Professor McPherson is spot on. Ocean acidification is a very bad scenario indeed. Unfortunately, we are not going to be happy campers in the near future.
The truth is real and clear. Guy MacPherson seems to some it up well. Personally, I see no need to convince the people who wish to deny the truth and I will continue my efforts to prepare myself and my community. This includes developing community vegetable gardens, minimising my discretionary consumption and removing my dependence on fossil fuels. I have started my transition.
Tks, one of the better videos / conferences by him. Meanwhile now Guy has become more pessimistic and, among other things, states that even economic collapse cannot prevent human extinction by around 2030. (please spell his surname correctly, it's Mcpherson)
I cannot imagine a problem with showing this video on community TV. If you need written permission from me, you can reach me via my website, Nature Bats Last.
One other item to watch for over the next few years is the research into methane releases from permafrost and clathrates. This is what gives Guy McPherson nightmares, and deservedly so. It's the factor that is most likely to initiate a runaway climate feedback - i.e. warming we couldn't stop even if we stopped using fossil fuels entirely. Once significant amounts of methane (say 5 GtC per year) are being released in response to rising ambient temperatures, it's effectively game over.
Hmmmmm........ well, here it is, and here we are, in the spring of 2019 and the economic system looks to be still humming along....... and not a word about slowing or halting the increasing world population growth, the real problem. It's hard to imagine the future won't be chaotic with population still going up. And the climate is now starting to 'act up', shall I say, and the polar ice is about gone I'm told. Lakes are shrinking and deserts increasing.......And there's a lot more methane gas coming out of the earth. But the price of gold is non-eventful....... And this video has had only 22,838 views..........
Among leaders of the fossil fuel industry? No, I suspect they'll be the last people to come around on the science and impacts of climate change. You can break dissonance with other people though, your friends and family, just by having conversations with them and explaining what you know. I give interviews and blog about the subject, and people respond really well if its presented to them in a friendly, casual way over the dinner table.
If you have never been out of the US, you have no idea how bad it really is there. If you have never seen nature in the raw, untamed and wild, you have no idea what you have missed. If you think your world is going to go on just as it has in the past, you are deluding yourself. The party is over. The hangover is terrible and most of us will not survive the drive home.
This all comes down to the special interests controlling our media and our politicians. Not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Money and profits trump human beings.
Capitalism requires infinite growth, which is impossible on a finite planet, Kroban. People are not hypocrites for using cars etc. They're just badly governed. What we need are leaders who will take us off capitalism and put us into a sustainable or some kind of steady state economy. Such an economy doesnt "stop u from using cars", it just rigidly controls the use of resources.
After following the research on climate issues for 35 years, I thought I had gotten used to the latest findings always being worse than the previous worst estimates. It seems not. I'm not as adapted to the idea of the human race being run, as I had thought.
The reason why no one is watching is because everyone up to this point that has encountered the problem of climate change has absorbed the emotional subtext which was so shattering that they are now in a state of active and deliberate denial. Its the only way they maintain their lives. For most people, a state of ignorance is a requirement for happiness. We've reached peak capacity to absorb any additional stresses, emotional or intellectual.
Guy bases his thinking on existing science. Some don't like his conclusions, but he is working to make sense out of some very dire data essentially in real time. Denial doesn't work any more, as the responses on this thread demonstrate. Nobody really buys the idea that "nothing's happening, it will all be fine" any more. My addition to the debate is to suggest that we keep an eye on three things over the next couple of years: the Arctic ice pack, weather patterns and world food production.
Ok, what is the absolute worst case projection that does take into account positive feedback loops? 5C temperature rise by 2020? At what temperature would we run out of oxygen? (via death of the earth's "lungs") 8C temperature rise?
Not to mention clean water. Given that the electricity used to make them is largely fossil fuel based, a PV panel cuts carbon emissions by a half or so. And then you have to deal with the toxic waste like heavy metals.
Z8nate, it's true. Plotting data from the Energy Information Agency on U.S. energy (and other countries) use since 1650 (1635-1945, 1949-2009, including wood, biomass, fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, etc.) shows a remarkably steady growth trajectory, characterized by an annual growth rate of 2.9%. Go look at a graph of America's debt, correlate it with US GDP and total energy consumption. Notice something? It's a exponential, steep curve, with GDP and power chasing debt.
It takes imagination to realize all that's been lost in just the last 50 years. To communicate this problem we need a courageous core of people who are unafraid to speak the truth. The unwashed masses will slay these messengers. Unfortunately, we live in a barely-evolved civilization that still requires human sacrifice.
The problem with runaway climate change is that there is no inhibiting feedback- the climate goes to a new equilibrium state. The winter there was 'ice skating on the Thames' was no picnic- there was mass starvation in the offing. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the coming droughts- the heat waves- and hear any justifications you have for the behaviors that cause these things? For whom is climate change "beneficial"? And for whom are the effects "justified"?
