+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12315
Total Topics: 256
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Future Earth  (Read 11512 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #120 on: July 31, 2015, 05:55:54 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: This is how Divestment from the Fossil Fuel Corporate Crooks and Liars Begins.  ;D

Exxon, Chevron Brace for Darker Times as Earnings Slump  

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the biggest U.S. energy producers, hunkered down for a prolonged stretch of weak prices after posting their worst quarterly performances in several years.    

Exxon reported its lowest profit since 2009 as crude prices fell twice as fast as the world’s largest crude producer by market value could slash expenses. Chevron recorded its lowest profit in more than 12 years after the market rout forced $2.6 billion in asset writedowns and related charges. The companies’ shares fell to multi-year lows.

Stung by the worst market collapse since the financial crisis of 2008, oil explorers from The Hague to Calgary to Houston are firing staff, scaling back drilling, canceling rig contracts and reducing share buybacks to conserve cash. Chevron said the slump convinced it to lower its long-term outlook for crude prices.

“This is the beginning, not the end, of the writedown process,” Paul Sankey, an energy analyst at Wolfe Research LLC, said on Bloomberg TV. “The biggest concern is that we’ll see weaker demand over the second half of the year.”

Oil entered its second bear market since mid-2014 this month as a flood of output from North American shale regions, the Persian Gulf and deepwater fields overwhelmed consumption by refiners and chemical producers.

Avalanche of Crude

Exxon and Chevron contributed to the avalanche of supply by increasing second-quarter crude output by 12 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively. Exxon expanded oil production in every region where it operates except Australia/Oceania. All of Chevron’s growth occurred in the U.S.

“Oil prices will be under downward pressure until there is evidence the glut is shrinking,” analysts at IHS Energy said in a note to clients. “This will not happen quickly unless prices fall even further from recent levels,” discouraging new drilling.

Exxon shares fell 4.6 percent to $79.21 in New York, the lowest closing price since June 2012. Chevron dropped 4.9 percent to $88.48, the lowest close since December 2010. The companies were the day’s worst performers in the Dow Jones Industrial Average index.

Exxon cut share repurchases for the current quarter in half to $500 million after net income fell to $4.19 billion, or $1 a share, from $8.78 billion, or $2.05, a year earlier, the Irving, Texas-based company said in a statement. The per-share result was 11 cents lower than the average estimate of 20 analysts in a Bloomberg survey.

Spending Cuts

Refinery profits fattened by lower crude costs were more than offset by weaker results in the company’s primary business, oil and natural gas production, Exxon said. The company’s U.S. wells lost $47 million.  

Exxon reduced spending on major projects like floating crude platforms and gas-export terminals by 20 percent to $6.746 billion during the quarter, according to the statement. International crude prices fell 42 percent from the previous year to average $63.50 a barrel.

Chevron’s profit dropped to $571 million, or 30 cents a share, from $5.67 billion, or $2.98, a year earlier, the San Ramon, California-based company said in a statement. The per-share result was well below the $1.16 average estimate.

Chevron’s biggest business unit -- oil and gas production - - posted a loss as the second-largest U.S. energy company recorded a $1.96 billion writedown on assets and another $670 million charge for taxes and projects suspended because they no longer make economic sense.

Pessimistic Outlook 

“The writedowns will get worse into the end of the year as companies complete their end-of-the-year SEC filings,” Sankey said. “The market still looks very oversupplied with oil and we’re in peak demand season.”

Exxon Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was among the first to shrink spending as the crude rout began more than a year ago. After cutting the budget by 9.3 percent in 2014, this year’s reduction may exceed the original 12 percent target, Jeff Woodbury, vice president of investor relations, said during a conference call with analysts.

Tillerson, an Exxon lifer whose 10th year as CEO began in January, has been pessimistic about the prospects for an imminent oil-market rebound. On April 21, he told a Houston energy conference that the supply glut and low prices will persist “for the next couple of years” at least.

Those remarks proved prophetic: international crude prices that rose 45 percent between Jan. 13 and May 6 have since tumbled 22 percent, inaugurating the second oil bear market in 14 months.
“Chevron was a disaster; Exxon was a disappointment,” Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. In New York who rates the shares of both the equivalent of a hold and owns each. “A rising tide lifts all ships, but when the tide goes down, all ships go down.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-31/exxon-chevron-bracing-for-dark-times-ahead-as-oil-slump-lingers?cmpid=yhoo
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 08:35:13 pm by AGelbert »
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #121 on: August 06, 2015, 07:36:24 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: This is available now. I post it because I anticipate many humans will soon be forced to use this sort of attire to deal with global warming.   


DIY Refrigerator Shirt         ;D
by BillW1

Quote


I like to race Radio Control cars here in California in the Central Valley but I get heatstroke symptoms (headache, dizzy, nausea) on 100 degree plus days. (Heatstroke is risky). I was bummed I couldn't race all summer. I then sought a solution and came up with this. It is not a cheap as anyone would like ($410), but it is better than trying to save money by buying cheap, then the merry-go-round of stuff that doesn't work, and then buying the expensive stuff in the end anyway.

The shirt can be assembled in any order, so it isn't really step-by-step. Also, my eBay links can go stale, so I will tell you what to google.

The vest has tubing that you circulate ice water through with a pump. The hydration pack has a reservoir that you half fill with water then add ice. As the ice melts you pour out the excess water and add more ice. A 5lb bag of ice from a convenience store lasts all day.

The shirt works. I can spend all day in 100 degree plus weather and be comfortable.   
When you first switch the pump on, it fells like jumping into an freezing pool  ;D, but then your body acclimates and you don't even know it's working. Then you take it off, and holy crap, you see how hot it is outside.

