How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Searcher08 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:03 pm

Sounder » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:36 pm wrote:What a given thing is, is a function of what it does.


As Stafford Beer said "The Purpose of a system is WHAT IT DOES"
Sounder » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:36 pm wrote:AGW, like war on whatever ties people into allegiance to the dominant narrative.

Absolutely. This is a matter of cognitive psychology, of how the brain structures perception as metaphors and individual metaphors being entrained by the larger social ones
Sounder » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:36 pm wrote:That narrative naturally promotes the need for large scale institutions to 'solve' our problems.

Which they will absolutely fail to do, because they do not possess requisite variety to deal with the complexity of "wicked" problems
Sounder » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:36 pm wrote:That and the mechanical philosophy (because that perfects the othering process and turns us into objects)

Reductionism underpins the cult of Scientism. Reductionism is the worst possible way to deal with complex interconnected systems.
Sounder » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:36 pm wrote:Cancer, drugs, green revolutions, AGW or whatever become incidental patsies in a war, used to corruptly monetize the better natures of the naive masses. :tongout

The massive corruption recently unearthed in carbon trading schemes aligns perfectly with this.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tapitsbo » Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:35 pm

Environmentalists may not be winning, but what do you guys think of the announcement by India and other countries about renewable energy, etc.

I think it is fair to separate how AGW is sometimes used to sell (typically programs that don't go far enough in terms of technological change) from the more substantial data that does support disturbing levels of climate change
Last edited by tapitsbo on Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:41 pm

Sounder » 07 Mar 2016 11:39 wrote:
Sounder » 07 Mar 2016 03:36 wrote:AGW, like war on whatever ties people into allegiance to the dominant narrative.

That narrative naturally promotes the need for large scale institutions to 'solve' our problems.




So do the seasons.

Winter???


pffft. Doesn't exist. Its just a construct to tie people to the dominant narrative,



It's always amusing when folk cannot deal with words as written, yet feel so confident about creating alternate 'dialogue'.


Social conformity signaling is drowning out rationality here. Do we have a 'war' going on against winter?

And I did not say that those things do not exist as 'problems', I simply indicated my opinion that the 'problems' become incidental patsies in a war, used to corruptly monetize the better natures of the naive masses. :tongout

Deal with it or distract from it, I don't much care.


I simply indicated my opinion that the 'problems' become incidental patsies in a war, used to corruptly monetize the better natures of the naive masses.


So whats a better response then? How do you think people should respond to global warming?

Also if you don't think "the seasons" - winter, spring, summer and "fall" are the biggest social conformity structure outside clocks and maps and language, possibly are more powerful than clocks or maps then you really don't know anything about what social conformity is.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby fruhmenschen » Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:46 am

visit


co2.earth
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5977
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby KUAN » Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:59 am

.
Scientists say there's a great big iceberg forming on the equator


"C'est la vie", say the old folks,
it goes to show you never can tell

KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:59 am

tapitsbo » Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:35 pm wrote:Environmentalists may not be winning, but what do you guys think of the announcement by India and other countries about renewable energy, etc.

I think it is fair to separate how AGW is sometimes used to sell (typically programs that don't go far enough in terms of technological change) from the more substantial data that does support disturbing levels of climate change


I'll believe it when I see it (and see its effects). And sure as hell hope that any significant part of it doesn't go into biofuels, waste incinerators, etc.

Every nation needs to dismantle any industrial fossil-fuel extraction and combustion immediately.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:35 pm

Luther wrote…
Every nation needs to dismantle any industrial fossil-fuel extraction and combustion immediately.

Luther, did you catch the following from the super-science breakthrough thread? My concern is that the ‘need’ you speak of is an ‘end’ that disrespects process, (which is where life is really lived).

Imagine the unnecessary suffering that would be caused by ‘dismantling any industrial fossil-fuel extraction and combustion immediately’, then please reconsider.



viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36992&start=165

CO2 is an amazing symbiotic element of this world. What other element gets breathed out by humans and breathed in by plants?

Perhaps this sort of thing can allay the fears that so many seem to have toward CO2.

http://www.gizmag.com/co2-water-hydroca ... uta/41976/

Liquid hydrocarbon fuel created from CO2 and water in breakthrough one-step process
• Colin Jeffrey
• February 23, 2016


UTA researchers (L to R), Mohammad Fakrul Islam, Frederick MacDonnell, Wilaiwan Chanmanee and Brian Dennis, whose research is a first in producing usable liquid hydrocarbon fuel from sunlight, water and CO2 (Credit: UTA)

As scientists look for ways to help remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a number of experiments have focused on employing this gas to create usable fuels. Both hydrogen and methanol have resulted from such experiments, but the processes often involve a range of intricate steps and a variety of methods. Now researchers have demonstrated a one-step conversion of carbon dioxide and water directly into a simple and inexpensive liquid hydrocarbon fuel using a combination of high-intensity light, concentrated heat, and high pressure.

According to the researchers from the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), this breakthrough sustainable fuels technology uses carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with the added benefit of also producing oxygen as a byproduct, which should create a clear positive environmental impact.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:38 am

A CO2 hoover would be ideal but we need to work on developing this asap. I observe amongst neoliberals this strange faith in a technological messiah that not only induces inaction, but makes them virulently attack environmentalists who are trying to clean up. My main project right now is focused on the skyrocketing childhood asthma and leukemia rates in a poor city where a wealthy city's trash is incinerated, caused by a number of toxins. The issue isn't just CO2, it's pollution and planetary and biological destruction. The need is urgent.

There are about 300,000-400,000 extra premature deaths from climate change per year, to go up to about 600,000 in the coming years. The Holocene extinction rate is, conservatively, about 140,000 species per year. A full-scale global dismantling is, or course, impossible, but the hope is that the use of the word "immediate" leads to a peaceful denuding of polluting industry.

The mercury doesn’t lie: We’ve hit a troubling climate change milestone

By Bill McKibben MARCH 05, 2016
Thursday, while the nation debated the relative size of Republican genitalia, something truly awful happened. Across the northern hemisphere, the temperature, if only for a few hours, apparently crossed a line: it was more than two degrees Celsius above “normal” for the first time in recorded history and likely for the first time in the course of human civilization.

That’s important because the governments of the world have set two degrees Celsius as the must-not-cross red line that, theoretically, we’re doing all we can to avoid. And it’s important because most of the hemisphere has not really had a winter. They’ve been trucking snow into Anchorage for the start of the Iditarod; Arctic sea ice is at record low levels for the date; in New England doctors are already talking about the start of “allergy season.”

This bizarre glimpse of the future is only temporary. It will be years, one hopes, before we’re past the two degrees mark on a regular basis. But the future is clearly coming much faster than science had expected. February, taken as a whole, crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … January. January crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … December.

In part this reflects the ongoing El Nino phenomenon — these sporadic events always push up the planet’s temperature. But since that El Nino heat is layered on top of the ever-increasing global warming, the spikes keep getting higher. This time around the overturning waters of the Pacific are releasing huge quantities of heat stored there during the last couple of decades of global warming.

And as that heat pours out into the atmosphere, the consequences are overwhelming. In the South Pacific, for instance, the highest wind speeds ever measured came last month when Tropical Cyclone Winston crashed into Fiji. Entire villages were flattened. In financial terms, the storm wiped out ten percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, roughly equivalent to fifteen simultaneous Hurricane Katrina’s.

This was followed by a few months of the highest wind speeds ever recorded in our hemisphere, when Patricia crashed into the Pacific coast of Mexico. And it joins all the other lines of misery: the zika virus spreading on the wings of mosquitoes up and down the Americas; the refugees streaming out of Syria where, as studies now make clear, the deepest drought ever measured helped throw the nation into chaos.

The messages are clear. First, global warming is not a future threat — it’s the present reality, a menace not to our grandchildren but to our present civilizations. In a rational world, this is what every presidential debate would focus on. Forget the mythical flood of immigrants — concentrate on the actual flooding.

Second, since we’re in a hole it’s time to stop digging — literally. We’ve simply got to keep coal and oil and gas in the ground; there’s not any other way to make the math of climate change even begin to work. There is legislation pending in the House and Senate that would end new fossil fuel extraction on America’s public lands. Senator Sanders has backed the law unequivocally; Secretary Clinton seemed to endorse it, and then last week seemed to waffle. Donald Trump has concentrated on the length of his fingers.

No one’s waiting for presidential candidates to actually lead, of course. In May campaigners around the world will converge on the world’s biggest carbon deposits: the coal mines of Australia, the tarsands of Canada, the gasfields of Russia. And they will engage in peaceful civil disobedience, an effort to simply say: no. The only safe place for this carbon is deep beneath the soil, where it’s been for eons.

This is, in one sense, stupid. It’s ridiculous that at this late date, as the temperature climbs so perilously, we still have to take such steps. Why do Bostonians have to be arrested to stop the Spectra pipeline? Anyone with a thermometer can see that we desperately need to be building solar and windpower instead.


In a much deeper sense, however, the resistance is valiant, even beautiful. Think of those protesters as the planet’s antibodies, its immune system finally kicking in. Our one earth is running a fever the likes of which no human has ever seen. The time to fight it is right now.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby NeonLX » Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:17 pm

The 10-12" of torrential rainfall happening in Texas and Louisiana right now might bring a few converts into the fold...
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:52 pm

The question is still open as to who are the real environmentalists.

We have serious threats relating to glyphosates, GMO's and widespread nuclear contamination, (big money makers) and here we are talking about the weather.

Luther, please don't confuse me with neoliberals, as I am a low footprint sort of person.

I do find it odd that so many folk seem to think that we live in a static universe.

Before cars, the streets of London were filled with shit. It was a serious situation, it passed.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:22 pm

Sounder » Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:52 am wrote:The question is still open as to who are the real environmentalists.

We have serious threats relating to glyphosates, GMO's and widespread nuclear contamination, (big money makers) and here we are talking about the weather.

..snip..


We're not talking about the weather, we're talking about the climate, which is not the same thing.

Do Glyphosates have the potential to wipe us all out? Do GMOs? Nuclear contamination (not counting all out nuclear war)? They all pale in comparison to the worst case scenarios for global warming.
Not to mention that global warming is a driver for the use of nuclear power, GMOs and stuff like glyphosate.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby divideandconquer » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:49 pm

The climate is a very dynamic, open system and is subject to a extraordinary number of influences--many of which are not entirely understood-- so it seems very convenient, reductionist, and alarmist to blame "climate change" on human generated greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, not to mention, human emissions of CO2 are very small (something like 3%) compared with natural sources.

And what about the global warming periods that occurred prior to humanity's significant production of CO2? Like the warm period during medieval times? Didn't the warming trend that began after the Little Ice Age start before the increased human emissions? And what brought us out of the last glacial period (Ice Age)?

From the Telegraph:

The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “’Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:10 pm

divideandconquer » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:49 am wrote:The climate is a very dynamic, open system and is subject to a extraordinary number of influences--many of which are not entirely understood-- so it seems very convenient, reductionist, and alarmist to blame "climate change" on human generated greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, not to mention, human emissions of CO2 are very small (something like 3%) compared with natural sources.

And what about the global warming periods that occurred prior to humanity's significant production of CO2? Like the warm period during medieval times? Didn't the warming trend that began after the Little Ice Age start before the increased human emissions? And what brought us out of the last glacial period (Ice Age)?

From the Telegraph:

The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “’Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”


The point isn't that the climate changes, it's that it has never (as far as we know) changed so fast, and that's driven by humans. All the other natural factors have been accounted for and they only make up a small part of the total change.

And that Telegraph story: They were wrong in the sense that their predictions were 0.13C rise every decade, while in reality it was "only" 0.12C.
Yay - we got a few more years to do nothing, thanks in part to misinformed people like you.
The story is also 2.5 years old. The so-called pause never happened.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4145
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby zangtang » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:39 am

come and wake me up when you are willing to acknowledge the worst case scenario.
if its going to take that long, there's no guarantee that i'll still be here - not that that could save you.
you're either swat or you're not.

it could be we all get to find what sacrifice actually tastes like.
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:51 am

It could be that we all get to make a difference, on many levels
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 166 guests