CO2 400ppm

[arkmundi]

sorry, but to i don't like to be called irresponsible just for having 3 kids. what do you want ppl to do?

I'm truly sorry! Everyone makes life commitments they in retrospect wished they had not. But you know less when you were younger. We all knew less before the Internet boom. So its just a forward looking thing - what you choose to do now based on what you now know.

arkmundi: the video you posted was the most frightning thing i saw in my whole life... all i can hope is that you're wrong and there will be a way out for us

Sorry again. Its not me or "my" opinion. This is the global science consensus on the impending climate catastrophe. I say "impending", because even with the worst drought in US history now underway, with huricanes like Katrina and Sandy, with massive agricultural dislocations underway, droughts and floods and tornadoes and all manner of extreme weather events occurring on a daily basis everywhere on the globe, with all that, we are JUST AT THE BEGINNING. We have not even reached 1-degree of warming (C) yet! We're locked into a minimum of 2-degrees of warming (the existing CO2 load in the atmosphere. With business-as-usual (there's no evidence otherwise), we're locked into up to 4 or 5-degrees of warming by end-of-century. You should be frightened, as should anyone looking at the evidence, and especially if you have children or grand-children.

 

[arkmundi]

[youtube]vA7tfz3k_9A[/youtube]

 

[HAROX]

Snowline on Mt Everest has receded 590 vertical feet, a 13% meltoff, they say, on national news, due to human causes.
After more reading of the IPCC, everyone generally agrees, nobody has a fix for this, even if we cut off the gas.

And what really caused this? It was people. Borrowing people. Problem was, they fooled everyone into thinking it was there for the taking. Now it's as big a reality as the world debt, except this is the natural debt. We may pay it down, by sequestering, but the due date has come and gone. Now it's all borrowed time, and humanity has no answers for time either.

 

[arkmundi]

Scientists say united on global warming, at odds with public view
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516

(Reuters) - Ninety-seven percent of scientists say global warming is mainly man-made but a wide public belief that experts are divided is making it harder to gain support for policies to curb climate change, an international study showed on Thursday.

The report found an overwhelming view among scientists that human activity, led by the use of fossil fuels, was the main cause of rising temperatures in recent decades.

"There is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia, who led the study in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," he said in a statement. "When people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they're more likely to support policies that take action on it."

Global average surface temperatures have risen by 0.8 degree Celsius (1.4F) since the Industrial Revolution.

Experts in Australia, the United States, Britain and Canada studied 4,000 summaries of peer-reviewed papers in journals giving a view about climate change since the early 1990s and found that 97 percent said it was mainly caused by humans.

They also asked authors for their views and found a 97 percent conviction from replies covering 2,000 papers. The data will be released at (www.skepticalscience.com).

The report said it was the biggest review so far of scientific opinion on climate change....more

 

[arkmundi]

 

[HAROX]

495: Hot In My Backyard, This American Life, http://www.thisamericanlife.org/

This is a podcast in three segments, this time, on the subject of CC, with regard to world discussion, through coalitions with writers/ activists, determined to blog the facts out in front of everyone, including fuel companies themselves.

 

[arkmundi]

On one side you have an overwhelming majority of scientist, all the world's major national academies of science, all the professional science journals, the IPCC - UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - that's one side

[youtube]_uuYjUxf6Uk[/youtube]
On the other side, he explains is ALEC, the Heartland Institute and their corporate sponsors who have proposed a global warming curriculum for K-12 which teaches that "there is a major controversory over whether humans are changing the weather."

 

[arkmundi]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/23-4

 

[oldpiper]

Yes, there is controversy, even among scientists about whether (1) we are undergoing global warming (GW) or not, and (2) if so, we are a contributor to it. Fine, let those who want to argue, argue. But there seems to be general agreement that GW probably will screw up our environment (particularly around coastlines, where the local terrain will change from above water to under water). If you listen to the meteorologists, however, you cannot say that Year X's weather is due to GW or not, there's too much scatter in the data, you have to look at the trend. So there are going to be arguments for years to come until the trend is clear, one way or another.

AFAIAC, given that there is at least a possibility that our collective actions can contribute to GW, we should be doing as much as we can to NOT perturb the situation and let the Earth do its thing. We WILL always create some heat in addition to what our non-civilized/industrialized ancestors did and the other animal species do. Whenever we build, refine, extract, heat, cool, etc. anything it leads to a local lowering of entropy and there has to be a raising of entropy somewhere for the system (Earth). That comes in the form of heat (which spreads out) 99.999% of the time and a raising of CO2 levels (because of the way we get our energy) a large percentage of the time. So, unless we want to revert to an unindustrialized lifestyle (I need my air conditioning!), we need to be maximizing efficiency in the way we harness and use energy, not just maximizing short-term profit, or find a way to move the Earth about 500,000 km further from the Sun (number untested).

\Step down from soap box again\

Cameron

 

[salty9]

What twists my knickers is that no one since Jimmy Carter has given any sustained encouragement for conservation.

 

[dnmun]

it is not possible politically in this country. look at what the guy just before you said about how we will end up with an unindustrialized country without his air conditioning.

they will totally make up stupid stuff to prove to themselves how global warming is a commie conspiracy meant to prevent them from being rich and fat.

the rise in sea levels is already tipped. it will escalate exponentially as the greenland ice shelf hollows out and the big fresh water lakes flood the north atlantic and shut off the global circulation of the gulf stream driven by the haline gradient. when that blocks the gulf stream from reaching northern europe, then scandanavia and northern britain will be 10o colder and have longer winters and maybe it will be hard to get the ice out of the north sea and st petersberg will be ice bound twice as long as now.

but it is already too late to even stop the seas from rising 30-40 feet from where it is now. and i think it will happen so much faster than currently predicted.

people may consider arkmundi to be overreacting to the threat because they themselves cannot imagine a world where we use 50% less energy. it is so absurd to say that using the same level as energy as we did in 1954 would ruin us as an industrial country. just so stupid.

i grew up in louisiana with 110o summer weather and i worked all day in a sawmill in that kinda weather and we never had A/C so for him to say that is just sick. lazy fat ass sick. selfish greedy self serving republican greedy pig sick.

 

[neptronix]

495: Hot In My Backyard, This American Life, http://www.thisamericanlife.org/

This is a podcast in three segments, this time, on the subject of CC, with regard to world discussion, through coalitions with writers/ activists, determined to blog the facts out in front of everyone, including fuel companies themselves.

I listen to 'this american life' very frequently in my garage and happened to listen to that today.

Really disappointed. It was completely one sided and painted anyone who disagreed as a cowardly and/or stupid republican. There were many logical leaps made that did not make sense to me upon examination. They said that the discussion is stalled and action cannot be taken just because of some republicans.

It's the left that is guilty of constantly overplaying the negative effects of global warming, and the right who tends to be unable/unwilling to even acknowledge the existence or validity of any of the science. Me - i'm right in the middle and have tried to find out which claims are true from both sides. I often end up at dead ends when trying to validate claims.

Scientific truth should never be politicized. Gimme legitimate science, not rhetoric.

 

[oldpiper]

dnmun, did you actually read what I wrote?

" unless [word enlarged to be noticed here] we want to revert to an unindustrialized lifestyle (I need my air conditioning!), we need to be maximizing efficiency in the way we harness and use energy, not just maximizing short-term profit, or find a way to move the Earth about 500,000 km further from the Sun (number untested)."

In other words, we create more heat on this planet than all the other animals combined, and much more than we did a couple of hundred years ago, so IMHO we need to find a way to moderate this, or at least not keep growing it exponentially in order to cause problems in the future, whether or not you believe we're already causing climate problems. When I talked about returning to an unindustrialized lifestyle, I meant 1750's, not 1950's. If we use up the majority of our nonrenewable resources, and then the global temperature goes up high enough, and screws up the weather enough (which will cause us to use up more resources to keep things almost tolerable, causing a vicious circle), I can imagine things collapsing in the future to where chaos ensues. Maybe I should have meant 1350's.

Or above in the same paragraph, "AFAIAC [As Far As I Am Concerned], given that there is at least a possibility that our collective actions can contribute to GW, we should be doing as much as we can to NOT perturb the situation and let the Earth do its thing." Do either of the above statements sound like I'm [quoting you now] "lazy fat ass sick. selfish greedy self serving republican greedy pig sick"?

This time, read what I said, all the way through. There is not one thing which is not factual in that post except where I clearly said it was opinion. And after you do read it, I believe I deserve an apology from you.

Cameron

BTW, as a teenager, I spent several of my summers in Norfolk, VA, digging ditches and stringing wire along the Interstate highways that were being built there. It was only 100 deg., but we didn't have AC out there, either.

 

[chvidgov.bc.ca]

What pisses me off is that our lovely government of British Columbia is turning us into one of the larger Carbon pimps on the planet, with all the pipelines and shipping that are to move LNG, bitumen and coal, to Asia.
Then its all greenwashed with the BC Carbon Trust...I'm ashamed.

 

[Chalo]

What twists my knickers is that no one since Jimmy Carter has given any sustained encouragement for conservation.

Carter was under the sway of corrupt men, but he wasn't fundamentally a corrupt man. All the guys who've followed him have been corrupt, though.

Conservation doesn't offer lots of guaranteed easy profit for entrenched business interests. It does, however, offer the possibility of a new technological boom to rival the internet frenzy of the '90s. And whatever real efficiency gains can be won that way will reduce everyone's overhead costs for as long as energy has a cost attached. There are riches lying along that path; they just aren't sure to go to the crony capitalists who call the shots. And those guys want to be sure.

Think about all the prospective technologies that could change our energy outlook for the better if any one of them had a major breakthrough: photovoltaics, batteries/capacitors, fuel cells, nuclear fusion, thermal generators, cellulosic ethanol, algae biodiesel-- the list goes on and on. If what happened to lighting or telephones over the last 25 years had happened to solar cells instead, we'd all have solar panels at home today, and fossil fueled power plants would be getting shut down.

As soon as he took office, Mr. Obama could have used his political capital to change the country for the better by winding down the wars and using some of that money to stimulate development of energy saving or energy producing technology. It certainly would have done more good than the previous administration's energy "solution", which was to steal Iraq's petroleum. But when it comes down to actions, the new guy doesn't really display any more scruples than the last guy. So we've had nothing useful from the central government on this important front. Just some relatively small time giveaways to corporate interests.

As for air conditioning, well... old people and fat people have been living in New Orleans, St Augustine, El Paso, and Tucson for hundreds of years. A/C isn't a necessity any more than private automobiles are a necessity; it's just the way we do things at the moment. Building structures that stay more comfortable in the heat is a better way to manage the issue. And then there's solar air conditioning, which is coming into use here and there lately. Kinda makes sense to provide A/C that works harder the more the sun is beating down, doesn't it?

 

[neptronix]

^--bravo, especially the point about Obama. I was so disappointed in him that i questioned being a democrat and ended up becoming libertarian / anarcho-capitalist along the way. Whoops. :lol:

I don't expect any positive solutions or actions from government, only negative. Oil has it's claws deep within the governments of the western world. As long as the oil wells keep producing, there will be money stuffed into the coat pockets of all major decision makers at the federal, state, and local level. This has been the case for over a hundred years.

You can surely pull up some clips about Obama talking about how we must address climate change. Many will forget that he is the one that took polar bears off the extinct species list, opened up drilling in the arctic wildlife refuge, and launched a bunch of oil wars in north Africa, also engaged AFRICOM permanently..

It's an effin joke.

The only solution is to build a better mouse trap. Get off oil as much as possible. Make it affordable and appealing to the masses. Take everyone with you on the eco journey. There's no other way. Voluntary action is always a hundred times more effective than waiting for someone else to do the right thing. Keep your side of the street clean and hand out brooms

Stop your worrying. Start your doing.

 

[HAROX]

I listen to 'this american life' very frequently in my garage and happened to listen to that today.

Really disappointed. It was completely one sided and painted anyone who disagreed as a cowardly and/or stupid republican. Me - i'm right in the middle and have tried to find out which claims are true from both sides. I often end up at dead ends when trying to validate claims.

Scientific truth should never be politicized. Gimme legitimate science, not rhetoric.

Neptronix ...1)You knew the Ira Glass brand of podcasting, so being disappointed is just being critical. Ira Glass wouldn't spend three minutes in Noam Chomsky's camp spouting facts. And guess what? 42.9% of the readers here don't know what you're talking about, because they haven't invested the listening time in Glass's podcast.
I listened to it and you, and guess what, I don't know what you're talking about either, Glass painting disagreers as cowards. I missed that completely. My next door neighbor disagrees vehemently, when he's drunk, with his friends, who hate democrats. That includes half my friends.
Also, please delete your double posting, which I know is forthcoming. Thank you.

Is anybody selling bumper stickers that say "400 ppm"?

 

[HAROX]

Also, knowing what you know about the guv'ment, Nep, it's obvious the only thing that will address the problem IS the facts, even if they are political. We all need to tell our congress people to take a long hike, literally, regardless of party.
This is a global concern that just happens to concern US contributors to CO2. And the US contributors are the hardest hearted bunch, so the argument is nonstop.

 

[neptronix]

We obviously heard two different things when listening to that podcast, i doubt that we can reconcile so forget what i said about the NPR thing..

As for our gubmint, we need a complete reformat and re-install, for sure. A partition can get pretty corrupt after 200+ years

Unless you are one of those gullible folks that really believes what comes out of the president's mouth at any given time, i think many people on the left and right, and those few of us in the center can agree.

There are so many things this country could do to get off of fossil fuels, improve our emissions, get back to manufacturing, and recover the economy from teetering on the edge of a cliff, but i don't think any of these ideas will be entertained until the operating system is reinstalled anew... or alternately if you don't want to hang around and wait for a few decades of misery to pass, you could expatriate... that's kinda where i'm at, ATM..

 

[neptronix]

On a bit of a more positive note:

Here are some videos for those who have been thinking about peak oil, global warming, etc etc. for many years. There are actually a few mental health professionals popping up who specialize in helping folks deal with the gloomy doomy stuff.

[youtube]XdYzPEEkoKk[/youtube]

[youtube]vhVEYQijSm0[/youtube]

 

[arkmundi]

Found this interesting forecast map on the US drought through the end of the summer. Of the current immediate impacts of a warming world, the models predict a decrease in precipitation where those trends exist. As California and Texas have major agricultural sectors of national consequence, we can expect a continued exacerbation of food prices. The squeeze on the food budget is where most of us will directly experience this accelerating crisis.

 

[neptronix]

Really? drought in dry states with a population of 30 million people, depleted water sheds from overuse, and heavy agriculture?

Damn you, global warming!

 

[izeman]

Found this interesting forecast map on the US drought through the end of the summer.

but isn't this a problem started decades ago? eastern states that have (almost) no natural water resources produce most of the agricultural goods and have the highest population density? all water coming from the rockys and everyone having a swimming pool?
farmers were complaining about that when i was first visiting CA some 20 years ago - and i guess it was no new topic then.
of course global warming may/is/will increase that problem.

 

[neptronix]

I wonder if the people managing Texas' water for example, and all the nearby water supplies that Texas drains from, wonder why it isn't raining so much after they've used up all the stores of water that were around for thousands of years if not longer, to keep the grasses green in a state which is partially desert?

Do they really point the finger at climate change when nearby water sheds that no longer exist do not evaporate and produce the kind of rain that would be typical of the area 50 years ago?

http://www.popsci.com/environment/a...ries-worth-underground-water-1900-study-finds

I live in Utah where we have two large bodies of water. In the early summer, you can often observe the water evaporating heavily into the sky, then get rained on just a few hours later. The input for the lake is the water that comes off the mountains from winter snow. It's an interesting little ecosystem. Now go divert that water from these lakes and see what happens - what you get is drought, forever.

Permanent drought conditions are what you get in a system that has had a lot of nearby water diverted. Then all the rain you get is what lifts off of the ocean. The fertile crescent was desertified from overuse long ago before people started pointing the finger at the smoke stacks.

Are you so sure that it's climate change - not the result of a few centuries of piss poor water management?

 

[izeman]

Are you so sure that it's climate change - not the result of a few centuries of piss poor water management?

as i said. both. bad management - if you can call it that. and climate change is supporting the effect - more and more every year.
with climate change no all regions will get dry and hot. for our region here in the heart of europe some say there's gonna be no more spring and autumn and more extreme summer and winter. no what i prefer. it's the total opposite. it's like to have spring all year long

as you mentioned ocean water: it was calculated that if all polar ice melts (which should be when co2 hits 1000ppm) ocean will raise by 75meter/yards. no good outlook.