Climate change could mean the extinction of our species [Archive] - Page 4 - HungAngels

Prospero

11-11-2012, 04:47 PM

New evidence that the Mayan civilisation was destroyed due to climate change.

Did Climate Change Kill the Mayans?

http://science.time.com/2012/11/09/mayans/

There are a lot of things that didn’t kill the Mayans: asteroid strikes, planet-wide quakes, global cataclysms prophesied by shamans and etched into ancient calendars. What did wipe them out was likely something that is far less mystical, and indeed is entirely familiar to modern civilizations: climate change. If you want a look at what we could face in the decades and centuries ahead, look at what one of the world’s greatest cultures suffered a millennium ago. That’s the conclusion of a newly released study and what it lacks in Hollywood-friendly drama, it makes up in sound — and scary — science.

The arc of the Mayan rise and fall is well known: The civilization first took hold in 1,800 BC, in the Central American region that now includes and surrounds Guatemala. It grew slowly until about 250 A.D. At that point, a great expansion of the culture — known to archaeologists as the Classic Period — began and continued to 900 A.D., yielding the architectural, political and textual artifacts that have so mesmerized scientists. But a decline began around 800 A.D. and led to a final collapse about 300 years later.

The Mayan arc was hardly smooth and steady, and there were periods of turbulence and decline even during the golden era. The great settlement of El Mirador, which once might have been home to 100,000 people, collapsed around 300 A.D, for example. From the fifth to eights centuries A.D., there was an explosion of the rich tablet texts that provided so many insights into how the Mayans lived and worked. Suddenly, however, starting in 775 A.D., the number of texts began to plunge by as much as 50%, a bellwether of a culture that was declining too.

There have been a lot of theories for what accounted for such cycles, with climate among the most-mentioned. The better the year-to-year weather — with plenty of rainfall and reasonably steady and predictable temperatures — the better crops do, and the more the culture and economy can expand. The texts have hinted at declines in productivity, perhaps climate-related, coinciding with generations of unrest, but there was never a precise way to confirm those writings. Analysis of lake sediments can yield a reliable reading of the levels of sulfur, oxygen isotopes and other atmospheric markers at various points in history, which reveal a lot about rainfall and other critical variables. But the Mayans themselves often unwittingly disturbed those sediments, with deforestation — including wide-scale burnings — and fishing.

Anthropologist Douglas Kennett of Penn State University, leader of an international team of researchers from the U.S., Belize, Switzerland, Germany and elsewhere thus decided to look at another, less vulnerable, source of evidence: stalagmites in caves. Some of the rainfall absorbed by the ground over the course of centuries will seep into caves and be incorporated into the drip-drip-drip of wet limestone that causes stalagmites to form. Oxygen isotopes entrained in the rain can provide an indicator of how wet a region was at any one point in history.

As Kennett and his colleagues reported in the current issue of Science, they focused their investigation on a cave in the jungles of Belize, which is within 1.5 km (.9 mi.) of one significant Mayan site and 19 mi. (30 km) of three others. In 2006, the scientists harvested a 22-in. (56-cm) stalagmite from deep within the cave. Knowing the rate at which stalagmites develop, they could calculate that the top 16.3 in. (415 mm) of it had been growing continuously since 40 B.C. Every 0.1 millimeter — or about four one-thousandths of an inch — corresponded to about 0.5 years. That’s an awfully fine-grained way to look at history, and the analysis led to some awfully detailed conclusions.

Droughts lasting at least a few decades each occurred from 200 to 1100 AD, and repeatedly coincided with struggles and upheaval in the Mayan culture. There were dry periods in the 640 to 660 window, for example, and there was also a lot of warfare in that period, which makes sense for a culture fighting over swindling resources. Droughts from 820 to 870 similarly were associated with an outbreak of fighting, as well as the disintegration of local polities, or ruling bodies. The decline in historical texts began not long before another period of severe drying, and the collapse of the Mayan culture itself, directly corresponds to the most severe period of drying, from 1020 to 1100.

Broadly, explains Kennett, the most generous period of rainfall during the millennium or so the Mayans thrived was from 450 to 660. “This led to the proliferation of cities like Tikal, Copan and Carasol,” he says. “The new climate data show that this salubrious period was followed by a general drying trend…that triggered a decline in agricultural productivity and contributed to social fragmentation and political collapse.”

The cause of the climate upheaval that claimed the Mayans was not, of course, human activity, since their culture thrived and died long before the industrial age. Instead it was caused by the combined effects of El Niño events and changes in the northeast and southeast equatorial winds known as the intertropical convergence zone. “The preceding conditions stimulating societal complexity and population expansion helped set the stage for later stress on [Mayan] societies and the fragmentation of political institutions.”

This should not give comfort to the dwindling band of modern-day climate-change deniers likely to take the study as proof that the planet’s current climate woes are merely natural fluctuations. The Mayan drying trend played out over centuries, after all. What we’ve been experiencing is the more abrupt, short time-scale variety, a phenomenon that was first foreseen in climate models nearly 40 years ago, and has been unfolding pretty much on schedule and as predicted. The Mayans had no such power to forecast events and certainly couldn’t correct them. We can do both, and the lesson of the study is that we may pay mightily if we choose to take no action. No culture, as the vanished Mayans so starkly illustrate, is too big to fail.

More: Butterflies Moving North to Escape Climate Change

Read more: http://science.time.com/2012/11/09/mayans/#ixzz2BvS5Fk1m

trish

11-13-2012, 04:46 AM

A little ego engineering anybody?

http://io9.com/5959069/10-ways-geoengineering-could-save-the-world?tag=superlist

Stavros

11-13-2012, 12:06 PM

A little ego engineering anybody?

http://io9.com/5959069/10-ways-geoengineering-could-save-the-world?tag=superlist

Thanks for an interesting link, Trish....but...only yesterday the papers were full of the report from the International Energy Agency (see link) which claims the development of shale reserves in the US will free it from dependency on foreign imports and even make it a larger producer of petroleum than Saudi Arabia, thereby increasing carbon emissions in the US over a span of time when they are supposed to be falling...in addition to which we could end up with more petroleum than water in places like China...however...this does assume that all of the indigenous sources of shale oil and gas in the US are developed, which in itself is a controversial and as yet untested policy decision...it also assumes an uninterrupted and continuing growth of demand for oil and gas throughout the world, and that isn't a given either....
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

Prospero

11-13-2012, 01:11 PM

I am always dubious of "breakthrough" stories. that's not generally how science proceeds.
So I wonder what the scientists here make of this story given front page treatment recently in a British Newspaper? I've not seen reports on it anywhere else?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html

Exclusive: Pioneering scientists turn fresh air into petrol in massive boost in fight against energy crisis
Is scientific breakthrough a milestone on the road to clean energy?

A small British company has produced the first "petrol from air" using a revolutionary technology that promises to solve the energy crisis as well as helping to curb global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Air Fuel Synthesis in Stockton-on-Tees has produced five litres of petrol since August when it switched on a small refinery that manufactures gasoline from carbon dioxide and water vapour.

The company hopes that within two years it will build a larger, commercial-scale plant capable of producing a ton of petrol a day. It also plans to produce green aviation fuel to make airline travel more carbon-neutral.

Tim Fox, head of energy and the environment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London, said: "It sounds too good to be true, but it is true. They are doing it and I've been up there myself and seen it. The innovation is that they have made it happen as a process. It's a small pilot plant capturing air and extracting CO2 from it based on well known principles. It uses well-known and well-established components but what is exciting is that they have put the whole thing together and shown that it can work."

Although the process is still in the early developmental stages and needs to take electricity from the national grid to work, the company believes it will eventually be possible to use power from renewable sources such as wind farms or tidal barrages.

"We've taken carbon dioxide from air and hydrogen from water and turned these elements into petrol," said Peter Harrison, the company's chief executive, who revealed the breakthrough at a conference at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London.

"There's nobody else doing it in this country or indeed overseas as far as we know. It looks and smells like petrol but it's a much cleaner and clearer product than petrol derived from fossil oil," Mr Harrison told The Independent.

"We don't have any of the additives and nasty bits found in conventional petrol, and yet our fuel can be used in existing engines," he said.

"It means that people could go on to a garage forecourt and put our product into their car without having to install batteries or adapt the vehicle for fuel cells or having hydrogen tanks fitted. It means that the existing infrastructure for transport can be used," Mr Harrison said.

Being able to capture carbon dioxide from the air, and effectively remove the principal industrial greenhouse gas resulting from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, has been the holy grail of the emerging green economy.

Using the extracted carbon dioxide to make petrol that can be stored, transported and used as fuel for existing engines takes the idea one step further. It could transform the environmental and economic landscape of Britain, Mr Harrison explained.

"We are converting renewable electricity into a more versatile, useable and storable form of energy, namely liquid transport fuels. We think that by the end of 2014, provided we can get the funding going, we can be producing petrol using renewable energy and doing it on a commercial basis," he said.

"We ought to be aiming for a refinery-scale operation within the next 15 years. The issue is making sure the UK is in a good place to be able to set up and establish all the manufacturing processes that this technology requires. You have the potential to change the economics of a country if you can make your own fuel," he said.

The initial plan is to produce petrol that can be blended with conventional fuel, which would suit the high-performance fuels needed in motor sports. The technology is also ideal for remote communities that have abundant sources of renewable electricity, such solar energy, wind turbines or wave energy, but little in the way of storing it, Mr Harrison said.

"We're talking to a number of island communities around the world and other niche markets to help solve their energy problems.

"You're in a market place where the only way is up for the price of fossil oil and at some point there will be a crossover where our fuel becomes cheaper," he said.

Although the prototype system is designed to extract carbon dioxide from the air, this part of the process is still too inefficient to allow a commercial-scale operation.

The company can and has used carbon dioxide extracted from air to make petrol, but it is also using industrial sources of carbon dioxide until it is able to improve the performance of "carbon capture".

Other companies are working on ways of improving the technology of carbon capture, which is considered far too costly to be commercially viable as it costs up to £400 for capturing one ton of carbon dioxide.

However, Professor Klaus Lackner of Columbia University in New York said that the high costs of any new technology always fall dramatically.

"I bought my first CD in the 1980s and it cost $20 but now you can make one for less than 10 cents. The cost of a light bulb has fallen 7,000-fold during the past century," Professor Lackner said.

Stavros

11-13-2012, 01:48 PM

I am always dubious of "breakthrough" stories. that's not generally how science proceeds.
So I wonder what the scientists here make of this story given front page treatment recently in a British Newspaper? I've not seen reports on it anywhere else?

Try this for an answer:
Are British Engineers Really Producing Petrol from Air Technology?

Posted October 22, 2012
Robert Webb

The UK press has gone mad over a new energy technology in recent days. I’ve been asked whether it is really as exciting as it seems?

“Exclusive: Pioneering scientists turn fresh air into petrol in massive boost in fight against energy crisis” ran the headline in the Independent on 19th October, and the story was picked up by the BBC on various channels. “we have been inundated here at AFS with requests for media interviews and comments from social media forums” says the home page of the company’s website - Air Fuel Synthesis.

So is it real? Well it certainly has a highly credible and solid technology foundation - the company was founded by Professor Tony Marmont, who has worked on aspects of renewable energy for many years.

Is it highly novel? Not really. The basic idea is that petrol, like all fossil fuels, is made of hydrocarbons - that is, long chains of hydrogen and carbon atoms. So if you use the right catalysts and processes, you can combine hydrogen and carbon to make fuel, which is what they do.

The hydrogen comes from the electrolysis of water and the carbon can come from the air - though the company speak about highly concentrated sources of CO2 like breweries, distilleries or aerobic digesters.

The problem is of course the question of how much energy is needed to run the whole process. The energy can come from renewable sources - and needs to, in order to keep it carbon-neutral - but the question is whether that energy is better used elsewhere, and more to the point, how much it costs to use it here.

I have seen statements for similar technology that it would require about 20 kWh to produce a litre of fuel. I very much doubt that this includes the energy which would be required if the carbon dioxide were to come from the air (concentrated sources are not that widespread). But even assuming that it does include this and is therefore extendable on a large scale, the problem is that that 20 kWh from a wind turbine or other clean energy source would power an electric car to travel about 60 km, whereas that litre of fuel (which will contain about 10 kWh) would power an internal combustion engined car only 15 km.

Let’s recap those numbers - they are surprisingly stark: we would get four times more mobility out of the primary energy if we used it in electric cars, than if we produced air fuel - at least four times, given the CO2 extraction energy issue and given the fact electric cars are still early stage technology. The difference expands to seven times if you take the efficiency of a Tesla Roadster.

About 13% of our transport fuel is used in applications which require liquid fuel - aviation and shipping - and this innovation has a great and potentially lucrative market there. But for the largest share of the transport market - private cars - the weight of the numbers strongly suggests that EVs are likely to be more successful.

I hate to splash even a few drops of cold water on new innovators’ work, as I’ve spent many years innovating myself - however I’ve also come to the conclusion that our media’s slightly hysterical obsession with the "new new thing" is destructive to the progress of clean energy. The fact is that the physics is quite simple, we have almost the technology we need already, and the main issue is not innovation, but deployment (and the incremental innovations and cost reductions that will follow from large scale deployment).

* The Numbers
Energy consumption of petrol car: 70 kWh/100 passenger-km (typical family car)
For electric car: 34 kWh/100p-km - Nissan Leaf, according to the US EPA.
For Tesla Roadster (2-seater sports car): 21 kWh/100p-km - EPA.
http://theenergycollective.com/node/133691

Prospero

11-13-2012, 02:37 PM

Thanks for that Stavros

Ben

11-18-2012, 11:20 PM

Obama Belatedly Calls For National Conversation On Climate Change:

Obama Belatedly Calls For National Conversation On Climate Change - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNoOLwmubS0)

trish

11-18-2012, 11:37 PM

Interesting article Stavros. Just got around to reading it. Thanks.

danthepoetman

11-19-2012, 12:46 AM

Very interresting articles, Prospero and Stavros.
__________________________________________________ ______________

I can't help thinking that this place might look like this, if we're still here in 200 years...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Adrar-Reg_(2).JPG/330px-Adrar-Reg_(2).JPG
Or either this...
http://blog.seya-art.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Transhumance_Quest/Interactive/img/Arrivee_desert/desert03.jpg
And if we aren't, like this...
http://www.hummingbirdinnbelize.com/images.html/jungle_cockscomb_main.jpg
http://wallpapers.wallpapersdepo.net/free-wallpapers/3509/Jungle-1680x1050.jpg

danthepoetman

11-21-2012, 05:21 AM

....

Ben

11-22-2012, 05:29 AM

World Bank Fears Devastating 4.0 Degree Warming

The World Bank warned that global temperatures could rise by four degrees this century without immediate action.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/world-bank-warns-4-degree-warming-121119.html

Ben

12-01-2012, 06:02 PM

Fox News Viewer: Shocking Climate Change Evidence:

Brainwashed Fox News Viewer: Shocking Climate Change Evidence Changed My Mind! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9xVS9bXMFc)

Ben

12-06-2012, 04:45 AM

From Fossil Fuels to Global Warming Denial, Koch Brothers May Be Biggest Force Behind U.S. Inaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU6vnujNizc

trish

12-11-2012, 05:44 PM

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

trish

12-11-2012, 10:11 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/opinion/could-the-farm-bill-devastate-americas-birds.html?smid=pl-share

beandip

12-13-2012, 04:01 AM

Everyone dies.

meh

fukken get over it.

trish

12-13-2012, 04:08 AM

Then do it already.

beandip

12-13-2012, 04:10 AM

http://sppiblog.org/news/bad-boy-smashes-u-n-wall-of-silence

beandip

12-13-2012, 04:10 AM

Show me a planet in thermal stasis and I'll show you a dead planet.

trish

12-13-2012, 04:19 AM

Show me a planet with sustainable life and I'll show you a planet, not in thermal stasis, but in dynamic equilibrium.

Come on, you said everybody dies, so why don't you do it already? Not ready yet? That's the point.

trish

12-13-2012, 04:31 AM

I see Mocnkton is still lying with numbers.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/03/climate_change_deniers_write_another_fact_free_op_ ed.html

Ben

12-13-2012, 04:44 AM

Climate change 'kills 300,000 every year'

Three hundred thousand people are already dying every year as a result of global warming, according to the most comprehensive report ever on the human impact of climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5406487/Climate-change-kills-300000-every-year.html

Ben

12-23-2012, 09:16 PM

Are Real Christmas trees better or worse for the environment?

Are Real Christmas trees better or worse for the environment? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AE78HyTTvI)

Ben

12-25-2012, 09:59 PM

West Antarctic Ice Sheets Warming Twice as Fast as Previously Thought:

http://gawker.com/5970928/west-antarctic-ice-sheets-warming-twice-as-fast-as-previously-thought

Ben

12-29-2012, 04:58 AM

Rebecca Tarbotton, head of Rainforest Action Network, dies at 39:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/remembering-rebecca-tarbotton-head-of-rainforest-action-network-who-died-this-week/#.UN4Z-KIXngw.twitter

Ben

12-30-2012, 07:53 PM

Top Obama Environmental Official Departs “Frustrated” Over Pipeline, Inaction On Climate:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/top-obama-environmental-official-departs-frustrat

Kire89

12-31-2012, 12:59 AM

I'm in the AGW camp. I also believe that our influence on the atmosphere, albeit small (5-10% is often stated), is enough to alter the delicate balance enough to prove disastrous (both in time perspectives that matter to humans and geologically). When this snowball starts rolling the avalance can't be averted, ie. you can't stop what's set in motion by burning less fossil fuels (and if we do that the economy will stall further, so we're trapped between a rock and a hard place).

The elephant in the room is, however, overpopulation and depletion of nearly every useful resource there is, from hydrocarbons (coal, gas, oil), copper, iron, rare earth metals/minerals, phosphorous, fresh water in parts of the world und su weiter.

trish

12-31-2012, 01:33 AM

Yet we seem to think that economies cannot survive without growth. It's not enough to make an annual profit, the profits have to increase. Baskin-Robbins closed down the franchise in my town because it's profits weren't large enough. Large enough for what they didn't say. Growing economies require growing markets which consist of more and more consumers using more and more raw materials expelling more and more pollution. We need a whole new economic model. I think the elephant in the room is human greed. Once people are comfortable and secure in their future, they seem to automatically curb their rate of reproduction. But if there's a dollar to be made by exploiting one's fellow man, you can be sure the exploitation will commence. Yes, we need a whole new economic model; not one based on consumption, expansion and greed but one based on sanity, stability and sustainability.

Kire89

12-31-2012, 02:14 AM

Yeah, somehow it's considered normal to keep money in the bank and expect there to be more of it after a year through some sort of magical concoction called growth. Similarly, if companies can't hire more people, increase salaries or open in more locations it's problematic? Dr Albert Bartlett said humankind's greatest shortcoming was our inability to understand that growth in a system full of finites cannot go on unchecked and I wholeheartedly agree. However, as this seems to be an inherent trait embedded in our genetic firmware, I doubt we have what it takes to "change". That would entail something different than being human.

I read a fun piece in an American newspaper recently, "lowest holiday spending growth since 20xx". It could've just as well said "Another year of growth", but no, they were disconcerted that it wasn't higher than so and so. Even experts at economics don't pick up on these things, makes you wonder about the state of the world. :)

muh_muh

12-31-2012, 03:47 AM

Yet we seem to think that economies cannot survive without growth. It's not enough to make an annual profit, the profits have to increase.

because thought interest on loans debt grows as well

trish

12-31-2012, 07:04 AM

because thought interest on loans debt grows as wellTrue enough. And so the circle closes.

muh_muh

12-31-2012, 04:57 PM

the only logical conclusion is to go back the the middle ages economic model and murder all bankers every few years to clear the debt

Kire89

01-01-2013, 01:37 AM

And Then Came Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FFOkLbe5498 :)

trish

01-02-2013, 05:48 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/business/energy-environment/breakaway-oil-rig-runs-aground-in-gulf-of-alaska.html?smid=pl-share

Kire89

01-02-2013, 10:49 PM

That oil rig allegedly has 150,000 gallons of diesel. That's 570 thousand litres or about 3500 barrels of oil equivalent.

In comparison, Norway uses 250,000' barrels of oil equivalent daily, the US around 18 million barrels and the world 90 million barrels. This equals 39.75 million litres (10 million gallons), 2.86 billion litres (0.76 billion gallons) and 14.3 billion litres (3.78 billion gallons) in total, respectively. Every single day.

The prospect of Arctic drilling is not opposed by me: we desperately need whatever oil we can find to perpetuate business as usual. However, there may not be any significant quantities of recoverable, high-quality oil there, and the energy invested to get it will be considerable. And let's face, "we're" not going to be rational enough to downsize, downscale and de-complexify our societies for the sake of the environment or the thousands of generations and thus billions of people who could have been.

trish

01-02-2013, 11:12 PM

The question is not, "Should we or should we not drill in the Arctic?" We can, for example, implement measures that make drilling in the Arctic more sustaining of the environment. Is a species of Ursidae any less valuable than a gigawatt of power that will be spent and dissipated into the atmosphere never to be used again?

Kire89

01-02-2013, 11:18 PM

Anything and everything is meaningless and has no inherent value except what we decide to add to it, I think. Whether the poster child of AGW, the polar bear, is more important than the at-most 30 billion barrels of oil equivalent (a year worth of consumption, which took the Earth 5 million years to turn from dead plant material (and dinosaurs) to hydrocarbons) that might be found in the depths of the Arctic isn't a binary question. Hundreds of species allegedly go extinct every day without so much as a question raised by MSM, who focus more on Brad Pitt's nasal hair or future movie prospects.

"More sustainable" sounds like New-Speak for "slightly less environmentally damaging/unfriendly/hostile". What I've read leads me to believe that whether we cease all hydrocarbon activity now (and thus kill 6 billion ~ people) or keep going at full steam, things have been set in motion that will irrevocably "turn up the heat" for those that inhabit and inherit the planet.

“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

These are great times we're living, bros!

trish

01-02-2013, 11:54 PM

"More" is just an adjective that I myself placed so as to modify "sustainable", an ordinary English word that is neither jargon nor political vernacular. In this case one would hope the company would adopt practices that would go further toward sustaining itself as we'll as the environment.

There is enough coal on this planet to sustain our projected rates of energy consumption for the next millennium. There's no need to savage the Arctic in a frantic attempt to get to the last drop of fossil fuel. We can take our time and do it right.

One never knows what the future holds. We may use space elevators to both launch satellites and to drain energy from the Earth's rotation. Elongating the period by nanoseconds could supply the Earth with all the energy it needs. Wind, tidal, solar, fusion, fission, hydro, geo and as of yet undiscovered technologies may eventually take the place of fossil fuels.

It's not a question of ceasing all hydrocarbon activity now or continue full steam ahead. There are in betweens with a continuum of short and long term costs and benefits. No matter what we do there will be costs. Like bears, the value of the human species is relative, but I would still like to see both species continue into the indefinite future.

Kire89

01-03-2013, 12:11 AM

I don't see any realistic "in between" scenario where humankind (7070 million people) strives toward a "sustainable" (it's a meaningless word as our endeavours have overshot decades ago) as long as there are easily-recoverable hydrocarbons left.

As for coal, it's dirtier and can't be used to fuel the hundreds of millions of cars or trucks which consume 90% of every barrel of oil produced. There certainly isn't enough high-grade, easily-accessible coal left for a millenium of current or growth-ridden consumption. China has something like 100 billion tons worth left (and is a importer now) and consumes 3 billion tons per annum. Interesting sidenote: despite increasing volumes of coal production in China, the new reserves are of lower quality so a volumetric increase didn't increase the energy (# of BTUs) they got from burning it. High grade, easiest-to-access reserves are nearly always claimed and consumed first because they are the easiest to find and exploit, just ask any current net importer (UK, Germany, China).

trish

01-03-2013, 02:52 AM

The one thousand year figure I quoted for the amount of coal left on the planet I remember reading in Richard Muller's, Physics for Future Presidents. Coal is dirtier, true enough, but you have to admit that coal is an alternative to Arctic oil. So is natural gas, and it's cleaner (though the technique of fracking has to be regulated to prevent contamination of fresh water...a resource even more necessary to life than energy to run cars, factories and heat homes). My points are simply 1) when it comes to energy production and consumption there are more than two choices, 2) the sooner begin working on curbing the production of greenhouse gasses, the consequences of climate change might be delayed and ameliorated (had we began to work on alternatives and to curb our production of greenhouse gases in the 80's when we first learned about the ongoing effects on climate, we'd be in better shape now).

I too have a very pessimistic attitude about what we will do. But what we will do is only one path among many.

Kire89

01-03-2013, 05:42 PM

Certainly. I like to indulge in contrafactual thought. Besides the alternate realities where I am the only male in a world inhabitated solely by t-girls, I like rumination about a planet earth without cars, the growth-paradigm or sugary food and drinks. Wouldn't that be blissful, serene, inspiring und su weiter?

Alas, it shan't come to pass. Arctic drilling seems to be a much better proposition than fracking (which is hardly a net energy positive endeavour) and an intensified production and consumption of coal, in my mind, but my reflections won't determine or influence the path homo sapiens will take in the slightest.

At this point, whether we stop or not, the average temperature will rise by some number x. This will have devastating effects. There is no prospect in current human affairs of slowing down as long as there is readily available fossil fuels. These are the facts. If only the generations before me actually listened to the Club of Rome. Maybe it was too late even then? :)

danthepoetman

01-03-2013, 06:09 PM

Liberty in the nude... Maybe global warming has its advantages after all... :)

Kire89

01-03-2013, 10:07 PM

Alas, it doesn't. Desertification (less arable land), starvation (famines), drought or extreme downpour (intensified extreme weather in general leading to failed crops) and feedback loops that accelerate global warming (beetles not dying due to lack of cold winters so that the forests of Siberia and Canada succumb, methane being released as a result of less ice, und su weiter).

Interesting times. :)

fred41

01-04-2013, 02:19 AM

Liberty in the nude... Maybe global warming has its advantages after all... :)

Naaah,...I'm thinking she'd be a helluva lot more Zaftig than that....doubt the pits would be shaved too.:)

Ben

01-04-2013, 04:16 AM

Liberty in the nude... Maybe global warming has its advantages after all... :)

Ha ha! Nice pic Dan....

Ben

01-12-2013, 10:47 PM

Maybe 98 percent of climate scientists are wrong and Rush Limbaugh is right. But what if the 98 percent of climate scientists are right and Rush Limbaugh is wrong....
But, again, maybe we should trust Limbaugh and ignore science and climate scientists... :)

Climate change set to make America hotter, drier, and more disaster-prone:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-change-set-to-make-america-hotter-drier-and-more-disaster-prone/

Your weatherman probably denies global warming (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/your_weatherman_probably_denies_global_warming/)

The good news: People can be persuaded climate change is real. The bad news: TV experts can't.

trish

01-12-2013, 10:59 PM

Maybe God revealed all truth to Limbaugh while he was on a oxycontin high. Then again, maybe when he came out of it, Rush got it all screwed up.

fivekatz

01-13-2013, 01:09 AM

It is scary thought because even if and when the US gets serious the work to do in order to convert from a fossil fuel energized society to one using renewables is just a fraction of the issue. China, India and host of emerging societies will be hard pressed to not take the quicker but "dirtier" path to a more prosperous life that cheap fossil fuels stimulate.

The great fear of course is that mankind is seldom proactive and often only reacts once the true crisis has struck. Recent examples in my mind in the USA include the levies in New Orleans and the constantly one step behind reactions to the financial derivatives that to this day have left the world's economic systems hanging on by a thread.

Seems even the most recent problems in greater NY, whether it be the vast destruction of Sandy in the Tri-State or the horrific murder of babies in Newtown can only temporarily distract from the next episode of Kim and Klhoe Kardasian go shopping.

Kire89

01-13-2013, 04:14 AM

We will convert to other forms of energy: muscle power and manual labour. We were given an abundant, copious supply of ancient sunlight in the form of hydrocarbons and have wasted it on nail polish, flights, world wars, food for billions and beyond all, liquid fuels. Such folly.

Humankind is very clever in its endeavours, but smart by any measure.

trish

01-13-2013, 05:21 AM

nail polish is never a waste. nuff said.

Kire89

01-13-2013, 09:37 PM

Toe nail polish is the most erotic thing ever. <3

Ben

01-18-2013, 03:44 AM

Go Vegan, Save The Planet - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVjiIQZ260s)

trish

01-18-2013, 05:01 AM

What is more worrisome is: the use of antibiotics (to keep livestock alive under factory conditions) creates strains of bacteria that are immune to those antibiotics. At a persistent rate factory farms are decommissioning the arsenal of antibiotics that we humans rely upon to keep serious communicable diseases at bay. Tuberculosis, gonorrhea, streptococci etc. all have highly resistant strains that are now supplanting the strains we know how to combat. There's no need to go vegan, but unless you value profit more than human beings, there is no need to pack livestock so tightly together in factory farms that the only way to keep them alive before they're ripe for slaughter is to dose them with gallons of antibiotics meant to fight the diseases that plague, maim and kill people.

muh_muh

01-18-2013, 06:23 AM

on the plus side if youre ever ill eating a chicken is signiicantly cheaper than going to the docs

Ben

01-23-2013, 07:37 AM

Educating Climate Change Deniers with David Sirota - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeBFt2rd7PM)

Ben

02-02-2013, 06:24 AM

Hazardous Fracking - Is it Time for Civil Disobedience? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chtv_iWFM8)

Jamie Michelle

02-03-2013, 12:26 AM

Climate change could mean the extinction of our species...

YouTube- Clive Hamilton on climate change and 'Requiem for a Species' - ANU, March 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQDBP4YClA)

YouTube- Clive Hamilton on the centres of climate denialism in Australia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VaTUAGOMoM)

The reason why anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory has become such a virulent dogma is due to the political power that it's being used to justify. If government and its connected interests could find a way to get as much power out of which sock, the left or the right, a person puts on first in the morning then we would never hear the end of the alleged horrors brought about by putting socks on the wrong foot first, and that if the government doesn't step in to save humanity from itself then it could well mean our extinction. Anyone who doubted the sock-crisis and pointed out that it's disproved by the empirical evidence would be accused of being party to "denialism". Later on they would be charged under state edicts which threaten loss of their tenure (such as AGW heretic Prof. Bjørn Lomborg). And if the government's anti-sock-on-wrong-foot-first efforts managed to actually cause humanity's extinction, then this result would be cheered (before their own deaths) by those who consider humanity as a cancer, with the sock-crisis regarded by them as merely being one example of mankind's cancerous ways.

AGW theory attracts etatists of multifarious stripes. They see in it a means of empowering the government and micromanaging people's lives. The theory of AGW is a collectivist's wet dream, as not only do they have their misanthropy confirmed (to the effect that mankind is a cancer), but so also they have a pretext for social engineering.

It's very unfortunate that AGW isn't true, as life loves a warm, carbon dioxide-rich Earth. It would be quite a life-giving boon to humanity and the other critters if AGW had been true.

Prospero

02-03-2013, 02:19 AM

fivekatz

02-03-2013, 03:05 AM

Jamie is such a fine case of lunacy, guaranteeing to offer a quite brilliantly absurd perspective on anything and everything. How do the worms of conspiracy theories burrow into a clearly once fine mind so deeply to thus produce such a panoply of drivel.In many ways a more to the point response than mine.

The idea that the government even begins to enjoy the discussion let alone the prospects of having to deal with climate change is absurd.

Whatever point of view politicians in most nations and states take of climate change it is a crappy topic they wish would just go away. Politicians whether their calling is to improve the fate of larger masses with the capital elite being part of that mass of people or simply serving the capital elite whilst adopting a marketing story that this does serve the greater interest, nobody in government would really prefer to have to deal with fact that the eco-system is so out of balance from the procreation and industrialization of the human species that significant and unpopular change needs to be made. That change is not only an uninvited disruption to their personal lifestyles, navigating it is a tremendous threat to their benefactors and their power.

What must concern these "leaders" more than anything is that the pace of climate change is actually exceeding what most climate scientists anticipated giving them less time to kick the can down the road. So even if many a jaded pol looks at the issue as JFK looked at his sexual escapades..."nobody will really know when I am alive and who cares what they think when I am dead" for all we know while death may not be in cards in the next 30 years for mankind, a constant barrage of super storms, drought, famine and flooding may beset the planet.

Now we can believe the 3% of scientists, many who have less than credible credentials on the subject matter or we may believe the 97% along with the coincidence of so many super storms and drought. But so long as 51% of the public believes that the issue is either questionable or not urgent we risk a march to destruction that at some point will have no u turn available to us.

Or we could take action. Even if we would be victims of a hoax the end result would a world with more sustainable sources of energy, cleaner air and seas. The elite would still be elite, some may fall, some may adapt, some may rise but the world order of capital distribution would still be centered on a few.

THe problem here IMHO is that some of the elite like the Koch Brothers fear they can adapt and believe they will be dead before the effects of climate change have made living a hell regardless of you ability to buy comfort.

Generations have their challenges. As distasteful as it was for the generations living in the 30's and 40's the human desire for empire had hit a tipping point where only world war could settle the issue. Today we are quickly approaching our tipping point and confronting it could be so much more profitable in the long run for mankind while ignoring it could mean mankind's undoing.

Stavros

02-03-2013, 03:42 AM

Jamie is such a fine case of lunacy, guaranteeing to offer a quite brilliantly absurd perspective on anything and everything. How do the worms of conspiracy theories burrow into a clearly once fine mind so deeply to thus produce such a panoply of drivel.

Prospero, if you take the time to read Jamie's paper Jesus is an Anarchist, you will find that other than multiple references to the Bible, she lists in Appendix A, Articles Everyone Should be Familiar With -five to be be precise; one by Frank Tipler, who enjoys tenure at a US university (which means he is joined by the hip to the beast of Satanic Government, which is how Jamie defines tenured professors); the other four are by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, both of whom were atheists. Indeed the ridicule and abuse that the anarcho-libertarians/Randians/Free Market Capitalists have for religion in general and Christianity in particular suggests that Jamie either cannot muster the courage to denounce Rothbard, Hoppe, Rand, von Mises et al, as godless pseudo-prophets, or she may just be confused.

In one remarkable passage, in which Jamie quotes the Biblical Jesus suggesting to a rich man Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; this does not apparently refer to the wealth the man acquired from his business acumen, but the profits of Satanic Government, because this was no ordinary entrepreneur, but a (Satanic) government lackey

when Jesus counseled this particular rich person to sell all that he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor, this was in fact an exceedingly libertarian thing for Jesus to advise this person. For this was not just any kind of rich person—this was a rich person of a particular type: a “ruler,” i.e., one who has some variety of command over an Earthly, mortal government. And thus, the riches that this particular rich person was in possession of had been obtained through extortion and theft, i.e., by the threat and force of arms and might.

Through this sophistry, Jamie, a born-again Christian, unites with atheist Murray Rothbard:

Thus, when Jesus offered this counsel to this particular rich person, He was merely telling this person what any good libertarian would have said in the same situation— particularly a natural-rights libertarian such as a Rothbardian.

(Quotes are from Jesus in an Anarchist, p45-46).

I was raised to believe that Jesus was a Socialist, but lets' not go there, for the time being...

broncofan

02-03-2013, 04:18 AM

It would be interesting to see if Jamie has conventional views on anything even non-political. I know this isn't the section for it, but any conventional hobbies? Knitting? Exercise? Favorite foods? Or is food a tool of the illuminati? Does she sleep in a bed or hanging upside down from the ceiling? I would feel a lot better if she could just tell us anything mundane.

Jamie, is there anything the establishment is right about? Maybe that smoking causes cancer,that alcohol can get you drunk, that water hydrates you?

I'm sorry if this is inappropriate but I'm just curious. Not like bi-curious, but regular curious.

Jamie Michelle

02-06-2013, 01:03 AM

The reason why anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory has become such a virulent dogma is due to the political power that it's being used to justify. If government and its connected interests could find a way to get as much power out of which sock, the left or the right, a person puts on first in the morning then we would never hear the end of the alleged horrors brought about by putting socks on the wrong foot first, and that if the government doesn't step in to save humanity from itself then it could well mean our extinction. Anyone who doubted the sock-crisis and pointed out that it's disproved by the empirical evidence would be accused of being party to "denialism". Later on they would be charged under state edicts which threaten loss of their tenure (such as AGW heretic Prof. Bjørn Lomborg). And if the government's anti-sock-on-wrong-foot-first efforts managed to actually cause humanity's extinction, then this result would be cheered (before their own deaths) by those who consider humanity as a cancer, with the sock-crisis regarded by them as merely being one example of mankind's cancerous ways.

AGW theory attracts etatists of multifarious stripes. They see in it a means of empowering the government and micromanaging people's lives. The theory of AGW is a collectivist's wet dream, as not only do they have their misanthropy confirmed (to the effect that mankind is a cancer), but so also they have a pretext for social engineering.

It's very unfortunate that AGW isn't true, as life loves a warm, carbon dioxide-rich Earth. It would be quite a life-giving boon to humanity and the other critters if AGW had been true.

Jamie is such a fine case of lunacy, guaranteeing to offer a quite brilliantly absurd perspective on anything and everything. How do the worms of conspiracy theories burrow into a clearly once fine mind so deeply to thus produce such a panoply of drivel.

I'm not the one who is such a lunatic and inculcated follower of government as to think that a criminal organization of mass-murder is somehow going to save us from some imagined crisis.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."—H. L. Mencken, "Women as Outlaws", A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949), p. 29. This essay was first published in The Smart Set, December 1921.

For much more concerning the above matters, see Sec. 8.2: "Ponerology Vis-à-Vis Politics", pp. 63-107 of my following article, being sure to read the footnotes, since much of the information on this is contained within said footnotes:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

Like I said, it is truly unfortunate that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) isn't true, as life loves a warm, carbon dioxide-rich Earth. It would be quite a life-giving boon to humanity and the other critters if AGW had been true.

Even though we unfortunately can't raise the global temperature by a significant amount by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we can still greatly benefit the biosphere by raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. For details regarding the immense benefits of higher levels of carbon dioxide to the biosphere, see the following article:

Frank J. Tipler, "Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet!: Why opposition to the cap-and-trade bill is not 'treason against the planet.'", PJ Media, Aug. 5, 2009 http://pjmedia.com/blog/humans-and-their-co2-save-the-planet/?singlepage=true , http://www.webcitation.org/6EDNtY9Pn

fivekatz

02-06-2013, 04:51 AM

Ben

02-06-2013, 05:30 AM

The beautiful thing about the 3% of the scientific world saying there is no global warming was once perfectly summed up by John Fitzgerald Kennedy was being told by his military leaders to invade Cuba. His comment was that "those Brass Hats have one advantage, if we do as they say, none of us will be around to say they are wrong." So it will be with global warming, for those either invested in the current paradigm or so distrustful of everything or just plain in denial, since the mounting data isn't making a dent in their thinking it appears that they will benefit from nobody being around to tell them they are wrong.

Noam Chomsky sums it up nicely.... He points out: say the scientists are wrong, well, we've invested a bit of money on things we should've done anyway. But suppose they're right... then we can flush the species down the toilet.... Again, if we do nothing and the science is correct, well, we're in deep trouble.
I mean, even Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, has come out and said that it's real... but that it's an engineering problem....
Tillerson isn't an idiot. But his company, of course, is heavily invested in oil. So has to say it... to protect the interests of his shareholders. And thus neglecting something crucial: future generations:

Noam Chomsky and Bill McKibben on Global Warming - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O3cNc2JoMA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkuyY2FFR7c

trish

02-06-2013, 03:58 PM

Tipler, doesn’t dispute the physical mechanisms underlying global warming. He doesn’t say it isn’t happening or that if it is it’s due to Solar activity or volcanism etc. He does not deny that there is some warming due to the power imbalances caused by anthropocentric releases of greenhouse gasses. What he disputes is 1) the rate and future extent of the warming and 2) that warming is bad for life on Earth.

1) There are reputable climate scientists, who are not climate change deniers, who dispute the upper range of warming temperatures (approx. 4 degrees C above the anomaly) that some models predict. See ( http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/a-closer-look-at-moderating-views-of-climate-sensitivity/?smid=pl-share ).

What makes Tipler an outlier (besides the fact that he never constructed nor ran a climate model in his life and has no expertise in climate science) is that he disputes the whole range of upon which there is nearly universal consensus. Tipler agrees with the basic principles of climate science, but he disagrees with the mathematical conclusions drawn from models based on those principles without doing any number crunching. Amazing!

2) Tipler indeed takes some pleasure in being right while everyone else is wrong (for that is the nature of his illness) but he doesn’t cheer for Earth herself. According to Tipler it’s actually unfortunate that we haven’t terraformed the Earth with our greenhouse gases. He thinks we should pump more into the atmosphere! Yes a hot planet with lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be conducive to futuristic jungle ecologies (take a look at all that life on Venus), but it’s not so good for the high rain forest and other species whose ecologic zones have been pushed by global warming higher up the mountain side and off the peak. It is not so good for the farmers who depend the melt waters from the no longer existent snow caps to irrigate their crops. Perhaps life after warming will be lush and abundant. Perhaps it won’t. But one thing is certain, warming will wreak havoc with the world’s economic infrastructures. If we can adjust, the adjustment will be expensive.

Tipler is not only an outlier among cosmologists and general relativists (fields in which he was once active) but he is an outlier among biblical scholars, historians, theologians and now climate scientists (all fields in which Tipler has no expertise). His writings reveal more about Tipler himself (and his acolytes like Jamie) than their supposed subject matter.

Prospero

02-06-2013, 04:02 PM

Thanks for that post Trish.

Stavros

02-07-2013, 03:33 AM

Tipler is not only an outlier among cosmologists and general relativists (fields in which he was once active) but he is an outlier among biblical scholars, historians, theologians and now climate scientists (all fields in which Tipler has no expertise). His writings reveal more about Tipler himself (and his acolytes like Jamie) than their supposed subject matter.

An outstanding post, Trish. Thanks.

fivekatz

02-07-2013, 03:59 AM

Thanks for that post Trish.Agreed

trish

02-07-2013, 04:39 PM

A little bit about Mark Rubio and climate change -> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/07/climate_change_marco_rubio_doubts_global_warming.h tml

Ben

02-08-2013, 04:15 AM

A little bit about Mark Rubio and climate change -> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/07/climate_change_marco_rubio_doubts_global_warming.h tml

Marco Rubio on Climate Change: Whatever, Man:

Marco Rubio on Climate Change: Whatever, Man - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXfEjNDnL7g)

Ben

02-08-2013, 04:31 AM

A little bit about Mark Rubio and climate change -> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/07/climate_change_marco_rubio_doubts_global_warming.h tml

Marco Rubio says, "I understand that there is a significant scientific consensus on that issue but I've actually seen reasonable debate on that issue..."
I'm confused as to what he means by: reasonable debate....
I mean, it goes back to Tom Ferguson's Investment Theory of Politics.
Take, say, global warming denier James Inhofe.... Who funds him. And who does he work for:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582

fivekatz

02-08-2013, 05:13 AM

Just today President Obama met with the House Democrats who were on their annual retreat. After his talk the floor was opened to questions and quite surprisingly the greatest number of questions were not about drones or sequestration but climate change.

In short whilst the President expressed his concerns about the issue he did tell the representatives that at this point the pressing issues in order of priority were sequestration (and a balance of increased revenues and cuts in order to replace it without quite going down the road of austerity that has been the trend in the EU), immigration reform and gun control.

All valid and all disheartening. Considering the difficulties in getting a balanced approach to dealing with the deficit, meaningful gun reform and a immigration solution that includes intelligent roads to US citizenship he is probably right. But that means by the time that stuff is done, we will be too close to mid-term elections for Congress to do anything about climate change. So maybe we might see some half ass - compromise bill in 2015.

The irony in all of this is that we would have radical and sweeping action if it had been Al Queda and not Sandy that wiped out NJ and NY or if the gun man at Newtown had an Arab surname.

Ben

02-09-2013, 05:07 AM

Noam Chomsky "Global Warming and The Common Good" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgHqwqoQvVg)

Ben

02-10-2013, 04:36 AM

fivekatz

02-10-2013, 05:36 AM

Record snow in a warming world? The science is clear...

Climate change is serving up doses of extreme weather. Even in winter:

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/02/blizzard-climate-connection

One of the great misunderstandings about "global warming" is that it does create climate change and that does not just mean warming.

One of the more scary long term projections is that the Atlantic Gulf Stream will eventually die out as the overall globe warms. And what that means for most of Western Europe is extreme cold all the time.

Ben

02-10-2013, 05:59 AM

Bolivian Recycled Homes Made of Litter:

Bolivian Recycled Homes Made of Litter - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z0KrkAmOwE)

Ben

02-10-2013, 06:15 AM

One of the great misunderstandings about "global warming" is that it does create climate change and that does not just mean warming.

One of the more scary long term projections is that the Atlantic Gulf Stream will eventually die out as the overall globe warms. And what that means for most of Western Europe is extreme cold all the time.

Yeah, I was discussing that crucial point with my cousin a coupla weeks ago. Naomi Klein used the apt term climate chaos.... And that's what it amounts to. By pumping all this carbon -- via oil, coal and natural gas -- into the atmosphere, well, we're creating a lot of chaos....
And, too, as Noam Chomsky pointed out: say the scientists are wrong about climate change. OK, then you've done a few things and spent a bit of money. But say they're right. Then the species is down the drain.
I mean, we're literally gambling on our own fate.
And, again, as Chomsky points out: we don't have to do this. I mean, there are alternatives.... Why don't we explore those alternatives? I mean, even from the standpoint of pollution. By switching to other forms of energy you reduce pollution. That's a benefit to us. And, too, to future generations.
But a market system doesn't take into account a cost to us, to people. I mean, when there's a traffic accident, well, the GNP goes up. So, that's a benefit to the market system. That gives you an indication of how warped GNP measuring is.

David Suzuki: the economy is not science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NiauhOCfsk

fivekatz

02-10-2013, 06:33 AM

Yeah, I was discussing that crucial point with my cousin a coupla weeks ago. Naomi Klein used the apt term climate chaos.... And that's what it amounts to. By pumping all this carbon -- via oil, coal and natural gas -- into the atmosphere, well, we're creating a lot of chaos....
And, too, as Noam Chomsky pointed out: say the scientists are wrong about climate change. OK, then you've done a few things and spent a bit of money. But say they're right. Then the species is down the drain.
I mean, we're literally gambling on our own fate.
And, again, as Chomsky points out: we don't have to do this. I mean, there are alternatives.... Why don't we explore those alternatives? I mean, even from the standpoint of pollution. By switching to other forms of energy you reduce pollution. That's a benefit to us. And, too, to future generations.
But a market system doesn't take into account a cost to us, to people. I mean, when there's a traffic accident, well, the GNP goes up. So, that's a benefit to the market system. That gives you an indication of how warped GNP measuring is.

David Suzuki: the economy is not science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NiauhOCfsk

You make good points. It seems so obvious in the abstract. Use less fossil fuel and even if there is no relation to the climate, you render the strategic importance of the Middle East declines greatly. The entire region at that point can go on about dealing with its issues and outside of nuclear prolifiration who cares? And the even if burning oil and coal does not men the end of mankind it is unhealthy.

Much of the problem is political will in the face of both enormously powerful players and a bad economy. For the powerful players, the Haliburton's and Exxon's of the world are likely to spend whatever it takes to slow the move to alternatives and move to those alternatives on parallel tracks. But in the face of economic downturn some of the remedies like cap and trade do lose public support.

Looking forward we can only hope that while we will be getting started late, that when mankind finally does take this seriously that we can avoid the most catastrophic possibilities.

Stavros

02-10-2013, 03:53 PM

As Trish has tried to explain, we have a situation on which science is being hi-jacked by politics, those partisan actors whose primary anxiety is about government introducing carbon taxes or other measures to combat climate change which they see as either expensive, or unnecessary or in the case of subsidies for alternative energy programmes, as a racket filling the pockets of organised tree-huggers. The result is this astonishing attack on science per se, as if since the Rio summit science had got it all wrong. There may be a conversion here of the anti-science lobby withe the the fundamentalists who don't believe in Evolution but creationism, and the few who are uncomfortable with the moral dimensions of stem-cell research and its applications; yet the anti-science lobby that repeatedly pours scorn on climate science does not ridicule the science of computing, or theoretical physics, or the Curiosity on Mars. This is a tail wagging the dog: they don't like taxes or subsidies (unless its for agriculture) therefore the science must be wrong...

Stavros

02-10-2013, 04:01 PM

Much of the problem is political will in the face of both enormously powerful players and a bad economy. For the powerful players, the Haliburton's and Exxon's of the world are likely to spend whatever it takes to slow the move to alternatives and move to those alternatives on parallel tracks. But in the face of economic downturn some of the remedies like cap and trade do lose public support.

Just from a business point of view, if Exxon cannot make a profit in renewables, why should it stay in the business? The major independent oil companies have never been major players in R&D, if you look at which industrial corporations spend most on the R&D that benefits their business, you will find it is in Chemicals and computing; oil companies rely on other people's research in computing for example, but don't contribute much in the way of R&D capital. They can afford to buy what they don't make themselves. Renewables has problems of storage, and the technological innovations that will substantially increase production, but attracts less research funding than other industries, and until those innovations make renewables profitable, for the major oil corporations it is just window dressing -and why can't someone else do it anyway? Exxon is good at what it does, and it may have to reform itself into a broader energy company in the future to survive -and may just buy up any profitable renewables company, but right now it has enough hydrocarbons to keep it going.

fivekatz

02-11-2013, 05:14 AM

Just from a business point of view, if Exxon cannot make a profit in renewables, why should it stay in the business? The major independent oil companies have never been major players in R&D, if you look at which industrial corporations spend most on the R&D that benefits their business, you will find it is in Chemicals and computing; oil companies rely on other people's research in computing for example, but don't contribute much in the way of R&D capital. They can afford to buy what they don't make themselves. Renewables has problems of storage, and the technological innovations that will substantially increase production, but attracts less research funding than other industries, and until those innovations make renewables profitable, for the major oil corporations it is just window dressing -and why can't someone else do it anyway? Exxon is good at what it does, and it may have to reform itself into a broader energy company in the future to survive -and may just buy up any profitable renewables company, but right now it has enough hydrocarbons to keep it going.I agree with everything you say. But as they see the threat to the current business model more serious they will spend more on acquisition and R&D into renewables. Just like Microsoft did not take the internet seriously and then threw everything legal and quasi-legal they had at IE so will the major energy producers once they see an emerging market.

Now IMHO that market's emergence is either accelerated by government policy like or similar to cap and trade or it comes in the face of a great catastrophe. Given the recent history of capitalistic markets over the last the
two centuries we should all hope that the government give guidance and incentive to these markets.

Just my Take

trish

02-11-2013, 05:56 PM

Krugman has a nice take on the GOP's anti-science, anti-reason epistemology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html?smid=pl-share

Prospero

02-11-2013, 06:50 PM

You can count on Krugman to get to the heart of things. He's a good political thinker and writer.

Ben

02-20-2013, 05:14 AM

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

trish

03-01-2013, 04:50 PM

Newest evidence from ice cores demonstrates there is little or no gap in the time between carbon level increase in the atmosphere and past warming episodes. Deniers always presumed these gaps existed and were large, hinting at their belief that carbon levels never contributed to past warnings.

http://nyti.ms/15U2SRW

martin48

03-01-2013, 06:09 PM

http://conscious.com.au/docs/new/CSIROh_20130201a.pdf

This all looks impressive until you attempt to read it. As Ben Cubby, environment editor at the Sydney Morning Herlad said "how does one critically analyse a pile of horse shit?"

Enjoy

Prospero

03-01-2013, 07:40 PM

That report has no substance at all - merely unsupported slur after unsupported slur. It makes for unpleasant and disturbing reading.

trish

03-03-2013, 07:37 PM

Arab Spring, Gobal Warming...everything is connected...

http://nyti.ms/XMHx6k

Ben

03-09-2013, 09:01 AM

BREAKING: Climate Catastrophe - Closer Than We Think - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhkpsyT3mDc)

trish

03-09-2013, 04:05 PM

Recent research shows that 5000 years ago the planet began to cool, dropping 1.3 F, until about 100 years ago it made a sudden reversal. Today we've regained that 1.3 degrees and now have the warmest climate since 11000 years ago. Somebody open a window; it's hot in here.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173739884/since-end-of-last-ice-age-rates-of-global-warming-amazing-and-atypical

Stavros

03-10-2013, 02:37 PM

Trish, you need to be introduced to Christopher Booker and his latest broadside against the Hoax of Global Warming -note how the real emphasis of his article is on the costs; George Monbiot in the Guardian has ridiculed Booker's stuff before; anyway, also linked is the article by Lawrence Solomon referred to by Booker. But then this is the Telegraph so what does one expect?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/28/lawrence-solomon-not-easy-being-green/

trish

03-10-2013, 04:21 PM

The Telegraph article reports,
Lawrence Solomon, recently had the bright idea of publishing in his Financial Post newspaper column a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective, using figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records, compiled by the UK Met Office and its Hadley Centre. Why didn't the scientists studying temperature anomaly think of that? They could have saved taxpayers a lot of money and themselves a lot of trouble had they only graphed the data for just "the past 15 years in proper perspective."

The "brilliant" new idea is climate science is simply chart the temperature anomaly for only the past fifteen years and use a temperature scale (from 0 to 15 degrees Centigrade) that dwarfs the fluctuations in the range of the anomaly (from -1 C to 1C). Yes that is brilliant. If one uses a scale that swamps the information in the thing one wishes to study (the temperature anomaly) and if one crops the data to exclude the period of time one wishes to study (we're testing the hypothesis that the greenhouse gasses produced by industrialization have created a planetary heat imbalance) then one has not so subtly revealed what one doesn't really wish to have studied.

Thanks, Stavros, for the headache inducing articles :)

Stavros

03-10-2013, 06:06 PM

Trish your graphs makes Solomon's look like an apron -but not in my kitchen!!

Ben

03-15-2013, 02:13 AM

Climate deniers and the cycle of abuse:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/7380/

trish

03-20-2013, 12:04 AM

Another example of denial that required correction.

Ben

04-09-2013, 04:13 AM

How Thatcher made the conservative case for climate action:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-thatcher-made-the-conservative-case-for-climate-action/

fivekatz

04-09-2013, 04:27 AM

Let's just really screw up the tiny percentage of actual climate scientists by saying OK your right and we still are going to get rid of fossil fuels as fast as we can because they are running out, they burn dirty and they sold by assholes.

I believe my lying eyes and the melt of Arctic ice, once in a century storms every year and wide spread droughts in the US are enough that I am not all that impressed by scientists with connections to Koch Brothers and their ilk.

Given my age the worst consequences will not be in my lifetime but just the same I see this as an issue that just in case the vast majority of climate scientists are right we should do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint.

Ben

04-18-2013, 06:27 AM

Republican Cites Biblical Flood as Evidence Against Man-Made Climate Change - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgO9Qn8Li8Q)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdgk3NGvdAA

muh_muh

04-18-2013, 09:12 PM

i think from the first graph in your second link its pretty clear that global warming papers cause climate change

Ben

04-20-2013, 03:54 AM

Carbon bubble will plunge the world into another financial crisis – report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/19/carbon-bubble-financial-crash-crisis

trish

04-28-2013, 06:07 PM

http://nyti.ms/ZTJG1h

Ben

04-30-2013, 06:37 AM

How Big Business Secretly Robs America with a Powerful Trick:

How Big Business Secretly Robs America with a Powerful Trick - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-N-oatZrBM)

Ben

05-02-2013, 02:26 AM

Good news -- for a change -- :)

MUST SEE! 1st County in U.S. Bans Oil & Gas Extraction - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDpFvCnZVM)

surf4490

05-02-2013, 11:18 PM

trish

05-03-2013, 12:01 AM

And computer models DO INDEED PROVE that the Earth's climate is suffering from a energy imbalance due primarily to infrared opaque gasses in the atmosphere that were released by relatively recent anthropogenic mechanisms. The end of life on Earth may not be nigh, nor even the end of human life. But the extra energy in the atmosphere will create more tumultuous weather events, push ecological systems further toward the poles, and turn once arable land into arid deserts. Concomitant with these modifications will be geographic shifts in economic and political power. These are not the ravings of a prophet waving a sacred book. These are the considered, published and peered reviewed conclusions of mathematical and scientific analysis based on carefully collected data and carried out by hundreds of intelligent, educated professionals.

It's the deniers who are the religious zealots here, waving Ayn Rand, invoking invisible hands and denying the results of science when they happen to disagree with their favorite idiot-ologies.

Ben

05-03-2013, 02:44 AM

I love sudo religious environmentalists , they should be standing on corners with placards "THE END IS NIGH ,HONEST JUST GIVE A FEW BILLION AND MY COMPUTER WILL PROVE IT" Oh wait they are :confused::confused::confused:

I wouldn't call them pseudo religious environmentalists. They are what they are: scientists.
As opposed to religious belief. Which is simply based on irrational conviction. I mean, you can disbelieve climate change. Just because you don't think it's true.
I mean, I can say the moon is made outta cheese. And firmly believe it. That isn't based on science. Just my belief. And, again, I can profoundly believe it. But I'd be wrong. So, again, people can believe what they want to believe.
I mean, we can take no action. But say the scientists are right. Then what?

MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12kMjUkNl5Y

Ben

05-04-2013, 02:23 AM

Fine Particulate Air Pollution and the Progression of Carotid Intima-Medial Thickness: A Prospective Cohort Study from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001430

Ben

05-05-2013, 03:04 AM

Climate change causes prostitution? Rep. Barbara Lee explains:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-women-prostitution-20130430,0,4593965.story

Ben

05-07-2013, 07:54 AM

Belief in Biblical End Times Stops Climate Change Action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZezscI2aRY

martin48

05-07-2013, 08:45 PM

In 1994, our long time friend on HA, Frank Tipler (for it is he!) published a book called The Physics of Immortality in which he claimed to scientifically prove the existence of God, and his sequel (you can never keep a good idea down) called The Physics of Christianity which applies the principles of the Omega Point Theory to the Christian religion where he asserts in the first chapter that the Second Coming of Christ will occur within 50 years, i.e., by 2057.

Any thoughts, Jamie?

Stavros

05-07-2013, 09:51 PM

Martin is this the right thread for that question? Frank obviously doesn't realise that according to Benjamin Creme, Jesus came back some time ago and lives off Brick Lane somewhere...

martin48

05-07-2013, 11:03 PM

Martin is this the right thread for that question? Frank obviously doesn't realise that according to Benjamin Creme, Jesus came back some time ago and lives off Brick Lane somewhere...

Surely it's Elvis who is still alive and working undercover for the Feds

http://www.elvis-is-alive.com

To keep on thread, see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

Ben

05-11-2013, 02:50 AM

More good news about Greenhouse Gases -- ha ha! :joke:
Climate [change] science is rejected because it flies in the face of free market fundamentalism. I mean, nothing, absolutely nothing, should impede their free market mathematical models.
And remember economics is a science. But it IS NOT a physical science like, say, physics. So, it's frightening to go forward on these fantasies that put future generations in a precarious position.

Climate milestone is a moment of symbolic significance on road of idiocy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-milestone-climate-change

Ben

05-11-2013, 04:13 AM

Where It’s a Crime to be an Oil Company:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/07/where-its-a-crime-to-be-an-oil-company/

trish

05-11-2013, 02:17 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/11/atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_levels_at_all_time_high _for_past_several_million.html

fivekatz

05-12-2013, 02:05 AM

hippifried

05-12-2013, 06:30 AM

They're thinking that economic theology trumps everything. "Fuck the kids & grandkids, if the quarterly report is favorable." Suckin' down that kook-aid, wearing blinders of their own making.

Ben

05-14-2013, 06:22 AM

I have always embraced this issues as a good citizen of the planet but recent data combined with the lack of political will in the world for the first time as a 59 year old I actually think that we may screw it up so bad that I will see that horror in my lifetime.

I can't be alone in this feeling and the captains of industry and power must so how feel they will get first class seating an their way to hell, otherwise WTF are they thinking?

I think we take the prudent approach. Key word. Prudent. Meaning, of course, acting with or showing care and thought for the future.
We're deciding that future generations simply have no value. Plus there are benefits to reducing fossil fuel emissions. Less pollution. Isn't that a good thing?
The Canadian scientist, David Suzuki, pointed out that when he was born the population was 2 billion. That was in 1936. We're at 7 billion now. Heading toward: 9 billion by 2050.
And all these people in India and China and elsewhere are gonna want refrigerators, air conditioning, cars, computers etc., etc., etc. I mean, how are we gonna manage to sustain this endless level of production and consumption?
Brings me to: carrying capacity:
http://www.sustainablescale.org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/MeasuringScale/CarryingCapacity.aspx

Ben

05-14-2013, 06:25 AM

David Suzuki speaks about overpopulation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo

Ben

05-14-2013, 06:28 AM

The Toxification of Planet Earth - Paul Ehrlich:

The Toxification of Planet Earth - Paul Ehrlich - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUucy2qwM90)

Stavros

05-14-2013, 09:50 AM

David Suzuki speaks about overpopulation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo

Suzuki doesn't know what he is talking about. Demography has already down-graded the rise of the world's population over the coming century, and that is without factoring in mega-deaths from as yet unidentified pandemics -a rogue factor but not entirely fanciful. I was reading about these population trends in the 1990s so I don't know how supposedly informed people like Suzuki can be so out of touch with reality. The concentration of populations in urban areas might be a problem (or an opportunity) but Malthus was wrong in the 19th century just as Suzuki is in this one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/mar/20/last-century-of-youth-sarah-harper-video

sukumvit boy

05-16-2013, 02:15 AM

Excellent links. Thanks Stavros.
Agree ,the Suzuki video is ridiculous. The Sarah Harper video is a much more interesting and thorough and very thought provoking.

Ben

05-16-2013, 05:03 AM

Suzuki doesn't know what he is talking about. Demography has already down-graded the rise of the world's population over the coming century, and that is without factoring in mega-deaths from as yet unidentified pandemics -a rogue factor but not entirely fanciful. I was reading about these population trends in the 1990s so I don't know how supposedly informed people like Suzuki can be so out of touch with reality. The concentration of populations in urban areas might be a problem (or an opportunity) but Malthus was wrong in the 19th century just as Suzuki is in this one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/mar/20/last-century-of-youth-sarah-harper-video

It isn't really human numbers. It's production -- and consumption.
I mean, there are close to a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.... Their impact on the climate is quite negligible. Much like the people in Bangladesh. A population of close to 150 million. Impact on global warming? Pretty negligible.
However, India and China want what we have. And are gonna get it. Now what impact will that have on, well, exacerbating climate change?

Climate Change Leads to Massive Food Shortages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNSssBTZ-20

Ben

05-16-2013, 05:16 AM

Inhofe: God Says Global Warming Is A Hoax: (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/?mobile=nc

Stavros

05-16-2013, 03:44 PM

It isn't really human numbers. It's production -- and consumption.
I mean, there are close to a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.... Their impact on the climate is quite negligible. Much like the people in Bangladesh. A population of close to 150 million. Impact on global warming? Pretty negligible.
However, India and China want what we have. And are gonna get it. Now what impact will that have on, well, exacerbating climate change?

Climate Change Leads to Massive Food Shortages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNSssBTZ-20

Sorry Ben, your thinking is muddled. In Suzuki's case, the constant growth of the population -a concept that should have died with Malthus- must be replaced by a structured concept which acknowledges that the rate of growth will plateau around 2050 and decline thereafter. The challenges posed by these trends are: a) an increase in the volume of people living in cities and their suburban areas; and b) the gradual concentration of the human population into the 30-70 age group. The only practical way to fit these trends into sustainability is to take an holistic view which incorporates population trends with core issues such as water, food, housing, education and health.

As for Africa, the low level of industrialisation across the continent does mean that net contributions of greenouse gases are small relative to Europe and America, but Africa is hugely important for its forests which collectively make a real difference, and deforestation in central Africa is as critical an issue as it is in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia, and Siberia. In addition, the desertification that has reduced the agricultural potential of the Sahel in Africa, and soil erosion in other parts of the continent have played their roles in the heating up of the planet, so I don't see how you can claim Africa is some sort of passive victim, even if the worst excesses of climate change have already made life difficult there, and will make it potentially even more so.

These two articles on Africa may help you refine you argument:

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/climate-change-africa-key-facts-and-findings

http://www.boell.de/downloads/weltweit/giga2_hamburg_afrika.pdf

trish

05-16-2013, 04:51 PM

The U.S., Western Europe and Australia are in red on Dr. Harper’s map indicating they are regions where fertility is low. Presumably people in these regions feel less pressure to have large families. Perhaps because they feel they will not need to depend upon their children for their future economic security. They have pensions, savings, stocks, social security (or its equivalent) and government safety nets. Fewer children now, entails fewer child bearing adults in the near future. So the U.S., Western Europe and Australia are expected to remain in the red. Dr. Harper claims the red will expand; i.e. fertility will begin to decline in other regions. It seems that this can only happen if the factors that contribute to the economic security of Western nations also spread around the world. But it is just that economic security that correlates (imo) with an exponential increase in consumerism. I remain pessimistic that conditions of economic security conducive to low fertility rates will ever spread across the world. But suppose it happens. Can the Earth can long sustain 10 billion Western style consumers? It’s not even clear it can long sustain the Western style consumers who are currently eating away at the planet’s resources and changing its climate.

Happily it seems that a healthy, economically secure populace will of its own accord maintain a low fertility rate. But unhappily, if its economy should seriously fail and its safety nets disappear, I fear people will return to the security offered by having large families and fertility rates will once again rise. Of course populations don’t grow exponentially as Malthus maintains but rather logistically (i.e. they grow exponentially until they near the carrying capacity of the enviroment, the mortality rate rises and population painfully and asymptotically levels off. The question is, “Will 10 billion consumers create enough stress to initiate long term (perhaps permanent) world wide economic collapse?”

trish

05-16-2013, 05:26 PM

The question is, “Will 10 billion consumers create enough stress to initiate long term (perhaps permanent) world wide economicOr is ten billion the Goldilocks number;i.e. just right?

By the way, Dr. Sarah Harper reminds me of Amanda Tapping in the SyFy series Sactuary :)

Stavros

05-16-2013, 07:05 PM

Trish, I think that demography as presented by Sarah Harper can establish general trends in population growth, some of the more sensitive issues relate to specific cases where, for example, the USA will in the not too distant future, host a population whose majority have no ties to Europe or the English language -or for that matter, Italian, German, French and Polish. The problem is that issues like this become politicised when, for example, you read people's comments in the English papers that state their belief that in 20 years time 'we' will be dominated by 'them' -usually an absurd claim that 'they' are Muslims and 'we' will all be subject to Shari'a law. Demography aside, I think that there is no law that claims consumption must follow income growth, that as income grows more people insist on eating meat every day where before it was once a week; that they must own and drive a car where they used to take a bus -in Beijing most of the time the pace of traffic is the same whether you are in a car or a bus because the roads can't cope, etc.

But, if there is some odd mechanism that ultimately reduces continuous growth in the population through infertility, could the human race make significant changes to its 'daily grind' and first halt the problems established by climate change and resource management, and then move on to the creation (probably not consciously) of an equilibrium which preserves the natural world without denying humans entirely what they/we want? Or is this a dream?

trish

05-16-2013, 07:45 PM

Fertility rates can be voluntarily lowered (and they often are when individual economic security isn't tied to having a large family) without there being a biological mechanism that increases infertility. The hope is the we can create the right economic conditions (energy and food) for this to happen world wide and hopefully it wouldn't entail devouring the planet.

The demographers unfortunately forgot to include one sector of the populace in their analysis, namely vampires. If every vampire limited itself to turning only one human being into a vampire per year, still one vampire in less than 33 years could convert the entire population of Earth into immortals. A population of billions with a zero mortality rate could be an insurmountable problem.

trish

05-16-2013, 09:11 PM

The alarming thing about the first graph is that it’s faster than exponential growth. The doubling period diminishes as time progresses. The hopeful thing about the graph is that it indicates that population growth rates may be flexible. Indeed the second chart below shows that since about 1965 the world population growth rate has been declining.

Why? High mortality rate? Low fertility rate? Dr. Harper sides with the latter explanation. IMO it has more to due with human responses to the stresses and comforts of their environment than an as yet undiscovered mechanism that is making us infertile.

Suppose the prognostication is correct and the growth rate reaches 0.5% by 2050. That’s still exponential growth. If I’m interpreting the chart correctly it represents a doubling rate of 140 years. That’s encouraging. We haven’t seen that rate since the nineteenth century.

Still, without a mechanism to explain the chart, I find the prognostication difficult to accept.

Stavros

05-18-2013, 02:12 AM

Infertility is an interesting issue because it does not seem to affect all men but is differentiated across the globe; the implications if, for example, Arabs and Africans are less infertile than European and Asian men has both political and cultural implications. And yet, just as there was a moment I vaguely recall when the prediction of deaths from complications following infection by HIV was measured in global numbers that, mercifully have not followed, so there is now a claim that a new strain of flu could wipe out half the planet -though the arguments about a magnetic reversal of the poles wiping out life on earth -or changing it markedly so that we can no longer use computers or eat honey and smoked salmon are probably wild...the last link, on the emergence of Syphilis, is a fascinating example of how disease has shaped societies and culture...

-SuperFlu will kill 50%
http://www.doctortipster.com/6952-dutch-researcher-created-a-super-influenza-virus-with-the-potential-to-kill-millions.html

-Magnetic reversal
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2158-earth-magnetic-field-poles-flip.html

Syphilis: Purple Flowers and Pain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/17/syphilis-sex-fear-borgias

fivekatz

05-18-2013, 04:03 AM

IMHO world population growth rates have declined because humans have become aware of the limitations the planet has to support them, governments in some countries have made population control a priority and in many western countries declining economic parity has made it difficult enough to raise large families that the practice diminished.

Whether it is state policy in China or economic conditions in the US the size of families is in decline. None of it fast enough to counteract the destructive nature of our carbon footprint.

The Koch Brothers don't care how hot it gets on east because it will only help them become adjusted to the temp they will experience in eternity.

Ben

05-21-2013, 02:23 AM

Dept. Of Defense Warns Of The Dangers Of Climate Change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGQCpnyp6Ok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dGQCpnyp6Ok)

Ben

05-28-2013, 02:57 AM

Pollution from car emissions killing millions in China and India

Study published by Lancet says surge in car use in south and east Asia killed 2.1m people prematurely in 2010:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/17/pollution-car-emissions-deaths-china-india

Ben

06-01-2013, 03:31 AM

An interesting new book about climate change...

danthepoetman

06-12-2013, 11:34 AM

...??

danthepoetman

06-15-2013, 07:15 PM

...:)

Ben

06-21-2013, 04:58 AM

Time for the Fossil Fuel Industry to pay for their Waste - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkjfpDli0kk)

maddygirl

06-21-2013, 05:25 AM

Ben

06-21-2013, 06:17 AM

I don't personally buy into the Global Warming shenanigans. In fact, they've found the ice caps are melting MUCH slower than they had previously thought, and I rarely hear about it much these days. Seems like it was more sensationalized in the early 2000s. I'm sure the fossil fuels, and other gases emitted can't be good for the environment, but I don't think stopping the emissions is going to induce a complete turn around either. I think the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Anywho, live your life. Drive a hybrid or something if you want, and bike to local destinations if you can. If more people did that, there would be less obesity as well, which is becoming endemic in the UK and USA. Kill two birds with one stone! :D

Well, driving less has benefits like reducing pollution. And, too, people walking more and cycling more would hopefully reduce our obesity crisis.
Even Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, says it's real, it's happening. But the plan seems to be adaptation. So, we're going to adapt to it. Is it feasible?
I think we think -- or the likes of Tillerson and others -- that we're smart enough to deal with any challenges we're faced with.
I mean, if it isn't real, well, we've spent a bit of money doing things we should've done. But if it's real then what?
Plus maybe we should think about conserving oil -- for future generations.
But a lot of people believe there's an unlimited supply.

rex tillerson admits global warming is real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkuyY2FFR7c

danthepoetman

06-24-2013, 07:22 PM

.....
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/971468_620859987924908_257894528_n.jpg

Ben

06-29-2013, 07:35 AM

Get Ready for a Chaotic Climate Future - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v8gNSEp5r4)

Ben

07-03-2013, 05:31 AM

More Thom Hartmann...

The Fossil Fuel Industry Needs to Pay for its Sins - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyW9I74RHow)

trish

07-18-2013, 10:44 PM

http://player.vimeo.com/video/69122809?portrait=0&color=16bbe6

Ben

07-20-2013, 05:24 PM

Former Mobil VP Warns of Fracking and Climate Change:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17605-former-mobil-vp-warns-of-fracking-and-climate-change

Ben

07-23-2013, 06:02 AM

Can Bill Gates Control the weather?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rfsz7M0mSg

trish

08-05-2013, 07:38 PM

Move your feet!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/08/05/global_warming_denial_article_says_michael_mann_do esn_t_understand_science.html

Ben

08-07-2013, 04:01 AM

Rapid Arctic thawing could be economic timebomb, scientists say

Methane released by a thinning permafrost may trigger catastrophic climate change and cost the world $60tn:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/24/arctic-thawing-permafrost-climate-change

Ben

08-07-2013, 04:24 AM

Poisoned By Plastic | Interview with Dianna Cohen - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsTvDirXypk)

Ananke

08-07-2013, 12:10 PM

Ben,
So good of you to keep on telling everyone about this. most people are burying their head in the sand!
Anyhow, I think that, whatever we do now, it seems to be too little and too late.
And , surely , whatever we do will be ineffective unless we address the overpopulation.
IMHO, of course!

Ben

08-09-2013, 06:26 AM

Study: Watching Fox News Makes You Distrust Climate Scientists - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07ms7MyA008)

paulclifford

08-11-2013, 03:32 AM

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-newspaper-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-agemuch-colder-wintersdramatic-consequences/

Major Danish Daily Newspaper Warns: ‘Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences’!

Paper features Danish solar physicist Henrik Svensmark on the subject of the UN IPCC: '…many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. … The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don’t think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.'

Also see: Report: Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! – Round Up of Current Global Cooling predictions – Climate Depot Exclusive Report
By P Gosselin on 9. August 2013

and,

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-age-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/

The Jyllands-Posten quotes David Hathaway:
‘We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years,’ David Hathaway from American space research institute NASA newly concluded in connection to the release of new figures for the sun’s activity. He said the activity for the ongoing cycle is half of the previous cycle, and he predicted an even lower activity for the next cycle, which will hit us in few years.”
Suddenly even the greenest of media outlets among us are contemplating what the consequences of a quiet sun may be. The JP then quotes Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who saysthese consequences could be dramatic:
It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age. It seems likely we are on the path to a period with very low solar activity, which could mean that we may have some very cold winters.”
Elliott then cites the ice-cold winters of 2009 and 2010 as early signs.
JP then cites at length Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who needs no introduction:
Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300. … Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun’s activity will also have influence the coming many years. … The unusual thing right now is that sun’s activity is decreasing while there’s a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in atime of decreasing solar activity. … The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.”

[NB: the IPCC "one-sided"? You mean . . . biased? How could that be? They're a United Nations organization! They speak truth-to-power! They have nothing but the best interests of mankind at heart! Surely you jest by suggesting they could be misrepresenting data! For what purpose? . . . You mean, maybe as an excuse to impose as much socialism on as many economies as possible? Nah. Couldn't be.

It's true that the old Marxist excuse for imposing socialism — i.e., that capitalism exploits the worker by unfairly confiscating his "surplus value" and calling it "profit" — has been debunked long ago, and that workers have obviously prospered under capitalism. So a new crisis is needed. How about this one: capitalism (read: industrialism, technology, private property) has exploited Planet Earth. And since "there's only one planet Earth," we have to impose socialism and abolish private property in order to "save the planet." Hard to beat that excuse as a glamorous crisis to scare people!]

Here's the late, great George Carlin on that issue as manifested in the silliness of something called "Earth Day":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Miv4NHsDo]

Prospero

08-11-2013, 07:04 AM

What piffle Mr Clifford posts regularly here. I suspect that he is also a member of other forums where he evidences no interest whatsoever in the core interests of the forum, but simply sees it as a potential hunting ground to win support for his neo-con and rabid right wing views. He presents partial evidence whenever he posts.

Mr Clifford why are you in this forum at all?

hippifried

08-11-2013, 05:36 PM

It's just party line. The Limbaugh/Armey group is well funded & organized, & planted in every political forum on the web. All this crap comes straight out of that data base. It's all the same bullshit. Take a look. Could even be bots for all I know. What I do know is that engaging them as if they're actually human is an exercise in futility.

broncofan

08-11-2013, 06:09 PM

The dead giveaway is that he doesn't just support some variant of right-wing politics. He supports the GOP party line on every subject. A campaigner and professional propagandist.

At least he's shown us that our views of the GOP are not caricatures.

trish

08-11-2013, 07:40 PM

Solar activity is distinct from solar luminosity. Solar activity (local phenomena on the Sun's surface ranging from Sunspots to flares and the concomitant ejecta of high speed protons and neutrons that may take up to five days to reach the Earth) is distinct from solar luminosity (which is the flux electromagnetic energy, including ultraviolet and visible light, that takes only eight minutes to reach the Earth, heat it and deliver on the order of a thousand kilowatts of power per square Sunlit meter). The total energy of the former is swamped by that of the latter of orders of magnitude. The particulate ejecta of solar flares ionizes our high upper atmosphere and the high speed collisions create cosmic rays and auroras. Short wave enthusiasts detect this activity as a higher level of background noise. Remember those science projects in school where nerdy kids use Sunlight to brew tea? When was the last time you made a hot cup of tea at night using cosmic rays? How about aurora brewed coffee? The total energy delivered to the Earth by solar ejecta is dwarfed by the just the heat energy that is radiated at night by the warm Earth and trapped under layers of greenhouse gasses. That energy you can actually feel. Indeed the mathematical models that include solar ejecta in their calculations make the same effective predictions as those that exclude the phenomena. So a few years or even a century without Sunspot activity is not going have any cooling effect what-so-ever. Rotational precession cycles are what largely determine the comings and goings of "ice-ages." Sunspots, not so much.

Mr. Clifford and I agree on one thing. Science based on politics is hokum. Yet Mr. Clifford bases his scientific conclusions on the Libertarian-Conservative theory that modern climatology is a Marxist plot.:roll:

Prospero

08-11-2013, 07:46 PM

If he IS a bot then he is outta here darn soon. So Clifford... what you gotta say?

trish

08-12-2013, 05:50 PM

Just a word on “ice ages” large and small.

As mentioned in my previous post, the occurrences of ice ages are thought to be determined by the precession cycles of the Earth’s spin axis and orbital parameters. But of course fluctuations in ocean currents, tectonic shifts and concomitant volcanism have played roles in past glaciations of the Earth’s surface. There is much yet to be understood about what causes the coming and going of ice-ages.

The last ice-age began 110 000 years ago, reached maximal glaciation about 22 000 years ago. In spite of current anthropocentric warming (from which civilization risks extinction) the next ice age is inevitable, though it is millennia in the future. Rest assured, the invisible hand of the market is not thinking that far in advance.

Of course our Mr. Clifford wasn’t referring to this sort of ice-age in our near future, but a “little ice-age.” As explained no such petite ice-age is ever likely to result from fluctuations in solar activity; fluctuations in solar luminosity, yes, but not the fluctuations in Sunspot activity and solar flares. Luminosity is astronomically stable...fluctuations in luminosity sufficiently large to effect terrestrial climate occur on the order of giga-years.

There have been petite ice-ages. In recent geologic history they are caused by increased albedo due to increased particulate matter or water vapor in the atmosphere. The ejecta from meteorite strikes and violent volcanic eruptions have been known causes. A forest fire of significant scale might conceivably increase the albedo enough to create a petite ice-age. So too might multiple nuclear explosions. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists out there, not jet contrails. Warning: many reports of petite ice ages are just local rather than global changes in climate

Petite ice-ages often last for one, two or three years. If if they were caused by solar activity (which is not the case) their duration would be considerably less than the eleven period of Sunspot activity. The carbon-dioxide in our atmosphere will remain a problem on a time scale far larger than that.

trish

08-13-2013, 07:11 PM

http://nyti.ms/14pZxpw

joeninety

08-14-2013, 01:57 AM

trish

08-14-2013, 03:00 AM

well who seriously gives an ass...about what? Your children? The children of your sisters, brothers and friends? Their children? Yeah. Screw them. 'cause we can really be certain about anything, it follows we should certainly screw our children's and their children's future. There are a lot of moments in a lifetime. Why does living once and a while for the moment preclude once and a while living for the future?

Stavros

08-15-2013, 12:04 PM

We are all going to die that's a given......None of us here are going to be wiped out by climate change another given so to the future generations that may or may not be because no on really knows shit for certain, well who seriously gives an ass.........I say live for the moment not the if's and but's:whistle:

You are free to dismiss it if you want, but that doesn't mean the issues around climate change are a fantasy even if they don't directly affect you. If you see climate change in the context of resource management, the interactive relationship we humans have with the planet is not just crucial to our survival -it does impact the planet.

Yes, like George Carlin in the satire on Earth Day we have seen many times, 4 billion years of planet earth doesn't give much prominence to humans, and campaigns to Save the Whale!, Save the Snail Darter! because otherwise we are all doomed can sound overwrought, even if the threat to species if very real, with or without us: but we are not on the planet earth a billion years ago, we are here now -you are here now, and probably for the next 50 years or so, and it is because of humans in the past protesting about the quality of life in their locality that chemicals firms are not allowed to dump effluent in the local river; lead has been removed from gasoline; food production is (to some extent) controlled so you are not buying diseased meat; there are large areas of the natural environment in North America and Europe that are protected from industrial development so you can enjoy Yosemite, or wander around the New Forest looking at wild horses.

There is a moment of bitter irony in Carlin's nihilist rant -he pauses to reach for a cup of water and drinks it -right there, in that moment, he insults millions of people who cannot do just that: think of a Palestinian on the West Bank living under occupation whose access to water is rationed while settlers are jumping in and out of swimming pools and washing their cars. The last time I was on the West Bank I had to drink bottled water and the kitchen in a hostel I once lived in was closed because there was no water.

Or consider the fate of Lima, in Peru, which is running out of water altogether and more than a million have no access to running water but must buy it from trucks at inflated rates:
http://www.350resources.org.uk/2011/03/22/perus-capital-city-lima-is-running-out-of-water-as-glaciers-retreat-and-rainfall-declines/

That something as basic to life as a glass of water is a political issue suggests that you have a right not to care, until the day when you wake up and turn on your tap, and nothing comes out. It has already happened in Barnhart, Texas where farming communities that survived for decades have run out of water, in their case owing to fracking in the area. A case of gas for your cars being more important than water for your cattle -or for you?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water

You should also be aware that your fellow Americans in Alaska are living on land that is disappearing into the sea, because of climate change: you may argue they choose to live in a precarious environment, but do you think the Inuit, the Inupiat and the other communities in that part of the world would really rather live in Chicago or Oklahaoma?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/kivalina-climate-change_n_3678828.html

broncofan

08-16-2013, 12:36 AM

Very good post Stavros. Only one small correction. He's one of yours, not one of ours. His profile says he's from Doncaster.

Stavros

08-16-2013, 09:46 AM

oops! We are all family, anyway...sorry Joe!

Ben

08-17-2013, 04:10 AM

White House Brings Back Solar Panels - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppa1lzINr6Y)

Ben

08-17-2013, 04:17 AM

nitron

08-20-2013, 04:45 AM

Human nature is not absolutely flexible, once a person is born and the early upbringing does it's job , that person is fixed. Even when we act selflessly we are acting selfishly, nature made us this way. (Altruism) ,It's the latest modification nature has developed but don't kid yourself s it's just a fancier kind of selfishness.Most people at most of human history always have valued greed and selfishness. Tell me of a time and a place were it hasn't truly been so. Even at our most Altruistic we are expressing selfishness. But to speak honest about Nature, she's a murderous Bitch, unsentimental and vicious. To hell with Nature. My concern is for me first , you second and the trees and the dirt last unless, it preserves me first, you second. If the vast majority of the population of this world are unconcerned with what happens to there environment, I say for those who trully are conserned go live in a deep bunker ,pull your efforts and isolate your self's from the rest of the idiots. And wate for there demise,you will be right in the end. Don't wait for the Obama's of this world to get there act together. They won't and it will be to late for you.

trish

08-20-2013, 06:25 AM

Instability is the order of the day in the theory of non-linear partial differential equations;i.e. chaos theory. If one butterfly flapping her wings in Rio initiate a Texas twister a hemisphere away, then the firing of one neuron on the far side of one selfish brain can initiate a selfless deed. No one is set, fixed or deterministically program by biology. We are responsible agents who too often act irresponsibly.

martin48

08-20-2013, 09:05 AM

I doubt a single neuron did fire though.

Instability is the order of the day in the theory of non-linear partial differential equations;i.e. chaos theory. If one butterfly flapping her wings in Rio initiate a Texas twister a hemisphere away, then the firing of one neuron on the far side of one selfish brain can initiate a selfless deed. No one is set, fixed or deterministically program by biology. We are responsible agents who too often act irresponsibly.

nitron

08-20-2013, 10:44 AM

Let me put it another way, selflessness is accidental but it does work . Yes, evolution allowed for it. But only because on a social level it was beneficial to more people individually and allowed altruistic traits to pass onto the next generation. Selfishness is also allowed because it also passed on to the next generation and benefited individuals. So to go further I'm pretty sure , statistically ,more folks are socially conservative. And this is a problem for all of us. That means there not as likely to change there behaviors as fast as liberals. At least by sloganeering, or advertising or shame tactics in the media. It's not entirely impossible, it's just as you try to influance more and more conservtvs, you will encounter greater and greater resistance . I feel the logical thing to do is for as many as possible band together and form a union with the view of long term survival, even if it's an underground, or space colony type of survival, because it will be easier than convincing . Perhaps I'm wrong on this point. I know that most of conservs, even the hard to convince types ,would change behavior but only when the really bad shit happens. So why just sit around and waite for them to change. Better to act.

trish

08-21-2013, 02:21 AM

Science Under Attack (BBC Horizon Documentary) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvB9EFdJ1d0)

Stavros posted this in another thread, but it seemed especially appropriate for this thread. Thanks Stavros, for the link.

Ben

08-23-2013, 03:15 AM

From 2007: Rupert Murdoch launches effort to green News Corp.’s operations and programming:

http://grist.org/article/murdoch/

Ben

08-28-2013, 03:03 AM

Short-termism dooming humanity:

The Resident: Short-termism dooming humanity - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_9exg9fcvs)

yosi

09-11-2013, 03:44 PM

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

trish

09-11-2013, 06:11 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_no nsense.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

yosi

09-12-2013, 01:07 PM

Antarctica

NASA’s Earth Observatory (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369) does indeed show a new largest extent of ice across the southern polar region.....

http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/climatechange/archive/2012/10/12/antarctic-ice-levels-no-controversy.aspx

trish

09-12-2013, 04:04 PM

Nice link (entitled antarctic ice levels-no controversy!). Thanks yosi.
The brief article explains how the ice levels in Antarctica are not only consistent with IPCC climate models but predicted by them. (The cold southern circumpolar winds obstruct, lift and cool the flow of the warmer winds that would push into the area; an effect that effectively insulates Antartica). The following graphic is from the IPCC link given in your link.

Ben

09-13-2013, 05:30 AM

Neil Young on the importance of passing a five-year, comprehensive farm bill this year; and how the Renewable Fuel Standard creates jobs, reduces greenhouse gasses, and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50OD9k7r9nI

Ben

09-15-2013, 02:13 AM

Climate Change and the Colorado Flooding - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKtMNpqHjNk)

Ben

09-17-2013, 02:44 AM

Climate Change and Boulder Floods - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTv5gbQi8mo)

Ben

09-19-2013, 05:49 AM

Global Warming? Do the Math

Global Warming? Do the Math - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knp3juQ7JnM)

Ben

09-19-2013, 06:12 AM

Caller: I Disagree With Global Warming!

Caller: I Disagree With Global Warming! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIa7d5h8esE)

Ben

09-20-2013, 02:48 AM

Rising Temperature, Rising Food Prices:
http://www.countercurrents.org/brown300813.htm

Stavros

09-22-2013, 02:21 PM

The new Australian Prime Minister has scrapped the Climate Commission and its Chief Commissioner, Tim Flannery, and is preparing to scrap the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Flannery's book on America, The Eternal Frontier is one of my favourite books.

To some Australians this is a victory of common sense over the bogus predictions and bogus science of 'Climate Change' and has been supported across the world by like-minded people. Australia has an extreme climate by any standards, and Australians have been monitoring and lamenting the drastic effects humans have had on their environment, which for the Aboriginal people amounts to a desecration. A large part of Australia is uninhabitable by people, how much more is likely to become an oven over the next 100 years?
In addition to the basics, there is a typically pugnacious opinion piece by Andrew Bolt ('Australia's Most Read Columnist') and an article from yesterday's Independent which explains why there appears to have been a 'pause' in the effects of Climate Change which, nevertheless, do not change long-term predictions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/federal-government-scraps-climate-commission/4968816

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/no-thanks-for-flannery-at-end-of-climate-career/story-fni0ffxg-1226723061366

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/globalwarming-hiatus-not-set-to-last-says-un-report-8830301.html

Ben

10-12-2013, 03:35 AM

David Suzuki at PowerShift BC 2013 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5fr4jN81k)

Ben

10-25-2013, 02:17 AM

Smog Chokes Entire City In China | The Rubin Report - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHYatV1EmUQ)

Ben

10-26-2013, 04:46 AM

Finding Happiness Outside of Material Consumption | Brainwash Update - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Twc0r9X78)

trish

10-28-2013, 09:34 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/28/_10_failed_climate_change_denial_arguments.html

Invalid Arguments: Climate Change - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU)

martin48

10-29-2013, 11:55 AM

Another good reason

trish

10-29-2013, 05:52 PM

A personal appeal ->

Stavros

10-29-2013, 08:34 PM

From the latest Oil & Gas IQ Newsletter:

"When an argument flares up, the wise man quenches it with silence"

The Energy Information Agency (EIA) has projected that by the end calendar year 2013, the United States will have surpassed the Russian Federation in natural gas production by some 300 billion cubic feet (8.5 billion m³).

Yet as the US becomes the world's largest natural gas hub, the skies to the north-east of the Flickertail State tell a story of opportunity lost. Above the extent of the Bakken shale play today, some 1,500 gas flares are burning. In fiscal terms, $2.4 billion-worth of gas has literally gone up in smoke since 2011. In terms of greenhouse gasses emission, it equates to the sum of two medium-sized coal power stations of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in the past 24 months.

Around 4.9 trillion cubic feet (140 billion m³) of natural gas per annum are flared worldwide, that's roughly one third of the entire consumption of all 28 states of the European Union combined. As shale gains prominence in the national energy mix of many of the world's developing nations, the lack of infrastructure for processing flare gas should be a serious concern, both environmentally, monetarily and in the utilitarian sense in an age where giant discoveries are infrequent.

We would do well as an industry and a species to treat this issue as vociferously as possible...

trish

11-05-2013, 07:14 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/11/05/climate_pause_nope.html

Ben

11-08-2013, 04:22 AM

Disposable Culture = Disposable Species - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AVpb29sEbM)

bimale69

11-11-2013, 04:19 AM

With these "super-storms" that have been occurring lately, it's really proving that global warming is capable of producing increasingly dangerous weather. My partner's home province of eastern Samar, Philippines just experienced a scary example of this when it got slammed by a catagory 5+ storm, 200 mph winds and storm surges that resembled tsunami-like conditions. We're still waiting for news on the fate of her family & friends still living there and in neighboring tacloban(10,000 dead so far and complete destruction).

muh_muh

11-11-2013, 05:12 AM

luckily there is a simple solution
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/barton-explains-global-warming

trish

11-11-2013, 07:59 AM

Two prevailing theories. Both curiously anthropogenic.

1) Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses prevent heat energy from escaping into the vacuum of space at the same rate it is produced by the conversion of incident solar radiation. The overflow of heat energy in the climate system produces weather extremes. E.g. A warmer atmosphere has a higher saturation point for water vapor, thus increasing the average time between downpours and conditions for drought. Because there are on average larger volumes of watervapor in the atmosphere than before, each downpour on average is more voluminous than before, increasing the risks of flood. Heat induced fluctuations in wind patterns and ocean currents warm some regions while cooling others.
Suggested modification: Try to cut our overall production of greenhouse gasses, perhaps sequester some of what we do produce.

2) God is fucking pissed off at us for condoning abortion. Televangelist David Barton says, “Abortion was a seed to it,” said Copeland, “that has grown into a murderous, bloody crop of child death.”
Once “you open the door to killing,” Barton added, “” it’s got a lot of different manifestations” because the nation immediately falls under the judgment of God as He removes his protection and “whap, here comes storms like we’ve never seen before and here comes floods and here comes climate stuff that we can’t explain; all of the hot times and all the cold times and not enough rain and too much rain and we’re flooding over here and we’ve got droughts over here … And today we’re saying ‘oh no, it’s global warming.No, we opened a door that lost God’s protection over our environment and that’s our choice.”
Suggested modification: Make abortion illegal, ban birth control and force women who seek abortions to painful vaginal probes.

It seems almost all scientists favor the first theory, particularly those scientists who have taken a professional interest in understanding the balance of energy within the climate system.
The second theory is favored by those who claim to have a direct and personal relationship with the one and true God of the universe. Also those who have a lot of stock in or take kick backs from oil and gas companies tend to favor the second theory.

Wait, there's actually a third theory.

There’s another televangelist, Pat Robertson, who is also a personal friend of the Creator who has on more than one tragic occasion put forward his theory that
3) Homosexuality and the teaching of eeevoloooshun are offensive to God’s apparently finite sensibilities and cause His wet-than-dry-than-wet-again mood swings.
Suggested moderation: send Pat more money.

Prospero

11-11-2013, 11:50 AM

I think a term that confuses people is global earing. They point and say "hey the winters re worse and longer than eer" etc... so climate change expresses more accurately the greater and more complex impacts of human action on the global environment.

Though maybe pat and his ilk are right. Stop all the fornication and bad behaviour which this site reflects and maybe we'll all have a much better world. (It may mean a few mass executions of the transgendered, gay people and other troublesome groups such as Jews and Muslims) The next day after it all stops the sun sill shine on bright green fields fringed with flowers, lambs will frolic, vicars will bicycle by and the churches will be full of nice ladies in nice hats and men in their Sunday best. There'll be cricket on the green again and al them uppitty foreigners with dark skins will learn their place. Filling their churches with joyous gospel singing for instance or scuttling back to the mosques in safety from skies no longer necessarily full of drones. Ahh the blessed peace of a well ordered world. And that nice white God will stop being in such a strop and restore order to the universe.

Stavros

11-11-2013, 02:08 PM

It should not be surprising to us to understand how Bronze Age societies associated the forces of nature with gods, seeing no clear separation between themselves and the world/cosmos, seeing it as one seamless whole. Science has since evolved to such a stage where we can now separate the natural from the supernatural, which doesn't in fact mean all scientists are atheists, but does offer a different kind of rationality to explain climate change in terms of its varied components. The Bronze Age explanation was rational in its day whereas the 'avengalist' of today is irrational having up-ended the cause: but it is still the fault of human agency and its sinful ways that induces God's anger. By contrast, violations of the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill, do not seem to produce the same level of wrath. Most curious.

trish

11-11-2013, 04:49 PM

Perhaps woman seeking abortions should appeal to the Castle Doctrine, something modern bronze-agers seem to "understand."

One point I left out in my previous point. The two modern Bronze-Age theories there mentioned are attempts (albeit failed attempts) to explain the mood swings of our current climate. On the other hand, the theory of energy imbalance (i.e. global warming) came before the current mood swings and predicted them. Note no one drought or storm can be said to be caused by the global energy imbalance. But the growing collection and frequency of such events is evidence that corraborates the hypothesis.

Stavros

11-11-2013, 09:48 PM

Hmm maybe what happened in the Bronze Age should stay in the Bronze Age...?

Ben

11-23-2013, 03:15 AM

Climate change and polar bears:

How to get selfish humans to care about climate change: Polar bears! (http://www.salon.com/2013/11/11/how_to_get_selfish_humans_to_care_about_climate_ch ange_polar_bears/)

Stavros

11-23-2013, 04:47 AM

It does raise the question -how far can we go to protect animals in their natural environment? In the Indian sub-continent and Africa animals that once had a natural environment all to themselves are now on the margins of expanding urban settlements -but people don't want tigers or baboons in their back yard and the tendency is to kill them, quite apart from the distress living so close to humans causes some primates and wildcats. The same is true for the bears of North America, some of whom have given up foraging for nuts when they forage in a nearby trash can, courtesy of the humans moving into their territory. Many species of bird no longer visit the UK in the summer because the hedgerows that supported them have gone, and the pesticide soaked fields no longer contain nutritious worms -you don't need to go to the Arctic to start a campaign for wild-life.

Polar Bears are doomed, unless they can be taken to zoos or be persuaded to live in Antarctica if it will support them. I am still not sure if climate change will see off sea ice in the Arctic, but over the next 25 years it will become as busy an oil province as the North Sea -and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
If Polar Bears, why not gorillas, tigers, Kangaroos? If all them, then must people stop building homes in environments they share with animals?

trish

11-23-2013, 06:15 AM

http://www.ted.com/talks/george_monbiot_for_more_wonder_rewild_the_world.ht ml

Stavros

11-23-2013, 02:11 PM

Monbiot at his articulate best -and politically naive. He is an incurable romantic at heart. Yellowstone is not much of an example as it is not densely populated so it is hard to square with parts of India and Africa where the de-wilding is at its most intense. Re-wilding could only make sense if the people moved somewhere else- there are over a billion in India alone, where will they go? Instead of going to the city, rural dwellers will find the city coming to them; if you want a perfect example of environmental desecration, go to Israel -outside the desert area of the south, the love affair with concrete will probably make this country the most built-over area in the world.
But I am a pessimist on this issue.

trish

11-23-2013, 05:24 PM

I agree. It’s probably unwise to release tigers into the densely populated regions of India. Rewilding seems impossible without setting aside large grants of protected lands. Given political pressures this is difficult enough for wealthy nations to do. The endangerment of pandas, koalas, tigers, snail darters, krill, whales etc. seems frivolous compared to the dangers people are subjected to when under the pressures of politics, poverty, overpopulation and the greed.

I posted the Monbiot clip because it helps us better assess the costs of covering a desert with concrete and the benefits of reintroducing gray wolves into Wyoming. He illuminates such a multitude of unexpected connections, it’s almost enough to make an atheist believe in karma.

Here in the Midwest of the USA, we have deer, muskrats, beavers, raccoon, coyote, squirrels, chipmunks, mice, rats, eagles, hawks and song birds living side by side with people in cities like St. Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati etc. Because of monocultural farming, pesticides and fertilizers, our cities and towns have a greater diversity of microbial fauna in the their soil than the farmland that blankets the region the way concrete and asphalt blankets Manhattan. We are only now discovering the vast variety of biota that once lived in the soil here when the Midwest was prairie land.

Modern extinctions may be bellwethers of our own decline. Here I’m obligated to remind you of the overwrought canary in the coal mine. Of course reviving the canary will not save the miners. What we need somehow to do is figure out how to live in harmony with our planet.

The stoics would perhaps complain that I am in the unhappy state of disharmony with myself. My hopes do not run parallel with my expectations.

Stavros

11-23-2013, 08:05 PM

I agree with what you say. I think one way to deal with some of these issues is to halt completely the kind of logging going on in Brazil, Indonesia and Russia in particular -the level of deforestation is greater than any natural re-growth or re-forestation can deal with and I would rather leave it as a wilderness than open it up for financial exploitation -but again, as with hydrocarbons, I suspect the lobbying power of the corporations overrides environmental concerns. In fact with the impasse at the COP in Warsaw, the hostility to carbon reduction policies in Australia, an intellectual attempt to undermine climate change science and other sorties, the forward momentum that appeared to be taking place say 10 years ago now looks like being derailed. It's cold.

Stavros

11-30-2013, 12:26 AM

The latest from James Delingpole on the great hoax...this time using an article that charts deaths from extreme weather events, 1900-2008-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100248380/extreme-weather-events-are-increasing-yet-another-green-propaganda-myth/

the source in the image is tiny and barely readable but I expanded it on my iPad and found it is an article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol 14, no 2009 by Indur Goklany, the link is here:
http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

Ben

12-10-2013, 06:09 AM

Richard Manning on the Psychosis of Civilization - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iBOXcoP_8)

Richard Manning on the Green Revolution and the End of Cheap Oil - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUnGIxbvTM)

danthepoetman

12-10-2013, 06:37 AM

....

Ben

12-14-2013, 05:19 AM

Santa losing his mind over climate change/chaos:

Santa Cancels Christmas Over Climate Change - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfZl53dNlNM)

A rare sight.Snow Closes Roads to and from Jerusalem - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmT-j4-29RQ)

trish

12-14-2013, 06:07 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/14/global_warming_ice_loss_continues.html

trish

12-14-2013, 06:13 PM

The snow in Jerusalem yesterday was fifty year event. It remains to be seen if the frequency of such Middle Eastern snowfalls increases substantially. What happens when Hell freezes over?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/rare-snow-storm-blankets-jerusalem/2013/12/12/ee2bd22a-6323-11e3-91b3-f2bb96304e34_story.html

Stavros

12-14-2013, 07:30 PM

And also in Saudi Arabia -snowfall is not uncommon in the mountainous region of al-Baha in the south on the border with Yemen, but this is from Alkan -can't locate it but I don't think its south.

http://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2013/12/14/23c603c7-561f-4d32-bd3f-e0635b1eb9a0/23c603c7-561f-4d32-bd3f-e0635b1eb9a0_16x9_788x442.jpg

trish

12-14-2013, 07:42 PM

And Cairo has a one in a century snowfall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/12/13/rare-snow-in-cairo-jerusalem-paralyzed-in-historic-snow/

Ben

12-15-2013, 04:46 AM

Slaying the "Zombies" of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd

Slaying the "Zombies" of Climate Science: Dr. Marshall Shepherd at TEDxAtlanta - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O019WPJ2Kjs)

dderek123

12-15-2013, 09:35 PM

http://i.imgur.com/eEvzZCb.jpg

Someone should teach the Saudis how to play in the snow. :)

danthepoetman

12-16-2013, 02:43 AM

....

trish

12-17-2013, 01:11 AM

movie - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo)

danthepoetman

12-17-2013, 06:33 AM

movie - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo)
Very good vid, Trish, and very very scary...

Stavros

12-17-2013, 07:40 PM

The US Department of Energy has released a preview of its Annual Energy Outlook for 2014, and it is clear that if the current trends are maintained the US will be in an intriguing position over the coming decades to say 2040: the 'fracking' revolution promises to simultanously increase domestic gas supplies, reducing foreign imports; while the increased volume pushing prices down will enable power generators to swap carbon-emitting coal for gas: on the other side of the coin, this means a decline in the coal industry in the USA which must impact on communities in those states where coal is still sort-of-king; and if world prices in gas decline then so do revenues for major gas producers such as Russia and Qatar, as well as the private companies like Shell whom the US relies on to invest in its energy sector. This may benefit smaller companies, but do smaller companies have the long-established process safety mechanisms that the supermajors like Shell and Exxon have? Fracking is bursting ahead in the US in spite of genuine environmental concerns.

I wonder how Americans see this changing energy profile in the context of the Obama Presidency, after all, the new lease life given to hydrocarbons has seriously undermined the alternative energy agenda...yet Obama could benefit from it as 'energy security' is happening on his watch...

There is a precis here, and a link to the DoE website after (the precis is from Oil & Gas IQ Newsletter).

Yesterday, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) released its abridged version of the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with projections for “trends and issues that could have major implications for U.S. energy markets” up to 2040.

The report forecasts a year-on-year increase of two per cent in natural gas production for the 2012-2040 period, culminating in a total US domestic production of 37.6 trillion cubic feet (1.06 trillion cubic metres) per annum, 56 per cent higher than current levels and 37 per cent higher than world-leader Russia’s natural gas output in 2013. Concomitantly, gas imports from key energy partners will fall by as much as 30 per cent as domestic supply grows to fill demand, and exports to continental neighbours Mexico and Canada will increase by six per cent and 1.2 per cent per year respectively.

Perhaps even more interesting, is the projection that price decreases will facilitate natural gas to overtake coal as the primary provider of US power generation, delivering more than one third of the nation’s electricity by 2035 and allowing the country to dip below a CO2 emissions level of six billion metric tonnes for the first time since 2005. As positive as the promise of America’s energy future may be, it will all come down to price. The recent shelving of Shell’s $20 billion GTL plant in Louisiana has showed the reluctance of companies to make huge capex investments when natural gas prices are not guaranteed to stay feasibly low.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/

Ben

12-31-2013, 04:15 AM

Shocking Percentage Of Americans Don't Trust Scientists - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7I6gJQbuA)

martin48

12-31-2013, 03:07 PM

What’s wrong with these statements?

I believe in global warming.
I don’t believe in global warming.
We should hear all sides of the climate change debate and decide for ourselves.

Don’t see it? How about these?

I believe in photosynthesis.
I don’t believe in Newton’s Laws of Motion.
We should hear all sides of the quantum mechanics debate and decide for ourselves.

Climate change is a scientific phenomenon, rooted in physics and chemistry. All I did was substitute in other scientific phenomena, and the statements suddenly sounded wacky and irrational.

Perhaps we have become desensitized by people conflating opinion with fact when it comes to climate change. However, the positions of politicians or media outlets do not make the climate system any less of a physical process. Unlike, say, ideology, there is a physical truth out there.

If there is a physical truth, there are also wrong answers and false explanations. In scientific issues, not every “belief” is equally valid.

Of course, the physical truth is elusive, and facts are not always clear-cut. Data requires interpretation and a lot of math. Uncertainty is omnipresent and must be quantified. These processes require training, as nobody is born with all the skills required to be a good scientist. Again, the complex nature of the physical world means that some voices are more important than others.

Does that mean we should blindly accept whatever a scientist says, just because they have a Ph.D.? Of course not. People aren’t perfect, and scientists are no exception.

However, the institution of science has a pretty good system to weed out incorrect or unsupported theories. It involves peer review, and critical thinking, and falsifiability. We can’t completely prove anything right – not one hundred percent – so scientists try really hard to prove a given theory wrong. If they can’t, their confidence in its accuracy goes up. As Peter Watts (science fiction author and marine-mammal biologist) says, “You put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the s**t out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.”

Peer review is an imperfect process, but it’s far better than nothing. Combined with the technical skill and experience of scientists, it makes the words of the scientific community far more trustworthy than the words of a politician or a journalist. That doesn’t mean that science is always right. But, if you had to put your money on it, who would you bet on?

The issue is further complicated by the fact that scientists are rarely unanimous. Often, the issue at question is truly a mystery, and the disagreement is widespread. What causes El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean? Science can’t give us a clear answer yet.

However, sometimes disagreement is restricted to the extreme minority. This is called a consensus. It doesn’t imply unanimity, and it doesn’t mean that the issue is closed, but general confidence in a theory is so high that science accepts it and moves on. Even today, a few researchers will tell you that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that secondhand smoke isn’t harmful to your health. But that doesn’t stop medical scientists from studying the finer details of such diseases, or governments from funding programs to help people quit smoking. Science isn’t a majority-rules democracy, but if virtually all scientists have the same position on an issue, they probably have some pretty good reasons.

If science is never certain, and almost never unanimous, what are we supposed to do? How do we choose who to trust? Trusting nobody but yourself would be a poor choice. Chances are, others are more qualified than you, and you don’t hold the entirety of human knowledge in your head. For policy-relevant science, ignoring the issue completely until one side is proven right could also be disastrous. Inaction itself is a policy choice, which we see in some governments’ responses to climate change.

Let’s bring the whole issue down to a more personal level. Imagine you were ill, and twenty well-respected doctors independently examined you and said that surgery was required to save your life. One doctor, however, said that your illness was all in your mind, that you were healthy as a horse. Should you wait in bed until the doctors all agreed? Should you go home to avoid surgery that might be unnecessary? Or should you pay attention to the relative size and credibility of each group, as well as the risks involved, and choose the course of action that would most likely save your life?