The world ended in 2016, we are living in a simulation. You didn't think 2016 really happened, right? It is right out of a Simpson's episode! LOL
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I don't know of any other serious predictions, I hope you're right.
I honestly don't know how to refute the possibility either... at least until this bio extinction experiment has concluded which could be fairly soon give or take a decade or two.
Fixed it, thanks.
Why's everyone latching on to the 2026 part. What about the IPCC, 60 Minutes, NYT article... nothing?
Therein lies the reason why we're all in this cluster F in the first place. Denial is not a river in Egypt - as they say.
Let me quote what I just posted, right up top. (Yes, that's Bandit looking at you.)
"He's an alarmist for sure, predicts human extinction by 2026, and wondered what's behind it. Controversial stuff here, I'm only trying to gather some facts, and seriously wondering how badly our leaders are hiding the facts in order to prevent a "War of the Worlds" Radio Show type mass hysteria."
"He's an alarmist for sure, predicts human extinction by 2026, and wondered what's behind it. Controversial stuff here, I'm only trying to gather some facts, and seriously wondering how badly our leaders are hiding the facts in order to prevent a "War of the Worlds" Radio Show type mass hysteria."
Why does the IPCC claim methane is only 28x potent. I've always heard 100x and I think 84x was mentioned in the clip.
Meanwhile, "more investigation needed" given this new methane source from permafrost... Hmm, not taken into account yet?
Other's claim the thawing could be fracturing the ground releasing the storage early.
Not good folks, maybe I should pull in the prediction. /s
It's one thing to say that we've crossed a tipping point (and there are potentially many factors that can reach a tipping point), it is another to say that the world "ends" (whatever that means) in 2026.
We won't be going back to whatever state of homeostasis we seemed to be in 50 years ago. But we won't know what tomorrow looks like until we see it in the rear view mirror. Too many variables.
What's the meaning here on the term "Tipping Point?"
My understanding is the threshold temperature that triggers a run-away thermal event much like a burning Li battery or like the junction temp of a transistor. Temp rises the full 10C (or more?) The tipping point is the recipe for a potential mass extinction event IMO - And forget the 2026, 2046 applies all the like.
Some say we're past that tipping point already - perhaps. It does seem to be accelerating around here. Lake Powell seems to be dropping at an accelerated rate, but that's just personal observation after visiting over 100 times in about 45 yrs. I can't even look now. First Blizzard warning ever in San Diego... yikes! That means all that cold air from the north was replaced by warmer air... this winter. Considering this planet is new to such a rapid change, species may not be able to adapt as we've seen in the past. That's a huge unknown.
That chart earlier from NOAH on the dropping temps in the past 8 years to "End the Debate"
I fully expect a new record heat wave, maybe as high as 123F in Phx Az within the next 2 years. That should fire up every A/C unit and cause SRP to burn even more peaker gas generators.
First of all, thank you for bringing up different viewpoints. There's always something to learn. I'll try to explain some of my views on these topics, maybe someone will find them helpful.I looked on this entire TMC forum for any discussion of Dr. Guy McPherson, then tried the MEER project, but neither appear anywhere on this forum to my surprise. He's an alarmist for sure, predicts human extinction by 2026, and wondered what's behind it. Controversial stuff here, I'm only trying to gather some facts, and seriously wondering how badly our leaders are hiding the facts in order to prevent a "War of the Worlds" Radio Show type mass hysteria. Az for sure is running low on well water and some predict a trickle from the Co river soon in our future, even this decade. Here's some things I found, and I will be developing a Plan B for our survival.
I'm fairly new to climate science and happen to stumble upon Dr. McPherson's 2026 extinction prediction while browsing YouTube. That led to review of key parts of the IPCC Global Reports, and some quizzing with ChatGPT to try and understand how badly we messed up our planet from the greenhouse issue alone. This info kept me up last night which is rare for me and I bet it's what keeps Musk pushing so hard.
I now believe it's possible the robots will be essential for farming partially due to extreme heat for humans to work outside in many regions, and CyberTruck could be our escape vehicle... maybe even to the southern hemisphere (more water than land surface area will buffer the heat).
So let's start with a New York Times article which claims that 1980-1990 was the last chance before being too late to prevent global disaster. It was a time described in this publication where the parties were in agreement on the issue at hand, but basically lacked a few signatures is all. Reagan was President most of that decade.
