+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

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

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 16 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

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

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


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm »

Global Warming is tracking EVEN WORSE than the IPCC RCP 8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) "Business As Usual" projection.   



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 24, 2017, 06:03:38 pm »



Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE


Climate State

Published on Nov 23, 2017

Rapid collapse of Antarctic glaciers could flood coastal cities by the end of this century. Based on an article written by Eric Holthaus. Read the full story https://grist.org/article/antarctica-...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 22, 2017, 06:21:54 pm »

Agelbert (plagiarised  ;D) NOTE: This piece is particularly interesting because it’s from someone who campaigns for the Scottish Greens. He’s also a scientist, so knows what’s going on better than most politicians.


BRACE FOR IMPACT

By Ian Baxter

Politics will not save us from abrupt climate change because we don’t want to be saved

Forty years ago I was studying for a Physics degree at Edinburgh University. I chose Edinburgh because it offered a course which included Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, interests which have stayed with me since.

When I came across articles about the Greenhouse Effect, this intrigued me as a scientist, but also worried me as a human being, and although it was only a theory at the time, I felt the implications if true were so severe that at the very least, we should adopt the precautionary principle and take immediate action to prevent it.

It was this that led me to join the Ecology Party in 1979 and since then, politics for me has always been about climate change and the need to address it before it became unstoppable. In the seventies and eighties, the threat of an impending nuclear war was on everyone’s minds, but here was another existential threat to humanity that although distant, required no less attention to defuse or at least to quantify.

Then it was a theory and if proven, we still had time to do something about it. Forty years on and the Greenhouse Effect is now known as Global Warming or Climate Change. The effects predicted are not only happening, but they are happening much faster than predicted and events over the last three years have led me to believe that this is not only irreversible, but we are now entering a period of what is known as ‘abrupt climate change’, which will lead to the breakdown of society within 30 years and near human extinction by the end of the century.

To understand how this will happen so quickly, we need to appreciate that climate change is not linear. We are on an exponential curve. The three warmest years on record globally have been 2014, 2015 and 2016 (with 2017 set to join them).  Floods, droughts, wildfires and storms are this year setting records and records are not only being broken, but they are starting to be broken by some margin. We’re on an curve where not only will events happen more often and be more severe, but the rate at which they increase will itself be increasing. That’s what exponential means.

We also need to appreciate some of the deficiencies in climate modelling. Specifically, climate scientists (in common with nearly all scientists) are experts in their own fields only. Looking at a specific aspect of science in isolation is fine if nothing else is changing, but if everything else is changing, you need to take that into account if you’re predicting what will happen in the future.

There are around 70 feedback effects now kicking in, and few if any models are taking these into account. For example, scientists studying the Arctic sea ice may take into account higher sea surface temperatures, but not the incursion of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) into the Arctic resulting from a distorted jet stream, or the impact of soot on ice albedo from increased wildfires thousands of miles away.

A recent example is the speed with which this year’s Atlantic hurricanes strengthened from tropical storms to Category 5 hurricanes due to higher sea surface temperatures. This surprised meteorologists as the computer models were only forecasting Cat 2 or 3 at most. Only now are they recognising that the models are underestimating the effect of warmer sea surfaces and the additional energy and water vapour they provide.

As Peter Wadhams writes in his recent book ‘A farewell to ice’, to reverse the effects of man made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would demand a switch in global focus on the scale of the post war Marshall plan. We would need not only to stop producing CO2 but also turn over many of our factories to producing carbon capture and storage machines, and we would need to start right now. The cost to the world economies would be huge, possibly running to over $100 Trillion.

If, and it’s still an if, we are capable of reversing the trajectory we’re on, there are no signs of a willingness to do so – neither from politicians nor people in general. CO2 takes over a decade to become fully effective as a greenhouse gas, and lingers in the atmosphere for decades. Methane (CH4) is 130 times as effective as a greenhouse gas in the first 3 years after release and due largely to melting permafrost is starting to rise rapidly in global concentration (another feedback).

So what are we actually doing about it? ‘Emissions’ as measured by countries themselves levelled out over the past three years – but are now rising once again. Leaving aside allegations that the figures have been doctored anyway, the extra CO2 from increasing wildfires is not included (as an example, the CO2 from those in British Columbia, just one Canadian province, this year equated to the annual emissions from 40 million cars on the road). The litmus test is the actual measure of CO2 in the atmosphere – now reaching a peak of around 410 ppm and rising at a record annual rate of around 2.5 ppm per year.

In 1989, the UN issued a warning that we had only ten years to address global warming before irreversible tipping points start kicking in. That was 30 years ago. Similar warnings have appeared since, none of them heeded. Instead of issuing warnings, more and more scientists are now coming round to the view that it really is too late. What I have witnessed over the last three years has led me to believe the same. We really are too late and are now entering the sixth mass extinction.

Too many articles on climate change contain the phrase “By 2100…” or “By the end of the century…”. That really is too far away for most people to treat as urgent. While it’s difficult to make predictions, it should be made clear that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will affect us well before then.

Within five to ten years I expect to see food prices rising well above inflation – perhaps by as much as 50% to 100% with some empty shelves appearing in supermarkets as specific crops are devastated (we already had a ‘taste’ of this earlier this year with courgettes and lettuce crops hit by unusual weather in Spain; world wine production is now at a 50 year low due to extreme weather events).

