Overwhelmed Planet?

[aGENT]

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

There's a certain irony implicit. We can project a great young hockey team developing..but can we project human existence(& our current living-arrangements) a decade out?

There are(as of this moment) named storms in BOTH the Pacific & Atlantic basins. It's January, ferGawdsakes!

Tropical storm ALEX(west of Azores) is headed towards Greenland. 21st Century tragedies are defined as unwitting Titanic icebergs crashing unexpectedly into potential hurricanes.. Only OTHER tropical storm in history, in Jan(North Atlantic) was in 1872..remember that one?!

Meanwhile PALI has reached hurricane-strength, south of Hawaii, 2 degrees from Equator. Only 2 other times in history, so near equator. Should stay strong for 5 days, apparently.

Lastly, on the North Pole. Late Dec it was TWO degrees C, an anomaly of about FORTY degrees Celsius. Of course this was unprecedented. Well it's happening again, with the help of El Nino pushing warm, tropical air up into the northernmost point of the globe. Incredulously I've been shaking my head, as mass media has hardly made mention.

Robertscribbler.com

Weatherunderground.com

Required reading. All the best...

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Nuxfanabroad
ommission

[Robongo]

Www.geoengineerwatch.org

why is the weather so &^@#ed up?:

 

Theres a whole pdf with far more pages from a FOIA request . But no, its just a crazy conspiracy theory! Can't wait for the posts quoting "metabunk", a likely government disinfo site.

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Robongo

[Robongo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know, just a bunch of crackpots and conspiracy theorists!

[Nuxfanabroad]

Whatever the cause, TS Alex was officially upgraded to Hurricane status. It's the strongest of only two Atlantic hurricanes to have formed(January) since 1771.

This simultaneous to a Hurricane(Pali) in the Pacific basin.

Official hurricane report even defined this as "surreal". Absolutely unprecedented.

[Nuxfanabroad]

On ‎2015‎年‎5‎月‎27‎日 at 10:46 PM, Nuxfanabroad said:

Hellinna'handbasket, it would appear.

 

Seems strange to me, that there don't appear to be many CDC'ers dying to discuss the deteriorating environment.

 

Personally find it a surprising, yet fascinating topic. World's in mighty harsh shape, but apparently the MSM doesn't want most citizens well-informed, or delving too deeply on such issues.

 

Fortunately, there are quite a few online alternatives to gather info. Sites like ArcticNews, RobertScribbler, Seemorerocks & Naturebatslast...

 

As of this moment, look at a region like India, where perhaps a 1000+ have already perished in multi-day, high 40's, unrelenting heat.

 

Then you've got heatwaves(wavy jet stream) climbing up into the Arctic, May temps in the 30's in Alaska(!), higher than most of mainland USA.

 

In the central states, unprecedented tropical downpours deluging places(previously drought-stricken) like OKC & Texas; whilst thirsty Californians have resorted to stealing/hoarding & drilling wells for water. It's looking like Sao Paolo, Brazil.

 

There are endless, meandering paths from this central, all-important issue, yet I've become curious if sporting fans(in general) have become allergic to the matter.

 

In a related way, have sports themselves become a constant form of 'escapism'?

Too lazy to type out variations of the same thing..so this gets bumped.

 

James Hansen

Jennifer Francis

Paul Beckwith

Guy McPherson

Robert Scribbler

Chris Hedges

Derrick Jensen (journalist)

Dahr Jamail (journalist)

 

At least SOME people have tried to warn the general public. You have to look far & wide(mostly alternative media) to find worthy, credible info.

 

With the eco-tragedies unfolding in so many places, perhaps the mainstream-media will start applying the importance in fully reporting, that the health of our planet deserves?

 

Our newspapers are bombarded with asinine updates on meaningless politics. Destruction of a once beautiful planet should be the top story of the day..EVERY day.

[Industrious1]

Insane population growth on a global scale contributing to vast amounts of industrialization and this is what you get.

