+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 49
Latest: molly
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13358
Total Topics: 265
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Future Earth  (Read 11883 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #135 on: September 24, 2015, 03:19:30 pm »
Thank you, K-Dog.   
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #136 on: September 24, 2015, 04:16:00 pm »
The topic introduced by Ashvin is a valuable addition to the problems we face. However, it is a minor factor, not the major factor to the environmental degradation we are experiencing.

I have proven that before, with data, and will so again, if requested.

That said, I agree that we DO have to stop consuming meat at the rate we do. We CAN replace animal meat with insect protein.

But the underlying FALSE premise that wishful thinkers will embrace, if they can be convinced that our main problem is eating meat, not the burning of fossil fuels  ;), is that a collapse of industrial civilization will solve that big meat farming polluting problem and everything will be just fine.

Yes, a collapse WILL solve that problem. But it will not ameliorate the existential threat that the burning of fossil fuels presents to mankind. And it will not do BEANS to reduce the excessively high extinction rate we are experiencing.

 Professor Bron Taylor Warns about extinctions

https://youtu.be/Vxygt5zZBe4

We are looking at the first human-made extinction – environmental scientist
Published on Mar 19, 2015

A new study published in the magazine 'Science' claims that humans are pushing the last boundaries the planet has in making life habitable, already speeding past limits for climate change and excessive species extinction, deforestation and ocean acidification.

RT’s Ben Swann sits down with religion and nature professor Bron Taylor at the University of Florida to discuss the current impact we are making on the planet and the possible outcomes if we do not change our course.

Agelbert NOTE:
Regardless of the massive evidence piling up about the scientifically based certainty that we face an existential threat, there are those that simply cannot handle that. So, they will search day and night to find excuses for not demanding drastic measures be taken to ameliorate or prevent N.T.H.E.

Bertrand Russell described the MO of too many humans that are pre-disposed to fixing the facts around their comfort zones:

Quote

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell


 

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #137 on: September 24, 2015, 10:59:32 pm »
Part 3 of 3 Parts


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

Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz




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.

Motivation and Care

To accept the burden of responsibility for what is up to us, difficult as it is where our technological reach is so extended and agency is so fragmented, is to strive to fulfill the capacity we have to respond to the good and protect and preserve it.

This task, however, is difficult, not only because of the extent of effects in time and space, fragmentation of agency, and the difficulty of predicting harms, but also because in many cases we may benefit now from actions that result in harms to future generations.



What could motivate us to make the necessary sacrifices required by responsibility of this scope and nature?

Jonas turns to the human capacity for care for an answer to this question. He uses the analogy of the parent and child to demonstrate that we are attuned to caring in a fundamental way (Jonas, 1984, pp. 98-108).

 Jonas sees that caring is a mode of being for the human being, one that is demonstrated naturally in the attention and love parents give to their children as they nourish these beings who will exist in the future.

It can be argued that the care of children is ultimately selfish, a way to project particular and individual genetic material forward. Yet, at the same time, most stable societies demonstrate their concern and care about the future through the fostering of all children in the society and through their concern with passing down cultural and physical artifacts to posterity.

Quote
If selfish instincts were at issue here, individuals would not bequeath to unknown future others the endowments and monuments and institutions they have.

Jonas’ example of the statesman as a paradigm of responsibility toward the future reflects the important role of democratic social institutions and governments in responsibility. Established to foster and preserve culture and enable the orderly transfer of power from generation to generation, governments, at their best, are concerned with bettering the conditions of the people and ensuring that opportunities, values, artifacts, inventions, techniques, and other "objects" cultivated and produced by society are preserved and passed down.

This example illustrates the presence, in social institutions, of a fundamental care and concern with the future and future peoples that can serve as an example and guide for a practical ethic of responsibility for the future.

It is only through care of the future that we can extend the reach of our grasp on life through bequeathing a planet that is livable and viable, one that preserves and protects the cycle of life for the beings who will inhabit it.


The natural drive toward transcendence of finitude through leaving behind works, objects or beings of lasting value can be engaged as a motivating force in an ethics that is concerned with extending its reach to future generations.


Quote
There is, finally, another way to think of the role of care as a motivating force for assuming responsibility; not necessarily care or love for future persons unknown to us, but love for the Earth and for life itself.

Perhaps we should reframe the question of an ethics of responsibility for the future, because it can be argued that we are motivated to moderate and measure our actions toward nature and to care about the health and continued viability of the Earth because of our love for it, and for the life it offers.

We are capable of caring not only about those potential beings of the future who will inherit this planet but also about the planet itself as a living being we will pass down.[1] Inspired by the beauty of existence, fleeting though it is, we desire its continuance even though we will not be here to enjoy its pleasures forever, and this too is reflective of our ethical capacity.

Conclusion

In the preceding I've shown what I see is a need for a reconsidered understanding of the meaning and extent of responsibility today, and I've talked about some of the difficulties facing us in attempting to accept responsibility for the future, as well as some of the motivational forces that might help us overcome those difficulties.

To begin to take responsibility for the Earth and future generations we can consider ourselves as caretakers, trustees or stewards. We can pursue sustainable practices that conserve resources and other basic goods for future generations to benefit from and enjoy.

Recognizing the presence of the good in existence, we can protect it by considering the long-term effects of our choices and actions on the future. The damage we've done has been done collectively, as Fitzpatrick points out, and the only way to prevent further damage and protect the future is through collective action.


Taking responsibility will require thinking about ourselves differently, as well. We must develop a new self understanding, one that reflects our increasing knowledge concerning the extent of the effects of our actions on the Earth and the future. The human capacity for responsibility is a reflection of what Jonas calls "the higher self," a good-in-itself that comes into being when we recognize the value of life, reflect on the consequences of our choices, and take responsibility for the harms we cause.

Thus, a significant aspect of the good of the human being is the human capacity to bear responsibility.

The continued existence of the good for all beings rests on humans assuming that responsibility, and the time for us to recognize that is now.

If we fail to take responsibility it will be a failure of justice and of love, towards both future beings and the planet.




Notes

1. "When men act for the sake of a future they will not live to see, it is for the most part out of love for persons, places and forms of activity, a cherishing of them, nothing more grandiose. It is indeed self-contradictory to say: 'I love him or her or that place or that institution or that activity, but I don't care what happens to it after my death.' To love is, amongst other things, to care about the future of what we love" (Passmore, 1980, p. 53)


References

Adam, G. (2011). Futures Tended: Care and Future-Oriented Responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society,
31, 1, 17-27.

Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean Ethics, J. Sachs (trans). Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing.

Attfield, R. (1998). Environmental Ethics and Intergenerational Equity. Inquiry, 41, 2, 207-222.

Fitzpatrick, W. J. (2007). Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations: Social Justice Beyond Mutual Advantage.

Environmental Ethics, 29, 4, 369-388.

Gardiner, S. M. (2010). A Perfect Moral Storm. In Climate Ethics. NY: Oxford University Press.

Hiskes, R. P. (2009). The Human Right to a Green Future. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Passmore, J. (1980). Conservation. In Responsibilities to Future Generations. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books..

https://blogs.montclair.edu/tae/files/2011/03/Vol.-1-Issue-2-Morris.pdf

Agelbert NOTE: The mens rea of the fossil fuel industry and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, including Procter & Gam ble and Duke Energy, has been recently exposed. They all funded lobbyists and propagandists in order to obstruct climate change legislation.

I use the Latin legal expression, "mens rea", because the above obstructionists of climate change legislation were knowledgeable over 40 years ago of the damage that burning fossil fuels causes to the biosphere in general and humans in particular.

As Theresa  Morris made quite clear in her essay, these corporations made the wrong choice. And they made that choice because they refused to think things through.

Theresa  Morris said,
Quote
This task, however, is difficult, not only because of the extent of effects in time and space, fragmentation of agency, and the difficulty of predicting harms, but also because in many cases we may benefit now from actions that result in harms to future generations.

Ethical considerations aside for a moment, the people in these powerful corporations are not stupid. They love their own children.
So, if they knew, because over 40 years ago ExxonMobil scientists laid out the facts to oil executives, who then secretly joined with several other corporations to fund denial of climate change and obstruct climate change legislation, why did they, with malice and aforethought, engage in disguising the fact that they were, and are, getting an F in viable biosphere math?

Some will say that it's a no brainer that they did it for profit. While that is partially true, it ignores the fact that big oil corporations DO believe their own scientists. It also ignores the fact that fossil fuel corporations DO NOT believe the happy talk propaganda that they fund.

They plan ahead. They plan to take advantage of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' mentioned by  Stephen Gardiner. The corporations did not get limited liability laws passed because they wanted to be socially responsible. I believe they will use the 'Fragmentation of Agency', in regard to biosphere damage claims, to unjustly limit their liability in a typically unethical "damage control" exercise.

One of the themes about human history that I have tried to communicate to readers over and over is that predatory capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the populace, always plan AHEAD to socialize the costs of that damage when they can no longer deny SOME liability for it. Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always work the system to limit even PROVEN 100% liability.

When 100% liability is blatantly obvious, as in the Exxon Valdes oil spill, they will shamelessly use legalese to limit the liability. ExxonMobil pulled a fast one on the plaintiffs by getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what the learned counselor said, "The purpose of punitive awards is to punish, not to destroy, according to the law". Ethics free Exxon and its ethics free lawyers KNOW how the Court System "works". JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 18:151] The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation..

While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank. When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally to blame" (i.e. DISTORTED Fragmentation of Agency).

This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in virtually all cases, AREN'T non-profit organizations. If they were NOT PROFITING, THEN, and only then, could they make the claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally responsible to pay equally for the cost."

Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species is visiting on future generations.

Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions, they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.

They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could protect their offspring when things got "difficult".

They know that millions to billions of people, in all probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable them to survive and thrive.   

As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.

The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on Environmental LAW fun and games (see: "punitive" versus "compensatory" damage claims).

This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most with their health for the damage done by the richest. The richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of climate change.

When the governments of the world finally get serious about the funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental measures ARE NOT sufficient), the rich plan to continue literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't pay their share of the damages for it. 

As Kevin Anderson (after showing the alarming rate of increase in CO2 emissions) put it in the graphic below, the 1% bear about 50% of the blame.


Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:



The way the fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, will want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:


The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of  their responsibility to use dianoia in their decision making process.

But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical destructive exploitation of the biosphere for short term gain, 'greed is good',  modus operandi.

Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.

Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the  existential threat we face from climate change damage.

The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational.

Quote
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).

Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.

Please pass this on with attribution to Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz. I just summarized her essay and added images to enhance the gravity and importance of her message. We are in a world of trouble. 

