Blog

Collapse Is Already Here

It's a process, not an event
Friday, January 25, 2019, 9:18 PM

Many people are expecting some degree of approaching collapse -- be it economic, environmental and/or societal -- thinking that they’ll recognize the danger signs in time. 

As if it will be completely obvious, like a Hollywood blockbuster. Complete with clear warnings from scientists, politicians and the media.  And everyone can then get busy either panicking or becoming the plucky heroes. 

That's not how collapse works.

Collapse is a process, not an event.

And it's already underway, all around us. 

Collapse is already here.

However, unlike Hollywood's vision, the early stages of collapse cause people to cling even tighter to the status quo. Instead of panic in the streets, we simply see more of the same -- as those in power do all they can to remain so, while the majority of the public attempts to ignore the growing problems for as long as it possibly can.

For both the elite and the majority, their entire world view and their personal sense of self depends on things not crumbling all around them, so they remain willfully blind to any evidence to the contrary.

When faced with the predicaments we warn about here at PeakProsperity.com, getting an early start on prudently shifting your own personal situation is of vital strategic and tactical importance. Tens of thousands of our readers already have taken wise steps in their lives to position themselves resiliently.

But most of the majority won't get started until it’s entirely too late to make any difference at all. Which is sad but perhaps unavoidable, given human nature.

If everybody around you is saying “Everything is awesome!”, it can take a long time to determine for yourself that things in fact aren't:

Real collapse happens slowly, and often without any sort of acknowledgement by the so-called political and economic elites until its abrupt terminal end.

The degree of rot within the Soviet Union went undetected until its final implosion, catching pretty much everyone in the West (as well as in the former USSR!) by surprise.   

Similarly, one day people woke up and passenger pigeons were extinct.  They used to literally darken the skies for hours as they migrated past, numbering in the billions. Nobody planned on their demise and virtually nobody saw it coming.  Sure, just as there always are, a few crackpots at the fringes noticed, but they were ignored until it was too late.

Our view is that collapse of our current way of life is happening right now. The signs are all around us.  Our invitation is for you to notice them and inquire critically what the ramifications will be -- irrespective of whatever pablum our leaders and media are currently spewing.

While the monetary and financial elites strain to crank out one more day/week/month/year of “market stability”, the ecosystems we depend on for life are vanishing. It's as if the Rapture were happening, but it's the insects, plants and animals ascending to heaven instead of we humans.

Committing Ecocide

Be very skeptical when the cause of each new ecological nightmare is ascribed to “natural causes.” 

While it’s entire possible for any one ecological mishap to be due to a natural cycle, it’s weak thinking to assign the same cause to dozens of troubling findings happening all over the globe.

As they say in the military: Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. But three times is enemy action.

Right now, Australia is in the middle of the summer season and being absolutely hammered by high heat.  Sure it gets hot during an Australian summer, but not like this. The impact has been devastating:

Australia's Facing an Unprecedented Ecological Crisis, But No One's Paying Attention

Jan 9, 2019

It started in December, just before Christmas.

Hundreds of dead perch were discovered floating along the banks of the Darling River – victims of a "dirty, rotten green" algae bloom spreading in the still waters of the small country town of Menindee, Australia.

Things didn't get better. The dead hundreds became dead thousands, as the crisis expanded to claim the lives of 10,000 fish along a 40-kilometre (25-mile) stretch of the river. But the worst was still yet to come.

This week, the environmental disaster has exploded to a horrific new level – what one Twitter user called "Extinction level water degradation" – with reports suggesting up to a million fish have now been killed in a new instance of the toxic algae bloom conditions.

For their part, authorities in the state of New South Wales have only gone as far as confirming "hundreds of thousands" of fish have died in the event – but regardless of the exact toll, it's clear the deadly calamity is an unprecedented ecological disaster in the region's waterways.

"I've never seen two fish kills of this scale so close together in terms of time, especially in the same stretch of river," fisheries manager Iain Ellis from NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) explained to ABC News.

The DPI blames ongoing drought conditions for the algae bloom's devastating impact on local bream, cod, and perch species – with a combination of high temperature and chronic low water supply (along with high nutrient concentrations in the water) making for a toxic algal soup.

(Source)

Watching the video above showing grown men crying over the loss of 100-year-old fish is heartbreaking. This fish kill is described as “unprecedented” and as an “extinction level event", meaning it left no survivors over a long stretch of waterway.

We can try to console oursleves that maybe this was just a singular event, a cluster of bad juju and worse waterway management that combined to give us this horror -- but it wasn’t.

It's part of a larger tapestry of heat-induced misery that Australia is facing:

How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia

Jan 15, 2019

Over two days in November, record-breaking heat in Australia's north wiped out almost one-third of the nation's spectacled flying foxes, according to researchers.

The animals, also known as spectacled fruit bats, were unable to survive in temperatures which exceeded 42C.

"It was totally depressing," one rescuer, David White, told the BBC.

Flying foxes are no more sensitive to extreme heat than some other species, experts say. But because they often gather in urban areas in large numbers, their deaths can be more conspicuous, and easily documented.

"It raises concerns as to the fate of other creatures who have more secretive, secluded lifestyles," Dr Welbergen says.

He sees the bats as the "the canary in the coal mine for climate change".

(Source)

A two-day heatwave last November (2018) was sufficient to kill up to a third of all Australia's known flying foxes, a vulnerable species that was already endangered.  As those bats are well-studied and their deaths quite conspicuous to observers, it raises the important question: How many other less-scrutinized species are dying off at the same time?

And the death parade continues:

Are these data points severe enough for you to recognize as signs of ongoing collapse?

Last summer was a time of extreme drought and heat for Australia, and this summer looks set to be even worse. This may be the country's  'new normal' for if the situation is due to climate change instead of just an ordinary (if punishing) hot cycle. 

If so, these heat waves will likely intensify over time, completely collapsing the existing biological systems across Australia.

Meanwhile, nearby in New Zealand, similar species loss is underway:

'Like losing family': time may be running out for New Zealand's most sacred tree

July 2018

New Zealand’s oldest and most sacred tree stands 60 metres from death, as a fungal disease known as kauri dieback spreads unabated across the country.

Tāne Mahuta (Lord of the Forest) is a giant kauri tree located in the Waipoua forest in the north of the country, and is sacred to the Māori people, who regard it as a living ancestor.

The tree is believed to be around 2,500 years old, has a girth of 13.77m and is more than 50m tall.

Thousands of locals and tourists alike visit the tree every year to pay their respects, and take selfies beside the trunk.

Now, the survival of what is believed to be New Zealand’s oldest living tree is threatened by kauri dieback, with kauri trees a mere 60m from Tāne Mahuta confirmed to be infected.

Kauri dieback causes most infected trees to die, and is threatening to completely wipe out New Zealand’s most treasured native tree species, prized for its beauty, strength and use in boats, carvings and buildings.

“We don’t have any time to do the usual scientific trials anymore, we just have to start responding immediately in any way possible; it is not ideal but we have kind of run out of time,” Black says, adding that although there is no cure for kauri dieback there is a range of measures which could slow its progress.

(Source)

People are rallying to try and save the kauri trees, although it’s unclear exactly how to stop the spread of the new fungal invader or why it's so pathogenic all of a sudden.  It could be due to another natural sort of cycle (except the fungus was thought to have been introduced and spread by human activity) or it could be a another collapse indicator we need to finally hear and heed.

It turns out that New Zealand is not alone. Giant trees are dying all over the globe.

2,000-year-old baobab trees in Africa are suddenly and rather mysteriously giving up the ghost.  These trees survived happily for 2,000 years and now all of a sudden they're dying. Are the deaths of our most ancient trees all across the globe some sort of natural process? Or is there a different culprit we need to recognize?

In Japan they're lamenting record low squid catches.  Oh well, maybe it’s just overfishing?  Or could it be another message we need to heed?

To all this we can add the numerous scientific articles now decrying the 'insect Apocalypse' unfolding across the northern hemisphere. The Guardian recently issued this warning: “Insect collapse: ‘We are destroying our life support systems’”. Researchers in Puerto Rico's forest preserves recorded a 98% decline in insect mass over 35 years.  Does a 98% decline have a natural explanation? Or is something bigger going on?

Meanwhile, the butterfly die-off is unfolding with alarming speed. I rarely see them in the summer anymore, much to my great regret.  Seeing one is now as exciting as seeing a meteor streak across the sky, and just as rare:

Monarch butterfly numbers plummet 86 percent in California

Jan 7, 2019

CAMARILLO, Calif. – The number of monarch butterflies turning up at California's overwintering sites has dropped by about 86 percent compared to only a year ago, according to the Xerces Society, which organizes a yearly count of the iconic creatures.

That’s bad news for a species whose numbers have already declined an estimated 97 percent since the 1980s.

Each year, monarchs in the western United States migrate from inland areas to California’s coastline to spend the winter, usually between September and February.

“It’s been the worst year we’ve ever seen,” said Emma Pelton, a conservation biologist with the Xerces Society who helps lead the annual Thanksgiving count. “We already know we’re dealing with a really small population, and now we have a really bad year and all of a sudden, we’re kind of in crisis mode where we have very, very few butterflies left.”

What’s causing the dramatic drop-off is somewhat of a mystery. Experts believe the decline is spurred by a confluence of unfortunate factors, including late rainy-season storms across California last March, the effects of the state’s years long drought and the seemingly relentless onslaught of wildfires that have burned acres upon acres of habitat and at times choked the air with toxic smoke.

(Source)

Note the “explanation” given blames the decline on mostly natural processes: late storms, droughts and wildfires. I believe that's because the article appears in a US paper, so no mention was permitted of neonicotinoid pesticides or glyphosate. Both of these are highly effective decimators of insect life -- but they're highly profitable for Big Ag, so for now, any criticism is not allowed.

Sure a 97% decline since the 1980’s might be due to fires, droughts and rains. But that’s really not very likely.  There have always been fires, droughts and rains.  Something else has shifted since the 1980’s. And that “thing” is human activity, which has increased its willingness to destroy habitat and spray poisons everywhere in pursuit of cheaper food and easier profits.

The loss of insects, which we observe in the loss of the beautiful and iconic Monarch butterfly, is a gigantic warning flag that we desperately need to heed.  If the bottom of our billion-year-old food web disintegrates, you can be certain that the repercussions to humans will be dramatic and terribly difficult to ‘fix.’  In scientific terms, it will be called a “bottom-up trophic cascade”.

In a trophic cascade, the loss of a single layer of the food pyramid crumbles the entire structure.  Carefully-tuned food webs a billion years in the making are suddenly destabilized.  Life cannot adapt quickly enough, and so entire species are quickly lost.  Once enough species die off, the web cannot be rewoven, and life … simply ends.

