+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 39
Latest: Felipe_solarmining_chile
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 7221
Total Topics: 215
Most Online Today: 18
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 22
Total: 22

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 15 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:

(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

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

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 17, 2017, 05:16:21 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Here you can view a discussion of biodiversity, climate change and the impact on Africa.   

Also there is a discussion of biomass bio-energy and how it can replace fossil fuels.

Biological Extinction | Discussion #16

Casina Pio IV

Published on Mar 2, 2017

How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend

PAS-PASS Workshop
Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

Agelbert NOTE: The first speaker in the first video in the series pointedly singled out the meter reading (see below)
of most of TPTB in regard to those most adversely impacted by deleterious Climate Change, even though TPTB actually are TOTALLY responsible for visiting this damage on the the biosphere.

The first speaker goes on to say that if this problem of greedy nationalism and lack of empathy is not solved, we might as well give up.

I agree with him that the problem is one of lack of ethics, not lack of resources.

Biological Extinction | Discussion #1

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 17, 2017, 02:54:31 pm »

Biological Extinction | Discussion #7

Casina Pio IV

Published on Mar 2, 2017

How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend

PAS-PASS Workshop
Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

Agelbert NOTE: Technofixes, so far, have always eventually failed because the central issue is an ethical one, not a resource availability one, which is merely the symptom of unethical behavior by TPTB. Technofixes have just kicked the resource can down the road.

While we ARE tool makers, and will never escape that propensity to tinker, we also can choose to be ethical about our tools or unethical. If technology is applied ethically (i.e. by ensuring the protection of ALL the species affected that are known to provide a healthy habitat for humans), then technology could be a wise choice. However, if we don't learn to add and subtract with biosphere math, we are doomed.

I am in the process of posting various videos on a  recent Biological Extinction conference attended by eminent scientists, economists and scholars. They include many hours of no bullshit hard facts, thankfully free of profit over planet polluter propaganda from the fossil fuel industry crooks and liars. There is no fossil fuel pie in the sky at that conference. There are over 15 videos, some as short as 27 minutes, some as long as nearly two hours. The only major gripe I have, and that is with a very small portion of the conference, is the push by the Swiss to celebrate all things GMO (for the poor in India and Africa and China  ;)) when the Swiss DO NOT eat GMO foods. So, the Monsanto money has biased the Swiss, unfortunately.

But overall, the conference is excellent. One eminent scientist lady (Dr. Lubchenco) describes our situation as a "death of a thousand cuts" global degradation of the biosphere. She calls the oceans the "Wet West" analogous to the "Wild West" term, because the pollution, overfishing and just plain exploiting of everything is at the "anything goes" level.

Renewable Revolution
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 16, 2017, 02:29:10 pm »

Tomorrow is Yesterday...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 13, 2017, 09:06:14 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Learn about biological stability of systems, negative feedbacks, positive feedbacks, population trends, ocean acidification and the very important issue of increasing anoxic (oxygen starved) conditions in the oceans directly caused by the continued burning of fossil fuels in the video below:

Biological Extinction | Discussion #11

Casina Pio IV

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

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

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 12, 2017, 11:48:02 pm »

Security Experts Identify 12 Likely Triggers of War as the Planet Warms
Lorraine Chow 09 June 2017

Climate change isn't just causing glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise and forests to set fire. It has becoming increasingly evident that Earth's rising temperatures also threatens international security.

In fact, an analysis released Friday by the Center for Climate and Security has identified 12 "epicenters," or categories, where the world's rising temperatures could trigger major global conflict.

"Any one of the climate and security epicenters can be disruptive," said Caitlin Werrell, co-president of the Center for Climate and Security and editor of the report, Epicenters of Climate and Security: The New Geostrategic Landscape of the Anthropocene. "Taken together, however, these epicenters can present a serious challenge to international security as we understand it."

The categories include eroding state sovereignty, low-lying nations going underwater, as well as the disruption in the global coffee trade that employs 125 million people worldwide.

Previous studies have identified how terrorist groups in certain regions are taking advantage of increasingly scarce natural resources such as water and food as a "weapon of war." Additionally, a U.S. military report from 2014 called climate change a "catalyst for conflict" and a "threat multiplier." President Obama once said that "no challenge poses a great threat than climate change, and it's an "immediate risk to our national security."

Meanwhile, President Trump and many top officials in his administration brush off or reject the science of climate change. Conservative media has also mocked the idea that climate change is related to the growth of terrorism. And let's not forget Trump's middle finger to the world when he dropped the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, which has been signed by every nation on Earth except war-torn Syria and Nicaragua, which didn't think the accord was strong enough.