A. G. Gelbert
Colchester, Vermont


If you missed the previous two parts of this article, you may go to this link to read them:

Why Dianoia is sine qua non to a Viable Biosphere.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 03:11:18 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #138 on: September 27, 2015, 07:29:05 pm »

gc2smOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on September 27, 2015

pope-francis-on-bible-and-climate-change

Discuss this article at the Environment Table inside the Diner

Besides the ongoing collapse of the monetary system which fill the Newz headlines every day with a plethora of stories of bankrupt countries and mass layoffs, ever more people on Food Stamps and living out of their cars even if they have a full time job, probably the hottest topic in the collapse blogosphere is the question of Near Term Human Extinction. I've covered it in rants and I've done surveys to see what the readers think on this topic also, but it's the collapse gift that keeps on giving.

The most well known person throuh the collapse blogosphere hawking this concept is Guy McPherson who runs the blog Nature Bats Last, but by no means is he the only one these days. In his Encyclical, even the POPE insinuated this as a possibility in his Encyclical on Climate.

Before beginning here on debunking this idea, let me state for the record that NTHE is possible, and the longer you go out on the timeline the more possible it becomes. Go out far enough on the timeline, it's inevitable and always has been. As the tagline goes on Zero Hedge, "On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to Zero". The issue is about the likelihood this can occur on short timelines. In Guy's case, he has the timeline down to as soon as 2030 now. That means every last Homo Sap on the planet is DEAD in 15 years.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-on-a-long-enough-timeline-the-survival-rate-for-everyone-drops-to-zero-chuck-palahniuk-285421.jpg

For our purposes in this examination though, we'll consider "Near Term" to be anything under a Century.

The second caveat to this examination is that it is looking strictly at the Climate Change problem, not at the possibility we are on a collision course with Planet X or that the numbskulls with their Fingers on the Nuke Buttons will push them and set off Global Thermonuclear War. Either of those as well as a few other scenarious could vastly accelerate the extinction of Homo Sap.

The question we are looking at here is:

Will a rise in Average Global Temperature (AGT) by 4C exterminate all Homo Saps inside the Next Century due to loss of Habitat and die off of many species we currently depend on?

Let's begin with what the current Average Global Temperature (AGT) actually IS at the moment.

Climatologists prefer to combine short-term weather records into long-term periods (typically 30 years) when they analyze climate, including global averages. Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.

Now, according to the NOAA, as of August 2015, the current Average Global Temperature is 1.14C over the 20th Century Average.

The average global land surface temperature for August 2015 was 1.14°C (2.05°F) above the 20th century average

So let us be generous on the warming side and say the current AGT is up to 16 C now. Let us warm this up further by another 4C over the next 15 years to 20 C.

Now, Guy's hypothesis states that no Homo Saps have ever been alive when the AGT was that warm, and that is true. However, can you draw the conclusion from that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Homo Sap to survive at such an AGT? Other mammals (our ancestors) survived an even warmer time period, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) when the AGT went up to about 25 C or so. If other mammals could do it back then, why in principle can we not do it again this time?

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum" refers to a climate event that began at the temporal boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs. The absolute age and duration of the event remain uncertain, but are thought to be close to 55.8 million years ago and about 170,000 years of duration[1][2][3] The PETM has become a focal point of considerable geoscience research because it probably provides our best past analog by which to understand impacts of global warming and massive carbon input to the ocean and atmosphere, including ocean acidification.[4]

The onset of the PETM has been linked to an initial 5 °C temperature rise and extreme changes in Earth’s carbon cycle.[5] The PETM is marked by a prominent negative excursion in carbon stable isotope (δ13C) records from around the globe; more specifically, there was a large decrease in 13C/12C ratio of marine and terrestrial carbonates and organic carbon.[5][6][7]

Numerous other changes can be observed in stratigraphic sections containing the PETM.[5] Fossil records for many organisms show major turnovers. For example, in the marine realm, a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera, a global expansion of subtropical dinoflagellates, and an appearance of excursion, planktic foraminifera and calcareous nanofossils all occurred during the beginning stages of PETM. On land, there was a sudden appearance of modern mammal orders (including primates) in Europe and North America. Sediment deposition changed significantly at many outcrops and in many drill cores spanning this time interval.

Although it is now widely accepted that the PETM represents a “case study” for global warming and massive carbon input to Earth’s surface, the cause, details and overall significance of the event remain perplexing.

Guy's case is that Habitat will be so destroyed globally by such a rise in AGT, that there simply will be NOWHERE Homo Sap can survive on the planet. Is that necessarily true?

Well, first off you have to remember this is an AVERAGE taken over the whole globe, it is not the average for a given region in any given time period. Right now, TODAY, many people live in neighborhoods which have yearly average temperatures quite a bit warmer than this. Lagos in Nigeria is one such place, but there are many in the equatorial regions of the Earth.

February is the hottest month in Lagos with an average temperature of 29°C (84°F) and the coldest is July at 25°C (77°F)

There are a LOT of people currently living in Lagos, like around 20M of them and that's just one Big ****y in Nigeria too! They don't all have HVAC either, in fact most of them live in slums with no electricity at all! So clearly, Homo Sap can survive at these temperatures.

Granted though, this is rather sweaty and uncomfortable weather overall, but if the AGT is 20C, does that mean every neighbohood is 20 C? Of course not, because the average temperature for any given location depends on its Latitude and its Altitude.

Starting with Altitude, you drop almost 2C for every 1000' in altitude you gain

Although the actual atmospheric lapse rate varies, under normal atmospheric conditions the average atmospheric lapse rate results in a temperature decrease of 6.4 °C/km (3.5 °F or 1.95 °C/1,000 ft) of altitude above ground level.

So, all you need to do in any given latitude is situate yourself 2000' above sea level and you have already knocked off 4 C tempeature rise on a global average.

The situation is similar with Latitude:

Temperature also decreases as latitude becomes more northward in the Northern Hemisphere and more southerly in the Southern Hemisphere. Latitude in this sense simply refers to a measurement of movement north or south across the surface of the earth. The general rule is that temperature changes three (3) degrees Fahrenheit for every 300 mile change in latitude at an elevation of sea level. If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, you can expect temperatures to be 3 degrees cooler 300 miles north, 6 degrees cooler 600 miles north, and so on, until you reach the North Pole. The same is true for the Southern Hemisphere, except that temperatures cool the further you travel from the equator toward the South Pole.

So, depending where you are in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, you can knock off aroun 1.5C for every 300 Miles you move from your current location. Can you stand the heat where you currently live without HVAC? If you can, each time the AGT goes up by 1.5C, you just need to move another 300 miles north or south and you are back to where you started, and that is WITHOUT gaining altitude!

So clearly even with a projected 4 C rise in AGT, there are still going to be zones on the earth with still livable climate for Homo Sap. It is also by no means clear that we will get 4 C inside of 15 years either. So it has no good basis in scientific reasoning to suggest that Homo Sap will go extinct in such a short period of time, simply due to a 4 C rise in AGT.

Can Homo Sap experience an extreme Knockdown event in such a short time? That is much more possible, and perhaps even probable at this point. The number of neighborhoods that would have both good temperatures and enough water would be vastly reduced from what is available today. However, a Knockdown event is not an Extinction, and Homo Sap has experienced Knockdowns before and rebounded from them.

Although the cause is disputed, somewhere between 75-200K years ago Homo Sap DNA evidence shows that the population of Homo Sap around at the time experienced a severe bottleneck, which may have been quick or it may have gone on for some time, but the bottleneck is still there:

The Toba catastrophe theory as presented in the late 1990s to early 2000s suggested that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000-30,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidence of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidence of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation in humans.[3]

However, coalescence times for Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA have been revised to well above 100,000 years since 2011. In addition, such coalescence would not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Genetic material inherited exclusively from either father or mother can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5]

In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[6] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[7]

So whether this bottleneck was fast or slow, whether the Toba Supervolcano caused it or not, whether the numbers dropped to 30,000, 10,000 or 2000, it's pretty clear the population of Homo Sap can rebound from a very small number to quite a large one, as today there are over 7B who reproduced up from that number.

So not a whole lot of people need to make it through this Zero Point to avoid an Extinction Level Event for Homo Sap.

So we have established now 2 things:

1- The climate in all places on earth is unlikely to become unfit for human habitation

2- The number of people who need to survive in order to avoid extinction is quite small

The next question to address is that of Positive Feedback Loops, which some folks suggest will send the planet into a Venusian style Global Cooking Event, with runaway heating that exceeds even the PETM. If that were to occur, most certainly Homo Sap and most other living things besides Extremophiles like the Tardigrades would not be able to make it through such an event. However, does the scientific record of Global Atmospheric Carbon content and Average Global Temperature suggest that is likely? No it does not.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

As you can see, basically regardless of how much of the Global Carbon Reservoir gets dumped into the atmosphere for whatever reason, the AGT always plateaus out around 25C. So for all the Positive Feedback Loops that are out there, at 25C some Negative Feedback Loops must start to kick in. Unidentified as of yet what they are, but they must be there, otherwise we should have turned into Venus 170M years ago when global atmospheric CO2 was at around 2300 ppm. We got a lot of carbon to burn to get there in any event, and lots of clathrates have to melt too! That is not going to happen in 15 years.

The other issue here is what happens to the oceans and all the fishies during this period? Well, the Ocean is going to continue to acidify, and many current species are going to die off. Phytoplankton are of particular concern here, since they are in large part responsible for dropping molecular oxygen back into the atmosphere for the animals on the planet to breathe, including you and me. Can the atmosphere go Anoxic inside 15 years? No, not even if every last phytoplankton died could that occur, because the atmosphere is a very large sink. As more animals die off, less oxygen is consumed. So it takes some time to deplete the atmosphere of oxygen down to say 10% where it would be real difficult to survive. Although, well acclimated people such as the Sherpas can do OK at 8%. Obviously, as oxygen levels in the atmosphere decline, only people who can survive with such low concentrations would be selected for. In any event it takes some time for this to occur, a lot longer than 15 years. There are at least 3 currently living communities of people who can survive these low oxygen concentrations.

Prehistoric and contemporary human populations living at altitudes of at least 8,000 feet (2,500 meters) above sea level may provide unique insights into human evolution, reports an interdisciplinary group of scientists. Indigenous highlanders living in the Andean Altiplano in South America, in the Tibetan Plateau in Asia, and at the highest elevations of the Ethiopian Highlands in east Africa have evolved three distinctly different biological adaptations for surviving in the oxygen-thin air found at high altitude.

Above 25,000', fuhgettabboudit, not even Sherpas can last long up there. It's the DEATH ZONE. However, below 8000' or so, even with steady atmospheric oxygen concentrations depleting, it will take a good deal longer than 15 years for that one to occur.

http://listverse.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bigger.jpg

The Death Zone on Everest

However, the likelihood that all the phytoplankton die off within 15 years itself is quite small. Remember, they all did not Buy their Ticket to the Great Beyond TM in the PETM, 5-10% of ocean species survived that event. Phytoplankton are single cell and they reproduce and adapt to changing environmental conditions rapidly. There has been a dieoff of around 50% of them over the last 40 years or so, but it is unlikely they ALL will die off inside even another 40 years, because this is asymptotic.

