International Climate Action Day

globalwarmingHey humans! We’re dying here!

Today marks what might well be the largest international protest in the planet’s history, involving some 170 nations (including Afghanistan). It’s target: global heating.

It is sponsored by 350.org, named after the level of atmospheric carbon in parts per million deemed to be the tipping point of catastrophic climate change. The fact that we are already at 387ppm underscores the urgency of getting off our carbon baked butts and changing our evil, planet destroying ways NOW.

Amy Goodman interviewed two leading climate change activists on her show today, one of whom helped produce the event. The vid is a bit large to load but you can watch it here.

————

Meanwhile, the energy industry funded climate change denial campaign has succeeded in reducing the percentage of Americans who believe that climate change is occurring, and that humans are at least partially at fault. According to a new poll by  Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.

Another Pew poll done back in April showed an interesting difference between people who describe themselves as religious and non-religious:

The Pew survey of more than 1,500 people found that non-religious people were highly inclined to believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming and that humans are responsible for it.
The group least likely to accept the reality of human-made global warming are white evangelicals.
Thirty-one per cent of U.S. white evangelicals do not believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming.
Only 34 per cent of U.S. white evangelicals accept pollution is leading to higher temperatures.

It’s a sign the wedge between evangelicals and many other North Americans remains firmly in place.
In contrast, the Pew Forum poll shows 58 per cent of those Americans who are religiously unaffiliated believe humans are causing global warming, while only 18 per cent believe the planet is not heating up.

——–

And for a ‘kitchen table’ approach to reducing global heating, see
To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates in today’s NY Times.

[Image found here. ]

6 Comments

  1. human of days

    Energy, as a consumable, compliments the profit motive.
    Both (burning and profit religion) are endangered species as we progress.

    In all our expert survey (subjective for now), we scarcely factor in who’s hand is on the throttle and what range of control and anticipation is wielded.
    The UB gives us a way to begin factoring more correctly, a way we could not achieve without revelation.

    There is one perfect storm I’m sure of, the one great source and center of all.

    All you’ve outlined could go worst case for our sakes, just remind yourself, we were not created for the earth, the earth is created for us. Our abuses may create the pain that grows us.

    There is no True (objective) science, philosophy, or religion (our present surrogates for three fold reality) without God at the center of each and all.

    I know that, but for a true and worthy center tethering me, my efforts at perfecting toward better things are lame.
    How much more must this be true for the collective?
    Whatever looms, the technique of true adjustment is the same.

    Personality “purposes” spirit (self animating substance), which will enter and order mind (growth) to master matter. (self to personality)

    With a 3 fold balance of God centered S. P. and R.,
    we can “Know and Know now” the better way.

    That’s my declaration of where to start…

  2. Propagandee Propagandee

    Hi again, HOD:

    You write:

    We know from the UB point of view how planetary destiny is off limits, and that the ice age is over save the last remnant (the poles).

    While I would agree with the first clause of your premise, I question the second, per this qualification from TUB:

    100,000 years ago, during the retreat of the last glacier, the vast polar ice sheets began to form, and the center of ice accumulation moved considerably northward. And as long as the polar regions continue to be covered with ice, it is hardly possible for another glacial age to occur, regardless of future land elevations or modification of ocean currents. [61:7.11]

    The qualifications “hardly possible” and “”as long as” do not mean never. The question then becomes what factors could come together in a perfect storm to melt the poles (which in turn would make another ice age possible). As I understand it, such factors include: external forcings from solar or extra-solar cosmic sources; anthropogenic increases of CO2, which in turn could release vast amounts of the much more potent global heating gas, methane; and changes in the planet’s atmospheric currents (Hadley cells, etc.) that would modify rainfall patterns around the world. (SE Australia is entering the ninth year of an extreme drought caused by its usual annual rainfall missing landfall by a couple of hundred miles.)

    Such changes could be expected to be accelerated by a number of positive feedback cycles:

    1. Glacial Ice Melt. The effect of pools of melt water on icebergs from atmospheric global warming was demonstrated by the dramatic and wholly unexpected sudden collapse of the Larsen-B ice shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula, beginning January 31, 2002. Measuring 150 by 30 miles and towering 700 feet above the ocean surface, this gigantic iceberg completely disappeared in 35 days, most of it occurring during a two day period. It is believed that the water tunneled through to the ocean, turning it into a gigantic piece of icy Swiss cheese. Another example: a huge moulin (crevice) that opened recently in Greenland, sending torrents of water straight down to bedrock where the water acts a lubricant, creating heat inducing friction as the ice slides along the bedrock into the sea. As above, so below.

    2. Ice acts as a solar reflector, bouncing 90% of the sun’s rays back into space. Reduction of ice surface is replaced by open water, which traps 90% of the sun’s heat.

    3. Ice crystals contain holes called clathrates which trap methane; so do the oceans. As the ice melts and the oceans warm, the trapped methane evaporates into the atmosphere.

