Re: "CO2 close to lowest levels ever for our planet"
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
This is one of the best put together summaries of the “Global Warming” (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels. Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels.
Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
Who the fuck is Gil May? You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to dominate humanity. Link: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ See attached graph.
On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels.
Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
Who the fuck is Gil May?
You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to dominate humanity.
Link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
See attached graph. <24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg>
in case the significance doesn't dawn - look at the time scale.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:13:57PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels.
Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
Who the fuck is Gil May?
You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to dominate humanity.
Link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
See attached graph. <24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg>
in case the significance doesn't dawn - look at the time scale.
Thanks for your graph. Sorry for the docx file - I guess you were unable to open that first one properly, I've saved it as PDF (attached) - check out the graph on page 10, and note its timescale - it's another time scale again. These geologic time scales can be a little deceptive - you see a graph with a time scale of 400,000 years and think "oh wow, that's yuge! That's the bees knees of the facts we need to know" and then along comes another time scale - an order of magnitude greater. Oh wait, let me recalibrate - actually TWO orders of magnitude greater. So thinking you have the full picture is, of course, an easy mistake to make... Regards, Z
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:59:28AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:13:57PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels.
Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
Who the fuck is Gil May?
You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to dominate humanity.
Link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
See attached graph. <24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg>
in case the significance doesn't dawn - look at the time scale.
Thanks for your graph.
Sorry for the docx file - I guess you were unable to open that first one properly, I've saved it as PDF (attached) - check out the graph on page 10, and note its timescale - it's another time scale again.
These geologic time scales can be a little deceptive - you see a graph with a time scale of 400,000 years and think "oh wow, that's yuge! That's the bees knees of the facts we need to know" and then along comes another time scale - an order of magnitude greater.
Oh wait, let me recalibrate - actually TWO orders of magnitude greater.
So thinking you have the full picture is, of course, an easy mistake to make...
Regards, Z
On Oct 17, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:13:57PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote: On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels.
Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
Who the fuck is Gil May?
You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to dominate humanity.
Link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
See attached graph. <24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg>
in case the significance doesn't dawn - look at the time scale.
Thanks for your graph.
YW
Sorry for the docx file - I guess you were unable to open that first one properly, I've saved it as PDF (attached) - check out the graph on page 10, and note its timescale - it's another time scale again.
Yes I didn’t read that far into your crap.. however, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Things aren’t as simple as your holocaust denying mind would have them be. Open your mind! ;) Link - load it for the graphs: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels. Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate. To do this, one study pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years (Royer 2006). This period is known as the Phanerozoic eon. Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined net effect from CO2 and solar variations are shown in Figure 2. Periods of geographically widespread ice are indicated by shaded areas. Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2). The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice. Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice (with one notable exception, discussed below). This leads to the concept of the CO2-ice threshold - the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation. When the sun is less active, the CO2-ice threshold is much higher. For example, while the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is estimated to be 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) is 3000 ppm. However, until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions. Could CO2 levels have fallen this far? Given the low temporal resolution of the CO2 record, the data was not conclusive. Research examining strontium isotopes in the sediment record shed more light on this question (Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation. So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008). If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.
These geologic time scales can be a little deceptive - you see a graph with a time scale of 400,000 years and think "oh wow, that's yuge! That's the bees knees of the facts we need to know" and then along comes another time scale - an order of magnitude greater.
Oh wait, let me recalibrate - actually TWO orders of magnitude greater.
So thinking you have the full picture is, of course, an easy mistake to make...
Regards, Z
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 08:57:28PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 17, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:13:57PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote: > On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global > Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate > I've ever seen:
Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled conditions with varying CO2 levels.
Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution - otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
Who the fuck is Gil May?
You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to dominate humanity.
Such subtlety. Such succinctity. Such grace and humility - I'm the humble one around here, and don't you forget it‼
Link: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
See attached graph. <24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg>
in case the significance doesn't dawn - look at the time scale.
Thanks for your graph.
YW
Sorry for the docx file - I guess you were unable to open that first one properly, I've saved it as PDF (attached) - check out the graph on page 10, and note its timescale - it's another time scale again.
Yes I didn’t read that far into your crap.. however, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Things aren’t as simple as your holocaust denying mind would have them be. Open your mind! ;)
Link - load it for the graphs:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
Tnx.
Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels. Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate. To do this, one study pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels over the last 540 million years (Royer 2006). This period is known as the Phanerozoic eon.
I notice you keep using these words suggesting causation - "driver", "forcing". I believe there is scientific 'dispute' (alternative theories) as to which factors are the cause/driver(s) and which are the result/effect - the classic scientific theory being that sun output, primarily or exclusively, is the absolute dominant driver of weather, temperature, and, 'consequently', CO2.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago.
And that was apparently only good for life on this planet.
However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined net effect from CO2 and solar variations are shown in Figure 2. Periods of geographically widespread ice are indicated by shaded areas.
This is new data for me. Thanks again. "Dude, like, what's a 4% drop in solar output between friendly planets anyway?" "Glaciation, dude, and the end of life as we know it." "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it."
Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2). The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice.
Aaand ... we should be trying to avoid those¿
Periods of low CO2 coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice
Mm hm! Got that‼ And "current" (for "on a scale of a billion years" values of "current") atmospheric CO2 levels are crazy low! BUT (say some other data), our Sun's output is 4% higher than at those times, so we're cool! I mean hot/good/ok…
(with one notable exception, discussed below). This leads to the concept of the CO2-ice threshold - the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation. When the sun is less active, the CO2-ice threshold is much higher. For example, while the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is estimated to be 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) is 3000 ppm.
This is essentially what I've been comprehending - the ONLY significant potential problem for life on this planet, is CO2 levels dropping below "glaciation might happen" levels (which level varies according to Sun output, which makes perfect sense). So let's increase atmospheric CO2 levels if they're "currently" low...
However, until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were
Damn, you do seem to know your climate science termifrogology.
thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions. Could CO2 levels have fallen this far? Given the low temporal resolution of the CO2 record, the data was not conclusive.
Precisely stated. Very good.
Research examining strontium isotopes in the sediment record shed more light on this question (Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling.
THAT is significant! Not only did atmospheric CO2 drop to levels (given Sun output at that time) which could "permit" glaciation - glaciation in fact occurred. Bad for life on this planet of course...
It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause
"in combination with then-Solar output levels"
of late Ordovician glaciation.
So yes in the past, CO2 levels were a good --order of magnitude-- higher than we see today, and with average sun output "just" 4% lower, even 3000ppm was not enough to stop glaciation - the end of the yummy sunny planet we know today, for a few (tens?) of millions of years at a time...
So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now.
Sure. Both interesting and useful to comprehending our current world - your “value equation” is improving, John :) Keep this up and you'll soon join the illustrious ranks of those pointing out there's a slight difference between rickety wooden fence pailing gates and multi-hinged cam-locking steel doors with industrial gas seals, and which ones -were- at Auschwitz, and which ones -were not-.
What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).
Noah's "flood" perhaps? Different timing it seems, but who knows...
If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings."
The solution to different "scientific models" or theories suggesting different outcomes, different causation/drivers? More science.
Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures.
Ack.
On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.
Ack. But John, putting those two sentences right next to each, though accurate, may mislead someone not so well trained in the art of clear thinking as you appear to be. Point being: "close coupling of A,B" != "A causation -> B", instead it might mean "B causing -> A" just that we can't yet conclusively determine which way it actually is. So: - we need CO2 levels to get up to "reasonable levels" - to ensure a nice warm and wet greenhouse planet - a planet which is not about to slip into glaciation - which glaciation would be an ELE for most species on this planet. - Lower Sun output levels are greatly concerning, - especially when atmostpheric CO2 levels are below the "ratio" (if we can have any accuracy about the relative numbers) - But this of course still rests on the assumption that CO2 levels are a driver of global average temparature, rather than the result - CO2 levels "too low" do signify the possibility of imminent glaciation - but thankfully, CO2 levels are currently increasing sharply, so we should be “right for now”. Yay! It may be that: - Solar output is the ultimate driver of atmospheric CO2. - In fact it's hard to imagine otherwise... - But we're not completely sure. But we are sure that abundant atmospheric CO2 correlates to abundant life on this planet, and the key potential problem is glaciation, which correlates with abundant ice on this planet and not much life. and so from this foundation, rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is a very good sign indeed (given current historically low levels). It seems. It's a very intersting discussion, thanks for such a detailed response :) Z
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:39:59 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
sooo, Your 'source' is your government. Cute! Now let's assume all the pentagon-greencorp enviro propaganda ia true. What are the green saviors of the earth doing then? Apart from subsidizing corrupt 'green' corporations, are they doing anything else? And if they are not doing anything else, does that mean the world is going to end...when? 5 years? 10? 20? Or what.
See attached graph.
-- John jnn@synfin.org
On Oct 17, 2017, at 9:25 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:39:59 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
sooo, Your 'source' is your government. Cute!
Now let's assume all the pentagon-greencorp enviro propaganda ia true. What are the green saviors of the earth doing then? Apart from subsidizing corrupt 'green' corporations, are they doing anything else?
They aren’t doing much. As far as I can tell existential threats don’t rate high on the "American legislative agenda” :)
And if they are not doing anything else, does that mean the world is going to end...when? 5 years? 10? 20? Or what.
See attached graph.
On 10/17/2017 09:25 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:39:59 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
sooo, Your 'source' is your government. Cute!
Now let's assume all the pentagon-greencorp enviro propaganda ia true. What are the green saviors of the earth doing then? Apart from subsidizing corrupt 'green' corporations, are they doing anything else?
And if they are not doing anything else, does that mean the world is going to end...when? 5 years? 10? 20? Or what.
The world "as we know it" has in effect already ended; the process passed a tipping point about 20 years ago and is now self driving, without any human input needed - largely due to Arctic methane discharges and ocean acidification. As the process continues, desertification will also become a direct contributing factor. We can make this situation worse - that is, hitting harder, faster, and taking longer to stabilize at a "new normal." We can make it better - delay the onset of radical weather changes, reduce the severity of peak global temperatures, etc. But we can not stop global warming or prevent the attendant human population crash, and to date our governments and the industries that own them are fully committed to the worst case scenario. The "Paris Accords" and other mitigation programs sanctioned by our rulers are laughable cosmetic measures, even with strict worldwide adherence - which ain't gonna happen. How do I know this crap? Because I have been watching developments in relevant fields for nearly 40 years, and over the last decade my own projections have consistently beaten those of professionals who "dare not risk" being called alarmist or radical. Recently a few have come out of the lab closet, so to speak, and more will follow: 20+ years too late to make a damn bit of difference, even IF our captains of industry would have listened to them. The good news: Anarchists, rejoice! The survivors will have nothing to lose but their chains! The mega-State and massively concentrated wealth and power making anything like self rule or an even break impossible are on the way out. The last generation that will remember our present way of life as "normal" has already been born. If the humans manage to catch a few lucky breaks, a "better" world than our own fictional Good Old Days could arrive as early as 2200, and is likely to last FAR longer than the Industrial Age: The means of repeating the same mistakes will not exist. :o)
On Oct 17, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 10/17/2017 09:25 PM, juan wrote: On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:39:59 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
sooo, Your 'source' is your government. Cute!
Now let's assume all the pentagon-greencorp enviro propaganda ia true. What are the green saviors of the earth doing then? Apart from subsidizing corrupt 'green' corporations, are they doing anything else?
And if they are not doing anything else, does that mean the world is going to end...when? 5 years? 10? 20? Or what.
The world "as we know it" has in effect already ended; the process passed a tipping point about 20 years ago and is now self driving, without any human input needed - largely due to Arctic methane discharges and ocean acidification. As the process continues, desertification will also become a direct contributing factor.
We can make this situation worse - that is, hitting harder, faster, and taking longer to stabilize at a "new normal." We can make it better - delay the onset of radical weather changes, reduce the severity of peak global temperatures, etc. But we can not stop global warming or prevent the attendant human population crash, and to date our governments and the industries that own them are fully committed to the worst case scenario. The "Paris Accords" and other mitigation programs sanctioned by our rulers are laughable cosmetic measures, even with strict worldwide adherence - which ain't gonna happen.
How do I know this crap? Because I have been watching developments in relevant fields for nearly 40 years, and over the last decade my own projections have consistently beaten those of professionals who "dare not risk" being called alarmist or radical. Recently a few have come out of the lab closet, so to speak, and more will follow: 20+ years too late to make a damn bit of difference, even IF our captains of industry would have listened to them.
The good news: Anarchists, rejoice! The survivors will have nothing to lose but their chains! The mega-State and massively concentrated wealth and power making anything like self rule or an even break impossible are on the way out. The last generation that will remember our present way of life as "normal" has already been born. If the humans manage to catch a few lucky breaks, a "better" world than our own fictional Good Old Days could arrive as early as 2200, and is likely to last FAR longer than the Industrial Age: The means of repeating the same mistakes will not exist.
:o)
I like the optimism in the face of disaster :) cheers! John
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:46:31 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
... The good news: Anarchists, rejoice! The survivors will have nothing to lose but their chains!
I certainly would welcome a disaster that seriously crippled the industrial-fascist system. But I'm not realy holding my breath. I don't think the pseudo-scientific apocalyptic 'narrative' is true. But again, assuming for argument's sake that it is, what can then easily happen is that the survivors will be the most corrupt and vicious members of the species. You know, natural selection...The people who have more resources, the people who control the system, are the ones who are more likely to survive.
The mega-State and massively concentrated wealth and power making anything like self rule or an even break impossible are on the way out.
Seems to me that the only way to get rid of wealth and power concentration is to start smashing cops heads. Natural disasters won't smash cops heads.
The last generation that will remember our present way of life as "normal" has already been born. If the humans manage to catch a few lucky breaks, a "better" world than our own fictional Good Old Days could arrive as early as 2200, and is likely to last FAR longer than the Industrial Age: The means of repeating the same mistakes will not exist.
:o)
On Oct 18, 2017, at 2:02 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: can then easily happen is that the survivors will be the most corrupt and vicious members of the species. You know, natural selection...The people who have more resources, the people who control the system, are the ones who are more likely to survive.
This has always been my feeling TBH. The ultra wealthy who have wisely diversified holdings, and the ultra vicious thugs they employee, seem to be the natural winners in this kind of massive doomsday scenario (which I agree with Steve on - we've already reached the tipping point, and the extremely half hearted gestures being made are far too little far too late)... William Gibsons last book, The Peripheral, where he finally returned to a future SF, had an event called "the jackpot" that happened over a period of 30-40 years in the late 21st century which basically killed off 3/4 of humanity until the lower population combined with scientific advances got humanity going again.. I could see something like this happening. And the ultra wealthy were big winners in this scenario ;) Still, some optimism every now and then is nice.
The mega-State and massively concentrated wealth and power making anything like self rule or an even break impossible are on the way out.
Seems to me that the only way to get rid of wealth and power concentration is to start smashing cops heads. Natural disasters won't smash cops heads.
The last generation that will remember our present way of life as "normal" has already been born. If the humans manage to catch a few lucky breaks, a "better" world than our own fictional Good Old Days could arrive as early as 2200, and is likely to last FAR longer than the Industrial Age: The means of repeating the same mistakes will not exist.
:o)
On 10/18/2017 02:02 AM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:46:31 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
... The good news: Anarchists, rejoice! The survivors will have nothing to lose but their chains!
I certainly would welcome a disaster that seriously crippled the industrial-fascist system. But I'm not realy holding my breath.
I don't think the pseudo-scientific apocalyptic 'narrative' is true. But again, assuming for argument's sake that it is, what can then easily happen is that the survivors will be the most corrupt and vicious members of the species. You know, natural selection...The people who have more resources, the people who control the system, are the ones who are more likely to survive.
No. In the event of a global collapse of industrial economies and heavy industry itself, the people who "control the system" LOSE their ecological niche in the power structure of human affairs. Sure, they will be able to exercise their power /during/ the collapse to hoard food and trade goods, and will field private armies under whatever banner of Good Old Days authority suits their fancy. But their reach will be very limited and they will face a few little problems: Raiding by other ex-rulers, attrition from insurrections and desertions, and of course, a few little problems from independent gangs of peasants who don't appreciate it when the little they have is threatened by gangs employed by their ex-rulers. Natural selection favors cooperation and coordinated activity. The more self contained and committed to mutual defense a given community is, the safer it will be from raiders and the better able to convert to fully localized industry for production of food, water, electricity, communications, medical care, etc.
The mega-State and massively concentrated wealth and power making anything like self rule or an even break impossible are on the way out.
Seems to me that the only way to get rid of wealth and power concentration is to start smashing cops heads. Natural disasters won't smash cops heads.
I see you are still fully controlled by your Fascist Pig masters, who have programmed you to self-destruct in the event that you reach the end of your usefulness to them. I'm sure your absolute loyalty and obedience will be appreciated - amid laughter - and rewarded with a bullet or two. They often serve best and most faithfully, who rebel as they are told. :o)
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:50:02 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
No. In the event of a global collapse of industrial economies and heavy industry itself, the people who "control the system" LOSE their ecological niche in the power structure of human affairs.
I still don't see how...
Sure, they will be able to exercise their power /during/ the collapse to hoard food and trade goods, and will field private armies under whatever banner of Good Old Days authority suits their fancy. But their reach will be very limited and they will face a few little problems: Raiding by other ex-rulers, attrition from insurrections and desertions, and of course, a few little problems from independent gangs of peasants who don't appreciate it when the little they have is threatened by gangs employed by their ex-rulers.
Yes that can happen for a while but all the underlying cultural problems remain and they will lead to the same political landscape sooner or later.
Natural selection favors cooperation and coordinated activity.
Yes, coordinated activity. That's why the state is so effective.
The more self contained and committed to mutual defense a given community is, the safer it will be from raiders and the better able to convert to fully localized industry for production of food, water, electricity, communications, medical care, etc.
"The more self contained and committed to mutual defense a given community" 'community' can also be replaced with 'ruling mafia'. So the more commited a ruling mafia is to self-defense (and attack), the more effective it is. Industrialization or lack of it doesn't change that sort of underlying social mechanism.
The mega-State and massively concentrated wealth and power making anything like self rule or an even break impossible are on the way out.
Seems to me that the only way to get rid of wealth and power concentration is to start smashing cops heads. Natural disasters won't smash cops heads.
I see you are still fully controlled by your Fascist Pig masters, who have programmed you to self-destruct in the event that you reach the end of your usefulness to them.
Haha, that sounded really funny, but seriously, how on earth did you reach that conclusion? =P
I'm sure your absolute loyalty and obedience will be appreciated - amid laughter - and rewarded with a bullet or two.
Oh of course if that was tried by a few isolated individuals no doubt they would be executed on the spot.
They often serve best and most faithfully, who rebel as they are told.
...not sure why you'd think that my idea of basic justice (killing the pigs) comes from the pigs themselves? So, the solution to the political problem is to smash cops heads AND see your point aboe : "The more self contained and committed to mutual defense a given community..." It's obvious that to fight against the state, coordination and some critical mass are required, not only violence.
:o)
Plants die sooner from greedy thoughtless corporate government consumer assholes that don't give a fuck because in 50 years they'll be dead anyways. These fucks also know the science of global net consumption outstripping replenishment of most resources is in now, so apparently fucking over their kids, grandkids, and beyond is lots of fun too. http://www.bing.com/search?q=satellite+deforestation+before+after On a whole approach, it's balance and replenishment of all the things. When you dumbfuck humans tilt it sideways, and use up all your shit, and toxify everything else, you're dead, and it's Earth that will make the winning AP prediction. Right now, more than enough bids remain against humans.
On 10/17/2017 05:34 PM, grarpamp wrote:
Plants die sooner from greedy thoughtless corporate government consumer assholes that don't give a fuck because in 50 years they'll be dead anyways. These fucks also know the science of global net consumption outstripping replenishment of most resources is in now, so apparently fucking over their kids, grandkids, and beyond is lots of fun too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=satellite+deforestation+before+after
On a whole approach, it's balance and replenishment of all the things. When you dumbfuck humans tilt it sideways, and use up all your shit, and toxify everything else, you're dead, and it's Earth that will make the winning AP prediction. Right now, more than enough bids remain against humans.
Back in the day, used to get outraged about this bullshit. But now, I couldn't hardly give less of a bloody fuck. And indeed, I'll likely be dead before the shit seriously hits the fan. However, I do expect to have many opportunities to laugh at our fucked up industrial society as it spirals down the shitter. Perhaps the AI will also be amused.
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/ https://thinkprogress.org/study-finds-mass-biodiversity-collapse-at-900-ppm-... https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/hcny0817.pdf https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-ar... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/found-thousands-of-man-made-miner... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-co2-passes-the-400-ppm-th... https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/ http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.abstract http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption Of course science don't mean much to the "civilized" masses still getting their lols by perpetuating effectively public executions... https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/775e45/fungus_destroyed_inmates_brain...
participants (6)
-
grarpamp -
John Newman -
juan -
Mirimir -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness