A cyber-penny for your thoughts … and links.
Climate Progress
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Get ThinkProgress email alerts
About Climate Progress
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.
Joe Romm's New Book
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Joe Romm has pulled together the secrets of the greatest communicators in history to show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting.
Subscribe to Climate Progress by Email
Powered by NewsWhip
Got a Hot Tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Climate Progress Archives
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
Having studied material science and having looked at phase diagrams for different materials, I’ve been looking for something like a phase diagram for natural carbon sinks. Climate impact predictions tend to look at gradual shifts in temperature and what those changes might do to sea level or global annual precipitation.
Do we assume climate change will be gradual because climate change has been gradual in our planet’s history? Human behavior and our impact on the environment is genuinely unprecedented in the history of our planet. To that end, when a carbon sink becomes saturated, I would expect climate change to be at a pace faster than pre-saturation change. So, the question I’m trying to answer has to do with natural carbon sink’s saturation points.
I’d apreciate it if you could point me to some literature that illuminates the topic. Thanks,
I was surprised when my 12 y.o. boy told me the other day how much he loves polar bears…how he likes all bears but the polar bear “makes the most amazing moves” (he demonstrates)..and then tells me how sad he feels that they are going to be extinct. Turns out he wasn’t just watching “Equals three” and other Youtube nonsense; he was also watching polar bears. I had my first feeling of being punched in the gut…the first of many more to come. I talk about climate change but have said little about mass extinction….I was hoping he was too caught up in games and school to notice. I felt derailed emotionally when he was talking, in such a cute, vulnerable way..broke my heart.
Repower America has a post entitled The Good, the Bad, and the
InhofeIrrational.http://repoweramerica.org/blog/congress-the-good-the-bad-and-the-irrational/
You know what is really, really scary? The Senate is the Good.
eatwelleatcheap.blogspot.com has a
tasty looking recipe for a bean sprout
salad.
Bean sprouts are easy to grow at home-
Not much time, space, or equipment
needed and of course no dirt or soil.
FutureTimeline.net includes a detailed future timeline of global warming and environmental changes, from now until 2100 and beyond:
futuretimeline.net
It also includes technological trends and other predictions. Check it out!
[JR: Too slow to load!]
Are LED lights good for hydroponics?
Global warming is like a flood, and not just metaphorically. If a flood were coming, we wouldn’t worry about tightening our belts. We would unleash every resource at our disposal to avoid destruction to our home (planet). All the old metaphors like tightening our belts and balancing our family budgets just don’t apply to existential threats.
I don’t expect Obama to win given that he is confronted by crazy people who will take America hostage to get its way. But I expect him to get his metaphors right,not buy into the frame that cutting the budget is good, and show up for the battle against global warming in this time of continuing crisis. And, besides, if he really wants to tighten our belts, start by getting us out of three wars and focusing on what is really important for the nation and the planet.
Drudge is featuring this Accuweather report about global temps in March. His headline is “March coolest globally in more than 15 years . . .”: http://goo.gl/vmltK
Be ready to watch and listen if you click the link – this is the sort of collateral damage society accepts (and hides) so that the privileged few can gobble energy and profit.
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/04/chernobyl-legacy-by-paul-fusco.html
I missed the thread: Where would be the best place to live in 2035? 2060?
my answers would be
with BAU & methane releases
2035 – New Zealand upland east facing valley (organic farm)
2060 – Nowhere
but, contenders for 2060
(after the great NW US quake)
BC islands (eastern slopes)
(Until sea rise covers the fertile fields & only if NA drift doesn’t shut down)
Åland
(if the high winds will ease for the expansion of Hadley cell)
Southern Chile islands & valleys (if good enough for subsistence culture)
(If the typhoons keep south enough)
Hokkaido
As you see, I’m guessing the islands in remoter cool areas will stay somewhat spared of refugees. Less so since I’ve stated this. I’m thinking of dying before 2060, but it’s not yet certain.
According to Jared Diamond
The third stop on the road map of failure is the most frequent and the most surprising… it turns out that societies often fail even to attempt to solve a problem once it has been perceived. Many of the reasons for such failure fall under the heading of what economists term “rational behavior”, arising from clashes of interest between people. That is, some people may reason correctly that they can advance their own interests by behavior harmful to other people. The perpetrators feel safe because they are typically concentrated and highly motivated by the prospect of reaping big, certain and immediate profits while the losses are spread over large numbers of individuals. That gives the losers little motivation to go to the hassle of fighting back, because each loser loses only a little. Examples include so-called perverse subsidies: the large sums of money that governments pay to support industries that might be uneconomic without the subsidies, such as many fisheries, sugar-growing in the US and cotton-growing in Australia.
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Collapse.html
Best Bald Eagle Nest webcam on the net:
http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles
What struck me the most is how much smarter than humans these guys are.
Even without climate change, we would be in big trouble.
http://www.dailyimpact.net/2011/04/07/world-us-food-supplies-faltering-prices-rising/
But, of course, we do have climate change.
futuretimeline.net
Interesting, but too optimistic I fear.
I think the confluence of peak oil, climate chaos and the resulting economic chaos will hamper technological breakthroughs… perhaps the very ones we need for survival.
Raul #6…
There’s a piece on Greentech Media about how much electricity is used growing herb. There is a discussion on LEDs for indoor growing there and the answer seems to be that they aren’t ready for prime time.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pot-article
1) I had a good look at http://www.futuretimeline.net It gives a timeline for future events and it’s is very detailed. It makes an interesting read, but perhaps a bit too optimistic, I think. Technology saves the day, century and humanity. I think there are some intractable problems and this scenario requires more co-operation than I think we as a race are capable. I’ll share this with my students and it will make for an interesting discussion.
2) Peak oil. I read this blog a few days ago. I had heard someone on the radio talk about how peak oil doesn’t exist because the market will take care of any price and supply issues. But the price of oil is already artifically too low, isn’t it? Big oil corporations get subsidies and tax breaks. And these companies are not part of the clean up and environmental costs. Is the true cost of gasoline about three to four times the price? Imagine paying $12-20 per gallon. Perhaps then the market would take care of supply and demand problems.
“… and links”
Climate change targets developing world’s cities
Many fastest-growing cities, especially those in the developing world, stand to suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change, a new study reported on Thursday. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/us-climate-cities-idUSTRE7367DH20110407
Environmental groups slam Stephen Harper’s platform over climate change and tar sands http://www.straight.com/article-385989/vancouver/environmental-groups-slam-stephen-harpers-platform-over-climate-change-and-tar-sands
Size responds – and accountability!
Taking On Climate Skepticism as a Field of Study
Q: The debate over climate science has involved very complex physical models and rarefied areas of scientific knowledge. What role do you think social scientists have to play, given the complexity of the actual physical science?
A: We have to think about the process by which something, an idea, develops scientific consensus and a second process by which is developed a social and political consensus. The first part is the domain of data and models and physical science. The second is very much a social and political process. And that brings to the fore a whole host of value-based, worldview-based, cognitive and cultural dimensions that need to be addressed.
Social scientists, beyond economists, have a lot to say on cognition, perceptions, values, social movements and political processes that are very important for understanding whether the public accepts the conclusions of a scientific body.
So when I hear scientists say, “The data speak for themselves,” I cringe. Data never speak. And data generally and most often are politically and socially inflected.
They have import for people’s lives. To ignore that is to ignore the social and cultural dimensions within which this science is taking place. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/taking-on-climate-skepticism-as-a-field-of-study/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Our Children…
Climate Change Can Make Things Worse on Malarial Front
Discussing the possibility of malaria spread in Ireland, Dr. Elizabeth Cullen has raised serious concerns regarding the disease taking hold in the nation as the climate change and other conditions were acting in the favor of a spread.
In addition, she said, “All that is necessary is a return of regularly recurring hotter summers over a definite period of years, and the malaria–carrying Anopheles will inevitably re-establish themselves and infect a certain proportion of the community, in the course of time”.
The health officials are paying a major heed to the situation as it is the most deadly vector borne disease, causing more than one million deaths in 2008 around the globe. http://topnews.us/content/238277-climate-change-can-make-things-worse-malarial-front
Fossils can predict climate change
Scientists have revealed that fossilized mollusks from some 3.5 million years ago hold clues that can predict global climate change of the future. UCLA geoscientists and colleagues have been able to construct an ancient climate record from fossils about the long-term effects of Earth’s current level
s of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Two novel geochemical techniques used to determine the temperature at which the mollusk shells were formed suggest that summertime Arctic temperatures during the early Pliocene epoch (3.5 million to 4 million years ago) may have been a staggering 18 to 28 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today.
