Capitilism vs. the Climate

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by matto, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. matto

    matto Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Naomi Klein

    https://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,5
     
  2. mouseinthehouse

    mouseinthehouse Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  3. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MITH - Did you see Andrew Bolt's comment? Guess who he voted for!
     
  4. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks, MITH.

    Further to the above:

    The IPCC AR5 Cometh ... and the political carpet-bombing starts in advance!

    The basic tenets of science are pretty solid: gravity, plate tectonics, germs that cause disease and so on. The foundations of climate science, such as the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, have likewise been well understood for decades. Similarly, in the context of the manufactured political debate that stalks climate science, some things are so equally certain that they will turn up like buses and trains - mostly when expected. A clear example is that whenever a noteworthy climate-related event occurs, contrarian activity ramps up and on occasion goes into hyperdrive. Witness, in the latter context, the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WG1) Summary for Policymakers, a time in which the background trickle of contrarian activity has become a raging flood. It started a while back: we noticed an uptick in Astroturfing a few weeks ago: then there was a deluge of grossly-misleading articles in certain mainstream newspapers (the usual suspects) in which an IPCC 'crisis meeting' featured strongly (it was in fact a long-planned routine meeting). Study of the 'discussions' beneath many recent climate change articles in the online versions of our newspapers showed a huge increase in anti-science commentary. It's as though the contrarians have had text-files with a list of climate-myths from which to copy-and-paste as fast as they could. It brought to mind old footage of bomber-planes like B52s in action, engaged in carpet-bombing campaigns, only in this case with randomly-selected anti-climate science myths. In a similar manner to the dubious 'gish-gallop' debating technique, the intention has clearly been to attempt to derail any serious discussion on that rather important topic: the future of Mankind on Planet Earth...

    Full article: Mason (2013) Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
     
  5. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    to be honest mark, the graph makes no more sense that the climate science and one would wonder why you would bother posting it?

    len
     
  7. mouseinthehouse

    mouseinthehouse Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Len, it makes perfect sense. What part don't you understand?
     
  8. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The red line shows that the world is getting hotter.

    The blue lines show that during small periods of time during that warming trend it appears to be getting cooler. But that is only a short-term fluctuation in the overall trend

    The sceptics use the latest blue line (a short term slight cooling) to claim that the red line doesn't exist.

    Global warming doesn't mean that every day of every year the globe gets hotter, it means that over the long term it is heating, with smaller fluctuations.
     
  9. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    There are also a couple of aspects to climate science.

    One part is observation. This is where the various organisations across the world such as the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia have recorded a vast amount of weather conditions over many years. This is what goes into making graphs like the one above. This is what you would call proof that the globe has already warmed

    A second part is Modelling. Where various institutions and organisations take the information we already have about our climate and predict what will most likely happen given certain conditions. Models differ according to a number of things.

    There are other aspects to it all of course, but these two can sometimes cause confusion among those who tend to lump it altogether because they don't really understand the way it works.

    Let me know if this helps with your understanding of the graph and of climate science in general Len. I can see how it might be a little confusing if you don't have a background in science and logical thinking. Let me know if I can explain it further or if there is something in particular you find difficult to comprehend. I'm sure there are others that have a better understanding than me too.
     
  10. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ah models. Living in an area that is especially prone to hurricane and flood damage, I understand both sides of the model(or forecast) argument. Personally, I prefer to look at the spaghetti models, but it's the "cone of probability" models that put everything in to perspective. Predictive science, at least when it comes to weather, has improved vastly just over the 18 years that I've been seriously following the weather due to my job. But when you start talking about models, all most people are interested in is where it's going to hit and how high the winds are going to be. These are the two things that I'm not really interested in. I'm more interested as to what side of the hurricane I going to be on(determines which way tidal waters are going to move), expected rainfall totals(forward speed of the hurricane is a big factor in this) and how much tidal surge it's going to have(central pressure is important here). Luckily, science is also mostly interested in the same questions I am, along with local meteorologists. Even though the meteorologists on TV try to keep people focused on the important aspects of a hurricane, they still tend to focus on the point of landfall of the eye and how high the winds will be. You'd think people would get used to it, but they don't.

    I'll admit that when I see some graphs my eyes turn glassy and my brain stops working(and I usually wonder what moron drew the graph, only to realize that this moron -me- has no idea what he's looking at). Sometimes I have to do an internet search on how to read the damn thing if I can figure out the right search parameters. I'm not science illiterate or science stupid. I am science ignorant, but in all fairness, there aren't too many people who can grasp every single concept in science. Sometimes things are beyond me, but I assume that's because I don't have specialized training in that particular field of science. After watching that Dr. Suzuki youtube video that turned out to be mostly people asking questions about climate change, it was interesting to see that scientists have problems translating data for the general public. Hanging around a fair amount of scientists recently, I get the same impression. Though it seems that scientists that teach are better at dummying it down for people like me. Just look at Bill Nye and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, they both do a great job at translating for the rest of us. Maybe climate scientists should get a spokesman like that, though I'm really not sure who would be courageous enough to do that job since it could easily be a career killer.
     
  11. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,016
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think overpopulation and resource depletion will bring about the death of capitalism before global warming does.
    Hopefully the death of capitalism may reverse global warming in time.
    You would need the system to collapse before we burnt too many more fossils though.
     
  12. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I've only read one forecast for the next US economic "downturn", and that's in 10 years. To be honest, I don't see it taking that long. The US government is apparently dumping $1 trillion a year in to the economy to prop it up(while only pulling in a quarter of that in revenue). I expect if the banks ever close their doors, then we'd be in dire straights. I'd love to see a death of capitalism, but I don't really want to see all the suffering that it would cause. Unfortunately, I can only envision a complete collapse and not a willful transition on a large scale. A slow decline would be nice, but we seem to be in feast and famine cycles more than slow decline.
     
  13. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I 'bother' because I care about helping people, such as your good self, better understand the science and (most importantly) the implications of climate change:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

    Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.

    Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.

    Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).

    The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.

    The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

    Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.

    Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

    Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).

    Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

    Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

    Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

    Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.

    Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.

    The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.

    It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.

    Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.

    Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.

    Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.


    Source: IPCC (27 September 2013) CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers
     
  14. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've posted links to it many times; as Grahame has again, recently. If you haven't had a chance to study it, UM, I'd highly recommend it:

    Holmgren (2008) Future Scenarios

    Here's a sneak peak (pardon the pun):

    [​IMG]

    I've spent the last ten-plus years gathering people around me who subscribe (as I do) to planning for and actively working towards a future that resembles something in between the 'Green Tech' and the 'Earth Steward' scenarios. The other two ends of the spectrum hold no real appeal for me, or those close to me.
     
  15. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have a copy of the book, but thanks for the graphic. One can hope for a slow decline with a return to an ecologically advanced civilization, but the squabbling we humans(mostly men it seems) do that surrounds even the most basic fundamentals tells me that it's going to be a fight downhill.
     
  16. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    finger pointing whether with some slight foundation or not won't help we need to work as a team, i can say like me and my wife do, no arguments no this gender is better stuff, just partnership harmony. so far the swing hasn't helped society. the only way to stop the rot is unity among the simple poorer fold and wrest power and glory away from the greedy, politician and elitist. it's all topsy turvy due to fashion trends. the term 'men' means all genders. no room for any discrimination anymore the experiment has failed and allowed the greedy to rape our environment. until recent times i had never heard that masogany term anywhere but when i heard i i looked it up it is a word built on pure hate, nothing less but a whole lot more and it was delivered with venom.

    common get rid of the garbage, lets move on it is never too late.

    len
     
  17. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    How do you think we should go about it Len? What are some steps we could take to bring this about? What are some good ways for us to take the power back from the greedy?
     
  18. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the first thing grahame is cut the heiracy garbage, i have tried with mark we need to start talking not reading books or tomes of plagiarized text, you might say your intelligence is far superior to mine i don't know, i am very basic, we need to start this process under the K.I.S.S banner(yanks dislike this as they take in personally they should it was delivered by a yank motivational speaker. K keep I it S simple S stupid or silly whatever fits.

    i've tried and failed as others cannot accept me whole heartedly

    len
     
  19. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    OK, so how do we convince the masses to throw their books on the bon fire? Which simple techniques do you think we can use. There's no point each of us going door to door or even sitting at home doing our own thing - that would be about as effective as Permaculture has been or less so I imagine.

    How am I going to convince my debt-riddled farming neighbours, who already claim to be Christians or what ever from pouring poisons over the land in order to go further into debt.

    Oh wait, first we have to agree on what success looks like...

    What are the things we can agree on that will constitute a successful new society Len? What are our aims?

    I would like to put forward clean air, water and quality food for everyone. With access to good shelter. Can we work upwards from there?
     
  20. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    looks hopeless grahame,

    you missed the point, our food has been unsafe for the past decade or so, that is something we can't change initiall, farmers driven by fals bottom line suported by science and subject to peer pressure, can you imagine in your stated case a "christian" farmer stopping poisons and no way to sell his produce just like here he would be ridiculed.

    some reality grahame forge prejudices, for me people want peace and harmony no crime, respect and equality across the states. tough ask hey maybe you will shine through here?

    len
     

Share This Page

-->