+- +-


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: 24
Total: 24

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 54 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 23, 2017, 07:33:58 pm »


Study documents accelerated climate change in Spanish mountains



If you want to see climate change in action in a civilized place (as opposed to the Arctic wilderness), Spain is the place to go. Spain has been hot since the end of the ice age, but in recent decades, it’s getting hotter and hotter. In the past three decades alone, temperatures have risen by 2.5 °C in Spain, surpassing the European average of 0.95°C. However, warming doesn’t happen in a uniform fashion, and researchers wanted to see how the country’s northern mountains are affected.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 22, 2017, 02:37:11 pm »

Louisiana’s coastline is sinking much faster than anyone thought, new study finds



“Coastal Louisiana has experienced catastrophic rates of wetland loss over the past century, equivalent in area to the state of Delaware” — that’s not something you want to see, but that’s the intro of a new study published by the Geological Society of America."


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 20, 2017, 07:15:49 pm »

Globe has third warmest May on record

Agelbert NOTE: The above graphic is self explanatory, but be sure and read the full article that accompanied the graphic.

Author: NCEI staff

June 20, 2017


Below the map is a time series of temperatures each May from 1880-2017 compared to the twentieth-century average (1901-2000). The solid gray line shows the long-term trend, which is 0.13°F (0.07°C) per decade.


The May globally averaged sea surface temperature was 1.28°F above the 20th century monthly average of 61.3°Fthe third highest global ocean temperature for May in the record, behind 2016 and 2015.

The map above comes from Climate.gov Data Snapshots map collection. It is based on the official NOAA global temperature product, but uses a little more interpolation to estimate temperatures in areas with missing data. The data for the graph came from NCEI's Climate at a Glance web analysis tool.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 19, 2017, 08:32:12 pm »

Scientists Saw a Nearly Unheard of Antarctic Meltdown

Brian Kahn By Brian Kahn
Published: June 17th, 2017

Antarctica is unfreezing. In the past few months alone, researchers have chronicled a seasonal waterfall, widespread networks of rivers and melt ponds and an iceberg the size of Delaware on the brink of breaking away from the thawing landscape.

A new study published in Nature Communications only adds to the disturbing trend of change afoot in Antarctica. Researchers have documented rain on a continent more known for snow and widespread surface melt in West Antarctica last summer, one of the most unstable parts of a continent that’s already being eaten away by warm waters below the ice.

Surface melt became widespread over West Antarctica in January 2016.
Credit: Nicolas et al,. 2017

he findings, published Thursday, indicate that last year’s super El Niño played a large role in driving the meltdown, but researchers are concerned that overlaying natural climate patterns onto the long-term warming driven by carbon pollution could put Antarctica’s ice in an even more precarious position.

“There’s a substantial loss of ice going on from warm water eating away at the bottom of some critical ice shelves,” David Bromwich, a climate modeler at Ohio State, said. “If we move into the future and we’ve got a lot of melting from the top as well, that means things would proceed even faster. It’s not a good prescription.”

The research, which Bromwich helped produced, stemmed from a series of coincidences starting at the top of the West Antarctic ice sheet, nearly 6,000 feet above sea level. Researchers stationed there in January 2016 noticed surface melt starting in the middle of the month and even reported seeing rain as warm, moist air poured into the region.

Bromwich said he had never heard of rain falling on that region of the ice sheet, though the Antarctic Peninsula further north will occasionally get a few showers. His and other researchers’ curiosity was piqued and using satellite imagery and high altitude balloon data, they were able to confirm the melt not just at the top of the ice sheet but across much of West Antarctica.

About 300,000 square miles of the ice sheet near the Ross Sea experienced melt, making it the second-largest surface melt ever documented in that region of Antarctica. The meltdown was caused by incredibly  ;)  :D mild air. Temperatures spiked 27°F (15°C) above where they were at in early January in some locations, pushing them above freezing for a two-week period at lower elevations of the ice sheet.

The aurora australis over a West Antarctica research outpost.
Credit: AWARE

The biggest driver of the Antarctic heat wave was the super El Niño, then at its peak in the tropical Pacific. It helped rearrange the atmosphere so a high pressure system off Chile’s coast could steer abnormally balmy weather toward West Antarctica. The pattern has played out in other El Niño years, causing similar widespread melt events.

Ted Scambos, a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said the study did a good job of explaining the mechanisms behind the meltdown and could be helpful in further understanding the forces at play in the region's climate.

The rain that preceded the major melt also may have also played a role in preconditioning the surface melt that Bromwich said was essentially a thick layer of slush covering the ice sheet.

What happened in West Antarctica last January was driven by natural climate shifts, but overlaying it on climate change is bad news for the region where ice shelves are melting from below.

Research has shown that those disappearing ice shelves could trigger “unstoppable” melt as warm water eventually pushes up under parts of the marine ice sheet itself, sending sea levels at least 10 feet higher. Surface melt events like the one Bromwich and his colleagues documented will only compound the speed at which the ice sheet melts.

Previous research has shown that the odds of a super El Niño like the one that boiled the ocean in 2015-16 are likely to double as the climate warms, further compounding the risk. There were also strong winds out of the west that helped blunt some of the melting in January 2016, but if the meteorological odds don’t line up in the future, the region could be in even deeper trouble.

What this particular event reported in this paper means is that regardless of how strong the westerlies are, we’re likely to get widespread melting,” Bromwich said. “And if they’re weak, we’ll get extreme melting.


An enormous waterfall gushes off the Nansen Ice Shelf. Credit: Jonathan Kingslake
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 18, 2017, 11:16:15 pm »

Four missing after tsunami strikes Greenland coast
Source: BBC

6 hours ago

The surge of water is also reported to have swept away 11 homes in the village of Nuugaatsiaq.

Police chief Bjørn Tegner Bay said he was unable to confirm whether there had been fatalities, according to KNR, Greenland's broadcasting corporation.

The authorities believe a magnitude four earthquake caused the tsunami.

According to the police chief, it struck off Uummannaq, a small island well above the Arctic Circle.

Meteorologist Trine Dahl Jensen told Danish news agency Ritzau that for such an earthquake to hit Greenland was "not normal", as she warned of the risk of aftershocks.............................

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40320629
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 12, 2017, 09:54:27 pm »


High Waves Set To Batter Arctic Ocean

High temperatures hit Pakistan end May 2017. The image below shows readings as high as 51.1°C or 123.9°F on May 27, 2017 (at green circle).

As the image below shows, sea temperature was as high as 32.6°C or 90.6°F on May 28, 2017 (at the green circle), 1.8°C or 3.2°F warmer than 1981-2011.

High temperatures over land and at the sea surface reflect an atmosphere that contains huge amounts of energy. On May 28, 2017, the Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) reached levels as high as 7448 J/kg at the location in the United States marked by the green circle. Storms hit a large part of the United States, with baseball-sized hail reported on May 27, 2017.

Agelbert NOTE: Go to article link for referenced link.

Here's a link to a reported 56 °C (132 °F) temperature recorded in Iran and here's a link to an article describing a May 28, 2017, reading in Turbat, Pakistan, initially reported by the Pakistan Meteorological Department as 53.5°C (128.3°F) and later upgraded to 54.0°C (129.2°F.)

How could it be possible for growth of energy in the atmosphere to be accelerating, when CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industry (including cement production) have barely shown any recent growth, as discussed in an earlier post and as reported by EIA?

The image below depicts this possibility, while a recent post discussed the following scenario:

Warmer water tends to form a layer at the surface that does not mix well with the water underneath, as discussed before. Stratification reduces the capability of oceans to take up heat and CO₂ from the atmosphere. Less take-up by oceans of CO₂ will result in higher CO₂ levels in the atmosphere, further speeding up global warming.

Additionally, 93.4% of global warming currently goes into oceans. The more heat will remain in the atmosphere, the faster the temperature of the atmosphere will rise. This feedback can cause very rapid and strong global warming. as depicted on the image on the right and as also described as feedback #29 on the feedbacks page.

With this in mind, forecasts of storms hitting the Arctic Ocean over the next few months look even more frightening.

Waves as high as 2.34 m or 7.7 ft are forecast to hit the Arctic Ocean on June 8, 2017, at the location marked by the green circle.

How is it possible for waves to get that high in a part of the Arctic Ocean that is surrounded by continents that act as shields against winds?

On June 8, 2017, temperatures are forecast to be as high as 40.6°C or 105.2°F near Phoenix, Arizona, and as high as 26.0°C or 78.7°F in Alaska, as the image below shows.

The image below shows that on June 12, 2017, temperatures as high as 35.1°C or 95.3°F were recorded over a river in Siberia that ends in the Lena River which in turn ends in the Arctic Ocean (left panel, green circle), while waves near Novaya Zemlya were recorded as high as 4.54 m or 14.9 ft (top right panel, green circle).

The image below shows that on June 6, 2017, temperatures on the coast of Hudson Bay (green circle) were as high as 31.6°C or 89°F.

Four cyclones are visible on the above image. Strong winds over the Arctic Ocean can cause high waves that can break up the sea ice and strengthen currents that are pushing warm water into the Arctic Ocean and sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean.

These stronger winds, currents and waves come at a time that the Arctic sea ice thickness is at record low, as illustrated by the image below by Wipneus and underneath by Larry Hamilton.

Let's take a closer look at some further feedbacks that are at work behind the increasingly thinner ice, higher temperature, stronger wind and higher waves in the Arctic.

• Sea Ice Decline - The snow and ice cover over the Arctic Ocean make that sunlight is reflected back into space (albedo loss). In the absence of this cover, the Arctic Ocean will absorb more heat. Furthermore, open oceans are less efficient than sea ice when it comes to emitting in the far-infrared region of the spectrum.

• Buffer Loss - The snow and ice cover over the Arctic Ocean acts as a buffer, absorbing heat that in the absence of this buffer will have to be absorbed by the Arctic Ocean, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one.

• Jet Stream Changes - Rising temperatures in the Arctic are causing wind patterns to change, in particular the jet stream.

As a result, warm air can more easily get carried by wind from land over the Arctic Ocean.

The image below shows the Jet Stream on June 6, 2017. As temperatures over the Arctic rise faster than they do at the Equator, the jet stream becomes more wavy. Instead of circumnavigating Earth in a straight and narrow band that keeps the cold air over the Arctic separate from warmer temperatures south of the jet stream, a more wavy jet stream enables more warm air to flow into the Arctic and more cold air to leave the Arctic.

Winds are particularly strong over oceans and, as the Atlantic Ocean keeps warming up, those winds can push more warm water into the Arctic Ocean, as discussed in an earlier post. This can dramatically warm up the water of the Arctic Ocean.

• Clouds and Water Vapor - Loops of the jet stream extending over the Arctic can also bring stronger winds and more clouds and water vapor into the Arctic.

This is another self-reinforcing feedback that goes hand in hand with the above feedbacks. As temperatures rise in the Arctic, loss of sea ice will increase, resulting in more open water. This, in combination with stronger winds and warmer water will also result in more clouds and water vapor over the Arctic, further speeding up the temperature rise in the Arctic.

• Decline of Snow and Ice Cover on Land - Rising temperatures in the Arctic are also speeding up the decline of the snow and ice cover on land. This will result in albedo loss and will also trigger further feedbacks, such as soil destabilization and warm water from rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean.

• Soil destabilization - Heatwaves and droughts destabilize the soil. Soil that was previously known as permafrost, was until now held together by ice. As the ice melts, organic material in the soil starts to decompose and the soil becomes increasingly vulnerable to wildfires. All his can result in high emissions of CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, soot, etc., which in turn causes further warming, specifically over the Arctic. The danger of wildfires is illustrated by the image below.

• Warmer Rivers - High temperatures on land can strongly warm up water of rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean. This is also illustrated by the above image.

• Seafloor Methane - Another huge dangers is that all this additional heat will reach the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and will trigger destabilization of methane hydrates contained in sediments at the seafloor. Stronger winds can mix warmer water all the way down to the seafloor, and destabilize hydrates that can contain huge amounts of methane, resulting in release of huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.


Agelbert NOTE: The battered ocean racer sail boats I recently posted on provide evidence of even larger waves than those predicted in this post. The problem continues to grow while our leaders pretend there is no problem...

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 12, 2017, 07:45:11 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
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 12, 2017, 07:24:15 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Here the biological logic of closing the high seas to fishing (Dr. Lubchenco calls it the Wet West - referring to the "Wild West" term because anything goes and there is ZERO respect for sustainability) is mentioned, although also pointed out by Dr. Lubchenco is the fact that major governmetns refuse to do so. 

As Economist P. Dasgupta laments, collective action to stop, or even ameliorate, this crisis consistently fails to be achieved, even though we are basically out of time for additional delays.

Biological Extinction | Discussion #6

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 11, 2017, 06:05:03 pm »

Climatematters.tv – Is it Game Over for the Climate? ???

Published on Apr 2, 2017

Eminent Arctic and Ocean Physics scientist, Dr. Peter Wadhams, and Dr. Maria Pia Casarini discuss the possibility that it's 'game over' for the climate. Hosted by Stuart Scott, at COP22 Marrakesh. Please watch and share.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 11, 2017, 05:49:06 pm »

Florida plans to abandon Property to the Sea (Sea Level Rise)

Published on Jun 10, 2017

One idea likely to be both controversial and expensive: demolishing properties and returning developed areas back to nature. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 11, 2017, 04:14:18 pm »

The Brutal Logic of Climate Change

Carbon Neutral University Sheffield

Published on May 19, 2017
Full length talk that covers the facts of climate change, the urgency with which it needs to be addressed and actions we can take to stop it. Delivered by Dr Aaron Thierry at the University of Sheffield, hosted by the Carbon Neutral University Network.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 10, 2017, 09:25:17 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: More signs of rougher oceans due to Global Warming are evidenced below. The North Atlantic is not supposed to be so rough in June, but the weather is more like January and February in its ferocity. It will get worse every year.

The above is what a 15 meter wave looks like.      

Update 2: Canada Launches Rescue Mission as Weather System Hits Trans-Atlantic Sailing Race
June 10, 2017 by Reuters


This screen grab taken at approximate 17:37 ET shows the location of sailing yachts participating in the OSTAR 2017 race in relation to the weather system. Image credit: MyLiveRegatta (at article link)

Update 2 (June 10) – Below is an update provided by the Royal Western Yacht Club, which is hosting the trans-Atlantic race event. All sailors in distress are reported safe:

In the early hours of Friday 9th June, 60 knot winds and 15 metre seas  :o were experienced by competitors, caused by a very low depression (967 mb). These extreme conditions caused damage to many boats with 3 emergency beacons (EPIRB) triggered. The Canadian coastguard in Halifax immediately reacted to the situation sending ships and air support to all the boats in distress.

The boats affected over the past 36 hours are:

TAMARIND – Suffered severe damage. Skipper well with no injuries. Rescued by Queen Mary en route to Halifax.

HAPPY – Dismasted. Both crew rescued by ocean going tug APL FORWARD. No injuries reported.

FURIA – Boat sunk. Crew resuced by survey vessel THOR MAGNA. No injuries reported.

HARMONII – Mainsail and track damage. Retired. Heading under engine for the Azores. Skipper ok, no injuries.

SUOMI KUDU – Mainsail problems. Retired. Heading back to UK. Skipper ok, no injuries.

All other competitors safe but still experiencing a 10 – 15 metre swell, no injuries reported.

Full article with update:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 09, 2017, 07:48:47 pm »

This is definitely the best resource I’ve encountered for a crash course in the root causes of climate change and the potential negative outcomes if the global community continues to ignore the problem.    Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have condensed years of research into a tiny book––all the better to penetrate the noosphere of a world demanding easily-digested reading options.

Presented as a fictional academic paper from the perspective of a Chinese historian three hundred years in the future, this text is packed with useful insights, the most intriguing of which are a handful of big-picture assessments of the recent historical trends that have contributed to runaway carbon emissions and the intractability of governments in addressing the problem with the seriousness it deserves.  The book’s tone is historically detached, chiding, playful, and ultimately chilling as our fictional narrator blithely scrutinizes the reader’s confused present and bleak future. Oreskes and Conway paint a hellish picture of 21st century Western life that would be alarmist    ::) if the real risk were not so imminent, so thoroughly empirically supported, and so extreme in magnitude.

One of the intellectual highlights here is Oreskes and Conway’s critique of reductionism/specialization in the practice of science, which they claim as the primary contributor to the scientific community’s sluggish attempts to popularize and push for government action to address what ought to be extraordinarily disturbing data. Reductionism, they posit, “impeded investigations of complex systems” and “also made it difficult for scientists to articulate the threat posed by climate change, since many experts did not actually know very much about aspects of the problem beyond their expertise” (14).  This trend meant that there was little inquiry into “systems science, complexity science, and…earth systems science” (15).  This seems    a fair and accurate complaint , and yet the authors say nothing about how an appropriately holistic science would function in practice.   To support a scientific apparatus capable not only of investigating specialized fields (which no doubt would still be necessary), but also of identifying and articulating robust patterns between disciplines in order to fashion a better picture of the ecological landscape, would require far more public and private investment than scientific endeavors currently enjoy, at least in the United States. Just another reason why public funding for science is so important. 

The other, more destructive component of the climate problem is the western addiction to neoliberalism, or what Oreskes and Conway refer to as “market fundamentalism. 
 This ideology is all too familiar to anyone who has watched with dismay as the economic obsession with market autonomy has eroded the public sphere over the last several decades, sidelining infrastructure, worker’s rights, and sensible pollution prevention in favor of the consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.  Oreskes and Conway cleverly point out that individual freedom, the cornerstone concept of the neoliberal worldview, will be drastically imperiled in a world where we do nothing to prevent climate change: “Neoliberalism, meant to ensure freedom above all, led eventually to a situation that necessitated large-scale government intervention” (48).  The authors warn that if we continue to allow the fossil fuel industry to pursue short term profits that wreck the environment, disasters will become the norm, and governments will increasingly be forced to intervene in order to retain whatever semblance of peace can be salvaged from the chaos.  Without swift government action to implement proper regulations and actively bolster a transition to a green, sustainable economy, it’s not absurd to suggest that future Westerners may very well experience martial law on a mass scale.

Most disquieting is Oreskes and Conway’s suggestion that the failure of Western civilization to respond adequately to this crisis might be construed as evidence for the impotency of the democratic way of life , even to the point of discrediting democracy as a desirable form of political organization for future generations:By blocking anticipatory action, neoliberals did more than expose the tragic flaws in their own system: they fostered expansion of the forms of governance they most abhorred” (52).  The authors imagine that autocratic China, while suffering serious losses of its own, would muster more efficient and large-scale responses compared to Western nations,    thus obviating climate change’s worst consequences and retaining the basic structure of Chinese civilization.  Indeed, China’s recent environmental woes have already caused the government to enact green reforms, which they can institute by fiat rather than having to push them through a body of elected representatives.  Conversely, many democratic  ::) nations still struggle to wrest the legislative power of elected officials from corporate influence   and systemic political gridlock. 

Confronting climate change, then, may mean more than just trying to avoid disaster or preserve biological flourishing––it might mean proving to the world that letting people have a say in how their government is run is a fundamentally efficacious idea that’s here to stay, and not some whimsical, ill-fated experiment that occurred as we blindly rushed from one feudal era to the next.


Agelbert NOTE: The above review tries to be objective and FAILS. Naomi is stating clearly that China actually DOES do the will of the people and the "democracies" are NOTHING OF THE KIND because Corporate FASCISM corrupted them into oligarchies that ignored climate change on behalf of profit over biosphere.

Listen to an interview at the link below, and read my note  ;D, for true objectivity.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2017, 10:04:33 pm »

Trump's Climate Withdrawal Is an Impeachable Offense

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout | News Analysis

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2017, 09:30:16 pm »

The Extreme Hurricane Season

Can We Stop the GOP From Destroying the Planet?

Hune 6, 2017

Big Picture Interview: Dick Russell, Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying the Planet and How They Explain Themselves to Their Own Children. As the US pulls out of the Paris Climate Deal - why does mainstream media continue to treat global warming like a culture war debate?

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2017, 08:14:27 pm »

Fact-Checking Trump on Climate Finance

by Joe Thwaites and Niranjali Manel Amerasinghe - June 05, 2017

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 04, 2017, 04:16:17 pm »

187 mayors adopt Paris climate accord after U.S. pulls out (updated)
“The world cannot wait—and neither will we


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 03, 2017, 06:06:31 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 02, 2017, 09:46:07 pm »

Climate change will ruin Hawaii, new study finds


America’s favorite travel destination, Hawaii, is in for some nasty times.  :(

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 02, 2017, 09:34:05 pm »

German Reactions to Trump Paris Accord Withdrawal


Martin Schulz, Social Democratic (SPD) frontrunner for the federal elections:

"You can withdraw from a climate agreement but not from climate change, Mr. Trump. Reality isn't just another statesman you shove away. ... there is no reasonable alternative to a sustainable climate policy. ..."

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 02, 2017, 08:00:17 pm »

Three Major States Already "joining" Paris Accord  ;D

By oregonj 

Thursday Jun 01, 2017 · 5:46 PM EDT


The governors of New York, California and Washington in the past hour have announced the formation of an alliance of US states to follow the Paris Accords.  This represents over one-fifth of the US economy, and it is only the beginning of many more states prepared to join.

Once again, a Trump policy will be marginalized.  Still dangerous — but it will be a lot more smoke (literally) than fire.

Full article:
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 02, 2017, 02:50:01 pm »

Catastrophic Climate Change is HERE NOW!

The Great Barrier Reef Can't Be Saved 

But don't worry about a thing. Trumpy will make sure it all goes away ....

Yeah. I know. It's extremely **** depressing. I never even got to see it. Of course, I'm afraid of Box Jellyfish. When the reef dies, that's probably what'll be left anyway.

I know that Jellyfish are extremely hardy. The collapse of the life producing Great Barrier Reef biome, it being that reefs have such a disproportionately large role (over 90% of fish nurseries are in reefs - the rest are in estuaries) for life in the oceans, will result in effect that may well be far more deleterious than boosting jellyfish populations.

The question is, will the phytoplankton and zooplankton take up the slack to keep fish populations (after the mollusks can't make shells and die in droves so the fish have no food) all over the planet from collapsing (and going extinct) or not? I don't think so. WHY?

Marine Trophic Pyramid

The trophic pyramid has mandatory TEN TO ONE energy math that no species can get around. The food chain BELOW the life forms that feed on it MUST be ten times larger than the one above it or the species above it goes extinct. The reefs system, plus the phytoplankton and the zooplankton, have now been reduced BELOW the thermodynamic requirement of ten times (at least) the size of the predators that feed on it.

Expect over a third or more of all macroscopic (i.e. especially the ones we eat) marine species to die within a decade. The collapse of the Ocean species web is now inevitable (and has been ongoing for at least a decade already, albeit at a slower pace than we will now experience).

Do the math on the size of the Great Barrier Reef versus all the other reef systems on the planet. Then you will see that the Great Barrier Reef is about HALF of all the planetary reef systems in area. That is now practically DEAD.

We know who the Criminals in this profit over biosphere destruction are. It's time we went after them. The planet will be just fine. It is in our best interest to make it illegal to pollute the biosphere, whether it be from burning fossil fuels or other chemical processes the polluters make money off of.

The total of all Reef systems occupy a small percentage of the total surface area of the oceans. But if the reefs die, which is exactly what is happening, and is exactly what has been predicted by climate scientists for DECADES, we aren't gonna make up for that by eating crickets. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 02, 2017, 02:47:32 pm »

Trump Dumps Paris Climate Accords, Musk Dumps Trump  ;D

June 2nd, 2017 by Steve Hanley

What Trump DID accomplish by today’s grandstanding action:

⦁   Stuck it to the ⦁   global community, our European and Japanese allies, and our friendly rivals in China and India. They spent years negotiating this deal, and they’re staying the course – although they are angry that the testy toddler who somehow stumbled into the White House has walked away from the table.

⦁   Thrilled what’s left of his base – although his approval rating continues to hover at catastrophic levels, and even his strongest partisans are starting to waver.

⦁   Thrilled the looters of the rabid right, like the Mercers and the Koch brothers  , who are pleased they can suck a few more years of double-digit profits out of the American public (aka “Trump’s base” – the beleaguered Midwesterners who’s jobs are being exported and whose safety net is being shredded).


Mildly encouraging. Lots of support for the Paris Accords among the capitalists. They aren't all stupid. I was surprised at the backlash. I'm sure you read that Elon Musk bailed on his Trump advisory role.

I know you think that Capitalists like Musk, who actually know how to add and subtract in biosphere math, get it. I agree. But the issue is not Capitalism. Capitalism is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Again, I know you vigorously disagree, so I won't belabor the issue.

All that said, what I find encouraging in Trump's profit over planet action(s) is the confirmation of the fascist right wing overreach I expected ever since the Trump fossil fuel TOOL got (s)elected. The latest bit of overreach FORCES the media to DISCUSS CLIMATE Change, SOMETHING FOX NEWS (and practically, though not as obviously, all other Capitalist news networks in the USA AND the world) generally avoid like the "externalized costs are going to eat our profit over planet lunch if we can't pass that buck onto the rubes   " PLAGUE.

Also, this forces idiots that think profit is God to think about how they are shooting themselves in the FACE, not just the foot, by trashing the commons (otherwise known as the biosphere) for money.

As I guessed way back in November, Trumpy has managed to UNITE a rather  disparate group of powerful nations AGAINST polluting the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. This is a good thing, although I seriously doubt that most people in Texas would agree that banning the production of fossil fuels, with prison sentences for corporations that do so, is a good thing. But THAT is where, INEVITABLY, this is going, Eddie.  And no, this is not something decades away, as you might surmise. Laugh if you wish, but it would be prudent to get OUT of absolutely any investment based on the health of the fossil fuel fascists now. Forewarned is forearmed. I know what I am talking about. Be well and act prudently.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 02, 2017, 01:32:31 pm »

Trump Dumps Paris Climate Accords, Musk Dumps Trump  ;D

June 2nd, 2017 by Steve Hanley

What Trump DID accomplish by today’s grandstanding action:

⦁   Stuck it to the ⦁   global community, our European and Japanese allies, and our friendly rivals in China and India. They spent years negotiating this deal, and they’re staying the course – although they are angry that the testy toddler who somehow stumbled into the White House has walked away from the table.

⦁   Thrilled what’s left of his base – although his approval rating continues to hover at catastrophic levels, and even his strongest partisans are starting to waver.

⦁   Thrilled the looters of the rabid right, like the Mercers and the Koch brothers  , who are pleased they can suck a few more years of double-digit profits out of the American public (aka “Trump’s base” – the beleaguered Midwesterners who’s jobs are being exported and whose safety net is being shredded).

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 01, 2017, 09:50:37 pm »

Catastrophic Climate Change is HERE NOW!

The Great Barrier Reef Can't Be Saved 

But don't worry about a thing. Trumpy will make sure it all goes away ....

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 01, 2017, 08:33:26 pm »


RMI Statement on U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

June 1, 2017  |  By Jules Kortenhorst

We are greatly disappointed in President Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

The Paris Agreement constitutes humanity’s best effort to put a global governance mechanism in place to address the global climate change threat. It is and will remain an unprecedented achievement by nations who have shown the political will to jointly tackle the unprecedented challenge that global warming presents. The withdrawal of the United States will significantly undermine these efforts, as the U.S. is the leading emitter of greenhouse gases per capita. However, we are confident that the Paris Agreement will endure.

U.S. climate action will not go dark. We are encouraged by the efforts of American states, cities, and businesses that strive to reduce emissions and whose efforts will carry on undeterred by this federal decision. In fact, the commitments of governors, mayors, and business leaders to join forces to aggregate their climate actions demonstrate the degree to which the United States will continue to lead on climate even as the federal administration takes a step backward. This effort, which could be aggregated as an alternative NDC (nationally determined contribution) or an “SDC—societally determined contribution,” could seek to show that on many of the most important climate metrics—from share of renewable energy to investment in clean mobility solutions—the actions of states, cities, and companies will keep the United States moving forward, albeit at a less aggressive pace than would be the case otherwise.

The energy transition to renewables and energy efficiency will continue unabated. This is evident year after year, both in the U.S. and abroad. In the electricity system, renewable energy and natural gas together produced half of U.S. electricity supplies last year, while coal made up only 30 percent—the smallest share since officials started keeping track 70 years ago. States from New York to Oregon to Michigan have raised their Renewable Portfolio Standards, which set requirements for utilities to source energy from renewable projects. And corporations signed 2.5 gigawatts worth of long-term power contracts with wind and solar projects last year. While jobs in the coal industry won’t come back, those in solar, wind, energy efficiency, and spin-off industries will only grow. The U.S. solar industry employed 260,077 workers last year, a nearly 25 percent increase in the number of jobs since 2015. Betting on energy technologies of the past is bad for business and bad for jobs.

And in fact, in other parts of the world, leaders fully appreciate the power of this new industrial revolution, and are standing ready to step into the leadership void that will be created by the U.S. withdrawal from Paris. China, India, and Europe, together with all but three countries around the world (Syria, Nicaragua, and now the U.S.) are committed to implementing the Paris agreement even after this set back.

At Rocky Mountain Institute, we will stay focused on our mission to transform global energy use to create a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future, and we work with all willing partners to do so.


Jules Kortenhorst


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 01, 2017, 08:01:48 pm »


June 1, 2017

Trump Pulls Out of the Paris Climate Accord

Daphne Wysham, director of the climate and energy program at the Center for Sustainable Economy, joins Sharmini Peries to talk about the ramifications of the US pulling out of the Paris accord.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 31, 2017, 09:02:59 pm »


May 31, 2017

Trump and the Future of the Paris Climate Accord

Climate scientist Dana Nuccitelli discusses the Trump Administration's tendency to embrace fake climate news and the administration's hostility to sound climate change policy.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 31, 2017, 05:03:01 pm »

Moscow (CNN)A fierce storm whipped through Moscow on Monday, killing 16 people, toppling thousands of trees and damaging several buildings, officials said.
Eleven people were killed in Moscow and three others elsewhere in the region, said Svetlana Petrenko, spokeswoman for the Russian Investigative Committee. It's not clear where the other two victims died.

State-run news agency Tass reported that 168 people were injured in the storm -- the deadliest in years -- and 146 were hospitalized, according to Alexei Khripun, who leads Moscow's department of health.

Alexander Golod's pyramid in Istrinsky District, Moscow Region, was destroyed by the storm

Of the 108 people who remain in the hospital, 22 are children. Tass said the injuries range from cuts and bruises to head and spine injuries.

"I can't remember within my recollection any other such calamity with the number of dead and injured as big as this one," Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin told Tass, adding that the families of those killed will receive 1 million rubles ($17,760) each.

CNN meteorologist Taylor Ward said most of the damage appeared to come from strong straight-line winds, with gusts measuring 101 kph (63 mph).

According to Sobyanin, the storm uprooted about 3,500 trees. Transportation was affected in the capital and more than 50 flights were delayed in the region, Tass reported.

A woman walks past a fallen tree on a car after a heavy storm in Moscow.

The surrounding region endured similar damage, with 3,000 trees blown down, 322 cars damaged and the roofs of 42 houses and maternity clinics sustaining damage, Tass said.
In 1998, a strong wind storm hit Moscow, killing as many as 11 people.


Agelbert NOTE: Russia just got a visit from the ghost of Climate change Future. Putin had better start paying attention and get his head out of his fossil fuel worshiping ASS.

Predicted Wind Speed increases are SUPPOSED to be modest. But I think they are being overly conservative about the AMOUNT of increase, even though they are absolutely correct about the unavoidable INCREASE. If you have been subjected to any mendacious propaganda that claims Climate Change will produce "slower" wind speeds, be sure and throw this document at those LIARS:
Climate Change Effects On Wind Speed - 3Tier 

... changes likely will continue. A recent review of historic ... energy production of existing and planned wind ... Predicted changes in wind speeds due to global warming are expected to be modest, but ... els predict stronger surface wind speeds.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 30, 2017, 02:37:26 pm »

We can’t count on trees to solve our global warming mess — there’s just too much CO2 out there



Massive reforestation can’t save us from runaway global warming, despite what intuition might tell us. According to a recent study which simulated CO2 removal from a biosphere point of view, biomass plantations would be inadequate in steering us away from a potentially disastrous 2 degrees Celsius global warming scenario. Instead, we have to cut off fossil fuels immediately and plant biomass at the same time if we’re to have a winning shot at this.

Trees don’t overestimate them

We all know deforestation is running rampant all over the world. According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of West Africa’s coastal rain forests have disappeared since 1900. This destruction is continuing on a daily basis. The U.S. State Department estimates that forests four times the size of Switzerland are lost each year because of clearing and degradation. That’s because every year our cities grow bigger, and so do our crop fields and industrial centers to support an ever growing and affluent population.

Here’s what the forest cover in Central Europe used to look like some 1,100 years ago.

Credit: Michael Williams (2006) – Deforesting the Earth From Prehistory to Global Crisis, An Abridgment. University Of Chicago Press.

Trees are incredibly useful. They provide shelter and food for millions of species, enrich the soil, and — perhaps most importantly — suck out CO2 and expel O2. That’s literally the reverse of human respiration and for millions of years, this delicate interplay has worked out just fine for everyone. But then humans started digging and burning billions of tonnes of carbon that was stored in the crust for ages. Coupled with massive deforestation, human activity has released so many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that the world is now nearly 1 degree Celsius warmer than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Though alarmed, some people might feel comfortable knowing that we can always replant our forests to offset all the damage we’ve caused in the last 150 years. But that’s just wishful thinking, according to an international team of researchers who simulated what would happen if we grew biomass under three scenarios: business as usual (unabated burning of fossil fuel resources), Paris Agreement (190+ countries pledged to reduce or cap emissions on a case by case basis. For instance, the U.S.  pledged to lower emissions by at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025), and very ambitious CO2 reductions.

