Global warming

backseatLover12

polaris_x said:

also doesn't help when al roker is still pushing that there isn't a consensus ... :-q

He is nothing but a corporate doll. Controlled by NBC.

Byrnzie

Carpe diem!


http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&mailid=270&key=6b88564262ada9b197c4b90a7140d161&subid=14834-e0ebc148544be249d3165f5c16940366&tmpl=component


25 February 2014

The Fateful Collision - Floods, Catastrophe And Climate Denial

By David Edwards



An epic struggle is currently taking place that will determine the fate, and perhaps the survival, of our species. It is a collision between natural limits and rational awareness of the need to respect those limits, on the one hand, and the forces of blind greed, on the other.

Over the next few years, fundamental questions about who we are as a species really will be answered: Are we fundamentally sane, rational? Or are we a self-destructive failure that will end in the evolutionary dustbin?

As former Conservative energy minister Charles Hendry says, the recent UK floods 'have ended political debate about climate change impacts'. Indeed, recent global weather extremes suggest that something of 'enormous magnitude is happening'.

Even taken in isolation, the UK floods may constitute an 'absolutely devastating environment incident', a recent study by conservation scientists reports:

'Noxious hydrogen sulphide fumes and lead poisoning are among the threats from floodwater contamination – while animals at almost all stages of the food chain, from insects to small mammals and birds, are already thought to be drowning or dying from lack of food.'

And these floods are merely the latest in a very long list of extreme events, including the ongoing, record-breaking Californian drought. Of this, University of California, Irvine, hydrologist James Famiglietti has said: 'We are standing on a precipice here.'

In addition, we have seen the vast US 'polar vortex' and 'Frankenstorm' Sandy. Last year, Australia 'recorded its warmest year on record,' while Supertyphoon Haiyan, 'the strongest tropical cyclone on record to hit land', devastated the Philippines. India was also afflicted by massive floods. 2013 was 'the 37th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average'.

Tony Juniper, former director of Friends of the Earth, commented to us: 'The period of consequences is evidently upon us.'

The Bottom Line – Preparing For Human Extinction

Let us look more closely at the nature of this fateful collision.

In a quietly despairing blog, Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of natural resources, ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, nutshells one-half of the problem facing us:

'If you're too busy to read the evidence presented below, here's the bottom line: On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction.'

Could that happen? McPherson quotes professor of climatology Mark Maslin:

'We are already planning for a 4°C world because that is where we are heading. I do not know of any scientists who do not believe that.'

That second sentence is worth reading again. Or we can recall the comments made by Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, on the BBC website in 2010:

....This, then, is one-half of our problem: McPherson is right about the significance of a 4 C rise in temperature, and he is right that scientists widely believe that we are indeed heading for a catastrophic 4 C warmer world, or worse.

There is, of course, debate about the timing of this temperature rise. McPherson could hardly be more pessimistic, arguing that it is already too late to save ourselves. He writes:

'Even mainstream scientists minimize the message at every turn. As we've known for years, scientists almost invariably underplay climate impacts. I'm not implying conspiracy among scientists. Science selects for conservatism. Academia selects for extreme conservatism. These folks are loathe to risk drawing undue attention to themselves by pointing out there might be a threat to civilization. Never mind the near-term threat to our entire species (they couldn't care less about other species). If the truth is dire, they can find another, not-so-dire version.'

A recent report by the Climate Council found that 'the frequency of heatwaves in parts of Australia has already surpassed levels previously predicted for 2030'.


Breaking The Back Of 'The Beast'

The second half of our problem is that evidence of this terminal threat to our existence is being obstructed by literally hundreds of millions of dollars of organised propaganda.

Earlier this month, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made a courageous and crucial speech to the US Senate. He commented:

'I have described Congress as surrounded by a barricade of lies. Today, I'll be more specific. There isn't just lying going on about climate change; there is a whole, carefully built apparatus of lies. This apparatus is big and artfully constructed: phoney-baloney organisations designed to look and sound like they're real, messages honed by public relations experts to sound like they're truthful, payrolled scientists whom polluters can trot out when they need them. And the whole thing big and complicated enough that when you see its parts you could be fooled into thinking that it's not all the same beast. But it is. Just like the mythological Hydra – many heads, same beast.'

