In the Pamir Mountains of Central Asia, time has stopped working.
Communities in the region traditionally kept time by pegging it to environmental markers, such as melting snow or the first appearance of a migratory bird. But these “ecological calendars” have ceased to function properly due to the effects of climate change.
An array of environmental shifts in the region, such as unusual weather events, untimely glacial melts, lake bursts, and changes in animal and bird migration patterns, have thrown the calendars so far off kilter that most villagers no longer use them, and they struggle to reliably predict cues for planning agricultural and cultural activities. (...)
Stephen Moore, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation who was formerly the conservative organization’s chief economist, told radio host Janet Mefferd last week that the “dingbat” idea of climate change is “one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history.”
… I have to tip my hat to the left, this has been one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history that the left has pulled off. I mean, they’ve taken this dingbat idea of global climate change and they’ve put it in the schools, they’ve put it in the movies, they’ve put it in the media and the churches — you know, I’m Catholic, even the pope talks about climate change. So it’s very alarming how this propaganda campaign, that they made this stuff out of, almost completely out of thin air and they’ve convinced millions and millions of thought leaders that this stuff is real.
Moore added that the idea of climate change is “very Stalinistic” and is “a religion,” adding, “They’d put me in jail if they could.”
Whatever happened to normal weather? Earth has always experienced epic storms, debilitating drought, and biblical floods. But lately it seems the treadmill of disruptive weather has been set to fast-forward. God’s grandiose Symphony of the Seasons, the natural ebb and flow of the atmosphere, is playing out of tune, sounding more like a talent-free second grade orchestra, with shrill horns, violins screeching off-key, cymbal crashes coming in at the wrong time. Something has changed.
My company, AerisWeather, tracks global weather for Fortune 500 companies trying to optimize supply chains, increase profitability, secure facilities, and ensure the safety of their employees and customers. It’s my 4th weather-technology company. Our team is constantly analyzing patterns, providing as much lead-time of impending weather extremes as possible. As a serial entrepreneur I respond to data, facts and evidence. If I spin the data and only see what I want to see, I go out of business. I lay off good people. I can’t afford to look away when data makes me uncomfortable.
I was initially skeptical of man-made climate change, but by the late 1990s I was witnessing the apparent symptoms of a warming climate. They were showing up on my weather map with greater frequency and ferocity. I didn’t set out to talk about climate volatility and weather disruption, but by the turn of the 21st century this warming seemed to be flavoring much of the weather I was tracking, turning up the volume of extremes, loading the dice for weather weirding. Multiple strands of data confirm Earth has a low-grade fever, a warming trend that transcends periodic heat released from El Niño.
People ask “What’s a couple of degrees, Paul?” Well, when was the last time you were a couple of degrees warmer? Chances are you felt miserable. And there were visible, tangible symptoms: sweating, chills, headaches, nausea. Your physician popped a thermometer in your mouth and confirmed you had a fever. Chances are you didn’t make a fuss, argue with the doctor, or deny the diagnosis. (...)
Well volcanoes is something I do know a bit about.
Two points: 1. really large eruptions are rare (there have only been about five ME 7 in the last 25000 years which averages out at less than 1 every 3000 years. 2. volcanoes will keep on doing what they doing as they have always done. What we generate comes ON TOP of what the volcanoes spew out.
That is what I meant about it is not such a wise idea to put ecosystems under stress for if a big eruption then hit you can trigger all sorts of tipping points.
Just remember that you said one volcano eruption would undo a possible effort at mitigation, which still is clearly a lie, regardless that the total amount of out-gassing by all volcanoes has been scientifically re-evaluated. From the same page you linked:
Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
In the bigger picture a single volcano eruption remains as good as negligible w.r.t. CO2 emissions generated by human activities. Still as false as can be.
Exactly how much CO2 passes through the magmatic vents in our crust might be one of the most important questions that Earth science can answer. Volcanoes may have been overtaken in the carbon stakes, but in order to properly assess the consequences of human pollution, we need the reference point of the natural background. And we're getting there; the last twenty years have seen huge steps in our understanding of how, and how much CO2 leaves the deep Earth. But at the same time, a disturbing pattern has been emerging.
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.
Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.
The table from the World Bank covers the period 2011 to 2015 so you can't derive the annual deltas that clearly from the data. The main point is WE ARE ALL pumping out the CO2 at an amazing rate. From a geological perspective it is the equivalent of an explosion. What happens next no one really knows. The world has certainly seen much greater calamities, just we weren't around for most of them. There have been at least five mass extinctions in the past. We are currently the cause of the sixth, which is a bit sobering. Personally I am not too alarmist about it. But I am sure we have changed the pattern of things. Whether that will be for the worse or the better, only the future will tell. It certainly can't be a good thing to put environments under such stress. If some other unexpected event came along right now that might stuff things up in major fashion. The rise of the mammals was due to precisely that kind of contingency. I'd be really bummed if we died out and earthworms took over.
But the Earth itself doesn't give a shit. The issue is merely what sort of planet do we want to live on. Do we want a living Great Barrier Reef and the oceans full of fish? Or are we going to be happy with factory grown food and dependence on large corporations to feed us? Its all just a question of choice. Right now, we still have one. But we are playing our trump cards very quickly. Once they're gone, they're gone.
But, if we make some small concessions now, we might keep a winning hand. That's all it comes down to. And we are not talking of making big concessions. As an analogy, since the ban on whaling took effect the population of Southern Right whales has rebounded to the same level it was out prior to whaling. Things like that make me really optimistic. There's a lot of really good new technology out there. I reckon we can do it. Just we have to do it.
Actually the table from the World Bank goes back to 1981. You can click on the date ranges at the top of the table. I really went over it for about an hour to look for trends up and down.
I pretty much agree with the bolded. I'm for reducing pollution anywhere possible, but not to the point where the return for $ cost cannot be reasonably assured. Especially if there are others who continue to pollute making your own efforts pointless. Let's spend our precious resources more on things that we know have an immediate and measurable impact, rather than trying to overcome nature and fight the changes that are happening. We must adapt to these changes if we are to survive. Better buildings able to withstand extreme weather, more durable / hardier crops, water conservation.
I mean that all's it takes to undo decades of CO2 reduction is one volcano eruption and we are back where we started, a trillion dollars lost. That money should be spent in other ways. Reduce all pollution because it's the right thing to do, not just one kind because its politically correct and hip. I look at the politically correct and hip elites telling us peons to reduce our carbon footprint as they jet about the globe wasting our efforts to conserve and sacrifice.
I look at this fixation with CO2 to be the equivalent to building on a beach knowing full well that erosion or storms or both will eventually overcome it. You can spend all the money you want to keep fixing the beach and replacing the sand and then along comes one storm and all that time and money spent is gone, forever. It would have been better to build inland a little bit. The building will last longer and less money will be spent, even if the walk is just a little bit longer to the beach. This singular stand against CO2 is not much different, imo.
Thanks, seriously. I see that China is double the US in gross output and using your other chart, the US percap dropped from 17.0 to 16.4 in one year. That's roughly - 5 % ? Meanwhile in the same time China has gone up from 6.7 to 7.1. That's roughly + 6 %, maybe a tad more. You might conclude on a percap basis the US and China cancel each other, but the gross tons say otherwise.
But since we are past the point of no return, why worry anymore, eh ?
Yeah, imagine if you got cancer or something. That's death for sure, why fight it?