Wildfires are already becoming uncontrollable. Portugal has seen six times its average this year. There have been fires in Greenland and in Australia during its winter, not to mention the devastation in California, Canada and Siberia. Hurricanes are becoming stronger and appearing in unusual places (Ophelia was the strongest on record in the east Atlantic and Greece is currently being hit by what is called a ‘Medicane’). Sea surface temperatures need to be over 28.5 C for a hurricane to strengthen. The Mediterranean off Italy’s coast reached 30 degrees this year. With the right conditions, it would only take one stray east Atlantic hurricane to head into the Med to cause widespread devastation. I can easily see this happening within ten years. Elsewhere we will see hurricanes and typhoons strong enough to flatten cities within the next decade.

The economic implications will be immense. The impact of hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in the US is expected to be around $400 Billion this year, not counting the wildfires in California and drought in Montana. Over the next decade, super hurricanes, flooding and drought will cause insurance companies to collapse. Banks will follow and pension funds will start to come under pressure. With food prices increasing way ahead of wages, disposable incomes will be hit hard, leading to worldwide economic depression.

And that’s not taking into account the hundreds of millions of climate refugees (already begun in the Caribbean). With the jet stream already getting seriously messed up, or if the Hadley cells become severely disrupted, it’s not out of the question that the Indian monsoon could fail permanently and within a year we have a billion people starving.

There’s a saying that if something is unsustainable it will not be sustained. Obvious, perhaps, but we have been living well beyond the sustainability of the planet for decades and continue to believe that somehow we can do so increasingly and indefinitely. That will not be sustained.

So for forty years I tried to warn people. Now I tell them it’s too late and we’re f***ed, they say I’m being too negative need to give people a positive message. OK then, will “We’re positively f***ed” do?, because when we could save ourselves nobody listened, and even now when they think we still can, there is absolutely no will to do so.

For a long time, we have needed to change our lifestyles and that, for most people, is a red line area. There are no quick fixes. We cannot continue with mass air transport – the only non polluting alternative to fossil fuels requires huge areas of land to be removed from food production, which is already coming under pressure due to climate change and increasing population. We need to stop owning cars (not just leaving them in the driveways) – the resource requirements and human rights implications of even switching to electric cars present largely insurmountable problems. And even if these problems can be fixed, the solution needs to come first, rather than assuming as always that the next generation will somehow pick up the bill and sort out the mess we are creating by our profligate lifestyles.

And so we continue to build more runways and roads, drill for more oil, burn more forests for palm oil plantations and clear the rainforests for agriculture and logging, despite the fact that these massive environmental problems are no longer a theory but are staring us in the face. But we keep on driving and keep on flying and keep on buying things we don’t need from halfway across the globe without the slightest thought that all this will kill our children.

I was perhaps naive to believe that politics would solve the problem. If the bottom line is that people will not change their lifestyles, then they will not vote for politicians who say we need to. So politicians will not tell people the truth and tell them instead that we can get by with replacing petrol cars with electric ones by some decade well in the future and convince people we’re all ‘doing our bit’ for the planet by planting a few wind turbines. They talk vaguely about carbon capture and how air transport is important for economic growth and without that we cannot tackle climate change. As a councillor I was the only one even vaguely interested in the council’s climate change plan (including both councillors and officers).

And people believe them because they want to. I’ve long maintained that people get the politicians they deserve (good and bad) and they certainly don’t want politicians to tell them they can’t have their cheap holidays in Spain. I joined the Ecology Party (which became the Green Party) because it was, and still is, the only party to come anywhere close to telling people the truth on climate change. That people are generally not in the least interested in the environment that keeps them alive is borne out by the derisory vote Greens get – around 2% support except where they campaign strongly on non-environmental issues.

And Green Party activists have also realised this. So they focus on being more user friendly and campaigning on issues that ‘matter to people’ like independence or austerity, rather than lose votes by telling people it’s about time they faced the harsh truth.

I’ve been accused of being too Utopian, that before we address climate change we need an independent Scotland, or a Socialist Republic, or something else. And those arguments were rational thirty years ago – after all, it’s the free market Capitalist system that brought us to this position. However, thirty years ago is not now – when your house is on fire, you don’t try and get ownership of the keys, you reach for the hose. When I attend a climate rally and see it attracts less than a tenth of the numbers at a Scottish independence rally, it brings home how insane our politics has become. What planet do these people expect an independent Scotland to exist on? Venus by the look of it.

So we might be f***ed, but should we give up? No, I don’t think so. We may not be able to stop the process, but we can slow it down and offer the next generation at least some kind of palliative care. I have not flown or owned a car for around 20 years and will continue that way. Because very soon my children’s generation will become angry with mine, and will ask why, in the face of so many warnings from scientists for decades, we did nothing about it.

It will be little consolation, but at least I will be able to say I tried.

https://damnthematrix.wor...7/11/21/brace-for-impact/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 06, 2017, 03:08:40 pm »

I live to see your posts, these are so warming, do I have permission to abscond a few of them? ;D

Certainly! I heartily support any subsequent publication, in whole, or in part, of anything I post, with or without attribution. 

Posted by: GWarnock
« on: November 06, 2017, 02:51:41 pm »

I live to see your posts, these are so warming, do I have permission to abscond a few of them? ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 05, 2017, 07:53:20 pm »

Where do you get those awesome emoji?

I built up a collection slowly over the past five years. I have them saved on documents for quick retrieval. 

I have posted many of them at a forum thread here when I was teaching a member on how to post images over a year ago.

Below is the link to the "How to make a comic" thread. I update it every now and then to show new images I have come up with. I had a lot of great kudzu bunny emojies and the people that produced them stopped allowing hot linking.
In order to avoid losing emojies in my collection, I have slowly uploaded them to the gallery here in gif or jpg format so I will always be able to link to them.

Here's a nice one with falling leaves appropriate to this season:


At any rate, I hope you get some good laughs from the thread, in addition to learning this and that about images. 

http://renewablerevolutio...ke-a-comic/msg599/#msg599
Posted by: GWarnock
« on: November 05, 2017, 04:26:07 pm »

Where do you get those awesome emoji?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 05, 2017, 03:54:15 pm »

Can I scream now?

Yes! This is the appropriate smiley for the way decent people feel about this dystopian horror:   

Here is another one that is justified:













Posted by: GWarnock
« on: November 05, 2017, 03:42:09 pm »

Can I scream now?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 05, 2017, 02:10:11 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This news is a year old, but I post it because it is about a hellish future the Military Industrial Complex is trying to convince all of us to believe so that, OF COURSE, the massive funding for WAR and BRUTALITY will continue. Friends, it is the MILITARY itself that creates all these social problems so it can then claim to be "defending" us from them. These lackeys for the 1% are firmly convinced that the "moral Hazard" of a military that disingenuously warns of trouble to justify more military funding is actually a "prudent, practical, profitable (and so on) Might is Right Opportunity".

The military, like the 1% that OWNS them, does not DO ethics and thinks ethical behavior is a "weakness". There is no future for humanity if the Military Industrial Complex has its way. I pray to God that the MIC fails in their hellish quest.

Quote
According to a startling Pentagon video obtained by The Intercept, the future of global cities will be an amalgam of the settings of "Escape from New York" and "Robocop" — with dashes of the "Warriors" and "Divergent" thrown in.

It will be a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers.

At least that's the scenario outlined in "Megacities:

Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity," a five-minute video that has been used at the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations University.

All that stands between the coming chaos and the good people of Lagos and Dhaka (or maybe even New York City) is the U.S. Army, according to the video, which The Intercept obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.

       


http://www.thebigwobble.o...shows-near-future-of.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 04, 2017, 10:12:09 pm »

Expect A Sudden Sea Level Event

Posted on November 1, 2017, by Radio Ecoshock

Audio:

https://www.ecoshock.org/...dden-sea-level-event.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 26, 2017, 07:11:36 pm »

The future does not look good, even though people of sound mind know EXACTLY what the right thing to do is.


Quote
This video poses a compelling set of questions: Do we educate to strengthen our democracy or to strengthen our economy? Does competition or cooperation produce better results? What will students need to know? Are they being educated with current reality in mind? Should the people support the economy or should the economy support the people?

Maybe we need to change the way we look at success, progress, wealth, competition, the future?

It is a collage of points made on the subject of sustainability, and a change of
direction that needs to be addressed within the educational system to reflect our current reality.

Compelling images, graphics and quotes like this one tell the story:

"We have reached a point where the value we add to our economy is being outweighed by the value we are removing." Paul Hawken, author and environmentalist.

Indeed, GDP is not an indicator of a society's well being or stability. It goes up with every instance of destructive spending too: illness, war, nuclear power plants, GMO food production, incarceration.

We need to come together around a new indicator of "wealth", and prepare students for the reality of Now.

--Bibi Farber

http://www.nextworldtv.com/page/4201.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 21, 2017, 09:01:37 pm »



California's Accidental Sea Is Shrinking and Exposing Toxic Dust
http://www.truth-out.org/...g-and-exposing-toxic-dust
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 21, 2017, 02:14:32 pm »


California fires spread quickly in record-breaking heat - Some 3,000 firefighters were deployed in California



Our Summer of Fire and the Fires to Come

Thursday, October 19, 2017

By Curtis Johnson, Truthout | News Analysis



SNIPPET:

The connection of climate change and a warming planet to increasing forest fires isn't just confirmed by observational statistics. Scientific studies have started quantifying the contributions of a warmer planet to increasing fires. A 2016 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that over half of the increases in "fuel aridity" (metrics that measure the degree of lack of moisture in fuels) since the 1970s, and a doubling of the amount of forest area burned since 1984 were due to human-caused climate change. A 2017 study in the same journal concluded global warming was responsible for increasing the severity and probability of the hottest monthly and daily events in 80 percent of the globe that they were able to study.

full article:

http://www.truth-out.org/...ire-and-the-fires-to-come



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 18, 2017, 01:29:04 pm »

Catastrophic Impacts in Earth's History

Stanford

Published on Sep 17, 2010

(February 2, 2010) David Morrison, NASA Lunar Science Institute, discusses the discovery of the cretaceous catastrophe that caused the last mass extinction and explains NASA's research on the danger of similar events occurring in Earth's near future.

Stanford University:

http://www.stanford.edu/


       
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 15, 2017, 08:12:27 pm »

The Secure, the Dispossessed, and the Mentally Deranged Dotards

OCTOBER 13, 2017 BY DAVID SWANSON

SNIPPET:

In The Secure and the Dispossessed, Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes have collected an unflinching survey of a species gone mad. The book’s subtitle is “How the Military and Corporations Are Shaping a Climate-Changed World.” In short, the Authoritarian Exceptionalist Military Corporate Complex is flamboyantly recognizing the hole it is in, and exponentially increasing the rate of digging, while hiring PR firms to redefine “digging” as “robust engagement in advanced resilient green initiatives that save us all by further enriching the rich, militarizing the world, and rendering the earth uninhabitable.”  >:(



The contributors to this book confront the idea that surviving in a further climate changed world is unrelated to surviving in the world we have right now. Avoiding the need to reform the most destructive practices now engaged in, they suggest, is not the surest path to useful future innovations. In fact, it exacerbates future crises. Out-of-control corporate crony capitalism and militarism are problems that must be addressed now and ever more so as the natural environment collapses. War and disaster capitalism are not produced by environmental or economic or refugee crises, quite the reverse. Climate crisis could produce greater social unity and sustainable practices if those are what we choose to respond with.

Corporate and military greenwashing should be powerwashed with facts. Wal-Mart’s renewable energy goal is set to be actually reached in about 300 years. The U.S. military’s supposed greening consists mostly of token moves toward non-green nuclear energy and bio-fuel “alternatives” dwarfed by such leading threats as a massive new investment in nuclear weaponry. Exxon Mobil now possesses more oil that the human-friendly climate can survive, and Exxon Mobil is focused on finding more. The proxy wars of the previous cold war ravaged social cohesion while killing 20 million, injuring 60 millions, and making 15 million people homeless. Rex Tillerson, one of the supposed “adults” keeping Trump under control, has said that climate crises for agriculture are no problem at all, as people can simply change the locations of the farming of various crops. Scientists do not agree with him. Following the BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, insurance companies have been offering reputational-risk insurance  ;), meaning the provision of public relations services to sell a false but preferable image of a corporation following its creation of a widely known catastrophe.



As climate change creates weather extremes, weather extremes create greater energy use, which creates greater climate change, which opens up previously inaccessible northern fossil fuel supplies, which can be used to create both greater climate change and energy use, as well as military conflicts, which are the biggest energy user there is — militarism creating a level of energy use that guarantees much greater climate change, which a militarized academia is establishing as a “cause” of militarism. I’m fairly certain that our Mentally Deranged Dotard in Chief could not find his way out of these loops with a headlamp and a smartphone even if he wanted to, which would have to follow his admitting they exist.

Full Book review:

http://warisacrime.org/20...entally-deranged-dotards/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 11, 2017, 04:00:03 pm »

End of the road for Doomer Dreams of Collapse and Environmental Recovery

But most Doomers enamored of their stored rice and beans and honey just cannot handle the fact that the collapse of civilization is NOT going to guarantee ANY environmental recovery for SEVERAL CENTURIES, regardless of the fact that THESE DOOMERS ARE CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT OVER 90% OF THE HUMAN SPECIES WILL DIE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS.

Why do these Doomers cling to their wishful thinking in the face of scientifically proven biosphere math facts? SEE BELOW:
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 01, 2017, 10:13:05 pm »

The Military Brainiacs Fear that Earth may become like Mars beginning in 2054.


Agebert NOTE: I will not be on this planet in 2054. If humanity manages to survive until then, I feel very sorry for those that will experience that horrible time.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 20, 2017, 06:12:46 pm »

 

Agelbert NOTE: The USA is expected to reach 2 degrees C above pre-industrial level 10 to 20 YEARS before the rest of the planet. 


USA: climate change threat to food


8,861 views
 
Peter Carter

Published on Feb 5, 2017

Already committed (locked in) global warming will cut US crop yields. The Trump agenda is devastating to future US food production .
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2017, 07:14:08 pm »


Climate Expert Jim Hansen explains the Climate Crisis (March 2017)


Climate State

Published on May 20, 2017

On March 8, 2017, Jim Hansen talked about the broad spectrum of global climate change, and how young people can take charge of their future. Hansen's blog http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1 and his YT channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn3Y...

Dr. James Hansen, formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, where he directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the clouds of Venus helped identify their composition as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has focused his research on Earth’s climate, especially human-made climate change.

Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and was designated by Time Magazine in 2006 as one of the 100 most influential people on Earth. He has received numerous awards including the Carl-Gustaf Rossby and Roger Revelle Research Medals, the Sophie Prize and the Blue Planet Prize. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to power, for identifying ineffectual policies as greenwash, and for outlining actions that the public must take to protect the future of young people and other life on our planet.

Dr. Hansen's talk is the keynote address of Williams’ Confronting Climate Change year of inquiry. Throughout this academic year the college is hosting a series of speakers, events, and programming planned to shed light on the issue of climate change and how we should respond to it as individuals, as an institution, as a nation, and as a member of the global community.

This event is sponsored by the President's Office, the Center for Environmental Studies, and the Geosciences Department. https://events.williams.edu/event/jim...

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








 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2017, 01:24:38 pm »

It's time to listen to what science has been telling us about how HOT it is going to get.

How Hot will it Get? - Science at the Theater


University of California Television (UCTV)

Published on Jun 6, 2013

(Visit: http://www.uctv.tv) Explore the latest projections about the extent of planetary warming and the dire consequences of our growing carbon imbalance. Tune in to hear presentations by Lawrence Berkeley Lab climate scientists Bill Collins, Margaret Torn, Michael Wehner, and Jeff Chambers, as well as UC Berkeley economist Max Aufhammer. Series: "Science at the Theater" [9/2013] [Science] [Show ID: 25473]

Agelbert NOTE: Since the above video, all the heat records from 2012 have been broken repeatedly. AND, an error in the data at the time has been corrected. IOW, the temperature predictions in above video, though extremely alarming and dire, are too conservative.

It is much worse. Have a nice day.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 16, 2017, 02:39:53 pm »

IT simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is.

Last part of a lengthy post on the problems we are faced with:

Today, several countries have, as do we, a much greater industrial capacity. It is inaccurate to claim that we cannot produce sufficient renewable energy devices in a decade or so to replace the internal combustion engine everywhere in our civilization. The industrial capacity is there and is easily provable by asking some simple questions about the fossil fuel powered ICE status quo:

How long do ICE powered machines last?

How much energy does it require to mine the raw materials and manufacture the millions of engines wearing out and being replaced day in and day out?

What happens if ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY is, instead, dedicated to manufacturing Renewable Energy machines?


IOW, if there is a ten to twenty year turnover NOW in our present civilization involving manufacture and replacement of the ICEs we use, why can't we retool and convert the entire ICE fossil fuel dependent civilization to a Renewable Energy Machine dependent civilization?

1) The industrial capacity is certainly there to do it EASILY in two decades and maybe just ten years with a concerted push.

2) Since Renewable Energy machines use LESS metal and do not require high temperature alloys, a cash for clunkers worldwide program could obtain more than enough metal raw material without ANY ADDITIONAL MINING  (except for rare earth minerals - a drop in the bucket - :icon_mrgreen: LOL- compared to all the mining presently done for metals to build the ICE) by just recycling the ICE parts into Renewable Energy machines.

3) Just as in WWII, but on a worldwide scale, the recession/depression would end as millions of people were put to work on the colossal transition to Renewable Energy.


HOWEVER, despite our ABILITY to TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY, we "CAN'T DO IT" ???  because the fossil fuel industry has tremendous influence on the worldwide political power structure from the USA to Middle  East to Russia to China.

IOW, it was NEVER

1. An energy problem,

2. A "laws of thermodynamics" problem,

3. A mining waste and pollution problem,

4. A lack of wind or sun problem,

5. An environmental problem,

6. An industrial capacity problem or

7. A technology problem.

   
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ABOVE excuses for claiming Renewable Energy cannot replace Fossil Fuels are STRAWMEN presented to the public for the express purpose of convincing us of the half truth that without fossil fuels, civilization will collapse.

It was ALWAYS a POLITICAL PROBLEM of the fossil fuel industry not wanting to relinquish their stranglehold on the world's geopolitical make up.

It drives them insane to think that Arizona and New Mexico can provide more power than all the oil in the Middle East. Their leverage over lawmakers and laws to avoid environmental liability is directly proportional to their market share of global energy supplies.

They are treatened by Renewable Energy and have mobilized to hamper its growth as much as possible through various propaganda techniques using all the above strawmen.   

It is TRUE that civilization will collapse and a huge die off will occur without fossil fuels IF, and ONLY IF, Renewable Energy does not replace fossil fuels. It is blatantly obvious that we need energy to run our civilization.

It is ALSO TRUE that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in ICEs, Homo sapiens will become extinct.
This is not hyperbole. We ALREADY have baked in conditions, that take about three decades to fully develop, that have placed us in a climate like the one that existed over 3 million years ago.

We DID NOT thrive in those conditions or multiply. This is a fact. We barely survived until a couple of hundred thousand years ago when the weather became friendlier and even then we didn't really start to populate the planet until about 10,000 years ago.

The climate 3 million years ago was, basically, mostly lethal to Homo Sapiens. To say that we have technology and can handle it is a massive dodge of our responsibility for causing this climate crisis (and ANOTHER strawman from Exxon "We will adapt to that" CEO).

Fossil fuel corporations DO NOT want to be held liable for the damage they have caused, so, even as they allow Renewable Energy to have a niche in the global energy picture, will use that VERY NICHE (see rare earth mining and energy to build PV and wind turbines) to blame Renewables for environmental damage.



In summary, the example of the Liberty ships is proof we CAN TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY in, at most, a couple of decades if we decide to do it but WON'T do it because of the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on political power, financing and laws along with the powerful propaganda machine they control.




PART IV
Three different future scenarios


What can we expect from the somewhat dismal prospects for Homo sapiens?

1) Terrible weather and melted polar ice caps with an increase in average wind velocity in turn causing more beach erosion from gradually rising sea level and wave action. The oceans will become more difficult to traverse because of high wave action and more turbulent seas. The acidification will increase the dead zones and reduce aquatic life diversity. But you've heard all this before so I won't dwell on the biosphere problems that promise to do us in.

2) As Renewable Energy devices continue to make inroads in fossil fuel profits, expect an engineered    partial civilizational collapse in a large city to underline the "you are all going to die without fossil fuels" propaganda pushed to avoid liability for the increasingly "in your face" climate extremes. ;)

3) Less democracy and less freedom of expression from some governments and more democracy and freedom of expression from other governments in 

direct proportion to the percent penetration of Renewable energy machines in powering their countries (more RE, more freedom)

and an inverse proportion to the power of their "real politik" Fossil Fuel lobbies in countries. (more FF power, less freedom).


The bottom line, as Guy McPherson says, is that NATURE BATS LAST. Nature has millions of "bats". Homo SAP has a putrid fascist parasite bleeding it to death and poisoning it at the same time. The parasite cannot survive without us so it is allowing us to get a tiny IV to keep us alive a little longer (a small percentage of renewable energy machines).  It won't work.

But the parasite has a plan. The IV will be labelled a "parasite" (the villain and guilty party) when Homo SAP finally figures out he is going to DIE if he doesn't fix this "bleeding and poison" problem. Then the real parasite will try to morph into a partially symbiotic organism and Homo SAP will muddle through somehow.