Whitehouse's speech made repeated reference to a ground-breaking new study by Robert J. Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel university, which describes the organisational underpinnings and funding behind climate denial. This is the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted on the topic.

Brulle finds that from 2003 to 2010, 140 foundations made 5,299 grants totalling fully $558 million to 91 major climate denial organisations. These 91 organisations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The UK also has its own denial network.

Disturbingly, Brulle writes that 'while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding'.

This is part of a trend:

'The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.'

In other words, as scientific evidence of looming climate disaster has become simply overwhelming, the funders blocking action to prevent disaster have knowingly hidden their support for fear of negative publicity.

....Senator Whitehouse sums up the significance:

'This apparatus is a disgrace. When the inevitable happens and the impact of climate change really starts to hit home, people will want to know: why? Why we didn't take proper steps in time. It's not as if there's not enough scientific evidence out there for us to act. Why not?

'This denial operation – The Beast - will then go down as one of our great American scandals, like Watergate or Teapot Dome - a deliberate, complex scheme of lies and propaganda that caused real harm to the American people, and to our country. All so that a small group of people could make more money a little longer.'

....

brianlux

^^^ Excellent article, Byrnzie. Thanks for posting it.

What's frustrating for some of us is that we have been reading about, and talking about and taking what actions we can on global warming for a long time- for me at least 25 or 30 years- I've lost count- and still we hear about the denial, still our leaders take no action, still we speed recklessly toward a brick wall. (This doesn't make me smarter or better than anyone else, just more years worth of frustrated.) The evidence has been around for some time now. The action taken on it has been inadequate. Will we start taking aversive action in time (if it's not too late) or will wait until the speeding vehicle is too close to the wall?

Yes, Byrnzie, carpe diem!

Byrnzie

brianlux said:

^^^ Excellent article, Byrnzie. Thanks for posting it.

What's frustrating for some of us is that we have been reading about, and talking about and taking what actions we can on global warming for a long time- for me at least 25 or 30 years- I've lost count- and still we hear about the denial, still our leaders take no action, still we speed recklessly toward a brick wall. (This doesn't make me smarter or better than anyone else, just more years worth of frustrated.) The evidence has been around for some time now. The action taken on it has been inadequate. Will we start taking aversive action in time (if it's not too late) or will wait until the speeding vehicle is too close to the wall?

Yes, Byrnzie, carpe diem!

Tyrrhenum. Sapias, vina liques et spatio brevi — Be wise, be truthful, strain the wine, and scale back your long hopes


Here's another one from 2008:

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'

The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do?


Decca Aitkenhead
The Guardian, Saturday 1 March 2008

...Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.

...On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."

...Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem - the bigger challenge will be food. "Maybe they'll synthesise food. I don't know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco's, in the form of Quorn. It's not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it." But he fears we won't invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects "about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. "But this is the real thing."

...

brianlux

^^^ Lovelock is our Great Elder Godfather of modern day environmental thinkers. If he says it's too late to stop the landslide, I won't be surprised if he is correct... yet again. I like his idea that we have an immense amount of work to do. What do we have to lose? His prediction of 80% of the worlds population being wiped out is terrible to think about on a family and friend level but from a purely biological level it sounds like a good thing. That would put our species population at much more reasonable level.

What I'm also very interested in him saying "enjoy life while you can". The big question is, how do we do that and do the immense amount of work he mentions. I'm guessing he doesn't mean to suggest that we go out and buy speed boats and weekend Hummers. We sat outside this evening around a small fire and shared a glass of wine and looked at the stars. I think that might be closer to what he's getting at.

I hope we get some good discussion going here. I'm all ears for more input, suggestion, including thoughts on how to live well and easier on the planet.

brianlux

Here's a interesting article from, of all places, a major popular news source- ABC- that suggests that doing what we can to curb the warming is important but perhaps even more so, our best move may be to learn how to live with the inevitable change:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/late-stop-global-warming/story?id=17557814

It May Be Too Late to Stop Global Warming


Home> Technology
It May Be Too Late to Stop Global Warming

Here's a dark secret about the earth's changing climate that many scientists believe, but few seem eager to discuss: It's too late to stop global warming.

