As Martin Luther said “For in the true nature of things, if we rightly consider, every green tree is far more glorious than if it were made of gold and silver.”
Global, not globat. Also, this poster makes the wrong point. It is not so much that we are having higher temperatures than normal. What defines normal? We are in an interglacial period which has in the past brought global warming. This is a cyclical event – one every 150k/years or so. There is no telling just exactly how warm it will get during this particular interglacial cycle. The important question is not so much why it is getting warmer, but why it is not getting cooler like it has in the past as the cycle turns back into a warm decline leading in centuries back to the, long glacial stage of the cycle? You might say “Oh well, maybe the downturn is just late and will occur in a few hundred years or so.” Observing the climb of CO2 is not surprising really because records show that the graph for average air temperature and the graph for CO2 are nearly synchronous. Which one leads and which one lags is controversial, but that they are nearly synchronous is not controversial.
Now here is the frightening news. The scientific research and media attention is focused on the causes of global warming. The warming event happened over 8,000 years ago.
We need to pay attention to the factors that we think brought down the CO2 and the temperature in the past 3 or 4 interglacial periods. One fact is the temperature dropped quickly, nearly as quickly as it rose. The maximum temperature period has always been short-lived. He present one has gone on longer than most if not all the previous ones. So be it. The two primary differences in the global conditions we face this time as compared to the past both are due to the presence of Homo Sapiens. We have caused extreme desertification coupled with a shortage of ground water and humidity and we have destroyed millions of trees and extensive grasslands. What sucks in carbon dioxide and expels oxygen and water vapour? We all know; vegetation, especially trees and the immense grasslands. I suggest it is almost certain that vegetation is the only possible reason for the steep fall in CO2 that can be observed in the graphs mentioned above.
The Milankovitch cycles and their interaction seem to me to reveal that the orbital forcing combination of eccentricity, obliquity and precession that favours cooling changed a couple of thousand years ago and it looks very much like we have missed a tipping point. Thus it may be centuries before the conditions again favour cooling. By then, our average global temperature may be so high that the tipping point cannot be reached. The following paper was written by two of the most distinguished researchers in the field of Earth Sciences.
An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead? A. Berger and M. F. Loutre see: berger_loutre02.sci.pdf
“Most CO2 scenarios (15) led to an exceptionally long interglacial from 5000 years before the present to 50,000 years from now (see the bottom panel of the figure), with the next glacial maximum in 100,000 years. Only for CO2 concentrations less than 220 ppmv was an early entrance into glaciation simulated (15).”
(15). M. F. Loutre, A. Berger, Clim. Change 46, 61 (2000).
[We are at 400ppm of CO2, climbing at an increasing rate with very little hope of stopping anytime soon.]
The penny has been dropped many times but economic greed coupled with the backing of the 1% trumps common sense. I can’t recommend a workable solution.
I know this is a short explanation but I don’t wish to dig any deeper in this message. See:
|The Seasons and the Earth’s Orbit – Milankovitch Cycles|
Or if you like my plain talk, see:
“And when the groundwater runs out, it is gone for good. Refilling the aquifer would require hundreds, if not thousands, of years of rains.
This is in many ways a slow-motion crisis — decades in the making, imminent for some, years or decades away for others, hitting one farm but leaving an adjacent one untouched. But across the rolling plains and tarmac-flat farmland near the Kansas-Colorado border, the effects of depletion are evident everywhere. Highway bridges span arid stream beds. Most of the creeks and rivers that once veined the land have dried up as 60 years of pumping have pulled groundwater levels down by scores and even hundreds of feet.”
We look down upon our hands and they are covered in blood. And then we remember being told that we have been made in the image of God.
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Air Passenger Travel
1 May 2013
Iata: Air travel rises by 5.9% worldwide
“The International Air Transport Association (Iata) says air passenger travel grew by 5.9% in March compared with a year earlier, boosted by emerging markets.”
“I was intrigued to read earlier this month a thoughtful essay by leading British climate scientist Kevin Anderson arguing, in terms that will sound very familiar to regular readers of The Archdruid Report, that the failure of climate change activism to make any headway in changing people’s behavior may have more than a little to do with the fact that the people who are urging such changes aren’t making them themselves.”