Land based ecosystems have their own set of parameters, and some will collapse quickly, others will persist for quite some time to come. As the population of Homo Sap dwindles, it will migrate to those zones that still have functional ecosystems. Then in addition, Homo Sap being Sentient can further augment what is available in the local ecosystem, through techniques like Hydroponics and Aquaculture.

This Greenhouse is on the North Slope of Alaska:

http://www.agratech.com/cms/upload/menu/gallery/14/Continental_TagawaWestCoastGrowers4.JPG

So you clearly can feed SOME number of people this way, it's a Non-Zero number, which by definition means you don't have Extinction. How big that number is remains open to question, but it is certainly more than 100,000, which is more than enough to provide genetic diversity for the species to recover over time.

Now, despite the fact the evidence above shows that Guy's 15 year timeline to Near Term Human Extinction is quite preposterous, does this mean we are not in BIG TROUBLE?

HELL NO! WE ARE IN THE DEEP DOO-DOO HERE!

We are going to have a LOT of DEAD PEOPLE!

https://cicisrant.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/dead-people.gif

What is important given this incontravertable fact of life is that the sooner we get started on addressing this problem realistically, the better we can make it possible for not only more people to survive this crash, but more of the rest of the ecosystem too!

For right now, making any changes on the gross geopolitical level is impossible. The Chinese are going to keep burning coal to keep their electric power plants running as long as they can. Happy Motorists in the FSoA will keep driving around willy nilly as long as they can too. The carbon will be burned, the climate will continue to become more inhospitable, for at least the next 40 years no matter what due to the lag time for many effects to show themselves.

However, individuals can begin the process of learning how to survive in a drastically changed environment, and communities can begin to form to handle it as well. It is up to each person to begin this process inside your own small sphere of influence. My small sphere is the Doomstead Diner , collapse.global & Sun4Living websites. That's my effort, that is all an old cripple can do.

If you have talent, knowledge and/or experience, you too can make a difference, and this is no time to be a QUITTER. Resigning yourself to an inevitable fate of EXTINCTION in the Near Term is QUITTING. Accepting this situation as HOPELESS is QUITTING.

This is a battle that can be fought, and it is a battle that can be WON! Not without a lot of pain and a lot of loss, to be sure, but giving up is not an option, unless you really WANT to die, or you want our whole species to die because you think we are so awful and bad to have around on the planet. If you want to LIVE, you look for means and methods to SURVIVE.

This battle has been waged before by the ancestors of Homo Sap in the PETM, and they won it.

DONE ONCE, IT CAN BE DONE AGAIN.


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,5635.msg86355/topicseen.html#msg86355

Agelbert Comment: Great article! The fact that you obviously advocate for drastic action to ameliorate the existential threat to MOST, if not ALL, is the bottom line. But you can be sure that many deniers will try to twist your words into interpreting them as a justification for applying incremental measures to deal with CO2 caused warming :P. I am sure you will be ready, willing and able to hand their prevaricating asses to them when they try that bit of verbal sleight of hand.

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #139 on: September 27, 2015, 07:33:30 pm »
RE said,

Quote
The other issue here is what happens to the oceans and all the fishies during this period?  Well, the Ocean is going to continue to acidify, and many current species are going to die off.  Phytoplankton are of particular concern here, since they are in large part responsible for dropping molecular oxygen back into the atmosphere for the animals on the planet to breathe, including you and me.

There is another salient issue with losing a large percentage of the phytoplankton, if not all, from acidification.

1. The phytoplankton, like the trees on land, manufacture dimethyl sulfide. This is vital for cloud formation.

Quote
DMS originates primarily from DMSP, a major secondary metabolite in some marine algae.[2] DMS is the most abundant biological sulfur compound emitted to the atmosphere.[3][4] Emission occurs over the oceans by phytoplankton.

DMS is oxidized in the marine atmosphere to various sulfur-containing compounds, such as sulfur dioxide, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dimethyl sulfone, methanesulfonic acid and sulfuric acid.[6] Among these compounds, sulfuric acid has the potential to create new aerosols which act as cloud condensation nuclei.

Through this interaction with cloud formation, the massive production of atmospheric DMS over the oceans may have a significant impact on the Earth's climate.[7] The CLAW hypothesis suggests that in this manner DMS may play a role in planetary homeostasis.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfide

2. When the phytoplankton cannot make their calcium carbonate tiny skeletons due to acidification, they sink. When they sink, the top layer of the oceans becomes anoxic, as you alluded to. But the failure of that phytoplankton to make MASSIVE amounts of  dimethyl sulfide results in a massive LOSS of cloud formation. This will accelerate land deforestation and desertification.

3. In addition, the loss of massive phytoplankton blooms decreases the albedo of the ocean surface and makes it absorb solar heat more rapidly.

4. Finally, the benthic organisms (those that live and feed on the bottom) are threatened with extinction by acidification and the loss of the phytoplankton nutrient and carbon capture cycle.

So, the oxygen depletion aside for a moment, the severe depletion of cloud formation is a positive feedback mechanism that increases warming. The loss of a large percentage of the phytoplankton creates another positive feedback mechanism in CO2 atmospheric increase, which will, in turn, produce still more warming.All that phytoplankton does a huge service now in sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Finally, the darker ocean surface over thousands of miles, due to the absence of large phytoplankton blooms, provides another positive feedback mechanism warming the oceans. Warmer oceans experience "sink degradation". That is, they can absorb even less CO2 than they do now from normal ocean chemistry separate and apart from the biochemistry of marine organisms. That will also increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which added to all the positive feedback mechanisms I just mentioned, will further accelerate global warming.

The localized negative feedback mechanisms you are pointing (cooler areas at altitude and towards the poles) to will work on land for us. But we are threatened because cooler oceans towards the poles will not help the phytoplankton. They are not dying because the oceans are warming. They are dying because the oceans are becoming more acidic. When most of them die, the rate of acidity increase of the oceans increases as well. That does not augur well for the remnant phytoplankton.

So, what to do?

Well, as you said, and I have mentioned myself, the only place a high CO2 concentration is good deal is inside a greenhouse. The North Slope Greenhouses are a laudable survival tool, but not for over 90% of humanity, UNLESS you get really technofixy with them.

You need to build  geodesic dome greenhouses (several MILES in diameter) towards the poles (using geothermal energy to ensure the proper wave length of light is provided along with all the other plant nutrient requirements. You need to do this, not just for food, but for CO2 scrubbing and oxygen generation the biosphere lost from a mass phytoplankton die off, unless you plan to let this global warming CONTINUE past 4C, and STAY up there for 1000 years or so.

Decades ago, the Russians figured out how much one human needs in plants to provide him an adequate atmosphere. They did that because they wanted to know how big the greenhouses they planned to build on mars would have to be. It depends on the plants, of course, but when you throw in food plants along with the atmosphere recyclers so you can do a technofix "replacement"  for the loss of the carbon sequestering, oxygen producing and cloud forming planetary homeostatic phytoplankton mechanism, you need about 12 to 15 acres of land per person with a certain amount of water and a certain relative humidity. It costs a LOT of money to do that. Nobody ever has done that on a scale above 4 or five people, and then not for more than a year or so. But it can be done, in theory.

And of course, if you've got DA Money, the possibilities are endless. There is no reason why palm trees cannot be grown in Alaska in a plus 4degree C biosphere.

The REMNANT just wants to have fun. 
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #140 on: September 28, 2015, 10:23:53 pm »
Monsta,
The FACT that advocating incremental measures will not prevent the existential threat from getting worse is justification for DEMANDING DRASTIC measures! 

Only a deliberately irrational person or a propagandist would argue that the issue here is between doing nothing and incremental measures. YEAH! BOTH doing nothing and incremental measures are insufficient, even though the mindset of the irresponsible advocates of incremental measures is somewhat healthier than the nihilists that advocate doing nothing! AND?

WHERE do you get the idea that when somebody says incremental measures are insufficient, they are a advocating doing nothing, HUH!!? That's BULLSHIT!

The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of  their responsibility to use dianoia in their decision making process.

But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical biosphere destroying modus operandi.

Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.

Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the climate change damage existential threat.

The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational.


Quote
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).

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/future-earth/msg3885/#msg3885
The FACT that advocating incremental measures will not prevent the existential threat from getting worse is justification for DEMANDING DRASTIC measures! 

Only a deliberately irrational person or a propagandist would argue that the issue here is between doing nothing and incremental measures. YEAH! BOTH doing nothing and incremental measures are insufficient, even though the mindset of the irresponsible advocates of incremental measures is somewhat healthier than the nihilists that advocate doing nothing! AND?

WHERE do you get the idea that when somebody says incremental measures are insufficient, they are a advocating doing nothing, HUH!!? That's BULLSHIT!

I totally agree that wholesale changes as opposed to incremental changes are the order of the day but to answer your last question about how some people advocate doing nothing, I hear it all the time. There are a good number of people and it is not just the corporate shills who say this but regular folk who will say things like the market will resolve these issues or "they" (with they rarely being clearly defined) will find a solution so there is no need for us to worry and we can carry on doing our daily (destructive) habits. Then you have the other side of people who have lost all hope and when you suggest PVs or any other renewable solution they will throw their hands in the air and say it is futile. Heck in the Nature Bats Last blog anyone who proposed a solution, of any sort will be labelled delusional. So you see no matter what scenario you have some people will be advocates for doing nothing. Is that bullshit? Certainly but nonetheless a good number of people say it. What you can infer from it is there is a considerable number of people who are irrational.

These ideas are also dangerous because when things do go wrong then since they felt a solution would have naturally evolved the fact that one doesn't means people will think there is a problem with the political or economic system and not see that the problem is the basic framework of our society which promotes consumption and the disregard of resources, pollution and energy. This will make people take the wrong actions or suggest incremental changes when more drastic measures are required.

Well, according to Aristotle, choosing to be ignorant of all the facts, be they good news or bad news, is, by definition, irresponsible because it is a choice to become deliberately irrational. Aristotle stated that humans have no excuse for ignorance born of deliberate irrationality.

And that choice to become deliberately irrational is more applicable to those advocating incremental measures than to those nihilists that have chosen to despair.

As to your assumption that all the above equates to a large percentage of humanity being deliberately irrational, I believe you are wrong. That really would be a valid reason to despair.

You are right that anyone that thinks our society is based on anything but a multiplicity of schemes to favor a few and shaft the rest is deluded.

But you are wrong to think the masses cannot handle that reality check because they would despair.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is sine qua non to our survival. The lip service paid to truth in our society is a bad joke. As you have said many times, our society is dysfunctional.

