Protests Seen as Harming Civil Rights Movement in the '60s

I've recently had some conversations about activism and protesting about climate change on Tildes, which made me remember these polls again. I think they are a good historical reminder, and they demonstrate that masses much too often care more about comfort and privilege rather than justice.

These polls also show that you don't need to convince the majority to effect change. In fact, focusing on that might be detrimental to your cause. People who are bothered by your protest, because it disrupts "order", will try to tell you how to effect change while sitting in their own comfort. But this is not important.

Here is the gist of it, with MLK's own words.

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Believing in the timetables created by comformist opinions would be a grave mistake for climate activists. We need more confrontation, more radical acts, and more direct action. We don't need to make friends with the majority to do this. We need to shake things up, and most people don't like that. You can see this by the worsening majority opinion of the Civil Rights movement after they intensified protests. But the activists were right, it was an urgent matter, and they succeeded. So, we don't need to play nice.

For example, after MLK's asssassination people started burning down cities, which resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1968 passing. You can see this in the citations; basically the government feared further escalation, and that's why they had to pass the act. Another example is the suffragettes' bombing and arson campaign in Britain and Ireland, which helped with their cause by putting pressure on people in power.

I'm not giving these examples to say there should or should not be one-to-one copies, but to show that being radically confrontational does work. Radical confrontation and direct action are what we need for climate justice, because time has been running out for a while, and every day past without a radical change makes things much worse. So we should cast off the yoke of mass approval and meekness. We need to embrace the confrontation.

I'm gonna try to be brief. This is the worst I've ever felt, weather-wise, in my life, and it's only the start of summer. It's heavily negatively affecting both my physical and mental health. I can't even properly work. I don't have AC. I can't afford it. Everybody around me is suffering very similarly.

I've been following climate crisis for years, but I've never thought I'd see such an extreme worsening this early. Even if I knew in theory that anomalies like this could happen, as it's very widely agreed upon that they would, it's much different to live through. It's hell on earth.

I'm one of the luckier ones, relatively speaking. There are over hundred thousand people dying from heatwaves each year. It's probably much higher than officially reported, because most governments don't track heatwave deaths. Millions and millions of people in India have been experiencing bigger and bigger water crises. Just in 2019, 600 million people faced a water crisis in India.. Hundreds of millions of people in Africa are suffering due to climate change related climate extremes and food security crises.

I also just found out that a location in Antarctica exhibited 70F (38C) higher than normal temperatures this year. Faster than expected, right?

I think this is inexcusable. Oil companies and such knew what was coming. There are countless documents and studies detailing this. Here are a few.

• Exxon confirmed global warming due to their emissions was happening in 1982.
• American Patroleum Institute similary knew in 1980.
• Exxon knowingly spread climate change denialism in response (source 1, source 2)
• Even in 2015, Exxon was dodging responsibility, telling people to "read the documents". So, two scientists, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, did that. And found out that Exxon acknowledged global warming in the internal documents, while they denied it in public (article 1, source 2). In other words, it's been empirically shown that they fucking manipulated the public with full knowledge.
• Exxon is not alone. ExxonMobil, Chevrontexaco, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Conocophillips spent 3.6 billion dollars for lobbying in US alone during 1986-2015.. 61% of these expenditures are after 2006, when climate change started becoming a hot topic. So, when they attracted attention, they doubled down.
• Another document is of American Patroleum Institute from 1998, showing they intentionally focused on exaggerating the uncertainties of climate science in front of the public.
• Big Oil still opposes science and us. A study published in 2019 shows that ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total spent 1 billion dollars on lobbying and branding after the 2016 Paris Agreement.
• Oil companies are not alone. A study examining the 2000-2016 time-frame in US found that "fossil fuel and transportation corporations, utilities, and affiliated trade associations" are all major climate lobbyists. Only 3% of the total climate change lobbying was done by environmental organizations and renewable energy corporations.

These crimes are inexcusable. The people responsible should pay for them. And these should be treated as crimes against humanity and the planet, of the highest degree. These people don't deserve anything but to pay. They are the evil, who, in great awareness, have unreversibly damaged the planet, caused untold suffering. They still continue to do this, and even if they stopped now (hah!), their evil will continue to haunt humanity and a myriad of other species for unimaginable generations.

They should pay.

This is a topic that's been on my mind for a while, and I wonder what people think about it.

As everybody knows, climate crisis is worsening, is going to continue to worsen, yet the pace of reforms is not nearly enough. "Faster than expected" has even been a meme for years. What's more is that we are very hastily nearing the 1.5 Celcius degrees limit IPCC and countless other climate scientists have been warning about (For details, check out IPCC 1.5oC special report, and IPCC AR6).

Another point is that oil and traditional energy companies, their politicians, and other people working for them have done irreversable damage to humanity and many, many other species of life. Yet, generally speaking, courts don't seem to hold them accountable.

In short, there's a good deal of reason to doubt legal structures will solve the climate crisis fast enough or hold people accountable for the most part.

I suspect this might lead to "violent activism". For example, human ecology professor and activist, Andreas Malm, wrote a book calling for such action. In the book, "How to Blow Up a Pipeline", he contends that non-lethal violence, meaning sabotage, is a necessary and complementary element to peaceful activism, in order to make people in power unable to ignore this issue any longer, and make the peaceful protestors seem the "reasonable alternative", strengthening their hand. This book seems to have found some popularity among a certain crowd.

Another, less specific but still noteworthy example is the growing violent feelings among the young people regarding climate crisis. Many of them are utterly jaded to the reform process, and are openly or semi-jokingly calling for violence.

I suspect we are nearing or maybe even passed a threshold, which will lead to the rise of violent activist groups, quite possibly in the current decade. However, I'm not sure about this, as predicting the future is a very uncertain thing. What do you think, and what are the reasons behind your opinion? I'm interested in how events like this play out in human history, and I feel like, either way, we are going to witness some very important developments.

This is my attempt at contributing to "A Layperson's Introduction" series, here on Tildes. It's why it's here on ~science, rather than ~enviro

Many people have heard about how global warming works. “We are emitting greenhouse gases, and these trap heat, leading to further warming.” So how does this process occur in more detail? What is its physical basis? In this post, I will try to explain the physical basis of these questions in a simple way that is a bit more detailed than what is usually seen.

Electromagnetic Spectrum and Thermal Radiation

The electromagnetic spectrum is a broad spectrum that includes visible light. There are long wavelengths, such as radio waves and infrared light, and short wavelengths, such as ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays.

Visualization of the electromagnetic spectrum

Thermal radiation is the radiation emitted by the molecules of an object due to thermal movement. It can be in the visible light wavelength, shorter wavelength, or longer wavelength. The length of these wavelengths varies depending on the temperature of the object that is the source of thermal radiation. For example, the thermal radiation emitted by Earth falls into the infrared spectrum, which is at lower energy, because Earth is not as hot as a star. The shift of thermal radiation emitted by colder objects to longer wavelengths is also known as Wien's law.

Energy Budget and Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Our planet Earth has a certain energy budget. In other words, the energy coming to the planet and the energy going out from the planet are specific. The source of the energy coming to the Earth is the Sun, and on average, approximately 340 Watt/m² energy reaches the surface of the planet. In order for this energy to be balanced, the energy radiated from Earth into space must be equal to this amount. This happens in two ways. First, some of the incoming energy is reflected into space by the Earth itself. Both the atmosphere (especially clouds) and the surface make this reflection. The second part can be explained by a physical law called Stefan Boltzmann law. According to this law, each object emits a certain amount of energy as thermal radiation, and the amount of this energy increases with temperature. This increase does not occur linearly, but as the fourth power of temperature. The mathematical expression of the law is given below.

E = σT⁴

In this equation, "E" is the energy, "σ" (sigma) is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and "T" is the temperature in Kelvin. However, the law cannot be applied to any object in its current form. The above equation is valid for ideal bodies called "black bodies". In physics, a black body is the name given to an ideal body that absorbs and emits all incoming radiation. However, Earth differs from a black body due to reflection. Therefore, the following equation is more appropriate.

E = εσT⁴

Here, ε (epsilon) means emissivity. Emissivity is the effectiveness of the surface of a material in emitting energy as thermal radiation. For a black body, ε = 1. The Earth's mean ε is less than 1, because it is not a black body. At the same time, emissivity changes depending on which part of the Earth is examined. For example, the emissivity of a vegetated surface and a desert or glacier are different. However, it is more important for us at this point to remember that the mean ε is less than 1.

When we look at the formulae above, we see that, in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the Earth emits thermal radiation depending on the temperature, even though it is not a black body. This constitutes the second part of the Earth's energy budget, namely thermal radiation. In summary, Earth receives energy from the Sun and radiates this energy through reflection and thermal radiation.

Radiative Forcing and Greenhouse Effect

The energy budget is very important for our planet. Any change in the budget causes Earth to warm or cool. Natural or human-induced changes that change the balance between incoming and outgoing energy are called radiative forcing. This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the planet. Some gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO²) or methane (CH⁴), have physical properties that absorb the thermal radiation emitted by Earth. If you remember, Earth's thermal radiation was in the infrared spectrum. That is, these gases absorb at certain points in the infrared spectrum. As a result of this absorption, the gases emit it again in the form of thermal radiation in all directions. While some of the emitted radiation escapes into space, some of it remains on Earth, causing warming. Since the energy emitted by Earth will increase as it warms up, at a certain point, the incoming and outgoing energy becomes equal again.

CO² emissions, concentration, and radiative forcing

In the image above, in different climate change scenarios, emissions of the greenhouse gas CO²) (left), the corresponding increase in CO² concentration in the atmosphere (middle), and the increasing radiative forcing due to this increase are shown (right). Note that the radiative forcing is shown in Watts/m². It is shown this way because it is calculated based on the change in Earth's energy budget, and Earth's energy budget is shown as Watt/m².

In other words, although the incoming energy is the same, there is a certain decrease in the energy going into space due to the greenhouse effect. This leads to what we call radiative forcing. As a result of radiative forcing, the temperature of Earth increases, and as the temperature increases, the thermal radiation energy emitted by the planet increases. This causes the incoming and outgoing energy to become equal again. As a result, in the long run, radiative forcing (and the greenhouse effect) does not lead to a change in the energy budget. However, it causes solar energy to remain in the atmosphere for a longer period of time, causing a certain amount of warming. This is what we call global warming due to the greenhouse effect.

This process is, of course, more complex than described here. Since the atmosphere has a layered and fluid structure, there are factors that make the job more complicated. For example, while the increase in CO² warms the troposphere (what we call global warming), the lowest layer of the atmosphere, it causes the stratosphere, its upper layer, to cool. Despite these and similar complexities, the physical basis of global warming is still based on the mechanisms described in this post.

Sources

• Schmittner, A. (2018). Introduction to Climate Science. Oregan State University
• van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S. J., & Rose, S. K. (2011). The Representative Concentration Pathways: An overview. Climatic Change, 109(1-2), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
• Wild, M., Folini, D., Schär, C., Loeb, N., Dutton, E.G., König-Langlo, G. (2013). The global energy balance from a surface perspective. Clim Dyn 40, 3107–3134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8
• Zohuri, B., McDaniel, P. (2021). Basic of heat transfer. Introduction to Energy Essentials, 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-90152-9.00017-7

Image Sources

• Image 1: https://science.nasa.gov/ems/01_intro/
• Image 2: van Vuuren et al., 2011

When talking about climate, the ice age is mentioned a lot. Sometimes it is said that "the last ice age" ended roughly 10,000 years ago, and sometimes we are still said to be living in an ice age. So which one is correct? Technically both are correct. This is due to a complexity in terminology.

The broader climate state of Earth is divided into two categories: Icehouse Earth and Greenhouse Earth (Maslin, 2014). The state when there are continental glaciers (those that cover continents, separate from glaciers seen on mountains) at any point on Earth is called the Icehouse Earth, and the state when they do not exist is called the Greenhouse Earth. Approximately 80% of the last 500 million years has been spent as a Greenhouse Earth (Spicer and Corfield, 1992). During the icehouse state of the Earth, there are glacial and interglacial periods. The glacial period occurs when the glaciers at the poles move towards the lower latitudes of Earth, that is, towards the equator. The interglacial period is the time when glaciers remain at the poles.

Both the Icehouse Earth state and the glacial period are called Ice Age, but this is misleading. The last so-called “ice age” occurred 11,700 years ago (Clark et al., 2016). This event refers to the glacial period seen on Earth. However, the Earth is still in an "ice age" because it is still in the Icehouse Earth state. Even though it is currently in the interglacial warming period, this warming is approximately 15 times faster due to climate change (Clark et al., 2016). As the anthropogenic global warming gets stronger, the rate of warming will also increase.

The glacial periods seen in the last 500,000 years can be seen in this picture. Source for the picture is here.

The cycle of glacial and interglacial periods is clearly visible. One of the main factors that caused the emergence of Icehouse Earth states and glacial periods is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It ended and started the ages by greatly changing the conditions on Earth (Maslin, 2014).

In conclusion, we are currently living in an ice age and also not. The reason for this is that the word ice age refers to two different phenomena. Therefore, it would be more useful to use the terms Icehouse Earth and glacial period instead of ice age. However, how this will be translated into everyday language remains a challenge.

Sources

• Clark, P., Shakun, J., Marcott, S. et al. (2016). Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change. Nature Clim Change 6, 360–369.
• Maslin, M. (2014). Climate change: a very short introduction. OUP Oxford.
• Spicer, R. A. & Corfield, R. M. (1992). A review of terrestrial and marine climates in the Cretaceous with implications for modelling the ‘Greenhouse Earth’. Geological Magazine, 129(2), 169-180 pp.