Check out this link to see some of the more interesting changes since our last cooler than average month. Back to the Future was in theaters for a ticket price of $2.75. Now we’re just a couple of years away from getting our hoverboards. Yay!!
I’m sure many who read my blog have been convinced for a while that I’m somewhat of a fear monger with respect to climate change and overpopulation. Perhaps. Before you make up your mind, read this:
The figures come as one of the world’s leading environmentalists issued a warning that the global food supply system could collapse at any point, leaving hundreds of millions more people hungry, sparking widespread riots and bringing down governments. In a shocking new assessment of the prospects of meeting food needs, Lester Brown, president of the Earth policy research centre in Washington, says that the climate is no longer reliable and the demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable, unless urgent action is taken.
Good thing climate change is just a hoax. Dig hole in sand. Insert head. Fill in hole. Ignorance is bliss.
“Armed aggression is no longer the principal threat to our future. The overriding threats to this century are climate change, population growth, spreading water shortages and rising food prices,” Brown says.
250 million years ago, this planet suffered the greatest mass extinction of multicellular life in the long history of the planet. The ocean conveyor current stopped. The ocean became anoxic, meaning it had little or no oxygen. Fish died; sulfur producing bacteria thrived. As the anoxic layer of the ocean reached the surface, hydrogen sulfide gas was released into the atmosphere in toxic quantities. The sky turned green. The mass extinction was brought onto land.
95% of all species on the planet died. This was due to global warming.*
Found on the Union of Concerned Scientists site on this page
From the too true to be good department again.
When Population Connection posted this on their official Facebook page, they warned of strong language. If 4 shits and a fuck are too much for you, you’ve come to the wrong blog. The cursing is neither particularly offensive nor in high enough quantity to detract from the content, IMNSHO.
The narration is the text of an op ed piece in the Wasthington Post by Bill McKibben. No need to read the text since it’s all in the video with powerful imagery added. Kudos to Stephen Thomson of Plomomedia.com for a great job making this into a powerful video.
Here are some seriously classic fully electric cars from over 100 years ago.
- 1891 – 50 mile range, better than Chevy Volt’s pure electric range
- 1901 – 57 MPH
- 1902 – fully electric bus
- 1906 – regenerative braking, like my 2011 prius
- 1909 – 100 miles on a charge
Now, I must ask, what the hell happened?
Looks like it’s time to dig up all the old santorum posts. He does not appear to have gotten any better with age.
So, sorry to bring up a fairly disgusting topic again. But, don’t worry. The substance is less disgusting than the human being.
Once again, the IPCC estimates are proving to be underestimates of the problem of climate change. That’s what you get with consensus. Yes, we’re confident that the results will be at least as bad as the IPCC forecasts, else some country with financial interests in continuing to burn fossil fuel will reject the statement. But, what we don’t get is the full range of estimates. We get the most watered down statement, not a statement of the greatest odds.
Here’s an interesting tale of two spins. Both of these articles are reporting on the same event, findings released by a Dutch environmental agency that agree with the IPCC conclusions. Strangely though, the two articles are clearly intended to present a very different image.
There are two main points from the findings of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
1) The IPCC is generally correct that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.
2) There are some minor errors, including typographical errors in specific predictions of the IPCC, that “do not affect the whole construction [of the IPCC report].”
The following is an open letter to President Obama, which I also sent to his office via the interface on whitehouse.gov. Thanks to my friend Jan for the help editing the text.
Before reading the letter below, please understand that I am still very glad that we have Obama in office rather than McCain with Palin a heartless non-beat away from the presidency. I still think we’re better off without “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” McCain or worse, much much worse, his running mate Caribou Barbie. That said, I am still also very disappointed in results we’ve been getting from President Obama. I, for one, am feeling very short-changed.
So, without further preamble, here is the letter I sent to Mr. Obama.
Dear President Obama,
How sweet those words sounded just a bit over a year ago. During your campaign you promised change. We were thrilled that you won the election and eagerly anticipated a new era. A year later and with a Nobel Peace Prize behind you, alas there has been precious little change.
… otherwise, the few hundred peer reviewed articles summarized and referenced in this pre-Copenhagen summary showing, once again, that climate change is worse than the uber-conservative IPCC has been estimating might really scare me. I mean, what if it were really true that these few hundred recent peer-reviewed articles show that:
Read the rest of this entry »
This may appear to undermine a number of my earlier posts. However, in this case, I think the point is extremely important. We must begin to recognize and tell the truth of the true nature of our problems. That said, we must also use every weapon in our arsenal to fight for the preservation of the environment to the best of our ability. Most likely the only tool that will actually be worth a damn will be birth control. Yet, we must still do all we can to reduce our ecological (including carbon) footprints while at the same time taking action to reduce the number of feet. The regulars on this blog will remember that I have already argued that the planet cannot support even 300 million of us, let alone 6.7, 8, or 9 billion. So, in that sense, this article is still somewhat consistent with my prior posts. However, I cannot recall previously gotting to the point of wording the issue such that climate change is a mere symptom of a much larger problem, one that involves not only too many people, but people with a completely failed view of the finite planet on which we depend for our very lives every single day.
A new study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration states that we’ve already locked in more than 1,000 years of climate change, even if we completely stop emitting CO2 immediately. Note that while the study below indicates that we have already guaranteed from 1.3 – 3.2 feet of sea level rise over the next 1,000 years, that small but significant amount does not even take into account any melting from glaciers.
In my opinion, the number one fugitive on the list should be Stephen L. Johnson. The man has done irreparable harm to the environment in his tenure as EPA Administrator. He has flatly refused to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in any way despite being ordered by the United States Supreme Court to do so.
As of this date, the EPA has still done nothing regarding CO2 emissions regulations or implemented any form of a carbon tax.
I have written Mr. Johnson several nastygrams on the subject including getting personal by pointing out that his five grandchildren will one day curse his memory for destroying their planet. To call this man is a major league bucket of scum would be to insult perfectly good and decent pond scum.
Thanks Jan for the article.
It seems that the number 350, a rather boring looking number, may be even more important than Pi and Phi. It probably isn’t more important in the universe than the Hubble Constant and other important universal constants. However, to life evolved for the current climate range on Earth, 350 may just turn out even more important than all the rest, at least for our island Earth.
Well, if this new report is correct, and it likely is, then even the lowest targets set by any of the governments of the world, are a recipe for disaster. According to this peer reviewed report, the target set by the European Union, 550 parts per million is not only the strictest and lowest global CO2 target anyone is trying to reach, it’s way too high.
Climate Target Not Radical Enough — Popular press article paraphrasing the study.
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? — The peer reviewed article, a 15 page PDF.
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? (Supporting Data) — This is the supporting data to the peer reviewed article, a 21 page PDF.
Read the rest of this entry »