What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action (4 Viewers)

Stoneworker said:
New bill proposed and agreed to by Manchin/Schumer to spend $369 billion on climate change. Finally.

Schumer and Manchin in their joint statement said the agreement will reduce emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.  

Mr. Manchin said the proposed legislation would invest in technologies needed for cleaner production and use of fuel types including hydrogen, nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels.

“It is truly all of the above, which means this bill does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels,” he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/manchin-announces-deal-with-schumer-on-reconciliation-bill-with-tax-climate-energy-provisions.html
Click to expand...
Let's get this signed ASAP

 
Stoneworker said:
New bill proposed and agreed to by Manchin/Schumer to spend $369 billion on climate change. Finally.

Schumer and Manchin in their joint statement said the agreement will reduce emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.  

Mr. Manchin said the proposed legislation would invest in technologies needed for cleaner production and use of fuel types including hydrogen, nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels.

“It is truly all of the above, which means this bill does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels,” he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/manchin-announces-deal-with-schumer-on-reconciliation-bill-with-tax-climate-energy-provisions.html
Click to expand...
Good stuff -- way to go Joe !   and Joe

 
Stoneworker said:
New bill proposed and agreed to by Manchin/Schumer to spend $369 billion on climate change. Finally.

Schumer and Manchin in their joint statement said the agreement will reduce emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.  

Mr. Manchin said the proposed legislation would invest in technologies needed for cleaner production and use of fuel types including hydrogen, nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels.

“It is truly all of the above, which means this bill does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels,” he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/manchin-announces-deal-with-schumer-on-reconciliation-bill-with-tax-climate-energy-provisions.html
Click to expand...


OK, setting aside the actual contents of the bill. I see this trending on twitter and other social platforms. It is being called the Inflation Reduction Act. Of course, every Democratic politician (or their staff) is tweeting about it. EVERY ONE of them mention how it is going to reduce emissions by 40% and the large investment in cleaner energy. NOT a SINGLE ONE mentions how this is going to help every day Americans with cost of living expenses due to record inflation. If you want to pass an Inflation Reduction Act, then pass one. If you want to pass a green energy deal, then pass one. Stop with the pork barrel and favorite pet project add-ons on bills. Bills shouldn't be 300-400 pages long.

 
KingPrawn said:
OK, setting aside the actual contents of the bill. I see this trending on twitter and other social platforms. It is being called the Inflation Reduction Act. Of course, every Democratic politician (or their staff) is tweeting about it. EVERY ONE of them mention how it is going to reduce emissions by 40% and the large investment in cleaner energy. NOT a SINGLE ONE mentions how this is going to help every day Americans with cost of living expenses due to record inflation. If you want to pass an Inflation Reduction Act, then pass one. If you want to pass a green energy deal, then pass one. Stop with the pork barrel and favorite pet project add-ons on bills. Bills shouldn't be 300-400 pages long.
Click to expand...
People have made this complaint forever and it’s never made any sense IMO. Without add-ons to bills no bill would ever pass. The add-ons create consensus. The founders absolutely understood and intended this, which is why they didn’t give the President a line item veto. 

 
timschochet said:
People have made this complaint forever and it’s never made any sense IMO. Without add-ons to bills no bill would ever pass. The add-ons create consensus. The founders absolutely understood and intended this, which is why they didn’t give the President a line item veto. 
Click to expand...


I understand it's been done forever. Don't really care. A bill should be able to pass on it's own merit. If it can't then it shouldn't be passed. If investment in solar power is such a good idea then it should be able to pass on it's own. If Republicans want immigration reform then it should be able to pass on it's own. It's gotten to the point that no one knows what actually is in a bill. It's the old "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." No, we shouldn't have to.

If you want to give a boost to climate initiatives then don't sell it as the Inflation Reduction Act. That's like pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

And I disagree with that is what the founders intended. I really doubt that they intended bills to be several hundred pages long.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KingPrawn said:
OK, setting aside the actual contents of the bill. I see this trending on twitter and other social platforms. It is being called the Inflation Reduction Act. Of course, every Democratic politician (or their staff) is tweeting about it. EVERY ONE of them mention how it is going to reduce emissions by 40% and the large investment in cleaner energy. NOT a SINGLE ONE mentions how this is going to help every day Americans with cost of living expenses due to record inflation. If you want to pass an Inflation Reduction Act, then pass one. If you want to pass a green energy deal, then pass one. Stop with the pork barrel and favorite pet project add-ons on bills. Bills shouldn't be 300-400 pages long.
Click to expand...
There are very real elements of the bill that are soundly anti-inflationary: a) $300 billion deficit reduction and b) lowering prescription drug prices.