Greenhouse gasses pumped into the planet's atmosphere will continue to grow even if the industrialized nations cut their emissions down to the bone. Furthermore, the severe measures that would have to be taken to make those reductions stand about the same chance as that proverbial snowball in hell.

Two scientists who believe we are on the wrong track argue in the current issue of the journal Nature Climate Change that global warming is inevitable and it's time to switch our focus from trying to stop it to figuring out how we are going to deal with its consequences.

"At present, governments' attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy sources are probably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming," Jasper Knight of Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa, and Stephan Harrison of the University of Exeter in England argue in their study. Those efforts, they continue, "have little relationship to the real world."

What is clear, they contend, is a profound lack of understanding about how we are going to deal with the loss of huge land areas, including some entire island nations, and massive migrations as humans flee areas no longer suitable for sustaining life, the inundation of coastal properties around the world, and so on ... and on ... and on.

That doesn't mean nations should stop trying to reduce their carbon emissions, because any reduction could lessen the consequences. But the cold fact is no matter what Europe and the United States and other "developed" nations do, it's not going to curb global climate change, according to one scientist who was once highly skeptical of the entire issue of global warming.

"Call me a converted skeptic," physicist Richard A. Muller says in an op-ed piece published in the New York Times last July.

Muller's latest book, "Energy for Future Presidents," attempts to poke holes in nearly everything we've been told about energy and climate change, except the fact that "humans are almost entirely the cause" of global warming.

Those of us who live in the "developed" world initiated it. Those who live in the "developing" world will sustain it as they strive for a standard of living equal to ours.

"As far as global warming is concerned, the developed world is becoming irrelevant," Muller insists in his book. We could set an example by curbing our emissions, and thus claim in the future that "it wasn't our fault," but about the only thing that could stop it would be a complete economic collapse in China and the rest of the world's developing countries.

As they race forward, their industrial growth -- and their greenhouse gas emissions -- will outpace any efforts by the West to reduce their carbon footprints, Muller contends.

"China has been installing a new gigawatt of coal power each week," he says in his Times piece, and each plant pumps an additional ton of gases into the atmosphere "every second."

"By the time you read this, China's yearly greenhouse gas emissions will be double those of the United States, perhaps higher," he contends. And that's not likely to change.

"China is fighting poverty, malnutrition, hunger, poor health, inadequate education and limited opportunity. If you were the president of China, would you endanger progress to avoid a few degrees of temperature change?" he asks.

Muller suggests a better course for the West to take than condemning China for trying to be like the rest of us. Instead, we should encourage China to switch from coal to natural gas for its power plants, which would cut those emissions in half.

"Coal," he writes, "is the filthiest fuel we have."

Meanwhile, the West waits for a silver bullet, possibly a geo-engineering solution that would make global warming go away by reflecting sunlight back into space, or fertilizing the oceans so they could absorb more carbon dioxide, or something we haven't even heard about. Don't expect it anytime soon.

It would take a bold, and perhaps foolish, nation to take over the complex systems that control the planet's weather patterns. That's sort of what we did beginning with the Industrial Revolution. Now we have to live with it.

So maybe Knight and Harrison are right. It's time to pay more attention to how we are going to handle changes to our planet that seem inevitable.

We can fight global warming and try to mitigate the consequences, but it isn't going to go away.

polaris_x

For those still trying to figure it out - Here you go!

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

brianlux

I did a quick search here to find a thread titled "Global Warming". It seemed like the right place to post this little piece of insanity:

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-officials-ban-term-climate-change-133852957.html

In Florida, Officials Ban the Term “Climate Change”

Employees of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection have apparently been told not to use the terms “climate change,” “global warming,” or “sustainability” in official documents, according to a new report from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. The policy apparently impacted how Florida’s environmental policy was conceived, executed, and explained. Florida officials have denied the existence of a climate change–denial policy, but it’s worth noting that the state’s governor, Rick Scott, has said he doesn’t believe climate change is caused by human behavior.

Climate change is a major issue in Florida, given that a significant share of the state’s land is coastal. Coastal erosion threatens the state’s population and economy. The National Climate Assessment recently warned, “There is an imminent threat of increased inland flooding during heavy rain events in low-lying coastal areas such as southeast Florida, where just inches of sea level rise will impair the capacity of stormwater drainage systems to empty into the ocean.” The story was published in Sunday’s Miami Herald.

backseatLover12

Good God. Jon Stewart's right. The worst state to live in is Florida. Can't pay me enough to live there. Here' some more good news from Florida:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-guns-on-campus-law-20141209-story.html
State lawmaker files bill to allow guns on college campuses

But I digress...

rr165892

We are by far not the worst place to live not even close.and contrary to the media nonsense we Floridians are very conscious of of fragile Eco system.It can be argued we have some of the most diverse environmentally sensitive areas in the world and trust me,regardless of what you may hear from some of our dipshit politicians,on the ground in the real world we have some of the strictest enviorment rules of any state.In my area alone,sea turtles,water run offs, manatees,Mangrove preservation,elimination of invasive species,and preservation of our beloved wetland and estuaries. all fuel huge support by our very responsible citizens.Big sugar even is in on Everglades preservation and Maintaining ground water purity.Our beaches and waterways,wild life,sea life are our life blood and if anything threatens that it's a war here.In my town we have sign pollution rules and mandatory green spaces and preserved watersheds that you don't fuck with.So don't be so quick to judge.IMO There is no better state.regardless of politics.We enjoy our beaches,waterways and parks.very much here.

backseatLover12

No offense, man, but the politics that run your state are just the sort of politics that will keep me from ever moving there, that's all.

brianlux

backseatLover12 said:

Good God. Jon Stewart's right. The worst state to live in is Florida. Can't pay me enough to live there. Here' some more good news from Florida:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-guns-on-campus-law-20141209-story.html
State lawmaker files bill to allow guns on college campuses

But I digress...

Now I know why not everyone on the east coast is a snow bird! LOL!

But I will say, we have some super great people here on the forums who live in Florida which just goes to show there are good folks everywhere.

brianlux

rr, I have to admit it would not be my first choice to live in FLA but then neither would half the other states in the union so don't feel bad. And beside, you have armadillos! How cool is that!

rr165892

brianlux said:

rr, I have to admit it would not be my first choice to live in FLA but then neither would half the other states in the union so don't feel bad. And beside, you have armadillos! How cool is that!

Of all the cool creatures in my state you pick the armadillo????haha .
Gators,Water Mocassins,20' man eating pythons,Bull sharks,Komodo dragons,Panthers,Crocs,etc none of them do it for Ya huh.

brianlux

rr165892 said:

brianlux said:

rr, I have to admit it would not be my first choice to live in FLA but then neither would half the other states in the union so don't feel bad. And beside, you have armadillos! How cool is that!

Of all the cool creatures in my state you pick the armadillo????haha .
Gators,Water Mocassins,20' man eating pythons,Bull sharks,Komodo dragons,Panthers,Crocs,etc none of them do it for Ya huh.

Armadillos rock! When I lived in western New York State, I knew a guy who was so crazy about armadillos that (he claimed anyway) he went down to to FLA with some brass armadillos he made and barge cemented them to roads to get even with people who run them over. I'm fairly sure that was a tall tale but, man, that guy loved armadillos!

pdalowsky

I find it interesting that global temperatures haven't risen in 18 straight years now....

the great pause, the antartic ice mass is at record mass, and the artic is thriving, with ice sheets at record thickness.....yet this information doesn't achieve the next environmental research grant....

it seems to me that in a time when carbon emissions have never ever been higher than they are now, the great temperature explosion hasn't at all materialised.

They were talking of an ice age coming in the 70's, then ice free polar regions by 2013.....3 degree per century rises, which are presently somewhere around the 0.1% levels if that.

Sub sea level temperatures are at a record low - which seems to dispel the current theory that deals with the 'great temperature pause' in that the ocean is soaking up the carbon raising sea temperatures and accentuating the rise in glacial melting......

Something doesn't seem right in all this, Im no 'warmist' but im also no 'denier'. Im purely someone who likes to look at these things with an open mind and not the sensationalism of the mass media and world powers......

We have a very good idea the world has been warmer than it is now, that cycles are part and parcel of what we have on earth, and that the Vikings called Greenland exactly that when they discovered. why? well it certainly wasn't frozen over.....

natural disasters, floods, tornados etc have actually increased - in fact they have decreased......and all in all, is this a huge overstated con? ive no idea but I find it fascinating to watch it unfold.

rgambs

Alot pf those records you mention are baloney!
Global temps havnt risen in 18 years...false
Antarctic ice at record mass...false
Artic ice at record mass...false
Sea-sea level temps at record low...what does that even mean? That would suggest land temps but you tie it to the oceans??? Which are not at record low,temps by any means.

pdalowsky

rgambs said:

Alot pf those records you mention are baloney!
Global temps havnt risen in 18 years...false
Antarctic ice at record mass...false
Artic ice at record mass...false
Sea-sea level temps at record low...what does that even mean? That would suggest land temps but you tie it to the oceans??? Which are not at record low,temps by any means.

I guess that depends on what we read and what is presented, and how that information is presented, is there an agenda and is there a slant applied?

for example, this could all be bollocks, but still:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again-global-temperature-update-the-pause-is-now-18-years-3-months/

Im sure someone else can paint a very different picture. The way in which land mass surface temperatures are infilled is interesting to say the least, especially when there are often massive distances between stations.....

pdalowsky

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans-8726893.html

contrasts with a NASA report on deep ocean temperatures from the time when they could monitor this (maybe not at a low but not risen in the ten years of the so called pause - so where is all that carbon going?)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/nasa-the-deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-since-2005/

pdalowsky

again could be complete rubbish.....

Date: 16/01/15
Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller

Despite fears that global warming is harming the Arctic region faster
than the rest of the world, Greenland is defying climate scientists
and currently growing at its fastest rate in four years.

The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Greenland’s ice sheet
has seen more growth so far this year than in the last four years.
Greenland’s growth in 2015 is also higher than the mean growth for
1990 to 2011.

Greenland has been a curious case in the global warming debate. On the
one hand, scientists and environmentalists have pointed to it as a
prime example of a country being impacted by global temperature rises.
Greenland is home to the world’s second-largest ice sheet and
scientists say it’s melting at an accelerated rate.

But a paper from earlier this year found that only about half the
warming impacting Greenland is due to global warming, the other half
is due to natural oceanic cycles originating in the tropical Pacific.

“The pattern of the changes in the tropical Pacific that are
responsible for remarkable atmospheric circulation changes and warming
in Greenland and the Canadian Arctic are consistent with what we would
call natural variability,”said David Battisti, co-author of the study
and a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of
Washington.

On the other hand, Greenlanders themselves have benefited from a
shrinking ice sheet as it’s allowed them to access natural resources
and lands previously unattainable under heavy ice coverage.

“We simply refuse to go under as a culture because of climate change,”
Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond told Reuters in January 2014. “We have
to adapt because the ice is disappearing and hunting is no longer the
main source of income.”

“But climate change gives us a new chance to survive because our
minerals become accessible so we’ll adapt,” Hammond said. “We are one
of the very few countries around the world where climate change is
giving us benefits.”

Greenland removed a ban on exporting uranium last year, against the
wishes of Denmark, as foreign companies become more interested in
pulling minerals out of the ground as more areas open up.

But it shouldn’t be too surprising that Greenland has defied dire
predictions. The Arctic region as a whole has been more or less stable
in recent years, stumping scientists who said it would be ice-free by
now.

“The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last
few months suggests many assumptions about the poles was wrong,” Dr.
Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, told the
U.K. Express.

“Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that
something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted,”
Peiser said. “Most people think the poles are melting… they’re not.
This is a huge inconvenience that reality is now catching up with
climate alarmists, who were predicting that the poles would be melting
fairly soon.”