It's a nifty argument but very naive about the ecological costs of Western modern civilization. Of course we can't expect the corporate-state media to cover the real issues. So we have to turn to the actual climate scientists.
51 percent of annual worldwide GHG"Livestock and Climate Change," World Watch Magazine
So even if renewable energy increased it still would not account for 50% of global warming emissions from methane.
As I summarized:
And please remember that the Ocean is a sink for 95% of GHG emissions but that is not going to last long - so there is a 40 year delay in the actual temperature increase from global warming - and HALF of the emissions have been since the last 40 years. Therefore we are about to get a huge spike of temperature increase - along with when the Arctic ice clears out in a year or 2 creating the 50 gigaton methane burst. So the damage is already done - as Dr. McPherson points out - even if we stopped all global emissions right now and switched to renewables then global dimming would disappear and the temperature increase would wipe out farming at scale already - along with the nuclear power plants with the nuclear waste needing cooling, etc.
And so now let's cite the science research.
Electric cars and cheap solar 'could halt fossil fuel growth by 2020' https://www.theguardian.comSounds pretty groovy huh?
The problem again is that we already have too much global CO2 emissions stored in the oceans, being released. So even if we stopped all "growth" in fossil fuels in 3 years - that does not stop the CO2 emissions. Even if we stopped ALL CO2 emissions - then the sulfates from global dimming would disappear and immediately double the warming effect of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. So as Dr. guy Mcpherson says, we are "damned if we do, damned if we don't." So that leaves carbon capture - and all the plans for carbon capture are not nearly big enough to deal with the situation. We are already locked into ecological apocalypse - since the 1980s. This whole "myth" of rational technocracy is a joke. Western science is based on psychological and economic "externalities."
Global Dimming declining, but could still mask 50 percent of CO2 warming(!) http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-global-dimming-still-masks-50-percent-co2-warming-6990/
bring on the renewables and watch warming increase by 50%!
Also the ECS value only looks at direct warming of CO2 + direct atmospheric feedbacks (water vapour, clouds) but ignores important (slower) terrestrial positive climate feedbacks, like decreasing sea ice albedo and positive biosphere carbon feedbacks – which are likely to lead to some further amplification of 21st century warming. http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-march-breaks-february-record-jma-7064/
This group concluded that if we would manage to stabilise the atmospheric CO2 concentration excess heat stored in the oceans would inevitably create a new and higher equilibrium temperature, meaning atmospheric warming would continue for somewhere between 25-50 (~37.5) years. http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-climate-system-thermal-inertia-co2-flatline-7096/
the world has about zero years of current CO2 emissions left before we breach the (50/50% chance) 1.5 degrees carbon budget. http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-science-emissions-1-5-degrees-7129/
say the Earth’s oceans (in this century) warm by between 1.5 to 2 degrees, then inland Africa, the Amazon, North America and much of Eurasia will warm twice as fast. Yet the Arctic Ocean has in turn about twice the average climate sensitivity of the Earth’s land masses. The same goes for high mountain ranges and other places where Earth likes to stores glaciers and ice caps. An inconvenient truth. An unfortunate truth. (And even a still underestimated truth – as those geographical differences are the result of positive feedbacks that climate models are generally still very conservative about. Reality could very well be worse than IPCC projections.) http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-climate-sensitivity-geographical-degrees-global-average-arctic-7141/
So we have zero years to achieve a 1.5 degree rise which is a 3 degree rise for inland continents - where food is grown at scale. That means currently food grown at scale is at severe risk. And what has not got covered in the news? North wheat crop was halved by the drought-fires.
And that is because 1.53 is more than 1.50 – and that means that at the current CO2 concentration, judging by conventional climate science, we had already passed the target the moment the political promise was made. Odd, considering the fact that at the UN climate summit none of the world leaders mentioned the fact that establishing their 1.5 degrees ambition requires effective lowering of the CO2 concentration. Instead there came pledges to cut some of the emissions, leading to further growth of the CO2 concentration (to 670 ppm CO2/860 ppm CO2eq!) and bringing the world on a path towards 3.5 degrees warming (if all the pledges will in fact be translated to actual (national) energy policies, indeed another risk factor). http://www.bitsofscience.org/do-the-math-climate-sensitivity-logarithmic-1-5-degrees-400-ppm-7237/
the world population forecast for 2050 should be increased with another 200 million – to 9.9 billion in 2050 And so does your energy growth model include population growth? That is what Albert Bartlett means when he gives his lecture: Arithmetic, Energy and Population.
The ITCZ and therefore much of seasonal rainfall, is dragged northward, in the direction of the Caribbean, promoting droughts in especially the southern part of the Amazon rainforest, precisely the region that is also most prone to deforestation-induced droughts, as the new PNAS study showed. That’s double bad news – illustrating there really is a tipping point to this rainforest. In order to save the remainder the rainforest what has to be saved first is the rainfall. And that means two things: stopping climate change – and leaving the trees standing as they are. Work to be done. http://www.bitsofscience.org/climate-change-amazon-rainforest-trees-7511/
So US geological survey now says methane hydrate emissions are a carbon sink! https://phys.org/news/2017-05-ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-compensates.html So what does Dr. Natalia Shakhova say? the decay of the subsea permafrost, even that which was submerged relatively recently (less than 1000 years ago) is currently occurring and, due to manmade global warming, there is no known countervailing force to stop the trend of further decay and increased emissions. http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-decline Our study proved that not only has it ;already occurred, but it has been progressing to higher rates, which have almost doubled since this degradation started. growing methane emissions… a linear trend becomes exponential. we are very near this point. And in this particular point, each year matters. outburst, bomb, or whatever, I see no point to say no to such a possibility. the layer of hydrates composes just few hundred of meters – this is a very small fraction compared to thousands of meters of underlying gas-charged sediments in the ESAS. So USGS debunked!
The new MIT nano-carbon solar panel gets 92% efficiency in full sun (compared to 20% for best panels today).
Bring it on! If we end ALL CO2 emissions tomorrow we still have then the ending of global dimming from sulfates which increases temps another 50% plus a 50% increase in temps from oceans emitting stored heat.
So that means we are locked into at least a 3 degree increase - and so unless we have dramatic carbon storage then we can't grow food at scale. Maybe we can have nanopanels to air condition green houses - but to do so at scale will be quite a feat.
The Eco-Apocalypse is Now - let's how these nano-carbon panels kick in fast and spread like wildfire - but that is still a minimum solution.
So you prefer the end of civilization to the hyperbole of Dr. McPherson? Ever heard of the Precautionary Principle? In a real democracy the onus is on the corporations to prove no harm first. In the corrupt real world of corporate-state science, then collateral damage is the rule. Notice how our supposed "clean technology" has increased citizen deaths in wars? Why is cancer a common epidemic now despite the "war" on cancer? Because the NCI is controlled by the corporations that create the carcinogens! As for your supposed questions - you are playing the stupid game of "willful ignorance." I already gave you the links and you ignored them and then cherry picked a survey that just covers some general rise in temperature over long term without any specifics in data.
So it is much better to have hyperbole - it is like turning a car - you have to turn in the opposite extreme direction in order to get the car back on course going straight. Same thing. You need a dialectical reversal to fix the problem. But clearly the linear thinking of logarithmic math is not stuck in your head. Guy McPherson is focused on the nonlinear feedbacks. Now that's chaos science and as I have pointed out - we rely on supercomputers to do the iterations for the math - detailed the the Environmental Endgame book by Professor Robert Nadeau. Guess what The Economist review of that book could not even acknowledge nor ENGAGE with the basic information in Nadeau's book - nonlinear feeback of chaos science relying on supercomputers to solve the environmental crisis. But as math professor Steve Strogatz pointed out in his The EDge science interview in 2006 - because of these supercomputers then science is authoritarian - because there is no deductive logic anymore in policy decisions. The computers are in control - computers could care less about civilization or ecology, etc. But it's been that way all along. There are deep logical paradoxes in math that people ignore when their naive minds learn the Pythagorean Theorem, etc.
I wrote a paper for my Environmental Economics course at UW-Madison: The Incorrect Supply and Demand Model. Why my free market corporate-state instructor was pissed! He said I needed to change my subject. So I just doubled down with more evidence and analysis. So then he passed my paper around his graduate instructors office and they all circled the paper with as many red marks as possible. About what? Grammatical stylistic errors - things like me just putting that hyphen in that sentence! haha. And then the only comment on the content of the paper was this:
I still think economists are smarter than you think they are.
The fact is your claim to rational technocratic engineering analysis is totally fake. In the end only "Missile Envy" rules. Those in charge do not have to engage with the empirical facts - as Professor Naomi Oreskes pointed out was even true about plate tectonics! It took decades for the U.S. to admit that plate tectonics was real while the Brits were just relying on the empirical evidence and so were more amenable to the proper conclusions. And so as Professor Oreskes exposes is the case now, just as with smoking nicotine causing cancer, you get people like yourself trolling online about how we have DOUBT and therefore no action is necessary and the market will solve the problem and we just need to sit back in our comfy liberal imperial chairs and watch technology take its course.
That has been the trajectory for the last 2000 years of Western imperialism since Plato. As Professor Alfred Crosby details in his "Ecological Imperialism" book - cattle and wheat monocultural farming spread around the world bring ecological collapse with it. It's been an accelerating crisis ever since. We are now in the ecological apocalypse. This is because time is fundamentally measured as a symmetric mathematical spatial zero point through logarithmic math and then the calculus - originating from Solar dynasty priest based solar calendar geometry. God means Bull - that's the etymology of God that professor karen Armstrong does not even reveal in her "History of God" book! Brahman also means Bull - the plow-based wheat monocultural farming created white people from vitamin d malnutrition in the diet - as DNA science has now proven.
Science is the great myth of our time - we rely on it for objective truth but reality is not objective - it is subjective. Left brain dominance of science relies on right-hand technology that in turn is destroying left-handed amino acids and right-brain dominant life on earth: ecology. Water is the pivot point. Science has proven that water is a macroquantum molecule in fact, not how it has been classically defined.
This whole "everything will be alright" in the midst of escalating apocalypse is the epitome of left-brain dominant denial - I call it the Alchemy of DeNile going back to the origins of Western civilization in wheat monocultural farming. This is why the first white people fled as refugees into Europe as early farming in the Levant, West Asia - around 9,000 BCE - already had created ecological crisis. The forests were burned down to "water proof" the houses from making lime ash for cement water proofing. Hilarious! Burn the forests down for water proofing and presto: No rain and no food anymore. So then pastoralism was one option as an escape means of survival and the other option was just spread the disease into Europe. That's how the original hunter-gatherers of Europe lived side by side in different cultures then the West Asian-Middle Eastern white skin farmers - not until 5000 BCE did Sweden start to turn white. The science has proven all this with the archaeological evidence. Then you got the dairy cattle chariot invasion around 3000 BCE thereby creating "modern europe."
But modern biological humans are 100,000 years old - and didn't need science or "rational" technocracy. In fact their spiritual trance dance training was based on principles just now being discovered in quantum biology holographic biophoton research.
No comments:
Post a Comment