Deep Adaptation

Apparently it’s worse than whatever you thought. Unless you thought the world was ending tomorrow. It’s slightly better than that.

I haven’t had to time read the whole thing, but a recent VICE article talked about this scientific paper that has had an unusual amount of downloads. It talks more about shifting to thinking about how we should deal with the collapse of civilization, instead of continuing to act like we’ll somehow engineer our way out of this.

Fun.

Oh, you mean I’ve been an alarmist all these decades for a damned good reason? :frowning:

Thing is, it won’t happen everywhere at once.

We’ll be living within an increasingly threatening game of global climate catastrophe roulette, each new destructive event having it’s own cascading consequences upon the world around it.

As this unfolds these next couple decades, I fear the most hideous arena of horrors will be human behavior and mental health, people won’t have the spiritual foundation or solidity to deal with collapsing society, dysfunction and flipping out in all sorts of ways.

That will be over laid onto our disintegrating political situation. The self-certain with their faith-blinded paranoia, will attack all the wrong enemies. Them guns so many loved stockpiling won’t be helping anyone - except to heap new layers of horrors on to an already horrid tableau. We did this to ourselves. It’s a good time in human history to be an old person.

Which really really sucks, if you have children and grandchildren and communities of young people ya really love. Young people that are supposed to have lives of adventure and more joys than heartaches ahead of them - our Willful Ignorance has condemned all of them to a parade of creeping destruction where we saw a parade of supposed progress.

 

 

This guy deserves an A for marketing because he knows his audience.

However, he gets a D for creativity; it’s passable but not impressive.

End of the World

If the world became carbon neutral tomorrow what would that do to global emissions?

Carbon output would only drop about 15%.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years but how many times have democrats used this fear mongering tactic before?

Top carbon producer is China. And they are not slowing down.

So, if we are really, really, serious about stopping carbon emissions because if we don’t the world will end in 12 years. Then we need to start bombing China today.

But as you can see, nobody is really serious. Just a lot of hot air moving around. Because nobody is protesting to bomb China. Meaning there is no way to save the world.

We can help by killing all the cows and blow up our coal plants. That will help, but it will not make the USA anywhere near carbon neutral.

Do you believe AOC?

In 1989 we had until the year 2000 to stop carbon emissions or the world was going to end.

In 2002 we had less than 10 years to stop carbon emissions or the world was going to end.

In 2006 we had 50 day to stop the emissions.

In 2007 we had 4 years to stop the emissions.

In 2009 we had 96 months to stop the emissions.

Now in 2019 AOC is saying we have 12 years to stop the emissions.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years but how many times have democrats used this fear mongering tactic before?
She said we have 12 years to do something or the effects of what we are doing will be irreversible. If you would listen to what people say instead of critiquing what you hear inside your own head, then you might have something worth saying.

 

Ok, I took it she was trying to make the point the world was going to end. To the logical person who has heard of Climate Change and get out of the house every now and then it is understood that the world is going to continue going around the sun. But the world is going to be so hot that all the environmental systems will be so dislodged that protein production will be shut mostly down. This will because of the arthropodais systems crucial to the control of human disease, agriculture, evolution, ecology and biodiversity will be in disarray. The CO2 in the atmosphere takes 1,000 years to leave and get back to normal. About 14,500 years ago we had the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change. About a 46 degree change in ten years. So, we know these quick weather changes are more than just talk. Today we are talking about a six-degree change. The difference is the Younger went colder, today we are talking going hotter.

Ocasio-Cortez: “The World Is Going To End In 12 Years If We Don’t Address Climate Change” https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez_the_world_is_going_to_end_in_12_years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q24uFQyhgv0 You can watch a video of AOC saying “Like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ Ocasio-Cortez says https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ WARNS, ‘WORLD IS GOING TO END IN 12 YEARS,’ REITERATING CLAIMS OF RECENT U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-world-will-end-12-years-un-report-1300873

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Predicts the World Will End in 12 Years Due to Climate Change https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-arter/rep-ocasio-cortez-predicts-world-will-end-12-years-due-climate-change

These are just a few of the news reports on what AOC said.

Now I said “Now in 2019 AOC is saying we have 12 years to stop the emissions.” Show me where that is out of line with what AOC said. I think you are reaching.

Lausten

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years but how many times have democrats used this fear mongering tactic before?

She said we have 12 years to do something or the effects of what we are doing will be irreversible. If you would listen to what people say instead of critiquing what you hear inside your own head, then you might have something worth saying.

This is after I posted:

In 1989 we had until the year 2000 to stop carbon emissions or the world was going to end.

In 2002 we had less than 10 years to stop carbon emissions or the world was going to end.

In 2006 we had 50 day to stop the emissions.

In 2007 we had 4 years to stop the emissions.

In 2009 we had 96 months to stop the emissions.

Now in 2019 AOC is saying we have 12 years to stop the emissions.

OK, your remarks can’t be about climate change because by any timeline this has gone past any points of logical thinking. More money and effort on Climate Change than any American project except for the Interstate Highway System. We are two years away from being the most expensive project ever. Therefore, It must be the democratic remark I made. So, can you name one Republican in the above six predictions? This is a fair question, being Climate Change is bigger than the A-bomb and eighteen times bigger than the moon landing. The news media has AOC as the leading the Democrats. Is she your shinning hope for a communist world?

You can keep posting quotes mined from wherever you want. They are all essentially correct. We can only predict these dates to degree of accuracy, but they are still saying the same thing, “if you we don’t act, the cities we built will not function, people who had nothing to do with creating the problem will suffer, technology will not keep up with the rate of change.” They have been saying this for 50 years, and they have been proven correct every time. Maybe not to the detailed degree you require, but you keep moving the goalposts to fit your narrative.

You can keep posting quotes mined from wherever you want. They are all essentially correct.

One would think that after screaming the sky is falling a couple of time that you guys would be embarrassed to the point of stopping the spread of fake propaganda. Instead the regressive far left starts spreading the BS to the school children. That is really, really sad.

We can only predict these dates to degree of accuracy, but they are still saying the same thing, “if you we don’t act, the cities we built will not function, people who had nothing to do with creating the problem will suffer, technology will not keep up with the rate of change.”

Again, you are living in a political world. The technology of building on the beach and swamp land is not new. The warning has been there before most of the building ever took place. What you are saying is that an increased rate of water rise by Climate Change is causing the problem. That is not shown by any facts. The water has been rising for thousands of years now. No, big surprise. The facts are showing that the water rise has gone through a time period of very little rise and is just getting back to its average normal rise. And that is without any Climate Change. Yes, that is right, there is no Climate Change water rise being measured yet today. It is all political.

The technology is simple. It is called U-Haul. If you think we are going to change Mother Nature to the point of changing the amounts of sun light reaching the earth. No, we do not and are not even working on that technology.

Maybe not to the detailed degree you require, but you keep moving the goalposts to fit your narrative.

My point on Climate Change has been the same and not changed since Al Gore movement started. Science need to establish datum points to have real science. In the next few months you will be hearing about the Gold Standards being established. Same thing, datum points. Then the technology will start moving. I expect nothing will be done until after the 2020 elections. Scientific technology will not help the democratic goals and they will want a slow exit and time to flip the blame. Expect CO2 to start leaving the radar screen.

Al Gore got a couple things right. 800,000 years of Ice Core data that has become the base line used today until the scientists can work out better indicators. Al Gore just got caught trying to fake what the Ice Cores really showed. A common factor that I see is a bunch of Nasa and science teacher types keep referring to the Ice Core data that shows the CO2 following the heat. It has not been the CO2 levels rise and then the temperature follows. It has been the earth temperature and Ice Core cycles follows the sun cycles and the CO2 follows the heat, a perfect match until the industrial age started adding more CO2 to the air. CC’s group is claiming the CO2 is heated by the sun and the heat follows. But CC’s group has not been able to sell that viewpoint to the groups like the Nasa guys or the old science teachers, the military, the insurance companies, other countries not under America’s purse strings.

I am not a scientist. I am just one guy with a viewpoint of Climate Change that is not politically driven. That makes me an outcast on this website. I do think we need a nationwide Climate Change debate. And that is not happening so far because of the political forces.

My point is, I am not moving the goalposts. What you are having trouble with is your own coming to Jesus with Climate Change. Otherwise show me where I have changed any goalposts.

Have the goalposts changed on Climate Change in Europe? Yes, I think they are being changed right now as we are talking.

Mike;

Thanks for leading me to the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-QvoIfpxc MLK day talk with AOC. She’s quite amazing. Also, thanks for the textbook example of quote mining. The point where the quote is plucked, 53 minutes in, is not about AGW at all. She is talking about generational differences. The actual statement is spoken as if it is an average millennial responding to the older generations telling them to be quiet and settle down. She goes on to talk about 3,000 people dying last year (I think she if referring to gun violence in our unjust justice system) and how people with jobs are sleeping in their cars and surviving without health care. Show me where “realclearpolitics.com” talks about her saying that. They don’t. Their agenda is to discredit her, so they can continue to exploit people and let them die, either now in their cars, or later by an overheated earth.

Is that your agenda Mike?

The technology is simple. It is called U-Haul.
Sure, if you can afford it, and all you are moving is your apartment. I live in a port city. It's impossible not to see the infrastructure that has been built to support it. You can just read the local paper or talk to locals and learn how this city wouldn't exist without the draw bridges, docks and equipment to serve the barges. You can also see that it depends on the water level staying more or less where it is. You say the water level has been rising and it's normal. But how do you know that? When did we learn about that? Did we know this 100 years when that infrastructure was built? Really? Show me the engineers who were planning for that. Show me the book written 100 years ago that talks about that.

 

 

When you say, “Their agenda is to discredit her……”.

You got that right. It is getting hard to trust the news today.

A few years back I started watching Al Jazeera News. My friends thought I was nuts, but it was the only news that seemed to cover the level of coverage that seemed right to me. It didn’t last long. I was expecting the hammer to fall, and it did. Then I got Bill O’Reilly. Not a broad range but I felt I could trust Bill because he seemed to cover all issues of the subject he was reporting on. Then Bill moved and started working out of his home. I subscribed for Bill’s network but don’t watch it much now. Fox News is my station right now. They are not in-depth enough for me. But it is the best available today. I am happy with RT reporting, but it is very limited. The rest of the news don’t even need to broadcast. They just upset me at their level of incompetence on reporting political news.

As far as AOC. It is like SNL in the House. So far, she seems to be honest with her view points. And that is hard for the House to deal with. The House is no place for on the job training. But, to tell you the truth, I don’t think she will do any more harm than any of the other House members that are in the spotlight. The new generation seems to think that if you tear down and destroy, that you are really doing something. That kind of backfired on AOC with Amazon. And I was surprised that she didn’t seem to understand that New York was offering Amazon a 3B tax break. Why AOC thought that amount of money was just sitting in the bank and the city was going to write Amazon a check. I am not buying that. AOC has an economics degree from Boston University.

The real possibility is that this socialist is following the capitalist pathway for a quick million. It doesn’t matter what you say, as long as you get media coverage. Enough media coverage and bingo a book is written, seems to be the direction taken today. I would guess she is in the 5M neighborhood right now if she published.

 

Sea walls.

The question is not about CO2. It is about the natural climate cycles. There is no proof that CO2 is causing over 3% of the climate today. The natural rise of water is about the same as the growth of your fingernails. You answered your own question about engineers planning 100 years ago. If it has lasted 100 years, then the planning was good. Most planning involves the 100-year flood, and some ask for standards as high as the 1,000-year flood. Most sea walls and bridges require bonds to finance the projects. The bond companies require engineering that the project will last well past the bonding period. A properly maintained sea wall can last from 30-50 years, if not properly maintained you can expect to have to repair it in as little as 20 years. Ref: Gibson Marine.

City planners now say they are increasingly turning to methods aligned with the Dutch concept of “living with water.” Instead of resisting water, cities are channeling it to where they want it to go. Skip Stiles, director of Norfolk-based Wetlands Watch, which promotes nature-based solutions to sea level rise, said the city is too developed and too dependent on Navy activities to abandon sea walls in favor of greener solutions. My guess is the dollar will point to the direction that will be taken.

An added point about AOC. Note, that Netflix is said to paid $10M for “Knock Down the House”. Which is about AOC’s primary campaign for office.

An added point about AOC. Note, that Netflix is said to paid $10M for “Knock Down the House”. Which is about AOC’s primary campaign for office.
You understand she doesn't get that money, right?
You got that right. It is getting hard to trust the news today.
Oh, you are a hoot. Newsweek is the only source you linked that isn’t known for fake news and conservative bias. Why are you linking these sites if they aren’t among the ones you trust? I’m sure Newsweek covered the rest of the speech somewhere else, but I’ll leave it up to you search in the others. I don’t even like clicking on them.
If it has lasted 100 years, then the planning was good.
Again, great example Mike. Keep posting them. This time it’s an example of the kind of thinking that got us where we are. Your logic here is, if it’s still standing, everything is fine. You will be saying this as you are standing knee deep in salt water surrounded by sharks. I was questioning your constant refrain about us knowing about history of sea level rise and temperature change. We didn’t. This is very recent science. We couldn’t analyze ice cores like we do now until 1950 or so. It’s what clued us into knowing that we were killing ourselves with lead pollution. Unfortunately, we haven’t responded to many of the other clues they have provided.

You want me to spell it out? Sea Level rise is more political than factual. In your lifetime you are going to have six to seven inches at most and not the twenty feet the alarmists and fake news is talking about. It is like continental drift. Really slow. There are going to be places like Long Beach, CA. that have had twelve feet of sea level rise. But that is due to the land sinking. Now your point is that we were unaware of sea level rise fifty years ago. I agree. And the bay area you live at is having sea level rise. Ok, that’s understandable. Now are you telling me that they built the buildings less than a foot above water level? one foot should give you more than one-hundred years. I find that they built the building at water level hard to believe. I would not change from buying lawn food to fish food yet. If the land is sinking. Pumping mud in the ground will raise the ground level.

The two stories CC posted about the islands sinking and the bay sinking. I had to check the stories out because that would have been proof of sea level rise above Mother Nature. And that would have changed my mind on what is going on with climate change. Proof of Climate Change sea level rise. But as you saw, both stories did not cover the real science and therefore could be called political or fake news. My point is that the science did not bother CC. She is political and not scientific. She dropped the debate and just went another direction which is the political way. Why bother trying to deal with scientific facts when it is easier to shoot the messenger.

 

Now are you telling me that they built the buildings less than a foot above water level?
I need to waste less time on you Mike. Every post you make gives me new things I have to untangle for you. I can't keep up. They built things BELOW sea level. You know that.

 

Save some time and stop putting everything on Climate Change. We went through the islands and bay sinking. Long Beach California had eleven feet of sea level rise. And none of that was blamed on ice melting. It was the land sinking.

Your posting was about the people needing therapy because of Climate Change.

“The evidence before us suggests that we are set for disruptive and uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war,” he writes in the paper.

You only needed to step outside during the record-breaking heatwave last year to acknowledge that 17 of the 18 hottest years on the planet have occurred since 2000. Scientists already believe we are soon on course for an ice-free Arctic, which will only accelerate global warming. Back in 2017, even Fox News reported scientists’ warnings that the Earth’s sixth mass extinction was underway.

What I have said is that it is not Climate Change causing this. If you end up knee deep in sea water with sharks swimming around you. That it is not, except for a very small percentage, due to Climate Change.

Point being. You posted a subject about stress and what some of our people are going through do to the Climate Change fear. Yet, to this day I don’t know where you stand on Climate Change. Just like CC who says the sky is falling. When ask how far is it going to fall? Will not answer. I am pushing you trying to figure out where you stand on Climate Change. That’s all. On skeptics vs. Alarmist viewpoints you went after a dollar issue. Stayed completely away from the viewpoints. We could be talking about the biggest fraud of this century taking place and you don’t have a viewpoint.

Yet, to this day I don’t know where you stand on Climate Change. Just like CC who says the sky is falling. When ask how far is it going to fall? Will not answer. I am pushing you trying to figure out where you stand on Climate Change. That’s all.
That is not all. You go off on so many tangents, it's impossible to keep up with you. You make wild claims that are not worth even responding to. I've said a number of times that I go with the IPCC reports. I don't read every one of them and I'm sure you could something in there I don't agree with, it's called "the consensus" for a reason. It's what most scientists agree on, so it's really easy to find. It's not pointing to one island that is sinking due to geology, it's pointing to all the water everywhere and understanding that ice melts. You can't even stay on that as the topic.