I think that the parasite doesn't truly appreciate the severity of Mother Nature's "bat".

Three future Scenarios:

1. If the parasite (as a metaphor for a fossil fuel powered civilization) does not DIE TOTALLY, I don't think any of us will make it.   



2. If the the parasite takes MORE than 20 years to die, some of us will make it but most of us won't.

3. If, in 2017 (revised to 2018  ;D), when the north pole has the first ice free summer, all the governments of the Earth join in a crash program to deep six the use of fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine within a ten year period, most of us will make it.   


A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

IT simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is. IT DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs. The ICE and fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.

Pass it on. You never know when somebody on the wrong side of the Darwininan fence will read it and join the effort to save humanity.


Save as many as you can!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 05, 2017, 02:38:13 pm »


By the end of this century, world temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, a study revealed on Monday.

The temperatures will increase before 2100 by 2 to 4.9 degrees Celsius with a 90% chance. Only 5% chance indicates warming could be at or below 2 degrees Celsius, one of the many targets Paris Agreement is tackling, the study published in Nature Climate Change shows.

Adrian Raftery, the lead author of the study and a professor at the University of Washington, said failing the target would have dramatic consequences on people's livelihoods.

"Countries need to change the economic incentives for producing carbon – for example by introducing a carbon tax – and encourage innovation that would improve energy efficiency."

Adrian Raftery,  lead author of 'Less than 2 °Celsius warming by 2100 unlikely' via Reuters

That is putting 350 million people in 31 countries and regions in danger of deadly heat waves and other health hazard. Weather-related disasters, such as drought, heat wave and rising sea levels, are expected to cause 152,000 deaths annually in Europe between 2071 and 2100, jumping from 3,000 a year between 1981 and 2010, CNN reported.

The number of expected death is 50 times larger than at present, the study in the Lancet Planetary Health journal said. It added that heatwaves would lead to 99 percent of all weather-related deaths.

According to the UN Environment Program, 12 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions should be cut from the current 54 billion annually, mainly from fossil fuels burning, to keep the rise below 2 Celsius.

Ramping up efforts to improve carbon efficiency are key to limit future warming, Raftery told Reuters.

"Countries need to change the economic incentives for producing carbon – for example by introducing a carbon tax – and encourage innovation that would improve energy efficiency," he said. "We should be learning more from countries that are particularly carbon-efficient, like France, which has a very low-carbon transport infrastructure."

Another study published on Nature Climate Change in June suggested outperforming Paris Agreement would not stop half of the world's population being exposed to fatal heat waves.

"Even if we outperform the Paris targets, the population exposed to deadly heat will be about 50% by 2100."

 Camilo Mora, lead author of 'Global risk of deadly heat'

"Many people around the world are already paying the ultimate price of heat waves, and while models suggest that this is likely to continue, it could be much worse if emissions are not considerably reduced,” said Camilo Mora, lead author of the study and a biogeography professer at University of Hawaii.

https://news.cgtn.com/new...6a4d7a45544e/share_p.html


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 05, 2017, 01:26:58 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The following average temperature at 2 meters  projection for the year 2100 on the RCP 8.5 (highly optimistic IPCC "business as usual" scenario) ECM (Environmental Change Model) scenario is adapted from Birkel, 2010 (PhD. Dissertation).

Since 2010, we have learned that the follwing scenario will arrive about 50 years earlier than Birkel estimated. So, what you see below is what those alive will most likely experience in 2050, NOT in the year 2100. Have a nice day.


Quote
The most likely RCP of those presented is the 8.5 pathway, in the sense that it most closely resembles our observations so far. If anything, it looks quite optimistic right now.

It's hard to call any RCP truly unobtainable. If we'd invent a miraculous carbon "vacuum cleaner" tomorrow and decide to completely crash the world economy the day after tomorrow, so that we'd have negative worldwide emissions very soon, then we could probably follow the 2.6 trajectory. That is, however, very unlikely.

Realistically and unscientifically speaking, the completely disasterous RCP 8.5 pathway is a good-case scenario. The pretty disasterous RCP 6.0 pathway is a very-good-case scenario.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/2tvwfr/what_rcp_are_we_headed_for/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 04, 2017, 02:17:20 pm »

Climate change? Somebody up there will take care of it

By Christine Colbert / Writers On The Range

Friday, August 4th, 2017 at 12:02am

SANTA FE, N.M. — Not long after President Trump decided that the United States should withdraw from the Paris Agreement, Michigan Republican Rep. Tim Walberg  told his constituents that if it turned into a “real” problem, God would “take care of” climate change.   

Social media buzzed with dismay and alarm over the Michigan congressman’s attitude, since it runs counter to overwhelming scientific evidence concerning climate change.

Yet, if you live in a religiously conservative state, as I once did, Walberg’s statement would not be surprising. I was born and raised in a Mormon family in Utah, where the word “environmentalist” is still considered by many to be foul language. I’m no longer a practicing Mormon, but rather a convert to the wonder of the outdoors, thanks to the education I received while exploring Utah’s vast public lands. I did not need to lose my religion to become an environmentalist, but I’m sure it didn’t hurt.

Years ago, I asked my dad why he didn’t think climate change was a threat. He replied that the second coming of Jesus Christ would take care of any “problems.” In other words, he believed a wipe-down of our planet would ensue upon Christ’s arrival back on earth.



I was alarmed. This seemed to me like a rather large bet to make. But my father added that because he “knew” Christ would come again, it wasn’t a g a m b l e for him and he didn’t need to worry about the future.

But, as the public response to Walburg’s statement demonstrated, this idea is not very reassuring to the majority of the American people. The science behind global climate change is overwhelming. What if the supernatural cleanup orchestrated by God failed to occur? And what if it came too late to matter?

I believe there is a strong religious argument to be made that we all have a responsibility to protect our planet. Caring for creation is emphasized in many religious texts and, in particular, by the Bible. Pope Francis wrote an entire encyclical on the subject – “Laudato SI'”, subtitled “On Care for Our Common Home.” In the case of my family’s religion, in the Book of Mormon, as well as Doctrine and Covenants, God instructs his children to tread lightly upon the Earth, to be sure that we do not defile or pollute it, and to use the planet’s gifts sparingly and conscientiously.

All scripture is open to interpretation. But here’s my take: Imagine your mother asked you to clean your room and, not only that, to take good care of your things, including your stuffed animals, your Barbie dolls and your action figures. She told you to care for each one because she gave them to you and she loves them just like she loves you. (Yes, in my story, Mom loves your childhood toys.)

But you decide not to clean up your room. In fact, you dump a couple of cans of paint on the carpet and smear fecal matter all over the walls. You light a fire in the middle of the room, throw your toys and plush animals into it, and let the air fill with smoke – endangering the house and everyone in it. How do you think your mom will react? I remember numerous mentions in the Bible about a vengeful God who doesn’t take kindly to man’s willful disregard for his commandments. Epic flood, anyone?

Which brings me back to Rep. Tim Walberg, and his dismissal of science and the future of our planet. Walberg and others like him can decide that climate change doesn’t concern them and, if they’re correct, God will fix it all. But when? And after how many of the earth’s plant and wildlife species have disappeared, become displaced, or gone extinct by the effects of climate change? And by destroying our environment for the sake of continued fossil fuel extraction and use, what does that say about us humans as stewards of the land?

Creating harmony between religious beliefs and the conservation of our planet is really quite easy. Even for those who believe that our warming planet poses no real threat, advocating for clean air, water, and protecting Earth’s teeming diversity of plants and wildlife is still something everyone can get behind. Or mostly everyone.

Because I’m thinking that God would love to see his children taking care of their planet and not totally gutting the place.
   


Christine Colbert is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News (hcn.org). She lives and writes in Washington.

https://www.abqjournal.co...will-take-care-of-it.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 04, 2017, 12:03:43 pm »



Sixth Mass Extinction Event is Under Way - video 17min. 7/31/2017


Biodiversity hot spots of 80% of biosphere's species endangered by Global Warming Pollution

https://www.nytimes.com/2...ction-animal-species.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 03, 2017, 02:49:23 pm »


The Annihilation of Nature : Human Extinction of Birds and Mammals

By (author)  Gerardo Ceballos , By (author)  Anne H. Ehrlich , By (author)  Paul R. Ehrlich
 
Gerardo Ceballos, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Paul R. Ehrlich serve as witnesses in this trial of human neglect, where the charge is the massive and escalating assault on living things. Nature is being annihilated, not only because of the human population explosion, but also as a result of massive commercial endeavors and public apathy.

Despite the well-intentioned work of conservation organizations and governments, the authors warn us that not enough is being done and time is short for the most vulnerable of the world's wild birds and mammals. Thousands of populations have already disappeared, other populations are dwindling daily, and soon our descendants may live in a world containing but a minuscule fraction of the birds and mammals we know today.

The Annihilation of Nature is a clarion call for engagement and action. These outspoken scientists urge everyone who cares about nature to become personally connected to the victims of our inadequate conservation efforts and demand that restoration replace destruction. Only then will we have any hope of preventing the worst-case scenario of the sixth mass extinction.

https://www.bookdepositor...do-Ceballos/9781421417189
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 03, 2017, 02:18:28 pm »



Sixth Mass Extinction Event is Under Way - video 17min. 7/31/2017


Biodiversity hot spots of 80% of biosphere's species endangered by Global Warming Pollution

https://www.nytimes.com/2...ction-animal-species.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 31, 2017, 05:30:07 pm »

The point is that it is feasable to end up with only ten percent of the present biosphere and zero complex life forms populating the biosphere (except for the embryos, the oligarchs and their pets)

I don't think a technofix with space elevators is feasible nor will any such gimmick save the Elite.  They'll die along with most of the rest of the population, because the monetary system will collapse before the ecosphere does, and money will go worthless.  Most of them will end up hanged, guillotined or impaled on stakes.

RE

I sincerely hope you are right and a more just society will emerge from the tattered remnants of this empathy deficit disordered madhouse destroying everything it touches.


You always bring up the money issue. Let me point something out to you. If you have a a 100 robots with sophisticated AI so they can build other robots, as well as build absolutely anything humans can build (faster and more accurately too), carry and use weapons to defend you and yours, mine for materials, grow food, cook, clean and maintain all the infrastructure in good working order, you do not need ANY MONEY.

Now you may think that is science fiction baloney. Tell that to all the people losing their jobs from mining to accounting to manufacturing to maintenance, ETC. The Robots are HERE. And they DO NOT charge anything for their services.

All they need is energy. If you can get that energy renewably, then your only "problem" is making sure your oligarch competitor has less robots that you do.

AI robots ARE THE MONEY OF THE FUTURE, RE.

Laugh if you wish, but I do believe the oligarchs consider AI ROBOTS to be the cornerstone of their devious plan to survive when most of us die. I know Musk is afraid of AI, but Trump thinks they are the best thing since toasted bread. And Mr. Trump's mindset is typical of the Plutocrat Cretins planning to survive when the rest of us don't.

I agree with you that the Greed Ball Oligarchs will die, but it will not be because of lack of resources.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 31, 2017, 04:57:40 pm »

Can a Technological Society be Sustainable? ???

The Amish life is getting a lot of press these days.  What I wonder is can it maintain itself without the much larger much richer society around it that both let's it exist and provides the level of financial activity that keep them viable.  Everything from produce to hand tools to furniture are sold to outsiders and pay for land, equipment, taxes.  So they are both part of our society and apart.

The Amish are almost as dependent on the Industrial Civilization to function as the regular Sheeple are.

Those cute Buggy Carts they travel around in all have their parts forged using copious amounts of energy.  They use the same Monetary system as everybody else, selling their produce fore $Dollars$ and then buying other stuff they need like cloth for $Dollars$.  Do you think Amish women spin all their own thread and then weave that into cloth before they sew up their anachronistic dresses and head gear?  Hell no, they buy bolts of cloth that are produce over in China for a lot less than the Amish could do that job.

About the only advantage the Amish have is they still are somewhat attached to the land and didn't give up farming.  They also have a strong community structure, very important.  But they are going to have a lot of problems when TSHTF too.

RE

True.

But I would like to address the broader issue of the normally polluting technology (as in UNsustainable) Homo Sap has come up with.

Sustainability should be defined as a stable biosphere which can become unstable only by some natural catastrophe not caused by any of the life forms in said biosphere. But there is a huge problem with that definition for humans simply because we KNOW that the universe is a GIGANTIC place and we DO NOT have to be "sustainable" IF we can manage to be successful parasites OUTSIDE of the confines of our planetary biosphere. It is perfectly feasable, from an energy resources point of view, to protect Earth's biosphere from pollution by obtaining all the energy we need to keep the various species we rely on healthy somewhere else.

This point of view is ethically bankrupt, but it is exactly what many elite cretins are probably planning to bring about.

The scenario goes like this:

1. Secret labs funded with oligarch money (taken from we-the-people through fraud and deception) preserve the DNA, not just of most plants, but of all the complex life forms expected to die out during this accelerated mass extinction event. Advances in cryogenics and embryo preservation enable the storage of viable specimens of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of species of the estimated 16 to 30 million species in our biosphere.

1. Business as usual causes a major Homo Sap Die-off. The oligarchs go to ground for a couple of centuries with high tech hydroponics and a renewable energy powered microcosm of a Homo Sap civilization. Robots are sent out to keep the nuclear power plants from melting down.

2. After a couple of decades with hotter and hotter temperatures, but a human population reduced to about 100 million or so, technology and robotics has advanced to enable the building of a space elevator. It is built over a 10 year period.

3. Around the year 2050, with temperatures wiping out nearly  one half (and the death rate still accelerating) of all lcomplex species on Earth showing no sign of their climb to about 8C above pre-industrial, the first future Mars colonists are sent to establish a base on the moon for the building of a space elevator there. That one will be used to sling shot colonists to Mars and several other exploitable rocks in the solar system.

4. By 2060, all macroscopic marine life is dead and the ice caps are gone. The methane bursts from the arctic have put us right in the PETM heat acceleration and the biosphere has shrunk to about a third of its present size. The oligarchs are still happy as clams in their high tech holes. Scientists in those holes have become influential political leaders and are championing revolutionary low energy cooling laser technology as a global technfix that could shorten the time the globe is subjected to such high average temperatures from a thousand years to about 200 hundred years. They begin to try that in Antarctica to get the ice to begin to build up with some marginal successes and several robot frying failures. Additionally, high temperature and acid resistant algae has been genetically engineered and is being seeded all over the oceans by robots. But the temerature is at about 5C above pre industrial and still climbing.

5. By 2070 a thin layer of ice covers Greenland and Antarctica, despite the average global temperature having reached 6C above pre-industrial. This was accomplished by the combination of three widespread uses of new technology which included the cooling lasers, the GMO algae covering greater portions of the oceans (preventing the oceans from absorbing solar heat while increasing pH) and an aluminum vapor coated polyester reflector (of mostly UV though some visible light passed through) one mill thick and several thousand miles in diameter deployed in space over these areas.

6. And so on. The point is that it is feasable to end up with only ten percent of the present biosphere and zero complex life forms populating the biosphere (except for the embryos, the oligarchs and their pets) BUT, repopulate an imperfect, but "sustainable", biosphere on this planet as long as we do all our polluting, exploiting and so on OFF this planet.

I would not like to live in that "society". In fact, I think that they would, even after making the earth a new "Eden" (after 200 years or so), self destruct from their empathy deficit disordered view of life.

Technofixes, if limited to AVOIDING pollution on this planet, instead of putting a bandaid on it, could work. But, so far, ALL the technofixes that have been proposed, are proposed in order to continue polluting the planet in other ways. That is really, really STUPID.

But exploiting outer space rocks to bring home the bacon is not. That said, I think that "solution" is immoral and it is a futile attempt to kick the can of the destructive human problem of unethical behavior down the road.

Our problem is an ethical problem, NOT a lack of resources problem. But I expect the above outlined scenario will be tried simply because TPTB do not DO ethics. Have a nice day.

+-Recent Topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial