Investing in precious metals 101
  • Blog
    kienyke.com

    Time For Some Climate Honesty

    Half-truths are doing no good
    by cmartenson

    Friday, August 3, 2018, 4:35 PM

Let’s assume that you have doubts about 'global warming'.  

Some people do and, truthfully, we utterly lack the ability to accurately model how much warming will happen, where and by when (emphasis on accurately).  

The reason is not for lack of trying or continual learning and model refinement, but centers on the complexity of the task.

Even seemingly simple systems that are actually complex are impossible to predictively model. An example is a pile of sand growing grain by grain that will finally slump at some unpredictable time and in an unpredictable way. You would think that such a simple system could be accurately modeled, but that’s not the case. Exactly when the pile will finally slump is unpredictable. Exactly how large the resulting slump will be is also unpredictable. The “when” and the “how much” are unknowable (using current modeling techniques).

All that can be calculated for certain is that a higher pile with steeper sides/areas (a.k.a. “fingers of instability”) is more likely to slump sooner and more catastrophically.

Now consider the tasks laid out before the global climate modelers where feedback loops abound, unknown variables still lurk, and the final result is the summation of multiple interacting complex systems. It’s not a pile of sand granules, it’s a gigantic interconnected system composed of heat flows, cloud formation, wind and oceanic patterns and currents, variable solar and cosmic radiation, volcanoes and dust and jet trails and a thousand other inputs all interreacting with and influencing each other…in unpredictable ways.

It’s chaos theory (i.e. the butterfly effect) which means it’s way beyond anything we can currently model with any accuracy or confidence. However, the inability to model the exact nature and timing of the “slumps” and magnitudes (to draw from our sand pile analogy) does not detract from the observation that the “fingers of instability” are growing.

Because greenhouse gasses trap heat by preventing it from radiating out to space more heat is being retained within the system. We know that for sure and the science is very settled. CO2 is a prime greenhouse gas, although not the strongest, and it is accumulating at a very rapid pace:

(Source)

What happens next? We don’t know. If the system were linear we could simply measure the concentration of greenhouse gasses, factor in solar input (which varies over time), and then tell you how many degrees of warming and by when.

But the system is anything but linear.

What we don’t know is if the climate models have erred by overstating or understating the rate of global warming that will result. It could proceed faster than we think or slower, maybe a lot faster or a lot slower. Honestly, it could be either way. The range of uncertainty is huge.

The warming will also certainly not be evenly spread. Some places will warm up a lot and some will actually cool down, such as has been postulated for the UK and other parts of northern Europe if/when the Atlantic gulf stream conveyor belt slows down and slides to the briny depths, no longer delivering vast amounts of southern Atlantic heat to the north.

Actually, that’s already happened:

Atlantic ‘conveyor belt’ has slowed by 15% since mid-20th century

Apr 11, 2018

The Atlantic Ocean current that brings warm water up to Europe from the tropics has weakened by 15% since the middle of the last century, new research suggests.

Two studies, published in the journal Nature, use different approaches to show that the “Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation” (AMOC) is in a weaker state now than it has been for decades – and possibly even centuries.

The two studies differ on when and how they think the weakening was triggered. While one suggests it began in the mid-20th century as a response to human-caused climate change, the second proposes that it began a hundred years earlier following a natural shift in regional climate.

Despite the debate on when the weakening started, the studies agree that there has been a “continued decline in AMOC over the 20th century that may be attributed to recent global warming and melting of the Greenland ice sheet”, one author tells Carbon Brief.

The Atlantic Ocean plays host to a perpetual conveyor belt that transports heat from the equator up to the North Atlantic. The warm water that the AMOC carries northwards releases heat into the atmosphere, which means it plays a crucial role in keeping Western Europe warm. Without it, for example, winters in the UK would be around 5C colder.

 

(Source)

If that conveyor belt breaks down, the UK suddenly discovers that its winters have a lot more in common with Hudson Bay (its actual latitude) than Virginia Beach.

Some models have predictions that the jet stream will become unreliable, and wobble out of its normal patterns bringing unseasonable cold (as New England and much of Europe experienced this “spring” which almost didn’t seem to happen as we stayed in winter mode and then lurched suddenly into summer) and allowing extreme heatwaves to settle in.

Actually, that’s already happened and here in August of 2018 much of the northern hemisphere is locked in a vicious heat wave. Records are being broken daily, and often by a lot.

Europe's all-time heat record could fall this weekend

Aug 2, 2018

A building heat wave in Portugal and Spain threatens to topple national and all-time high temperature records in a continuation of a series of remarkable heat waves that have roasted the Northern Hemisphere this summer.

The big picture: The heat wave will be most intense in Portugal, Spain and parts of France, although the U.K. will also see above average temperatures for this time of year. In Spain and Portugal, the fire danger will climb to dangerous levels as temperatures soar, humidity levels plunge, and downslope winds increase.

A massive high-pressure ridge, with a clockwise circulation of air around it, will pump hot, dry air filled with dust from the Sahara Desert into the Iberian Peninsula through the weekend. Already on Thursday, the high temperature in Alvega, Portugal reached 44.6°C, or about 112°F, according to the U.K. Met Office.

By the numbers: The heat is expected to crank up in coming days, with computer models projecting astonishing high temperatures of at least 118°F to 122°F, or 50°C, in southwest Spain and Portugal during the next few days.

(Source)

What’s happened here is that the usual steering jet stream pattern has gone missing which has allowed a persistent high pressure system to squat over Europe and funnel heat up from Africa for days on end.

The associated crop failures are astounding. Heat misery and deaths are climbing especially in places that are so unused to heat that they lack any appreciable numbers of airconditioned buildings in which to escape the heat.

‘Furnace Friday:’ Ill-Equipped for Heat, Britain Has a Meltdown

Jul 27, 2018

The monthlong heat wave has broken records, spawned wildfires in Wales and England, spurred delays in the transportation system and given birth to names like “Furnace Friday,” as Britons tried to find ways to describe this puzzling pain.

“Shops are out of fans, ice, sun cream, ice cream, and there’s a water shortage that has left our beautiful, lush parks all parched and yellow,” said Lucy Thornton, 36, an interior designer, as she walked into a west London cafe on Friday in search of cold water.

“We’re not equipped for this,” she added, “so it feels kind of apocalyptic.

Unlike other European countries that are accustomed to coping with hot weather, Britain had what others saw as a meltdown because it generally lacks the infrastructure and resources to deal with the effects of long spells of high temperatures.

(Source)

As far north as the arctic circle, above it actually, temperatures of over 32C (90F) have driven people and reindeer alike into the water.

(Source)

Records are being broken all over the place, smashed in some cases:

Death Valley Smashes Heat Record, 2nd Year in a Row

Aug 1, 2018

For the second year in a row, July in California's Death Valley National Park snagged the award for the "hottest month ever." Congratulations to this national treasure that is truly an unstoppable inferno.

Death Valley's Furnace Creek weather station recorded an average temperature of 108.1 degrees F (42.2 degrees C), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's temperature database, xmACIS2.

To add to the misery, a whopping 21 days in July saw maximum temperatures of 120 degrees F (48.9 degrees C) or higher in Death Valley. While unusual, that stretch of days is, surprisingly, not a record for this area; 29 days in July 1917 reached temperatures of 120 degrees F (48.9 degrees C) or higher.

(Source)

Temperature records are being smashed which is an amazing feat because so many records were just broken last year.

2017 shatters global climate records including highest sea levels, hottest year without El Niño

2017 shattered various climate records, including the highest global temperature for a non-El Niño year, lowest Arctic sea ice extent, highest sea levels as well as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, according to the American Meteorological Society's 2017 State of the Climate report released on Aug. 1, 2018.

(Source)

To add to this the Arctic sea ice extent is withering away under all of the intense arctic heat and may even break the all-time low set in 2012. I predicted this, rather casually and unscientifically, when I was freezing my butt off this winter. Each arctic cold snap was the loss of a gigantic blob of cold air from the arctic. That was like a resource it lost that came south and so I surmised that there would be less cold and more heat up there this summer. Ergo less ice.

(Source)

Maybe that’s a too-simplistic view of things, but the ice loss is very real at the moment and some are concerned that a “blue ocean” event is far closer than we think for the arctic. While the decrepit mainstream media nearly always wraps that idea up in the prospect of easier shipping or more oil and mineral exploration, what should really be at the center of our attention is the prospect of what will happen to weather patterns in the mid-latitudes due to the fact that blue oceans absorb and retain heat in far greater amounts than white ice.

While we don’t really know yet, the effects of all that new heat up north could be both quick and extreme, which you might say we’re already seeing in our abnormally harsh winters and brutal summers.

The question always emerges, what can we do?

Climate Change Movement Needs Some Honesty

I have some experience being the deliverer of tough news. The Crash Course takes an unflinching look at the intersection of the economy, energy and environment and concludes that our entire way of life, the very systems of money and economy that deliver our daily comfort are unsustainable.

Harsh message, right?

Then why was it so successfully propagated? Why did the Crash Course reach millions of people, and influence so many thousands of them to reshape their view of the world and take entirely new actions as a result?

Because I told the truth, as best I understood it, and did not pull any punches.

As the evidence mounts and the world is “on fire” here in the summer of 2018, I continue to be baffled and annoyed by the climate change spokespeople who hurt their own aims by failing to be honest and complete in their answers about what needs to be done.

I was listening to an NPR piece talking about the scorching summer and the climate advocate they had on was asked quite directly “so what can we do?” The answers he gave were evasive and incomplete. “We should return to the Paris Climate accord.” “People should examine their own carbon footprint and try to reduce it.”

Utter rubbish!

Here’s the unvarnished truth.

Cutting carbon by 50% right now would result in massive starvation and the collapse of our economy and financial system as we know it. Massive joblessness, deprivation, and suffering would result. We are utterly addicted to fossil fuels and the constant barrage of “solar this” and “wind that” along with a daily dose of Elon Musk has blinkered most people to the true reality; ending fossil fuel use will be painful.

Full stop.

Very few are ready or able to hear that message, and the masses certainly aren’t, which is why the mainstream media goes out of its way to avoid bringing in voices that say such things.

Surplus energy is the lifeblood of any economy. Fossil fuels delivered the greatest and most concentrated burst of surplus energy ever enjoyed by any one species. Removing that surplus energy would shove the entire machinery of our industrial economy into reverse. Living standards would slip. Easy comforts would vanish. What we’d experience as hard times would return, although every single generation prior to 1900 would simply call that ‘life.’

There’s no political will for enforced simplicity or deprivation. Every possible element of the status quo machinery is arrayed towards the advancement of business as usual.

That’s just how it is…but you can feel the fear creeping in, the concern mounting as the world burns and the ice melts.

Nobody has a clue what to do about it because the answer is just too painful to consider.

So it’s time for some honesty.

Here’s what’s on the table:

This is Armageddon Summer in the northern hemisphere: out-of-control wildfires all around the Arctic Circle (not to mention California and Greece), weeks-long heatwaves with unprecedented high temperatures, torrential downpours and Biblical floods. And yes, it's climate change.

It's quite appropriate to be frightened, because the summers will be much worse 10 years from now, and much worse again 10 years after that. Prompt and drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions now might stop the summers of the 2040s from being even worse, but they wouldn't do much to lessen the mounting misery of the next 20 years.

Those emissions are mostly in the atmosphere already.

[For humans] food is the key issue: as warming turns whole regions into desert, mass starvation is imaginable, although actual extinction seems improbable. It's also still possible that we will react fast enough to stop well short of mass death.

The situation is quite grim. Bad news, of course, but when you find yourself in a high-stakes game you should know what the stakes are.

(Source – canfield oceans)

If the oceans warm even further and then fail to turn over because circulation has collapsed, as seems increasingly likely, then the deep oceans will be deprived of oxygen, which means anaerobic bacteria will begin to produce hydrogen sulfide. That, in turn, will wipe out all the life in the ocean and most or all of it on the surface of the planet as has happened 3 or 4 other times throughout geologic history.

That’s what’s at stake, and the climate change activists and mainstream media cannot bring themselves to say the truth; cutting carbon means cutting jobs, reducing the easy abundance of our modern lives. It means making huge changes that practically nobody is ready or willing to make. It means applying self-imposed limits and admitting that our entire economic model is not just unsustainable, but self-destructive.

Which is why telling the truth matters. It’s why you don’t attempt an intervention on a drunk by telling them pleasant half-truths like “sometimes, Dave, when you drink you are little bit unreasonable, but not all the time, and I think we should hold some more meetings about that in the future.”

You say what needs to be said straight up, and brutally true. “Dave, your drinking makes you a complete asshole who nobody wants to be around and if you keep it up you’re going to die early and miserable and alone.”

Here’s my message to the world: If we don’t stop the destruction of the planet's ecosystems, we’re totally screwed.

So it’s time for some honesty. No, we’re not going to save anything at all by driving sexy electric cars. Instead we need to reconfigure our lives so we are not driving so much or at all.

We need to stop washing topsoil into the sea and begin farming in ways that build soils and store carbon.

We need to wean ourselves off of eating fossil fuels.

A lot of bullshit jobs are going to go away, themselves merely an artifact of surplus energy and the false belief that a 40-hour work week is some sort of honorable necessity.