What exactly would a “trophic cascade” look like in real life?  Oh, perhaps something just like this:

Deadly deficiency at the heart of an environmental mystery

Oct 16, 2018

During spring and summer, busy colonies of a duck called the common eider (Somateria mollissima) and other wild birds are usually seen breeding on the rocky coasts around the Baltic Sea. Thousands of eager new parents vie for the best spots to build nests and catch food for their demanding young broods.

But Lennart Balk, an environmental biochemist at Stockholm University, witnessed a dramatically different scene when he visited Swedish coastal colonies during a 5-year period starting in 2004. Many birds couldn’t fly. Others were completely paralyzed. Birds also weren’t eating and had difficulty breathing. Thousands of birds were suffering and dying from this paralytic disease, says Balk. “We went into the bird colonies, and we were shocked. You could see something was really wrong. It was a scary situation for this time of year,” he says.

Based on his past work documenting a similar crisis in several Baltic Sea fish species, Balk suspected that the birds’ disease was caused by a thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency. Thiamine is required for critical metabolic processes, such as energy production and proper functioning of the nervous system.

This essential micronutrient is produced mainly by plants, including phytoplankton, bacteria, and fungi; people and animals must acquire it through their food.

“We found that thiamine deficiency is much more widespread and severe than previously thought,” Balk says. Given its scope, he suggests that a pervasive thiamine deficiency could be at least partly responsible for global wildlife population declines. Over a 60-year period up to 2010, for example, worldwide seabird populations declined by approximately 70%, and globally, species are being lost 1,000 times faster than the natural rate of extinction (9, 10). “He has seen a thiamine deficiency in several differ phyla now,” says Fitzsimons of Balk. “One wonders what is going on. It’s a larger issue than we first suspected.”

(Source)

This is beyond disturbing. It should have been on the front pages of every newspaper and TV show across the globe.  We should be discussing it in urgent, worried tones and devoting a huge amount of money to studying and fixing it.  At a minimum, we should stop hauling more tiny fish and krill from the sea in an effort to at least stabilize the food pyramid while we sort things out.

If you recall, we’ve also recently reported on the findings showing that phytoplankton levels are down 50% (these are a prime source for thiamine, by the way). Again, here's a possible “trophic cascade” in progress: 

(Source)

Fewer phytoplankton means less thiamine being produced. That means less thiamine is available to pass up the food chain. Next thing you know, there’s a 70% decline in seabird populations.

This is something I’ve noticed directly and commented n during my annual pilgrimages to the northern Maine coast over the past 30 years, where seagulls used to be extremely common and are now practically gone.  Seagulls!

Next thing you know, some other major food chain will be wiped out and we'll get oceans full of jellyfish instead of actual fish.  Or perhaps some once-benign mold grows unchecked because the former complex food web holding it in balance has collapsed, suddenyl transforming Big Ag's "green revolution" into grayish-brown spore-ridden dust.

To add to the terrifying mix of ecological news has been the sudden and rapid loss of amphibian species all over the world.  A possible source for the culprit has been found, if that’s any consolation; though that discovery does not yet identify a solution to this saddening development.

Ground Zero of Amphibian 'Apocalypse' Finally Found

May 10, 2018

MANY OF THE world's amphibians are staring down an existential threat: an ancient skin-eating fungus that can wipe out entire forests' worth of frogs in a flash.

This ecological super-villain, the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, has driven more than 200 amphibian species to extinction or near-extinction—radically rewiring ecosystems all over Earth.

“This is the worst pathogen in the history of the world, as far as we can tell, in terms of its impacts on biodiversity,” says Mat Fisher, an Imperial College London mycologist who studies the fungus.

Now, a global team of 58 researchers has uncovered the creature's origin story. A groundbreaking study published in Science on Thursday reveals where and when the fungus most likely emerged: the Korean peninsula, sometime during the 1950s.

From there, scientists theorize that human activities inadvertently spread it far and wide—leading to amphibian die-offs across the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Australia.

(Source)

Frogs, toads and salamanders were absolutely critical parts of my childhood and I delighted in their presence. I cannot imagine a world without them. But effectively, that’s what we’ve got now with so many on the endangered species list.

This parade of awful ecological news is both endless and worsening. And there is no real prospect for us to fix things in time to avoid substantial ecological pain.  None.

After all, we can’t even manage our watersheds properly. And those are dead simple by comparison. Water falls from the sky in (Mostly) predictable volume and you then distribute somewhat less than that total each year.  Linear and simple in comparison to trying to unravel the many factors underlying a specie's collapse.

But challenges like this are popping up all over the globe:

Fear And Grieving In Las Vegas: Colorado River Managers Struggle With Water Scarcity

Dec 14th, 2018

On stage in a conference room at Las Vegas's Caesars Palace, Keith Moses said coming to terms with the limits of the Colorado River is like losing a loved one.

"It reminds me of the seven stages of grief," Moses said. "Because I think we've been in denial for a long time."

Moses is vice chairman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, a group of four tribes near Parker, Arizona. He was speaking at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association meeting.

The denial turned to pain and guilt as it became clear just how big the supply and demand gaps were on the river that delivers water to 40 million people in the southwest.

For the last six months Arizona's water leaders have been experiencing the third stage of grief: anger and bargaining.

Of the seven U.S. states that rely on the Colorado River, Arizona has had the hardest time figuring out how to rein in water use and avoid seeing the river's largest reservoirs — Lakes Mead and Powell — drop to extremely low levels.

Kathryn Sorenson, director of Phoenix's water utility, characterized the process this way: "Interesting. Complicated. Some might say difficult."

One of the loudest voices in the debate has been coming from a small group of farmers in rural Pinal County, Arizona, south of Phoenix.

Under the current rules those farmers could see their Colorado River supplies zeroed out within two years.

The county's biggest grower of cotton and alfalfa, Brian Rhodes, is trying to make sure that doesn't happen. The soil in his fields is powder-like, bursting into tiny brown clouds with each step.

"We're going to have to take large cuts," Rhodes said. "We all understand that."

(Source)

Oh my goodness. If we’re having trouble realizing that wasting precious water from the Colorado River to grow cotton is a bad idea, then there’s just no hope at all that we'll successfully rally to address the loss of ocean phytoplankton. 

That’s about the easiest connection of dots that could ever be made.  As Sam Kinison, the 1980’s comedian might have yelled – IT’S A DESERT!! YOU’RE TRYING TO GROW WATER-INTENSIVE CROPS IN THE FREAKING DESERT!  CAN’T YOU SEE ALL THE SAND AROUND YOU?!? THAT MEANS "DON’T GROW COTTON HERE!!"

A World On The Brink

The bottom line is this: We are destroying the natural world. And that means that we are destroying ourselves. 

I know that the mainstream news has relegated this conversation to the back pages (when they covered it at all) and so it's not “front and center” for most people.  But it should be.

Everything we hold dear is a subset of the ecosphere. If that goes, so does everything else. Nothing else matters in the slightest if we actively destroy the Earth’s carrying capacity.

At the same time, we're in the grips of an extremely dangerous delusion that has placed money, finance and the economy at the top spot on our temple of daily worship.

Any idea of slowing down or stopping economic growth is “bad for business” and dismissed out of hand as “not practical”, "undesirable" or "unwise".  It’s always a bad time to discuss the end of economic growth, apparently. 

But as today's young people are increasingly discovering, if "conducting business" is just a lame rationale for failed stewardship of our lands and oceans, then it’s a broken idea. One not worth preserving in its current form.

The parade of terrible ecological breakdowns provided above is there for all willing to see it. Are you willing?  Each failing ecosystem is screaming at us in urgent, strident tones that we’ve gone too far in our quest for "more".

We might be able to explain away each failure individually. But taken as a whole?  The pattern is clear: We’ve got enemy action at work.  These are not random coincidences.

Nature is warning us loudly that it's past time to change our ways.  That our "endless growth" model is no longer valid. In fact, it's now becoming an existential threat

The collapse is underway. It’s just not being televised (yet).

Davos As Destiny

And don't expect the cavalry to arrive.

Our leadership is absolutely not up to the task. If the Davos conference currently underway in Switzerland is a sign of anything at all, it’s that we’re doomed.

The world has been taken over by bankers and financiers too smitten by their love of money to notice much else or be of any practical service to the world.

By way of illustrative example, here’s the big techno-feel-good idea unveiled on the second day of the conference.  The crowds there loved it:

Yes, folks, this is what the world most desperately needs at this time! /sarc 

While I’m sure drone-delivered books is a heartwarming story, it’s completely diversionary and utterly meaningless in the face of collapsing oceanic and terrestrial food webs.

Sadly, this is exactly the sort of inane distraction most admired by the Davos set in large part because it helps them feel a tiny bit better about their ill-gotten wealth. "Look!  We're supporting good thngs!"  The ugly truth is that big wealth's main pursuit is to distort political processes and rules to assure they get to keep it and even amass more. 

Drones carrying books to Indonesian children provides the same sort of dopamine rush to a Davos attendee as Facebook 'like' gives to a 14-year-old. Temporary, cheap, superficial and ultimately meaningless.

The same is true of their other feel-good theme of the day. “Scientists” have discovered an enzyme that eats plastics:

That’s swell, but you know what would be even better?  Not using the bottles in the first place. Which could be accomplished by providing access to safe, potable water as a basic human right and using re-usable containers.  Of course, that would offer less chances for private wealth accumulation so instead the Davos crowd is fixated on the profitable solution vs. doing the right thing.

In viritually every instance, the Davos crowd wants to preserve industry and our consumer culture as it is, using technology and gimmicks in attempt to remedy the ills that result.  There’s money to be made on both ends of that story.

The only thing that approach lacks is a future. Because it’s not-so-subtly based on continued "growth". Infinite exponential growth. The exact same growth that is killing ancient trees, sea birds, insects, amphibians, and phytoplankton.

Who wants more of that? Insane people.

In other words, don’t hold out any hope that the Davos set representing the so-called “elite” from every prominent nation on earth are going to somehow bravely offer up real insights on our massive predicaments and solutions to our looming problems. They're too consumed with their own egos and busy preening for prominence to notice the danger or care.

As they pointlessly fritter away another expensive gathering, the ecological world is unraveling all around them. The oceans are becoming a barren wasteland.  The ancient trees are dying.  Heatwaves are melting tar and killing life.  The web of life is snapping strand by strand and nobody can predict what happens next.

In other words, if you held out any hope that “they” would somehow rally to the cause you’d best set that completely aside. It's no wonder social anger against tone-deaf and plundering elites is breaking out right now.

