UN climate change ambassador knows his vinyl tech

[Polychrest]

Inger Andersen, the United Nations Climate Programme executive director, said this recently: “There is no person or economy left on the planet untouched by climate change, so we need to stop setting unwanted records on emissions, temperature and extreme weather. We must instead lift the needle out of the same old groove of insufficient action, and start setting other records: on cutting emissions and on climate finance.”

 

Don't know if the tiktok generation will appreciate his turntable analogy, but many of us doddering old analogue farts will. 

[Anderton]

At least he didn't say that climate change was going from 33 1/3 to 78 RPM. No one would have known what "78 RPM" refers to.

 

But I'm surprised he didn't take advantage of the opportunity to say something about "we need to turn the tables on climate change." Although I suppose some people would have...needled him for that.

[Notes_Norton]

I guess there is more than one way to spin it.

 

I read a possible prediction from a climate scientist a few weeks ago on my table. I tried to save it, but I screwed it up and all I got was an ad.

 

He said, (I'm paraphrasing) the way we are going, somewhere in the early 2030s the temperature could start to feedback on itself, and if that happens, the temperatures will rise exponentially and wipe out most life on the planet.

 

Personally, I hope he is wrong about that.

 

I quit using my AC, I do not water anything in my yard, I drive as if I was in the historic Mobil Economy Run to get 100 extra miles per tankful, I plan my driving routes, i cut down on my consumption, hang clothes on the line, and really try to make a difference.

 

Then I blew it all and flew to Hawaii for a vacation.

 

I'm glad I was born in the 20th century. It looks like I might be seeing the beginning of the end of the human race. And it's all for corporate profits.

 

Note ♫

 

[Anderton]

I don't want this to get political, but we can get scientific and say that the trendline for temperature since the start of the industrial age is going up. Not linearly, but more like a 2 steps hotter, 1 step colder, 2 steps hotter, 1 step colder, etc.

 

No matter what people want to think, it seems like the answer of what to do is obvious: If it's caused by humans, we need to put on the brakes. If it isn't caused by humans (which I doubt, but we don't have a "control group earth" for comparison), we shouldn't put our foot on the accelerator.

 

Great civilizations die out all the time from bad luck, stupidity, natural forces, etc. There's nothing special about us that would prevent a similar fate. I'm sure all the civilizations that fell apart thought it could never happen to them.

[Notes_Norton]

5 hours ago, Anderton said:

No matter what people want to think, it seems like the answer of what to do is obvious: If it's caused by humans, we need to put on the brakes. If it isn't caused by humans (which I doubt, but we don't have a "control group earth" for comparison), we shouldn't put our foot on the accelerator.

I prefer to err in the direction of caution.

 

If putting on the brakes saves humanity — that's great — we win.

 

If putting on the brakes doesn't address the problem, it will definitely greatly reduce pollution — we still win.

 

If we are either the problem or accelerating it, as most climatologists believe, and we hit the accelerator, or just maintain status quo — we lose.

 

So it seems to me, erring on the side of caution is the best choice.

 

Notes ♫

[ProfD]

8 hours ago, Anderton said:

Great civilizations die out all the time from bad luck, stupidity, natural forces, etc. There's nothing special about us that would prevent a similar fate. I'm sure all the civilizations that fell apart thought it could never happen to them.

The reality of life...no matter which way it's cut, scratched or transformed on the 1 & 2s, every living thing is born to die one way or another.  

 

Spoiler alert...nothing and nobody gets out alive in the end.🤣😎

[Anderton]

6 hours ago, ProfD said:

Spoiler alert...nothing and nobody gets out alive in the end.🤣😎

 

Not true. Cher's career will exist long after all of us are gone.

[Polychrest]

4 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

Not true. Cher's career will exist long after all of us are gone.

And Keith Richards’, of course.

[Notes_Norton]

And Elvis is hiding out somewhere, living off his riches, and getting obese.

[Greg Mein]

On 11/21/2023 at 2:19 PM, Polychrest said:

Inger Andersen, the United Nations Climate Programme executive director, said this recently: “There is no person or economy left on the planet untouched by climate change, so we need to stop setting unwanted records on emissions, temperature and extreme weather. We must instead lift the needle out of the same old groove of insufficient action, and start setting other records: on cutting emissions and on climate finance.”

 

🦧 Fascinating! What a dream job this person has; jet setting around the world blaming the unwashed masses for something that humans have no control over. I wonder what the salary is and who pays it??

