Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Steve · **#61** by **Steve** » Jul 06, 2012 1:32 am

I tell ya - the only way mankind has much future is if a large percentage drop dead. We will never talk our way to a plan of action before we go off the cliff.

As regards technology I think we should be planning to make its manufacture distributed - we should not have it all designed in Silicon Valley and built at FoxConn. We need smaller plants all over the world and we ought to slow it down - build it to last rather than race to be first. That way a smaller population may have the chance to maintain some standard of living and keep advancing into the future. I do think we need to keep after space exploration - we are only a few hundred years into delving into science and have barely scratched the surface of its capabilities.

As our ability to grow food becomes compromised by crop failures due to bad weather (heat, drought, storms can all wipe out a crop - see Bangladesh last year with the flooding) people will get starved into smaller areas where food growing can continue. Canada will be a major food growing nation, of the future, I expect.

We still don't know how bad it will be, but it is quite possible in 300 years the oceans will be 40 feet higher than now. That would be if some large land based ice sheets collapse from Greenland and Antarctica. It could go that fast...

Meanwhile the stormy weather will not make life pleasant or predictable, which on its own can cause mayhem. See the east coast USA right now...

Macdoc · **#62** by **Macdoc** » Jul 06, 2012 1:42 am

I'm disappointed that no one understood what I was saying with this statement. I guess that's my fault. I was trying to say technology is a what is going to solve our problems.

Yes technology will help but not in the manner in which you are approaching it.

Fusion is not real yet and may never be and saying nothing is being done is flat out wrong..

There is nothing wrong with fission and fission is the one area humans have and are being stupid about - we nurse along cold war technology instead of moving on.

Still it would take building 1 GW fusion plant a day to just meet the growth in demand over the next twenty years.

China is going about it the only way it can to reduce carbon footprints in the longer term while still growing it's wealth as the first world has. They have to - they are choking to death on brown cloud emissions and will and are getting hit hard by climate change. They at least understand and acknowledge the problem unlike the deniers who are nothing more than toadies for the fossil fuel industry.

It's up to the nuclear powers, who are the biggest emitters to take the responsibility to reduce carbon emissions has Sweden and others ( France ) have done.

The first world wealth was built on fossil energy and it's only correct that they bear the greater burden of cost on cleanup/coping including offering technological help to emerging economies.

Our train driver saying well we're Aus ) just a small bit is bullshit.....Australia was and is getting rich on fossil and can use part of that to reduce it's own high carbon footprint even if it does sell coal to China. China is doing far more than Oz given it's situation.
At least Gillard understands the need for a carbon tax and was gutsy enough to pass it.

Coal is the major target in the short term where gas or nuclear is an option - the problem is the retards on the right wing who even deny there is a problem and hand out billions in subsidies to the fossil industry to kill 10s of thousands of people a year and cook the planet.
Criminal hardly covers it. :nono:

Ihavenofingerprints · **#63** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Jul 06, 2012 2:12 am

johnbrandt wrote:Record cold temperatures here...it all evens out...if you truly look at global temperatures and not just a few localised areas, as us heathen heretic denidiot people are repeatedly told...

You don't know how wrong you are do you? "denidiot" is actually a perfect description of this post. That is, denial of simple facts that can be found with 5 minutes on google.

While there are record cold temps wherever you live, there are double the amount of record "hot" temps around the world. Why didn't you bother even checking this before posting such an ignorant statement?

Is it easy enough to understand?

Given you don't like doing research, why not just ask some of us that do what the story is instead of posting embarrassingly ignorant rants followed by playing the victim card (in the likely event that you are wrong) ?

If this doesn't explain, I can post some simple explanations in text or video form. There is no need to keep pretending this discussion is about some kind of political disagreement, it's not. It's about science.

How come when CERN announced they'd found the Higgs Boson the other day people like you just swallowed the news without question? Probably because even if you tried to criticize their results you couldn't, because you aren't a particle physicist. Furthermore, you trust that such a large number of professionals wouldn't tie themselves to a hoax? Yet suddenly when atmospheric physics is involved you become a leading expert? Why is this? Is being massively inconsistent a hobby of yours or something?

Macdoc · **#64** by **Macdoc** » Jul 06, 2012 2:59 am

Good post
This is another article - US centric that shows the incredible imbalance.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/rec ... oser-look/

What many do not realize is that it is warmer nights are the smoking gun for AGW as that is exactly when trapping occurs - when the heat should be radiated back out to space - it is trapped now.
Even without the record highs which are in the 10s of thousands worldwide - the record warm nights show the global average climbing.

Last summer in the US was simply unprecedented for the severe drought levels and this year is starting out even earlier

good article here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_201 ... _heat_wave

This is what happens with extremes...

On June 29-30, 2012, The heat and humidity from the heat wave caused a small thunderstorm in Iowa to develop into a violent and unprecedented derecho, which tracked across the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States while causing 80 MPH or higher winds, doing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, and downing trees and power lines, leaving 4 million people in the eastern U. S. without power.[11]

and that's without power in 35+ temps.

There are people going on a week later with no power......and people are concerned about what moving to low carbon will cost.......they have NO IDEA what not moving that way will cost .....and is right now.....this is the thinnest edge of the change.

FACT-MAN-2 · **#65** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Jul 06, 2012 3:20 am

Dudely wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote: toasty time could be sufficiently severe as to become an extinction event for Homo Sapiens.

Extinction?

Um, Homo Sapiens are not some frail flower that's specifically adapted to a single environment.

No, but we are adapted to a single climate regime, known as the Holocene, the climate epoch in which our species became modern Man as we know him.

The Holocene climate epoch is now giving way to the Anthropocene climate epoch and whether we can survive what the Anthropocene has in store for us is very much an open question, owing to high temps if nothing else, but including ocean acidification, melting of the cryosphere, desiccation of the planet, and badly degraded biodiversity.

Dudely wrote:
We've survived an ice age and a super-eruption so far, and that was back when our total accumulated culture and technology had produced nothing more than shell necklaces, pointy rocks, and sharp sticks. While I've no doubt that something like a 5c rise would cause a collapse of society as we know it (along with perhaps 30-98% of the population, depending on our response) there is no fucking way that every witty engineer and every rich motherfucker with an inexhaustible supply of canned food stored miles underground would be killed from a simple change in climate.

"Inexhaustible supply" is not a feasible proposition. And when that supply is consumed, what then?

Dudely wrote:
While I worry for my children I don't worry for my species. Unfortunately homo sapiens are something that the Earth will have quite a time trying to get rid of completely .

So you say, but those climate researchers at the University of New South Wales who reported that their analysis shows that the world may become uninhabitable for humans within 300 years obviously don't agree. Now, who's word are we gonna take on this?

What happens when Earth's mean annual surface temperature rises 8 or 10 degrees C above the preindustrial norm? Have you studied that and what it would mean for human life? I didn't think so. I haven't studied it either but intuitively it smells like extinction to me.

And until quite recently my own thinking ran along lines that were similar to your own on this; however, data published since about 2009 has given me great pause. I think I'm going to wait until we see the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report next year before I cast my view in concrete, and please note that my comment included the phrase "could be sufficiently severe," which is pretty close to "may be sufficiently severe ..."

We're all playing the probability game in this, and that includes you.

Cheers! :thumbup:

FACT-MAN-2 · **#66** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Jul 06, 2012 3:25 am

Macdoc wrote:
Those are stark projections, they mean that a) we might see something far greater than the 3.6 degrees C that United Nations climate negotiators have settled on as a goal and b) that toasty time could be sufficiently severe as to become an extinction event for Homo Sapiens.

You are mixing F and C in your comments. The article is based in F and the UN is looking to keep it to 2 C ( which won't happen ) which is about 3.6 F.
What is fun is watching the deniers squirm as extreme weather especially in the US looks very enduring.

Oops! Yes, sorry about that, going too fast here. :doh:

FACT-MAN-2 · **#67** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Jul 06, 2012 4:07 am

Steve wrote:I tell ya - the only way mankind has much future is if a large percentage drop dead.

True but not a good probability.

Steve wrote:
We will never talk our way to a plan of action before we go off the cliff.

Well, yes. But it depends on what you mean by "go off the cliff," of course.

The reality is that things will become progressively worse until we reach a point where it becomes painfully obvious to all concerned that the moment at which action is necessary has arrived and the "war footing" proposition that UN SECGEN Ban Ki Moon has set forth will become the new reality, quite apart from whether we've "gone off the cliff" or remain poised on its perilous edge. That moment is coming, there can't be any doubt or mistake about it, and it will require a "war footing" kind of effort to get done what needs to be done when it does come, that is, reduce emissions in very radical degrees and do so in one hell of a hurry.

No market economy can accomplish this.

I think that moment will arrive in the decade of the 2020's.

Steve wrote:
As regards technology I think we should be planning to make its manufacture distributed - we should not have it all designed in Silicon Valley and built at FoxConn. We need smaller plants all over the world and we ought to slow it down - build it to last rather than race to be first. That way a smaller population may have the chance to maintain some standard of living and keep advancing into the future. I do think we need to keep after space exploration - we are only a few hundred years into delving into science and have barely scratched the surface of its capabilities.

Indeed, that is true. But you used a word that's absolutely anathema to our current crop of leaders and movers and shakers ... planning ... which is not something Western governments do or commonly do very well even when they do it.

Planning is the very antithesis of Capitalist enterprise so when you say "we should be planning" you're saying something that's just not going to happen, at least until after the revolution, so to speak. :naughty2:

The Chinese do a fair bit of planning, but they're not running a dog-eat-dog Capitalist economy either.

The West won't plan anything until the shit really hits the fan and governments are forced by circumstance to adopt a war footing. And mind you, things will have to get pretty bad before they do that.

Steve wrote:
As our ability to grow food becomes compromised by crop failures due to bad weather (heat, drought, storms can all wipe out a crop - see Bangladesh last year with the flooding) people will get starved into smaller areas where food growing can continue. Canada will be a major food growing nation, of the future, I expect.

I'm much less confident of this than you appear to be and I'm not convinced that Canada can or should be the world's breadbasket anyway, even if it could become that. Canada will not be immune from bad weather, heat, drought, storms, and changes in atmospheric circulations that alter traditional patterns of precipitation. Soils in Canada become thin and marginal as you move north and soon become incapable of growing field crops.

Steve wrote:
We still don't know how bad it will be, but it is quite possible in 300 years the oceans will be 40 feet higher than now. That would be if some large land based ice sheets collapse from Greenland and Antarctica. It could go that fast...

Indeed it could and while we don't know precisely how bad or when the shit's really going to hit the fan, we do have some reasonably good ideas. The IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, due next year and in early 2014, will shed a lot of light on this.

Steve wrote:
Meanwhile the stormy weather will not make life pleasant or predictable, which on its own can cause mayhem. See the east coast USA right now...

I read an article today written by an evacuee from the wildfire near Fort Collins, Colorado and he was relating how evacuees where he was were talking about how they were "victims of climate change," probably a first in America, at least outside of Alaska. They know the forests near to and adjacent to their communities burned because of all the beetle killed pine, and they know that's a result of global warming.

This current heat wave in the US has now taken 26 lives and caused $100's of millions in property damage, $100 million in Colorado alone. So yes, we can say that life will probably be much less pleasant for many and far less predictable, not something Americans are accustomed to.

What do we think will happen if next summer turns out to be as bad, or worse?

Look out!

Macdoc · **#68** by **Macdoc** » Jul 06, 2012 4:20 am

Steve wrote:

As our ability to grow food becomes compromised by crop failures due to bad weather (heat, drought, storms can all wipe out a crop - see Bangladesh last year with the flooding) people will get starved into smaller areas where food growing can continue. Canada will be a major food growing nation, of the future, I expect.

We ARE a major food growing nation.
That big green blob is our section of world wheat

The most extra we will get is 11 million hectares already listed as arable. That is out of 52 million arable out of 1 BILLION total hectares.
You don't grown things on muskeg and rock.
The same goes for Siberia tho they have a couple of big river valleys.

You see the green blobs in the US - all gone in 2 decades - Canada and Alaska will be the only areas suitable.

The really scary one is in the North of India - that also will become unsuitable and with the Himalaya's to the north - it will write off a major food supply.

Dudely · **#69** by **Dudely** » Jul 06, 2012 2:15 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Dudely wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote: toasty time could be sufficiently severe as to become an extinction event for Homo Sapiens.

Extinction?

Um, Homo Sapiens are not some frail flower that's specifically adapted to a single environment.

No, but we are adapted to a single climate regime, known as the Holocene, the climate epoch in which our species became modern Man as we know him.

Well I DO live in Canada. Hardly the climate my ancestors evolved in. I run two miles four times per weekday in both sweltering heat and frigid cold. The human body can adapt a lot when we use our brains to improve ourselves.