Actually the main cooling was from 1940 to the late 1970s and then the warming which started in 1890, resumed till 1998. We had slight cooling since then -- til 2010-2012 when it got warmer again! And according to the solar cycle, both output and Earth orbital, we should still be in the Little Ice Age.
Its all about the oceans they are currently warmer we are out of the little ice age but how warm will earth Get February 2020 was 0.76 centigrade warmer than 1981-2010 in the lower Tropesphere average March should be warmer with his global dimming theory let's see what the March temperature is in April
Also his 2015 theory was wrong and will continue to be wrong however NOAA is predicting there lowest ice coverage for this year let's see if they are correct or wrong like every other year I bet we won't get near the 2012,2019,2016 or 2007 level it will a higher ice coverage than those four years
I think we agree that our debt-based, fiat currency is not only unsustainable but it's also unconstitutional. It's illegal. Do you think that a single global fiat currency controlled by the bankers has been the oligarchs plan all along? I do. The US financed the industrial revolution, for the most part, without a central bank, (central planning), and a gold-backed currency. And recessions were deep but short in duration, and the economy quickly restructured and was stronger than before.
Also Kroban, all money is printed and enters the system as "debt" and must be paid back plus interest. That means there is never enough money in the system to pay back debt and for every dollar out of debt you are, you put someone in debt. Have you seen the US debt clock? Under capitalism, debt rises exponentially and GDP must expand infinitely to outpace debt, eventually sucking the middle and lowerclass empty of most of its wealth.
What do you make of Leonid Yurganov's comment (full text in link): "...I am from satellite/spectroscopy community and deal with retrievals of [GHGs] from [Thermal IR] sensors at GSFC...I collaborate with AMEG, but have not signed any letters so far. I disagree with geoingeneering ideas and a tone of panic in their proclamations..."
How can the human species be expected to adapt efficiently and effectively to the world in which we live when the reality of it, based upon science, is not seen because of the generativity and power of false, culturally sanctioned memes? Can the monoculture known as modern civilization be sensibly considered as a global cult because so many culturally sanctioned and widely shared memes lack a sufficient reality orientation and are bereft of compelling, objective scientific evidence? Cultures are cultural transmission generators. A cultural transmission or meme is a perception, value or belief that spreads virally among people who find favor in its content. Thanks to sound science, a culture presents us with many memes that are reality oriented or based upon objective, compelling evidence. But other memes that are delusory are also promulgated. From a psychological standpoint, because humans are shaped early and pervasively by memes in learning to perceive reality, it is an evolutionary challenge for humankind to see the world as it is. In the early days of a human being's life memes are deeply impressed into the young mind and set in place there years before the child has developed the intellectual capacity to objectively examine and critically question what has been transmitted by ones parents, caretakers and teachers by language and example. Individuals are who we are in large part before acquiring the cognitive capabilities to examine our culture and its widely shared, false memes. Fatally flawed memes occasionally exert more influence over the conduct of human affairs than objective correlates derived from science. countercurrents.org/2021/06/human-population-activity-the-primary-factor-that-has-precipitated-a-climate-emergency-biodiversity-loss-and-environmental-pollution-on-our-watch/
And the US fought major bank wars to prevent a central bank. Notice too that, historically, US national debts only BEGIN once the central bank is put in place. From this point onwards the government "buying" money causes it to spiral into increasing debt, necessitating a century of wars for its capitalist expansions. As for single world currency: maybe thats too risky for the banking cartels. Under capitalism the major currency will always drift toward debasement. Better 4 them to have several.
Because if I do X joules of work, X - Z will be usefull work, and I will charge you X + Y + Z joules. The extra energy thus has to come from somewhere and someone else. Ultimately, not everyone can profit, someone always has to complete the equasion, doing increasingly more for less, until you have someone doing everything for nothing at the bottom of the system and someone doing nothing for everything at the top.
I visit Watts' site frequently. I am still laughing at Christopher Monckton running from debate with Peter Hadfield on this site...Funny how people run from a debate when they get schooled on their home turf...
So than why are you using the slight warming we had for 15 years as proof that AGW is real? Should that also be a "red herring"? Or go back more to the cooling we had for 15 to 20 years before the slight warming, how does that fit into your "red herring" theory?
The larger numbers in the temperature anomaly projections Prof. M. cites have no basis due to these unforeseen feedbacks not being identified so far as I've seen (because they are unforeseen I suppose, but that makes them worthless). I compute the +1.25 Celsius land MST anomaly 1901-2012 is a ~2.0 to 2.5 feedback which projects to +2.5 to +3.0 Celsius when air CO2 reaches 560 ppmv, likely ~2060, not +3.5 Celsius by 2035.
