Where did your tax money go?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Six Degrees and you're dead
Everyone talks about global warming and how it's gonna get hotter, but no one breaks down exactly what the effects will be if it happens. So I got National Geographic's "Six Degrees Could Change the World" and took a few notes, since most folks are too lazy to do the research.
These are my notes:
Usually warming occurs over thousands of years, not decades.
We've risen .8 degrees Celsius
1 degree Celsius Another
Dust Bowl in the Western US like the thirties - only bigger!
Sand dunes blow across the US plains
England will enjoy their best weather ever - able to produce wine and olives
2 degrees Celsius
insect migration to the north
some islands go under water
Coral reefs die, killing off 100s of 1000s of species.
Ocean algae that supports life and controls CO2 dies altering the way the ocean works completely
Coastal cities flood as Greenland melts
Nat'l Geographic says when the Arctic Ocean melts, that's when warming can become a 'runaway train'.
3 degees Celsius
will push warming over the edge
Arctic Ocean thaws all year.
Amazon Jungle turns to desert - (tributaries are already drying up)
We have El Nino every year
Europe becomes like the Middle east
Summer has Killer Heat Waves. - every summer
Paris 2003 30,000 died of heat strokes, which were uheard of there
Many deciduous trees start retaining O2 and releasing CO2
Dying trees from desrtification releases enough CO2 to raise warming to 4 degrees
Most violent storms ever - Katrina will be the norm
category 6 hurricanes
Basic life-support systems start to break down.
4 degrees Celsius -
hard to predict.
Rising Oceans displace a billion people from coasts and deltas
Glacial melting completes and cuts off freshwater flows to billions
Canada becomes agricultural
River Ganges - source of all freshwater in India - dries up to a creek
Manhattan floods
Europe develops desert as Alps melt and dry up
5 degrees Celsius
100s of millions of 'climate refugees' seek habitable land
civilization as a whole breaks down.
Only the rich remain comfortable, moving to better climates (which is why, I imagine, they don't care about it).
Natural disasters are common
People fight for dwindling resources
6 degrees Celsius
Mass extinction
Huge uninhabitable areas of land span the entire globe
Doomsday scenario
Cannibalism sounds like a good option
So I'm thinking the whole time I'm watching this movie, "What's the best method of population control?" Make as much money as you can, selling something that destroys the ecosystem, so you can blame the world's chaos on the masses, and take that money and build yourself a nice cozey little castle in the north til the rest of the population eats each other and kills each other off, then repopulate the world with your own DNA.
Survival of the fittest :-) Hey, it's just nature's way. The Cold Equation. (No ironic pun intended)
These are my notes:
Usually warming occurs over thousands of years, not decades.
We've risen .8 degrees Celsius
1 degree Celsius Another
Dust Bowl in the Western US like the thirties - only bigger!
Sand dunes blow across the US plains
England will enjoy their best weather ever - able to produce wine and olives
2 degrees Celsius
insect migration to the north
some islands go under water
Coral reefs die, killing off 100s of 1000s of species.
Ocean algae that supports life and controls CO2 dies altering the way the ocean works completely
Coastal cities flood as Greenland melts
Nat'l Geographic says when the Arctic Ocean melts, that's when warming can become a 'runaway train'.
3 degees Celsius
will push warming over the edge
Arctic Ocean thaws all year.
Amazon Jungle turns to desert - (tributaries are already drying up)
We have El Nino every year
Europe becomes like the Middle east
Summer has Killer Heat Waves. - every summer
Paris 2003 30,000 died of heat strokes, which were uheard of there
Many deciduous trees start retaining O2 and releasing CO2
Dying trees from desrtification releases enough CO2 to raise warming to 4 degrees
Most violent storms ever - Katrina will be the norm
category 6 hurricanes
Basic life-support systems start to break down.
4 degrees Celsius -
hard to predict.
Rising Oceans displace a billion people from coasts and deltas
Glacial melting completes and cuts off freshwater flows to billions
Canada becomes agricultural
River Ganges - source of all freshwater in India - dries up to a creek
Manhattan floods
Europe develops desert as Alps melt and dry up
5 degrees Celsius
100s of millions of 'climate refugees' seek habitable land
civilization as a whole breaks down.
Only the rich remain comfortable, moving to better climates (which is why, I imagine, they don't care about it).
Natural disasters are common
People fight for dwindling resources
6 degrees Celsius
Mass extinction
Huge uninhabitable areas of land span the entire globe
Doomsday scenario
Cannibalism sounds like a good option
So I'm thinking the whole time I'm watching this movie, "What's the best method of population control?" Make as much money as you can, selling something that destroys the ecosystem, so you can blame the world's chaos on the masses, and take that money and build yourself a nice cozey little castle in the north til the rest of the population eats each other and kills each other off, then repopulate the world with your own DNA.
Survival of the fittest :-) Hey, it's just nature's way. The Cold Equation. (No ironic pun intended)
Friday, August 8, 2008
Guess it's the end of the world
I got the article at the bottom of the page from here:
http://www.countercurrents.org/james080808.htm
It basically says the Arctic Ocean wasn't supposed to melt for another 80 years. It's melting this summer and so will likely reach total melting point in 4 years.
It says the computer models are wrong because the government made the scientists factor in the (incorrect) assumption that there would be a 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses (hah).
That means a 4 degree rise in global temperatures in our lifetime.
If you wanted to see what 4 degrees would do to the earth, you could Google "effects of global warming", or go to Wiki
But we'd be pretty much screwed at a simple 2 degree rise.
Soooooo - glad I never had kids.
Here's the article:
Doom Or Disaster?
By John James
08 August, 2008
Countercurrents.org
Nearly every projection for the future of civilization made in the IPCC reports has been exceeded. Events that were projected to emerge by the end of the century have been moved back to 2070, then to 2040, and even now to 'within the next few years'.
The goal posts are moving towards us at a terrible pace.
The most obvious is the visible state of the summer sea ice in the Arctic that was expected to still be there in the lifetime of my grandchildren, but is now well on the way to disappearing by 2012. What was to have deteriorated slowly over 80 years could now be gone in four.
It is the same with global temperatures, loss of species, sea-level rise and aggravated drought. Wherever we look at the figures we are, on nearly every front, approaching Armageddon at an appallingly fast rate.
Why were the IPCC projections so wrong? Why were 2500 contributing scientists from over 130 countries unable even 2 years ago to get their projections right?
Projections are established through computer modelling. The climate is so complex, and the factors that affect it are so interdependent that only computers can handle the mass of material required to make these predictions. Even then, the smallest change to the parameters can have huge consequences to the outcomes.
This is why many scenarios are run on each issue, which is why projections give a range of possibilities. For example, the Gulf Stream is driven by cold water flowing out of the Arctic. Naturally there is concern that the end of sea-ice would reduce this flow and could lead to a collapse of the warm waters that heat the countries around the North Atlantic Ocean. As only a small percentage of the computer models predicted total collapse, the IPCC reported there could be a diminution of flow and that there was little risk of the Gulf Stream actually stopping,
It now seems that many models were wrong. How could this have happened? How come that reality in the Arctic is so exceeding expectations that the world is moving towards doom rather than disaster?
The IPCC reports had to be approved by all the participating governments, and that included the US and the Howard administration in Australia, two nations that were committed to sabotaging effective action against global warming.
Their tactic was simple: include in every model the assumption that there would be a 60 percent reduction in projected emissions through the voluntary efforts of business. This, we now know, has not happened in spite of small yet significant moves in some areas. Up to now the voluntary reduction to emissions may amount to 5 percent, a long way from the assumption built into the models.
This is one reason why most computer projections are now being exceeded.
As a result, James Hansen told the US Senate that we now have three alternatives before us, none of them encouraging. The future may be bad, disastrous or fatal to any civilised life.
It depends on us.
As greenhouse gas emissions are increasing every year, as more and more coal-powered generators are being built, as larger trucks are carrying goods over longer distances and as the population continues to increase, it is blindingly obvious that Hansen's best scenario is now extremely unlikely.
We are left with disaster (that will be bad enough) or doom.
We need to understand what Doom means. There is no possibility that Frodo will drop the ring into the crater and suddenly save us all. Doom means anything over 4 degrees temperature increase. It means the loss of most of the world's best agricultural land to rising seas, the end of trade as docks and cities are flooded, and the displacement of billions of men, women and children.
It means nuclear war and genocide, enormous suffering and the end of diversity in both human cultures and living creatures. It means the end of civilisation and a return to the most primitive way of life imaginable for the few thousand scattered survivors.
It means that we will have long passed the point of no return, and that even if we do stop emitting more pollutants into the air we will have begun the unstoppable release of methane from permafrost and under-sea clathrates that will quite rapidly take the world to even higher temperatures at which little life will remain.
We could end up like Mars or Venus.
At the speed at which things are changing, this could happen in our lifetime.
Let me repeat, so this goes home into our consciousness: THIS COULD HAPPEN IN OUR LIFETIME.
Though there is a delay of some twenty years between the emission of greenhouse gasses and the full consequences, we know that today's temperature must more than double from what has already been emitted. Were we to immediately end all pollution worldwide today, and do it instantly, global temperature would reach 2 degrees within a few years. That is inevitable and cannot now be stopped.
By spreading the idea that we had time, that 4 degrees would not come until the end of the century so that we could go on living in luxury and leave it to our grandkids to sort out, we have been criminally misled.
Two years ago I wrote that we had ten years to end all emissions everywhere. Now we have eight left. What are you going to do to protect your children?
Dr John James is President of the Crisis Coalition, founder of the Footprints bi-weekly newsletter and webmaster of www.planetextinction.com.
http://www.countercurrents.org/james080808.htm
It basically says the Arctic Ocean wasn't supposed to melt for another 80 years. It's melting this summer and so will likely reach total melting point in 4 years.
It says the computer models are wrong because the government made the scientists factor in the (incorrect) assumption that there would be a 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses (hah).
That means a 4 degree rise in global temperatures in our lifetime.
If you wanted to see what 4 degrees would do to the earth, you could Google "effects of global warming", or go to Wiki
But we'd be pretty much screwed at a simple 2 degree rise.
Soooooo - glad I never had kids.
Here's the article:
Doom Or Disaster?
By John James
08 August, 2008
Countercurrents.org
Nearly every projection for the future of civilization made in the IPCC reports has been exceeded. Events that were projected to emerge by the end of the century have been moved back to 2070, then to 2040, and even now to 'within the next few years'.
The goal posts are moving towards us at a terrible pace.
The most obvious is the visible state of the summer sea ice in the Arctic that was expected to still be there in the lifetime of my grandchildren, but is now well on the way to disappearing by 2012. What was to have deteriorated slowly over 80 years could now be gone in four.
It is the same with global temperatures, loss of species, sea-level rise and aggravated drought. Wherever we look at the figures we are, on nearly every front, approaching Armageddon at an appallingly fast rate.
Why were the IPCC projections so wrong? Why were 2500 contributing scientists from over 130 countries unable even 2 years ago to get their projections right?
Projections are established through computer modelling. The climate is so complex, and the factors that affect it are so interdependent that only computers can handle the mass of material required to make these predictions. Even then, the smallest change to the parameters can have huge consequences to the outcomes.
This is why many scenarios are run on each issue, which is why projections give a range of possibilities. For example, the Gulf Stream is driven by cold water flowing out of the Arctic. Naturally there is concern that the end of sea-ice would reduce this flow and could lead to a collapse of the warm waters that heat the countries around the North Atlantic Ocean. As only a small percentage of the computer models predicted total collapse, the IPCC reported there could be a diminution of flow and that there was little risk of the Gulf Stream actually stopping,
It now seems that many models were wrong. How could this have happened? How come that reality in the Arctic is so exceeding expectations that the world is moving towards doom rather than disaster?
The IPCC reports had to be approved by all the participating governments, and that included the US and the Howard administration in Australia, two nations that were committed to sabotaging effective action against global warming.
Their tactic was simple: include in every model the assumption that there would be a 60 percent reduction in projected emissions through the voluntary efforts of business. This, we now know, has not happened in spite of small yet significant moves in some areas. Up to now the voluntary reduction to emissions may amount to 5 percent, a long way from the assumption built into the models.
This is one reason why most computer projections are now being exceeded.
As a result, James Hansen told the US Senate that we now have three alternatives before us, none of them encouraging. The future may be bad, disastrous or fatal to any civilised life.
It depends on us.
As greenhouse gas emissions are increasing every year, as more and more coal-powered generators are being built, as larger trucks are carrying goods over longer distances and as the population continues to increase, it is blindingly obvious that Hansen's best scenario is now extremely unlikely.
We are left with disaster (that will be bad enough) or doom.
We need to understand what Doom means. There is no possibility that Frodo will drop the ring into the crater and suddenly save us all. Doom means anything over 4 degrees temperature increase. It means the loss of most of the world's best agricultural land to rising seas, the end of trade as docks and cities are flooded, and the displacement of billions of men, women and children.
It means nuclear war and genocide, enormous suffering and the end of diversity in both human cultures and living creatures. It means the end of civilisation and a return to the most primitive way of life imaginable for the few thousand scattered survivors.
It means that we will have long passed the point of no return, and that even if we do stop emitting more pollutants into the air we will have begun the unstoppable release of methane from permafrost and under-sea clathrates that will quite rapidly take the world to even higher temperatures at which little life will remain.
We could end up like Mars or Venus.
At the speed at which things are changing, this could happen in our lifetime.
Let me repeat, so this goes home into our consciousness: THIS COULD HAPPEN IN OUR LIFETIME.
Though there is a delay of some twenty years between the emission of greenhouse gasses and the full consequences, we know that today's temperature must more than double from what has already been emitted. Were we to immediately end all pollution worldwide today, and do it instantly, global temperature would reach 2 degrees within a few years. That is inevitable and cannot now be stopped.
By spreading the idea that we had time, that 4 degrees would not come until the end of the century so that we could go on living in luxury and leave it to our grandkids to sort out, we have been criminally misled.
Two years ago I wrote that we had ten years to end all emissions everywhere. Now we have eight left. What are you going to do to protect your children?
Dr John James is President of the Crisis Coalition, founder of the Footprints bi-weekly newsletter and webmaster of www.planetextinction.com.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
A short list of Intelligent Websites
I recently discovered Google Reader and there are some
websites I find interesting.
As I discover new ones, I'll add them to this blog and maybe move the blog up to date.
Currently these are my favorites:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php
http://www.countercurrents.org/index.htm
I'll add more as I discover them.
websites I find interesting.
As I discover new ones, I'll add them to this blog and maybe move the blog up to date.
Currently these are my favorites:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php
http://www.countercurrents.org/index.htm
I'll add more as I discover them.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Hummingbird Nest
My brother Chester emailed me and said there was a hummingbird nest in his tee.
I'm there!
It was 20ft up, and my 12x zoom was wide open, so this was the best shot I could get :-)
I'm there!
It was 20ft up, and my 12x zoom was wide open, so this was the best shot I could get :-)
Sunday, August 3, 2008
On the Verge of Creating Synthetic Life
This is why I watch TED.com
This is Craig Venter: On the Verge of Creating Synthetic Life
$50 and up Underground House
I recently discovered Google Reader and the first thing I subscribed to was Cool Tools. Lo and behold I find this old book from the '70's! -- The $50 and up Underground House Book
I first heard of this book in my early twenties through Mother Earth News.
You can build a house for only a few thousand bucks --- underground.
Now before I hooked into this blogspot I had written a few blogs on my own website, one in particular was building a tent over a hole to live in. I even had detailed construction plans started. I had plumb forgotten about this old book, but this is the closest thing I'd seen to doing what I wanted to do with a tent.
It basically describes it as digging into a hillside, laying plastic between the earth and the poles & boards holding the earth back, then berming the earth up over the house. You see- plastic might not last long in the sunlight, but underground it can take a hundred years or more to decay. (Be sure to read Countryside Magazine's Article on the subject for more details.) So what better place to bury it than around your house to keep out the ground moisture?
I got a kick out of this place in Holland that was built without a permit. Evidently the building inspectors walked around it twice looking for the house and didn't see it. Now that's for me :-) My own Hobbiton!
Personally, I'd start with strawbales on the roof, (not quite as heavy as dirt) untied and spread out to allow decay, and plant a garden there. That would be the ultimate insulation, as well as efficient use of space, leaving the rest of the property as natural as you can.
And what's does an underground house look like inside?
This was taken in natural lighting - no flash.
I first heard of this book in my early twenties through Mother Earth News.
You can build a house for only a few thousand bucks --- underground.
Now before I hooked into this blogspot I had written a few blogs on my own website, one in particular was building a tent over a hole to live in. I even had detailed construction plans started. I had plumb forgotten about this old book, but this is the closest thing I'd seen to doing what I wanted to do with a tent.
It basically describes it as digging into a hillside, laying plastic between the earth and the poles & boards holding the earth back, then berming the earth up over the house. You see- plastic might not last long in the sunlight, but underground it can take a hundred years or more to decay. (Be sure to read Countryside Magazine's Article on the subject for more details.) So what better place to bury it than around your house to keep out the ground moisture?
I got a kick out of this place in Holland that was built without a permit. Evidently the building inspectors walked around it twice looking for the house and didn't see it. Now that's for me :-) My own Hobbiton!
Personally, I'd start with strawbales on the roof, (not quite as heavy as dirt) untied and spread out to allow decay, and plant a garden there. That would be the ultimate insulation, as well as efficient use of space, leaving the rest of the property as natural as you can.
And what's does an underground house look like inside?
This was taken in natural lighting - no flash.
Here's the website to review and order the book and - now, thanks to technology - the DVDs.
http://www.undergroundhousing.com/index.html
I'll be ordering mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)