.JPG "Earthen Spirituality")
Living within a living, loving planet
Global Warming
Notable mentions and omissions of climate change
Jul 29th
MEDIA ANALYSIS 26 July 2018 12:36
Media reaction: The 2018 summer heatwaves and climate change
Carbon Brief
https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-2018-summer-heatwaves-and-climate-change
Carbon Brief looks back at how the media has reported the extreme weather and how the coverage has – or has not – referenced climate change.
The summary below is split into five sections:
Roundup of the recent spate of extremes.
How the media has reported the UK’s heatwave.
How it has covered other extreme events across the northern hemisphere.
Notable mentions – and omissions – of climate change.
Summary of the comment and opinion articles.
More Lake Effect Snow
Jan 8th
More Lake Effect Snow
8 January, 2018
Weather is a more immediate effect of changes in the climate. You can’t have one without the other. On the other hand, it is foolish to choose a cold day and then say – “there, you see, the Earth is NOT getting warmer.” It is fair to note that extreme weather events are occurring more frequently. Two major changes have occurred over the last 2,000 years. One, the human footprint has expanded almost beyond belief and two, the CO2 content in the air has increased proportionately. Our species has never experienced this level of CO2. Not helpful is that our measuring instruments were designed to measure inanimate objects on an inanimate planet. No wonder we have so little understanding as to how the Earth “works.” Our living planet’s behaviour is unpredictable just like people’s behaviour is unpredictable. We don’t destroy the medical profession because they cannot always accurately predict whether our prescription will “work” or not. Finally, we must take into account that millions of dollars, pounds etc. have been awarded to “scientists?” to falsify statistics and create “fake” news. Is it any wonder that there are so few tears shed over the destruction of Nature?
JANUARY 04, 2018 | 11:40 AM
A ‘PERFECT STORM’: EXTREME WINTER WEATHER, BITTER COLD, AND CLIMATE CHANGE
World-renowned climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains why the bitter cold and snowy conditions gripping the US are “an example of precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.”
The Real Problem
Jul 28th
I totally disagree with this hypothesis. “Like Exxon, Utilities knew about Climate Change risks decades ago” See my post on Facebook yesterday, 27 July. Climate change inaction is caused by: (1) Establishment conditioning views our planet as fodder for the taking with no intelligence, wisdom nor consciousness. (2) This conditioning has been reinforced by Jewish and Christian doctrine according to Genesis 1:26. (3) These two circumstances were exploited by Capitalism and expressed with the commandments; “profit first” and “grow or die” (4) All of the above were supported by the failure of our species to develop an “enoughness” gene. The lack of this ability is expressed by what we call greed revealed as anti-social behaviour bordering on the psychopathic. Lastly, from this state of being in the world, we will not honour and protect that which we do not love and most of the rich and powerful do not view Earth as lovable.
“Climate change is an existential risk that could abruptly end human civilisation because of a catastrophic “failure of imagination” by global leaders to understand and act on the science and evidence before them.”
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-07-26/a-failure-of-imagination-on-climate-risks/
Scientists warn pulling carbon out of the air
May 24th
The Washington Post By Chelsea Harvey May 22, 2017
“But for years, scientists have discussed the idea of going further by using large plantations full of fast-growing, carbon-storing trees to pull extra carbon emissions out of the atmosphere, a strategy sometimes called “afforestation.” But the amount of land and other resources this strategy would require to actually help us meet our global climate goals — namely, keeping global temperatures within at least two degrees of their pre-industrial levels — is completely impractical, according to Boysen’s new study in the journal Earth’s Future, and would require the destruction of huge amounts of natural ecosystems or productive agricultural land.”
“Every year an area of rainforest the size of New Jersey is cut down and destroyed.” Rainforest Information for Kids
In the first place, there are very few, maybe none at all, of Earth’s ecosystems that could be called “natural.” The human footprint is vast and indelible. Of course planting trees will not reverse or “fix” the problem because, obviously, forest destruction has been in progress for a few thousand years. Today, we are just finishing it off. However, mitigating efforts of this kind are sorely needed.
God forbid that we should reforest marginal agricultural land and limit our numbers! We have accepted our need for financial budgets, why not a population budget? Why does the US need to plough up wilderness areas, parks and arid lands for exports? The US exported 5.4 billion dollars’ worth of wheat in 2016. In the US the major food supply channels are entirely under the control of multinationals now and they export the same item with one hand and import it with the other depending on where the greatest profits lie. Forbes reports that the US crude oil exports hit record levels in 2016, despite a decline in U.S. oil production. No wonder the number of billionaires in the world increased by 13% in 2017 and the US is home to most of them.
“Boysen and her colleagues find the land space that would be required for the amount of trees necessary to keep temperatures within a 2-degree threshold under our current climate trajectory could have “dire consequences for food production or the biosphere.” And even under more optimistic scenarios, where future carbon emissions are lower and fewer trees would be necessary, they conclude that “’high inputs of managed water and fertilizers would be needed in order to avoid fierce competition for land — with potentially negative side-effects for climate and society.’”
Obviously human food is limited in a forest. But, where and what is “dire” for the biosphere about substituting a largely mono-cropped and ploughed up ecosystem which favours more humans and almost eliminates other animals with trees? After all, life here on Earth is NOT all about humans, is it? For me, this article suggests that keeping supermarkets in the western world fully stocked is more important than keeping the planet healthy.
“Converting land on this staggering scale would pit climate change responses against food security and biodiversity protection,” they write. “Massively expanding managed land for CDR [carbon dioxide removal] could crash through the planetary boundary for sustainable land use.”
“There are other options,” she said, such as more sustainable agriculture techniques, that can help make a dent in global carbon emissions. “But the most important option is, of course, not to release the CO2 into the atmosphere.”
No, the best option is to cut down on population.
Trees are Vital to our Continued Existence
May 21st
Agony of Mother Earth (I) The Unstoppable Destruction of Forests
By Baher Kamal
http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/05/agony-of-mother-earth-i-the-unstoppable-destruction-of-forests/
“This is the first of a two-part series on how humankind has been systematically destroying world’s forests—the real lungs of Mother Earth. Part II will deal with forest depletion for wood-fuel.”
Agony of Mother Earth (II) World’s Forests Depleted for Fuel
By Baher Kamal
http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/05/agony-of-mother-earth-ii-worlds-forests-depleted-for-fuel/
“This is the second of a two-part series on how humankind has been systematically destroying world’s forests—the real lungs of Mother Earth. Part I dealt with the relentless destruction of forests.”
It is the destruction of forests and the drying up of Savannah that prevents the Earth from recovering from the exponential increase of greenhouses gasses, especially methane and carbon dioxide. Without a doubt, it is the continuing greed expressed by the corporate Gods of growth and profit that maintains the ethics and laws that reinforce the ecocide and strongly resists efforts to cooperate with the planet’s ability to self-regulate. We are faced with the enemy within that we have so far been unable to subdue. With the US containing 41% of the world’s dollar millionaires and the number of worldwide billionaires increasing by double digits yearly, who can deny that there is little hope? Money talks.
NY Times hired a hippie puncher to give climate obstructionists cover
May 1st
NY Times hired a hippie puncher to give climate obstructionists cover
Posted on 29 April 2017 by dana1981
https://www.skepticalscience.com/nyt-hired-hippie-puncher.html
I like the analogy below. I also like my analogy in regards to uncertainty. When we go our GP or specialist they are often not certain of the cause of our ailment and thus whether the medicine they prescribe will cure it. They often say, something like, take this and come back in X days if you are not better. We all understand that the body is an incredibly complex organism and most of us accept our physician’s efforts to help us. Well, the Earth systems are complex also and our scientists are limited in their predictive efforts mainly, in my not so humble opinion, because their instruments have been designed to register the outcomes of a machine-like object. Unfortunately, recent scientific research is revealing that Earth “behaves” as if it was a living organism. Earth is a “self-regulating” organism and thus inherently unpredictable. We are caught in the grips of vast greediness supported by our cultural beliefs, economic global order whilst being buried by our mechanistic, capitalistic, materialistic worldview.
“Stephens needs a lesson in risk management
Smoking provides an apt analogy. Each time we smoke, we increase the odds of developing cancer a little bit more. The future outcome is uncertain – we don’t know exactly if or when the disaster of cancer will hit – but we know we’re making it more likely every time we smoke, and the smart move is to mitigate that risk by cutting down on the cigarettes as quickly as possible. With climate change, each time we add more carbon pollution to the atmosphere, we increase the odds of a climate catastrophe a little bit more. The smart move is to mitigate that risk by cutting down on our burning of fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
Stephens’ piece is akin to criticizing doctors and anti-smoking groups for being too mean to the tobacco industry, and for not focusing on the uncertainty about exactly when the chain-smoking patient will develop cancer.”
Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Apr 1st
Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Posted on 31 March 2017 by John Abraham
https://www.skepticalscience.com/scientists-understood-climate-150-yr-ago-better-than-pruitt.html
Recently he (Scott Pruitt) claimed on CNBC that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming:
I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So, no, I would not agree that’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.
“There are two undeniable ironies in this statement. First, taken at face value it would suggest that we actually need to do more analysis – but the current administration is proposing draconian cuts in our climate science research budget. They are doing just the opposite of what he recommends.
The second irony is that scientists have known about the importance of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas for well over 100 years. There is no debate among any reputable scientists that carbon dioxide is the most important human emitted greenhouse gas. Furthermore, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 43%. These are facts.”
“The final stop on our way-back trip brings us to 1896 and Swedish researcher Svante Arrhenius. He became the first person (that I know of) to make predictions about how much the Earth temperature would change as we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The title of his work, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” says it all.
Using measurements of the energy incoming from the moon, Arrhenius showed that changes to trace gases in the atmosphere can dramatically affect the temperature of the planet. He also discussed how gases are able to absorb specific wavelengths of light. Using experimental data from other preceding studies, he predicted global temperatures would rise approximately 5–6C in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
30 years ago scientists warned Congress on global warming.
Jun 12th
30 years ago scientists warned Congress on global warming. What they said sounds eerily familiar Chris Mooney June 11, 2016
“Thirty years ago we had a Republican senator who was leading the charge on addressing what he said then was a real and serious threat of climate change from the emission of gases from fossil fuel burning,” says Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), recalling the 1986 hearings. “You can read through all the things that Senator Chafee said back then, and it has all been proven true. It’s very disappointing that thirty years later, there is no such voice anywhere in the Republican Senate, and if you look for a micron of daylight between what the fossil fuel industry wants, and what the Republican Party in the Senate does, you won’t find it.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
So, the question is: Who is really running things?
Problems with biofuels
Jun 9th
Researchers find sweet source for aviation biofuel
By Mark Kinver
Environment reporter, BBC News
8 June 2015
This proposal leaves out a couple of important factors in the equation.
(1) Growing sugarcane on marginal land will require lots of water and fertiliser. It intensifies the implementation of what is becoming a process of the colonisation of Earth as a huge human food garden. Life on Earth is not all about humans.
(2) Our ecosystem sequesters carbon. Growing sugarcane for biofuel for aircraft power simply redistributes CO2 from lower levels of the troposphere to the stratosphere where other elements such as nitrogen destroys ozone and adds soot and other noxious chemicals.
(3) The better answer is the gradual limitation of air travel by various means which are doable but require a change in our behaviour. Our economic system is on a course of self-destruction and disintegration. Let us have a good look at it and change while we can.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33051949
“Ecosystems regulate Earth’s climate by adding and removing greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 from the atmosphere. In fact, forests, grasslands, peat swamps, and other terrestrial ecosystems collectively store much more carbon than does the atmosphere (Lal 2002). By storing this carbon in wood, other biomass, and soil, ecosystems keep CO2 out of the atmosphere, where it would contribute to climate change. Beyond just storing carbon, many systems also continue to accumulate it in plants and soil over time, thereby “sequestering” additional carbon each year. Disturbing these systems with fire, disease, or vegetation conversion (e.g., land use / land cover (LULC) conversion) can release large amounts of CO2. Other management changes, like forest restoration or alternative agricultural practices, can lead to the storage of large amounts of CO2. Therefore, the ways in which we manage terrestrial ecosystems are critical to regulating our climate.”