+grindupBaker You are wrong , unfortunately. The methane bubbling up from the oceans and permafrost are going to create a big push.The decreasing albedo effect due to melting ice caps are also a big contributor to temp. increases. the more melting , the more heating. The more heating, more melting, etc. Same thing regarding the methane. There are a slew of other ghg's being released into the atmosphere as well. We're talking exponential increases here.At some point earth will undergo a catastrophic and irreversible change in climate, resulting in loss of habitat for all o2 breathing animals. You an't grow food on Venus.
+daniel reich No. Dr. David Archer, Dr. Carolyn Ruppell a few other scientists and I are correct because you are absent quantified analysis. Yes, some of it is exponential but +CH4 isn't exponential with any significant 2nd order or higher coefficient until future centuries. You agree with me in your comment because you note that "At some point...". Yes, that's eminently reasonable. "some point" in time is in 10,000 years, or 3,000 years, or 800 years or who knows because future humans have control. But the point right now vis-a-vis Prof. whatsit my Ottawa fellow countryman and Guy is that *it absolutely certainly ain't in 2035* like these catastrophe porn businesses like to make out. I like McPherson's manner but he's over the top and he's absent analysis. Do the calculations of change to heat gradients using the thermal conductivities and get back to us. I'm ever keen to be shown good analysis that's interesting. I'm too busy at least until winter so I'm trusting actual scientists for now.
+daniel reich And I'm also busy because I'm simultaneously doing thermal inertia calculations for rebuttal to a shill on the other side about his annual CO2 cycle crap. Plus I gotta figure out a witty reply to the Ice Age shill who I like and some other rebuttal analysis to some other shill what I've almost forgotten now. It's bizarre fighting all 4 sides at once, and fun.
Or imagine 5 people playing poker. The house deals them each 10 chips, but they owe the house 10 chips plus an interest of 5 chips each. So the 5 players owe 75 chips to the house, yet only 50 chips exist on the table. What happens? They battle each other, perhaps 3 will win and be able to pay the house and keep their profits whilst 2 will be forced into bankrupcy. The 2 losers can borrow more money to pay off their debts, but this will only perpetuate the problem. The majority has to lose.
I'm sure that's true for most. Myself, In 1964, at age 12 I wrote "If we don't become more like the Indians, more cooperative in our relations, we will destroy ourselves." I didn't know anything about climate change but worked in solar energy in the '70s. I only owned a car for 13 of the 44 years I've had a license. I've had a good life. with 10 or more times less fossil fuels than average Americans.
This is not my job. Do you read the paper? Try Page 1, New York Times, January 11, 2013, page A1. Also articles in McClatchy papers. Do your freaking homework pal.
The poker example, incidentally, is the scam of modern banking. There is never enough money in the system to pay back the money owed (money loaned plus interest) to those who control the system. So me and you fight for scraps and hope one of us wins. I tell you Im providing you a service, you tell me you're providing me a service - which we are - but off screen we're sucking someone's money dry.
Usually in science people are asking questions, trying to disprove hypotheses, invalidate models, and I don't see *any* of that here, just uncritical acceptance. Are the models *that* good? Are the errors in estimation *that* small? Somehow, I doubt it. I also can't find any papers by this guy on climatology, ocean chemistry, meteorology - just a few papers on conservation biology. I'm not seeing the science which is reasonably required to justify his extraordinary and controversial claims.
18:45 Omniextinction by 2047! If that's the case, the last human will probably be a bankster who will see his outdoor furnishings spotaneously combust just b efore his A/C fails. As he passes away, his last thoughts will be, "Jesus! What's happening to the Sun!? All my beautiful money!"
" There hasn't been any warming for 16 years." Worse cherry-picking ever. 16 years ago was 1996. EVERY YEAR since 1996 has been warmer than 1996. EVERY YEAR since 2000 has been warmer than EVERY YEAR 1880-1997. climate. nasa. gov/key_indicators/#globalTemp
Not true 2008 and 2012 was not warmer than the previous years now February 2020 was .76 centigrade above 1981-2010 average in the lower troposphere let's see what march will be which should be much warmer due to global dimming.
I would love to see a single neuron cast a vote....Don't you need hands etc. for that? Fine motor skills in the fingers require far more than 1 neuron.
I disagree. If you said pure communism has never existed I would agree. To me, central planning is the same as political power concentrated in the hands of a few bureaucrats. And the track record of central planning is one of abject failure and genocide. Our banker oligarch masters are not free market capitalists. They're monopoly capitalists, or fascists who also fund world socialism. Concentrating power in a central government is good for the bankers.
If I mow your lawn at a price you're willing and happy to pay how does that kill people? That's the free market. We both benefited. I scratched your back and you scratched mine. Force was not used and it didn't require a bureaucrat in an office 2,000 miles away to get the job done. It sounds like you'd like to have a bureau of lawn mowing in D.C.
There's never been countries with socialism. Once it's state run for profit or with wages, it's capitalism or state capitalism. I think people have a boogeyman view of "central planning" and "socialism" due to WW2 propoganda. It's capitalism which has historically shown that it needs government control, increasingly bigger governments and cant be put in place without the state interjecting and laying the ground work for it. Capitalist power tends toward monopoly and control of the government.
Yeah, he's a troll all right. "His scientists" must be lonely there in the sub-1%. I'm graduating with a science degree in two months. I'm looking at a making a career educating people like this. You can't look at the data and draw any other conclusion other than the human presence on this planet has been a disaster for everything else above or below the waves.
OK. But, if you engage on the science, please stick to supportable facts. There are huge uncertainties in the area of climate change, but there are also many clear certainties--increased energy in the global system from GHGs is one. Others: Most increase in GHGs in the past century is from humans; most additional energy is going into the ocean; the ocean is acidifying from increased CO2; weather extremes are increasing (statistically signif). Maybe not "we're all going to die," but very scary.
This lecture speaks volumes about why all the "watermelons" (green on the outside, red in the middle) of the world are so &*^% crazy. I'll bet my retirement the world will be just fine 50 years from now. Who will take me up on that?
You're just spewing right wing slogans ("less government", "more capitalism", "deregulate free markets" etc etc). Those are all nonsense. Capitalism causes and needs"more government" and the contradictions of capitalism cause massive regulation because it's prone to massive exploitation. But none of that is important. Point is, it is the dollar that is the monopoly. The dollar is a unit of energy which leads to poverty. Every dollar out of debt u are, u actively put someone a dollar into debt.
He's not the first and won't be the last professor to leave a tenured position. I don't understand how that reinforces his arguments about the ever-changing climate. If given the choice I would definitely choose a warmer climate. A new ice age would be devastating. In the past they have ice skated on the Thames and other times England was capable of growing grapes. The climate changes and people need to accept that and not submit to these air taxes that raise the price of everything.
Do you own and drive a car? Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite? Or perhaps you only ride on a coal-powered electric city bus? Again, hypocrite? Or perhaps you purchase products that use petroleum in their production or delivery? Unless you don't produce CO2, other than the CO2 you exhale, you have no business telling people how to live their lives. You are probably a chicken-little hypocrite.
How have you encountered climate change? There hasn't been any warming for 16 years. I think it would be better, (and cheaper), to come to terms with the fact that the climate is not static. It has changed in the past and always will. Without CO2 plants will die. A higher concentration of CO2, a small fraction of the atmosphere, would be beneficial for plants/trees/crops.
You're right, I was a little rude. I think people who try to make a living scaring people are despicable. My scientists are those climatologists who disagree with Guy M. The person I had an exchange with has deleted their comments. Perhaps out of shame? His comments were extremely rude and not very well thought out. He referred to me as a little troll. Is a troll anyone who doesn't think we're all going to die because the planet warms by a couple of degrees?
You are claiming that temperatures haven't increased in 16 years when they have. How can you make such a claim without providing evidence? Stop regurgitating fictitious information that you read on economics blogs.
This video contains a lot of scare-mongering. This man's view is particularly unusual when he states that predictions and IPCC scenarios calculating four to six degrees centigrade temperature rise of this world in the coming century would alledgedly not yet contain the positive feedbacks of the climate system. That is simply not true.
Thank-you for your unflinching presentation. It is a privilege to know how it ends.
Professor McPherson is spot on. Ocean acidification is a very bad scenario indeed. Unfortunately, we are not going to be happy campers in the near future.
Puget Sound is becoming more acidified. Oyster larvae shells are dissolving!! Vidio footage is shown in the movie "Racing Extinction"
The truth is real and clear. Guy MacPherson seems to some it up well.
Personally, I see no need to convince the people who wish to deny the truth and I will continue my efforts to prepare myself and my community. This includes developing community vegetable gardens, minimising my discretionary consumption and removing my dependence on fossil fuels. I have started my transition.
Fine presentation. I'm surprised so few have watched...
Thank you for uploading the video this informative talk so that my friends can listen to it.
Tks, one of the better videos / conferences by him. Meanwhile now Guy has become more pessimistic and, among other things, states that even economic collapse cannot prevent human extinction by around 2030.
(please spell his surname correctly, it's Mcpherson)
I cannot imagine a problem with showing this video on community TV. If you need written permission from me, you can reach me via my website, Nature Bats Last.
Is there an audio recording of this I could put on a local radio show?
@@asadavis9532 No, but you can use the audio from this video
@@asadavis9532 Not that I know about. I did not record this video. You could simply use all or part of the video as audio.
One other item to watch for over the next few years is the research into methane releases from permafrost and clathrates. This is what gives Guy McPherson nightmares, and deservedly so. It's the factor that is most likely to initiate a runaway climate feedback - i.e. warming we couldn't stop even if we stopped using fossil fuels entirely. Once significant amounts of methane (say 5 GtC per year) are being released in response to rising ambient temperatures, it's effectively game over.
Paul, I saw , witnessed the death of 75 million hectares of forest in BC Forest System.
I'm wondering about getting permission to show this on community TV. We're up in Brattleboro and would like to show it here if possible.
Great video, thank you for sharing. You seem to have misspelled Guy McPherson's name in the title, though.
Hmmmmm........ well, here it is, and here we are, in the spring of 2019 and the economic system looks to be still humming along....... and not a word about slowing or halting the increasing world population growth, the real problem. It's hard to imagine the future won't be chaotic with population still going up. And the climate is now starting to 'act up', shall I say, and the polar ice is about gone I'm told. Lakes are shrinking and deserts increasing.......And there's a lot more methane gas coming out of the earth. But the price of gold is non-eventful....... And this video has had only 22,838 views..........
Do you know a way of breaking the dissonance?
Thanks great material to chew on
Insightful
This is the Truth. Everyone, in the meantime, seems to have their heads in the sand. Oh well.. "business as usual."
Among leaders of the fossil fuel industry? No, I suspect they'll be the last people to come around on the science and impacts of climate change.
You can break dissonance with other people though, your friends and family, just by having conversations with them and explaining what you know. I give interviews and blog about the subject, and people respond really well if its presented to them in a friendly, casual way over the dinner table.
I am sure our leaders are aware of the facts, but political pressure from fossil fuel inds is too great.
If you have never been out of the US, you have no idea how bad it really is there.
If you have never seen nature in the raw, untamed and wild, you have no idea what you have missed.
If you think your world is going to go on just as it has in the past, you are deluding yourself.
The party is over. The hangover is terrible and most of us will not survive the drive home.
This all comes down to the special interests controlling our media and our politicians. Not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Money and profits trump human beings.
Capitalism requires infinite growth, which is impossible on a finite planet, Kroban. People are not hypocrites for using cars etc. They're just badly governed. What we need are leaders who will take us off capitalism and put us into a sustainable or some kind of steady state economy. Such an economy doesnt "stop u from using cars", it just rigidly controls the use of resources.
After following the research on climate issues for 35 years, I thought I had gotten used to the latest findings always being worse than the previous worst estimates. It seems not. I'm not as adapted to the idea of the human race being run, as I had thought.
The reason why no one is watching is because everyone up to this point that has encountered the problem of climate change has absorbed the emotional subtext which was so shattering that they are now in a state of active and deliberate denial. Its the only way they maintain their lives. For most people, a state of ignorance is a requirement for happiness. We've reached peak capacity to absorb any additional stresses, emotional or intellectual.
Guy bases his thinking on existing science. Some don't like his conclusions, but he is working to make sense out of some very dire data essentially in real time. Denial doesn't work any more, as the responses on this thread demonstrate. Nobody really buys the idea that "nothing's happening, it will all be fine" any more.
My addition to the debate is to suggest that we keep an eye on three things over the next couple of years: the Arctic ice pack, weather patterns and world food production.
Ok, what is the absolute worst case projection that does take into account positive feedback loops? 5C temperature rise by 2020?
At what temperature would we run out of oxygen? (via death of the earth's "lungs") 8C temperature rise?
Not to mention clean water. Given that the electricity used to make them is largely fossil fuel based, a PV panel cuts carbon emissions by a half or so. And then you have to deal with the toxic waste like heavy metals.
Debt and energy are causally related. What do you think money is? A unit of energy, akin to calories or joules, but much less static.
Z8nate, it's true. Plotting data from the Energy Information Agency on U.S. energy (and other countries) use since 1650 (1635-1945, 1949-2009, including wood, biomass, fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, etc.) shows a remarkably steady growth trajectory, characterized by an annual growth rate of 2.9%. Go look at a graph of America's debt, correlate it with US GDP and total energy consumption. Notice something? It's a exponential, steep curve, with GDP and power chasing debt.
It takes imagination to realize all that's been lost in just the last 50 years. To communicate this problem we need a courageous core of people who are unafraid to speak the truth. The unwashed masses will slay these messengers. Unfortunately, we live in a barely-evolved civilization that still requires human sacrifice.
The problem with runaway climate change is that there is no inhibiting feedback- the climate goes to a new equilibrium state. The winter there was 'ice skating on the Thames' was no picnic- there was mass starvation in the offing. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the coming droughts- the heat waves- and hear any justifications you have for the behaviors that cause these things? For whom is climate change "beneficial"? And for whom are the effects "justified"?
Actually the main cooling was from 1940 to the late 1970s and then the warming which started in 1890, resumed till 1998. We had slight cooling since then -- til 2010-2012 when it got warmer again! And according to the solar cycle, both output and Earth orbital, we should still be in the Little Ice Age.
Its all about the oceans they are currently warmer we are out of the little ice age but how warm will earth Get February 2020 was 0.76 centigrade warmer than 1981-2010 in the lower Tropesphere average March should be warmer with his global dimming theory let's see what the March temperature is in April
Also his 2015 theory was wrong and will continue to be wrong however NOAA is predicting there lowest ice coverage for this year let's see if they are correct or wrong like every other year I bet we won't get near the 2012,2019,2016 or 2007 level it will a higher ice coverage than those four years
Are our leaders unaware of these facts?
No
Our opinions don't matter much in this. Nature Bats Last...
I think we agree that our debt-based, fiat currency is not only unsustainable but it's also unconstitutional. It's illegal. Do you think that a single global fiat currency controlled by the bankers has been the oligarchs plan all along? I do. The US financed the industrial revolution, for the most part, without a central bank, (central planning), and a gold-backed currency. And recessions were deep but short in duration, and the economy quickly restructured and was stronger than before.
Also Kroban, all money is printed and enters the system as "debt" and must be paid back plus interest. That means there is never enough money in the system to pay back debt and for every dollar out of debt you are, you put someone in debt. Have you seen the US debt clock? Under capitalism, debt rises exponentially and GDP must expand infinitely to outpace debt, eventually sucking the middle and lowerclass empty of most of its wealth.
Actually the start of the industrial revolution was 1750.... By 1850 it was well underway.
What do you make of Leonid Yurganov's comment (full text in link): "...I am from satellite/spectroscopy community and deal with retrievals of [GHGs] from [Thermal IR] sensors at GSFC...I collaborate with AMEG, but have not signed any letters so far. I disagree with geoingeneering ideas and a tone of panic in their proclamations..."
How can the human species be expected to adapt efficiently and effectively to the world in which we live when the reality of it, based upon science, is not seen because of the generativity and power of false, culturally sanctioned memes? Can the monoculture known as modern civilization be sensibly considered as a global cult because so many culturally sanctioned and widely shared memes lack a sufficient reality orientation and are bereft of compelling, objective scientific evidence? Cultures are cultural transmission generators. A cultural transmission or meme is a perception, value or belief that spreads virally among people who find favor in its content. Thanks to sound science, a culture presents us with many memes that are reality oriented or based upon objective, compelling evidence. But other memes that are delusory are also promulgated. From a psychological standpoint, because humans are shaped early and pervasively by memes in learning to perceive reality, it is an evolutionary challenge for humankind to see the world as it is. In the early days of a human being's life memes are deeply impressed into the young mind and set in place there years before the child has developed the intellectual capacity to objectively examine and critically question what has been transmitted by ones parents, caretakers and teachers by language and example. Individuals are who we are in large part before acquiring the cognitive capabilities to examine our culture and its widely shared, false memes. Fatally flawed memes occasionally exert more influence over the conduct of human affairs than objective correlates derived from science. countercurrents.org/2021/06/human-population-activity-the-primary-factor-that-has-precipitated-a-climate-emergency-biodiversity-loss-and-environmental-pollution-on-our-watch/
And the US fought major bank wars to prevent a central bank. Notice too that, historically, US national debts only BEGIN once the central bank is put in place. From this point onwards the government "buying" money causes it to spiral into increasing debt, necessitating a century of wars for its capitalist expansions. As for single world currency: maybe thats too risky for the banking cartels. Under capitalism the major currency will always drift toward debasement. Better 4 them to have several.
Sorry, I should have said "Nobody with more than two functioning neurons..."
Sounds pretty accurate. We do the same thing with meat consumption.
can you post the references to this video? a lot of them are hard to find, or are vague enough that they could potentially be multiple articles
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
Because if I do X joules of work, X - Z will be usefull work, and I will charge you X + Y + Z joules. The extra energy thus has to come from somewhere and someone else. Ultimately, not everyone can profit, someone always has to complete the equasion, doing increasingly more for less, until you have someone doing everything for nothing at the bottom of the system and someone doing nothing for everything at the top.
I visit Watts' site frequently. I am still laughing at Christopher Monckton running from debate with Peter Hadfield on this site...Funny how people run from a debate when they get schooled on their home turf...
38:20 which teenagers is he talking about? Where can I find a source?
So than why are you using the slight warming we had for 15 years as proof that AGW is real? Should that also be a "red herring"? Or go back more to the cooling we had for 15 to 20 years before the slight warming, how does that fit into your "red herring" theory?
The larger numbers in the temperature anomaly projections Prof. M. cites have no basis due to these unforeseen feedbacks not being identified so far as I've seen (because they are unforeseen I suppose, but that makes them worthless). I compute the +1.25 Celsius land MST anomaly 1901-2012 is a ~2.0 to 2.5 feedback which projects to +2.5 to +3.0 Celsius when air CO2 reaches 560 ppmv, likely ~2060, not +3.5 Celsius by 2035.
