Extinction by 2040 by SIGNYM

Shouldn't we just geneticly engineer ourselves into Morlocks?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2014 7:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

I was just wondering so I looked this up:
http://world.time.com/2013/05/27/fears-grow-of-a-himalayan-tsunami-as-
glaciers-melt/

Even there, stuff is melting.

Quote:
The pillar is all that’s left of the original Phulping Bridge, which was swept away by floodwaters in July 1981.

July.

Which would be... summer ?

1981.

Nearly 33 YEARS ago.

Sound the alarm.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2014 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Which would be... summer ?

1981.

Nearly 33 YEARS ago.

Sound the alarm.

Hey! I have an idea: why don't you cherry-pick a small part of the article that is ancillary to the main point of it to illustrate your narrow focus & general misunderstanding?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2014 11:59 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Aside from global thermal runaway, dead and dying plants and algae, and spewing nuclear reactors - lots of methane - a really bad thing.

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/04/ancient-whodunit-may-be-solved-micro
bes-did-it

Ancient whodunit may be solved: The microbes did it!

Evidence left at the crime scene is abundant and global: Fossil remains show that sometime around 252 million years ago, about 90 percent of all species on Earth were suddenly wiped out—by far the largest of this planet’s five known mass extinctions. ...

The perpetrators, this new work suggests, were not asteroids, volcanoes, or raging coal fires, all of which have been implicated previously. Rather, they were a form of microbes—specifically, methane-producing archaea called Methanosarcina—that suddenly bloomed explosively in the oceans, spewing prodigious amounts of methane into the atmosphere and dramatically changing the climate and the chemistry of the oceans.

The burst of methane would have increased carbon dioxide levels in the oceans, resulting in ocean acidification—similar to the acidification predicted from human-induced climate change. Independent evidence suggests that marine organisms with heavily calcified shells were preferentially wiped out during the end-Permian extinction, which is consistent with acidification.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:17 AM

GREAT stuff!

Errrr, I mean, ultra-far left wing nonsense. Microbes & molecules do not control Man's past & future, Free market economy, lobbyists & unlimited campaign contributions do!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:20 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

G

The problem with positing some underground technological 'fix' for survival is that we won't have the wherewithal to actually do it. Miracles of modern technology and materials science require rare minerals from around the globe, nanometer fabrication, and humans with enough spare time to specialize. And living underground might as well be living in outer space in terms of supplying phytochemicals, mineral balance, sunshine and all the subtle things that contribute to survival. But we don't know nearly enough about what we need, and what we can't tolerate, to recreate the exact environment for the long-term. Witness the now 1/66 autism rate, up from 1/88 in just two years. Obviously we're ignorant of at least one something vital.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:28 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Signy

I read a rebuttal of sorts to thermogeddon. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827835.600-thermogeddon-when-t
he-earth-gets-too-hot-for-humans.html

In some ways it was comforting - their model didn't predict virtually the entire earth becoming uninhabitable even after a rise of 12C. OTOH they didn't calculate the positive feedback effects of CO2, methane, and temperature on each other. Nor did they take into account the effects on plants and phytoplankton and their variable ability to be a sink for CO2 or a source, depending on conditions.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hey! I have an idea: why don't you cherry-pick a small part of the article that is ancillary to the main point of it to illustrate your narrow focus & general misunderstanding?

WOW! And rappy get a 100% a this! Whooda thunk???

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KIKI... Well, shitcan the article then!

Any article of a large complex system which purports to be "scientific" and ignores feedback... uh, mmmmphhh, chuklm ....

Worth some stifled laughs! Not much else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:07 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Their 'effects on habitability' model moves 2040 into the future. If we are to have a hope of even trying to do anything other than kiss our collective asses goodbye, that's a good thing.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I was just quietly trying trying to figure out WHAT we can do to slow down or avoid the approaching catastrophe. And I think the critical thing is, we have to avoid thermal runaway. But once you pull the trigger on a major positive feedback loop... one which has the capacity to accelerate away from negative feedback loops which might moderate it ... we're toast. It's like starting a boulder rolling downhill, or firing a gun... it doesn't take much energy to start it, but once it starts there's no hope of stopping until it reaches a new equilibrium.

Did we already pull the trigger? Or are we just pressing it kinda hard? I don't know. I'll read the article.

RAPPY: It's not ME! I didn't say it! It was that article! That no-account author of that ridiculous article (that I posted because I so clearly disagreed with!) Don't talk to ME! Talk to the AUTHOR!

- OK, we WON'T talk to you!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:42 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I see.

While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm
A more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, methane emissions will leap as Earth warms (Nature) Supposedly, 60% of methane emissions comes from human activity. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html The lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is 12 years. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html The lifetime of 75% of CO2 is a few centuries and 25% is forever. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

Whether we already pulled the trigger or are just pressing kinda hard, we need to do some serious carbon sequestering. The theoretical 'tipping point' is when all emissions are set to zero but the process has already become self-sustaining (positive feedback). But all emissions aren't going to be set to zero, so whether we're there now or will get there later is a moot point. The only thing that'll reverse the outcome is massive sequestration.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:49 PM

Please tell about sequestration (storage of methane, greenhouse gases).
Can it be done? If so, how? Are there any think tanks working on this
stuff?

"Methane is an odorless, colorless flammable gas. It is used primarily
as fuel to make heat and light. It is also used to manufacture organic
chemicals." ( http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/Methane.htm )
So ... when we use it up, it produces heat, so that's not a solution.
It has to be stored.

Dr. Shakhova said there's about 5 gigatons of methane in the atmosphere
now. Ice melt in the arctic could release, conservatively, 100 gigatons
more. That'd make it really hot earthside.

If it's not stopped, everything'll die.

Are there any ideas about how to stop it?

I thought we were in trouble before without knowing 1/10th how bad it is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:01 PM

A few volcanic eruptions & a bunch of dirt in the air could trigger a cool down....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:07 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Please tell about sequestration ..." my personal fav is biochar (see below). But the only thing being implemented in a big way is CO2 sequestration by oil companies. They're currently getting credits for sequestering CO2, however, it speeds up the production of more oil, making it increase CO2 in the atmosphere.

http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar/carbon

Oh, let me add this CoI statement: I know the author somewhat, we belong to the same email discussion group. I didn't pick it because of his involvement, it was the first article in my google search result.

Sustainable biochar systems can be carbon negative because they hold a substantial portion of the carbon in soil. The result is a net reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as illustrated below.

Biochar and carbon sequestration

Biochar can hold carbon in the soil for hundreds and even thousands of years. Biochar also improves soil fertility, stimulating plant growth, which then consumes more CO2 in a feedback effect. And the energy generated as part of biochar production can displace carbonpositive energy from fossil fuels. Additional effects from adding biochar to soil can further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon storage in soil. These include:

Biochar reduces the need for fertilizer, resulting in reduced emissions from fertilizer production.
Biochar increases soil microbial life, resulting in more carbon storage in soil.
Because biochar retains nitrogen, emissions of nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas) may be reduced.
Turning agricultural waste into biochar reduces methane (another potent greenhouse gas) generated by the natural decomposition of the waste.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:56 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The author of the initial post uses several separate arguments to create his scenario. But they each need to be examined.

The 4C cutoff. For many reasons, this is well established as a reasonable number, and passing the limit leads to ultimate uninhabitability. What isn't so well established AFAIK is the timetable after crossing that limit (the value of the exponent of the curve). Will vegetation be rapidly exterminated? Or will it struggle, painful bit by bit, losing some ground each year? One scenario gives us time, the other doesn't. As THE major negative feedback, I think knowing this is important.

The likelihood of multiple positive feedbacks, and the power of the overall function. It's the difference between a small flickering candle, and an explosion.

The triggers (temperatures) of the various methane guns. I suspect each reservoir has a temperature at which it's triggered. And some may be so stable they're never triggered. OTOH, others we think of as stable (clathrates on the ocean floor) may be triggered by changes we haven't accounted for, like deep ocean warming (occurring right now).

The caliber (volumes) of the various methane guns. We could probably deal with some small volleys as methane residence time is fairly short. Also, the number, too many on top of each other would act like one larger one.

The feedback of dust in the ocean, which acts as a fertilizer (another negative feedback).

The ultimate temperature of inhabitability. While 4C is accepted as a reasonable number, there might be arguments against it, and for other numbers.

That's what I can think of for now.

So, do we have time? I'm not sure I can answer that. Personally, I'm not going to count on it. I'll follow my motto: always have an exit plan. But if we do, the only thing I can think of that will change our course is massive sequestration. If the poor trees are gonna die anyway, might as well biochar them.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:41 AM

Arctic Methane: Why The Sea Ice Matters

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 2:16 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Silly. Don't you know there's no such thing as AGW?
/irony

Anyway, thanks. I appreciate this. It put some numbers and specifics into my thoughts.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 1:00 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

Interesting topic.

Therez quite a bit uv global warming argument going on in the Skeptics Forum also. Mostly an activist vs an oil company shill.

Nice TP quote, 1KIKI.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 4:21 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Anyway SignyM

I did find and watch a version of the 'be human' speech you pp'd me about. He concludes that there is some huge number - 17?, 23? 26? (I don't remember) irreversible tipping points we've already passed that spell D.O.O.M. What I gather is that he's been saying this for a couple of decades or so. He's recently included the methane gun, which is more of a focus of his current concern. So, uh, whether he's right on any one or more of them, or not, he's a little hard to take seriously.

Also I've been slowly working my way through all of his links from your post, and at times tracking back from that eg, tracking back from news items to actual reports. So far, some of those links are more concerning than others. One person in particular took exception to being included in his armada of facts and said he had totally misrepresented the research. Some sources seem sketchy. Important sources are behind a wall of payment. (Good grief, the authors whine that the world needs to enter a new paradigm to save itself, then stand at the gate of world-saving information collecting shekels for admission, like always? And no one noticed the obvious hypocrisy?)

SO - what I gather so far, is that there's serious debate among scientists about many of these items. One study outlines a worst-case scenario, others examine it and say it's not so. One study says this must happen, others say no.

I haven't got to the point of being able to even try a back-of-the-envelope estimation. For example, the video linked above talks about TWO potential sources of methane in the Arctic Sea - biologically-derived clathrates beneath a porous silty layer, and a vastly larger reservoir of ice-age frozen methane beneath that. But the video didn't say which one is being released, or might be released, and under what conditions. So even that information is hard to evaluate.

More later, I hope.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 5:29 PM

I just watched The Years Of Living Dangerously
http://action.lcv.org/site/PageNavigator/Years_Of_Living_Dangerously.h
tml
And I guess I find myself thinking it's probably more man made than I'd wanted to believe...
must research more...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 6:51 PM

Okay, terra-formers, RIGHT NOW! (not joking)
We need to dirty the sky with particulates, enough to cool us a bit but not enough to choke us out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KIKI

I really appreciate you looking into this. The reason why I posted is because I saw a recent interview, and in that interview McPherson was much, much more pessimistic than the links here show. He looked nervous, but also defeated. And despite the interviewer badgering him, really, several times for a "course of action" McPherson wouldn't budge off of his "just be there for the people in your life because that's the only thing that counts" mantra. It was startling, and also unnerving. Usually people are telling you it's the end of the world because they want you to DO SOMETHING. McPherson doesn't want you to "do" anything... although maybe stopping doing irrelevant things so you can enrich your life would count. Also, he's very specific. He has an endpoint, even. A date. A really close date.

But, there are people who are alarmists... they're ALWAYS saying it's the end of the world. Even thought THEY believe it doesn't mean that they're right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:14 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

If I were to look anywhere for an answer, I'd look to James Hansen. A lot of people think he's chicken little saying 'the sky is falling'. But he's really a hero, trying to move the tragedy to a happy ending. He's a raving optimist. He used to go around trying to get people engaged. But he's been awfully quiet lately.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:20 PM

I searched Google for "methane in the atmosphere" & selected images.
Got a bunch of excellent graphs.

Then I skimmed this Wiki article which is short, simple, easy for
me to understand. Well, OK, maybe I understand a third of it.
I am still processing this ... it's been a shock to the system: Mine.

I want to get a clear picture of what's happening, and what can be
done to minimize the damage. I'm with Chris on We gotta get Going.

I read that this one coming/ongoing will be the 6th mass extinction
for this planet.

Atmospheric methane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

====================== :>

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

He thinks loss of Arctic ice is a reversible event.

2014

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 12:20 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

McPherson is the photo negative of a climate change denier.

http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-i
t-wrong/

http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcphersons-evidence-that-doom-doom-doom/

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 1:57 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Both these seem pretty thorough in their discussion of how McPherson gets it wrong, for example, the information that the Arctic has been ice free at times over the last 200,000 years without triggering methane release that explodes the global climate.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 12:07 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

From wut I understand, the equatorail dezert wasteland projection duznt make sense.

Its more likely that all the extra water in th atmosfere will keep the temp relatively homojenus over the globe. A pole to pole jungle envirement.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 2:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So I went thru the "what GM got wrong" article, http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-i
t-wrong/

and for the most part it does sound like GM is pretty much an alarmist. The chart which "predicts" a huge temperature increase...

do exactly the kind of thing that is mathematically very dangerous... extrapolate non-linear curves far beyond what the data indicates, with no models to put bounds on the projections. Yeesh, unbounded extrapolation - that's a mistake that I learned a long time ago never to do, and a mistake I warn all the new people about.

HOWEVER, I have a few "yes, buts" to the commentary. One of the things that the author IS ignoring is the melting that is significant in terms of its timeframes, and those are real indicators of significant climate change. For example, in disputing GM, the author says

Quote:
GM quotes climate scientist Jason Box from a newspaper story, saying, “In 2012 Greenland crossed a threshold where for the first time we saw complete surface melting at the highest elevations in what we used to call the dry snow zone.” He uses this to support his contention that the climate system reached a tipping point— a threshold to runaway change— in 2007. But what Box was actually talking about was a freak event several days long in which melting conditions existed across the entire ice sheet. This was viewed as a weather event, not a significant climate event.

Except that there was just a recent paper on melting of the NE part of the ice shield... heretofore considered "the last remaining stable" part of the ice... which is SIGNIFICANT. The article in ScienceDaily says

Quote:
An international team of scientists has discovered that the last remaining stable portion of the Greenland ice sheet is stable no more... "This suggests a possible positive feedback mechanism whereby retreat of the outlet glacier, in part due to warming of the air and in part due to glacier dynamics, leads to increased dynamic loss of ice upstream. This suggests that Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise may be even higher in the future," said Bevis, who is also the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Geodynamics and professor of earth sciences at Ohio State...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140316152955.htm

Quote:
We haven't seen something like this anywhere else," Khan said about the northeast.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newly-discovered-greenland-m
elting-could-accelerate-sea-level-rise/

At the same time that I don't think I should be alarmed over nothing, I want to make sure that I'm simply not becoming habituated to a highly unusual situation. As the lady said about Fukushima... People can get used to anything.

Also, I think many people (scientists included) are approaching the projections with the illusion of knowledge and control. They THINK they know what's going on, but there are the unknown unknowns.... the stuff that comes to bite you that you didn't expect, or didn't include in your calculations. Like the low-probably high-impact event of a 40-foot tsunami and triple nuclear meltdown. More humility and caution is called for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
More humility and caution is called for.

"We are going TO DIE."

-Indiana Jones

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 3:44 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Signym, I agree.

I think McPherson does a great disservice to the fact of global warming and its real threats, known and unknown. His 'disaster mongering' is a mishmash of things that are untrue, out of context, partly true, and a few that may be true, who's been standing on the streetcorner for too long ranting over too many things to take at face value.

Then in the rebuttal there were many items brought up that I simply don't have the time to pursue, like previous ice-free Arctic conditions. The claim was made the last time that happened was 2-3 million years ago. That claim apparently was false, as the counter claim was that it happened a few times in the last 200,000 years. Case closed? Not in my mind. Because it left vital questions unanswered. When? How long? What were the estimated temperatures? Is the situation now exactly congruent with the past, or are there vital differences?

Without studying each of the points deeply in the argument and rebuttal, it's hard to know which of the claims and counterclaims have any merit.

But outside of the specific back and forth, I do agree the venture into a new climate regime is a venture into poorly mapped territory. We THINK we have it figured out - mostly - but things out of the blue can catch you completely unaware.

I'm not sure I agree with Fukushima as an example, though. It was known to be a flawed design, and people were warned about the risk of tsunami, they just chose to go ahead anyway. I suspect that'll be the case with global warming. It's not that people don't know - sure they may only know 90% of it, but they know enough - it's that they'll go ahead with business as usual anyway.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 4:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

From the "How GM got it wrong" site

Quote:
I am Peter Wadhams, whom you dismiss at various points in your blog as a person with extremist views. Firstly, I would be delighted to send you my list of 300 or so publications in leading journals, which extend over 40 years of continuous involvement in Arctic sea ice research, including six voyages in nuclear submarines to measure ice thickness and leading to my present position as Professor of Ocean Physics in Cambridge University. I say this not to be boastful but to advance the mild suggestion that it might be incumbent on you to examine the basis of my views since I have earned to right to hold them, unlike some of the loonies you rightly dismiss. And, if I were to be rude, unlike you. My prediction that summer (September) sea ice will disappear by 2015 or 2016 is not some alarmist loonie claim, but is based on OBSERVED trends in thickness and area which lead inevitably to that conclusion. You can argue with models but you can’t argue with satellite data and submarine data. And it is also not true that I have no support. The most serious Arctic climate modelling effort by the US Navy, conducted by Prof W Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, agrees with these conclusions.

Also, may I add as a personal observation- I like to study the weather, particularly as something of a game, I like to try and predict where the jet stream will be based on the barograms. (How geeky is THAT?) So I have more than the usual familiarity with the jet stream, and I have to say that in 2013 I've never seen a more abnormal distribution. Okay, maybe it's just me, but I think we're on the precipice of a major change- not heading in planet Venus, but in a 3-5 years' time the effects of climate shift will be obvious to everyone except the most dunder-headed.

OH BTW CHRIS- I watched the Years of Living Dangerously and I have to say the Texas Xtians were scarier than anyone else. They epitomize that group of people who will reject plain and simple data in front of them for a belief system which is sheer nonsense.

Quote:
I'm not sure I agree with Fukushima as an example, though. It was known to be a flawed design, and people were warned about the risk of tsunami, they just chose to go ahead anyway. I suspect that'll be the case with global warming. It's not that people don't know - sure they may only know 90% of it, but they know enough - it's that they'll go ahead with business as usual anyway.

I think it's a perfect analogy. People HAVE been warning about global warming for years, and it's been known that our carbon-based energy is a flawed design anyway. Just as a tsunami was a distinct possibility and everyone knew the reactor design was flawed. But they (we) went ahead anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OH BTW CHRIS- I watched the Years of Living Dangerously and I have to say the Texas Xtians were scarier than anyone else.

It was a mere small step up from those apes in 2001...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 6:50 PM

James Edward Hansen is an American adjunct professor in the Department of
Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

Updating the Climate Science
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/

TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_clima
te_change

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 7:01 PM

Peter Wadhams, Professor Cambridge
Peter Wadhams ScD, is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics
Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge.
He is best known for his work on sea ice.

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist
Professor Peter Wadhams, co-author of new Nature paper on costs of Arctic
warming, explains the danger of inaction
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arcti
c-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe

"Not everyone agrees that the paper's scenario of a catastrophic
and imminent methane release is plausible. Nasa's Gavin Schmidt
has previously argued that the danger of such a methane release is
low, whereas scientists like Prof Tim Lenton from Exeter University
who specialises in climate tipping points, says the process would
take thousands if not tens of thousands of years, let alone a decade.

"But ..."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2014 7:11 PM