+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8447
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)  (Read 1625 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2015, 07:32:50 pm »
Sure Alan, it's just "hilarious".  I'm waiting for you to pull out your "counterfeit coin".    

Doubt really is your product, isn't?


The above book, though not part of the book below, is relevant because it details the use of the SAME unethical strategy pioneered by the Tobacco bastards that HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, USED by the dirty energy producers for the last 40 years.  >:(

Agnotology: Part four of six parts

 

I am amazed you don't know what biosphere math is. The short version is that the biosphere operates in a band of temperature, pressure, pH and a trophic (stuff we are nourished by) web of species interconnections. All species have slightly varying requirements, but the bottom line is that they must remain within a "goldilocks" type band to survive extinction.

The stability of the composition of those bands constitutes a plus in biosphere math. The instability born of radical departures from those bands constitutes a negative in biosphere math.

For example, we require a certain population of gut bacteria in a certain proportion of bacterial species. A slight departure will kill us (e. g. E.coli food poisoning) even though we have a lot of the SAME bacteria that will kill us if it spoils food we are about to eat living happily in our intestines extracting vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from the food.

Nature is the same way. You DO NOT have to have this obvious giant threat out there to be in danger of extinction. The biosphere is EXTREMELY fine tuned. Our activities are guaranteeing an unquestionable forced departure from the life giving band of hundreds of thousands of species, including our own.

But I have not been able to communicate to you how truly fragile our existence is. It's a bit ironic, because I'm not going to be here to see the really massive human die offs starting around 2050. But Ashvin will. and if you are young, so will you.

All that said, I do appreciate the fact the you believe I am sincere, and not out to propagandize people for the jollies of scaremongering.

Perhaps after I'm dead, God (or is it the "goddess" to you?  ;)) will task me to sing "Henry the Eighth" (see the movie "Ghost) to Ashvin when the Greenland ice sheet slides into the ocean and the oceans jump 20 feet or so within a few months. That is, right after he starts asking "Who coulda node?".

He was just being prudent about the "proper" application of the precautionary principle, after all...
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2015, 08:13:49 pm »
I said to Ashvin ,
Quote
Your assertion that a tiny group can "overreact" to a tsunami of propaganda by TPTB to keep people asleep is not a logical statement; it's ridiculous. But it is based on your view that there IS NO massive propaganda effort to put people to sleep (SEE: Endowment bias or Confirmation bias).

Ashvin said,
Quote
No, I do believe there is a massive propaganda effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and apathetic. Now your tone is dismissive.

I liked the way Alan put it - the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.


That is a contradictory group of statements. I am not being dismissive. I am merely stating the fact that you firmly believe my firm view of a high probability of N.T.H.E. is illogical and unreasonable, even though you haven't heard all the evidence. You accuse me of exaggerating extreme outcomes with insufficient evidence to claim a firm position.

Yet you FIRMLY refuse to take the possibility seriously without evidence. The precautionary principle of science, which you claim to agree with, does not require that level of FIRM proof (that you are demanding is needed) to justify drastic, rather than incremental measures. Do you understand that?

But let us say you have a point and I am "overreacting". The precautionary principle of science DICTATES that the burning of fossil fuels be stopped, like, YESTERDAY. All the evidence is not in. It's an extrapolation, like the decision to pass all those  laws made after "Silent Spring" was published.
 
The laws were a good try. They haven't worked enough. But corporate TOES were stepped on to get those laws passed. The corporations learned the wrong lesson from those laws that cost them some profits.

That's why people like the Koch brothers and MKing do what they do. They have an agenda and they have a LOT of financial backing. Cui bono from branding warnings about N.T.H.E. as hyperbole and sky is falling bullshit, HUH? WHO would lose a lot of money if most people listened to Doomer Warnings about N.T.H.E.? Propaganda works. That 's why they finance a tsunami of it.   

The statement by Alan about two sides of a counterfeit coin is a false equivalence. You agree that there is a massive propaganda effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and apathetic. Then you calmly state that a tiny group of awake people, outraged by the environmental degradation unprecedented in human history, evidenced by extinction rates (that are also unprecedented and accelerating, NOT becoming less frequent) are "overreacting"?

What does your coin look like, a cone with a tiny flat point 0.00001% of the size of the base? THAT's a "coin"?

No, that is a false equivalence.

Alan's counterfeit coin. 

 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2015, 08:31:22 pm »
I said.
Quote
The precautionary principle of science dictated that we STOP using DDT.

The precautionary principle of science dictates that we STOP using fossil fuels. The science is much clearer than it was for DDT!