But you still make a good point here. There is no guarantee of anything given how much uncertainty we still have about climate change.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
What happens when Earth's mean annual surface temperature rises 8 or 10 degrees C above the preindustrial norm?

That depends largely on how quickly it happens. I don't think anyone is projecting a 10c rise anytime soon.

However, even a 1c rise (which is virtually guaranteed even if we shut down all of our industries today) will probably convert Nebraska into a desert (which it was just 6000 years ago), among other lovely things. So perhaps it won't matter. . .

Can the US and the rest of the world adapt to things like severe droughts? Of course. Will we? . . . well. . . I sure hope so!

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
And until quite recently my own thinking ran along lines that were similar to your own on this; however, data published since about 2009 has given me great pause. I think I'm going to wait until we see the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report next year before I cast my view in concrete, and please note that my comment included the phrase "could be sufficiently severe," which is pretty close to "may be sufficiently severe ..."

We're all playing the probability game in this, and that includes you.

Cheers!

Yes, I have great pause as well. I have faith in the ability of man to persevere with intelligence and technology, but I know that is no guarantee- not by a long shot.

I am interested to see what will happen when we get to the point where engineers (like me) and researchers are seeing their quality of life degraded severely. I dare say we'll be just a tad quicker at trying to fix the problems then. Of course there is no telling if it will be too little too late at that point. There is also no telling if we'll simply revert to base instinct. This is the one thing that worries me; the pictures of young men stealing water from elderly people in New Orleans were chilling.

Dudely · **#70** by **Dudely** » Jul 06, 2012 2:27 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Steve wrote:
We still don't know how bad it will be, but it is quite possible in 300 years the oceans will be 40 feet higher than now. That would be if some large land based ice sheets collapse from Greenland and Antarctica. It could go that fast...

Indeed it could and while we don't know precisely how bad or when the shit's really going to hit the fan, we do have some reasonably good ideas. The IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, due next year and in early 2014, will shed a lot of light on this.

I hate to sound like a pedantic ass, but I don't think 40 feet is reasonable. The latest IPCC projection for sea level rise was about 3 feet in 90 years.

One of the things about sea level rise is it actually takes an enormous amount of time and energy to melt all that ice. Even if we moved the Greenland ice sheet to the Sahara it would still take thousands of years for it to melt. I know this sounds crazy but it's true! You can do the math yourself if you like.

Is melting sea ice a problem? You bet your ass. Is it going to flood coastal cities and cause an exodus? No. The melt will be too slow to really notice except on a generational time scale, at least until such time as our climate heads off that cliff it's racing towards.

FACT-MAN-2 · **#71** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Jul 06, 2012 4:47 pm

Dudely wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Steve wrote:
We still don't know how bad it will be, but it is quite possible in 300 years the oceans will be 40 feet higher than now. That would be if some large land based ice sheets collapse from Greenland and Antarctica. It could go that fast...

Indeed it could and while we don't know precisely how bad or when the shit's really going to hit the fan, we do have some reasonably good ideas. The IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, due next year and in early 2014, will shed a lot of light on this.

I hate to sound like a pedantic ass, but I don't think 40 feet is reasonable. The latest IPCC projection for sea level rise was about 3 feet in 90 years.

One of the things about sea level rise is it actually takes an enormous amount of time and energy to melt all that ice. Even if we moved the Greenland ice sheet to the Sahara it would still take thousands of years for it to melt. I know this sounds crazy but it's true! You can do the math yourself if you like.

You're right about what the IPCC reported in AR4 but don't dismiss the fact that they came under a lot of fire for that prediction and the concensus now seems to be circling between 10 and 20 feet for the year 2100, although few have settled on any sort of more precise estimate. Things are changing too fast in the arena of ice melt science, a field in which data has always been hard to come by and expensive to get into hand. But most more recent studies do seem to indicate that melting is accelerating, especially in Greenland.

Dudely wrote:
Is melting sea ice a problem? You bet your ass. Is it going to flood coastal cities and cause an exodus? No. The melt will be too slow to really notice except on a generational time scale, at least until such time as our climate heads off that cliff it's racing towards.

Sea level is one aspect of the warming problem that's exceedingly hard to get a handle on. We do know that the extent of sea ice in the Arctic is presently at an all time low for this time of year, when lows occur. We do know that the influx of warmer ocean waters beneath the massive ice floes in Antarctica are eroding those shelves from below. We know a lot, a good deal more today than ever, but still not enough to see the future very clearly. There's an awfully lot of variables in play. NOAA did recently advise California to be prepared for a one foot rise along its coast in the next 50 years.

Again, I think when we see the IPCC's AR5 later next year some at least of the uncertainty will be resolved and we'll be afforded a better view of what's to come. In the meantime, you're right about the idea that we'll not being seeing any catastrophic sea level rise in any kind of short time frame, albeit six or eight feet by 2100 would of course be catastrophic in many situations, and that does now appear to be within the realm of possibility. We're just not going to know for a few years yet.

Meanwhile, Canadian weather forecasters are telling us in Western Canada to be prepared for some exceedingly high temps beginning within several days, they're talking about 40's, and the central part of the country continues to swelter as temps hover around 40 in TO and across the prairies. It's not letting up in the American Midwest and East, either, and the death toll keeps rising.

Steve · **#72** by **Steve** » Jul 06, 2012 5:29 pm

Dudely wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Steve wrote:
We still don't know how bad it will be, but it is quite possible in 300 years the oceans will be 40 feet higher than now. That would be if some large land based ice sheets collapse from Greenland and Antarctica. It could go that fast...

Indeed it could and while we don't know precisely how bad or when the shit's really going to hit the fan, we do have some reasonably good ideas. The IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, due next year and in early 2014, will shed a lot of light on this.

I hate to sound like a pedantic ass, but I don't think 40 feet is reasonable. The latest IPCC projection for sea level rise was about 3 feet in 90 years.

One of the things about sea level rise is it actually takes an enormous amount of time and energy to melt all that ice. Even if we moved the Greenland ice sheet to the Sahara it would still take thousands of years for it to melt. I know this sounds crazy but it's true! You can do the math yourself if you like.

Is melting sea ice a problem? You bet your ass. Is it going to flood coastal cities and cause an exodus? No. The melt will be too slow to really notice except on a generational time scale, at least until such time as our climate heads off that cliff it's racing towards.

I am not a scientist - I just read blogs by them. This came from a Daily Kos diary. I suspect if a large chunk of land ice from Greenland and/or Antarctic slid into the ocean it would not have to melt to raise the water level. Ref: Archimedes.

VazScep · **#73** by **VazScep** » Jul 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Dudely wrote:s melting sea ice a problem? You bet your ass. Is it going to flood coastal cities and cause an exodus? No. The melt will be too slow to really notice except on a generational time scale, at least until such time as our climate heads off that cliff it's racing towards.

When floating ice melts, it doesn't cause the surrounding water to rise.

I thought most of the significant sea level rise in the next thousand years was supposed to be due to thermal expansion.

FACT-MAN-2 · **#74** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Jul 06, 2012 8:50 pm

VazScep wrote:
Dudely wrote:s melting sea ice a problem? You bet your ass. Is it going to flood coastal cities and cause an exodus? No. The melt will be too slow to really notice except on a generational time scale, at least until such time as our climate heads off that cliff it's racing towards.
When floating ice melts, it doesn't cause the surrounding water to rise.

I thought most of the significant sea level rise in the next thousand years was supposed to be due to thermal expansion.

Well, part of it will indeed be caused by thermal expansion of the oceans. It's not floating ice that's going to push sea levels upward when it melts but rather ice that's land bound, and the great bulk of earth's ice is precisely that, probably a good deal north of 85 per cent.

Steve · **#75** by **Steve** » Jul 06, 2012 9:23 pm

How Hot Has It Been? (and why you should be alarmed)

Look at this first image from June of this year:

That map represents 2,284 maximum temperature records that were broken and another 998 were tied in the United States from June 1st through June 30th (maximum being the highest recorded temperature for that day for each location). But wait, there's more. Here are the figures for just the first 5 days of July presented in graphical form:

For July -- i.e., July 1st through July 5th -- there has been 942 records broken and 273 that were tied. For 2012 to date, 23,613 maximum temperature records have been set. Over the same period in 2011, only 13,582 maximum temperature records were broken. That is an increase of 71% over last year, which was more than hot enough as I recall. What's even more worrying is that, while all these temperature maximums are being set, the earth 94.5 million miles away from the sun, the farthest distance it will be this year, and we are breaking record high temperatures willy-nilly, like a store holding a going out of business sale.

FACT-MAN-2 · **#76** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Jul 06, 2012 11:15 pm

Steve wrote:How Hot Has It Been? (and why you should be alarmed)

Look at this first image from June of this year:

That map represents 2,284 maximum temperature records that were broken and another 998 were tied in the United States from June 1st through June 30th (maximum being the highest recorded temperature for that day for each location). But wait, there's more. Here are the figures for just the first 5 days of July presented in graphical form:

For July -- i.e., July 1st through July 5th -- there has been 942 records broken and 273 that were tied. For 2012 to date, 23,613 maximum temperature records have been set. Over the same period in 2011, only 13,582 maximum temperature records were broken. That is an increase of 71% over last year, which was more than hot enough as I recall. What's even more worrying is that, while all these temperature maximums are being set, the earth 94.5 million miles away from the sun, the farthest distance it will be this year, and we are breaking record high temperatures willy-nilly, like a store holding a going out of business sale.

Good stuff! Thanks, Steve.

From the same article:

Scientists say climate change will cause heavier rains, longer periods of drought, and higher rates of insect infestation in the tropical areas where coffee is grown -- factors that could have a devastating effect on future coffee production.

"Those of us who enjoy our morning cup of coffee, we may not always realize that future climate change due to extreme temperatures, increased precipitation, really could in some ways put that at risk," Sanford added.

Now that's it! I can't live without my morning java! I'll die I tell ya, die!

I'm putting my foot down! We'll have no more of this global warming crap!

Steve · **#77** by **Steve** » Jul 07, 2012 2:33 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Now that's it! I can't live without my morning java! I'll die I tell ya, die!

I'm putting my foot down! We'll have no more of this global warming crap!

OK, OK, cool down, man...

Steve · **#78** by **Steve** » Jul 07, 2012 3:30 am

Is Reality reaching the Tipping Point?

How many degrees, does a "changing pattern," take?

NOAA: So far, 2012 is the warmest year on record in US

The Associated Press -- June 08, 2012

[...]
March, April and May in the Lower 48 states beat the oldest spring temperature record by a full 2 degrees. The three months averaged 57.1 degrees, more than 5 degrees above average. [...]
The 12-month period starting last June is also the hottest on record.

Meteorologists blamed a persistent weather pattern.

How many years, does a "changing pattern," make?

NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

NASA.gov -- 01.19.12

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
[...]

Q. How many 'broken records' does it take? ... Before people’s perceptions shift enough to change our ongoing energy course?

A. Far too many, the reality may yet turn out to be. We all shall see, power-grids willing.

FACT-MAN-2 · **#79** by **FACT-MAN-2** » Jul 07, 2012 3:47 am

Steve wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Now that's it! I can't live without my morning java! I'll die I tell ya, die!

I'm putting my foot down! We'll have no more of this global warming crap!

OK, OK, cool down, man...

Well, I figure ya gotta throw a little humor into the mix if ya wanna keep yer sanity in the midst of an insane world! :clap:

There may be a silver lining in all these dark clouds that are shrouding our future because it will likely mean the end of the Capitalist monster that's been pillaging the planet and befouling its atmosphere and tearing up its landscapes for lo these past 100-odd years. We may finally learn that the planet cannot sustain a free-for-all of consumption and waste while emitting 30,000 G-tons of C02 every year, without suffering some rather severe and extensive consequences, as we are only beginning to witness.

I'm already figuring out how I'm gonna keep my fruit trees below 115F a bit later here when 40+C temps are slated to hit us for a sustained period. Sprinklers are the answer, one on each tree (and don't worry about water, there' s a river of it flows right through my back 40, the consumptive demand on which is exceedingly low. And whatever water goes on my land, soaks down and goes right back into that river).

And on top of that the coming squeaze may provide the window through which we can bring science to bear on the socioeconomic schemata and start living in sustainable ways through the use of a stable, steady-state, science based modern situation, and get all this scheming money madness behind us and into the history books, where it belongs.

That's a changeup that's simply got to come because if it doesn't, we will be toast.

It'd also put a big dent in religion and no doubt bring an end to its influence over our national affairs.

So if ya wanna hope, there's some food for the thought.

Meanwhile, don't forget to giggle, it's only castles burning.

Macdoc · **#80** by **Macdoc** » Jul 07, 2012 4:54 am

Well apparently we have one climate change winner....

http://www.thestar.com/business/article ... ter-anyone

Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Re: Fahrenheit 104 (40 degrees C)

Who is online