From here, there are only two likely paths: 

(1) We humans simply cannot self-organize to address these plights and carry on until the bitter end, when something catastrophic happens that collapses our natural support systems. 

(2) We see the light, gather our courage, and do what needs to be done.  Consumption is widely and steeply curtailed, fossil fuel use is severely restrained, and living standards as measured by the amount of stuff flowing through our daily lives are dropped to sustainable levels.

Either path means enormous changes are coming, probably for you and definitely for your children and grandchildren. 

In Part 2: Facing Reality we dive into what developments to expect as our systems continue further along their trophic cascade. Which markers and milestones should we monitor most closely to know when the next breaking point is upon us? 

To reiterate: Massive change is now inevitable and in progress.

Collapse has already begun.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

255 Comments

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
Eine Frage, bitte

Old Guy, may I ask - since you are so quick to discount the collective expertise on this site, the collective scientific findings many of us here at least find credible, and the collective anecdotal evidence many of us have each experienced regarding ecosystem collapse - why are you here? Bringing the light of knowledge to the savages? Knowledge to the ignorant?

 

Oh, and what's your PhD in? I don't recall hearing your qualifications. Asking for a friend.

 

-S

 

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
I'll show you mine if you show me yours....

speaking especially to the most passionate on here who are worried about CO2.

This may be the mirror you seek.

Although, over the years here on this site what I have seen as that none of you, even the passionate believers, respond to this and talk about each of our actual details and ways we can support each other in gettting better at it ! But, maybe this time.... so instead of making a Group as was tried before, maybe we just meet back here on this thread within a week with our results

Yes, our calculator is a bit dated, I think it shuld have a tab for air miles, makes it easier.  Instead if you fly, put in your share of airliner fuel based on type of plane/#of passengers.  Otherwise, it gives a real good idea.

 

Here it is :  http://www.greenknowe.org/r4a/

here are the rules :  http://www.greenknowe.org/content/riot-4-austerity-7-categories

You can look at the power mix in your state to see how much on average comes from which source.  This is the most accurate way right now.  Solar you make at home is more obvious that of course that part is solar, but it still has an impact and you dont get unlimited amounts.  Pounds of trash includes recycling. 

 

There are many ways we can say this is or is not perfect, but it is the best calculator we have seen and if we all just do it, then we have a baseline of comparison. 

The nice thing about this calculator is every household gets to do it in their won way so a suburban househould may use more gasline but way less heating fuel and grow all their vmeat eggies in the back garden.  The calculator gives a final number based on each individual mix

 

ANd, again, for a mainstream start to cutting back, look to build it solars half project, and once you have that deon, and are buying local and in bulk, we can talk more..... https://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Except there IS a

Except there IS a difference.

When I presented a rationale for why I think CO2 can't cause warming I didn't get a counter rationale. I got statements such as:

We know CO2 warms the earth

It's all been debunked before

It has warmed where I live

We know CO2 traps heat

In otherwards, why not counter my argument in a similar vein as my argument. Show me where it is wrong in the details. Persuade me. I am open to detailed argument. That's how I arrived at my position in the first place.  But I am not going to capitulate my position without persuasion.

But when there are only expressions of faith and canned talking points thrown at me then I can't credibly be accused of being obstinate because that didn't shift me off of my position. In fact, it can only raise in me suspicions of what I am dealing with.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
I read the rules, but they're incomplete.

I don't understand what we are judging or categorizing.

My home is all electric; it's a 62x11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank -- maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that's 72x18= 1300 gal. There's six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that -- so what's that, maybe 200-220 gal per person.

We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal.

So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don't see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What's the purpose of the 90% goal?

Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage):
44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods... 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet... and 53% of national average.

So I've shown you mine. What's it all mean?

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
Michael_Rudmin wrote: I don't
Michael_Rudmin wrote:

I don't understand what we are judging or categorizing. My home is all electric; it's a 62x11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank -- maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that's 72x18= 1300 gal. There's six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that -- so what's that, maybe 200-220 gal per person. We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal. So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don't see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What's the purpose of the 90% goal? Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage): 44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods... 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet... and 53% of national average. So I've shown you mine. What's it all mean?

I guess I thought you could go backwards to the main page of hers http://www.greenknowe.org/content/riot-4-austerity and read the blurb, and maybe go read Tom Murphy link.  The point of 90% reduction is that that amount of reduction is what everyone was saying it would take to keep below 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.   ALso,  just using the calculator gives you a basis of how you compare to national average and what areas you might be able to improve in, and yes gasoline useage for rural is usually our tough spot.  One can get a baseline of now, and then after making changes, see how far you have got.  Even if you dont make it as low as to 10%, which is hard, you can reduce further.  I am currently at 13% due to driving, and I willpost seperate on how and why on mine.

SO, if you were worried about your households contribution to CO2 emmisions, from looking at your numbers you might do something like buy less non-local wet foodstuffs and more bulk food rpoducts.  Does Azure standard deliver in your area ?  https://www.azurestandard.com/  that is an example that would reduce your carbon footprint. The other thing would be to look at reducing you electric usages.  There are many ways to do this and it will save you money.  If you are heating with electric heat, anything that keeps the heat in.  This usually means caulking ( look to the Build it solar site I linked to for cheap ways to save).  Turn the electric water heater down, maybe put it on a timer, insulate the hot water pipes ruinning under the mobile home, if they are exposed there.  Look for energy vampires, put all electronics on a power bar to turn OFF when they are off, etc... Look at that half project I linked, he goes thru all the least expensive ways to cut down and which things gave the most bang for the money. Money saved on electric could be put aside to save for a more expensive energy saving idea later ( home made solar hot water heater)

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
here's mine

The thing is, this is mine now, I have been working on this for a long while, it is a process, and sometimes has backsliding.

For right now:

15 gallons diesel per person per month for transport.  But, we took a driving vacation, highly unusual, so averaging this over the year I think would add another 5 gallons per person per month -- so I put 20 gallons in to the calculator

300kWh of Solar produced eletric per month, that is 2kW of panels on the roof.  I am making it within that budget. This includes water pumping, well and pressure pump, so my gallons of water impact is shown here.

less than 2 cords of wood per year, last few years this is dead down wood from my own yard, so counts as zero but even if I count it it only raises the percent by 2%

1 pound of garbage/recycle per person per week.  We compost and work hard to not buy packaging no throw away cups or bags.

New stuff right now is about $100/month, used about $25 month in gneral, some months used is much higher and new is less, but I have been buying a few things lately

local 20%, bulk 60%, wet 20%    I can get wet down to almost zero when the cards are all aligned right, but not lately

that is 13.5% of national average CO2 emisions my household is responsible for. 

Transport is the sticky part for being in the suburbs, but that is canceled out by having wood heat in an area of trees, and room to store canners and home canned and bulk foods.   Also, I have worked on my habits over the years to get packaging and trash down, electric usage down and finding places to buy bulk foods. I bought a small solar system 20 years ago and have worked to keep our usage within that budget. 

Here are some things done over the years.

Solar hot water heater saved alot of electric for many years, but is presently needing to get a panel fixed. I also turned the thermostat down on the electric water heater and put in very low flow shower heads, 1.5gallons per minute, and trained the kids to shorter showers, this saves alot of hot water even without a solar water heater.  There are many other things to cut down on hot water -- wash clothes in cold water, etc...

I have an all electric house, but I put in a wood stove to heat with as I live in an area with alot of tree and wood waste.  I bought a recent, energy efficient and low pollution one for its time used, so then we could afford it.  That stove made us use 1/2 of the wood than the old woodstove that came with the house.

In the summer, I use a solar cooker quite a bit, I did this much more when all the kids were here, it was also convenient to have food ready when they got home.  This absolutely has paid for itself vs the electric range, not to mention the convenience of unattended cooking that doesnt burn.  Goodwill often sells electric breadmakers, this is great for the winter when the sun is not out and uses less power than the oven.  Crookpots also do not use much power and are easily bought used and work in the winter.

Gardening is a learnign process, it can take a while to get successful.  In the meantime buy local at the farmers market, and you can can what you buy there, for example I have bought flats of tomatoes, peaches, berries in season and that farmers market and canned at home to eat all year. This is a 2 for, local food and no trash as the jars are reused.  It also build skills without waiting for your own garden to take off.  Buy dry goods in bulk, like grains, flour, rice, beans either by the 25lb bag thru a bulk buy, like azure or Costco etc... or go to your local healthfood store, or WinnCo and buy by the pound out of their bulk bins.  Bring reusable bags or jars to fill there.  etc.....

Driving and traveling was the hardest.  I made kids carpool to school and activities. I combined trips or did without.  Usually I keep a deep pantry or plan ahead to not make trips to stores.  I took the train to move my youngest in to college even.  We also took the train to her wedding, but carpooled with other family to get back.  We keep the smallest, most fuel efficient car possible.  Yes, you CAN have 5 people take a diesel Jetta (almost 50mpg on the hwy) car camping for the week, with bikes and food ! WHile work commuting must happen, sometimes carpools can be arranged.  One of my kids chose to stay homeschooling for a while so that she could participate in a certain activity.  I did not drive back home during this activity and had to find things to do ( most parents would go home as is was 2 or 3 hours long, I forget) SO, I would bring projects with me or work on the laptop in the car or coffee house.

etc... we have caulked, we use laptop not desktop computer, the refirgerator is bought looking at kwH per year, not style, etc....

 

Look to the half project for other ideas https://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
A thought experiment.

Where I live it is not unusual tho be under a high pressure system with moisture in the air at about 1%. During the daytime the temp might go as high as 32C or higher and be  there up to an hour before sunset. Then by about seven hours after sunset the temp has dropped to10C with no air movement bringing in outside air. So within 7-8 hours the temp has dropped by 22C or 40F.. Now ask yourself how powerful is the "trapping" power of the greenhouse gases with that kind of a temp drop in such a short time. And then consider that H2O makes up more than 95% of the heat trapping effect.

Also remember that during the day the removal of heat energy is even greater because of convection and outgoing radiation but the temp goes up because  the energy input from the sun overwhelms it.

But how potent is this trapping effect when temp drops that dramatically in a few hours? In the desert the temp can go from100F to below freezing in a few hours. And the CO2 is up there all the time.

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
Good News: Average
Good News: Average Family Cuts  Home Electric Usage in Half
 
Call me crazy but I have been anxiously waiting for my electric bill to arrive this month.
Why? Because I took the 20% challenge CL & P offered recently (use 10-20% less electricity and get that same credit
on your next bill) AND I took the Half Challenge on the website BuilditSolar.com. (cut your electric use by half)
Then I did something. I actually stopped moaning about the rates for 5 minutes and did something to reduce my electric usage. 
I  received my electric bill today and got the news.... I was nervous. It was like opening the scores to my college boards. The result? I cut my bill in half!!!! Yes!  Half!!!! All in the span of 2 months. Try it it yourself. It's easy.
For the month of July,  my  family used 1107 KWH (Kilowatt hours) and paid $204. Ouch!
Opening that bill was a painful experience. Then, this past month of August we used 601 KWH and
paid $115. Now I'm feeling good about that. Not good enough to stop moaning about the rates, but good enough
to slap my son five. He wouldn't let my wife open the bill until I came home. My 8 year old son is in this with me.
 
What did we do? What can you do? Something! Pick any one of these items below or go online and find others.
Do something... don't just sit there clicking the remote while the planet is melting.
Here's what we did. In July we had a home energy audit for $100 wherein they changed most of our incandescent lights to energy efficient fluorescent bulbs. Good deal! Plus they did  a  blower door test, weather stripped, sealed, changed all our faucets to low flow heads, and checked for air infiltration. They found that we have a low flow problem with the hot air return which can cause the furnace to use more oil. I gotta get that fixed before Winter.
In August I got busy. I vacuumed a decade of dust off my refrigerator coils, lowered my electric hot water heater by turning 2 screws, my wife and I started drying clothes using our new $60 clothesline instead of the electric dryer,
I began heating my water for  coffee in the microwave instead of the electric stove, I unplugged the microwave disengaging the power sucked up by a useless clock, and put the  TV, which has a remote, a  DVD (remote) the VCR, which has a clock, and the PS2 all on a power strip. Then I turned them all off when not in use. OFF! I said. 
I TURNED THEM OFF!!!!!!!!!  No more phantom power for me! Does it matter? An average home will use about 50 Watts per hour of phantom power. That's 8 Gigawatts on a National level, the size of 8 large power plants. I think it does matter.
And two other things: First I kept asking myself, "Do I need to turn this on?" and secondly I repeated the phrase "Please turn the light off." 
I guess our family effort worked. We cut our bill in half. Was it difficult? No. Did we spend  a lot of money? $100 bucks for the audit and $60 for the clothesline. We'll make that back in another month. 
I'm excited!  We cut our energy use in half. We are helping. We're saving money.
We are on our way now.
 
Please join us.
 
Edward

 

More Conservation Stories here ...

The Half Program ...

https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Conservation/EdHalf.htm

 

Michael_Rudmin wrote:

I don't understand what we are judging or categorizing. My home is all electric; it's a 62x11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank -- maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that's 72x18= 1300 gal. There's six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that -- so what's that, maybe 200-220 gal per person. We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal. So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don't see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What's the purpose of the 90% goal? Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage): 44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods... 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet... and 53% of national average. So I've shown you mine. What's it all mean?

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
radiative heat transfer

....

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 913
Nature Bats Last
Doug wrote:
Quote:

 My position has always been, if there isn't a solution ... it ain't a problem that can be fixed. That makes it a predicament and there are only outcomes. The outcomes can be made better or worse on an individual basis. Unfortunately, we can't make it better for everyone. It really doesn't matter how much you wish it were different.

So, again I ask, what are your alternatives?  Roll over and play dead?

There is no silver bullet solution.  But, there are remedies that will take time, sacrifice, participation and money.  It will be a long slog.  It took us a couple centuries to create the slow moving nightmare, it will take some serious time to fix it.  Does that mean we shouldn't try?  Does that mean we shouldn't try to salvage a liveable environment for our grandchildren?  What are your suggestions?

There was a time in our American past when hard challenges were the norm.  I've recently been doing the genealogy of my family.  My earliest ancestors in this country landed in Virginia and Maryland as early as 1735.  They fought in the French and Indian war, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War on both sides, WWI and my father in WWII.  Reading and hearing of their exploits and struggles is like a history lesson of the nation.  This is not to say that my family was exceptional, though some members certainly were, it is merely to illustrate the examples that we should be trying to emulate in confronting today's challenges.  The earliest settlers confronted not only the risks of getting here, but also the incumbent challenges of surviving long enough to produce another generation.

By those standards, our sacrifices to prolong our natural and environmental heritage appear kind of puny.  On an individual level, we can set examples for how to live in a modest, self sustaining and benevolent manner, as espoused by PP.  Beyond that, we must participate in the political process supporting policies and candidates who reflect our values and goals for environmental sanity.  Government involvement is necessary for any large scale efforts to reverse our destructive past.  Who else can do that?  Particularly if we wish to take part in the global community in endeavors such as the Paris climate accords.  Would you leave that up to the megacorporations that have been so instrumental in destroying our national and global heritage?  Who would you have lead the charge for environmental sanity?  Would you let DJT lead such efforts given his stated position that climate change is a Chinese hoax?

Bottom line for me is that we have to be involved in the solutions.  That means first, discarding the dual irrationalities of denial of climate change or believing that nothing can be done so we might as well give up.  You're a smart guy Grover, what do you suggest going forward?

Doug,

The problem isn't climate change or pollution or environmental degradation. Those are merely symptoms of the problem. The problem is population. Frankly, the majority must die. If government is the only force that can solve the symptoms, we're in trouble. Unfortunately, their past performance complicates the issues rather than reduces them.

Humans have a deep seated urge to fix problems. This is no different. It feels good to try. But, does it really work? Let's look at some of your ancestors' likely experiences. Before doctors knew any better, they applied leeches to patients to drain the "bad" blood. Did that really improve the chance of survival for the majority of patients? Some patients lived through it and others died. Before Pasteur, doctors didn't know about microorganism caused infection. Look at the civil war casualties and the unsanitary conditions in the field hospitals. Infections took many lives, but some survived in spite of it. The doctors did what they knew to fix the problem. They just didn't know any better.

Now, we know about microorganisms and their disease causing potential. Researchers developed antibiotics to get rid of the problem. It worked well for a while. Either overuse, underuse, or just repeated use for too long allowed the bugs to develop immunity. The use of these medications saved a considerable number of lives. It also has created a bigger problem. One that's very profitable for the medical industrial complex.

Because of these (and other) discoveries, the population has soared. All those people need to eat and a place to live and a reason to make life worthwhile. The green revolution (occurring during your youth) provided the tools that made farmers productive enough to feed all these people. They used the best science available to increase yields at minimum costs. Chemical companies have invented ways to destroy the pests and eradicate the weeds. Sounds like nirvana, right?

Unfortunately, the weeds and bugs that had more of a resistance to these chemicals were able to flourish. Beneficial bugs have paid the price, though. The food looks good enough to buy but is mostly devoid of the nutrition that foods contained a century ago. A century ago, draft animal manure fertilized the crops and provided more than just the major NPK fertilizers. Although we get plenty of calories daily, lots of those are non-nutritious empty calories. Could that be why so many today have multiple health issues?

When I was in college, a common mantra was "the solution to pollution is dilution." That really is true. If you eat a large enough dose of arsenic, you will die. If you dilute that same amount in enough water, you won't have any ill effects. The first chemical company dumping a small waste stream in a river can get away with it. As the company expands and others join in, the waste stream overwhelms the river's ecosystem. The problem is too large a load for the system. That is a fractal concept that scales from the microorganism level all the way up to Gaia herself.

These are all symptoms of too much. If you are 72 years old, you were born around 1946. According to http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/, the world population in 1951 was 2,583,816,786 and rising at 1.87% per year. It was likely around 2.4 million when you were born. They show that the 2019 population is 7,714,576,923 and rising at 1.07% per year. For every person alive when you were born, there are about 3.2 people alive today. Projections are that the population will peak later this century and then start to diminish. The Limits to Growth graph shows a reasonable trajectory to several trends. None of the trends are pretty.

Getting back to climate change, let's assume that government is the only entity that can solve the issue. Let's ignore the costs involved and say that governments are completely successful and have defeated climate change. Does that mean that we're out of the woods and can proceed with life unfettered? What is the likelihood of another major catastrophe facing human existence after that? I've listed a few candidates, but there are many, many more and many that we're not even aware of. The pressures of too much population guarantees that other boogey men will show up. Nature abhors imbalances.

In this thought experiment, I said that we should ignore the cost of letting the government respond successfully to climate change, but can we really? We've ignored government's true funding requirements for quite a while. As a result, we've got enormous debts and exceedingly large unfunded liabilities (promises) that will eventually force the government to default. Simple math shows that conclusion is inevitable. These are the good times with plenty of energy, sufficient resources, mostly livable environments, and relatively low taxes. (Taxes are low in large part because of all the cost deferment techniques deployed that have exploded the debt.)

Even if we defeat climate change at enormous cost, there will be numerous other problems knocking on the doorstep to get our attention. That's why I conclude that it isn't a problem (that can be solved.) Climate change is a symptom (one of many) of the real problem. The problem is currently getting worse at 1.07% per year. Cut your nonrenewable resource usage by 99% and it still won't make it sustainable. It will just delay the inevitable comeuppance for a while. Is that a solution or just a "feel good" temporary answer?

At some point, it will be obvious that there is a physical limit - just like bacteria find in a petri dish. By the time limits are evident, it will be too late. Will all of humanity perish? Probably not, but the majority likely will. Reversion to the sustainable will not be smooth and will likely overshoot. It is just how complex systems react. Those who survive will have a much lower population base to compete with - just like the microorganisms and weeds that are more immune to the chemicals we apply.

Since the problem can't be fixed by us but will eventually fix itself, there are only outcomes to manage.

The point I'm trying to make is to focus on what you can do to better the long term survival of your loved ones. Wasting time with government solutions to a symptom of the problem will reduce your ability to do so.

Remember that nature bats last and it keeps batting until the problem is resolved.

Grover

 

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
That's my best guess but I

That's my best guess but I would welcome any definitive explanation.

The way I figure it is that the greenhouse effect plays out something as is assumed when it comes to water vapour but even there has a modest ability to slow heat loss because you still get such a significant heat loss at night even where there is significant vapour plus CO2.

But over a desert with very little water vapour and only the usual CO2 level it is very different. With little water vapour to capture heat and CO2 because of it's very limited bending and vibrating ability only able to capture a very small amount, that infrared radiation at night just passes unobstructed and rapidly up and out to space. It's the only thing that makes sense to me and speaks to the very weak potential effect on temp of CO2. And if water vapour is present in any significant amount CO2 would be irrelavant as the vapour would capture anything CO2 could trap anyway and CO2 has no additive effect.

The contrast between the two scenarios is informative.

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 335
Don't assume ...
Quote:

 I wouldn't post my solution on this site because it would make people's heads here exolode

Don't assume that -every- head would explode.

 

 

 

 

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 421
Davos Hypocrites

Rutger might make a good interviewee for a PP podcast

Davos doesn't like the "T" word...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/video/2019/jan/30/this-is-not-rocke...

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
I have almost completely rebuilt half my mobile home

And I did it with 3/4" formaldehyde free ply, and corrugated cardboard batts bagged in reflectix aluminized bubble wrap, sealing that end of the house. I can't afford to do more in my current state. Maybe I could in fifteen years, but I'm expecting that by that time our family will be dispersed; our needs will be less.

And I likely will have the beginnings of senility, judging from family history.

The electric already is minimized, when you consider that it includes our heat. We did the LED bulbs long ago; the CFLs kept blowing capacitors and getting thrown out: not an environmentally friendly solution. And if you brought it to home depot or lowes, the recycling boxes break the bulbs right at the customer service counter. That's not safe OR environmentall' friendly. But the LEDs seem to work fine.

I don't think we can do solar: no space for it.

The hot water pipes run through the subfloor, not under it.
The short-run pipes run ok; the long run to the kitchen is 1/2" poly but seems massively weak, but that also minimizes waste. I suspect corroded zinc from the old system blocked it up soon after we had redone it, but more work means more waste and expense, and we can live with it.

Of course, my lot rental is super-high: $400/mo for nothing. It goes to taxes and to Franklin management, a billion-dollar operation; so maybe a huge fraction of that money goes to jet fuel vacations, consumer products that are thrown out, and so on. If you were to cut all that out you might well cut my contribution to AGW by half. But I don't realistically see that happening. Rather, when cuts are forced the costs are imposed on the weak and the poor, and they just go homeless and starve, while the depredations still go on up top.

As far as the gasoline goes, I live in the crime-ridden inner city, three miles from my job. The huge gasoline expenditure is regular needs from an older relative who lives 90 miles away, and has a standard of living way past ours: country pool, 3-story house, ponies, acreage, two cars, etcera. But not that isn't something we are free to cut off, any more than we can cut off our lot rental.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
Grover: But the biggest problem users bat second to last.

I really dislike your death solution, especially because it encourages all-out war and doubled-down destruction. Yes, I understand you're not encouraging it, you're stating it. But let's look at it, nonetheless.

So then the solution is for people to--like Glass in the movies--secretly murder their neighbors, and steal their shtuff? And Their solution is to secretly murder you? Or maybe in broad daylight? Or maybe for us all to get together and bomb some slums like the Philadelphia police did to the Afrika cult, for the sake of the children they were bombing? And what is the solution for them?

Thus murder devolves to war, and war to increased--not decreased--environmental destruction. And then when the population is already down past sustainable levels, nobody can trust each other, so the war continues. And then--read the Art of War-- the best strategy is to destroy your enemy's environment, so that he starves.

That's why I favor the solution of delayed-mating for the young, and voluntarily declining medical care for the old. Murder does not have to be, less so mass murder, less so war.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
Hmm...

Michael, I don't think Grover is saying he either wishes nor welcomes the inevitable "Malthusian solution" so much as he doesn't see any viable alternative that is likely to be enacted at the national or global level. Change is possible from the ground up, not the top down, and the die-off of a large portion of the human population is inevitable, given our species' penchant for resisting change until it is fully upon us (a notion confirmed by everything I know of psychology and sociology). There are countless examples of people and civilizations ignoring the obvious threats on their doorsteps until those threats were in the living room eating on the couch, with their feet up on the coffee table no less. The best solution, then, seems to be at the local community level. I don't want to read too much into Grover's thoughts, but I think he is essentially saying that focus should be put into that rather than some kind of national movement to enact systemic change; the former is doable, while the latter is herculean in the best of times.

 

While I can't be certain if Grover is correct, per se, I can point out that there are literally dozens of examples in human history where even the slightest climate changes (temperature, precipitation, soil erosion, etc) have resulted in cataclysmic collapse of a civilization. Whether we're talking early river valley civilzations, vast empires of the classical age, or post-Medieval Europe, climate shifts matter...a lot. Humans will survive this emerging shift in climate, but I have my doubts that our modern-day global civilization can, and when you factor in sovereign debt problems, dwindling resources and energy, and rising social tensions, those chances fall to levels lower than our current Fed Funds rate.  

 

As I've stated elsewhere before, I hope - desperately hope - that I am wrong. But history is what I do, and while I'm not expert in most of the topics bantered around on PP, I am far more certain of my read of the story of humanity, and from that perspective I have to agree with Grover that Malthus's vision is far more likely than any optimistic idea of systemic change I've seen yet.

 

I don't like the repurcussions of that vision any more than you do, Michael. I'm still fighting for systemic change, but putting energy into local prep as well (probably failing at both).

 

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
One more sortie

Old Guy, the reason so few people are engaging with you at this point, and I would argue the reason few people are taking you seriously, is because you have, at the core, a thesis which seems to indicate you think everything is fine and nothing is wrong in the climate. This, however, not only runs counter to scientifically gathered data collected by thousands of individual scientists and challenged/uphelp by countless peer reviews, but which also flies in the face of what we are seeing unfold in the ecosystem (something you seem to blithely ignore). How do you explain the collapses of insect populations? Increasingly erratic and severe weather? The sudden death of dozens of tree and animal species across diverse ecosystems, climate zones, and continents? See, you are providing an underlying thesis which creates a fundamental cognitive dissonance between the "everything is fine" message you seem to be implying and the "shit's going downhill" evidence that can be seen in dozens of areas of the world. In short, your assertions don't comport (Chris, thank you for that word) with the other, non-CO2-related evidence that is mounting all around us. The "global warming" evidence at least explains part of why that is happening. Yours does not. 

 

It also doesn't help when people did present counter evidence and counter explanations (which, despite your protestations, they did), you ignored it. When that was followed up by requests to go read where this has been hashed out before, you also ignored it. That was then followed up by a blanket declaration by you that anyone who disagrees with your thesis is essentially superstitious, incapable of rational thought, and intellectually deficient. Yet you yourself haven't even bothered to answer many questions levelled directly at you, and to many people (not all, because we actually do have diverse thinkers here) that's the surest sign of a troll they have. Now, I fully expect you wouldn't respond to my questions, especially those delivered with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but please understand that blanket statements attacking the intellectual and rational capacity of many members isn't going to open any ears.

 

Ironically, Old Guy, some other things you've pointed out are things I'm willing to look at. The food pyramid thing is intriguing, and because your underlying assetion comports with what I know about nutrition and corporate interests, I'm diving deeper into looking at the origins of it. Learning some new things there, I am.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
Third sentence

"yes, I understand you aren't supporting it, you're stating it." I agree that Grover isn't intending it, he's saying what he sees. I'm trying to promote an alternative future.

By the way, I just had to select all pics w/ crosswalks. One of them was NYC / manhattan. Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that entire area one giant crosswalk?

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
Duplicate

Hmm... I could get a 30% reduction in bit usage if...nevermind.

westcoastjan's picture
westcoastjan
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 4 2012
Posts: 580
Then why are you here?

If you are not willing to put forth your solutions and debate them with the PP crowd then you are wasting your and our time. You have expended considerable efforts trying to justify your position on what is wrong but now you say you are unwilling to spend any efforts on debating solutions.

As I have always said to my staff, you get to complain but you have to bring solutions to your compaints as well. To do otherwise is to simply be a whiner...

Jan

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5809
insect populations et al

Snydeman-

I think there are a couple of things happening.

One is the widespread use of chemical poisons + genetically engineered crops.  I'd guess these are responsible for killing off the insects, and the rest of the food chain up from them.

The other are the larger climate effects.

Armstrong thinks that we're in a period of lessening solar activity, which leads to a sort of global cooling.  Which is why we're seeing all the freezing conditions.

Me, I dunno.  I think the pesticides are a slam dunk for causing the extinction of the insects. It probably is also responsbile for a large amount of trouble we are seeing in human biology. 

The rest?  I think if we address the fossil fuel issue, we can address two problems at once.  Even if climate change is totally bogus, getting off fossil fuels helps with the peak oil predicament.  So I honestly don't care too much about debating the issue.  One way or another, we will stop using oil.  Its probably more reasonable to do it under our own power, rather than with a gun to our head, but one way or another, we will stop using oil.

I'd just rather do it thoughtfully and voluntarily, rather than having to run around in panic mode, scrabbling around at the last minute.  Cramming for the final is something I did long ago as an undergrad, and I'm way past doing that sort of thing at this point in my life.  And I totally don't recommend it as national policy approach.

But of course, that's what we've currently selected.

Two words: Hirsch Report.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
Absolutely!
davefairtex wrote:

I think there are a couple of things happening.

One is the widespread use of chemical poisons + genetically engineered crops.  I'd guess these are responsible for killing off the insects, and the rest of the food chain up from them.

The other are the larger climate effects.

Absolutely agreed. As with all things, there are multiple, sometimes interrelated causes. If there's any one root cause, it's us modern humans. As in, our continuing disconnect with the natural world and our place in it, and our continuing mistake of thinking the world is our plaything with which we can do whatever we please. As Daniel Quinn would say, "Mother Culture" is what's wrong with us.

davefairtex wrote:

Armstrong thinks that we're in a period of lessening solar activity, which leads to a sort of global cooling.  Which is why we're seeing all the freezing conditions.

Except there are no freezing conditions, unless he means in the short-term. The long term temperature data (see the map Chris posted) shows that we have been warming these last few decades, not cooling. If we're supposed to have been in a cooler period, and yet we've managed to counter that and in fact warm the planet, fuck all when the natural "cooling trend" reverses. If this is what cooling looks like, then warming will be a real bitch. 

davefairtex wrote:

Me, I dunno.  I think the pesticides are a slam dunk for causing the extinction of the insects. It probably is also responsbile for a large amount of trouble we are seeing in human biology. 

The rest?  I think if we address the fossil fuel issue, we can address two problems at once.  Even if climate change is totally bogus, getting off fossil fuels helps with the peak oil predicament.  So I honestly don't care too much about debating the issue.  One way or another, we will stop using oil.  Its probably more reasonable to do it under our own power, rather than with a gun to our head, but one way or another, we will stop using oil.

I'd just rather do it thoughtfully and voluntarily, rather than having to run around in panic mode, scrabbling around at the last minute.  Cramming for the final is something I did long ago as an undergrad, and I'm way past doing that sort of thing at this point in my life.  And I totally don't recommend it as national policy approach.

But of course, that's what we've currently selected.

Two words: Hirsch Report.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

 

Agreed. You and I are aligned on these things.

 

On top of all this, I was listening to an NPR report about an American scientist using the Crispr method to try to see if genetic defects could be modified/eliminated in fertilized human embryos. My first thought was "we can't even be stewards of our own environment, much less handle the awesome ability to modify things directly at the DNA level."

 

I'd rather this all play out very differently; I just don't have any historical evidence of that ever happening at this scale.

gkcjrrt's picture
gkcjrrt
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 20 2016
Posts: 16
Jordan Peterson's take on CC uniting us

Gun

nison

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5809
CRISPR

On top of all this, I was listening to an NPR report about an American scientist using the Crispr method to try to see if genetic defects could be modified/eliminated in fertilized human embryos.

I recall reading something a while back that said that CRISPR, while it definitely was able to edit the targeted gene, had a nasty side effect of making large and unexpected changes to a bunch of other, unrelated genes at the same time.

Yes.  Here.  Real Science.  A bit hard to find unless you use the precise keywords.  I wonder why that is?

https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/crispr-gene-editing-can-cause-hundreds-unintended-mutations

In the new study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene editing in the team’s previous study and looked for all mutations, including those that only altered a single nucleotide.

The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients had sustained more than 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations and more than 100 larger deletions and insertions. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.

Yeah.  You hit the gene target you were aiming at, but as an unintended side effect, you hit another 1500 single genes that were not targets.  Gosh, let's hope none of those accdental modifications cause anything untoward to occur.

And by all means, let's start using this in humans.  What could possibly go wrong?

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2909
Venezuela is a window into how the Oil Age will unravel

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Venezuela’s collapse is a window into how the Oil Age will unravel - Nafeez Ahmed, Insurge Intelligence

Quote:

"For some, the crisis in Venezuela is all about the endemic corruption of Nicolás Maduro, continuing the broken legacy of Chavez’s ideological experiment in socialism under the mounting insidious influence of Putin. For others, it’s all about the ongoing counter-democratic meddling of the United States, which has for years wanted to bring Venezuela — with its huge oil reserves — back into the orbit of American power, and is now interfering again to undermine a democratically elected leader in Latin America.

Neither side truly understands the real driving force behind the collapse of Venezuela: we have moved into the twilight of the Age of Oil.

So how does a country like Venezuela with the largest reserves of crude oil in the world end up incapable of developing them? While various elements of socialism, corruption and neoliberal capitalism are all implicated in various ways, what no one’s talking about — especially the global oil industry — is that over the last decade, we’ve shifted into a new era. The world has moved from largely extracting cheap, easy crude, to becoming increasingly dependent on unconventional forms of oil and gas that are much more difficult and expensive to produce."

 

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
westcoastjan,You seem to

westcoastjan,

You seem to have missed my point. People here are seeing a myriad of problems real or imagined but I wasn't trying to debate the lot of them. I only made two assertions. One was that whatever the real problems may be, that climate has nothing to do with it as there is absolutely nothing unusual and climate is completely well within natural variability. The other point was that CO2 does not cause warming.  I think that the data and science backs me up. I could post hundreds of links to scientific articles by credentialed people in support and when Obama was president over 31 thousand scientists signed and sent him a petition saying what I have just said but the media would not report that becuase it would ruin their narrative and agenda.

So you and most people here don't agree with me. OK, thats fine. I simply stated my take on the two above mentioned things and tried to give some reasons. How is that whining?  And logically, how could I present solutions to things I specifically said I do not consider problems. I was in essence debating the issue of problem or not and we'll just have to disagree on the points in question

As for that repeated question of "why are you here", I find it peculiar. Does a person need a reason other than that he disagrees with something and is interested in expressing his truth. I spend a lot of time on blogs where I am in agreement with the prevailing messaging but rarely post. Why bother when everyone agrees with me and whatever I have to say has probably already been said.

As for my posting here, I didn't intend to come here on a crusade. After reading the article I was motivated to make a post and thought maybe there might be a follow-up post but then I got sucked into replies to responses I was getting. I guess I ruffled a few feathers.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 913
Think Ahead
Snydeman wrote:

Michael, I don't think Grover is saying he either wishes nor welcomes the inevitable "Malthusian solution" so much as he doesn't see any viable alternative that is likely to be enacted at the national or global level. Change is possible from the ground up, not the top down, and the die-off of a large portion of the human population is inevitable, given our species' penchant for resisting change until it is fully upon us (a notion confirmed by everything I know of psychology and sociology). There are countless examples of people and civilizations ignoring the obvious threats on their doorsteps until those threats were in the living room eating on the couch, with their feet up on the coffee table no less. The best solution, then, seems to be at the local community level. I don't want to read too much into Grover's thoughts, but I think he is essentially saying that focus should be put into that rather than some kind of national movement to enact systemic change; the former is doable, while the latter is herculean in the best of times.

Snydeman,

You've succinctly summarised my thoughts. Thank You! What will come will come. We all know that the oil age can't last forever, yet we're reluctant to discuss the coarser consequences. That is an understandable shame.

I remember Bill Clinton's election mantra that it is all about the economy, stupid. The economy needs appropriate energy sources to function. Electricity can be generated using just about any energy source available; however, the machines that focus on a specific energy source can't easily convert to another source - hydropower, nuclear, solar PV, etc. Imagine how effective shoveling coal into any system not designed to work with coal would actually function.

Economically, we're at a comfortable plateau. Things aren't superb, but they are good enough for a large enough portion of the populace. Could it be better? (When couldn't it be better?) That gives us the luxury of contemplating the 3rd "E" - the environment. I'm sure anyone reading this can imagine how much focus you'd give the environment if a depression hit and you were out of work and worried about providing the basic necessities for your family. It's easy to take that for granted now in this time of plenty. In bad times, concerns over the environment would take a distant back seat.

Hard times happen. The oil age will end. How will the average, unaware person respond? How will savvy politicians react? Wouldn't it be smarter to just mothball the currently "unneeded" coal fired electrical plants rather than to completely dismantle them - just in case? Think ahead.

Grover

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 335
Quote:  over 31 thousand
Quote:

 over 31 thousand scientists signed and sent him a petition

Link, please. I'd like to know more about that. My first question would be: scientists in what fields?


Quote:

 I think that the data and science backs me up.

I'd have accepted it if you had said that SOME data and science back you up.

But to say that THE data and science back you up is flatly untrue.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
Since its Saturday morning and still cold outside

I thought I would try to sort out some of Old Guy's arguments.

1.  Models - Yes its true that models are frequently wrong, in fact I would argue that they are almost always wrong at least to some extent.  However, they are useful.  When I think of models I always flash on hurricane track predictions we see on TV every time there is a hurricane somewhere.  The "spaghetti" models with the squiggly lines are a case in point.  Each squiggly line represents one model.  None of the individual models is ever entirely right.  There are continuing arguments about which is best, but all are wrong to varying degrees.

It turns out, however, the National Hurricane Center invariably comes out with the most accurate predictions of the track of hurricanes.  That's because they take all those wrong models and average them out.  That comes out to something like drawing a line right down the middle of those squiggly lines.

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/european-hurricane-model-might-be-be...

Quote:

Evidence is clear that the best strategy for using models is to average the different models together into one. Combining different predictions in this way tends to correct the errors present in each one.

Strategies like this have been proven successful in other fields involving uncertainty and predictions. Consider electoral polling. Different polling organizations have better or worse track records but sites like Fivethirtyeight have been able to consistently outperform individual polls by combining all of them into one average.

The NHC produces their forecasts using the data generated by models, and when they do they are able to consider how each model has performed in the past. This is why its forecasts are, overall, better than individual models.

So, bottom line is that models are almost always wrong, but in the aggregate they can be very accurate.

Contrary to the notion, often spread by denialists, that all climate science is based on models, the best evidence of climate change is observational data well represented by the picture Chris posted in his article.  For those, like myself, that like data illustrated in charts, graphs and pictures there are many that clearly demonstrate the progress of climate change my various metrics.  Here's one:

https://skepticalscience.com/Climate_Carbon_Bookkeeping.html

1_Slide1.PNG

I don't have time to go into many more.

2. Old Guy's "authorities".  All of the scientists he listed are, curiously but not surprisingly, among the very small number of climate scientists who make up the 3% who differ from the 97% "consensus" of climate scientists who agree that the climate is changing due to human activities.  That doesn't make them wrong, just suspect.

He specifically named Willie Soon, John Christy and the clown prince of climate denial "Lord" Christopher Monckton (He is not a Lord, nor does he have any scientific credentials).

Willie Soon:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

Quote:

Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Quote:

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

Quote:

The names of a number of well-known contrarian academics also feature in the Peabody filings, including Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Soon has been funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel industry, receiving more than $1.2m from oil companies and utilities, but this was the first indication of Peabody funding.

Soon and the Smithsonian did not respond to requests for comment.

Again, Soon's overwhelming dependence on fossil fuel money doesn't make him wrong, just highly suspect

John Christy:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-debunked-deniers-fave-ar...

Quote:

Whenever they hold one of their frequent hearings to reject and deny established climatescience, congressional Republicans invariably trot out contrarian scientist John Christy, who disputes the accuracy of climate models. In doing so, Christy uses a cherry-picked, error riddled chart, but there’s a nugget of truth in his argument. Although the discrepancy isn’t nearly as large as Christy’s misleading chart suggests, atmospheric temperatures seem not to have warmed quite as fast since the turn of the century as climate model simulations anticipated they would.


Quote:

How you react to this information is a good test of whether you’re a skeptic or a denier. A denier will declare “aha, the models are wrong, therefore we don’t need any climatepolicies!” A skeptic will ask what’s causing the difference between the observational estimates and model simulations.

There are many possible explanations. Maybe the tricky and often-adjusted estimates of the atmospheric temperature made by instruments on orbiting satellites are biased. Maybe there’s something wrong with the models, or our understanding of Earth’s atmosphere. Maybe the inputs used in the model simulations are flawed. The answer is likely a combination of these possibilities, but in congressional testimony earlier this year, Christy tried to place the blame entirely on the models, with a denier-style framing:

the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions.

Quote:

New study tests and falsifies Christy’s assertions

In a new study, a team climate scientists led by Ben Santer sought to answer this question. They effectively disproved Christy’s assertion that the discrepancy was due to models being too sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect. Instead, the main culprit seems to be incorrect inputs used in the climate model simulations.
 
Quote:

For example, were Christy right that models are too sensitive to rising greenhouse gases, they should be systematically wrong during the entire period for which we have observational data. On the contrary, aside from a small discrepancy in the late 20th century that can be explained by natural internal variability, Santer’s team showed that the difference between model simulations and observations only begins around 1998. A problem with model sensitivity would also show up in studies looking at global temperature changes in response to large volcanic eruptions, which create a big change in forcing and temperature. But those studies rule out the low climate sensitivities that Christy favors, and as Santer’s team notes:

there are no large systematic model errors in tropospheric cooling following the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991.

On the other hand, research has identified a number of real-world cooling influences in the early 21st century that weren’t accurately represented in the climate model simulation scenarios. The sun went into an unusually quiet cycle, there was a series of moderate volcanic eruptions, and the boom in Chinese coal power plants added sunlight-blocking pollution to the atmosphere. Using statistical tests, Santer’s team showed that those unexpected cooling effects combined with shifts in ocean cycles best explained the model-data discrepancy in atmospheric temperatures over the past 20 years.

Quote:

Christy has systematically pounded his thesis that tropospheric temperatures somehow disprove climate change.  He also systematically disregards surface temperatures, where temperatures really matter, that show steadily rising temperatures.

SkepticsvRealists_180.gif

Well, that's all I have time for at the moment.  Perhaps I'll pick up on some more of the BS presented by Old Guy in the future.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
OISM petition

https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

And, for a laugh, google OISM.  (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine)

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OI...

Founder: Arthur Robinson

Quote:

In his monthly newsletter "Access to Energy", Robinson argues that nuclear radiation can be good for you, advocates for a revival of nuclear power, attacks climate science as a "false religion" that will enslave mankind, and condemns public education, instead favoring home schooling.[2] The institute also publishes material relating to civil defense and disaster preparedness.[21][24]

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Jeffrey Foss, PhD Everyone

Jeffrey Foss, PhD

Everyone has heard the bad news. Imminent Climate Apocalypse (aka “global warming” and “climate change”) threatens humanity and planet with devastation, unless we abandon the use of fossil fuels.

Far fewer people have heard the good news. The sun has just entered its Grand Minimum phase, and the Earth will gradually cool over the next few decades.

Why should we all hope Earth will cool? Because nobody with any trace of human decency would hope the Earth will actually suffer catastrophic warming.

Many of us believe in the threat of global warming, but live in the hope that we can switch to “renewable energy” before it is too late. But this is a false hope. Despite our best efforts over several decades, renewables such as wind and solar energy still meet only 2% of global energy needs, while hydro adds only 7% or so.

So avoiding the alleged Climate/Global Warming Apocalypse by relying on renewable energy would require surviving on less than 10% of our current energy requirements. But that is impossible. It would also be really catastrophic: billions could die.

Our global economy runs on energy, and over 80% of it is still fossil fuels, with nuclear and other non-renewables providing another 10%. If we switch to renewables tomorrow, 90% of our energy will be lost, and the global economy will sink like the Titanic. Keeping nuclear power would merely add a second lifeboat as the great ship sinks. Even if the energy loss were spread out over decades, the final result would still be the same.

Humankind could not produce enough food, clothing and shelter. Jobs would vanish. Massive starvation, disease and death would result. Hard physical labor would once again become the norm. Even though life could be maintained for some portion of humanity, liberty and happiness would be lost.

Let’s stop pretending. The prescribed cure for Climate Apocalypse is far worse than the purported disease. If we don’t use coal, oil and natural gas for energy, many of the 7 billion of us now alive must die. Those who survive will be impoverished and enslaved, toiling and scavenging for food by day, and fearing the darkness by night – except for the privileged few who still have money, energy and power.

The sudden and dramatic growth of human life, liberty, and happiness since the industrial revolution was achieved by replacing muscle power with coal and oil power. Before that, Hillsdale College professor of history Burt Folsom points out, only the wealthy could afford whale oil and candles. Everyone else had to go to bed early, and often hungry, when the sun went down, sleeping to recover enough energy to work – only to repeat the daily cycle yet again. Freedom of thought and travel had little real worth when we were too tired to think or walk.

The petroleum age saved whales from the brink of extinction – and brought cheap kerosene to the masses, so that they could read at night, bringing light into their lives and their brains.

The premature switch to renewable energy recommended by the false prophets of Climate Apocalypse is really just one step in an industrial counter-revolution devoutly desired by those discontented with modern life in free market democracies – and ready to erase our hard-won prosperity and freedom.

The Climate Apocalypse global warming bad news is rewarded by big money from the government and servile amplification from traditional big news media – while the good news of global cooling is silenced and unheard, stifled by both traditional media and most of today’s social media platforms.

We should all be suspicious of the motives of those who push this bad news, and welcome those who push back. Dr. Willie Soon is one scientist, although by no means the only one, who has the courage to stand up to big money, big government, big (pseudo) science, big media and big environmentalism to spread the good news. It’s high time we all heard it.

The good news from Dr. Soon and his fellow solar scientists is that the increase in global temperatures since 1800 was caused by two centuries of increasing solar output – not by human use of coal and oil.

But then solar output began to fall around 2000, in a repetition of a well-known 200-year cycle of solar activity, and global warming stopped. That’s more good news that too few people know. The purveyors of Climate Apocalypse have no explanation for this two-decade failure of their prophecy, which fortunately for all of humanity shows the superiority of solar science over apocalyptic warming foretold by computer models, hysteria and headlines – but not by real-world evidence.

Finally, solar science says we should expect steady but manageable global cooling until about mid-century, when solar activity will recover and temperatures begin to warm once again. Once again, this will be due to solar activity, and not to fossil fuels or carbon dioxide emissions.

In the best news of all, that means humanity’s successful pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, and better living standards and healthcare needn’t be stopped by Climate Apocalypse – or its prescribed cure. The only thing we have to fear is the fear of Climate Apocalypse itself.

Equally important, a warmer or cooler planet with more atmospheric CO2 and plentiful, reliable, affordable fossil fuel and nuclear energy would be infinitely preferable to a cooler planet with less CO2 and only expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind, solar and biofuel energy.

At the very least, humankind has an historic opportunity to witness a crucial test between two scientific hypotheses of enormous consequence. The next decade or two will reveal whether Earth warms or cools.

Surely all right-minded people must hope that it cools – and that the fear-mongering of imminent global warming apocalypse cools as well.

I might add that no one should wish the current severe Chicago-style polar vortex cold on anyone. I extend my sympathies and prayers to all who are now suffering from the cold. But be of good cheer in the knowledge that this cold-snap at least puts the lie to vastly worse climate scare global warming stories.

I also wouldn’t wish on anyone the “Green New Deal” energy reality of February 1, 2019 – when wind power provided 1.5% of the energy that kept lights on and homes warm in America’s Mid-Atlantic region, solar provided zero, and derided and despised coal, natural gas and nuclear power provided a whopping 93% or that energy! Imagine the cold, misery and death toll under 100% pseudo-renewable energy.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
http://www.petitionproject.or

http://www.petitionproject.org/

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
By Tom Harris and Dr. Tim

By Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball

Headlines around the world are reporting exceptionally frigid conditions and unusually high levels of snowfall in recent weeks. They tout these events as records, but few people understand how short the record actually is -- usually less than 50 years, a mere instant in Earth’s 4.6-billion year history. The reality is that, when viewed in a wider context, there is nothing unusual about current weather patterns.

Despite this fact, the media -- directly, indirectly, or by inference -- often attribute the current weather to global warming. Yes, they now call it climate change. But that is because activists realized, around 2004, that the warming predicted by the computer models on which the scare is based was not actually happening. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continued to increase, but the temperature stopped increasing. So, the evidence no longer fit the theory. English biologist Thomas Huxley commented on this dilemma over a century ago:

"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

Yet, the recent weather is a stark reminder that a colder world is a much greater threat than a warmer one. While governments plan for warming, all the indications are that the world is cooling. And, contrary to the proclamations of climate activists, every single year more people die from the cold than from the heat.

A study in British medical journal The Lancet reached the following conclusion:

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.

How did this bizarre situation develop? It was a deliberate, orchestrated deception. The results of the investigation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were deliberately premeditated to focus on the negative impacts of warming. In their original 1988 mandate from the UN, global warming is mentioned three times, while cooling is not mentioned even once. The UN notes that:

[C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.

This narrow focus was reinforced when the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a body the IPCC is required to support, defined climate change as being caused by human activity.

When Is a Climate Model 'Useful'?

IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) produced the evidence that human-created CO2 was causing global warming. That finding became the premise for Working Group 2 (WG2), which examined the negative impact, and Working Group 3 (WG3), which proposed mitigation policies and actions to stop the warming. The IPCC did not follow the mandatory scientific method of allowing for the null hypothesis; namely, what to do if evidence shows CO2 is not causing warming.

As MIT professor emeritus of atmospheric meteorology Richard Lindzen said, they reached a consensus before the research even began. The consensus “proved” the hypothesis was correct, regardless of the evidence. To reinforce the point, the UK government hired Lord Nicholas Stern, a British economist, to produce an economic review of the impact of warming. Instead of doing a normal cost/benefit analysis as any non-political economist would do, he produced what became known as the 2006 Stern Review -- which only examined the cost.

If Stern and the IPCC did a proper study, they would find that the impact of cooling is much more deleterious to all life on Earth, especially humans. Anthropologists tell us two great advances in human evolution gave us more control of the cold. Fire and clothing both created microclimates that allowed us to live in regions normally inaccessible. Consider the city of Winnipeg, with three technological umbilical cords: the electricity from the north, the gas from the west, and the water pipeline from the east. Three grenades set off at 2:00 a.m. on a January morning with temperatures of -30°C would render the city frozen solid within hours.

Between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures went down. The consensus by 1970 was that global cooling was underway and would continue. Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling typified the alarmism:

It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.

Change the seventh word to warming, and it is the same threat heard today. The big difference is that cooling is a much greater threat. To support that claim, the CIA produced at least two reports examining the social and political unrest aggravated mainly by crop failure due to cooling conditions. The World Meteorological Organization also did several studies on the historical impact of cooling on selected agricultural regions, and projected further global cooling.

The sad part about all this is that there was a strategy that governments could, and should, have adopted. It is called game theory, and it allows you to make the best decision in uncertain circumstances. It requires accurate information and the exclusion of a biased political agenda. The first accurate information is that cold is a greater threat and a more difficult adaptation than to warming. After all, if you prepare for warming, as most governments are now doing, and it cools, the problems are made ten times worse. However, if you prepare for cold and it warms, the adjustment is much easier.

The current cold weather across much of the world should prompt us to re-examine climate realities -- not the false, deceptive, and biased views created and promoted by deep state bureaucrats through their respective governments.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Terrifying climate

Terrifying climate propaganda
Irresponsible misuse of models

Science differs from religion because theoretical claims have to be verified with observations. If model results can predict measurements in advance (which is quite different than explaining them afterwards!) then you can say the model validated and then apply it in practice. But if that is not the case, then you cannot sell the model as truth and using it in practice is irresponsible.
Far more complicated than simple, linear CO2 relationship

The current climate model (‘IPCC model’) systematically yields highly overstated predictions compared to measurements and can therefore not be used to form climate policy – especially if that policy results in extremely high costs and destabilises vital parts of the energy infrastructure.
We are not just saying that. Already some of the most renowned scientists have preceded us (e.g. Freeman Dyson, Frederic Seitz, Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg), including Nobel Prize winners (e.g. Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin). They also argue that the earth’s climate is far too complicated to be explained by a simple one-dimensional CO2 relationship.
Modern warming in large part natural

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
There is a point to my last

There is a point to my last few postings apart from the content itself. As I have said, I could post hundreds of such articles and in fact links to hundreds of scientific papers.

But my point here is that most people would never be aware of this kind of material and the scientific support for it. The mainstream media does not reference it and in fact does everything it can to hide it. The prevailing power establishment players which own the media and governments are propagandizing and deceiving you. You have been and are being played. It is a reach by the power elite for more control of the economy, society and people's lives and a quest for greater centralization of power.

You have to go off of the mainstream information grid to get away from the gushing onslought of misinformation  to have any chance of glimpsing the truth. That applies to more than just climate issues.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
old guy wrote: You have to
old guy wrote:

You have to go off of the mainstream information grid to get away from the gushing onslought of misinformation  to have any chance of glimpsing the truth. That applies to more than just climate issues.

 

I'm uncertain if you understand most of the people who visit this site. Mostly every single one of us questions and/or discounts most mainstream media on most things. But climate science is not on the mainstream media radar - they ignore most climate-related stories - because most of the mainstream media is owned by corporate interests that benefit from the public not knowing the full extent of the multiple crises we are facing. They talk about climate change, yes, but stop short of ever discussing things like ecosystem collapse, or what the future will hold if even half of what is predicted comes to pass.

 

I'm still fascinated with the "deniers" claim that this is all just a cash cow for scientists...do you know how little the funding is for climate-related science when compared to, say, pharmaceuticals, defense, or BigAg GMO or pesticide research? Yet, as Doug points out, almost every single climate denying scientist is backed in some way or shape by energy industry money. You don't find that worth questioning, Old Guy? Then you tell us we're being played?

 

Dude, mirror. Check it.

 

And you certainly have a right to be here, and a right to post what you believe. That isn't in doubt. However, as you seem unwilling to do anything but try to hammer home your own point of view without directly answering or engaging in the valid criticisms/rebuttals others are making to your posts, most members have probably tuned you out by now. You gotta be willing to listen to others if you want them to listen to you. It doesn't help your case when you make patently untrue statements such as "all the new science supports my point of view," especially when it takes all of about five minutes of internet research to invalidate such a statement. Maybe use some mitigating words so you don't paint yourself into a corner?

 

So, let me ask you directly: What does the future hold in your point of view?

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 913
Hockey Sticks

From Doug's post:

1_Slide1.PNG

From: https://rebirthofthecool.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/7-billion-people/

human-population-growth.jpg

From https://www.capsweb.org/blog/continuing-human-population-growth-overwhelming-wiping-out-world-wildlife

Graph of population growth and animal extinction

Doug,

Do you see any similarities in the graphs? (There are many more similar graphs out there.) I'm sure you can figure out which one is the cause and which are the consequences. Why do you still think that fighting a symptom is the best approach? Nature will fix the problem all on her own.

Grover

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
Dr Foss

Has a PhD in philosophy, no scientific training or experience as far as I can tell.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
Dup

Dup

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Mainstream climate reseach is

Mainstream climate reseach is massively funded by governments to the tune of billions of dollars a year. They give the output that is expected by their paymasters.

The so-called skeptics receive nothing from government or big oil. They are honest scientists who speak out at great risks to their status and careers. The number one most visited climate blog in the world wattsupwiththat.com which deals with the climate issue depends entirely on small donations from readers. Similarly, the most visited site in Australia joannenova.com.au depends on private donations and from time to time is financially sqeezed into asking for money.

Joanne Nova and her scientist husband who has several advanced degrees were actually employed by the Australian labour government and involved in inventorying CO2 output in Australia. They believed in CO2 caused warming and decided to research it to bolster their arguments against skeptics. What they found was the opposite of what they expected. Becuase of their present stated beliefs they are unemployable in government or acedemia.

Anthony Watts is a California based meteorologist who was so convinced  by the meme that he organized tree planting efforts.  He too researched the issue to bolster arguments against the skeptics but after research flipped his opinion.

The accusation of skeptics being funded by big oil is utterly false and is a propaganda smear device used by the warmists. The oil and gas industry actually gives money to environmental groups in what is known as "greenwashing". They give money to avoid being specifically targeted. They also give money to anti-coal crusaders because if coal use is diminished you have diminished competition for natural gas power plants.

And your perception of the role of media is compltely skewed. Where did most people get their belief in man-made global warming? The meme has been relentlessly pushed in the media as has been the push into renewable energy. Skeptics have been almost totally excluded or given token time  Outlets such as The LA Times a couple of years ago publically announced that they will not publish dissenting opinions on the issue even in the comments section. NBC just announced a couple of weeks ago something similar And that has been the policy of the BBC in Britain and the ABC in Australia. The media have been a tool in the forefront of aggressively pushing the meme for many years. If you didn't first hear about it there then you first heard about it via the politicized curriculum in the schools.

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 312
Increasingly desperate outliers

First, many thanks to Doug for his analysis of Old Guy's assertions. Well worth reading.

Second, in OG's post #72, he rubbishes the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's ACORN-SAT data series. In support of this stance he cites a single name, Jennifer Marohasny. Unknown to me.

Wikipedia tells me that she trained as a biologist, not a meteorologist, and is associated with the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

The IPA is a conservative, right-wing, privatise-everything, climate-change sceptical, free trade advocate. See Wikipedia. Get the picture?

In 2017 she wrote a paper for GeoResJ denying climate change which has received strong criticism from reputable sources. As one example,

Unexplained and selective use of proxy temperature records – only six were used and no reason was given for their choice,[3] when a recent paper showed that there are at least 692 available.[25] Their approach was criticised as "extremely unscientific" by Benjamin Henley of the University of Melbourne for making no attempt to compare their approach with actual temperature data. With results that are interpreted incorrectly and which do not support the conclusions, Henley stated that the paper should never have been published and should be withdrawn by the journal.[3] Henley made harsher comments directly to Marohasy on Twitter, describing the paper as "an absolute pile of rubbish" that "reads like a D-grade high school lab report and is utterly flawed."[26]

Read the Wikipedia article before it is disappeared.

In my view the 3% of scientists who deny climate change represent an increasingly desperate set of outliers, some of whom appear to support the BAU crowd whose growthism would not be served by facing up to climate change reality.

In support of the BoM, I trust my meteorologist. He is ethical and honest.

On another website some months ago we had another denier whose M.O. was to ambush us with cherry-picked data series and observations. As one example, he adduced a data series from Rutgers University showing the depth of the snowpack somewhere in the US has increased over time. He made the mistake of giving its source. I went to the same database and found another data series which clearly showed that the duration of the snowpack has been decreasing over about the same time.

I am bored with this fruitless debate. I will not respond any further.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
research money

If you say in your application for grant money that you will research the effects of increasing CO2 on declining butterfly populations, you will almost certainly get your money. But if you say you want to research the effects of rising CO2 on enhanced vegetative growth, receeding deserts, and improved animal habitats, you definitely will not get the money.

Thats how it works.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1243
Wasting time

Good folk here, PPr’s, are wasting time with old guy(might be a fine fellow). Settle your mare, live a rewarding bucolic life and let suburbtopia get it when and “if” it comes.

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 312
Private Funding OK,

Wikipedia, article on Marohasny:

The Institute [of Public Affairs] received a $40,000 donation from Murray Irrigation Limited at that time.[8] This paper is quoted in the Interim Report of the Inquiry into future water supplies for Australia’s rural industries and communities of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, March 2004. …

Marohasy was instrumental in establishing a joint programme with the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland, funded by Western Australian philanthropist, Bryant Macfie (A top 20 Shareholder in Strike Resources Limited [1] [2]).[10][11]

Res ipsa loquitur.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1243
Steaming

am steaming fish and brussel sprouts. This year has produced so many sprouts that my Cambodian neighbors kids are shooting them in their sling shots. I am actually tired of ‘em.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
robie robinson wrote: am
robie robinson wrote:

am steaming fish and brussel sprouts. This year has produced so many sprouts that my Cambodian neighbors kids are shooting them in their sling shots. I am actually tired of ‘em.

 

We get these irritating white moths that eat away at the leaves of ours. Haven't had a signle one sprout. =(

 

Any solutions you'd recommend?

 

-s

 

PS- Now this is a conversation worth having.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
So you are recommending

So you are recommending Wikipedia. Do you know that for years the climate section was controlled by a green party activist working in co-ordination with the IPCC people. He expunged entries, edited and changed entries and excluded entries. He was a gatekeeper that ensured that only "correct" information got in. He was finally outed but I believe the process continues.

His name is William Connolley

  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-on...

Edwardelinski's picture
Edwardelinski
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2012
Posts: 348
Old Guy

Are you on the payroll of the Heartland Institute?

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 335
Muddled thinking


Quote:

 If we don’t use coal, oil and natural gas for energy, many of the 7 billion of us now alive must die.

So ... we keep burning ...and keep burning ... and then what?

Quote:

 The premature switch to renewable energy recommended by the false prophets

Premature? When will it be time, d'ya think? If not now, when?

Quote:

 The Climate Apocalypse global warming bad news is rewarded by big money from the government and servile amplification from traditional big news media – while the good news of global cooling is silenced and unheard, stifled by both traditional media and most of today’s social media platforms.

 


Quote:

 If Stern and the IPCC did a proper study, they would find that the impact of cooling is much more deleterious to all life on Earth, especially humans.

Um, Old Guy, which is it?

========================

Muddled drinks can be a pleasure; muddled thinking not so much.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1243
Spinosad

Works wonders on those pestilential pests. Don’t use it my self as my fall cole crops grow in raw draft horse manure, ie. they out grow the moths. The spring crops suffer more in my zone 7b. Then...”Katy please bar the door!”

robie,husband,gardener,father,gardener,farmer,gardener,optometrist,gardener

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments