56 min. video, earth's past climates and the Milankovitch orbital cycles that drive earth's climate. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14963261
A 56 min. long video about the earth's past climates and the Milankovitch orbital cycles that drive the earth's climate. He claims that humans have been keeping the world warm and keeping the nevt ice age from starting since 8,000 BCE. We did it by clearing forests to make room for our farms and gardens and raising rice. He says that the Little Ice Age [1450 to 1810] was a period when we had slowed our spread of farming and so slowed the rate at which we added CO2 to the air. This allowed the gradual cooling from the orbital cycle in progress to make itself felt. Then we cleared the forests in the eastern US and started burning fossil fuels. Since then the fossil fuels thing has taken off like a rocket and now we have what we have. He mostly just sees sea level rise as the problem. So, he isn't scary. Just interesting.



Another lecture in IHMC's award winning lecture series. http://www.ihmc.us

Climate change has become a major political issue, but few understand how climate has changed in the past and the forces that drive climate. Most people don't know that fifty million years ago there were breadfruit trees and crocodiles on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, or that 18,000 years ago there was a mile-thick glacier on Manhattan and a continuous belt of winter sea ice extending south to Cape Hatteras. The History of Climate provides context of our current climate debate and fundamental insight how the climate works.

Dr. Daniel Britt is a Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences at the Department of Physics, University of Central Florida. He was educated at the University of Washington and Brown University, receiving a Ph.D. from Brown in 1991. He has had a varied career including service in the US Air Force as an ICBM missile launch officer and an economist for Boeing before going into planetary sciences. He has served on the science teams of two NASA missions, Mars Pathfinder and Deep Space 1. He was the project manager for the camera on Mars Pathfinder and has built hardware for all the NASA Mars landers.

Britt currently does research on the physical properties and mineralogy of asteroids, comets, the Moon, and Mars under several NASA grants. Honors include 5 NASA Achievement Awards, election as a Fellow of the Meteoritical Society, and an asteroid named after him; 4395 Dan Britt. He is currently President of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society. He lives in Orlando with his wife Judith. They have two sons, ages 16 and 21.
#14965680
The really important I'm going to make is that humanity can off set the coming cooling all through the next 100,000 years by carefully controlling the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air to keep the world's temp. in the range where we want it.

Let us assume that humanity succeeds in keeping civilization going through the coming crisis.

This paper says that the next 100,000 years or so will see the continuation of the Milankovitch orbital cycles, which means the earth would be getting progressively colder. There would be 3 upturns but each one still be staying cooler than the last. The whole trend is down, down to a minimum and then a rather sudden heat up to the climate we have now.

The other thread says that tech will exist for humanity to use solar energy to extract carbon from the air and create "fossil fuel" with it. The tech will exist to convert the fossil fuel into methane (= natural gas), gasoline, propane, or kerosene (= jet fuel).

This is important because there really is no replacement for jet fuel. At least none that I can see. The problem is weight, or weight to energy contained. Jet fuel can use the O2 in the air so it isn't necessary to carry it up off the ground with the plane. All other ideas are going to have to carry the whole system up off the ground.

It is also good for cars. I really, really doubt the enough rare earth elements exist in the crust where we can extract them to provide a battery for the 500M cars that a total world's population of just 1B people* would like to have. If gasoline can be made it may be better than electric cars.

However, the really important I'm making is that humanity can off set the coming cooling all through the next 100,000 years by carefully controlling the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air to keep the world's temp. in the range where we want it. Of course, this will require that we either are smart enough to know what the unintended consequences of this will be (like a desert there and not here) and/or we will be smart enough to learn to accept them as necessary and easy to work around. That is, the people who's land becomes too dry to farm are paid to move somewhere else. Remember all through those long centuries the climate may be changing because the Milankovitch orbital cycles are continuing. The nice thing is the changes will be very slow.

[How abut a thumb for this wise and upbeat thought.]



* . I assume that the coming climate crisis will reduce the population to some such level.
#14965993
Great post(s) @Steve_American
Though it wouldn't hurt to edit some parts.

You seem to focus on aerosols. How are we going to control volcanoes?

Some more resources: https://www.climate.gov/taxonomy/term/3451

On the flip side, I recommend John Casey


Dynamic climate models should include orbital cycles, volcanism, human activity, solar activity (sol cycles, maximum/minimum), tectonic activity, and the potential of a magnetic reversal. One thing is certain, climate change is a cyclical and natural process.

I think climate science is politicized and that's why an accurate model fails to emerge. Furthermore, we have a myopic frame of reference, so we extrapolate a trend and call it conclusive science.

Anyway, thanks for creating this thread. I really didn't want to participate in If global warming is real, I want it viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174394 and get lost in all the nonsense.
#14966136
RhetoricThug wrote:Great post(s) @Steve_American
Though it wouldn't hurt to edit some parts.

You seem to focus on aerosols. How are we going to control volcanoes?

Some more resources: https://www.climate.gov/taxonomy/term/3451

On the flip side, I recommend John Casey
https:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxGBoTLzrOk

Dynamic climate models should include orbital cycles, volcanism, human activity, solar activity (sol cycles, maximum/minimum), tectonic activity, and the potential of a magnetic reversal. One thing is certain, climate change is a cyclical and natural process.

I think climate science is politicized and that's why an accurate model fails to emerge. Furthermore, we have a myopic frame of reference, so we extrapolate a trend and call it conclusive science.

Anyway, thanks for creating this thread. I really didn't want to participate in If global warming is real, I want it viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174394 and get lost in all the nonsense.

Well, my OP was intended to show that humans have been changing the climate for the better for over 7000 years.
Now, we may be* changing it too much. So much that it is for the worse or worst.

My 2nd post was intended to show that if we can just keep civilization going for the next 100 to 200 years then we can use tech to fine tune the climate and keep it just the way we want it. By then it will be common knowledge that this is what MUST BE done.

It requires we use solar, etc. as the source of almost all of our energy and then use some of that to capture carbon from the air and make it into fuels that we can burn. This process would be carbon neutral because for every atom of carbon added to the air with the burning, one atom of carbon was removed from the air to make the fuel.

You wrote, "You seem to focus on aerosols. How are we going to control volcanoes?"
I don't understand why you think I care about aerosols. It seemed to me that both posts that I used as sources, concentrated on CO2 and methane in the air. Humanity can't control volcanoes, it can only learn how to live with them with a minimum of discomfort.


* . Of course, I would say that it is beyond doubt that we are heating the planet too much. But, a big chunk of Americans have been influenced by the media to deny this. Those Americans (of course) think they know the truth and 97% of climate scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy to lie to humanity for some reason.
. . . They watch the leaks out of Trumps White House and don't draw the conclusion that a nefarious conspiracy involving many thousands will always leak like a sieve. Then, because there is no flood of leaks, conclude that there is no nefarious conspiracy.
#14966249
Steve_American wrote:Well, my OP was intended to show that humans have been changing the climate for the better for over 7000 years.
Now, we may be* changing it too much. So much that it is for the worse or worst.
Sure, but how do we know our activity is the main driver? It's difficult to find conclusive ice core data that can back up OP.

Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... -ever-been

I find scientific editorials, but data comes from so many different teams and samples, it's hard to pinpoint human activity as the main driver behind climate change.

I think this is a natural process, but we're politicizing it.

I agree, we shouldn't meddle anymore than we have to.

My 2nd post was intended to show that if we can just keep civilization going for the next 100 to 200 years then we can use tech to fine tune the climate and keep it just the way we want it. By then it will be common knowledge that this is what MUST BE done.
If we're capable of correcting this climate problem, one we allegedly created, how do you think other species will respond to artificial-anthropocentric climate stabilization?

This is a terrible idea: Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere.

The research by scientists at Harvard and Yale universities, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, proposes using a technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection, which they say could cut the rate of global warming in half.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/s ... index.html

It requires we use solar, etc. as the source of almost all of our energy and then use some of that to capture carbon from the air and make it into fuels that we can burn.
Or we can protect our forests, plant more trees, and end the war on free energy. Perhaps merge with fungi & plants for energy viewtopic.php?f=6&t=175180

This process would be carbon neutral because for every atom of carbon added to the air with the burning, one atom of carbon was removed from the air to make the fuel.
What about ocean acidification?

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/inverte ... dification

You wrote, "You seem to focus on aerosols. How are we going to control volcanoes?"
I don't understand why you think I care about aerosols. It seemed to me that both posts that I used as sources, concentrated on CO2 and methane in the air.
Actually, you should care about aerosols.

Aerosols are tiny particles in the air that can be produced when we burn different types of fossil fuels — coal, petroleum, wood and biofuels — in different ways. A significant man-made source of aerosols is pollution from cars and factories. If you live in a big city you’re probably pretty familiar with soot, an aerosol that forms black layers on your windowsill. But aerosols can also be produced naturally, for example, through being given off from trees or burning vegetation.

The word “aerosol” is used by scientists to mean “atmospheric particulate”. But it was used a lot by the media during the 1980s and 1990s to refer to the spray cans that released chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the air, which damage the ozone layer and created the ozone hole. So it’s no surprise that there is some confusion over the word! https://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/just- ... -aerosols/


Humanity can't control volcanoes, it can only learn how to live with them with a minimum of discomfort.
A series of eruptions could throw off our ability to engineer the climate.


* . Of course, I would say that it is beyond doubt that we are heating the planet too much. But, a big chunk of Americans have been influenced by the media to deny this. Those Americans (of course) think they know the truth and 97% of climate scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy to lie to humanity for some reason.
I don't think the media is behind our cognitive dissonance. It's an existential dilemma that affects human civilization. The idea that humans actually live in a biosphere is a hard thing to swallow for a consumption-driven socioeconomic system. Everything we do is static, fragmented, and compartmentalized. Climate science is dynamic and holistic.

Latest US report: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/clim ... eport.html
#14968171
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) Weakening

A study led by Drs. Christelle Not and Benoit Thibodeau from the Department of Earth Sciences and the Swire Institute of Marine Science, The University of Hong Kong, highlights a dramatic weakening of ocean circulation during the 20th century that is interpreted to be a direct consequence of global warming and associated melt of the Greenland ice sheet. This is significant, as reduced circulation in the North Atlantic can yield profound changes on both the North American and European climate, but also on African and Asian summer monsoon rainfall. The findings were recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is the branch of the North Atlantic circulation that brings warm surface water toward the Arctic and cold deep water toward the equator. This transfer of heat and energy not only has direct influence on climate over Europe and North America, but can impact the African and Asian monsoon system through its effect on sea surface temperature, hydrological cycle, atmospheric circulation and variation in the intertropical convergence zone. Many climate models predicted a weakening, or even a collapse of this branch of the circulation under global warming, partly due to the release of freshwater from Greenland ice sheet. This freshwater has lower density than salty water and thus prevents the formation of deep water, slowing down the whole circulation. However, this weakening is still vigorously debated because of the scarcity of long-term record of the AMOC.

Drs. Not and Thibodeau used microfossils called foraminifera found in a sediment core to estimate the past temperature of the ocean. The sediment core used is located in the Laurentian Channel, on the coast of Canada, where two important currents meet. Thus, the strength of these currents will control the temperature of the water at the coring site, which implies that the temperature reconstructed from this core is indicative of the strength of the North Atlantic circulation. With their collaborators from the United States of America, they validated their results using instrumental data and two numerical models that can simulate the climate and the ocean.

"The AMOC plays a crucial role in regulating global climate, but scientists are struggling to find reliable indicators of its intensity in the past. The discovery of this new record of AMOC will enhance our understanding of its drivers and ultimately help us better comprehend potential near-future change under global warming," said Dr. Thibodeau.

Interestingly, the research team also found a weak signal during a period called the Little Ice Age (a cold spell observed between about 1600 and 1850 AD). While not as pronounced as the 20th century trend, the signal might confirm that this period was also characterized by a weaker circulation in the North Atlantic, which implies a decrease in the transfer of heat toward Europe, contributing to the cold temperature of this period. However, more work is needed to validate this hypothesis.

"While we could ground our temperature reconstruction for the 20th century against instrumental measurement, it is not possible to do so for the Little Ice Age period. Therefore, we need to conduct more analysis to consolidate this hypothesis," said Dr. Not.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-ocean-cir ... akest.html



Yale study charts change in major ocean current

The strong currents in the Atlantic Ocean appear to be changing, at least partly because of the melting Arctic ice, which may in turn be accelerating that melting, according to a postdoctoral research associate at Yale University who recently co-authored a journal article about the phenomenon.

Matthew Thomas, who studies the forces that control ocean circulation, said that the two phenomena — a movement northward of the current that brings warm water from the tropics and melting Arctic ice — are interrelated and are caused by, and contribute to, climate change.

“Any change is bad because in our climate we have such a delicate balance with our environment in how we get food and clean, fresh water,” Thomas said. “Any change in the climate affects people and we have to adapt to it.”

Thomas and lead author Camille Lique of Laboratoire d’Océanographie Physique et Spatiale in France studied the current known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a major contributor to the Earth’s climate, which has been weakening because of the rising atmospheric temperature. Their research, which uses a three-dimensional model to show more clearly how the northern and southern reaches of the AMOC are shifting toward the poles, was published in the November issue of Nature Climate Change.

“The overturning has a very important role in our climate system due to the heat that it carries northwards,” Thomas said. “In order to make predictions of the future of the climate, we need to understand how all of the different components of the climate system will respond, and the overturning is one of them.”

Read more: http://www.countytimes.com/news/yale-st ... 252bf.html


Adding to OP
How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?

The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present).

These large ice ages can have smaller ice ages (called glacials) and warmer periods (called interglacials) within them. During the beginning of the Quaternary glaciation, from about 2.7 million to 1 million years ago, these cold glacial periods occurred every 41,000 years. However, during the last 800,000 years, huge glacial sheets have appeared less frequently — about every 100,000 years, Sandstrom said.

This is how the 100,000-year cycle works: Ice sheets grow for about 90,000 years and then take about 10,000 years to collapse during warmer periods. Then, the process repeats itself.

Given that the last ice age ended about 11,700 years ago, isn't it time for Earth to get icy again?

"We should be heading into another ice age right now," Sandstrom told Live Science. But two factors related to Earth's orbit that influence the formation of glacials and interglacials are off. "That, coupled with the fact that we pump so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [means] we're probably not going to enter a glacial for at least 100,000 years," he said.

A hypothesis put forth by the Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovitch (also spelled Milanković) explains why Earth cycles in and out of glacials and interglacials.

As the planet circles the sun, three factors affect how much sunlight it gets: its tilt (which ranges from 24.5 degrees to 22.1 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle); its eccentricity (the changing shape of its orbit around the sun, which ranges from a near-circle to an oval-like shape); and its wobble (one full wobble, which looks like a slowly spinning top, happens every 19,000 to 23,000 years), according to Milankovitch.

In 1976, a landmark paper in the journal Science provided evidence that these three orbital parameters explained the planet's glacial cycles, Sandstrom said.

"Milankovitch's theory is that the orbital cycles have been predictable and very consistent throughout time," Sandstrom said. "If you are in an ice age, then you'll have more or less ice depending on these orbital cycles. But if the Earth is too warm, they basically won't do anything, at least in terms of growing ice." [Doomsday: 9 Real Ways Earth Could End]

One thing that can warm Earth is a gas such as carbon dioxide. Over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated between about 170 parts per million and 280 ppm (meaning that out of 1 million air molecules, 280 of them are carbon dioxide molecules). That's a difference of only about 100 ppm between glacials and interglacials, Sandstrom said.

But carbon dioxide levels are much higher today when compared with these past fluctuations. In May 2016, Antarctica carbon dioxide levels hit the high level of 400 ppm, according to Climate Central.

Earth has been warm before. For instance, it was much warmer during the dinosaur age. "[But] the scary thing is how much carbon dioxide we've put in [the atmosphere] in such a short period of time," Sandstrom said.

The warming effects of that carbon dioxide will have big consequences, he said, because even a small increase in Earth's average temperature can lead to drastic changes, he said. For instance, Earth was only about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) colder, on average, during the last ice age than it is today, Sandstrom said.

If global warming causes both Greenland's and Antarctica's ice sheets to melt, the oceans will rise about 196 feet (60 meters) higher than they are now, Sandstrom said.

The factors that caused the long ice ages, such as the Quaternary glaciation, are less well-understood than those that led to glacials, Sandstrom noted. But one idea is that a massive drop in carbon dioxide levels can lead to lower temperatures, he said.

For instance, according to the uplift-weathering hypothesis, as plate tectonics pushed up mountain ranges, new rock became exposed. This unprotected rock was easily weathered and broken apart, and would fall into the oceans, taking carbon dioxide with it.

These rocks provided critical components that marine organisms used to build their calcium-carbonate shells. Over time, both the rocks and the shells took carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, which, along with other forces, helped lower carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, Sandstrom said.

https://www.livescience.com/58407-how-o ... appen.html


Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up. Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

Current solar cycle 24 is declining more quickly than forecast. The smoothed, predicted sunspot number for April to May, 2018 is about 15; however, the actual monthly values have been lower. Will solar minimum be longer than usual or might solar cycle 25 begin earlier? Leading solar and space science experts will convene a meeting in the coming years and attempt to predict solar cycle 25.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cy ... g-forecast

Is Winter is Coming – Super Grand Solar Minimum

Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.

Zharkova models solar sunspot and magnetic activity. Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum could begin in 2020.

A Super Grand Solar Minimum would have four magnetic fields out of phase. There was about 40-60 years of cold weather 350 years ago. This was a Maunder Minimum of lower solar activity. The historical cold weather had two magnetic fields out of phase.

Zharkova is predicting a cooling effect that is 2.5 to 4 times larger than the Maunder minimum. Zharkova’s analysis shows an 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). A 2015 Nature study looked at 2 watts per square meter decrease causing a 0.13-degree celsius effect. A four times larger effect would be 0.5-degree celsius.

Zharkova believes the warming models are including the warming effect of increased solar activity. If she is correct there would be cooling and the warming models would be wrong.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/w ... nimum.html






Warming or cooling, we're in this together.
#14969782
Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at its fastest rate in 350 years



The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster today than at any point in the last 350 years, according to a new study published in the journal Nature. The research is the first continuous, multi-century analysis of melting and runoff on the ice sheet, one of the largest drivers of sea level rise globally.

Lead by glaciologist and climate scientist Luke Trusel of Rowan University, a team of U.S. and European researchers analyzed more than three centuries of melt patterns in ice cores from western Greenland. They then linked this historical data to modern observations of melting and runoff across the entire ice sheet, creating a timeline dating back to 1650.

“From a historical perspective, today’s melt rates are off the charts,” Sarah Das, a glaciologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and co-author of the new study, said in a statement. “We found a 50 percent increase in total ice sheet meltwater runoff versus the start of the industrial era, and a 30 percent increase since the 20th century alone.”

According to the analysis, melting on the Greenland ice sheet sped up in the mid-1800s, shortly after the onset of industrial-era warming in the Arctic. Over the last 20 years, melt intensity has increased 250 to 575 percent compared to pre-industrial melt rates. Across the ice sheet, melting was more rapid in 2012 than any other year and the most recent decade included in the ice core-analysis, 2004-2013, experienced “a more sustained and greater magnitude of melt than any other 10-year period” in the 350-year record, the scientists wrote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/gr ... -350-years


Study links natural climate oscillations in north Atlantic to Greenland ice sheet melt

Scientists have known for years that warming global climate is melting the Greenland Ice Sheet, the second largest ice sheet in the world. A new study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), however, shows that the rate of melting might be temporarily increased or decreased by two existing climate patterns: the North Atlantic Oscillation (now), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Both patterns can have a major impact on regional climate. The now, which is measured as the atmospheric pressure difference between the Azores and Iceland, can affect the position and strength of the westerly storm track. The study found that when the now stays in its negative phase (meaning that air pressure is high over Greenland) it can trigger extreme ice melt in Greenland during the summer season. Likewise, the AMO, which alters sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic, can cause major melting events when it is in its warm phase, raising the temperature of the region as a whole.

If global climate change continues at its current rate, the Greenland ice sheet may eventually melt entirely—but whether it meets this fate sooner rather than later could be determined by these two oscillations, says Caroline Ummenhofer, a climate scientist at WHOI and co-author on the study. Depending on how the AMO and now interact, excess melting could happen two decades earlier than expected, or two decades later this century.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-links-nat ... north.html


Remember this bit from a previous post: Many climate models predicted a weakening, or even a collapse of this branch of the circulation under global warming, partly due to the release of freshwater from Greenland ice sheet. This freshwater has lower density than salty water and thus prevents the formation of deep water, slowing down the whole circulation. However, this weakening is still vigorously debated because of the scarcity of long-term record of the AMOC.
#14969795
Steve_American wrote: humanity can off set the coming cooling all through the next 100,000 years


I highly doubt there will be any humans in existence even a thousand years from now. We'll either have destroyed all life on the planet or evolved into something very different. We're at the tail end of the human experiment. We'll be just another extinct species of hominid by the end of the millennium.
#14969801
Sivad wrote:I highly doubt there will be any humans in existence even a thousand years from now. We'll either have destroyed all life on the planet or evolved into something very different. We're at the tail end of the human experiment. We'll be just another extinct species of hominid by the end of the millennium.

Fortunately, climate change could be a blessing in disguise. It'll slow down progress and force us to reanalyze our disposition or place on Earth.


Global food system is broken, say world’s science academies

Radical overhaul in farming and consumption, with less meat eating, needed to avoid hunger and climate catastrophe

The global food system is broken, leaving billions of people either underfed or overweight and driving the planet towards climate catastrophe, according to 130 national academies of science and medicine across the world.

Providing a healthy, affordable, and environmentally friendly diet for all people will require a radical transformation of the system, says the report by the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP). This will depend on better farming methods, wealthy nations consuming less meat and countries valuing food which is nutritious rather than cheap.

The report, which was peer reviewed and took three years to compile, sets out the scale of the problems as well as evidence-driven solutions.

The global food system is responsible for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than all emissions from transport, heating, lighting and air conditioning combined. The global warming this is causing is now damaging food production through extreme weather events such as floods and droughts.

The food system also fails to properly nourish billions of people. More than 820 million people went hungry last year, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, while a third of all people did not get enough vitamins. At the same time, 600 million people were classed as obese and 2 billion overweight, with serious consequences for their health. On top of this, more than 1bn tonnes of food is wasted every year, a third of the total produced.

“The global food system is broken,” said Tim Benton, professor of population ecology, at the University of Leeds, who is a member of one of the expert editorial groups which produced the report. He said the cost of the damage to human health and the environment was much greater than the profits made by the farming industry.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -academies
‘As long as there are slaughter houses there will always be battlefields.’ -Leo Tolstoy


It's funny how Karmic cycles work. Science gave us the global food system, and now science is criticizing the global food system. Scientific reductionist-materialism gave us a cyclopean civilization. The compartmentalization of human activity has created a schizophrenic unsustainable mode of organization. Everything is connected and that's why reductionist-materialism is a delusional science when it's practiced on a global scale. We cannot abstract parts from a whole and ignore the whole. In other words, the space is an essential function of the things in the space. It's communicative ecology in an interconnected-dynamic biosphere. Lastly, tribal tenacity and petty politics cannot solve the problems we've created.
#14969805
RhetoricThug wrote:force us to reanalyze our disposition or place on Earth.


I doubt that would make a difference. People don't learn or grow, they just find new things to bullshit about and new ways to do it. We haven't even really ended slavery, all we've done is legally abolish the formal institution of chattel slavery but in practice we still brutally dominate and exploit the shit out of each other.

Slowing down progress would be immoral, man is just a nasty fucking ape and the sooner our species exits the stage the better.
#14969809
Sivad wrote:I doubt that would make a difference. People don't learn or grow, they just find new things to bullshit about and new ways to do it. We haven't even really ended slavery, all we've done is legally abolish the formal institution of chattel slavery but in practice we still brutally dominate and exploit the shit out of each other.

Slowing down progress would be immoral, man is just a nasty fucking ape and the sooner our species exits the stage the better.
I thoroughly disagree with the last bit. It's a complex dance, but humanity isn't "just a nasty ape." Furthermore, this kind of thinking doesn't help us. It's more reductionism. Pathological pessimism doesn't properly represent the whole picture. Love exists and it's the missing link. Love & hate are distinct neurological patterns. Individuals have the power to navigate and cross the thin line between love and hate.

Give love a chance. Hate and separation got us this far. Imagine what we can do together?

When you speak for all of us, using such toxic language, it's clear you're unaware of the power that dwells within us.
#14969817
RhetoricThug wrote:I thoroughly disagree with the last bit. It's a complex dance, but humanity isn't "just a nasty ape." Furthermore, this kind of thinking doesn't help us. It's more reductionism. Pathological pessimism doesn't properly represent the whole picture. Love exists and it's the missing link. Love & hate are distinct neurological patterns. Individuals have the power to navigate and cross the thin line between love and hate.

Give love a chance. Hate and separation got us this far. Imagine what we can do together?

When you speak for all of us, using such toxic language, it's clear you're unaware of the power that dwells within us.


That's all nonsense. The reality is people are assholes, everything's stupid, and we're all in hell.
#14969820
Sivad wrote:That's all nonsense. The reality is people are assholes, everything's stupid, and we're all in hell.
You keep telling yourself that, Sivad. The mind is a powerful thing.

Anyway, back on topic. Humanity must realize how powerful the mind is so we can intelligently apply it. Anthropogenic climate change is indicative of how powerful the mind is. The technologies we deploy reshape the environment.
#14969823
I believe in Charity(caritas), but that doesn't overlook the bullshit and assholism. It's impersonal compassion in spite of the fact that people are assholes, everything's stupid, and we're all in hell. There's also the love of the Good, I may despise my fellow human beings but I definitely love goodness and I try to make my whole life about the greater good.
#14969826
RhetoricThug wrote:You keep telling yourself that, Sivad. The mind is a powerful thing.



The only reason people are assholes, everything's stupid, and we're all in hell is because nobody admits the fact that people are assholes, everything's stupid, and we're all in hell.

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one.
#14970321
@RhetoricThug, @Svad,
Sorry I lost track of this thread and got so far behind.

Sivad, we are not in Hell. Hell is a supernatural place. Earth is part of the natural universe.

RhetoricThug, so many things to reply to. I will not remember them all.
1] The coming solar minimum is going to cool us by 1/2 deg. C. This will help us survive longer but it will not counter act 4 deg. of warming. It will not make earth cooler than it is, it will just slow down the warming.
. . . Recently, I sort of saw a post that said that NASA can directly measure the amount of radiation that leaves earth with its satellites. We can also directly measure the solar radiation reaching the top of the air and the surface. Therefore, there should be DlRECT measurements of the input and the outgo of energy. If more comes in than goes out then there must be heating as a direct result, just like a pan of water sitting on a pretty warm burner on a stove makes the water slowly heat up.
2] Volcanoes seem to cause at most 1/2 to 1 deg. of cooling. Humans can live with this amount of unpredictability. Hopefully the hugely larger Super Volcano eruptions are rare.
3] My thought about far future humans making their own jet fuel, etc.; being 'carbon neutral' would be true. It neither adds nor removes carbon form the air or the oceans. Other programs would be required to do those 2 things.
4] I have avoided the thread about merging with fungi. It sounds disgusting. OTOH, it doesn't seem to relate to how we can get some system to continue to fly jet-like airplanes in a carbon neutral way. My idea does relate to this.
5] You wrote, "I don't think the media is behind our cognitive dissonance. It's an existential dilemma that affects human civilization. The idea that humans actually live in a biosphere is a hard thing to swallow for a consumption-driven socioeconomic system. Everything we do is static, fragmented, and compartmentalized. Climate science is dynamic and holistic."
. . . I disagree. If the media had all taken the opposite side, there is zero doubt in my mind that now 95% of Americans would believe the science and therefore believe in AGW. I include Fox(faux)news in *all* the media. In this case even the Repud Party would be unable to keep 6% of the minds closed. Or so it seems to me.
6] Yes, changes in ocean currents are a possible huge problem, especially for Europe. I doubt there is much we can do to stop the changes, except stop AGW in total.
#14970345
Another very interesting and informative video I found. 53 min. long.



Kevin Trenberth, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), gave the 2018 Bownocker Lecture at Ohio State on September 27, 2018, the event is titled, "Changes in extremes with climate change." Host: Lonnie Thompson https://geography.osu.edu/events/dr.-...

This year's Bownocker Medal will be awarded to Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Trenberth is an expert in global warming and its influence on precipitation, drought, sea level rise and hurricanes. He is also interested in El Niño/La Niña and other patterns related to weather and climate variability. He has been involved for many years in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, serving as a convening lead author and lead author for the IPCC reports and sharing in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. His many honors include the 2017 Roger Revelle Medal from the American Geophysical Union, the Climate Communication Prize from the American Geophysical Union in 2013, and the Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water (PSIPW) in 2012. https://artsandsciences.osu.edu/news-...

Actually, I think SO proposes judging them based […]

Do American presidents create video games, so that[…]

Leftists typically like to say the rule of law is […]

Do old men create God and magic, so that any type […]