Mother Nature responds to man-made global tipping as She must when Her natural systems are altered. All the while politicians talk and talk and talk, but do little to stop the accelerating slide into catastrophe, fiddling while the Earth burns. Money will not save you.......
"Money will not save you."
That is the whole problem, in my view, the oligarchs, plutocrats and climate deniers are sure their $$$$$$$$ will save them even if millions perish in future catastrophic storms! And they will probably remain insouciant until it is too late for them and the rest of us!
I read that Hurricane Wilma intensified faster than Patricia but in any case this storm intensified in a hurry. Fortunately it lost some strength before it hit land and came on shore in an area with a low population. Had it made landfall not too far north or south where it did the results may have catastrophic and they still could be depending on what happens as it moves inland. From all reports it sounds like the negotiators worked hard in Bonn but failed to make as much progress as was hoped for. There still is a month for meetings at various levels to take place before the meeting in Paris and still a chance for an historic agreement. Whether countries are willing to compromise as time runs out for an agreement is the big question. Perhaps if the developed countries are willing to give somewhat more money than they want to and the developing countries are willing to accept a little less money than they want an agreement can be reached. Also, countries need to be willing to revise their pledges to make them stronger if necessary in the future. There is a lot of pressure to reach an agreement. Hopefully there will be good news when all this negotiating is over.
Emphyrio, absolutely! While experiencing the drought that continues in my location in CA, perhaps the worst ever or at least in recorded weather history, warnings arrive almost daily to prepare for the predicted El Nino. Though having flood insurance may do little in the end, I find most of my neighbors pay little attention, even as the media informs of storms as noted quite as "Terrifying" as Patricia. After all, our immediate concern is attempting to conserve water and Patricia is taking place in another location.
In the 1970s when my former son-in-law, an atmospheric physicist, still employed by NOAA discussed the coming global warming, in ways it seemed to be far enough in the future, now at age 80, it wouldn't be something I would personally experience. Now I repeat my concern, all considering the lack of realistic action by those who might be taking doing so, I fear my beloved grandchildren may survive, but to exist in a world resembling "Soilent Green."
Yeah they are such fools that they will have their $ buried in their coffins with them!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
If there was a way to say destabilized climate (or even climate destabilization) that would of course then be more accurate but global warming is still most specific (which is why they didn't like it... just like hunger is too specific and food insecurity was substituted)'
Destabilized climate... that's what we've got. We call it climate change.
Their money, and their possessions, will make them targets as the Earth burns.
That's what the Pharaohs did. Of course, they used real gold. Our rich plutocrats will get buried with plastic money.
Thank you Wereflea. Most informed persons understand and accept it is the activity of humans planet wise, but more pronounced among the industrialized
nations who produce the factors causing the globe/or our orb in the solar system to warm. Then at times some prefer to nitpick others choice of language.
The most accurate descriptor used among scientists today is Anthropogenic Climate Disruption or ACD.
Wise insights, Holygeezer.
Noah built an ark. Noah saved all of the earth's animals from mass extinction, or at least that's how the story goes.
I know why most practical solar research has died. I feel like I'm arguing that soylent green is made from people; it makes eminent logical sense but nobody wants to believe it. Cognitive dissonance keeps them from the truth.
Our world contains quite a few billionaires and Congresspeople who are fools. We could be brave but wise and occupy only the centers of wisdom and power that we absolutely have to occupy; otherwise we could leave that bunch of rich fools to their personal delusions.
We need a wise solar and renewables product research and development movement, and we need it at any dollar cost. We need ideas. We need discernment of these ideas. Then we need to pick up saws and hammers. We need the freedom to make mistakes (but preferably not too many, our world is on a budget). We then need to always, 100%, develop the most cost-efficient innovations into products that people can use.
We need to heat buildings at night. I use active solar air with a specially designed rock bed for heat storage, hybrid with a hydronic pipe system for heat on demand. Oh yes I know what I'm doing! Almost any existing building can be cheaply heated at night. Why aren't we doing this?
We need to grow local food in winter. I use a special linear trough system with photocells to bring great amounts of sunlight in through a small window. At night, my greenhouse only loses heat out of the small window, which means 90% less heat losses at night. A rudimentary solar heat storage system does the rest. My goal is red tomatoes in January in the Frost Belt with only solar heat. The same system can also daylight most buildings cost-effectively. Also we can grow amazingly cheap algae for biofuels.
It's been five years since I built a wonderful prototype greenhouse. In the world of bottom line dollars, nobody on earth wants to go first. But is that a sufficient reason to kill off future generations? Why aren't we doing this? Do you want simple solar research and development to languish? Why aren't we organizing a social enterprise around solar R&D?
There's more. There's transit. There's restoring the Arctic's albedo in an environmentally benign manner. There's preserving all of those species.
So, we need to get from carping to thinking deeply about the problem, then to action.
This is going to cost a friendly billionaire almost nothing. Unfortunately, most of the billionaires are currently acting like they're both morals-free and personal idiots, but it's always good to ask.
You happen to be wealthier than the average billionaire, because you can afford future generations and he can't, the big dope. So, would you like to invest some of your brain into this project? What do you think? More important in 2015, where do you want to think about it? On the internet, at a conference that people can afford,...
I don't think that a return to localized small truck farms will feed anybody but the locals. What about the two hundred million or so apartment and city dwellers in this country?
The 'what if' - is of us having a few decades and the concerted will to act so collectively and efficiently? Well we don't have that time or will, do we? I see broccoli in February and grapes in march etc. How about we devise an internet based supply and transportation system where farmers sell crops to a distributor who arranges transport around the world. Big Agra does it for their produce. The internet could unify locals into a collective corporation of growers etc.
The ideal of a free farmer/small farmer/locally based independent operation is not going feed hundreds of millions of people. Imagine how many small farms would be necessary to grow food for a big city? To say we could feed this country using tens of millions of tiny local growers would be a logistical nightmare and that is to say how many years would it take to get this idea up and running. Better to emulate the big agra farms the way Australian sheep herders collect the wool from all the local sheep herders in an area and sell it together as one source.
The old ways even the ways promulgated in the 60s are over. There are twice as many more people than back in the days when Ehrlich first talked about overpopulation. It happened and now we need to make our globalized food system non polluting. After we achieved a low degree of pollution but can still feed 7 or 8 billion people a day then we can look to revamping the economics of it.
I am curious about this statement given that for many, the economics are what's driving the problems. Not sure how those problems can be fixed before addressing the economics. It's hard to picture the Ag PTB letting local farmers undermine 'their' profits. Cart before the horse sort of comes to mind but maybe I'm wrong and you could clarify how such activities would be allowed to even exist much less grow and expand to where the earth is unburdened by the current methods.
In Australia sheepherders in a local area will all pool their labor and sheer the sheep in a collective effort and selling the combined wool as one source supply. In an earlier age farmers would do that as well. I imagined a collectivization via the internet where farmers in a local area could sell their crops together but maybe thay do this already. I thought with the aid of the internet that a group of smallish to medium sized farms could equal a large area under big ag control and do so at comparable efficiencies of scale.
What i don't believe is talk of reducing human population or that a multitude of individual semi-farmers with what amount to as big gardens being an adequate substitute for the sheer quantity of food produced in this country. Simply transporting and even collecting so many small amounts (comparatively small) of food is impossible.
7or more billion people need modern agriculture so it would seem that it is the size of the farms but the methods! Somehow a lot of land was put under organic cultivation. We could make the process les invasive and more Earth friendly without having to make it smaller.
Lol i disn,'t address the economics just the need.
Patricia, came as a warning but only to those of us who have a brain.
It's a shame in a way that it weakened. If millions had been killed and half of America had been leveled, perhaps the world might've taken notice, made an effort to change their ways.
Ya' know, it is important to establish a target to get to in reducing emissions, but at the same time... it is important for the HOW to be established... these guys keep working with the SUPPLY OF ENERGY to make the difference, as in renewables, mostly.... but what about the DEMAND OF ENERGY.... So, we could just STOP CERTAIN KINDS OF ACITIVITIES AND PRODUTIONS IMMEDIATELY and voi la ... we could SLASH EMISSIONS DRASTICALLY.... put a limit on how much we fly... no more professional sports, no more casinos for jobs... or anything... ( people can bet, I don't care... but no more huge energy sucking casinos...)... .no more NASCAR OR ANY CAR RACING.... all KINDS of stuff could be stopped and that is the way to MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Instead of soccer we have football. We don't hear too much about the Pope any more but hear lots of stuff about celebrities. Then we have the entertainment of the upcoming presidential election. It has been going on for 6 months now and will continue for another year and a half. Oh and some of our media pundits feel sorry that Europe has to deal with all those refugees. They are totally oblivious to the fact that America is the reason in the first place that so many refugees exist. Well most European countries went along with the American Empire regarding invasions and wars and now feel the brunt of those actions.