Photo: Adam D. SacksJames Inhofe.
Marc Morano.
Richard Lindzen.
Bjørn Lomborg.
George W. Bush.
Names of shame, ignominy, criminals against humanity, against planet Earth itself. Agents of the lethal delays in our response to escalating, accelerating, catastrophic global warming.
Yet, as deniers of climate change, they’re amateurs compared to us. Us activists, environmentalists, scientists, and certainly Copenhagen politicians.
Even though we’re believers, not skeptics, our denial is far more insidious and subtle. So subtle, in fact, that we’ve managed to convince ourselves that we’re not in denial at all. Quite the opposite. Why, the thought is too absurd even to contemplate.
But it’s true.
We’re deniers every time we say “80 percent by 2050,” or even “80 percent by 2020”; every time we refer to tipping points in the future tense; every time we advocate substituting “clean” energy for “dirty” energy; every time we buy a squiggly light bulb or a hybrid vehicle; every time we advocate for cap-and-trade, or even a carbon tax; every time we countenance the mention of loopy geoengineering schemes; every time we invoke the future of our children and grandchildren and ignore the widespread suffering from global climate disruption today.
Every time we say these things and more, we’re promoting denial of dire climate reality, the reality that’s spinning out of our grasp so fast that we conduct our frenetic climate “solutions” efforts in a kind of stupor, obsessing with parts-per-million statistics, keeping desperately busy to ward off our own utter collapse borne of despair.
The reality we’re denying? We’re denying that we’ve put so much carbon into the atmosphere already that positive feedback loops are well on their way to amplification hell.[1] We’re denying that time lags between carbon emissions and their effects are frighteningly relevant, and that the disastrous effects we’re seeing now are from emissions of 30 years ago. We’re denying that non-linear responses of physical systems cannot be calculated and therefore are perilously ignored. We’re denying that our consumption and waste have far exceeded planetary capacity, possibly irreparably so.[2]
We’re denying reality because we’re not talking about it; we’re invoking fantasies and free lunches instead.[3]
Why do we act like this? Because just like the skeptics, we are inordinately fond of our cushy lives. Because we don’t want to give up our privileged, well-stocked existences any more than the skeptics do (and enter the realms of unthinkable thoughts, to wit, go back to the jungles? the caves? the starving, thirsting millions—or is that billions?—never, never, never, not us). Because in our heart of hearts, we want the skeptics to be right. We are brothers and sisters. And so we join them.
But our denial is much, much worse, because we are the ones presumably advocating for action on global climate disruption. And when we fall short, who’s left to do the job?
Here’s an example, in a note from a friend of mine and fellow climate campaigner:
I was quite disappointed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) presentation last night. The meeting title was “Roadmap to a Carbon-Free Society” or something like that.
There was no roadmap discussed at the meeting. They showed a bunch of charts and graphs showing how we could get to a 26 percent carbon reduction by 2020 and a 56 percent carbon reduction by 2030 (from a 2005 baseline). All those carbon reductions were based on changes to U.S. and state policy, it wasn’t clear what those proposed policy changes would be, although they seemed to involve some sort of cap and trade and a renewable energy mandate.
They were primarily focused on reducing carbon in electricity generation. They had only 2 to 3 percent savings in carbon in buildings. Their proposed savings in the transportation sector seemed to focus on switching to ethanol (but not from corn).
There was absolutely no call to action.
There was no elaboration of priority.
There were no specifics regarding the changes that would need to be made.
This was a U.S.-only proposal. When asked about global effects, they basically said that was out of scope for their project.
I am looking hard for something I can do that will make a real difference in the lives of my children and their children.
Mark
Here’s another example, from UCS again. I don’t mean to pick on them—they have a lot of co-enablers—but they are real scientists, for goodness sake! Yet they are as ensnared in the silencing trappings of culture as any of us. They’re still on an 80-percent-by-2050 path (below 2005, not 1990, levels), and they still imagine that global warming is simply a consequence of greenhouse-gas emissions (“Global Warming Crossroads: Choosing the Sensible Path to a Clean Energy Economy”). As such, they avoid the lethal implications and challenges of the impossible exponential growth that drives our lives (more on this in my Aug. 23, 2009, post, “The Fallacy of Climate Activism”).
After attending some of their mildly alarming but strangely reassuring presentations, I have spoken with several UCS scientists personally, and with hardly a tickle of prodding they quickly confess how panicked they are. Why don’t they just state it outright, in public? Because, they say (just like so many climate activists, with such a uniform voice one might concoct a conspiracy theory), the public can’t take it.[4] People will shrivel up into their TVs and McBurgers and never come out again. Then we’ll really be in a fix. (But I thought we already were?)
In December 2008, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), another well-meaning house of denial, sponsored a forum aimed primarily at climate activists, oddly entitled “Taking Climate Change Seriously” (I guess they figured we hadn’t done that yet). SEI folks are very nice, very smart people whom I like personally. And they are working sincerely and hard on solutions (which, however politically palatable, nonetheless carry very little weight with the thunderous forces of nature).
A very bright, well-spoken UCS scientist opened the show by revealing that she would speak frankly with us, in a way that she wouldn’t with a general audience because they wouldn’t be able to take it. A cartoon flashes onto the screen, showing the entrance to two different movie theatres. One is showing “An Inconvenient Truth,” which has no customers. The other, “A Convenient Lie,” has drawn a large crowd. The implication, of course, is that the public (whom we chronically assume is dumb) doesn’t want to know. She was pretty open about our dire circumstances, however, with those of us who already knew it (remember, we were there to take climate change seriously).
The irony of all of this is that her presentation itself is the embodiment of the convenient lie: that it’s the public’s fault, despite the fact that scientists and climate activists don’t tell them the truth! How on earth are they supposed to know? No wonder the skeptics hold such tenacious sway.
While An Inconvenient Truth was critically important as a wake-up call, the title of the movie became part of the problem: Climate change isn’t simply “inconvenient.” It’s lethal. Yet now that it’s been branded as “inconvenient,” it’s not so bad, we can live with it—we work around inconveniences, right? We do it all the time. Suppose that just yesterday a CFL burned out and it was dark in the hall and I stubbed my toe looking for my shoes and I had to bike to the hardware store (I don’t own a car) and it was chilly and wet outside and my glasses fogged up. That’s “inconvenience.”
Here’s how the public can come to know the truth about climate: repetition. Learning and comprehension require repetition. Think about repetition being used to learn multiplication tables, or in advertising, or in political campaigns, etc. Certainly dire climate explanations require even more repetition because it is difficult emotionally as well as cognitively. But we haven’t yet even begun to tell that story, we are so spooked by our own reactions and what we think others’ reactions will be.
To reiterate, in order to elicit a response commensurate with the problem, we have to start telling the truth about climate. We have never actually tried it!
If we tell the truth, certainly some people will run away at first. But we keep telling it regardless. Otherwise we engage in palliatives as the world crumbles. There really is no other choice.
——-
Finally, I’d like to say a few words about the recent remarkable 350 day, Oct. 24, 2009, when thousands of coordinated demonstrations across the world stated the climate emergency message loud and clear. An unprecedented and truly impressive organizing effort. I attended the local convocation of several communities meeting in Concord, Mass. We were regaled by activist politicians, a playful tug of war between costumed buckethead deniers and polar bears, post-hippie music, brochures, and photo ops galore.
And generous dollops of denial. I found it all rather depressing. People were enthusiastic about sending our banners to Copenhagen, as if the “leaders” there would care (they would pretend, of course). The clean energy revolution held center stage, as if simply substituting windmills and solar panels now would make a difference to our beyond-tipped-point physics, as if it were all just an energy problem.
But just scratch the surface and it was clear that we were grasping at straws, and the sense of helplessness and hopelessness, bleeding through the forced cheer, was pervasive. Perhaps we must confront and embrace the depths of our despair before we can see clearly. Once we do, however, the remarkable fact is that we can likely do something about climate catastrophe, despite the necessity, for the moment, of bypassing our globally failed political process. Very briefly, local self-sufficiency and sustainability, steady-state no-impact economics, eco-restoration, and rational birth reduction (starting with but clearly not limited to “developed” countries, whose impacts per capita are many multiples of third-world countries).
Sounds difficult or even close to impossible. The question is how badly do we want it. Clearly not badly enough—yet. It will require a dizzyingly quick cultural transformation, but the seeds have been planted and are starting to sprout worldwide. We can turn this disaster into opportunity and hope.
But only if we transcend our denial, and stop lying to the public.
And, especially, stop lying to ourselves.
—-
Endnotes:
[1] Strictly speaking, it may be difficult to nail down a feedback loop in action, such as melting ice. At what point can we say “the ice is melting and the resulting darker, warmer waters are more rapidly melting ice resulting in more darker, warmer waters” (amplifying feedback loop), as opposed to “the ice is melting simply because temperatures are warmer due to increasing atmospheric carbon” (no amplifying feedback loop, just garden variety endless global carbon pollution).
Here’s what I suspect is the key: acceleration. Think of moving a microphone towards a speaker, the volume and frequency of the feedback rapidly accelerate. Similarly, the climate phenomena that have arrived decades early, perhaps early by a century or more, may well be the manifestations of feedback loops in action before we know exactly what they are.
[2] I’ve written about this before, in “The Fallacy of Climate Activism,” but I think it bears a lot of repetition. I hope you will write about it too.
[3] Barry Commoner, in his 1971 book The Closing Circle, defined the four laws of ecology succinctly and directly: Everything comes from something (there’s no such thing as a free lunch), everything goes somewhere, everything is connected to everything else, and nature knows best.
[4] For a critically important alternative perspective, see Clive Hamilton and Tim Kasser, “Psychological Adaptation to the Threats and Stresses of a Four-Degree World” [PDF]. “Among the methods to encourage adaptive coping strategies, Crompton and Kasser recommend that that environmental campaigns could: help people express their feelings of fear, sadness and helplessness; gently point out when people are avoiding facing up to the facts of climate science; and, promote problem-focused strategies and mindfulness ... Among the methods to encourage a value shift, Crompton and Kasser recommend that environmental campaigns could: avoid appealing primarily to selfish desires and motivations (such as by promoting “Ten ways you can save money by reducing your carbon emissions”); frame messages to connect with intrinsic values like cooperation and non-material benefits; and, deploy programs that activate an awareness of the inherent value of nature and empathy for non-human animals.” (pp. 7-8)
Copenhagen: Getting past the urgency trap
Mr. President: Time to quit fibbing and spinning
Comments
View as Flat
Ayrdale Posted 9:15 pm
10 Nov 2009
"New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now...This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease..."
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
Permalink
guade00 Posted 10:39 pm
10 Nov 2009
"So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? 'Not necessarily', says Knorr. 'Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed'."
Whatever the atmospheric concentration is, the long-term warming trend remains.
I like this piece by Sacks, by the way, but his recommendations for averting the disaster would require a so-called *paradigm shift.* Societies in a multitude of independent nation-states, each with their own agenda (and language, culture, history...you get it), would have to radically alter how they view and interact with the world to accomplish "steady state, no-impact economics." I sure ain't seein' it in my little suburban community!
No amount of repetition of dire consequences is going to cause that shift. Repetition will simply goad people to tune out, the way we tuned out the Iraq war after a couple dozen IEDs. It's going to take a magnificent disaster to finally convince people to change. And, then, it's too late.
Climate change is an inexorable reality by now. The solution? There isn't one, but we can prepare for the worst, while at the same time beginning the shift to renewable energy. (We'll have to anyway.) Beyond that, it's anyone's guess as to the tragedy that awaits us.
Have a nice day!
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:32 am
11 Nov 2009
So your slogan-critique needs qualifying, from "they are us" to "they are many of us". I would further observe that wallowing in the appalling prognosies to the point of incapacity is just a further denial of action - (viz your very popular "Dispassion" thread): we do not need to dwell on the threats beyond ensuring that they are understood.
That said, I shall continue to apply self-censorship both with children, whom it would I think be cruel to burden with fears which they are powerless to address, and also with ordinary adults for whom the prospect of planetry collapse is not assimilable - they need to hear specific precedented threats, such as harvest failures, and specific actions for affordable solutions, such as global afforestation for biochar, energy & ecology.
The complexities of say methyl clathrates, and the wild prices of the Prius, let alone EVs, put these matters just out of most peoples' perception. So there ain't a lot of point in pushing these factors. A local feedback loop, such as drought and wildfire, well that's another matter.
But if there were an NGO with funding just to broacast the worst climate news available, polarizing the audience between denial and apathy as far as possible, I'd want to know just which lobby exactly had been funding them.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 11:06 am
11 Nov 2009
You make it extremely obvious that you have no comprehension of the most basic science nor any concern for actually gaining an understanding of it . Just absolute faith in your State sanctioned demi-gods .
Please keep ranting like this so your anti-life ( you are actually seeking to reduce the volume of the biosphere by suffocating all plant life in your religious lust to enforce you anti-science on humanity , consequences be damned ) delusions will become inescapably obvious to any rational person .
Permalink
stevea526 Posted 11:19 am
11 Nov 2009
Please add me to your hit list. At least I'll go down with some rational thinkers.
Permalink
BrianF Posted 4:33 pm
17 Nov 2009
You are correct about feedback not being undamped, but that doesn’t mean the situation is not dangerous or that it can’t go out of control. For example, you can have a sound system with feedback suppression, but if you keep turning the volume level up, it can still damage someone’s ears. And even with feedback suppression, you can still cause feedback to go out of control, because at some point the dampening is not strong enough to override the feedback. I know, because I have done it.