Dysfunctional mechanisms eventually stop working. That is reality. The fact that all this is occurring in slow motion blinds many to think the problems we have are superficial, not intrinsic.

RE pictures a society where greed is SHUNNED. The intrinsic problem of the present society is that greed is CELEBRATED.

All the downstream effects of biosphere math challenged greedballs are toxic fruit of the celebration of greed. 

The bottom line for me is that a belief that incremental measures are sufficient to address the existential threat we face breeds false hope.

And Monsta, the crowd into despair probably does not make it to 2 or4 % of humanity, so it is really NOT the issue. Putting the despair crowd in the same category (in numbers and influence) as the incremental measures crowd is a false equivalence.

The incremental measures crowd are the BACKBONE of the foot dragging efforts by policy makers to AVOID drastic measures to address climate change.

The incremental measures supporting crowd easily represents 40% to 60% of the population. And those deliberately irrational people are over-represented in the upper 20% of the human population doing 80% of the damage.

The despair crowd is not the problem. You always have a few people out there claiming the end is near. It's the incremental measures crowd that is the PROBLEM.

And their deliberate irrationality is exacerbating the magnitude of the existential threat we face.

Being deliberately irrational is not what is BULLSHIT. What is BULLSHIT is claiming the crowd advocating incremental measures is somehow being more "reality based" than those, like me, who advocate drastic measures, regardless of the hand wringing by the incrementalists about "negative" effects on GDP.

The "real world" of our dysfunctional society is what those incremental measures folks base their assumptions on. They are hurting not helping. And NO, if you strip the happy talk based wishful thinking propaganda from the incremental measures crowd, they are NOT going to automatically jump in with the nihilist despair crowd.

The overwhelming majority of them will THEN demand drastic measures be taken to ameliorate global warming.

A lot of ass holes advocating incremental changes understand that too well. THAT'S WHY they push the FALSE MEME that too much negative news, regardless of how true that negative news is, will drive people to despair.

That is the segment of the incremental measures crowd married to the dysfunctional "real world" of the "greed is good" society that is degrading democracy and the biosphere.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #141 on: September 29, 2015, 03:46:05 pm »
Here's something else to consider about rationality and climate change...

In Russian Roulette, you only have a 17% chance of losing.
Yet, most people don't want to play Russian Roulette.

But if you lose at Russian Roulette, at least it's only your own life.
If we lose at Climate Change, it's the lives of everyone we love.

So, if we won't play Russian Roulette because we have a 17% chance of losing,
are we more than 83% sure that Climate Change will NOT happen?  Because if not, we might as well be pointing a gun to our childrens' heads if we are doing nothing to avoid Climate Change.
         


I admire your quote so much that I have decided to abscond with it and spread it all over the internet, with some minor modifications to, uh. clarify things a bit for the deniers I battle with daily out there. Yesterday I really had them bent out of shape with the one year performance of fossil fuel stocks. It is very hard for them to argue with THAT data. 

They prefer to push the bull**** that the IPCC models ensemble OVER-estimated warming, when the exact reverse is true. They DO NOT want to talk about the ice retreat UNDER-estimated by the models ensemble mean distribution by 48 YEARS.

They prefer to talk temperature because most people do not understand how DANGEROUS the present 0.85 to 1.0 degree centigrade increase above pre-industrial baseline is to us. So, I ruin their day with the FACT that humans have never walked the Earth in a 3.3C or more increase and add the FACT that, barring drastic action, the IPCC predicts 3.7 to 4.0C by 2100.  ;D

Here is how I will rephrase your excellent analogy of Russian Roulette and  rationality in regard to climate change.  8)

Here's something else to consider about rationality and climate change...

In Russian Roulette, you only have a 17% chance of losing.
Yet, most people don't want to play Russian Roulette.

But if you lose at Russian Roulette, at least it's only your own life.
If we lose at Climate Change, it's the lives of everyone we love.

So, if we won't play Russian Roulette because we have a 17% chance of losing,
are we more than 83% sure that a Climate Change caused Mass Extinction will NOT happen?  Because if not, we might as well be pointing a gun to our children's heads if we do not take drastic action to reduce the deleterious effects of Climate Change.

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #142 on: September 30, 2015, 04:11:03 pm »
There was a marked decline in ocean pH during the PETM, as one might expect with atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 2300 ppm.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014PA002621/abstract

However, all the phytoplankton did not die.  There were SURVIVORS.  Phytoplankton Diners   
Currently, ocean pH is around 8.08



It appears to be decreasing about .05 every 20 years right now.  So in a Century, that is .25, bringing it down to  around 7.8.

As it looks right now, it will take a while to get to 7.4

RE

Agreed. But we know how the "how it looks now" has been working for the IPCC predictions for the past 30 years, don't we? And that 7.4 pH is a laboratory determined level that did not include open ocean conditions. You can be sure it is, as most scientific studies continue to turn out on this issue, overly conservative. And with a 40 to fifty year lag, what makes you think we will stop it if we aren't doing jack sh it NOW to stop the baked in pH acidity increase for the next 50 years?

RE, because phytoplankton populations constitute the main marine food chain base along with the zooplankton (which eat each other AND the phytoplankton too), you do not need more than a 20% or so reduction in viability to have a disproportionate impact on the other species. The numbers MUST be at least ten to one in biomass from prey to predators. You knock out 20% of the prey, you knock out a LOT MORE than 20% of the predators. That 's how it works.

And the forests are NOT going to even suck in the CO2 they have been sucking up to now because the added CO2 in the air degrades their ability to process CO2!. So you've got a double whammy reducing your oxygen production. This is NOT a trivial issue.

To make things WORSE,  the corporate kowtowing IPCC is setting up big business interests for a giant geo-engineering technofix SCAM to fleece we-the-people even more while they try a profit over planet Band-Aid disguised as a high tech planetary air conditioner. This is BAT SH IT CRAZY! But that's what they are ALL saying now in their measured, prudent tones that we MUST do, along with "reducing" our CO2 production. Anything to make corporate buck. 

This threat is HUGE, RE.  Because we live on a water planet, the EFFECT of the CO2 CAUSE has a 50 year lag, according to paleo-climate scientist Professor James White from Colorado.

I continue to believe that a few of many species will survive. Hopefully, we will be one of the 25% or so that make it. But we are vertebrates. According to Prof. Gerardo Cebellos, vertebrate mammals are particularly at risk in this sixth extinction because of their habitat requirements. We ARE extremely fragile.

I think it is more prudent to assume that most people will perish from environmental conditions AFTER the collapse. Humans operate basically on the rule of 3.

You die if you
1) lack sufficient oxygen for 3 minutes.
2) lack water for 3 days
3) lack food for three weeks.

Some people can do better than that, but most can't. And all this biosphere math operates on the margins. I keep seeing you look at the bright side, like it's a sure thing. It isn't. The most probable scenario is a slow death for the toughest of survivors. The fact that the outlier of the bell curve includes a portion that can pull through does not make it look any rosier to me.

When you can provide me proof that business as usual for the fossil fuel industry will stop in its tracks within ten years, I'll share your optimism. But if we haven't sh it canned fossil fuels within ten years, it's game over. I REPEAT, if we are still burning fossil fuels in 2025, it's game over within LESS than a century for mammalian vertebrates. Only Divine intervention can change things for the better at that point. I'm not holding my breath waiting for God to step in an contradict His law that the wages of sin are death.

Here's a video spelling things out without hyperbole. Guy does not do most of the talking and remains fairly low key. The evidence he presents is solid. We LEFT the linear climate changes behind and have entered the abrupt ones. That means that, with ocean sink degradation, the pH is going to drop SOONER than predicted. Already I have posted that a 0.5 pH drop can threaten most of the phytoplankton, mollusks and corals, according to the Royal Society in the UK. This is serious sh it.

Climate Change: Have We Reached the Point of No Return?


I keep seeing you look at the bright side, like it's a sure thing.

The only things I am certain of is that at some point in the future all life on earth will come to an end, and prior to that all multicellular organisms will die off.  What is something of a guessing game is what the timeline on this will be.  I definitely do not see a rosy picture out there for the forseeable future, the question is what can you do to make the best of a bad situation?

Far as Fossil Fuel burning, I think that is going to come to a halt on its own due to economics, but probably not as fast as you would like to see it happen.  Hills Report says 2020, I'll go out to 2025 as when most of the industrial economy has shut down.

The adjustment off of the FFs is the hardest part, and because that energy artificially inflated a population bubble, that bubble has to pop.  That's what makes projecting out anything past a 20 year timeline or so a complete crapshoot.  So I try to focus on what the individual and small community can do during this 20 year period to up survival chances.  No guarantees there of course, but just a better shot at it.

RE

This is not about when I would like to see fossil fuels stop being burned; this is about the science that demands fossil fuels stop being burned in order to ameliorate or prevent the existential threat we face from burning fossil fuels.

Making the best of a bad situation is precisely what militates that we all lend our voices to demand the end of burning fossil fuels within a decade. If we fail to do that, your extinction dice are LOADED. The "crapshoot" is survival, at that point.

In a remnant survival situation, expecting technological advances on the order of present day civilization is not realistic. So, when people hunker down, they won't be coming up with any super inventions to handle the hellish atmosphere in anything resembling the present day pace of technological development.

RE, we ALL get it that everything in this universe is finite. That is not the issue. The issue is that WE are shooting ourselves in the foot burning fossil fuels.  And the population bubble is the least of our worries. The coming collapse will take care of THAT problem, thank you very much.

It's the RUNAWAY greenhouse that WILL CONTINUE after most of humanity is offed that is the problem for the remnant humans. THAT is the issue because the window to solve that problem began to close during the Carter Administration. Carter tried to act but was cheated out of a second term.

That window, requiring us to Totally STOP burning of fossil fuels to save our asses, will CLOSE by 2025, thanks to business as usual (and that is a an optimistic outlook, by the way). Reagan and his fossil fueler pals leaned on the window with all their might to see how fast they could CLOSE IT!

20% of ALL the fossil fuels EVER burned were burned AFTER the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997! Business as usual CONTINUES! WHY? (see the next paragraph) They PLAN AHEAD. Their plan SUCKS. It's MORE business as usual.      


Now those Empathy Deficit Disordered fossil fuel industry predators are gearing up for the big transition from the monopolistic fleecing of the people with the fossil fuels gravy train to the monopolistic fleecing of the people with a giant geo-engineering corporate gravy train.  

Do you REALLY think their plan is going to work? I don't.

The fact that everything will eventually die isn't at issue here. I do not understand why you keep bringing that up. The bare assed minimum survival timeline of all humans rotates around that rule of three I mentioned. And you can get THAT much sustenance in prison. A human society needs a hell of a lot more than that to survive. Reducing our "needs" to air, food, water and shelter is not realistic for a 1,000 year minimum timeline.