    4 .Warmer ocean water from melting ice reduces algae growth. Algae is an active carbon sink that pumps down CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Algae also emits dimethyl sulfide particles that seed cloud formation. Clouds, like ice, reflect sunlight back into space. Less algae, less carbon sequestration, fewer clouds, and more planetary heat absorption.

    5. In addition to algae, tundra, and permafrost contain huge amounts of CO2 and methane. Methane is 23x more potent than CO2 in retaining heat. When heated they release their gases into the atmosphere, warming the planet even further, causing them to in turn accelerate their emissions. Additionally, the peat bogs of Europe, Siberia and North America are believed to hold the equivalent of 70 years of global industrial emissions. Bogs are now believed to release their carbon, not directly by the effects of increased warming, but due to the increasing amounts of CO2 in the air.

    6. Forests that were once carbon sinks become net contributors of CO2 as they are burned for agricultural land, or are destroyed by fire after being weakened or killed by predatory insects like beetles. Beetles proliferate in the absence of two consecutive ‘normal’ winters that otherwise constrain the amount of hatching larvae. A recent report shows that Aspens in Colorado are being reduced in large numbers by a parasite related to global warming.

    7. Burning wood for fuel and heat in underdeveloped countries exposes more soil to sunlight, contributing to droughts by drying out plants and trees that become more susceptible to conflagrations that release even more carbon. James Lovelock cites a recent study showing that burning wood and slash and burn forest clearing causes nearly 40% of carbon emissions worldwide.

    [snip]

    The science of G.W. is, among other things, hampered by monetary incentives, the budding institutions forming around this belief are neither truth motivated or fact driven beyond the short term, they will defend their view until they can no longer afford to.

    Lovelock makes a similar point, citing in his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia (2009), a scientist by the name of Steve Schneider who was part of the team behind the 2001 IPCC report. Schneider related to him that, in Lovelock’s words:

    “…the good science presented at the session was manipulated until it satisified the all of the national representatives present…the words used to express the consequences of global heating were blurred until they were acceptabel to representatives from the oil-producing nations, who saw their natioonal interests threatened by the scientific truth.If this is what the UN means by consensus, scientific truth cannot be expected to come from its deliberations, and we are misled about the dangers of global heating.”

    One of those countries is Saudi Arabia, who despite its editorial power over past reports, apparently sees the writing on the wall and recently proposed that oil producing countries be financially compensated should the rest of the world decide to significantly reduce its use of fossil fuels. (How that’s for hutzpah? Like the mafia demanding to be compensated for losing business after being arrested and sent to jail.)

    I’ve heard that even the most dire predictions from the IPCC are off by at least 50%. Meaning we are fast approaching what is considered to be, for the foreseeable future, irreversible climate change beginning in our lifetimes.

    The real data point consists in the “coordination of essential knowledge” afforded us by the 5th ER.

    That be what I’m tryin’ to do…

  3. human of days

    We know from the UB point of view how planetary destiny is off limits, and that the ice age is over save the last remnant (the poles).

    Prior to the end of the Pliocene period, the poles were much more moderate:

    By the close of the preceding (Pliocene 5 million yrs. ago) period the lands of the northeastern part of North America and of northern Europe were highly elevated on an extensive scale, in North America vast areas rising up to 30,000 feet and more.
    Mild climates had formerly prevailed over these northern regions, and the arctic waters were all open to evaporation, and they continued to be ice-free until almost the close of the glacial period.

    The science of G.W. is, among other things, hampered by monetary incentives, the budding institutions forming around this belief are neither truth motivated or fact driven beyond the short term, they will defend their view until they can no longer afford to.

    The real data point consists in the “coordination of essential knowledge” afforded us by the 5th ER.

  4. Propagandee Propagandee

    Hi HOD:

    You wrote:

    What’s up with that extraordinary solar minimum and the offsetting solar output hedging the expected warm-up?

    I wonder about that myself. Almost like we’re getting a reprieve. But for how long? I presume that any historical data on quiet periods is limited in terms of direct observation. Are there any other kinds of evidence, like tree rings or ice cores?

    And what happens when the minimum ends? A double whammy?

    Good hearing from you.

  5. human of days

    Until the truth is written in the hearts of men, we are stewards of nothing but self interest. This is just why, in the matter of planetary destiny, we are irrelivant.
    In the pursuit of true personal (Cosmic) character is to be found permanent relief from clamoring self and selves.
    It is after all persons, not selves that inherit the earth.

    What’s up with that extraordinary solar minimum and the offsetting solar output hedging the expected warm-up?

    Still I applaud the cause.
    Real planets don’t burn things for energy!

    So chill baby chill 😉

  6. It’s stunning to think that religious are more likely to oppose dealing with climate change than non-religious. It’s equally stunning that they are against most social reforms. I guess Jesus has been lost somewhere, as well as Genesis statement that we are stewards of the earth.

Prove you're human: leave a comment.