Reason and Faith in Copenhagen
This morning, I sobbed through Sunday services. Then I got back to work.
Sun Dec. 13, 2009 5:11 PM PST
Nearly two decades after writing a book that popularized the term "global warming," MoJo contributing writer Bill McKibben founded 350.org. He is chronicling his journey into organizing with a series of columns about the global climate summit in Copenhagen. You can find the others here. Check out MoJo's live stream of collaborative Copenhagen coverage here.
I've spent the last few years working more than fulltime to organize the first big global grassroots climate change campaign. That's meant shutting off my emotions most of the time—this crisis is so terrifying that when you let yourself feel too deeply it can be paralyzing. Hence, much gallows humor, irony, and sheer work.
This afternoon I sobbed for an hour, and I'm still choking a little. I got to Copenhagen's main Lutheran Cathedral just before the start of a special service designed to mark the conference underway for the next week. It was jammed, but I squeezed into a chair near the corner. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, gave the sermon; Desmond Tutu read the Psalm. Both were wonderful.
But my tears started before anyone said a word. As the service started, dozens choristers from around the world carried three things down the aisle and to the altar: pieces of dead coral bleached by hot ocean temperatures; stones uncovered by retreating glaciers; and small, shriveled ears of corn from drought-stricken parts of Africa. As I watched them go by, all I could think of was the people I've met in the last couple of years traveling the world: the people living in the valleys where those glaciers are disappearing, and the people downstream who have no backup plan for where their water is going to come from. The people who live on the islands surrounded by that coral, who depend on the reefs for the fish they eat, and to protect their homes from the waves. And the people, on every corner of the world, dealing with drought and flood, already unable to earn their daily bread in the places where their ancestors farmed for generations.
Those damned shriveled ears of corn. I've done everything I can think of, and millions of people around the world have joined us at 350.org in the most international campaign there ever was. But I just sat there thinking: It's not enough. We didn't do enough. I should have started earlier. People are dying already; people are sitting tonight in their small homes trying to figure out how they're going to make the maize meal they have stretch far enough to fill the tummies of the kids sitting there waiting for dinner. And that's with 390 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. The latest numbers from the computer jockeys at Climate Interactive—a collaboration of Sustainability Institute, Sloan School of Management at MIT, and Ventana Systems, is that if all the national plans now on the table were adopted the planet in 2100 would have an atmosphere with 770 parts per million CO2. What then for coral, for glaciers, for corn. I didn't do enough.
I cried all the harder a few minutes later when the great cathedral bell began slowly tolling 350 times. At the same moment, thousands of churches across Europe began ringing their bells the same 350 times. And in other parts of the world—from the bottom of New Zealand to the top of Greenland, Christendom sounded the alarm. And not just Christendom. In New York rabbis were blowing the shofar 350 times. We had pictures rolling in from the weekend's vigil, from places like Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, where girls in burkas were forming human 350s, and from Bahrain, and from Amman.
And these tears were now sweet as well as bitter—at the thought that all over the world (not metaphorically all over the world, but literally all over the world) people had proven themselves this year. Proven their ability to understand the science and the stakes. Proven their ability to come together on their own—in October, when we organized what CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history," there wasn't a movie star or rock idol in sight—just people rallying around a scientific data point. Now the world's religious leaders were adding their voice.
On one side: scientists. And archbishops, Nobelists, and most of all ordinary people in ordinary places. Reason and faith. On the other side, power—the kind of power that will be assembling in the Bella Center all week to hammer out some kind of agreement. The kind of power, exemplified by the American delegation, that so far has decided it's not worth making the kind of leap that the science demands. The kind of power that's willing to do what's politically pretty easy, but not what's necessary. The kind that would condemn the planet to 770 ppm rather than take the hard steps we need.
So no more tears. Not now, not while there's work to be done. Pass the Diet Coke, fire up the laptop, grab the cellphone. To work. We may not have done enough, but we're going to do all we can.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Cheap Emotionalism Works on Teenaged Girls, Not Grownups
Submitted by Donna Laframboise (not verified) on Mon Dec. 14, 2009 9:37 AM PST.
This post is embarrassing. Second paragraph, first line: "This afternoon I sobbed for an hour, and I’m still choking a little."
Third paragraph, first line: "But my tears started before anyone said a word."
Fifth paragraph, first line: "I cried all the harder a few minutes later when the great cathedral bell began slowly tolling..."
Sixth paragraph, first line: "And these tears were now sweet as well as bitter..."
The eighth (and final) paragraph mentions tears in its first line too.
Bill, honey, it's time to pull yourself together. Take a vacation - maybe even some medication. And please stop imagining that your tears are so special that they have the power to change the mind of anyone with a working brain.
Apologize that I accidentally
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 1:06 PM PST.
Apologize that I accidentally it the recommended button, but it is totally my opposite response.
I want to say if you are a grown up with a psychological age being a teenager girl,
Not supprised you have that feeling.
but if you are a teenager girl with a mature personality, then probably you will sob with what is happening right now - the scarce chance for the collapse of our civilization again. Read more , then you may be able to soft your heart , then your ears can listen, your eyes can see.
of tears, duty, & reason
Submitted by Greg Robie (not verified) on Mon Dec. 14, 2009 11:18 AM PST.