Do those two provisions carry enough weight to warrant grabbing the title? Obviously not.

But it's a good package all around. Deficit reduction in particular is noteworthy.

It should be supported regardless of the stupid name.

 
joffer said:
don’t they need deficit reduction to be able to pass it under reconciliation?
Click to expand...
I thought it just had to be significantly budget-oriented to qualify for reconciliation. Could be wrong, though.

My assumption was they chose that name because they want to run campaign ads talking about those mean Republicans who voted against reducing inflation.

 

False balance in news coverage of climate change makes it harder to address the crisis​

Northwestern research finds ‘bothsidesism’ in journalism undermines science

What does media coverage of climate change have in common with coverage of COVID-19? Each has been an example of the media practice of “bothsidesism,” whereby journalists strive to present both sides of an issue, even in cases where most credible sources fall on one side.

Bothsidesism — also referred to as false balance reporting — can damage the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction and lead audiences to doubt the scientific consensus on pressing societal challenges like climate change, a new Northwestern University study has found.

“The devastating heat wave in Europe this week is a reminder that we need to take urgent action to slow human-caused warming, but the media is still giving air to the opinions of people who do not believe there is cause for alarm, which makes the problem seem less dire than it actually is,” said David Rapp, a psychologist and professor at Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy (SESP) who coauthored the research.

The argument that climate change is not man made has been incontrovertibly disproven by science again and again, yet many Americans believe that the global crisis is either not real, not of our making, or both, in part because the news media has given climate change deniers a platform in the name of balanced reporting, according to the researchers.

In the study, the researchers found that false-balance reporting can make people doubt the scientific consensus on issues like climate change, sometimes making them wonder if an issue is even worth taking seriously.

Debates about the efficacy of mask-wearing to prevent COVID-19 from spreading are another relevant example, Rapp said. Physicians broadly agree that it’s beneficial, but elevating the voices of a few people who disagree can cause unnecessary confusion.

“Climate change is a great case study of the false balance problem, because the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. If 99 doctors said you needed surgery to save your life, but one disagreed, chances are you’d listen to the 99,” Rapp said. “But we often see one climate scientist pitted against one climate denier or down player, as if it’s a 50-50 split.”

To conduct the study, the researchers performed three experiments to test how people would respond when two positions about climate change were presented as equally valid perspectives, even though one side was based on scientific agreement and the other was not.

“When both sides of an argument are presented, people tend to have lower estimates about scientific consensus and seem to be less likely to believe climate change is something to worry about,” Rapp said.

Presenting seemingly equal sides, he said, can prompt one of three problematic results: doubt about whether there is consensus; confusion about what’s true; and a tendency to prefer the more placating option, i.e., “Someone’s arguing that climate change is not something to worry about, so I won’t worry.”

The research validates concerns that some journalists and newsroom leaders have been raising for years. Rapp has also studied memory, and his work in this area explains why we might be susceptible to misinformation found in media, even if it is presented as opinion rather than fact.

“People think anything they can easily recall is likely to be true. If that’s false or misleading information that the media parroted or gave a platform to, the person will still give weight to it if it crops up again later because they’ve heard it once before,” Rapp said.

To break the cycle, Rapp and study coauthor Megan Imundo, ’18, a former Northwestern undergraduate who is now a doctoral student at the University of California, Los Angeles, found one promising strategy that newsroom leaders could use to help readers, even when “both sides” are presented: Emphasizing the broader consensus of experts on climate change reduced the weight the study participants gave to climate change deniers.

“If you can remind people about the consensus view, they take that up and they use it,” Rapp said.
Click to expand...
 
Maggot Brain said:

False balance in news coverage of climate change makes it harder to address the crisis​

Northwestern research finds ‘bothsidesism’ in journalism undermines science

What does media coverage of climate change have in common with coverage of COVID-19? Each has been an example of the media practice of “bothsidesism,” whereby journalists strive to present both sides of an issue, even in cases where most credible sources fall on one side.