"It was understood that action would have to come immediately. At the start of the 1980s, scientists within the federal government predicted that conclusive evidence of warming would appear on the global temperature record by the end of the decade, at which point it would be too late to avoid disaster. "
"If the world had adopted the proposal widely endorsed at the end of the ’80s — a freezing of carbon emissions, with a reduction of 20 percent by 2005 — warming could have been held to less than 1.5 degrees."
"After the election, Reagan considered plans to close the Energy Department, increase coal production on federal land and deregulate surface coal mining. Once in office, he appointed James Watt, the president of a legal firm that fought to open public lands to mining and drilling, to run the Interior Department. “We’re deliriously happy,” the president of the National Coal Association was reported to have said."
Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change (Published 2018)
We knew everything we needed to know, and nothing stood in our way. Nothing, that is, except ourselves. A tragedy in two acts.www.nytimes.com
Not that the 80's were the starting point of identifying the issue, the industrial revolution actually started in 1760 (not 1850 as many refer to, including ChatGPT). I decided to share the full chat below, but it is pretty long, sorry). AI aside, you can see it dancing around the data, and providing multiple links that were removed. My conclusion is that Dr. McPherson seems quite well versed and even quotes journals that don't make it to the public, so worth a listen even if you don't see Human Extinction by 2026 - although what's it gonna take for folks to wake on this? I actually appreciate that he put his reputation on the line in the name of science, and he has made us ponder, as if we had cancer... what would we do?
ME
Summarize this page in one paragraph. “Humans will be extinct by 2026” – doom-and-gloom prophet Professor Guy McPherson on abrupt climate change
The article discusses the concept of "abrupt climate change," which refers to the possibility of rapid and severe shifts in global climate patterns due to human activity. It notes that while many people are aware of the long-term effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and increased temperatures, abrupt climate change could have much more immediate and devastating consequences, such as sudden and severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events. The article suggests that addressing this issue will require a concerted effort from individuals, businesses, and governments around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to cleaner forms of energy.
(My Observation: There is no mention of the title or main point of this article. The professor here has impressive knowledge and has a stern message, the interviewer is a bit flighty but still worth a listen IMO).
ME
Does the IPCC publish only conservative climate findings, that are further filtered by politics as he claims?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body established by the United Nations to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts, and future risks, as well as options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC operates under a set of principles designed to ensure that its findings are objective, transparent, and policy-relevant, and that its reports reflect a wide range of scientific views and uncertainties.
While the IPCC's assessments are conservative in the sense that they rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and require a high degree of consensus among scientists, they do not necessarily downplay the severity or urgency of the climate crisis. In fact, the IPCC's latest report, released in 2021, warns of unprecedented and irreversible changes to the climate system if greenhouse gas emissions are not rapidly reduced.
(Note: 100% consensus per Professor Guy McPherson)
As for claims that the IPCC's findings are filtered by politics, it is true that the IPCC operates under a political mandate to provide policy-relevant information to governments. However, the IPCC's assessments are conducted by hundreds of scientists from around the world who are selected based on their expertise and are not subject to political interference. The final reports are also subject to an extensive review process by governments, experts, and stakeholders to ensure that they are scientifically accurate and policy-relevant. While the review process can involve negotiations and compromises, the IPCC's operating procedures are designed to ensure that the scientific integrity of its assessments is maintained.
ME
Didn't the IPCC say that climate change was irreversible past 2020, way back in 2018?
It is not accurate to say that the IPCC stated in 2018 that climate change was irreversible past 2020. In its 2018 special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC warned that if global warming exceeds 1.5°C, the world would face increasingly severe and irreversible impacts, such as sea level rise, more frequent and severe heatwaves, droughts, and floods, and biodiversity loss. The report also stated that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban, and industrial systems, and that global greenhouse gas emissions would need to decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by around 2050 to achieve this goal.
While the IPCC did not specify a deadline for these emissions reductions, it did emphasize the urgency of action and the need to start immediately to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The report also stated that some of the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification, would continue for centuries to millennia even if global warming were stabilized, but that rapid and deep emissions reductions could reduce the risks and impacts of these changes. Therefore, while the IPCC did not state that climate change was irreversible past 2020, it did emphasize the need for urgent action to mitigate its impacts and limit its severity.
ME
As of your last learned data set, how many degrees is the ave temp of the planet currently above the pre-industrial age of 1760?
As of my last learned data set, the average global temperature is estimated to be around 1.1 degrees Celsius (2.0 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, which are generally defined as the average temperature between 1850-1900. This estimate comes from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, which was published in 2014, and subsequent studies have generally confirmed this range. However, it's worth noting that temperatures can vary from year to year and that different studies may use slightly different baselines or methods of analysis, so estimates may vary slightly depending on the source.
ME
What year did the industrial age start?
The Industrial Age is generally considered to have begun in the mid-18th century, around the year 1760, with the start of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. This period was marked by a significant increase in the use of machinery and steam power, which led to a rapid expansion of manufacturing, transportation, and other industries. The Industrial Revolution spread to other parts of Europe and North America in the following decades, and eventually to other regions of the world, leading to profound social, economic, and environmental changes that continue to shape the world today.
ME
What was the average global temperature in 1760?
Unfortunately, reliable instrumental records of global temperatures only go back to the mid-to-late 19th century, so we do not have direct measurements of the average global temperature in 1760. However, scientists have reconstructed global temperatures using various proxy methods, such as tree rings, ice cores, and sediment records. Based on these reconstructions, the average global temperature in the mid-18th century, around the start of the Industrial Revolution, was likely around 0.6 to 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.0 to 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than pre-industrial levels. This estimate comes from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, which was published in 2014, and subsequent studies have generally confirmed this range. However, it's worth noting that reconstructions of past temperatures have some uncertainties and regional variations, so the estimates may vary depending on the source and method used.
ME
When did humans begin burning fossil fuels for industrialization?
Humans began burning fossil fuels for industrialization during the Industrial Revolution, which started in the mid-18th century, around the year 1760, in Great Britain. The increased use of coal for steam power in manufacturing, transportation, and other industries was a key factor in the rapid expansion of industrialization during this period. Over time, the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas has become increasingly widespread and has fueled global economic growth and development. However, the burning of fossil fuels is also the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change, and the need to transition to cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy is now widely recognized as a critical global priority.
ME
Can you show me some data or reference that charts the amount of greenhouse gasses since 1760 globally?
Yes, there are several sources that provide data on global greenhouse gas emissions since 1760. Here are a few examples:
It's worth noting that different sources may use slightly different methods or assumptions to estimate greenhouse gas emissions, so there may be some variations in the exact numbers. However, the overall trends and patterns are generally consistent across different sources.
- The Global Carbon Project: The Global Carbon Project is an international research project that produces annual updates on global carbon emissions and sinks. They provide data on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, and land-use change, as well as other greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). They have a chart on their website that shows the historical trend of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry since 1751, which you can find here: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/20/presentation.htm
- The World Resources Institute: The World Resources Institute is a non-profit research organization that provides data and analysis on a range of environmental issues, including climate change. They have a chart on their website that shows global greenhouse gas emissions by sector since 1850, which you can find here: https://www.wri.org/applications/maps-and-data/#
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The IPCC is a scientific body that provides regular assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change. Their Fifth Assessment Report, which was published in 2014, provides data and analysis on historical trends in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as future scenarios under different policy and economic assumptions. You can find a summary of their findings on historical emissions here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
ME
The fist link you gave me (https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/20/presentation.htm) doesn't exist. Is there another source for specifically showing global carbon emissions since the mid 1700's (such as 1751 cited in the article)?
I apologize for the error in the previous message. Here is the correct link to the Global Carbon Project's chart on historical trends in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, and land-use change since 1751: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/20/data.htm
The chart shows that global carbon dioxide emissions have increased significantly since the mid-18th century, with the most rapid increases occurring in the second half of the 20th century. The chart also shows that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have also increased over this period, with current levels well above the pre-industrial baseline.
ME
That is still an invalid link. Please provide a reference specifically showing global carbon emissions since the mid 1700's (such as 1751 cited in the article), and only if the link is active.
I apologize for the confusion. Here is a link to a chart from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which shows estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring since 1751: Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions
The chart shows that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities were relatively low and stable before the mid-19th century, but began to increase rapidly during the Industrial Revolution and have continued to rise ever since. The chart also shows that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased correspondingly over this period, with current levels well above the pre-industrial baseline.
Please note that the CDIAC website is no longer actively maintained, as it has been replaced by the Environmental System Science Data Infrastructure for a Virtual Ecosystem (ESS-DIVE) at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. However, the data on historical carbon dioxide emissions from CDIAC remains widely cited and used in scientific research.
So it appears many left out the initial "0.6 to 0.7 degrees Celsius" prior to the "Industrial Revolution" impact of about "1.1 degree Celsius" in 1850-1900. So then what happened after the 1.7-1.8 deg change since the industrial revolution? So I believe it is higher than the 1.1 deg claimed and 1.5 deg is already busted.
Enter Professor Guy McPherson now blowing the whistle hard on the next extinction event coming in 2026. Extreme by most scientists, but we don't have much data to refute how long this event could take. Ya, pretty dire, but consider he's an expert the matter has concerned me greatly. He's claiming it's game over for Humans, and recommending that we enjoy life to it's fullest. He adds we should consider the MEER project involving reflective rooftops in poor cities to start, but I only think this makes it less painful for those cities participating, and not sure how this and cutting back would solve it.
So do others believe this "Guy" or do you have a different prediction? Do you think we'll be extinct soon, or do some of us get CyberTrucks and go remote to grow our own food and live off the land? Keep in mind, there will be an increase in temperature just from eliminating fossil fuels initially due to the Aerosol Masking Effect (shading effect of carbon particulates that eventually fall from the sky). And once the ice caps melt (doubt they won't IMO) and that positive feedback kicks in because of the increased absorbed vs reflected sunlight, and realizing that the water temperature rise will (is) having a big impact on food supplies, and the farms in the Southwest are getting bought out so WE can still live here... the list goes on.
So here's my guess - Humans 95% extinct by 2030 due to a lack of food mainly. Meanwhile, McPherson describes War, Starvation, and Suicide in the final days. And check out the recent 60 Minutes Special for a similar alarm where their only hope was about some rich guy paying people to not cut down trees.
Are we all too late?
I watched some videos by this guy, and I would agree with him on a few points. People generally do not take the possibility of a collapse seriously. Climate change being an existential threat comes up in discussions all the time, but rarely is that reflected in their actions. For most people the issue of climate change is an ideological signaling mechanism, not something that they have actually meditated on and done any thinking on. If they would have, surely their actions would be geared more towards securing essential production for them and their loved ones. I 'barbell' my investments by being heavy on TSLA for the technological utopia vision, and working towards becoming a small scale farmer on the other end, for the scenario I believe is most likely, which is collapse of many systems around us.
What I would not agree with many of Guy's points, though.
He is first of all unable to take his conclusions about peer reviewed science to the finish line, that science as its nowadays understood is corrupt and probably a hindrance rather than a help.
He frames the problem as climate change. Climate change is not the problem, the problem is that we are re-engineering a biosphere that is a living, breathing entity that creates and sustains all life on earth. And not only that, life creates many geological events, too, such as the water cycle etc.
The sugary thing is that the mainstream solution is to solve it with more of the same. The problem is that we are using the energy we have in a destructive manner, not that the energy used is from fossil fuels. The problem is in mechanistic, reductionist, scientific, technological interventions that we do at an ever increasing speed and ever increasing scale.
But there is a way out. We actually (still) have the knowledge and tools to reverse the damage we have done. We can be like beavers, have a big impact on our environment that benefits all life and increases biodiversity. Regenerative agriculture will quickly sequester carbon, fix the water cycle, produce food, local resilience, produce physical and mental health amongst other things.
While he is just one of many, Walter Jehne does a great job of explaining the science of the water cycle, and how in fact CO2 is not the leverage point in the climate system, but rather water is.
Here's a wonderful and hopeful case study of what's possible.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Revealed: 1,000 super-emitting methane leaks risk triggering climate tipping points
More than 1,000 “super-emitter” sites gushed the potent greenhouse gas methane into the global atmosphere in 2022, the Guardian can reveal, mostly from oil and gas facilities. The worst single leak spewed the pollution at a rate equivalent to 67m running cars. Separate data also reveals 55 “methane bombs” around the world – fossil fuel extraction sites where gas leaks alone from future production would release levels of methane equivalent to 30 years of all US greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emissions cause 25% of global heating today and there has been a “scary” surge since 2007, according to scientists. This acceleration may be the biggest threat to keeping below 1.5C of global heating and seriously risks triggering catastrophic climate tipping points, researchers say.
About 40% of human-caused methane emissions come from leaks from fossil fuel exploration, production and transportation. These rose by almost 50% between 2000 and 2019. Another 40% comes from agriculture, dominated by burping cattle, and 20% from rotting waste sites. All are forecast to rise.
More than 1,000 “super-emitter” sites gushed the potent greenhouse gas methane into the global atmosphere in 2022, the Guardian can reveal, mostly from oil and gas facilities. The worst single leak spewed the pollution at a rate equivalent to 67m running cars. Separate data also reveals 55 “methane bombs” around the world – fossil fuel extraction sites where gas leaks alone from future production would release levels of methane equivalent to 30 years of all US greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emissions cause 25% of global heating today and there has been a “scary” surge since 2007, according to scientists. This acceleration may be the biggest threat to keeping below 1.5C of global heating and seriously risks triggering catastrophic climate tipping points, researchers say.
About 40% of human-caused methane emissions come from leaks from fossil fuel exploration, production and transportation. These rose by almost 50% between 2000 and 2019. Another 40% comes from agriculture, dominated by burping cattle, and 20% from rotting waste sites. All are forecast to rise.
dhrivnak
Active Member
The challenge with methane is the time frame. CO2 has a half life of some 150 years. Methane breaks down fairly rapidly to CO2. So if you are looking at 1-2 years, then 100X is reasonable. most people look at 100 years and then 28X is more reasonable. If you look at 150 years even less. BUT even if methane spikes, and it is rising, I still see no extinction event by 2026. The earth is huge and has great thermal lag so it will take decades for the Earth to respond. Climate explained: methane is short-lived in the atmosphere but leaves long-term damage.Why does the IPCC claim methane is only 28x potent. I've always heard 100x and I think 84x was mentioned in the clip.
Meanwhile, "more investigation needed" given this new methane source from permafrost... Hmm, not taken into account yet?
Other's claim the thawing could be fracturing the ground releasing the storage early.
Not good folks, maybe I should pull in the prediction. /s
I think what we mean by "Tipping Point" is that the cat is already out of the bag. Are there things we could do to mitigate the situation? Yes, certainly. Will we do it, given politics and human nature, probably not near enough to avert and eventual socioeconomic upheaval.What's the meaning here on the term "Tipping Point?"
My understanding is the threshold temperature that triggers a run-away thermal event much like a burning Li battery or like the junction temp of a transistor. Temp rises the full 10C (or more?) The tipping point is the recipe for a potential mass extinction event IMO - And forget the 2026, 2046 applies all the like.
Some say we're past that tipping point already - perhaps. It does seem to be accelerating around here. Lake Powell seems to be dropping at an accelerated rate, but that's just personal observation after visiting over 100 times in about 45 yrs. I can't even look now. First Blizzard warning ever in San Diego... yikes! That means all that cold air from the north was replaced by warmer air... this winter. Considering this planet is new to such a rapid change, species may not be able to adapt as we've seen in the past. That's a huge unknown.
That chart earlier from NOAH on the dropping temps in the past 8 years to "End the Debate"
I fully expect a new record heat wave, maybe as high as 123F in Phx Az within the next 2 years. That should fire up every A/C unit and cause SRP to burn even more peaker gas generators.
As was pointed out, the earth is huge, and it will take time for release of methane and CO2 to propagate their effects. So many variables to how it all might play out.
I wish I had faith that humanity will pull together and put the genie back into the bottle. Historically, that hasn't happened.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Humanity is united in the desire to stop climate change. However, corporate greed has stymied efforts.
Some good input here, there's some hope, thanks.
I get that the alarmist can (and has) turned off listeners - perhaps in much the same way FSD has disappointed many short-term. It becomes a crying wolf story and backfires in MSM as @dhrivnak points out. But I have no doubt our species is at risk, so I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I got an eMail back from Guy today, and he is not interested in looking at Tesla solutions, so seems he gave up and truly believes it's game over. I recognize he's not an Engineer, while I don't know enough about biology, chemistry, climate... Until then, I can't defeat the alarm.
Honestly, I have no idea where peer review papers come from, I assume other legit scientists that publish somewhere (and there were many cited). He was pretty clear about the fact that the IPCC only publishes what ALL members agree to. So one dissent, and we don't see it? That sound quite the politics as usual. Shouldn't a preponderance of evidence, however controversial, get out? But then it's cherry picked as usual... Info management here is a mess on it's own.
So I'm not going to cancel the red alert, and I do believe our species is at risk of collapse... Especially when every other post recently is about more methane leaks from Fracking and Ice Caps.
In the end, the solutions must intersect the problem head on. Waiting for Tesla to fix our problems, not the best strategy. I've literally only used our fully functional methane hot tub once in 3 years with visiting family, feel good about our EVs/Solar/PWs setup, and I've got a lot to learn about farming it seems. But I don't see this change in others around me, only spots here and there.
In his eMail, he called civilization a "Heat Engine" which sums it up pretty well.
I get that the alarmist can (and has) turned off listeners - perhaps in much the same way FSD has disappointed many short-term. It becomes a crying wolf story and backfires in MSM as @dhrivnak points out. But I have no doubt our species is at risk, so I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I got an eMail back from Guy today, and he is not interested in looking at Tesla solutions, so seems he gave up and truly believes it's game over. I recognize he's not an Engineer, while I don't know enough about biology, chemistry, climate... Until then, I can't defeat the alarm.
Honestly, I have no idea where peer review papers come from, I assume other legit scientists that publish somewhere (and there were many cited). He was pretty clear about the fact that the IPCC only publishes what ALL members agree to. So one dissent, and we don't see it? That sound quite the politics as usual. Shouldn't a preponderance of evidence, however controversial, get out? But then it's cherry picked as usual... Info management here is a mess on it's own.
So I'm not going to cancel the red alert, and I do believe our species is at risk of collapse... Especially when every other post recently is about more methane leaks from Fracking and Ice Caps.
In the end, the solutions must intersect the problem head on. Waiting for Tesla to fix our problems, not the best strategy. I've literally only used our fully functional methane hot tub once in 3 years with visiting family, feel good about our EVs/Solar/PWs setup, and I've got a lot to learn about farming it seems. But I don't see this change in others around me, only spots here and there.
In his eMail, he called civilization a "Heat Engine" which sums it up pretty well.
Not just corporate, humans ignore it too by seeking info they prefer to read. Does anyone recall the Inconvenient Truth?
Wow, I gotta get back to this project... good dialog.
"Stupid corporations!" -- Homer Simpson
Some of humanity. There's a substantial portion that look at disaster as an opportunity. Others just bury their heads in the sand and focus on March Madness.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It all boils down to money. People ignore anything that might cost them money. The largest offenders are corporations... followed by the rich people (usually same as corporations).
Regular working people (99+%) are affected and want to slow climate change. Sometimes they act against their interests when their corporate masters threaten them with pay or job cuts but most of the time they just suffer quietly and hope that "somebody" does "something" but we know that the rich won't do anything.
Very cool story! But takes a long time to transition for even a few trees, not so sure there is that much time, not sure that's creating food vs just shade.
I just saw a story on Las Vegas claiming they have no worries because of well water (OK) and that the river owes them essentially. So counting on their allotments when it dries up is pretty funny/sad. Sounds like PR that real estate folks would conjure up. Meanwhile, I have a friend moving from Utah to Vegas, plans to boat in Mead. Maybe he read that article but Utah ain't much better.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Revealed: the 10 worst places to live in US for air pollution
The fine particles of air pollution emitted by cars, factories, wildfires and dusty agricultural activities, known to researchers as PM2.5, are small enough to travel deep into the lungs and into the bloodstream, increasing death rates from causes like respiratory disease, heart attacks and strokes. New research is showing they are associated with a surprising array of health impacts, ranging from miscarriages and Covid-19 to kidney damage and blood infections.
www.theguardian.com
The fine particles of air pollution emitted by cars, factories, wildfires and dusty agricultural activities, known to researchers as PM2.5, are small enough to travel deep into the lungs and into the bloodstream, increasing death rates from causes like respiratory disease, heart attacks and strokes. New research is showing they are associated with a surprising array of health impacts, ranging from miscarriages and Covid-19 to kidney damage and blood infections.
Do you live in an air pollution hotspot? Find out with our interactive map
A Guardian analysis based on modelling of fine particulate levels by neighborhood allows you to see how polluted your area is
www.theguardian.com
mspohr
Well-Known Member
U.N. research shows that to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, we’ll need to remove about six billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050, the same as annual U.S. emissions today. You told me that trees are the best and the only thing we have right now to fight climate change cheaply and do it fast. But there’s only so much arable land, and trees are said to provide only half of the removal needed. Do you agree that there’s not enough land to plant the trees we need?
No, I don’t agree with that. In the United States, you had the terrible dust storms of the 1930s, and we’re actually returning to this. And you had a president called Roosevelt, and Roosevelt was very smart. He got a huge group of people out planting a gleditsia species. They’re a honey locust. They’re the inermis species of honey locust. And there’s all kinds of research done around those honey locusts. It stopped the storms from destroying the farming land, and they were planted all over the United States. So a lot of them are gone now. And let me say to you: There are trees that can grow on almost nothing. We need those trees. Some trees are feeding trees. Some trees produce all kinds of nuts and all kinds of other things that the farming community can get the benefit from.
Too many trees, too many forests all over the world have come down too much. When we were taking down these forests, we did not know that they were molecular machines. And they are intelligent machines that are capable of farming the photons of the sun.
We know it now, and we are still taking the forests down (well, some of us anyway). It's the greed thing.
Similar threads