The design is a coolshirt vest (vest with hose sewed in), a pump, a battery, a switch and a hydration pack. 


http://www.instructables.com/id/Refrigerator-Shirt/?ALLSTEPS
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #122 on: August 12, 2015, 07:38:49 pm »
Sanders Schedules September Sojourn to Falwell’s Liberty University

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-berkowitz/63393/sanders-schedules-september-sojourn-to-falwell-s-liberty-university

I hope he has a food taster to protect him from being poisoned.

TPTB will not kill Senator Sanders.  The last thing they want is a martyr. They have other plans for him. I suspect they will try to besmirch his rep with some half truths about his amorous adventures.

But for the moment, the media will continue to talk as little as possible about him. When that is no longer possible because of his MASSIVE support, they will then keep watering down his campaign by talking up liars that promise the moon in order to confuse people.

Subsequently they will produce polls (near the elections) that are of the three dollar bill value to claim Sanders is neck and neck with Hillary in order to bullshit the American public info thinking the gamed voting machine results are real voting results (when Hillary "wins" by a small margin.    ).

The problem for all these bastards running our country is that it is not going to work. There is no way in hell that people are going to swallow the bullshit this time around.

WHY? Because of Sanders' legislative track record. NOBODY out there has one like he does. He WALKS the TALK! Therefore NOBODY in the public is going to believe somebody promising the moon has the same cred. Therefore NOBODY is going to believe that so-and-so is just as worthy a candidate. Therefore EVERYBODY (who has a brain) will know TPTB are trying to game the election with fake polls followed by "horse race" election results.

Will there be goon violence? YES.
Will there be intimidation by the goons? YES.
Will the country stand for it like they have always done? Maybe.

But I don't think so.   



http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37


Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #123 on: August 16, 2015, 09:47:26 pm »
Quote
"The real winners in sea level rise are the Lawyers."   :P
Quote
"All wells within six miles of the coast in Fort Lauderdale have been lost to salt water intrusion"- Video
https://youtu.be/X1hJYLw7OlM

The "FUN" is just beginning...
   

The phenomenon that can not be spoken in Florida continues as salt water intrusion moves inland
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #124 on: August 17, 2015, 01:55:57 pm »


What the Wolf Said

Sheryl Lee | August 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Quote
palm to palm
 palm to paw
 paw to earth
 earth to root
 root to trunk
 trunk to branch
 branch to wing
 wing to petal
 petal to wind
 wind to breath
 breath to life
 life to body
 body to earth
 earth into body
 body receives life
 life as breath
 breath exhales wind
 wind touches petal
 petal offers wing
 wing embraces branch
 branch reaches trunk
 trunk connects root
 root feeds earth
 earth kisses paw
 paw touches palm
 palm holds palm

this is the circle
 no beginning
 no end

http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/17/sheryl-lee-what-the-wolf-said/

And this is the world humanity is destroying by his desire to stop the circle by clinging to an illusion of permanence through toxic technology products.

There is a right way.   

We are NOT on it. We will take it or we will perish, PERIOD.   


These results will not be welcome news as there are many with short-term vested interests that will want to ignore them. The Reason Brain Diseases Have Quadrupled in 21 Years. 

The fossil fuel industry falsely claims the world owes them for "feeding millions" with fossil fuel powered farm machines, fossil fuel based pesticides and fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers that "increased the yield per acre of crops". It's a lie.

"Analysis of historical data shows that over the past seven years eliminating the fossil fuel sector from a global benchmark index would have actually had a small positive return effect. Furthermore, much of the economic effect of excluding fossil fuel stocks could have been replicated with 'fossil free' energy portfolios consisting of energy efficiency and renewable energy stocks, with limited additional tracking error and improved returns."

IMPAX Asset Management Report on the Case for Fossil Fuel divestment.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 08:36:57 pm by AGelbert »
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #125 on: September 02, 2015, 09:01:45 pm »
Shilling for Dollars

Front groups with official and impressive name such as Medicine and Public Health at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) tend to lend an air of authoritative credibility to a given issue. It carries the impression of being an expert source.

To increase the “expert credibility” image, add someone with a few letters before and/or after their name to the staff.

But is the front group or its representatives really an expert and credible organization? 

Full article:
https://frackorporation.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/shilling-for-dollars/

Agelbert NOTE:
The short answer is NO. The ACSH is funded by a rogues gallery of polluters. The scientists they employ are bought and paid for to distort, dissemble and twist the science of applied physics (see "High Energy Density" of fossil fuels happy talk) and climate science along with several other pro-corporate and anti-people propaganda). The ACSH exists to perpetuate the profit over planet polluting status quo, PERIOD.



Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Gary Ruskin

The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries.

Personnel

ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.[2] In 1993, according to United Press International, Dr. Ross was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system.[3]
ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross from Medicaid for ten years.[4]


Funding
 

ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has been referred to as “independent” in the press. However, according to internal ACSH financial documents obtained by Mother Jones:

“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”[5]

“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and **** ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).

Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.”[6]

ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.[7]

Indefensible and incorrect statements on science
ACSH has:

Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”[8]

Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global warming. The climate change predictions are based on computer models that have not been validated and are far from perfect.”[9]

Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”[10]

Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use of pesticides in this country.”[11]

Declared that “There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts, are harmful to health.”[12]

Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.”[13]

Footnotes

[2] “Meet the ACSH Team,” American Council on Science and Health website.