Retirement? That too was an artifact of surplus energy and it’s already crumbling as an idea for the vast majority of US citizens who lack any retirement savings and depend on pensions and Social Security that simply won’t be there.

But mostly we have to give up on this crazy idea of infinite growth on a finite planet. That’s a relic of our system of money, and the sooner we do away with debt-backed fiat money the better. It was a passable idea in 1913, it’s a disastrous idea here in 2018.

None of these changes are going to be easy, but fibbing to ourselves and white-washing the “solutions” and understating the risks harms the cause.

A proper intervention requires unflinching truth.

So let’s have that discussion.

In Part 2: Building Resilience in a Warming World we discuss considerations for where to live and where not to live based on various climate and weather-related threats. If you're considering moving, or already planning to move, then you'll want to read Part 2 and join the conversation with our subscriber community.

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

Related content
» More

87 Comments

  • Fri, Aug 03, 2018 - 5:18pm

    #1

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    Milestone

    Outstanding post (along with its companion piece). In confronting this topic head-on it marks something of a milestone for PP.
    My only quibbles with it are:
    the coming out was long overdue but good on CM anyway;
    there was no need to bring my drinking into it:)

    Naomi Klein, who is so good on some topics has a wrongheaded article in The Intercept today blaming climate change on capitalism rather than human nature.  But what is capitalism if not an expression of human nature? CM has the prognosis exactly right, I believe, as grim as it might be. 
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Aug 03, 2018 - 7:15pm

    #2
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 852

    On point

    However, each of us mustn’t hesitate to get our mare settled. She and her offspring will ensure a pleasurable transition. Working, even today, with low no carbon energy is satisfying. Fullfilling my existential bucket while delighting in natural relationships.
    Imagine the realized joy of working with a willing partner who was genetically arranged by my ancestors to be both capable and willing to throw shoulder into labor for good of the herd.
    There is some hope in the coming days

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Aug 03, 2018 - 8:06pm

    #3

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 275

    Congratulations on writing

    Congratulations on writing this since so many in the alternative movement are “AGW deniers”. I predit there will be lots of comments on this one!

    Cutting carbon by 50% right now would result in massive starvation and the collapse of our economy and financial system as we know it. Massive joblessness, deprivation, and suffering would result. We are utterly addicted to fossil fuels and the constant barrage of “solar this” and “wind that” along with a daily dose of Elon Musk has blinkered most people to the true reality; ending fossil fuel use will be painful.

    Just one comment: I generally agree but I think the reason we’d see starvation is simply because the monetary / financial system isn’t currently set up to allow society to function without growth. Think about this: how much would carbon emissions drop if the world stopped growing: WAAYY less mining which is a huge consumer of FF’s; little more construction except for simply maintaining the existing infrastructure; half the workforce who are currently employed in some sector of the economy that is growing could instead spend most of their time at home because their services wouldn’t be needed anymore and therefore wouldn’t need so much fuel for transportation; manufacturing would decrease substantially. We’d still need FF’s to make food however. Overall, ending growth would probably result in about a 50% drop in emissions. But this would result in mass starvation because half the workforce would be unemployed and unable to support themselves.
    My point: we could, if we really wanted to, cut carbon emissions by 50% next year, if “we” wanted to, and it would actually result in an improvement to most people’s quality of life. This would require a complete overhaul of the financial and monetary system so that the 50% of the population who would become unemployed would somehow be supported. That’s not going to happen because it would entail the elites giving back to the masses what they have stolen and re-working the finaincial system so that the elites can no longer accumulate further wealth. The world would have to basically fall apart before this happens; and by that time it will be too late. Don’t mean to be a pessimist but that’s the way I see it; I am a realist.
    We will maintain BAU until the bitter end:

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 2:58am

    #4
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Robie as soooo right

    The lives people are living now are not good, disconnected disaffected stressed unhappy.  When people become disassociated from the natural systems that support them, a kind of unhealthy insanity seems to infect their lives.  The two most popular hobbies these days are gardening and geneology.  People are desperate about reestablishing connections.  I you will see this moving ahead at an astonishing pace, which is a good thing, we are going to need a lot of people living a lot closer to the land doing truly useful things in the near future.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 3:02am

    Reply to #1

    GerrySM

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 20 2017

    Posts: 16

    Best PP article ever!

    Kudos to CM for disregarding the antiscience deniers and calling a spade a spade! Best article ever at this site!
    May I suggest to Chris that an excellent guest would be the very articulate climate scientist Paul Beckwith?
    https://paulbeckwith.net/
    I’d love to hear Chris chatting with this guy. enlightened

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 3:09am

    #5

    GerrySM

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 20 2017

    Posts: 16

    Countdown to Extinction

    This echoes the work of Peak Prosperity:

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 3:22am

    #6
    whoknew79

    whoknew79

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 17 2011

    Posts: 3

    Way overdue

    Since 2014, I have moved away from PP.com because there wasn’t a discussion of this issue. I see climate change as the single biggest issue that we are facing. Mass death is probable and human extinction is possible. The data that Guy Mcpherson collated appears to be more correct than wrong. We are looking at abrupt, irreversible climate change. Recently, Chris Martenson penned two posts that had language that caught my attention. He was using phrases that were reminicent of Guy Mcpherson. Climate change will be much faster and much worse than most realize.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 4:35am

    #7

    robshepler

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 16 2010

    Posts: 111

    As a grower we are looking ahead...

    Zone change! The USDA effectively moved us down the mountain a few miles. We are re-looking at our 100 year old apple orchard and planning ahead for peaches. We are also looking at growing them in high tunnels to protect against our late frosts, early frosts and mid summer hail. We are watching the big growers doing the same. The end result will be higher food costs for everyone.
    Drought stress has hammered many of the growers in the southwest as we compete with veggies flowing across our borders from third world economies (the wal-mart factor), a strong dollar makes prices even lower. At a time when our growers need to be investing in the future, margins are tight.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 4:59am

    #8

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 459

    Global Warming, Sixth Mass Extinction...

    Excellent article.  There is no painless way to mitigate what is happening.
    The handwriting is on the wall, in bloody, bold caps!
    First, I believe the climate is changing and warming is part of it.  
    I also believe that proponents of global warming have made massive mistakes and that some of the “science” employed has been, not so scientific.
    I still have not heard a valid reason why both NASA and NOAA have rewritten climate temperature history by replacing historic recorded temperatures, in their databases, with lower numbers.  
    One of the consequences of this is that, now, when they say a record high temperature is being broken, I never know if it’s true, or if it is just a case where todays temperature is higher than any of the changed database numbers at NASA or NOAA.  It’s a sad state of affairs.
    Regardless, we each need to change.  If that causes temporary disruption in jobs and industry, then, that’s the price we need to pay.  If the transition results in a population decline, that is also a price that we must live with.  As Chris pointed out, there is no benign fix, nor can we completely avoid what is happening.
    I’m just over two months into a WFPB diet (no animal sourced foods).  Late last week, my primary physician cleared me to get off of the blood pressure medecine I’ve been taking for almost a decade.  I’ve lost 17 lbs, so far, look better, feel better and have more energy.   And, I’m not supporting the animal agriculture industry and barely supporting the processed food industry.
    If you haven’t done so yet, watch the documentary “Forks Over Knives,” or read the book “The China Study” and join the anti cardio vascular disease protest movement, while helping to save the planet at the same time.
    There is some compelling evidence that people who eat plant based diets, while sparingly driving an F150 are more green than meat eating Prius drivers.
    Or, keep doing what you are doing.  But:

    Quote:

          “If you keep doing what you are doing, you will keep getting what you are getting.”

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 5:18am

    #9
    JR Wakefield

    JR Wakefield

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 29 2008

    Posts: 96

    Yes, let's be honest

    1) CO2 cannot warm the oceans.  The oceans have far more heat content than 0.04% of the atmosphere.  CO2 in the air is colder than the surface of the oceans.  A colder object cannot make the temperature of warmer go up.  Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  CO2 is not an energy source.  It cannot increase the temperature of anything.  BTW, ocean currents can not shut down, that too would violate physics.   They can change, but convection cannot be stopped.
    2) It is assumed that a warmer world, one where winters are shorter and less cold, is a catastrophic world.  It’s not.  There have been warmer periods in human history, the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period.  Both were global.  Plenty of evidence for that.  In the last 10% of earth history (450 million years) the planet was mostly tropical and subtropical.  If anything our current cold period is the one that is abnormal.
    3) Our CO2 is greening the planet.  Many studies show this to be true.  That is also good for the planet, and humans.
    4) Record high temps dont mean anything except our very short period of recording temps, which is 100 years for a very few places, less than 100 years for most places.  There simply has not been enough time to fill in all possible temperatures.  For example, in Ottawa, Canada, which is one of the few places that has records back to 1900, shows that in 2012 a record high of 35C was reached on July 14th.  It was claimed to be indicative of a warming world.  Except the day previous, July 13, the record high was 37.8C in 1921.  In fact, for the entire month of July only TWO record highs were after 1960.  The rest are mostly before 1930s.  Most record highs in the last 50 years are in the winter and fall months.
    5) Solar scientists are predicing Solar Cycle 25 to be another low cycle for the sun.  If that pushes us into another 30 to 50 years of global cooling, which they predict, then that would be catastrophic.  We would wish for more global warming.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 5:44am

    Reply to #6
    JR Wakefield

    JR Wakefield

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 29 2008

    Posts: 96

    human extinction is possible

    That is end of the world cultism.  No, we are not going to go extinct because of a warmer world.  Warmer has always been better for humans throughout history.  Colder has been the cause of mass death.
    “Climate change will be much faster and much worse than most realize.”  Speculative nonsense.  The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.  There is no evidence the rate today is faster than any time in even the last 10% of earth history.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 5:49am

    Reply to #3
    JR Wakefield

    JR Wakefield

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 29 2008

    Posts: 96

    "AGW deniers"

    AGW is a theory not fact.  Any causation of A or B causing C is theory.  You cannot deny a theory.  We are skeptics of the AGW theory because we reject the claims of causation.  We reject the speculative BS of future demise because of a changing climate.   What I find when I debate this with AGW True Believers is that when I present science papers that dispute the claims of AGW theory, they deny those science papers.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 6:14am

    #10
    Hotrod

    Hotrod

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 20 2009

    Posts: 157

    Useless Jobs

    While driving down the main street of our tourist town my son blurted out, “Do you have any idea how many of these tourist shops are unnecessary?  We concluded that practically all of them would go out of business in an economic reset.  And with them the jobs generated by selling knicknacks, trinkets, and collectibles.
    If people only made a few more home-cooked meals the fast food business would collapse as it is so overbuilt.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 6:24am

    #11
    Carl

    Carl

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 17 2008

    Posts: 15

    Animals

    LesPhelps,
    I am happy for you that the diet you have chosen works well you. I completely agree with your indictment of the industrial agriculture system we currently enjoy. It is bad for customers (eaters), workers, animals, and the soil. It serves only to enrich those at the very top of the agri-business companies.
    Animals, however, are not the problem. Ruminants raised on pasture, as they should be, enrich the soil and provide productive use of non-tillable land. (Should we discuss the horrible effects of tilling on soil health?) I will grant you that many in the West eat more meat than we need, but please explain how crops will be raised without fossil fuel or animals.
    My recollection is that you were one of the first commenters to objectively point the finger at over population as the source of most of our problems. I could not agree more. I see no solution as it appears we are just wired that way.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 7:53am

    #12

    David Huang

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2010

    Posts: 62

    daylilies and milkweed

    Thank you Chris for putting forth some of brutal honesty of the situation.  I’ll add something that I’ve come to realize for a while now.  Because of the scale of change needed, and the effects such change would have to have if it were effective on what we consider normal modern life real leadership on this will never come from the political/government realm.  That naturally means we can’t count on some anonymous “they” to start or do the actions needed. 
    The good news is that anyone who really wants to see these changes happen doesn’t need permission from a government agency to take action in their own lives immediately.  I feel like it’s this sort of individual action that is the only place the sort of real cultural change we need can start anyway.
    More good news is that this sort of life doesn’t have to be one of awful misery.  In basic economic terms living on less translates into needing less money to live, which can translate into either needing to work paying jobs less, being able to live well on lower paying jobs, or rapidly building up savings.  I say this as someone who has been on this path for many years now, living a good life on a modest income with a much smaller ecological footprint that the average american.  Mind you, I’m far from perfect.  I’m still learning and trying to get better.  My current personal challenge is to get my monthly living expenses under $500 on a consistant basis.  To that end one of my approaches this year has been to drasically cut my grocery bill by eating food I’ve grown myself. 
    This leads me to a small actionable tip I thought I’d share from what I’ve learned this year so far.  It can help to recognize that “food” is not just what we find in grocery stores.  There are many other food plants that are perfectly good, easier to grow, and more sustainable.  Two I’ve really been focusing on this year are daylilies and common milkweed.  Both of these are perennial plants.  Both of these grow wild in my region, though I will say that I’ve planted several other varieties of daylillies beyond just the ones that were already growing here.  Why I’ve also liked these so much this year when I’m trying to eat mostly from what grows here is that they both give a steady supply of food over a long period of time, rather than a large crop all at once.  The large crop all at once is a trait desired for grocery stores but not so much when eating directly from the garden.  Daylilies provide early spring greens from the young tender shoots.  They seem to be some of the earliest greens around here.  Then the buds and daily flowers provide significant volumes of food over a period of weeks during the summer.  I didn’t plan it this way, but a happy thing happened with the other varieties I planted.  They don’t all reach the flowering stage at the same time, some are earlier and some later.  So I’ve been able to daily harvest buds and/or flowers for a couple months now, and I’ve still got one variety going.  Daylilies also produce an edible tuber, though I admit to not having tried these yet as I’ve been wanting to develop my colonies more rapidly.
    With the common milkweed it’s a similar thing.  The early shoots are edible, though again I will admit I haven’t used these much yet.  I need to next year.  Then the buds, flower clusters, and immature pods are all good food which have been available daily for many weeks now.  Milkweed does need to be cooked.  I’ve found it to be massively abundant for providing food, esp. for the labor involved, which for me is basically nothing.  Right now my biggest problem is figuring out how I want to use or preserve this abundance.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 8:02am

    #13
    efarmer.ny

    efarmer.ny

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 07 2012

    Posts: 5

    Carl beat me to it

    Carl said:

    Animals … provide productive use of non-tillable land.

    I have a pretty steep hill on my small farm and it makes a great pasture. Plowing it up for crops would be a disaster. Yes, I could plant trees there instead of having it be a pasture, but I need the manures that I collect all winter to fertilize my gardens.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 8:14am

    Reply to #13
    Tude

    Tude

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 01 2017

    Posts: 5

    My friend sent me this, I

    My friend sent me this, I thought it was really interesting, but it certainly makes sense that different people have different diets in different areas. This whole idea that there is one way on the planet to live that will “save us all” is part of the problem…
    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1006363772838170629.html
     

    efarmer.ny wrote:

    Carl said:

    Animals … provide productive use of non-tillable land.

    I have a pretty steep hill on my small farm and it makes a great pasture. Plowing it up for crops would be a disaster. Yes, I could plant trees there instead of having it be a pasture, but I need the manures that I collect all winter to fertilize my gardens.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 9:06am

    #14
    mjtrac

    mjtrac

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 17 2014

    Posts: 2

    This will appear in The New York Times

    This excellent and to the point piece, or something equivalent, will appear in The New York Times…but in about 30 years, if the paper still publishes.  
    I offer as proof the following excellent if slightly late review of attempts at slowing climate change in the 80s.
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-l
    The sad truth is that our economic and governmental systems all support the ongoing destruction; it’s not obvious to me what the response to that must be, but I certainly agree that it will require those who understand the situation to deal with enormous discomfort in dealing with others, not just in coping with the effects of climate change.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 9:21am

    #15

    ftealjr

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2009

    Posts: 28

    I have been waiting years for you to say this.

    I just renewed my account after a several year hiatus. I was waiting for a solid acknowlegment of cllimate change here. I don’t have a lot of answers but I can see the problem. Your advocacy and that of your team will be of significant help.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 9:48am

    Reply to #11

    Pipyman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 24 2011

    Posts: 46

    Thanks!

    I am also a little tired of all animal based agriculture being put into the same pile. Speaking from experience, my productive animals are extremely useful in sustainable agriculture. They eat gladly what you can’t or won’t, they produce first class compost and they put joy in my heart; even if I have to endure the pain of personally slaughtering them. It feels in harmony with the way things are to me. Further, I’m far from convinced of the health based argument; particularly the saturated high quality fats which i intentionally eat in good quantities. Nevertheless, each to there own, and I’m sure veganism “works” for some.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 10:34am

    #16
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 112

    Solar Minimum

    https://www.thegwpf.com/grand-solar-minimum-could-cause-global-cooling/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 10:34am

    #17
    woody

    woody

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 13 2008

    Posts: 5

    (non-native english so

    (non-native english so excuses in advance)
    “We are the first generation to experience climate change, and the last one to do something about it..” (quote. source?)
    As pointed out above (like the NYT-article) we are “late in de game” but to late? The only thing we can do is try, and try hard. On an individual level, but predominantly on a global level. The democratic system does not suit this radical changes we need, because there is always a large part (majority?) who is not aware of the problem (“nice weather, isn’t it?”) or simply denies the existence, sometimes for one’s conveinience.
    I think it is easily possible to cut 50% of carbon output without big starvation. Unemployment should not be a problem. In the town where I live (40.000) I read records of the 1920’s of the occupations of the inhabitants. At that time the number of people was about 2000-3000. About 80% worked on the land employed by a farmer. I guess nowadays only 10 people are employed by a farmer.. Indeed, the job will be a bit different, not behind a screen, but much more physical. As a medical doctor, most of my patients have self-inflicted diseases. I guess that 70-80% of my patients have preventable diseases. Much will be gone with a rigorous change in lifestyle.
    The biggest issue to prevent run-away climate change is the communication/politics. See the NYT-article mentioned earlier. How to convince (or force?) the masses to (voluntarily?) change their life-style.. We do need massive increase in petrol-tax / CO2-tax etc. A (more or less) vegetarian lifestyle is easily arranged. A great deal of car trips are solely for pleasure / hobby / etc and not vital. Growing your own food is a necessary skill. Indeed, live near your work. Take the bike.
    There are many handles to pull reducing CO2. The issue is that one has to pull harder than one is (initially) willing to admit.
    We have to try, we have to try hard..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 11:43am

    Reply to #11

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 459

    Carl

    Carl wrote:

    LesPhelps,
    (Should we discuss the horrible effects of tilling on soil health?) I will grant you that many in the West eat more meat than we need, but please explain how crops will be raised without fossil fuel or animals.
    My recollection is that you were one of the first commenters to objectively point the finger at over population as the source of most of our problems. I could not agree more. I see no solution as it appears we are just wired that way.

    I don’t till my garden.  I don’t even broad fork my garden any longer, thanks to learning from Singing Frogs Farm.
    Part of the problem today is that we expect to grow food with 2% of the population.  Eventually, we will have to transition back to a more normal low energy farming equilibrium of 30-40% of the population involved in farming.  Then and only then, can we farm sustainably.
    Some monkeys are omnivores, but with the exception of man, the percentage of their diet that is meat is very small.  Chimps, in the wild, get perhaps 2% of their calories from meat.
    We are genetic herbivores.  We can eat animal sourced food, but the health cost is not insignificant.  The list of diseases that could be almost entirely eliminated with a nutritious plant based diet is longer than my arm, topped by cardiovascular disease and cancer.  CVD and cancer send somewhere in the ballpark of 60% of people on the Western diet to an early grave.
    I grew up on a small hobby ranch in Texas.  We raised black angus, but we did it the old fashioned way.  Today, many cows spend their entire adult life chained in a stall.  Some pigs never see the light of day, in their entire lives.  
    Nutrition and health not withstanding, once you learn what goes on in CAFOs, it’s much harder to purchase and consume animal sourced food, or at least it is for me.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 11:44am

    #18
    Wendal

    Wendal

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 23 2013

    Posts: 2

    Canfield Ocean's & cliff edges

    For more information about Canfield Oceans, above and beyond Gwynne Dyer’s “Climate Wars” reference (https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Wars-Fight-Survival-Overheats/dp/1851688145), you might try Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky” (https://www.amazon.com/Under-Green-Sky-Warming-Extinctions/dp/0061137928).
    Another sobering thought is that with the redefinition of the inner edge of Earth’s “Habitable zone” being (on average) 0.99 AU from the Sun, instead of the previous 0.95 AU, that means we are just 0.01 AU – or 930,000 miles – away from the inner edge of the Sun’s “Goldilocks Zone”. That’s less than 4 times the distance to the moon. ( https://io9.gizmodo.com/5980232/new-definition-of-the-goldilocks-zone-pu…).
    Although this probably has no practical impact on our Global Warming problem, it just seems to me that when we’re already so close the point where Earth would be too hot for life, being so cavelier about heating up our planet further is kind of like standing a few inches from the edge of a cliff and choosing to hop around on one foot with our eyes closed.
    Just sayin’.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 12:21pm

    Reply to #11
    TechGuy

    TechGuy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2008

    Posts: 295

    Re: genetic herbivores

    “We are genetic herbivores. We can eat animal sourced food, but the health cost is not insignificant.”
    Not really. We lost our ability to produces B12 and are dependant on animal protein to get it. 
    “How Humans Evolved To Be Natural Omnivores”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/23/how-humans-evolved-to-be-n
    “Humans are definitely omnivores.The best evidence is our teeth: we have biting/tearing/ripping incisors and canines (like carnivores) and chewing molars (like herbivores). Animals with such diverse teeth tend to be omnivores.”
    “Chemically, we lack cellulases or cellulosic symbionts that many herbivores have, and have lots of proteases that carnivores do”
    “Interestingly, we have very powerful livers (the detoxification organ) and a very strong ability to smell rot/decay/decomposition relative to other animals. This suggests we may have evolved as scavengers, eating dead (but not too decayed) carcasses killed by other animals.”
    “I grew up on a small hobby ranch in Texas. We raised black angus, but we did it the old fashioned way. Today, many cows spend their entire adult life chained in a stall.”
    I don’t believe that to be true either. Where I am located (semi-rural) there are lots of cattle farms (raised for beef) and all of them are grass feed and are free ranging (keep in grass fields). Most of the farm land here grows hay, which is used to feed cattle. Its cheaper to raise grass feed cattle since there is minimal effort (no feed costs, no infrastructure to shelter the cattle in pens, etc).
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 1:23pm

    Reply to #11

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 98

    Flawed conclusions

     

    LesPhelps wrote:

    We are genetic herbivores.  We can eat animal sourced food, but the health cost is not insignificant.  The list of diseases that could be almost entirely eliminated with a nutritious plant based diet is longer than my arm, topped by cardiovascular disease and cancer.  CVD and cancer send somewhere in the ballpark of 60% of people on the Western diet to an early grave.

     
    Les,  Humans are not genetic herbivores.  That assertion is simply wrong. While it is true that the Western Diet is sending people to an early grave, Campbell and the China Study’s ‘conclusions’ that the culprit is animal protein and fats is bad science.  The evidence is much more compelling that the problem lies with grains, and processed carbs. etc.
    Here’s a good starting point if you want to understand What’s wrong with Campbell and China Study conclusions:
    https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

    Denise Minger wrote:

    The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

    Disclaimer: This blog post covers only a fraction of what’s wrong with “The China Study.” In the years since I wrote it, I’ve added a number of additional articles expanding on this critique and covering a great deal of new material. Please read my Forks Over Knives review for more information on what’s wrong with the conclusions drawn from Campbell’s casein/aflatoxin research, and if you’d rather look at peer-reviewed research than the words of some random internet blogger, see my collection of scientific papers based on the China Study data that contradict the claims in Campbell’s book. I’ve also responded to Campbell’s reply to my critique with a much longer, more formal analysis than the one on this page, which you can read here.

    LesPhelps wrote:

    Nutrition and health not withstanding, once you learn what goes on in CAFOs, it’s much harder to purchase and consume animal sourced food, or at least it is for me.

    No argument here.  Yes CAFO’s and the industrial meat system in general is bad for the animals and the planet.  That is not the same as saying humans were not evolved to eat meat.    The reality is that Industrial Society is bad for Society.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 1:24pm

    #19
    devitt

    devitt

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 22 2010

    Posts: 2

    can you share the source?

    Thank you for this article Chris. This was new for me:
    “If the oceans warm even further and then fail to turn over because circulation has collapsed, as seems increasingly likely, then the deep oceans will be deprived of oxygen, which means anaerobic bacteria will begin to produce hydrogen sulfide. That, in turn, will wipe out all the life in the ocean and most or all of it on the surface of the planet as has happened 3 or 4 other times throughout geologic history.”
    Can you link to your sources of hydrogen sulfide poisoning due to lack of ocean circulation in the geologic record? I’d like to read more.
    Thank you

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 1:44pm

    Reply to #11

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 459

    TechGuy wrote: Not really.

    TechGuy wrote:

    Not really. We lost our ability to produces B12 and are dependant on animal protein to get it. 

    No, we are not dependent on animal protein to get B12.  It’s source is bacteria in the soil.  Animals ingest the B12 while grazing.  Non-factory-farm cultures get B12 in their produce that is grown in a more traditional manner than our produce in the US.
    We only need a tiny amount of B12 and our liver stores 3 to 5 years worth.
    Yes, if I eat factory farmed vegetables in the US, I have to take a B12 supplement, but that is because of our crappy farming techniques.
    Conversly, as you suggest, I can get my B12 from fast food burgers, fill my veins with plaque and take blood pressure medecine counteract the effects of that choice.  That’s what I’ve been doing, until recently.  That is considered the “normal” source of B12 in the Western diet.
    As regards omnivore/herbavore, you can find detailed articles and science on the interenet to support either argument.  A good way to choose which side you believe, is to determine which group is living longer, with fewer health issues.
    Look at the people around you, with a critical eye.  Can you say that the Western diet is healthy?
    Hey, this is all Adam’s fault!  In May, I went out to his Peak Prosperity recommended book list and picked one at random.  I am not acting on any sort of five year plan to become a vegan.
    Actually, I’m rethinking my position as I type.  If I convince a bunch of people to eat healthy, they will live significantly longer lives, thus exacerbating the overpopulation problem.
    I retract everything I’ve said.
    Eat a bunch of meat!  It’s good for the planet.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 1:54pm

    #20
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1353

    Some change

    Like many other of your readers, I am surprised and delighted to read your full throated acceptance of climate change science.  The coincidental appearance of these articles and the NYT Magazine being devoted to the subject at the same time are notable.
    I followed climate science long before coming to this site and would occasionally bring the subject up in the early days of my membership, about 10 years ago.  As I recall, your position at the time came close to banning all mention of the subject because it was too “controversial.”  But then Mark Cochrane came along and volunteered to monitor a thread dedicated to the subject.  That appeared to give you an outlet for the sometimes heated debate without “polluting” the rest of the site.  Still, you steadfastly declined to discuss the subject in an open and forthright manner until today.
    It would be interesting to hear how your thinking evolved during those 10 years.  I thought the science was pretty clear at the time and the NYT article makes that explicit.  I was somewhat surprised to learn that the science has actually been pretty clear since the 50s.
    This transition is also interesting given the high correlation between conspiracy theoricists and denial of climate change.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
    I don’t know what your thinking is on conspiracy theories in general, but it is clear you buy into the  9/11 and JFK CTs.  Since several of your readers are confirmed CTers and many also denied climate science until recently, I’m sure they would be interested also.
    Still, the transition is welcome.  I however somewhat disagree with your seeming doomsday predictions.  The need to address the situation is urgent but I think the Guy McPherson scenarios are unnecessarily alarmist.  Of course, our current POTUS exacerbates the problem exponentially.  The idea that climate change can be adequately addressed without government actions is ludicrous.  It needs global action and, aside from governments, what other entities can respond quickly and comprehensively.  Certainly not the corporatocracy.  They have a lot of power, but lack the motivation to do anything, except those very few who can profit from mitigation.  After all, Exxon has been very familiar with the science since the 70s and chose to deny climate change existence until very recently.
    We, as individuals, can reduce our carbon footprints and that is a good thing, but to be really effective we need to press our local, regional and national representatives to do the big things that absolutely need doing.  Carbon taxes are probably the most urgent and hopefully meaningful.  To do that we need to overcome the influence of entities such as the “freedom caucus” in Congress and the private sector denialists like the Koch Bros.  But, even if we do that, we as a nation cannot do the job without the cooperation of all other nations on earth.  It is their future that is at stake also.
    Whatever we do, it must be soon and on a very large scale.  Backyard gardens won’t do the trick, and if we just attend to our personal survival the problem won’t go away.  Its too pervasive.
    Oh, and yes we are seeing extinctions.  We are in the 6th great extinction event according to PNAS, and many others.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/08/0801921105.short

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 2:57pm

    Reply to #19
    Wendal

    Wendal

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 23 2013

    Posts: 2

    Canfield ocean/hydrogen sulfide poisioning

    These links might prove useful:
    https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-252712
    https://robertscribbler.com/2015/08/28/shades-of-a-canfield-ocean-hydrog
    http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2012/01/condensed-summary-of-under-green-
    https://ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions?utm_source=tedcomsh

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 3:00pm

    Reply to #11
    TechGuy

    TechGuy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2008

    Posts: 295

    Vegans vs omnivores

    Vegan’s don’t stastically live longer than omnivores. Most of the differences attributed to vegan’s living longer are attributed to better lifestyles: Don’t smoke, drink much less, not obese, etc.
    http://theconversation.com/do-vegetarians-live-longer-probably-but-not-b
    “We followed a total of 267,180 men and women over an average of six years. During the follow-up period, 16,836 participants died. When we compared the risk of early death for vegetarians and non-vegetarians, while controlling for a range of other factors, we did not find any statistical difference.Put more simply, when we crunched the data we found vegetarians did not have a lower risk of early death compared with their meat-eating counterparts.”
    “It’s important to acknowledge that in most studies vegetarians tend to be the “health-conscious” people, with overall healthier lifestyle patterns than the norm. For example, among the Sax Institute’s 45 and Up participants, vegetarians were less likely than non-vegetarians to report smoking, drinking excessively, insufficient physical activity and being overweight/obese.”
    FWIW: The only proven way to extend life is to consume less than 2/3’s of a normal, health diet.
     

    Caloric restriction increased lemur lifespan by 50% in long-term study”

    https://newatlas.com/lemur-caloric-restriction-lifespan/54135/
     
    FWIW: I prefer a balanced diet of protein, Fruits & vegetables. that said, I doubt I will die of natural causes attributed to old age or health related issues. More likely I will die from war (global nuclear war), pandemic, or some event caused human caused crisis triggered from  these pending problems: Debt, resource depletion, demographics cliff.
    The Next decade (2020’s)  is looking to be a tough challenge to avoid a global war: We have the pensions & entitlement crisis coming do between 2021 & 2024, Peak Oil (probably 2020-2023), Debt (2021-2026), Resource depletion (Already underway), Trade wars (already underway). All these crisis’s are bound to make most of the world’s populations very unhappy and they will very likely select very crazy leaders that make insane promises to the people. If you think our current batch of politicians are crazy, just wait for the next batch! 
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 3:01pm

    Reply to #19
    Wendal

    Wendal

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 23 2013

    Posts: 2

    Canfield ocean/hydrogen sulfide poisioning

    http://energyskeptic.com/2011/will-global-warming-drive-us-extinct/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 3:02pm

    #21

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 459

    Conspiracy Theories

    David Collum wrote:

    I am an out-of-the-closet conspiracy theorist.  If you think that conspiracies do not exist, then you are a card-carrying idiot.

    Source: 2017 Year in Review Introduction
    Man did I laugh, when I read that.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 3:49pm

    Reply to #3
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 178

    First things first

    Can’t get over how he/she leaves the tailgate UP while returning the shopping trolley to the corral! Shoulda put a windmill in there and generated a few hundred kWh while attending to BAU.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 5:54pm

    Reply to #20
    MarkM

    MarkM

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 22 2008

    Posts: 345

    Really?

    Must every comment include pasting the label of “conspiracy theorist” on people. That technique is old and easy, Doug. Surely, you can do better. It cheapens your argument. It is no different  than using the label haji, gook or kraut so that we can go kill some people. Dehumanize and ridicule.
    For the record, I believe in climate change. However, also find the government’s story on some of the major events of my lifetime to be laughable. No, I don’t necessarily have a “theory” on the “conspiracy”. So, save your name calling. Our government’s propensity for lying has been proven time and again.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 6:44pm

    #22

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2221

    Carbon Concentrations to Levels Not Seen in 800,000 Years

    Earth’s Carbon Concentrations Soar to Levels Not Seen in 800,000 Years (Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams)

    Quote:

    As temperatures bust heat records across the globe and wildfires rage from California to the Arctic, a new report produced annually by more than 500 scientists worldwide found that last year, the carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere reached the highest levels “in the modern atmospheric measurement record and in ice core records dating back as far as 800,000 years.”
    While the most significant jump was the global average for carbon dioxide (CO2)—which, at 405.0 parts per million (ppm), saw a 2.2 ppm increase from the previous yearconcentrations of other dominant planet-warming greenhouse gases, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), also hit “record highs,” according to State of the Climate in 2017 (pdf) released Wednesday.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 7:24pm

    Reply to #20

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 98

    Card-Carrying

    Doug wrote:

    Like many other of your readers, I am surprised and delighted to read your full throated acceptance of climate change science.  The coincidental appearance of these articles and the NYT Magazine being devoted to the subject at the same time are notable.
    I followed climate science long before coming to this site and would occasionally bring the subject up in the early days of my membership, about 10 years ago.  As I recall, your position at the time came close to banning all mention of the subject because it was too “controversial.”  But then Mark Cochrane came along and volunteered to monitor a thread dedicated to the subject.  That appeared to give you an outlet for the sometimes heated debate without “polluting” the rest of the site.  Still, you steadfastly declined to discuss the subject in an open and forthright manner until today.
    It would be interesting to hear how your thinking evolved during those 10 years.  I thought the science was pretty clear at the time and the NYT article makes that explicit.  I was somewhat surprised to learn that the science has actually been pretty clear since the 50s.
    This transition is also interesting given the high correlation between conspiracy theoricists and denial of climate change.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
    I don’t know what your thinking is on conspiracy theories in general, but it is clear you buy into the  9/11 and JFK CTs.  Since several of your readers are confirmed CTers and many also denied climate science until recently, I’m sure they would be interested also.

    I find it both ironic and amusing that you’ve chosen to ‘praise’ Chris’ “evolution” of thought to what you think is your viewpoint by insulting him with your favorite pejorative “Conspiracy Theorist”  and insinuating his heretofore unenlightend rejection of the scientific method by linking to the ridiculous article which attempts to correlate those things.  (Good luck with that!)

    PLOS wrote:

    We highlight the manifold cognitive reasons why conspiracist ideation would stand in opposition to the scientific method. The involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science has implications for science communicators…..There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”

    This is particularly ironic because Chris (who is both a scientist and a science communicator) has been so far unable to get you to adhere to any sort of of minimal standards of evidence or employ basic logic inherent in the scientific method in your commenting and the sole thrust of your arguments/logic never seems to extend past it is so… because the New York Times* said it is so… (*insert mainstream propaganda/authority source here)
     
    mm
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 8:42pm

    #23
    pgp

    pgp

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 01 2014

    Posts: 164

    Another excellent presentation

    Another excellent and patiently written expose. 
    Human culture needs to change (or grow up) but nature is a cruel teacher and the time to change was 100 years ago.  The idea that we can fix the environmental (or economic) situation is a sales pitch the politicians broadcast to win votes and maintain the status quo under a rosey glow.
    The future can’t possible get better, there are simply too many people with too much dependence on heavy industry and energy for rationing to do a damned thing. 
    In other words the best we can do is prepare for disaster.  That doesn’t mean “partying like it’s 1999” it means learning how to face a negative reality even death while accepting that we, as a species, have terrible flaws in culture, belief systems and thinnking that might work for us in a tribal system but which are simply incompatible with “big civiliization”.  We should do that so that our children’s children, the survivors of this frackar we call the “new world order”, finally have the tools, awareness and motivation to evolve more sustainable and stable poltical ideas.  So the future 200 years from now isn’t just another repeat of past mistakes.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 9:05pm

    #24

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 315

    Just Another Intractable Problem

    Really, these problems won’t be solved.  The personal consequences can be managed. That’s it.   It makes no difference at all to the majority of the people on the planet. Even if they agreed and had a perfect information, I don’t believe most people will change their behavior.  Sadly, this applies to entitlement reform, climate change, etc. Pain will be our master and teacher. 
    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 9:23pm

    #25
    S7

    S7

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 29 2009

    Posts: 6

    What is climate

    Chris, I agree the existing global economic system is unsustainable and unfortunately I think the only way it will change is by horrific, catastrophic upheavel. We surfs are slaves to the ever growing cancer that is government. I am forced to pay almost $5000 a year in property taxes for a system that is so grossly inefficient that it boggles the mind, unless of course you are employed by or are receiving some part of your daily bread from the government. Every year, growth or recession, I am paying more. Never a reduction. I am paying into pensions for government employees that, after 25 years on the gravy train, uh, I mean, public service, are grifting $45k-$120k or more a year and not contributing anymore to the economic engine. Paying taxes on money that was taxed from private employment is not contibuting to the econimic engine. I am forced to work just to pay the taxes to “rent” a small piece of dirt from my benefactors in the government. If I could produce all the means necessary to live simply, I still have an albatross around my neck and that is the ever growing national debt and increasing government budgets. This was planned. Perpetual enslavement to a system that is benefiting the few at the expense of the many.
    The Bible speaks of a time when the love of many will grow cold and I suspect we are close.
    Is the planet getting warmer a bad thing? Yes the pollution of the planet caused by our consumption, debt based lifestyle is disastrous. The earths eco-systems are being devestated  by our habitrail of consumerism, however, I would postulate that the Earth is recovering back to “normal” from a last ice age that plunged the Earth into a period of extended darkness and cold.
    What is a stable climate? When was the last time the climate was stable? How did the dinasours grow to such immense size and last for so long? I suspect the atmosphere was much different than it is now. An atmosphere with a 25% or 30% oxygen content could produce such animals.
    There are salt deposits that are thousands of feet above sea level, some are remnants of evaporated seas and have different salinity than our current oceans. How can a saltwater sea get to such an elevation?
    When constructing the Trans Siberian railway, workers uncovered fully intact frozen Wooley Mammoths with undigested plant material in their stomachs/throats. The meat of the animal was still edible and eaten by the workers. How can an animal of such size be flash frozen so quickley and thouroughly enough as to not spoil? How can a herd of these animals eat and survive where they were discovered, which is a frozen tundra? This area was once a tropical environment with lush, abundant vegetation. When a dead animal lies around for a couple days today it starts decomposing.
    When they drilled core samples from the ice in Antartica, they found plants. Antartica was not always covered with ice, in fact it was probably tropical. As evidenced by the Piri Reis map, the coastline of Antartica was known to be ice free by maps posessed by the Turkish Navy around 1513 A.D.
    Thanks to nearly a century of government control of many critical institutions, we have a society that is now in a psychological straight-jacket or chemically neutered, who dare not to think outside or against the programmed/educated thought process of the status quo their professor “taught” them.
    The climate has not always been like we currently perceive from our brief geological/observable history. History as most are taught, is selective, partial and incomplete at best. At worst, it is incorrect. Someone that has devoted their entire life and resources to believing and possibly teaching a certain perspective of history, rarely has the fortitude and humility to admit they were wrong. The Earth has undergone multiple global, climate changing events in its history before we started burning up oxygen through combustion and spewing unhealthy amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Several are recorded in common manuscripts like The Bible, ie Noahs flood, the Moses event, and others are recorded in less common manuscripts like the Popul Vu and the Kolbrin, ie The Venus event.(Not the one you buy on Amazon, check The Culdean Trust)
    Times change, epochs come and go. Man and his quest for control and power is predictable.  Could we be approaching the end of this age?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 04, 2018 - 10:58pm

    #26

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3082

    early adopter

    Doug-
    Congratulations on being an “early adopter” in your climate change beliefs.
    Now if only you could overcome that backfire effect that dooms most of us to cling grimly to long-held mistaken beliefs (such as “phlogiston”, “the-world-is-flat”, and “people in government never fabricate the reasons to go to war” – the same bit of human biological structure that results in “science advancing one funeral at a time”), and view the historical record just as clearly as you do in climate, I’d be really impressed.
    I’m not holding my breath, mind you, because the backfire effect is so powerful that most people cannot overcome it, but I do allow that it could happen in your particular case.  You’re a smart guy, and if you just relax, you might just be able to view certain events through the historical lens comprising the pattern of fraud that is evident from any serious review of the historical record of how the US gets into war.
    I think it is interesting – there is a whole lot of “truth” out there, and people are often quite selective about which truth they will let in.  Some truths are ok, even popular, while other truth dares not be spoken about, lest we be ridiculed for even considering it.  Still other truths threaten the incomes of the well-connected, and they must not be spoken about either.  One wonders just how much of this is all connected.
    Why is it ok to speak about the climate change truth, while so many other truths are subject to intense ridicule?  Peak oil, for a long time – and even now – has been heavily ridiculed.  And its just math.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 4:19am

    #27

    stevejermy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 13 2011

    Posts: 13

    WHAT HAPPENS NEXT ...

    Hi Chris, 
    Great article, but one thought on the CO2 graph, posted early on. Which is that I would challenge the idea that we don’t know what happens next. I think we do, at least in one way. 
    Although the upward slope of the CO2 graph has an exponential look to it, it is likely not exponential. Or at least not for those components of the CO2 emissions that are a consequence of fossil fuel combustion. Rather, it will be the first derivative of a logistics curve. Because this is the equation which best explains peaks, whether they be peak oil, gas, coal or CO2. 
    From IEA data, CO2 emissions have been largely flat for the last 3 or so year, although I’m unsure about the last year. The reason is nothing to do with policy and the shift to renewables – which I welcome, working in the offshore renewables industry – and everything to do with ‘peak fossil fuel’, which I’d say we’re at.
    So what happens next is that, sooner probably rather than later, CO2 emissions start to decline, because the less economic fossil fuel for us to burn. The problem with the climate models is that I haven’t yet seen an analysis, most obviously by the IPCC, that models this scenario. Almost all show increasing fossil fuel burning. This makes me uncertain about their predictions. But nevertheless the good news is that we will likely be emitting much less CO2 than the climate scientists fear. That’s the good news. 
    The bad news is that, as you quite rightly point out, energy is the essential economic factor of production that powers our economies. And with decreasing amounts of energy, so there will be decreasing production, in other words economic deceleration (a term I prefer to ‘de-growth’). Thus less wealth creation at a time when the global population is increasing, due to demographic lag. This will give us a global economic situation that will make the great depression feel like a walk in the park. 
    Overall, I think its a good thing, even though it won’t be much fun at all. But a good thing because it will stop us damaging the planet in the way that we have until now, even if the driver not intelligent policy but rather that we will simply run out of energy. 
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 6:13am

    #28
    PaulJam

    PaulJam

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 04 2016

    Posts: 67

    Climate and big green

    Thank you Chris!  I so welcome these articles!

    I work for one of the “big green” environmental organizations – in general these organizations avoid the obvious connect-the-dots conclusions about AGW that you lay out here so ably like the plague, simply because the very act of accurately characterizing the situation (skewering our economic system and relationships with energy and nature) would impair donations.  Large non-profits have very professional fundraising teams that explicitly focus on the types of people who have gotten wealthy off of our financial “markets” and have large surpluses to donate.  And unsurprisingly, no one within these organizations (except outlier cranks like me) are eager to look very deeply into the relationship between asset bubbles and the strength and size of environmental organizations.  
    As is, the big green organizations exist and thrive because people who have gotten wealthy off of our financial “markets” at present feel quite flush.  Once the bubble bursts, these organizations will diminish if not outright wither (along with jobs like mine!).  And the strategies that they work on to mitigate and adapt to climate change (official mitigation strategies are quite feeble) will have no hope of reaching their needed scale, even if they were properly oriented to the true nature of our predicament.

    Ironically, there is a drive within the organization I work for to train employees to be better at “systems thinking”, but there is a very sharp edge to the overton window that allows which aspects of systems to be considered, along the lines of your NRP example.  It drives me nutso.  I think silently: “you want better systems thinkers?  Be careful what you wish for!”.  To be sure, there is a sizable minority of people within the organization that I work for who deep down know the true nature of the predicaments that we face, but thus far this has not bubbled up in a way that influences the outward face and direction of the organization.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 9:20am

    #29

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 51

    File Under: non-scientific future science-fact

    People will scouff at you if you say this too. Because Jesus is a good god acting on bad men?
    https://phys.org/news/2018-08-quakes-systematically-trigger-side-earth.html
    Speakers On:  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 10:05am

    Reply to #11

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 459

    Not interested in debating

    Not interested in debating this topic with you TechGuy.
    If your way of maximizing your happiness and mimimizing your impact on the planet is to eat cows, I’m cool with that.  You certainly aren’t alone.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 11:32am

    #30
    Wendal

    Wendal

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 23 2013

    Posts: 2

    Peter Ward interview

    This is a very good, if disturbing, interview with Peter Ward regarding ocean states (Canfield Oceans/Hydrogen Sulphide/mass extinctions/etc.).
    While it seems to be done by some sort of religious organization for which I cannot/do not attest, I think one would have to give them their due credit for the excellent production quality of their piece.
    I also find their multi-lingual subtitles very laudable (although admittedly, somewhat visually annoying) .

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 12:21pm

    Reply to #11
    grandefille

    grandefille

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 11 2010

    Posts: 10

    Ruminants PRODUCE B12, not eat it

    Les,
    I have raised sheep and goats for several years.  Early in this adventure I learned that the bacteria in ruminants digestive system (particularly the rumen) produce all kinds of vitamins.  Particularly the B vitamins.  They don’t acquire B vitamins from the green plants they eat.  Cobalt (a metal) is part of vitamin B12 and ruminants do require this in their diet to produce vitamin B12.  See the link below.
    Julie
    https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/livestock-biosecurity/cobalt-deficiency-sheep-and-cattle

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 1:09pm

    #31
    chipshot

    chipshot

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 15 2010

    Posts: 48

    A New Inconvenient Truth

    Climate change has quickly morphed into climate chaos, and is a threat to all life on earth here and now, not in 2050 or 2100.   I’m hoping the masses are slow to realize that, b/c once they do, widespread hysteria and human chaos could make life unliveable even before the climate does.
    However, in good conscious I’ll continue living a low-impact life.  It helps me sleep at night, and if there is a god or reincarnation, it can’t hurt. 
    In the meantime, what an emotional roller coaster! Anger, frustration, anxiety, sorrow, depression…another reason to maintain an environmentally conscious lifestyle, as it keeps feelings of guilt at bay.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 6:11pm

    Reply to #31
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 852

    Embrace

    your mare, get her settled, and enjoy your life. There is so much to enjoy other than longs and shorts…..go long on life and garden in….
     
    i am am waiting for coustralees, n sweete taters. Butter beans are in abundance. You can’t imagine their flavor rendered in chicken fat, preserved in garlic n onions. Folk the suburbantopic existence is passing, get over your returns on investment and get your mare settled.
     
    love yawl and am missing oog 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Aug 05, 2018 - 6:38pm

    #32
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 852

    Les?

    All you say is true in certain boundaries. Would love to see, personally, some family, not a starved individual,live their vegan life without animal assistance.
    my mare is going in Oct. for her fourth exposure in 16 years. Kelsey is a loving and willing partner she is,(ASHA registered) they won’t let you on their site, suburbantopic people mustn’t be valuable to those herding the gene pool of the draft animal world, their pursuits being something other than the betterment of our race and the fruit of their ancestors drafts.
    too much typing for both a reluctant and poor communicator.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 2:35am

    Reply to #11
    VeganDB12

    VeganDB12

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2008

    Posts: 107

    clarificaiton

    We are talking about b12 not other b vitamins. only bacteria make b12 in the gut.  We make it but cannot absorb it because it is manufactured in the large colon. B12 is ONLY manufactured by single cell organisms. Lots of it in poo, manure, some soils. Stored in liver. LesPhelps doesn’t have a history of telling lies here.  The point is subtle regarding how b12 is made versus how it is transferred into your food.  
    That being said it costs less htan a penny a day to supplement if you get the tablets on sale. To each his/her own.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 4:03am

    #33
    jwanderson54

    jwanderson54

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 03 2012

    Posts: 7

    CO2 is not the reason

    Please stop pushing false narratives. 
    The Earth is not a closed system. If it were, then CO2 would make sense. 
    Let’s look at the facts
    Atmospheric CO2 has increased over 50% in the last 20 years
    There has not been a noticeable increase in temperature during that period. 
     – If CO2 would have been there primary cause then we would have noticed a significant increase.
    Global temperature readings weren’t consistant nor accurate until the mid-90’s 
     – before this is was basically a person standing with a thermostat and then “doing math” to figure out the temperature readings in other areas.
     – in the mid-90’s they launched satellites with accurate laser thermostats able to read the temperature at different altitudes and guaranteeing accuracy in locations. 
     – These measurements have shown a “city effect” where cities retain heat overnight instead of dispersing it naturally. 
    All models don’t take into account Negative Feedback, only Positive Feedback
     – this overemphasises the importance of CO2 and doesn’t take into account the impacts of clouds (h2o – which is a much more “powerful” greenhouse gas)
    The Sun has been warming for the last century and has been more volatile (higher frequency of solar flares and much larger solar flares). 
    The Sun’s magnetic field is in it’s waning period, a weaker magnetic field allows more cosmic rays to enter, these are more likely to raise the temperature than any other factor. 
    These warming periods have happened before and at the same pace.
     – Using proxies it’s been determined that this has happened during the Roman and Medieval times. Both times the temperature acceleration was similar. 
     
    TL;DR:
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    CO2 is NOT the primary cause of global Warming
    The models used are lies that overemphasis positive feedback and minimize or even neglect negative feedback. 
    Humans have minimal impact on the climate
    The primary cause is most likely the SUN and it’s weakened magnetic field (cyclical)
    No one is denying the climate is warming up…just the cause. 
    Summary:
    We just have to let the cycles be cycles. Quit propagating a false narrative that we are the problem

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 4:05am

    Reply to #31
    jwanderson54

    jwanderson54

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 03 2012

    Posts: 7

    Climate change is a natural

    Climate change is a natural cycle caused by the Sun’s intensity and it’s magentic field cycles. 
    Humans have a minimal impact on the climate
    CO2 is not the primary cause. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 4:46am

    Reply to #31

    scribe

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 19 2011

    Posts: 25

    Ban this idiot called jwanderson54

    He’s probably paid to write this guff by fossil fuel interests.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 5:54am

    Reply to #33
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1353

    Cite your sources

    Cite your sources

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 8:05am

    #34
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Fractured Thinkng

    Mammals are an integral part of grassland ecologies.  A terrible tragety occurred in the not to distant past when thirty thousand elephants were slaughtered in misguided effort to save African grasslands from degredation.  Elephants were thought to be one of the major causes of the problem.  As is turns out the removal of the elephants caused a percipitous decline of the Serengeti, they were not the problem.  The case was rather the reverse.
    Millions of Buffalo roamed the great plains of the US for millions of years, no global warming problems.  They say the herds were so large that when they moved, it felt like there was an earthquake.  Don’t think the Buffalo created water shortage problems either.  That ecosystem, as a matter of fact, built the huge reserve of top soil that modern industrial agriculture is now mining to grow, you guessed it, grains and vegetables (even if they are stupidly used in feed lots and for ethanol).  Grazing mammals have a key role to play in building top soil (that sequesters a lot of carbon) and maintianing prairie ecologies and soil fertilities.
    Farming these dry grasslands now to grow fruits, vegetables, and grains is about as ecologically destructive as you can get, which involves mining both topsoil and water.  Aquifer depletion, which has been commented on here before, is a major issue in the central US.
    The problem is, industrial style agriculture in all its forms, and simple minded silver bullet one size fits all solutions.  Solutions need to be as varied as there are planetary ecosystems, diversified, small scale, wholistic, regenertive, and sustainable over the long haul, humanistic and not money centric. Cooperating with and mimicking existng ecologies is our best bet, cocreataion.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 8:43am

    Reply to #31
    S7

    S7

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 29 2009

    Posts: 6

    Human impact

    I agree that humans have a minimal impact on the climate, but would add to that, our current cultural emphasis on growth at all costs and that everything is related to the dollar, profit and GDP is destroying delicate eco systems our planet needs to properly function and support life. This could be a contributing factor to smaller scale changes. Remember the Dust Bowl caused by certain farming practices? That was caused by man.
    The govenrmental example of hubris, excess, greed and waste is the model that seems to be a pervasive throughout all human activity. People in general tend not to be able to control and understand their own bodies and lifestyles let alone make rules that others are supposed to live by. Some think “Hey, lets spray this poison on these weeds so we don’t have to bend over to pick them out”, without thinking of the damage it could do to the organisms living in the ground they spray, or that possibly that poison would possibly end up in their body one day. It seems that disease, sickness and moral decline is the norm, not the exception. Long term thinking and planning is not one of mans stronger attributes.
    Nobody has all the answers, we tend to only see a small slice of a very complex system, but if you listen to the “experts”, they would have you believe that they have everything all figured out, just let them tell you how to live and what to eat.
    Study for yourself. Be your own advocate. Follow God. Love man but don’t trust him.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 9:54am

    #35
    sstumpff

    sstumpff

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 11 2009

    Posts: 0

    Well said, but my concern is motivation.

    Any way you slice this, motivations are a problem.  Between neighbors, cities, counties, states, countries, regions or even generations, it’s a Jevon-fueled prisioner’s dilema.  The winner is always the cheater.  
    The only way to fix this is to make it a local problem.  It can’t be a coffemaker no one in the entire world wants to take the time to clean.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 10:20am

    #36
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 112

    Maybe this

    Might be a good podcast

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 10:58am

    #37

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    The present state

    It is refreshing to see that Chris has been brutally honest about what would be needed to produce a significant reduction in our production of greenhouse gases. A 50% reduction would devastate the world economy. That is unlikely to be done voluntarily, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen. Although carbon dioxide is not the only anthropogenic greenhouse gas that is warming the earth, it is the most important one and it can be taken as a fairly good proxy for all of the various contributors to global warming.
    So consider the fact that we have burned through about half of the world’s crude oil resources and a fair fraction of its natural gas and high quality coal. This has resulted in an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by about 130 ppm, from about 280 ppm pre-industrial to about 410 ppm presently.  Since 2000, the concentration has been increasing exponentially at 6% per decade. This is part of a present state, that if continued, would double the present 410 ppm by about the year 2150. (Data since 1958 from Mauna Loa Observatory.)
    The second part of our present state is illustrated below. When the concentration increases exponentially in time, the temperature effect becomes a linear function of time. The increase of earth surface temperature is well known to be linearly related to the logarithm of the concentration of carbon dioxide and this is shown below along with a least squares best fit line:
    It would thus seem that the rate of increase of earth surface temperature would be about 1.9 C divided by 116 year, or about 1.6 C per decade.
    Although the current state is encapsulated in the two graphs above, the extrapolated line on the first one is a mere persistence forecast that might be in error. The exponential rate of increase of carbon dioxide might go up if more coal is used for electric power generation in third world countries, or it might go down as China’s rapid growth rate subsides or if more electric power generation is switched to natural gas or renewable fuels. Interested readers are free to provide their own guesses about our state when we have burned our last barrel of cheap oil.
    The line on the second graph probably reflects the actual physics of greenhouse gases. It has not significantly changed slope in the last six years despite a few months of an El Nino loop at the end. Nevertheless, it is possible that the graph reflects correlation rather than causation. If, as allowed by the IPCC, half of the temperature increase might be due to other causes besides anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then the effect of adding more carbon dioxide might result in a smaller temperature increase than implied by the line slope. On the other hand, in the absence of increasing carbon dioxide, we might be in a profound cooling trend and the real effect of carbon dioxide might be much larger than indicated by the line slope.
    Realistically, however, if we have burned through half of the world’s oil and only produced 130 ppm increase of carbon dioxide concentration, we are probably going to run into extreme supply difficulties long before we produce another 410 ppm. Chris would probably be the first to note that this is a predicament, and not a problem to be solved. We have burned half of the world’s cheap oil and we got about 1 C warming. Who knows what we would get if we could burn the other half. My guess is that the economy will be long gone before we burn that other half. You pays your money and you takes your chances, but this is where we are now.
    Stan
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 11:13am

    Reply to #33

    travissidelinger

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 38

    What if you are wrong?

    First, site your sources and show the math.  Else, your opinion is just an unproven belief.
    Here are some basic credible sources:
      * https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon
      * Look at the eia.gov CO2 emission data.  As of 2015, humans are burning and releasing around 33 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually.
    196.9*10^6 Mile^2 * 5280 ft/mi * 5280ft/mi * 14.70lb/ft^2 / 2204.62 lb/ton / 10^6 = ~36.6 trillion tons of atmosphere
    And currently we are adding ~32-35 billion tons of CO2 per year.
    Before humans, < 1 billion was added annually, and the atmosphere was probably in equilibrium, or close to it.
    These numbers are staggering large.  You don’t need to be scientist who has spent years analysing these systems to say MAYBE SOMETHING BAD MIGHT COME FROM THIS.
    You want to play Russian roulette with a planet’s atmosphere, go find a different planet!!!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 12:35pm

    #38

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    I have met the enemy, and it is us.....

    As someone who actually works in this field, as the bearer of bad news due to climate change, I can say that everything Chris has laid out about changing climate in his post is spot on, with the one quibble that we actually do know that hurricane intensity is getting worse (link) although the number of storms may not be changing. What does this mean in the real world? Storms like Hurricane Harvey with their devastating amount of rainfall used to be a 100-year event in Texas as recently as 2000. However, by 2017, the risk of such storms had increased enough to make its expected frequency a 16-year event. If we do not dramatically cut emissions rates of greenhouse gases soon then by the end of the century (2081-2100) if will be a 5- to 6-year event (link).
    No one wants to contemplate what changes like this mean. Scientists have been trying to tell the world that this was coming for decades, even if we didn’t understand the full import of it (we still don’t). Even those of us that live and breathe global change for a living have a hard time really accepting the magnitude of the coming changes or what will be necessary to mitigate it (we can no longer avoid it). Though much educated and experienced, even we scientists are only experts in subsets of the global system and usually woefully ignorant of the economic/energy sides of things. You should see the looks I get in a room full of excellent scientists discussing ‘sustainability’ issues when I bring up energy issues and the global reliance of our agricultural systems on fossil fuels. Stunned silence and then the discussion moves on to other issues.
    As many of you know, I ran the climate change thread here for years discussing every aspect of climate change. What I learned is that, even among those who ardently believe in climate change and are well educated on the subject, there is little interest in discussing how it is affecting or will impact our lives – or what changes we need to make in how we live. There is always lots of interest in potential methane releases in the Arctic or ice loss in the Antarctic but precious little in what we, as a society, need to change in order to adapt and hopefully mitigate the changes coming in future decades. This isn’t a knock on anybody, it is simply an observation of human nature. We tend to shy away from uncomfortable subjects that would require us to change how we live. Just think of how difficult it is for many of us to diet, exercise, quit smoking etc.
    That said, there are growing levels of anxiety, even from sectors that were previously unlikely directions. Last month I was part of a workshop to address the global wildfire problem (that Chis mentioned). That in itself is not unusual since I have done a lot of high profile work on the subject (link, link, link, link, link…..). What really surprised me was that the meeting was called for and funded by the World Bank. This tells me that the monetary impacts of ongoing global changes are reaching a threshold where those with real power are starting to feel threatened.
    We are at a crossroads. Human ingenuity can be our greatest hope adjusting and adapting to climate changes but it can also keep putting more nails in our proverbial coffin. We need to drastically reduce the level of global greenhouse gas emissions and human populations need to come steadily down (not necessarily instantly). Neither of these needed collective actions are compatible with the infinite growth model of our current global economy though. If we cannot reinvent how we run global societies then we will find out that we are no better at managing our resources than bacteria in a petri dish. What is increasingly likely is that instead of moderating our numbers and fossil energy use, we will try to engineer our way out of this. I have found it passingly strange that many of those who completely reject the idea that we are appreciably altering our climate accidentally are the same ones who strongly promote geoengineering to change climate intentionally. Every proposal to date is likely to cause more problems than they could ever address. Secondly, although we are likely to soon be facing energy constraints due to the faltering availability of viable (sufficient EROEI) oil sources, there are several people and countries actively looking to exploit the next great fossil fuel (methane hydrates). If successful and this ‘resource’ is significantly tapped, then our collective goose is truly cooked.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Aug 06, 2018 - 6:05pm

    Reply to #36

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 315

    Can Anyone Tell Me How This Is Wrong?

    Please be as succinct as possible.  Is this man wrong?  How so?
    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Aug 07, 2018 - 2:55am

    #39
    PaulJam

    PaulJam

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 04 2016

    Posts: 67

    AWG and aerosols

    Guy McPhereson references this effect often in his prognoses, and I wonder why I don’t hear about it more often (perhaps it is just too grim to contemplate), as it is backed by a number of research papers.  Basically, part of the warming that we have thus far experienced is a product diminished by human-caused aerosols in the atmosphere.  Some of these aerosols are a result of fossil fuel combustion (sulfur from coal).
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/devils-bargain-w
    Efforts to removed aerosol pollution would exacerbate warming trends.  
    So aerosol injection into the atmosphere perhaps could be considered a sort of inadvertent  geoengineering.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Aug 07, 2018 - 9:53am

    Reply to #36

    Matt Holbert

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 03 2008

    Posts: 66

    Fracking Titans Bankrolling Right-wing Indoctrination...

    Rector-
    Perhaps this can be of some help: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/01/fracking-titans-bankrolling-right-wing-indoctrination-effort-schools-investigation
    My succinct response: I am not inclined to trust someone who doesn’t think that man impacts the environment in measurable and immeasurable ways. I simply have to observe my neighbors with their 6 vehicles (for a household of 5) coming and going. It’s like watching a clown show.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Aug 07, 2018 - 7:06pm

    #40
    Transcend

    Transcend

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 28 2012

    Posts: 51

    Growing up is hard to do

    Growing up, I looked up to Joe Sakic.  Coming from Canada, it made sense to have an idol who is a hockey player.  I’m from Toronto and never spoke French.  I loved hockey so much that I was watching a French station showing the Quebec Nordiques playing.  Sakic was young and unknown at the time.  I can’t recall what I saw from him, but he became my favourite hockey player at the age of 10.  I wasn’t a Toronto Maple Leafs fan growing up in the city of Toronto, I was a Colorado Avalanche fan, specifically a Sakic fan – thankfully.
     
    As I grew up, I started realizing hockey is just a sport and although I still love Sakic, the reality is that he’s retired and I developed beyond sports.  Finding new interests and more meaning.  Fast forward to today, with my new idols being none other than Chris Martenson and Elon Musk.  CM and EM, what a combo; the true greats.  Both who show up in this article.  I’ve been following Tesla and PP for a long time. I’ve posted previously about the company and their mission.  Chris’ frustrations are coming out more and more clearly in each piece of writing.  Going 10 years against the grain is tough.  He’s been here before and he’s confident in his ability to study the data, sift through the BS, and come to a conclusion that’s likely correct.
     
    Chris states in the part 2, “What you should do in response is to insulate your home as much as possible and have back-up electricity on hand. A generator for temporary electricity shortfalls, and solar with batteries for more long-term outages.”  He takes a direct shot at EM, even though Tesla is literally trying to hit the masses with solar and batteries.  It’s incredible to see so many people against such a mission.  Come up with excuses such as subsidies because Big Oil never gets any, right?  While Tesla builds the sweetest car, which happens to be fully electric, all those other car manufacturers that have been around for decades continue on the ICE path, making the same garbage year after year with no innovation or creativity at all.  Milking every last bit until they soon turn fully electric.  As I’m writing there’s a commercial on for the 2019 RDX, I rest my case.
     
    Since the article is about global warming, I recommend you invite Mish to an interview and discuss the topic.  I’m certain he believes there is a cooling effect happening. There is a lot of data that supports both sides.  The camp I belong in is the environment camp.  I want to do a better job treating the world better including fellow humans.
     
    I fully support the vision at Peak Prosperity.  Who can argue with a world worth inheriting?  The issues in the world are truly unbelievable.  Who needs fiction when you cannot possibly write some of the things that happen on planet earth.  Tesla’s mission is important.  To me, it disrupts the status quo.  Chris has studied the numbers and he’s convinced a company like that is irrelevant.  Not only from the fossil fuels standpoint, but also on the basis on valuation I’m sure.  His same thesis of Amazon when it had negative earnings.  Solar and wind cannot save us so why try.  I still think it’s better than stockpiling a metal that is borderline useless in this day and age.  It’s a hard asset to protect your wealth…great.  You do realize that you’re making an investment into wasting fossil fuels at its finest.  I understand the importance of a currency crisis and maintaining your purchasing power, but come on!  If you want to move forward than stop investing in the past with an unproductive asset that consumes a crap-ton of fossil fuels to get that heavy metal into your hands!
     
    The concerns at PP are real, frightening, and not discussed nearly enough.  Most people aren’t even aware of them and they wander around oblivious to what’s most likely going to hit them in the face real hard.  Some of us are lucky enough to have the brains to know better.  Some of us have our eyes opened by one of those people. Most of us never get the gift of knowing.  Everyone is doing their part.  It’s all about perspective.
     
