DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3812--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 17, 2015, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The worst aspect of CO2 fertilization is that it results in
plants of relatively low quality -- richer in carbohydrate
(which is where the carbon goes), but poorer in nitrogen and
other nutrients. THIS IS BAD. However, the increased sum of
biomass is generally good.
One of my ideas (now going on 10 years old) for mitigating the
effects of climate change is to increase soil nutrients to
complement the CO2. In other words, to optimize the
potentially-good effects of CO2. It is actually not a new idea.
A guy named Hamaker (sp?) proposed it in the early 80s. His
focus was on massive use of rock dust as a soil
fertility-builder, to stimulate plant growth which in turn pulls
CO2 out of the air. It was a good idea. The only way my idea
differs is that I would like to see more of a focus on nitrogen,
and this can be done easily by propagating (N-fixing) legumes.
But the basic bottom-line idea is the same: increase soil
quality, thereby optimizing plant growth, and (hopefully)
increasing the "pull" of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
PS: Agelbert: if you censor another one of my posts, then I
really am out of here forever. If that is what you want, then go
for it.
Agelbert Responds: Your post discusses a laudable, but paltry
and insufficient measure which will not ameliorate the
existential threat. I read your posts on soil nutrients 3 years
ago and agreed. That is a great idea. But it won't stop climate
catastrophe, which is the subject of this debate.
#Post#: 3813--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 17, 2015, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
yet another angle, from the same fao.org discussion:
GOOD ONE![quote]
HTML http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/forum/discussions/climate-change-and-fsn?page=6
Mr. Paul von Hartmann California Cannabis Ministry, United
States of America
30.03.2015
Dear Florence and FSN Associates,
Climate change has several dimensions, all of which threaten
global food security and health in fundamentally interconnected
ways. Temperature increase, ocean acidity & circulation, ozone
depletion, sub-arctic methane release all pose potentially
catastrophic influences.
Most people are aware of "global warming." Fewer people seem to
be as concerned with the increasing solar UV-B radiation
reaching the planet's surface, what I refer to as "global
broiling."
Climate change mitigation and crop selection in the 21st Century
must take into account both of these aspects of systemic climate
imbalance. If we are to avoid irreversible systemic collapse,
then must successfully adapt in the most time-efficient ways to
navigate these changes.
First we must acknowledge the changes are happening at an
accelerating and unpredictable, non-linear rate; then we must
objectively reconsider our priorities. Specifically, society's
views about what is "illegal" and what is essential must change.
Cannabis agriculture, manufacture and trade offer fundamental
solutions to many of the problems imposed by climate imbalance.
Every growing season that passes without comprehensive,
objective analysis of this unique and essential natural
resource, is gone forever.
Consider that "hemp" is the only crop that produces complete
nutrition and sustainable biofuels from the same harvest. In
addition, the atmospheric benefits of Cannabis sequestration and
monoterpene production make hemp an essential crop.
Please feel invited to consider the rationale for resolving
climate imbalance, presented in my recently published book,
"Cannabis vs. Climate Change: How hot does Earth have to get
before all solutions are considered?"
HTML http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PCSRUF8
Thank you for the opportunity to present an achieveable biogenic
solution in an atmosphere of timely objectivity.
Best wishes to all,
Paul
[/quote]
Aglebert responds: The above post is not relevant to the
discussion. The book may be relevant, but the link does not
describe the books contents. I assume your point is that the
Earth has not gotten hot enough yet.
I do agree somewhat with this part of the post link "Unless
severe measures are taken, and countries reduce the greenhouse
gas emissions and increase the removal of these gases from the
atmosphere, it will be increasingly difficult and expensive to
adapt to climate change." However, the reduction must be
drastic. The reduction must go to ZERO within, at most, a
decade. It seems to me you don't. The whole point of our
argument is that you think incremental measures are enough and I
think only drastic measures can help limit the existential
threat.
I have repeatedly explained to you that there are 40 to 50 years
baked in. Addressing the situation as it stands NOW is doomed to
failure. You do not get it, Alan. Have a nice day.
#Post#: 3814--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 17, 2015, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
also, regarding rock dust:
[quote]
snippets from wikipedia:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Hamaker
Hamaker believed remineralizing the world’s soil with rock
dust, a quarrying by-product, could revitalise barren soil and
reverse climate change. Rock dust nourished soil micro-organisms
whose protoplasm is the basis of all living things. When mixed
with compost, the dust created rich, deep soils which could
produce high growth vegetation free from pests and predators, at
an accelerated rate. The idea was later confirmed by
agricultural scientists such as Arden Andersen, who showed how
high sugar and mineral levels in soil gave immunity to soil
bacteria, stopping insect and fungal attacks.[25] For Hamaker
and Andersen, minerals were the primal food for micro-organisms
which provided life and health for the soil....
Hamaker believed that within as little as a decade, the growing
season would decrease leading to mass starvation in rich and
poor nations alike. He therefore proposed the remineralization
of the world’s soils and reforesting the land, to propagate
carbon sinks, thereby absorbing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, and so contributing to general climatic stability.
By assuming the task of remineralizing the Earth’s soils, just
like glaciers do during an ice age, remineralization would
create fertile soils – the basis for the re-creation of stable
ecosystems....
Remineralization benefits
Primary benefits
Provides slow, natural release of elements and trace
minerals.
Increases the nutrient intake of plants.
Increases yields and gives higher brix. Brix is the measure
of dissolved solids in the sap of fruits and plants that
correlate with greater nutritive value.
Rebalances soil pH.
Increases the growth of micro-organisms and earthworm
activity.
Builds humus complex.
Prevents soil erosion.
Increases the storage capacity of the soil.
Increases resistance to insects, disease, frost and drought.
Produces more nutritious crops (minerals are essential for
human health).[40]
Enhances flavor in crops.
Decreases dependence on fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides.[41][42][43][44]
Further benefits
Reafforestation.
Increases forest and land resources.
Sustainable forestry, farming and energy opportunities.
Enhances ecosystems.
Increases biodiversity.
Carbon offsetting.
Greater climatic equilibrium.
Preservation of interglacial climate conditions.
............................................
HTML http://bio4climate.org/downloads/Campe-The_Potential_of_Remineralization_with_Rock_Mineral_Fines-Rio_Summit-RTE-2012.pdf
THE POTENTIAL OF REMINERALIZATION WITH ROCK MINERAL FINES TO
TRANSFORM AGRICULTURE, FORESTS, SUSTAINABLE BIOFUELS PRODUCTION,
SEQUESTER CARBON, AND STABILIZE THE CLIMATE
By Joanna Campe(1), Dan Kittredge(2), and Lee Klinger(3)
snip
CONCLUSION
Soil Remineralization will create abundance in an era of
diminishing resources and shift us away from fossil fuels.
Remineralization is nature's way to regenerate soils, and is
needed on a large scale because mismanagement is causing us to
lose soils far faster than they can naturally regenerate. The
techniques are simple, easily and intuitively learned, and can
be rapidly scaled up at the community level. The materials are
readily available and an inexpensive byproduct wherever there is
building and road construction using stone aggregates or
concrete. No extra energy is needed to grind them up since it is
a waste product of gravel plants. Hard silicate rocks are the
most abundant resource on earth. Millions of tons are readily
available for the cost of transportation, and much more could
easily be produced from existing rock crushing plants.
Remineralization is an essential tool for sustainable
development, economic empowerment, and social justice by
creating a local nutrient dense food supply for all, and will
improve health and generate livelihoods within local
communities. It can play a critical role in overcoming hunger
and poverty, ecological restoration, carbon sequestration and
climate stabilization.