Bothsidesism — also referred to as false balance reporting — can damage the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction and lead audiences to doubt the scientific consensus on pressing societal challenges like climate change, a new Northwestern University study has found.

“The devastating heat wave in Europe this week is a reminder that we need to take urgent action to slow human-caused warming, but the media is still giving air to the opinions of people who do not believe there is cause for alarm, which makes the problem seem less dire than it actually is,” said David Rapp, a psychologist and professor at Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy (SESP) who coauthored the research.

The argument that climate change is not man made has been incontrovertibly disproven by science again and again, yet many Americans believe that the global crisis is either not real, not of our making, or both, in part because the news media has given climate change deniers a platform in the name of balanced reporting, according to the researchers.

In the study, the researchers found that false-balance reporting can make people doubt the scientific consensus on issues like climate change, sometimes making them wonder if an issue is even worth taking seriously.

Debates about the efficacy of mask-wearing to prevent COVID-19 from spreading are another relevant example, Rapp said. Physicians broadly agree that it’s beneficial, but elevating the voices of a few people who disagree can cause unnecessary confusion.

“Climate change is a great case study of the false balance problem, because the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. If 99 doctors said you needed surgery to save your life, but one disagreed, chances are you’d listen to the 99,” Rapp said. “But we often see one climate scientist pitted against one climate denier or down player, as if it’s a 50-50 split.”

To conduct the study, the researchers performed three experiments to test how people would respond when two positions about climate change were presented as equally valid perspectives, even though one side was based on scientific agreement and the other was not.

“When both sides of an argument are presented, people tend to have lower estimates about scientific consensus and seem to be less likely to believe climate change is something to worry about,” Rapp said.

Presenting seemingly equal sides, he said, can prompt one of three problematic results: doubt about whether there is consensus; confusion about what’s true; and a tendency to prefer the more placating option, i.e., “Someone’s arguing that climate change is not something to worry about, so I won’t worry.”

The research validates concerns that some journalists and newsroom leaders have been raising for years. Rapp has also studied memory, and his work in this area explains why we might be susceptible to misinformation found in media, even if it is presented as opinion rather than fact.

“People think anything they can easily recall is likely to be true. If that’s false or misleading information that the media parroted or gave a platform to, the person will still give weight to it if it crops up again later because they’ve heard it once before,” Rapp said.

To break the cycle, Rapp and study coauthor Megan Imundo, ’18, a former Northwestern undergraduate who is now a doctoral student at the University of California, Los Angeles, found one promising strategy that newsroom leaders could use to help readers, even when “both sides” are presented: Emphasizing the broader consensus of experts on climate change reduced the weight the study participants gave to climate change deniers.

“If you can remind people about the consensus view, they take that up and they use it,” Rapp said.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Balanced reporting? Lol...that is funny. Where is that? The media has been hyping the global warming issue for decades.
 
Sunshine6854 said:
And why is more water not being "brought in?"

Climate change.
Click to expand...


climate has always changed - and lets be honest, the desert SW isn't known for its 50" of rain every year is it ?

I 100% promise you in the next 100 years there will be years of way above average rain, and way below average rain. There will be way more snow in the high mountains for a few years, and way less a few years.

Its always been this way, it will always be that way
 
Stealthycat said:
Sunshine6854 said:
And why is more water not being "brought in?"

Climate change.
Click to expand...


climate has always changed - and lets be honest, the desert SW isn't known for its 50" of rain every year is it ?

I 100% promise you in the next 100 years there will be years of way above average rain, and way below average rain. There will be way more snow in the high mountains for a few years, and way less a few years.

Its always been this way, it will always be that way
Click to expand...
Says a guy with no rudimentary understanding of climate science in the face of a world wide consensus among those educated in the climate sciences and a mountain of observable evidence that acute anthropomorphic changes are dangerously changing the earth’s climate.
 
Stealthycat said:
Sunshine6854 said:
And why is more water not being "brought in?"

Climate change.
Click to expand...


climate has always changed - and lets be honest, the desert SW isn't known for its 50" of rain every year is it ?

I 100% promise you in the next 100 years there will be years of way above average rain, and way below average rain. There will be way more snow in the high mountains for a few years, and way less a few years.

Its always been this way, it will always be that way
Click to expand...

There is a 20 year drought going on at this point. The west is going through a process of aridification so years where we have more rain are now few and far between.
 
jon_mx said:
Maggot Brain said:

False balance in news coverage of climate change makes it harder to address the crisis​

Northwestern research finds ‘bothsidesism’ in journalism undermines science

What does media coverage of climate change have in common with coverage of COVID-19? Each has been an example of the media practice of “bothsidesism,” whereby journalists strive to present both sides of an issue, even in cases where most credible sources fall on one side.

Bothsidesism — also referred to as false balance reporting — can damage the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction and lead audiences to doubt the scientific consensus on pressing societal challenges like climate change, a new Northwestern University study has found.

“The devastating heat wave in Europe this week is a reminder that we need to take urgent action to slow human-caused warming, but the media is still giving air to the opinions of people who do not believe there is cause for alarm, which makes the problem seem less dire than it actually is,” said David Rapp, a psychologist and professor at Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy (SESP) who coauthored the research.

The argument that climate change is not man made has been incontrovertibly disproven by science again and again, yet many Americans believe that the global crisis is either not real, not of our making, or both, in part because the news media has given climate change deniers a platform in the name of balanced reporting, according to the researchers.

In the study, the researchers found that false-balance reporting can make people doubt the scientific consensus on issues like climate change, sometimes making them wonder if an issue is even worth taking seriously.

Debates about the efficacy of mask-wearing to prevent COVID-19 from spreading are another relevant example, Rapp said. Physicians broadly agree that it’s beneficial, but elevating the voices of a few people who disagree can cause unnecessary confusion.

“Climate change is a great case study of the false balance problem, because the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. If 99 doctors said you needed surgery to save your life, but one disagreed, chances are you’d listen to the 99,” Rapp said. “But we often see one climate scientist pitted against one climate denier or down player, as if it’s a 50-50 split.”

To conduct the study, the researchers performed three experiments to test how people would respond when two positions about climate change were presented as equally valid perspectives, even though one side was based on scientific agreement and the other was not.

“When both sides of an argument are presented, people tend to have lower estimates about scientific consensus and seem to be less likely to believe climate change is something to worry about,” Rapp said.

Presenting seemingly equal sides, he said, can prompt one of three problematic results: doubt about whether there is consensus; confusion about what’s true; and a tendency to prefer the more placating option, i.e., “Someone’s arguing that climate change is not something to worry about, so I won’t worry.”

The research validates concerns that some journalists and newsroom leaders have been raising for years. Rapp has also studied memory, and his work in this area explains why we might be susceptible to misinformation found in media, even if it is presented as opinion rather than fact.

“People think anything they can easily recall is likely to be true. If that’s false or misleading information that the media parroted or gave a platform to, the person will still give weight to it if it crops up again later because they’ve heard it once before,” Rapp said.

To break the cycle, Rapp and study coauthor Megan Imundo, ’18, a former Northwestern undergraduate who is now a doctoral student at the University of California, Los Angeles, found one promising strategy that newsroom leaders could use to help readers, even when “both sides” are presented: Emphasizing the broader consensus of experts on climate change reduced the weight the study participants gave to climate change deniers.

“If you can remind people about the consensus view, they take that up and they use it,” Rapp said.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Balanced reporting? Lol...that is funny. Where is that? The media has been hyping the global warming issue for decades.
Click to expand...

Reporters should never seek balance. They should seek the truth.
 
Maggot Brain said:
https://www.motherjones.com/environ...e-germany-air-conditioning-heat-wave-climate/

Why Europeans Say No (Non, Nein, Ne, Nee) to Air Conditioning​

Despite rising summer temperatures, only 1 in 10 EU households have it.​

Even before Russia attacked Ukraine, EU electricity rates were more than twice the US average, while incomes there are lower.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was just going to post how many would give up their AC when you posted this. I never had AC.
 
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...soonand-they-could-get-messy?linkId=177308425

Big changes are coming for the Colorado River soon—and they could get messy​

The seven states that rely on the river for water need to come up with a way to cut about 25 percent of their use next year. That’s an enormous task.

A climate-induced reckoning is playing out on the Colorado River.

