Home | About | Donate

World is Warming at Rate 'Unprecedented' for 1,000 Years


#1

World is Warming at Rate 'Unprecedented' for 1,000 Years

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

Another day, another dire warning about the global climate emergency.

NASA's top climate scientist announced Tuesday that the Earth is warming at a pace not seen in at least the past 1,000 years, making it "very unlikely" that global temperatures will stay below the 1.5°C limit agreed to in the landmark climate treaty negotiated in Paris last December.


#2

Trump and every other Republican, including Republican voters, say that climate change is a hoax.
How can our schools be producing such idiots?


#3

Hillary Clinton and almost every well-connected Democrat know that Climate Change is real but still support widespread fracking, unrestricted fossil fuel growth, unethical nuclear power, corporate control of the environment, poisoning of our crops with pesticides/herbicides, and unethical technologies such as GMO terminator seeds.

So worse than believing that Climate Change is a hoax are the people who know it is not a hoax but support the policies that will doom us all. They provide an illusion of security (just like the TSA) so that things can continue as is until the inevitable crash.

At least we can argue against the policies of the climate deniers. We have no such luxury with those who pretend to be on the side of science and the environment but do exactly the same thing as the climate deniers.

How can our schools be producing such idiots and manipulative liars?


#5

Gee, wilikers, the "World is Warming at Rate ‘Unprecedented’ for 1,000 Years"?! How did this happen? Oh, technology did it? Wow, I thought all problems are solvable by technology! That's why students should only focus on STEM disciplines (ScienceTechnologyEngineeringMathematics). Heck, that's why the US educational system is getting rid of the humanities and social sciences. Problems aren't solved by understanding how human beings think and behave, problems are solved by unconscious inanimate objects. At least I thought so. But, now it seems, if we concentrate only on STEM disciplines, we get ourselves into a global world of hurt. Damn unconscious inanimate objects, they seem to have side effects no one thought of until it was too late. Does it also mean these side effects are the product of human activity? Gee, if that's so, does it mean we need go back to investigating how human beings think and act?


#6

Hawaii Expects 2 Category 3 Hurricanes! Madeline then Lester Starting Tomorrow - http://www.staradvertiser.com/weather-updates/madeline-lester-gain-in-strength-overnight/

Climate chaos. Wake up wall street! I see that yer Insurance buds get it. When will you elites come down from yer delusions of grandeur? Just punks, you are - with money made based on lies that cause longterm misery.


#7

What nonsense. First of all nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, it is debatable whether natural gas from fracking that replaces coal contributes more to climate change or reduces climate change, scientists are on both sides of that issue. Democrats have been active in many ways trying to make the transition from fossil fuels to green energy such as solar and wind. For example, the Clean Power Plan. For example, obtaining an historic agreement in Paris on emissions reductions. For example, opposing the Keystone XL pipeline. For example, voting to improve the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles. Using pesticides and herbicides doesn't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. GMO crops have nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions. Corporations don't control the oceans or the air. Why are people on the fringe left attacking the wrong party on climate change? Seems like a waste of energy and something totally counterproductive if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change.


#9

Republicans vs. Dems on Global Warming: 'Know Nothing' vs. 'Do Nothing'.


#10

#11

Ah yes, it is expected that Hillary's "Correct the Record" PAC would respond. Hillary is probably one of the best examples of politicians that spout about climate change and then do the opposite.

Denying the science will not help you here. If you look at the full life cycle of nuclear power, you will see that nuclear power contributes far more greenhouse gases per watt produced than even "clean coal". First the construction of a nuclear power plant releases tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases as the massive amounts concrete cures as well as all of the other construction emissions. Then there is the gases created in mining the fuel. But by far the most emissions that occur are the isolating and guarding the prodigious amounts of highly radioactive waste for the next few millennia.

A nice straw man argument straight from the "Correct the Record" playbook.
Both coal and fracking gas are fossil fuels.
Why not compare fracking to renewable sources?
Plus fracking releases tremendous amounts of methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And don't forget to mention all of the carcinogens that the fracking operators are pumping into our ground. I am certain none of those chemicals would ever end up in our drinking water (NOT!)

The Paris agreement is a toothless measure to give the illusion of progress. It will go nowhere and do nothing. But it looks good on the resume.

Let's see. Hillary's beloved NAFTA is allowing the Keystone XL pipeline owners to sue you and me for all of their lost profits. And the Hillary delegates made sure that the TPP is part of the Democratic platform.
Once Hillary is in power, expect both the Keystone XL pipeline and TPP to move full steam ahead.

The massive use of fossil-fuel derived carcinogenic herbicides necessitated for the GMO crops have created vast deserts of our productive farmland where nothing other than GMO crops will grow. Our farmers are now locked in to this unsustainable agriculture. If we want to combat climate change, we have to rely on sustainable agriculture.
Plus a great deal of the GMO corn is grown only for bio-fuels which sound great but do little to reduce fossil fuel usage as it takes fossil fuel and fossil fuel derived fertilizers and fossil fuel derived pesticides to make them.

Good joke!


#13

So Gavin Schmidt says “This is [global warming] a chronic problem for society for the next 100 years.” Guy McPherson, in re-working some information from the Arctic News Blog, stated this recently (http://guymcpherson.com/2016/08/the-politics-and-science-of-our-demise/):

"In total, [Sam] Carana ends up with 10.02 C above baseline [the pre-industrial period] by mid-2026, or about 23.5 C. That’d be the highest global-average temperature on this planet during the last 2,000,000,000 years. Taking a conservative approach at every step, I conclude “only” an 8.21-degree rise in temperature by mid-2026. As a result, I conclude global-average temperature at that time will be about 21.7 C (13.5 C + 8.21 C). This is barely below 22 C, the temperature at which Earth has most commonly found itself during the last 2,000,000,000 years. There is no reason to expect Earth to start cooling until the heat engine of civilization is turned off and dozens of self-reinforcing feedback loops are inexplicably reversed."

If Carana-McPherson is right that the global mean temperature is likely to rise by about 8° C in 10 years, it should be clear that THERE WILL BE NO ONE ALIVE THEN!! Why, then, is Gavin Schmidt talking about “next 100 years”!!


#14

Nothing you wrote is correct. The Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards, EV subsidies, public transit subsidies, wind and solar subsidies, and, yes, nuclear power, will all cut fossil fuel usage. The replacement of coal power generation with natural gas power generation has, as a short-term measure, produced significant cuts in CO2 emissions and enormous reductions in other pollutants like mercury, S02, and all the waste that coal mines produce.

The federal government cannot "ban" fracking any more than it can "ban" any other kind of industrial process - it can, however, regulate or ban pollution emissions from the activity - which is where the problem lies, right?

Of course, a Trump/Republican government will abolish and completely reverse all of these measures.

This notion that the Democratic Party is the same Trump and the current-day extremist TP Republicans is utter, utter, self-delusional nonsense. Please, please, get away from your keyboards in your hermit-holes and go outside, go to a bar, or other social gathering, and talk to some ordinary Trump-supporting USAns and see for yourself.


#15

And worse, if the endless, over-the-top demonization of the Democrats by the so-called, sort-of, would-be "left" results in even the perception of being responsible for a Trump/Republican victory in November, it will be "game over" for any effective organizing to the left of the Democrats for a generation.


#16

The only thing worse than a Trump victory would be a Clinton victory.
But both would end in disaster.
With the war-hawk Clinton in the White House, the resultant wars that she is so fond of will result in far more damage to the planet than Donald Trump could achieve repealing all of the environmental advances (that have so far not done near enough).
Our ONLY hope is the slim chance that a third party, (like Jill Stein) will take the reins and return sanity to our government.


#17

Does it not occur to you that an 8C rise in average temperature in the next ten years is extremely unlikely? You need to sit back and try to figure out just what conditions are necessary to effect such a catastrophic change. There is far too much latency (cooling factors like ice caps etc) involved globally to allow for so drastic a change with such amazing rapidity. You are assuming that McPherson knows but think for yourself! If you want to boil a pot of water ... How much longer would it take if you kept dropping ice cubes into the pot as it heats? Once the polar ice cap is totally gone is one thing and even then. Prior world temperatures occurred over thousands of years of gradual change. What did he forget to mention that?

Ten years? It seems highly improbable that an 8C rise could occur. On the other hand, it is highly likely that a one degree rise could happen and that is very fast.


#18

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/08/arctic-sea-ice-getting-terribly-thin.html


#19

Yes I know but simple common sense presupposes that over a ten year span that such a drastic rise is improbable. Where does the cause for this effect lay? That is an awesome amount of heat for which there is no explanation given. I do think that ten years from now that our world will be greatly changed. Personally, I think the continental USA has seen the last true winters at least of the way that winter has been previously and a new milder temperate winter will replace the old ones.

Simply to contemplate the end of USA winters (as we have known them) is a pretty big change to my mind.

Thanks for the link though. A quick glance tells me it makes some quick assumptions which seem excessive to say the least. You should go back ( if possible ) and check out this guy's predictions for the ten years that have just passed.


#20

I find it hard to believe too. Guy said he hopes he is wrong, of course. I was studying environmental science 10 years ago, and it is amazing how much worse things are than what was generally predicted back then.

Here is Guy's breakdown of the Arctic News article-

http://guymcpherson.com/2016/08/the-politics-and-science-of-our-demise/

Let me know what you think


#21

I wasn't aware that anyone thought this was over.


#22

I am not a McPherson believer. Hansen on the other hand ... He predicts some bad weather and rising seas to come upon us in the next decade but he also predicts that we will be around to regret it...lol

Hansen has the record that backs up his claims. That counts for me. People like Mc Pherson predicted things years ago too but Hansen's science backed him up. McPherson is an alarmist but only after the fact. Hansen does the research.


#23

On the bright side, the more Americans in poverty, the lower our consumption of fossil fuels...