[/quote]
Agelbert Responds: Your post discusses a laudable, but paltry
and insufficient measure which will not ameliorate the
existential threat. I read your posts on soil nutrients 3 years
ago and agreed. That is a great idea. But it won't stop climate
catastrophe, which is the subject of this debate.
#Post#: 3815--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest10 Date: September 17, 2015, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
AG,
Just to clarify in case this wasn't already clear, I believe we
DO have sufficient evidence to establish the reality of AGW and
it's devastating effects on the biosphere, which obviously
supports human existence.
Using the court analogy, I see you as the prosecution in this -
i.e. you have the burden of proving that humanity (mostly via
AGW) is guilty of creating the conditions for NTHE (with a very
high probability, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). I see myself
as a juror who has to weigh your evidence and argumentation to
determine whether it is sufficient to prove us guilty BRD. Like
a juror in deliberation, I also must engage in cross-examination
of your evidence, NOT with any specific goal of debunking it,
but only with the intention of clarifying it and its
implications.
And again, I am NOT using this BRD standard to oppose
incremental OR drastic measures to combat AGW, as suggested by
the precepts of the PP. The PP's application, in my mind, is all
about policy initiatives and NOT about persuading people of
imminent and extreme Doom. It does not serve an ethos of
uber-Doom, because it readily admits that the evidence of NTHE
may be insufficient (instead it says the tail risk is so great,
we don't need sufficient evidence to enact certain policies).
Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important
questions in my mind, given the data you and others have
presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):
-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends
such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc.
will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high
probability) of NTHE?
-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms
in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by
negative feedback mechanisms?
-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress
quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this
is a very good chance)?
-What are the chances that the above technology, or other
mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and
governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove
(I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?
-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or
unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive
environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as
much)?
-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may
serve to mitigate the destructive trends?
These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much
scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be
nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if
you believe the general process of asking these and other
questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation,
manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental
disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be
properly assessed.
#Post#: 3816--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 17, 2015, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ashvin link=topic=5557.msg85620#msg85620
date=1442506526]
Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important
questions in my mind, given the data you and others have
presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):
-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends
such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc.
will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high
probability) of NTHE?
-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms
in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by
negative feedback mechanisms?
-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress
quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this
is a very good chance)?
-What are the chances that the above technology, or other
mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and
governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove
(I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?
-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or
unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive
environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as
much)?
-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may
serve to mitigate the destructive trends?
These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much
scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be
nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if
you believe the general process of asking these and other
questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation,
manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental
disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be
properly assessed.
[/quote]
-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends
such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc.
will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high
probability) of NTHE?
The videos I have posted addressed this in detail. To summarize
the findings, the rate of the negative effects of Global Warming
is not decreasing, all the tracked effects are increasing in
quantity. But more alarming, is that all of them are increasing
in the rate of increase as well. I will post another video, this
one from 2013, but quite comprehensive in covering both the
increase and the increase in rate.
That is, the graphed slopes of CO2 increase and Temperature
increase and deforestation increase and desertification increase
and ocean acidification increase (and others) are all tilting
upwards in angle. As you will see in the graphs presented, the
IPCC scenarios are overly conservative. The observed temperature
data as of 2013 was right at the top range of their most extreme
scenario (from the IPCC 2007 report). A new IPCC report came out
this year. The scenario range has been adjusted upwards (to more
extreme), but the models, as the videos I have already presented
explain, still do not account for several factors.
So there is no logical reason to believe any of the scenarios
are "within the ballpark", so to speak. And all the indicators
point to an increased rate of deleterious global warming
effects.
As to whether the rate increase of all these factors is
sufficient to warrant warnings about a high probability of
N.T.H.E. if drastic measures are not engaged in to ameliorate
the existential threat, the answer is yes. If the rate was
decreasing or constant, the answer would be a maybe. WHY?
Because of the baked in approximately 40 year causative factor
time lag.
Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even
with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in
deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time,
even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than
100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go
to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to
pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2
reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be
eliminated somehow.
That is why incremental measures doom future generations to a
high probability of extinction. Scientifically speaking,
incremental measures will not even slow the rate if increase of
deleterious factors, let along the quantitative increase.
-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms
in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by
negative feedback mechanisms?
Positive feedback mechanisms are also addressed in the videos I
have presented and some of my posts. These mechanisms, of which
there are about 30, once having reached a self reinforcing state
(which is why they call them positive feedback mechanisms) are
difficult to control. They, in fact, cannot be controlled beyond
a certain point. Yes, they burn themselves out eventually. But
before they do, they result in mass die offs. This has been
established by studies of CO2 build up in ancient times before
humans walked the earth. When a positive feedback loop reaches a
certain stage, our technology is incapable of arresting it's
effects. This is not alarmist hyperbole on my part. This is a
direct quote from the IPCC reviewer scientist in one of the
videos I presented.
The video I present at the end of this posts shows that the
negative feedbacks are being overwhelmed by the positive
feedbacks at present.
Positive feedback loops are not like a line of falling dominoes
that you can put your hand on to stop the rest from falling.
Considering the fact that there are about 30 positive feedback
loops involved in global warming, it is necessary to picture
their cumulative interactive, multiple feedback reinforcing
effects as a chain reaction. It's not 30 independent systems.
It's more like 30 times 30 (30 times repeated) because they all
act to boost each other in multiples of the last iteration
exponentially. That means that they get beyond the ability of
our technology to control exponentially.
This short video of ping pong balls on mouse traps is a crude
analogy of how positive feedback loops work;
Start at the 24 second mark:
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/-zX-gz1lRt0[/center]
For example, we are triggering a positive feedback loop by
reducing the earth's albedo (ice cover). The videos I have
presented cover how we simply cannot stop the resulting runaway
greenhouse effect once the positive feedback loops begin in
earnest. Guy McPherson thinks we did that already. I entertain
the hope that we can ameliorate those mechanisms somewhat and
postpone or possibly prevent N.T.H.E. But it is not presently
feasible to do that with incremental measures.
-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or
unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive
environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as
much)?
The main consumer culprits are the 20% in the rich countries
that use around 76% of the world's resources, according to a
2007 UN pie chart. Consumers are doing quite a bit to mitigate
destructive environmental trends.
But that pie chart leaves out the non-consumer polluters that do
more damage than we ordinary piggies in the rich countries.
The problem is that the main polluters are outside of the
consumer loop. Many people think this issue can be addressed by
recycling and lowering our carbon footprint. Yes, that is
important and many are doing it. But the industries that are
unrelated to consumer products are gigantic polluters, showing
no sign of slowing their massive polluting activities, never
mind stopping them. The military of the USA, despite moves to go
solar on many bases, still are one the largest polluters of the
air , land and sea. In short, the governments of the world,
backed by the large polluting industries continue to make things
worse.
Year to date fossil fuel use:
HTML http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env3/
HTML http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env3/
So the chances that consumers acting to try to mitigate the
destructive factors are high. But the chances that those
actions, absent massive government efforts stop all polluting
industries quickly, will actually mitigate those destructive
factors, are low to none. A collapse in industrial output from
massive poverty still does not account for the 40 year baked in
climate damage coming at us. It would reduce the amount of
polluting, but not stop it. It is sine qua non to reverse it in
order to mitigate or eliminate the existential threat to our
species.
I support all efforts to recycle and conserve. But I know what
the biosphere math is telling us. Nevertheless, I urge all
people to conserve as much as possible. Just because that
behavior is somewhat quixotic, does not mean it should not be
done. Responsible behavior is based on the ethical concern for
future generations, regardless of whether it is enough or not.
I'm sure you agree that doing the right thing does not guarantee
success in human society. In fact, the reverse is true most of
the time.
-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress
quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this
is a very good chance)?
-What are the chances that the above technology, or other
mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and
governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove
(I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?
-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may
serve to mitigate the destructive trends?
I will address the above three questions after I exercise. Some
of the answers are in this video, but I will verbalize them for
clarity when I come back. It was published on May 2, 2013. All
the data is accurate and backed by hard science. The more recent
data is more alarming (this was before the latest IPCC report).
But even with the data Professor Somerville had then, the case
for urgent action was clear.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/B4Q271UaNPo[/center]
[left]The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate
Change[/left]
Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville,
world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving
Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the
scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.
#Post#: 3820--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 18, 2015, 1:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B56GS65R7vA&feature=player_embedded[/center]
[/center]
[center]The Arctic Sea Tumbles To A New Low :([/center]
[quote]
Arctic sea ice reaches fourth lowest minimum
[img width=640
height=550]
HTML http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png[/img]
September 15, 2015
On September 11, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum
extent for 2015. The minimum ice extent was the fourth lowest in
the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward
trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its
seasonal increase through autumn and winter. In the Antarctic,
sea ice extent is average, a substantial contrast with recent
years when Antarctic winter extents reached record high levels.
Please note that this is a preliminary announcement. Changing
winds or late-season melt could still reduce the Arctic ice
extent, as happened in 2005 and 2010. NSIDC scientists will
release a full analysis of the Arctic melt season, and discuss
the Antarctic winter sea ice growth, in early October.
[img width=640
height=700]
HTML http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png[/img]
[/quote]
HTML http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
#Post#: 3822--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 18, 2015, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin,
Here I continue to address your questions with a post from Eddie
that I comment on.
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=5557.msg85630#msg85630
date=1442523511]
Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even
with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in
deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time,
even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than
100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go
to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to
pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2
reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be
eliminated somehow.
A lot of people missed the memo on this, but I've read it from a
number of sources I trust.
[/quote]
Exactly. AS David Wasdell states in the following video, if you
wish to actually ameliorate the existential threat from
catastrophic climate change, you must use the projected climate
condition of about 40 years from now as your target, not what is
observed at present. Acting on the present guarantees failure
due to the fact that the feedback mechanisms are moving faster
than the policies to ameliorate climate change. This is
politically very unpalatable. But it is the only approach with
science behind it. IOW, if the IPCC predicted 470 ppm of CO2 and
a 2 degree C increase by 2055, then drastic action to eliminate
any target above that must be taken now.
Of course, that is not happening. Every day that isn't happening
makes it more and more difficult to deal with.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/W_aMbM20mbg[/center]
David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a
world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is
also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and
presentations on climate change and related topics.
Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's
top academic institute researching climate change), said that a
global society (like the one we have now) is not possible with
our present level of technology in 4degree C or higher world.
And that's where we are going, despite the IPCC figures all
revolving about an alleged agreement (with no teeth, no
enforcement and all voluntary carbon limits. LOL!) by the piggy
countries s of taking measures to keep the planet below 2
degrees C. Collapse is baked in, so to speak, thanks to
government piecemeal incremental measures.
Back to David Wasdell, he clearly and calmly stated that the 30
or so positive feedback loops, if not addressed with absolute
limits on carbon output, including even foregoing even biofuels,
approximately 80% of life on Earth may die. If that isn't an
existential threat, I don't know what is.
Ashvin asked,
What are the chances that scientific technology will progress
quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this
is a very good chance)?'
According to both the scientists I mentioned, we do not have the
technology to stop this catastrophe at this time, once the
runaway greenhouse positive feedback loops push us past a
certain point. Some say we have passed it. Due to the 40 year
bake and the paltry government measures being employed, it sure
looks that way. Drastic measures to stop emitting CO2 might
change that equation.
But it is not realistic to expect governments to engage in them.
When large masses of people are dying and a public outcry is
sounded, it will be about 40 years too late.
All that said, there are technofix types that claim we just have
to put a pack of aerosols up there and cool the planet like
volcanic eruptions have partially done in the past. There is
evidence that our government has been doing just that since
2000. It doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's just a
conspiracy theory, but some very obvious man made 'cloud' grids
have been videoed for some time. And, they are not jet
contrails.
Another less messy and much more expensive approach is to block
out a portion of the sunlight reaching earth with some giant
aluminum vapor coated, 1 mil thick, polyester film a few
thousand miles in diameter to cool the planet. But we have no
way of knowing whether such a simple solution would not trigger
some, even worse, unforeseen climate effect. It certainly is
true that the massive sun shield qualifies in the 'any port in
the N.T.H.E. storm' category.
But it would do nothing to eliminate the other industrial
toxins, unrelated to CO2, that have upped the probability of
getting cancer in our lives from 1 in 10 back in 1950 to 1 in 2
(for men) and 1 in 3 (for women) at present. And no, that isn't
because we "live longer" ( check the social Security stats and
you will find the longevity increase applies to the top 20% wage
earners. The bottom 80% "longevity increase" looks like a
rounding error. :P). ; it's because we are subject to more
pollutants in our food, air and water from birth than any humans
in history.
We have a plethora of severe problems and the rug the gooberment
keeps trying to sweep them under is starting to look like Mount
Everest.
-What are the chances that the above technology, or other
mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and
governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove
(I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?
-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may
serve to mitigate the destructive trends?
Well, here's the situation, according to Professor Emeritus
Richard Somerville Please note that he is a very conservative
scientist. But he makes it clear how serious the urgency is
BECAUSE of the limitations of our technology and government
reaction times.
[center][img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170915194437.png[/img][/center]
The above graph is discussing the procedure to limit the damage
to 2 degrees C. That was in 2013. He explained that the required
carbon limits, if not enforced by 2020, will basically be
impossible to implement. We are passing by 2015 with no end in
site to the INCREASE in carbon pollution.
As he said, once the window is closed, it will remain closed.
That is a scientist's way of stating an existential threat. He
understands the technology. He understands what will happen when
we cannot hope to stop the positive feedback mechanisms from
overwhelming reforms. He understands that will head us to 4
degrees C or more. That is a dire threat to our species, and
literally millions of other species we share this planet with.
[center][img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170915194933.png[/img][/center]
Notice how the IPCC sea level rise predictions only fit the data
at the extreme end. It is not logical to think that they aren't
erring on the side of caution. They are. Therefore, only the
most extreme scenarios they come up with can be considered 'in
the ball park'.
Every time a report comes out, they have to admit that, yeah,
the ice melted more than predicted and several other predictions
were a bit on the, uh, conservative side. Each report published
every 7 or 8 years gets a little more real. Consequently, it is
prudent to assume that a worse than their worse case scenario is
highly probable.
That is why I believe firmly that mankind faces an existential
threat from Global Warming AND all the other industrial
pollution factors degrading the biosphere.
That is why I focused initially on extinctions with Alan. When
the extinction rate of species in our biosphere is 1,000 to
10,000 the normal background rate of the last ten thousand years
(at least!), it's logical to then assume our species faces an
existential threat.
This extinction rate cannot be neatly approached as the product
of a single cause. Our society is lousy at dealing with multiple
causes. It's like we are as bad as crows (they can't count above
three).
But there are thousands of toxic chemicals, radionuclides and
aerosols, along with the CO2 damage that have joined together to
drown us in our industrial effluents. CO2 pollution is what we
should all agree on. As you can see from Alan's posts, even that
is like pulling teeth.
Also, there are too many corporations stuck in the incremental
measures approach to expect them to own up the their
responsibility to future generations. I just posted an article
on the good and the bad corporations. But the 'good" are STILL
not at 100% renewable energy. And the bad ones are worse than
ever. :emthdown:
It's hard to communicate this threat dispassionately. I do the
best I can. We are in a world of trouble.
These are the web sites Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville
recommends for reliable information. I hang around RealClimate
regularly. I have posted articles from RealClimate here during
the last year and have recommended it to all readers. They are
the ones who are now looking very hard at the meltwater
tunneling by supercritical water (liquid water several degrees
below freezing due to massive glacier pressures lubricating
glacier movement) beneath Greenland glaciers that is NOT
addressed in any of the IPCC predictions that David Wasdell
discussed.
They cover all the climate bases. RealClimate is staffed
exclusively by climate scientists.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
[center][img width=340
height=220]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170915194705.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 3908--------------------------------------------------
It is far away but unconscionable no matter how far away. Somebo
dy tell the Turks to stop this now.
By: guest32 Date: September 29, 2015, 12:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Call For a Global Hasankeyf Action Day on 20 September
2015
By Ercan Ayboga, Initiative to Keep Hasankeyf Alive & the
Mesopotamian Ecology Movement:[/center]
[center]
HTML http://kurdistantribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/KT_hasankeyf7_01.jpg[/center]
We call activists, social movements and NGOs in the world to
join an action day for the conservation of Hasankeyf and the
Tigris River on 20th September 2015! Let’s protest together
against the Ilisu Dam Project; one of most controversial ones in
the world!
On Sunday, 20th September, we organize a big protest in the
10.000 years old town Hasankeyf which is threatened by the Ilisu
Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant Project. If the construction
of the ongoing project is completed, there will be a massive
social, ecological and cultural destruction in
Turkish-Kurdistan, the North of Mesopotamia. Up to 80,000 people
will end up in greater poverty and the unique Tigris River will
lose its outstanding ecological value. Considering the
developments in the Middle East, the Ilisu Project will also
intensify the ongoing conflicts within and outside the Turkish
borders, latter is valid for Iraq and Syria in particular.
20th September will be the last day of a three day resistance
camp. Hundreds of affected people and activists will gather in
order to resist the Ilisu Project. Thousands of people will join
us in a big march on 20th September. Since the end of the 90s
there have been campaigns against he Ilisu project which was
halted several times in the past.
[center]
HTML http://kurdistantribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hasankeyf-protest-Photo-Damocracy-e1442473833719.jpg[/center]
[center]Hasankeyf protest; Photo – Damocracy[/center]
You are invited to organize a public action in your city or
country against the destructive Ilisu Project. You are free to
chose the type of action. The demands should target mainly the
Turkish government, the Austrian company Andritz – the most
crucial company in the Ilisu consortium – or the Iraqi
government, which is silent about the upcoming drying out of its
country. Do not hesitate to contact us or inform us about your
planned action.
Xwedî Derkeve - Defend our culture, land and people!
By Ercan Ayboga, for the Initiative to Keep Hasankeyf Alive and
the Mesopotamian Ecology Movement
Batman/Turkey
hasankeyfgirisimi@gmail.com
www.hasankeyfgirisimi.net
HTML http://www.hasankeyfgirisimi.net/?p=256
#Post#: 3909--------------------------------------------------
Re: It is far away but unconscionable no matter how far away. So
mebody tell the Turks to stop this n
By: guest32 Date: September 29, 2015, 12:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All the Ilisu Dam is intended to do is produce Hydroelectric
Power. Turkish interference in the headwaters of the Tigris is
an ongoing problem. They will virtually cut off water to IRAQ
soon. This dam destroys obvious good land and history for
Turkish electricity and exhibits the worst in human nature. It
is a crime.
#Post#: 3910--------------------------------------------------
Re: It is far away but unconscionable no matter how far away. So
mebody tell the Turks to stop this n
By: AGelbert Date: September 29, 2015, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
K-Dog is RIGHT!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Thank you telling it like it is. If most of us speak up about
the insane behavior of certain members of our species, we might
curb said insanity.
A petition I signed stopped helped stop the UK from building a
coal fired power plant. So our voices do have a positive impact.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif<br
/> [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page