And as for the domes for the remnant, there are giant difficulties with that.

As you said, ANY technofix is necessarily temporary. The runaway greenhouse WILL NOT stabilize for at least 1,000 years. If the technofix cannot bridge that gap, you are screwed and tattooed. There is NO EVIDENCE that we have the technology to dome 12,000 humans or so for 1000 years in a PLUS 4C planet. I check around a lot! I'm the guy that has battled you over the years proposing technofixes that might work. You are the one that has batted me down each time.

This is why RE likes Alaskan mountains.  ;D

The REALLY inconvenient truth about the IPCC projections:



The following alarming, but still too conservative, study EXCLUDES the ABRUPT climate change positive feedback loop effects we are now beginning to experience.


"Conclusions" still lack punch but at least major action to prevent an increase emissions is clearly stated. In the lecture itself, stopping emissions altogether is clearly established as the only way to stop the ice melt altogether.:




NOTICE the IPCC conclusions are FOLLOWED by GEO-ENGINEERING cheerleading.
You can be SURE they will find trillions of dollars to do the above but it's uh, just too economically "impractical" to replace all our infrastructure with renewable energy, ISN'T IT?   

« Last Edit: September 30, 2015, 07:07:08 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #143 on: October 02, 2015, 07:31:50 pm »
I am posting this video about FREAK GIANT WAVES in this topic thread because, as you will learn, their frequency is not only increasing, but said waves are predicted (see videos after this one) to get even larger. :o

Enjoy fantastic stormy ocean waves film footage and learn of some tragedies caused by giant waves.

https://youtu.be/MU4xDd9GRJM

The applicability of this for our future is that the Hansen et al landmark climate change study, just released, predicts MUCH rougher oceans in the plus 2 degree C warmed world we will arrive at around 2040 (some say 2025!).

Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.


Jump to the 9:00 mark for the massive waves money quote.  8)

Quote
Part 1: Two degree Celsius Global Temperature Rise is Highly Dangerous Paul Beckwith
https://youtu.be/lDZwJRSQVDo


Watch the video below to learn ALL the details from the Hansen et al study predicted ocean action in a 2 degree C plus world.

THAT world is now LOCKED in, according to the IPCC. And we are doing NOTHING to prevent it from going ABOVE 4 degrees C by century's end. 

Quote
Part 4: An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves. by Paul Beckwith

Published on Jul 23, 2015

Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this...  :(

https://youtu.be/rq24d3-bIU4
« Last Edit: October 08, 2015, 02:01:49 am by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #144 on: October 03, 2015, 06:01:38 pm »
Quote
The 1990 global atmospheric mean temperature  is assumed to be 14.49 oC (Shakil, 2005; NASA, 2002; DATAWeb, 2012) which sets the 2 oC anomaly above which humanity will lose control of her ability to limit the effects of global warming on major climatic and environmental systems at 16.49 oC  (IPCC, 2007).

The major Permian extinction event temperature is 80 oF (26.66 oC) which is a temperature anomaly of  12.1766 oC above the 1990 global mean temperature of 14.49 oC (Wignall, 2009; Shakil,  2005).

Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm



Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #145 on: October 03, 2015, 09:29:49 pm »
The PLUS 2 degree C world, now locked in according to the IPCC, is BAD NEWS.


Quote
The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413


THAT IS, 2014 had an AVERAGE global temperature of 58.24°F = 14.58°C.

In 2015 an EL NIÑO began. EL NIÑOs always flush a LOT of heat from the oceans into the atmosphere. They can last more than just one year.

So, 2015 will top 2014. It is safe to add another 0.04°C (0.07°F) for an estimate of 2015 temperature. That will bring us to  58.31°F = 14.62°C.

If we continue to rise  0.04°C per year, we will reach the IPCC plus 2 degree C red line (NOW inevitable according to them), in about 28 years.

That is assuming we are ONLY 0.85°C above the pre-industrial baseline.

If we are at 1.00 °C above the pre-industrial baseline, as some claim is the case, we will reach plus 2.00°C of 15.62°C = 60.12 °F in about 25 years.

This, though lower than the previously set IPCC  plus 2.00°C mark of 16.49 oC  (IPCC, 2007), doesn't sound too bad. That sounds like we have that much time to deal with it. But that reasoning has a problem. 

All that ASSUMES a LINEAR annual temperature increase of 0.04°C.

All that IGNORES the feedback acceleration of heat reinforcing now going on. 

All that IGNORES the sink (ability to absorb CO2) degradation the oceans are undergoing which is guaranteed to increase the RATE of heat entering the atmosphere from the oceans, irrespective of any additions in CO2 input we add.


What's the big deal about a 2 degrees C increase?

Quote
The 1990 global atmospheric mean temperature is assumed to be 14.49 oC (Shakil, 2005; NASA, 2002; DATAWeb, 2012) which sets the 2 oC anomaly above which humanity will lose control of her ability to limit the effects of global warming on major climatic and environmental systems at 16.49 oC  (IPCC, 2007).

The major Permian extinction event temperature is 80 oF (26.66 oC) which is a temperature anomaly of  12.1766 oC above the 1990 global mean temperature of 14.49 oC (Wignall, 2009; Shakil,  2005).

Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #146 on: October 17, 2015, 04:00:37 pm »
These observed phenomena are all REAL.
But Science CANNOT explain them. Particularly unsettling to those who worship science and it's view that the physical universe is the limit of reality, is the placebo effect. It even works better than nothing when you KNOW it is a placebo!

Learn about a careful, meticulous science experiment done involving patients that required knee surgery divided into three groups.

Only ONE group of the three was actually given knee surgery. The other two groups given two variations of placebo surgery (incision with saline solution or just an incision) had equal or better rates of healing.  ;D

But there is a terrible downside to the placebo effect. Propagandists and Con artists everywhere have noticed how effective it is at fooling people. The Fossil Fuel Industry  learned it from the Tobacco Industry (see: Birds of a feather). 

If a polluting industry that is trashing the planet for short term gain can convince enough people that their pollution is "beneficial" to the biosphere, the minds of those propagandized would work to prevent that pollution from being accepted as real.

Perhaps the greatest hidden tool of the fossil fuel industry to fight global warming (in order to preserve their profits, not to stop the pollution) is the propaganda effort to convince people we are entering an ice age! If enough people believe that, reason the Empathy Deficit Disordered ASS HOLES that cheerlead fossil fuels, the placebo effect might even slow global warming down!

But there is a GIANT problem with that logic. And it is not about whether the placebo effect is real or not. That much has been proven. It's the DENIAL of the FACT that something is INJURING the biosphere that undermines any hope of using a mass placebo effect to reduce or prevent global warming.
 
Whether that would work to prevent the biosphere from being polluted is not the question. WHY? Because the placebo effect ONLY works when you think you need to be HEALED of a disease or injury. The Fossil Fuel Industry has PREVENTED public awareness of the problem (i.e. injury/disease to the biosphere).


The placebo effect may work quite well inside our bodies but I suspect the faith to move mountains is at odds with fooling  people in using faith to prevent global warming. The predators 'R' US crowd running the polluting industries are not known for their faith or good works. They are known for there 24/7 lie that they are our "loyal servants concerned only with our welfare".
 



They claim they are merely "supplying our demand" when, in actuality, they are gaming us to supply THEIR demand. Clever, aren't they?





Now you know why the propagandists for the fossil fuel industry lie, distort and double talk about "no warming for a decade", "warming has ceased", "we are entering an ice age" and, last but not least in the hit parade of Push the Placebo to Preserve Profits efforts, "it's the sunspots, not Carbon Dioxide", that control Earth's temperature baloney. 

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #147 on: October 29, 2015, 02:36:30 am »
Human activity is destroying the needed balance in nature
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #148 on: October 31, 2015, 08:29:15 pm »

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity

PART THREE OF THREE PARTS

Whatever is finally determined by scientists as the exact combination of factors that forms these monster waves, it is well known that wave height and ferocity is a function of the ferocity and duration of the winds.

ΔT = plus 2C or greater guarantees ferocious winds of long during over wide areas in a consistent direction.

We are already experiencing the beginning of the abrupt climate change that is bringing these destructive winds due to the increase in frequency and severity of cyclonic movements over the oceans.

Hurricanes and typhoons are the DIRECT result of overheated ocean surface water. As heat increases, so will they continue to increase in frequency and severity, setting new records. As soon as the surface temperature of the ocean is at or above 27.8C (82F), they can form.

And the sea surface temperature (SST) continues to steadily rise.


Below is a NOAA graphic of the SST Anomaly as of June 15, 2017:



From a June 20, 2017 NOAA article:

Quote
The May globally averaged sea surface temperature was 1.28°F above the 20th century monthly average of 61.3°F—the third highest global ocean temperature for May in the record, behind 2016 and 2015.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/globe-has-third-warmest-may-record

Don't let that average global temperature lull you into thinking the risk of hurricanes is the same as always. The sea surface temperature in the hurricane forming areas is much higher. Which means that, on top of everything else, we will get more hurricanes.

Quote

Sea surface temperatures must be 82 degrees F (27.8C) or warmer for tropical cyclone formation and sustenance.
Recipe for a Hurricane

The higher the ocean surface temperature, the more often they will form to wreak havoc with ships and coasts.



We now must apologize for interrupting this article to bore you readers with some fine print:

Quote
What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work—for instance, writing a book review—fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/01/06/copyright-tips-for-review-sites/

Agelbert NOTE: The following includes snippets of an excerpt from the excellent scientifically accurate book, "The Wave. Copyright ©2010 Susan Casey. Published by Doubleday Canada, an imprint of the Doubleday Canada Publishing Group, which is a division of Random House of Canada Limited".

I am posting said snippets of said book review under Fair Use for the purpose of Commentary. I am not posting for commercial purposes. Even though Susan Casey and her publisher may benefit from my praise of her book, which provides ample evidence for increased giant wave activity, I do not benefit monetarily.

Consequently, I am sure these snippets of the book review excerpts posted below are done under Fair Use - for a limited and "transformative" purpose (i.e. Commentary) through which the public will reap benefits (it may even save thousands of lives). Nevertheless, if the Daily Kos legal eagles are concerned that I may be infringing on a copyright here, I will delete the entire article.That ends the fine print.

Now to get back to benefiting the biosphere loving public!
 
Susan Casey gives us an eye opening look at giant waves.

The book titled, "The Wave" is the overall scope; Casey links how the Earth's weather is changing to how waves are growing, and there's no denying the stats: there is a clear correlation. She visits various scientists and marine salvage folks and shares their stories; they all agree that we're seeing the oceans get nuttier, and it's only just beginning.
 