 

Not really sure what we can do about it though, because women have a biological imperative to procreate (and men to a lesser degree) so the folks that want kids don't really care if the world can support them or not.  It's a catch 22 because you can't tell people not to have kids; China did and it was horrendous PR for them that they are still recovering from.

 

In today's society it is better to be politically correct than just correct.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Seems we've reached ANOTHER unprecedented record. Sea surface temps of 30 degree C, or higher.

 

1) May 2016 ..32,700,000 km's of ocean surface exceeding 30 C(86 degrees F)!. Previous record was last year..of course!

2) May 2015 ..28,500,000

-Had to add, Scribbler says this sea surface is equal to the area of Africa & Greenland combined.

 

Hmm..seems we've bounced last yr's record by well over 10%. Nice work, humanity!

 

This ocean heat loads the atmosphere with latent heat moisture. Anyone notice tropical deluges in wide-ranging areas like Germany, France, Texas, & Sydney, as of late ? If you follow MSM, all might not have even been mentioned(politics & other topics are so very important).

 

Other problems include bleaching corals, massive algae issues, ocean oxygen depletion, etc...

 

Robertscribbler.com   Recommend a peek at this site. Today's top story, at least, as of this moment.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Nuxfanabroad
additional info

[clam linguine]

   problems posting

Edited June 6, 2016 by clam linguine

[Alflives]

15 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Seems we've reached ANOTHER unprecedented record. Sea surface temps of 30 degree C, or higher.

 

1) May 2016 ..32,700,000 km's of ocean surface exceeding 30 C(86 degrees F)!. Previous record was last year..of course!

2) May 2015 ..28,500,000

-Had to add, Scribbler says this sea surface is equal to the area of Africa & Greenland combined.

 

Hmm..seems we've bounced last yr's record by well over 10%. Nice work, humanity!

 

This ocean heat loads the atmosphere with latent heat moisture. Anyone notice tropical deluges in wide-ranging areas like Germany, France, Texas, & Sydney, as of late ? If you follow MSM, all might not have even been mentioned(politics & other topics are so very important).

 

Other problems include bleaching corals, massive algae issues, ocean oxygen depletion, etc...

 

Robertscribbler.com   Recommend a peek at this site. Today's top story, at least, as of this moment.

Yes the planet's oceans are literally dying.  Our planet will certainly die, and we are doomed.  It's a LONG WAY OFF, so stop worrying about that stuff, and get out and have a pizza and beer.

[clam linguine]

 

15 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Seems we've reached ANOTHER unprecedented record. Sea surface temps of 30 degree C, or higher.

 

1) May 2016 ..32,700,000 km's of ocean surface exceeding 30 C(86 degrees F)!. Previous record was last year..of course!

2) May 2015 ..28,500,000

-Had to add, Scribbler says this sea surface is equal to the area of Africa & Greenland combined.

 

Hmm..seems we've bounced last yr's record by well over 10%. Nice work, humanity!

 

This ocean heat loads the atmosphere with latent heat moisture. Anyone notice tropical deluges in wide-ranging areas like Germany, France, Texas, & Sydney, as of late ? If you follow MSM, all might not have even been mentioned(politics & other topics are so very important).

 

Other problems include bleaching corals, massive algae issues, ocean oxygen depletion, etc...

 

Robertscribbler.com   Recommend a peek at this site. Today's top story, at least, as of this moment.

Here you go Nux...maybe this will make you feel better.  There was a huge drop in Global temperatures in May.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/category/global-temperature-updates/

Edited June 6, 2016 by clam linguine

[aGENT]

16 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Other problems include bleaching corals, massive algae issues, ocean oxygen depletion, etc...

The proliferation of oceanic 'dead zones' is disturbing... 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Bumped this to please Jonathan Toews.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Seemorerocks.com has an article today saying there's wildfires in freeken'Greenland. I also recently read that Mother Nature might demand a divorce!

 

Where does this all end? Appears the faecal matter is hitting the proverbial fan blades, whilst society posts about the love lives/scandals of pop stars.

