Open Thread Plus Cartoon Of The Week

Posted on

"Open Thread Plus Cartoon Of The Week"

Opine away!

H/T I Heart Climate Scientists

« »

172 Responses to Open Thread Plus Cartoon Of The Week

  1. Superman1 says:

    The recent Nature article by the Swiss research team showed that taking metrics other than temperature into account (when determining emissions constraints) required doubling the necessary CO2 reductions over sole focus on temperature. Thus, Anderson’s required 10%/annum global CO2 emissions reduction to stay under 2 C becomes 20%/annum. How do we accomplish this other than the most drastic reductions in fossil fuel use starting today?

    • Mark Belgium says:

      How do we accomplish this? Using ones imagination I think . Some thoughts:
      -dramatic cuts on the demand side.(zero energy homes, low energy appliances)
      -invest in public transportation, car ownership will have to go.(high speed trains replace airplanes)
      -energy and resources should get very expensive, labor cheap. This will create another kind of economy: re-use, re-cycle, re-pair, retrofit and all of this in a local economy.
      -local food production starting in your garden.
      -local energy production (wind, solar, biomass,..)
      -local water management.
      -consumerism will be replaced by sharing, solidarity,..strong local communities where people care about each other.
      -invest in education, science, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure,…
      -close Wall street.
      -strong independent government enforcing emission cuts.
      ….

      • wili says:

        In case anyone missed this recent quote from James Hansen:

        “The 1C goal requires rapid phase out of fossil fuel emissions…”

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming

        This basic goal should not be the least controversial in a forum such as this. How to get there (if that is now remotely possible) is certainly a matter of discussion.

        Essentially, though, what is an absolute and immediate necessity for the world seems to be an absolute political impossibility.

        • Superman1 says:

          Wili, That is an outstanding link! To achieve the 1 C Hansen recommended limit, we would need to: 1) eliminate all non-essential (and possibly some essential) uses of fossil fuel starting TODAY; 2) implement rapid carbon recovery using minimal fossil fuel resources; 3) institute some form of low-risk?? geo-engineering to keep a lid on temperature during this interim period.

          • Superman1 says:

            Finally, a negative feedback! Nature Geoscience; Warming-induced increase in aerosol number concentration likely to moderate climate change; Pauli Paasonen et al; “Our results confirm a negative feedback mechanism between the continental biosphere, aerosols and climate: aerosol cooling effects are strengthened by rising biogenic organic vapour emissions in response to warming, which in turn enhance condensation on particles and their growth to the size of cloud condensation nuclei. This natural growth mechanism produces roughly 50% of particles at the size of cloud condensation nuclei across Europe.”

        • BobbyL says:

          The main decision is whether or not to compromise when engaged in the political process. For example, when the cap and trade bill was taken up by Congress some groups like the Sierra Club were willing to compromise in order to get the best deal they could even though the bill did not meet the requirements of the science while other groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth decided not to compromise and did not support the bill. As I remember JR supported the cap and trade bill. Anybody can uncompromisingly support a target in a comments section of a website, the question is what to do in the context of the actual political process of creating legislation.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

            How do you ‘compromise’ with the laws of physics and climate science? Here the word ‘compromise’ is a euphemism for surrender. What’s worse, ‘compromise’ with evil, which the denialist industry and its fossil fuel patrons and their political stooges represent as plainly as any other group in history, simply allows evil to continue to wreak havoc. Sometime, somewhere, you’ve gotta make a stand.

          • Superman1 says:

            I agree with Mulga. You talk about ‘living with’ 3 C and ‘compromising’, but think about what that means in practice. Think about where we are today with ~0.8 C, and it hasn’t played itself out. Then think about living with 3 C! If that’s what we get with the present political process, then it’s not working, and we need to change it, fast, by any means necessary!

          • BobbyL says:

            You are both right, there shouldn’t be any compromise on this issue when it comes to the science but Congress in it’s craziness is treating it like any other issue and politics is all about compromise. Until someone figures out how to get Congress to treat this issue differently compromise will remain the name of the game. Basically compromise you lose, don’t compromise you lose. Staying below 3C will take a near miracle, staying below 2C will take the intervention of God and staying below 1C is for the those who live for dreams.

    • Paul magnus says:

      This is an emergency no one is calling

    • Gingerbaker says:

      ” How do we accomplish this other than the most drastic reductions in fossil fuel use starting today?”

      You don’t use government edict to restrict fossil fuel use. That causes undue suffering, would be impossible to approve, and is counterproductive for the cause.

      What you do is *build and employ* renewable energy generation infrastructure, and sell that energy for less than carbon energy costs. You make it economically practical to switch, and people will switch.

      The best way to do this, I feel, is through public projects, ie, non profit. Government needs to become a renewable energy utility.

      • Superman1 says:

        “What you do is *build and employ* renewable energy generation infrastructure”. That doesn’t answer the mail. What is your specific implementation scenario that will insure the emissions and temperature constraints above will be met? Include all fossil fuel expenditures during the transition period.

        • BobbyL says:

          Since when has world started relying on the views of one climate scientist to set goals? The IPCC has 800 climate scientists working on their reports. Let’s see what they come with.

          • Turboblocke says:

            Sure let’s do nothing for a year or so while the IPCC AR5 is finalised. Then waste a couple of years while the deniers make a big fuss over a misplaced comma… then we only have to wait another year or so for AR6…

          • BobbyL says:

            Anderson of course assumes all of the reductions will initially be made by the industrialized countries so he comes up with a figure of 10% per year. The percentage is of course so high because most of the emissions come from developing countries. Therefore he is asking countries which account for perhaps 40% of the emissions to bear the full load. If China, which accounts for about the same amount of emissions as all the industialized countries put together, also reduced emissions then the reductions in the industrialized would not have to be as steep and would be more politically acceptable. The more you analyze the situation the more obvious it becomes that we will go beyond 2C and probably much higher.

          • BobbyL says:

            If the US and Europe severely cut consumption as Anderson says is needed the country hurt the most would be China since they would lose their main markets for manufactured goods. The Chinese economy would probably collapse throwing hundreds of millions of people out of work. Anderson’s solution seems to have a zero percent possibility of being acceptable to the nations of the world. Probably it is best to go back to the drawing board.

          • Mark Belgium says:

            Bobby, as I understood correctly the 10 to 20% reductions in Anderson’s presentation comes from a graph with the following parameters:
            -having a 50:50 chance of remaining under 2°C
            -subtraction of all unavoidable emissions from food production and deforestation emissions
            -global emissions peaking in 2020.

            When you make the difference between industrialized countries en developing countries where you let China and India peak in 2025 then we (industrialized countries) have to peak in the past (2010) a “back to the future” scenario. And still having a 40% change of exceeding 2°C.

            Anderson just works with the data: 2°C target, current emissions and the Copenhagen accord as “Leitmotiv”.

          • Superman1 says:

            BobbyL, As Mark Belgium points out, Anderson generates the 10% number on a global basis, then allocates its components based on equity. The recent Swiss study referenced by Joan effectively doubles this number.

          • Superman1 says:

            BobbyL, “Anderson’s solution seems to have a zero percent possibility of being acceptable to the nations of the world.” Anderson is merely setting out the numbers. If the nations of the world choose not to meet those targets, the alternative will not be pleasant. What would you suggest as an alternative, and what type of biosphere would that yield?

          • Joan Savage says:

            I hear you, but peer review preceded publication of the article in Nature.

            Some letters to Nature may come soon, but there could be a time lag while other modelers test the results.

            The Science Daily article provided by Mark E closed with, “The Bern Model is so efficient that it only took a few weeks to calculate the roughly 65,000 simulations needed for the study. From this rich set of simulations, the researchers have estimated probabilities of meeting specific climate targets. This is not possible with most of the other Earth System Models currently in existence.”

            That is a feat that may have modelers reeling. The powerful Yosemite megacomputer might be a good tool to run a test of the Steinacker, Joos and Stocker results.

          • Superman1 says:

            BobbyL, “The more you analyze the situation the more obvious it becomes that we will go beyond 2C and probably much higher.” Anderson characterizes 2 C as Extremely Dangerous. Would you move into a house that the Fire Marshall characterized as Extremely Dangerous? Why, then, would you accept that for your biosphere? I find it unacceptable!

          • BobbyL says:

            The problem is always that it is politically difficult to ask people to make serious sacrifices to avoid problems that are not predicted to occur until after they will probably have passed away and people have vested self interests such as profits and jobs. So while we can see what is probably coming there is basically nothing we can do about it because of the politics. This has been one of the main lessons of the last 25 years. Actually it was believed that we would be able to take action if we knew about the consequences which is why climate scientists never bothered to study in depth what would happen beyond 4C. Surprisingly it has turned out that we didn’t take action and here we are basically anticipating those who come after us will live in world that appears to be a nightmare. Since the nations of the world still can’t agree on what to and at the earliest won’t begin to implement an agreement until 2020 it’s basically game over (unless Hansen is somehow completely wrong which I assume is possible).

          • Raul M. says:

            Mom used to say years ago, it’s going to rain today you need to take an umbrella. She was that way cause wet clothes for hours wasn’t comfortable.
            Looking to ways that will make for a more comfortable way rather than only focusing on the fact that it will rain makes sence. So at some point there was actually getting the umbrella before going outside became a distinctive action. We may look to the consequential actions for a nicer way. We looked into our own closet for the umbrella rather than the closet of some distant statesman.

        • Gingerbaker says:

          ““What you do is *build and employ* renewable energy generation infrastructure”. That doesn’t answer the mail”

          You mean it doesn’t give you the answer you want to see. Which is people must suffer for their sins, right?

          • Superman1 says:

            I’m asking a very simple question. You have proposed an implementation scenario. Show that it will not drive us over the climate cliff during the transition. Isn’t that a reasonable request?

          • Mark Belgium says:

            Superman, One fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer. Meaning, you know there is no easy answer to your question. There is no “one scenario” to solve the problem…so you will be able to comment on all the answers you get.

          • Superman1 says:

            Mark, I don’t agree. Gingerbaker can do an approximate Anderson-type analysis for his implementation scenario, and provide some estimate of the emissions. He, and the other proposers, choose not to do such an analysis because they know the answer; it will drive us over the cliff. Now, if he were to add on a requirement for elimination of all non-essential uses of fossil fuel starting today, and some corollary requirements, he would have a far better chance of avoiding the cliff.

          • Raul M. says:

            At some point we need to have our own umbrellas to cover us from the sun and rain. We need to be able to keep our own umbrellas even when those who have their own versions would take center stage. It is good to know that if it is someone else who pays for the stage then there might be a different agenda. One thing to keep in mind is that the climate will move as it will. So the idea might evolve to the realization that the life boats of some others will not float and it might become a realization that the weather will become most prevalent as memories of the earlier extreme weathers fades to the views of the destroyed infrastructures. I haven’t heard of life boat city, yet, it would certainly take some time to build.

      • J4Zonian says:

        If that’ all you do, what’s to prevent people and corporations from simply using more of everything?

        Without 1. a fee (oh we must avoid the dreaded word that sends Republicans into convulsions of terror and rage!) on carbon 2. a mandate to allow utility customers to choose their source of energy and 3. various subsidies for small scale solar, how are we not just going to end up with 2 or 3 times the energy being used? The only other choice is shutting down fossil fuel facilities extralegally, which is likely to get peaceful protestors killed.

        We have to be ready to do that, but if there are ways to at least reduce the pressure and get at least partway there without too many people dying that would be nice.

      • J4Zonian says:

        ALEC has a model bill to make using a camera a crime; equating environmentalism, peace and animal activism the equivalent of mass murder and calling them terrorism. What’s next, making increasing taxes a form of terrorism?

        We have to make it clear that climate denying delayalism is a crime against humanity and the Earth.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          This is an thoroughly unsurprising development. For a start the Right viscerally despise others, particularly those who refuse to obey orders, and even more so, those who get in the way of ‘wealth creation’, money and power being the only things they care for. Greenies and Occupy style opponents of the corporate omnicidists have already been targeted for surveillance, legal harassment and draconian sentences, but, believe me, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

    • Joan Savage says:

      As this is likely to have more discussion, the Nature article that best fits Superman1’s description is:

      Allowable carbon emissions lowered by multiple climate targets
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/nature12269.html

      It would help in conversation to refer to the Steinacher group’s projection or call it an EMIC model projection.

    • Bluemot2 says:

      I like the tax and dividend idea, simple , effective, and a heck of alot more revenue neutral than having storms wreck homes everywhere

    • 6thextinction says:

      It’s Monday and took me quite a while to scan thru the posts here. I was stuck by the lack of actual group actions taken or any mention of immediate lifestyle changes made recently. We know we have to do that now–collectively and individually. Can we start posting each week a step we’ve made in both? It may inspire us to physically move from discussion and education into a place in which change actually occurs.
      I will make a modest start. I’m looking for fellow carpoolers to the 350.org protests (which are across the country)–the closest to me is in Ohio–on 7/29. In my daily life, I cut back on electrical use every month, despite having solar panels put on our roof last fall, so that energy will replace the coal-produced energy my provider uses. This month I am trying to make all cold or uncooked meals. If I must cook something, I do it in off-peak hrs.

      • Raul M. says:

        Obviously, convienance and comfort are important. And how could that be expressed? Life Boat City? What would such a city become. When Disney world was thought of there were different goals; yet, a great development was made that satisfied those needs and continues to change and address some needs.but what would a Life Boat City become. A large part of any stage is that the owners of the stage get to set the rules and protect those rules. Would community rules and community ways be possible and what would a sustainable self-contained city look like. Sustainable self containment?

      • Raul M. says:

        Ok, how about an easier and more individualistic quiry?
        Say I took a cookie tin and filled it with wood chips. Set it all upside down inside a little bit larger cookie tin with some small holes cut into the bottom round of the larger tin. Then what would be the size of the fire vent holes on the lid of the larger tin after the surround of the smaller tin was filled and set on fire to gain the outgas sing of the smaller inner tin. I’m thing the fire holes should be in a round similar to a regular gas burner and the fire should last about an hour on a full charge of wood chips. The resulting biochar could start a new herb planter.

  2. Raul M. says:

    Fossil fuels are the remains of life forms’ accretions over time and that humans could use all that up in a few short years? Nah, for humans to evolve over hundreds of years from now, humans will have to find a different way. Why wait, begin today, evolve your methods.

  3. Hansen’s new paper suggests a cut to zero carbon emissions by 2030 is probably needed, at this point.

    • Paul magnus says:

      We kinda knew this but opted out. Various levels of reticence u could say.

    • Superman1 says:

      At some point, we need to get into a discussion of allowable temperature and other critical metric ceilings when addressing allowable CO2 emissions. There are major differences if our targets are 2 C, 1 C, or 0.5 C. What target temperature is Hansen picking to arrive at his conclusion on allowable carbon emissions?

      • Raul M. says:

        Yes, let’s read discussion. Still able to discuss. Allowable is a variable. For many creatures it is mute as the extinctions evolve. The token of allowable for a given degree temp.ceiling is mute as the feedbacks will ensure that human emmissions will decrease as extreme weather disables infrastructure. Surviving infrastructure is a viable question as to where, how much is enough, and who could do?

      • BobbyL says:

        I can’t find the target, but his target 5 years ago was 400-425 ppm.

        “… if coal emissions were thus phased out between 2010 and 2030, and if emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale were minimized, atmospheric CO2 would peak at 400-425 ppm and then slowly decline.”
        http://grist.org/article/the-need-for-speed/

        • Bluemot2 says:

          I just finished reading Hansen’s 2009 book and he recommends 350ppm CO2 max to prevent those really scarey tipping points. Reading about the frozen methane hydrates really driveshome the emergency factor.

          • Bluemot2 says:

            (Continued) in that book he has 450 ppm estimated as the point of no return, i think, and at that time it was increasing 2ppm per year….

          • Superman1 says:

            See Wili’s outstanding link above. Hansen is now recommending a 1 C limit. That, to me, is responsible scientific opinion. Set targets that have real meaning, and then do whatever is necessary to achieve those targets!

  4. Colorado Bob says:

    Warmer temps threaten railway

    Churchill shipping runs over peatland

    Research shows climate change is now causing peat moss that has been frozen for up to 6,000 years to melt. “Churchill was always on continuous permafrost. Now people are drilling bore holes and not finding permafrost,” said Bello.

    It means the Hudson Bay line connecting Churchill to the rest of the province could sink in places. “It will mean higher maintenance costs, for sure. We haven’t seen the upper end of what it’s going to cost,” he said.

    Bello, who has studied Churchill for over 30 years, observed the situation first hand recently on a Via Rail train……………Peter Kershaw, adjunct professor in the earth sciences department at the University of Alberta, who was in Churchill recently on a research project, agrees. “It’s a big concern and so far not well-quantified,” said Kershaw, of greenhouse-gas emissions from thawing peat. “That organic material is being made available for decomposition. It’s out of the freezer and sitting on the counter.”

    One Kershaw study showed permafrost 15 metres deep in the Hudson Bay Lowlands has warmed by half a degree, from -0.9 degrees Celsius in the mid-1970s, to -0.45 degrees today. That half-degree warming penetrating so deeply into the ground is significant, he said.
    .

    http://www.brandonsun.com/breaking-news/warmer-temps-threaten-railway-215197711.html?thx=y

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      That is a lot of change, no wonder they have all those hungry bears eating out of rubbish bins, ME

  5. rollin says:

    As I roll by the local solar farms, I often remark about the level of noise and pollution coming off those PV electric generators. Unlike the rest of industry, they just sit there quietly appearing to do nothing.

    The wind mills move but are quiet and non-polluting too once they are built.

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      And you were rolling past in your very quiet hybrid or silent EV? ME

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        On his solar-powered rollerskates. Mine are quite nifty. But, when I have my sail up…

        • rollin says:

          No, I have my thorium powered hover conversion car. EV is so out of date and doesn’t work well anyway.

  6. prokaryotes says:

    Another excellent “I Heart Climate Scientists” image https://www.facebook.com/ClimateState/posts/462620127167575

  7. prokaryotes says:

    The MSM is getting there…

    94 in Alaska? Weather extremes tied to jet stream

    A pattern of extremes — from global warming, to weather whiplash, to tornadoes.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The jet stream, the river of air high above Earth that generally dictates the weather, usually rushes rapidly from west to east in a mostly straight direction.

    But lately it seems to be wobbling and weaving like a drunken driver, wreaking havoc as it goes.

    The more the jet stream undulates north and south, the more changeable and extreme the weather.

    The most recent example occurred in mid-June when some towns in Alaska hit record highs. McGrath, Alaska, recorded an all-time high of 94 degrees on June 17. A few weeks earlier, the same spot was 15 degrees, the coldest recorded for so late in the year.

    You can blame the heat wave on a large northward bulge in the jet stream, Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis said.

    Several scientists are blaming weather whiplash — both high and low extremes — on a jet stream that’s not quite playing by its old rules. It’s a relatively new phenomenon that experts are still trying to understand.

    http://local.msn.com/weather-extremes-tied-to-jet-stream-2

  8. prokaryotes says:

    A Republican calls for climate action — and has to remain anonymous to keep job http://grist.org/news/republican-calls-for-climate-action-and-has-to-remain-anonymous-to-keep-job/

    The time for delay is over – stop denying the truth in front of your eyes!

    • Bluemot2 says:

      I am from Canada so not sure, do elected politicians in USA have option of switching sides?

      • Dennis Tomlinson says:

        Yes, but it’s rare. Perhaps the most significant party switche in recent times occurred in 2001 after the Supreme Court appointed George Dubya Bush and Dick Dubya Cheney as president and “otherPresident”. Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from the ‘R’ side to the ‘D’ side, and with him went the Senate majority.

    • Greatgrandma Kat says:

      Thank you Paul for the link thoughtfull and insightfull

    • wili says:

      Yes, thanks, Paul. That is full of must-see understanding about the nature both of our climate predicament and of our inability to face it.

      This sentence seems especially important for some on this blog to contemplate carefully:

      “We persist in our ways, apparently unwilling to, as Jensen says, “replace the predatory, corporate capitalism that we live under”, a system that itself might be one expansive monument to the denial of our connection to the planet and the consequences of violating it.”

      • Merrelyn Emery says:

        Think of it this way. Billions of human dead will return a lot of carbon to the soil, helping the forests and jungles to rapidly overgrow the silent factories and suburbs. Should be enough to shock the survivors back into worshipping their Earth Mother, ME

        • Dennis Tomlinson says:

          By the time we get to the point of dead billions, the oceans will be well along their way toward an irreversible transformation into becoming a toxic Canfield soup. As goes the oceans, so goes…

          We are headed toward a worse world than that of today, and the sooner (and harder) we apply the brakes the less worse it will be.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        That ‘unwillingness’ is a sign of the efficacy of life-long brainwashing by the entirely Rightwing corporate MSM, the corporate ‘entertainment’ industry and the corporate advertising Moloch, that indoctrinates us in greedy materialism through psychological manipulation. Moreover, our ‘leadership’ caste, in politics, academia, business and the MSM has been ruthlessly purged of non-conformists over decades. So we are, morally and intellectually, worse than merely ‘headless’. Our ‘command and control’ centres are terminally deranged, like some demented giant in the throes of end-stage cerebral degeneration, slashing and burning as the world crumbles around him. We mere corpuscles have no say in our fate, so far.

    • Dennis Tomlinson says:

      I’d like to add my thanks Paul for your link, and add the following quoted text:

      “We must have the courage to endure pessimism,” psychologist Martin Seligman wrote in 1990’s Learned Optimism, and we must endure the realization that we have lost a better future.”

      This feels spot on to me. Now how to I convey these thoughts to my children and childrens-in-law?

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Jensen nails it with his observation that we are still prepared to live under ‘. predatory, corporate capitalism’. The predators, those who prey on others (including Mother Earth) are responsible for every major social ill that we suffer, because they maintain totalitarian control over the planet. Blaming ourselves, the great unwashed mass of the 99.9% who have no say in how the planet is run, is a diversion, a means by which the real culprits escape attention.

  9. Jeff Huggins says:

    Book Her!

    I have an idea for consideration by anyone genuinely interested in addressing climate change and in trying to make sure that Democrats/progressives put the best possible person in the White House from 2017 to 2021.

    Hillary Clinton is on the speechmaking trail.

    (See the recent New York Times article, ‘Hillary Clinton Hits the Lucrative Speechmaking Trail’ – at least, that was the original online title – by Amy Chozick, July 11, 2013.)

    Yes, Hillary is speechmaking. According to the article, in her speeches so far (typically to industry and trade associations, professional groups, etc.) she has discussed health care, border security, immigration, the Arab Spring, the conflict in Syria, and Edward Snowden. According to the article, “She often indulges her inner policy wonk …”.

    The article quotes Democratic consultant Tad Devine, “It’s the perfect opportunity to deliver a message of your choosing to who you want …”. And, I might add, get paid for it.

    The idea is this:

    A prominent and credible organization having to do with the environment, science, or climate change specifically should book Hillary to speak at their upcoming annual meeting or convention. The scope of the speech could include her regular personal discussion, of course, but the topics of emphases should be the environment in general and climate change and energy in particular. Put another way, the point is to ask her to share her thoughts, and get her “inner policy wonk” going, on the crucial topics of the environment, climate change, and energy. What and how does she think about those crucial topics?

    She is represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which also represents Bill Clinton, Bill O’Reilly (!), and many others. According to the article, her fee is roughly $200,000, plus or minus, depending on whether she is asked to do a Q&A after her talk, stick around for photographs and signatures, and so forth, and whether her transportation on a private jet is covered.

    How could this happen, rather easily? Two key ingredients: a relevant, prominent, and credible organization with a genuine interest in the topics of the environment, climate change, and energy; and a donor who is deeply concerned about the environment, climate change, and energy and who can fund the fee of $200,000. It’s as easy and doable as that.

    Potential organizations could include: the Sierra Club, the NRDC, the AAAS, the NAS, or other environmental or scientific organizations. The potential donor-sponsor could be someone like Al Gore or Tom Steyer, or any number of other people who are deeply concerned about the environment and climate change and who have $200,000 to spare, an amount that is not very much for some folks out there.

    Also, it should be noted that the donor-sponsor could prefer to stay anonymous, if that’s helpful. The only necessity is that one of the above-mentioned organizations, or another like them, should gain funding help in order to more easily afford the fee and the venue. Indeed, in order to enable it all (and encourage it) to happen, the donor-sponsor could make his/her contribution to the organization (for example, to the Sierra Club) in an amount exceeding the fee itself. For example, Tom Steyer, if he thought this a good idea, could contribute $500,000 to the Sierra Club (for example), wrapping together the fee amount with an additional contribution to the Club.

    Given this example, consider this: Only two people would have to be enthusiastic about, and agree to, this idea: Michael Brune (the Sierra Club) and Tom Steyer. Or else, Michal Brune and Al Gore. Or, or, or ….

    Also consider that, although $200,000 might sound like a lot, it is actually much less than amounts that will need to be spent (on climate change campaigns, events, and so forth) to do far less than what can be accomplished simply by having Hillary Clinton address an audience such as this on these crucial topics. If it is true that Hillary is in the race for 2016, or will likely be in it, and if it is true that many Democrats already consider her The One, or at least the likely frontrunner, then it will behoove us all, sooner rather than later, to find out as much as possible about how Hillary thinks about these topics, and what she will be willing to say, hopefully forthrightly, about them.

    Of course, if an organization such as the Sierra Club, the NRDC, the AAAS, the NAS, or etc. wanted to book Hillary for its annual meeting or convention – “invited her to speak” – it is always possible that she might say ‘no’. After all, we want to hear what she thinks about these crucial topics – or we should! – but she may not want to share her thoughts forthrightly at this stage. However, in this case, a turn-down would speak for itself. After all, IF she wants the nomination, IF she wants the support of the environmental community, IF she wants the support of people and organizations that are deeply concerned with climate change, THEN she ought to accept such an invitation and be willing to talk forthrightly about these crucial topics. After all, if she is not willing to demonstrate that sort of willingness, forthrightness, and leadership, it might well be the case that it would be better for the Democrats and all of us to nominate someone else: Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, Al Gore, Joe Biden, or etc.?

    One last thing: Some of these sorts of organizations might normally have a person with a different sort of background to deliver its keynote address or other featured talk. For example, a scientific organization might normally have a major scientist do the keynote. But, note, it is not the case that having Hillary talk would necessarily displace the normal keynote address. If a donor-sponsor funds the fee and costs involved in having Hillary speak, then Hillary’s talk could be in addition to the normal keynote at such a convention or annual meeting. It need not be an either/or thing.

    Anyhow, this is the sort of idea that could be done with the enthusiasm and cooperation of a very small number of people, and they are the sorts of people who ought to want to do it, all things considered.

    Book her!

    (The Harry Walker Agency can be found at http://www.HarryWalker.com . The site includes an online form to express interest in having a specific speaker at your event.)

    Cheers and Be Well,

    Jeff

    • Jeff,

      I admire your passion and thoughtfulness. But I didn’t read most of the post.

      Idea: Put your core suggestion at the top. I think this one is, “Is anybody able to get their environmental organization to invite Hillary Clinton or other candidates to speak on climate change?”

      Also: are you in a position to make that happen, rather than urging others? Giving us highly detailed advice on how to execute your plan if you can’t execute it yourself seems a bit self-indulgent. Same applies to much of Superman’s posts. He asks pertinent, incisive questions, but rarely has a concrete idea or even encouragement to arrive at an idea.

      At least you, Jeff, don’t indulge in the negative, which I appreciate. Not that I don’t think we are all entitled to a passing expression of despair.

      Food for thought. Again, thanks for the good ideas and enthusiasm.

      • Jeff Huggins says:

        Hi ‘A Change in the Weather’,

        Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

        Alas, I’m not the leader of a major environmental organization, or even an active member (although I do go to climate events, frequently), and I don’t have the kind of money to fund something like this.

        My experience (a lot of it) has been that whether or not ideas are expressed informally and without much explanation, or (instead) with the idea laid out in some detail, — either way — there is hardly ever any followup or acknowledgement, hardly ever any sign that someone in a position to DO the idea has actually seen and considered it. Mostly, as you have probably noticed, people here either (1) find quick reasons to dismiss the idea, mostly amounting to something like “it’ll never work” or “it won’t do any good (we’re all doomed)”, or they comment on the style of the communication of the idea (as you have) without carefully considering the idea, determining whether they agree with it, and joining in to suggest the idea if they do agree with it.

        My view is this: Potentially — I say potentially! — one of the highest values of COMMENTS on a blog like this should be the value associated with sharing positive ideas and helping to get ideas that are worth considering to the folks who can consider them. Ideas and information. And all that. Get information and ideas to people who might be able to act on them, to people who are in positions to act on them.

        But that doesn’t seem to be happening much here? At least in my experience. If it IS happening, those people who appreciate ideas — even ideas to consider — are not doing a great job of acknowledging the ideas or doing anything whatsoever to keep the ideas flowing.

        But that’s not the key issue: the issue is getting climate change addressed (!), so whether or not people who submit ideas and information are acknowledged, or whether or not the ideas themselves are acknowledged, the aim remains to get good ideas into the hands of people who might be able to act on them. Again, information and ideas. They are nothing unless they flow.

        That said — and I repeat that I do appreciate your thoughtful comments and tone — you can’t evaluate an idea unless you read it. When it comes to climate change and addressing it, it (really) shouldn’t matter, in the overall scheme of things, if an excellent idea is communicated even with spelling errors, bad grammar, and even with an expletive or two. If someone can give us a great idea — something that can help move the needle forward — we oughtn’t care much (we would be foolish to care much) if she or he communicates the idea while drooling and cussing, or whatever. We ought to do a better job of soliciting ideas, reading them (at least), considering the potentially good ones, and (especially) getting the potentially good ones to the right people who can consider and possibly act on them.

        Gotta go. Cheers for now, and thanks again,

        Jeff

        • Joan Savage says:

          Jeff,
          Clinton’s announced intention is to speak on behalf of women and girls worldwide. She is not offering to speak on climate change. Consequently, a $200,000 speaker fee doesn’t seem like a good fit.
          She said she is not running for President. Let’s believe her.

          • Jeff Huggins says:

            Hi Joan, thanks for the comment. I am ALL in favor of her speaking on behalf of girls and women, to be sure. That’s badly needed, and I applaud it. But in addition to that, she is speaking on numerous other topics, and to groups such as travel agents and all sorts of other folks. Also, when someone is represented by the Harry Walker Agency, and charges a $200,000 fee when she is already highly wealthy, (and the fee also depends on whether her travel on a private jet is covered, according to the NYTimes article), I’m not sure that entirely qualifies as speaking voluntarily on behalf of a cause, as if there were no profit or personal gain involved; in any case, it suggests that she is open and willing to speak to a range of audiences.

            But most importantly, as you can appreciate, the cause of addressing climate change and the cause of improving the world for girls and women are highly interrelated. They go together well, and you can’t really done the latter without the former, at least in the long-term, at least if we’re serious. I could easily see a wonderful (and necessary) speech given to the Sierra Club on a range of environmental issues, including climate change, interwoven with the theme of the need to cherish and protect the environment for the sake of women and girls around the world, and the special roles that women can (and often do) play when it comes to protecting the environment. Indeed, if you ask me, the world would be much better off if many more women were in pivotal leadership roles, rather than the (mostly) men who currently are but are failing at the task.

            As for believing her when she says she’s not running, well, that is a very standard thing for a politician to say, and all signs indicate that she is running or definitely plans to run. I doubt she is thinking of herself as dishonest if, in her heart, she plans to run but is telling folks that she’s not running now. And in any case, I haven’t heard her say that she won’t run; she seems to be saying that she’s not running (quite yet) or doesn’t know. And she says that with the sort of smile that suggests that she wants to be the first female president.

            In any case, all of that is fine with me; all I’m suggesting is that some prominent organization such as the Sierra Club, NRDC, AAAS, NAS, or etc. take her up on her offer to speak — heck, she has listed herself with the Harry Walker Agency, which means she open to (and wants to) speak, at least to serious audiences on important issues.

            Thanks Joan, Be Well,

            Jeff

      • Superman1 says:

        I will not propose a plan that might sound acceptable, but that I believe will intrinsically take us over the cliff. But, if someone here has a plan that will satisfy the REQUIREMENTS, by all means, let’s hear it! I haven’t heard it so far, but, anything is possible.

        • prokaryotes says:

          Large scale deployment of Biochar, on a global scale.
          CO2 free zones in city centres.
          CO2 fee – as Hansen proposed – to encourage CO2 emissions reductions.
          Prevention of further destruction of the last carbon sinks through human burning or logging (Indonesia, Amazon etc).

          • catman306 says:

            Requiring all new roofing material to be white and therefore heat reflecting. Painting older roofs white will also help.

        • BobbyL says:

          No plan here, but it seems like everyone you are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand any plan to stay below 1C or quickly return to 350 seems like engaging in fantasy about the world suddenly having an epiphany and getting into WWII mode to save the human the race, while on the other hand a plan that deals with the slow moving real world with economic, political, and social obstacles is too little and too late. I guess you could call it a lose/lose situation. In any case, I think the reality is that we will be dealing for years with plans from others that are too little and too late and will have to make the best of it.

        • kermit says:

          What’s yours, superman1? Remember, for any plan to work it has to describe a credible way to get the majority of powerful people on board, or it won’t happen.

          How are you going to get everybody (or even just my fellow Americans) to give up all unnecessary fossil fuel burning?

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Book her! Dunno. Not Hilarious. You’ve gotta look outside the Washington asylum, I’m certain.

    • Jeff Huggins says:

      The Hillary Page on the Harry Walker Agency Website

      Regarding the question of whether Hillary might, would, or should be willing to talk about the environment (including climate change), here is the last paragraph of her recently-added page on the Harry Walker Agency’s website:

      “Today, Clinton continues to build on the nonprofit work she began nearly four decades ago through the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which works to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among businesses, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens.”

      Hillary’s full page on the Harry Walker Agency website can be read here:

      http://www.harrywalker.com/speaker/Hillary-Clinton.cfm?Spea_ID=1655

      So, it seems to me like it would be a great fit – and a great idea – to have Hillary speak to a serious and prominent group about the environment, climate change, and related matters – a group such as the Sierra Club, the NRDC, the AAAS, the NAS, or another prominent group. Indeed, as a (would-be) Democratic nominee for president – as someone who most likely wants to be the “leader of the free world” – wouldn’t it make more sense for her to be speaking to groups such as those, or at least equal sense for her to do so, than to speak to annual conventions of travel agents, as she is presently doing? (No offense to travel agents intended.) Wouldn’t it make excellent sense for one of these groups to ask her to speak?

      Cheers,

      Jeff

  10. Rob Brinkman says:

    I believe this is the latest publication from Dr. James Hansen
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/011006/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_011006.pdf

  11. Colorado Bob says:

    Please release my comment #4.

    • Colorado Bob says:

      It’s about thawing permafrost at Churchill, Canada.
      “Peter Kershaw, adjunct professor in the earth sciences department at the University of Alberta, who was in Churchill recently on a research project, agrees. “It’s a big concern and so far not well-quantified,” said Kershaw, of greenhouse-gas emissions from thawing peat. “That organic material is being made available for decomposition. It’s out of the freezer and sitting on the counter.”

      One Kershaw study showed permafrost 15 metres deep in the Hudson Bay Lowlands has warmed by half a degree, from -0.9 degrees Celsius in the mid-1970s, to -0.45 degrees today. That half-degree warming penetrating so deeply into the ground is significant, he said.”

  12. katy says:

    Study: Air pollution causes over 2 million deaths a year -Los Angeles Times – by Monte Morin

    and other such headlines on the googlenews page

  13. SecularAnimist says:

    Superman1 wrote: “What is your specific implementation scenario that will insure the emissions and temperature constraints above will be met?”

    You have been asked that question by multiple commenters, DOZENS of times, and you have yet to offer anything remotely resembling a “specific implementation scenario” for achieving the “drastic reductions in fossil fuel use starting today” that you insist are necessary.

    Instead, your consistent and repetitious response is to heap abusive, juvenile insults on anyone and everyone who actually offers concrete steps for rapidly phasing out fossil fuel use.

    You have never really had much of substance to say hear, and you have long since stopped making much sense at all. Your posts are really just an exercise in classic trollery — i.e. trying to draw attention to yourself by making meaningless noise and being as arrogant and obnoxious as possible.

    • Mark E says:

      I’d support a frequency-of-posting filter

    • Well put, Secular. Mark E, I also would support a frequency-of-response filter, if there is such a thing.

    • Mark Belgium says:

      Secular, I try to understand your frustrations on the comments of superman but I can’t find no ground for them. Your accusations are making no sense to me. Can’t you agree to disagree? and continue to debate in a civil way?

    • Ken Barrows says:

      As a peon, let me say that most “solutions” here don’t seem to meet the perceived scope of the problem. SA, do you think CC is less of a problem than Superman1?

  14. Colorado Bob says:

    Weather Pattern in Reverse: Drought Relief and Flood Threat
    Typically, weather systems move from west to east in the United States and the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. This will not be the case over the next four to five days as we track an area of low pressure moving in the reverse direction from the eastern states towards the southwestern states. It’s not unheard of to see a weather system move east to west in the United States, but it’s certainly not common. You can see how this pattern evolves in the animation to the right with low pressure (red “L”) getting shoved westward by high pressure building in to its north and east.
    http://www.wunderground.com/news/weather-pattern-reverse-20130712

  15. Joan Savage says:

    Isn’t it interesting that we humans still think we are in charge?

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      That sounds dangerously like heresy, or apostasy, Joan. I’m sure that there will be NSA ‘filters’ for such talk. After all, we created God in our image, and he rules the omniverse- don’t we?

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      Joan, that is a profound statement and I’m sorry I didn’t recognize it immediately. Mulga has part of it but what your comment means is that we are prepared to put our belief systems before reality until it becomes totally untenable. Believing we are in charge only became a dominant idea about 250 years ago and the consequences have been abrupt and devastating but it applies only in the white West. Until we acknowledge we are of the planet, not above it, and act in the service of that belief, our actions will be less than required, ME

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        People need belief systems, religions, ideologies etc, because it makes them feel part of something bigger than themselves. Most people seem to find it hard to stand alone, on their own eclectic territory, staring oblivion and, even more painful, inevitable error in the face. I am lucky enough not to mind being proved wrong, because finding the truth, or a better approximation to it, is exhilarating. Truth is Beauty, after all is said and done.

        • Merrelyn Emery says:

          Yes, people need a sense of belonging as well as autonomy but belief systems can be based on dominance-subservience or equality, which lead to very different sets, e.g. patriarchal gods or naturalistic spiritualities, ME

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

            I see that Mr Dominance-Subservience Abbott (with his loyal spouse in tow)has asserted CO2’s non-existence, yet again. This rather extreme denialist position is obviously a ‘dog-whistle’ to the more extreme Dunning-Krugerites, the bedrock of Abbott’s base. I rather imagine that one or two more deranged outbursts like this, as the Rudd pressure is applied to Tony’s ever-fragile psyche, will lead to the Second Second Coming, of The Man Who Would be King, Turnbull, and we can witness a really titanic battle of the egos.

      • Joan Savage says:

        Interesting that you picked 250 years. I tend to agree.

        Although resource destruction kicked up an ugly notch (colonialism and coal mines), it was also when Franklin was the toast of Europe for inventing lightning rods. That subdued people’s fear of mighty Nature and paved the way for manipulating electricity. What had been characterized as acts of God, like lighting strikes that burned buildings to the ground, were less impressive to them.
        Pride goeth before a fall.

        • Merrelyn Emery says:

          Nice observation. I picked it because with the introduction of the factory system, ordinary people were subjected to supervision and management when previously they managed themselves, e.g. cottage industries, ME

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          ‘Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud’. Proverbs 16: 18-19. So our pride is leading to destruction, and ain’t that the truth! The haughty spirits are everywhere, their gross egomania only seeming to grow and grow, as their insane world-view crumbles. As for ‘dividing the spoils with the proud’- well if that’s not a description of the elite in ‘democratic capitalism’, then I’ll walk backwards to Christmas.

  16. Colorado Bob says:

    I know I’m just spam , but filter is catching everything ………..

    Why does this matter ? The first report from Churchill, Canada (comment #4)that people are drilling boreholes, and not drilling permafrost.

  17. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Our new govt is moving from a fixed to floating price on carbon a year earlier. It will significantly drop the price because we are tied to the EU. An electorally smart tactic but a ‘grave’ strategic mistake, ME

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Worth it to keep Tony ‘Climate Change is Crap’ Abbott at bay. There’s your glorious capitalist demo-crazy for you. A choice between cascara and cyanide.

      • Merrelyn Emery says:

        Sure but I’ll bet the numbers men in the Libs are already contemplating a change to Malcolm. Latest Morgan poll has the ALP at 54% two party preferred, ME

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          At least Turnbull, the archetypal ‘Self-made man, who worships His Creator’, is not….well, one cannot properly describe Abbott without veering into animadversions, so I’ll leave it there. The one leader who would make Howard look good in retrospect.

  18. ME, can you provide a link to a quick exec sum re how the price is applied there?

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      You could try http://www.climatechange.gov.au. I haven’t looked at it for a while but it should be there somewhere, ME

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      Wikipedia has a reasonable summary – ‘carbon pricing in Australia’, ME

      • Thanks. A floating price should be a good thing, in a fully functioning cap-and-trade market. But the EU market is still too larded up with free allowances.

        A fixed price, if it’s not pegged right, can backfire just as easily, just in different ways.

        • Merrelyn Emery says:

          Ours already includes methane and was designed to apply to more areas, e.g. heavy vehicles, over time as well as going up. Fixed is also less subject to manipulation and/or corruption I believe, ME

  19. Nell says:

    Any SciFi movie set in the future that does not factor in climate change lacks the necessary foresight to be called SciFi.

    • prokaryotes says:

      The lack of movies set into a future world and using basic climate science tells another story of human inabilities – or the inability of the ruling movie system to deal with the topic. You have all kind of sci-fi today just not anything which comes close to realistic based plot settings.

      Sci-Fi in the 70-80s was way ahead…

      2001 Odyssey 1968
      THX 1138 1971
      The Black Hole 1979
      Brazil 1985

      Today’s Sci-FI recipe = remake, marvel super hero or Tom Cruise flick …

      Though recently “The Road” (2009) outlined cannibalism in a post apocalyptic future, The Day After Tomorrow(2004) still the best we have…

      • Mark Belgium says:

        Soylent Green 1973

      • Brian Smith says:

        Don’t miss: Things To Come (Orsen Wells 1936),
        This Island Earth (1955), Forbidden Planet (1958 ..we need the Krell “brain boost”), and of course The day The Earth Stood Still 1951 version

        • prokaryotes says:

          Wow, i don’t know any of those yet, now on my watch list ^^ Thanks!

          • Brian Smith says:

            These are all thoughtful classics of the science/human psychology, science/corporate industrial/military, science/destructive man vs the planet allegories of sci-fi. (As was Blade Runner.) “Monsters from the Id!”. Change our ways of perish… Plus very cool effects. Wells in, 1936 B & W, shows us 2036 with cell phones, 60in. flat screens & Jumbotrons, modular architecture, launching to the moon..etc. in great Art Deco style. No zombies, sharks or villains who win.

        • prokaryotes says:

          Things to Come (1936) – William Cameron Menzies
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgj5Mgo97Kk

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          Beware the ‘monsters from the Id’, aka the Reptilicans.

        • I think we have the “Krill” brain boost. People don’t have the brains of a shrimp. The scientific community has been warning us about dangerous climate change for three decades. In the past few years the climate consequences of global warming are beginning to manifest — big time in the last couple of years with the collapse of the Arctic ice, etc.

          And 1/3 of our Congressional representative don’t believe climate change is real? Shrimp brains.

          Thanks for bringing up the Forbidden Planet, though. Watching it was one of the formative moments of my childhood. Monsters from the Id, indeed.

          • Superman1 says:

            “And 1/3 of our Congressional representative don’t believe climate change is real?” And, for the other 2/3 that do believe, what are they proposing anywhere near the scale of what has to be done to avoid even the Extremely Dangerous temperature ceiling of 2 C?

      • catman306 says:

        Remember Blade Runner? The climate had already changed and it was raining almost constantly every day in Los Angeles

      • Greg Smith says:

        An absolute must on this list is “Silent Running”

    • Chris Winter says:

      Provided the story is set on this planet, I’d agree.

      There was a very good story serialized in Analog, it must be two decades ago now. I wish I could remember the title or author. Sea levels had risen a good deal by the time of the story. One feature of the world it presented was a launch system running up a mountain in Tibet.

      • Merrelyn Emery says:

        The Sixth Winter (John Gribbin) was good in that it pointed to the speed with which climate can change. Don’t know if they made a movie, ME

    • Chris Winter says:

      I don’t know why anybody (except Fox) still publishes Krauthammer’s stuff. The Guardian did a good job on his latest drivel.

      Translate one piece of his “reasoning” to the medical field: Because we don’t know everything about cancer, we shouldn’t try to cure it. (That’s my translation of a line quoted at the end of the Guardian’s second paragraph.)

  20. Jeff Huggins says:

    Vetting

    (Ed Snowden, Climate Change, Hillary Clinton, the Presidency, and Us!)

    In a recent article by Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian, Greenwald writes:

    “He [Ed Snowden] carefully vetted every document he gave us …”

    My quick question today is, If Ed Snowden carefully vetted the documents before giving them to the press, doesn’t it make even much more sense for us – the climate movement – to carefully vet Hillary Clinton (as well as other would-be Democratic nominees for president) with respect to her positions and commitments regarding climate change, BEFORE we decide whether (or not) she is the best person to lead the U.S. to address climate change in the crucial period from 2017 to 2021?

    It is a simple and direct question. It should speak for and explain itself.

    Cheers,

    Jeff

    • kermit says:

      Responses from politicians are not information, they are vote-gathering mechanisms. Hillary likely won’t run, and if she does, nothing she says now tells us anything about what she will do. Do I have to refer you to Obama’s promises made before his elections?

  21. prokaryotes says:

    In ‘Chilling’ Ruling, Chevron Granted Access to Activists’ Private Internet Data
    “Sweeping” subpoena violates rights of those who spoke out against oil giant’s devastating actions in Ecuador http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/11-3

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      The ‘Rule of Law’! The Right are coming for Greens, environmentalists and anyone dumb enough to believe all the malarkey about ‘freedom’ and who dare get in the way of the destruction of the planet for profit. And they’ll have no problem at all finding compliant ‘judges’ all the way ‘up’ to the SCOTUS.

  22. prokaryotes says:

    Mark Hertsgaard Analyzes the Psychology of Climate Change Activism
    Jul 14, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
    The Keystone pipeline might be approved this year, but Mark Hertsgaard says an important new book shows what activists have to do to psychologically commit to fighting for the environment. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/14/mark-hertsgaard-analyzes-the-psychology-of-climate-change-activism.html

    • prokaryotes says:

      Wrong question, Pipher might say. As a therapist, she learned long ago that simply telling a client to “wake up” doesn’t work. The client must also believe that waking up can actually make things better. “Neuroscientists have discovered that the human mind functions best when it acts as if there is hope,” Pipher writes. Believing that change is possible helps to make change possible.

    • prokaryotes says:

      The Trauma to Transcendence formula is straightforward enough, but putting it into practice requires some courage. You begin by facing your despair, even though “coming out of the trance of denial is painful.” In step two, Acceptance, you acknowledge the realities that brought you to despair. It’s critical to take this step with the help of others; the best way for humans to deal with emotional pain, writes Pipher, “is to turn toward other people.” You share your feelings, including your fears but above all your love—for the grandchild you want to see grow up, for a prairie untrammeled by pipelines, for the right of all creatures to share the bounties of this earth. It is love that propels you toward the final stage, Transcendence, for love leads humans to take action for the sake of their beloved, despite one’s fears and the undeniable possibility of failure.

      “When I figured out what I could do, I stopped being scared,” Pipher writes. And when one person sees others taking action, that person is more likely to take action herself. When working together, people experience what Nelson Mandela, the anti-apartheid hero, called “the multiplication of courage.”

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      I’d say that a very basic psychology pertains. The drive to survive, and to see one’s offspring survive.

  23. prokaryotes says:

    Climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt
    A study has shown that the speed of evolutionary change is far outstripped by the rate of global warming, meaning many creatures will face extinction
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/14/climate-change-evolution-species-adapt

  24. prokaryotes says:

    We’re in Deep Water: What Climate Change Could Do to Your City (PHOTOS) http://news.yahoo.com/deep-water-climate-change-could-city-photos-161306440.html

    From Yahoo News, article has over 500 comments…

    • prokaryotes says:

      Blake Davis proposes community bonding and organising, more self reliance to cope with possible collapse and followed turmoil.

      But how realistically are these actions actually?

      • prokaryotes says:

        Realize that in the past all successful societies, collapsed(rapid simplification of complexity)

        Collapse of Complex Societies
        http://climatestate.com/2013/05/14/collapse-of-complex-societies-by-joseph-tainter/

        These civilization in the past were best equipped to cope with turmoil and to sustain through hardship. What is the prospect for a sustainable community to defend itself against aggression and to adapt to the situation? Is this really a feasible model?

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          No chance. Decades of indoctrination by the Right in the mental habits of extreme greed-driven individualism, the vicious vilification of those who reject the greedy materialistic way of life, and the not so subtle effects of hyper-violent movies, computer games etc, mean that there is a large cadre of barely repressed psychotics, eager to destroy ‘the enemy’, however defined, heavily armed and just awaiting direction. Many have already received military training, and then joined the ‘private security’ militias, that have burgeoned in recent years. When the Collapse comes, these creatures will not pick up shovels and hoes and grow their own food and share it with others.

          • Basically right, Mulga. Except some communities, even some regions might decide to maintain law and order — albeit of a more fascistic variety — in their locales. There were plenty of armed thugs roaming the American “Wild West,” yet communities survived and defended themselves, even against sizable gangs.

            Assuming things break down into a kind of everyone-for-himself chaos, and they could, some folks will probably figure out that it’s better to hang together than hang separately. Just hope you in one of those communities.

          • Merrelyn Emery says:

            In those days Philip, the USA seemed a more cohesive place. People have become more individualistic, dissociated and lost a lot of their sense of community. Laissez-faire is inherently dangerous so I hope you are right about hanging together, ME

  25. prokaryotes says:

    Models point to rapid sea-level rise from climate change

    Sea levels could rise by 2.3 metres for each degree celsius that global temperatures increase and they will remain high for centuries to come, according to a new study by the leading climate research institute.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/models-point-to-rapid-sealevel-rise-from-climate-change-20130714-2pxoz.html

    • prokaryotes says:

      Notice, the uncredited author of that article sneaked some climate sceptic claims into the article. No citation no fact checking, how hard is this for a journalist of that journal?

      It takes 5 minutes to google the sceptic claims and another 5 minutes to find studies on the reliability of climate models, and the fact that most models are underestimating trends or have known limitations, such as equilibrium settings for ice sheet modelling.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        Reuters. The denialists were uncredited, also. Standard Operating Procedure for the MSM disinformation system.

  26. Bill Gloege says:

    There’s a CP article above on new, better wind generators. My wife and I have lived half a year or more for the last 18 years on our sailboat in Central American, the Caribbean and Bahamas.

    We live with solar and wind produced electricity with three 75 watt panels and wind generator about 6 ft in diameter. Solar pumps out amps daytime, along with wind and wind keeps on working nights.

    This fills our four deep cycle 6 volt batteries and keeps them full to power the refrigerator, VHF radio, single side band long distance radio, lights, fans, water maker and whatever uses electricity.

    This really works. But some sailboat cruisers have such a built in fear that only fossil fuel will give them electricity they buy fossil fuel powered generators, listen to them chug away day and night, and go out to find and lug fuel to keep them going.

    We just flip a switch for solar and/or wind and sit back and let them provide all the power we need and more. (sometimes we have to turn off solar and/or wind due to completely full batteries)

    There is a big psychological component to weening people off their fossil fuel.

  27. Nell says:

    India is accustomed to flooding from monsoon rains, but this year’s downpours arrived a week ahead of schedule, sending people scrambling for high ground as rivers spilled over their banks

    http://www.voanews.com/content/six-thousand-missing-in-india-flood-presumed-dead/1702033.html