There are various feedbacks that affect the climate of the earth, and they go both directions (warming and cooling). But they have different strengths, and their strengths can vary depending on the conditions. Paleoclimatology tells us that feedbacks have gotten very strong in the past, pushing the temperature up very far and very quickly. Nothing that scientists are aware of other than feedback can explain those sharp temperature climbs. The same goes for cooling, although it is usually more gradual than warming. So yes, there are forces going in both directions all the time, but when conditions are right, one direction can become so much stronger that it completely overpowers the other, and you get those big climate swings. That is what paleoclimatology tells us. We can’t predict exactly when the current warming might go out of control, because our current conditions are unique. CO2 levels have never risen as quickly as they are now, as far as we know. That should scare anyone who knows anything about the past and about feedback. The faster CO2 levels rise, the less chance the mitigating forces have of doing their work, and the more likely feedback will go out of control sooner. (When I say “out of control†I mean humans would no longer be able to stop it.)
Even without any more feedback than is currently happening, global warming could cause some extremely serious problems if we don’t reduce emissions very quickly. We are already seeing many very unfortunate changes from the little warming that has already occurred, such as increased drought and fire, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, extinctions, and much more. And there is a big lag time between emissions and temperature rise, so we know things will get quite a bit worse before they get better, even in the best case. So even if the feedback situation did not change, I would say we need to lower emissions aggressively right now. Actually, we should have started to do this many years ago, but since we didn’t, we have to work much harder now.
If you want to use paleohistory as a guide, the last time CO2 levels were this high for an extended period, sea level was 80 to 125 feet higher than now. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm.) If that happens again, more than half of the world’s population and infrastructure will need to be relocated. Granted, this would happen over a very long period of time at the current rate, but why not avoid such changes if possible? The temperature was also 10 to 15 degrees F higher than now back then. Our current temperature has only gone up about a tenth that much so far, so even with no more feedback, with just the changes that are coming based on the past, the effects could be truly horrible.
Paleoclimatology actually supports what Adam is saying better than the models do. When you run the models in reverse, they predict the ups and downs of the past fairly well, but they don’t predict the extremes that have happened in the past, nor the rapidity with which the climate has changed. Many people assume the predictions from the models are too extreme, but it is really the opposite (if you trust measurements of the past more, as I do and you seem to). If Adam was relying on the models, he wouldn’t be as worried. He is probably relying more on what has happened in the past and what is happening now.
I’m not sure why many people seem to have a binary view of global warming and climate change. For example, do you really think we don’t have to worry until the point where the planet becomes a cinder? All life would die way before the earth became a cinder, and humans would go extinct long before all life died, and most humans would die long before all species went extinct, and billions of humans would suffer tremendously long before most humans died. I don’t understand why so many people seem to not care about all the human suffering that will come even if feedback did not get any stronger. To me, a horrible disaster does not have to mean the planet is obliterated. A huge worldwide famine is more than enough to make me want to work to prevent it. I think at this point it would be difficult to prevent a famine like this, but I’m still hopeful we can prevent feedback from going out of control to cause the next mass extinction.
Permalink
isaacschumann Posted 1:22 pm
18 Nov 2009
how are you? we meet at one of adams posts again:)i have to take issue with your analysis of paleo-climatic data, tho. while you are correct that pretty much all mass extinction events have been associated with high levels of CO2 and temperature. the only one of these factors recreated by AGW is rising CO2, we have a very long way to go before we are anywhere near the temperature ranges associated with mass extinctions. the most conclusive evidence from climate change research is for a more rapid change in temperature driven by rising CO2, which is not so terrible in and of itself.(im not saying we shouldnt worry, just that the paleoclimatic record is not conlcusive of either scenario) in short, while i agree that the historic climate gives some reasons to worry, i disagree that paleoclimatalogical studies support adams CERTITUDE on this matter.
my main point is that while you do an admirable job of qualifying the sources and uncertainty of the theories which shape your views on global warming, adam does not; nor do most activists in general, in my opinion. we are all discussing possible theories when we talk about the future, not facts. i encourage you and everyone else in the grist community to read this article, as it better articulates my problem with adams particular brand of activism:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/17-4
cheers,
isaac
p.s. "with speed and violence" and "green sky" are on my reading list, thanks for the suggestions, ill let you know what i think. if you dont mind me asking, what do you do with your life? if you are not a scientist, you sure have the instincts. i appreciate the discussion.
Permalink
Myotis Posted 12:23 pm
11 Nov 2009
Permalink
William Briggs Posted 12:46 pm
11 Nov 2009
I mean, what achievement can top being an enemy of All Humanity?
My bona fides: I'm am "amateur" in the same sense as Dick Lindzen, I'm a big fan of Lomberg's reasonable and sober stance, plus I write about how "activists" like yourself come to believe so much on the basis of so little. Here's me: http://wmbriggs.com
Against me: I admit to not having figured "activists'" motivations to my full satisfaction. For example, how you came to use the word "amateur" is a mystery to me, one which I'm not sure I'll be able to solve.
And then I'm not a politician like Inhofe or Morano, or like yourself.
But, boy, it really would be an honor and career topper. I wouldn't take my duties as Enemy lightly, no sir. I would boast of it, even create a coffee cup with the logo "Stay Away! Enemy of All Humanity!" or words to that effect (I'd welcome suggestions, of course).
And I promise that whenever anybody asks me about the title's origination, I'd mention your name.
Let me know.
Thanks.
Permalink
jackreed Posted 3:17 pm
11 Nov 2009
Jack Reed
Permalink
everwhat Posted 3:43 pm
11 Nov 2009
Permalink
guade00 Posted 4:50 pm
11 Nov 2009
Okay, since the Hitler card has been dropped, game's over. Godwin's Law--Sacks wins this one!
Permalink
selti Posted 4:55 pm
11 Nov 2009
Just in three years, IPCC projection for mean global temperature anomaly is completely, utterly, absolutely WRONG!
It is awesomely futile to try to solve a non-existent problem.
Regards
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 5:36 pm
11 Nov 2009
This has got to be another one of those tale's told only by an idiot about intellectual fools.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 5:42 pm
11 Nov 2009
Might as well pack up and go home, eh, enviros?
Erm, probably not.
Here's a graph back atcha: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/doubts.html. Click on "Has global warming now stopped?"
See, Sacks, there's no convincing these people. Prepare for a warmer world.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 8:00 pm
11 Nov 2009
The problem is that this realization is largely irrelevant. If we cannot save ourselves from utter environmental and economic disaster by any means, then it simply makes no difference what we do. But if we do nothing to address the problem because we've decided our actions would be useless, then most certainly we'll suffer disaster.
Having hope in a sustainable future isn't exactly the same as denial of the problem. In the former case, one acknowledges we might essentially be screwed, but realizes our only chance are the dramatic social and technological changes that make possible human resilience. It does not preclude the option that even the most dramatic social and technological changes might ultimately be ineffective.
The latter, however, is the (mostly) ignorant perspective that there simply is no problem, and therefore we should feel no personal responsibility to do something about it. A lack of personal responsibility has often been justified this way in the past. Ayrdale, Bob Armstrong, Selti, SteveA526, and Everwhat (on this board) are generally excellent examples of this kind of denial. And while I respect their right to hold this opinion, and acknowledge it does contribute to this discussion, the evidence they cite, as well as the fact their argument focuses not on specific problems with climate science but instead on ad hominem about what "kind" of people they think environmentalists are, makes pretty clear that their opinion lacks meaningful substance.
Part of their problem, ultimately, is that attacking the environmentalists (for being fanatics, "anti-life," "Hitler-like," or whatever) simply fails to effectively communicate what exactly is wrong with the argument they're "buying into," and therefore convinces no one that their own argument is valid.
Permalink
Doug Meyer Posted 7:06 pm
14 Nov 2009
“If we cannot save ourselves from utter environmental and economic disaster by any means, then it simply makes no difference what we do.â€
At the very least, understanding the certainty of that disaster (to occur by the end of this century at the latest) should cause responsible people to stop having children.
“Having hope in a sustainable future isn't exactly the same as denial of the problem.â€
Oh yes it often is. If “sustainable future†means technical reform of our energy production while trying to maintain lifestyles, culture, economics and global capitalism, then that hope represents a denial that human civilization is now fundamentally out of balance with Planet Earth.
And if that hope more realistically sees small local economies supporting far less people globally, the denial comes if one fails to admit there’s no good way to get from here to there.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 12:29 am
15 Nov 2009
First, I don't think it's necessarily a requirement that we stop having children per se; least of all, we should probably avoid having only the "irresponsible people" procreate. However, I see what you're saying. I do think more important than merely controlling population growth is controlling the impact of consumption. This is simply because the population's rate of growth appears to be slowly leveling off; the impact of consumption continues to increase exponentially.
And I use "impact of consumption" to allude to my second point. I don't think it's even remotely possible for some techno-fantasy to save us from a major shift in our civilization's structure and our cultural norms. Global capitalism, our current lifestyles, and the project of industrialization as we know it is likely to come to either an intentional or unintentional end, and likely already has. My hope is certainly not a vision of a future that sees that society continue, simply because I'd agree with you that it would be in "denial."
However, the real way I think we need to think of this transition is not exclusively in terms of the pain and sacrifice it will require, if for no other reason than I don't think it allows us to see very clearly where we need to go. That's not to deny the difficulty of getting there, but it's more to choose to see our position as one of opportunity than as one of tragedy. The "tragic view," to me, implies a kind of attachment to this world we have now that obstructs meaningful progress; an attachment that itself is really the cause of our tragic suffering, as the only true constant in any environment is always change.
The truth is that many of the products of industrialization have not made us particularly happy or healthy, and the limits to our current existence could be seen as an inspiration to move toward a society beyond the materialist. Furthermore, I feel seeing a problem as an opportunity is simply a more pragmatic way to inspire people to make the sacrifices that the transition ultimately will demand of all of us.
So if one could call that "denial," then I suppose you're right. I'd argue it's an attempt to focus more effectively on the actual project of adapting to environmental changes - namely, the realization our environment has been degraded by our behavior - while not ignoring the reasons we must adapt.
Permalink
Doug Meyer Posted 8:25 am
15 Nov 2009
Permalink
prohb Posted 12:19 pm
17 Nov 2009
we must become a resilient people:
* Resilient People would be a frugal and energy conservation minded not because it's the latest green fad but because it’s wise and efficient and part of their lifestyle. For example - My grandmother started us by washing aluminum foil and using it again.
* grow their own food develop a system of local bartering. Check out "time-banking" on the web. It's working.
* would be strong and courageous in the face of crises....... such as a natural disaster. Start, for example, by taking a Red Cross First Aid Course. Police and fire officials stated that if more of the people in New Orleans during Katrina knew basic first aid procedures a lot less problems would have ensued.
* Even though these resilient people respect and honor a military, and its prudent use, they will not cower behind it or expect it to solve all the problems in the world. We must become "the city upon the hill" for the 21st century (not like the one that was envisioned in the 16th). We must develop a belief so strong in our way of life that no evil can kowtow us. To do that we must get back to the basics of why our country is here and what our responsibility is. We must instill this in our youth and give them the protocols and skills necessary to survive and excel in an increasingly dangerous world. Let’s make our MESSAGE to the world as powerful as our muscle.
* A resilient people stay in shape. This would have the added benefit of decreasing health care and energy costs.
* answer the call for SERVICE rather than just shopping. They participate in their community. Have a local system in operation to help people thru these tough times. Yes, we have to spend something or no one would have a job…but lets spend on things we need and that are good for our economy and our environment not on frivolous and energy polluting items.
* know and understand their civic responsibility. They have an understanding of what our Constitution is all about and they VOTE!
* have a can-do attitude, they problem solve and they don't shy away from tough decisions
LET''S BE A RESILIENT PEOPLE AND NOT A SCARED AND WHINING SHEEPLE!
Permalink
human power Posted 11:37 pm
11 Nov 2009
How sad. We may be the generation that ends history.
Permalink
Bluejohn Posted 3:20 am
12 Nov 2009
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:17 am
12 Nov 2009
The explanation you need to comprehend is this.
It doesn't.
You aren't.
You are however deluded in thinking either that your personal grasp of the science of thermodynamics is greater than that of the world's greatest scientists and every national Academy of Science,
or possibly in thinking that these are all part of a grand conspiracy with 192 national governments, their beaurocracies, and (where extant) their opposition parties to falsify the evidence and mount a global hoax, but they've done so so badly that you can see through it with ease.
The sheer arrogance of either position puts your mental stability into question.
Have you considered seeking help for this condition ?
Regards
Billhook
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 1:30 pm
12 Nov 2009
The second law essentially only says heat must pass from a hot object to a cold object, or that the entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. The way I'd explain this, Bluejohn, is to think about the cases where you experience the greenhouse effect in your daily life. For example, if you put a blanket over yourself while you're sleeping, it traps your body heat close to your body. The second law of thermodynamics does not prevent this from happening, obviously, as you experience it on a nightly basis.
You can also think about a greenhouse itself, or a car sitting in the hot sun. Somehow it gets way hotter in the car than it does outside it, an observation that would not be possible if the second law actually prohibited greenhousing.
Similarly, if you place a substance in the atmosphere that chemically acts like a "blanket," it traps more of the heat radiating from the earth closer to the earth's surface. It does so only for a period of time, as if energy were to quit entering the system at any one point, all of the heat on Earth would indeed radiate into space, no matter how long it spends in our atmosphere before doing that.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:07 am
12 Nov 2009
Vendors of deceitful words peddle unnecessary stuff and double-dealers "engineer" fraudulent financial schemes. A sacred world is desecrated by Towers of Babylon, filthy lucre and garish quests for power and constant self-gratification. Respect for moral authority and ethical behavior are nowhere to be found. Not one word of truth is spoken clearly, loudly and openly. Caring and sharing are anecdotal, token experiences. Arrogant, self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us are wantonly pleasuring themselves to death day after day...... come what may in the future.
Without realizing until it is too late to respond ably, the human beings with feet of clay among us have evidently become ensnared in a condition of bondage. Unfortunately, during the past 8 long dark years, too many leaders of the human family have been adamantly intent on ruthlessly maintaining these precise conditions, even though such conscious determinations have mortgaged and threatened their childrens' future and are likely to lead the children to confront some sort of colossal ecological disaster for which their greedy, pleasure-seeking elders are largely responsible, but for which their elders refuse to take responsibility.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:25 am
12 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:45 am
12 Nov 2009
Perhaps necessary change away from the patently unsustainable, selfish beliefs and dishonorable activities of the Masters of the Universe among us is in the offing.
Permalink
William Briggs Posted 7:54 am
12 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 8:13 am
12 Nov 2009
Yep, the next meeting may not be full of the usual wide grins, glad-handing, back slapping and selfish promotion of ourselves. Thanks for your comments.
No offense is intended to any human being, just to those who appear to have lost touch with what it means to be human. If human beings with feet of clay, who have lived successfully for thousands of years in this wondrous planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit as stewards, I suppose, keep following the newly-minted and self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us, something "no sentient being that lives" could ever for a moment want may soon occur.
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
Aaron Huertas Posted 10:22 am
12 Nov 2009
Our report, Climate 2030: A Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy, demonstrates that the United States can dramatically reduce emissions and deliver cost savings to consumers and businesses at the same time. It's the only analysis of its kind on this topic and -- along with other economic studies -- is helping positively shift the debate on climate change policy. Further, UCS's research is just one slice of the organization's work.
Regarding international work, the organization has a tropical forest program and has been an active participant in international climate negotiations for more than 20 years. Additionally, UCS staff regularly communicate the latest (post-IPCC) climate science and discuss how it can inform emission reduction targets. The organization endorses reducing emissions aggressively in the short term and by *at least* 80 percent by mid-century, with the recognition that deeper emissions reduction targets may be prudent and that continued emissions will lock in future warming.
Blueprint findings and report here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html#Net_Consumer_and_Business_Savings
The work of our international tropical forests program: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/forest_solutions/
A UCS staff member's take on the most recent UNFCCC meeting: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/us-position-climate-talks-0301.html
An update on post-IPCC science: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/latest-climate-science.html
Recent testimony to Congress on emission reduction targets: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Ekwurzel-WaysMeans-GW-Science-Testimony.pdf
Thanks,
Aaron Huertas
Union of Concerned Scientists
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 103';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 115';l[31]=' 117';l[32]=' 115';l[33]=' 99';l[34]=' 117';l[35]=' 64';l[36]=' 115';l[37]=' 97';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 114';l[40]=' 101';l[41]=' 117';l[42]=' 104';l[43]=' 97';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:41 am
13 Nov 2009
Union of Concerned Scientists
Keep up the good work. The legitimacy of the messenger has never been so important as it is right now.
Best regards,
Dan Coffey
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 12:19 pm
12 Nov 2009
I've been hearing denial from the public in the same ways you have. I will also add the assertion that we can be all renewable any time soon. People hear two things:
• the speaker after learning about climate change has exactly the same environmental solution set as before learning about climate change, and
• climate change is easy to fix, we don't have to bring out the big solutions of CCS and nuclear power.
RE UCS, I prefer IPCC and the sources they depend on. UCS policy proposals do not overlap enough with these for me to consider them as reliable. Eg, most policy experts would like almost total decarbonization of electricity by 2030, and see renewables sans hydro as 15% or so of 2030 electricity.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 12:52 pm
12 Nov 2009
While I retain great respect for UCS, it desperately concerns me that UCS appears to have regularly capitulated over the past 8 long dark years to pressures from arrogant ideologues, foolhardy overly-educated intellectuals, and rhetorically 'bright' sycophants in high places.
This is only a guess, but I imagine Karen Street's reluctance to have any of us rely on UCS for guidance is because the organization has allowed its scientific work to be compromised or censored by wealthy and powerful people who are "possessed" by the self-interested thinking and are bereft of a respect for objective scientific inquiry, intellectual honesty, fair play, equity, moral courage and a positive regard for humanity.
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
Aaron Huertas Posted 1:16 pm
12 Nov 2009
UCS's work defending scientists against political interference, particularly when they were regularly censored by Bush administration officials: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
And the organization's original, peer-reviewed climate change research:
http://www.climatechoices.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/climate-change-midwest.html
If anyone has any questions about UCS, they can contact me at ahuertas[@]ucsusa.org.
Thanks,
Aaron
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:09 pm
12 Nov 2009
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-10-we-have-met-the-deniers-and-they-are-us/preview/#c255312
Good one Mr. Hook
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-10-we-have-met-the-deniers-and-they-are-us/preview/#c255853
It is natural for people to self-deceive. The ability evolved to help alleviate anxiety. It is the root of most religions. We are the only creature with the cognitive capacity to worry about what may be coming and a way to relieve that anxiety evolved in tandem with our intellect.
Just because we don't have the answers at this point in time does not mean we won't find them. Nobody saw the global and radical drop in fertility rates coming back when our population growth "rate" was still increasing.
Potential solution sets will have to include the fact that most people will never accept the reality. Maybe looking at potential solutions that require a majority vote is barking up the wrong tree.
I tell my children everything will be fine, what do you tell yours?
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 2:14 pm
12 Nov 2009
I'm gonna stick with you and say it's still worth pursuing some answers. Even if in the end they're much too late. At least then we sort of tried...
Permalink
selti Posted 2:07 pm
12 Nov 2009
The one and only one issue in the global warming debate is the TRUTH.
The one and only one question is, “does human emission of CO2 causes global warming?â€
The one and only one method to find the TRUTH is to compare the computer model projections with actual observations.
This comparison show, just in three years, the IPCC projections for mean global temperature are completely, utterly, absolutely WRONG.
Case closed.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 2:16 pm
12 Nov 2009
Permalink
Andrew Gunther Posted 10:41 am
13 Nov 2009
The fact that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to space is an undisputed fact. If the IPCC is "WRONG", you need to explain why greenhouse gases are not causing the temperature rise we have seen over the last several decades, and thus why our basic understanding of atmospheric physics is incorrect. In addition, you need to explain what is causing the temperature rise...all alternative explanations have been show to not produce enough energy to cause the change we observe. Greenhouse gas concentrations have increased the energy flux at the earth's surface by about 3 watts/sq meter, while changes in the sun's output have altered the energy flux by 0.1 watts/sq meter.
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 2:18 pm
12 Nov 2009
--
Dear Met Office ,
Youall make what must be considered quite extreme predictions with assertions of great certainty for the effect of CO2 on mean earth temperature . However , I cannot find anything but the most superficial , and indeed cartoonish pseudo-explanations of the science - totally unsatisfying to any adult with a technical education . I searched for the absolutely essential names in textbook physics of radiant heat transfer , Stefan , Boltzmann and Kirchhoff , and found no mention of them or their fundamental insights . ( I have just been even more astounded to see Christopher Monckton is right that there is no mention of them in the IPCC report either !!!! )
You don't have a science until you can explain earth's temperature in terms of these quantitative relationships .
Neither you nor the IPCC present any coherent complete quantitative explanation of the physics of planetary temperature . Nor do you present any links to such an explanation . You apparently expect the millions of technically competent laymen around the globe to simply accept the extreme predictions of your few disconnected fragments of non-quantitative verbiage on faith .
Even the crudest implementation of the classic century old equations , as coded in a few lines in three modern array languages on my http://CoSy.com , shows our mean temperature , like any object in our orbit , is tightly constrained to be about 1/21 the temperature of the sun . As we are .
Your essentially one dimensional sky - earth cartoons cannot properly explain the effect of the correlation of an object's spectrum with those of its heat sources and sinks , eg , the half millionth of the sky covered by the disk of the sun at about 5900k , and the rest of the sphere around us at about 3k . Refining my code to handle full spectra is next step when I can justify the time . Then I'll be able to give quantitative values for the equilibrium temperature for any spectrum , such as the naked earth , the atmosphere , or any particular gas like CO2 .
But surely , as you are supporting the suppression by the guns and prisons of a global government of the gas upon which , along with H2O , the entire biosphere is constructed , you must have already considered these numbers since they quantify what we could face absolutely worst case . They form the "rails" against which any purported "runaway" would have to lodge . What's the number for a pure CO2 spectrum and how close are we to it ?
And how come I have never seen any discussion of the overwhelming effect of "greenhouse" gases upon the variance of our temperature rather than on the mean ? It's as if the notion were unknown among climate scientists .
Overall , I find the level of understanding of the basic physics common on both sides of the debate rather pathetic . Surely if you are promoting the suppression thru global force of humanity's current welfare on the basis of some predictions of future catastrophe caused perversely by the very component of our air upon which all life is built , you should provide something beyond presentations with barely the rigor to be acceptable in a grade school science class and are totally inadequate at a high school level .
Please direct me to a coherent , quantitative exposition of the physics , written for your mathematically literate adult peers , underlying your world changing certainty .
--
-- Bob Armstrong -- CoSy.com -- 719-337-2733 --
I reserve the right to post all communications I receive or generate to CoSy website for further reflection .
Permalink
Billhook Posted 2:50 pm
12 Nov 2009
"But surely , as you are supporting the suppression by the guns and prisons of a global government of the gas upon which , along with H2O , the entire biosphere is constructed , . . . . "
Perhaps a little less caffeine ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 11:01 am
13 Nov 2009
The tool of the State is Force ; The rule of the Market is Choice .
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 11:16 am
13 Nov 2009
An example of where this played out recently was Sean Hannity's massive minnow debacle in California. Assuming Hannity is on the "side" of the Market, he would be in favor of removing the government's dams (which are responsible for irrigation) and allowing the farmers he was advocating for to starve. But instead he was in favor of the government irrigating their fields with water, to the ultimate determent of salmon fishermen, who Hannity was fine with allowing to starve.
One or the other was going to lose his job - the farmer or the fisherman - not because of the government or the market, but because the environment will simply not support both anymore. (... Sorry?)
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 1:08 pm
13 Nov 2009
Even this insanity over less than a 0.3% change in mean temperature over a century has produce a record aggregation of lobbyists for rent seeking corporations vying for State Force to their benefit .
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 9:52 pm
14 Nov 2009
The thing is that I totally agree the climate change debate has indeed led to a significant effort by lobbyists to exploit a potential cap-and-trade proposal for profit. Many environmentalists, including myself, find this to be a weakness of the proposal.
But we're also being pragmatic: we know it's one of the few ideas that free market advocates can really warm up to in order to solve what scientists observe to be a major and rapidly growing problem. The main point of disagreement, then, is not so much whether the proposal is actually a good one (or if we should pursue an alternative) because I too acknowledge its weaknesses; but rather the question over whether or not it is needed in the first place.
Speaking frankly, I do not feel confident in my personal ability to review, critique, analyze, and make conclusions from, the available data. I am not a scientist, and I trust the overwhelming consensus of opinions of people trained specifically to do this. This is just as I trust a surgeon, rather than a layman, to perform my appendectomy; or as I trust a carpenter to build my house. And the scientific consensus seems to be that some kind of action - regulatory or otherwise - to slow and eventually reverse carbon emissions will provide for future generations an environment much more likely to sustain a high quality of life.
You may have a legitimate point of disagreement with the science, and I recommend you take those concerns not to the Internet, filled with laymen, but instead to a local university, where a scientist proficient in this field (or several) may be able to more specifically address your critique effectively.
But in fairness, the discussion I would look forward to having with you would be one where we both can acknowledge the imperative that is addressing global climate change, agreeing that the science could be at least generally accurate, and examine potential responses to this problem from our different political perspectives. I think that would be an intellectually honest debate that we both could learn a lot from, and perhaps even ultimately reach a consensus in. Unfortunately, until we can agree at least in principle on what our reality actually is, I just don't know how we can have what I feel is a more productive conversation.
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 1:30 am
15 Nov 2009
I actually don't know a single libertarian who doesn't see the 1000 page proposals for billions of dollars worth of additional bureaucracies currently being proposed by the statists as anything other than 21st century versions of the same falsehoods of centralized wisdom and control that left the old Soviet empire an economic basket case . I have never seen such abject poverty with old babushkas selling grain alcohol by the metro station to try to get enough rubles to find a warm place to live another night as I saw in Leningrad in 1992 .
I think it is showing itself to be a near disaster how quantitatively uneducated the masses of my fellow generations of Americans have chosen to remain in this age whose prosperity is 100% due to technological progress . I see absolutely no evidence of a scientific consensus despite the 1000 to 1 funding for alarmism supplied by the governments . Some of the most accomplished names in science from true nobel winners to astronauts to meteorologists call the alarmism bunk .
People who are quantitatively challenged seem to have the notion that each little discipline , eg , "climate science" has a unique understanding of their particular wedge of reality . In fact all share an enormous , profound , but quite finite base of mathematics and physics , tools of thought which pervade all disciplines . And I have yet to see any "science" presented by the alarmists with anywhere near the rigor of my niece's undergraduate electrodynamics text . What I have seen , tho , is a lot of nonsense , and even outright lies . The ultimate insanity is the attempt to deny the fact that each of us , like virtually all life is MADE of CO2 . It should take far more proof than a very imperfect correlation with a change of less than 1 part in 300 in our mean temperature over a century to scare us into enforced privation over that molecule so green there is a commercial industry supplying CO2 generators to grow-ops .
Anyone is free to chose to live a primitive life ( flash back to the 60s ) and suffer as much as makes them happy . Health is something else . Industrialization has nearly doubled our lifespan in little over a century . And since the mid 20th century a lot of that technology has been directed toward ( successfully ) cleaning up our general environment ( that's what Bjorn Lomborg found , and anybody who experienced Gary , IN or Newwark NJ back then knows ) , and even more so , our personal environments .
Going after the very molecule upon which life is built , tho , is something different . It's a fraud .
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:10 am
13 Nov 2009
Now how about contrasting that with the attitude of americans at the start of WW II?
In Europe the blitz rolled, but that was far away for most americans. Experts must have realized that catching up to nazi war technology and production seemed nearly impossible at that point. The only course was to ignore the threat and hope the war would be confined to the continent.
Back to our future: As seawater levels rise and glacial water supplies melt, the famine, disease, and war due to forced migration will produce hell-scape many orders of magnitude worse than Katrina, the recent US experience with disaster.
Americans will bemoan the horror, and kick in adaptation efforts here, hoping the worst effects of disaster will be confined to other areas of the planet.
Do you remember what happened next way back in the last century? Nazi tanks, planes, ships, and guns were all better than our instruments of war. So why didn't they roll over the whole world, like they rolled over Europe?
Because the German war effort could not get the exponential growth effect into their factories. The assembley lines of Henry Ford, emulated by the rest of US industry, never really took off there. German industry produced 1 tank for every 30 tanks made by US factories, the same for ships, planes, guns and so forth. Our war material was inferior in performance for the most part, but we had so many times more equipment, fuel, food, and soldiers that we won.
We spread our assembley line technology to Russia too.
The exponential effect of GHG climate change is extremely obscure to the media and general public. Blame it on math and science illiteracy? Maybe so, jornalists in general are english majors in college, separated since grade schoold from science geeks who revel in concepts like exponential growth. Einstein said it, "the most powerful force in the universe is compound growth", we geeks live by statements like that from our childhood heroes.
Meanwhile the rest of humanity can only wonder why, so what? Who cares about a math principle at the heart of the force of gravity itself. Why should we care that it defines the very nature of life? Cells divide and growth expands exponentially, thus life survives the battering of the titanic forces of our universe. Will media and public ever notice concepts like this?
Even when this principle explains exactly why GHG climate change is a real emergency.
Maybe the WW II analogy can get the point across? We beat that threat with exponential growth employing mass production, the assembley line.
Adopt that powerful exponential manufacturing effect again, to face exponential climate disaster, and just maybe we'll have a chance.
The great part about this politically is we can sell the climate cure quietly to our small contingent of environmentally aware voters, and at the same time shout about the prosperity, jobs, and financial security and independence brought on by the new energy and ag economy.
So give some hope to those who understand the danger and despair, a very small percentage of us (maybe 10%?), by invoking that same concept that defines the disaster (exponential growth) and also holds hope for a solution that can match the ever increasing velocity of the catastrophe.
Renewable energy and organic agriculture can proceed exponentially with a commercial manufacturing boom. It's really our best hope now.
We can sell it as an effort to maintain our economic security in a very competitive world. We already have the support of the geekish enviro faction, the swing voters who vote jobs and family financial security are the ones we need to convince now. They understand a humming assembley line and a factory parking lot full to capacity. And a family checking account that doesn't bottom out from mortgage, credit card, car payments, insurance and on and on.
Maybe we need to understand their point of view Adam?
Permalink
Bluejohn Posted 7:27 am
13 Nov 2009
Worried? I expect you still are.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 11:41 am
13 Nov 2009
I didn't. I don't think anyone did (?). Most scientists believe worse may yet still be to come.
"Katrina was a cat3 storm that foiled the poorly maintained levees and therefore drowned New Orleans. Great Pity but a mechanical failure not climate change."
True, but storms do become more powerful if they do not have a large buffer of downstream wetlands to cool them down (this complicated idea is why, by the way, we often argue to protect otherwise useless stretches of swampland, but oh well).
But really here's how: warmer waters in the Gulf mean more water evaporates into the air, which then leads to more rainfall, higher stormwater volume, and, yes, foiled levees.
"Are the ice caps melting? no! refer to Cryosphere Today, Google can find it, andlook at real time satellite views of both poles and see the increase in ice cover. "
We'll see. Talk to me in 30 years.
"Are temperatures climbing? no they have fallen for the last 12 years, see UAH website with the true satellite temperature data. "
Ah, so all of the other temperature data is just a farce. I forgot: temperature is subjective... In reality, temperatures have in fact been cooling the last three years. But we know that, and climate change is not supposed to take place over three or even 12 years. It may take place over decades. It may not take place at all. We admittedly don't know, and can only use the best available science to guide our decisions. That science has been fairly uniformly consistent: the climate is changing, and it's because of inputs to the atmosphere over the last 150-200 years.
"Are sea levels rising faster than we ca build? no sea levels have leveled out and the latest forecast rise is 1.7mm pa which is half the forecast last year."
I'm not sure I quite know what's being said here. But sea levels are not expected to rise over a two year period though, so whatever happens next year really means very little. It is important what happens over the next 20-30 years, and so far, the trend has been fairly consistent:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
(I invite you to notice other past "dips" - years the sea level went down - and you could easily read them as a sign the general pattern is not accurate.)
I think you're right, and that we are capable of building faster than sea levels might be rising. But we are not building. We're doing virtually nothing about this issue.
"Worried? I expect you still are."
Not really. But forgive me for trying to reason with the internet....
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 7:37 am
13 Nov 2009
I have written to dozens of physicists, chemists, botanists, biologists, foresters, and researchers at government agencies. Virtually none of them will acknowledge what I can plainly see - the ecosystem is collapsing. This is the inevitable consequence of toxic greenhouse gases, and yet even the experts who should know better prefer to think it will happen, maybe, in 50 or 100 years.
But not here and now! What is killing the trees? Oh, it's a beetle, or a fungus, or bacterial wilt! Not something like, me taking a hot shower or driving to the office or buying junk from China or grapes from Argentina.
I showed this video about ocean acidification to my dad http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-cant-fish-and-not-have-hope.html, who is in his 80's, and he got furious. "You can't tell people that!" he yelled. So I didn't bother to point out that casually mentioned in the narration is that most of the oxygen that we breathe comes from life in the sea.
It reminds me of many years ago when I was in college and we students were taught about the "controversial" theory of plate tectonics. I just couldn't understand where the debate was in something so obviously true.
We have to acknowledge the problem before we can begin to do something about it. It may be too late. But better to try than just give up, if only for sanity's sake.
Actually, it's the right thing to do.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 11:46 am
13 Nov 2009
In general, it appears their consensus is that climate change is somehow related to many of the problems like the pine beetle as they seem to correlate, but we don't understand all of the mechanisms by which climate change takes place.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:47 am
13 Nov 2009
Thanks again for contributing your perspective. Please clarify one point. Are you saying that one solution for our "colossal predicament" could occur by growing our way out of the predicament presented to the human family by the exponential growth of human activities on Earth? That is to say, can we outgrow the threats to human wellbeing and environmental health posed by continuing to compound the growth of human enterprise now overspreading the Earth?
Even if the new compounding growth is in developing renewable energy, can such a thing occur sustainably in the world we inhabit, given what we know about the manmade global economy's huge scale and the enduring biophysical characteristics of Earth and its environs?
Whatever your responses to these queries, I do hold onto the hope that we will surely find a way out of the predicament in which the human family finds itself in these early years of Century XXI..... if we choose intelligently, humanely and responsibly to work together fast.
Sincerely,
Steve
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:58 am
14 Nov 2009
How is it possible to lift all 7 billion boats without using the whole biosphere up? Econmic activity brings the possibility of survival to the poorest and financial security to the middle class.
I would say that an emphasis on quality of life, with the wealthier citizens of spaceship earth sacrififcing meaningless consumption and quantitiy of possesions, could be a way to lift everyone together on a different wave. Would financial security and reproductive (and all other) rights for women tend to reduce population? I think so.
Quality over quantity, a whole new cultural ethic, could counter the old philosophy of eternal growth.
If the activty humans pursue is to recycle and remanufacture our techno-civilization into a symbiotic one, that sees us all as part of the living planet, then i say let the (solar, wind powered) solar panel and electric car factories hum. And maybe cancel the full parking lot? Bike trails and electric buses would be much better.
So can we have job and manufacturing (exponential) growth and financial security and a more secure life for even the poorest and still become carbon negative as a civilization over the next couple of decades? Dean Kamen's water purification device for drought and famine stricken regions is an example of the current attempts to use technology on a small local scale, using mass production efficiency.
This area of development is huge, it has billions of potential customers. Composting toilets, water recycling systems, biogas cooking setups, all kinds of low tech inovative production can be targeted to solve survival hurdles. But even wealthier people can voluntarily adopt a high quality lifestyle using this simple technology too. It would allow sacrifice to help out in this transition, just as people grew victory gardens and collected rubber and metal for recycling for WW II war production.
I would not mind being hooked up to a solar panel and batteries and coast once in awhile if the smart grid needed to put me on emergency power. Or drive an electric car that would only have a top speed of 50. A lot of us would be willing to live on a par with our fellow humans around the globe, if we could all come to a higher quality lower consumption symbiotic life together.
I'm thinking 10% worldwide would volunteer to do this if they knew it would work and how to get there. That just might start a trend in time to turn the climate disaster around.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:59 am
14 Nov 2009
How I would envision this sort of sacrifice for the climate, is that people in wealthy nations would choose to live simply in solar powered, insulasted, comfortable, and efficient tent-like shelters. A portion of the rent or mortgage payment and utility expenses avoided could help pay to manufacture systems to export the simple technology to people who really need it to survive.
Composting toilets, solar battery electric power, solar water recycling and water heating, ultra water conserving compressed air/water spray washing/cleaning, biogas cooking gas and energy systems, a community wind power system, could all be sent to friends in countries where these items can't be afforded.
A former Grist contributor wrote an article about an eco-tourism trip to Coasta Rica where she helped local people build a pig powered biogas cooking system and install solar/battery electric power.
This sort of action could be expanded so that as 10% of americans decide to become houseless in this way, through donations and eco-tourism and student exchange programs and the like, the effort could expand to cover a similar proportion of all of humanity, starting with those in the most desperate conditions.
A lifesaving effort funded by sacrifice, give up your mcmansion and live in a (green-tech) tent, and donate what you saved to supply friends in need with clean water, heat, sanitation, and so forth.
I bet people like Gates and Branson would even kick in some cash. So houseless green revolutionaries, especially baby boomer (ex?) hippy campers could mainly donate their time and energy, maybe even traveling to other countries and helping install these devices. Then hosting visitors and students from those countries in beautiful tent living here.
Houselessness made voluntary and patriotic, you betcha! Intentional communities, campgrounds, wilderness conservation land, could all host campers. It would be a hoot. Probably a hootenany or two too, eeeww earplugs kids! Hehehey.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 2:19 pm
14 Nov 2009
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:07 am
13 Nov 2009
Looks like Climate Gougers have bilked the public a bit too much...
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 11:06 am
13 Nov 2009
More importantly, this is a fallacy of division. The poll could mean an incredible number of things - like people don't like that they're still losing jobs in a Democratic administration, or that the healthcare fight is wearing on the Democrats.
It could just as easily mean that they're upset the Democrats are not moving forward with climate legislation quickly enough. If 8% moved away from the Democrats for this reason, the poll could mean they'd be leading the Republicans at 52%-48% if they decided to act. But the poll is also a statistical tie, so it's hard to say if it could even mean that. We simply don't really know what those numbers mean. And interpreting them as a referendum on a very specific issue is even more absurd.
And finally, it's irrelevant. The environmental movement was never an exercise in being popular. Sure, our popularity has grown tremendously since the 1960s, when environmentalists were little more that a joke to most people, but it's not that important that it has. It's about having the discipline to take personal responsibility for at least thinking about one's actions and how they might impact the livelihood of one's children. If other people choose to make similar choices, then great. But it's up to them, not us.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:41 am
13 Nov 2009
My answer to these is, first, while there's still any sliver of hope, the responsible thing to do (I think the Moral or Categorical Imperative, Kant-style? Maybe someone can explain this) is to try to save the planet. This is equivalent to your typical monster movie, where the outgunned hero somehow manages to save everybody against the monster....the monster now being greenhouse gases.
Number two, in my posts I have consistently called for multi-trillion dollars efforts, with government building all the windmills, trains, etc., to simply transform the whole society. I mean, most of the groups you refer to would never advocate that sort of thing because it's politically unrealistic, but the thing is, it actually solves the problem...or are you saying that there's no way to get to the point politically -- admittedly it would take many years -- where you could actually implement a government-run program to actually solve the problem? Which brings me to third,
Definitely we should scare the crap out of everybody, but only if it's accompanied by a program that will solve the problem. If you scare the crap out of everybody without a program, they just freeze up, it's human nature. But it's also human nature to even enjoy a challenge if there's a straightforward way to solve the problem...which I think multitrillion dollar government programs do, as completely ignored as that solution seems to be.
So which is it?
Permalink
Adam Sacks Posted 2:14 pm
14 Nov 2009
I certainly agree that it's our responsibility to clean up the mess if we can - and I think it's possible. We can pull all the legacy carbon out of the atmosphere by restoring soils worldwide. In fact, as far as I can tell to date (and I've been doing some serious looking for years), soil restoration is the only game in town, since, as I stated in "The Fallacy of Climate Activism" posted in August, we have already lost the battle against greenhouse gases as we have currently framed it. I will discuss soil sequestration of carbon in a future post; in the meanwhile there are some references at the end of this reply for those of you who are interested.
The obstacles to such eco-restoration are vision and political will, similar to the obstacles you mention in your trillion-dollar green investment strategy. However I don't think a vast greening effort solves the problem of current atmospheric GHG concentrations, as well as a number of other ecosystem overshoots we have caused. Bottom line is that exponential growth is soooo yesterday! Time for local, self-sufficient and sustainable.
As for scaring people, yes, yes and yes. The social marketers, enviros and psychological experts have had ample opportunity over the past few years to try out their walk-on-eggshells strategies (I think they have mostly been avoiding scaring themselves), and it's been a solid flop as far as I can tell. It's time for something completely different.
Cheers!
Adam
Soil Age Google group (join it!)
http://groups.google.com/group/soil-age
Christine Jones soil site, Amazing Carbon
http://www.amazingcarbon.com
Holistic Management International
http://www.holisticmanagement.org/
Carbon Farmers of America
http://www.carbonfarmersofamerica.com/
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:27 am
15 Nov 2009
I was under the impression that in Al Gore's new book he talks a lot about soil sequestration -- terra preta -- there used to be a commenter here, went by the name Pangolin, who commented extensively about terra preta.
I personally don't like the "xx% reduction by 20XX" arguments, as I talked about in my first post -- we need to get as close to 0% emissions as possible as soon as possible, and yes, reverse with soil sequestration. But that's going to require some government support too!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:37 am
15 Nov 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:24 am
15 Nov 2009
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5805/1598
(Unfortunately the main thrust of the analysis was producing so-called "carbon negative biofuels", but the 1.8 ton per year figure is still sound)
How would organic farming that uses recycled waste stream fertilizer compare? The prairie study measures the amount of biomass added to the soil every year, that would probably work for organic farming too.
Given the enhanced growth rate of plants selected for farming, it would probably be more, but some of the plant material is removed as a farm product. If that biomass removed is replaced with recycled biomass as organic fertilizer/soil ammendment, the sequestration rate could be higher than natural prairie soil?
A good example here in Wisconsin is dairy farms than use wood chip bedding for cows then put the chips and manure into a biodigestor. The biogas is used to generate electricty for the grid and the organic fertilizer that comes out, including partilly digested wood chips, is used as soil ammendment.
I'm betting that organic farming couldn't offset our current GHG emissions, but it could make civilization carbon negative if renewable energy and conservation eliminates most of our carbon footprint.
My evidence? The prairie soil that sodbusters first plowed in the 1800s was 20 to 30 feet thick, if all farming activity on the planet built soil year after year, that could remove the GHG burden built up in the atmosphere. How fast would it work? There's a good question for organic ag research.
Start out on these dairy farms that biodigest waste and grow their own feed for their cows. But you notice with this system, wood chips are added to the process. Burning biomass for energy cuts this recycling process off, better to use the biogas in a 70% efficient fuel cell system, then return the fertilizer to the soil. Combustion needs to be replaced with biodigestion and fuel cells.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 11:00 am
13 Nov 2009
In one group, we recognize the "people of the economy" who have managed to institutionalize the 'goodness' of greed, cleverness and arrogance associated with their idolatry of wealth consolidation and power. These people say that their adamant advocacy for endless economic growth and the power accumulated wealth purchases is not only good but also primary. They make it clear that economic globalization, industrialization as well as uneconomic forms of financial activity are most important. These activities must be expanded no matter what.
In the other group, we have "people of Earth's ecology" who value science and see that the preservation of the Earth needs to be primary, while the growth of global economy secondary because there can be no such thing as a healthy manmade economy without the adequate resources and functioning ecosystem services the Earth, and only the Earth, can provide.
Ideologues focus on an artificially designed human construction called the political economy while scientists pay attention to God's Creation. Without an attractive ideology how could any group of people ever make the argument that a manmade construction like the global political economy can exist independent of the Earth. Herein there's a rub, I suppose.
As I see it, the human community faces an all too human problem. The institutionalized power of a few million selfish people who currently organize and manage humanity's political economy (for their own interests primarily) is much greater than the power that belongs to the billions of people who have very little wealth but hold a priceless vested interest in the preservation of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the children and coming generations. Because the great majority derive so little from the "trickle down" economy, it simply cannot be regarded by them as more important than the Earth itself.
The struggle today between the "haves" and the "have-nots"; between the tiny minority of self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe and their minions on one hand and the vast majority of human beings with feet of clay on the other. Perhaps this confrontation is going to be played out again in Copenhagen next month. Representatives of an ideology and economy favored by millions of the most wealthy and powerful among us will soon confront representatives of science and the Earth, in behalf of billions of less fortunate people as well as the scientists and the Earth's stewards. Is the stage being set at the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" in Denmark for another epochal confrontation like the age-old one in Biblical times when Goliath met David in the Valley of Elah?
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 1:05 pm
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
MasterofDisaster Posted 3:02 pm
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 3:36 pm
13 Nov 2009
"Since the industrial revolution humans dug, pumped and burnt more than 320 billion tons of carbon which accumulated as the result of biological activity during 400 million years. 320 billion tons of carbon is more than 50% the carbon concentration of the original atmosphere (540 billion tons). As a consequence the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by about 40%, from 280 to 388 ppm."
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/11/01/the-lungs-of-the-earth - a good primer on climate change if you actually want to learn something.
And of course, your assertion that the world is cooling is a joke.
I like this analogy: think of the earth as a huge, sealed garage, and we humans are sitting in a big car, with the engine running. After a bit, we get a little sleepy because the carbon monoxide gas is building up and poisoning us. But it's invisible, and odorless, so we just sit there, burning gasoline. Eventually we slip into a coma and then, we die.
See?
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 3:57 pm
13 Nov 2009
You can look in vain for any presentation of the physics , even in the IPCC report . You will learn more at my http://CoSy.com , tho far from a complete understanding .
Permalink
Barrett808 Posted 7:52 pm
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
Andrew Gunther Posted 7:06 pm
13 Nov 2009
The variation in the sun's output is not enough to account for the changes in energy flux we've observed. The recent "cooling" of the earth was predicted by the scientific theory you disregard, because of the recent La Nina conditions. The recent decade was still the warmest on record, and that it is on the scale of decades that climate is studied.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 4:13 pm
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
Barrett808 Posted 7:05 pm
13 Nov 2009
Desdemona Despair: Blogging the End of the World™
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 7:10 pm
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
Barrett808 Posted 7:36 pm
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 8:27 am
14 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:11 am
14 Nov 2009
Make a contract with the economy. Make a covenant with Earth.
Economy enriches millions lavishly. Earth lavishes billions.
No economy without Earth. Earth without economy.
Earth is primal. Economy is not.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:54 am
14 Nov 2009
We try to choose a better conscious course for our civilization through a better quality and length of life for individuals, but without mass production that road won't be taken by the bulk of humanity that really needs to change course.
With life you can't just shoot for idealism, you need pragmatism too. Pragmatic idealism, human industry and productivity driven by our better angels.
We are going to need to work our way out of this carbon disaster Steven. But you are right to question an increase in human manufacturing activity as a way to get there.
It's not more organisms, more humans consuming more of the biosphere that signals success, it is an exponential wave of recycling, reuse, and conservation powered by renewable energy that will allow the reduction of each human carbon footprint enough to get a collective elimination of the global human carbon burden on the biosphere.
Zero times 7 billion is still zero, 7 billion times a negative number, with each human managing to do their part to increase carbon sequestration from say organic farming based on waste biomass recycling, could build to a huge climate cure over time.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 9:56 pm
14 Nov 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:38 pm
14 Nov 2009
All the water conservation/recycling, solar electric/water heating, composting toilet, local organic food, wind powered, biogas cooking/electric backup, silent sports trail running, biking,skiing,swimming, paddling zen...ing out with yoga and sweat lodge (icehole jumping), high quality of life/low consumption lifestyle vacation they can handle.
So far everyone I tell about it out on the trail loves the idea.
Experiencing is believing, if they feel the sacrifice is worth it and that this zero carbon life is real, it might just spread. Then there's youtube too. Some people will believe video evidence made by vistors.
All we need is 10% to retire, go to school, or just live and work from this sort of camping venue. Then help spread that lifestyle to the poorest nations first. Think about it, 20% of humanity is wealthy enough to live this way and donate part of their savings in bills (due to their low impact/low cost tenting) to pay for onr setup like this to be shipped out to a family in need.
In only 5 years the other 80% of humans would be able to live this way too. Hehey, pragmatic idealism in action! 20% who are rich (relatively) sacrifice (greatly enhance the quality of their existence) and donate to lift everyone's boats all over the planet, starting with the most at risk people first.
If karma, heaven, or the magical effect of mirror neuron empathy are real, this kind of total commitment to spaceship earth and our fellow travelors should come as close as possible in this dimension. Bucky Fuller would love it, people going on vacation to use his "fog gun" water conserving Dymaxion shower.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:39 am
15 Nov 2009
I'm looking for wilderness property to start a resort like this now. That way people can come and experience zero carbon impact comfortable tent (houseless) living and see how they like the idea.
All the water conservation/recycling, solar electric/water heating, composting toilet, local organic food, wind powered, biogas cooking/electric backup, silent sports trail running, biking,skiing,swimming, paddling zen...ing out with yoga and sweat lodge (icehole jumping), high quality of life/low consumption lifestyle vacation they can handle.
So far everyone I tell about it out on the trail loves the idea. Experiencing is believing, if they feel the sacrifice is worth it and that this zero carbon life is real, it might just spread. Then there's youtube too. Some people will believe video evidence made by vistors. All we need is 10% to retire, go to school, or just live and work from this sort of camping venue.
Then help spread that lifestyle to the poorest nations first.
Think about it, 20% of humanity is wealthy enough to live this way and donate part of their savings in bills (due to their low impact/low cost tenting) to pay for one setup like this to be shipped out to a family in need per year.
At that admittedly optimal (idealistic) rate in only 5 years the other 80% of humans would be able to live this way too. Mass production could make that goal practical, how long did it take to ramp up WW II war production?
Pragmatic idealism in action! 20% who are rich (relatively) sacrifice (greatly enhance the quality of their existence) and donate to lift everyone's boats all over the planet, starting with the most at risk people first.
If karma, heaven, or the magical effect of mirror neuron empathy are real, this kind of total commitment to spaceship earth and our fellow travelors should come as close as possible in this dimension. Hehey.
Bucky Fuller would love it, people going on vacation to use his "fog gun" water conserving Dymaxion shower.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:44 am
15 Nov 2009
I'm looking for wilderness property to start a resort like this now. That way people can come and experience zero carbon impact comfortable tent (houseless) living and see how they like the idea.
All the water conservation/recycling, solar electric/water heating, composting toilet, local organic food, wind powered, biogas cooking/electric backup, silent sports trail running, biking,skiing,swimming, paddling zen...ing out with yoga and sweat lodge (icehole jumping), high quality of life/low consumption lifestyle vacation they can handle.
So far everyone I tell about it out on the trail loves the idea. Experiencing is believing, if they feel the sacrifice is worth it and that this zero carbon life is real, it might just spread. Then there's youtube too. Some people will believe video evidence made by vistors. All we need is 10% to retire, go to school, or just live and work from this sort of camping venue.
Then help spread that lifestyle to the poorest nations first.
Think about it, 20% of humanity is wealthy enough to live this way and donate part of their savings in bills (due to their low impact/low cost tenting) to pay for one setup like this to be shipped out to a family in need per year.
At that admittedly optimal (idealistic) rate in only 5 years the other 80% of humans would be able to live this way too. Mass production could make that goal practical, how long did it take to ramp up WW II war production?
Pragmatic idealism in action! 20% who are rich (relatively) sacrifice (greatly enhance the quality of their existence) and donate to lift everyone's boats all over the planet, starting with the most at risk people first.
If karma, heaven, or the magical effect of mirror neuron empathy are real, this kind of total commitment to spaceship earth and our fellow travelors should come as close as possible in this dimension. Hehey.
Bucky Fuller would love it, people going on vacation to use his "fog gun" water conserving Dymaxion shower.
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 4:13 pm
14 Nov 2009
We blog , therefore we are ;
Were the much more abundant CO2 in the extraordinarily lush carboniferous epochs built upon it lethal to life rather than it's foundation , we would not be :
Therefore , fear of CO2 is an anti-life falsehood .
I'm continually surprised by the fixation on CO2's minor effect on mean temperature rather than its much more significant effect on variance .
Essentially our restoring a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere is increasing the volume and rate of respiration of the biosphere . Seems to me that's the side of life .
How come the promoters of war hysteria against this source of our very physical substance are WaterMellons who arrogantly admit to using the tactics of Lenin to persuade a majority of the mass's minds to hand them the hammer ?
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 4:24 pm
14 Nov 2009
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 5:29 pm
14 Nov 2009
I've downloaded Pierrehumbert's new "Principles of Planetary Climate" and think my exposition of Stefan-Boltzmann&Kirchhoff; gets to the point far quicker and handles the intrinsic 3D geometry much more flexibly than the path I see him heading down . I'm passing the link on to a bunch of peers .
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 5:42 pm
14 Nov 2009
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 5:49 pm
14 Nov 2009
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 9:53 pm
14 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 5:51 am
15 Nov 2009
For those who like to toss it around in the blogoshere, Moore's movie is a fascinating wake-up call.
Maybe saving the planetary environment as personal paradise without pesky extras is a top priority to those with the most to lose.
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 3:13 pm
15 Nov 2009
The continuing cronyism between GoldmanSachs and the State is particularly slimy .