[3] “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” United Press International, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross and Vivian Shevitz, “RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.” March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “Paging Dr. Ross.” Mother Jones, November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “Corporate Front Groups and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Spinwatch, June 25, 2010.

[4] Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, In the Cases of Gilbert Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The Inspector General. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.

[5] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[6] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[7] “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Greenpeace. See also Rebekah Wilce, “Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council on Science and Health.” PR Watch, July 23, 2014.

[8] Richard Craver, “The Effects of the Smoking Ban.” Winston-Salem Journal, December 12, 2012.

[9] Elizabeth Whelan, “’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat.” PRI (Population Research Institute) Review, January 1, 1998.

[10] Elizabeth Whelan, “Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks.” The Daily Caller, April 29, 2013.

[11] “TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,” p. 9. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.

[12] “The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012.” American Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.

[13] “The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010.” American Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.

Food For Thought, Hall of Shame

http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/

Agelbert NOTE:
Here is an excellent example of pseudo scientific baloney published by the ACSH (it's three years old but the same baloney continues to be peddled by fossil fuelers and those that swallowed their mendacious propaganda):

Energy Density: Why Gasoline Is Here To Stay 

By Hank Campbell    | August 2nd 2012 11:00 PM

SNIPPET 1 - The Pretense of Objectivity Wind Up (i.e. tough love "real world" baloney mixed with sympathy laced rhetoric):

Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there are a lot of naďve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.

We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.


SNIPPET 2 - The pitch:

Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108 J/gallon.


SNIPPET 3 (Just ONE of SEVERAL real world AND applied physics LIES):

Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403


Agelbert NOTE: To begin with, ethanol is not a "craze". It was not a craze in 2012 and, because presently 15 billion gallons of it are made a year, it certainly isn't one now.

But the fact that the author is so ignorant of history (Edison labs in partnership with the U.S. Navy, in the first decade of the 20th century, PROVED that ethanol was a superior fuel to gasoline - It was rather convenient for Standard Oil that Prohibition just happened to come along after Rockefeller funded the temperance movement to the tune of several million dollars...) is informative about the questionable scientific objectivity of the author.  ;)

The author puts up a happy talk graph showing gasoline as the high energy density champion over E85. He leaves out E100 (an informative omission that points squarely at a fossil fuel bias).

The chart is accurate. So what's the problem? The problem is that energy density of gasoline and ethanol is a process determined in the lab, by scientists, in certain standardized conditions. I'm CERTAIN fossil fuelers know this. The energy density of about 44 MJ/kg) for gasoline is determined by heating water, in an open flame in standard atmospheric conditions (a fixed temperature and pressure - sea level at 59 degrees F). 

If the above appears irrelevant to you, let me remind you that heating water in an open flame is an EXTERNAL combustion process. It is true that gasoline will heat that water quicker than ethanol.  ;D

But, unless you have a steam engine running your car, you need to consider how much WORK you can get from gasoline versus ethanol in an INTERNAL combustion engine.

The author neglected to mention that ethanol (E100) has a higher octane rating than non-leaded gasoline, even though E100 has a lower energy density.  ;D High octane ratings give a fuel better mileage as long as you oxidize them in a high compression internal combustion engines. That is why tetra-ethyl lead was invented to help our children's IQ... You see, ethanol was outlawed for fuel thanks to Prohibition... And, by the way, leaded gasoline is STILL LEGAL for use in aircraft internal combustion engine, all of which are high compression engines. Do you live under the approach to general aviation airport? Then you are getting the "benefit" of still another "externalized" cost thanks to the fossil fuel industry.

When you mix gasoline with ethanol (e.g. E85) you LOWER the octane rating. IOW, you are making it LESS efficient. You are making it LESS competitive with gasoline. You are getting the waste heat disadvantage of gasoline and losing the a part of the high octane rating of ethanol. That is Inefficient. That is unscientific. That is STUPID. But that is convenient and profitable for the fossil fuel industry. You might ask yourself why E100 is in common use in Brazil, but not in the USA. I'll give you three guesses - the first two don't count;)

Why ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded gasoline if ethanol has a lower energy density? Because ethanol is of uniform chemical structure. Consequently, it burns evenly and does not suffer from pre-ignition (like low octane gasoline DOES) which can severely damage an engine.

More thermodynamically important, however,  the consistent chemical structure of E100 ensures complete combustion, aided by the fact that it carries it's own oxygen.

In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because, unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase friction and decrease engine life.

Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block, or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers and manufacturers (more on that below).

IN SUMMARY, "High energy density" calculations  are based on EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.

But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with automobiles.

But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel industry would not like that at all.

A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even more mechanical energy (i.e. WORK) out of each gallon because less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and occupants.

The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel" and "corrosion".

I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry self serving propaganda. But they just keep throwing it out there to try to preserve the TOTALLY unscientific basis for claiming fossil fuels are a "better fuel" than E100 (pure ethanol).

Don't believe them. And check to see who is doing the funding when you read happy talk about fossil fuels.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is not objective, science based or credible. Hank Campbell, like the fossil fueler MKing that haunts the Doomstead Diner, is not interested in scientific objectivity; preserving the fossil fuel profit over planet status quo with mens rea mendacity is behind everything they write.



Further reading that methodically takes apart some relatively recent pseudo scientific baloney by the "illustrious" Professor Charles Hall, friend of fossil fuelers everywhere. 



 

 
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #126 on: September 09, 2015, 06:37:45 pm »
A very interesting comment in a climate science web site (run by climate scientists)  thread where actual climate scientists post.
 
