+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 38
Latest: Dave Pugner
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 6834
Total Topics: 207
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 5
Total: 5

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 24, 2017, 02:34:51 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Republican Climate Change Denying Florida will eventually be swamped by the ocean, not just from sea level rise, but much sooner by SINKING from a DISSOLVING coral base.
There is a God.

How an Argument Led to a Big Discovery: An Interview with USGS Scientist Kim Yates

Posted On April 24, 2017 by Sarah Cooley

Dr. Kim Yates, research oceanographer with the U.S. Geological Survey. Credit: Benjamin Drummond for Ocean Conservancy. (at article link)

The Ocean Conservancy ocean acidification team has spent time in Florida over the past year talking with fishermen and scientists to better understand how changes in ocean chemistry are affecting Florida’s coastal communities and its marine resources, including its iconic coral reefs and fish. On our most recent visit, we interviewed Dr. Kim Yates, an oceanographer with the U.S. Geological Survey, who is an expert on ocean acidification impacts on coral reef ecosystems about vanishing sea floors and how arguing with a boat captain led her to a major scientific discovery.

Ocean Conservancy: Dr. Yates, how does ocean acidification affect coral reefs and the ecosystems around them?

Dr. Kim Yates: The animals that create coral reefs thrive in a particular range of pH and carbonate, which is a chemical they use to help build their skeletons. Reefs provide habitat for fish and other reef life, but the skeletons of reef organisms also naturally break down and make sand. And much of that sand supports a lot of ecosystems around the reef. That sand also helps nourish beaches along coral reef coastlines. Ocean acidification causes reefs to slow down their growth rate, and when that happens, they don’t break down into as much sand that supports the surrounding ecosystems and even the beaches. And when the pH of seawater decreases from ocean acidification, it can actually even cause the sand that’s made out of that carbonate material to start dissolving.

OC: But corals only border some areas of Florida. Why should the whole state pay attention to ocean acidification?  ???

KY: One of the most unique and interesting things about the state of Florida is that our entire state sits on top of what we call a carbonate platform, or rock made out of the same material as coral skeletons. We don’t know how ocean acidification is going to affect the bedrock that supports our entire state. When ocean acidification decreases the pH of seawater, it can cause that carbonate material to dissolve. So this problem of ocean acidification is not just localized to our coral reefs, or to our shellfish beds, it’s a statewide problem for Florida.

OC: What inspired you to look at Florida’s bedrock and sand, and not just living corals?

KY: That research actually started with an argument I had with a boat captain. One day we were working out in the Florida Keys on a reef and I was snorkeling around, looking for a place to put some instrumentation down on the sea floor. And the captain told me to motion to him when I found a good place and he would bring to boat over, close enough so we could put the instrumentation on the sea floor. So I looked around, and I found the spot, and I motioned to the boat captain, but the boat captain wouldn’t come over. And so I motioned to the boat captain again and he still wouldn’t come over. And so, somewhat frustrated, I swam all the way back to the boat and I said, “Captain, you told me to let you know when I wanted you to come over and anchor the boat. And you wouldn’t come. What’s going on?” He said, “I can’t bring the boat over there. It’s only two feet deep.” I looked at him and said, “No, there’s 12 feet of water over there.” And he said, “No there’s not,” and he pulled out the chart, and he laid it on the table and said, “See, it’s only 2 feet deep.” Sure enough, the chart said two feet deep. I had to put him in the water and swim him over to show him there was actually 12 feet of water there.  :o

Thinking about it later, I realized there was either a serious problem with the nautical chart or we were missing ten feet of sea floor in that location. As it turns out, many modern day nautical charts actually combine sea floor or water depth data from decades past. So if you’re looking at a 2010 nautical chart, it might combine data measured by hand from the 1870s and the 1930s and the 1950s as well as modern data measured by satellite. And so we launched a large-scale investigation, comparing all of the historical water depth data to modern elevation data.

Dr. Yates prepares her equipment to collect data. Photo Credit: Benjamin Drummond for Ocean Conservancy. (at article link)

OC: What did your research show?

KY: We discovered that coral reef degradation in Florida has caused a dramatic decrease in regional sea floor elevation. In other words, coral reef breakdown is flattening the sea floor.

But coral reefs and a bumpy sea floor are important for slowing down big waves. When you stand on a beach and watch surfers, they are usually way offshore because that’s where the big waves are. You can see those big waves breaking offshore, and the surfers ride them as they are breaking. But, by the time the waves reach the beach where you are standing, they are much smaller. That’s because coral reef structure and shallow seafloor breaks the big waves up offshore before they make it to the beach. When you lose that shallow seafloor or coral reef structure, or both, those big waves can make it to the beach before they break up. There, they will cause more erosion and damage along the coastline. The shallow seafloor and coral reefs act as a natural barrier that breaks up large waves before they hit the coastline.

South Florida is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise because the highest areas on land in the Florida Keys are only about six feet above sea level. So when you have incoming storm waves, everyday waves and coastal erosion, it’s much more concerning when you’re only living about six feet above sea level. Reefs are a key defense protecting us from ocean waves. Our research is going to help USGS better predict how these changes are going to affect these coastal communities today and into the future.

Dr. Yates’ research made the front page of the Miami Herald on April 21. Learn more about how she and her fellow scientists have uncovered the phenomenon of a vanishing sea floor off the coast of Florida.

http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2017/04/24/how-an-argument-led-to-a-big-discovery-an-interview-with-usgs-scientist-kim-yates/#more-14228
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 18, 2017, 07:08:21 pm »

Coming soon? Air conditioners without compressors using far less energy to cool? 

What is Laser Cooling?     

This video will introduce you with the a laser cooling lab. The working and cooling of hot air up to absolute zero is also shown here.  :o 

http://www.dnatube.com/video/29076/What-is-Laser-Cooling

Agelbert NOTE: This is a BIG deal. WHY? Because, as much as I hate to admit it, this provides a way to escape the temperature effects (but NOT the ocean acidification effects!) of global warming.

This counterintuitive process gives the appearance of violating the second law of thermodynamics because it uses laser energy to COOL a gas or liquid.

Quote
The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work. His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

But laser cooling doesn't violate the above law, of course. ;D  So, how does it work it's magic of cooling, instead of heating, while ADDING energy to a system? ???

A tuned set of lasers is fired at a gas or a liquid. This uses energy. BUT the targeted gas or liquid does NOT heat up in this case; it RADICALLY COOLS!

Temperature is, as everybody knows, just a measurement of how fast the atoms/molecules are moving around in a given 3 dimensional space. Faster moving atomic mass is hotter while slower is cooler. Absolute zero temperature is full atom stop (in theory  ;)).

The trick is making use of a weird property of photons which enables them to have momentum WITHOUT mass. The photons hit the target, transfer their momentum (but no mass) and SLOW the molecules down, making them real cold real fast.

The casual observer will scratch his head   and ask WHY the momentum doesn't make some of the atoms/molecules go faster (by hitting them from behind instead of head on), since molecules are going in every which way all the time. ???

I mean, shouldn't it all sort of even out?     

NOPE.

THAT has to do with photon frequencies. All atoms/molecules have absorption frequencies. A CO2 molecule will absorb high energy photons (UV band) and emit lower energy photons (IR band) which cannot get out of the earth's atmosphere. That's how global warming got going.

Well, the tuned laser photons (in the video below, they mention using six of them in GPS satellites for atomic clock cooling) do not hit atoms/molecules going AWAY from them because their frequency enables them to "miss" them (no photon momentum absorption due to Doppler effect frequency difference  ).

Quote
In the process of absorbing a photon, the atom receives a small push, a push in the direction away from the source of light, which is the key to laser cooling.
https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/visual/animation.html?shortname=PHY05_laser_cooling

The end result is billions of molecules slowing down and getting real cold, real quick as a consequence of a teeny tiny amount of laser energy injected to do the cooling.

I hope you realize that this means we will soon have air conditioners that use MUCH LESS ENERGY (look ma, no compressor!). It's painfully obvious that lasers, BECAUSE they shoot ZERO MASS photons (there ain't any other kind of photons  ;D), will require much less energy to cool down a gas than present refrigeration technology.

AND, they won't need any fancy refrigeration gas or fluid. WATER will do quite nicely for an ICE box refrigerator or air conditioner, thank you very much. 

 
Like I said before, THIS IS BIG! 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 15, 2017, 03:36:46 pm »

Inconvenient Technology (for the Fossil Fuel Industry)       


Device patented last year makes fuel from sea water
 

This thing ACTUALLY WORKS in the real world. All you need is a bunch of solar panels on a ship (in this case, it's a US Navy aircraft carrier).

I'm sure the fossil fuel industry is NOT interested in this being given to the public. It was patented by NREL. Consequently, the government can keep us from using it FOREVER (national security is one of those convenient excuses that makes it legal to keep an invention out of public hands      ).

But the point is, IT WORKS. There is NO DISCUSSION as to whether it works or not, even if somebody will probably will show up here and poo poo it with some bullshit about the "superior" ERoEI of fossil fuels. ::) That doesn't fly here because solar energy is plentiful in the ocean AND the RATE of production on a ship does not require refinery rapidity. This can END all use of fuel requirements for ships now met by the petroleum industry.  :icon_mrgreen: So, I'm sure the fossil fuelers are going out of their way to make sure the public never gets its hands on this.   

I've read about it and the excuse given for not going whole hog with this is that it's sort of an energy quandary. The process requires more energy than they get out of it from the fuel (mostly for jet fuel but ANY hydrocarbon can be synthetically produced with it). Since dissolved Carbonates from CO2 in sea water are used to make the fuel, it's carbon neutral jet fuel that is produced! The CATCH is that, if you use bunker fuel to run a diesel generator that produces the electricity to make the jet fuel, you use MORE bunker fuel than the jet fuel you get out of it. The OBVIOUS solution, that they don't seem to want to talk about for some reason  ;), is getting the electricity from the sun to run the Electrolytic Cation Exchange Module.        

YES, the amount of electricity this process requires can EASILY be met and exceeding by ship board solar power (ESPECIALLY on an aircraft Carrier!).

And NO, they don't need to get it from the nuclear reactor, boys and girls.  ;D

So, if they GET the electricity (which does the work) from the sun, it DOESN'T MATTER that it uses a lot of energy to make the fuel.

And, anyway, if they ran the energy numbers of transporting fossil fuels to the ships (as long as defenders of the polluting fossil fuel industry aren't doing that "math"      ), it would ACTUALLY require a whole lot less energy to get that fuel made on the ship than a full cycle ERoEI of fossil fuel based fuels from the well to the refinery to the ship. 

THIS IS the final NAIL in the fossil fuel coffin. 

NOW the only recourse they have that can keep their polluting business model going is in-your-face government corruption and the deep sixing of this invention by cynically, fraudulently and mendaciously claiming it can't be released (or even used on military ships!) because of "national security". 

IT'S NOW OVER for the "high energy density" makes fossil fuel better" argument BECAUSE these are carbon neutral HYDROCARBON FUELS of FAR SUPERIOR QUALITY. WHY? Because they DO NOT have high sulfur or other crude oil contaminants to strip out in the production. This is TOP GRADE JP-"place a number here for different jet fuel grades" (e.g. JP-4). They can make TOP GRADE GASOLINE (they made gasoline for a P-51 Mustang engine) from it too! 