John Michael Greer’s blog: WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2013 http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment by Sky McCain
Although I am aware that air travel and air shipping is on the increase, I felt I needed to gather some facts, the latest if possible. We could guess that air travel was not on the wane nor diminished through at least two indicators. One, noting the huge success of an air show in the UK last year and a recent article on the increased profits of EADS who own Airbus, a successful competitor of Boeing Aerospace. Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries are buying up aircraft like they were so many corn chips. So are people taking climate change seriously and switching to Rail? By no means. Following is an indication and perhaps a reason why not. People fly because it is cheap and convenient. Some of the more popular holiday spots are on islands that take a lot of time and money to reach by ferry. There are no cut-rate ferry lines like Easyjet, JetBlue, Flybe or RyanAir.
Let us compare prices for a round-trip from London to Heraklion, Crete
London Heathrow round-trip to Heraklion, Crete 122.99 plus £62.17 leaving at midnight! £115 leaving at 2PM. Lowest price £185.16
Flying Easyjet you only have to get to Heathrow.
To go by Train and Ferry, however is a vastly different story. These are round trip estimates.
1st Eurostar London to Paris £150
2nd Paris sleeper [1 berth] to Venice £424
3rd Ferry to Patras £424
4th Bus to Pireaus approx. £25
5th Ferry Pireaus round-trip Heraklion, Crete £224.77
So you see, we have a 3 day journey cost, not including meals totalling £1,023 That’s easily 5 times the cost for your flight holiday in Heraklion
We go a little cheaper by visiting off-season but pay at least 4 times more for staying out of the air. Not many people feel that strongly about staying out of the air unless to visit overseas close family.
There have been continual increases in travel & freight. For instance,
“From 1992 to 2005, passenger kilometers increased 5.2% per year, even with the disruptions of 9/11 and two significant wars. During the first three quarters of 2010, air travel markets expanded at an annualized rate approaching 10%. This is similar to the rate seen in the rapid expansion prior to the recession.”
“In a 2008 presentation and paper  Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research showed how continued aviation growth in the UK threatens the ability of that nation to meet CO2 emission reduction goals necessary to contain the century-end temperature increase to even 4 or 6C° …at the UK’s historic annual emission growth rate of 7%. Beyond 2012 if the growth rate were reduced to 3% yearly, carbon emissions in 2030 would be 28 MT, which is 70% of the UK’s entire carbon emissions budget that year for all sectors of society.”
This article is fully supported with links to the supporting data. Hopefully, John Cook has helped us all to utterly dismiss the misconstrued and sometimes utterly false claims of those anthropogenic climate change deniers. I for one am sick of hearing the drivel. I felt it necessary to read it in association with genetically modified food only to find that there were a few “scientists” who were paid to falsify and construe what they could find as detractions. I am aware that some of those same people are now employed to do the same shameless job with climate change. Much of the blame for the false impressions on this subject has to be placed with some of the “media” who give equal time to detractors as if there was an equal chance that they may be right. Most of us have learned that “the media” by and large are only interested in sales and care less about fairness, truth and the art of conveying news.
Unfortunately, so many people make up their minds based on false information and then proceed forever with a closed mind on the issue. That’s why character assassination is accomplished with a lie that gets published and then an apology printed on page 16 in small print. People tend to remember the lie and either never see the retraction or apology or will not read further. They “know” because they read it in the newspaper or some magazine. A good friend of mine taught me that whenever reading something controversial, stop and look into just who is doing the assertions. Find out who finances them – whom do they serve. Find out who tends to gain from their point of view. People with set opinions look for someone to agree with them and then crystalize on their false knowledge like a nut that must never be cracked to see if the kernel is edible.
Their lives are crammed with precious nuts that cannot feed them when the kernels are needed. By then it is too late and they have invested their vital energy in that which does not serve them. Surely it is normal that we change as we age, as we experience the new and different, as we suffer and recover from tragedy and disappointments. We learn to regularly examine our truth nuts, crack open a few to see if they are still serviceable.
The most difficult student is one who already knows. When you give people the impression that you are not completely sure about something then you get their take which, surprisingly, often reveals something you overlooked or misunderstood. Actually, most people feel positively stroked when they get an opportunity to explain their opinions. It is a win-win because they feel good about informing you and you might just learn something.
Hopefully, anthropogenic climate change deniers now lack an audience.
THU MAY 16, 2013
Skeptical Science flattens deniers: 97% of peer-reviewed papers say humans causing climate change
By Meteor Blades
Nowadays, television news shows and newspaper and magazine articles that mention global warming rarely resort to outright lies like this grotesque piece of propaganda from Forbes.
“In fact, not all scientists do agree that humans are causing global warming. As researchers under the guidance of John Cook at Skeptical Science discovered in a “citizen science” survey of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles, 1.6 percent of the authors expressing an opinion on the subject rejected or were uncertain about the consensus that the earth is undergoing anthropogenic (human-generated) global warming (AGW). And 97.1 percent of the nearly 4,000 articles in which the author(s) took a position endorsed the AGW consensus. (The survey was published May 15 in Environmental Research Letters as an open access article)”
The Great Space Myth
Resurgence & Ecologist September/October 2012 Issue 274
Comments on this article made by Sky McCain
While looking through this issue, the following highlight caught my eye and interest. “We must learn to nurture the only place that we are ever likely to inhabit”
John Naish, a prolific writer that has written largely on health issues presents a well-researched and clearly presented case for why we can’t even dream of visiting even other nearby solar systems let alone roam the galaxy unless we do the preposterous: [my take on the situation] Take Earth’s global magnetic field along with us. I’ve checked out the four or five reasons John cites for why we won’t be doing space travel anytime soon – maybe never. They are valid and most well researched
The major point in the article that attracted me was the obvious. Why continue the slash and burn as if we could just hitch the buggy up to Ol’ Nell and find another lovely place to ruin. Sorry, but this is it. John mentions the “Kleenix Model of Colonialism” which appears to have been coined by the late writer, Audre Lorde. It must surely mean the absurdly unequal trade situation where the conquerors remove the precious resources and leave the vanquished with Coca Cola and bandaids. I’m not sure how that applies to Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the idea that we don’t have to take care of the planet because we can just get Scotty to beam us up and find another one to ravish.
Stephen Hawking enters left stage toward the end of act 3 having set his brilliance on how to save us all from wearing our soiled jeans. In a recent article in CNET News, Hawking repeats his suggestion that we only have around 1,000 years of plunder time left to us so we had better find another planet ASAP. No mention of alternatives. No looking at options such as a reduction in world population or axing world trade etc. No, just a pronouncement. If I was to write a paper as part of a graduate school curriculum turned in with no supporting arguments, I’d find myself looking for a job waiting tables in the Union Building just before withdrawing from the course. The article states: “In 2011, he said, ‘Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space.’”
Although I respect Dr. Hawking’s brilliant career achievements in science, can it really be our “only chance”? Seldom in science do you find such certainty. Obviously this certainty isn’t the result of experiment and hypothesis – the scientific method.
“One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change “skeptics” is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to “cherrypick” short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). Isn’t it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle. These short-term cycles don’t have long-term effects on the Earth’s temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions.
The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red)”
? Is anyone willing to say, “This people must cease to extract fossil fuels, and to unjustly rob today’s children and future generations of a livable planet, whatever the cost”?
Shakespeare knew as he said “To thine own-self be true and thou canst be false to no man” And here is Thoreau, “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” Doing for somebody just for the sake of “doing the right thing”, when your heart isn’t really in it is actually more “me” or egoic than a non-judgmental walking on. All of us are getting exactly what we want. Whatever needs a person has will be fulfilled by someone who needs to provide them. Needy people can always find someone who “needs” to do for them, who “needs” to sacrifice themselves in that particular manner. The poster is saying, in my not so humble opinion, love yourself; walk a path with heart and that energy will be beneficial to those that are in tune, that are ready for those particular vibrations. Actions based on “this is the way I’m supposed to be” are not full of loving vibrations and at a deep level not nourishing the planet and beings within the planet.
The Newsmaker Memo: An Interview With Pioneering Climate Scientist James Hansen
April 22nd, 2013 12:00 am
“He stands with the environmentalists in strong opposition to the Keystone XL project, however. ‘If you make that pipeline, that sort of guarantees that over time, you’re eventually going to exploit a lot of that [tar sands] resource. And it doesn’t make any sense economically if you look at it – the only reason they go ahead with it is that it’s partly subsidized and it’s not made to pay for its cost to society. If we could stop it and get any sort of a price on carbon that even partially reflects the cost of CO2 to society, then tar sands would simply not be exploited.’”
To get right down to the simple and easily understood point: It takes more energy to produce oil from shale and fracking than it is worth. It is feasible only because the public bears so much of the cost of production through subsidies.