    The biggest issue at PP is the delivery of the message.  Unfortunately, the data is negative making it difficult to reach people.  Most don’t want to be dragged down further when they are scraping by to make ends meet.  The 70 year old single woman collecting a pension after working for 40 years as a teacher in a school filled with bad students doesn’t want to be told it’s going to get cut short.  It’s a sensitive time, people want an encouraging message that energizes and motivates them not the opposite.  Find your passion, feed your passion.
     
    Image result for tesla starman
     
     
     
     
     
    Image result for joe sakic rookie
    2 Stanley Cups
    8th NHL All-Time Points (1,641)
    11th NHL All-Time Assists (1,016)
    14th NHL All-Time Goals (625)
    7th All-Time in Playoff Goals (84)
    NHL Record Playoff Overtime Goals (8)
    3rd All-Time NHL Playoff Goals in a single season (18)
    3rd All-Time Playoff Game Winning Goals (19)
    105 Career Game Winning Goals (including Playoffs)
    13 NHL All Star Game Selections
    3rd Career All Star Game Points (22)
    1st Career All-Star Game Assists (16)
    Six 100+ point seasons
    Nine 90+ point seasons
    17-Year Tenure as Captain, including 16 consecutive seasons
    2006 Captain – Canadian Olympic Team
    2004 All Star Game MVP
    2002 Olympic MVP
    2004 World Cup of Hockey Gold Medal
    2001, 2002, 2004 NHL First All Star Team
    2001 Hart Trophy Winner
    2001 Lester B. Pearson Award Winner
    2001 Lady Byng Trophy Winner
    1998, 2002, 2006 Olympian
    1996 Conn Smythe Winner
    1994 World Championship Gold Medal
    1988 World Junior Championship Gold Medal
    1988 Canadian Major Junior Player of the Year
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 5:07am

    #41
    efarmer.ny

    efarmer.ny

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 07 2012

    Posts: 5

    Is what wrong?

    Hector said

    Please be as succinct as possible.  Is this man wrong?  How so?

    Which part of Mark’s post do you want us to comment on? Anthropogenic Global Warming, or the result of Climate Change (whatever the cause)?
    If you want a succinct comment on Mark’s feelings about AGW, here is one:
    As far as I can tell, Mark does not address the cyclical nature of CO2 levels historically. [1] Also, Mark seems to minimize the climate effect of a solar minimum based on a study from 2010. However, research from 2018 shows that cooling effects from volcanic activity and cloud cover both increase during a solar minimum. The study that Mark cited does not use the word “cloud,” and also stated that “more research” is needed on volcanoes. [2]
    So I feel that Mark’s understanding of where the climate is headed is still subject to debate.
    But that is not really the question. Mark himself said in his comment above:

    even we scientists are only experts in subsets of the global system

    And our host Chris wisely stated at the beginning of this report:

    Some people [have doubts about ‘global warming’] and, truthfully, we utterly lack the ability to accurately model how much warming will happen, where and by when (emphasis on accurately).

    So the real question [in my mind] is not if Mark is [completely] right about the cause of our climate change, or even the actual direction in which the planet’s temperature is ultimately headed. The question is actually whether or not we are “at a crossroads” (Mark’s words above) due to the changes happening globally, and therefore at a point where we “need to drastically reduce the level of global greenhouse gas emissions and [where] human populations need to come steadily down.”
    I may not believe in AGW, but I do want us using less fossil fuels. I think globalization has cheapened the world. Let us have our local cultures, heroes, artists and foods again. Let’s try building communities where the primary methods of transportation are human-powered and the primary methods of communication are face-to-face.
    Regarding the population of the earth, I understand everyone’s concern. And our changing weather is certainly impacting harvests. Realistically the outlook can be grim. But imagine the difference it would make if there were a renaissance of personal responsibility combined with a willingness to put effort into producing food wherever you live rather than just being consumers.[3]
    – – – – –
    Note: I am not a scientist. I have lots of interests but few minutes to pursue them all. So I guess that makes me a generalist. I put these links out but cannot defend them.
    [1] Cyclical Nature of CO2 Levels
    2003 Vostok Ice Core Study and its graph shows a repeating CO2 level.
    I found that research from this page, where a forester attempted to correlate the earth’s temperature from another study with the changing CO2 level from the above paper.
    [2] Role of Solar Minimum on Earth Temperature
    In this comment, Mark refers to this 2010 study to substantiate his belief that a solar minimum would not have a large or lasting effect on our climate (my summary, not his words).
    I scanned the study, and a full text search indicated they did not use the word “cloud.” If another meteorological term for cloud cover was used, I missed it. Cloud cover cools the earth. Recent research has shown that the increase in cosmic rays during a solar minimum can increase cloud cover (thus cooling the earth).
    The article Mark cites article does refer to “volcanic forcing” and specifically states “volcanic forcing is constructed by randomly distributing the forcings of 20th‐century eruptions over the 21st to avoid artificial drift of the model resulting from an unnatural lack of volcanic forcing.” It also later states that more research is needed. This recent research shows a statistically significant increase in eruptions of silica-rich volcanoes during a solar minimum. These eruptions would tend to cool the planet. (Some scientists think that volcanic activity helped  to trigger the last mini ice-age.)
    My take-away: Mark’s assessment of where the earth’s temperature is headed is still up for debate. I have no animus toward Mark. He obviously has a wealth of research supporting his beliefs. I just fail to see a scientific consensus on what the planet’s temperature will be in five years.
    [3] Producing Food
    Almost everyone in the US can use this method of growing greens in shallow pots in by the window in only 10 -12 days to supplement their meals. Look for the book in your local library for more details. I’m a pretty busy guy, but kept a constant supply of pea shoots to add to my salad over three months last winter.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 5:44am

    Reply to #41
    Tude

    Tude

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 01 2017

    Posts: 5

    As usual, the Onion is on it

    GENEVA—Saying the time to act has come and gone, a group of researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Tuesday that any hope for the future of humanity now hinges on the possibility that scientists like themselves are simply making all of this up. “After reviewing our climate models and projections of worldwide CO2 emissions, we have come to the conclusion that the only scenario in which the human race survives is if our thousands upon thousands of meticulous empirical studies on climate change turn out to be something we’ve been lying about all along,” said climate scientist Philip Vanderwall, who stated that unless the entire scientific community has spent the past 50 years falsifying reams of data as part of a coordinated disinformation campaign to sabotage the global economy, the world’s low-lying coastal regions are as good as done for. “The evidence indicates our planet still might stand a chance of averting a complete climate catastrophe as long as my colleagues and I belong to a cabal of charlatans who are secretly paid huge sums of money to trick everyone into believing excess greenhouse gases will precipitate record-breaking natural disasters and worldwide famine. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.” On a personal note, Vanderwall added that he hopes that one day, his grandchildren will discover that he was involved in a massive, nefarious conspiracy spanning every country on the face of the earth, because it is the only thing that can possibly save them.
    https://www.theonion.com/climate-researchers-warn-only-hope-for-humanity
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 5:57am

    Reply to #41
    ahumeniuk

    ahumeniuk

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 07 2018

    Posts: 0

    efarmer.ny

    Boy oh boy, you just don’t get it dude. And so many words too!!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 7:02am

    #42
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 852

    Pascal

    “I would rather believe in AGW and be wrong than dismiss it and be wrong.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 7:15am

    #43
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 508

    Where you getting your seed, efarmer.ny?

    My neighbor doesn’t have room for his shallow pots to grow shoots. He uses a different method:

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 10:03am

    Reply to #41

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    The details...

    efarmer,
    First let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, “Realistically the outlook can be grim. But imagine the difference it would make if there were a renaissance of personal responsibility combined with a willingness to put effort into producing food wherever you live rather than just being consumers.” Regardless about what anyone thinks about AGW, this is much needed.
    It doesn’t really matter what either you or I believe about AGW anymore than it does what we think about gravity. That said, I couldn’t have covered your laundry list of wants in a single post that anyone would have ever read.
    Please check out the wealth of materials in the The Definitive Global Climate Change (aka Global Warming) Thread — General Discussion and Questions where all of these materials have been discussed at great length, usually with references and with serious debate from naysayers, if you are truly interested.
    I don’t mean to seem dismissive but, assuming that you are a farmer, as your name implies, how would you feel if an endless string of people who never stepped onto a farm, but did eat the occasional vegetable, kept questioning whether farmers new anything about fertilizer and implied they never even thought about the effects of water in their estimations of crop yields? How many times would you calmly explain these things to people who are insinuating that you and everything you’ve done in your life is a fraud? Farmers don’t know everything about farming anymore than scientists do about the entire Earth System but does that make you question if they know how to grow crops? This is analogous to endless questions about greenhouse gases and whether climatologists account for water vapor (or clouds) in their models.  The short answer to your doubts is that scientists have looked at the Sun, clouds, cosmic rays, volcanic emissions and any number of other things at great length.
    Tude’s post from the Onion (https://www.theonion.com/climate-researchers-warn-only-hope-for-humanity…) really does hit the nail on the head. Nobody sane wants to be ‘right’ about AGW but for a century now thousands of scientists have diligently tried to disprove it, and failed, the same way they did with Einstein’s Relativity theory. I gain nothing by being the umpteenth person to say that AGW is happening. I or anyone who could actually prove that AGW is not happening would be famous (and likely rich) beyond belief. With that kind of incentive don’t you think that someone would have provided such proof if it were possible? Instead we get people who keep trying to keep the doubt about the absolute veracity of AGW alive just a little longer. Of course those doubters never seem to contemplate that if scientists are wrong about AGW,as they hope, that there is an equal liklihood of it being much worse than they are saying, than much less.
    Some short answers to your doubts.
    In a solar minimum the Earth should be cooling – it is not. Even a grand solar minimum would have little effect at this point (link).

    Cloud cover was my own great hope and source of doubt for a long time until studies showed that they aren’t going to cancel out the warming. As usual, simplistic ideas are wrong and the truth is more complicated. Clouds don’t universally cool the planet. Depending on their thickness and height they can reflect more sunlight or trap more heat. The net effect globally appears to be for more heat being trapped and precludes any net large cooling effect (link).
    Volcanic eruptions only lead to cooling if they loft materials into the stratosphere and only have significant, but short term (months to a few years) effects if they occur near to the equator. The last one of global importance was Mt Pinatubo in 1991. (link)
    As for the cyclical nature of CO2 and its association with global temperature, that is well known for the last 800,000 years and we are way above anything that has happened in the entirety of our species’ existence (no more than 300,000 years – agriculture only 10,000 years…). The last time CO2 levels were this high was 3-4 million years ago when global temperatures were 2-3 C higher and seas were 15-25 meters higher (link). Note, even if we stabilize CO2 at today’s levels (~406 ppm), temperatures will keep rising, though more slowly, for hundreds of years.

    We have set in motion a very different planet that will take thousands of years to adjust. The change isn’t what is important so much as the speed with which it will occur. Every living thing on Earth is where it is because it is adapted to a given climate, now everything needs to move, adapt and evolve. We are somewhat insulated by our technology but all of human society and our infrastructure exists under the assumption that the future climate and surrounding ecosystems will be very similar to what we have now. National debts are nothing in comparison to the climate debt with which we are saddling future generations.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 10:54am

    #44

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1821

    Appreciate the steady tutorial on climate change

    The several-year-long tutorial and question and answer session that is the Climate Change Thread was very convincing to me.
    Also the personal contact with Mark Cochrane and his wife at Rowe, looking over his academic webpage and skimming his research articles convinced me that: 1) he was a real person 2) his motivations were, just as stated, concern for the planet and the world his grandchildren will inherit.
    Thank you, Mark, for investing the time in the PeakProsperity community.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 1:00pm

    #45
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Sainthood

    Mark, you have the patience of a saint.  I don’t believe any significant action will be taken to mitigate AGW until half the country is on fire and we have sustained temperatures across the entire country for a month well north of 110 degrees.  More likely, a collapsing economy and the subsequent reduction of energy use, will start to slow the course.
    Humanity is in their terrible two’s phase of existance, stamping our feet, demanding, throwing fits, because we can’t continue our narcissistic me centered existance.  How do I preserve my capital, my wealth, my lifestyle?!  The best of us, try at most, to do less damage to the natural systems that sustain us.  Who amoungst us is actually trying to give anything back, which sentiment by the way was actually the halmark of the tribal communities that gave birth to modern humanity because they actually had a relationship with the world around them. And who amoungst us even can, unless you’re a farmer or homesteader living mostly off the grid.  We are so disconnected from the world, that most of humanity is living in a hallucination, so rational conversations are the rare exception rather than the norm.
    And if you can’t give back directly, best if you hook you wagon to a person/entity who is providing for your basic needs who is or trying to anyway.  Earning a fat salary means nothing in regards to sustaining your self, it’s all about how is the food in your mouth, clothes on your back, roof over your head and the energy to keep it warm is created.  The pain will increase until we truly wake up, or as Jim says leave our reality optional exsitence.
    Yes, Chris this rant is your fault, you started this honesty thing. wink

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 3:48pm

    #46
    efarmer.ny

    efarmer.ny

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 07 2012

    Posts: 5

    The Grand Reversal?

    ahumeniuk

    you just don’t get it dude

    Yep, I guess I’ve been brainwashed by fake news.
    robie robinson

    “I would rather believe in AGW and be wrong than dismiss it and be wrong.”

    I’m making many of the same choices I would if I did believe in it. By the way, I’m glad you keep reminding us to get our mare settled. I went for oxen training about ten years ago but have not been able to organize my life in a way that lets me start training any. I do have a hay mower and dump rake ready in case that day comes, however.
    Uncletommy

    Where you getting your seed, efarmer.ny?

    I produce them myself. My section of the garden was plowed this year (we plow each section every 3 – 4 years), and I use a lawn mower on the grass around the edge, but the rest is a work of love with hand tools. I have a couple pounds of seed ready now and more drying. I recommend Grey Dwarf – it was very prolific for me.
    Mark Cochrane

    Please check out the wealth of materials in the The Definitive Global Climate Change

    I will take a look. But first I need to get through what I am finding through your link to the skeptical science site. That looks like a good site for me. You have probably linked to that site before but I wander in and out of the PP community and only quickly scan a lot of material.

    How many times would you calmly explain these things to people who are insinuating that you and everything you’ve done in your life is a fraud?

    You make a valid point. Going back and reading the paragraph in question it does sound just like you describe. What I was supposed to be saying was “the study that Mark cites,” because I actually am trying to educate myself better about this issue now. I was trying to question the study and not you personally. I’m glad you gave the link to the updated study and I’m sorry for writing that in a way that made me seem to malign your knowledge or integrity. I respect the time you have put into helping people like me on this site.
    sand_puppy

    The several-year-long tutorial and question and answer session that is the Climate Change Thread was very convincing to me.

    I hope the community can give me several years to delve into this properly.
    treebeard

    Mark, you have the patience of a saint.

    OK, here is the real test of Mark (or anyone else’s patience). Tell me, can I trust the Woods Hole people for accurate information about the Beaufort Gyre? That’s actually what I’ve been itching to wrap my head around.
    I think most of you would find that I’m actually on your side even though I have not yet been convinced of the truth of AGW. Let’s keep aiming to prosper as our world changes.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 6:05pm

    Reply to #41
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 316

    Mark

    Was that your work in the Times opinion piece today?If so,excellent….
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 6:27pm

    #47

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3082

    summary for busy executives

    Mark came to visit me a few years back.  (Well, he didn’t visit me specifically – he was just visiting the city in which I live, and so we hung out).  Knowing little about climate change, I asked him for the executive summary.
    He told me, “water levels are gonna rise.”
    Water levels?  I looked at the altitude of the city where I live, which is about 30km up-river from the ocean.  It averages 6m.  Hmm.  Perhaps buying property here was a bad idea.  They have little flood maps that show you what your area looks like after a water level rise of .  Its pretty interesting.  Apocalyptic, one might even say, for some places.
    We talked about many other things – his career in the USN was fascinating: he was on boomers for a number of years – the unexpectly fun fun part of that was a peek into the social aspects of being underwater for 6 months at a time, confined in a small tin box, at very close quarters with 100 other sailors.  It takes a special person to be able to deal with that situation – emotional-balance-wise.  His career after the Navy was also super interesting.  The executive summary of Mark’s life: he’s a very lucky man, with a unique career track.
    If I recall correctly, Mark told me that, if there is something that really bugs you, during a 6-month cruise, the other sailors will find it, and then pick at it incessantly.  Life is boring when underwater for 6 months, you see, and they need entertainment – and that entertainment turns out to be you.  Many sailors don’t do a second cruise as a result.
    It reminded me of the summary that Robert Sapolsky gave of the gorilla tribe he studied in Africa: “they spend about 2 hours gathering the food they need to survive.  That gives them another 14 hours that they spend being really rotten to one another.  I don’t like them very much.”
    Mark’s career track is quite different from the usual undergrad-grad-PhD-study-about-weather track that I suspect many others have taken.
    And maybe that’s why he’s really patient with all of us here at PP.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Aug 08, 2018 - 8:26pm

    Reply to #20
    S7

    S7

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 29 2009

    Posts: 6

    The science was not clear

    Hey Doug, the “science” was pretty clear in the 70’s when the “scientists” said we were entering into another ice age.
    Still waiting for that.
    The science was nowhere near clear back in the 50’s. Back in the 50’s, Fred Whipple and PHD scientists like him knew that comets were “icy, dirty snowballs” in space. Have you seen the data that has come back from satellites that have actually photographed comets, or landed on them? “NEWS FLASH” DRY, BLACK ROCK.
    What kind of research have you done into 9/11? What do you think Thermite was doing in the debris collected form the 50 plus blocks surrounding the remains of the towers? Probably can’t get that at Lowes or Home Depot. Have you seen the pictures of the towers main column support I-Beams that that were completely melted?  Ken Holden, then current commisioner of the  New York city Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 commission that “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from building 6”. Steel melts at around 2600 degrees farenheit, I’m pretty sure that a hyrocarbon fire cannot come close to those temperatures.
    Many people have areas of “Expertise”. You come across as someone that thinks themselves a scholar, looking down upon the lesser evolved mortals, so you thought to bring enlightenment to Peak Prosperity. You should probably learn how to do manual labor, produce your own food, learn a skill you can barter, because the god-like edifice of government and its’ programs is wobbling like a top as it is slows. Fortune favors the well prepared. Nobody knows when it will stop, but evidence doesn’t look good.
    The end of an age doesn’t mean the end of life, but I think rather the beginning of another. Let the old age die, and hope the ego-centric rulers of this ending age don’t destroy the planet so the truly enlightened generation can rebuild it. Re-elect no one.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Aug 09, 2018 - 5:13am

    Reply to #44

    Stabu

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Nov 07 2011

    Posts: 95

    More Appreciation for Mark

    sand_puppy wrote:

    The several-year-long tutorial and question and answer session that is the Climate Change Thread was very convincing to me.
    Also the personal contact with Mark Cochrane and his wife at Rowe, looking over his academic webpage and skimming his research articles convinced me that: 1) he was a real person 2) his motivations were, just as stated, concern for the planet and the world his grandchildren will inherit.
    Thank you, Mark, for investing the time in the PeakProsperity community.

    I wholeheartedly second this. Prior to finding Mark’s thread I was only convinced that climate change was real, but not that it was caused by humans or a problem that needed to be addressed. This was primarily because I had a hard time comprehending that puny creatures such as humans could make such a great impact on something as mighty as a planet, and because most climate science is government funded which made me suspect that climate scientist purposefully would exaggerate the results to keep the racket going. In the end it was the lengthy exchange between Mark and Stan (and I think both made good arguments from a layman’s perspective) that convinced me that Mark’s position was valid and my concerns over the objectivity of climate scientists was overblown. In fact, I became such a fan of Mark that I had to come to Row primarily in order to meet him, although it was of course nice to meet Chris and Adam too smiley.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Aug 09, 2018 - 10:26am

    #48
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 112

    Club of Rome

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/768244756615247/?multi_permalinks=159631

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Aug 09, 2018 - 10:34am

    Reply to #41

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Yes it was

    Edwardelinski,
    Yes, I coauthored the NY Times piece The Earth Ablaze that came out yesterday afternoon. Funny thing is we wrote it back in January and they sat on it until we ‘reminded’ them about it, setting off a flurry of updates and edits that consumed much of the last two days….
    Cheers,
    Mark
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Aug 09, 2018 - 10:51am

    #49

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Truly humbled

    All,
    Wow, thank you for all the accolades, I am well and truly humbled. This is one of the few places where people of ‘unlike’ minds can still meet and have mostly well-reasoned discussions and debates on numerous subjects. There was a time not so long ago when this was not unusual, but in an age of sensitivity and outrage, tolerance of and civility with people holding differing beliefs and opinions has increasingly become a rarity. I hope that we can contnue to preserve such a culture here. It has been stimulating to make so many virtual acquaintances, and many personal ones, with you over the years.
    Sincerely,
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Aug 09, 2018 - 11:04am

    #50
    Nate

    Nate

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 05 2009

    Posts: 316

    recent post at work

    We have a decent sized climate modeling effort at LLNL. This was just posted on the public side:
    https://www.llnl.gov/news/new-data-sets-enhance-global-climate-models
    There are extensive comments on the non-public side that don’t show up in the link above.  An indivudual I know (he read my copy of Creature from Jekyll Island) has challenged the authors on several fronts.  His posts are thoughtful and professional. Why would ‘they’ selecvtively remove some of his posts?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Aug 09, 2018 - 12:06pm

    Reply to #46

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    efarmer,
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is well respected and known for its research. When I was at MIT in the early 90s, I was down there a few times, once as part of a winter research cruise studying picoplankton in the Sargasso Sea, and again to defend my findings about PCB transport in New Bedford Harbor. Part of my eclectic past. I also worked a few years a stones throw away at the Woods Hole Research Center, but that’s another tale.
    I don’t personally know the people that you linked to but that’s not surprising. In evaluating something like this I look at the Principle Investigator and the published works supporting what they are saying. The PI Andrey Proshutinsky looks well experienced (he’s got an out of date CV here). More important for me is the associated publications list which is extensive (link). Peer-reviewed publications are the currency of science. So they are definitely authorities on the subject matter. This doesn’t mean that they are the only ones or that their assertions are not disputed. Science is a process, it is never ‘done’.
    They have a big idea:

    “The major hypothesis of the project is that the BG accumulates a significant amount of fresh water from different sources under anticyclonic (clockwise) wind forcing, and then releases this fresh water when this forcing weakens or changes direction to a cyclonic (counterclockwise) rotation. This accumulation and release mechanism could be responsible for the observed salinity anomalies in the North Atlantic and for a decadal scale variability of the Arctic system as the BG may both filter annual river inputs and pulse freshwater outflows.”

    This is the overarching premise for the research but from what I can see it has yet to be proven (or disproven). Given the long term funding from NSF though, they must doing something considered very important and productive.
    Hope this helps,
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Aug 09, 2018 - 5:52pm

    #51
    nigel

    nigel

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 15 2009

    Posts: 89

    I understand why Chris has avoided it.

    Climate change pisses me off. It’s not the people who argue for it, they strike me a noble, it’s the methods they use. I am somewhat sick of getting bombarded with people who argue using belief and faith, and then present fact after fact, and paper after paper saying it’s happening. A reasonable man knows that the credibility of science and scientists has fallen, and that people with money can hire or co-opt scientists at will. Want a paper to prove it, try this one: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 which suggests that up to 72% of scientists use questionable research methods, 14.12% falsify data and 1.97% fabricate data.
    Even if you do take the time to read the papers, and I’ve read AR5 and similar documents, the conclusions are lacking (or obtusely phrased) and the data generally out of date. A normal person just stops reading them, and starts ignoring what the believers are saying. I haven’t read anything about climate change for years now because I got weary of checking and fact checking.
    The thing is, I’m actually a believer. The reason I became believer was a simple argument, that since the mid 80’s the temperature for every month globally is hotter than average. We haven’t had a month below average for more than 30 years now. The odds on that are massive. It’s easy to check, once a month on the 30th I go visit my local weather page and look at the average for the month, each month it’s been 1.4 to 1.8 degrees celcius hotter than average. It’s been that way for the last four years of checking. This is good science, it’s a simple test, that a common man can do at no real cost.
    I wish the people arguing for climate change would realise that until now their methods have been a tragic failure. Noble, but futile. If the approach isn’t changed, nothing will change. You will never change minds if you can’t change your method.
    Also, if you do read all the papers, sooner or later you end up at guy mcphersons page, and that leads to lots of drinking, oh and the worlds oldest dog is a Vegan, he is more than double the normal age for his breed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Aug 10, 2018 - 4:33am

    #52
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Propaganda

    Has become too effective. The environment is in such a sorry state, global warming aside, a complete lifestyle change is required either passively – it’s going to happen to you, or actively. The rot at the top has ruined the passage of knowledge from one generation to another, worth a full essay at another time 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Aug 10, 2018 - 9:10am

    Reply to #33
    S7

    S7

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 29 2009

    Posts: 6

    Cite your sources?

    Travis, pulling a graph from a government operated website is less than convincing. Most scientists receive their paychecks from the government via directly or through grants and there is a vested interest, I would say also a bias, in confirming what will secure the funding, hence their paychecks without having to do any more than agree with and produce models or charts that measure something to support the current opinion of the year/decade. About a hundred years ago, doctors believed blood letting was the best method to eliminate disease. We were heading into an ice age in the 70’s if you believed the PHD scientists back then. “The proof was in the modeling and the results due to increasing _______”. What scientist that is employed by the government is going to stand up and say “Hey, fellow PHD’s, your modeling is wrong and results are incorrect”.
    Don’t think that I believe everything is good in on planet Earth, on the contrary, I think the issue that trumps “The Planet Is Getting Warmer, Oh No, What Do we Do”, is, the planet is being destroyed by pollution on a global scale and it is causing side effects. We live in an overly complex society that most people believe we must have, can’t do without the latest I-Pod can I. God forbid one would have to simplify their life and not drive their car every day, everywhere. Imagine spending an entire month training your berry vines, pruning your fruit trees, picking weeds from the garden, watering. Growth at all cost is a failed model, but it continues as the only “acceptable’ model by most of society. Stop paying your property tax and see what happens. Probably a greater depression is coming before the climate renders our planet unihabitable, I would plan that way rather than hope the local FEMA camp and the government is going to help you.

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments