How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:18 pm

Holy shit früh. Thanks for this on that Porter Ranch thread.

Image

1.42ºC deviation from pre-industrial average? Is there any corroboration outside of this blog?

fruhmenschen » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:51 pm wrote:http://robertscribbler.com/



A Terrifying Jump in Global Temperatures — December of 2015 at 1.4 C Above 1890

A monster El Nino firing off in the Pacific. A massive fossil fuel driven accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere pushing CO2 levels well above 400 parts per million. The contribution of other greenhouse gasses pushing the total global heat forcing into the range of 485 parts per million CO2e. Given this stark context, we knew the numbers were probably going to be bad. We just didn’t know how bad. And, looking at the initial measures coming in, we can definitely say that this is serious.

According to today’s report from Japan’s Meteorological Agency, global temperatures jumped by a ridiculous 0.36 degrees Celsius from the period of December 2014 — the previous hottest December in the global climate record — through December 2015 — the new hottest December by one heck of a long shot. To put such an amazing year-on-year monthly jump in global temperatures into context, the average decadal rate of global temperature increase has been in the range of 0.15 C every ten years for the past three and a half decades. It’s as if you lumped 20 years of human forced warming all into one 12 month differential.

December 2015 Global Temperature Record Hottest Month

(Japan’s Meteorological Agency shows a terrifyingly sharp jump in global temperatures for the month of December, 2015. Image Source: JMA.)

Taking a look at this amazing monthly jump in global temperatures in terms of longer timeframes, we find that December of 2015 came in at 1.05 C above the 20th Century Average and a terrifying (yes, no other word can describe) 1.42 C departure from average temperatures at the start of the record during 1890.

The world is now exploring monthly global temperature averages that are hitting very close to a dangerous 1.5 C above preindustrial levels. And though these numbers do not reflect yearly averages that will probably be much lower — in the range of 1 to 1.2 C above 1880 for 2015 and 2016 — we should be very clear that such high readings remain cause for serious concern. Concern for the potential that 2016 may also see continued new record hot annual temperatures on top of previous record hot years 2014 and and 2015. And concern that we may well be just one more strong El Nino away from breaking through or coming dangerously close to the 1.5 C annual average temperature threshold.

There is cause here for concern and there is certainly some cause for alarm. Alarm in the sense that the world really needs to be ever-more serious about reducing global fossil fuel emissions to near zero as rapidly as possible. Otherwise, we might well break 2 C — not before 2100, but before 2050.

Links:

Japan Meteorological Agency Global Temperature Analysis

(NASA and NOAA Analysis to soon foll
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby fruhmenschen » Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:26 pm

Coal and oil emissions have already postponed the next Ice Age by 50,000 years
Climate change: CO2 emissions 'will delay next ice age by 100,000 years'
New research finds humans are having a 'mind-boggling' impact on the Earth
The Independent (U.K.), Jan. 13, 2016

Mankind is pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that it could postpone the next ice age by more than 100,000 years, according to new research which finds humans are having a “mind-boggling” impact on the Earth.

The volume of CO2 emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere is so great that it has fundamentally changed the relationship between people and the planet as human behaviour radically alters the way the system operates, the research shows.
The study found that the next ice age would be pushed back by about 50,000 years even if emissions stopped overnight. And if the volume of greenhouse gases forecast to be produced in the coming decades comes to pass it could be postponed by more than 100,000 years.

The impact of greenhouse gases is so profound and long-lasting because they can linger in the atmosphere for centuries. During this time they upset the evolution of the ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere which build up gradually over a period of 90,000 years through a complex, highly uneven, feedback mechanism of cooling temperatures, increasing snowfall, rising levels of reflected sunlight and falling temperatures.

“It is mind-boggling that humankind is able to interfere with a mechanism that shaped the world as we know it,” said Dr Andrey Ganopolski, lead author of the study, by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“But our study shows that CO2-emissions from burning oil, coal and gas are already sufficient to postpone the next ice age for another 50,000 years,” Dr Ganopolski added.

