Your Weather, Our Weather (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

Since June we (East Texas) have been running mid 90s to low 100sF (32-40C) with with hear indexes about 110F, lows of 85F (29C) at night. A high pressure dome of heat parked over the Central US bringing no rain (at least to Texas) for several weeks and high temps. Comparing F to C. I prefer the spread of F over C, but consider I grew up with F. A recent trip to Corpus Christi we saw large large fields of immature brown/dead corn.
An alarming report is that the Oceans are turning green (more plant matter growing) due to the rise of temps, sharks are reported as dying. Another report said that El Niño usually causes a reduction of Atlantic hurricane activity, but with oceans heating up, that may change.

I never thought I would be living in such a transitional period for the Earth. We have been warned for 40 years, yet as a species, we just blunder along until we are smacked upside the head.

 

[MT15]

50C = 122F

 

[Huntn]

The weakening mid atlantic current can be felt in northern Europe




https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152288/extreme-nordic-cold#:~:text=In the northern Swedish village,) on January 3, 2024.

I lived in Minneapolis, Mn for 3 decades, and despite being at that same latitude, my understanding is that the UK benefits directly from the Atlantic current that brings relatively warm waters to its coast.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The fossil fuel industry funded some of the world’s most foundational climate science as early as 1954, newly unearthed documents have shown, including the early research of Charles Keeling, famous for the so-called “Keeling curve” that has charted the upward march of the Earth’s carbon dioxide levels.

A coalition of oil and car manufacturing interests provided $13,814 (about $158,000 in today’s money) in December 1954 to fund Keeling’s earliest work in measuring CO2 levels across the western US, the documents reveal.

Keeling would go on to establish the continuous measurement of global CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This “Keeling curve” has tracked the steady increase of the atmospheric carbon that drives the climate crisis and has been hailed as one of the most important scientific works of modern times.


The fossil fuel interests backed a group, known as the Air Pollution Foundation, that issued funding to Keeling to measure CO2 alongside a related effort to research the smog that regularly blighted Los Angeles at the time. This is earlier than any previously known climate research funded by oil companies.

In the research proposal for the money – uncovered by Rebecca John, a researcher at the Climate Investigations Center, and published by the climate website DeSmog – Keeling’s research director, Samuel Epstein, wrote about a new carbon isotope analysis that could identify “changes in the atmosphere” caused by the burning of coal and petroleum.

“The possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate, rates of photosynthesis, and rates of equilibration with carbonate of the oceans may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization,” Epstein, a researcher at the California Institute of Technology (or Caltech), wrote to the group in November 1954.

Experts say the documents show the fossil fuel industry had intimate involvement in the inception of modern climate science, along with its warnings of the severe harm climate change will wreak, only to then publicly deny this science for decades and fund ongoing efforts to delay action on the climate crisis.

“They contain smoking gun proof that by at least 1954, the fossil fuel industry was on notice about the potential for its products to disrupt Earth’s climate on a scale significant to human civilization,” said Geoffrey Supran, an expert in historic climate disinformation at the University of Miami.

“These findings are a startling confirmation that big oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years – for twice my lifetime – and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day. They make a mockery of the oil industry’s denial of basic climate science decades later.”…….

‘Smoking gun proof’: fossil fuel industry knew of climate danger as early as 1954, documents show

Documents show industry-backed Air Pollution Foundation uncovered the severe harm climate change would wreak

www.theguardian.com

 

[Heathen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/25/record-warmth-earth-climate-europe/

 

[Optimus Prime]

Guess this can go here
================

Plastic producers have known for more than 30 years that recycling is not an economically or technically feasible plastic waste management solution. That has not stopped them from promoting it, according to a new report.

“The companies lied,” said Richard Wiles, president of fossil-fuel accountability advocacy group the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), which published the report. “It’s time to hold them accountable for the damage they’ve caused.”