 

Economy

Environment

Geopolitical complications

 

How inextricably-linked are these matters? Three parallel lines plummeting with the same trajectories?

 

 

[RRypien37]

I really do my best to recycle, compost, reuse and clean up as much as possible within my means. I know it's a minor part in what is going on with the planet, but everything helps.

 

I see how much stuff people throw out, are too lazy/lack knowledge/understanding, it sickens me. I feel that if everyone took the extra time and did as much as they could in terms of just garbage/waste alone, the impact would be great. People just don't care and won't until its too late. 

Edited August 8, 2017 by RRypien37

[Nuxfanabroad]

5 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

I really do my best to recycle, compost, reuse and clean up as much as possible within my means. I know it's a minor part in what is going on with the planet, but everything helps.

 

I see how much stuff people throw out, are too lazy/lack knowledge/understanding, it sickens me. I feel that if everyone took the extra time and did as much as they could in terms of just garbage/waste alone, the impact would be great. People just don't care and won't until its too late. 

Apparently we needn't worry..Melon Musk will save everything! Do hear what you're saying. It's a mighty sad state.

 

Back in the 70's the 3 R's were all the rage - but'cha can't make money off that!

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Apparently we needn't worry..Melon Musk will save everything! Do hear what you're saying. It's a mighty sad state.

 

Back in the 70's the 3 R's were all the rage - but'cha can't make money off that!

And that's the problem.  Capitalism is the best for creating capital, there is no denying that (and capital has its useful place in this world).  Unfortunately, the environment is not on the ledger in capitalism.  Attempts have been tried to remedy that but any form of that is summarily dismissed as "artificially disrupting free-markets" by too many people that can influence the people in power.  Never mind the fact that "free-markets" are artificial constructs to begin with.

[Nuxfanabroad]

38 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

And that's the problem.  Capitalism is the best for creating capital, there is no denying that (and capital has its useful place in this world).  Unfortunately, the environment is not on the ledger in capitalism.  Attempts have been tried to remedy that but any form of that is summarily dismissed as "artificially disrupting free-markets" by too many people that can influence the people in power.  Never mind the fact that "free-markets" are artificial constructs to begin with.

Ironically, eco-lackeys(likely at behest of TPTB) were recently promoting that the economy had "decoupled" from the necessity of environmental-degradation. Less reliance on FF's, yet gdp's were still supposedly rising. They wanted to promote the theory that clean energy was coming through.

 

Now people are wising-up to the opposite. Globally, a lot of economies are poised to do the housa'cards thing. Productivity/trade is dropping, yet CO2 continues to rise, due to an assortment of diverse factors, such as Arctic microbes/bacteria producing methane, endless wildfires(& WARS, for that matter), & a host of other exponential-issues.

[Wilbur]

Read this story on CBC.ca today:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-adaptation-expert-panel-analysis-wherry-1.4271699

 

Scrolled down to the comments and was shocked.  I think I was about 20 comments in and every single one of them were skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.  Seriously, where do these people come from?

[clam linguine]

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

Read this story on CBC.ca today:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-adaptation-expert-panel-analysis-wherry-1.4271699

 

Scrolled down to the comments and was shocked.  I think I was about 20 comments in and every single one of them were skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.  Seriously, where do these people come from?

Where have you been? Here's one of many sites that can help explain.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/

 

 

Many scientists agree with the spirit behind the comments you find shocking.

 

John Cook et al., 2013[edit]

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.^[12]They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.^[12]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,^[13]adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."^[12]

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:

• The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
• The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)"

Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. ^[14]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencerdisputing the 97% figure, as climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.^[15]

Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along".^[16] Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not".^[17]

 

 

Don't be sad for the earth, it will survive a slightly higher than average CO2 level just fine.  The planet has.gone from a snowball to a hothouse and from microbes to dinosaurs and can do it again if necessary.  Are you worried about you own well being?

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by clam linguine