The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean by Susan Casey

Susan Casey, National Post · Monday, Sept. 20, 2010
57.5° N, 12.7° W, 175 MILES OFF THE COAST OF SCOTLAND FEBRUARY 8, 2000

The clock read midnight when the 100-foot wave hit the ship, rising from the North Atlantic out of the darkness. Among the ocean's terrors a wave this size was the most feared and the least understood, more myth than reality -- or so people had thought. This giant was certainly real. As the RRS Discovery plunged down into the wave's deep trough, it heeled 28 degrees to port,
The above graphic is a scale simulation of 295 ft. ship heeling 28 degrees to port in the trough of a 100 ft. wave by Agelbert.

rolled 30 degrees back to starboard, then recovered to face the incoming seas. What chance did they have, the 47 scientists and crew aboard this research cruise gone horribly wrong? A series of storms had trapped them in the black void east of Rockall, a volcanic island nicknamed Waveland for the nastiness of its surrounding waters. More than 1,000 wrecked ships lay on the seafloor below.

Scale simulation by Agelbert

Captain Keith Avery steered his vessel directly into the onslaught, just as he'd been doing for the past five days. While weather like this was common in the cranky North Atlantic, these giant waves were unlike anything he'd encountered in his 30 years of experience.

And worse, they kept rearing up from different directions. Flanking all sides of the 295-foot ship, the crew kept a constant watch to make sure they weren't about to be sucker punched by a wave that was sneaking up from behind, or from the sides.



No one wanted to be out here right now, but Avery knew their only hope was to remain where they were, with their bow pointed into the waves. Turning around was too risky; if one of these waves caught Discovery broadside, there would be long odds on survival. It takes 30 tons per square metre of force to dent a ship.

A breaking 100-foot wave packs 100 tons of force per square metre and can tear a ship in half. Above all, Avery had to position Discovery so that it rode over these crests and wasn't crushed beneath them.

He stood barefoot at the helm, the only way he could maintain traction after a refrigerator toppled over, splashing out a slick of milk, juice and broken glass (no time to clean it up--the waves just kept coming).

Up on the bridge everything was amplified, all the night noises and motions, the slamming and the crashing, the elevator-shaft plunges into the troughs, the frantic wind, the swaying and groaning of the ship; and now, as the waves suddenly grew even bigger and meaner and steeper, Avery heard a loud bang coming from Discovery's foredeck. He squinted in the dark to see that the 50-man lifeboat had partially ripped from its 2-inch-thick steel cleats and was pounding against the hull.

Below deck, computers and furniture had been smashed into pieces. The scientists huddled in their cabins nursing bruises, black eyes and broken ribs. Attempts at rest were pointless. They heard the noises too; they rode the free falls and the sickening barrel rolls; and they worried about the fact that a 6-foot-long window next to their lab had already shattered from the twisting. Discovery was almost 40 years old, and recently she'd undergone major surgery. The ship had been cut in half, lengthened by 33 feet, and then welded back together. Would the joints hold? No one really knew. No one had ever been in conditions like these.

One of the two chief scientists, Penny Holliday, watched as a chair skidded out from under her desk, swung into the air and crashed onto her bunk. Holliday, fine boned, porcelain-doll pretty and as tough as any man on board the ship, had sent an e-mail to her boyfriend, Craig Harris, earlier in the day. "This isn't funny anymore," she wrote. "The ocean just looks completely out of control." So much white spray was whipping off the waves that she had the strange impression of being in a blizzard. This was Waveland all right, an otherworldly place of constant motion that took you nowhere but up and down; where there was no sleep, no comfort, no connection to land, and where human eyes and stomachs struggled to adapt, and failed.

Ten days ago Discovery had left port in Southampton, England, on what Holliday had hoped would be a typical 3-week trip to Iceland and back (punctuated by a little seasickness perhaps, but nothing major).

RRS Discovery in calm seas


Along the way they'd stop and sample the water for salinity, temperature, oxygen and other nutrients. From these tests the scientists would draw a picture of what was happening out there, how the ocean's basic characteristics were shifting, and why.

These are not small questions on a planet that is 71% covered in salt water.
As the Earth's climate changes -- as the inner atmosphere becomes warmer, as the winds increase, as the oceans heat up -- what does all this mean for us? Trouble, most likely, and Holliday and her colleagues were in the business of finding out how much and what kind. It was deeply frustrating for them to be lashed to their bunks rather than out on the deck lowering their instruments. No one was thinking about Iceland anymore.

The trip was far from a loss, however. During the endless trains of massive waves, Discovery itself was collecting data that would lead to a chilling revelation. The ship was ringed with instruments; everything that happened out there was being precisely measured, the sea's fury captured in tight graphs and unassailable numbers.

Months later, long after Avery had returned everyone safely to the Southampton docks, when Holliday began to analyze these figures, she would discover that the waves they had experienced were the largest ever scientifically recorded in the open ocean. The significant wave height, an average of the largest 33% of the waves, was 61 feet, with frequent spikes far beyond that.

At the same time, none of the state-of-the-art weather forecasts and wave models-- the information upon which all ships, oil rigs, fisheries and passenger boats rely -- had predicted these behemoths. In other words, under this particular set of weather conditions, waves this size should not have existed. And yet they did.

http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2


You could call them whatever you wanted -- rogues, freaks, giants -- but the bottom line was that no one had accounted for them. The engineers who'd built the Draupner rig had calculated that once every 10,000 years the North Sea might throw them a 64-foot curveball in 38-foot seas. That would be the maximum. Eighty-five-foot waves were not part of the equation, not in this universe anyway.

But the rules had changed. Now scientists had a set of numbers that pointed to an unsettling truth: Some of these waves make their own rules. Suddenly the emphasis shifted from explaining why giant waves couldn't simply leap out of the ocean to figuring out how it was that they did.

This was a matter of much brow sweat for the oil industry, which would prefer that its multimillion-dollar rigs not be swept away. It had happened before. In 1982 the Ocean Ranger, a 400-foot-long, 337-foot-high oil platform located 170 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, was struck by an outsize wave in heavy weather. We'll never know how big the wave was exactly, for there were no survivors. Approved for "unrestricted ocean operations," built to withstand 110-foot seas and 115-mile-per-hour winds, considered "indestructible" by its engineers, the Ocean Ranger had capsized and sank close to instantly, killing all 84 people on board.

In the nautical world things were even more troubling. Across the global seas ships were meeting these waves, from megaton vessels like the Munchen -- oceangoing freighters and tankers and bulk carriers -- down to recreational sailboats.

At best, the encounters resulted in damage; at worst, the boat vanished, taking all hands with it. "Two large ships sink every week on average [worldwide], but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather,' " said Dr. Wolfgang Rosenthal, senior scientist for the MaxWave Project, a consortium of European scientists that convened in 2000 to investigate the disappearing ships.

http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2

MS München

December 12, 1978: Considered unsinkable, the Munchen was a cutting-edge craft, the flagship of the German Merchant Navy. At 3:25 a.m. fragments of a Morse code Mayday, emanating from 450 miles north of the Azores, signaled that the vessel had suffered grave damage from a wave.


Artist's conception of MS München facing a giant wave.

But even after 110 ships and 13 aircraft were deployed -- the most comprehensive search in the history of shipping -- the ship and its 27 crew were never seen again.

A haunting clue was left behind: Searchers found one of the Munchen's lifeboats, usually stowed 65 feet above the water, floating empty. Its twisted metal fittings indicated that it had been torn away. "Something extraordinary" had destroyed the ship, concluded the official report. *

The Munchen's disappearance points to the main problem with proving the existence of a giant wave:
If you run into that kind of nightmare, it's likely to be the last one you'll have.

The force of waves is hard to overstate. An 18-inch wave can topple a wall built to withstand 125-mile-per-hour winds, for instance, and coastal advisories are issued for even five-foot-tall surf, which regularly kills people caught in the wrong places.

The number of people who have witnessed a 100-foot wave at close range and made it back home to describe the experience is a very small one.

http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2

* Agelbert NOTE: The container ship El Faro sank during Hurricane Juaquin on October 1, 2015. All 33 crewmembers perished. The lifeboats on El Faro were also 65 feet above the water line. From the condition of the lifeboat that was recovered, the evidence indicates a giant wave sank the El Faro. The authorities have not admitted this as of yet. But I am not the only one that strongly suspects that the condition of the lifeboat is evidence that a giant wave sank El Faro (Spanish for "Lighthouse"). 

Quote
"A heavily damaged lifeboat from the El Faro was discovered, with no one ..."

Coast Guard Investigates El Faro Life Boat
Quote
Published on Oct 5, 2015
A Coast Guard Air Station Miami MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter crew investigates a life boat Sunday, Oct. 4, 2015, that was found from the missing ship El Faro. El Faro lost propulsion and communications prior to Hurricane Joaquin passing directly over it. U.S. Coast Guard video.


Warming oceans are with us now and increasing the violence of the oceans. By chance, I recorded the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) off the East Coast of the USA the day before Hurricane Juaquin sank the El Faro container ship. Here's the September 30, 2015 (8 day average - proof  that it was really consistently hot out there!) screenshot:

Notice all that ocean surface at 27.8C (82F) hurricane forming minimum temperature or greater.

Here's two days later (one day after the El Faro Container ship sank). I superimposed the hurricane location. It is a one day average SST so the conditions when the El Faro sank are displayed.  I was not aware that the El Faro had been lost at the time I made these screenshots. Notice the cooler spot on the ocean precisely where Hurricane Juaquin is lashing El Faro. A hurricane transfers several degrees of water temperature directly to the atmosphere, which, in turn, increases the ferocity of the winds. Ferocious winds produce ferocious waves.


El Faro departed Jacksonville en route to San Juan, Puerto Rico.




The El Faro was one of TWO cargo ships that went down because of Hurricane Juaquin (the 215 ft. MV Minouche that went down didn't make national headlines, because people, perhaps, might start to get "unnecessarily alarmed" about the increasing shipping losses from our increasingly violent oceans). All 12 crew of the MV Minouche were rescued.

MV Minouche

The Coast Guard pilot's voice shakes as he describes conditions they have never before experienced in rescue attempts when they were searching for the El Faro and rescuing the crew of the MV Minouche.


US Coast Guard search for El Faro; 12 rescued from MV Minouche
Quote
Published on Oct 5, 2015
A US Coast Guard C-130 pilot describes a flight through Hurricane Joaquin in 100 knot winds and over 40-foot waves in search of the cargo ship El Faro, which has been reported sunk after debris was found. Part two of this video features footage from an Oct. 1 rescue of 12 people from the MV Minouche near the Bahamas.

The El Faro, that went down with a crew of 33, all lost, 294 cars, trailers and trucks, along with hundreds of containers, had a type of lifeboat that is a death boat in stormy seas.

Here's a comment by a fellow who's handle is deckofficer:

Hurricane Joaquin vs. M/V El Faro's final voyage, weather and decision-making...

I guess the only point I would like to make is some owners don't seem to value the lives of their crews. Schedules are tight and safety equipment is in many cases the bare minimum for certification. In the case of SS El Faro (it is my understanding this is a steam ship, not diesel) the open life boats as high on the super structure as they were meets requirements but certainly doesn't offer the all sea state conditions of deployment as free fall enclosed life boat capsules. If these souls are lost at sea, it is maddening that the simple added investment of better emergency egress would have saved their lives. I have done more lifeboat drills than I can remember, and for the older style gravity systems there was a good reason these drills only occurred on calm days.

When sea state is overwhelming and you have lost propulsion and need to abandon ship, do you want this....



Or this....


https://youtu.be/a7giEX-vIyo

Bob
USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)


http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f122/hurricane-joaquin-vs-m-v-el-faros-final-voyage-weather-and-decsion-making-154191-3.html

Free fall enclosed life boat capsules are a great idea. They should be mandatory. The fact that they aren't is mute evidence of the neoliberal Empathy Deficit disordered "cost/benefit analysis" that values goods more than lives. As long as people continue to line up to crew the ships, management will cut corners on life support.

And the Libertarians will cheer them on demanding all those "government regulations" be eliminated so the shippers can make more money without "government interference".   

 
But the greedball shippers are increasingly going to have a bit more to worry about than whether they have a labor force or not. Thanks to the fossil fuel industry socialized cost of CO2 pollution (even though Big Oil is getting a bit of payback from the oceans with oil rig difficulties and tanker losses), this is no longer going to be about whether the "demand" for products "justifies" cargo shipping. 

I am grateful to Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa for alerting me to the threat from violent oceans that mankind faces.

Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.

An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves

by Paul Beckwith

Published on Jul 23, 2015

"Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this..." 


If the ships cannot handle the seas (NO ship is designed, or can cost effectively be designed, to handle anywhere near 100 tons per square meter of force on her hull), shipping itself will no longer be cost effective unless cargo ships morph into cargo submarines. The cost of doing that is staggering. Even if they designed them to ride just beneath the wave turbulence, they still would have to submerge to one half the wavelength of ocean waves.

Quote
Deep-Water Waves

If the water depth (d) is greater then the wave base (equal to one-half the wavelength, or L/2), the waves are called deep-water waves. Deep-water waves have no interference with the ocean bottom, so they include all wind-generated waves in the open ocean. Submarines can avoid large ocean waves by submerging below the wave base.


The wave that hit the Draupner platform in 1995 was over 90 ft. high and had a wavelength of 231 meters (which it covered in only 12 seconds! - 45 mph). To avoid these waves, a submerged cargo vessel or tanker would have to withstand pressures at a minimum of 116 meters below sea level.

That may be a piece of cake for a normal submarine but it would cost multiples of what cargo and tanker vessels cost now to make cargo submarines and tankers capable of routinely submerging to 400 or 500 feet.

And in water that is too shallow to get under the wave action, they will not avoid being damaged or sunk. Those waves Paul Beckwith mentions will be visiting the coastlines regularly in a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.

During WW2 the Germans actually made submarine tankers. They nicknamed them "Milk Cows". The German type XIV U-Boat could resupply other boats with 432 t (425 long tons) of fuel. I'm sure ExxonMobil will look into it when the going gets REALLY rough on the oceans, instead of doing the right thing and giving up fossil fuels. They aren't known for their ability to consider the wider consequences of their greed based, short term profit motive stupidity. But I digress.  ;D

Besides the large increase in sea level, the wave action predicted makes every hull design of modern shipping inadequate. It will be very hard to sustain our level of civilization without the benefits of modern shipping.

Redesigning hulls will not work for the simple reason that the waves, now called "rogue" waves, of those oceans will be routine. 30 to 35 meter tall waves exert forces on a hull of about 100 tons per square meter. No modern hull design exceeds 30 tons per square meter.
Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world

To give you a better idea of the huge threat a giant wave or three is to a large tanker or cargo vessel,  I took some screenshots from a video of a wave laboratory testing the effects of 72 ft. waves on a modern supertanker. I'm sure Big Oil is paying attention, regardless of what they say in public.  ;)


3D simulation by Agelbert of tanker model is below the wave tank screenshot

5: The above is catastrophic for a tanker. 6: Supertanker scale model in scale 72 ft. waves is rolled and sinks.

The tanker completely capsized. In a real world situation, this is a death blow to the crew because it happens too fast to get survival gear on or reach the lifeboats, even if they are the emergency egress sealed type you saw earlier. That is why both tanker and cargo ships do everything they can to avoid being broadsided. In the real world, when the engines are lost in these types of seas, the only way to survive is to immediately abandon ship on a free fall enclosed life boat capsule.

If the above series of screen shots are not convincing enough to the reader of the threat shipping faces from giant waves, the following video series will leave no doubt in your mind that world shipping is incapable of handling the routine 30 to 35 meter waves that the Hansen et al June 2015 paper predicts for a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.

The following video series is the first of an excellent BBC series that describes the difficulties that shipping faces with giant waves. Some of the material I have covered is presented with some added background provided. You will learn much from these videos. You will learn that absolutely nothing I have told you is exaggeration or hyperbole.

The threat is real and it is getting worse. I urge you to set aside some time to view them because this concerns our future as a civilization. We are not prepared for a ΔT = plus 2C  world (and beyond).


CONCLUSIONS

Global Civilization is threatened within 25 years or less by the scientifically predicted ocean surface wave activity in the Hansen et al June 2015 study * and the Dutton et al July 2015 study ** evidencing a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400 PPM.

As of April of 2017, the CO2 concentration passed 410PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.

Quote
We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

Carbon dioxide has not reached this height in millions of years

•By Brian Kahn, Climate Central on April 21, 2017

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-threshold-for-co2/


* Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015 © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous
J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5, G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9, K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and K.-W. Lo3,4

www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf

** Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349  no. 6244  DOI: .1126/science.aaa4019 

Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods
A. Dutton1,*,  A. E. Carlson2,  A. J. Long3,  G. A. Milne4,  P. U. Clark2,  R. DeConto5,  B. P. Horton6,7,  S. Rahmstorf8,  M. E. Raymo9
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019.abstract

Furthermore, the rate of increase is also rising, evidencing, not only the lack of concerted action by the governments of the industrialized nations of the world to stop using fossil fuels, but an increase in their use, along with the incredibly destructive policies of subsidizing the exploration for fossil fuels.

If drastic action is not taken to avert this violent oceans catastrophe for human civilization, our global civilization will collapse into "sea-locked" regions unable to conduct trade across the oceans except via air transportation, a method that is not economically feasible to use for bulk cargo.

Port facilities and coastal airport facilities will become unusable. In addition, the salt water fishing industry would also collapse, both from the violent oceans and the increasing rate of marine extinctions, creating joblessness, food shortages and widespread hunger.

At least 25 percent of the world's arable land, all of which is low lying and near sea coasts, will be lost due to salt water invasion of the water table, even several miles from the coasts.


RECOMMENDATIONS


To prevent a collapse of global civilization into a group of "sea locked" areas, we must act now to prevent the oceans from being too stormy for shipping.

This requires the following:

1. The manufacture of internal combustion engines, and spare parts, used to power utility scale power plants, land, sea and air vehicles and emergency generators for public or private use, be they large or small, is to be outlawed, unless they are designed to run exclusively (low temperature alloys ONLY - 2/3 lighter engine blocks - they break down due to high waste heat if run on fossil fuels) on ethanol or some other biofuel. All aircraft must be powered by biofuels until electrically powered or hydrogen powered aircraft replace current jet engines. All ocean going oil tankers are to be recycled for low cost EV metals. All remaining ships of all sizes must be electrically powered as well, unless they can be modified to run on biofuels. Biofuels must be used to bridge the gap while phasing out the internal combustion engine in industry, the military and transportation by air, land or sea.

2. All ships must have enclosed egress lifeboats capable of surviving 35 meter waves.

3. Small engines, like those used for lawn mowers. leaf blowers or weed whackers are to be outlawed. All ordinances requiring lawns are to be outlawed. All lawn, gardening or snow removal power equipment not running on E100 is to be electrically powered without any exceptions or grace period.

4. A program to phase out of all uses of fossil fuels within one year must begin immediately. All gasoline stations are to have at least two E100 pumps. A gasoline tax of one dollar per gallon is to be levied to existing gasoline or other distillate fuels tax. The tax is to be increased by one additional dollar per gallon every month.

5. All governments must provide an EV for gas guzzlers consumer trade program at no cost to the owner until all on road and off road vehicles that are not fueled exclusively with E100 (100% ethanol) have been recycled.

6. All public and private buildings (including the military) are to be modified to have 100% renewable energy for heating and cooling. Zero percent financing and a 30 year amortization period is to be provided to all private households and landlords for the purchase and installation of Renewable Energy infrastructure. No household is entitled to heat and cool more than 500 square feet per occupant (No exceptions). Monitoring devices are to placed on all large houses in general and mansions in particular with heavy fines for violations.

7. After all buildings are heated and cooled with renewable energy, the remaining energy needs, plus a surplus, are to be generated by renewable energy in order to begin the process of returning to less than 350PPM (Parts Per Million) of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide). Carbon will be sequestered with renewable energy machines.

8.The manufacture, sale or use of fossil fuel based pesticides or chemical fertilizers for agriculture is to be outlawed with a six month phase out grace period.

9. The manufacture and sale of any product, including, but not limited to, pharmaceuticals and plastics, using fossil fuels as a feed stock is to be prohibited by law. A one year grace period will be allowed for transition to the use of plant based carbohydrates as feed stock.

10. Water use is to be heavily regulated.

11. Military budgets are to be limited to no more than 5% of tax receipts.

12. All subsidies for fossil fuels are be declared null and void in every country in the world. All rigs, refineries, tanker trucks, pipelines and other fossil fuel industry plant and equipment are to be recycled within a five year period. The fossil fuel industry stock holders are to shoulder the cost of this. Corporate bankruptcies of fossil fuel corporations will not limit the liability of the corporation stock holders according to a worldwide proclamation of Force Majeure. Executives, board members and all other stock holders will be liable for all recycling costs according to ownership records over the last 50 years.


And, as "radical" as the above seems to status quo lovers, that is just the start of what MUST be done.

Massive conservation efforts must be undertaken to preserve and protect all animals now threatened with extinction. All governments must put these efforts on the level of war time demands simply because our survival as a civilization and possibly as a species is threatened.

A wartime mobilization scenario has been proposed that is somewhat less radical than what I propose. I would certainly support that action (Any Port in the Catastrophic Climate Change Storm 😇).


Quote
Wartime mobilisation for climate mitigation. Preprint of paper published subsequently in Energy Policy (2013) 58: 371-380.