NRL patents process for turning seawater into fuel 

By Kevin McCaney

Jun 08, 2016

The Naval Research Laboratory has been working on finding a nearly unlimited source of fuel—the sea—and now has the validation of a patent to show for it.

NRL’s Material Science and Technology Division has received a patent for its Electrolytic Cation Exchange Module (E-CEM), which separates carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater and then producing  hydrocarbons to be used as fuel.


Tests of the process have to date been conducted on a small scale—in April 2014, E-CEM was used to create fuel of a scale model of the P-51 Mustang—but the process has the potential to scale up to practical applications, NRL said in a release. 

“A ship's ability to produce a significant fraction of the battle group's fuel for operations at sea could reduce the mean time between refueling, and increase the operational flexibility and time on station,” said Cmdr. Felice DiMascio of the Naval Reserve, one of five contributors and inventors named on the patent. “Reducing the logistics tail on fuel delivery with the potential to increase the Navy's energy security and independence, with minimal impact on the environment, were key factors in the development of this program.”

NRL currently is scaling up its process to create larger amounts of fuel, although it’s still a long way from being able to power, say, a boat or a plane. “Building on the success of the first exchange module, we have scaled-up the carbon capture process to improve efficiency and substantially increase feedstock production,” said Dr. Heather Willauer, NRL research chemist. “Using a scaled-up, second generation E-CEM prototype, we will substantially increase CO2 and H2 production capable of producing up to one gallon of fuel per day, an increase nearly 40 times greater than with the earlier generation E-CEM.”


Researchers at NRL's Marine Corrosion Facility in Key West, Fla., are working to optimize the two processes involved in fuel production—the recovery of hydrogen and CO2, and their synthesis into hydrocarbons.
Quote
NRL said it recently partnered with a commercial entity to test its catalyst as it switches from its initial small plug flow chemical reactor to a large-scale chemical reactor, and hopes to have the two processes working at Key West by the end of the year.

In addition to DiMascio and Willauer, the other researchers named on the patent are Dennis Hardy and Frederick Williams of NRL and Kathleen Lewis of the Office of Naval Research.
 

About the Author

 Kevin McCaney is a former editor of Defense Systems and GCN.

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/06/08/nrl-e-cem-seawater-into-fuel.aspx

Agelbert NOTE: The "end of the year" was 4 months ago. Sure, Trump's wrecking crew is going to squelch this thing on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.      BUT, ANYBODY (Hi Palloy  ;)) that jumps on the low production rate or some other bit of hair splitting, straw grasping bullshit to claim "it won't work" or "it's not ready for prime time" is making a baseless argument simply BECAUSE, if this did not WORK, they could NEVER HAVE PATENTED IT!

THE INSTANT the fossil fuel industry learned of that patent, THIS WAS THEIR REACTION. 

THEN they went into overdrive to kill this fantastic invention. I hope your realize that this also represents a method of keeping the oceans from destructive acidification, as well as rapid CO2 sequestration if scaled up.  :o  ;D

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 30, 2017, 08:34:20 pm »


Business News | Wed Mar 29, 2017 | 7:34am EDT

Daimler accelerates electric car program

Mercedes-Benz owner Daimler (DAIGn.DE) is accelerating its electric car program, it said on Wednesday after announcing that it had failed to cut fleet emissions in Europe for the first time since 2007.

Daimler put its emissions numbers down to customers increasing preference for sports utility vehicles (SUVs), which tend to be more polluting than sedans, making it more difficult for carmakers to hit a European target for each new car to produce no more than 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer by 2020.

The company said it expects Mercedes-Benz Cars to bring more than 10 new electric cars to market by 2022 through 10 billion euros ($10.8 billion) of investment, having previously aimed to achieve the target by 2025.
 
Daimler has been set a goal of achieving a European average fleet emissions level of 100 grams for Mercedes-Benz Cars, including its Smart brand, by 2020.
 
Last year the average fuel emissions remained at 123 grams for Mercedes-Benz Cars, the same level as in 2015. It is the first time since 2007 that it has failed to cut average pollution levels despite the introduction of more fuel efficient engines throughout its range.

Daimler also said it is expecting record sales volumes for the Mercedes-Benz Cars division in the first quarter of the year.
 
"The positive sales trend continued in March," Daimler said in a statement ahead of its annual shareholder meeting.

The company also reiterated its full-year group sales and earnings targets. The car and truck maker expects a slight increase in earnings and a significant rise in sales of Mercedes-Benz Cars.


(Reporting by Ilona Wissenbach and Edward Taylor; Writing by Victoria Bryan; Editing by Christoph Steitz and David Goodman)


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-daimler-agm-idUSKBN1700N7

Agelbert NOTE: The Daimler move is just the tip of the Renewable Energy Iceberg that has just been reenergized by Trump behavior.  

You see, Mr. Trump, this is the way Germans respond when you insult them. They don't just get mad, they get a lot more than "even".


They KNOW your stunt of presenting a bill for NATO services owed by Germany had NOTHING to do with reality. They KNOW that your masters, the Fossil Fuel Fascists (plus the nuke puke power plant cheerleaders) have been trying to undermine and discredit Germany's tremendously successful transition to Renewable Energy for DECADES.


The Germans get it (finally!). The US Gooberment is OWNED by the Fossil Fuel Fascists, of which Trump is the latest tool/fool.   :P

Therefore, the Germans will now make the massive transition they have already made look like small potatoes. WHY? Because it is now a matter of national pride, not simply Renewable Energy. And everybody knows how single minded the Germans can be when the issue is National Pride. Making Germans angry is never a good idea.

As I predicted last November, when fascists come to power, they shoot themselves in the foot by going quickly into overreach mode. Trump, on several fronts, not just foreign policy, has just destroyed his political future and SHORTENED the future of the polluting energy bastards that own him. Right wing crazies never learn, thank God!  :D 


The fossil Fuel Fascists and Nuke Pukes in the USA will rue the day they insulted the Germans.

From your lips to God's ear. And not a moment too soon.


Surly.



The fossil Fuel Fascists and Nuke Pukes in the USA will rue the day they insulted the Germans.

From your lips to God's ear. And not a moment too soon.


I wish that were true but all they are doing is to try and get as much as they can for themselves.  Having done that they will not rue the day.  They are not willing or trying to learn a lesson.  The only thing they are willing to learn is anything that supports their agenda and nothing else.

Sharks with a conscience they are not.


True, they don't have a conscience. But they can, despite their pretense of not doing so, count the environmental costs they plan to saddle we-the-people with. They KNOW the S.C.C. (Social Cost of Carbon) FAR exceeds the cost of a rapid transition to Renewables, despite the gamed numbers coming from the Heritage Foundation of Right wing rats and assorted fossil fuel fascist lackeys.

Yes, they can try to strangle Renewable Energy by in-your-face corruption like making it "illegal" (They are trying that in Wyoming   :evil4:) or just high "fees" or whatever to keep the fossil fuel welfare queens afloat a while longer. 

But there is simply NO WAY that they can pretend all costs NOW upon us and increasing every year from global warming can be ignored. It's too late to save the polluters from a LOT of grief from we-the-people, no matter how hard the Trump Wrecking Crew tries to pass that buck onto anyone but them.

ADD to that a tsunami of CHEAP solar, wind AND e-cars from Germany, China, etc. (and so on) and it's CURTAINS for fossil fuel fascist political power.  :icon_sunny:

Yeah, it'll get real bad here. Yeah, it's probably too late to avoid a massive collapse with BILLIONS of dead people. But the conscience free cretins, despite all their slick propaganda efforts, WILL HAVE A BULLSEYE painted on their backs for as long as they live.  :emthup:

I recently answered a confused fellow who is still sitting on the fence in regard to Global Warming and how burning fossil fuels is causing Catastrophic climate change.

"The trouble I have with the whole "climate change" discussion is why this warming trend is bad."   

I answered:
It's BAD because most of the effects HAVE NOT been felt. IOW, the OCEAN is a HEAT TIME BOMB that we do not have the technology to handle.

Also, the greening of latitudes near the poles will NOT compensate for the browning near the equator BECAUSE over 80% of all the land species in the biosphere (BOTH flora and fauna) occupy the tropics.

Finally, ocean acidification, if not stopped by a MASSIVE international effort to prevent more CO2 pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, guarantees MOST of the shell forming species (which happen to be food for ALL of the larger fish species we eat) will die along with most of the Oxygen producing algae (ocean phytoplankton), which now provides HALF (or more) of the Oxygen we get. That's right, at least HALF of all photosynthesis comes from ocean algae, NOT land based plants. And then there's the deforestation on land... Do you get the picture?


The ocean CANNOT continue that massive absorption of CO2 for more than another decade or so before saturation is reached, acidification causes massive phytoplankton and shell forming species die offs. AND THEN MOST OF THE HEAT GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE ATMOSPHERE (as opposed to a mere 2.3% now).

If anybody thinks the oceans will continue to buffer our giant carbon pollution, they are living in la la land (or work for the fossil fuel industry — but I repeat myself).

EVERY POLITICIAN, be they a Democrat or Republican, that takes a nickel from the fossil fuel industry should be THROWN OUT IN 2018, OR SOONER.

In January of 2017, NASA released data confirming that globally, 2016 was the hottest year on record -- the third consecutive year this record has been broken. Even more disturbing, in the last three years alone global temperatures rose 0.4°C: an extreme acceleration of planetary warming that has been unmatched in 136 years of record keeping.

According to the reinsurance giant Munich Re, the US had more floods in 2016 than any year in recorded history with 19 different floods swamping the nation.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39540-viewing-trump-s-extreme-climate-denial-from-a-small-island-nation-in-peril

Trump will HAVE TO deal with gargantuan level extreme climate events that hurt RICH PEOPLE, not just most people, at a rate we have never experienced, PERIOD. If the insurance companies will accept eating those costs when they KNOW the gooberment helped exacerbate them by ignoring hard scientific evidence, they are stupid. Insurance companies are MUCH smarter than fossil fuel fascists. Trump's wrecking crew will soon collapse.

Speaking of collapse, I saw a video that you will enjoy. It's an excellent collapse compendium, so to speak. I'm sure you know about many of Guy McPherson's biographical details, but it's still good viewing. It's too bad the Doomstead Diner isn't included in the collapsnicks mentioned. I think the DD has been a big part of the collapse-a-sphere.  :icon_mrgreen: 


Documentary: Somewhere in New Mexico Before the End of Time       


Published on Mar 14, 2017

'Somewhere in New Mexico Before the End of Time' -- A powerful, emotive, masterful production by documentary filmmaker Mike Soseby -- tells two narratives at once.

One narrative portrays some of the insanity of industrial civilisation and the culture of empire/consumerism, which is in the process of abruptly rendering the Earth largely, or perhaps completely, uninhabitable for humans and other large mammals -- potentially in less than 10 years -- As a consequence of escalating pollution and the conversion of the natural world into stuff.