Quote
Chuck Hughes says: 2 Sep 2015 at 1:24 PM Is this anything like, “Nobody saw it [crash] coming,” in which any number of people did? Much like you say “anyone” above when quite a few have seen high SLR this century for a while now. I’m sure you mean hardly anyone; just checking. Comment by Killian — 1 Sep 2015

Killian, I know you’re a bright fellow and I was using “everybody” in the colloquial sense or, the vernacular of the common citizenry, excluding those of us here at RC of course. Having said that I would like your opinion on “abrupt SLR.”

How “abrupt” do you think it might be? IPCC puts it at 1 meter by the end of the century. I personally think that’s a tad bit conservative. What say you?

If salt water is able to penetrate the underbelly of Greenland, say within the next 5 to 10 years I’m thinking all bets are off.   :o

Then there’s the WAIS… along with several amplifying feedbacks that climate models may not have figured in. Am I in the ballpark? - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/09/unforced-variations-sept-2015/#sthash.IxU0e93v.dpuf
 


« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 08:58:03 pm by AGelbert »
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #127 on: September 18, 2015, 09:13:40 pm »
Will this be the worst El Nino in 65 years?  ???
Sep. 18, 2015 8:07 am
By Thom Hartmann

Droughts … floods... heatwaves... you don't have to be an expert to see that 2015 is shaping up to be a record-breaking year when it comes to extreme weather. And, according to the experts, it's only going to get worse.

Earlier this week, the National Weather Service issued an El Nino update, and said that this season may be the worst El Nino event in their 65 years of record keeping. And, international climate scientists are saying the same.

The British Meteorological Office recently published a study, called “Big Changes Underway in the Climate System?”, which says that increased carbon pollution is going to exacerbate El Nino and push global temperatures even higher.

In other words, that means temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are expected to hit new record highs in the 2015-2016 summer season, and that could bring about more extreme weather events for the whole planet.

Rowan Sutton, a scientist who works for the National Center for Atmospheric Science, said,
Quote
“This is not a fluke. We are seeing the effects of energy steadily accumulating in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere, caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”
Quote

Adam Scaife, the study's lead researcher, explained further by saying, “We believe we are at an important point in the time series of the Earth's climate and we'll look back on this period as an important turning point.”
He added,
Quote
“That's why we're emphasizing it, because we're seeing so many big changes at once.”
The consensus among these experts is that global warming is no longer a problem for the future that we're trying to prevent, it is a very real dilemma that we're seeing occur right before our eyes. 

A century of pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is coming back to haunt us, and it's only going to get worse if we don't get serious about fighting climate change right now.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/09/will-be-worst-el-nino-65-years#sthash.OPmVOODQ.dpuf
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #128 on: September 19, 2015, 06:04:37 pm »

Cry From a Far Planet

A SF morality tale about a feline ET species that learned from environmental catastrophe what we refuse to learn.
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #129 on: September 19, 2015, 06:41:12 pm »
Excellent comment posted on an article by Thom Hartmann

Quote

RFord • 6 hours 33 min ago #6

Seems like every time I turn around there's a new climate change report coming out showing that climate change and global warming is happening faster than had previously been predicted. Many people are not concerned about this happening (global warming) because they believe it's not going to affect them because they will die of old age long before it starts killing all human beings and they are not concerned with what will happen to yet unborn generations.

Some think that global warming is a farce and it's not feasible, or that it's too expensive to move away from carbon energy. These Ideas come from the fossil fuel industry, who pay their bought and paid for congressmen, senators and news outlets to say these things.

The fact is people are already dying from the effects of climate change in Serria (Sierra Leone - https://zikipediq.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/south-is-the-first-victim-of-global-warming/) and, yes, right here in the USA.

People are dying because of drought caused forest fires either by fighting the fires or by being caught in the fires.

But many don't die, they just lose everything they own including their home. Global warming and climate change are happening now at ever increasing rates. It may not be the future generations of earthlings that go extinct. It may be the present generations that go extinct sooner than anyone has imagined.

If humans are smart, they will do all they can to keep themselves from going extinct. But I'm afraid humans are not as smart and superior as humans think they are.

The time to act against global warming is now because the tipping point is when human produced greenhouse gasses are no longer the main cause of global warming.

The tipping point is when global warming is causing global warming and then there is no stopping it. The air, water, and the surface of the Earth become extremely hot and poisoned with methane and 90 percent of all living things on earth dies.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/09/will-be-worst-el-nino-65-years#comment-335282
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #130 on: September 22, 2015, 04:18:12 pm »
Quote
Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.- A. G. Gelbert

The following multi-part article post makes a case for the premise that ignoring, deriding or mocking the high probability of the existential threat we face from anthropogenic climate change is irresponsible. Anyone who is alive after around 2040 will pay for their present irresponsible, egocentric, empathy deficit disordered behavior.

Unfortunately, the innocent will suffer equally along with the criminally negligent reprobates who support incremental measures to deal with this existential threat. Have a nice day.



The essay, "What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future" by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz references the work of Fitzpatrick, Jonas, Aristotle and others. I have summarized the essay to save the readers time.

Quote
FitzPatrick, W.J. 2007. Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations: Social Justice Beyond Mutual Advantage. Environmental Ethics. 29(4): 369-388.

The author discusses the moral responsibilities that current generations have to future generations, and how arguing for protecting the rights of future generations is an effective answer to political arguments against taking mandatory measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions when these are unpopular with a democratic populace.