[Anderton]

7 minutes ago, Greg Mein said:

What a dream job this person has; jet setting around the world blaming the unwashed masses for something that humans have no control over. I wonder what the salary is and who pays it??

 

The real dream job is being a weather forecaster. You can be consistently wrong, day after day, and still keep the gig. All you need to be is a buff dude or a hot chick, and you remain employed.

 

Okay, I'm going to put on my Mr. Science hat and bore everyone. But I find the following very interesting.

 

Human activity actually does influence global phenomena. In the latter part of the 20th century, the hole in the ozone over Antarctica was growing. The ozone hole is always contracting and expanding, due to interactions with the sun and chemical reactions that destroy ozone. Some of these reactions are natural, but CFCs bond with ozone and destroy it. The ozone layer is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, so it's pretty fragile. (FWIW my dad consulted to NASA, which is why I know about this kind of stuff.)

 

The ozone hole expansions kept increasing year-over-year, and the contractions became less. This changed weather patterns in South America and caused an increase in skin cancers in places like Australia. Scientists knew that CFCs could bond with ozone and destroy it, and also, that a lot of CFCs were being released into the atmosphere for a variety of reasons. So, they theorized CFCs were a contributing factor to the problem. Due to the overwhelmingly negative effects that would happen if the ozone layer continued being depleted at the rate it was being depleted, a treaty banning CFCs was adopted in 1987.

 

At the time, there were arguments pro and con, with some people (mostly companies involved in refrigeration) saying it wouldn't make any difference and would cause economic hardship, while others claimed the problem would get worse, based on what science knew about CFCs. But, the situation was sufficiently urgent that a treaty was signed anyway to reduce CFC emissions, in the hope that the scientists were right and this would mitigate the problem. The treaty remains unique because it's the only treaty that has ever been signed by every single country that's represented in the UN. Fortunately, the scientists were correct that reducing CFC would help. Since the treaty was signed, the ozone layer stabilized, then started reversing depletion. It's on track to regain pre-1980 levels by 2040 in the Arctic, and several decades later in the Antarctic. 

 

It's important to remember that the atmospheric layer is very thin. The usual analogy is like a single piece of paper over a beach ball. Ironically, the most important function of the atmosphere is to trap heat. The concern is whether excessive amounts of heat are being trapped due to higher man-made concentrations of CO2. Historically, in prehistoric times excessive CO2 concentrations happened for non-man-made reasons, which is how we know excessive CO2 can make the climate hot enough to be less suitable for human habitation. 

 

Of course, the instant solution to cooling things down is either a nuclear war or Yellowstone exploding. But I wouldn't look forward to either one

[Stokely]

On 11/22/2023 at 3:20 AM, Anderton said:

I don't want this to get political, but we can get scientific and say that the trendline for temperature since the start of the industrial age is going up. Not linearly, but more like a 2 steps hotter, 1 step colder, 2 steps hotter, 1 step colder, etc.

 

No matter what people want to think, it seems like the answer of what to do is obvious: If it's caused by humans, we need to put on the brakes. If it isn't caused by humans (which I doubt, but we don't have a "control group earth" for comparison), we shouldn't put our foot on the accelerator.

 

 

The data is pretty clear about Climate Change and getting more clear with each year that passes.  We (and that is our descendents for most of us) are in for a rough time at best.  Just as with Covid, people have turned an issue where we really need to band together against a problem that affects everyone and turned it into a political battle.  Makes me sick honestly.  We are in a post-facts, post-science world where anyone can go find facts to fit their beliefs (from "influencers" and a vast variety of fake news outlets).   Science of course can be and has been wrong but as noted above, erring on the side of caution is a thing most of us do and is a wise thing to do.  Why bring extra cables to a gig since you don't *know* that your current ones will break?  Why have health insurance, I don't know that I'll be sick!  

[Rustar]

The answer isn't to return us to the stone age, where there is no electricity to power our keyboards, the answer is discovery and innovation, which gave us electricity and synthesizers. Innovation in making fossils cleaner and engines more efficient and renewable energy that is cost effective, which we currently don't have. Bjorn Lomborg provides a way to understand and address the problems in a rational, science and truth based way. 

 

[Anderton]

12 hours ago, Rustar said:

Innovation in making fossils cleaner and engines more efficient and renewable energy that is cost effective, which we currently don't have.

 

And we can even take effective steps without any new technology. It amazes me that people are too lazy to recycle aluminum cans, which recover about 95% of the energy used to make them. Furthermore, every ton of recycled cardboard saves about 5,000 kilowatts of energy, 380-475 gallons of oil and other fossil fuels, and 7,000 gallons of water. Think how many cardboard cartons Amazon sends out, yet people just put their cardboard in the trash, where it becomes landfill.

 

It's impossible for me to believe that recycling is a political issue. I think people are just generally ill-informed and lazy.

[surfergirl]

Environmentally friendly surfboards. We have used surfboards that have not been good for the environment for decades, now we are finding, and using more recyclable materials in our boards. It will take awhile to completely convert, but we know we have do our part. The oceans are our playgrounds, and we have to be more responsible.

https://www.clairemarieartist.com/exploring-the-future-of-surfing-a-deep-dive-into-sustainable-surfboard-options/

[Notes_Norton]

We're all guilty of something, I suppose. Mrs. Notes and I flew to Hawaii this year for a vacation.

 

Perhaps there are just too many people on the planet. In the 1960s when there were only 3 billion of us, it seemed the earth could support us much better (or degrade at a much slower pace). The exponential human growth might be the major problem.

 

I'm surprised at how many 'environmentalists' use Air Conditioning at home. Over 99% of the humans who have ever lived on the planet, did just fine without AC, so it's not necessary.

 

If you paint your roof white (see below *), plant shade trees around the house but not over the roof, and open your windows, your house will rarely get over 80 degrees. At least that's how we cooled our houses when I was a kid in Florida, before central AC.

 

Why AC?

The AC uses energy from the grid, which is still partially fed by gas and coal. The nuke and solar plants run at 100% all the time, and the power company ramps up or down the gas/coal plants as needed.

 

So the AC heats up the planet by using more gas/coal power and also by creating a heat island outdoors. ||: Since the planet is now warmer than before, the AC has to work harder, burning more gas/coal to make up for the difference. This heats up the planet even more than before :|| repeat ad infinitum, until the earth goes into a feedback loop and quickly gets too hot for our crops to grow.

 

I drive by school zones and see scores of cars idling with their AC on while moms wait for the little darlings to get out of school or in the morning for the bus to come. Why? If you must wait, turn the motor off and open the windows.

 

* A major university did a study and said if everyone would simply paint their roofs bright white, it would buy us another 100 years to address climate change, by reflecting the heat back out of the atmosphere. When I was a child in Florida, everyone had a white roof, because central AC hadn't come here yet. Now almost everyone has a dark roof, which not only doesn't reflect the heat back out, but makes the AC work even harder.

 

Of course, there are zillions of other things we can do, recycle the cans, drive energy efficient vehicles instead of the 2 ton capacity family truck vehicles, use the clothesline instead of the dryer, consume less, have fewer children, get rid of lawns, and on and on and on.

 

I got 'fixed' after two children, replaced the lawn with no-mow/no-fertilize/no-insecticide native plants, planted over a dozen trees on my lot, painted my roof bright white, don't use AC, put all recyclables in the proper bin, drive with slow acceleration and coasting as much as I can before applying the brakes, buy durable goods and don't replace them as long as they still function properly, hang clothes on the line, and do other things to minimize my carbon footprint. But I'm not perfect, as I mentioned at the top of this post, I flew to Hawaii for my first vacation since COVID reared its ugly spikes.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Anderton]

11 hours ago, surfergirl said:

Environmentally friendly surfboards. We have used surfboards that have not been good for the environment for decades, now we are finding, and using more recyclable materials in our boards. It will take awhile to completely convert, but we know we have do our part. The oceans are our playgrounds, and we have to be more responsible.

https://www.clairemarieartist.com/exploring-the-future-of-surfing-a-deep-dive-into-sustainable-surfboard-options/

 

That was an interesting article, all we need are a few more billion people analyzing what they do in order to make it better.

[Anderton]

2 hours ago, Notes_Norton said:

Perhaps there are just too many people on the planet. In the 1960s when there were only 3 billion of us, it seemed the earth could support us much better (or degrade at a much slower pace). The exponential human growth might be the major problem.

 

There would be no problem supporting the current level of population if it was done right. But that would require humans to act intelligently, unselfishly, and cooperate on a large scale, so don't hold your breath

[Stokely]

There were scientists talking about human-induced climate effects decades ago when there were less people.  As Anderton says, it's not a quantity issue, it's one of quality  
Fortunately with the spread of social media the information can get where it needs to go more quickly!  😜


 

[Notes_Norton]

8 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

There would be no problem supporting the current level of population if it was done right. But that would require humans to act intelligently, unselfishly, and cooperate on a large scale, so don't hold your breath

I'm not.

 

Most people have only their own self-interests in mind.

 

In Florida, a study by National Geographic found we are drawing water from the aquifer faster than it can replenish itself. Yet people still water lawns, and commissioners still approve huge housing developments adding thousands of new homes per day.

 

No, most people have never acted right, and never will.

 

Notes ♫

 

 

[Anderton]

27 minutes ago, Notes_Norton said:

In Florida, a study by National Geographic found we are drawing water from the aquifer faster than it can replenish itself.

 

The same thing is happening in Arizona, so I guess in a couple decades they'll have to change their name to Arid Zona.

[Notes_Norton]

Fresh water is a precious commodity. Desalinization at present is expensive and polluting.

 

I'm seeing humanity as an algae bloom, the kind that eventually kills the pond. The difference is, our time frame is millennia longer and our pond the entire Earth. Both involve logarithmic growth, until the host can no longer provide what the organism needs to survive.

 

What's going to happen when we double our population again?

 

We might be lucky enough to see the beginning of the end of the human race. Or perhaps, I've read too many dystopian sci-fi books.

 

So I'm going to keep my footprint rather small, while I enjoy each day of my life to the fullest.

 

 

Notes ♫

[David Emm]

 "Is there anything you can prescribe, doctor?"
 "Fire and lots of it!"
     ~ "The Simpsons"

 

I've said for many years that historic wars are going to seem tame next to the water wars. Its a dark footrace for me, as I am close to being under the dirt and thanks for the grub. I'm in the Norton group: beginning of the end, check. Dystopian sci-fi, check. Good will for my fellow bipeds? TBD, day by day, while I play the classic Monty Python "Yar dig buggerty" organ rondo with a patch made up of 4 classic polysynths. I've cut my consumption and upped my recycling, but I doubt that would cause ol' Frederic Nietzsche to give me a thumbs-up. Sorry! 🤨

[Rustar]

Seriously, if you want to cut down on your paper usage, particularly toilet paper, install bidets in all of your bathrooms. It's a game changer. You'll only use enough to pat dry, and you get that squeaky clean feeling. My son had one and after using it, I was sold. Think globally, act locally.

[Notes_Norton]

11 hours ago, Rustar said:

Seriously, if you want to cut down on your paper usage, particularly toilet paper, install bidets in all of your bathrooms. It's a game changer. You'll only use enough to pat dry, and you get that squeaky clean feeling. My son had one and after using it, I was sold. Think globally, act locally.

Plus, use single ply, septic safe paper when you have to use it. It degrades quickly and doesn't use cotton in the manufacture.

 

 

[ProfD]

On 11/26/2023 at 10:37 PM, Notes_Norton said:

What's going to happen when we double our population again?

For several reasons, I don't believe doubling the population will happen. 

 

In fact, I think the population will start shrinking in about 25 years or so.

 

On 11/29/2023 at 10:13 AM, Rustar said:

install bidets in all of your bathrooms. It's a game changer.

Reads like a great idea.  Some wives will be happier.  Some husbands might be replaced.🤣😎

[David Emm]

35 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Reads like a great idea.  Some wives will be happier.  Some husbands might be replaced.🤣😎

 

That reminds me of an Eric Idle moment in a Monty python skit: "...and there's only a bleeding LIZARD in the bidet!" 😬

 

The only thing better than a bidet is the executive models that blow warm air in place of toilet paper. My heiney says "Domo arigato."

[Notes_Norton]

6 hours ago, ProfD said:

For several reasons, I don't believe doubling the population will happen. 

 

In fact, I think the population will start shrinking in about 25 years or so.

I hope you are right.

 

However, I still see people having 4 or more children, and an increase in the population every year.

 

Our main human drives are food, reproduction, and self-preservation. It seems our brains don't do a good job of controlling our drives.

 

Notes ♫

[Rustar]

On 11/30/2023 at 3:31 PM, ProfD said:

For several reasons, I don't believe doubling the population will happen. 

 

In fact, I think the population will start shrinking in about 25 years or so.

 

Reads like a great idea.  Some wives will be happier.  Some husbands might be replaced.🤣😎

As to bidets, they don't really target the husband replacing zone. Squeaky cleanness is it's own reward.

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Rustar said:

As to bidets, they don't really target the husband replacing zone.

Sure. Not intentionally.

 

Curiosity and creativity could yield a different outcome and higher water bill.🤣😎