Laurence L. Delina and Mark Diesendorf* Institute of Environmental Studies University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052, Australia *Corresponding author: email: m.diesendorf@unsw.edu.au

Abstract:

Climate science suggests that, to have a high probability of limiting global warming to an average temperature increase of 2ºC, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2020 and be reduced to close to zero by 2040. However, the current trend is heading towards at least 4ºC by 2100 and little effective action is being taken. This paper commences the process of developing contingency plans for a scenario in which a sudden major global climate impact galvanises governments to implement emergency climate mitigation targets and programs. Climate activists assert that rapid mitigation is feasible, invoking the scale and scope of wartime mobilisation strategies. This paper draws upon historical accounts of social, technological and economic restructurings in several countries during World War 2 in order to investigate potential applications of wartime experience to radical, rigorous and rapid climate mitigation strategies. We focus on the energy sector, the biggest single contributor to global climate change, in developed and rapidly developing countries. We find that, while wartime experience suggests some potential strategies for rapid climate mitigation in the areas of finance and labour, it also has severe limitations, resulting from its lack of democratic processes. 
Keywords: climate mitigation, wartime mobilisation, non-technical aspects, energy transition

http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/sites/all/files/DelinaDiesendorf_EnergyPolicy-v2%5B1%5D.pdf

We cannot function without the use of the oceans. We will not be able to use those oceans if we don't lower the CO2 atmospheric content to at least 350 PPM.

And even then, with the 6 meter or more (over 19 feet!) rise in sea level locked into the  ΔT = plus 2C  world, we will lose the use of all port facilities, coastal cities and arable land near sea level within a decade or, optimistically speaking in regard to the IPCC RCP-8.5 "Business as Usual" scenario, by 2050. Our civilization does not have the money to rebuild and replant and relocate millions of people as the seas go up and fly all cargo when the seas can't be used, PERIOD.

It is only possible to avoid a collapse of global civilization by drastic measures, and only if those measures are undertaken within a decade.

If not, then mankind will be split into several "sea locked" groups watching the oceans acidify and the temperature increase to the point when the methane bursts from the thawed clathrates in the Arctic ocean bottom. Then the ΔT = plus 2C world will be a distant mild memory in comparison to the  ΔT = plus 4C and beyond runaway GHG hell.

Sadly, I do not see any of evidence that any government is championing drastic action. 

Yes, ALL governments will eventually realize that we are in an Existential Catastrophic Climate Crisis. But every day of delay multiplies the costs of ameliorating the damage from climate change exponentially.


Oil Tanker named "Prestige" sinks. Is this the Writing on the Oil Tanker Hull Wall for Big Oil?

It is small consolation to me that these oil tankers will not survive the coming oceans. But there is a certain logic to it.

If you find this article of importance to our survival as a species or the survival of civilization, please pass it on with or without attribution. People need to properly understand the nature of our climate problem in general, and the fossil fuel industry's blame for profiting from it in particular, in order to embrace the outlawing of the burning of fossil fuels.


They must be held accountable and they must NOT be allowed to influence energy policy ever again. They successfully sabotaged and/or watered down all the reforms proposed at the December 2015 COP21 Climate Conference, as they have done at all the other global climate conferences through corruption or threats. Our survival and the welfare of the children of the world depends on stopping these criminals NOW.


 

Please Help the Children have an Opportunity to Live in a Viable Biosphere.





The following was written for the COP21 conference. Included are the names of all that signed on. Daily Kos, I’m glad to say, signed on to this document:


Quote
"We call on you to take immediate action to protect COP21 and all future negotiations from the influence of big polluters. Given the fossil fuel industry’s years of interference intended to block progress, push false solutions, and continue the disastrous status quo, the time has come to stop treating big polluters as legitimate “stakeholders” and to remove them from climate policymaking."

Today, we are facing the prospect of the destruction of life as we know it and irreversible damage to our planet due to climate change. Scientists are telling us with ever more urgency that we must act quickly to stop extracting fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the world’s largest polluters have prevented progress on bold climate action for far too long.

We call on the Parties to the UNFCCC to protect the UN climate talks and climate policymaking around the world from the influence of big polluters. The world is looking to the next round of negotiations – in Paris this December – for decisive action on climate. This is a pivotal moment to create real solutions. We need a strong outcome from the Paris talks in order to seize the momentum of a growing global movement, and to urge leaders to take bolder action to address the climate crisis.

But the fossil fuel industry and other transnational corporations that have a vested interest in stopping progress continue to delay, weaken, and block climate policy at every level. From the World Coal Association hosting a summit on "clean coal" around COP19 to Shell aggressively lobbying in the European Union for weak renewable energy goals while promoting gas – these big polluters are peddling false solutions to protect their profits while driving the climate crisis closer to the brink.

 A decade ago, the international community took on another behemoth industry – Big Tobacco – and created a precedent-setting treaty mechanism that removed the tobacco industry from public health policy. This can happen again here.


Corporate Accountability International delivered this message and the list of signatures at the climate talks in Bonn, Germany, the first week of June of 2015 and did another delivery by the end of COP21 in Paris in December of 2015.

Participating organizations:

350.org
Amazon Watch
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Climate Action Network International
Corporate Accountability International
CREDO Action
Daily Kos
Environmental Action
Food & Water Watch
Federation of Young European Greens
Forecast the Facts
Greenpeace USA
League of Conservation Voters
Oil Change International
People for the American Way
Rainforest Action Network
RH Reality Check
SumOfUs
The Natural History Museum
CC: UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Outgoing COP20 President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal
Incoming COP21 President Laurent Fabius


Many will read this and scoff. They do not accept the FACT that Business as usual is a death sentence for global civilization. They do not accept the FACT that nature does not negotiate. They do not accept the FACT that Incremental/half measures are like being half pregnant with Rosemary's baby. 

They will say that there is absolutely no way that the governments of the world will undertake even a tiny portion of the recommendations I list as sine qua non for our survival as a global civilization. 

Perhaps they are right about the governments. If they are, then perhaps we will, because of the successful degrading of democracy and the biosphere by the fossil fuel industry over the course of about a century, experience the roaring oceans and the collapse of all human civilization, not just global civilization.

If so, then the ocean violence, including its dramatic effects on human civilization, now predicted by science, was accurately described in prophesy a long time ago.

Quote
And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Luke 21:25-26 English Standard Version 

But whether you believe the above prophesy is valid or not, I think it safe to assume that our future ocean surface will be very unsafe. And below the surface, it will be even worse for the marine species we all depend on.

Suggested viewing:

Agelbert NOTE: Learn about biological stability of systems, negative feedbacks, positive feedbacks, population trends, ocean acidification and the very important issue of increasing anoxic (oxygen starved) conditions in the oceans directly caused by the continued burning of fossil fuels in the video below. Dr. Lubchenco is one of several credentialed leading climate scientists at this conference:

Biological Extinction | Discussion #11

Quote
Jane Lubchenco (born December 4, 1947) is an American environmental scientist and marine ecologist who teaches and does research at Oregon State University. Her research interests include interactions between the environment and human well-being, biodiversity, climate change, and sustainable use of oceans and the planet. From 2009-2013, she served as Administrator of NOAA and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Lubchenco

Casina Pio IV

Published on Mar 2, 2017
How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend PAS-PASS Workshop
Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

On our 4.54 billion year old planet, life is perhaps as much as 3.7 billion years old, photosynthesis and multi-cellularity dozens of times independently around 3.0 billion years old, and the emergence of plants, animals, and fungi onto land, by at least the Ordovician period, perhaps 480 million years ago, forests appearing around 370 million years ago, and the origin of modern groups such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and land plants subsequently. The geological record shows that there have been five major extinction-events in the past, the first of them about 542 million years ago, and suggests that 99% of the species that ever lived (5 billion of them?) have become extinct. The last major extinction event occurred about 66 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, and, in general, the number of species on earth and the complexity of their communities has increased steadily until near the present.
 

Suggested Reading:

Greenland now a major driver of rising seas: study    June 26, 2017 by Marlowe Hood
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-greenland-major-driver-seas.html#jCp

More summer sunshine leading to increased Greenland ice melt June 28, 2017
A team of scientists, led by the University of Bristol, has discovered that a marked decrease in summer cloud cover during the last 20 years has significantly accelerated melt from the Greenland ice sheet.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-summer-sunshine-greenland-ice.html#jCp

Greenland ice sheet may melt completely with 1.6 degrees of global warming March 12, 2012
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120312003232.htm

Storms caused massive Antarctic sea ice loss in 2016   
June 26, 2017
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-storms-massive-antarctic-sea-ice.html#jCp

The Real Sea Monsters: On the Hunt for Rogue Waves
By Lynne Peeples | September 2, 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rogue-waves-ocean-energy-forecasting/

Rogue waves are no fish tale
Once regarded as extremely rare, satellite photos and radar imagery have documented the existence of numerous rogue waves, and it turns out that they are far more common than previously thought.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/15284/rogue-waves-are-no-fish-tale

Wave Power Could Contribute 10% Of Global Electricity Demand By 2050 June 28th, 2017 by Joshua S Hill
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/28/wave-power-contribute-10-global-electricity-demand-2050/

Water, Energy and Waste Sustainable Development in Large Cities Masdar Engage Contest Entry Submitted December 20, 2013 by A. G. Gelbert
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/wave-power/msg7392/#msg7392

If you missed the first two parts, you can read them at the links below.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART ONE

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART TWO

You may print or post any part or the whole of the three parts of this article, with or without attribution, as many times as you wish. Spread these timely warnings far and wide. Remember, the biosphere we need to preserve is the only one we have. Without a Viable Biosphere, we cannot survive. We cannot have a viable biosphere unless we stop burning fossil fuels.


Quote
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

"We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we never had one. What we need, if we wish to avoid extinction, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking. " -- A.G. Gelbert

« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 10:26:07 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30443
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #149 on: November 02, 2015, 10:00:11 pm »
The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and a large part of the Antarctic Ice Cap TIPPING POINTs have been passed. We can NO LONGER prevent that from happening.  :( Have a nice day.

The video from this session has a duration of 1 hour 39 minutes 44 seconds.

For the money quotes start at the 1 hour 22 minute 57 second mark:  :o

https://youtu.be/uOepcNc278I


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
September 22, 2019, 06:04:39 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
September 22, 2019, 03:36:55 pm

You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procrastination by AGelbert
September 22, 2019, 03:26:28 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
September 22, 2019, 01:55:32 pm

Historical Documentaries by AGelbert
September 22, 2019, 12:26:55 pm

Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
September 21, 2019, 05:06:17 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 21, 2019, 04:44:22 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
September 20, 2019, 09:13:09 pm

Money by AGelbert
September 20, 2019, 07:39:29 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
September 20, 2019, 03:01:49 pm