+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 45
Latest: bella2
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11866
Total Topics: 254
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)  (Read 2015 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21551
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #30 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.

 

+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 11:18:39 pm

Sustainable Farming by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 09:34:15 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 08:50:56 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 07:32:57 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 06:19:35 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 05:53:45 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 02:33:40 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 12:43:08 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
April 20, 2019, 08:04:06 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
April 20, 2019, 02:31:16 pm