But the point is, at the time the book was written, MANY PEOPLE said it was "ABSURD" to believe DDT could cause the extinction of several thousand Monotreme species (mammals that lay eggs). They did not want people shouting from the rooftops that:  WE were in danger, along with the Monotremes, because if DDT did that to egg shells, WHAT ELSE MIGHT IT DO?

Alan and Ashvin provide sad evidence that History repeats itself.  :(


Ashvin said,

Quote
Yes, THAT is what the precautionary principle is:

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action"

I am not arguing that you need to meet a certain burden of proof for NTHE before denouncing actions which cause environmental problems or promoting drastic actions to combat environmental problems. In fact, no one has argued that. Once again, you are ascribing this view to us because it makes us seem apathetic and your position more reasonable.

The PP does NOT state that you should ascribe more certainty to an outcome (NTHE) than the evidence warrants, and that is what I am claiming you are doing until you convince me otherwise.

So, the evidence does not "warrant" my premise. Yet I have repeatedly stated that Ashvin does not want to give any importance to the evidence I present.

How about you, Alan? Do you think the deforestation and extinction data (a tiny part of the overall degradation picture) I have so far presented does not "warrant" my premise?

Shall we now dance over to defining what "is" (see Clinton). This is getting absolutely ridiculous in the level of denial. 

But at least Ashvin CLAIMS that (see: "I am not arguing that you need to meet a certain burden of proof for NTHE before denouncing actions which cause environmental problems or promoting drastic actions to combat environmental problems.") that he is not demanding an impossibly high burden of proof.

You, Alan, are. You claim drastic measures are not warranted at all.

I'm not sure I buy Ashvin's assurances about backing drastic measures. Claiming the evidence doesn't warrant my premise while claiming his standard for agreeing with my premise is not high is okay. But WITHOUT telling me what evidence standard he would accept (see: he states he doesn't know that much about climate science and the biosphere = DOUBT) is illogical. It's erring on the side of the incremental measures status quo that I have already proven isn't doing enough.

It's wrong. The precautionary principle requires that, if we are to err, it is on the side of doing more than may be necessary to eliminate the threat of N.T.H.E.

But I know I'm talking to a wall. so it goes.  :(

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2015, 03:04:04 pm »
Ashvin,
If you think I cherry pick, rather than summarize, then do the work of going to the links I clearly present to the reader to peruse, rather than throwing out deliberate barbs for the purpose of undermining my credibility.

And asking me for more data to support my views when you have just questioned my methodology for obtaining and publishing data that supports my premise is illogical.

You are not convinced by my stream of posts. You make no effort to connect them together. You continuously avoid putting them all together.  Any detective knows that what appears to be an insignificant clue to a crime, when added to several other of the same nature, constitutes circumstantial evidence. You just flat refuse to do that. 

We can argue until the cows come home if that is, or is not, logical methodology or hairsplitting or endowment/confirmation bias. That just keeps the substance of the data from being discussed.

Sorry pal, this isn't about me or you. You are just trying to make it about me. As Surly said, with some graphics, that's a departure from substance and is off topic.

Ashvin, you can choose to keep all the dots I present totally disconnected in regard to the INCREASE in the probability of N.T.H.E. if you so desire.

Since I am pushing 70, I don't expect to be here when the positive feedback loops are jacking each other up (picture one ping pong ball thrown at a field of mouse traps, each with a single ping pong ball ready to jump when disturbed). My rough estimate is between 2040 and 2050.

You will be there, old chum. I'm trying to enlist your aid to WRITE about the threat, rather than pretend it is "absurd". How will you feel if my warnings turnout to be valid? Will you say it was my fault because I didn't lay down the argument properly in order to convince you? You probably will. Humans have a gift for rationalizing, don't they? You claim I am doing exactly that with my defense of my "overreaction". Perhaps.

But, your argument is weakened by the fact that I am not threatened by N.T.H.E., you are.

The only justification for anyone that is old, like me, that you can logically claim, is that "rooftop yelling alarmists" like to "scare people". That's REALLY bullshit, especially if you ascribe it to someone who has been publishing proposed solutions and pushing various renewable energy technologies consistently.

Here's another DOT, Ashvin.

The following estimate of deaths caused by pollution is overly conservative by several orders of magnitude. I reason that it is overly conservative, and certainly not alarmist, by the fact that it leaves out mortality estimates of all other life forms in the biosphere that are affected equally by the deleterious impact of pollution. It also leaves out several other types of pollution caused positive feedback loop effects such as species viability reduction from radionuclide caused degraded DNA, habitat loss from desertification and deforestation, ocean acidification and Carbon Dioxide atmospheric increase, among several other mortality increasing effects now present in our biosphere.

I submit this news as part of the evidence that incremental measures are not enough to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E. and that only massive, government sponsored, drastic measures to stop all sources of pollutants NOW will reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.

Air pollution could kill 6.6 million people a year by 2050


Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday.

POSTED: 17 Sep 2015 01:40

LONDON: Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday (Sep 16).

In a study published in the journal Nature, they found that outdoor air pollution already kills about 3.3 million people a year worldwide. The majority of those deaths are in Asia where residential energy emissions, such as those from heating and cooking, have a major impact.

And that toll could double over the next 35 years, the researchers warned, unless clean-up measures are taken.

"This is an astounding number," said Jos Lelieveld of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, who led the research. "In some countries air pollution is actually a leading cause of death, and in many countries it is a major issue."
Air pollution deaths are most commonly from heart disease, strokes or a lung disease called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is also linked to deaths from lung cancer and acute respiratory infections.

Calculating the health and mortality effects of outdoor air pollution on a global scale is not easy, partly because air quality is not monitored in every region and the toxicity of particles varies depending on their source.

So for this study, Lelieveld's team combined a global atmospheric chemistry model with population data and health statistics to estimate the relative contribution of different kinds of outdoor air pollution, mainly from so-called fine particulate matter, to premature deaths.

Their results show that in India and China, for example, emissions from heating and cooking, have the largest death toll, while in much of the United States and a few other countries, emissions from traffic and power generation are crucial.

In the eastern United States and in Europe, Russia and East Asia, agricultural emissions are the biggest source of the kind of fine particulate matter that gets into people's lungs, causing illness, disability and death.

Oliver Wild, an atmospheric scientist at Britain's Lancaster University, said the study "really brings home the need for air quality controls", particularly in heavily populated parts of Asia.
- Reuters

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/air-pollution-could-kill/2131586.html

Agelbert NOTE: For anyone that has the intestinal fortitude to get the big picture, though it is still a somewhat conservative one since it is based on government published stats, just go to poodwaddle.

Here's the clock running on global warming. I don't see the pollution picture improving. I don't see the pollution output slowing down. But Alan thinks I am "misinterpreting" the data  ::). So it goes.

You can adjust the clock for rate per hour, week, and so on. I have it set at "YEAR TO DATE". I find that to be less alarming to view and gives me a better sense of reality.

Global Warming Clock - CO2 Emissions (MT)



« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 04:08:29 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2015, 06:26:44 pm »
I present the following short video as additional scientific evidence that the precautionary principle demands we engage in drastic and massive efforts immediately to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.:

https://youtu.be/_tVxloCKJN0

A brief explanation of why positive feedback loops are uncontrollable, once they start. Incremental measures will not stop positive feedback loops from starting. Therefore, incremental measures will not work to reduce the high probability of N.T.H.E. from a multiplicity of positive feedback loops. This is why immediate and drastic action is warranted now.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2015, 09:38:39 pm »
Why positive feedback mechanisms will not be prevented by incremental measures.

 I present this as part of the evidence that the probability of N.T.H.E. is increasing.
This video is from 2007. YET, it predicts an ice free arctic in the summer between 2015-20. He was spot on. Current targets are around 2017-i9. Back in 2007, the models didn't predict that happening until around 2050! David Wasdell is a credentialed scientist. He was a reviewer in IPCC studies. He explains how the SCIENCE was downplayed by lawyers from various governments. This was done so the science predicting catastrophe (i.e. NON-linearity of degradation acceleration) WOULD NOT be made public. The only hard position reached by the IPCC is that climate change is anthropogenic, PERIOD. Since then things have improved somewhat on the truth about the gravity of our situation, but the public is still mostly in the dark about the existential threat calmly explained here.

David Wasdell makes it clear that strategy geared to today's symptoms is insufficient because causal elements have a 40 to 50 year lag. Incremental measures based on present observations are, not just doomed to fail, they guarantee that they will fail in the future. Only massive, government sponsored action NOW has a chance (and even that is not a sure thing, as is stated in this video) of somewhat ameliorating the probability of catastrophe. He clearly states  that a massive extinction event destroying over 80% of life on earth  will be triggered by about 30 positive feedback loops that credentialed climate scientists agree will overwhelm the ability of our technology to stop them.

As he says, the observation of a "tipping point", if we have the misfortune to view it, guarantees that any response is 40 to 50 years behind the baked in causative factors.