And the other narrative depicts the valiant efforts of Professor Emeritus Guy R. McPherson to challenge the culture of empire and consumerism, whom leads by example towards more sustainable ways of living. The hubris inherent to the myth of human superiority has now reached irreversible tipping points, and the consequences of such coupled with the appalling impotence of the human population in addressing Climate Change and Peak Oil, and/or taking any viable action thereafter over the last 40 years, indicates that the human species can only expect one inevitable outcome -- Extinction...       
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 06, 2017, 01:27:08 pm »


How and Why Collapse Happens

Quote
Posted on March 2, 2017, by Radio Ecoshock

We take our civilization for granted. But it’s fragile and pushing way beyond sustainable limits. How and why do civilizations collapse? In this program, we’ll hear from specialists who studied the end times of the Indus civilization of India and Pakistan, and the Maya of Central America. Then we’ll wrap up with a tough solution for our tough problems: a new book outlines how we could use World War Two style mobilization to save the climate and the ecosphere from their developing collapse. Our three guests are Cameron Petrie, Takeshi Inomata, and Laurence Delina.

You are tuned to the Radio Ecoshock special on collapse – how, why, and how to avoid it. That’s three interviews. Let’s get going.

Download or listen to this program in CD Quality (57 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) at link below:

http://www.ecoshock.org/2017/03/how-and-why-collapse-happens.html

Agelbert NOTE: The way things are going right now, Tomorrow IS Yesterday (on extinction STEROIDS!).  :P

Dateline 2024: The Triumph of 8 years of Trump's Successful Deregulation of the Fossil Fuel Industry
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 12, 2017, 09:43:06 pm »

The End of the World As We Know It (part 2)

Published on Dec 20, 2016


Dr. Guy McPherson is an award-winning professor of conservation biology and an acclaimed author. This two-part show covers his presentation at The Waypost in Portland on August 8, 2016 of a synopsis of the current peer-reviewed research on Earth's recent phase of rapid warming. His conclusion about the risk to humans from habitat loss in the next 10 - 15 years due to abrupt climate change is dire. He answers questions about the impact of humans on the environment. This is an information-packed, entertaining and impactful talk. Not for the faint of heart!

This show was taped by PC Peri and produced/edited by Barb Greene with help from Dan Handelman. Special thanks to Alisa Christensen for her inspiration on editing.

For your information, the chapter breaks we assigned for this video are:

Part 2: 0:00 Opening Credits 1:15 Dr. McPherson: It's too late, Baby, now 4:26 Pursue a life of excellence and love 5:47 Create 10:17 Question and Answer: Buddhism offers a way forward 11:35 Q&A: Right action 15:33 Q&A: Can we incentivize right action? 18:13 Q&A: What if we hadn't used fossil fuels? 19:15 Q&A: Do governments know? 23:01 Q&A: Where might humans survive? 27:15 End credits, part 2

You can use these times to find a particular section if you want to jump to a certain portion of the show.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 12, 2017, 09:28:50 pm »

The End of the World As We Know It (part 1)

Published on Dec 20, 2016


Dr. Guy McPherson is an award-winning professor of conservation biology and an acclaimed author. This two-part show covers his presentation at The Waypost in Portland on August 8, 2016 of a synopsis of the current peer-reviewed research on Earth's recent phase of rapid warming. His conclusion about the risk to humans from habitat loss in the next 10 - 15 years due to abrupt climate change is dire. He answers questions about the impact of humans on the environment. This is an information-packed, entertaining and impactful talk. Not for the faint of heart!

This show was taped by PC Peri and produced/edited by Barb Greene with help from Dan Handelman. Special thanks to Alisa Christensen for inspiration on editing.

For your information, the chapter breaks we assigned for this video are:

Part 1: 0:00 Opening Credits 1:15 Dr. Guy McPherson: Civilized life is a lie 2:58 Historical predictions of disaster 7:22 What does this look like? 12:20 Who cares? 23:50 Global temperature rise & the great dying 27:22 End credits, part 1

You can use these times to find a particular section if you want to jump to a certain portion of the show.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 23, 2017, 02:58:45 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Cloudhopper is a "give Trump a chance" fellow who just cannot seem to find nuttin' negative bout' Trump.    He can give detailed, and mostly accurate, chapter and verse on Obama's police state and empire expanding policies. YET, he don't see dat problem wid' Trump. He's either a victim of cognitive dissonance or a bold faced liar propagandist.

ex-guest > agelbert  • 6 hours ago   

Looks like you can chew gum and rub your tummy at the same time, unlike cloudhopper.
 
agelbert > ex-guest  • 17 minutes ago   

Thank you. I am part of the reality based community. I therefore have no choice but to objectively observe and report on the devastating trajectory we are on.

I will not be able to avoid further impoverishment due to Trump's empathy deficit disordered Cabinet.  :(

But Trump is NOT going to be able to talk his way around the economy cratering effects of Catastrophic Climate Change that his policies are severely accelerating and exacerbating.

THIS is coming as we speak. It WILL severely damage the infrastructure and GDP of the USA and make a laughing stock of Trump's Fossil Fuel Industry CORRUPTED, Climate Denying Cabinet.   



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

PART ONE OF THREE PARTS

In this three part article I explain what the scientific community defines as the "Business as Usual" scenario in regard to atmospheric pollutants fueling Global Warming. A brief review of the existential threat to marine life that this scenario represents will follow.

Subsequently, I discuss global shipping. I provide a summary of the tremendous importance of blue water (deep ocean) cargo shipping to global civilization. You will be surprised at how vital to global civilization blue water cargo shipping is. All the military vessels, all the pleasure yachts and even all the fishing fleets are insignificant in tonnage compared to that of ocean going cargo and tanker vessels.

I then leave the subject of shipping and the types of cargo vessels, which I return to at the end, to provide the reader with a graphic climate history of the Northern Hemisphere, from the last Glacial Maximum to the present, followed by the, scientifically based, predicted sea level and land vegetation changes in the "Business as Usual" scenario within the next 85 years.

The discussion then returns to cargo ships and their behavior in rough seas. I provide graphics to explain what has been learned about ocean waves in the last 40 years that shocked the scientific community and caused them to go back to the drawing board on the science and math formulas of hydrodynamics in regard to maximum wave heights. Some tragic cargo vessel losses from "rogue" waves (that turned out not to be as "rogue" as science had thought) are presented as evidence that the oceans are becoming increasingly dangerous to shipping.

Finally, the Hansen et al paper, published in June of 2015, is referenced as evidence of a coming abrupt sea state change that will make modern blue water surface cargo shipping either too costly or impossible. The reason for this will be explained in detail with graphics showing ocean wave action and modern shipping design limitations.

Included in the last section that ties all the others together is a reference to another scientific paper published in July of this year (2015) that provides evidence that the worst case scenario ("Business as Usual") modeled by the scientific community severely understates the amount of sea level rise in the next 85 years.

I conclude with recommendations on what the governments of the industrialized countries of the world need to do within the next decade in order to prevent a collapse of civilization (or worse) within the next 25 years.

Let us begin with these nuggets of climate science from NASA:

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial'."

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said.
Quote
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general
."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

So, if you read some happy talk from the fossil fuel industry that it's the "water vapor" that is causing global warming, be sure and reference the above study (and the companion study also mentioned at the link) just before you call them on their ignorance, or worse, their duplicity.


You just read about the huge difference a mere 5 degrees C (Centigrade) can make.
Here's a graphic to give you an idea about how effective our greenhouse gas (GHG) shell is at keeping us from turning into a ball of ice.


Greenhouse gases are vital to regulating Earth's temperature. But there is a goldilocks band of these gases that must be adhered to in order to provide a viable biosphere.

In addition, GHG changes in concentration within that band must proceed, down or up, at or slower than a certain rate in order to allow the organisms that live in that biosphere to adapt to the changes or they will go extinct.

Industrial civilization has BOTH exceeded the upper margin of the GHG band by a huge margin AND has done it at a rate far above the ability of most complex non-microscopic organisms to adapt to these violent changes. Mammalian vertebrates, among the complex organisms on Earth, are the least able to adapt to rapid GHG concentration changes.


There is no precedent in the geological record for the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels over the last century. And the rate those fossil fuels are being burned is increasing, not slowing down or ceasing.

Non-self aware mammalian vertebrates, unlike us, cannot use technology to adapt. This is the part the CEO of ExxonMobil (Rex Tillerson) forgot accidentally on purpose when he said, "We will adapt to that". Mr. Tillerson is an idiot or a liar (possibly both). Those "qualities" seem to be a job requirement for those that work in the fossil fuel industry.

Mr. Tillerson's optimistic happy talk is not based on climate science or the geological record.

Quote
"Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago."

http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906

Whether we humans want to admit it or not, we need the 75% of all of Earth's species in danger of extinction from climate change. I know it is really hard for the fossil fuel industry predators 'R' US crowd to wrap their greedy heads around this, but it's hard to live on a diet of hydrocarbons. And if we don't stop burning them, both our plant and animal food supply, along with thousands of other species of other earthlings that make this planet viable, will go extinct.

This is not hyperbole. Mass extinctions are part of the geological record. In all but one of those mass extinctions, the rapid rise in GHG was the cause of the extinctions. Furthermore, in all the former mass extinctions, the RATE of rise in GHG was much slower than today.
Quote

"As our anthropogenic global emissions of CO2 are rising  at a rate for which no precedence is known from the geological record with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding."

http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906


According to the latest scientific studies on Global Warming, "Business as Usual", touted as the basis for the continued health of global civilization, is actually the greatest threat to global civilization and our species that we have ever faced.

Before we get to what exactly is meant by, "Business as Usual", let us first review the human caused pollution effects on ocean physical chemistry and temperature and marine species biochemistry.

The following review references an analysis of oceans that totally omits a growing problem for worldwide shipping. Although the review is mostly very bad news, it may turn out to be, in terms of what deals the collapse triggering blow to human civilization as we know it, the "good" news.

The World Ocean Review

The ocean may be buffering the most severe consequences of climate change for now. But in the long run we can only hope to avoid these if we strictly curb GHG emissions today.

Experts are concerned that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of methane hydrate could break down due to the warming of seawater – gas masses that are lying inertly in solid, frozen form in the sea floor sediments today. A portion of the methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, could then rise into the atmosphere and further accelerate the process of climate change – a vicious circle.

The oceans absorb many millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. They are the largest “sink” for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The excess carbon dioxide, however, upsets the chemical equilibrium of the ocean. It leads to acidification of the oceans, the consequences of which are unpredictable. Acidic water disrupts the sense of smell in fish larvae, carbonate formation by snails, and the growth rates of starfish. The phytoplankton, tiny algae in the ocean and vital nutrient basis for higher organisms, are also affected by acidification.

The coastal environment is still being damaged by effluent and toxic discharges, and especially by nutrients conveyed to the ocean by rivers. Thousands of tonnes of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds flow into the ocean around the world, causing an explosion in algal reproduction. In many coastal regions the catastrophe begins with the death of the algae. Bacteria feed on the algal remains and consume oxygen in the water. In these oxygen-depleted zones all higher life forms die off. Efforts to reduce nutrient levels have been successful in Western Europe.

Worldwide, however, the input of nutrients is becoming increasingly problematical. People are, without a doubt, abusing the oceans in many respects, and this is increasing the stress on marine organisms. Through over-fertilization and acidification of the water, rapid changes in water temperature or salinity, biological diversity in the ocean could drop worldwide at increasing rates. With the combination of all these factors, the disruption of habitats is so severe that species will continue to disappear.

