothing to try (If I understood correctly).

There are two emergencies, each of which is sufficient to impose an obligation to respond:

- one is the observation of a deleterious climatic impact in the short term, which seems scientifically proven, even if various uncertainties remain to be clarified (note although it is the clean one of practically all the results of scientific studies)

- the other is the certainty that all fossil energy sources will be exhausted in a very short time on the historical scale, a deadline equally deleterious for humanity if it has not been anticipated ...

These two threats stem from a single phenomenon, the frenzied consumption of the fossil fuel stock by humanity, and which is subject to the same pernicious manipulations of the same minorities that you denounce in your argument, and with identical results. as far as democracy and social consequences are concerned. Let us add that the promised crisis, or crisis, is likely to be of such magnitude and violence that these democratic and social concerns are likely to be largely overlooked ...

It is useless, in my humble opinion, to dwell on the turpitudes of the political and / or possessing class; there is nothing new under the sun, it is simply an objective data to integrate into our algorithm (whatever it is), and to control (in the full sense of the term). For me, one of the major emergencies is the exit of carbon energies, making sure that no one suffers too much, especially disadvantaged classes and peoples. It's possible, and even technically easy enough; politically, that's another story ...
But the Greeks of the Thermopylae were ridiculous in the face of the Persian army, the sans culottes did not exist before 1789 and the members of the Workers' International were 5 on the eve of the Paris Commune ... The future is never what we make of it ...

[Ahmed]

That climate alarmism (just like its opposite, climate quietism), is the object of instrumentalization on the part of the authorities does not say anything about the reality of the threat: it is little more than an academic discussion about the sex of the angels.

Likewise, reducing the issue to an exit from carbon-based energies also ignores the devastating use that is made of energy, even if it is perfectly "ecological".
Splitting the various issues, however closely related (since systemic), automatically returns them to a technical approach and disqualifies the political path.

[to be chafoin]

What I mean is not: do not try anything! but it is that catastrophic discourse has now become part of the problem. We are hypnotized by this discourse that everyone can a little make his own by rejecting to a large extent on the other individuals the responsibility for the great failure we see every day, and accumulating a little more bad conscience (I'm already making an effort , I'll do a little better tomorrow for the planet ...). The Nouvel Observateur left in the 1970 years a last chance to the Earth before 2000 year ... These multiple black predictions sometimes dated very precisely could be described as ridiculous if they did not contain a part of our tragic destiny! And then this succession of alarms launched more and more strongly since 20 or 30 years when nothing seems to work, to start in the reality, it does not strike you, from now on? There is not just a history of deafness or of a group of citizens who would be desperately climate-minded, I believe moreover a majority of French and even of humans will surely tell you that they are aware of the urgent ecological problems ... I do not deny global warming nor human responsibility in it, I say that the catastrophist speech plays a role of alien scarer paper in which our eyes are lost. My father can thus without worry and at the same time acquiesce to this speech (ah yes it is terrible!) And to abide to the Macronian neoliberal conformism surrounding. The article is correct: the ideology of progress has been superimposed on a horizon of catastrophic waiting that stifles and prevents creative political activity that might allow, in my opinion, to change the game a little.

[raybas]

I read the little treatise on contemporary resistance a few days ago. The author deals very well with this problem of current schizophrenia and why our actions do not correlate with our fears and hopes. In particular, he develops the strategy of histories and cognitive biases. The book is digestible is well written and does not want to moralistic nor reveals miracle solutions.
Feel free to buy it borrow !