Quote
David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related topics.
http://www.apollo-gaia.org


Here's video by Professor Kevin Anderson
explaining why every day that we delay increases the stupendous cost of the effort to bring the situation under control.

It's a long video. That means that people like Ashvin will not watch it, even though their life may depend on the knowledge imparted in it.

Professor Anderson tears apart every argument presented by Alan or Mking that defends the paltry incremental measures now used to address the issue of catastrophic climate change.



Climate Change: Going beyond the dangerous 

 
Quote

Ian McPherson   Uploaded on Feb 9, 2012

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change) is a depressing guy. Here, in his lecture "Beyond dangerous climate change: emission scenarios for a new world", he lays out the grim reality of climate change, and our inability to address it globally.

We are currently mitigating for 4 degrees C of warming and planning for 2 degrees C. As Anderson points out, that's ass backwards. Further, he sees absolutely no way we can meet those targets, given the rapid industrialisation of China and the emerging economies, and the current state of global political inaction.

He points out, with brutal honesty, that "climate analysts construct their scenarios not to avoid dangerous climate change but to avoid threatening economic growth". There is, therefore, almost no possibility that we are going to act, either in time or at the scale necessary, to address the challenge facing us.

We pretend that 2 degrees C is our threshold. Yet the climate scenarios and plans presented to policymakers do not actually reflect that threshold. As Anderson says, "most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions."

Depressing stuff indeed...

--------------------------------------

Download the paper this lecture is based on (written by Anderson and Alice Bows) here: http://ianmcpherson.com/blog/audio/Ke...

Read David Robert's thoughts about the paper in two articles at Grist:
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-...
http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-...

--------------------------------------

This lecture is part of the London School of Economics Department of International Development Friday Lecture Series. More information can be found here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/vi...

--------------------------------------

Speaker: Professor Kevin Anderson.
Recorded on 21 October 2011 in Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House, London UK.

This lecture is part of the LSE Department of International Development Friday Lecture Series. A question and answer session follows the talk.

Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester.

He has recently finished a two-year position as director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK's leading academic climate change research organisation, during which time he held a joint post with the University of East Anglia.

 


 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2015, 10:43:38 pm »
Quote

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2

July 3, 2013


Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html#jCp
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.

In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.

"In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently," Dr Donohue said. "Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.

This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means Australia featured prominently in our results."

"While a CO2 effect on foliage response has long been speculated, until now it has been difficult to demonstrate," according to Dr Donohue.

"Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes."

The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.

If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas where the cover is less complete than in wet locations, according to Dr Donohue.

"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.

"Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects."

This study was published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal and was funded by CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.


Agelbert: Rather than just deleting this article, I'll just respond here and in the next post:
The article above is erroneous. This video from NASA provides satellite evidence that the increase in CO2, though once believed to increase greening (since the 1980's) has now been shown to reduce greening. The data presented in the video, unlike the above article, is current.

Global Warming reduces plant productivity.

Quote
The enhancement of photosynthesis and growth (and, so, carbon uptake) which occurs with higher temperatures has been mentioned as a possible mitigating factor in climate change. However, there are limits to how much additional growth can be expected by warming.

 Most plants have either physiological or physical limits on growth, and, also, as plants age, they grow more slowly and consume less carbon dioxide.

http://www.rainforestcons...ease-in-greenhouse-gases/
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 01:39:27 am by AGelbert »

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2015, 01:04:52 am »
What part about the REDUCTION in photosynthetic efficiency from INCREASED carbon dioxide caused HEAT do you not get? I posted the science and the link beneath your article.

Here's the biosphere nuts and bolts of it (that your article totally misses):

Quote
Climate Myth...

CO2 is plant food

Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm).  Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants.  This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis.  Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea.  And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2) [/color]

Quote
An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this,  'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue.  It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it  quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term  experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against  limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the  "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows (at link).

Plant defenses go down as carbon dioxide levels go up, the researchers found. Soybeans grown at elevated CO2 levels attract many more adult Japanese beetles than plants grown at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Science Daily; March 25, 2008. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Evan Delucia)


More than 55 million years ago, the Earth experienced a rapid jump in global Carbon Dioxide levels that raised temperatures across the planet. Now, researchers studying plants from that time have found that the rising temperatures may have boosted the foraging of insects. As modern temperatures continue to rise, the researchers believe the planet could see increasing crop damage and forest devastation. Science Daily; Feb. 15, 2008

Quote
Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of vegetation worldwide declines

Quote
6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

Basic rebuttal written by doug_bostrom

UPDATE July 2015:


The negative effects of climate change far outweigh any positive effect from increased CO2 levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

The fossil fuel industry has been trying to push that STUPID, "CO2 is great for plants" baloney for at least two decades. Yeah, they use CO2. Yeah, they NEED CO2. Yeah, More CO2 means they can absorb it better and grow faster.

HOWEVER, they don't do ANY of those things when they are forced outside the BAND of temperature and other conditions that are sine qua non for them. I tried to explain that to you and you totally ignored it. It's BIOSHERE MATH 101.

The fossil fuel industry is pushing the CO2 happy talk TOTALLY out of context, as you are trying to do. The desertification and deforestation is NOT being counterbalanced by the greening of colder areas now accessing more CO2 due to warming.

The data about ongoing desertification I have presented totally defeats the claim that arid areas are "greening".

Some areas towards the poles will experience some greening. SO WHAT? Are you planning on moving all the animals, insects and other biota that DON"T migrate, along with the trees and crops north or south thousands of miles? How breathtakingly naïve!

Alan, what part of this do you not understand?


Here's another article from Phys.org. Do you think it's "alarmist"? Do you think they are "overreacting"? Do you think their science is bad?

Burning remaining fossil fuel could cause 60-meter sea level rise

September 11, 2015
Quote

"Our findings show that if we do not want to melt Antarctica, we can't keep taking fossil fuel carbon out of the ground and just dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 like we've been doing," Caldeira said. "Most previous studies of Antarctic have focused on loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Our study demonstrates that burning coal, oil, and gas also risks loss of the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet."

http://phys.org/news/2015...l-fuel-meter-sea.html#jCp

Here's a nice quote from another article in Phys.org:


Quote

What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an "N"?

Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change "skeptics", bank rolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute's backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.

The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience
.

http://phys.org/news/2013...te-pseudoscience.html#jCp

Oh, and Alan, I am puling the other article about "greening" from CO2 increase. I will research it when I have the time. If I find one of the Hoffman fossil fueler funded propagandists behind it, it will not be reposted. It will be deleted as disinformation.

But I will be happy to explain each deletion, when, or if, the time comes.

Poodwaddle is firmly backed by data. WHY are you questioning it? Did you go there and check the sources. Right. I didn't think so.  >:(

Have a nice day.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2015, 02:07:36 am »
Stay on track, Alan. Anthropogenic caused Climate Change is BAD for life forms. That has already been established, even by the conservative IPCC. SPARE me any more "increased CO2 is a good deal" BALONEY!

As the last video in the above post states in the form of analogy, humans may need calcium, but that doesn't mean we will be happy with a diet of Ice Cream!

The band of biosphere life form requirements requires that we get x amount of whatever we need. If we get too little, it is life threatening, If we get TOO MUCH, it is ALSO life threatening. Look up homeostasis. All the life forms in the biosphere have their own homeostatic bands. Global warming is an existential threat to most life forms (extremophiles excluded) because they will be forced out of their sine qua non bands of temperature, chemistry, pressure, etc.

Why can't you see that? why can't you understand how that applies to plants? We need water, but you can die from drinking too much at once. It's the same with all life forms.

Greedballs in the fossil fuel industry and the propagandists they pay simply cannot get it through their heads that TOO much of a vital substance is LETHAL.   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2015, 09:52:59 am »
The worst aspect of CO2 fertilization is that it results in plants of relatively low quality -- richer in carbohydrate (which is where the carbon goes), but poorer in nitrogen and other nutrients. THIS IS BAD. However, the increased sum of biomass is generally good.

One of my ideas (now going on 10 years old) for mitigating the effects of climate change is to increase soil nutrients to complement the CO2. In other words, to optimize the potentially-good effects of CO2. It is actually not a new idea. A guy named Hamaker (sp?) proposed it in the early 80s. His focus was on massive use of rock dust as a soil fertility-builder, to stimulate plant growth which in turn pulls CO2 out of the air. It was a good idea. The only way my idea differs is that I would like to see more of a focus on nitrogen, and this can be done easily by propagating (N-fixing) legumes. But the basic bottom-line idea is the same: increase soil quality, thereby optimizing plant growth, and (hopefully) increasing the "pull" of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

PS: Agelbert: if you censor another one of my posts, then I really am out of here forever. If that is what you want, then go for it.

Agelbert Responds:
Your post discusses a laudable, but paltry and insufficient measure which will not ameliorate the existential threat. I read your posts on soil nutrients 3 years ago and agreed. That is a great idea. But it won't stop climate catastrophe, which is the subject of this debate.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 07:30:57 pm by AGelbert »

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2015, 11:01:14 am »
yet another angle, from the same fao.org discussion:

GOOD ONE!
Quote

http://www.fao.org/fsnfor...ate-change-and-fsn?page=6

Mr. Paul von Hartmann California Cannabis Ministry, United States of America
30.03.2015

Dear Florence and FSN Associates,

Climate change has several dimensions, all of which threaten global food security and health in fundamentally interconnected ways. Temperature increase, ocean acidity & circulation, ozone depletion, sub-arctic methane release all pose potentially catastrophic influences.

Most people are aware of "global warming." Fewer people seem to be as concerned with the increasing solar UV-B radiation reaching the planet's surface, what I refer to as "global broiling."

Climate change mitigation and crop selection in the 21st Century must take into account both of these aspects of systemic climate imbalance. If we are to avoid irreversible systemic collapse, then must successfully adapt in the most time-efficient ways to navigate these changes.

First we must acknowledge the changes are happening at an accelerating and unpredictable, non-linear rate; then we must objectively reconsider our priorities. Specifically, society's views about what is "illegal" and what is essential must change.

Cannabis agriculture, manufacture and trade offer fundamental solutions to many of the problems imposed by climate imbalance. Every growing season that passes without comprehensive, objective analysis of this unique and essential natural resource, is gone forever.

Consider that "hemp" is the only crop that produces complete nutrition and sustainable biofuels from the same harvest. In addition, the atmospheric benefits of Cannabis sequestration and monoterpene production make hemp an essential crop.

Please feel invited to consider the rationale for resolving climate imbalance, presented in my recently published book,

"Cannabis vs. Climate Change: How hot does Earth have to get before all solutions are considered?"  http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PCSRUF8

Thank you for the opportunity to present an achieveable biogenic solution in an atmosphere of timely objectivity.

Best wishes to all,

Paul



Aglebert responds: The above post is not relevant to the discussion. The book may be relevant, but the link does not describe the books contents. I assume your point is that the Earth has not gotten hot enough yet.

I do agree somewhat with this part of the post link "Unless severe measures are taken, and countries reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and increase the removal of these gases from the atmosphere, it will be increasingly difficult and expensive to adapt to climate change." However, the reduction must be drastic. The reduction must go to ZERO within, at most, a decade. It seems to me you don't. The whole point of our argument is that you think incremental measures are enough and I think only drastic measures can help limit the existential threat.

I have repeatedly explained to you that there are 40 to 50 years baked in. Addressing the situation as it stands NOW is doomed to failure. You do not get it, Alan. Have a nice day.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 07:38:58 pm by AGelbert »

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2015, 12:01:20 pm »
also, regarding rock dust:

Quote

snippets from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Hamaker

 Hamaker believed remineralizing the world’s soil with rock dust, a quarrying by-product, could revitalise barren soil and reverse climate change. Rock dust nourished soil micro-organisms whose protoplasm is the basis of all living things. When mixed with compost, the dust created rich, deep soils which could produce high growth vegetation free from pests and predators, at an accelerated rate. The idea was later confirmed by agricultural scientists such as Arden Andersen, who showed how high sugar and mineral levels in soil gave immunity to soil bacteria, stopping insect and fungal attacks.[25] For Hamaker and Andersen, minerals were the primal food for micro-organisms which provided life and health for the soil....

 Hamaker believed that within as little as a decade, the growing season would decrease leading to mass starvation in rich and poor nations alike. He therefore proposed the remineralization of the world’s soils and reforesting the land, to propagate carbon sinks, thereby absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and so contributing to general climatic stability. By assuming the task of remineralizing the Earth’s soils, just like glaciers do during an ice age, remineralization would create fertile soils – the basis for the re-creation of stable ecosystems....

Remineralization benefits

Primary benefits
    Provides slow, natural release of elements and trace minerals.
    Increases the nutrient intake of plants.
    Increases yields and gives higher brix. Brix is the measure of dissolved solids in the sap of fruits and plants that correlate with greater nutritive value.
    Rebalances soil pH.
    Increases the growth of micro-organisms and earthworm activity.
    Builds humus complex.
    Prevents soil erosion.
    Increases the storage capacity of the soil.
    Increases resistance to insects, disease, frost and drought.
    Produces more nutritious crops (minerals are essential for human health).[40]
    Enhances flavor in crops.
    Decreases dependence on fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.[41][42][43][44]

Further benefits
    Reafforestation.
    Increases forest and land resources.
    Sustainable forestry, farming and energy opportunities.
    Enhances ecosystems.
    Increases biodiversity.
    Carbon offsetting.
    Greater climatic equilibrium.
    Preservation of interglacial climate conditions.