A Haiku (and if this ends up being a duplicate post, I apologize, 1st attempt seemed to have been turned into digital dust):
the tears are of fears
that bind trust within thinking
that feeds hopelessness
This post's lament is partially correct: not enough was done; what was done started too late. Given the ~30 year lag time inherent in global climate change dynamics, and the much longer one in play in terms of human psychology and a capacity to "think different'—scientifically a matter of 'feeling' different—neither of us were born when the tipping point for the unfolding klimakatastrophe was passed (probably around 1930). I find it important to remind myself that a focus on CO2 and 350 has fed into a blindness concerning Arctic methane and what its growing contribution to climate change means to the CO2 paradigm and 'possible' solutions. A surety of a solution, conflated with the wishing it engendered, precludes sober thinking from carrying the day. As some of the behaviors revealed in the stolen climate emails detail, ends were reasoned to justify means; motivated reasoning corrupted an otherwise trusted process.
But this, too, is only part of the story. There is the economic facet/paradigm of the systemic dynamics. Confirming the insights of the author of _The Fourth Turning_, 80 years ago FDR 'fixed' a collapse of overheated fractional reserve banking that was about 20 years in the making. He accomplished this by redefining the coin of the realm as consumer debt denominated by credit. That credit was structured to be regulated and guaranteed by the populous. The systemic flaw of this thinking was that guarantor of the credit was to also be impoverished by ever increasing greater debt —and a debt that was shifted generationally—for the 'fix' to work. Such was an oxymoron; a Catch 22. But it felt like it was a plan that offered hope; that could be trusted. It was. One generation burdened the next with what it did not want to be morally responsible for.
In the short term, and in conjunction with war and policies effecting environmental, social, and economic injustice, a consumer credit bubble was created and grown. The consequential hegemony benefited the few while impoverishing the masses, governments, and the environment. From this perspective the purported 'recovery' is a sham. It kicks the responsibility for irresponsible behavior to others and subsequent generations. The 'green' jobs bills in Congress are similarly shams. The packed cathedral and its pageantry is a sham.
Hoping for a better past feels so right (tears) . . . and plays out so wrong (dutifully engaging in actions/solutions shaped by the thinking that created the problem trying to be resolved).
Homo sapiens are a backward feeling, more so than a forward feeling, species. Such is our condition. Today we are lead actors in a tragic drama of 'Sapience Lost.' Ironically, this drama is also an optimistic performance of 'Justice Made Manifest.' Our specie's demise is proof that Good is just.
Our pious hubris has deemed it be so.
global warmiong
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Mon Dec. 14, 2009 3:09 PM PST.
In the 60s, an oft repeated comment during a presidential election was ,"It's the economy stupid."
I do believe it may be appropriate to revise that cmment and state, "It's the ARCTIC's METHANE ticking time bomb stupid."
Arctic Methane ticking time bomb
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Mon Dec. 14, 2009 3:28 PM PST.
The greatest threat by far to ALL LIFE on planet Earth is the coming full blown release of the methane gas, presently safely locked up in the Arctic's perma-frost .
It is happening as we post comments and unless steps are taken to reverse the thawing of the Arctic's perma frost, we won't be here to post comments in a few more years, perhaps as few as four. Not a 100, not 50, or 20 years, only four or five years are left for us at the current rate of perma-frost thawing.
There are things that can be done to reverse that coming disaster at far far less cost than sending 30,000 troops to Afganastan or manning an unneeded embassy in Iraq.
The most qualified experts on the subject have warned us of the "ticking time bomb" in the Arctic and very sadly, few have paid any attention.
Time is short and time is the only thig of real importance any of us have .
What an overflowing crock.
Submitted by avannavon on Mon Dec. 14, 2009 11:39 PM PST.
Bill, you are such a wonderful, emotional, caring man, but ....
We are not faced with global warming. We are faced with global drying, or to be specific, loss of atmospheric water vapor.
And that has nothing whatsoever to do, now or ever, with greenhouse gases.
Global drying means higher day time temperatures, colder night time temperatures, decreased precipitation, wild weather patterns, increasing ocean salinity, declining ice fields---in short, all the the symptoms we are seeing are the result of lower atmospheric water vapor.
You are whipping everyone up with fears and miseries, imagining the end of the world---you might as well go sit on a mountaintop with Reverend Moon. Go wait for "The Rapture" and the ending of the Mayan Calendar. Might as well. They will probably come sooner than your global warming scare scenario ever will.
Changes in parts per billion in the concentration of carbon dioxide, which accounts for one four-hundredth of one percent of our atmosphere? A "30% increase" of nothing is still nothing, Bill. It doesn't take a scientist to know that.
"Fatal increases of 1.8 degrees"---so how do you explain the FACT that around 1270 AD, temperatures averaged over five degrees warmer than they are now, with no bad results whatsoever? Greenland was green and England had decent vineyards. Whoopee-ding-dong.
Ring your bells 350 times and consider what you can do in the midst of a globalized DROUGHT, but don't tell me about "global warming"---I can still read a thermometer perfectly well all by myself, and can tell you for a fact that temperatures have been dropping on average for the past ten years.
So much for "global warming"---te deum, and Fini.
" Global Warming " is the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 7:35 PM PST.
" Global Warming " is the universal term used to describe the overall scientific event which is characterized as well by cooling, increased severity of storms, dryer regions in some parts of the globe and wetter regions in others. It will be more helpful during this crucial time of global action to pay close attention to being as Accurate as possible in All of our comments. It would be much more helpful to present actual facts and scientific information than what is written above. This way we can all gather more information and be informed in our decisions and actions. This is important to humanity and all life on the planet, so it would behoove us to act wisely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Submitted by ECW (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 9:44 AM PST.
hold your sobbing
Submitted by Laughing in Mpls (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 10:34 AM PST.
Thank you for such a wonderful Tuesday AM laugh....better than a cup of high octaine dark roast with a depth charge.
Sobbing? Good grief. Alligator tears.
While global temp change is indisputable, many scientists attribute the ups and downs to natural causes. Do you also shed such tears when workers lose their house because environwackos shut down clean, healthy logging to save a tree? Did you shed a tear for those who were decieved when the climategate scientists discredited themselves and your movement by committing science fraud? Did you shed a tear when Al Gore lied and said the ice caps would be gone in 5 years only to be rebuked by the scientist who did the study?
Let me know. I will use your tears to lubricate my chain saw as I cut down some trees.
Is this serious, or is this
Submitted by Randy Jenkins (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 11:12 AM PST.
Is this serious, or is this an elaborate flame making fun of global warmmongerers?
Bill, darling, why don't you go buy a box of organic, zero-carbon tissues, wipe your eyes, and then take a deep breath. After that, you should read about climate-gate, and see for yourself the emails where scientists admit to altering data to convince fools like yourself that THE WORLD WILL END SOON!!!!!
I would have no problem with your hysterics if they weren't a direct threat to my freedom.
Sincerely,
*Global warming is a hoax, and all the tears in the world won't change that*
Do you cry about all of the
Submitted by Randy Jenkins (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 11:16 AM PST.
Do you cry about all of the Africans who are dead because food prices have dramatically gone up due to bogus ethanol and eco-fuels, a direct consequence of your warmmongering?
Spelling errors
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 11:18 AM PST.
I wish to apologise for any speling or spacing erros in my blogs. I am almost totaly bllind and that's my excuse. Pleas forgive any erros you may detect. Thank you and well wishes, ,
Kem
Bill McKibben - Smugly
Submitted by Chipper (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 3:00 PM PST.
Bill McKibben - Smugly morally superior to the unwashed masses since 1960.
What a moron.
No more tears
Submitted by Shecky (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 4:36 PM PST.
Please I can't take it. That was the saddest story I have ever read. When you dont believe in God you'll believe anything. Stop crying, stop wasting time with this B.S., stop drinking diet soda, put the laptop away, turn off the cell phone, fly home, apologize to your parents, now let your sister beat you up. Once you've done the above you can start over with acting like a man. Go out and get a job that requires some physical labor. You will be alright.
Bill, I appreciate the
Submitted by Hilary Henegar (not verified) on Thu Dec. 17, 2009 3:42 PM PST.
Bill, I appreciate the openness with which you've shared your very visceral experience with us. There is a beauty to the sad helplessness you express. And a darkness. I'm sure sleep would help.
I'm writing, however, not in reaction to your piece - though it did indeed move me - but rather in horror to the self-satisfied "let me give it to you straight" vitriol expressed in the comments here. How heart-breaking that, for some, an appropriate response to human fear and helplessness is to mock and rebuke.
Doing so only tarnishes their arguments, even if founded in the folds of disgorged truths, against the science of climate change. It reduces them to playground bullies whose hostility must be tuned out like the rest of the "noise" not constructive to the adult-level business of our future. (yes, "our" future - that's important)
No wonder Fox News is so popular, but I fear that the feedback response has made idiot pundits of more of us than ever. Empowering bullies to continue to bully, distracting us from the important work at hand.
If we really want to move forward, we must rise above our base selves, be better, be more equitable, more patient and listen. It's time to evolve.
Bill, you are a moron.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 8:03 PM PST.
Bill, you are a moron.
I for one want to
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 8:50 PM PST.
I for one want to congratulate McKibben for coming out as TransTearial, a tear trapped in a human body.
Global cooling????
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 2:33 AM PST.
AVANNAVON, if you are correct with your comments here, I'll be the happiest man in the country. You state that the planet is actually cooling and has been in a cooling cycle for several years. You also claim that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is of no consequence.
If you are correct, then the hundreds of scientists who state otherwise, (scientists whom have earned doctorates in fields such as, Oceanography, Earth Science, Geology, Climatology and other related fields of science) are ALL wrong. ___Is that so?
Since scientists at NOAA, NASA, Harvard, Southern Call, U of Alaska, U of Michigan, to name just a few facilities, state exactly the __opposite __of what you have posted here. __ I do wonder why that is so? __ Perhaps they are all stupid, or perhaps you believe they are purposly giving false infomation for greedy purposes and if that were so, compromising their credibility and inner moral values.
Scientists who have spent their entire adult lives studying the ice core samples, going back millions of years into the Earth's past, have proven by a figure of 100% that excess CO2 and methane in our atmosphere caused the demise of almost ALL life on the planet.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when those life killing disasters occurred was not a great deal more than we are currently experiencing now, it was the then released methane gas that did the killing.
When the Arctic's methane releses into our atmosphere, it will be enough to set off global warming to an extent that we will not believe to be possible. Shortlyafter that disaster, the methane which is now safely locked up in the cold ocean's sea beds will burst out into our precious atmosphere and we can then turn out the lighst for the final time. The party will truly be over.
Bill McKibbon is correct about the 350 CO2 figure and he has given a good part of his life attempting to warn everyone on Earth of the consequences if we don't act now to reverse that number.
Bill McKibbon is also a writer, a very good writer who at times takes literary or poetic license and uses words to help make a serious and factual point. I am certain he didn't actually shed any tears, he is not a wimp, ___nor is he a 'moron'. It is unfortunate that few have given as much as he has to the benefit of all of humaity.
So Avannavon, perhaps you would be so kind as to give us the names of those whom you recieved your scientiffic informatio, for if you are correct, it will certainly solve a lot of very serious problems.