The team found that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at this current rate, the number of trees we’d need to plant would be simply staggering and impractical. Even if we’d plant nothing but poplar trees or switchgrass, which have some of the highest density of stored biomass (50% carbon), under this scenario the size of the plantation would replace natural ecosystems around the world almost completely.

“If we continue burning coal and oil the way we do today and regret our inaction later, the amounts of greenhouse gas we would need to take out of the atmosphere in order to stabilize the climate would be too huge to manage, says Lena Boysen from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany, lead-author of the study published in a journal of the American Geophysical Union, Earth’s Future.

In the case of scenario #2, even if all the Paris pledgers put their money where their mouth is, we’d still be in trouble. The biomass plantations required by mid-century to extract all that remaining excess CO2 from the atmosphere would be enormous. We’d have to replace natural ecosystems on fertile land the size of more than one-third of all forests we have today on our planet. If that’s not an option, we can always convert a quarter of the land used for agriculture into biomass plantations. But in doing so, we’d seriously jeopardize global food security.

Lastly, if the world was very serious about climate change and ambitiously decided to reduce carbon emissions, then fierce competition for land and food could be less pronounced than in the other two scenarios. However, even in this scenario, we’d have to use high-tech carbon-storage-machinery that captures more than 75 percent of extracted CO2 to limit warming to around 2°C by 2100.  :P

“As scientists we are looking at all possible futures, not just the positive ones,” says co-author Wolfgang Lucht from PIK. “What happens in the worst case, a widespread disruption and failure of mitigation policies? Would [color=greents[/color] allow us to still stabilize climate in emergency mode?” ???

“The answer is: no. There is no alternative for successful mitigation. In that scenario plants can potentially play a limited, but important role, if managed well.”

The fact is, there is no simple solution such as ‘planting more trees’ to such a complex problem like global warming.

Consider the following:


Considering that trees can self-reproduce, and spread themselves throughout suitable areas for their species, how much more likely is it that replacing FF-fired power stations with solar panels, which are energy-intensive to manufacture, will be possible?  The danger of watching the Dollars instead of the Kilowatt.hours (Energy) should be obvious. 

The only thing rather obvious is that you are a study in cherry picking irrelevancy. Self reproduction is NOT the issue, Einstein. The ISSUE is the RATE of self reproduction that you conveniently ignored.

If you were seriously debating this issue (which you certainly are not), you would bring up duckweed, which can double it's population every 48 hours or so. Duckweed (e.g. Lemna minor - there are several species) also has a longer growing season and greater temperature tolerance than any tree. IOW, it can grow where trees grow AND in gigantic swaths of the planet where trees cannot grow. However, there are problems with the duckweed approach that, again, require a multifaceted, multidisciplinary biosphere remediation approach that, of course, requires, as a sine qua non part of the approach, a 100% transition to Renewable Energy within a decade or so to actually give us a fighting chance to make it through the Catastrophic climate years now upon us.
But you are merely trying to throw mud at solar panel technology, and just found another duplicitous way to pitch your ATTACK on Renewable Energy in defense of the UNSUSTAINABLE fossil fuel "real world" polluting status quo. It's really quite clever of you because your pitch appears to be cheerleading nature in general and trees in particular, RATHER than a backdoor attempt to defend the biosphere destroying fossil fuel CO2 producing profit over planet. Nice try!   

As Thom Hartmann recently pointed out, he worried back in 1996 about the issue you fossil fuelers are so fond of repeating ad nauseam. THAT IS, that you need fossil fuels to make solar panels. Guess what, Einstein? THAT AIN'T necessary no more! Solar powered factories NOW can can routinely produce the temperatures needed to make the glass (the highest temperatures needed to make solar panel components).  So your argument is DEAD.

AND, all along I have, as Thom Hartmann and many others have, advocated using fossil fuels to build the renewable energy infrastructure to permanently get off of fossil fuels.  During all that time, people like YOU have claimed, "its too hard" or "the ERoEI is too low" or other assorted foot dragging BALONEY pushed by the fossil fuel crooks and liars.

YOU were wrong with your convenient (for the fossil fuel industry  ;) ) arbitrary narrow focus. YOU are STILL  wrong. Maybe someday, when you actually bring yourself to compute the ENERGY COST of pollution on human health care COSTS, you will get your mathematician head out of your cherry picking ASS and see what a ruinously LOW (as in NEGATIVE NUMBERS!) the ERoEI of any fossil fuel POISON is.

DINNER IS SERVED, PALLOY (see link below  ;D).

Chow down, Palloy!

+-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