+grindupBaker You are wrong , unfortunately. The methane bubbling up from the oceans and permafrost are going to create a big push.The decreasing albedo effect due to melting ice caps are also a big contributor to temp. increases. the more melting , the more heating. The more heating, more melting, etc. Same thing regarding the methane. There are a slew of other ghg's being released into the atmosphere as well. We're talking exponential increases here.At some point earth will undergo a catastrophic and irreversible change in climate, resulting in loss of habitat for all o2 breathing animals. You an't grow food on Venus.
+daniel reich No. Dr. David Archer, Dr. Carolyn Ruppell a few other scientists and I are correct because you are absent quantified analysis. Yes, some of it is exponential but +CH4 isn't exponential with any significant 2nd order or higher coefficient until future centuries. You agree with me in your comment because you note that "At some point...". Yes, that's eminently reasonable. "some point" in time is in 10,000 years, or 3,000 years, or 800 years or who knows because future humans have control. But the point right now vis-a-vis Prof. whatsit my Ottawa fellow countryman and Guy is that *it absolutely certainly ain't in 2035* like these catastrophe porn businesses like to make out. I like McPherson's manner but he's over the top and he's absent analysis. Do the calculations of change to heat gradients using the thermal conductivities and get back to us. I'm ever keen to be shown good analysis that's interesting. I'm too busy at least until winter so I'm trusting actual scientists for now.
+daniel reich And I'm also busy because I'm simultaneously doing thermal inertia calculations for rebuttal to a shill on the other side about his annual CO2 cycle crap. Plus I gotta figure out a witty reply to the Ice Age shill who I like and some other rebuttal analysis to some other shill what I've almost forgotten now. It's bizarre fighting all 4 sides at once, and fun.
Hmmm....CO2 does create acidity. Can marine life adapt?
truthbknwn Honestly I'm not sure. Shrimp and crab indsutries suffer for an unknown reason. I suspect this cause.
+truthbknwn No. Any animal with a shell needs an alkaline environment to survive. An acidic ocean literally dissolves shells.
daniel reich Good answer. Thank you!
Or imagine 5 people playing poker. The house deals them each 10 chips, but they owe the house 10 chips plus an interest of 5 chips each. So the 5 players owe 75 chips to the house, yet only 50 chips exist on the table. What happens? They battle each other, perhaps 3 will win and be able to pay the house and keep their profits whilst 2 will be forced into bankrupcy. The 2 losers can borrow more money to pay off their debts, but this will only perpetuate the problem. The majority has to lose.
Whatever. Believe what you want.
I'm sure that's true for most. Myself, In 1964, at age 12 I wrote "If we don't become more like the Indians, more cooperative in our relations, we will destroy ourselves." I didn't know anything about climate change but worked in solar energy in the '70s. I only owned a car for 13 of the 44 years I've had a license. I've had a good life. with 10 or more times less fossil fuels than average Americans.
"Nobody"? You must not have visited denier sites lately, like Anthony Watts' charming site.
I just plucked a monster radish out of my zone 5 garden on December 19th! Click on my name and find the video I uploaded about it.
This is not my job. Do you read the paper? Try Page 1, New York Times, January 11, 2013, page A1. Also articles in McClatchy papers. Do your freaking homework pal.
We need to build a giant space vacuum and suck up someone else's air.
The poker example, incidentally, is the scam of modern banking. There is never enough money in the system to pay back the money owed (money loaned plus interest) to those who control the system. So me and you fight for scraps and hope one of us wins. I tell you Im providing you a service, you tell me you're providing me a service - which we are - but off screen we're sucking someone's money dry.
Usually in science people are asking questions, trying to disprove hypotheses, invalidate models, and I don't see *any* of that here, just uncritical acceptance. Are the models *that* good? Are the errors in estimation *that* small? Somehow, I doubt it. I also can't find any papers by this guy on climatology, ocean chemistry, meteorology - just a few papers on conservation biology. I'm not seeing the science which is reasonably required to justify his extraordinary and controversial claims.
apparently you can't post links to youtube.
18:45 Omniextinction by 2047! If that's the case, the last human will probably be a bankster who will see his outdoor furnishings spotaneously combust just b efore his A/C fails. As he passes away, his last thoughts will be, "Jesus! What's happening to the Sun!? All my beautiful money!"
" There hasn't been any warming for 16 years."
Worse cherry-picking ever. 16 years ago was 1996. EVERY YEAR since 1996 has been warmer than 1996.
EVERY YEAR since 2000 has been warmer than EVERY YEAR 1880-1997.
climate. nasa. gov/key_indicators/#globalTemp
Not true 2008 and 2012 was not warmer than the previous years now February 2020 was .76 centigrade above 1981-2010 average in the lower troposphere let's see what march will be which should be much warmer due to global dimming.
I would love to see a single neuron cast a vote....Don't you need hands etc. for that? Fine motor skills in the fingers require far more than 1 neuron.
I disagree. If you said pure communism has never existed I would agree. To me, central planning is the same as political power concentrated in the hands of a few bureaucrats. And the track record of central planning is one of abject failure and genocide. Our banker oligarch masters are not free market capitalists. They're monopoly capitalists, or fascists who also fund world socialism. Concentrating power in a central government is good for the bankers.
If I mow your lawn at a price you're willing and happy to pay how does that kill people? That's the free market. We both benefited. I scratched your back and you scratched mine. Force was not used and it didn't require a bureaucrat in an office 2,000 miles away to get the job done. It sounds like you'd like to have a bureau of lawn mowing in D.C.
There's never been countries with socialism. Once it's state run for profit or with wages, it's capitalism or state capitalism. I think people have a boogeyman view of "central planning" and "socialism" due to WW2 propoganda. It's capitalism which has historically shown that it needs government control, increasingly bigger governments and cant be put in place without the state interjecting and laying the ground work for it. Capitalist power tends toward monopoly and control of the government.
Yeah, he's a troll all right. "His scientists" must be lonely there in the sub-1%. I'm graduating with a science degree in two months. I'm looking at a making a career educating people like this. You can't look at the data and draw any other conclusion other than the human presence on this planet has been a disaster for everything else above or below the waves.
OK. But, if you engage on the science, please stick to supportable facts. There are huge uncertainties in the area of climate change, but there are also many clear certainties--increased energy in the global system from GHGs is one. Others: Most increase in GHGs in the past century is from humans; most additional energy is going into the ocean; the ocean is acidifying from increased CO2; weather extremes are increasing (statistically signif). Maybe not "we're all going to die," but very scary.
Maybe it could be a cabinet level position, secretary of lawn mowing.
Blimey, he's a cheery soul! o_O
Suddenly the preppers don't seem so nuts.
Now what? Anyone have any ideas?
This lecture speaks volumes about why all the "watermelons" (green on the outside, red in the middle) of the world are so &*^% crazy. I'll bet my retirement the world will be just fine 50 years from now. Who will take me up on that?
THINK not long ago the same areas that are starting to be exposed were 100% exposed and nothing happened then. Temp has not increased in 16 years
You're just spewing right wing slogans ("less government", "more capitalism", "deregulate free markets" etc etc). Those are all nonsense. Capitalism causes and needs"more government" and the contradictions of capitalism cause massive regulation because it's prone to massive exploitation. But none of that is important. Point is, it is the dollar that is the monopoly. The dollar is a unit of energy which leads to poverty. Every dollar out of debt u are, u actively put someone a dollar into debt.
He's not the first and won't be the last professor to leave a tenured position. I don't understand how that reinforces his arguments about the ever-changing climate. If given the choice I would definitely choose a warmer climate. A new ice age would be devastating. In the past they have ice skated on the Thames and other times England was capable of growing grapes. The climate changes and people need to accept that and not submit to these air taxes that raise the price of everything.
why doesn't he talk about hydrogen sulfide.
Do you own and drive a car? Wouldn't that make you a hypocrite? Or perhaps you only ride on a coal-powered electric city bus? Again, hypocrite? Or perhaps you purchase products that use petroleum in their production or delivery? Unless you don't produce CO2, other than the CO2 you exhale, you have no business telling people how to live their lives. You are probably a chicken-little hypocrite.
How have you encountered climate change? There hasn't been any warming for 16 years.
I think it would be better, (and cheaper), to come to terms with the fact that the climate is not static. It has changed in the past and always will. Without CO2 plants will die. A higher concentration of CO2, a small fraction of the atmosphere, would be beneficial for plants/trees/crops.
Occupy wall street was not a significant cultural disruption
Hyperbolic pish.
You're right, I was a little rude. I think people who try to make a living scaring people are despicable. My scientists are those climatologists who disagree with Guy M. The person I had an exchange with has deleted their comments. Perhaps out of shame? His comments were extremely rude and not very well thought out. He referred to me as a little troll. Is a troll anyone who doesn't think we're all going to die because the planet warms by a couple of degrees?
So list the problems with global warming that have happened in the real world
another non climate scientist Luddite that is peddling doom and gloom
Idiot
You are claiming that temperatures haven't increased in 16 years when they have. How can you make such a claim without providing evidence? Stop regurgitating fictitious information that you read on economics blogs.
and a climatologist? I don't understand.
I do not think I have seen a more misanthropic message ever.
Maybe so, but it only takes one functioning neuron to vote.
This video contains a lot of scare-mongering. This man's view is particularly unusual when he states that predictions and IPCC scenarios calculating four to six degrees centigrade temperature rise of this world in the coming century would alledgedly not yet contain the positive feedbacks of the climate system. That is simply not true.
Get out and see the world- in a Chevrolet? Thanks for the "advice", grandpa.
and the hook is out...no need to respond, I won't be responding to you again troll, no matter what u write...see you in the netherworld...
alarmism at its finest, where doomed, doomed , doomed, oh come on if this guy Mac is so smart and not one word about LFTR, smart my anus
This guy cannot do math... Scientist? Don't think so.