Clearly the oceans continue to be the “last stop” for the dregs of our civilization, not only for the persistent chemicals, but also our everyday garbage. Six million tonnes of rubbish end up in the ocean worldwide every year. The trash is a fatal trap for dolphins, turtles and birds. Plastic is especially long-lived and, driven by ocean currents, it collects in the central oceans in gyres of garbage covering hundreds of square kilometres. A new problem has been identified in the microscopically small breakdown products of plastics, which are concentrated in the bodies of marine organisms.

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/wor-1-in-short/

That World Ocean Review I just quoted from, after laying out the hard facts, incredibly goes on to happily discuss ocean mining opportunities and methane hydrate harvesting plans for "energy products" for "energy independence". The only caveat they supply is more of an epitaph for human willful denial of facts than a precautionary warning. Please file the following in the WTF!? category.

Quote
Energy from burning ice

In addition to abundant minerals, there are large amounts of methane hydrate beneath the sea floor. Some countries hope to become independent of energy imports by exploiting marine gas hydrate deposits near their own coasts. The technology for production, however, is not yet available. Furthermore, the risks to climate stability and hazards to marine habitats associated with extraction of the methane hydrates must first be clarified.


http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-3-overview/methane-hydrate/

Yes, it seems the DANGER of extracting methane hydrates has not been "CLARIFIED" enough. Neither the Permian Extinction geological record nor the PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) geological record has "clarified" the methane issue enough.

Hello? Is this, a more recent pre-human epoch, CLARIFICATION enough for you fellows providing your business friendly "World Ocean Review ", claiming, among other wonders of optimistic prose, that the sea level is only going to rise about 180 cm by century's end?


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

Do they think this MIT study needs "clarification"?

And the DANGER of an acidified ocean to most marine species, which will clearly be exacerbated by the methane bomb, has not been clarified? Didn't Professor Gerardo Ceballos, lead author of a study published in June of 2015 on the Sixth Mass Extinction we are now entering, with particular emphasis on marine mammal extinction threats, get the word?

I think he and his fellow scientists CLARIFIED the methane issue AND the CO2 pollution issue rather well. For those that do not get it, the CO2 pollution, now baked in, is already threatening marine mammals with extinction. When methane hydrates are added to the mix from a warmed ocean, acidification will accelerate and trigger anoxic conditions throughout the ocean water column, thereby destroying the food chain. That is a death sentence for most non-microscopic marine life and a large portion of the microscopic oxygen producing microscopic phytoplankton as well.


These scientifically challenged, insultingly naive, business friendly, bland statements sold as "sober advice" are precisely the kind of double talk that has placed humanity in the polluted situation it finds itself.

Some have blamed the scientific community.



They forget that scientists are mostly employees. They forget that businesses gag their reports or keep their published, peer reviewed papers from the public on a regular basis. So the criminally negligent here are business leaders, not scientists.

My experience with reading these big picture reviews of our terribly polluted situation is that they seem to feel obligated to give some peppy, optimistic, happy talk at the end.

Do these people understand what "business as usual" means? It appears that either they don't or willfully avoid doing so.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has a scientific name for Business as Usual. They have modeled it. They have a number for it. It's called the RCP-8.5. RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathway.

Business as usual is a death sentence for over 75% (or more) of life on Earth.

The people that defend business as usual are deluded. There is evidence, which I will present, that even the RCP-8.5 scenario is too conservative. And yet the methane issue needs "clarification"?

Dr. Scott Goetz (Deputy Director and Senior Scientist of the Woods Hole Research Center) has that thousand yard stare for a reason.

CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC AND THEIR CLIMATE FEEDBACK IMPLICATIONS: Interview with Scott Goetz


Friends, there is a crime being committed. But the guiltiest parties do not want to pay for their share of the damage. And that is why these reviews lack the urgency that they need to have in order to successfully convince government policy makers to alter our destructive trajectory.

But I have discussed that in my recent article, Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.  So, I will move on to other matters of concern to humanity.


Global shipping

Human civilization has come to rely on the relatively inexpensive movement of millions of tons of cargo over the oceans.

It is difficult or impossible to avoid a collapse without the use of the oceans.

To underline the importance of cargo shipping as the lifeblood of civilization, you need to look at the massive amount of tonnage these ships move globally on a daily basis.


Tankers, bulk carriers and container ships are the most important means of transportation of our time. Each year they carry billions of tonnes of goods along a few principal trade routes. Containerization has revolutionized global cargo shipping, bringing vast improvements in efficiency.


Throughout history the oceans have been important to people around the world as a means of transportation. Unlike a few decades ago, however, ships are now carrying goods rather than people.



Deadweight tonnage (abbreviated to dwt) or tons deadweight (TDW) is a measure of how much mass a ship is carrying or can safely carry; it does not include the weight of the ship.

Agelbert NOTE: Please take note of the caveat, "safely carry".  More on what that means later.

In terms of carrying capacity in dwt,


tankers account for 35 per cent,



bulk carriers account for 35 per cent,



container ships 14 per cent,



general cargo ships 9 per cent



and passenger liners less than 1 per cent.

In all, the global merchant fleet has a capacity of just under 1192 million dwt.

Shipping Activity of Tankers, Cargo and Cruise Ships on October 12, 2015:

The growth of the global merchant fleet according to type of vessel (as at 1 January [sic]) 2009.
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/transport/global-shipping/

There is a LOT of shipping out there and a LOT of ships. If the above graphics have not brought home to you how much shipping is going on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, take a look at this:

In summary, this is what is out there going hither and yon across the oceans on a regular basis:
Singapore anchorage

Most of those affordable products in our homes are a direct result of a the uninterrupted global lifeblood of efficient blue ocean shipping. If that shipping was no longer possible, global civilization would be impossible because it would be unaffordable. It is, therefore, extremely important to ensure that human civilization can use those oceans for routine cargo transportation. 

The oceans, as was pointed out earlier in this article, are a giant heat sink. The more CO2 we pump into the air, the hotter the oceans get. When the oceans get hotter, they become more active. This means trouble for shipping.

Insurance companies do not like that. They analyze the risks of blue water shipping and track any trends that might increase those risks. They have actuaries that pay a lot of attention to losses of insured ships.

All commercial shipping is insured. You and I are billed for insuring, not just the merchant fleets, but the military ships too! That's what the "defense budgets" lobbied for by all those welfare queen corporations, constantly whining about that "dangerous world out there", are all about.

Well, it looks like all shipping is going to find out how DANGEROUS the oceans, not some invented threat about bellicose humans, can be. The insurance actuaries already know that the "terrorist" or piracy threat on the high seas is insignificant compared to the threat of sinking from rough seas.

Of course you haven't read that in the papers. But you will read it here. And I will provide evidence for it.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. To understand what is happening in the oceans today, we need to go back in time about 20,000 years. We need to go back to the Last Glacial Maximum.

WHY? Because the sea state, as well as the sea level, is a function of the average global temperature. In addition, the vegetation changes that accompany changes in the average global temperature can have deleterious effects on the sea state, totally separate from the dire extinction threat these temperature changes represent to marine organisms.

The Environmental Change Model (ECM)

The following series of graphics deals with accurately modeled representations of the climate in a large part of the Northern Hemisphere centered on the Arctic. A link to the science and the source is provided. The average global temperature and pertinent data on the ice cover and types of vegetation is provided. Of particular importance to the reader are the different types of Tundra coverage. The legend has color codes for the graphical representations.

NOTE: The Greek letter "DELTA" ="Δ". It is used in science to mean, "Change in". The referenced average global temperature is what we have today (about 15 degrees Centigrade = T).

So, ΔT = - 6C is a change in average temperature of minus 6 degrees centigrade from today. THAT was when there was a two mile high glacier sheet edge near what is now New York City. That was also when the oceans were 120 meters = 394 feet lower than they are today.

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/ECM/

Notice how much dry and moist Tundra there was.
Notice the range and size of the types of forests and the polar desert coverage too. At a glance you can see that this was a very dry world in comparison to our world.

Fast forward to ΔT = - 0.5C.
This was the Little Ice Age of 1850. That was just before the industrial pollution revolution had gotten up to full biosphere trashing speed.

Sea level is close to the present level. Notice how the forest cover has changed. Notice how the Tundra moved north as the ice retreated. Notice how the forests and the forest Tundra transition changed.


Tundra responds in one of two ways when it goes above freezing. It has to do with the available oxygen. If there isn't enough in the soil, the microbes resort to anaerobic metabolism and make lots of methane. This is NOT methane locked in the Tundra. This is NEW methane. This is unrelated to the methane hydrates frozen on the ocean bottom, but it is still an additional feedback mechanism that increases the RATE of atmospheric heating. So these mechanisms are, by definition, not linear. They can become self reinforcing. That means they can go exponential.

Below, please find, the world we all grew up in (ΔT = 0C.). I have labeled some areas for clarity. The Tundra continues to shrink, as does the ice coverage. The forest transition area creeps north and the forests grow along with the prairie grass covered areas. There is less ice.


Which brings us the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario labeled "Business as Usual".

This scenario is considered "worst case". It does not expect us to hit  ΔT = plus 2C until 2050. The boundless optimism of the IPCC sounds a lot like those fellows doing the "World Ocean Review" that mentioned the methane "issue" needed "clarification" right after they admitted that the PRESENT conditions were causing the extinction of most marine animals. 

Please look at this graph:

The line with the number "1" is the  IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario. The temperature increases in lines 2 and 3 ARE NOT in the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario.

ΔT = plus 2C is considered extremely dangerous.
 

The IPCC projects a mere 0.5 meters sea level increase by 2050. But the July 2015 study that I reference in the graphic claims a sea level rise greater or equal to 6 meters (over 19 feet!) is evidenced in the geologic record for this type of temperature rise.

The IPCC projected sea ice decline will give you more context to understand why it is unrealistic to believe that we will not hit the  ΔT = plus 2C until 2050.


But nevertheless, the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario for ΔT = plus 2C is instructive because the Tundra is disappearing. You know what that means for increased methane release, don't you?



A note about the word, "Equilibrium" on the graphic: The word "Equilibrium" means that the full effects of the temperature change are being felt throughout the planet. Glaciologists had previously thought that "equilibrium" effects on ice sheets took centuries or millennia.

Now, because of empirical observations on the Greenland ice sheet, Antarctica and various glaciers in the world, they have come to accept that equilibrium is reached in decades or in years, depending on the temperature anomaly increase. As you know, or should know, the polar regions have warmed over 3C MORE than the rest of the planet in the last 50 years. 

The huge differential was not plugged in to the IPCC models so they are too conservative on ice retreat and sea level rise. So, if somebody tells you that all this is a long way off, they are uninformed or working for the fossil fuel industry.

I will return to the dangers of the ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world in a moment.

For now, I wish to show you the rest of the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario projections. Please remember that they are conservative projections and the effects portrayed will most likely arrive 25 years or more earlier than predicted. Also please remember that the actual sea level increase (see graphic below),

Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6244 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019
Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods

according to the July 2015 paper referenced previously, will be several METERS, not feet, above the predictions.

ΔT = plus 3C

Sometime after the loss of the ice cap, all the Tundra will have thawed. ALL the trapped gases, be they CO2 or CH4, will be released. Added grasses absorbing CO2 will not be enough to counteract the warming acceleration.