And these ancient fossils, harvested from deep within the Arctic Circle, may have once lived in an environment in which the polar ice cap melted completely during the summer months. http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fossils-can-predict-climate-change/Article1-683050.aspx
Climate Shift / Extinction Event (Anthro Magnitude)
Richard Alley, Penn State professor to host PBS special on climate change April 10
http://live.psu.edu/story/52670
Senate blocks House climate change rules maneuver
U.S. House Republican attempts to reverse Environmental Protection Agency rules on climate change were rebuffed during budget negotiations with Senate Democrats, according to reports. http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/senate-blocks-house-climate-change-rules-maneuver/5561/
The Rebels Fight Back
Climate beliefs change with the weather
US researchers have found people’s climate beliefs blow hot and cold depending upon the weather of the day. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/08/3186411.htm?section=justin
Great that we have Scientist who help us overcome our lackings! Bad that we have greed and sociopaths who Lie about Science, for short term financial gains.
Trouble brewing for coffee farmers as climate change diminishes crops
Shifting weather patterns have affected sensitive coffee trees in Costa Rica, diminishing yields http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2011/04/09/trouble-brewing-for-coffee-farmers-as-climate-change-diminishes-crops.html?sid=101
So who likes coffee beans?
The same people (including BIG Business and the Koch Brothers) who are trying to crush environmental programs and regulations are also trying to cut education, social programs, etc., plus crush unions and other usually liberal causes.
Someone needs to unite the political arms of all liberal groups. At least call for and form a BIG UMBRELLA COORDINATING COMMITTEE. There are far too many environmental and other liberal organizations to have much impact individually with their splintered efforts, multiple bureaucracies, individual and underfunded messages, competitiveness and many other inefficiencies.
Liberals need to take lessons from the handlers of the Tea Party (and in previous political cycles, the Evangelicals). They did a lot of research to find the most exploitable people and attitudes of the time.
We need to unite with labor, political, and even “good corporations” to make a change. There is far more strength in unity.
From Xinhua news agency
China Bans All Japanese Produce
Mounting concerns over produce contaminated by Japan’s ongoing nuclear crisis have prompted a Chinese ban on all produce from the island nation. http://www.newslook.com/videos/303253-china-bans-all-japanese-produce?autoplay=true
“Fukushima”: why the accident was a disaster
Former deputy head of the Chernobyl NPP Alexander Kovalenko talks about his vision of the situation on the “Fukushima”, and that is exactly led to the development of the situation in extremely negative scenario http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.interfax.ru/txt.asp%3Fsec%3D1483%26id%3D184394
I am really disappointed by Climate Central’s apparent shift to “Adaptation.” Human beings MAY be able to adapt using new technology, but will we really discover/invent heat-loving domestic plants and animals? Will we work to help all of the other 100,000,000 species (give or take) to adapt? We need to stop thinking that we will invent our way into a heat-driven environment and start thinking of ways to totally eliminate carbon-based fuel use. We need to stop believing, as some do, that God will fix it all, and start to understand that we have been given the skills to overcome our own folly. If we fail, earth will eventually adapt, after, I expect, it rids itself of the human pest.
Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf at EU Geosciences conference: global sea level rise likely between 0.75 and 1.90 metre by 2100: http://bbc.in/EGUSLR
Pendleton, Oregon Cowboy Town, Promotes Solar Energy With No-Interest Loans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/pendleton-oregon-solar-energy_n_847061.html
CNN) — Dead baby bottlenose dolphins are continuing to wash up in record numbers on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and scientists do not know why.
Since February 2010 to April 2011, 406 dolphins were found either stranded or reported dead offshore.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/dolphin.death.mystery/index.html?hpt=C2
Cars, whole houses and even severed feet in shoes: The vast field of debris from Japan earthquake and tsunami that’s floating towards U.S. West Coast
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374520/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-debris-floating-US-West-Coast.html#ixzz1J3h1xoCB
Bob Wallace #15,
wikipedia has a nice article about
Hydroponics showing it to be an
easy way to grow food indoors.
At one site I looked at, the limitation
Of LED lights was that the lights didn’t
penetrate well into dense bunches of leaves.
Bib lettuce though would probably
do well.
I am casting for opinions here. What do people think of those who go around wailing that we are all doomed and there is nothign we can do. I have been arguing with people claiming there is a current methane release underway in the Arctic and climate change will be killing us off in the next few years. They have been hurling abuse at me as a denier and so forth, I am not saying there is not the possibility of future releases of methane but all this “we are doomed” defeatism really gets my goat.
350.org has chosen the date of its next big event and it is 9/24/11. Put it on your calendars now, and don’t schedule anything for that day. If your daughter’s wedding is planned for that day, tell her to change it. It’s an excellent plan, one that our government and media cannot ignore, and will need all of you to add your effort to it.
#34 dorlomin
You must be new to this site or you wouldn’t have missed this post:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/
You can argue and have opinions all you want, but in the end, all that counts is what the science says.
Less than 2 months ago, MN State Rep. Mike Beard said God believes in coal mining… and that the earth will regenerate… that even Hiroshima and Nagasaki are “tremendously effective and livable cities”
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/blogs/minnesota-representative-says-god-believes-in-coal-mining
Any idea of his take on the Japan disaster? Is that just another temporary inconvenience to mankind?
With elected geniuses such as this, any wonder we are in the mess we’re in?
dorlomin (#34) – What does your goat think? Seriously, though, this is an excellent question.
I’ve been in the doomsaying business myself for a number of years, and I’m faced with this equation all the time. Recently I was one of the primary proponents of those exploring to what degree the shifting of weight from places like Greenland ice to the oceans could be triggering an increase in volcanism and earthquakes. I was very careful to state that the exact correlation is unknown at present, and that at best it would be like throwing additional lighted matches that could occasionally light the fuses of the powderkegs of tectonic forces a little earlier than they might otherwise be lit.
So what I do in such instances is go to the best scientists I can on this subject, in this case to a number of USGS scientists, geology department chairs past and present, and especially one of the scientists who counted earthquakes most carefully and did not see them increasing.
I came away feeling that this will become a concern as Greenland melts and sea levels rise, but a relatively small concern next to the rise of sea level itself and especially all the various things (altering of precipitations patterns, drought, floods, topsoil and freshwater loss, peak oil, gas and phosphorous, loss of pollinators, sea level rise into river deltas and other prime farmland, etc) impacting global food production.
I’m also far more concerned by the methane release you mention – really at the top of the list of positive feedbacks – all the other positive feedbacks, an estimated 40% loss of phytoplankton since 1950, ocean acidification, and ozone – or the cumulative soup of all pollutants – destroying all plant life globally at an ever-accelerating scale.
The only thing going for us in each of these areas is the inertia of large systems that temporarily delays the onset of the worst impacts, but each of these will probably following the hockey stick graph of population, consumption, resource depletion, CO2 and temperature rise (the latter having lags of at least 30 years built into the system).
So my conclusion is that while you’re correct that methane releases probably won’t kill many and certainly not most of us within years, it might be a key component of that killing within some number of decades and it appears likely within some small number of centuries.
So while you’re right about the immediate details, the doomsayers might be right about the big picture see over the rest of this century, and the next, and next, and next, etc.
Dorlomin @34
Consider being a skydiver whose parachute fails to open. Then the backup one fails. You have two choices: give up and enjoy the view for your last two minutes, or fight like hell to open the shutes until impact.
Sometimes you can’t persuade people who have already chosen the first path. But maybe you can explain why you choose the second.
Re Dr Jeanette @ #2 – At the UN CBD site – an amazing polar bear story:
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/09/press-conference-by-the-convention-on-biological-diversity-cbd-2.html
(around the 7 minute time stamp with Eric Chivian of Harvard Medical School at the on-demand video of the Convention on Biological Diversity Press Conference (9/22/10)
I had the good fortune to hear Dr Thomas Lovejoy this weekend in the Great Smokies (DLIA/ATBI) and am amazed at his contributions to the knowledge & protection base of the planet.
Will you and your son be involved in the IMatterMarch on Mother’s Day (5/8/11) this year?
http://imattermarch.org/
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/39e0373e8312922b#
I found this post on the google groups geoengineering. @ dormolin
But yes I agree we won’t all die in the next few years. Without intervention and change in societal direction i’d say two or three decades, or whenever world temperatures exceed 5-6 degrees C. Obviously no one can predict with certainty.
“The end of the World as we know it
http://stephenleahy.net/2010/09/23/arctic-ice-in-death-spiral-risks-c...
I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It not going to recover, said *Mark Serreze*, director of the *National Snow and Ice Data Center* in Boulder, Colorado. I hate to say it but I think we are committed to a four- to six-degree warmer Arctic.
http://nsidc.org/research/bios/serreze.html
“There can be no recovery because tremendous amounts of extra heat are added every summer to the region as more than 2.5 million square
kilometres of the Arctic Ocean have been opened up to the heat of the
24-hour summer sun. A warmer Arctic Ocean not only takes much longer to re-freeze, it emits huge volumes of additional heat energy into the atmosphere, disrupting the weather patterns of the northern hemisphere.”
The exceptional cold and snowy winter of 2009-2010 in*Europe, eastern
Asia and eastern North America* is connected to unique physical
processes in the Arctic, *James Overland* of the NOAA Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory. Paradoxically, a warmer Arctic means future cold and snowy winters will be the rule rather than the exception¿½/* in these regions.
http://www.imr.no/essas/science_steering_comittee/essas_ssc/james_e._...
If the Arctic becomes six degrees warmer, then half of the worlds
permafrost will likely thaw, probably to a depth of a few metres,
releasing most of the carbon and methane accumulated there over
thousands of years “, said *Vladimir Romanovsky* of the University of
Alaska in Fairbanks and a world expert on permafrost.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/snowice/Permafrost-lab/
*That would be catastrophic for human civilisation…*
The permafrost region… contains at least*twice as much carbon as is
currently present in the atmosphere* 1,672 gigatonnes of carbon,
according a paper published in Nature in 2009. Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project at CSIRO, *Dr Pep Canadell*
http://www.csiro.au/resources/GlobalCarbonProjectFigures.html
26 Sep 2008: Conclusions
Anthropogenic CO_2 emissions have been growing about four times
faster since 2000 than during the previous decade, and despite
efforts to curb emissions in a number of countries which are
signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions from the combustion of
fossil fuel and land use change reached the mark of 10 billion tones of carbon in 2007. Natural CO_2 sinks are growing, but more slowly than atmospheric CO_2 , which has been growing at 2 ppm per year since 2000. This is 33 per cent faster than during the previous 20 years. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger climate forcing and sooner than expected.
Thats *three times* more carbon than all of the worlds forests contain.
There are /*no good estimates of how much CO2 and methane is being
released */by the thawing permafrost or by the undersea permafrost that acts as a cap over *unknown quantities of methane hydrates*.
(Estimates are that) If just one percent [1%] of the Arctic undersea
methane reaches the atmosphere, it could *quadruple the amount of
methane currently in the atmosphere*.
Abrupt releases of large amounts of CO2 and methane are certainly
possible on a scale of /*decades*/.
… The present relatively slow thaw of the permafrost could rapidly
accelerate in a few decades, releasing huge amounts of global warming gases. Present pledges by governments to reduce emissions will still result in a global average temperature increase of *3.5 to 3.9 C *by 2100… That would result in an Arctic that is *10 to 16 degrees C warmer*, releasing most of the permafrost carbon and methane and unknown quantities_ of methane hydrates*.
Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist”"
Dorlomin #34 asks what we think about those who say it’s too late to stop runaway climate change.
I think to make the observation that it’s likely too late to stop runaway climate change is perfectly rational. Even if we zeroed out fossil fuel emissions today, the CO2 concentration by 2050 will be 310-370 ppm, assuming the ocean carbon sink maintains its 25-40% absorption rate of excess CO2 and that no other feedbacks develop. JR has advocated stablization at a politically feasible 450 ppm while Bill McKibben advocates 350 ppm. Given how much climate change has already progressed, I don’t think stabilization is possible above 300 ppm.
The question we should be asking is, what is a rational response the the understanding that we are at such an advanced stage of climate change? I like to compare our situation to a cancer patient who has just been told that metastasis has likely occurred, but is not confirmed. One possible response is to engage in a bout of debauchery, accelerating the decline in health, but “enjoying” the last days of life. Another possible reaction is to pursue aggressive treatment, in the hope that this, along with a healthy lifestyle, will proling the remaining life as long as possible, and possibly put the cancer in remission.
Prokaryotes, I cannot find again your comment from earliest April that bridged a philosophy from the infinity of the universe back to daily goodness. It included your blog link. It led into an evening discussion on the state of the world with a guest who is both a progressive role-model & a nihilist. He quoted you appreciatively as he left: “My dog will be glad to see me.” Could you provide a link or a cue to find your comment again? Thank you …
dorlomin,
I may be one of those who get your goat. There are things we can do, as there have been for 20 years. And some are doing great things, and I admire them and pray for their success. But we not doing them fast enough, at a large enough scale. Even those efforts meet with passionate resistance.
I don’t think we’re doomed. But we’re choosing to play climate roulette with four bullets in the chambers. The risk of an abrupt climate change is very high, and it’s more imminent than we think. When the Arctic ice cap disappears (and it is disappearing rapidly), it will trigger a recursive feedback loop of further heating and further GHG release, which seems very likely to alter seasonal highs and lows and the jet stream. If it does, agriculture will fail globally. Nobody is working to avoid that, and few could be persuaded to, because the cultural, sociological, and economic changes would be quite radical–specifically, to reduce carbon output by 80% not by 2050 (that will be far too late) but immediately. Like stop driving four out of five days a week. Stop running factories four out of five days. Reduce nonrenewable generation by 80%. Tomorrow.
The shift in the conversation to adaptation saddens me. We can no more adapt to an abrupt climate change than we can to a freeway accident. The only way we can confront the challenge is to go on war footing, with all the communal sacrifice and like-mindedness that implies. Eighty percent of us have to believe we need to cut out 80% of carbon immediately in order to make that happen.
There are few problems associated with climate change and global warming that wouldn’t be ameliorated by a halfing, across all demographics, of the human population. With only 3 billion human mouths to feed, the need to burn fossil might also be halfed and that would give us some breathing room to ramp up carbon neutral technologies and strengthen the environment where it needs some help. (Everywhere)
Here’s the ScienceFiction part: a common cold virus is spiced to some other virus that permanently causes erectile dysfunction. Many men can no longer father children, although, as now, they can adopt suitable offspring. Their only warning was a common cold.
Actually there might be dozens of labs that could do this gene splice if a viral or bacterial cause for erectile dysfunction is discovered.
See, Dorlomin, it’s not all doom and gloom!
Wonhyo, another possible reaction is to define the most urgent problem and address it.
Climate change and ocean acidification are quite sufficient, in time, to destroy a habitable climate and our source of food and oxygen. But other than localized catastrophic extreme storms, floods and droughts, those threats are in the future, speaking globally.
A more urgent threat is simply from air pollution. Ozone is killing people right now, causing cancer, emphysema, asthma, diabetes, brain damage, and autism…all epidemics.
Even worse ozone is killing vegetation, the base of the food chain. We have to drastically reduce burning fuel for energy, conserve, and switch to clean sources of energy. It’s either that or famine.
Just check out this research:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bx-nOXUwrJtMMzc0M2U5NmQtNjMyMy00Yjg5LWEwOTEtMDEwZDZhMDc2Yzg2&hl=en&authkey=CKCgooQP
Dolormin #34, I can understand why a pessimistic approach would upset you. It certainly pisses me off a great deal. But at the moment, on this planet, pessimism about humanity’s future is stone cold realism. We know exactly what is happening, in stark detail. The ecological life-support systems of the planet, almost without exception, are collapsing. Resource depletion, as predicted by the Club of Rome, has arrived. Global food production is faltering. Genetic pollution through GE organisms is proving, as predicted, to be an unfolding horror. The late capitalist system has produced a global system of unequaled unfairness, inequality and cruelty, and is collapsing under the twin burdens of elite hyper-greed and burgeoning debt. And the rise of China and the non-Western powers has ushered in a new age of neo-imperialism as one country after another, starting with the strategically important region of the hydrocarbon rich Middle and Near East, are subverted, invaded, sanctioned or blockaded.
Yet, if you relied on the MSM for your information, none of this would be at all evident. Not only has the MSM almost entirely dropped the subject, save for a false equivalence between science and bullshit, and, in the Murdoch pathocracy, total service to denialism, but discussion of the food crisis, other ecological disasters and resource depletion is almost entirely absent. What we get is a relentless torrent of inanity, imbecility, and poor taste, in service to the celebrity culture that is intended to anaesthetise our minds. We stand on the brink of destruction, yet 90% of our MSM content is brainless diversion, moronic ‘sleb’ culture and various ideological campaigns and ‘moral panics’ that suit the Right’s agenda. When ecological collapse is addressed, it overwhelmingly consists of some expert concern, and a huge amount of Rightwing denialism of every type, both from the MSM’s own ‘in-house’ disinformationists and a never-ending swill of sullage from Rightwing ‘groupthink-tanks’. In this atmosphere, which worsens by the day, pessimism seems to me eminently reasonable.
+1 to #25 Frank Zaska’s point. Here is a point on why we appear to keep losing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/why-progressives-keep-on_b_847054.html For some reason, that writer didn’t mention fight against climate change.
I am dreading the Debt Ceiling limit fight – no surprise that the Republicans are wanting more concessions before agreeing to raise the debt limit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/federal-budget-deal-government-shutdown_n_846614.html#260_next-up-debt-fight-looms
It’s kind of like terrorists are saying that “we will destroy the economy unless you agree to let us destroy your planet”. We really need to fight back now and NOT at the last minute!
Matador , Texas today was 99F degrees with wind gusts to 50mph. HR 7%-
DALLAS — A massive range fire spread Saturday to between 70,000 and 80,000 acres in West Texas, and firefighters were bracing for the possibility the situation could worsen because of dry, windy conditions.
The enormous fire scorching largely rural Stonewall, King and Knox counties had become the largest in the nation, officials said Saturday. It has been burning since Wednesday, when it was sparked by pipe cutting.
“We have reports of fires literally coming in by the minute, and tomorrow will be worse,” said Mark Stanford, fire operations chief for the Texas Forest Service.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7514877.html
Dorlomin #34 uses the same word ‘defeatism’ that I used a couple of weeks ago. It implies a pernicious attitude towards the situation we are in as it means that those who hold this attitude are not going to fight to save our planet.
It is perfectly possible to believe we are doomed and still fight. It is possible we can prevent the very worst of it, even though we may not save the vast majority of, or all, humanity. Life in general is worth saving.
i would like to hear from Dorlomin whether it’s the quite reasonable expectation of massive disasters or the attitude of ‘defeatism’ that he is objecting to, ME
Dolormin,@ 34: You might want to avail yourself to Paul Gilding’s book, The Great Disruption. You can skip the first 100 or so pages as it will just depress you more but the second 2/3 should improve your out-look. Paul is a long time activist and has pondered the same questions many of us have pondered as well. He has run in high circles and you will be comforted to know what other thinkers surmise. The future is not yet written in stone, it is still in the hands of man. If most of us on CP did not feel that as well I doubt that any would be here or that CP would even exist.
@34, dolormin:
I find the weepers and wailers an astonishingly tedious bunch; when I encounter them I feel energized to take the lot of them out behind the woodshed and explain the basic principles of critical thinking.
First and foremost, it is not possible to KNOW we are doomed. Even if it is true, we’ve go know way of knowing this. The only way to ensure that this bit of whimpering becomes true, is if we make it true by doing nothing.
Anyway, suppose it simply is true with some kind of necessity that — lacking any basis in either logical or physical reality — is nevertheless absolutely binding upon us. How do you want your existence to be defined?
Whimpering about how unfair the world is?
Of defining yourself as a human being by those things for which you will fight, for as long as you are able to fight?
Personally, I’ve no respect for the puling quitters of the world. But that is just me.
If any of you saw the front page of today’s Washington Post and were as outaged as I was, you might want to send them a note, as I just did. They had a good story with the headline: “Earlier blooms give flower lovers a chill.” Unfortunately, it carried the subhead “Yearly shifts rooted in global warming, some believe.” What was the purpose of adding “some believe?” The story quoted no one who believes otherwise. They could have just said: “scientists say” or “experts say” if you wanted attirbution. Looks to me like they are just being weak-kneed for fear of criticism from the right. This type of journalism propogates confusion about what scientists think.
#14 – Future timeline
Here’s what I found there… increasing technology coupled with increasing disasters… Don’t think it could really go on like that.
“2056 – Global average temperatures have risen by 3°C | Fully synthetic humans are becoming technically feasible”
By 2056, we’ll need those synthetic humans ’cause things might get tough for the real ones.
For background reference on Dorlomin’s question, it is regarding Shakhova’s recent presentation that 3.5 GtC per year is being released as methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. This has led some individuals to conclude that the release will be greater with each subsequent year until we all cook.
I have heard that catastrophic methane release could cause up to 30 Wm-2, while equatorial SRM is only capable of 4 Wm-2, and Arctic SRM 2 Wm-2. Sorry, no reference.
http://symposium.serdp-estcp.org/Technical-Sessions/1A
Page 34 of Shakhova’s PDF.
BobG, #52, that inane, moronic, ‘some believe’ was the hack doing what Rightwing hacks in the MSM always do. Protect their future employability by signalling their ideological correctness. The Rightwing media will still be reciting ‘some believe’ when daffodils bloom at Christmas.
dormolin (#34) – Every single comment here addressing your concerns is extremely helpful.
I feel the state of all people on Anthro-Earth right now is like the state of everyone on the Titanic just after it had hit the iceberg. Probably less than 1 per cent at that time imagined that the Titanic could sink, but as the reports came in those included the ship’s architect, captain and other most senior crew.
Similarly the more expert one is like Hansen, Trenberth, McKibben and Romm, the more one might think that our ship might be sinking.
Those commenting the most here are also among that 1 per cent, in fact after talking to hundreds and hundreds of scientists and academics of all kinds about climate change, I feel the most frequent commenters here get the big picture as well or better than all but a small percentage of all scientists (atmospheric scientists are in a special class, but the best generalists here often get the big picture as well or better than many of them as well).
So I feel less than 1 per cent understand how serious what we’re facing is, both in any nation like the U.S. and the world.
Now your friends fall into an even smaller sub-category who might be prone to defeatism, which as Merrelyn and several others point out is rarely helpful (if it’s an element of grieving or part of the five psychological stages leading to acceptance, then that’s something else). They might be like the hysterical, panicking ones on the Titanic.
But what would be helpful on the Titanic would be to do your part – either telling the captain to give these orders or giving them as suggestions yourself – that there is no time for panic, and that there is always something useful that can be done.
So you’d get everyone you could to put on every layer of wool clothing they had on board, beginning ideally with multiple layers of wool underwear that would act a bit like a wetsuit and keep them far warmer far longer than cotton, which should never be worn in any situation where hypothermia is a danger since it stays wet and wet next to the skin longest. A wool hat or toque on the heat would be especially helpful, even if it was your nightcap (an alcoholic nightcap would be less helpful).
Then you’d make sure everyone was treated equally, including those in steerage, that all children and women were put into lifeboats, filling them, that even their lifejackets were passed by rope back up to those on deck who couldn’t fit into lifeboats if there weren’t enough, and all this while the coal stokers kept stoking (heroically and in the face of certain doom) so that the radio SOS would go out to as many ships as possible.
At the same time every deck chair, dining room chair, sofa, furniture and whatever else floated should have been thrown overboard with ropes connecting it all, then all the bedclothes and blankets and other clothes thrown on top of it to create a kind of floating island.
This would be imperfect but many would still survive on this, even after the suction of the sinking ship momentarily pulled some it far underwater. Combine this with the wool clothing, every lifejacket and life ring being used with instructions to keep your head and torso out of the water as much as possible, and hundreds more could’ve been saved.
There would’ve been no time to waste, and every one denying what was happening or completely defeatist would’ve contributed to bringing others to a watery grave with them.
It’s the same with what we face in regard to climate change and all the other existential threats I listed myself at #38 and also listed by our dear friends Gail (Wit’s End) at #46 and Mulga at #47.
We need to grow that 1 per cent all the time by educating everyone we can in every way we can, and by doing it without the defeatism you mention, but appropriate versions of the most accurate doom and gloom need to be part of toolbox or that 1 per cent will be less likely to grow to what is needed.
As Ray X says at #44 we need to go on a war footing about this as much as we possibly can (thus my too-numerous mentions of WWII). How could we possibly inspire this change without giving the most realistic communication we can about what is happening and might happen?
No precedent and no metaphor including this one really do what we’re facing justice in scale, scope or accuracy. My using the Titanic as one metaphor is flawed because we need to mitigate as much as we possibly can rather than just adapt, which will be more of a given anyway (that’s one talent humans have, even if in this case it might mean adapting too little too late).
Of course in the Titanic’s case mitigating would mean avoiding the iceberg, but I’m afraid we’re farther along than avoiding the iceberg altogether, in fact if Hansen is as right as I think he is we might be on our way to creating an ice-free world, in which case there’s nothing to fear from an iceberg and I’m sorry I brought all of this up.
The NZ government seem to want it both ways!
Not sure how they can manage to achieve this.
“A draft of the Government’s energy strategy has been mistakenly published online ahead of its approval by Cabinet.
The document reveals the Government wants to expand New Zealand’s oil and coal sectors while reaffirming its commitment to a target of 90 per cent renewable energy production by 2025.
It said New Zealand should become a “highly attractive global destination” for oil exploration, with expansion of the oil and coal sectors leading to a “step change” in the country’s economic growth.
”
The latter expansion of oil exploration has already commenced with Petrobas turning up to survey, and a variety of protestor groups are there to:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10716909
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4869820/Greenpeace-protesters-hamper-search-for-East-Cape-oil
On considering geoengineering options -
“Tweaking the climate to save it: Who decides?”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10717764
Video: Riveting footage from inside the Desolate Fukushima nuclear reactor evacuation zone
http://dcbureau.org/201104081318/Bulldog-Blog/video-news-inside-report-from-fukushima-nuclear-reactor-evacuation-zone.html
something from Greenlivingpedia
http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Carbon_dioxide_ppm_levels_and_targets#Notable_CO2_levels
Scas at 55/. –
“regarding Shakhova’s recent presentation that 3.5 GtC per year is being released as methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.”
I was unable to find more than the abstract of Natalie Shakhova’s paper on the link you posted and thus was unable to read page 35 as you recommend – am I missing something ? In hopes that you may be mistaken that her paper reports a 3.5GTC release as methane, I include the following quote from the abstract, which reports just ~8 million tonnes of CH4 output/yr, which is in line with her earlier reports.
“A total annual venting flux of methane to the ESAS atmosphere was estimated at ~8 Tg C- CH4, . . .”
I find the 3.5GTC CH4 /yr figure incredible in that its CO2e warming potential /yr over 20 years would be about thirty times that of all current anthro C emissions, and we do not have such warming reported. Thus I’d ask whether the anomaly may be an error of tense, i.e. that 3.5GCT CH4/yr is a potential future output from the ESAS – which seems perfectly credible.
Perhaps you could clarify the position ?
Regards,
Lewis
To Richard Brenne at #57, thanks as always for that very complete reply to Dormolin (#34). You said everything that I would have said, so I really don’t have much of anything else to add. But, I would point out that each one of us knows with full certainty that death is in our future, though no one knows exactly when and how. Even those with so-called terminal illness can’t pin point the exact sequence of events that will unfold, and neither can any of the experts (doctors) who make the diagnosis. The same is true with our climate and general environmental problems; we know the general direction the sequence of events will take us, but we don’t know the details and really won’t until they actually occur. However, just as terminally ill people can usually make the time they have left rewarding rather than a big waste, we as a species still can make our time here constructive and rewarding rather than not.
As Joe points out over and over again, we still have the means to make any coming disasters less worse than they would be if we stayed on our current track. We also still have it within our means to make our lives and those around us more rewarding, whether or not we become active climate hawks. Understanding human nature and human history always keeps one with a sober assessment of what is possible or even likely, including scenarios of doom. But that doesn’t mean one has to sit in a corner waiting for the ax to fall. It is well within the realm of possibility that Earth could be hit with an undetected asteroid or comet in the near future (even tomorrow?!?) and that would certainly lead to a doomsday outcome for all of us if the impact were great enough. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t live our lives in the most fulfilling way possible in the mean time.
The present climate and general environmental crises are certainly of our own making, but there is still a possible small sliver of hope left that we could ameliorate the outcomes with prompt and correct actions, though even the effectiveness of any actions we might take would be uncertain until after the fact. But I personally find living a useful life more rewarding than sitting in a corner until the end.
Lewis @62: I have a copy of Shakhova and Semiletov’s presentation from Dec. 2010. The 8.0Mt per year is a conservative estimate, but the bad news is that the directly observed fluxes exceed the estimated flux by up to 3 orders of magnitude. If the highest of the directly observed fluxes is prorated to the ESAS area, it would result in a release of 3.5Gt per year.
Richard at 57/. -
Regarding the emergency response on the Titanic after the collision, there is a better resolution than extra underwear and flotsam release -namely putting the ship into reverse immediately, backing alongside the iceberg, and lowering gangways onto it to allow the passengers and crew to disembark.
Given the arrival of other ships next day, this would likely have prevented most if not all of the casualties.
The message of this scenario is that failed leaders are all too often stunned by the exposure of the scale of their failure, and make truly lousy decisions as a result, – thereby massively worsening the outcome. (Tepco is one current example).
However, we are not on the titanic after the collision – we are currently sailing blind at max revs despite icebergs having been reported, while lacking sufficient lifeboats.
An emergency reduction of speed – ie risk – is an imperative need.
The defeatists decry such action as pointless, ignoring the very real potentials for its achievement. I’d fully agree that merely cutting GHG outputs, even at a radical rate, will not halt the catastrophic growth of the interactive feedbacks given:
a/. the degree to which several majors have already gained momentum;
b/. the pipeline warming reflecting the rising pollution output since around 1975;
c/. the coming loss of the cooling parasol of suphate aerosols and particulates;
d/. the growing decline of the natural carbon sinks.
Beyond the necessity of contracting global GHG emissions, which absolutely requires the binding global treaty to be achieved within a relevant timeframe,
there are the potentially sufficient responses of
- Carbon Recovery – at optimum via a global reforestation program for Biochar and co-product Syngas (which is given some credence on the erroneous idea that it is not geoengineering), and
- Albido Restoration – at optimum via the increase and brightening of cloud cover where and when that is advantageous, to cool the planet in the decades required for Carbon Recovery to take effect, using a fleet of around 2,000 wind-powered vessels for the purpose (which proposal gets little support due to the stridency of those who abhor the very notion of geoengineering).
I suggest that we are out of alternatives to geoengineering, and that it is high time we focussed on the development of UN capacity for its governance to optimise its practical application. Iron-clad linkage to the >90% global ratification of an effective and durable binding climate treaty would seem a sensible qualification.
The defeatists I’d dismiss as merely self-indulgent drama-queens at a time of extreme emergency, but those who refuse to support effective geoengineering, despite the obvious inability of emissions contraction alone to control the feedbacks, really need to come up with a plausible alternative strategy for their control.
I for one would be delighted to see such a strategy promoted. Until then, in my view Carbon Recovery and Albido Restoration remain the only serious options as sufficient complements to the rapid contraction of GHG outputs.
Regards,
Lewis
Comment at Huffington Post indicates
there is a radiation leak from the second
#2 plant at a different reactor site.
Heard there is no end to the bad once
the bad happens at a reactor.
NOAA just released their U.S. climate report for March:
Highlights:
•Above-normal warmth dominated much of the southern U.S. and Rocky Mountains. The largest temperature departures were in Western Texas and New Mexico, which had its fifth-warmest March on record. Midland, Texas had four consecutive days—March 16 – 19—of temperatures that tied existing records.
•Cooler-than-normal temperatures were present in the northern and western areas of the country. Conditions were especially cool from southwestern Minnesota across the Dakotas into eastern Montana. Within this belt, March temperatures were as much as 6 degrees below the 20th Century average.
•Precipitation varied across the country, as the west and east coasts received above normal amounts, while the central and southern United States was largely dry. Texas had its driest March on record, with a statewide average of 0.27 inch. This was 1.47 inch below its 20th Century average, and broke the previous record of 0.28 inch set in 1971. It was the third driest March in New Mexico and 10th driest in Oklahoma.
•Record warm maximum temperatures exceeded record cold minimum temperatures by a 5-to-1 ratio.
U.S. Temperature & Precipitation Data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/
Full Report:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/3
Sailesh -
many thanks for confirming my surmise. The fact that 3.5GtC – CH4 is potential output rather than actual means we still have the potential for effective mitigation, but it affirms the reality that we have nothing to lose by far more radical strategies for change – such as mounting a primary challenge to Obama.
A person of standing, with clear climate concerns, of hispanic ethnicity and female genitalia – would seem likely to offer the best chance of getting a hearing.
But if she can be found and persuaded to stand, I wonder what fraction of US enviros, and tamed non-profits, would run for cover ? So I’m asking how many contributors to CP would support her campaign ?
Regards,
Lewis
Seattle slewed
In terms of disaster management and carbon footprint, I was stunned by what seems to be not explicit in the Seattle municipal process.
“Seattle Ponders (Some More) the Wisdom of Replacing a Roadway”
William Yardley, New York Times, April 9, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/us/10tunnel.html
When is Seattle going to openly face both the Big One earthquake eventuality and the city’s carbon footprint reduction, at least in voices loud enough voice that others around the country can hear?
For disaster management, neither a viaduct nor a tunnel near the sea is where I’d want to be when the long-expected big earthquakes hit the West Coast. Further, building more road or tunnel miles for individual cars is a huge investment in supporting the biggest blot in the US carbon footprint, the petroleum to transportation piece.
David Roberts at Grist has posted the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory chart of US energy use that amply illustrates the role of petroleum for transportation.
http://www.grist.org/climate-energy/2011-04-06-americas-energy-use-in-one-nifty-chart
Murdoch faces flood of hacking claims
Rupert Murdoch’s UK news arm faces a flood of fresh compensation claims and could be exposed to criminal prosecution after admitting its role in a long-running phone hacking scandal, lawyers say.
The admission was an about-turn from the media group’s previous denial that it knew journalists were hacking the phones of the royal family, politicians, celebrities and sports stars, blaming a handful of “rogue reporters” for the scandal.
Those who will receive an “unreserved apology” from the group, part of Murdoch’s global media empire News Corp… http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/10/3187081.htm
Could some of you scientifically expert opine on “Global Dimming” theory
which appears to be as grave a threat multiplying feedback as arctic methane release is.
Many thanks to Wit’s End who first highlighted this great BBC documentary for us some time ago.
Here is a concise (not so for a blog comment,sorry)transcript of the film.
We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface has been gradually falling. Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.
The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. “There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me,” he says.
Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.
Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.
Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.
This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun’s rays back into space.
Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world’s rainfall. There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world’s population. “My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon,” says Prof Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world’s leading climate scientists. “We are talking about billions of people.”
But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect. They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) we have placed there. What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6°C.
This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of 6°C. But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming – in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought.
If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world’s leading climate modellers. As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control. “We’re going to be in a situation, unless we act, where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. That means we’ll get reduced cooling and increased heating at the same time and that’s a problem for us,” says Cox.
Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards. That means a temperature rise of 10°C by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable. That is unless we act urgently to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.
If it is all true? My friends asked me not to talk about the collapse of the civilization because they have small children and it is very depressing.
Heard of IQ tests to rate a persons
potential abilities – any modern moral
quotient test to rate a persons
Potential abilities?
Illustrate the distinctions and happy
Medium between short and long term
sustainability?
Hot, Dry Conditions Could Make Texas Wildfires Worse
Wildfires that have scorched tens of thousands of acres of land in Texas continued to burn out of control and there are dire warnings about weather conditions that could make things even worse.
http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/Hot_Dry_Conditions_Could_Make_Texas_Wildfires_Worse_119562779.html?ref=779
Edith Wiethorn “I cannot find again your comment from earliest April that bridged a philosophy from the infinity of the universe back to daily goodness. It included your blog link. It led into an evening discussion on the state of the world with a guest who is both a progressive role-model & a nihilist.”, do you mean 2010?
Currently no idea what you referring to:)
Maybe you could provide more infos, i.e. which CP topic?
Early 2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season Forecasts
A continuation of the pattern of much above-average Atlantic hurricane activity we’ve seen since 1995 is on tap for 2011, according to the latest seasonal forecast issued April 6 by Dr. Phil Klotzbach and Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University (CSU). They are calling for 16 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 5 intense hurricanes. An average season has 10 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 intense hurricanes. The new forecast is nearly identical to their forecast made in December, which called for 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 5 intense hurricanes. Only six seasons since 1851 have had as many as 17 named storms; 19 seasons have had 9 or more hurricanes. The 2011 forecast calls for a much above-average chance of a major hurricane hitting the U.S. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1777
perceptiventity at 71/. -
The ‘Temporary Parasol’ effect, that was rather obscurely termed Global Dimming, is one of the four primary reasons why we cannot rely on just the contraction of GHG outputs to control the interactive feedbacks from running amok.
As regards the reality of the threat posed by the removal of that parasol of aerosols and particulates, in the 10 years since Stanhill broke the news of its existence, I’ve not heard a single cogent refutation of its essential accuracy, but only varied estimates of the additional forcing it represents.
We cannot afford that additional forcing, yet neither can we afford the additional forcing of the GHG pollution that carries the aerosols and particulates to maintain the parasol.
Logically there is one rational course of action – terminate the GHG outputs + aerosol & particulate pollution while deploying an intentional cooling parasol in the form of albido restoration by sea-spray cloud-brightening where and when it is most beneficial.
If there is any other credible option for escaping this horrific dilemma I should be delighted to hear it.
Regards,
Lewis
perceptiventity at 71/. –
PS – As a rule I’m very reticent about the scale of threat we face when in the company of children.
Parents are another matter. If they’re not already active on their childrens’ behalf, they’re neglecting a primary duty of care.
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis – it is strange that you cannot see Shakhova’s presentation since the link is directly next to the abstract’s link and still active.
Here is a direct link. Page 34.
http://symposium.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/1/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf
For reference, humans presently emit 9 GtC as mostly CO2, so if this is a continuous source and no new CO2 sinks develop then we should add this to total human emissions. I am adamant that we should be finding ways to refreeze and cap the ESAS, especially if taliks are now forming.
Global methane levels aren’t rocketing up yet. It is possibly that this is just a temporary excursion. Best case scenario.
@dorlomin
I mostly agree with what other commenters have already said.
I’ll try to give a clear summary of how I see the situation.
- What the science says: It’s more likely than not that several tipping points will be crossed, making carbon stabilization and temperature stabilization impossible through any of our current and projected technologies. Averting runaway climate change, averting mass extinction, averting the collapse of civilization are still physically possible by a reasonable margin.
- What history and social sciences tell us; what a quick reality check tells us: It’s not happening. Despite all the wonderful things and despite all the good news, we are nowhere near the trajectory we should be on. Nor is that on the brink of changing in the forseeable future, absent a black swan (or should I say gray?) like multiple hurricanes flattening NY and DC before the next US presidential election.
- Conclusion: We are missing the deadlines right now.
- How do I live with this world view? – Happily! I’ve accepted a grim future. I expect to die in a civil war or famine, from an epidemic in a refugee camp or something of the sort. So, that means I have nothing to lose. I’m not trying to defend myself. But I might as well fight. What other is there to do? Besides, it’s a moral imperative. And besides, I’m not 100% sure that it’s too late already. Wouldn’t it be incredibly stupid to miss a train because shortly before arriving at the station you stopped running because you were convinced it’d already left?
- One more thing: I’m a true optimist. People who say: “I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist” are pessimists who don’t want to admit they are. There’s some semantic confusion about these words. I think the future looks very, very bad AND I’m an optimist. Yes, that really is possible! Here’s what I tell people: “The good news is we can still stop ourselves from going extinct! Isn’t that a wonderful opportunity? Isn’t it a privilege to be part of the generation that succeeded at avoiding the extinction of our wonderful species?”
perceptiventity – according to James Hansen in his 2008 presentation to the American Geophysical Union, pollution is blocking between 1 and 2 Wm-2. Solar forcing averages about 270 Wm-2 so global dimming is less that 1%. The world took a progressive step in reducing its aerosol pollution. Maybe we can do the same with CO2. I recall some report in the 1990s saying that in some areas, pollution compensates for additional warming. Cities also heat up disproportionally compared to countryside, but also tend to have stagnant air pollution.
Here is his graph.
http://i.imgur.com/h68k3l.jpg
Not an expert..just a reader. Another point is that the IPCC says worst case scenario is 6 degrees C by 2100. This simply doesn’t account for an Arctic that would warm by 25 degrees C and release the vast bulk of its carbon and rocket temperatures as high as 15 degrees C…. Ignoring catastrophic black swans like methane explosions and ozone depletion.
Joe,
One of the predictions at futuretimeline is the teleportation of simple molecules of matter like CO2. If only this were true, maybe you could strip out the carbon atoms during this process and teleport them back into the Earths crust.
Of course I am not holding my breath about this possibility.
Thank you Lewis C.
And yet another feedback ! And guess where? On top of the now temporary permafrost.
The researchers used a climate model to assess the impact if evergreens continued their march northward at the expense of leaf-dropping larch. The Russian boreal forest sits over a tremendous repository of carbon-rich but frozen soil. As the forest cover changes, the permafrost begins to thaw, potentially releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the scientist said.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/shift-in-boreal-forest-has-wide-impact/
Is anyone trying to put ALL identified feedbacks in some sort of logically credible model of future worming without blind areas just for curiosity’s sake about humanity’s fate?
Guess we urgently need the second coming of Christ or Buddha or else…
My apologies, correction to my last post. If we include aerosols that cause warming, global dimming could be higher than 1% but i’m not aware of numbers. Plant productivity also increases with diffuse light. We could reduce black carbon and other heat trapping aerosols, which would slow global warming, and increase stratospheric sulfuric acid or some benign molecule that increases reflectivity. Have hope!
NASA’s Glory was launched in February 2011, capable of corroborating aerosol measurements – it would have really helped if the launch vehicle detached properly.
In Fla there may be a quiet hope
That the storms will be caught by
Upper level winds. But recent events
Suggest that storms could form in the
Gulf of Pollution and head otherwise.
According to Adrian Barnett
Imagine a land where forests are so rich in game they resemble zoo enclosures, and where, in season, rivers have more fish than water. Precise ecological and historical sleuthing by Steve Nicholls shows that such reports from colonists in North America, long dismissed as fantasy, were true: in the 16th century, the continent really was like this.
Modern disbelief that nature was far more abundant in the past, says Nicholls, comes not from ecological impossibility but from a mindset that insists that only today’s abundances are possible, while refusing to admit that we inhabit an ecologically impoverished landscape. Finely written and elegantly researched, Paradise Found is a chilling portent of how even today’s richnesses will seem a cornucopia to biologically bereft future generations.
Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227112.800-review-paradise-found-nature-in-america-at-the-time-of-discovery-by-steve-nicholls.html
Cornell University report: natural gas produced with by “hydraulic fracturing” contributes to global warming as much as coal, or more: http://bit.ly/FrCoal
#76 Prokaryotes – I will re-search back topics again. :-)
dorlomin, methane is a huge wildcard in projections, but so far large methane releases have not been triggered significantly. Check wikipedia and see the chart for atmospheric concentrations.
Scas at 80/. -
Sorry, my error – the fault was not in the page but between the ears -
I took ‘presentation’ to imply a video of her address, rather than the PDF I was seeking. Thanks for reposting.
I share your concern at the potential for abrupt change in ESAS CH4 outputs.
I’ve long wondered whether some means of extracting heat in significant (vast) quantities from arctic waters &/or inflowing warm currents may become feasible.
If heat pumps could be applied to extract and concentrate the sea’s warmth into useful form, then that energy’s application to converting water and ambient CO2 to methanol [CH3OH] would offer an easily transportable product to help offset capital costs – Yet to replicate and deploy such seaborne capacity on a scale to have a significant effect seems rather far fetched at present.
From this perspective, intentionally increasing summer cloud cover over arctic waters may actually prove both simpler and less capital intensive per unit of cooling achieved. Yet at best it would offset but not interrupt the influx of warm water currents to the ESAS.
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis C @91 — There are air heat pumps and ground heat pumps. I see no reason there could not be water heat pumps.
But the scale you are considering requires putting in some numbers…
Heat pump energy sources. I believe it was a Vancouver Olympic venue that that ran a heat pump source line along a sewer line and picked up significant heat from the waste water passing thru. Unreclaimed heat is many places when one starts to look.
I’ve heard that we could use SRM for a month or so to extend the Arctic dark period a month earlier, and give the sea ice more time to regrow, perhaps develop multi-year ice again. Even if the aerosols cause upper atmospheric heating, the surface cooling and sea ice growth might offset the heat. Maybe we could even use dirt or plankton fertilizer.
Of course this is just speculation from a non-expert. If we take Rajendra Pachauri’s words as true, what are we to do after 2012? I imagine geoengineering becomes part of the necessary package. And at some point another threshold will crossed where it’s simply too late and geoengineering becomes a bandaid on an open wound. That point could be decades away, or next year.
I never get the argument that geoengineering will make people complacent. If anything, if it’s explained seriously on international news, people would surely be frightened straight.
Scas at 82/. -
The graph you posted, that I assume was used by Hansen, appears to show 3.0 w/m2 of positive forcing by GHGs, being offset by around 1.4 w/m2 of negative forcing by sulphate aerosols and particulates.
This would imply that the loss of the parasol would give us an extra:
1.4 / 3.0 = 46.67% of additional warming, along with the past pipeline warming by ~2045, and followed by the time-lagged pipeline warming from the tailing off of our GHG outputs in future.
Or am I overlooking something ?
regards,
Lewis
Climate Communication (didn’t see it mentioned yet)
Dr. Richard Alley narrates a program on global warming and renewable energy on PBS.
Premier showing was tonight for many areas, but will be re-broadcast.
http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/broadcast_listing
http://www.pbs.org/programs/earth-the-operators-manual/tv-schedule/
http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/
Lewis C #78, the ‘global dimming’ that we must most fear, I believe, is the intellectual dimming inherent in the rise to social dominance of the Dunning-Kruger-Joyce tendency, and the moral and spiritual dimming seen in the long-term economic domination of the capitalist psychopathic type, Homo economicus ssp hubris. In fact I think our predicament, which I still imagine that we might somehow escape, is actually a spiritual crisis. The catalogue of disasters, ie ecological collapse, resource depletion, huge and growing inequality and suffering, geopolitical conflict, are themselves merely symptoms of a deeper malaise. And that is, I believe, the triumph of greed and egomania and the death of human compassion and empathy across the globe. The root cause of that spiritual sickness unto death is the triumph of capitalism, which, in its single-minded pursuit of gain and accumulation of possessions, destroys everything that gets in its way. Schumpeter spoke of ‘creative destruction’, and we can see that the ‘creation’ was of money, and the ‘destruction’ is of life.
Lewis C, “Guess we urgently need the second coming of Christ or Buddha or else…”
The only solution is pure science. Starting to change a highly corrupt system – worldwide. If not, collapse is inevitable, looming already – worldwide. But systems can adjust, depending on who sizes power. If corrupt people stay in power, the system will keep failing.
Earth The Operators Manual (53 minute video) is now online at:
http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/broadcast_info
Host Richard Alley is a self-professed registered republican and attends church with his family. (Has been called the Woody Allen of Climate Science) So will we see any open minds to AGW in the GOP as a result of this?
As an amateur naturalist, I learned a lot! Perhaps the link should be attached to all our emails to non-scientists for awhile.
What do others think of the PBS program?
Mulga (#97) – Agreed (as usual). I’m no fan of capitalism alone either, but at the same time the old saw is instructive that “Capitalism creates a world that is dog eat dog, but with communism it’s the other way around.”
Similarly the wars in the name of religion are appropriately spoken of, but the atheists Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and (perhaps, we didn’t speak of it often) Hitler and their wars and genocides were no bargain either. And if you care to add them up on the Grim Reaper’s coal-powered calculator, the numbers of those four alone are difficult to surpass.
It seems the relentless greed, selfishness and lack of empathy you so appropriately speak of can overwhelm and imbue any system.
Maybe the best single term (if we have to choose one) for these terrible attributes is materialism, where the standards of one’s worth are only material and judged by what can be seen including all of one’s possessions and displays of wealth. They seem fear (There’s not enough!) and ego-driven, the opposite of love.
I’d contrast that with genuine spirituality, which I’d define not as any single religion and typically missing from most religions. This genuine spirituality to me encompasses all kindness, caring, empathy, compassion, generosity, wisdom and humor like yours – in a word, love. This is practiced as much by atheists and agnostics as anyone on a per capita basis, so simply practicing these attributes is infinitely more meaningful than merely professing them, which can and does hide the fact that they’re not being practiced.
These were lived most completely as far as I know in the lives of people like the Buddha and Christ and at times by their most devoted followers like Asoka and some of Jesus followers, most notably John and latter St. Francis of Assisi and other cool dudes that got what you’re saying.
These greatest teachings and examples are now seen by many thinking people including Bill Mahar to be merely dogma, when one has to realize that we’re looking at these teachings through the lenses of 2000 or more years of dogma. That means thinking and caring people are often likely to (understandably) throw the Buddha or Christ baby out with the bathwater, when I think the original teachings are most worthy of examination and emulation.
Mulga (again #97), continued – Dogma can attach itself to science as well. I’m a fan of the science of Darwin (and Wallace) but don’t worship him as many biologists I know appear to. Natural selection seems in retrospect so obvious while Newton’s inventing calculus and so much else does not.
In the 1700s American colonialists generally distrusted those with the greatest wealth (good idea, even though those included at the time George Washington and John Hancock, who underwrote a fair bit of the Revolution) and thus the great American inventor Benjamin Franklin felt that he was wealthy enough and didn’t seek patents on his lightening rod, stove or bifocals, feeling everyone should have access to these things (he was also quite the capitalist, but not in such a relentlessly greedy, predatory way).
A century later Thomas Edison was not only a great inventor but an even better businessman, owning and underpaying (certainly relative to himself) the hard work and inventions of many other inventors as well. Bill Gates and most other captains of industry have almost exclusively used Edison’s model, not Franklin’s, ever since.
And one of the reasons for this is Social Darwinism, that the rich deserve what they get and the poor deserve what they don’t get even more. This is the grossest misunderstanding of karma, getting it essentially backwards as Jesus said.
This grossest misapplication of the laws of nature to become the hideously corrupt and uncaring economic laws (our society’s religion in truth if not profession) is not Darwin’s fault, just as the steaming pile of dogma that is most of Christianity is not Jesus’ fault.
Following the best teachings of whatever genuinely spiritual leaders you admire most (I choose according to their kindness, caring, healing and helping others) is the only way I see out of this mess, and I don’t look to the materialism, dogma, powers that be and business as usual crowd of this one lifetime for answers, but away from them. And more toward Chico rolls.
Richard Brenne, Mulga,
It is said in the Vedanta that the true test of spiritual growth is the ability to feel at one with all Creation. That is the essence of the Vedic pronouncement, “Vasudhaiva Kutumbam,” which is literally translated to “the whole world is my family.” Einstein observed the same thing when he said, “Our task must be to free ourselves from our prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
Our troubles started when we stopped seeing the beauty in Nature and attempted to create an “orderly” version of her for the sole benefit of our own species. The result has been a god-awful mess. It is now time to let go and give her the breathing room to heal herself and us, her children.
Richard (#101) in reply to Mulga (#97), I’m a fan of both of you and totally agree with most of what you say. I would look at the human conundrum in a slightly different way, however. In our evolution as upright hominids with ever increasing brain size which led to an increasing capacity for reflection and contemplating the future, the original capacity for aiding survival by evaluating our immediate environments which we share with many other species was never lost. In fact, all indications are that it is still the most powerful capacity present in our brains which drives everything we do. As such, and along with every other species of animal that has even a rudimentary capacity for analyzing and manipulating its immediate environment in order to avoid predation and accident, acquire food, pass on its genes, and remain reasonably healthy, our number one automatic focus has always been on survival. And just as with every other animal, we strive to survive as efficiently as possible and with the least amount of effort in order to preserve valuable energy and keep dangers to a minimum.
Of course along the way, our increased brain size centered on the cerebral cortex has bequeathed us with cognitive powers that have many side uses and benefits, such as more intense and abstract reflection and the ability to map out the future to a degree unparalleled by any other species. This ability has led to our exquisite works of art and our amazing tendency to appreciate the beauty and magnificence of the Universe (at least to us!). It has allowed us to investigate the intricacies and complexities of this Universe as well as to become aware that there just might be some things that are beyond our comprehension. It has also allowed us to develop our emotions to a degree that all other species most likely would never approach, and so we have what we have defined as love, altruism, and empathy.
But at the same time, the more basic capacities and the principal reasons for the evolution of intelligence have never gone away, and as far as I can tell, they still predominate among most humans. The way I see it, the Kochs and Murdochs of this world are just following their deeply ingrained instincts for self-preservation through the accumulation of as much wealth and power as they can. A beaver cutting down poplar trees or an elephant eating every bit of foliage in sight would do no less. So I am not surprised by the self-serving manipulations and power grabs by the super rich, or by the great mass of humans who try to emulate them, but who have neither the luck, nor possibly the ability to do the same.
The whole idea of the American Dream is based on this tendency of humans to want to become rich and powerful so as to insure the comfortable survival for as long as possible of oneself and also of one’s immeditate family or clan. As Howard Zinn had so forcefully pointed out, the genius of the American system has been to hold this idea in front of everyone’s nose so that no matter how wretched one’s living conditions are, there is always the hope that with enough hard work and the singular pursuit of a dream, anyone can be, if not as rich as Bill Gates, then at least middle class comfortable in the “greatest land with the greatest opportunity on Earth”. Probably the main driving force for the incredible economic and apparant social advances in countries like China, India, and Brazil, not to mention the rest of the world, is this strong desire to be rich like Bill Gates as an interviewer of up and coming Chinese youth found recently. So this tendency is about as universal as a human trait can be, and it is the true driving force behind the destruction of the globe’s environment and has been since the time at the dawn of civilization 10,000 years ago when we had more or less neutralized or even killed off our predators and competitors and began the practice of agriculture.
On reflection, I see that moment 10,000 years ago as the high point of human existence since we hadn’t started systematically destroying this planet quite yet, but our ingrained drive to acquire “things” in order to insure our survival never left us, and indeed is just as strong as ever in the present era. And so, it is dramatically leading to looming climate and general environmental catastrophes that are already enveloping us. But even though the vast majority of humans seem to have been driven constantly by their survival instincts above all else, just as any other species has always been, there have been a few enlightened “outliers” among us.
To one degree or another, in all civilizations and cultures, whether in myth or in the flesh, Buddha, Jesus, Cassandra, Lao-tze, Mohammed, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc have all pointed out the foolishness of the usual human endeavors which throughout history have led to all the wars, destruction, persecutions, and human induced heartache that have been lamented by all relgions and social movements. These enlightened thinkers, mystics, and social leaders have all pointed out what humans should be concentrating on, and it wasn’t the accumulation of material wealth! Of course these religious and social movements were always co-opted by the reigning powers and became useful tools in the continued manipulation of the rest of humanity, and the biosphere in general, in the furtherance of their accumulation of power. There was no generally “evil” intent in this; they were just following their instincts for self preservation of themselves and their clan or tribe through the accumulation of wealth and power. After all, Hitler was convinced of the righteousness of his philosophy and subsequent actions and firmly believed that he would lead the German people to ultimate triumph as the dominant civilization on Earth. An alfa male baboon would do no less!
Even though the taking over of the teachings of Jesus by the political forces of the waning Roman Empire and their subsequent adoption by the Germanic tribes who followed subverted those teachings to their own ends which would further their accumulation of wealth and power, the core teachings of Jesus are still admired and preached in churchs all over the world; the problem is that hardly anyone really believes or follows them in their everyday lives. To live a life emulating what Jesus taught would be too inconvenient and too obstructive to the principal task of accumulating material wealth to ensure the comfortable survival of oneself and one’s family, etc. And the same is true with all the other great teachings of the world, East and West, North and South.
The great teachers of the past as well as a few thinkers and teachers of the present, including many here on CP, are basically all outliers in the spectrum of the human species who have been able through some confluence of genetic and environmental factors to see the forest for the trees by using the gift of our cerebral cortex to override the base instincts provided by other more “primitive” parts of our brains. I feel the reason so few have done so is because it flies in the face of all that is so strongly hard-wired into the rest of our brains. In fact, one can look at independent thinkers of the past such as Jesus, Buddha, etc., along with those of today as mutants among the general population in that they have been able to override those base instincts which drive everyone else and so clouds the majority of decisions made by people all over the world every day. In my view, that is why it is so hard for people on this blog to get the message out concerning what is approaching and why corporations and politicians, as well as their media accomplices are still able to dominate the conversation against all reason and evidence to the contrary. The obstructionists have biology and 10,000 years of human history on their side, and those are tough acts to penetrate. And it is why I am so pessimistic about avoiding the total collapse of civilization, if not the overall extinction of humans along with a lot of other organisms in this accelerating 6th great extinction episode since the Cambrian Explosion. But as I pointed out earlier, pessimism doesn’t mean giving up. Jesus was crucified and MLK got a bullet in his head, but their words have lived on through the generations and they can still move people. If there is any hope for us, it must be that somehow a critical mass of humans can understand what must be done and force the issue in spite of the power wielded by the deniers by overriding their base instincts as a group with its own power in numbers. Such thoughts keep me going.
Mulga (#97) – See what you started!
Sailesh Rao (#102) – Beautifully said! The physical beauty of nature including all space, mountains and every part of the water cycle from glaciers to the ocean’s thunderous waves is absolutely breathtaking. When life is involved, it is also absolutely wonderful when it is cooperative, as so many species are. When it is competitive and involves disease, predation and one species or individual out-competing another to their doom, I think that part of nature is not the parent I would want to have or be, and so I look to nature as the ultimate metaphor for that parent.
Ed Hummel (#103) – So much for superficial chit-chat! Amazing essay! Wow! Is every meteorologist in Maine as theologically and philosophically adept as yourself? Do your forecasts include “jet streams of consciousness” and the like?
That is also an amazingly astute analysis and I think it’s very true.
I would just add that I feel that there’s another level of reality that can inform the one you describe, in fact I think several of the greatest spiritual leaders including ones you mention saw that reality right where the rest of us agree to consensus reality, and their view allowed some of them to heal essentially anyone that came to them seeking to shift their consciousness and reality.
So you perfectly described the biology and psychology of what I would call the ego self. In addition to what you so completely describe, you also touch on what I would call our authentic selves, what Lincoln described as the “better angels of our natures.”
In the proportion that we see and experience and become our authentic selves, we’ll live in harmony with all things as Sailesh describes and that is the ultimately game-changer. I feel that this can even change our perception of the Anthro-Earth mess we’ve created that includes climate change as what will become the most notable symptom, though that positive change might be experienced by those who shift their consciousness most and perhaps not all in one lifetime.
The power available to us is I feel the sum of all true power in this and all other universes, the power of all kindness and caring, and for me that singularity is called God, but with all the dogma surrounding that term I call Her Susan. This has the added benefit of some amusement when my wife stumbles upon me in audible prayer.
Lewis – if we lose the protective portion of our parasol that implies that we also lose heating particulates like black carbon. Now that China has built so many coal-fired plants, they’re unlikely to shut them down anytime soon. Cutting and burning forests are another 20% of emissions – which I hope we can stop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
If liquid fuels decline dates are correct, and society can avoid a coal binge, emissions could begin declining this decade. The Alberta tarsands produce 1.5 mbd, and isn’t going away anytime soon. Using the sulfur refined from the tarsands and the oil to power hundreds of KC-10s, perhaps we could avoid a disaster should catastrophic methane flows begin. The Arctic inversion may even help keep particles aloft.
Implications of peak oil for atmospheric CO2 and climate.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Kharecha_Hansen.html
My apologies if I appear to be littering this thread, especially after the ending philosophy.
What if we were to do something silly once it is clear that catastrophic methane ebullition was occurring?
Look at this Alberta tar-sands sulfur pile. I have no idea what its dimensions are, nor how many megatonnes are pictured.
http://www.egamiimage.ca/alberta_tar_sands_sulfur_piles.html
In Aurora Flight Sciences analysis, the maximum calculation is done with 5 Mt. Since this is a worst case methane scenario, we could probably use a magnitude more.
What if we were to excavate a conical open pit, perhaps 100 m diameter, with as steep an incline as possible. Something resembling an ice cream cone.
Then pack 4800 tonnes of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in the bottom. or a small nuclear charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale
Pile the sulfur on top and compress it with road rollers. On a windless day, cover the surface with oil and set it alight, creating enormous updrafts. When the oil is burning at its peak, ignite the underground charge.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Nukecloud.png/800px-Nukecloud.png
The particles will, hopefully, be shuttled to the altitudes we want, using the right charges. It can be done when natural circulation patterns cause particles to move towards the Arctic.
Before you laugh or cry, it’s much more realistic than building a giant mirror or moving the moon to L1, which I have seen mentioned.