Climate Change, Engineered Systems, & Society Bibliography
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Bibliographies/ClimateChangeBib.aspx
Theoretical & Applied Ethics Vol. 1, Issue 42 2, Spring 2011

What it Means to be Responsible
Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future
Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz

The concept of responsibility is a central one in ethics but it seems to require rethinking when we consider the fact that oftentimes the consequences of actions in contemporary, technological society extend far into the future. To whom or what are we responsible, and how far into the future do our obligations extend?

In this essay, I consider the question of our possible responsibility for the future, specifically the future state of our planet, and the well-being of future people and other beings. I argue that we do have responsibilities to future people and an obligation to try to preserve and protect the planet and its living beings for the future, and I present a new concept of responsibility, one that provides a way of understanding our actions in light of concern for the future.

The central problem with an argument that considers the effects of present actions on the future world lies in the fact that those acting today will not exist in the world they are affecting with their actions.

Why should people, now living, care about the consequences of their actions on a future world whose inhabitants are currently non-existent? Even if held accountable by those future generations, no price for wrongful actions can be extracted from the dead. We lack the usual motivations for acting ethically in situations that might impact future generations, and though we may imagine angry voices condemning us for our lack of forethought and care some several generations into the future, we will never hear those words of contempt.

Despite this, Attfield (1998) argues that "intergenerational justice remains a serious possibility, as actual future generations which come into being, and find that they have been deprived by earlier generations of opportunities for satisfying some of their most basic needs, could reasonably criticize their ancestors for failing to facilitate the satisfaction of foreseeable vital interests" (p.211).


Ethical arguments struggle, however, when lack of proximity is a factor, for it is difficult to take into consideration the impact of our actions on those spatially distant from us.


This problem arises whenever we are asked to take into consideration or contribute to the welfare of those who live in distant places, those who do not share our community, and those whose suffering we do not directly experience.

Without the presence of the other face-to-face, without a real relation to the other person, it is difficult to remain aware of and concerned about his or her need.

How much more difficult then, to take into consideration those who do not yet exist, those others we will never know and can only imagine.

The difficulty is further complicated by the fact that often the choices we make today, choices that involve use of finite resources, for instance, or the use of technology that may have deleterious aftereffects, may seem at the time to be valuable for the comfort, health or well-being of the contemporaneous human population. Indeed, most of our ethical deliberation is concerned with present actions.

In what way and how can it be argued that sacrifices or restrictions on some very useful and beneficial activities and technologies must be made in order to benefit future peoples who do not yet exist?



Responsibility in Aristotle

For Aristotle, the capacity human beings have to think about what they will do is what lies at the root of our responsibility for our actions. We are free to act, within certain necessary limits, and we have the capacity to think about our choices, therefore responsibility accompanies actions when, as Aristotle says, the "source is in oneself."

Rational beings with the capacity to choose among actions and bring about ends cannot escape from the notion of responsibility. It is a given, provided one is free from coercion in one's actions. Here responsibility is not responsiveness to the Other, not responding to another's need or want, as in Levinas. Rather, it is that since we are free to make choices and commit acts, we must accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

For Aristotle, to act responsibly is to act beautifully, because when a person does so he or she engages the greatest capacity available to human beings; that is "thinking things through," dianoia . What differentiates ethical choice from willing, desiring, and wishing, for Aristotle, is that it involves deliberation (NE 1112a 15).

To think things through is to look ahead and estimate consequences using imagination and forethought and to make judgments about possible actions based on experience and memory; this is the kind of reasoning that responsibility requires.

Aristotle says, "We deliberate about things that are up to us and are matters of action" (NE 1112a32). Choice is not something that is shared by irrational beings, it is the mark of a being with self-control (NE 1111b15).


Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia, Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future; it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.

If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.

And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible. If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a).

Aristotle is rigorous in his insistence that human beings, because they are rational and have the capacity to "think things through," are responsible for their actions.


But perhaps, Aristotle says, "one is not the sort of person who takes any care" (NE 1114a5). Perhaps here we have the crux of it; that there are people who don't care, who are careless.

We must act on Global Warming: Climate Change has already made the world three times more dangerous.

Aristotle says such people, despite their lack of care, are still responsible because it was always in the beginning up to them to use their intelligence to make good choices and the fact that they don't care is the result of a long line of deliberations that denigrated the value of their own beautiful actions, the concerns of others, and the consequences of their actions on themselves and others.


Quote
On Aristotle's view, we always become who we are through a series of choices over time, and those choices form our moral character.

The Problem of Responsibility Today

Quote
That ignorance is no excuse for Aristotle seems to indicate that those of us who fail to acknowledge scientifically based warnings about climate change, or who acknowledge the warnings and refuse to heed them, are responsible for our failure.

To think things through would be to take into account in deliberating about our choices the realities that face us, the sure consequences of some of our actions, those that we have experience and knowledge enough to foresee.  If the consequences of our actions today extend far into the future, this would require that we take that far future into consideration in our actions.

It is just because of this farther extension of consequences into the future that Jonas argues that human action today differs radically from human action in Aristotle's time. As he says, "modern technology has introduced actions of such novel scale, objects, and consequences that the framework of former ethics can no longer contain them" (Jonas, 1984, p. 6). Powerful technologies in use today have effects that extend far into the future, and this includes harms that arise directly from their manufacture and use, such as resource depletion and pollution from hazardous waste, as well as harms that occur because of the scope their reach, as in climate change. The negative effects are not limited to the earth and its ecosystems but include effects on communities of people whose livelihoods are harmed and whose basic goods, such as water and air, are polluted and rendered unusable.

These consequences affect living beings over their lifetimes, threaten the health of the planet, and are passed down to future generations as the integrity of the global ecosystem is damaged over time.