There are those who expect a negative feedback from the stopping of the thermohaline oceanic current circulation (stopped by all the cold fresh water melted off the Greenland ice cap into the oceans). Perhaps that will help slow the heating (north of about 45 degrees latitude - below that they will roast even more!) for a decade or so. But it will do nothing to calm the ocean surface.

ΔT = plus 4C


The worst effect is that Arctic ocean bottom frozen clathrates will thaw and the methane will be released. The planet will continue warming increasingly faster past  ΔT = plus 4C.

 
That will exacerbate ocean conditions even more. With more and more heat energy present, the ocean surface will get increasingly more turbulent. And we will already be well past the ΔT = plus 2C mark.

As evidenced by the two referenced scientific studies, both published recently this year (2015), and the woefully conservative IPCC predictions on the rate of the North Polar Ice Cap retreat, Antarctic and Greenland ice cap melt rates, and temperature rise rate, sea level will most likely rise a minimum of 6 meters within 10 years, not 35 years. We are talking about 2025, not 2050, for a ΔT = plus 2C world. We are not preparing adequately for that.

For those who will point to the increase in size of the floating ice around Antarctica as evidence that the Earth is not really warming, I beg to differ.

The fact that the Antarctic land mass IS losing ice has been measured with satellites. It is losing ice because of global warming. It is true that the floating ice around Antarctica has increased and will continue to increase as long as the Antarctic land mass is shedding melt water.

This is because of two factors. The first one is that there are very high winds around Antarctica, unimpeded by any land mass. The second factor is that fresh water freezes more rapidly on the ocean surface than salty water.

That's why salt is spread on roads in winter. On the ocean, the water molecules must rid themselves of the sodium and chloride ions dissolved in them before they can freeze. All the ice floating on the oceans is water ice. It has no salt in it.

And as long as that floating ice is the product of melt water from the Antarctic land mass, it will ADD to sea level.

And when the sea level goes up just 6 feet, never mind the 19 feet or more increase expected with CURRENT CO2 levels, all shipping port facilities (and most coastal airport facilities too!) in the world are no longer usable without gargantuan and heroic efforts requiring trillions of dollars in costs for every foot the land and port infrastructure must be raised.

It seems that the countries (see every industrialized country on the planet) dragging their feet on CO2 reduction actions do not understand this. There are, as of this writing, over 140 countries investing trillions of dollars in port facilities.

No, they aren't raising the level of the port facilities to prepare for rapidly rising sea levels. They are trying to cash in on container shipping by building more container shipping infrastructure.   


Don't these governments listen to their climate scientists?


End of PART ONE.

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


for reading this article. Have a good day.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 22, 2017, 04:40:28 pm »



World's First Floating City to Combat Rising Sea Levels

http://www.ecowatch.com/floating-city-sea-level-rise-2196056463.html

Agelbert NOTE: The problem with this technofix is the giant poisonous, fish killing, fossil fuel industry caused elephant in the room called Ocean Acidification. In addition, there is the issue of the massive increase in wave height and ocean storm activity from the ongoing acceleration of global warming.  That floating wall depicted in the animation is not going to be enough protection.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: Three Part Article

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

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART THREE
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 15, 2017, 01:43:52 pm »

The Horror of the Iraq War, One Hundred Years From Now

Cora Currier

AFTER SADDAM HUSSEIN, after the U.S. invasion, after the Islamic State, what will Iraq ultimately look like? The future of Iraq, its borders, economy, religious and cultural identity, is a matter of constant speculation for foreign policy experts.

Now there’s a literary response, in the form of a new collection of short fiction, Iraq +100: Stories from a Century After the Invasion. In the book, Iraqi writers who are inside the country and outside it imagine their homeland one hundred years from the fateful month of March 2003, when the U.S. invasion began. Iraq +100 is a fine example of critical dystopia, a genre that the writer Junot Diaz recently described as “not just something that is ‘the bad place.’ It is something that maps, warns, and hopes.”

Iraq +100 was edited by Hassan Blasim, the author of a chilling, excellent book of stories called The Corpse Exhibition, which was published in 2014. Blasim is perhaps the best-known of the writers in Iraq +100. Almost all of the stories in The Corpse Exhibition include a fantastical element, but they are dark and grotesque, and the violence in them is surreal only until you think of what Iraqis have endured in recent decades. In the title story of The Corpse Exhibition, master assassins compete with one another to construct the most elaborate and impressive public displays of the bodies of their victims, describing maiming, splaying, and dismembering as an art form. Those and other stories made for grisly satire not far removed from real atrocities committed by U.S. troops and sectarian militias, and a queasy preview of the theatrical violence of executions carried out by the Islamic State, which swept through Iraq after Blasim’s book came out.

In his foreword to Iraq +100, Blasim writes that ancient precedents like the Epic of Gilgamesh or A Thousand and One Nights notwithstanding, there is a limited tradition of fantasy and science fiction in Iraqi and Arab literature. Blasim believes that alternate currents of religious fundamentalism and war wiped out interest in the speculative and the magical; he hopes to revive it, and with it, visions of a future where Iraq is less, rather than more, dystopian.

“From the Mongol Hulagu to the American Hulagu, George W., this once great seat of learning has been destroyed and pulverized,” he writes in the foreword. “Our modest project…tries to imagine a Modern Iraq that has somehow recovered from the West’s brutal invasion, in a way that Iraq didn’t recover from the Mongol one, in the blink of an eye that is 100 years.” In an afterword, Blasim’s publisher notes that many of the works in Iraq +100 were finished before the rise of the Islamic State. He hopes that the stories don’t already sound naïve.

Blasim’s entry in the collection, “The Gardens of Babylon,” tries to explain in broad strokes what happened in a century: its protagonist lives in a techno-utopia, a domed city in Federal Mesopotamia established after Iraq’s oil dried up, with the help of Chinese investments and global revolution in clean energy. In this pleasant future, a man whose job is to write plots for virtual reality “story-games” uses hallucinogens to spiral into a bizarre wartime story of an exiled translator and his father and a plot to blow up an oil pipeline. The nested stories are a literal example of going to the future in order to recall the most difficult parts of the present.

Most of these stories don’t sound naive. If anything, they are darker and narrower than what the project seemed to wish for. In the stories collected in Iraq +100, the U.S. invasion and the war that followed are always a preoccupation, a backdrop of violence and destruction of culture.

A few of the stories follow Blasim’s example into full-on futurism, with mixed results. There’s one where alien invaders rule the world and farm humans for food, full of expository tangents that are the hallmark of unconvincing sci-fi. The better ones are more tightly tied to real history, even when fantastical. Some of the pieces may suffer, however, from uneven work by seven different translators; most of the stories were originally written in Arabic.

The opening story, “Kahrama,” by a writer called Anoud, is a dark and clever satire that imagines a woman who escapes from her warlord husband to become something of a celebrity refugee before her international benefactors lose interest in her case. In “The Corporal,” by Ali Bader, an Iraqi soldier in Saddam Hussein’s army who was shot in the head by an American sniper gets sent back to earth and has a hell of a time explaining himself to the shining city of love and peace that has replaced his native Kut.

In many of the stories, there is a subtext of fear of what will have been forgotten, through negligence or official edict, even when what there is to remember can also be awful. One tale, by Diaa Jubaili, is told from the point of view of a statue of an Iraqi worker installed in a foreign museum in a hall of monuments to dictators, having been mistaken for Saddam. Others recoup history, even when it is troublesome: there’s one story about a secret underground city of forgotten religious sites, and another where a man keeps tapes of songs in languages that have been banned.

I couldn’t get thirteen years of horrible news stories about Iraq out of my head while reading Iraq +100, couldn’t evade the contemporary context. In Bader’s story about the officer shot in the head, the time-traveling corporal can’t get anyone to believe him when he explains how bad it was. The writers collected here seem to have a similar message for the present, asking their readers: can you believe in the possibility that it may get better, and can you live with the possibility that it could even be worse?

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/15/the-horror-of-the-iraq-war-one-hundred-years-from-now/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 14, 2017, 09:48:53 pm »

JFK was asked one day what the thought of the movie, "Seven Days In May". He said it could happen in the USA under certain conditions, but not on his watch.

[
JFK, Obama, and the Unspeakable
 

Eric Herter

Published on Jul 26, 2015

Religion professor James Douglass tells why Jack Kennedy was killed -- the Bay of Pigs, the fight with the US steel industry, the Cuban missile crisis, and, especially, Kennedy's secret correspondence with the supreme enemy, Russian Premier Khrushchev, about their mutual desire to avoid nuclear disaster by ending the Cold War.

Douglass contends that the same forces within the US government that killed Kennedy are present still, and that their removal of JFK gives strong warning against initiating a non-war economy and a foreign policy based on cooperation and peace.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 14, 2017, 08:36:54 pm »

Agelbert Note: The USA IS a National Security State.

Quote
"A democratic National Security State is an Oxymoron."

JFK and the Unspeakable, Why He Died and WHY it Matters

Author Jim Douglass speaks at the 2009 Coalition on Political Assassinations conference in Dallas. November 22, 2009.

JFK was fond of this poem:

Quote
.

I Have a Rendezvous with Death

Alan Seeger, 1888 - 1916

I have a rendezvous with Death   
At some disputed barricade,   
When Spring comes back with rustling shade   
And apple-blossoms fill the air—   
I have a rendezvous with Death
When Spring brings back blue days and fair.   
   
It may be he shall take my hand   
And lead me into his dark land   
And close my eyes and quench my breath—   
It may be I shall pass him still.
I have a rendezvous with Death   
On some scarred slope of battered hill,   
When Spring comes round again this year   
And the first meadow-flowers appear.   
   
God knows ‘twere better to be deep
Pillowed in silk and scented down,   
Where love throbs out in blissful sleep,   
Pulse nigh to pulse, and breath to breath,   
Where hushed awakenings are dear...   
But I’ve a rendezvous with Death
At midnight in some flaming town,   
When Spring trips north again this year,   
And I to my pledged word am true,   
I shall not fail that rendezvous.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 14, 2017, 05:28:54 pm »

Yes, this IS the right place for this video. Past may be prologue. The Evil that brought the following events to the world is still there, and stronger than ever.  :(


JFK and the Unspeakable Jim Douglass

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_endgame18.htm
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 13, 2017, 08:56:37 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 21, 2016, 02:41:36 pm »

December 21, 2016

New Trump Picks to Bring Public Lands and Environmental Regulations to the Corporate Slaughterhouse

Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director Kieran Suckling says ''dark days'' are ahead with South Carolina Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney as head the Office of Management and first term Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke Budget as Department of Interior.
 


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17976
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 18, 2016, 04:30:18 pm »

Published on Nov 23, 2016

Could Brexit Lead to the Rediscovery of Culture Grounded in Place? 19th Sept 2016, Trinity College, Oxford University.

Jonathon Porritt and Shaun Chamberlin discuss Brexit and the launch of the late Trinity alumnus David Fleming’s extraordinary books 'Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It' and the paperback 'Surviving the Future: Culture, Carnival and Capital in the Aftermath of the Market Economy'.

The full event from which this footage was taken is available at:
https://youtu.be/Pk_er-tWfeM

A different set of highlights from the event, focused on collapse and post-growth economics, can be found here:
https://youtu.be/UN7eNlvN-0o

Event poster, including info on speakers:
http://www.darkoptimism.org/OxfordFle...


More information on David Fleming's books, including reviews and how to order:
http://www.flemingpolicycentre.org.uk...

Schumacher College Earth Talk: Rob Hopkins and Shaun Chamberlin discuss David Fleming and the launch of his posthumous books,
'The Late Dr. David Fleming: Community, Place and Play', 12 October 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOldf...

An August 21st 2016 written interview with Shaun Chamberlin on David Fleming, Brexit and the books:
http://www.darkoptimism.org/2016/08/2...

__

“David Fleming was an elder of the UK green movement and a key figure in the early Green Party. Drawing on the heritage of Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful, Fleming’s beautifully written and nourishing vision of a post-growth economics grounded in human-scale culture and community—rather than big finance—is both inspiring and ever more topical.”
~ Caroline Lucas MP, co-leader, Green Party of England and Wales; former Member of the European Parliament


"David Fleming predicts environmental catastrophe but also proposes a solution that stems from the real motives of people and not from some comprehensive political agenda. He writes lucidly and eloquently of the moral and spiritual qualities on which we might draw in our ‘descent’ to a Lean Economy. His highly poetic description of these qualities is neither gloomy nor self-deceived but tranquil and inspiring. All environmental activists should read him and learn to think in his cultivated and nuanced way."
~ Roger Scruton, writer and philosopher; author of over thirty books, including Green Philosophy

“I would unreservedly go so far as to say that David Fleming was one of the most original, brilliant, urgently-needed, underrated, and ahead-of-his-time thinkers of the last 50 years. History will come to place him alongside Schumacher, Berry, Seymour, Cobbett, and those other brilliant souls who could not just imagine a more resilient world but who could paint a picture of it in such vivid colours. Step into the world of David Fleming; you'll be so glad you did.”
~ Rob Hopkins, cofounder of the Transition Network



Learn from Dr. David Fleming's wisdom:

Dr. David Fleming - Nov 2006 - "Lean Energy: A Practical Guide to the Energy Descent"

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 18, 2016, 03:12:50 pm »


David Fleming & Dark Optimism

Posted on December 7, 2016, by Radio Ecoshock

SNIPPET:

How can we go on living with impossible problems?    ???       

Green writer David Fleming influenced the UK Green Party, the Transition Towns movement, & new economics.

Fleming passed away in 2010, leaving an unpublished dictionary for our survival.

Writer & editor Shaun Chamberlin picked up the torch for his friend & mentor, with 2 new books on Fleming’s work: “Lean Logic” and “Surviving the Future”. UK’s Greg Moffitt, host of legalise-freedom.com talks with Chamberlin.

Listen to podcast at link below:
http://www.ecoshock.org/2016/12/david-fleming-dark-optimism.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 12, 2016, 10:26:05 pm »

The SIXTH MASS EXTINCTION
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 11, 2016, 04:43:48 pm »

Dec 6:-BREAKING: Unbelievable, Our PLANET EARTH is UNSafe "World"? ??? ASTEROID ATTACKs.   :o
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 05, 2016, 06:09:58 pm »

You’re Buying a Home. Have You Considered Climate Change? ???


By RON LIEBERDEC. 2, 2016

SNIPPET:
 
So you want to buy a home in a global warming zone.   

Wait, you weren’t thinking of it that way? You didn’t even realize it or think to check? Well, it’s time to adjust your outlook.

That was my conclusion, at least, after reading my colleague Ian Urbina’s recent article about climate change and the residential real estate market. No one knows when (or if) a panic may set in among insurance companies, lenders or home buyers — one that causes prices to fall and never recover in vulnerable areas. But given that homes are the most expensive thing that many of us ever purchase, it’s foolish not to consider the long-term implications of owning one in a growing number of increasingly damage-prone places.

This is also an area of financial life that is ripe for mistakes and delusional thinking. Buying a home involves an enormous amount of money, and few people do it often enough to be experts. Given the realities of climate change, the process is now set against a backdrop of radical uncertainty about the very ground you will live on and the air you will breathe. Throw political uncertainty into the mix and — well, good luck keeping your head on straight.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/your-money/youre-buying-a-home-have-you-considered-climate-change.html?_r=0
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:16:12 pm »

Agelbert REMINDER to those who will be "offended" (because they are supporters of the President Elect) by the hard truths stated in the article below:
 



TOPICS: Democracy & Government

TAGS: 2016 election, donald trump, hillary clinton, media criticism
Democracy & Government


Farewell, America
 

No matter how the rest of the world looked at us on Nov. 7, they will now look at us differently.

By Neal Gabler | November 10, 2016

The sun sets behind the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

America died on Nov. 8, 2016, not with a bang or a whimper, but at its own hand via electoral suicide. We the people chose a man who has shredded our values, our morals, our compassion, our tolerance, our decency, our sense of common purpose, our very identity — all the things that, however tenuously, made a nation out of a country.

Whatever place we now live in is not the same place it was on Nov. 7. No matter how the rest of the world looked at us on Nov. 7, they will now look at us differently. We are likely to be a pariah country. And we are lost for it. As I surveyed the ruin of that country this gray Wednesday morning, I found weary consolation in W.H. Auden’s poem, September 1, 1939, which concludes:


Quote
BY Neal Gabler | November 8, 2016

“Defenseless under the night
 Our world in stupor lies;
 Yet, dotted everywhere,
 Ironic points of light
 Flash out wherever the Just
 Exchange their messages:
 May I, composed like them
 Of Eros and of dust,
 Beleaguered by the same
 Negation and despair,
 Show an affirming flame.”

I hunt for that affirming flame.

This generally has been called the “hate election” because everyone professed to hate both candidates. It turned out to be the hate election because, and let’s not mince words, of the hatefulness of the electorate. In the years to come, we will brace for the violence, the anger, the racism, the misogyny, the xenophobia, the nativism, the white sense of grievance that will undoubtedly be unleashed now that we have destroyed the values that have bound us.

Quote
We all knew these hatreds lurked under the thinnest veneer of civility. That civility finally is gone.

We all knew these hatreds lurked under the thinnest veneer of civility. That civility finally is gone. In its absence, we may realize just how imperative that politesse was. It is the way we managed to coexist.

If there is a single sentence that characterizes the election, it is this: “He says the things I’m thinking.” That may be what is so terrifying. Who knew that so many tens of millions of white Americans were thinking unconscionable things about their fellow Americans? Who knew that tens of millions of white men felt so emasculated by women and challenged by minorities? Who knew that after years of seeming progress on race and gender, tens of millions of white Americans lived in seething resentment, waiting for a demagogue to arrive who would legitimize their worst selves and channel them into political power? Perhaps we had been living in a fool’s paradise. Now we aren’t.

This country has survived a civil war, two world wars, and a great depression. There are many who say we will survive this, too. Maybe we will, but we won’t survive unscathed. We know too much about each other to heal. No more can we pretend that we are exceptional or good or progressive or united. We are none of those things. Nor can we pretend that democracy works and that elections have more or less happy endings. Democracy only functions when its participants abide by certain conventions, certain codes of conduct and a respect for the process.

Quote
No more can we pretend that we are exceptional or good or progressive or united. We are none of those things.

The virus that kills democracy is extremism because extremism disables those codes. Republicans have disrespected the process for decades. They have regarded any Democratic president as illegitimate. They have proudly boasted of preventing popularly elected Democrats from effecting policy and have asserted that only Republicans have the right to determine the nation’s course. They have worked tirelessly to make sure that the government cannot govern and to redefine the purpose of government as prevention rather than effectuation. In short, they haven’t believed in democracy for a long time, and the media never called them out on it.

Democracy can’t cope with extremism. Only violence and time can defeat it. The first is unacceptable, the second takes too long. Though Trump is an extremist, I have a feeling that he will be a very popular president and one likely to be re-elected by a substantial margin, no matter what he does or fails to do. That’s because ever since the days of Ronald Reagan, rhetoric has obviated action, speechifying has superseded governing.

Trump was absolutely correct when he bragged that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn’t care. It was a dictator’s ugly vaunt , but one that recognized this election never was about policy or economics or the “right path/wrong path,” or even values. It was about venting. So long as Trump vented their grievances, his all-white supporters didn’t care about anything else. He is smart enough to know that won’t change in the presidency. In fact, it is only likely to intensify. White America, Trump’s America, just wants to hear its anger bellowed. This is one time when the Bully Pulpit will be literal.

The media can’t be let off the hook for enabling an authoritarian to get to the White House. Long before he considered a presidential run, he was a media creation — a regular in the gossip pages, a photo on magazine covers, the bankrupt (morally and otherwise) mogul who hired and fired on The Apprentice. When he ran, the media treated him not as a candidate, but as a celebrity, and so treated him differently from ordinary pols. The media gave him free publicity, trumpeted his shenanigans, blasted out his tweets, allowed him to phone in his interviews, fell into his traps and generally kowtowed until they suddenly discovered that this joke could actually become president.

Just as Trump has shredded our values, our nation and our democracy, he has shredded the media. In this, as in his politics, he is only the latest avatar of a process that began long before his candidacy. Just as the sainted Ronald Reagan created an unbridgeable chasm between rich and poor that the Republicans would later exploit against Democrats, conservatives delegitimized mainstream journalism so that they could fill the vacuum.

Quote
With Trump’s election, I think that the ideal of an objective, truthful journalism is dead, never to be revived.

Retiring conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes complained that after years of bashing from the right wing, the mainstream media no longer could perform their function as reporters, observers, fact dispensers, and even truth tellers, and he said we needed them. Like Goebbels before them, conservatives understood that they had to create their own facts, their own truths, their own reality. They have done so, and in so doing effectively destroyed the very idea of objectivity. Trump can lie constantly only because white America has accepted an Orwellian sense of truth the truth pulled inside out.

With Trump’s election, I think that the ideal of an objective, truthful journalism is dead, never to be revived. Like Nixon and Sarah Palin before him, Trump ran against the media, boomeranging off the public’s contempt for the press. He ran against what he regarded as media elitism and bias, and he ran on the idea that the press disdained working-class white America. Among the many now-widening divides in the country, this is a big one, the divide between the media and working-class whites, because it creates a Wild West of information – a media ecology in which nothing can be believed except what you already believe.

With the mainstream media so delegitimized — a delegitimization for which they bear a good deal of blame, not having had the courage to take on lies and expose false equivalencies — they have very little role to play going forward in our politics. I suspect most of them will surrender to Trumpism — if they were able to normalize Trump as a candidate, they will no doubt normalize him as president.


Cable news may even welcome him as a continuous entertainment and ratings booster. And in any case, like Reagan, he is bulletproof. The media cannot touch him, even if they wanted to. Presumably, there will be some courageous guerillas in the mainstream press, a kind of Resistance, who will try to fact-check him. But there will be few of them, and they will be whistling in the wind. Trump, like all dictators, is his own truth.

What’s more, Trump already has promised to take his war on the press into courtrooms and the halls of Congress. He wants to loosen libel protections, and he has threatened Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos of Amazon with an antitrust suit. Individual journalists have reason to fear him as well. He has already singled out NBC’s Katy Tur, perhaps the best of the television reporters, so that she needed the Secret Service to escort her from one of his rallies. Jewish journalists who have criticized Trump have been subjected to vicious anti-Semitism and intimidation from the alt-right. For the press, this is likely to be the new normal in an America in which white supremacists, neo-Nazi militias, racists, sexists, homophobes and anti-Semites have been legitimized by a new president who “says what I’m thinking.” It will be open season.

This converts the media from reporters to targets, and they have little recourse. Still, if anyone points the way forward, it may be New York Times columnist David Brooks. Brooks is no paragon. He always had seemed to willfully neglect modern Republicanism’s incipient fascism (now no longer incipient), and he was an apologist for conservative self-enrichment and bigotry. But this campaign season, Brooks pretty much dispensed with politics. He seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that no good could possibly come of any of this and retreated into spirituality. What Brooks promoted were values of mutual respect, a bolder sense of civic engagement, an emphasis on community and neighborhood, and overall a belief in trickle-up decency rather than trickle-down economics. He is not hopeful, but he hasn’t lost all hope.

For those of us now languishing in despair, this may be a prescription for rejuvenation. We have lost the country, but by refocusing, we may have gained our own little patch of the world and, more granularly, our own family. For journalists, Brooks may show how political reporting, which, as I said, is likely to be irrelevant in the Trump age, might yield to a broader moral context in which one considers the effect that policy, strategy and governance have not only on our physical and economic well-being but also on our spiritual well-being. In a society that is likely to be fractious and odious, we need a national conversation on values. The media could help start it.

But the disempowered media may have one more role to fill: They must bear witness. Many years from now, future generations will need to know what happened to us and how it happened. They will need to know how disgruntled white Americans, full of self-righteous indignation, found a way to take back a country they felt they were entitled to and which they believed had been lost. They will need to know about the ugliness and evil that destroyed us as a nation after great men like Lincoln and Roosevelt guided us through previous crises and kept our values intact. They will need to know, and they will need a vigorous, engaged, moral media to tell them. They will also need us.

We are not living for ourselves anymore in this country. Now we are living for history.

Neal Gabler is an author of five books and the recipient of two LA Times Book Prizes, Time magazine's non-fiction book of the year, USA Today's biography of the year and other awards. He is also a senior fellow at The Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, and is currently writing a biography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

http://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/

Agelbert NOTE: Great article, but, unlike the author, many millions of Americans, like myself, KNEW about this suicidal trajectory, of which the ubiquitous racism is but one symptom of America's moral decay.

Neal Gabler is a good man of principle. He is clear on what is right and what is wrong. However, as the reality of the WAY things REALLY are in the USA struck him like a kick in the groin, Neal Gabler's surprise is evidence that he was a victim of white privileged liberal wishful thinking. None of the following was a surprise to me and millions of other Americans of mixed ancestry that know the score.

Quote
If there is a single sentence that characterizes the election, it is this: “He says the things I’m thinking.” That may be what is so terrifying. Who knew that so many tens of millions of white Americans were thinking unconscionable things about their fellow Americans? Who knew that tens of millions of white men felt so emasculated by women and challenged by minorities? Who knew that after years of seeming progress on race and gender, tens of millions of white Americans lived in seething resentment, waiting for a demagogue to arrive who would legitimize their worst selves and channel them into political power? Perhaps we had been living in a fool’s paradise. Now we aren’t.

I have been warning about it to deaf ears for over a decade.   


Also, unlike Neal Gabler, I dated the final nail in the coffin of American Democracy much earlier than this election.

I dated it to when THIS GUY had the nomination for VP stolen from him so the Truman party hack could do the bidding of the M.I.C. when Roosevelt died.
But, you know what? The abysmally stupid and morally corruptive embrace of greed, xenophobia and racism is the LEAST of our worries as a people in this perfect storm of Wall Street 'dial a reality' that so many fools and knaves wish to celebrate.

Below please find, America TODAY:
Quote
Like Goebbels before them, conservatives understood that they had to create their own facts, their own truths, their own reality. They have done so, and in so doing effectively destroyed the very idea of objectivity. Trump can lie constantly only because white America has accepted an Orwellian sense of truth the truth pulled inside out.


BUT, THIS is America in the NEAR FUTURE:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 23, 2016, 01:21:07 pm »

11/22/2016

Teenagers Take the US Government to Trial Over Climate Change

SustainableBusiness.com News

Wouldn't it be amazing
 if teenagers   could derail Trump and the GOP's fossil fuel agenda?
 


In a huge victory , 21 teenagers who filed a climate change lawsuit against the federal government will have their day in court.

They are suing the government for not taking effective action on climate change - which requires an end to the production and combustion of fossil fuels - claiming this violates their constitutional rights to life and liberty.  They want the court to order President Obama to immediately implement a national plan that lowers atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm by 2100.

Three fossil fuel trade associations joined the US government to fight the case. In April, a federal judge rebuffed their calls to dismiss the case and this month, another federal judge refused again to throw the case out.

That means, the teenagers and the federal government will go to trial over climate change.

Climate scientist James Hansen and the Global Catholic Climate Movement, which includes Pope Francis, are also parties to the lawsuit.

Quote
"Youth stand together , and even as the seas are rising... so are we," says 17-year-old, Victoria Barrett.

"My generation is rewriting history. We're doing what so many people told us we were incapable of doing: holding our leaders accountable for their disastrous and dangerous actions. I and my co-plaintiffs are demanding justice for our generation and justice for all future generations. This is going to be the trial of our lifetimes," says 16-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Martinez. 

In her decision in favor of the plaintiffs, Oregon District Court Judge Ann Aiken notes, "Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law and the world has suffered for it."

"Now we must ask the court to require the government to reduce fossil fuel emissions at a rate consistent with the science," says Dr. James Hansen.

 Since the Obama administration is on its way out and can't implement any strategy without facing reversal from a Republican majority, we hope this case can apply to the new government when it takes over.

Lawsuits filed in every state will also move forward
, demanding state legislatures take science-based action on climate change. They have already won cases in Washington State and Massachusetts.

For similar cases across the world, read our article: Momentum Builds for Court Action on Climate Change. '

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26696
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 22, 2016, 06:03:33 pm »

Spectacular Scenery and Prudent Advice for Humanity.
EARTH - One Video you NEED to see
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 21, 2016, 10:13:10 pm »

Paul Douglas  Lays Out A Faith-Based Approach To Climate Change

November 20, 2016 3:30 PM

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Paul Douglas is reaching out as a man of faith and a meteorologist to talk to evangelicals about climate change.

The former WCCO chief meteorologist has co-written a new book titled “Caring for Creation,” and it aims to show readers a faith-based response to the global environmental problem.

Douglas, who was a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning, said his book in an attempt to reframe the discussion about climate change into something beyond just the science, which he describes as undeniable.

“You can pile on the science, but at some point, people tune out the science,” Douglas said. “But if you frame this under the guise of clean energy, energy freedom, energy security…it’s framing the story in a way that resonates and appeals to peoples’ faith.”

Douglas says that Christians, as stewards of the Earth, have a moral obligation to do something about climate change and the threat it poses to the world.
 

Quote
“In Matthew, Jesus said, ‘What you did not do for the least of these you did not do for me'”…Those with the least, the poorest among us, are the first to feel the impacts [of climate change],” he said.

Effects such as rising sea levels, flooding and water shortages could cause massive, global migration, dwarfing the current refugee crisis in Europe.

“We ignore [climate change] at our peril,” Douglas said. “I ask people, Do you love your kids? They say, Of course I love my kids. I say, well, do this for your kids and their kids…They are going to wonder what you did.”

“Caring for Creation” is available at bookstores and Amazon.com.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/11/20/paul-douglas-book-climate-change/



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 13, 2016, 08:58:07 pm »

Abrupt Climate Change * The Hard Truth * Scientists * Guy McPherson Eric Rignot (NASA) & more 
   
Marc Haneburght

Published on Oct 9, 2016

Over and over the solution to abrupt climate change always needs to be in a way to keep this "heat engine" (check my other video with Professor Tim Garrett) of industrial civilization going. All civilizations have failed before us, and this, the most destructive civilization of all, will for sure. There is no solution to death. Most people forget that only Mother Nature could give us a solution, if any. One solution is like Mike Sliwa said, "stop controlling".

There is no controlling Mother Nature. YES, there is a solution for abrupt climate change, "to help and let Mother Nature be". I think the message from Dr. Guy McPherson is the best way going forward in dealing with this subject, and as he says, "some species might make it thru the bottle neck of extinction, and you can help".

If there is a solution it will NOT be done by us Humans but by Mother Nature alone, without our interference. If there is a 0.001% chance of a solution, it will again be only this, "to let Mother Nature be and help Mother Nature do it's own thing in any possible way and see what happens". I personally don't see any way out of this predicament, Mother Nature is in charge of us all. But if you can't live without a solution, then i recommend helping the living planet. If you want a goal going forward in life, i recommend following and maybe joining the green resistance movements and helping the species that surround you (check my other video "A Last Stand" featuring Derrick Jensen). This is not about the future of civilization but about the future of the living planet. Don't be hubris like the rest of the population. Let us be nature's warriors. All of us will die at some point, there is no escape. Thanks for watching.

Produced by Marc Haneburght.


Category
Science & Technology
 



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 06, 2016, 03:39:19 pm »

Only a radical change in how Americans (and others) live can reduce carbon emissions.  A carbon tax will do next to nothing in reducing carbon consumption but it will send the message that it is OK to pollute if you can pay for it.  It will also send the message that since it is now taxed we don't have worry about carbon in the atmosphere any more.

I will not be voting for this well meaning but simple minded proposition that would cost me seventy five bucks a year just to drive.  The way the machinery of society works it could soon be a mark of status to conspicuously consume carbon just because you have the money to do so.

Typical American bullshit thinking economic manipulations can fix everything.  This is lip service and liable to interfere with effacious solutions which actually can make a difference.

I expect grief from Agelbert about this and I don't care.

 :coffee:

Quote
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- President Lyndon B. Johnson, Feb. 2, 1965

Quote

"God always forgives, but the earth does not. Take care of the earth so it does not respond with destruction,"

 -- Pope Francis, at a UN conference in Rome, Nov. 19, 2014

Seems I am not alone, my greatest objection is the burden would be cleverly shifted to the poor.  - K-Dog

From: http://www.progressivevotersguide.com/

Vote NO on I-732

Initiative 732 has divided groups committed to fighting climate change. It would reduce carbon pollution by taxing it and cut other taxes by a similar amount. Although it’s well-intended, puts a strong price on carbon emissions, and tackles an incredibly urgent problem, it has some serious flaws that have generated strong opposition from many progressive groups that are committed to reducing carbon pollution. Opponents have several concerns:

    Although I-732 is supposed to be revenue neutral, drafters inadvertently created huge additional tax breaks for companies like Boeing so it would cost more than it will bring in. A recent state budget analysis has determined that these tax breaks would cost taxpayers approximately $797 million over six years. As a result, I-732 would blow a giant hole in the state budget at a time when we are already failing to adequately fund schools, health care, and other essential services.
    It fails to invest any carbon tax revenue in clean energy sources. Increasing our use of clean energy like solar and wind power is a critical part of fighting climate change, as well as decreasing our use of fossil fuels. In addition, it fails to limit carbon pollution or to enforce the carbon pollution reductions already required by law.
    I-732 proponents failed to engage communities of color and workers – the ones disproportionately impacted by climate change -- in developing an approach to provide an economically just transition away from fossil fuels. The result is an initiative that does not adequately address their priorities and faces strong opposition from groups representing communities of color and labor unions.

I-732 supporters argue the urgency of fighting climate change compels us to act immediately and that we can’t afford to wait for a different proposal. Although we are highly motivated to reduce carbon pollution and appreciate the sentiments of the initiative's supporters, I-732’s flaws are serious enough that we – like most statewide environmental groups - cannot support the proposal.

We look forward to working with a wide range of advocates to create and pass a stronger plan to fight climate change in the near future.
Progressive
Opponents
Fuse WA, Washington State Labor Council, OneAmerica Votes, Front and Centered, Puget Sound Sage, Progreso, Children's Alliance

Other groups that do not support I-732: Washington Conservation Voters, Washington Environmental Council, Sierra Club


Beware Greeks bearing gifts.

     

If it is NOT really a carbon tax, but a scheme to put the burden of paying for pollution on the poor, then I am in agreement with you.

But we cannot avert our eyes from the fact that the unsustainable status quo of energy source exploitation already puts the burden of most of the health downsides from fossil fuel and mining pollution on the poor. The S.C.C. (Social Cost of Carbon)_ is disproportionately born by the poorest in the USA and in the rest of the world.

K-Dog, you and I don't see eye to eye on some issues like the level of police racism, but we are generally on the same page as to the environmental destruction going on. I apologize for berating you in the past on the social Cost of Carbon. I am way to passionate for my own good on that subject.

The problem with pricing carbon is that the most powerful energy lobbies want to game the carbon tax so that we-the-people pay for the cleanup. So, yeah, it's just like them to call something a "carbon tax" that is nothing of the kind and is elitist instead of egalitarian.

But that doesn't take away the problem. The problem is that pollution is degrading the biosphere. So, in a sane world, you recognize that you are in a hole, and you stop digging.

Which means, ANYONE that uses polluting energy should pay for ameliorating the effects of that pollution proportionately. But the fossil fuel industry does not want to hear that because they use much more fossil fuels than they advertise in their exploitation of fossil fuels, be they coal, oil or gas. This is the dirty little (actually it's HUGE) secret to their gamed ERoEI numbers. Fossil fuels, when all the energy inputs are computed, are energy return negative. It's only because of their massive "subsidies" that they can claim a competitive product.

What I am saying is that, in a sane world, you and I would NOT pay anything for fossil fuel welfare queen "subsidies" (as we do NOW 24/7), but would pay X Carbon Tax on a fossil fuel product such as gasoline or "natural" (fossil, not from truly natural methanogenic life forms) gas and such ONLY if we are in the business of extracting fossil fuels for refining and marketing.

THEN, the fossil fuel industry can only sell the product at the correct price. But, if TPTB want to pass the buck from the fossil fuel industry straight to us, then it is obviously a scam every bit as heinous as the present "subsidy" structure.

The status quo is not sustainable. Reality will out. The poorest are already paying the highest price for the biosphere degradation for short term fossil fuel profits.

We can transition rationally and equitably or we can transition with a cascade of collapse events forcing the polluters kicking and screaming to stop polluting. Those are the only two futures that are realistic.

I think you would prefer a rational transition.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 04, 2016, 02:10:23 pm »

Climate| Nov. 04, 2016 09:35AM EST

Washington Voters Step Up, Pass the Nation's First Carbon Tax   

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.


In the article body it explains that the new Carbon Tax will enable a DECREASE in the the sales tax  ;D, plus up to $1,500 for a Working Families Tax Credit for low-income families. 

Full article:

http://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-tax-robert-kennedy-jr-2077945567.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 03, 2016, 09:05:38 pm »

Before the Flood

Quote
Published on Oct 30, 2016


Join Leonardo DiCaprio as he explores the topic of climate change, and discovers what must be done today to prevent catastrophic disruption of life on our planet.
➡ Subscribe: http://bit.ly/NatGeoSubscribe
➡ Get the soundtrack on iTunes: http://apple.co/2e6e9dq
➡ Discover your climate impact: http://carbotax.org/
➡ Learn more & take action: http://on.natgeo.com/2eWxnkW

Act Now #BeforeTheFlood:
For every use of #BeforeTheFlood across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram between October 24 – November 18, 21st Century Fox and National Geographic will together donate $1 to Pristine Seas and $1 to the Wildlife Conservation Society, up to $50,000 to each organization.

About Before the Flood:
Before the Flood, directed by Fisher Stevens, captures a three-year personal journey alongside Academy Award-winning actor and U.N. Messenger of Peace Leonardo DiCaprio as he interviews individuals from every facet of society in both developing and developed nations who provide unique, impassioned and pragmatic views on what must be done today and in the future to prevent catastrophic disruption of life on our planet.

Get More National Geographic:
Official Site: http://bit.ly/NatGeoOfficialSite
Facebook: http://bit.ly/FBNatGeo
Twitter: http://bit.ly/NatGeoTwitter
Instagram: http://bit.ly/NatGeoInsta

About National Geographic:
National Geographic is the world's premium destination for science, exploration, and adventure. Through their world-class scientists, photographers, journalists, and filmmakers, Nat Geo gets you closer to the stories that matter and past the edge of what's possible.

Before the Flood - Full Movie | National Geographic

National Geographic
https://www.youtube.com/natgeo


Category
Science & Technology
 

License
Standard YouTube License

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 02, 2016, 09:44:52 pm »

09/30/2016 01:21 PM 

Will US Give Up Great Gains Made on Renewable Energy?

SustainableBusiness.com News

Under President Obama, the US has become a world leader on clean energy (say goodbye to this if Trump is elected).

 Amazing gains on wind, solar, LED lighting and electric vehicles have all taken place since he took office in 2008.   

23 states now use renewable electricity as a primary energy source
, says the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).   

Revolution Now, Accelerating Clean Energy, an annual report on this progress from the Department of Energy (DOE), shows how much costs have dropped since 2008 - 94% for LEDs; 73% for batteries; 54% for distributed solar PV; 64% for large-scale solar; and 41% for land-based wind energy.

Last year, over two thirds of new US electric power came from wind and solar PV.


Offshore Wind   

The first (tiny) offshore wind farm in the US is built! off the coast of Rhode Island.

As of 2015, the Interior Department has auctioned 14.6 gigawatts-worth of offshore leases on the east coast. A major 194-turbine farm is moving forward for NYC and many others are in the early stages of development.

Earlier this month, DOE released a National Offshore Wind Strategy, with a goal of producing 86 gigawatts - enough electricity for 23 million homes. Offshore wind farms would serve population centers along our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Great Lakes and Hawaii.

Over the next five years, DOE and Interior will support development of improved turbine designs, siting and safety guidelines, and facilitate cooperation among federal agencies to accelerate the process.

Leading Cities

Over the summer, Salt Lake City formally committed to reach 100% renewable energy by 2032 and to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2040 under Climate Positive 2040. 

It joins a dozen cities with a 100% commitment, including San Diego (by 2035) and San Francisco (by 2020). Sierra Club's "Ready for 100" campaign plans to sign 50 cities up by the end of this year. 

Going Forward

 In 12 years, batteries that store energy at utility scale will be as widespread as solar panels are now, revolutionizing the way people use energy, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

 And in 15 years, renewables (including hydro) will overtake fracked gas, becoming the dominant energy source in the US!, they project.

This transition to a clean energy economy will drive economic growth for decades, create well-paying jobs and increasing household incomes, concludes NextGen Climate America's report, "Economic Analysis of U.S. Decarbonization Pathways."

If we really want to bring manufacturing back to the US, this is the way to do it. Homegrown companies will produce the parts, equipment, and products for deep decarbonization technologies. 

By investing in clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the report shows that over 1 million jobs would be created by 2030 and nearly 2 million by 2050.   

It would be the saddest thing I can think of for us to turn back the clock by electing a president and congress so stuck in the fossil past. 

Read our article, Knock, Knock, Are You Aware the US Can Run on 100% Renewable Energy?

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26671
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 01, 2016, 10:54:36 pm »

Here's a video that is 100% accurate, if a bit melodramatic. Worshippers of fossil fuels are in total denial about the totally suicidal situation we find ourselves in. Peak DEATH is what we should be concerned with, not Peak oil.

Quote
Published on Jun 17, 2016


Part One of Two. Next is Oxygen. What can I say. We f#*ked up bad. We tried to warn you, but not scare you. Should have worried less about scaring folks.

Methane (part one) and Oxygene (part two). One we are getting too much of. The other, we are losing. We have warned of the melting methane threat, but we had no idea. The words "abrupt", "catastrophic", and "collapse" have now entered the lexicon of Climate Change discussions. While trying to soft peddle the threat, we underestimated the feedback loops and runaway affects of secondary gasses and effects. Yes, the human body CAN take an average increase in temperature of a few degrees - but our food sources (grains and rice) cannot. Many scientists are done warning the public. They are saying "Good Bye". Seriously. This is not a joke or a sensationalist grab for attention. We blew it, big time.

Next we are going to look at the unexpected consequences and the effects on our atmospheric oxygen - which NASA tries to placate the public with "greener earth due to increased CO2!", yea, all better. But it's not. Notice the words "on land" in their report. But we don't get the bulk of our oxygene from land or plants on land. We get it from the oceans. And they are dying just as fast as other planetary systems. Sorry. But I'm just the messenger.

To VIEW ALL SOURCE MATERIALS please visit our playlist on Environment/Nature Published on Jun 17, 2016


Part One of Two. Next is Oxygen. What can I say. We f#*ked up bad. We tried to warn you, but not scare you. Should have worried less about scaring folks.

Methane (part one) and Oxygene (part two). One we are getting too much of. The other, we are losing. We have warned of the melting methane threat, but we had no idea. The words "abrupt", "catastrophic", and "collapse" have now entered the lexicon of Climate Change discussions. While trying to soft peddle the threat, we underestimated the feedback loops and runaway affects of secondary gasses and effects. Yes, the human body CAN take an average increase in temperature of a few degrees - but our food sources (grains and rice) cannot. Many scientists are done warning the public. They are saying "Good Bye". Seriously. This is not a joke or a sensationalist grab for attention. We blew it, big time.

Next we are going to look at the unexpected consequences and the effects on our atmospheric oxygen - which NASA tries to placate the public with "greener earth due to increased CO2!", yea, all better. But it's not. Notice the words "on land" in their report. But we don't get the bulk of our oxygene from land or plants on land. We get it from the oceans. And they are dying just as fast as other planetary systems. Sorry. But I'm just the messenger.

To VIEW ALL SOURCE MATERIALS please visit our playlist on Environment/Nature https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Thanks, and best of luck in the next few years. Remember: Life's a Gas.


+-Recent Topics

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 10:19:31 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 08:54:18 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 08:10:28 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 07:17:14 pm

Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 06:54:06 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 06:32:10 pm

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 03:32:37 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
April 26, 2017, 08:30:25 pm

Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable by AGelbert
April 26, 2017, 08:05:17 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
April 26, 2017, 06:57:14 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial