Marine life reduced by 50% since 1970

[voidisyinyang]

Those without property have no rights that the market liberal is bound to respect. Market liberals give corporate libertarianism its cast of moral legitimacy.

[thelerner]

Hmnn,  we have an answer to what happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force?

[voidisyinyang]

the meme that global denial is an equal and opposite force to global warming science is a symptom of how supposedly well-educated people are thoroughly mind-controlled by corporate propaganda.

Obama says in new interview he wish he acted earlier on climate change.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-takes-on-climate-change-the-rolling-stone-interview-20150923

This documentary details the science on just how bad things are.

When I worked for Greenpeace in 1996 the office manager said his biggest concern was global warming climate change. At that time global warming was not discussed by anyone except the scientists. It's not just carbon dioxide but the methane now being released is much worse. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-methane-monster-roars/5426116

Paul Beckwith, a climatology and meteorology professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada, is an engineer and physicist who researches abrupt climate change in both the present day and in the paleoclimatology records of the deep past.

 

“It is my view that our climate system is in early stages of abrupt climate change that, unchecked, will lead to a temperature rise of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius within a decade or two,” Beckwith told me. “Obviously, such a large change in the climate system will have unprecedented effects on the health and well-being of every plant and animal on our planet.”
“As the methane concentrations increase in the Arctic from the large warming rates there in both the atmosphere and ocean, the jet streams will be greatly disrupted even more than now,” Beckwith said. “Physics dictates that this will continue to increase the frequency, severity and duration of extreme weather events like torrential rains leading to widespread flooding in some regions and droughts in other regions. Needless to say, this causes enormous economic losses and poses a severe and grave threat to our global food supply. Thus, the Arctic can be considered the Achilles heel in our climate system.”
US Navy researchers have predicted periods of an ice-free Arctic ocean in the summer by 2016.
British scientist John Nissen, chairman of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group,suggests that if the summer sea ice loss passes “the point of no return” and “catastrophic Arctic methane feedbacks” kick in, we’ll be in an “instant planetary emergency.”

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/24/inside_exxons_great_climate_cover_up

Just as with cigarettes - the corporate elite instigated a huge mind-control operation that has parasitized the masses into self-death action.
 

 

A new report by InsideClimate News reveals how oil giant ExxonMobil’s own research confirmed the role of fossil fuels in global warming decades ago. By 1977, Exxon’s own senior experts had begun to warn the burning of fossil fuels could pose a threat to humanity.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2015 by Innersoundqigong

[thelerner]

I concur-

people who don't agree with me

are brainwashed. 

That's the only possible explanation. 

 

 

Yeah,

me and you are the only ones's

who've overcome the mind-washing

and frankly I'm not so sure about you. 

 

Its not that you're wrong, its that you only take your data only from one side, which is the extreme.  Climate change is a serious threat.  I'm sure we'll be continuing to have this conversation in 15 years in 2030.  No extinction, but there will be changes. 

Edited September 27, 2015 by thelerner

[ralis]

I concur-

people who don't agree with me

are brainwashed. 

That's the only possible explanation. 

 

 

Yeah,

me and you are the only ones's

who've overcome the mind-washing

and frankly I'm not so sure about you. 

 

Its not that you're wrong, its that you only take your data only from one side, which is the extreme.  Climate change is a serious threat.  I'm sure we'll be continuing to have this conversation in 15 years in 2030.  No extinction, but there will be changes. 

 

According to what research I have read, we are already in the 6th mass extinction. The extinction of keystone species will rapidly collapse ecosystems. Pollinators being threatened with mass die off with neonicotinoids can rapidly collapse food supplies and thus starvation en masse.

[thelerner]

Perhaps, but trends reverse themselves, and given time and space so do insects.  When things get dire, people will stop certain behaviors.   Humankind can live without certain insecticides and herbicides, we can't live without crops.   Things reach a bad enough level we'll stop using them.  Insects are made to be eaten, by other things.   They may bounce back faster rather then go under.

 

The city of Chicago and many suburbs have stopped using herbicides, I expect other urban areas to follow; why spend big bucks killing dandelion?  All the major parks, and that's many square miles, are having large areas go native prairie.  More and more gardeners are growing plants specifically for butterflies and bees.  Butterflies have seen a bounce this year after a long decline.  Ultimately lack of territory will be the greatest threat.

 

Much of the decline species are sadly creatures we don't really notice.

 

The past decade there has been an huge decline in bees, hive collapse syndrome.  Logically food prices should be through the roof.  We shouldn't see wild flowers, fruit trees shouldn't be fruiting, but they're doing okay.  That's not to paint a rosy picture, just to say, the logical connection between half bees gone and half the crop reduction doesn't work.

 

The world is complex.  There are problems that have to be solved, trends that have to be reversed, but if you look at simplistic models or follow only apocalyptic news, you won't understand the full picture.

Edited September 27, 2015 by thelerner

[voidisyinyang]

Perhaps, but trends reverse themselves,

 

The Dangerous Myth That Climate Change Is Reversible

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/17/1731591/the-dangerous-myth-that-climate-change-is-reversible/

As a NOAA-led paper explained 4 years ago, climate change is “largely irreversible for 1000 years.”

 

This notion that we can reverse climate change by cutting emissions is one of the most commonly held myths — and one of the most dangerous, as explained in this 2007 MIT study, “Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter.”

 

The fact is that, as RealClimate has explained, we would need “an immediate cut of around 60 to 70% globally and continued further cuts over time” merely to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 — and that would still leave us with a radiative imbalance that would lead to “an additional 0.3 to 0.8ºC warming over the 21st Century.” And that assumes no major carbon cycle feedbacks kick in, which seems highly unlikely.

 

and

 

 

Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate’s response to anthropogenic forcing.

 

it's actually about a 40 year delay so the current ecological crisis is actually from emissions in the 1970s.

 

So yes it will get much worse even if we cut all emissions right now, which, obviously is not happening.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Innersoundqigong

[thelerner]

We won't cut all emissions.  Not going to happen.  We'll probably see some reductions, probably a reduction in the worst trends.  Likely see a 1 or 3 degree increase in the next century and increased weather 'weirding'.  Making many things worse and some things better. 

 

Human extinction in 15 years is not in the cards, unless we see a meteor or volcanic catastrophic.  My city, Chicago should be under 100's of feet of manure if trends at the turn of century had continued.  All logical numbers pointed to it  We changed the course of a river, we stopped using horses which were incredibly polluting.   Likewise, London should have been choked by coal dust, smog and mega pollution. 

 

Reading the article you link to shows many thoughtful comments in the letter section.  Not from deniers, but rather people/scientists whose model and understanding differ.  Bringing up different variables that will change outcomes.  They're not brainwashed, they're people who've studied the issue in-depth.   There voice and expertise need to be listened to.  Not shouted down with CAPITALS.  

 

Also

My ancestors survived the 10,000 years of ice age.  Where the temperature was a balmy zero and chance of 300 foot ice glaciers were 100%.  That was without modern tech and resources.  We'd do much better now.

Edited September 27, 2015 by thelerner

[voidisyinyang]

Not from deniers, but rather people/scientists whose model and understanding differ.

 

The models are already BEHIND the empirical reality of melting rates.

 

The new study also raises important questions about the accuracy of complex computer models of the climate system, since it found that the latest generation of climate models don’t reproduce the increase in the Greenland melt rate that has occurred since 2000, and do not project that similar atmospheric circulation patterns will occur with regularity in the coming years to decades.

That could mean that the models are missing some key piece of information or process taking place in the Arctic climate system, or it may indicate that the past several years, during which time the Greenland ice sheet has sped up its shedding of ice mass raising global sea levels, are an anomaly.

“The next 5-10 years will reveal whether or not 2012 was a one-off, rare event resulting from the natural variability of the NAO or part of an emerging pattern of new extreme high melt years,” the study said.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-blames-increasingly-familiar-weather-pattern-for-record-greenland-mel

 

 

 

A comprehensive, 21-year analysis of the fastest-melting region of Antarctica has found that the melt rate of glaciers there has tripled during the last decade....The scientists noted that glacier and ice sheet behavior worldwide is by far the greatest uncertainty in predicting future sea level....we maintain this network to continue monitoring the changes," Velicogna said, "because the changes are proceeding very fast."

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2197/

 

 

Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. ...Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range. We conclude that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous.

 

So a very possible several meter rise in sea level in 50 years.

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html

 

Now - several meters is total disaster for billions of people.

 

In 50 years.

 

But a sea level rise half that amount in 25 years is still total disaster.

 

Keep in mind that up till now the empirical data continues to outpace the modelling.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Innersoundqigong

[voidisyinyang]

Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning

 

 

glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

 

yep so I read that science study correctly.