The 1,450-mile-long river provides water to over 40 million people and more than five million acres of agriculture across the western United States. But years of punishing drought have reduced its flows to unprecedented levels. In response, the seven states of the Colorado River basin are expected to announce a plan this week to trim between two to four million acre-feet of their water use in the coming year—about a quarter of the total that flows through the river annually these days.

Since 1922, an agreement called the Colorado River Compact has governed how the “Upper Basin” states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and the “Lower Basin” states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, share the water in the river. The agreements work in times of plenty, but strain under drought. In 2021, the deepening drought forced Arizona and Nevada to make painful consumption cuts, but it has become crystal clear that those efforts were far from enough.
Click to expand...
 
www.reuters.com

U.S. Western states deadlocked on cutting Colorado River use

Seven U.S. Western states that share Colorado River water are poised to miss a federal deadline for drastic consumption cuts amid a megadrought.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...

U.S. Western states deadlocked on cutting Colorado River use​


- Seven U.S. Western states that share Colorado River water are poised to miss a federal deadline for drastic consumption cuts amid a megadrought.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in June gave the states 60 days, until mid-August, to devise a plan as human-influenced climate change worsens the region's driest 22-year period in at least 1,200 years.

Without a deal, the bureau may mandate reductions.

"Despite the obvious urgency of the situation, the last 62 days produced exactly nothing in terms of meaningful collective action to help forestall the looming crisis," one of the negotiators, John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said in an open letter to the bureau on Monday.


While officials had given the states 60 days to negotiate an agreement, the firm deadline was seen as Tuesday, when officials with the reclamation bureau were scheduled to release their projections for Colorado's two largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Bureau officials have scheduled a news conference on both topics for 1 p.m. ET (1700 GMT) on Tuesday.

The impasse is testing the strength of the 100-year-old Colorado River compact, which determines the water rights of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming.


Citing "dangerously low" water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell, federal officials called on states to cut their overall usage of Colorado River water by 2 million to 4 million acre-feet of water per year, an unprecedented reduction of 15% to 30% in the coming year.

The lakes hover at around 25% of capacity. If they fall much lower they will be unable to generate hydroelectric power for millions in the West, and also will not allow water to flow downstream.


"The bureau is asking institutions used to working over the time frame of decades to do something drastic in a few months. States have been given 60 days to come up with more than twice the cuts that they agreed to over 20 years of previous drought agreements," said author and former water manager Eric Kuhn, who supports the ambitious cuts sought by the bureau.

The Colorado River compact assumes the river would have roughly 20 million acre-feet of water each year. The river's actual flow the past two decades has averaged 12.5 million acre-feet, leaving state water managers with more rights on paper than water that exists in the river.
Click to expand...
 
FairWarning said:
So why do those seven states allow expansion and growth when the watcr resources are stretched thin already?
Click to expand...
Because anyone who might be in charge of making that decision would immediately lose his job if he suggested it.

The West should immediately stop farming any of these water intensive crops, and yeah, expansion should be halted.

None of that will happen.
 
massraider said:
FairWarning said:
So why do those seven states allow expansion and growth when the watcr resources are stretched thin already?
Click to expand...
Because anyone who might be in charge of making that decision would immediately lose his job if he suggested it.

The West should immediately stop farming any of these water intensive crops, and yeah, expansion should be halted.

None of that will happen.
Click to expand...
Plus the water supply has been dropping for years. Even without population expansion there'd be less water now than 20 years ago.

Just like extreme heat, rising sea levels, melting ice. All due to climate change exacerbated by man the last 100 years.
 
FairWarning said:
Maggot Brain said:
https://www.motherjones.com/environ...e-germany-air-conditioning-heat-wave-climate/

Why Europeans Say No (Non, Nein, Ne, Nee) to Air Conditioning​

Despite rising summer temperatures, only 1 in 10 EU households have it.​

Even before Russia attacked Ukraine, EU electricity rates were more than twice the US average, while incomes there are lower.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was just going to post how many would give up their AC when you posted this. I never had AC.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't engage AT ALL on this board with folks that question the effects that the current climate crisis are inducing. It's tiresome and I won't do it. Cheers
 
https://apnews.com/article/european-droughts-dry-rivers-719b51330a47c7a85b060f6426874c5b

LUX, France (AP) — Once, a river ran through it. Now, white dust and thousands of dead fish cover the wide trench that winds amid rows of trees in France’s Burgundy region in what was the Tille River in the village of Lux.

From dry and cracked reservoirs in Spain to falling water levels on major arteries like the Danube, the Rhine and the Po, an unprecedented drought is afflicting nearly half of Europe. It is damaging farm economies, forcing water restrictions, causing wildfires and threatening aquatic species.

There has been no significant rainfall for almost two months in the continent’s western, central and southern regions. In typically rainy Britain, the government officially declared a drought across southern and central England on Friday amid one of the hottest and driest summers on record.

And Europe’s dry period is expected to continue in what experts say could be the worst drought in 500 years.

Climate change is exacerbating conditions as hotter temperatures speed up evaporation, thirsty plants take in more moisture and reduced snowfall in the winter limits supplies of fresh water available for irrigation in the summer. Europe isn’t alone in the crisis, with drought conditions also reported in East Africa, the western United States and northern Mexico.

As he walked in the 15-meter (50-foot) wide riverbed in Lux, Jean-Philippe Couasné, chief technician at the local Federation for Fishing and Protection of the Aquatic Environment, listed the species of fish that had died in the Tille.


“It’s heartbreaking,” he said. “On average, about 8,000 liters (2,100 gallons) per second are flowing. ... And now, zero liters.”

In areas upstream, some trout and other freshwater species can take shelter in pools via fish ladders. But such systems aren’t available everywhere.

Without rain, the river “will continue to empty. And yes, all fish will die. ... They are trapped upstream and downstream, there’s no water coming in, so the oxygen level will keep decreasing as the (water) volume goes down,” Couasné said. “These are species that will gradually disappear.”

Jean-Pierre Sonvico, the regional head of the federation, said diverting the fish to other rivers won’t help because those waterways also are affected.

“Yes, it’s dramatic because what can we do? Nothing,” he said. “We’re waiting, hoping for storms with rain, but storms are very local so we can’t count on it.”

The European Commission’s Joint Research Center warned this week that drought conditions will get worse and potentially affect 47% of the continent.

Andrea Toreti, a senior researcher at the European Drought Observatory, said a drought in 2018 was so extreme that there were no similar events for the last 500 years, “but this year, I think, it is really worse.”

For the next three months, “we see still a very high risk of dry conditions over Western and Central Europe, as well as the U.K.,” Toreti said.

Current conditions result from long periods of dry weather caused by changes in world weather systems, said meteorologist Peter Hoffmann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research near Berlin.


“It’s just that in summer we feel it the most,” he said. “But actually the drought builds up across the year.”

Climate change has lessened temperature differences between regions, sapping the forces that drive the jet stream, which normally brings wet Atlantic weather to Europe, he said.

A weaker or unstable jet stream can bring unusually hot air to Europe from North Africa, leading to prolonged periods of heat. The reverse is also true, when a polar vortex of cold air from the Arctic can cause freezing conditions far south of where it would normally reach.

Hoffmann said observations in recent years have all been at the upper end of what existing climate models predicted.

The drought has caused some European countries to restrict water usage, and shipping is endangered on the Rhine and the Danube rivers.

The Rhine, Germany’s biggest waterway, is forecast to reach critically low levels in the coming days. Authorities say it could become difficult for many large ships to safely navigate the river at the city of Kaub, roughly midway between Koblenz and Mainz.

On the Danube, authorities in Serbia have started dredging to keep vessels moving.


In neighboring Hungary, wide parts of Lake Velence near Budapest have turned into patches of dried mud, beaching small boats. Aeration and water circulation equipment was installed to protect wildlife, but water quality has deteriorated. A weekend swimming ban was imposed at one beach.

Stretches of the Po, Italy’s longest river, are so low that barges and boats that sank decades ago are resurfacing.

Italy’s Lake Garda has fallen to its lowest levels ever, and people who flocked to the popular spot east of Milan at the start of a long summer weekend found a newly exposed shoreline of bleached rocks with a yellow hue. Authorities recently released more water from the lake, Italy’s largest, to help with irrigation, but halted the effort to protect the lucrative tourist season.