Plastic, which is made from oil and gas, is notoriously difficult to recycle. Doing so requires meticulous sorting, since most of the thousands of chemically distinct varieties of plastic cannot be recycled together. That renders an already pricey process even more expensive. Another challenge: the material degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can generally only be reused once or twice.


The industry has known for decades about these existential challenges, but obscured that information in its marketing campaigns, the report shows.

The research draws on previous investigations as well as newly revealed internal documents illustrating the extent of this decades-long campaign.

Industry insiders over the past several decades have variously referred to plastic recycling as “uneconomical”, said it “cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution”, and said it “cannot go on indefinitely”, the revelations show.

The authors say the evidence demonstrates that oil and petrochemical companies, as well as their trade associations, may have broken laws designed to protect the public from misleading marketing and pollution.……..

‘They lied’: plastics producers deceived public about recycling, report reveals

Companies knew for decades recycling was not viable but promoted it regardless, Center for Climate Integrity study finds

www.theguardian.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

Guess this can go here
================

Plastic producers have known for more than 30 years that recycling is not an economically or technically feasible plastic waste management solution. That has not stopped them from promoting it, according to a new report.

“The companies lied,” said Richard Wiles, president of fossil-fuel accountability advocacy group the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), which published the report. “It’s time to hold them accountable for the damage they’ve caused.”

Plastic, which is made from oil and gas, is notoriously difficult to recycle. Doing so requires meticulous sorting, since most of the thousands of chemically distinct varieties of plastic cannot be recycled together. That renders an already pricey process even more expensive. Another challenge: the material degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can generally only be reused once or twice.


The industry has known for decades about these existential challenges, but obscured that information in its marketing campaigns, the report shows.

The research draws on previous investigations as well as newly revealed internal documents illustrating the extent of this decades-long campaign.

Industry insiders over the past several decades have variously referred to plastic recycling as “uneconomical”, said it “cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution”, and said it “cannot go on indefinitely”, the revelations show.

The authors say the evidence demonstrates that oil and petrochemical companies, as well as their trade associations, may have broken laws designed to protect the public from misleading marketing and pollution.……..

‘They lied’: plastics producers deceived public about recycling, report reveals

Companies knew for decades recycling was not viable but promoted it regardless, Center for Climate Integrity study finds

www.theguardian.com

We don't stand a chance of surviving as a species unless we start enacting and enforcing stringent policies against deception. Deceiving people being a legally accepted SOP is getting really old and is dangerous to the healthy existence of humanity.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

Since June we (East Texas) have been running mid 90s to low 100sF (32-40C) with with hear indexes about 110F, lows of 85F (29C) at night. A high pressure dome of heat parked over the Central US bringing no rain (at least to Texas) for several weeks and high temps. Comparing F to C. I prefer the spread of F over C, but consider I grew up with F. A recent trip to Corpus Christi we saw large large fields of immature brown/dead corn.
An alarming report is that the Oceans are turning green (more plant matter growing) due to the rise of temps, sharks are reported as dying. Another report said that El Niño usually causes a reduction of Atlantic hurricane activity, but with oceans heating up, that may change.

I never thought I would be living in such a transitional period for the Earth. We have been warned for 40 years, yet as a species, we just blunder along until we are smacked upside the head.

Texas sure does have a problem.

One of them is the fact that there are over 30 million people in Texas but only 11 million of them voted in 2020.

Texas has enacted such draconian sever voting restrictions that the people aren't properly represented. They have also gerrymandered the state very heavily. They have managed to prevent the majority of democrats from voting with their laws.

The best thing you and everyone you know can do is start getting people registered and get them to vote. Help people jump through those ridiculous hoops that republicans have imposed and get them registered and get them to vote.

We all know that conservatives will not only not do anything to stop climate change, they will do all they can to make it worse.

There isn't much you can do about this until you have politicians who will work to stop or at least combat climate change.

I hope your electric grid is able to withstand the coming season. If not, a lot of people are going to die again.

CNN just reported that the hurricane season is starting early this year.

MSN

 

[LovesMusic7360]

I'd rather keep track of those states where those lawmakers are from and make sure that if they request any aid from the fed due to disasters caused by global warming...say a massive 300 year flood that happens somewhere that it hasn't flooded before.....the response is "we don't spend federal money on hoaxes."

Thank you. I can't agree more.

I'm tired of having to spend federal dollars on people who are causing all this to happen.

Let them pay to clean up after all the storms themselves.

Maybe if they had to pay for it themselves, they will wake up and start to help do something about climate change. Instead of continuing to make things worse.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

That's what I was getting at. The alternative answer is, "throwing a trillion more logs onto the fires."

Those new trees are more susceptible to fire than the old growth that was cut down.

Old growth trees have thick bark that protects them from dying in fires.

Young second or third growth doesn't have that bark to protect them so they are just match sticks waiting to go up in flames.

Cutting down the old growth causes climate change and causes wildfires.

Humans have to realize that there are consequences to their actions and we are doing great damage to our earth.

I hate to be retro but as the movie in 2020 said "don't look up!"

 

[LovesMusic7360]

Is it harsh to say that the Human species collectively deserves to because of our poor judgement, unwillingness to accept reality? The information given to us just did not compute because it would require a sacrifice on our part? My biggest lament is that we are responsible for trashing the planet and taking down billions of life forms With us.

The thing is, no one has to make any sacrifices. It's just that some people have believed the lies about what would happen if we stopped burning fossil fuels.

About the only sacrifice that a person would have to make is to get used to low electric and car bills. That's it.

My state, Washington, started building one of the largest wind farms in the nation in the 90s. When it came on line, it generated way too much electricity than the existing grid could handle. So we voted to raise our taxes to build a new grid.

We started shutting down our coal fire plants in the late 90s or early 2000s. The coal mines were shutdown. We have one coal fire plant left running and it's only partially running. It will be completely shutdown by 2025.

We have at least one third if not a fully one half of the vehicles in our roads being either hybrid, EV or EV/hybrid.

We have mostly converted to renewable energy. We use water, wind, sun, and a small nuclear facility in the southwest corner of the state for the ranchers there. We use natural gas for cooking and heating our homes. But not all homes. Electricity is still the major source for cooking and heating homes here.

I bought my first hybrid car in 2001 and made the choice then to never buy a normal gas car again and I haven't. The one I have now is my fourth hybrid. The next one will be EV/hybrid. The high price of gas in the bush boy years and recently have not been an issue for me.

I gave up high gas costs to drive and high electric bills.

Washington has the lowest electric rates in the nation. As of the end of last year.

Our air became so much more clean, we stopped smogging cars in 2019.

There is no sacrifice to change. All it takes it the will to do it like Washington has done.

Hawaii has also shutdown all their coal fire plants. This year they became 100% free from burning fossil fuel for electricity. They have built wind farms and solar farms all over the islands and the majority of the buildings have solar panels now.

It is possible. There is no sacrifice. Just have to elect the politicians who want to do it. That means stop electing republicans.

Washington has been controlled by liberals/democrats for decades now and we've benefitted greatly from it. Republicans have a hard time getting elected in Washington.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

I don't know how you force a for-profit business to operate in a sector it deems unprofitable.

It's more like insurance will need a public option that's not terrible.

Or we'll just have to stop building homes on the coast (as someone who lives about a mile from the gulf).

I know how to.

Pass a law.

If a company is going to be in a state, they should be in all of the state. Not just the profitable areas.

We've let that go on for far too long. When electricity was first put in homes, the companies only went to the profitable areas leaving the rural areas without electricity. FDR had to pass an electrification act to get the rural areas electrified. All using our tax dollars. When the private companies should have electrified those rural areas.

Same with cable. They only went to the profitable areas leaving the rural areas without and had to be on satellite.

Same with internet. The companies only went where it's profitable leaving the rural ares without. Now, our federal dollars are paying to bring the internet to rural areas. When it should have been the private companies that built that infrastructure in rural areas.

Same with cell phones. They only built towers where it was profitable leaving rural areas without. We had to use federal tax dollars to get cell service to the rural areas when the private companies should have.

All the government has to do is pass a law requiring them to do the rural areas along with the profitable ones. Give them a special tax deduction to do it.

Unfortunately, our government doesn't do that and allows only the profitable areas to get those services leaving the rural areas without until our tax dollars are used to put the service there.

It needs to stop. If private companies want to go to a state, then they should be required to do the WHOLE state. Not just the profitable areas.

 

[brandon]

I know how to.

Pass a law.

If a company is going to be in a state, they should be in all of the state. Not just the profitable areas.

Yea, doesn't work that way. If the coast of say, Louisiana, outweighs the profitability of the northern part of the state, then the insurance company just wouldn't do business in Louisiana. They'd simply pull out of the state entirely and focus on profitable states.

You know, like they already do now.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

Had a tornado warning in portland Oregon yesterday. Now thats a new one.

There was a tornado warning in Massachusetts where my cousin has lived all his life from birth.

We had a text conversation about it when he got the warning.

He has never experienced a tornado warning in his life in Massachusetts.

The is, until recently.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

Yea, doesn't work that way. If the coast of say, Louisiana, outweighs the profitability of the northern part of the state, then the insurance company just wouldn't do business in Louisiana. They'd simply pull out of the state entirely and focus on profitable states.

You know, like they already do now.

Then there needs to be a law that prohibits them from doing that.

If a company wants to do business in the US then they must do it in all of the nation. Not the profitable parts.

If private business refuse to go to a state then the state should do what was originally done. Public ownership of the infrastructure.

The state and people used to own most of the electricity in our nation. Same with the phone company or Ma Bell and Natural Gas.

Then deregulation came. A lot of infrastructure that was built with tax dollars was sold to private companies. Now private companies control who gets what service.

Washington did that with natural gas but heavily regulated it. We didn't do that with electricity. The PUD or Public Utility District still owns and controls electricity here. The public owns it. So the public controls how it's generated and the price. The price of electricity can't increase here without the PUD asking permission to do so with solid proof of reasons that the price needs to be increased and even then it can be denied. The public still elects the head of the PUD here. They answer to us. They are required to have regular public hearings monthly and answer to the public at those hearings. We voted in environmentalists who believe in climate change.

But we generate more electricity than we use so we sell it to neighboring states for a profit. I just paid my PUD bill on the 15th. For electricity in the winter. The bill was 83.40. That's at the higher winter rates. We have two rates for our electricity. Winter which is higher and summer which is lower. We don't get our rates jacked up by some private company just because we used the electricity during a storm or heatwave. We don't have brown or black outs either. Only time people lose power is if a storm has taken down some lines or transformers.

Let companies stay out of profitable areas because they don't want to go to the rural areas. Let the people of the state own that infrastructure. They will be better off owning it instead of a greedy private company.

 

[LovesMusic7360]

Yea, doesn't work that way. If the coast of say, Louisiana, outweighs the profitability of the northern part of the state, then the insurance company just wouldn't do business in Louisiana. They'd simply pull out of the state entirely and focus on profitable states.

You know, like they already do now.

I will also add, if the law is nationwide, that is it applies in every state, then a company is choosing to not do business in the USA.

A business isn't going to do that. They are going to comply with the law and put their service in the rural areas as well as the profitable ones. The urban/profitable areas are way too profitable to just walk away from.

Give the business a tax break and allow them to put their services in the rural areas after they've put in some in the profitable areas but impose a time frame. Requiring the rural areas to be included either the same time as the profitable ones or with in a year or two so the company can't just put off putting their service in the rural areas.

 

[Huntn]

The thing is, no one has to make any sacrifices. It's just that some people have believed the lies about what would happen if we stopped burning fossil fuels.

About the only sacrifice that a person would have to make is to get used to low electric and car bills. That's it.

My state, Washington, started building one of the largest wind farms in the nation in the 90s. When it came on line, it generated way too much electricity than the existing grid could handle. So we voted to raise our taxes to build a new grid.

We started shutting down our coal fire plants in the late 90s or early 2000s. The coal mines were shutdown. We have one coal fire plant left running and it's only partially running. It will be completely shutdown by 2025.

We have at least one third if not a fully one half of the vehicles in our roads being either hybrid, EV or EV/hybrid.

We have mostly converted to renewable energy. We use water, wind, sun, and a small nuclear facility in the southwest corner of the state for the ranchers there. We use natural gas for cooking and heating our homes. But not all homes. Electricity is still the major source for cooking and heating homes here.

I bought my first hybrid car in 2001 and made the choice then to never buy a normal gas car again and I haven't. The one I have now is my fourth hybrid. The next one will be EV/hybrid. The high price of gas in the bush boy years and recently have not been an issue for me.

I gave up high gas costs to drive and high electric bills.

Washington has the lowest electric rates in the nation. As of the end of last year.

Our air became so much more clean, we stopped smogging cars in 2019.

There is no sacrifice to change. All it takes it the will to do it like Washington has done.

Hawaii has also shutdown all their coal fire plants. This year they became 100% free from burning fossil fuel for electricity. They have built wind farms and solar farms all over the islands and the majority of the buildings have solar panels now.

It is possible. There is no sacrifice. Just have to elect the politicians who want to do it. That means stop electing republicans.

Washington has been controlled by liberals/democrats for decades now and we've benefitted greatly from it. Republicans have a hard time getting elected in Washington.

My impression is that the reason the climate crisis will not be corrected in a timely fashion is capitalism. Entities that want to hold onto their accumulation of wealth. We take small stabs at it but we just wasted 30 years in denial, and dragging our feet. Then there is the rest of the planet and countries that still burn coal. Gosh, we’d have to spend wealth on them. Do you see that happening?

 

[Huntn]

I know how to.

Pass a law.

If a company is going to be in a state, they should be in all of the state. Not just the profitable areas.

We've let that go on for far too long. When electricity was first put in homes, the companies only went to the profitable areas leaving the rural areas without electricity. FDR had to pass an electrification act to get the rural areas electrified. All using our tax dollars. When the private companies should have electrified those rural areas.

Same with cable. They only went to the profitable areas leaving the rural areas without and had to be on satellite.

Same with internet. The companies only went where it's profitable leaving the rural ares without. Now, our federal dollars are paying to bring the internet to rural areas. When it should have been the private companies that built that infrastructure in rural areas.

Same with cell phones. They only built towers where it was profitable leaving rural areas without. We had to use federal tax dollars to get cell service to the rural areas when the private companies should have.

All the government has to do is pass a law requiring them to do the rural areas along with the profitable ones. Give them a special tax deduction to do it.

Unfortunately, our government doesn't do that and allows only the profitable areas to get those services leaving the rural areas without until our tax dollars are used to put the service there.

It needs to stop. If private companies want to go to a state, then they should be required to do the WHOLE state. Not just the profitable areas.

It’s called Capialism, you’ve got to make a profit right? Note, I’m not arguing for Capialism, but heavily regulated Capitolism that would mandate things like you just mentioned, and other things like lowering medical costsand the cost of higher education. Now should we hold our breath for this?

 

[Dragon]

It’s called Capialism, you’ve got to make a profit right? Note, I’m not arguing for Capialism, but heavily regulated Capitolism that would mandate things like you just mentioned, and other things like lowering medical costsand the cost of higher education. Now should we hold our breath for this?

It works for most of Europe so why not the US (I know - we have strict laws governing donations to political parties and individual politicians) And a very efficient IRS making it difficult to hide "black money" Even donating Cash will be a problem since banks needs to report deposits over 10K KR (approcimately $1600)to the IRS and if there are too many of those the IRS will look into where the money originated.