Quote
For Jonas, technology has enabled us to greatly extend the scope of our actions and magnified their repercussions, and yet our concept of responsibility has not grown to encompass the new range of action.

Particularly, Jonas has in mind the repercussions of genetic engineering, nuclear technologies, and other technologies that have the capacity to impact the future in highly significant ways: "more specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our powers the nature of human action has changed, and since ethics is concerned with action, it should follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a change in ethics as well, in the more radical sense that the qualitatively novel nature of certain of our actions has opened up a whole new dimension of ethical relevance for which there is no precedent in the standards and canons of traditional ethics" (1984, p. 1).

For example, the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf had consequences that extend far into the future, affecting marine and coastal ecosystems, the livelihood of human beings dependent on a healthy environment for sustenance, and marine life far from the origin of the spill.

Ecosystems are by nature interconnected and interdependent, and the reach of the spill was extensive. Its impact is not limited in space or time. As well, we might ask who exactly is responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf? Is it the technicians and engineers, the government regulations that allow drilling to be done in extreme conditions, the companies making a profit, or the consumers whose desire for cheap fossil fuel drives the market?

This kind of diffusion of responsibility, a diffuse collective responsibility that Stephen Gardiner refers to as a "fragmentation of agency," means that it is difficult to assign responsibility.

As Gardiner points out, "climate change is caused not by a single agent but by a vast number of individuals and institutions not unified by a comprehensive structure of agency. This is important because it poses a challenge to humanity's ability to respond" (2010, p. 88).

How much is up to us then, to use Aristotle's term, in today's technological, global world? The notion of collective responsibility is pertinent because in a democratic society responsibility for collective actions like oil drilling would seem to rest with all citizens.

How we are to understand democratic responsibility, diffused among many, is a significant problem given the altered nature of human action and the extended reach of the consequences of our actions. And because the consequences will fall primarily on future generations, there is a disincentive to alter our behavior, particularly if that might make current lives more difficult.


While a new ethical understanding that takes into consideration the extended consequences of our actions in a technological society seems necessary, another question arises: where do our obligations end if we begin to think of extending them to future beings and the future existence of a livable planet?

How might such seemingly open-ended obligations be argued for?

And if, to be responsible, as Aristotle claims, is to "think things through," are there limits to our capacity to be responsible?

End of Part 1.

Read Part 2 HERE.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 11:15:13 pm by AGelbert »
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #131 on: September 23, 2015, 07:01:03 pm »


Part 2

What it Means to be Responsible
Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future

Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz

Quote
While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

Quote
Without a Trace ‘The Sixth Extinction,’ by Elizabeth Kolbert

New York Times Sunday Book Review Snippet:

In the same way, and for many of the same reasons, many today find it inconceivable that we could possibly be responsible for destroying the integrity of our planet’s ecology.

There are psychological barriers to even imagining that what we love so much could be lost — could be destroyed forever.

As a result, many of us refuse to contemplate it. Like an audience entertained by a magician, we allow ourselves to be deceived by those with a stake in persuading us to ignore reality. ...

... we continue to use the world’s atmosphere as an open sewer for the daily dumping of more than 90 million tons of gaseous waste. ...

... The resulting rapid warming of both the atmosphere and the ocean, which Kolbert notes has absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide we have produced, is wreaking havoc on earth’s delicately balanced ecosystems.

It threatens both the web of living species with which we share the planet  and the future viability of civilization. “By disrupting these systems,” Kolbert writes, "we’re putting our own survival in danger.”

While a new ethical understanding
that takes into consideration the extended consequences of our actions in a technological society seems necessary, another question arises: where do our obligations end if we begin to think of extending them to future beings and the future existence of a livable planet?

How might such seemingly open-ended obligations be argued for? And if, to be responsible, as Aristotle claims, is to "think things through," are there limits to our capacity to be responsible?

Rethinking Responsibility

Here I think it is a good moment to turn to Jonas, who argues in The Imperative of Responsibility that, difficult as it may seem, we do have a responsibility for the future.

He presents an argument for responsibility based on the presence of an objectively existing good, and he claims that fulfillment of the human good results from taking the effects of our actions on the future into account (Jonas, 1984, pp. 80-82).

When we are not able to predict the long-term consequences of our actions he argues that we should proceed with prudence, even to the extent of being guided by fear, in order to ensure that we do not create extensive future harms.


For Jonas, the human being occupies a special place in the lifeworld. Jonas sees the human being as that being which is uniquely capable of responsibility, and the presence of this capacity entails that it must be acted on if a one is to fully become the being one is capable of becoming.

The capacity for responsibility contributes to the "what it is to be" a human being and as such, informs the telos of human being. Jonas says that
Quote
"every living thing has its own end which needs no further justification. In this, man has nothing over other living beings, except that he alone can have responsibility also for them, that is, for guarding their self-purpose" (Jonas, 1984, p. 98).

For Jonas, the fact that each organism desires and pursues the continuance of its own life points to the fact that life is a value for each being. Life is a good and as such it presents the being with the capacity to take responsibility with an imperative to protect and preserve it, to recognize the value it is for all living beings. The particular human good lies in the capacity of the human being to recognize and respond to the imperative of responsibility.

Quote
The practice of taking responsibility for our choices, of taking the well-being and future of the planet and its beings into consideration, draws out the higher capabilities of the rational animal.

For Jonas, the imperative of responsibility commands us to respond ethically for the sake of the good that is evidenced in Being, a good that reveals itself in each living beings' pursuit of its own continuance, its desire for life.

As well, responsibility includes protecting the possibility for the continued existence of human freedom and ethical responsiveness.