............................................

http://bio4climate.org/do...s-Rio_Summit-RTE-2012.pdf

THE POTENTIAL OF REMINERALIZATION WITH ROCK MINERAL FINES TO TRANSFORM AGRICULTURE, FORESTS, SUSTAINABLE BIOFUELS PRODUCTION, SEQUESTER CARBON, AND STABILIZE THE CLIMATE

By Joanna Campe(1), Dan Kittredge(2), and Lee Klinger(3)

 snip

CONCLUSION

 Soil Remineralization will create abundance in an era of diminishing resources and shift us away from fossil fuels. Remineralization is nature's way to regenerate soils, and is needed on a large scale because mismanagement is causing us to lose soils far faster than they can naturally regenerate. The techniques are simple, easily and intuitively learned, and can be rapidly scaled up at the community level. The materials are readily available and an inexpensive byproduct wherever there is building and road construction using stone aggregates or concrete. No extra energy is needed to grind them up since it is a waste product of gravel plants. Hard silicate rocks are the most abundant resource on  earth. Millions of tons are readily available for the cost of transportation, and much more could easily be produced from existing rock crushing plants. Remineralization is an essential tool for sustainable development, economic empowerment, and social justice by creating a local nutrient dense food supply for all, and will improve health and generate livelihoods within local communities. It can play a critical role in overcoming hunger and poverty, ecological restoration, carbon sequestration and climate stabilization.


Agelbert Responds:
Your post discusses a laudable, but paltry and insufficient measure which will not ameliorate the existential threat. I read your posts on soil nutrients 3 years ago and agreed. That is a great idea. But it won't stop climate catastrophe, which is the subject of this debate.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 07:41:37 pm by AGelbert »

ashvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2015, 12:47:51 pm »
AG,

Just to clarify in case this wasn't already clear, I believe we DO have sufficient evidence to establish the reality of AGW and it's devastating effects on the biosphere, which obviously supports human existence.

Using the court analogy, I see you as the prosecution in this - i.e. you have the burden of proving that humanity (mostly via AGW) is guilty of creating the conditions for NTHE (with a very high probability, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). I see myself as a juror who has to weigh your evidence and argumentation to determine whether it is sufficient to prove us guilty BRD. Like a juror in deliberation, I also must engage in cross-examination of your evidence, NOT with any specific goal of debunking it, but only with the intention of clarifying it and its implications.

And again, I am NOT using this BRD standard to oppose incremental OR drastic measures to combat AGW, as suggested by the precepts of the PP. The PP's application, in my mind, is all about policy initiatives and NOT about persuading people of imminent and extreme Doom. It does not serve an ethos of uber-Doom, because it readily admits that the evidence of NTHE may be insufficient (instead it says the tail risk is so great, we don't need sufficient evidence to enact certain policies).

Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important questions in my mind, given the data you and others have presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?

-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?

These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if you believe the general process of asking these and other questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation, manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be properly assessed.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2015, 08:10:44 pm »
Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important questions in my mind, given the data you and others have presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?

-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?

These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if you believe the general process of asking these and other questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation, manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be properly assessed.

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?


The videos I have posted addressed this in detail. To summarize the findings, the rate of the negative effects of Global Warming is not decreasing, all the tracked effects are increasing in quantity. But more alarming, is that all of them are increasing in the rate of increase as well. I will post another video, this one from 2013, but quite comprehensive in covering both the increase and the increase in rate.

That is, the graphed slopes of CO2 increase and Temperature increase and deforestation increase and desertification increase and ocean acidification increase (and others) are all tilting upwards in angle. As you will see in the graphs presented, the IPCC scenarios are overly conservative. The observed temperature data as of 2013 was right at the top range of their most extreme scenario (from the IPCC 2007 report). A new IPCC report came out this year. The scenario range has been adjusted upwards (to more extreme), but the models, as the videos I have already presented explain, still do not account for several factors.

So there is no logical reason to believe any of the scenarios are "within the ballpark", so to speak. And all the indicators point to an increased rate of deleterious global warming effects.

As to whether the rate increase of all these factors is sufficient to warrant warnings about a high probability of N.T.H.E. if drastic measures are not engaged in to ameliorate the existential threat, the answer is yes. If the rate was decreasing or constant, the answer would be a maybe. WHY? Because of the baked in approximately 40 year causative factor time lag.

Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

That is why incremental measures doom future generations to a high probability of extinction. Scientifically speaking, incremental measures will not even slow the rate if increase of deleterious factors, let along the quantitative increase.

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?


Positive feedback mechanisms are also addressed in the videos I have presented and some of my posts. These mechanisms, of which there are about 30, once having reached a self reinforcing state (which is why they call them positive feedback mechanisms) are difficult to control. They, in fact, cannot be controlled beyond a certain point. Yes, they burn themselves out eventually. But before they do, they result in mass die offs. This has been established by studies of CO2 build up in ancient times before humans walked the earth. When a positive feedback loop reaches a certain stage, our technology is incapable of arresting it's effects. This is not alarmist hyperbole on my part. This is a direct quote from the IPCC reviewer scientist in one of the videos I presented.

The video I present at the end of this posts shows that the negative feedbacks are being overwhelmed by the positive feedbacks at present.

Positive feedback loops are not like a line of falling dominoes that you can put your hand on to stop the rest from falling. Considering the fact that there are about 30 positive feedback loops involved in global warming, it is necessary to picture their cumulative interactive, multiple feedback reinforcing effects as a chain reaction. It's not 30 independent systems. It's more like 30 times 30 (30 times repeated) because they all act to boost each other in multiples of the last iteration exponentially. That means that they get beyond the ability of our technology to control exponentially.

This short video of ping pong balls on mouse traps is a crude analogy of how positive feedback loops work;

Start at the 24 second mark:


For example, we are triggering a positive feedback loop by reducing the earth's albedo (ice cover). The videos I have presented cover how we simply cannot stop the resulting runaway greenhouse effect once the positive feedback loops begin in earnest. Guy McPherson thinks we did that already. I entertain the hope that we can ameliorate those mechanisms somewhat and postpone or possibly prevent N.T.H.E. But it is not presently feasible to do that with incremental measures.

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

The main consumer culprits are the 20% in the rich countries that use around 76% of the world's resources, according to a 2007 UN pie chart. Consumers are doing quite a bit to mitigate destructive environmental trends.

But that pie chart leaves out the non-consumer polluters that do more damage than we ordinary piggies in the rich countries.

The problem is that the main polluters are outside of the consumer loop. Many people think this issue can be addressed by recycling and lowering our carbon footprint. Yes, that is important and many are doing it. But the industries that are unrelated to consumer products are gigantic polluters, showing no sign of slowing their massive polluting activities, never mind stopping them. The military of the USA, despite moves to go solar on many bases, still are one the largest polluters of the air , land and sea. In short, the governments of the world, backed by the large polluting industries continue to make things worse.

Year to date fossil fuel use:
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env3/

So the chances that consumers acting to try to mitigate the destructive factors are high. But the chances that those actions, absent massive government efforts stop all polluting industries quickly, will actually mitigate those destructive factors, are low to none. A collapse in industrial output from massive poverty still does not account for the 40 year baked in climate damage coming at us. It would reduce the amount of polluting, but not stop it. It is sine qua non to reverse it in order to mitigate or eliminate the existential threat to our species.

I support all efforts to recycle and conserve. But I know what the biosphere math is telling us. Nevertheless, I urge all people to conserve as much as possible. Just because that behavior is somewhat quixotic, does not mean it should not be done. Responsible behavior is based on the ethical concern for future generations, regardless of whether it is enough or not. I'm sure you agree that doing the right thing does not guarantee success in human society. In fact, the reverse is true most of the time.


-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?


I will address the above three questions after I exercise. Some of the answers are in this video, but I will verbalize them for clarity when I come back. It was published on May 2, 2013. All the data is accurate and backed by hard science. The more recent data is more alarming (this was before the latest IPCC report). But even with the data  Professor Somerville had then, the case for urgent action was clear.



The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change


Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
The Arctic Sea Tumbles To A New Low
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2015, 02:28:25 am »
[/center]
The Arctic Sea Tumbles To A New Low  :(

Quote

Arctic sea ice reaches fourth lowest minimum



September 15, 2015   
 
On September 11, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2015. The minimum ice extent was the fourth lowest in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is average, a substantial contrast with recent years when Antarctic winter extents reached record high levels.

Please note that this is a preliminary announcement. Changing winds or late-season melt could still reduce the Arctic ice extent, as happened in 2005 and 2010. NSIDC scientists will release a full analysis of the Arctic melt season, and discuss the Antarctic winter sea ice growth, in early October.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 10:01:49 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 04:34:29 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 10:49:12 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 09:32:10 pm

Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 01:07:22 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial