1.
Symbolism Comms Thread: Humpback Whale

Let's start with an example.

01/27/2016 Dead humpback whale washes up on North Carolina coast

"a baby humpback between 1 and 2 years old"

"More biologist on scene. Something's about to

1. - No Escape This Week?

01/15/2021 UK closing ALL travel

1. - Kashyap Patel

05/14/2018 Nunes, Gowdy accuse DOJ (Rod Rosenstein) of launching anonymous attacks on congressional investigator

Nunes: "Kash is always 2 steps ahead of the DOJ and this is why they are launching anonymous attacks on him in the

New paper: Review and Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Residential Buildings in Humid
Subtropical and Tropical Climates by Daniel Satola et al. 2021 - A Thread (1/9)

We reviewed more than 70 building LCA studies in climate regions common in the Global South, studying building cases from Asia, Oceania, South America and North America. We conduct detailed analyses ...
(2/9)

...based on a final sample of 36 building cases which were fit for harmonization of results. Therein, life cycle GHG emissions show a wide range of 491 to 4811 kgCO2eq/m2. To understand more: First, how structural material choice is influencing emissions...
(3/9)

...we study both embodied and life cycle GHG emission in relation to primary materials used in the building structure. This shows lowest embodied emissions with wood as structural material, and potentially low emissions from use of concrete (non-reinforced). Second,... (4/9)

...we investigate specific design strategies applied in the different cases to analyse their potential for reducing operational and/or embodied GHG emissions. Substantial embodied GHG emissions reduction can be achieved by use of local materials, ... (5/9)

Now, before the stupid conservatives begin sneering and laughing AGAIN about climate change and a massive snowstorm, one more time trying to educate:

A warming climate causes extreme weather events, *including* huge snow and plunging temps. 1 example why: (Note: I realize.../1

...that no matter what is said, anti-science and arrogant conservatives who failed high school science will still sneer and laugh because this is more complicated than "temp goes up, it gets cold. HAHAHA!" Plus, they don't wont read anything longer than 20 words. But this.../2

...will at least help reply to their foolishness.)

Here is what is happening right now: there is a large area of low pressure and cold air at both poles. That cycles around the poles and is contained there by higher pressure surrounding it. However, a warming planet changes.../3

...that. The higher pressure/low pressure contains the cold air, but as that warms, what essentially serves as a fence weakens. Plus, simultaneously, the warmer climate is changing the jet stream. Even before this, sometimes the contained area expanded and hit the jet stream.../4

...which brought the polar cold down, thus plunging temperatures. However, with a warming climate - because of the change in pressures and the moving jet steam - the polar air is coming down more frequently. A few years back, *Texas* was hit by polar air. That's how far down.../5

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Some 70% of people, depends how you ask, accept the global emergency. Climate system destabilisation is one aspect, declining biodiversity and increasing pollution is another. I ask: what would actually *break* if humanity responded decisively? 1/

Climate: a decisive response = cap on fossil fuel extraction and planned phase out. Fewer private car journeys, less electricity. Nothing would *break*. We still live and eat. There are alternatives and we can all cut back and share more. So what are we afraid of breaking? 2/

Pollution: reducing the above helps all that, cracking down on pollution and biodiversity loss will reduce materials consumption but changing and sharing we can still live on the planet. What would break? 3/

Most pollution and resource consumption is done by rich people. Billions of poor people live and thrive so the rich can too. Nothing will *break* there? 4/

Of course, a rapid reduction in resource consumption, less of most things and enough of the essentials for everyone will *break*something. Economic growth for one thing. But if that broke, what would *break*with it? 5/

A brilliant talk that punctures current discourse on climate ambition in Scotland, setting out what's really needed, by @KevinClimate for @ScotClimateCA

📽️ https://t.co/i02FtSkJT8 📽️

Well worth watching. Otherwise, here's a summary thread 👇
1/10

Want scientific assessment of what Scotland should do to achieve Paris Agreement temperature targets? Look to carbon budgets. See that a failure to rapidly reduce emissions will eat up the carbon budget in just a few years, leaving impossible burdens for future generations. 2/10

Are UK emissions down 45% in 30 years? Not when including emissions from aviation & shipping, and imports & exports – then they are only down 10%. Over three decades, we have had reductions of less than 0.5% per year. 3/10

Scotland’s average per person consumption emissions are still double the global average. Scotland’s consumption emissions have not meaningfully reduced in the last 20 years… 4/10

Principles of global equity and justice mean that Scotland’s fair slice of the global carbon budget is just a few hundred million tonnes of CO2, which is less than ten years of Scotland’s emissions at current levels. 5/10