How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[manxman]

Mass extinction for Earth’s oceans probable, comprehensive study says — RT News

links to this.

Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean

which states this in conclusion.

OUTLOOK
Wildlife populations in the oceans have been badly damaged by human activity[over-fishing]. Nevertheless, marine fauna generally are in better condition than terrestrial fauna: Fewer marine animal extinctions have occurred; many geographic ranges have shrunk less; and numerous ocean ecosystems remain more wild than terrestrial ecosystems. Consequently, meaningful rehabilitation of affected marine animal populations remains within the reach of managers. Human dependency on marine wildlife and the linked fate of marine and terrestrial fauna necessitate that we act quickly to slow the advance of marine defaunation.


Do you ever read any cite's mike ever, this is just typical activist strategy, pick a headline and post it, doesnt matter if its a twisted crock of bastardised bull.

quote mad mike.
The first comprehensive study of its kind has determined that ocean life is facing mass extinction from human activity

The whole thing was about over-fishing, what has that got to do with climate change, that typifie's climate change activism, deception deception deception.

 

[mike]

Humans are “eating away at our own life support systems” at a rate unseen in the past 10,000 years by degrading land and freshwater systems, emitting greenhouse gases and releasing vast amounts of agricultural chemicals into the environment, new research has found.
Two major new studies by an international team of researchers have pinpointed the key factors that ensure a livable planet for humans, with stark results.
Of nine worldwide processes that underpin life on Earth, four have exceeded “safe” levels – human-driven climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land system change and the high level of phosphorus and nitrogen flowing into the oceans due to fertiliser use.

They found that the changes of the last 60 years are unprecedented in the previous 10,000 years, a period in which the world has had a relatively stable climate and human civilisation has advanced significantly.
Carbon dioxide levels, at 395.5 parts per million, are at historic highs, while loss of biosphere integrity is resulting in species becoming extinct at a rate more than 100 times faster than the previous norm.


Since 1950 urban populations have increased seven-fold, primary energy use has soared by a factor of five, while the amount of fertiliser used is now eight times higher. The amount of nitrogen entering the oceans has quadrupled.
All of these changes are shifting Earth into a “new state” that is becoming less hospitable to human life, researchers said.
“These indicators have shot up since 1950 and there are no signs they are slowing down,” said Prof Will Steffen of the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Steffen is the lead author on both of the studies.
“When economic systems went into overdrive, there was a massive increase in resource use and pollution. It used to be confined to local and regional areas but we’re now seeing this occurring on a global scale. These changes are down to human activity, not natural variability.”

Rate of environmental degradation puts life on Earth at risk, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian

 

[manxman]

Can you show us the science behind the claims mike, there doesnt appear to be any there, can you link to the science papers behind your prophecies of doom and extinction please.


comment replicated.

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3


They found that the changes of the last 60 years are unprecedented in the previous 10,000 years, a period in which the world has had a relatively stable climate and human civilisation has advanced significantly.
Carbon dioxide levels, at 395.5 parts per million, are at historic highs, while loss of biosphere integrity is resulting in species becoming extinct at a rate more than 100 times faster than the previous norm.

Just utter nonesense

 

[Tyger]

Mike's consistent point is regarding over-population.

Mass extinction for Earth’s oceans probable, comprehensive study says — RT News

The above article is unambiguous in it's view -

TEXT: "We’ve known for a while that achieving sustainability would be impossible with our lifestyles. Although the majority of Earth is covered in water we are vastly reliant on, many of our practices are causing unprecedented damage to marine biology: coral reef damage, resource mining, fish farming, construction work, chemical pollution, the depletion of bio resources, unintended species migration, global warming, military drills – to name just a few.

"The picture has just been made clearer by a study that for the first time ever brought all these strands together. Drs. Malin L. Pinsky, Stephen R. Palumbi, Douglas J. McCauley and colleagues from the University of California have dug into hundreds of sources past and present, including the fossil record and statistics on shipping and seabed mining to form the chilling conclusions of their study, published Thursday in the journal Science. “We may be sitting on a precipice of a major extinction event,” McCauley says on the analysis, which has already received wide acclaim from marine biologists and experts in related fields."

links to this. Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean which states this in conclusion.

OUTLOOK
Wildlife populations in the oceans have been badly damaged by human activity[over-fishing]. Nevertheless, marine fauna generally are in better condition than terrestrial fauna: Fewer marine animal extinctions have occurred; many geographic ranges have shrunk less; and numerous ocean ecosystems remain more wild than terrestrial ecosystems. Consequently, meaningful rehabilitation of affected marine animal populations remains within the reach of managers. Human dependency on marine wildlife and the linked fate of marine and terrestrial fauna necessitate that we act quickly to slow the advance of marine defaunation.

The above is accurately stating that (as far as we know) the damage to the oceans is far less severe than our damage to terrestrial species - however, that comparison notwithstanding the situation is compelling enough for concern. You have placed the lacuna suggesting that 'human activity' is referencing solely 'over-fishing'. Were the above quoted paragraph to be correctly referenced, this is what it would look like -

TEXT: "Wildlife populations in the oceans have been badly damaged by human activity. [Human harvesters have ... been a major force of evolutionary change in the oceans and have reshaped the genetic structure of marine animal populations. Climate change threatens to accelerate marine defaunation over the next century.] Nevertheless, marine fauna generally are in better condition than terrestrial fauna: Fewer marine animal extinctions have occurred; many geographic ranges have shrunk less; and numerous ocean ecosystems remain more wild than terrestrial ecosystems. Consequently, meaningful rehabilitation of affected marine animal populations remains within the reach of managers. Human dependency on marine wildlife and the linked fate of marine and terrestrial fauna necessitate that we act quickly to slow the advance of marine defaunation."

You failed to quote the paragraph preceding, which states: "Three lessons emerge when comparing the marine and terrestrial defaunation experiences: (i) today’s low rates of marine extinction may be the prelude to a major extinction pulse, similar to that observed on land during the industrial revolution, as the footprint of human ocean use widens; (ii) effectively slowing ocean defaunation requires both protected areas and careful management of the intervening ocean matrix; and (iii) the terrestrial experience and current trends in ocean use suggest that habitat destruction is likely to become an increasingly dominant threat to ocean wildlife over the next 150 years."

I would say Mike accurately quoted a source that supports his views.

Do you ever read any cite's mike ever, this is just typical activist strategy, pick a headline and post it, doesnt matter if its a twisted crock of bastardised bull.

It is you, Manxman, who have failed to understand what you read - which is why debating you is both time-consuming and fruitless. The following also is part of the article's summation -

TEXT: "Timeline (log scale) of marine and terrestrial defaunation: The marine defaunation experience is much less advanced, even though humans have been harvesting ocean wildlife for thousands of years. The recent industrialization of this harvest, however, initiated an era of intense marine wildlife declines. If left unmanaged, we predict that marine habitat alteration, along with climate change (colored bar: IPCC warming), will exacerbate marine defaunation."

quote mad mike. "The first comprehensive study of its kind has determined that ocean life is facing mass extinction from human activity."

The whole thing was about over-fishing, what has that got to do with climate change, that typifie's climate change activism, deception deception deception.

Mike's point is made (in the article) - that ocean life is threatened by human activity - as shown by my quotes from the article. Mike most assuredly must have read what he linked to since the article so clearly supported his view.

As I have shown, the article ('the whole thing') Mike cited was not about 'over-fishing' (it was talking about genetic changes in the ocean population). It did mention Climate Change. It was the article you cited (which was a link within the the former article) that was talking about 'over-fishing' - though that was not all that article was talking about.

As best as I can make out, it was not Mike who was engaging in deception - but you.

 

[Tyger]

Can you show us the science behind the claims mike, there doesnt appear to be any there, can you link to the science papers behind your prophecies of doom and extinction please.

Do you really need this much hand-holding, Manxman?

Mike linked to the following article, from which I quote -

LINK: Rate of environmental degradation puts life on Earth at risk, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian

TEXT: "There are large variations in conditions around the world, according to the research. For example, land clearing is now concentrated in tropical areas, such as Indonesia and the Amazon, with the practice reversed in parts of Europe. But the overall picture is one of deterioration at a rapid rate. “It’s fairly safe to say that we haven’t seen conditions in the past similar to ones we see today and there is strong evidence that there [are] tipping points we don’t want to cross,” Steffen said. “If the Earth is going to move to a warmer state, 5-6C warmer, with no ice caps, it will do so and that won’t be good for large mammals like us. People say the world is robust and that’s true, there will be life on Earth, but the Earth won’t be robust for us. Some people say we can adapt due to technology, but that’s a belief system, it’s not based on fact. There is no convincing evidence that a large mammal, with a core body temperature of 37C, will be able to evolve that quickly. Insects can, but humans can’t and that’s a problem.”

"Steffen said the research showed the economic system was “fundamentally flawed” as it ignored critically important life support systems. "It’s clear the economic system is driving us towards an unsustainable future and people of my daughter’s generation will find it increasingly hard to survive,” he said. “History has shown that civilisations have risen, stuck to their core values and then collapsed because they didn’t change. That’s where we are today.”

"The two studies, published in Science and Anthropocene Review, featured the work of scientists from countries including the US, Sweden, Germany and India. The findings will be presented in seven seminars at the World Economic Forum in Davos, which takes place between 21 and 25 January."

The two links in the above article would lead you to -

LINK: Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet

TEXT: "ABSTRACT: The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth System. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundaries framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth System into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed."

And -

LINK: The Anthropocene Review which if followed to their blog would have given you the article's overview. LINK: The Anthropocene Review blog and you could go from there.

Summation: Mike linked to an article that did source the science. Did you read the articles? Because you've just embarrassed yourself. (This is but one example of how time-consuming it is to fact-check your crazily accusing posts).

Mike wrote: "They found that the changes of the last 60 years are unprecedented in the previous 10,000 years, a period in which the world has had a relatively stable climate and human civilisation has advanced significantly. Carbon dioxide levels, at 395.5 parts per million, are at historic highs, while loss of biosphere integrity is resulting in species becoming extinct at a rate more than 100 times faster than the previous norm."

Just utter nonsense.

Really? That's your 'scientific response' ? I don't think so. It's the response of someone who doesn't understand what he is commenting on. Conversely, where is your science back-up for such a dismissive comment? You don't have it. That's why you hector. It's the easy 'out'.

Since you appear keen to be seen as erudite, with a grasp of the science, I would kindly suggest that you start to tighten up your posts, being clear who you are quoting, if quoting at all. The mish-mash of your posts makes it hard to know when you are speaking and when you are quoting, not to mention who you are quoting.

You are mistaken if you think serious scientific debate can occur on a chat-site like this, especially with your weak background in science and questionable reading comprehension. If you're going to debate you have to not only read the articles but understand the text.

 

[Tyger]

@mike Regarding your view on over-population, I was struck by this quote from one of the forgoing linked articles, with special note to the bolded: "The marine defaunation experience is much less advanced, even though humans have been harvesting ocean wildlife for thousands of years. The recent industrialization of this harvest, however, initiated an era of intense marine wildlife declines. If left unmanaged, we predict that marine habitat alteration, along with climate change (colored bar: IPCC warming), will exacerbate marine defaunation."

I've come across the following article - that speaks to an idea that I have long harbored: that we can feed ourselves as a densely populated world, if we go local (small) and natural (organic). I have countless personal experiences that support this hunch of mine - but this is the first article I have read that states it boldly - agribusiness is our problem, the industrialization of farming and animal husbandry is the problem.

LINK: How the People Can Outwit the Global Domination Plans of Agribusiness | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

How the People Can Outwit the Global Domination Plans of Agribusiness
by Jonathon Latham January 18, 2015 in Common Dream

TEXT: "The strategic centerpiece of Monsanto PR is to focus on the promotion of one single compelling idea. The idea that they want you to believe in is that only they can produce enough for the future population. They wish you to therefore believe that non-industrial systems of farming, such as all those which use agroecological methods, or SRI, or are localised and family-oriented, or which use organic methods, or non-GMO seeds, cannot feed the world. This same PR strategy is followed by every major commercial participant in the industrial food system.

"To be sure, agribusiness has a few other PR strategies. Agribusiness is "pro-science", its opponents are "anti-science", and so on. But the main plank has for decades been to create a cast-iron moral framing around the need to produce more.

"Therefore, if you go to the websites of Monsanto and Cargill and Syngenta and Bayer, and their bedfellows: the US Farm Bureau, the UK National Farmers Union, and the American Soybean Association, and CropLife International, or The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, or now even NASA, they will raise the “urgent problem” of who will feed the expected global population of 9 or 10 billion in 2050.

"Likewise, whenever these same organisations compose speeches or press releases, or videos, they devote precious space to the same urgent problem. It is even in their job advertisements. It is their Golden Fact. And as far as neutrals are concerned it wins the food system debate hands down, because it says, if any other farming system cannot feed the world, it is irrelevant. Only agribusiness can do that.

"The real food crisis is of overproduction


"Yet this strategy has a disastrous weakness. There is no global or regional shortage of food. There never has been and nor is there ever likely to be. India has a superabundance of food. South America is swamped in food. The US, Australia, New Zealand and Europe are swamped in food. In Britain, like in many wealthy countries, nearly half of all row crop food production now goes to biofuels, which at bottom are an attempt to dispose of surplus agricultural products. China isn’t quite swamped but it still exports food (see Fig 1.); and itgrows 30% of the world’s cotton. No foodpocalypse there either.

"Even in Bangladesh the farmers do not produce the rice they could because prices are low, because of persistent gluts.

"Even some establishment institutions will occasionally admit that the food shortage concept – now and in any reasonably conceivable future – is bankrupt. According to experts consulted by the World Bank Institute there is already sufficient food production for 14 billion people – more food than will ever be needed. The Golden Fact of agribusiness is therefore a lie.

"Truth restoration


"So, if the agribusiness PR experts are correct that food crisis fears are pivotal to their industry, then it follows that those who oppose the industrialization of food and agriculture should make dismantling that lie their number one priority.

"Anyone who wants a sustainable, pesticide-free, or non-GMO food future, or wants to avoid climate chaos, needs to know this weakness. They should take every possible opportunity to point out the evidence that refutes it. Granaries are bulging, crops are being burned as biofuels or dumped, prices are low, farmers are abandoning farming for slums and cities, all because of massive oversupply.

"The project to fully industrialise global food production is far from complete, yet already it is responsible for most deforestation, most marine pollution, most coral reef destruction, much of greenhouse gas emissions, most habitat loss, most of the degradation of streams and rivers, most food insecurity, most immigration, most water depletion, massive human health problems, and so on. Our planet is becoming literally uninhabitable solely as a result of the social and ecological consequences of industrialising agriculture. All these problems are without even mentioning the trillions of dollars in annual externalised costs and subsidies.

"So, if one were to devise a strategy for the food movement, it would be this. The public already knows (mostly) that pesticides are dangerous. They also know that organic food is higher quality, and is far more environmentally friendly. It knows that GMOs should be labeled, are largely untested, and may be harmful. That is why the leaders of most major countries, including China, dine on organic food. The immense scale of the problems created by industrial agriculture should, of course, be understood better, but the main facts are hardly in dispute.

"But what industry understands, and the food movement does not, is that what prevents total rejection of bland, industrialised, pesticide-laden, GMO food is the standard acceptance, especially in Western countries, of the overarching agribusiness argument that such food is necessary. It is necessary to feed the world.

"So, if the food movement could show that famine is an empty threat then it would also have shown, by clear implication, that the chemical health risks and the ecological devastation that these technologies represent are what is unnecessary. The movement would have shown that pesticides and GMOs exist solely to extract profit from the food chain. They have no other purpose. Therefore, every project of the food movement should aim to spread the truth of oversupply, until mention of the Golden Fact invites ridicule and embarrassment in the population, rather than fear.

"Divide and Confuse


"Food campaigners might also consider that a strategy to combat the food scarcity myth can unite a potent mix of causes. Just as an understanding of food abundance destroys the argument for pesticide use and GMOs simultaneously, it also creates the potential for common ground within and between constituencies that do not currently associate much: health advocates, food system workers, climate campaigners, wildlife conservationists and international development campaigners. None of these constituencies inherently like chemical poisons, and they are hardly natural allies of agribusiness, but the pressure of the food crisis lie has driven many of them to ignore what could be the best solution to their mutual problems: small scale farming and pesticide-free agriculture. This is exactly what the companies intended.

"So divisive has the Golden Fact been that some non-profits have entered into perverse partnerships with agribusiness and others support inadequate or positively fraudulent sustainability labels. Another consequence has been mass confusion over the observation that almost all the threats to the food supply (salinisation, water depletion, soil erosion, climate change and chemical pollution) come from the supposed solution--the industrialisation of food production. These contradictions are not real. When the smoke is blown away and the mirrors are taken down the choices within the food system become crystal clear. They fall broadly into two camps.

"On the one side lie family farms and ecological methods. These support farmer and consumer health, resilience, financial and democratic independence, community, cultural and biological diversity, and long term sustainability. Opposing them is control of the food system by corporate agribusiness. Agribusiness domination leads invariantly todependence, uniformity, poisoning and ecological degradation, inequality, land grabbing, and, not so far off, to climate chaos.

"One is a vision, the other is a nightmare: in every single case where industrial agriculture is implemented it leaves landscapes progressively emptier of life. Eventually, because it vaporizes the carbon, the soil turns either into mud that washes into the rivers or into dust that blows away on the wind. Industrial agriculture has no long term future; it is ecological suicide. But for obvious reasons those who profit from it cannot allow all this to become broadly understood. That is why the food scarcity lie is so fundamental to them. They absolutely depend on it, since it alone can camouflage the underlying issues."

 

[manxman]

@Tyger

Just utter nonsense.
Really? That's your 'scientific response' ? I don't think so. It's the response of someone who doesn't understand what he is commenting on.





Well it was that or the 14000+ word summary, of 3 papers currently undergoing peer review, that reach's this conclusion.





.....................


Conclusions
It is often said that the greenhouse effect and man-made global warming theories are “simple physics”, and that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must cause global warming.

It can be intimidating to question something that is claimed so definitively to be “simple”. Like the story about the “Emperor’s New Clothes”, most of us don’t want to acknowledge that we have problems with something that everyone is telling us is “simple”, for fear that we will look stupid.

Nonetheless, we found some of the assumptions and predictions of the theory to be questionable, and we have no difficulty in asking questions about things we are unsure on:

He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. - old Chinese proverb

So, we decided to look carefully at the theory to test its reliability. When we looked in detail at the so-called “simple physics”, we found that it was actually “simplistic physics”.

Our experimental results show that the theory was just plain wrong!

Remarkably, nobody seems to have actually checked experimentally to see if the greenhouse effect theory was correct. It is true that the greenhouse effect theory is based on experimental observations, e.g., a) the different infra-red properties of the atmospheric gases; b) the infra-red nature of the Earth’s outgoing radiation and c) the observation that fossil fuel usage is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

However, being based on experimentally-verified results is not the same thing as being actually experimentally verified.

At any rate, it turns out that the concentration of infrared-active gases in the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature profile of the atmosphere. So, doubling, trebling or quadrupling the concentration of infrared-active gases, e.g., carbon dioxide, will make no difference to global temperatures – after all, if you “double” nothing, you still end up with nothing!

The current climate models predict that if we continue increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it will cause dramatic man-made global warming. On this basis, huge policy changes are being proposed/implemented in desperate attempts to urgently reduce our fossil fuel usage, in the hope that this will help us “avoid dangerous climate change”. For example, see the Stern Review (2006) or the Garnaut Climate Change Reviews (2008).

The different policies being introduced specifically to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions vary from international treaties, e.g., the Kyoto Protocol (2005), to national laws, e.g., the UK’s Climate Change Act, 2008, and even regional legislation e.g., California (USA)’s Global Warming Solutions Act, 2006.

Clearly, if the greenhouse effect theory is wrong, then man-made global warming theory is also wrong. The results of the current climate models which are based on the greenhouse effect theory are therefore invalid, and are inappropriate for basing policy on. So, the various policies to reduce our fossil fuel usage, specifically to “stop global warming”, which have been introduced (or are being planned) are no longer justified.

There has been so much confidence placed in the greenhouse effect theory, that most people seem to have thought that “the scientific debate is over”. We believe that our results show that the debate over the man-made global warming theory is indeed now “over”. The theory was just plain wrong.

................................
You can read the full summary here Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3

You will like the comments, they have already had one world reknowned physicist there telling them they are in error, he was invited to read their papers, and re-run their codes and experiments, he did just that, he came back, gushing their praises.


Do you disagree with them, if so you can go to their 3 papers that are under going peer review, as a newly revealed scientist you can repeat their experiments, run their models, all code is open source, then you can tell them where they are going wrong, they really really want and enjoy proffesional feed back from people like you in the scientific community.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

quote mad mike.

Whatever you think, can we stop the "mad" whoever reference. People call me mad all the time, but be nice to our forum members please.

 

[manxman]

Done.

 

[mike]

There is an interesting micro/macro dynamic happening here.
Just as some deniers would isolate CO2 from the other HAP's being emitted as a cocktail from industrys smoke stacks, so to do others want to narrow the narrative to climate alone.
The mechanism works like this

But as those studys show, and which should be plainly obvious to any not taking a blinkered view. Humans are "changing" the biosphere in many many ways, all of them disastrous.

The defining feature of a technological civilization is the capacity to intensively “harvest” energy. But the basic physics of energy, heat and work known as thermodynamics tell us that waste, or what we physicists call entropy, must be generated and dumped back into the environment in the process. Human civilization currently harvests around 100 billion megawatt hours of energy each year and dumps 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the planetary system, which is why the atmosphere is holding more heat and the oceans are acidifying. As hard as it is for some to believe, we humans are now steering the planet, however poorly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/o...&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article&_r=0

Humans are "changing" the biosphere its sheer folly to cherry pick one of those changes and then say "see no problem" Its akin to claiming victory over the mouse having burned down the house to kill it.

"It is difficult to overestimate the scale and speed of change. In a single lifetime humanity has become a geological force at the planetary-scale," said Steffen, who also led the Acceleration study.
The conclusion that the world's dominant economic model—a globalized form of neoliberal capitalism, largely based on international trade and fueled by extracting and consuming natural resources—is the driving force behind planetary destruction will not come as a shock, but the model's detailed description of how this has worked since the middle of the 20th century makes a more substantial case than many previous attempts.

Like wise the root cause, runaway population growth isnt just about a single factor, but rather a range of effects that stem from it.

That Was Easy: In Just 60 Years, Neoliberal Capitalism Has Nearly Broken Planet Earth | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community


Since 1950 urban populations have increased seven-fold, primary energy use has soared by a factor of five, while the amount of fertiliser used is now eight times higher. The amount of nitrogen entering the oceans has quadrupled.
All of these changes are shifting Earth into a “new state” that is becoming less hospitable to human life, researchers said.

To isolate and confine the narrative to "climate" change, in the face of the obvious collection of changes is tunnel vision.

The earth is a closed system, Imagine if without a payrise your household consumption of food increased seven fold..... Your gas and electricity use soared by a factor of five, your land rates were eight times higher, your water bill quadrupled.....

You could of course get a second job to pay for this, but we dont have the option of getting a second planet

 

[pixelsmith]

"deniers"? Really?

 

[mike]

The numbers are in. 2014 was the hottest year on Earth ever recorded (records go back to 1888). December finished it off as the hottest month ever. 6 of the months last year, in fact, hold that record. The last time a 'coldest month ever' was recorded, was 1916. Things are heating up.
But not just heating up. That's only part of the story. An updated review of Planetary Boundaries, a survey of nine basic systems critical to life on Earth as we know it, finds that human activity has pushed past the boundary of what's safe and stable in four of those categories; climate change, loss of biosphere integrity (things like genetic diversity because of species loss), land-system change (soil and forestation loss, etc.) and altered biogeochemical cycles (how the biosphere uses and replaces the critical elements of phosphorus and nitrogen).

But here is my question; did you notice any of those changes? Did those changes impact your life in any meaningful way? Did you wake up in the morning on any day last year worried about the global nitrogen cycle, or historic global temperature records, or deforestation in Indonesia? Probably not. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem that has all but guaranteed the serious crash for Life on Earth as We Know It

Right now the global temperature records are making all the news. But climate change is just one symptom of the larger problem that makes very little news but which lies at the heart of why we, and all current Life on Earth, face an unavoidable crash. We are compelled from the deepest level of our genes and survival instincts to taking more from the system than it can provide and put back in more waste than it can handle, and no amount of human brain power outwit the natural instincts that are driving us 150 miles an hour toward a cliff.

The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human Instinct Overpowers Human Reason | David Ropeik

 

[pixelsmith]

That's some funny $#it right there Mike.

 

[mike]

That's some funny $#it right there Mike.

I guess comedy really is subjective then, for most people the destruction of this beautiful planet isnt a laughing matter

 

[mike]

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds

 

[pixelsmith]

Ooh hottest since 1880. So what?! It was hotter during the middle ages when CO2 was lower.
Mike why the fear mongering?

 

[mike]

Ooh hottest since 1880. So what?! It was hotter during the middle ages when CO2 was lower.
Mike why the fear mongering?

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.


Interesting isnt it that phrase narrowly focus, aka the horse pic above..... its a dynamic we are seeing played out over and over again.

Cherry pick a subset of the total data and debunk that, ignore the larger problem. The totality of our dilema

What cant be denied, and is no doubt the reason why attempts to point it out are greeted with "start a new thread", "this is about climate change". Is that our species is changing the biosphere in many many ways, none of them good.

Since it cant be denied it must be deflected, but thats sheer folly. Playing the fiddle while rome burns

But not just heating up. That's only part of the story. An updated review of Planetary Boundaries, a survey of nine basic systems critical to life on Earth as we know it, finds that human activity has pushed past the boundary of what's safe and stable in four of those categories; climate change, loss of biosphere integrity (things like genetic diversity because of species loss), land-system change (soil and forestation loss, etc.) and altered biogeochemical cycles (how the biosphere uses and replaces the critical elements of phosphorus and nitrogen).

To make it clear, this is bad news. As the authors of the study put it

Right now the global temperature records are making all the news. But climate change is just one symptom of the larger problem that makes very little news but which lies at the heart of why we, and all current Life on Earth, face an unavoidable crash.

You cant restrict this debate to one symptom, to a part of the story.

Thats like having a car engine that wont start and saying well the sparkplugs check out OK.
Maybe they do, but that doesnt solve the problem does it ?

You must isolate the root cause, even if , especially if ,its manifesting in multiple problems/symptoms.

Your car is rolling downhill at breakneck speed heading for the jetty and bay below, your response here is akin to saying, well the cigarette lighter is working no problems. why the fear mongering ? its works fine

 

[mike]

Im also fascinated by the fermi paradox aspect


OUR galaxy, the Milky Way, is home to almost 300 billion stars, and over the last decade, astronomers have made a startling discovery — almost all those stars have planets. The fact that nearly every pinprick of light you see in the night sky hosts a family of worlds raises a powerful but simple question: “Where is everybody?” Hundreds of billions of planets translate into a lot of chances for evolving intelligent, technologically sophisticated species. So why don’t we see evidence for E.T.s everywhere?

The physicist Enrico Fermi first formulated this question, now called the Fermi paradox, in 1950. But in the intervening decades, humanity has recognized that our own climb up the ladder of technological sophistication comes with a heavy price. From climate change to resource depletion, our evolution into a globe-spanning industrial culture is forcing us through the narrow bottleneck of a sustainability crisis. In the wake of this realization, new and sobering answers to Fermi’s question now seem possible.

Maybe we’re not the only ones to hit a sustainability bottleneck. Maybe not everyone — maybe no one — makes it to the other side.

Since Fermi’s day, scientists have gained a new perspective on life in its planetary context. From the vantage point of this relatively new field, astrobiology, our current sustainability crisis may be neither politically contingent nor unique, but a natural consequence of laws governing how planets and life of any kind, anywhere, must interact.

When it comes to building world-girdling civilizations, there are no planetary free lunches.

This realization motivated me, along with Woodruff Sullivan of the University of Washington, to look at sustainability in its astrobiological context. As we describe in a recent paper, using what’s already known about planets and life, it is now possible to create a broad program for modeling co-evolving “trajectories” for technological species and their planets. Depending on initial conditions and choices made by the species (such as the mode of energy harvesting), some trajectories will lead to an unrecoverable sustainability crisis and eventual population collapse. Others, however, may lead to long-lived, sustainable civilizations.

Personally its a test i'd like to see us pass rather than fail

 

[Tyger]

The numbers are in. 2014 was the hottest year on Earth ever recorded (records go back to 1888). December finished it off as the hottest month ever. 6 of the months last year, in fact, hold that record. The last time a 'coldest month ever' was recorded, was 1916. Things are heating up.

Subjectively, that is so. I heard from an 'old timer' here in Los Angeles that the last spate of regularly occurring thunderstorms she recalls happening in LA was in the late 1980's. I can vouch that if I ever hear thunder - which we did a couple of times this past summer - it is viewed as unusual, no longer as normal.

But not just heating up. That's only part of the story. An updated review of Planetary Boundaries, a survey of nine basic systems critical to life on Earth as we know it, finds that human activity has pushed past the boundary of what's safe and stable in four of those categories; climate change, loss of biosphere integrity (things like genetic diversity because of species loss), land-system change (soil and forestation loss, etc.) and altered biogeochemical cycles (how the biosphere uses and replaces the critical elements of phosphorus and nitrogen).

Yep.

But here is my question; did you notice any of those changes? Did those changes impact your life in any meaningful way? Did you wake up in the morning on any day last year worried about the global nitrogen cycle, or historic global temperature records, or deforestation in Indonesia? Probably not. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem that has all but guaranteed the serious crash for Life on Earth as We Know It.

It is likely why it is hard for people to get their minds around it - especially when the economy has been crashing, jobs are being lost, homes are being foreclosed, the politicians-cum-corporations are ransacking the nation's treasure house, wars are being fought in far flung reaches of the world - how does one notice a dwindling viable ec0-system. Unless one is close to nature on a regular basis.

Right now the global temperature records are making all the news. But climate change is just one symptom of the larger problem that makes very little news but which lies at the heart of why we, and all current Life on Earth, face an unavoidable crash. We are compelled from the deepest level of our genes and survival instincts to taking more from the system than it can provide and put back in more waste than it can handle, and no amount of human brain power outwit the natural instincts that are driving us 150 miles an hour toward a cliff.

In fairness, it has been spoken about for decades. But it seemed to be just 'talk', like scientists do. People were focused on the daily round. Now, it will change, because it must. I am hopeful. Out of this I see something new arising.

 

[mike]

In fairness, it has been spoken about for decades. But it seemed to be just 'talk', like scientists do. People were focused on the daily round. Now, it will change, because it must. I am hopeful. Out of this I see something new arising.

Its a test for us as a species, but we dont get graded. Its pass or fail.