As Jonas says, "the secret or paradox of morality is that the self forgets itself over the pursuit of the object, so that a higher self (which indeed is also a good in itself) might come into being.

Quote
The good man is not he who made himself good but rather he who did the good for its own sake.

As Jonas tries to show, the good of the human and the good in the world are not separate but the same.


Quote
Taking responsibility for the future becomes necessary as soon as we recognize our potential to harmfully impact the future and, as Aristotle argues, once this recognition registers, ignorance is no longer an acceptable plea.

Rights and Responsibility

Another means of arguing for responsibilities to future generations, one that is less metaphysical and more supportive of political action, is to consider the question of the rights of future people. A proponent of this view is Hiskes (2009), who argues that "global warming and climate change have made it abundantly clear that the human impact on the environment is an emergent one, the product of uncounted individual decisions and choices on one hand, and public policies and political omissions on the other, which make every one of us responsible for putting all the rest of us in a new situation of risk, and not only "all of us" but those who come after us as well" (p.146).


Hiskes goes on to explain that "rights are necessarily the legal response to harms, real or potential. The fact that they are new and collective harms that do not fit within the traditional individualist language of either rights or responsibility do not alter the equation of rights as a response to harm.

New harms demand new rights. Because they are emergent harms, the rights that they begat will share their emergent ontological nature" (p. 146).

Quote
This argument supports the contention that we cannot disregard responsibilities to the future simply because future people do not now exist.

Future people are continually coming into existence, even as the effects of our actions emerge over long periods of time. There is a synchrony in terms of the emergence of future beings and the emergence of harms.

Both are initiated in the present, in the actions of present day beings, and both concern a time after present day actors are gone.

Future needs are predictable and future beings are coming into being all the time. It is not as if the future exists at some point far into the distance, with no connection to the present. The future is always coming into being, it follows closely on the heels of the present, and while we see changes in each generation, physical human beings will always need clean air to breathe and water to drink, as well as fire to stay warm.

Quote
The realities of life for future beings are being established now through our contemporary actions and this is a fact we cannot deny. If we refuse to take responsibility for the impact of our actions on future generations, we must admit that we are willfully disregarding this fundamental reality and its ethical implications.


In a similar vein, Fitzpatrick (2007) argues that a conception of justice based upon a notion of "mutual advantage among cooperating parties of roughly equal power and vulnerability" is too restrictive (p. 377).

Justice, insofar as it relates to rights and obligations, is a concept not limited to those sharing space and time. He says that, "attribution of rights to future generations will therefore be legitimate if we can speak of an earlier generation's wronging future generations by spoiling the environment the former was given and has relied upon for its flourishing in the same way that future generations depend upon it for theirs" (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 377).


Quote
Fitzpatrick turns to a notion of stewardship to frame the question of responsibilities to future generations; contemporary inhabitants of the Earth do not own it, they have merely inherited it and should care for it sustainably in order to pass a flourishing environment down to future generations.

Future generations have a right to inherit a healthy ecosystem, just as we did, and this right entails an obligation on the part of the living to pass down a viable planet. The responsibility to do so is centered in the right future generations have to be protected from harms caused by others, as well as the right to inherit and enjoy what previous generations have inherited and enjoyed.

That people depend upon a healthy environment to flourish, and that a diminished environment is harmful to people is at the basis of Fitzpatrick's argument.
Quote

"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.

These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior. It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder

He considers future people to be the moral equals of presently living people, and therefore claims we cannot disregard their rights or turn aside from our responsibility not to cause them harm.

He argues that "if we fail to conserve limited natural resources, or to control dangerous waste, or to curb greenhouse gas emissions, then we will be causing people harm, not merely failing to benefit them" (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 377).


Quote
The currently prevailing “law of the jungle”, causing the atmosphere to be overused in terms of the deposition of carbon ad infinitum, is thus de-legitimized by the Pope.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/heaven-belongs-to-us-all-the-new-papal-encyclical/#sthash.MYn2tGnT.dpuf

The fact that these people do not exist simultaneously with us is not a reason to fail to take them into ethical consideration. Fitzpatrick concludes by arguing that we need to reconsider the meaning of justice rights in order to include responsibilities to future generations in our consideration because there is simply no justification possible for disregarding the effects of our actions on the future.



Quote

There is no doubt that accepting responsibility for the future will require a great deal of effort and even sacrifice on the part of those of us living today.



In the next and final section, I take a brief look at the way in which an ethic of care might provide the needed motivation for the difficult changes that taking future generations into ethical consideration might require.

End of Part 2.


Continued in Part 3 (the final part).

Read Part 1 HERE.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 11:28:26 pm by AGelbert »
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #132 on: September 24, 2015, 01:02:56 am »
Late Permian CO2 levels were broadly similar to today.

Mid Permian levels were higher at around 1000 to 2000 ppm, but early Permian CO2 levels were at today's levels or below (there was a significant ice age then).

Quote
We report that greenhouse [CO2]atm have been significantly overestimated because previously assumed soil CO2 concentrations during carbonate formation are too high.

More accurate [CO2]atm, resulting from better constraints on soil CO2, indicate that large (1,000s of ppmV) fluctuations in [CO2]atm did not characterize ancient climates and that past greenhouse climates were accompanied by concentrations similar to those projected for A.D. 2100.

CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100

The biggest individual flow and pipe degassing events are considered by workers in the field to have taken place over a 1-100 year timeframe.

By showing that the Permian emissions occurred faster than the slow compensation mechanisms (weathering etc.) and at rates in the ballpark of modern emissions, from CO2 levels not far off modern values (geologically speaking), Burgess et al have shown that we can't rule out a Permian-like (or Triassic-like, etc) event at the extreme end, with business-as-usual emissions continuing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html

Mass Extinction: Life at the Brink Smithsonian

CO2 projected 2100 rise
http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/mass-extinction-life-at-the-brink/33962

If the above is not as near as our science can get to the certainty that there is a high probability of N.T.H.E., I don't know what is.

Incremental measures = BUSINESS AS USUAL = N.T.H.E. This is not hard to understand.


Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24034
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #133 on: September 24, 2015, 01:07:01 am »

The only way to approach this situation is to demand all fossil fuels stop being burned. I will never agree with you that we need them.

I have never argued that we need Fossil Fuels.  In fact I argue precisely the opposite, that Homo Sap did fine without them for millenia.  I argue that we can return to Stone Age technology (with some improvements) and live a rich, intellectually and culturally diverse life without all the Bling we seem to think is necessary now.

The Polynesians did it.


They built those boats with all stone age technology.  No metal hardware whatsoever.

DONE ONCE, IT CAN BE DONE AGAIN.

RE

I won't argue the point.  Sails are cool!   


But there is an issue with the collapse scenario you may not have taken into consideration.

As you know, the ocean served as a CO2 sink for the greater part of the industrial revolution, thereby masking the seriousness of the CO2 pollution existential threat to humanity. Now, as the scientist in the Arctic lecture I posted today said, the ocean is undergoing what they call "sink degradation". That's another way of saying that it CANNOT keep sucking in CO2 at the rate it has been doing for over a century until about 2010.

Each year it's rate of CO2 absorption is slowing.

Since the rate we are emitting CO2 is NOT slowing, the atmosphere has another positive feedback goosing warming.

And, of course, the 40 years of baked in CO2 is still being emitted at increased rates as well because 40 years ago our CO2 emissions were accelerating like crazy.

The ocean CO2 emissions CLOCK is at around 1975. If we had STOPPED burning fossil fuels in 1975, NOW the oceans would begin to heal and the parts per million in the atmosphere would have reached their zenith of a  little less than 400PPM or so. Yep, CO2 is VERY persistent, once it gets in the atmosphere. And through the hypothetical 40 year period without fossil fuel burning, the oceans would be emitting right up to the present.

A cursory glance at the industrial activity of the human civilization since 1975 only leaves the brain damaged wishful thinkers with any hope that we can put a lid on atmospheric CO2 before they reach Permian extinction levels.

We have plus 4 degrees C above baseline (pre-industrial civilization) ensured if we stop burning fossil fuels TODAY. Man has never walked the earth in a climate over plus 3.3C from baseline.

But it gets worse.

There is another mechanism threatening the chances of those rooting for collapse to save the hide of a small percentage of humans.
That is particulate matter emitted by industrial civilization that, like the ocean CO2 sink I mention, masks global warming by providing some aerosol caused dimming.

We have a hell of high temperature baked in with the 4C mark.

But guess what happens when civilization collapses? The temperature JUMPS about ONE degree!


So all that "happy talk" about a collapse saving the good guys because 90% of humanity buys the farm is wishful thinking.

WHY? Because when all that particulate matter isn't there because all the factories and other machines that emit STOP emitting, the air clears within days to a few weeks and the sun becomes ANOTHER positive feedback mechanism jacking up the temperature.   

Sorry, I couldn't resist bringing in the doom smileys ;D. And no more Alaskan mountain pictures, please. I know you'll be holed up in the mountains. It's still gonna be a major challenge to survive. What do you do for water in the mountains if it DOES NOT RAIN?

The lack of clouds (see my post on "the other CO2 problem" of ocean acidification killing the critters than produce a cloud making chemical) is still another positive feedback mechanism.

And trees ALSO make that chemical. If you got a giant tree die off, your cloud cover is further reduced. That ANOTHER positive feedback mechanism to heat the cr ap out the vegetation left and kill more trees.

The dying plankton that no longer turn white (for up to a thousand square miles or so) when they are blooming is still another positive feedback mechanism enabling the oceans to absorb MORE heat.

The noble savages surviving the human cull will have to deal with a world that CONTINUES to warm rapidly for AT LEAST a century. And the staying power of that CO2 causing that heat is estimated by credentialed atmospheric scientists (this is WITHOUT any emissions whatsoever!) to be not less than a 1,000 years.

These screen shots below are from a Guy McPherson lecture but the data has NOTHING to do with his opinions. As you can see (the  literature references), it is hard science, not hyperbole or scaremongering.



Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

K-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • K-Dog
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #134 on: September 24, 2015, 01:30:43 am »
Yes I remember this in his lecture.  We need a reference on this.

"A reduction of 35% in particulate matter from a collapse of industry will raise the global average temperature by 1.0 C within about 1 year."

I looked hard and the only place I have any luck at all is at 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics' which I listed above the 35% claim I quoted.  here is a related article there.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/9441/2010/acp-10-9441-2010.pdf

I have put 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics' on my page of links.  It lives there under ACP with the other environmental links.

The 35% claim seems initially outrageous but particulate matter is linked to cloud life cycles and counter-intuitive results are possible.  This is an area of study with great uncertainty.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 09:39:16 am by K-Dog »

 

+-Recent Topics

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 07:15:38 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 06:20:39 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 05:50:04 pm

911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP? by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 04:00:31 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 03:02:15 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 02:26:58 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 12:30:05 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
June 18, 2019, 06:11:38 am

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 17, 2019, 08:24:54 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
June 17, 2019, 07:32:37 pm