 

So again a foot rise in sea level means hundreds of feet of flooding inland.

 

 

New York City—and every other coastal city on the planet—may only have a few more decades of habitability left

 

Are these scientists wackos?

 

 

James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields

[gendao]

On 9/23/2015 at 6:20 AM, voidisyinyang said:

Eminent domain, Terra Nullius, http://nonduality.com/whatis8.htm  - colonialism in general - even the idea of "containing" Nature into rectilinear grid property lines is contrary to the infinite truth of Nature.

 

So when the Germans arrived at Minnesota or at Namibia - they set up slave concentration camps for the indigenous land inhabitants - and set up a bounty to kill off the Indians or Natives in Africa.

 

That's just typical genocidal colonialism based on patriarchal mentality - it goes back to about 10,000 BCE with the origin of domesticated wheat monocultural farming.

 

Archaeologists call this the "symbolic revolution" when art became anthropocentric and males erroneously believed they could contain and control Nature.

 

So God comes from the Indo-European word Gott which means Bull just as Brahman means Bull - and so the idea is that at first the bull was wild and could not be domesticated and so was worshipped as the goal was to domesticate the bull for plow farming.

 

So then you have private corporate charters for land ownership - but the concept of legal personhood for corporations comes from the royal king issuing charters.

 

It's Freemasonic ideology - this Platonic belief that Nature can be perfected into a sacred geometric realm based on logarithmic distribution of wealth - it's a scam for the masses made poor through Platonic eugenics.

 

The problem goes way back and private property is part of the problem.

 

Sure we can "buy" land but it was stolen first - just as homesteading is free land offered by the government to "private" citizens for colonialism - but how was the land achieved? Stolen through genocidal colonialism.

 

But if you want to "improve" the land then you have to follow the logarithmic distribution of wealth scam - along with all the zoning codes for Freemasonic ideology, etc.

 

Meanwhile the REAL world based on ecology could care less about private property - water flows across boundaries, so does air, so do animals, even land - the sahara desert fertilizes the Amazon rainforest.

 

private property is a cover-up of rape land theft.

 

For example you say that adding on complex math to the supply demand model is wrong. I agree. The chaos math is based on the computers being in control - and the math is still logistic equations.

 

It's the rotten root that is wrong - logarithmic math itself.

 

Taoism is based on complementary opposites - so the females control the land because of the yin qi connection. Females are yang internally and the menstrual cycle is synchronized with the lunar cycle which governs the growth and fertility of life on Earth.

 

All humans are born as females with clitoris and so in Nature parthenogenesis is the norm - males are just an extra addition for some genetic novelty but not necessary at all. Nature is inherently female as is the Emptiness.

 

private property is inherently rape of the infinity - you can not "contain" the infinite.

 

Europe as a modern idea is based on this patriarchal feudalism that led to the enclosure acts and the poor masses fleeing eventually to the U.S. - to only perpetuate the same genocidal problem here.

 

This spread around the world as plow-based farming raping the land.

YES, YES, YES!!!  It all stems from the self-entitling idea of OWNING NATURE.  From domesticating livestock animals to owning pets and slaves to land "ownership" to patentable GMOs now...it's all the same dish in a thousand different flavors!

 

Like, JUST AS YOU SAID - sure, we can "buy" land but it was stolen first.  Which then invalidates any future "legal" purchases.  Because it can't be legal if it was hot to begin with...

 

I think a lot of denialists may realize this DEEP DOWN, but the GREEN PILL is just TOO MUCH for them to want to SWALLOW!!!  So, they simply "can't accept it," regardless.

Edited July 28, 2017 by gendao

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, gendao said:

YES, YES, YES!!!  It all stems from the self-entitling idea of OWNING NATURE.  From domesticating livestock animals to owning pets and slaves to land "ownership" to patentable GMOs now...it's all the same dish in a thousand flavors!

 

Like, JUST AS YOU SAID - sure, we can "buy" land but it was stolen first.  Which then invalidates any future "legal" purchases.  Because it can't be legal if it was hot to begin with...

 

I think a lot of denialists may realize this DEEP DOWN, but the GREEN PILL is just TOO MUCH for them to want to SWALLOW!!!  So, they simply "can't accept it," regardless.

 

This warbler was hanging out with a flock of chickadees that were all following me around, giving me the threat call. What was I doing on their land? haha.