The drought also has affected England, which last month had its driest July since 1935, according to the Met Office weather agency. The lack of rain has depleted reservoirs, rivers and groundwater and left grasslands brown and tinder-dry.

Millions in the U.K. already were barred from watering lawns and gardens, and 15 million more around London will face such a ban soon.

U.K. farmers face running out of irrigation water and having to use winter feed for animals because of a lack of grass. The Rivers Trust charity said England’s chalk streams — which allow underground springs to bubble up through the spongy layer of rock — are drying up, endangering aquatic wildlife like kingfishers and trout.

Even countries like Spain and Portugal, which are used to long periods without rain, have seen major consequences. In the Spanish region of Andalucia, some avocado farmers have had to sacrifice hundreds of trees to save others from wilting as the Vinuela reservoir in Malaga province dropped to only 13% of capacity.

Some European farmers are using water from the tap for their livestock when ponds and streams go dry, using up to 100 liters (26 gallons) a day per cow.

In normally green Burgundy, the source of Paris’ Seine River, the grass has turned yellow-brown and tractors churn up giant clouds of dust.


Baptiste Colson, who owns dairy cows and grows feed crops in the village of Moloy, said his animals are suffering, with the quality and quantity of their milk decreasing. The 31-year-old head of the local Young Farmers union said he has been forced to dip into his winter fodder in August.

“That is the biggest concern,” Colson said.

EU corn production is expected to be 12.5 million tons below last year and sunflower production is projected to be 1.6 million tons lower, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights.

Colson expects at least a 30% drop in corn yields, a major problem for feeding his cows.

“We know we’ll have to buy food ... so the cows can continue producing milk,” he said. “From an economic point of view, the cost will be high.”
Click to expand...
 
Water will/is becoming the next scarce commodity. over the next couple decades I expect to see widespread migration from the west coast to the east coast. And as climate change continues to worsen, the midwest will be impacted and the east coast will be the one area of the country with plenty of rain and full aquafers.

It's going to be really scary when something we need to live becomes more and more scarce in the US. All because we humans have little sense and less care of our impact on the world.
 
djmich said:
Maggot Brain said:
https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1542576784289345536?s=20&t=82OlW84oRmPK4l4jEtNKMg

Clean air. They ruled against clean air. This means more respiratory illness. More cancer. More climate-fueled disasters. All because 6 people are owned by polluters. This Court is not legitimate and we don't have to pretend there is no recourse.
Click to expand...
Lol, the courts opinion is a legal one not a moral one right? Would be interested in what the legalguys here think of it
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html

Good job to work around that disastrous SC ruling

Democrats Designed the Climate Law to Be a Game Changer. Here’s How.​

In a first, the measure legally defines greenhouse gases as pollution. That’ll make new regulations much tougher to challenge in court.

Throughout the landmark climate law, passed this month, is language written specifically to address the Supreme Court’s justification for reining in the E.P.A., a ruling that was one of the court’s most consequential of the term. The new law amends the Clean Air Act, the country’s bedrock air-quality legislation, to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an “air pollutant.”
Click to expand...
 
Maggot Brain said:
djmich said:
Maggot Brain said:
https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1542576784289345536?s=20&t=82OlW84oRmPK4l4jEtNKMg

Clean air. They ruled against clean air. This means more respiratory illness. More cancer. More climate-fueled disasters. All because 6 people are owned by polluters. This Court is not legitimate and we don't have to pretend there is no recourse.
Click to expand...
Lol, the courts opinion is a legal one not a moral one right? Would be interested in what the legalguys here think of it
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html

Good job to work around that disastrous SC ruling

Democrats Designed the Climate Law to Be a Game Changer. Here’s How.​

In a first, the measure legally defines greenhouse gases as pollution. That’ll make new regulations much tougher to challenge in court.

Throughout the landmark climate law, passed this month, is language written specifically to address the Supreme Court’s justification for reining in the E.P.A., a ruling that was one of the court’s most consequential of the term. The new law amends the Clean Air Act, the country’s bedrock air-quality legislation, to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an “air pollutant.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nice, thats what we pay these people for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Republican legislators are threatening to punish corporations that are trying to fight climate change.
Replies
7
Views
485
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
Stealthycat
Biden climate change order to tell federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies
2 3 4
Replies
173
Views
5K
joffer
joffer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top