After reading James Lovelock's recent book
I have come to the conclusion that the arguments by some to keep
the fossil fuel business going now appear to be as misguided as
arguments to keep the whale oil business going.
Quote from page 116: It is horrific that our leaders, almost all of whom are wholly ignorant of science and engineering, are encouraging the development of fill-this-blank. Their ignorance is compounded by an inability to reject the advice of lobbyists whose sole aim seems to be to profit from whatever can be made to seem an environmental hazard.
”People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.” Watch Greta Thunberg speak at the UN Monday morning. https://t.co/Akkxm9sXdr pic.twitter.com/ahHKlhbYaE— WIRED (@WIRED) September 23, 2019
"My message is that we'll be watching you. This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. Yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth? How dare you?
"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away, and come here and say you are doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are nowhere in sight? You say that you hear us and understand the urgency, but no matter how sad and angry I am, I don't want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil, and that I refuse to believe.
"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50 per cent chance of staying below 1.5 C and risks setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. 50 per cent may be acceptable to you, but those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution, and all the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. So a 50 per cent risk is simply not acceptable for us, we who have to live with the consequences.
"To have a 67 per cent chance of staying below a 1.5°C global temperature rise (the best odds given by the IPCC), the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 to emit back on January 1 2018. Today that figure has already down to less than 350 gigatons. How dare you pretend that this can be solved with business as usual and some technical solutions? With today's emission levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone in less than eight-and-a-half years. There will not be any solutions, or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.
"You are failing us but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you, and if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you. "We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up and change is coming, whether you like it or not. Thank you."
|1898||Attack on USS Maine||false||Spanish-American War|
|1964||Gulf of Tonkin incident||false||Vietnam War|
|2003||Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction||false||Iraq War|
|2011||Libyan rape allegations||false||NATO intervention into Libya (creates ISIS)|
1) according to tide gauges by sea-faring nations, sea level increased by 20 cm (~ 8 in) between 1900 and 2000 which equates to 2 mm per year. Radar measurements by satellites show the new value as 3.2 mm per year (and rising). So even if you do not accept the values published in this recent article, sea level is absolutely guaranteed to rise an additional 32 cm (~ 12 in) between 2000 and 2100. Remember that this rise is vertical.
2) Ocean rise should not be a surprise to anyone educated in ice ages where co2 levels normally bounce between 180 ppm (when in an ice age) vs. 280 ppm (when in an interglacial). Why? During an ice age a lot of water accumulates in glacial ice. But humanity's industrial age has pushed co2 levels more than 128 units past 280 which is taking the melting of ice to a totally new place. Had we known this earlier, then none of us would have built large cities so close to the coast. I fear that Venice Italy stands as a symbol for American cities like New York, San Francisco and Miami to only name three of many.
3) Some climatologists have hypothesized that sea level on Earth (where water covers 70% of the globe) has a near-linear relationship with co2 levels where 100 pm translates into ~ 100 ft. When I first heard this I was skeptical of the units and values until I later learned that "one foot" was just their lowest starting point. But where did they get that number? Well, is now commonly accepted that humans walked to North America via the Bering Straight at a time when the ocean level was much lower than it is today. These migrations happened numerous times so it is difficult to determine the exact time periods BUT some ancient human artifacts have been located 120 ft below the current surface. So here's what worries me: let's assume that an increase in co2 levels triggers melting which causes the ocean levels to rise albeit slowly. The industrial age increased co2 from 280 to the current value of 408 so can we assume that we will see the oceans rise another 128 feet? Remember that this only assumes that "one foot" was an accurate starting point because 1.2 might be more accurate -AND- that co2 levels stay at 408 ppm which seems very unlikely
|Colin Powell and Nikki Haley selling
religious war at the United Nations.
Continued here: New Scientist (2 August 2017)Comment: quantum computing (as opposed to quantum communications) is the focus of much research because (entanglement aside) it primarily moves from two digital states (0+1) to three (0-middle-1) but most punters overlook the huge liquid nitrogen cooling tanks. It seems to me that memristor-based technology (with 7 or more states) might be a better candidate for certain applications like neural nets and artificial intelligence. Sci-fi author, Isaac Asimov, employed the phrase "positronic brain" as at literary device meaning "fill in the blank". I wonder if memristor technology could fill this roll
Isaac Asimov PhD
-- Isaac Asimov (Column in Newsweek, 21 January 1980)Excerpt from Wikipedia: Isaac Asimov was an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist. He did not oppose religious conviction in others, but he frequently railed against superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs that tried to pass themselves off as genuine science. During his childhood, his father and mother observed Orthodox Jewish traditions, though not as stringently as they had in Petrovichi, Russia; they did not, however, force their beliefs upon young Isaac. Thus he grew up without strong religious influences, coming to believe that the Torah represented Hebrew mythology in the same way that the Iliad recorded Greek mythology.