Personally I like to hear what you have written much more than what we hear from the most qualified scientists known to exist in the universe on the subject of global warming. Of course we must keep in mind that old saying, ___ "The truth often hurts."
Being human, we at times do not wish to hear the truth, and if we do, we'd sometimes rather ignore it and believe some serious problem will just fade away. Some humans will even alter a hurtful truth and do so with such inner emotion that after awhile they believe their own lies.
Perhaps you are correct with your opinions on the global warming subject Avannavon, and so I ask you kindly, to please offer some scientific evidence to back up your words.
Thank you, and we do hope to hear from you here once again.
Kem
Cry for the Mexican peasants
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 2:41 AM PST.
Cry for the Mexican peasants living on cheap starches and facing protein deficiency now that corn is being burned as transportation fuel by Norteamericanos, for no net energy gain. In the name of carbon neutrality.
Mammals first evolved in something like 1800 ppm atmospheric CO2. In 500+ million years of the Phanerozoic, there has never been a runaway CO2 positive feedback warming event (aka 'tipping point') despite CO2 as much as 20 times higher than even our scampering ancestors suffered, and in the past 500 million years, there has been no good correlation of temperature with CO2. There is great evidence that temperature has correlated with galactic cosmic ray flux in geologic time (Shaviv & Veizer, 2003), and, more recently, that reductions in GCR caused by solar eruptions (Forbush events) are followed seven days later by reductions in clouds (Svensmark et al, 2009).
There is plenty of science behind the so-called skeptics. You have to look for it, though, thanks in part to the shenanigans laid bare by Climategate.
So called GW deniers?___LOL
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 11:42 AM PST.
Hi there George. Your post here was humerous, thank you for the laughs.
You state the "so callled deniers". ___ Well bud, they are so called 'deniers' because they deny global warming is a fact. Again, one doesn't require an education to observe what is currently happening to our planet because of global warming.
You state there is plenty of evidence to support your type of claims, we just have to look for it. ___ Maybe under the bed, or in a junk drawer?
You state the CO2 in the atmosphere was 1,800ppm when mammals first evolved. ____ Really? ___ Then the palientologists, geologists, scientists at NOAA and NASA, and thousands other scientists and univerwsity professors all around our globe and many who very carefully study the Earth's climate histojry, ___ are all wrong. ___ LOL .
Where do you get your faulty info and stats George?
I humbly suggest that you read my previous post and carefully consider what I wrote about those who would alter the truth in an attempt to to deny the truths they do not wish to accept.
Coen Ethanol
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 12:43 PM PST.
George, you are absolutly correct about using corn for fuel. It is totally wrong and has caused a lot of very serius problems, especially noted in Mexico.
Unfortunantly in America we are not allowed to grow hemp, a plant that is not a mind altring drug. Hemp can be used to make plastic instead of using petrolium. As it decays it does not pollute land or waters like the plastic producs that we now use do.
Hemp is a wonderful plant for producing clothing, etc, etc. It also is far far better than corn for use as a fuel, burnig it will create no greenhouse gases. It also is a wonderful plant to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.
We are not allowed to grow hemp , an easily grown crop that requires no chemical fertelizers and is an excellent crop for building good soil when the root stalks are turned in after harvesting.
We are doing very little in productive ways to reduce the CO2 in our atmosphere and using corn for fuel is really stupid, it should be criminal, but it makes tons of money for a few. ___ Same old story George. __ 'Greed', __the number one deadly sin.
Not only is about 1800 ppm
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 3:08 PM PST.
Not only is about 1800 ppm CO2 generally accepted for the Triassic Park our little furry ancestors called home, the average for the beginning of the Phanerozoic (time of visible life), the Cambrian period, had it even higher, with an average 4500 ppm.
Those dittoheads at Wikipedia provided the numbers for Triassic and Cambrian CO2 concentrations, a good place to start your checking. An even better place is the paper "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic Climate?" by Shaviv & Veizer (GSA Today, 2003), where you can see a good graph of temperature, CO2 (as a logarithmic ratio that might be hard for some MJers to fathom) and cosmic ray flux, along with our position in the galaxy.
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf
Here's 500+ (and counting) peer reviewed papers that support skepticism in some way. Some incidentally, some completely. Any paper with Veizer, Shaviv, Svensmark, Lindzen or Friis-Christensen is worthwhile reading.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...
Open your eyes, people. Just because it's science that gave you hope for a justification of political goals does not mean it's good science.
Bill's post
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 3:40 PM PST.
Thank you for caring. Thank you for trying.
Mother from New Zealand
100%?
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 4:12 PM PST.
"Kem", you wrote scientists "have proven by a figure of 100% that excess CO2 and methane in our atmosphere caused the demise of almost ALL life on the planet". Are you referring to the Permian-Triassic Extinction, aka The Great Dying? Do you have a link?
You might want to look at Fig. 8 of the Svensmark "Cosmoclimatology" paper, a simple representation of the Shaviv & Veizer results. The PT event was roughly coincident with the galactic cosmic ray minimum of the past 500 million years. GCR help seed clouds. A minimum of GCR, expect a minimum of clouds.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%2...
Ticking Time bomb
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 9:50 PM PST.
I do somewhatt question the info you have given GEORGE and with good reason. According to the scientists at NASA and NOAA, among many others, the average CO2 in our atmosphere___ (where life has survived)___ has been in the 220 area until our industrial revolution. Since that time in the 1800s, Co2 in the atmosphere has risen yearly and in the past four yeas it has risen dramatically with no slowdown in sight.
There were two periods in Earth's history when the CO2 rose to the levels you state, when CO2 did rise to those levels almost all life on the planet died. Thankfully enough of the ocean's Phytoplankton survived, ___( or the microscopic plant life which supplies our atmosphere and waters with near 70% of our life giving oxygen).___ Had the phytoplankton died off, Earth would now be like Mars, a dead ball of orbiting rocks and dirt.
Indeed ice core samples show what you state George, however all of the animals were dead then and they stayed dead. A very few deep sea creatures and some worm and varieties of bacteria survived those events. Over time life once again evolved and so we are here. __ For awhile anyway.
Here is a link, one which I personally believe to be the most important paper ever penned by anyone on Earth. What the man wrote in 2004 is happening and at a far faster pace than he or anyone else had ever believed possible.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Finally, if we aren't experiencing global warming, why have both of the massive ice shelfs in Antarticia begun to break up? Those ice shelves have been stable for billions of years. Last week an ice burg the size of Manhatten was observed off the coast of Australia. That is not the norm and many more burgs will be coming.
Sea levels have risen and currently are not noticed at most of the planet because of Earth's rotational forces, sea levels have risen a great deal in the Mid Pacific areas. The Air force plans to evacuate the large USAF base at the island of Diego Garca.
90% of all the fresh water on Earth is locked up in ice in Antarticvia, when it fully melts as it is currently attempting to do, sea levels will rise over 170 feet. When that happens it will be noticed every place on Earth. Florida for example will be totally under water. No humans will see that howeve, all will be long dead from the methane releases. Just a couple of examples George, there are millions more.
I do thank you for your courteous reply to my comments George.
Kem, you are quite confused
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Thu Dec. 17, 2009 12:03 AM PST.
Kem, you are quite confused and there really isn't much to say that can help you if you can't look at the numbers for yourself. Parroting half-truths do not help your cause.
Here are a few graphs of different CO2 estimates covering the last 550 million years. Note the best guesses range up to 8000 ppm. for the early Phanerozoic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
I realize this isn't the scrambled science you've internalized, but it's never too late to learn. The Earth has not been stable for "billions" of years. For a variety of reasons, out of the recent many millions of years, there is about a 100,000 year period that has about 80 to 90 thousand years of a glacial period, and maybe a 10 to 20 thousand year, comparably warm, "interglacial period". We're about 11 thousand years into an interglacial. It will get cold again.
On top of that, there's a much longer period of hothouse to icehouse earth periods that coincide with our orbit around our galaxy, which causes average temperatures to go from real hothouse to real icehouse every 140 million years. Even so, life survives the worst of both, with extinctions not being uncommon. With the worst of the worst, the Permian-Triassic about 251 million years ago, about 90% of species didn't make it.
The actual graph of CO2 rise is as follows:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
CO2 is rising at about a 2 ppm per year rate. If we kept that up and didn't run out of fossil fuels and it did not slow or speed up from natural causes, we'd get to the level of the Triassic in about 700 years, but of course, no one expects fossil fuels to last past this century. And no, the CO2 didn't drive temps up to horrible temperatures then, either. There have been snowball earth episodes with many times the current CO2. It isn't the bogeyman you've been scared with.
There has been warming. Circa 1945, the sun's magnetic and solar wind output doubled to historic levels not seen in at least 8000 years and this had a warming effect, a suppression of clouds, that was not discovered until the early 90's, and verifications of the physical mechanisms have only been made in the last few years.
Yes, Al Gore noted that CO2 and temperatures as seen in the ice core data both went up what looked like the same time at the magnification he used. He even said the relationship is complicated. The complication he didn't explain is that the temperature went up first, and then the CO2 rose, with as much as an 800 year lag from one to the other. CO2 levels fell after temperatures fell. Cause typically follows effect. Same with CO2 and temps. Higher temps means less gases like CO2 can remain in solution in the oceans. Oceans warm, they give off CO2. Oceans cool, they are able to contain more CO2.
The sky is not falling. Start getting your science from more contemplative sources; take some real science classes. There has been warming but CO2 was only the cause of a small part of it. Starving millions, or billions, of people in a misguided sense of duty to save the planet is sheer madness.
In reaction to the comments
Submitted by Hilary Henegar (not verified) on Thu Dec. 17, 2009 3:38 PM PST.
Bill, I appreciate the openness with which you've shared your very visceral experience with us. There is a beauty to the sad helplessness you express. And a darkness. I'm sure sleep would help.
I'm writing, however, not in reaction to your piece - though it did indeed move me - but rather in horror to the self-satisfied "let me give it to you straight" vitriol expressed in the comments here. How heart-breaking that, for some, an appropriate response to human fear and helplessness is to mock and rebuke.
Doing so only tarnishes their arguments, even if founded in the folds of disgorged truths, against the science of climate change. It reduces them to playground bullies whose hostility must be tuned out like the rest of the "noise" not constructive to the adult-level business of our future. (yes, "our" future - that's important)
No wonder Fox News is so popular, but I fear that the feedback response has made idiot pundits of more of us than ever. Empowering bullies to continue to bully, distracting us from the important work at hand.
If we really want to move forward, we must rise above our base selves, be better, be more equitable, more patient and listen. It's time to evolve.
Why Deny GW?
Submitted by Kem Patrick (not verified) on Thu Dec. 17, 2009 4:17 PM PST.
I can see that you are a dyed in the wool G-W denier George, that's your choice of course.
My opion on the very serious dangers of Global warmiong is based upon what anyone can easily see with their own eyes and what the professors and scientists who have earned PHDs in the fields of Earth Science, Oceanography, Geology, Climatology and related fields of study and science are telling us.
There is no reasonable argument that the Arctic is rapidly thawing and the methane there is already releasing into our precious atmosphere. There are 400+ gigatons of that deadly gas which was once safely locked up in the Arctic's ice to release. So why argue those sure fire facts?
I don't like to hear what global warm;ng is doing to our atmosphere either George, but I have children and grandchildren who should have the same chances at life that we have enjoyed. Some don't seem to care about the next generations, ___ do you?
The only reason I bother to respond to your posts George, is beause people who may read our comments should have the flip side of the GW denying coin that you flip.
Confused?
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Thu Dec. 17, 2009 7:27 PM PST.
Why do you say I'm confused George, because I don't agree with you?
I've never said the Earth has always been stable, for I am fully aware it was not.
I have said the polar ice caps have been relatively stable for at least the past 50 million years, until the last 20 or so that is. The accurate readings of ice core samples well prove that fact.
If you choose to not believe the ice caps are thawing at an unpresidented rate since mankind has been here to observe them, and a release of the Arctic's methane is not a threat, that's your perogative. I can see they are and I'm not in any manner confused by that obvious fact. I do believe that you are however.
denier? moi?
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Sat Dec. 19, 2009 1:48 AM PST.
No, 'Kem', your confused because you have your facts wrong. Anyone who thinks (and I quote you) "Those ice shelves have been stable for billions of years." has no sense of time or climate. Especially since The Great Dying was about 251 million years ago and I recall the expectation is there was no polar ice at all during that time.
Or,"I have said the polar ice caps have been relatively stable for at least the past 50 million years, until the last 20 or so that is. The accurate readings of ice core samples well prove that fact." is confused. In fact, core samples from the middle of Greenland showed coniferous forests flourished about 400,000 years ago." Reality is just not as you imagine it.
I'm an out and out scoffer, with degrees in Physics and Engineering and have dug into the science myself. Went from believer in CO2 warming to skeptic to scoffer in a one month period about three years ago, when I found there was a huge amount of research being actively suppressed.
it ain't about how much warming there has been, it's what caused the warming. The theory and evidence for CO2 remains thin to non-existent despite many billion$ spent, and the evidence for natural causes, links to the sun and the stars, is the missing physics that eluded the first 20 years of IPCC reviewers.
Had research to the contrary of the status quo not been blocked from respected journals and the IPCC working groups, by the likes of Drs. Jones and Briffa, science would be further along.
Is The Arctic thawing or Not?
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Sat Dec. 19, 2009 10:07 AM PST.
Hi George,
That B "Billions" I posted was a typo error, It should have been M___ "Millions". The planet is only about five billion years old.
So, evidently you don't believe that the Arctic is rapidly thawing and the threat of the methane release is an honest concern. I cannot fathom why anyone cannot see that is indeed an obvious fact.
College professors and scientists who posess doctorates in Geology and Earth Science say it is a fact and have spent much of their adult lives studing the Arctic and the Arctic's perma frost. Their writings have been peer reviewed and hundreds of other scientist who posess Phds agree with them.
Well, so be it, have it your way George.
I Go With CO2 is The Problem
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Sat Dec. 19, 2009 3:23 PM PST.
Thank you George, it is an interesting theory that you offered, quite difficult for the layman to understand and argue. Helps to make Bill McKibbon's points controversial, one may wonder if that's the point.
I still firmly believe that it has been very well proven that the mass extinction of life in the Permian era was indeed caused by" methane burps", an event which was caused from global warming due to___ a dramatic inrease of CO2 in the atmosphere___ that time the CO2 increase was caused by volcanic activity.
Of course the amount of CO2 we pump into our atmosphere annually by burninng fossil fuels is equivalent to that of __17,000 __active volcanoes. o
All of the technical data for that is presented in Dr. Mchael J. Benton's book, __"When Life Nearly Died". __ Of course there is much more data available which backs up his and other geologist's findings.
If Benton and Atcheson plus many other scientists are correct,__ ( and it is very difficuylt for any to argue their findings, which are based upon what is found in ice core samples, rock samples and layers of chemical residue found around the world from that time period) __ and nothing is done to prevent another like occurrance of methane burps from the Arctic, we will all be in deep dung. (That sounds more professional than dudu doesn't it? )
I agree that the primary issue is not why we are experiencing Global Warming, although I personally go along with excess CO2 is the cause, what matters right now is will the Arctic thaw enough to allow the methane to burp out.
At the current rate of thawing, the Arctic's methane has to escape into our atmosphere which will indeed cause a very dramatic increase of greenhouse gas. ____ BTW, I also do not like or agree with what government's leaders are proposing to do about it.
Some claim that it doesn't matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, I disagree with that. My reasoning on that score is, if for example the Ph in an aquarium is off by just a little bit, the fish die. If the Ph in our soil is off by a little bit, the crops are poor or die. If we pollute an aquifer with just a little bit of Trico, the water is not safe to drink. What about our atmosphere, what is too much CO2? Bill McKibbon says 350ppm is the max. I will agree with him until he is proven completely wrong.
When CO2 levels were high in Earth's passt, almost all life, down to the microbal level died. In addition, since CO2 levels began to rise sharply duriong the past 20 some years, the ocean's life has sufferedmore thanm ever before, most importantly the ocean's phytoplankton, the plant life which supplies most of our oxygen. In just the past five years, animal,
insect and bird life have suffered at an alarming rate. Those are the canaries in the coal mines.
Higher CO2 in the atmosphere and we soon have dramatic world wide climate change, melting glaciers and the polar ices, a dramatic decreases in insect and animal life. __ So why would one not highly suspect an above normal increase of atmospheric CO2 were the cause? Tie that in with what excellent scientific studies have shown what has occcurred in Earth's past when CO2 was higher than normal. That is difficult to argue with any credence.
"When CO2 levels were high in
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Tue Dec. 22, 2009 1:28 AM PST.
"When CO2 levels were high in Earth's passt, almost all life, down to the microbal level died. "
There you go again, exaggerating (either for effect or because you're fuzzy on the magnitudes) and confusing cause and effect.
CO2 increases *after* the temperature increases. Cause must *precede* effect. An inconvenient truth.
The science has already turned. The pawns in the debate will be the last ones to get it, and liberal politics will be the worse for the wear unless progressives can figure out a graceful exit...
YOU ARE WRONG GEORGE
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Wed Dec. 23, 2009 3:01 PM PST.
I strongly suggest that you get yourself educated George and stop posting ignorant comments. __ I quoted Dr. Michael J. Bnton when I stated that almost all life nearly died when the methane burped out into the atmospere 55 million years ago. Are you more educated and qualified on the subject than he is? ___ LOL
If you or anyone will take the tme to google __arctic methane __ you will find many very recent articles which support Dr. Benton and John Atcheson and hundreds of other highly qualified scientists, professors, geologists who believe Dr. Bento is absolutely 100% correct.
Here is a brief exerpt from one of those Arctic methane articles published last year in a science magazine. . There was a team of scientists on a ship in the Arctic ocean studying the possibvility of methane being released from the ocean sea floor. They discovered much more than they had ever expected and were and are very alarmed by what they found to be clearly obvious and true.
Here is the exerpt ____"Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting permafrost releases tons of gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. In the past few days, the researchers have SEEN with their own eyes, many areas of the sea which are foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor."
So you see Goerge, what Dr. Benton and John Atcheson have said will occur due to global warming is now occurring, it has begun. It has been well proven that indeed when global warming occurred 55 millions years ago, due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, that time caused from volcanic activity, which is the same as us burning fossil fuels, that almost all life, down to the microbal level did indeed very suddenly die off.
Do wish to state that the Dr. who led that scentific survey team, one of several BTW, which studied the amount of methane gas being released from just the Arctic ocean, is wrong GEORGE? __ One cannot visually see the invisible gas burping out from land areas of the Arctic, because there is no water to billow and and spew up. We can be assured that indeed methane is now releasing however as the permafrost on land masses thaw and there is no letup in sight.
Georg, If you insist on stating those many highly qualified scientists are incorrect, give us some real good evidence that proves Dr. Benton and the others are incorrect, for your written words and opinions are just ignorant blathering. ___ Sorry George, but facts are facts.
Thank you,___ Kem
"Kem", The most complete and
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Fri Dec. 25, 2009 12:13 AM PST.
"Kem", The most complete and devastating extinction event was 251 million years ago, the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
Your one-note samba parroting press releases regarding the work of scientists whose papers you have not read really does no one any good.
Sorry, no, volcanic activity does not have the same effect as burning fossil fuels.
It comes down to your posts not being correct enough to just be wrong. Give your straw men a rest.
Merry Christmas!
"Kem", Since you've not
Submitted by George LeRoy Tyrebyter (not verified) on Fri Dec. 25, 2009 1:07 PM PST.
"Kem", Since you've not accurately quoted any peer reviewed research to date, forgive me for not accepting your accounts now. This isn't a rush to provide scare quotes from activist blogs.
There is a growing body of research pointing away from CO2 and unlike the alarmist literature, the problems, the grey areas, are being resolved little by little.
Merry Christmas!
You are still wrong George ___And here is why .
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Sat Dec. 26, 2009 8:54 PM PST.
Pay close attention George. Read slowly and keep an open mind, you may learn something. We'll see. You know George, the only reason I bother to reply to you is because some may read your words and believe what you write is correct.
For starters, scientists know exactly how much carbon dioxide is emitted annually from the volcano on Hawaii and others. They use calibrated instrumentation which is taken daily, 365 days a year.
Economists know exactly how much coal is mined annually and how much oil is sold annually. From those figures they can give a very close estimate of how much coal and oil is burned by humans annually. They may be off by a few tons but an insignificant amount.
Contrary to your words George, burning fossil fuels is EXACTLY the same as carbon dioxide emitted by a volcano. It's CO2 George. From those known figures, it is known that humans burn an amount of fossil fuels equivilant to that of 17,000 volcanoes the size of the one on Hawaii. By doing that we humans are duplicating what nature did 635 and 55 million years ago, when almost all life on the planet died.
Mother Nature can accomodate normal CO2 emmissions such as bovine emmissions, normal releases of methane gas and human burps, etc. We need CO2, it feeds the Earth's plant life, including the ocean's vital for all life phytoplankton. Nature cannot deal with an EXCESSIVE amount of CO2 however and we humans are putting far too much CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and that, our uneducated on the subject boy, causes global warming.
You say what I posted is just opinions. Let me tell you once again George, Dr. Michael J. Benton is known as the most experienced palientologist and geologist ever. His work is the bible for other scientists, he is the PEER'S PEER George, nevertheless his works are peer reviewed and what he says is that which occurred 635 milion and 55 million years ago when almost all life died on Earth, is about to happen once again because of the current global warming.
Now tell us where the scientists who are studying the Arctic methane right now are wrong George. Give us some quotes and scientific evidence they and John Atcheson have presented in the articles are wrong. Just you stating they are wrong is just blather from one who claims global warming is not caused by human's excessive CO2 emmisions from burning fossil fuels.
Anyone can read many of those articles by Googling __arctic methane __ It is not my words you say are wrong George, I'm quoting them and John Atcheson and Dr. Michael Benton. BTW, they say it happened 635 and 55 million years ago and there were more than two times in history when almost all life on Earth was eradicated, it also happened, as you stated, 251 million years ago. That information was given in the link I offered for you to read and you wrote here on another thread that link was just opinions, and now you quote it. LOL
The point is George, it happened, of course there wasn't a great deal of life on Earth to die off 635 million years ago, there is a lot of life now however and it's going to happen again unless we take action to prevent it.
It seems strange to me that you will quote scientific, historical evidence, but if I do so, you claim it's not proven evidence. And you accuse me of using strawman tactics.. Give it up George. __ BTW, exactly who are these "body of scientists " you claim, who are leaning away from the CO2 issue?
Finally, you say the papers that I have __not __read!!??? I don't have a clue of why you say that, I have read so many papers, articles and books written by highly qualified professors of Geology and Earth Science on the subject of the Arctic's methane gas and global warming that I'm almost blind.
The papers and articles are right there on the web for anyone to read and determine if they are correct or not. I'll leave it up to any who read our blogs George, to determine which of us is correct on the issue.
???
Submitted by Martin (not verified) on Mon Dec. 28, 2009 3:58 PM PST.
this guy should take some pills first and then get some real job. moron.
You have any suggestions Oaf Martin ?
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Thu Dec. 31, 2009 3:52 AM PST.
What is it that I wrote that you disagree with MARTIN, concering global warming and the absolute 100% fact that the Arctic's methane is now releasing into the atmosphere and that is the most serious and deadly issue ever faced by humanity.
Do you disagree with the author of the article in the link I posted here? Only a mouthy fool would do that.
Let us hear your scientific arguments, if you have the intelligence to offer any, or perhaps pills you take have altered your brain cells. I retired many years ago BTW, but I still teach teenagers aeronautical and gardening subjects, with no compensation. I just totally enjoy it. I also totally enjoy fighting the dangerous to all of humanity GW deniers and oafs such as you obviously are.
BTW, was the word "moron" you ended your comments with directed at me, or is that your signature nick-name? It would likely fit you if it is.
The Most Important Paper Ever Written by Man.
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Thu Dec. 31, 2009 1:51 PM PST.
Here is the Link I quote Martin. It takes just three minutes to digest. The author is highly qualified to wrtite it and what he warned us of five years ago is now happening, he was and is 100% correct. __ He doens' need any pills either.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
And I really don't give a rip if you read it or not Martin. Someone of intelligence may read it however and that's why I post it once again.
I Love To REad more
Submitted by Dirga (not verified) on Sat Feb. 20, 2010 10:36 PM PST.
Nice Working
Submitted by Jessica Brown (not verified) on Wed Mar. 10, 2010 1:02 PM PST.
I think we need to work out
Submitted by Yesh CHiek (not verified) on Wed Mar. 10, 2010 1:15 PM PST.
I think we need to work out more rules in this regard, in this way we can avoid this kind of situation. Thanks mcse mcts
It has been well proven that
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Mar. 11, 2010 5:15 PM PST.
It has been well proven that indeed when global warming occurred 55 millions years ago, due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, that time caused from volcanic activity.
Thank You Puresource 2 water filter
showed them Orion Nebula and
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Mar. 12, 2010 1:07 AM PST.
showed them Orion Nebula and they were so interested in seeing it that all of them shifted their attention to watching through the binoculars.
Auto Insurance Questions
I squeezed into a chair near
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Mar. 12, 2010 3:54 AM PST.
I squeezed into a chair near the corner. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, gave the sermon; Desmond Tutu read the Psalm. Both were wonderful.
moving checklist
Let us hear your scientific
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Mar. 15, 2010 8:41 PM PDT.
Let us hear your scientific arguments, if you have the intelligence to offer any, or perhaps pills you take have altered your brain cells.
Räucherwerk
I also totally enjoy fighting
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Mar. 16, 2010 7:00 AM PDT.
I also totally enjoy fighting the dangerous to all of humanity GW deniers and oafs such as you obviously are. Thanks for sharing
silk flowers
Fire up the laptops?
Submitted by Horan (not verified) on Tue Mar. 16, 2010 8:06 AM PDT.
Bill, it may not be that you/we didn't do enough so much as that what we did was ineffective on a qualitative basis. I'm disappointed with "Pass the Diet Coke, fire up the laptop, grab the cellphone. To work. "
In other words, more of the same. Cutting edge web sites with lots of photos and video of small-scale demonstrations around the world (mine appeared). Lots of rallying ... the same people.
The problem wasn't/isn't "doing enough." It's doing too much of what's already been proved to be ineffective. I was/am a fan of 350.0rg, but there comes a point at which you say: our strategy was wholly ineffectual.
Maybe time to put down the laptops and cell phones and video cams. If that were Washington and Jefferson's idea of making things happen, there woudl have been no Yorktown.
In other words, more of the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Mar. 16, 2010 11:50 AM PDT.
In other words, more of the same. Cutting edge web sites with lots of photos and video of small-scale demonstrations around the world (mine appeared). Lots of rallying ... the same people.
Cheap Website Design India
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