And unless drastic action is taken to swiftly cut emissions the next ice age could be pushed back considerably further than that, according to Dr Ricarda Winkelmann, co-author of the research, published in the journal Nature.

“Due to the extremely long life-time of CO2 in the atmosphere, past and future emissions have a significant impact on timing of the next glacial inception,” she said.

“Our analysis shows that even small additional carbon emissions will most likely affect the evolution of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets over tens of thousands of years and moderate future CO-emissions are bound to postpone the next ice age by at least 100,000 years,” said Dr Winkelmann.

The paper defines moderate human emissions as being a cumulative amount of between 1000 billion and 1,500 billion tonnes.
Mankind has already emitted more than 500 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and many scientists fear fossil fuels are so entrenched in the energy system that emissions could eventually total well over 1,000 tonnes before their expected eradication at some point during the second half of this century, even after world leaders recently agreed a deal in Paris last month to step up action against climate change.

The research is the first to quantify the impact of manmade CO2 emissions on the timing of the next ice age and demonstrates just how much the relationship has changed between humanity and the planet, the authors said.

“Like no other force on the planet, ice ages have shaped the global environment and thereby determined the development of human civilisation,” said Dr Winkelmann.

“We owe our fertile soil to the last ice age that also carved out today’s landscapes, leaving glaciers and rivers behind, forming fjords, moraines and lakes. However, today it is humankind with its emissions from burning fossil fuels that determines the future development of the planet,” she added.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 10436.html
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:53 pm

Wonder what Watt has to say these days? I've not heard anything lately about the Maunder Minimum, anyone?
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:15 pm

^^I think he's moved on to "they're fiddling with the data" or some such nonsense. Still see him linked quite often by drive-by trolls and paid shills.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:09 pm

It is my understanding that climate change denial has fallen off a cliff in the very recent past — so even if he is still at it, his readership may be down.

This is one of the only large-scale arguments in the international court of public opinion that I've seen actually swayed.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:56 pm

2015 Was Hottest Year in Recorded History, NASA and NOAA Say

By JUSTIN GILLISJAN. 20, 2016

Image
The aftermath of a bushfire in Victoria, Australia, in 2015, which scientists reported was the hottest year in recorded history. Credit David Crosling/European Pressphoto Agency

Scientists reported Wednesday that 2015 was the hottest year in recorded history by far, breaking a record set only the year before — a burst of heat that has continued into the new year and is roiling weather patterns all over the world.

In the continental United States, the year was the second-warmest on record, punctuated by a December that was both the hottest and the wettest since record-keeping began. One result has been a wave of unusual winter floods coursing down the Mississippi River watershed.

Scientists started predicting a global temperature record months ago, in part because an El Niño weather pattern, one of the largest in a century, is dumping an immense amount of heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. But the bulk of the record-setting heat, they say, is a consequence of the long-term planetary warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The whole system is warming up, relentlessly,” said Gerald A. Meehl, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

It will take a few more years to know for certain, but the back-to-back records of 2014 and 2015 may have put the world back onto a trajectory of rapid global warming, after period of relatively slow warming dating to the last powerful El Niño, in 1998.

Politicians attempting to claim that greenhouse gases are not a problem seized on that slow period to argue that “global warming stopped in 1998” and similar statements, with these claims reappearing recently on the Republican presidential campaign trail.

Statistical analysis suggested all along that the claims were false, and the slowdown was, at most, a minor blip in an inexorable trend, perhaps caused by a temporary increase in the absorption of heat by the Pacific Ocean.

“Is there any evidence for a pause in the long-term global warming rate?” said Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s climate-science unit, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in Manhattan. “The answer is no. That was true before last year, but it’s much more obvious now.”


Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, calculated that if the global climate were not warming, the odds of setting two back-to-back record years would be remote, about one chance in every 1,500 pairs of years.

Given the reality that the planet is warming, the odds become far higher, about one chance in 10, by Dr. Mann’s calculations.

Two American government agencies, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, compile separate analyses of the global temperature, based upon thousands of weather stations and ocean buoys scattered around the world.

They released their results on Wednesday morning, showing 2015 as the warmest year in a global record that began in 1880. Preliminary data from the Japan Meteorological Agency also show record warmth for 2015, and a British monitoring program is expected to report a similar result in coming weeks.

NOAA previously reported that 2015 was the second-warmest year for the continental United States, after 2012.

The intense warmth of 2015 contributed to a heat wave in India last spring that turns out to have been the second-worst in that country’s history, killing an estimated 2,500 people.

The strong El Niño has continued into 2016, raising the possibility that this year, too, will set a global temperature record. The El Niño pattern is also disturbing the circulation of the atmosphere, contributing to worldwide weather extremes that include a drought in southern Africa, threatening the food supply of millions.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby NeonLX » Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:50 pm

Oh, whatEVER . Didn'tcha y'all read in the article above that the next ice age is gonna be postponed by like 60 gazillion years?

Buncha whiners.
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 brainpanhandler » Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:54 pm

Just a brief interlude before the pause resumes.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:09 am

Did everyone see this study released yesterday by the NOAA in Nature Climate Change? They predict that we could cut the greenhouse gas emissions from production of electricity by as much as 78% in the next 15 years.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2921.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/54 ... 0-percent/
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:55 am

Sea level rise from ocean warming underestimated, scientists say
Thermal expansion of the oceans as they warm is likely to be twice as large as previously thought, according to German researchers


The amount of sea level rise that comes from the oceans warming and expanding has been underestimated, and could be about twice as much as previously calculated, German researchers have said.

The findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal, suggest that increasingly severe storm surges could be anticipated as a result.

Sea level can mount due to two factors – melting ice and the thermal expansion of water as it warms.

Until now, researchers have believed the oceans rose between 0.7 to 1mm per year due to thermal expansion.

But a fresh look at the latest satellite data from 2002 to 2014 shows the seas are expanding about 1.4mm a year, said the study.

“To date, we have underestimated how much the heat-related expansion of the water mass in the oceans contributes to a global rise in sea level,” said co-author Jurgen Kusche, a professor at the University of Bonn.

The overall sea level rise rate is about 2.74mm per year, combining both thermal expansion and melting ice.

Sea level rise was also found to vary substantially from place to place, with the rate around the Philippines “five times the global rate.”

Meanwhile, sea level on the US west coast is largely stable because there is hardly any ocean warming in that area, said the findings.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:28 pm

Luther Blissett » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:09 pm wrote:It is my understanding that climate change denial has fallen off a cliff in the very recent past —


One guy who has really been publishing a lot of climate denial lately is James Corbett. Since there are so many other issues on which I agree with him, I recently published a blog entry where I respectfully disagree with his conclusions and try to point out the problems with his position. Here's a snip from the entry of which part of deals with Corbett:

Climate Denialism, Climate Fatalism and Porter Ranch: Confronting the Inevitability of the Carbon Crisis

It is certainly historically correct, as Corbett points out to buttress his argument, that the Rockefeller family has ties to eugenics and has advocated population reduction. What I pointed out in a post on the Rockefellers last year is that where the Rockefellers have been responsible for a mass population reduction, i.e. genocide, in practice, it was through "development", i.e. deforestation, of the Amazon rainforest where death tolls ranged from 40,000 to 100,000 during the 1960s - environmental degradation that is currently losing the ability to regulate the climate. Which kind of undercuts Corbett's argument that the Rockefellers are perpetrating a fraud by propagandizing against the dangers of climate change: the scientific research proves the Rockefellers in reality have perpetrated actual climate change. Again, I must cite the excellent book by Charlotte Dennett and Gerard Colby, Thy Will Be Done, which documents not only the genocide I mentioned, but the Rockefeller ties to eugenics that Corbett mentioned.

Ultimately, on the subject of science, I know Corbett's counter to the evidence I've cited is that there are scientists that question the anthropogenic impact on global warming that he has interviewed on his show. The reality is that there will never be a 100% consensus on any scientific theory: even Darwin's theory of evolution is controversial enough that over 500 scientists doubt it as recently as 2006. It would be illogical for me to argue that every academic study that questions the link between human activities and global warming is funded by oil corporations and the Koch brothers, even though it's been proven that many of them are. Likewise, while Corbett may have a point castigating the CRU for their attempts in 2009 to censor dissenters, it would be illogical for him to argue that every academic study that validates the link between human activities and global warming is the product of a UN plot. But here's the implicit argument: if the UN and their fellow conspirators are really perpetrating a hoax, then you must reject the science behind the theory that radiatively active gases in the earth's atmosphere create a greenhouse effect. Only by rejecting this scientific theory can you then dismiss the massive planetary deforestation and burning of fossil fuels and essentially say, "Well, that doesn't matter."

So why do I disapprove of this conspiracy theory so vociferously? Primarily because there is so much evidence global warming is happening right now and not just in predictive models for the future by IPCC-approved studies. The claim that global warming paused is old and fallacious: according to NASA, global temperature rose 1 degree Celsius past pre-industrial times during the first six months of 2015. By the end of the year, both NASA and NOAA said 2015 was the hottest year in recorded history. As far as the "rise of the oceans" mocked by reactionary politicians, their rapid warming is breaking scientific charts with carbon rates similar to emissions that drove a mass extinction event 252 million years ago; we've already seen sea levels north of New York rise by 128 mm. But what's happening now that really scares me is the news that global warming is slowing down the Gulf Stream over the North Atlantic Ocean. More about that later.

There are other parts of this theory that don't sit well with me. I've noticed that a lot of people who buy into the UN hoax theory simultaneously promote the idea that the elites control the weather (though I'm not sure if Corbett promotes this or not) either through HAARP, chemtrails or other weather modification technology. To me, buying into both seems like a way to have your cake and eat it too. It's a built-in escape clause in case global warming becomes literally impossible to deny: the elites did it! Now I don't deny there is truth to the charge that weather modification technology does exist and has been used. But there's a logical conundrum in the elite control scenario. If the elites created global warming to cull the the world population, how exactly would they institute totalitarian control when the climate is wreaking global havoc?! Michael Ruppert explained in 2009, "As human industrial civilization collapses everything will be governed by a force as powerful and unyielding as gravity. That is geography. Things do not break up. They break down. They get smaller. Problems in Essen or the Rhineland will be different from problems in East Prussia or Bavaria."

Since global collapse necessitates re-localization, the good news is that we won't have to worry being controlled by the United Nations, NATO or the Federal Reserve, they will either become ineffectual figureheads or will cease to exist entirely. But the federal government may suffer the same fate as well. What is the best way to create a new society? Unless you change the way money works, you change nothing. While some may fear technocracy as a UN tool of enslavement, I think it has excellent potential for success in a post-industrial, re-localized society, which is how I advocate implementation. But I also think it's important to remember that in such a future, there will be no one-size-fits-all solution. Local currencies should reflect the output of that particular region, though hopefully if this is an ad hoc arrangement in the wake of the Carbon Crisis, the economy will be rooted in sustainability as opposed to growth. Hopefully, if we learn the right lessons, we can build a new society that values sustainability and vilifies greed.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:40 pm

Luther Blissett » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:55 am wrote:
Sea level rise from ocean warming underestimated, scientists say
Thermal expansion of the oceans as they warm is likely to be twice as large as previously thought, according to German researchers


The amount of sea level rise that comes from the oceans warming and expanding has been underestimated, and could be about twice as much as previously calculated, German researchers have said.

The findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal, suggest that increasingly severe storm surges could be anticipated as a result.

Sea level can mount due to two factors – melting ice and the thermal expansion of water as it warms.

Until now, researchers have believed the oceans rose between 0.7 to 1mm per year due to thermal expansion.

But a fresh look at the latest satellite data from 2002 to 2014 shows the seas are expanding about 1.4mm a year, said the study.

“To date, we have underestimated how much the heat-related expansion of the water mass in the oceans contributes to a global rise in sea level,” said co-author Jurgen Kusche, a professor at the University of Bonn.

The overall sea level rise rate is about 2.74mm per year, combining both thermal expansion and melting ice.

Sea level rise was also found to vary substantially from place to place, with the rate around the Philippines “five times the global rate.”

Meanwhile, sea level on the US west coast is largely stable because there is hardly any ocean warming in that area, said the findings.


Here's another article about the report that has some worrisome details not mentioned in the article above:

Ocean warming underestimated

To date, research on the effects of climate change has underestimated the contribution of seawater expansion to sea level rise due to warming of the oceans. A team of researchers at the University of Bonn has now investigated, using satellite data, that this effect was almost twice as large over the past twelve years than previously assumed. That may result in, for example, significantly increased risks of storm surges. The scientists are presenting their findings in the renowned scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In principle, water in the oceans acts like a mercury thermometer: when the temperature goes up, the liquid expands and climbs up the little tube. Since the world's oceans are similarly locked in between the continents, their levels also rise when they heat up due to rising temperatures. "In the deeper parts of the ocean, even a small amount of warming is enough to create a significant rise in sea level," says Dr.-Ing. Roelof Rietbroek from the Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation at the University of Bonn. An increase of several millimeters a year, he says, is not rare in deep-sea zones.

"To date, we have underestimated how much the heat-related expansion of the water mass in the oceans contributes to a global rise in sea level," says Dr. Jurgen Kusche, Professor of Astronomical, Physical and Mathematical Geodesy at the University of Bonn. Together with researchers at the Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) in Potsdam and the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, the geodesists used gravity field data from the GRACE satellites and sea-level measurements from the altimeters on Jason-1 and Jason-2 to calculate how much sea levels had risen, both due to warming-related expansion of the water and due to the increase of ocean mass from 2002 to 2014.

Effect is twice as large as the melting ice masses in Greenland

Until now, it was assumed that sea levels rose an average of 0.7 to 1.0 millimeters a year due to this "thermometer effect." According to the new calculations, however, the ocean's expansion contributed with about 1.4 millimeters a year—in other words, almost twice as much as previously assumed. "This height difference corresponds to roughly twice the volume from the melting ice sheets in Greenland," says Dr. Rietbroek.

In addition, the sea-level rise varies strongly due to volume expansion in various ocean regions along with other effects. According to the research team's calculations, the Philippines hold the record with about 15 millimeters a year, while the levels are largely stable on the West Coast of the United States—because there is hardly any ocean warming in that region.

Risk of storm surges could increase significantly

The main areas threatened by rising sea levels are coastal settlements, where regional changes can play a greater role than the global increase. "No country will raise its levees because of a couple of millimeters," says Dr. Rietbroek. "But these small amounts add up to several centimeters within decades. Under such conditions, the likelihood of a destructive storm surge could increase dramatically." From the perspective of the research team, it is thus worth keeping an eye on the expansion-related sea-level rise in the world's oceans in light of climate change. Little measurement data is available, they say, to show how much the oceans are warming up and expanding at depths of thousands of meters in conjunction with rising global air temperatures.

"Up to now, the physical expansion processes in the deep sea have been considered only to a limited extent," says the geodesy researcher from the University of Bonn. However, he says, they play a key role in estimating the climate effects. Therefore it would be highly interesting to observe future heat-related expansion of the world's oceans, using new satellite missions, and to reinterpret measurement data from the past. A longer observation period will help show what proportion of the rise in sea level is due to human activity, and what proportion is due to natural causes. Dr. Rietbroek: "In addition, the estimated trend in sea level is much less affected by natural fluctuations compared to the observed trend in global temperatures, so it is a more reliable indicator of climate change."

Source: University of Bonn [January 25, 2016]

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2016/01/ocean-warming-underestimated.html#.VrAEQVnQNFc
Last edited by Iamwhomiam on Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:46 am

to DeltaDawn

Mirrors on the ceiling,
The pink champagne on ice
And she said "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device"
And in the master's chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-WmXLb00Xc
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:47 pm

I should probably post this here, too. (I know, no cross posting, but the other thread I posted this in was pretty unreleated to this. Maybe. It's hard to say. Anyway ..... this video is quietly terrifying)

"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:01 pm

Mother Earth May Have Good Reason to Slaughter Us
by Jack Balkwill / February 4th, 2016

Decades ago James Lovelock constructed a principle called the Gaia hypothesis, contending that a biosphere teeming with life works together with inorganic matter to self-regulate conditions for maintaining a livable planet.

The oxygen levels in our air are maintained, and the salinity of the seas – everything that’s needed to keep conditions within the zones which nurture life on the planet. This is a theory embraced by many deep environmentalists because it offers hope for the future of life forms on the planet.

When one creature (such as man) gets to be so out of control that it threatens the other life forms, Gaia, or Mother Earth, pushes back toward a healthy balance, according to some theorists (the Gaia principle has many variations).

In the ancient Greek religion, before Zeus was king of the gods in the classical period, or Zeus’ father Cronus was king of the gods, or Cronus’ father Uranus was king of the gods, there was Gaia, the earth mother, who created the heavens, the various gods, and man. Gaia regulated the growing of crops, healed the sick, and was the earth itself to her followers.

Many of the most ancient religions around the world had as their chief deity a female, and my guess is because they reasoned that since it is the female who gives birth, a creator must be female.

The universe within us

Each of us humans is a microcosm of the Gaia principle. Within us, we have about a hundred trillion unique creatures which do not share our DNA. Cells containing our DNA only number about ten trillion, so they are vastly outnumbered. The microbes within us are in many forms — bacteria, fungi, archaea and viruses.

When our microbes are out of balance, it can be life-threatening, so a major function of our immune system is to regulate them, to keep one species from over reproducing, just as, in the Gaia theory, life forms are regulated within the massive biosphere.

If, for example, Candida reproduces to a high level, our immune system will try to destroy enough of it to get back to a balance. Candida at normal levels may actually be beneficial, and is thought to attack some harmful invaders. At extreme levels of overgrowth Candida may become deadly to us.

Most of the life forms within us are friendly, and we would die without them. They have a great many functions, working together to keep us alive. In the end, if we die, they no longer have a home.

And most of the life forms outside of us are also beneficial, aiding Mother Nature in maintaining a delicate balance.

Symbioses

Oak trees have dropped their heavy acorns for millions of years, right beside their trunks. In such a place, the acorn has little chance of growing with no sunlight under the canopy of mother tree. But squirrels are happy to carry the acorns away from the tree to bury them in case they are needed for food during an extreme winter. The squirrels don’t eat all of what they bury most years, giving the oak an opportunity to spread its genetic material.

In return the oak provides a home for the squirrel, which builds nests in oak trees and eats the acorns. There are interactions between species all over the planet with which we are not yet familiar, but it is clear that species depend on one another for survival, just as the microbes within us are maintained in a balance that sustains life.

A flower may provide pollen to the bee, and in return the bee pollinates other flowers, benefiting both species.

But sometimes man gets in the way

Who would think a massive animal like a moose would rely on the lowly beaver for its well being? When beaver hats were a popular fad, beaver were killed off in such large numbers that moose began to starve. One of the favorite foods of moose is the shoots growing in wetlands, and without beavers to dam streams creating wetlands, moose began to go hungry and started feeding on tree bark, killing trees.

Of course, it was inadvertent that a fad of humans started killing off moose. But we’ve done such things throughout our history and have more control over nature than we realize.

When sperm whales were slaughtered to near extinction, giant squid began to rise up to the surface in the oceans, no longer having to fear their primary enemy, the sperm whales that fed upon them. Giant squid previously stayed in deep parts of the ocean to avoid sperm whales. We have no idea what happens in the long term when a creature like the giant squid, with a ravenous appetite, begins feeding in a part of the biosphere from which it was banned for millions of years, but certainly it must upset the food chain.

It is thought that some animals, such as mammoths, became extinct at the hand of man. Such creatures disappeared in North America about the time it was populated by humans.

Whether directly or indirectly, we are responsible for the extinction of a great many species.

Intelligence, whatever that is

Many people seem to think that humans are somehow superior creatures. We have a formula for determining intelligence which predicts that a species is intelligent when its brain is large enough to take care of all of the functions of its body, with something left over. That something left over is intelligence. So it’s largely brain size in proportion to body size that suggests degrees of intelligence.

There is an old belief that elephants have a pea brain, but it is not true. An elephant has a large brain, but needs most of it for maintaining its massive bodily functions, so what’s left over may not be great intelligence, but the elephant is certainly an intelligent animal.

The cetaceans, the large toothed whales, all have brains larger than human brains. Some scientists have speculated that they may be more intelligent than humans.

When people say, “But cetaceans haven’t invented nuclear weapons,” they are showing, perhaps, a flaw in the human being, not a comparative virtue.

Those who support the theory that cetaceans are more intelligent theorize that they may understand that being more in harmony with nature is the intelligent thing to do for long term survival, rather than making automobiles which pollute the planet and the many other destructive things humans do.

At any rate the other creatures appear to help maintain the balance of life within the biosphere, interrelating in complex ways, while humans have reproduced out of control, crowding out other life forms, taking more than our share of resources, and polluting the planet.

So another way to look at the Gaia theory is to describe it as a kind of immune system for the biosphere. When it has an organism that is overpopulating and causing other organisms to die, that organism must be regulated, just as for a Candida overgrowth or cancer within a human.

The traditional way that Mother Nature has regulated the human population is with disease. It worked well up to the twentieth century, when humans began to poison their drinking water with chlorine or other agents to kill off water-borne diseases, which had previously wiped out the populations of entire cities.

Will humans be brought under control by Mother Nature?

In the 1970’s there was a movement to reduce the human population, quite popular with many. I donated to that cause, and was surprised to see it vanish. I suspected that it was killed by the capitalists, who have a vision that the population must continue to grow for there to be more consumers, hence, more profit. Capitalists insist that “growth” continue without considering finite limits consistent with the size of the planet.

So how will Gaia maintain the delicate balance with the human organism out of control? She might introduce a new disease for which we have no antidote. It was the first thing I thought of when the AIDS epidemic began decades ago. A perfect killer, to destroy the immune function, allowing almost anything to then kill the host. But mankind seems to now have that disease under control.

Or Mother Nature might allow us to commit suicide by climate change from our nasty habit of spewing carbon emissions, and other anti-environmental things we are doing in destroying our little blue planet. We are releasing massive toxins into the environment in the form of dioxins from paper and plastic making, radiation from nuclear power plants and bomb making, insecticides, herbicides, and other dangerous chemicals.

A recent report by The World Economic Forum and Ellen MacArthur Foundation stated that at the current rate, the weight of plastic in the oceans will exceed the weight of the fish. When I heard this a few weeks ago I posted on Facebook, “The epitaph for human beings will read ‘they thought they were an intelligent species.'”

As an old man I take heart that young people seem to be far more aware of the degradation of the planet’s environment, giving me hope that they will find a solution and assist Mother Gaia in her quest for purification and renewal.

The alternative is to leave her no choice but to see us as a cancer that must be eliminated for the good of the whole.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 52 guests