The Center for Climate and Security report stresses why mitigating climate change should be the highest priority for governments and institutions around the world.

"This report demonstrates the kind of cross-sectorial thinking needed to anticipate and mitigate climate-related systemic risks—risks that will be disruptive at local, national, regional and global levels," said Francesco Femia, co-president of the Center for Climate and Security and editor of the report. "Security risks thousands of miles away can have an effect on us at home. Understanding that can help advance preventive rather than reactive solutions."

These are the 12 epicenters identified by the security experts in the report:

1. Eroding State Sovereignty: An inability to absorb the stresses of a rapidly-changing climate may erode state sovereignty (Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell);

2. Disappearing Nations: Many low-lying nations are in danger of being completely submerged by rising seas (Andrew Holland and Esther Babson);

3. Conflict Over Melting Water Towers: Climate change can increase tensions and conflict among the 4 billion people dependent on mountain “water towers" (Troy Sternberg);

4. Conflict Over Fisheries: A warming ocean is driving critical fish stocks into contested waters, contributing to conflict between states (Michael Thomas);

5. Tensions in a Melting Arctic: Increased activity in a melting Arctic raises new security and geopolitical risks (Katarzyna Zysk and David Titley);

6. Weaponized Water: As climate change exacerbates water stress, non-state actors, including international terrorist organizations, are increasingly using water as a weapon (Marcus King and Julia Burnell);

7. Disrupted Strategic Trade Routes: Climate change will place strains on maritime straits that are critical for global trade and security (Adam H. Goldstein and Constantine Samaras);

8. Compromised Coffee Trade: Climate change may also disrupt critical global trading networks, like the coffee trade. which currently supports 125 million people worldwide (Shiloh Fetzek);

9. More (and Worse) Pandemics: Climate change may increase the likelihood and range of pandemics, which could threaten global security (Kaleem Hawa);

10. Flooded Coastal Megacities: Rapidly expanding coastal megacities are threatened by climate impacts like sea level rise, which can destabilize nations (Janani Vivekenanda and Neil Bhatiya);

11. Increased Displacement and Migration: Climate change is becoming a more significant driver of migration and displacement (Robert McLeman);

12. Enhanced Nuclear Risks: Climate change, nuclear security, and policies that are not sensitive to both simultaneously, can increase regional and global security threats (Christine Parthemore)

Here is a video introduction to the report:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 09, 2017, 07:34:48 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The first half of the program (CAROLYN BAKER – THE AMERICAN SHADOW) is rather depressing. I am a Christian and all Christians are branded as deniers living in La La Land. Anyone that has seen what I post knows I am not denying the threat of Catastrophic climate change. I think a REAL Christian understands that our situation is because of humanity's sinful lack of responsibility for not being good stewards of the environment. The "Christians" in the USA that pretend God is going to "take care of it" are PSEUDO-Christians. That is, they are NOT Christians; they are hyper-nationalist clueless morons that worship a flag instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, yeah, most of the "Christian" churches in the USA are exactly like that. But I won't change my label because right wing fascists have co-opted it for profit over biosphere propaganda purposes. Carolyn Baker is right when she quoted George Carlin that "America is an Oil company with an Army". But I wish she would not cast Christianity in such a negative light.  :(

The second half of the podcast with Naomi Oreskes is far more informative. 

She makes it clear that the claim by so many scientists, and many other, otherwise objective people  ;), that emotion is "irrational" is exactly backwards. 

Scientists framing scientific studies in statistical terms and refusing to use stark and strong terms like "dire threat" or "Existential threat" is the norm because using words like "bad" is supposed to be "irrational". 

Neuroscience has now proven that framing a threat in dry, unemotional terms is actually a DISSERVICE to the scientific method because it results in less awareness of the threat by those communicated with.

Emotion is actually sine qua non for rational argument, the exact opposite of what the "common wisdom" of the scientific community normally sticks to like a religion.

Consequently, the scientific community has FAILED to convince the leaders of the nations of the world to objectively weigh the threat in terms of the catastrophic damage that is unavoidable when governments support the polluters instead of stopping the polluters from polluting.

THE IRRATIONAL FEAR scientists have of being labelled "emotional" people "crying wolf" has contributed to increasing the probability of our extinction due to lack of timely action to stop and reverse runaway Global Greenhouse Warming.

It's TIME for scientists to become RATIONAL about there responsibility to show a LOT of emotion    on any issue that warrants it.

Not doing so is IRRATIONAL behavior, not "prudent, measured, dry, reasonable, scientific, etc." as we, who have any science background, were taught.

This flawed method is exactly what the polluters  have used against the dissemination of the reality of our plight due to the burning of fossil fuels.


In our second interview, scientist and author Naomi Oreskes takes us into the future when Trump wins and we all do nothing about climate change. She calls it the track to extinction.

Oreskes is a leading American earth scientist in her own right. She’s also a historian of science. Currently Naomi  is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, at Harvard University.


You can learn more about Naomi here in her Wikipedia entry. One of her most cited papers is the 2004 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” published in the journal Science.

Oreskes is the author of the seminal book “Merchants of Doubt” shows how industry hires scientists to create doubt in the public mind about well-understood dangers.

This strategy was crafted for the tobacco industry (and worked for almost 40 years) – but then applied by the chemical industry for many toxins, including DDT. It was further adapted by energy and electricity companies to throw doubt on global warming science.

In 2010, I interviewed Dr. Oreskes.  You can download the interview here or listen to it, below.

In 2014, Oreskes brought out her new book “The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future”. The book description is:

The year is 2393, and the world is almost unrecognizable. Clear warnings of climate catastrophe went ignored for decades, leading to soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, widespread drought and—finally—the disaster now known as the Great Collapse of 2093, when the disintegration of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet led to mass migration and a complete reshuffling of the global order. Writing from the Second People’s Republic of China on the 300th anniversary of the Great Collapse, a senior scholar presents a gripping and deeply disturbing account of how the children of the Enlightenment—the political and economic elites of the so-called advanced industrial societies—failed to act, and so brought about the collapse of Western civilization.”
It’s all science-based fiction. Climate change is shown as it ramps up, while humans continue in denial, as we do now. A top scientist makes it real.

Listening to this interview by Francesca Rheannon, Oreskes seemed to perfectly capture our present, just as Donald Trump announced the United States would pull out of the Paris climate agreement. I couldn’t say it better.


The authors of the Paris agreement cleverly realized that democracies can change course with any election. So the agreement contains a clause that allows a country to exit, but only four years after filing to leave. That means the United States will technically be part of the agreement, right up to the 2020 general election.

It’s still possible a new President could repair the damage. Or is it? We don’t know if other countries will want to bail out of the Paris accord, following Trump’s lead. So far, the opposite is happening. Nicaragua, which didn’t sign because they didn’t think the agreement went far enough, is now saying they will join. And as you know, almost a hundred America Mayors and Governors have announced they will continue to act to help America reach it’s emission reduction goals. Will Trump’s action stimulate faster reductions? We’ll see.


On the Pacifica Radio Network, Francesca Rheannon produces the series “Writer’s voice”. On Pacifica, I found this about Francesca:

“Francesca Rheannon is an independent radio producer and show host. She is producer and co-host of Writer’s Voice, a talk show about writing, writers and their works, that has been on the air since 2004. She also is a freelance broadcast news reporter, who has produced features for public radio stations, Sprouts on Pacifica, and The Homelessness Marathon. She lives in South Hadley, MA.”

Find all her great programs at writersvoice.net.

We are out of time. If you can afford to help this radio show keep going, donations of any amount are always welcome. Radio stations do not pay me for this program. Your donations help me provide Radio Ecoshock free to everyone, all over the world.

I’m Alex Smith. Thank you for listening to Radio Ecoshock.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 05, 2017, 08:10:16 pm »

Massive 12,000-Year-Old Methane Blowout Craters In Arctic Ocean Still Venting Methane, Research Finds

June 5th, 2017 by James Ayre


Enormous methane expulsions from the Arctic Ocean’s seafloor some 12,000 years ago created hundreds of kilometers-wide craters :o  in the region — which are apparently still to this day leaking large amounts of methane — according to new research published in the journal Science.

“The massive craters were formed around 12,000 years ago, but are still seeping methane and other gases.” Illustration: Andreia Plaza Faverola

Full article with additional graphics:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 03, 2017, 06:06:06 pm »

The 6th Mass Extinction Event is here * Geologic History shows why CO2 caused Global Warming before
Marc Haneburght

Published on Jun 1, 2017

Runaway Climate Change is causing exponential major flooding (happening now) due to more heavy rainfall on Earth, and are taking too much nutrients by rivers into the oceans, creating anoxia events. A deadly purple sulfur bacteria. Too much is never a good thing. It's what made oil deposits happen in the past.

In the past the dinosaurs roamed the planet during the start of an extinction event, now it will be us. The next clever beings might learn in time what we did wrong, maybe not.

The planet might turn into Mars because of nobody being at the controls of nuclear power plants that will destroy the ozone with massive amounts of radiation.

Oceanic anoxic events or anoxic events (anoxia conditions) refer to intervals in the Earth's past where portions of oceans become depleted in oxygen (O2) at depths over a large geographic area. During some of these events, euxinia, waters that contained H2S hydrogen sulfide, developed. Although anoxic events have not happened for millions of years, the geological record shows that they happened many times in the past.

Anoxic events coincided with several mass extinctions and may have contributed to them. These mass extinctions include some that geobiologists use as time markers in biostratigraphic dating. Many geologists believe oceanic anoxic events are strongly linked to slowing of ocean circulation, climatic warming, and elevated levels of greenhouse gases.

Global warming. The biggest story ever. Too big for the general public.  >:(

Agelbert NOTE: MUST SEE video! To skip ancient history, begin at the 32 minute mark.

This video is tremendously educational and instructive because it demonstrates exactly how our scientists accurately determined CO2 levels in the distant past, as long ago as 200 million years, when today's oil deposits are believed to have been formed.

How did they do it? ??? They found 200 million year old fossils of a plant called a Ginko, that did NOT "evolve" AT ALL  ;D, all the way to the present (leaf structure is identical to modern Ginko leaves).

Permian Ginko leaf fossil on left  - Modern Ginko Leaf on right

The Ginko has pores in the underside of the leaves. The number of pores it forms is a function, as has been determined by empirical evidence, of the available atmospheric CO2. IOW, the more  CO2, the more pores.

The fossilized Ginkos leaf pore totals, exactly as the leaf pore totals of modern Ginko test plants grown in increasingly higher CO2 containing atmospheres, evidence 4 times the CO2 level of pre-industrial human civilization. THAT was an ice free world.

HOWEVER, that was NOT a "tropical paradise", as the fossil fuel fascist propagandist crooks and liars want you to believe.

Once the ice is GONE, some death dealing chemical processes begin until just about every macroscopic oxygen breathing life form is dead. It begins with the death of most of the species populating the Marine Trophic Pyramid. HOW? ???

When the ice is gone, the ocean currents that circulate oxygen throughout the oceanic depths in a 500 year cycle come to a HALT. This makes more and more parts of the ocean anoxic, so all the oxygen breathers die or flee closer to the still oxygenated shallows.

Meanwhile, the high CO2 levels acidify the oceans, killing off the Oxygen producing phytoplankton (can't make their Calcium Carbonate structure - like mollusks also can't - despite having more CO2 "food" available) that had become widespread with the early initial increase of CO2 levels (see massive algae blooms going on as we speak).

The dead Phytoplankton begin to sink through the shallows, triggering bacterial feeding frenzy activity of a type of purple bacteria that decomposes phytoplankton, hates oxygen, but needs sunlight (it uses the sun but excretes H2S - Hydrogen sulfide poisonous gas, not  oxygen).

So THEN the shallows become anoxic too. Then what is left of the oxygen breathers die. This not "just evolution", as the idiots who compare our fossil fuel based civilization's stupid and suicidal greedy activity to massive volcanic eruptions, as if  humans have as little free will as a volcano, ridiculously claim. But the imbeciles who wish to perpetuate the fossil fuel burning status quo frequently resort to this craven attempt to avoid responsibility for the harm being done.

Allowing the CO2 to get so high that it triggers the death of most marine life is Genocidal Criminal Negligence.

What just happened in the death of the Great Barrier reef is just the beginning of the heating process resulting from too much CO2. There is still a lot of ice. There is still oceanic circulation and oxygenation.

But ALREADY, JUST THE HEAT is killing the most important marine life nurseries in the oceans.

SO WHAT, you might ask. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years. Don't we have lots of time too?   

WHY? ???

Because the RATE we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere is THOUSANDS of TIMES FASTER than when the massive volcanic eruptions caused CO2 triggered extinctions!

When the  ice is gone and that rotten egg  smell from ubiquitous  Hydrogen sulfide poisonous gas reaches your nostrils, expect a VERY brief growth industry in canned oxygen.  But don't expect the Fossil Fuel Fascist "industry"   to admit they destroyed the biosphere for short term profit.

Coming soon to your home: DOOM WEEK ON PLANET EARTH

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 03, 2017, 02:45:40 pm »

It's probably too late for most of us to materially change things for the better. This message from some very good, decent and hard working people trying to convince the world in general, and the USA in particular, to learn to add and subtract in biosphere math, pretty much sums it up:  :(


June 2, 2017

Trump to Paris, World: It’s Not You, It’s US. Only US. Ever.   

Well friends, it’s been quite a ride, and it’s far from over. But we’re in no mood for snarky analysis.
Instead of our regular sass, indulge us, please, for a moment. We’d like to get a little personal. (Well, third person plural, anyway.)
Like many of you, we’ve dedicated a lot of time on Paris. Years of work went into laying the groundwork for the global agreement. Getting reporters familiar with the nuances of international diplomacy, working with scientists to quantify emission scenarios, helping grassroots groups and frontline communities tell their stories, and so much more. It’s been a core part of our work, and our lives, for years.
All, it feels, for nothing. Cast aside by a con man who got conned.
But did we fail? Have we lost? Was our effort, the community’s, the scientists’, the media’s, was it all a waste?
Maybe it was. But we tried. We poured our hearts and souls and brains into this work, day after day after day. Long hours connecting with scientists and reporters all over the world, so many weekends responding to one baseless attack after another, so many nights spent trying not to think about the fact that if we don’t do our job right, the only thing at stake is the long term suitability of the planet for sustaining life. No biggie. No stress. The weight of the world totally isn’t on our shoulders. (At least we share that burden with so many wonderful people.)
But unfortunately, there is little that could be done to stop fossil fuel companies from funding politicians to do their bidding. There’s little more we can do to convince Murdoch (and now Mercer) media to tell the truth about the climate, no matter how many times we point out their lies. And it takes more than a few years to undo the damage of decades of concerted efforts by the Koch brothers and others to politicize and delegitimize science and evidence in the eyes of conservatives, swayed by deceptively simple talking points.
So excuse us while we take some time to lament the unraveling of what we’ve spent years building. We’re sure you’re doing the same. This is certainly a setback, but not the end of the line. The fight continues, as it has and as it will.

With that, we’ll leave you for the weekend with a message we desperately need to hear, and one you probably could stand to hear as well: It’s not your fault.

It’s not your fault. T-150

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 01, 2017, 06:18:10 pm »

Nixon oversaw US Peak Crude Oil, when in 1970 the Texas Railroad Commission who effectively limited Texan oil production to maintain price stability, lifted all restrictions on production. Nixon could forsee that decreasing US oil production would lead to increasing oil imports and huge outgoings of Dollars.  So he decoupled the Dollar from Gold allowing it to float, effectively removing all limits on money-printing. He also realised that publicly acknowledging Peak Oil would have dramatic effects on the oil majors future prospects, and share price, so Peak Oil was never to be acknowledged.

By 1977 the situation had become:

Carter's "Fireside chat" of 1977 shows he clearly understood about Peak Oil and its consequences.

as did Obama's in his 2013 speech
What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face.  (Applause.)  That’s not possible.

And while the climate challenge would bite some time after 2030   , the energy challenge will bite before 2020   . Which would worry you more? 

How could they NOT know, with all the experts and unpublished data that they have access to, and internal oil company forecasts for production that they are privy to? 

So Trump must know that too, even if he doesn't want to believe it. He probably knows the exact year that the Peak Oil problem will become impossible to hide, and what year the whole economy will collapse, and how much longer it can be put off by how much more money-printing. It's not something that can be set aside for idealogical reasons. The next crash will be the last.

Your grasp of the peak oil math is accurate, but your grasp of the relative importance of catastrophic climate change versus peak oil is woefully inaccurate, if not sadly upside down. WHY?

Before I answer that, please realize that that Big Oil, despite knowing the peak oil math, stubbornly have tried to cling to their UPSTREAM "business model". The following graphic is irrefutable evidence that Big Oil, HAVING THE MONEY to transition to clean energy, IGNORED their own peak oil research and DOUBLED DOWN on UPSTREAM (i.e. exploration for, and exploitation of, oil and gas sources   ) investments:

They certainly could have spent that 900 BILLION DOLLARS in Renewable energy, but greedily (and stupidly ) decided NOT TO on the basis of extending the day of reckoning for peak oil (and BLATANTLY ignoring the fact that said upstream activity would goose catastrophic climate change even more). So, that gigantic amount of money argues against all the claims you just made about Big Oil (and Trump) "knowing the score", even though Carter and Nixon DID know the score (Obama did NOT really know the score! His mealy mouthed attempts to do "all the above" in energy technologies was clear evidence of that.)

Yet, you continue to believe that Big Oil is acting rationally by giving more importance to fueling civilization than trying to stop polluting it to extinction. The two dangers cannot be weighed logically as you continue to attempt to do. Now to answer the "WHY?" I first presented to you above.

Let us assume, for the sake of non-argument, that your RCP 4.5 scenario assumptions, which is probably where you get the rationale for the year 2030 being the leading front of costly climate change impacts, are accurate (I think we are in RCP 8.5 or worse territory now, but we have argued that before and you are sticking with your conservative RCP 4.5 view no matter what.  :P ).

Peak civilization sustaining ENERGY (which is what you REALLY MEAN by "peak oil"  ;)) is, as you claim, a sort of light switch type (i.e. sudden) event that triggers a major collapse.

Of course we all want to avoid that. Of course, the trajectory we are on NOW will definitely produce that collapse eventually.

However, your estimate of the date of said collapse being around 10 years prior to the major catastrophic climate events is NOT a proper or reasonable rationale for prioritizing looking for more fossil fuels above transitioning to clean energy and banning fossil fuel use BECAUSE:

1) Lack of energy for most people to live a decent life will cause a lot of death and misery, but won't make us go extinct. After the main event, a new equilibrium will be established within a few decades or less. It is NOT the end of the world and should NOT be treated like the number one priority for the perpetuation of a viable biosphere and the human species.

2) Lack of energy will NOT cause multiple biosphere species extinctions, many of which WE NEED to avoid going extinct ourselves.

3) Catastrophic climate change will continue to WORSEN for over a CENTURY (or up to 1,000 YEARS!) after the first impacts are felt (as they are NOW, not in 2030, being felt).

I really do not see why this is so hard for you to grasp. We live in an interconnected system of biological activity. THAT is in DANGER. THAT is the first, 2nd, 3rd, (keep going for over a 100 years counting) PRIORITY  for action in the defense of the biosphere, if we wish to survive.

An integral part of surviving is to STOP POLLUTING THE PLANET. Any claim to "delaying" the collapse, as a rationale to engage in MORE oil and gas UPSTREAM investment and exploitation    , actually makes the collapse MORE LIKELY SOONER, in addition to increasing the probability of our extinction for not taking timely action to preserve the biosphere.

This is not all that hard to figure, Palloy. The fossil fuel "industry" doesn't want to let go of their "business model". So they keep making excuses that counteract the good advice of their own scientists. As long as the fossil fuelers like Putin and Exxon etc, et al call the shots and pull the Trump strings, we ARE SCREWED. Greed has destroyed their ability to reason. It's time you accepted that sad reality is based on irrational greed, not "peak oil" math.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 28, 2017, 05:26:22 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Knarf is a Buddhist that lives a principled life in a monastery. I applaud his behavior though I do not share his beleifs.

I truly would want to see all Christians like Algebert "do the right thing". All Christians right now, do not understand the nature of love and compassion that AG and many other Religious people do. Most of the time the Religious person is just following the sheep like path that their "leaders" impress on them. We have all seen the the TV evangelist type, and the fallen from grace type, but most follow their leaders advice on how to act and they are usually driven by their mixed up ideas about their Religion. So, this unethical behavior that drove us to this point of collapse has little to do with heart of the message in Religion. If we dictate morality, and ethical behavior we have become like our enemies who dictate the way we go about trashing the earth's environment.

If we have a massive propaganda campaign saying "You have a choice!" "Do the right thing", I have a feeling that a few people might understand, but most have heard it, and have chosen to live with half baked ideas, and thereby have half baked actions and solutions. Religion aside, people can be knowledgeable, sincere, compassionate, and really care about our planet and where we are heading. It is up to the individual to grow into maturity, which right now is not happening to us humans. I don't see any way TPTB are going to change their agenda. They won't change their behavior even after massive protests and riots.

  If we act in an open minded way to each other about the facts and the suffering that surrounds us, and NOT project our egoistic notions onto these things, there might be a chance to turn a few, if not many people's mental grooves to a sane approach to living simply, and acting for the best way to solve our adolescent predispositions.

  I do not believe in Karma, reincarnation, reaping what you sow, or "justice" by a divine creator. In reality it just doesn't happen that way unless  the person uses the "fake news" approach. I think that when we all realize that we are basically ignorant of what life is about, and quit feeding ourselves like pigs and raping the earth, we might have a chance to create a habitable world and live in peace with each other. 

My friend, the issue is not now, or ever was, religion. I said that believing in God helps to understand that nature, which interacts with all life in a harmony humans can just barely grasp enough to follow, must be obeyed if we wish to do the right thing. The WRONG thing is what we are doing.

I agree religion will not help.

But until TPTB, regardless of what you or I think or believe, decide that we ARE doing the WRONG thing now by disobeying nature, we ARE DOOMED.

Knarf, when you are in a hole, it is logical and reasonable to stop digging. But first TPTB need to ADMIT we are in a hole. They haven't done that yet.

And if those 5 billion or so people on the bottom of the economic ladder all decide to listen to what you and I agree on and live responsibly and in harmony with each other and the biosphere, we are still doomed because the 17% or so on the top will continue to do 80% plus of the extinction coffee damage.

Whether you or I believe in Karma or retribution is irrelevant to TPTB. They know most people will die. They don't care, Knarf. They are intelliburros. Their scientists are grasping at silly Darwinian 'apex predator' straws to try to explain all this evil, self destructive behavior away.

If you do not wish to believe that evil exists, then that's up to you. But it is rather obvious to the casual observer that humans  engage in destructive behavior that will probably off our species. If that is not a consequence of MISSING THE MARK (i.e. sin), I don't know what is.

Actions have consequences and we have free will. Any scientist will agree without even bringing the issue of religion into the picture.

Our problem is lack of ethical behavior. We solve it or we are toast.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 28, 2017, 04:26:03 pm »

May 27, 2017, 03:49:13 AM

Agelbert Note: Quote from the above article:

Innovation does not solve problems, it creates them.

The above is an excellent example of a half-truth. The author is focusing, without mentioning it, on Dilworth's  idea that humans are too smart for their own good, as discussed in his the peer reviewed book Dilworth wrote showing how we-the-people had to pay about $468 a barrel  :o  :P (effective price to police the middle east for oil) in the FIRST Gulf war instead of using that money to become independent of Middle East oil. He showed how TPTB "justified"  that stupidity in the quote below:

Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists.
Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.

Yes, making we-the-people pay for war and other polluter fun and games IS a form of INNOVATION that CREATES problems and certainly DOES NOT solve problems; it exacerbated TWO problems: 1) the pollution problem AND 2) the concentration of wealth in fewer hands democracy destroying problem.

But it continues to be a half truth. From Dilworth's point of view, the innovation in human medicine of washing our hands and other other methods of antisepsis CREATES a bigger problem than it solves, simply because that boosts the human population beyond the available resources. (see: bacteria consuming agar n a petri dish quicker as the population increases, thereby hastening their demise - despite the instinctive ring circling delay attempt).

To take that argument to its logical end, the "innovation" of a large brain that gave us tool making created more problems than it solved for our ancestors, who proceeded to kill and eat anything or anybody that was either in their way, was edible, or both.

However, despite the above logic, which boils down to "Humans, like T-Rex, just DO WHAT THEY DO",  the argument is flawed.

HOW SO ? ???

The argument ignores the FACT that at each and every innovation event in human history, a bifurcation of he future viability level of the species, projected just before that innovation, occurred. The ASS-U-MEption that a more stable biosphere would have been obtained had our population been kept in check by disease, dumbness or whatever cannot be proven because we didn't go that route. It's just an assumption, like the deep ecologists have that humans are a disease on earth and the biosphere will be better off without us.

True, innovations SEEM to increase the rate we use up available resources in a fixed biosphere area, which temporarily increases the species footprint on the biosphere while decreasing the long term viability of that species as its increasingly bigger footprint crowds out the other species it needs to survive.

They way things look NOW, the trajectory is extinction for humans, of course. That cannot be denied by any person with critical thinking skills (unless they work for the fossil fuel industry - they don't hire people with those skills  ;D).

BUT, at each and every bifurcation brought by innovation, an ETHICS BASED QUESTION WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED BY TPTB. Consistently, corrupt leaders with short term horizons ignored the Precautionary Principle of Science. And as specialization in human fields of endeavor increased, less and less people in decision making authority at the top had the skills or the inclination to look at the total biosphere cause and effect picture to determine if the human innovation was deleterious to it, to our eventual detriment. And EVEN when an obvious detriment to life was evidenced, profit over people and planet prevailed.


So, are we doomed if we CONTINUE to allow TPTB to refuse to make ETHICAL BEHAVIOR sine qua non in our society?

Absolutely. But we are not doomed because we are self aware, can innovate and do stupid things. WE are doomed because we made a conscious CHOICE to do so. It's called SIN (missing the mark). We DO have free will, despite what many, like the deep ecologists, claim to the contrary. But all these modern Darwin worshiping "highly evolved" intelliburros out there want to eschew, demean, disdain, ridicule and reject forget all concepts of ethics, right and wrong, morality, the concept of SIN or absolutely anything that gets in the way of them doing their selfish thing.

So much do the intelliburros fastidiously cling to to their relativist and rebellious mindset, that rather than ADMIT humanity made mistakes, and needs to correct them through ethical behavior, they claim that we rigidly just DO WHAT WE DO and throw up their hands, as the author of the article is doing.

I wrote some time ago, when discussing Dilworth's information about the Fossil Fuel Industry Capitalists:

The Fracking, pollution and GW we are being assaulted with are SYMPTOMS of the DISEASE killing our biosphere, not the disease itself.

If we don't seriously address this DISEASE of Sh it Canned Ethics for Short Term Profits of the fossil fuel FOOLS that are despoiling our biosphere and accelerating planetary pollution, the big die offs (including large segments of the human population) begin at 2030.

This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless lose of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

If all this was just about power politics, I might not be that concerned. Humans, particularly the overly ambitious and aggressive ones, have always fought and schemed to control and fleece the population at large.
But now we know the future of our biosphere is at stake. Now we know the entire edifice of dirty energy is a knife in the back of the biosphere that will destroy our species and many others.

The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that is saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

Mother nature will force it to do so.

Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a switch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the consequent die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates) in 2017. But millions of people demanding a transition to 100% renewable Energy will give us a fighting chance to win the Climate Victory.

You can help us leave dirty energy sources that are killing us behind.

All we have to do is use Common Sense, admit we were WRONG, and make ETHICAL BEHAVIOR sine qua non in human affairs.

We HAVE A CHOICE. But how can we make that choice if people no longer believe there is a difference between good and evil behavior? The short answer is that we can't. The apparently "easy" choice will always be taken. THAT IS WHAT GOT US HERE. THAT IS WHAT UNTHINKING, NON-TOOLMAKING, NON-SINNING BACTERIA DO in a petri dish with agar running out (after their instinctive ring 'circling' attempts collapse).


All we have to do is stop pretending otherwise. WE understand nature pretty well. It's time we obeyed her and put everybody who doesn't in jail. THAT is the INNOVATION in human affairs that would NOT create a bigger problem than the one it solved. You don't have to believe in God to admit you were wrong and that biosphere math MUST be our guide, but it helps;D

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 11, 2017, 07:15:33 pm »

Tony Seba on Disruptive Technologies at SeouLA 2017

Published on Apr 5, 2017

Stanford Instructor Tony Seba explained how major global industries such as energy and transportation will undergo a complete "disruption" by the year 2030 in an address to guests of the Pacific Council and the Korea Foundation in downtown Los Angeles on March 31, 2017.

The address was part of the inaugural SeouLA Forum, made possible by the generous support of the Korea Foundation. Following his remarks, a discussion with Mr. Seba was moderated by Jennifer Faust, executive director of the Pacific Council.

Learn more about the Pacific Council: www.pacificcouncil.org.

Agelbert NOTE: The WATER savings ALONE, PROVE that Renewable Energy is the ONLY energy we will use in the NEAR FUTURE.  ;D

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 30, 2017, 06:59:11 pm »

Will We Grow Tall?

Will food really be grown in tall terraced towers in the middle of town in the future? Can there be truly sustainable cities that produce all of their own food?

 This video is a brilliant visual collage of photographs and artist renderings of vertical farms and futuristic green cities.

 Remember, it must first be imagined before it can be created- so let's keep imagining any and all possibilities for growing food locally.

 That goes for right now-- and into the future!

 --Bibi Farber

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.

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 


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.

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.

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?     


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  ).

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.

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.
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.


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)


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.


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.


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

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:


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


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.
"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


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.

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


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.

"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."


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.


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.

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.


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.


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.

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.


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


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?

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.

"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:


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

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.

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:

A different set of highlights from the event, focused on collapse and post-growth economics, can be found here:

Event poster, including info on speakers:

More information on David Fleming's books, including reviews and how to order:

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:

An August 21st 2016 written interview with Shaun Chamberlin on David Fleming, Brexit and the books:


“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"

+-Recent Topics

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 10:35:08 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 09:45:10 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 07:33:58 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 06:48:58 pm

In the Interest of Harmony Among People With Different Beliefs by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 02:40:26 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
June 22, 2017, 10:13:03 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
June 21, 2017, 10:01:29 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 19, 2017, 04:52:20 pm

Intelligence by AGelbert
June 18, 2017, 02:23:09 pm

Money by AGelbert
June 18, 2017, 01:35:04 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial