P
pixelsmith
Guest
I agree, follow the money. The research funds available to show a warming climate are staggering. Too bad it still is not warming. I wish it would.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
What World Under Climate Change
- Thread starter Tyger
- Start date
Free episodes:
I agree, follow the money. The research funds available to show a warming climate are staggering. Too bad it still is not warming. I wish it would.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
Well-p…… that convinces me. No more global warming….it was just a bunch of weathermen trying to keep their jobs and line their pockets. Fire up the factories once more….Trump has completely eliminated the entire concept of climate change just by being voted in. Thank god.
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
I think we really need to just follow the facts. Fully 90% or more of professional scientists and meteorologists (now called climeotologists if they specialize) say climate change is real, human-caused, and now, unstoppable. Let pixel argue as much as he wants. The facts are overwhelming (when not cherry picked), and I really think this discussion isn't going to go anywhere else. We can't convince people like him so we should just stop trying.
.
Trump is from the fifth dimension, where he's known as Mister Mxyzptlk, and he can bend reality.
So if we can get him to say his real name backwards.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I'm not trying.I think we really need to just follow the facts. Fully 90% or more of professional scientists and meteorologists (now called climeotologists if they specialize) say climate change is real, human-caused, and now, unstoppable. Let pixel argue as much as he wants. The facts are overwhelming (when not cherry picked), and I really think this discussion isn't going to go anywhere else. We can't convince people like him so we should just stop trying.
Just sayin'.P.S. This thread is an exploration of what the world will/may look like under climate change - that is upon us.
Last edited:
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
I'm not trying.
P.S. This thread is an exploration of what the world will/may look like under climate change - that is upon us.
From what I'm told the frequency of storms will not increase but the intensity will. Flooding in coastal regions, a LOT more outbreaks of disease as disease vectors increase exponentially…. Slowly it will be Hell on Earth.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Pretty much that - and more. I've been into the climate science in detail since around 2010 - and what is most interesting to me are the changes that the scientists did not bargain for - some of the feedback loops they didn't vector in even just 7 years ago. Or if they did they predicted the effect would engage a 100 or 100s of years from the time of their writing. If anything, the climate scientists have been too conservative - and the more daring and despairing of the prognosticators (like Guy McPherson) have proved tragically prescient. But the speed of the system breakdown has surprised even McPherson - think of that.
One of the most dramatic changes has been the Jet Stream. With that going wonky who knows where it will end - or more correctly - the timeline of 'the end'. We cannot predict because the system is now in flux. We can make a guesstimate but now it's a waiting game. We are spectators watching what nature will do. We can and still should effect as many (cultural) changes as we can - ushering in a new civilization in effect (and that in itself has it's exciting and compelling aspects) - but as most of the climate scientists indicate, even were we to stop CO2 emissions overnight, or stop emitting 'on a dime' - we have decades of temperature increase already baked into the system.
So we brace ourselves. We work for the new world coming - sustainable energies, architecture, and infrastructure, with local systems able to support regions rather than national entities, and a different economic base more egalitarian with bottom-up controls, etc.
We are already seeing some of the larger socio-economic patterns: starvation, population displacement, mass migrations (often into cities in search of infrastructure which is itself under strain) due to food shortages, heat, and wars, civil breakdowns. The rise of dictator/totalitarianism regimes was indicated in several studies - interesting given our experience here in the US. We fail to notice that some of the populations hardest hit by climate change weather pattern disruptions here in the US (fierce winter storms year after year, flooding that causes complete loss of real estate, homes, livelihood, valuables - wipe-outs of whole communities never to fully recover) occurred in areas that went Trump (they want their 'old world' back - won't happen). [I realize that the rise of Trump - and his success as a candidate - is far more layered than that - but the 'faction' (because that is what it is) that has gotten into the White House and the other 'faction' that controls the Congress (we have become a country governed by 'factions' - not a good sign) are both taking advantage of the climate chaos impacting people's psyches - while getting them to deny the very thing that is causal to their unease.]
The year 2020 is going to be 'interesting' for far more serious reasons than the next US presidential campaign.
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
How Far Can Technology Go to Stave Off Climate Change?
LINK: How Far Can Technology Go to Stave Off Climate Change?
TEXT Excerpted: "With carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise, an increasing number of experts believe major technological breakthroughs — such as CO2 air capture — will be necessary to slow global warming. But without the societal will to decarbonize, even the best technologies won’t be enough."
LINK: How Far Can Technology Go to Stave Off Climate Change?
TEXT Excerpted: "With carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise, an increasing number of experts believe major technological breakthroughs — such as CO2 air capture — will be necessary to slow global warming. But without the societal will to decarbonize, even the best technologies won’t be enough."
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Dr. Tim Ball: My meeting with Team Trump about “global warming”
Dr. Tim Ball: My meeting with Team Trump about “global warming”
Over the last 40 years, I saw events come and go that I thought would expose the greatest deception in history: the claim that human CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).......
Click link for more
Tyger posts bullshit. It's time to wake up to the global warming fraud and tackle real environmental problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dr. Tim Ball: My meeting with Team Trump about “global warming”
Over the last 40 years, I saw events come and go that I thought would expose the greatest deception in history: the claim that human CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).......
Click link for more
Tyger posts bullshit. It's time to wake up to the global warming fraud and tackle real environmental problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
So, pixie, is there not a problem at all regarding global warming? What are the "real" environmental problems you're referring to?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Pollution, deforestation, field runoffs are bigger issues. Global warming is not an issue. For most of earths past it has been far warmer than today.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
As Climate Change Accelerates, Floating Cities Look Like Less of a Pipe Dream
LINK: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/..._th_20170128&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892
LINK: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/..._th_20170128&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892
TEXT Excerpted: "An audacious plan to respond to climate change by building a city of floating islands in the South Pacific is moving forward, with the government of French Polynesia agreeing to consider hosting the islands in a tropical lagoon.
"The project is being put forward by a California nonprofit, theSeasteading Institute, which has raised about $2.5 million from more than 1,000 interested donors. Randolph Hencken, the group’s executive director, said work on the project could start in French Polynesia as early as next year, pending the results of some environmental and economic feasibility studies."
"The project is being put forward by a California nonprofit, theSeasteading Institute, which has raised about $2.5 million from more than 1,000 interested donors. Randolph Hencken, the group’s executive director, said work on the project could start in French Polynesia as early as next year, pending the results of some environmental and economic feasibility studies."
Yes but the way to fix Pollution, deforestation, field runoffs, habitat destruction and species extinction is to reduce mankind's runaway exponential growth footprint, aka over population.
Fix that and you also fix our CO2 issue.
David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth
We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he told the Radio Times.
Sir David, who is a patron of the Population Matters, has spoken out before about the “frightening explosion in human numbers” and the need for investment in sex education and other voluntary means of limiting population in developing countries.
“We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that’s what’s happening. Too many people there. They can’t support themselves — and it’s not an inhuman thing to say. It’s the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a coordinated view about the planet it’s going to get worse and worse.”
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I noted this sentiment in the quoted text: "For most of earths past it has been far warmer than today."
Just to state again for the umpteenth time:
Mike - I know population is your major idea, but I am not convinced - were we to have a more sustainable energy system and a vastly restructured economic system, we potentially would be able to sustain growth. However, it requires such a radical shift in thinking (and consequent action) that it is unlikely to ever shift (anytime soon anyway) and so we must try to see ourselves through our current paradigms.
Just to state again for the umpteenth time:
"Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
"To infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans. And to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past."
"To infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans. And to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past."
Mike - I know population is your major idea, but I am not convinced - were we to have a more sustainable energy system and a vastly restructured economic system, we potentially would be able to sustain growth. However, it requires such a radical shift in thinking (and consequent action) that it is unlikely to ever shift (anytime soon anyway) and so we must try to see ourselves through our current paradigms.
Last edited:
We've got a grand total of 36,794,240,000 acres of dry land on the planet and 6,706,993,152 people as of July 2008. That comes out to just under 4 1/2 acres apiece.
We each need 4 acres of land a year to produce our food etc.
And we are rendering lots of this land sterile by our farming techniques, we are at the limit.
And we are seeing it, we see it in the Co2 levels, the ocean plastic levels, the deforestation and aquifer levels. The habitat destruction and species extinction.
Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. We maintain this deficit by liquidating stocks of ecological resources and accumulating waste, primarily carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Earth Overshoot Day is hosted and calculated by Global Footprint Network, an international think tank that coordinates research, develops methodological standards and provides decision-makers with a menu of tools to help the human economy operate within Earth’s ecological limits.
To determine the date of Earth Overshoot Day for each year, Global Footprint Network calculates the number of days of that year that Earth’s biocapacity suffices to provide for humanity’s Ecological Footprint. The remainder of the year corresponds to global overshoot. Earth Overshoot Day is computed by dividing the planet’s biocapacity (the amount of ecological resources Earth is able to generate that year), by humanity’s Ecological Footprint (humanity’s demand for that year), and multiplying by 365, the number of days in 2015:
About Earth Overshoot Day | Earth Overshoot Day
Today, more than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries that are running ecological deficits, using more resources than what their ecosystems can renew.
We each need 4 acres of land a year to produce our food etc.
And we are rendering lots of this land sterile by our farming techniques, we are at the limit.
And we are seeing it, we see it in the Co2 levels, the ocean plastic levels, the deforestation and aquifer levels. The habitat destruction and species extinction.
Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. We maintain this deficit by liquidating stocks of ecological resources and accumulating waste, primarily carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Earth Overshoot Day is hosted and calculated by Global Footprint Network, an international think tank that coordinates research, develops methodological standards and provides decision-makers with a menu of tools to help the human economy operate within Earth’s ecological limits.
To determine the date of Earth Overshoot Day for each year, Global Footprint Network calculates the number of days of that year that Earth’s biocapacity suffices to provide for humanity’s Ecological Footprint. The remainder of the year corresponds to global overshoot. Earth Overshoot Day is computed by dividing the planet’s biocapacity (the amount of ecological resources Earth is able to generate that year), by humanity’s Ecological Footprint (humanity’s demand for that year), and multiplying by 365, the number of days in 2015:
About Earth Overshoot Day | Earth Overshoot Day
Today, more than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries that are running ecological deficits, using more resources than what their ecosystems can renew.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Maybe a thread on overpopulation? This thread could be overwhlemed with debate on population when it's purpose is otherwise.
I haven't gone into the population stuff. I do know that we can grow 'up' - and as you are indicating we have serious philosophical/paradigm issues regarding how we live on this planet (soil loss, plastics, etc). Until we change how we think (which is actually happening in incremental ways as we speak) we will be condemned to try to figure it all out with yesterday's logic - which will make it all seem impossible.
I haven't gone into the population stuff. I do know that we can grow 'up' - and as you are indicating we have serious philosophical/paradigm issues regarding how we live on this planet (soil loss, plastics, etc). Until we change how we think (which is actually happening in incremental ways as we speak) we will be condemned to try to figure it all out with yesterday's logic - which will make it all seem impossible.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wrong.
Overpopulation deniers are just climate deniers on steroids.
Though climate change is a crisis, the population threat is even worse | Stephen Emmott
https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/population_warming.pdf
The Climate-Change Solution No One Will Talk About
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/?_r=0
Baby emissions fuel global warming
There are already 6.8 billion people living on this crowded planet and the figure is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2050. How can we expect to reduce global carbon emissions by 50 per cent or more if populations continue to grow exponentially? Family planning is often regarded as taboo by environmentalists, but many are now coming round to the view that curbing population growth will be crucial to combat climate change.
The Optimum Population Trust (patron, David Attenborough) runs a campaign urging parents to "Stop At Two". Gordon Brown's green adviser Jonathon Porritt and Science Museum director Chris Rapley have also spoken of the environmental importance of tackling population growth.
Ed Miliband, the UK's secretary of state for energy and climate change, addressed the issue recently at a town hall meeting in Oxford. "There's no question that population growth is part of the reason why we have growth in carbon emissions ...
Though climate change is a crisis, the population threat is even worse | Stephen Emmott
https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/population_warming.pdf
The Climate-Change Solution No One Will Talk About
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/?_r=0
Baby emissions fuel global warming
There are already 6.8 billion people living on this crowded planet and the figure is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2050. How can we expect to reduce global carbon emissions by 50 per cent or more if populations continue to grow exponentially? Family planning is often regarded as taboo by environmentalists, but many are now coming round to the view that curbing population growth will be crucial to combat climate change.
The Optimum Population Trust (patron, David Attenborough) runs a campaign urging parents to "Stop At Two". Gordon Brown's green adviser Jonathon Porritt and Science Museum director Chris Rapley have also spoken of the environmental importance of tackling population growth.
Ed Miliband, the UK's secretary of state for energy and climate change, addressed the issue recently at a town hall meeting in Oxford. "There's no question that population growth is part of the reason why we have growth in carbon emissions ...
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
For pity's sake - who denied it? You took my post as a denial?
But my statement stands - how about another thread on over-population?