Virtually everybody across the AGW belief spectrum all the way to Jim Hansen sees that Cap&Trade; is a total boondoggle of favoritisms rather than a rational response to the perceived problem .
This behavior is intrinsic in the use of State force unbounded by the Constitution . It leads to a privileged politically connected class controlling an impoverished population not allowed to use their own minds .
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:51 am
15 Nov 2009
A colossal tragedy is in the making. Father Profit wins again and again. Mother Nature loses.
Now for some good news: "THE(only)GAME(in town)" is in the bottom half of the ninth inning and, therefore, not yet over for Mother Nature.
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 10:09 am
15 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 11:59 am
15 Nov 2009
Who are you picking to win the game. Father Profit or Mother Nature?
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 12:21 pm
15 Nov 2009
Here is my comment on this subject on Climate Progress:
Oh boy, David Lewis, who said this:
“I also see that biologists didn’t get it until recently either. Their attention was riveted observing parts of the biosphere. They were busy. Then they suddenly noticed what they knew in such rich detail was changing, duh, the biosphere is an expression of climate, climate is changing, geez. Now they are realizing what a catastrophe it is. Now you hear them agonizing, can we even talk about trying to move some plants and animals to the new places the climate they evolved in are and will be?â€
I agree, the idea of species being moved in any viable population to a place that can’t possibly afford the same ecosystem niche that they came from, including sources of food and shelter as well as every other aspect, would be laughable if it weren’t so desperate.
I’m not so sure most biologists get it now either. Or botonists, or foresters, or farmers. Sure, they understand the environment somewhere far away is in trouble but try to get them to understand the enormity of the trouble going on right in front of them and they start frantically pointing to bugs or fungus or weather. Anything but a broad, intractable source of damage, like toxic emissions from burning fossil and biofuels.
Case in point, the NYTimes article today that I blog about here: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 11/ closing-out-season-farmers-want-to_1324.html
I’ve been predicting crop failures for some time. I’ve called and written the state dept. of Agriculture, Rutgers, the DEP, the EPA all summer, asking for data on production. Everybody told me all summer, even farmers, everything is just fine. Now look at what it says in the article, which is basically, once the farmers get hit in the pocketbook, they are declaring a state of emergency in New Jersey, New York and probably Connecticut. Some of the farmers lost over 90% of their crops and they’re using words like “surrealâ€.
I guess we’ll just have to wait for the cost of falling trees to hit the pocketbooks of home owners, the utilities, road maintenance, businesses, the insurance companies – not to mention firefighters – for people to understand that we are poisoning vegetation to the point of widespread crop failure and irreversible tree decline.
Do I sound peeved? I am. The atmospheric physicists and chemists and the botanists and the soil experts need to stop staring at their microscopes and take a good look at the big picture. We need to stop this while we still have seeds to start anew. Otherwise we can say goodbye forever to apples, cherries, peaches, nuts, and maple syrup, among other things.
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 2:10 pm
15 Nov 2009
I was responsible for a couple of hundred acres of corn and soybeans on the old family farm for several decades . A continuing concern was maintenance of the soil and continuously increasing yields , only a few percent of which can be attributed to the rise in CO2 , showed that the soil continued to be healthy . One of the shifts over that period was to "no-till" which is a clear case where Father Profit & Mother Earth are aligned .
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 12:28 pm
17 Nov 2009
My climate anxiety has definitely being easing as rationality has been winning the mass's minds despite the enormously greater resources and Leninesque tactics of the watermelons . This blog based battle of the peerage is winning the delay - which is all that's needed to further deflate this insanity .
It's painfully clear which side the majority of religious nuts , immune to any arguments , are on .
I'm still waiting for any comments on Richard Lindzen's really basic graph http://cosy.com/Science/Lindzenlineplot800.gif , showing how small the entire change in mean planetary temperature has been over the last century compared to average daily temperature variance in Boston . It shows the insanity of the "50 days to save the world" etc fear mongering .
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 4:30 pm
15 Nov 2009
Although it will probably not happen, the discussion in this blog IS at least one of the most vital examinations that needs to occur in Copenhagen.
Imagine for a moment that Witsendnj is correct and we do not even have the "bottom of ninth" still to play. Let's say we have only two out left or perhaps one last batter. Then time is short and of the essence.
Does anyone know of any venue or a group of leaders at UNFCCC where the concerns we are discussing here will be openly considered and evaluated? If no one has an affirming answer to this question, I suppose someone, besides Al Gore, has to go to Denmark to speak out loudly and clearly before the precious time remaining in the game is used up.....before THE GAME is over, afterwhich everyone will look back in utter disbelief at how the game ended.
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 6:16 am
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 6:16 am
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
BlackbirdHighway Posted 8:54 pm
15 Nov 2009
That may sound strong, but as soon as they start saying that CO2 doesn't cause a greenhouse effect or that the world is cooling, they are disconnected from the fact based reality. You can't use facts and logic to argue with someone who is disconnected from facts and logic.
These people have no interest whatsoever of making a scientific, logical, fact based argument. They intend only to waste time.
Much better to ignore these people and get to work on the solutions. There is much to be done, and no time to waste.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:09 am
17 Nov 2009
Combine their "scientific" climate talking points with ones that appeal more to swing voters, like, "It's too expensive to cut GHG, it will cost us jobs because the chinese and other economies will use cheap coal powered manufacturing to compete with us."
Can american made steel compete with a steel mill in China that pays, say a tenth what it costs here for electricty? That's the case already, without renewable energy. They claim renewable energy will make our electricty cost 15 or 20 times what it costs in China?
What part of the cost of steel is due to electricty? Wind power is cheaper than coal right now.
I think it will bring our costs down. And we can compete by exporting renewable energy devices manufactured here. Other national industries and utilities already know renewables are the way to go. If we ever want to compete again we better just get on this green wave and lead.
The main cause of job loss is currency manipulation skewing price competition, chinese currency is set so that chinese state owned industries make money, and lots of it! That effect dwarfs differences in chinese coal and american wind as far as the cost of electricty.
Sidestep the GHG climate question and go with the economy, it works everytime the deniers start to regurgitate their predigested clusterfox pablum.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:14 am
16 Nov 2009
Given the humane and able exercise of intelligence, innovation and ingenuity by the human family, the converging global challenges issuing from the human overpopulation of Earth, the conspicuous per-capita overconsumption of limited resources, the reckless hoarding of wealth, the ruthless degradation of the environment, the rapacious dissipation of Earth's body and soon to become patently unsustainable growth of the leviathan-like world economy are still manageable if we can act boldly and cooperatively now.... before humanity's "window of opportunity" to make a difference closes. The leaders of the single generation who are largely responsible for these challenges cannot continue to be richly rewarded for their arrogance, foolishness and greed as well as be allowed to willfully proceed down a "primrose path" advocating more of their same, old, unsustainable business-as-usual activities, only to end up dumping fulminating global threats into the laps of the children.
From this point of view, only one colossal, human-induced challenge remains that is derived directly from a clearly recognized and plainly understandable imbalance of power.
Perhaps this is the proverbial "mother" of all human-driven global threats to human wellbeing, environmental health and the future of life as we know it in our time:
A few million Masters of the Universe
with billions of dollars
versus
a few billion human beings with feet of clay
and millions of dollars.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:50 am
16 Nov 2009
Despite all the flowery cascading rhetoric to the contrary, we need not look far to see that money, power and privilege for ourselves, our bought-and-paid-for politicians, and our newly-minted minions are the primary objects of our lives.
Regardless of the fulminating human-driven calamities visible on the horizon that could soon befall the children, we have consciously and willfully chosen to live long, large and free from responsibility for our behavior. Yes, we proudly live in a patently unsustainable fantasy world (We call it reality. You know nothing of its extent.) of idle comforts, effortless ease, multiple McMansions, rampant consumption, secret handshakes, exclusive clubs, exotic hideaways, mega-yachts, limos and private jets, having abandoned our concern for the less fortunate among us, for the maintenance of life as we know it, and for the preservation of the integrity of Earth. Think of our single-minded pursuit of material wealth, power, and privilege to profligately hoard and recklessly ignore the requirements of practical reality as a raison d’etre......the work of deity.
During the past 8 long dark years, we have learned that when too leaders of my generation of arrogant, foolhardy and avaricious elders has completed its `mission’ on Earth, the children will likely look back in anger and utter disbelief at the things we have done so selfishly and failed to do so sanctimoniously………… all the while proclaiming ourselves Masters of the Universe doing God's work.
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 10:53 am
16 Nov 2009
Permalink
sindark Posted 3:06 pm
16 Nov 2009
It’s not that it’s manifestly impossible to do these things in a low-carbon way, it’s just that doing so is too difficult and expensive for the huge majority of people to do at this time. Continent-crossing electric bullet trains powered by renewable energy would be great, but they are not available to those trying to cross North America today.
Given the total capacity of the planet to absorb greenhouse gasses, it may be fundamentally impossible for the number of people alive today to ever do these kinds of things sustainably. As such, responding seriously to the threat of climate change requires pretty significant personal sacrifices and, to a considerable extent, a reduced expectation of how much energy-intensive stuff we can aspire to do in the course of our lives. Building a low-carbon society is a way of taking back the freedoms lent to us by hydrocarbon energy, but it definitely remains to be seen whether equivalent per-capita potential will be created by such means during the lifetime of anyone alive today.
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 6:04 pm
16 Nov 2009
Americans in particular seem to harbor a ridiculous sense of entitlement, as though everyone, or at least whoever can afford it, deserves to drive a car or fly in a plane to whatever destination they wish, or eat every last fish in the sea. It's quite difficult to imagine them suddenly becoming willing to give up what they are convinced they somehow deserve. Heads are going to explode in the not too distant future.
I took a look at your blog which I bookmarked. It's humbling for an old(er?) person like me who has only recently become fully enlightened about the enormity of climate change consequences, to see such wisdom in a young person.
I just want to say to this post of yours about the carbon footprint of pets, which is interesting to me because I have several - since it's a bit outdated at your blog:
You said
"If you want to go it by land area, the fairest comparison would probably be this:
For the car, the amount of land it would take to grow enough biomass to produce the liquid fuel to run it.
For the dog, the amount of land to grow the plants to feed to the animals that the dog eats.
I am not sure if that is the methodology those running the study used. Both are effectively about sunlight, and energy return on investment when converting primary products (plants) into final fuels (meat or liquid fuel).
Doesn't this ignore the enormous carbon footprint of producing the car in the first place? Mining the minerals and forging the steel and making the plastic etc?
If you factor that in, it seems to me the equation would become vastly different.
Also, if you're going to factor in the impact of pets, shouldn't you also compare their existence to the carbon footprint of wild animals?
Just sayin'!
Gail
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 5:21 pm
16 Nov 2009
Earth's body and its environs are at stake now.
The window of opportunity to save the planet, life as we know it, and a future for the children remains open. There is still a chance, a ray of hope. We can choose between Hell and Copenhagen.
We know what the Masters of the Universe have chosen. Time is short but still available, perhaps for a while longer anyway, for the human beings with feet of clay among us to speak out loudly and clearly in Copenhagen so that necessary changes occur to rescue the world we inhabit from those who are ravaging it, even as they pretend to be stewards.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 7:15 pm
16 Nov 2009
Here's a study of the contributions of trace gases to the natural greenhouse effect--(Clough and Iacono, 1995) at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JD01386.shtml. (You'll have to pay for the full article.)
It is not designed to specifically address your doubts about the physics of GHGs in the atmosphere, but should help clarify things for you. And, best of all, it is written for men and women of intellectual stature, such as you demand. If it's not good enough, just ask, I can send more links.
And, perhaps, Stefan, Boltzmann, and Kirchhoff are not mentioned in modern climate research for the same reason Darwin is rarely mentioned in modern evolution research--it's unnecessary and irrelevant.
Permalink
wildfire Posted 7:26 am
17 Nov 2009
So what to do?
I'm with Adam Sachs that we need to speak forthrightly about the problem--though I think it's especially important for SCIENTISTS to do this. The public can be forgiven for doubting the consensus of scientists that the problem is urgent as long as James Hansen is the only one putting his body on the line for change NOW. Whether there is any point in going to Copenhagen (how? by jet?) or trying to organize events here in the US instead, among a populace almost psychotically disengaged...I do have two proposals. One, just skip over denialist posts in a conversation that isn't about them. And two, gather together in your own area with others who do get it, on a weekend perhaps, so that you may all howl and cry and scream and threaten and generally blow out the anguish of being Cassandra in these times--I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds that my capacity for joy is diminished and my state of anxiety is constant, despite my personal life being excellent, because of my awareness of this problem. (And the related kink in the spine of human culture of which is it only symptom, as Adam pointed out in a previous post.) My theory is that coming together for this catharsis will free up that capacity for joy, which I suspect is critical somehow to any solution we might be able to foster.
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 8:30 am
17 Nov 2009
She's fine now but I don't think our planet will be.
Permalink
isaacschumann Posted 9:10 am
17 Nov 2009
"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."
no definitive conclusions are drawn, it is a summary of what we KNOW to be very likely, not what is predicted. science is about knowledge, not prediction. if the climate change movement loses the scientists, than they have nothing. politicians are guests in a scientific debate, not the other way around, and they have to obey the rules of science debate; they have to qualify the source and uncertainty of everything that they say, as annoying as that is, otherwise its just hearsay. people who say that scientists need to speak with one voice and make their pronouncements useful to politics are the sarah palins of the climate change movement. ill stick to good science and rigorous skepticism of everything i read, no matter the source. The study of climate change, like all good scientific endeavors, was forged in the fires of skepticism and rigorous critique. if you do not attempt to prove yourself wrong in order to know that you are right, its not really science, then its just a philosophy.
Permalink
wildfire Posted 1:29 pm
17 Nov 2009
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 6:04 am
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:09 am
17 Nov 2009
Got to go, we're car pooling together to the protest. I saves gas, you know.
Bye,
PS - do you think I'm doing the right thing?
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 8:16 am
17 Nov 2009
I do enjoy your intellectual foolishness and rhetorical dexterity.
Thanks,
Steve
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:54 am
17 Nov 2009
Thanks. Yes, foolishness has a way of steering you through the brambles and emerging on the other side of intellectual thickets which obscure the obvious and allow us to delude ourselves with high-minded, brain-numbing talk and procrastination.
Although, on the other hand, I can't recall if it was chemical engineering or law school that made me the bigger advocate for "foolishness?" Clearly either one is a good candidate for the job, or maybe it was the two together that caused the undue foolishness resulting from a world in which legal process is scared and engineering results are demanded, but not in the same time, space or universe.
If my puny role is to bring foolishness to the hearts of readers, so be it.
By the way, we all just got back from the pro-eco protest against that awful renewable energy and transmission project, and we won! I feel like my life is better already. It should be years before that bunch in the greedy renewable energy crowd comes back to our neck of the woods. Whoa, that was easy, and personally very satisfying!
By the way, isn't the internet great, and so green, not actually using electricity like it does. I hear it uses fairy dust mixed with bran muffin flakes roasted on a charcoal grill. I know its just a rumor, but I've also heard that the internet runs exclusively on green electrons, but I can't decide which of the two explanations makes more sense. I need to talk to some of my friends who are experts on pixie dust and green electrons, but I won't see them until the next renewable energy protest.
Thanks again,
Dan
Permalink
adobrow Posted 10:09 am
17 Nov 2009
THANK YOU.
Peace--Angel Dobrow
Permalink
ecologicalhope Posted 10:25 am
17 Nov 2009
This isn't just a climate change issue, this is mostly an ecological overshoot issue, of which the warming of the atmosphere because of GHG emissions is one example. Eco'systems' (I hate that term) are unraveling in just about every part of the world, or at least undergoing very large changes. If we look only at what this means for the global economy, it is not a pretty scenario.
So who wants to announce the demise of one's own lifestyle?
I have spoken to many audiences now, and my approach is to talk to them like adults who can actually grasp what is going on. It's very hard; they often get very quiet and the atmosphere in the room gets pretty heavy. But by the end, there is this energy around the need to go home and talk to their families, to get involved in some way in their churches, local communities, etc. They talk about how they read or watch the news now in a different light, a clearer light.
I agree that we have to stop focusing so much on the future, which GW deniers want to be predictive in detail, with the schedule for how and when the warming will take place. Is the Arctic cooling or warming? And what did our cool summer in the upper Midwest mean? Futile and stupid debate.
We have to start talking about what is happening now - desertification in southern Europe, the baking of southeastern Australia, the looming end of agriculture in the Great Plains because of depletion of the Ogallala aquifer, the end of agriculture in the Imperial Valley and the burning of southern CA, the death of forests all across the mountain West because of the infestation of bark beetles, more evidence of the impacts of warming.
Scare people. Be real. Ecological grief is part of this journey. Accept the change that is coming in your own life. We have no other choices -- except those that keep us from preparing appropriately through efforts at both mitigation and adaptation that are commensurate with the scale of the crisis.
Margaret
http://www.ecologicalhope.org
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 12:59 pm
17 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 10:25 am
17 Nov 2009
Perhaps necessary changes that move the human family toward sustainability will turn the tide in these last moments before the Copenhagen Climate Summit in favor of humanity, a good enough future for children everywhere and life as we know it.
Permalink
prohb Posted 11:06 am
17 Nov 2009
The third world is striving to reach our "standard" of living. If everyone did that we would need 4 earths of resources.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 11:33 am
17 Nov 2009
The big difference between scientists, dreamers and engineers is focus. If you want to think about it, dream, if you want to study it, employ the scientific method, and if you want to get it done - get an engineer and let them do what they know how to do. All three are great for different phases of a process, but I favor producing something good and lasting, useful and functional, honest and upright; For that, engineers do a pretty bang up job.
Now, if you want to spend a lot of time arguing about something, hire a lawyer and pay him to talk to a group of politicians. When your done spending money, you will have some paper, a headache, and the need to hire another attorney to arrange your divorce.
Oh, just kidding about the lawyers - I don't want to ruffle any feathers.
Dan
Permalink
prohb Posted 12:31 pm
17 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 2:50 pm
17 Nov 2009
Well, we have about 40 years of hard core work to do before that becomes any kind of concern. There is more than enough for people to do if they get on with it; there is far too little of value for people to do if we talk it to death.
It turns out that if you take Cal Tech Professor Nathan Lewis' calculation of how much non-carbon renewable energy generating capacity we need - 10,000,000 megawatts - and compare it to the amount currently in existence after say, 30 years of effort, we will have to build 2 times all the renewable energy generating capacity we built in the last 30 years every year for the next 40 years. If we get busy with the doing and stop studying what we know we have to do, then each year will get better, easier and more fulfilling. If we study the doing, then each year it will get harder, more delayed and more expensive.
By the way, one acre of solar PV panels produce 0.125 MW of electricity; one acre of solar thermal systems produce 0.16 MW, about 0.04 MW per acre more. To make 10 million MW requires about 80 million acres of land covered with solar panels or about 10 million wind turbines, each occupying about 100 by 100 feet of land. Since 1 acres = 43 560 square feet, and 100 x 100 is about 10,000 square feet, that's about 4 units per acre or about 2.5 million acres of land for wind turbines instead of 80 million for solar panels. Since they all need roads, its a bit of a wash for rough calculations.
It seems to me that making things to create renewable energy while oil is cheap is a much faster way to eliminate coal and oil dependance because when its cheap to build, you get more energy displacement for less money and effort, which in turn eliminates more coal and oil usage quicker. It's kinda cool that way: in renewable energy deployment economics this is an aspect of what is referred to as the "merit order effect."
So, I say, let's build, deploy and connect lots of efficient windmills while they're cheap because of low fuel costs, and that more quickly will make the environmental benefits of the low carbon energy systems available and will keep the price of carbon fuels low enough to use them wisely. Otherwise, we keep doing the same thing, even if we use less carbon-based fuels, and as time goes on, the cost of fuel increases which makes manufacturing non-carbon energy systems more expensive and therefore less plentiful and available.
What do you think?
Permalink
blueskykate Posted 1:52 pm
17 Nov 2009
We don't awful-ize (realizing that it just gives too many people a reason not to get involved), and we generally enjoy ourselves in the process. A lot of transition communities are quietly providing the support, connection, encouragement, motivation and organization to rapidly reduce fossil fuel consumption and simplify and localize. We tend to work 'under the radar' because in the process of unplugging, we are starting a movement that will cut off the money to a lot of entities that are used to getting it- car manufacturers, processed food manufacturers, oil companies,gigantic clothing manufacturers, and producers of non-essential plastic doohickies. Its a very radical (and has been called "dangerous" by mainstream media) concept that is what I feel is our best hope for timely changes...obviously we can't mitigate climate change any more, but we can certainly reduce our final impact.
One of the wonderful aspects of Transition is that it attracts all kinds of people- even people who don't know or give a hoot about climate change. We don't bother to convince everyone because you NEVER WILL- folks just want to get involved because as we powerdown, we are having a lot of fun too. My favorite thing about it? Young people are drawn to it in droves. We have found often the 'boomers can talk the sustainability talk after years of practice, but are not really willing to get out of the Subaru.
So, telling the truth ain't gonna do much. You just have to stop talking about it and get outside with your neighbors and get to work.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 1:54 pm
17 Nov 2009
Human beings who have maintained their silence by refusing to speak out about what is true to them have inadvertently made of themselves fearsome foes of the family of humanity.
At this late hour, our silence could be ruinous of everything we so vociferously claim to be protecting. The extent to which members of the human community remain willfully blind, hysterically deaf and elective mute, we end up fulfilling nothing more or less than the hopes and expectations of the Masters of the Universe among us, the wealthy and powerful elders of one not-so-great, greedmongering generation.
Permalink
animatorfrank Posted 2:54 pm
17 Nov 2009
Permalink
Kevin93 Posted 5:15 pm
17 Nov 2009
Here are two constraints:
1. We live in a democratic society and compromise is required to get anything done. 2. We also live within an economic system that is extremely dependent on energy, so we'll need to completely change to a non-emitting, more efficient system -- phyical limitations mean we cannot do that overnight. With those two constraints, anyone who espouses radical changes (for example -- dismissing the UCS view as too timid) is really detached from the constraints we face. You want something to happen to address the problem? Then that takes compromise. You insist on a threshold of 2 degrees rather than perhaps 2.7 or whatever, then you may not get any legislation and temps stabilize at 4 or 6. Sure, less than 2 is good. less than 350 is good. But doable given the very real constraints we face? -- probably not.
So, despair and sit there and oppose anything that isn't perfect or compromise and move, always working to improve and tighten as time passes.
And by the way, the bets are growing that you get NO LEGISLATION with this Congress and certainly not with the next. Rather than howling about the inadequacies of this or that bill, more folks better become cheerleaders.
Permalink
prohb Posted 6:30 am
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:05 am
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
wildfire Posted 6:46 am
18 Nov 2009
Hey Blue Sky Kate! Where do you live? I have read all about the Transition movement and find it very exciting, but I wonder whether it's as easy to motivate people here, especially in "red states" as it has been in the UK. A lot of people say we can't get to where we need to go with individual (and local) action alone but must have policy change. But implementing policy change that benefits living things and harms corporations is impossible under current conditions, whereas making local change is something we can DO.
Permalink
Kevin93 Posted 7:39 am
18 Nov 2009
I couldn't tell if you were being ironic here, but unless you are successful in your "local change" in a way that is truly transformative -- that is, you get the ENTIRE SOCIETY on board very quickly (good luck with that by the way), you may feel good, but we will still end up with a seriously changed planet. You need the policies that will transform the energy system -- this is a fact. Idealism must be pared with pragmatism.
To my original claim that we risk not getting any legislation, here is a nice story -- Evan Bayh, D Senator from Indiana, is sitting on the fence. May or may not vote for the bill. Indiana isn't traditionally a D state. The economy is hurting. LOTS of businesses, mostly the smaller and mid-sized by the way and part of that 18% who don't believe CC is real, are absolutely opposed to a climate bill. Then, the local environmental activists, who are the ones who should be supporting passage, also oppose the bill because it is too weak. So, what will Mr. Bayh do? You need 60 votes to get this out of the Senate. You now have about 40 who are solid yes, and 40 who are solid no. Bayh is one of the 20 you absolutely must have. If he votes yes, he has most of the business community against him and he GETS NO CREDIT OR SUPPORT FROM THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS. Why therefore, will he ever vote for this bill? Repeat this in most of the States the 20 undecideds represent and you have no bill.
To belabor the point -- No legislation, no change in energy system. No change in the energy system, regardless of how many light bulbs you change or bicycle trips you make or locally grown vegatables you grow, and global CO2 concentrations keep on growing. Hello 600 or 800ppm. But at least there were those of you who remained true to your convictions and didn't cave in to evil corporations -- well done!
Permalink
wildfire Posted 8:07 am
18 Nov 2009
The trouble with people making arguments like this is they always act as though there is a small gap between some ideal bill we can imagine and the actual bills in Congress, so that environmentalists who oppose them are painted as whiny children demanding 100% of what they want. The reality is that there is an enormous gap between these massive bills full of loopholes and giveaways and anything that might actually contend with the problem. The reality is that the most we could possibly get out of the US Congress is way, way, way short of the least that will reduce GHG in time to prevent catatrophic climate change. Another key difference between your side and mine is what you suppose is likely if we pass thoroughly inadequate legislation this (or next) year. You imagine that "we will build on it"--I think that Congress will say, "We already took care of that" and no new legislation will be forthcoming for the next decade.
So what do we do about it?
Change our personal lives to continuously shrink our carbon footprints and encourage those around us to do the same; try to move our own communities toward sustainability and self-sufficiency; support the carbon tax bills that are introduced even though they probably have little chance of passage. I agree with you that it's not enough but neither is working to pass legislation which won't reduce GHG.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 11:30 am
18 Nov 2009
There are about 6.8 Billion people on the planet now. One-tenth of 1% of that number is 6.8 million. We take that 6.8 million people and identify them as the wealthiest people in the world, at the top of the "trickle down" economic pyramid called the global political economy. Perhaps we could then estimate the average ecological footprint of each of these individuals simply by observing the amount of resources they consume and hoard annually and finding an average amount. Does anyone wish to make a guess about the size of these human footprints? Needless to say, they are huge.
We pass on at this point to consider 1% of absolute global human population numbers. The number is 68 million people. How long do you think the Earth could sustain 68 million people living the lifestyles of 6.8 million wealthiest people on the planet?
Would the supply of Earth's natural resources and global ecosystem services collapse in a week or perhaps a month if all 6.8 Billion members of the family of humanity consumed and hoarded the way the most fortuate among us do now?
If Earth is finite, is there a sensible way the human family could realistically expect to be sustained for long when people in great numbers follow the example of self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us by outrageously overconsuming and excessively hoarding limited resources?
According to recent UN Population Division projections, in the year 2050 the human population is expected to be 9.2 Billion. How on Earth can a planet with the size, composition and environment of our planetary home sustain all of us striving to live like the most fortunate people among us live today? How many more McMansions, fleets of cars, mega-yachts, private jets, limos, hideaways and exclusive clubs can Earth sustain before its vital resources are irreversibly dissipated and its ecology is collapsed?
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 12:35 pm
18 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 2:19 pm
18 Nov 2009
Is it not a bit early to conclude that "it's all over but the shooting"? There is still time, precious time for many people "shouting as one voice" to make a difference by forcefully, mindfully and humanely encouraging necessary changes from our unsustainable lifestyles to sustainable ways of living well in the world God has blessed us to inhabit. It does seem to me that God's Creation may not change in the future in ways that are certain to be beneficial to the human species. If that is so, perhaps it is incumbent upon the human community to keep and use its wits, its innovative know-how and its ingenuity to adapt its lifestyles to the practical requirements of biophysical reality, as given to us in well-established scientific knowledge.
Thanks for speaking out so loudly, clearly and often.
Always,
Steve
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 3:00 pm
18 Nov 2009
Having said that, from my reading of the science, it's really too late. Heating leads to more heating, the only question is how quickly. Did you read that link? The prediction is for catastrophic warming based on CO2 alone, given the surprisingly accelerating rate of concentration recently, and the likelihood that CO2 sinks are saturated. It doesn't even factor in methane, or positive amplifying feedbacks such as the albedo effect, or this study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091117102036.htm about other greenhouse gases whose effects have been underestimated or even ignored. Add to that the influence of the professional deniers, and the unwillingness of most people to even consider a reduction in their pattern of consumption, and the prognosis looks pretty bleak to me.
Permalink
Bob Armstrong Posted 5:55 pm
18 Nov 2009
Guade00 ,
Thanks for the link . Unlike skeptic blogs , seems uncommon here to actually engage in direct discussion of the science . But , the abstract you link is just a fragment of an argument , and I have downloaded Pierrehumbert's new text from which I should be able to extract a complete argument and equation . And , frankly I find this common one dimensional subtractions from top of atmosphere approach crude and misleading for several reasons . For instance , it fosters the false notion , promulgated on Wikipedia for instance , that a uniform black ball will come to a different temperature than a uniform white ball . The more realistic and flexible 3 dimensional implementation on my http://CoSy.com makes that fallacy clear .
While everyone knows Darwin's name , I doubt if more than a handful on this blog know Stefan , Boltzmann or Kirchhoff . Furthermore , unlike Darwin who elucidated a fundamental principle , these names elucidated precise quantitative relationships .
I think it's becoming clear that despite the religious fervor apparent here , youall are losing the belief of the masses . So , it should behoove you to present a concise coherent sun-to-surface quantitative explanation of your physics . Of course as Prof Corky Hayden points out , you have the problem that you have about 20 different models rather than just 1 ( and none of them predict the last decade ) so you apparently don't have any unambiguous theory in the sense of the "settled" sciences like kinetics or electrodynamics for instance .
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:17 am
19 Nov 2009
Of course, I am agree with you on virtually everything you have reported. At least to me, it seems as if you and I are somehow standing on the same promontory, overlooking the landscape directly before us. Because we share a "scope of observation" in the same moment of space-time, I suppose we can see things similarly.
All that acknowledged, the matter of hope could be a point where we differ somewhat. Just as you report, I believe the "prognosis" for the future looks bleak. Yes, definitely yes, to that realization. Even so, the window of opportunity for shouting and changing appears to remain open. As long as that "window" remains ajar, even slightly, it seems to me we have reasons to hope for finding a path to a good enough future for the children.
Sincerely,
Steve
PS: My greatest fear for the children is that too many so-called leaders in our time will elect to remain mute and human beings with feet of clay will be taken in by an unverbalized mantra, a pernicious sound of silence, which is communicated to people everywhere through the mainstream media at the behest of the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us.
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 7:04 am
19 Nov 2009
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other leads to total extinction.
Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice."
Woody Allen
Permalink
SaveOurWorld Posted 5:21 am
20 Nov 2009
Permalink
Mike Hanauer Posted 7:40 am
19 Nov 2009
We are more interested in not offending anyone than in making MEANINGFUL progress. No practical strategic plan. No concern with the long term or sustainability. No unified attempt to deal with overarching issues -- the stuff that has prevented any progress for many many years.
Steps to Sustainability: Overarching Issues
A dialogue toward action for groups and individuals
Most now agree: We are losing the climate change and environmental battle.
We have a planetary cancer which continues to get more aggressive, yet our “ready, fire, aim†tact amounts to treatment with a box of band-aids and no plan or hope to get where we need to be. A road that goes one-third the distance cannot continue to make us feel good while denying the extent of the needed journey. We are targeting mostly easy and politically correct symptoms – usually avoiding and therefore even masking the most effective actions.
We must, all together and at all levels – local, state, national and beyond, tackle the big and overarching causes rather than continue to give the impression that just the little things will be enough. Within this framework, I have come to believe the following NEEDS TO BE DONE to make future generations smile back at us (those marked (*), are especially good for local groups as programs and action items):
1. Remember the goal we called sustainability? We must restore this tenet of sustainability as a goal - which also leads to all of the following--
2. We must again embrace “Think globally, act locallyâ€. There is no global government, so there are unlikely to be any fast "global" solutions. Only many coordinated and effective actions will create a sum greater than the whole. We must do the right thing while we ask others at all levels to do the same.
3. * We need to get behind real restoration of democracy (campaign finance reform, limitation of corporate power and lobbying, media control, etc.). It is not just the (lonely) job of Ralph Nader. All together, we have the power. Without us, Nader and our children lose. So many of our problems now can be traced to our leaving this issue only to others. [Overarching Issue]
4. Legislation stopping the release of greenhouse gasses and promoting efficient alternative technology needs to happen quickly and be tough. Cap and trade is a political solution that won't meet the need. Did we tell one company they could continue pouring effluent into the river if another downstream said it would cut? In the Obama post pure markets age, solutions like cap and trade should be quickly exposed for what they are - less than what is needed, at best. We need timely and effective legislation especially at the national level.
5. * We need to scream, in unison, about the evils of growth including our own population growth which drives so much of it. Growth overwhelms even good technology and conservation. The US has surpassed 300 million people and we will surpass a half billion in about 40 years. Many agree with me here, but question being able to talk about US population. Most people who care about climate change have no problem talking about population. Growth is a religion that must be debunked. Silence is not productive. Our efforts to control greenhouse gases are failing largely because growth overwhelms all the other actions. [Overarching Issue]
6. Immigration is causing most of our population growth: We should cut it to help stabilize our own population, reduce our own greenhouse gases, set an example for others, and stop being an overflow and talent drain for other overpopulated countries that also should limit growth. This will help the US and the world as opposed to the present situation which promotes world growth and resulting damage. And yes, we must help other countries do that.
7. We need to be skeptical of new technology and its being our salvation; the private sector is usually a biased judge – especially when there is a product to profit on. So many are later found to do more harm than good. All technology has undesirable side effects and in an overpopulated country, side effects are always in somebody’s back yard. Wind and solar fall into this classification, so the promises must be evaluated from a holistic viewpoint by independent sources.
8. * We need to promote how much more efficient a building is that is NEVER built (over one that is built but is more efficient than most that already exist). Halting growth will allow that - and generally allow resources to go to supporting a better quality of life rather than supporting "bigger over better".
9. * We need to get people to act to make this all happen. We need to include "limit your family size" and “pester your representative†on our lists (along with use CFLs, turn down the heat and use a clothes line).The overarching issues are most important. If the little things mask the big things, I believe we fail. I believe that that failure is now evident.
10. * We need to look at our mission statements. If the mission can rule out any of this stuff, our mission is more self-serving than serving of our children.
I have come to believe that we need to admit that our climate change requires major adjustment to support sustainability. We must promote, all together in all groups at all levels, what is needed to make a difference to our children and to history as it looks back. This means loudly educating about the impact of overarching issues. It means all groups talking to state and US representatives to kill the growth mantra and restore democracy in an orchestrated and united manner. In my opinion, this type of a change in direction has a chance of making a difference. History indicates that our present course is rearranging the deck chairs, and musical chairs at that.
I know all won't agree with everything, and this list is surely not complete, but we all need to start talking about overarching issues and a detail plan that addresses the need and then aim and fire. NGOs and their field groups must take the lead. Political correctness, only feel good actions, and a lack of strategic thinking need to stop – and be replaced by a plan that meets the needs which is pushed and implemented by strong legislation, locally yet pervasive. This does not mean eliminating the good programs we have – it means adding a few more that will have a huge positive result.
So many clearly now believe our present trajectory needs major adjustment. Silence is not golden.
~Mike Hanauer
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:33 am
19 Nov 2009
Permalink
Mike Hanauer Posted 7:09 am
20 Nov 2009
I know you are a smart guy, but I don't have a clue to your point. Help us out.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:32 am
20 Nov 2009
Thanks for the compliment.
The clue lies in the awful fact that we don't really have sufficient time to remake human beings completely in a new mold - biology and this beautiful planet have formed us and we can't escape just now.
We have some simple but arduous tasks ahead, all of which can be done if we cut to the chase.
There are two major contributers to the gases in the atmosphere which are causing climate change: CO2 and other "trace gases." Each component has a radiant forcing factor which makes it worthwhile to pay attention to its respective contribution. I personally am more than a little concerned about the other trace gases besides CO2, but that's just a personal thing since 1989.
Returning to CO2, there are two big drivers producing CO2 in the US: consumer demand for electricity from coal and consumer demand for transportation based on fossil fuels - oil. Others in the world have similar issues.
With respect to consumer demand for electricity, we have very effective if not well deployed alternatives in the form of wind power, and to a much lesser degree solar PV (~0.125 MW per acre) and solar thermal ~0.16 MW per covered acre). The capacity of wind power to displace other sources of hydrocarbon-based electricity at a reasonable cost is beyond dispute. It merely needs to be deployed with careful consideration toward the grid stability issue, a matter which is vexing but can be handled by smart people let loose on the problem. The wind is where the wind is, and no amount of protesting or complaining will change that reality. Moreover, to reach those places, harvest the power, and return it where it is needed will require transmission - that also is the reality.
A 3000 MW wind farm - collectively - displaces roughly one billion pounds of CO2 per month. That's quite a bit, no?
All the laws and regulations and treaties are not going to physically build and deploy alternative energy sources, and without them we are asking people to give up more than is actually reasonably possible under the current circumstances - absent cave dwelling, and there are too few of those. Many of the proposed laws are really just trying to give market incentives to spur the construction of alternative energy sources. Fundamentally, it's not the law, but the deployment of alternative energy sources which is going to get the environmental job done.
As environmentalists, we need to take the necessary steps to actively help, not hinder, the people who are trying to rapidly build and deploy the devices which are needed. We don't need barriers at every turn, studies which take many years, and delays based on matters which will be swept away if climate change really gets rolling. And that possibility is getting larger every day we delay. We already absolutely know there are going to be environmental consequences to development of alternative energy sources, but with some reasonable steps, that harm will be far less than if we delay. Delay is our enemy and nothing we do is going to buy back the time we lose.
TRANSPORTATION:
As for transportation, manufacturing and deploying bidirectional pluggable hybrids with battery storage capacity is a big step in utilizing different energy sources: chemical fuels and electricity derived from renewable sources. The reality is that is will take far more robust transmission to transmit the amount of electrical power necessary to provide light, heat, transportation, water pumping, and all the other things which make crowded modern life possible. Transitioning to low carbon will require manufacture, deployment and sale of proper equipment to consumers.
Incidentally, without civilization and civil order, the threat of pot-hunting is far more dangerous to wildlife and habitat than the alternatives. It is incumbent on environmentalists to help sustain order and a quality of life which avoids substantial civil unrest and increased poverty.
Nathan Lewis of Cal Tech has calculated that we need 10 terawatts of non-carbon electricity by 2050 to meet basic needs and avoid catastrophic climate change. That's equal to 10 million 2.5 MW wind turbines worldwide. That can be done if we move with all deliberate haste. We gain nothing by delay, and the task of deployment, if stymied, only leads to greater risks. The sooner we act physically, the sooner we cut into CO2 production.
Note, but the way, that CO2 production in the US dropped 5.9% from 2008 to 2009, and from coal it dropped over 10% in the same period. That is, in part due to changes in the energy production technology mix according to the US EIA.
Note that it requires about 8 acres of land covered with solar panels to produce a megawatt of electricity, and that is only while the sun is shining on it - about 6 hours or so. That means it takes 4 times as much actual land to produce the equivalent megawatt hours (4 * 6 = 24 hr) as would be produced by a wind turbine working day and night - and that assumes storage which does not currently exist. That said, it will require roughly 64 acres of covered land to equal one 2 megawatt wind turbine which has a land-consuming foot print of about 10,000 square feet, or about a 1/4 acre. Roads are included in both, so no sense debating the small stuff. By the way, this does not even include other features of efficiency, etc, which favor wind farms plus transmission. (note that 64 times 10 million is a big number, and that is what we're talking about for solar PV or thermal, a natural consequence of a diffuse but collectively powerful energy source.
SUMMARY:
So, in summary, my personal belief is that based on the reduction in CO2 emissions we have seen since 2008, that we can overcome the challenges if we move swiftly in an orderly way to deploy wind power to the maximum extent possible. The task is too large to set aside productive areas for wind and solar on the hope they will not be needed. They will.
My hope is that true environmentalists will take up the cause, employ the proper triage concepts, and do what is necessary, even aware that we are going to make mistakes, we are going to have an adverse effect on the environment, and we are going to have to do it no matter what because our choices are constrained by physics and the world in which we are operating.
So, that's my thought on it.
Dan
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 11:57 am
20 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 7:41 am
19 Nov 2009
Permalink
witsendnj Posted 8:05 am
19 Nov 2009
Permalink