Sorry, 350.org, I have a slight geographic impediment; it is commonly known as the North Atlantic Ocean. 
If you have no such geographic barriers preventing you from going to the event, please sign-up here.
-
Archives
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- December 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
-
Meta
Anthropocene Reality 
I have a slight geographic impediment; it is commonly known as the North Atlantic Ocean. It’s just not good enough.
LikeLike
I don’t where that’s from, but I know its funny!
LikeLike
It’s from ‘Foiled by President Fred’ episode of The Highly Esteemed Goon Show! Classic comedians, phlyarologists par excellence! 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Gotta love Bill McKibben and his crew!
LikeLike
How do we know that it was the largest hurricane in history? Whose history? Is this assessment based on material damage, wind strengths, barometric readings, wave heights or what? If you mean in recorded history then that is another matter. I do not wish to be pedantic but accuracy is essential when debating this issue.
LikeLike
Thanks Duncan. Yes, you are being pedantic. I would say that “recorded history” is clearly intended from the context; and what happened prior to that is not really relevant – as it is the clearly worsening trend that should concern all of us. However, if this does not satisfy you (and you were not trying to be funny), I suggest you address your question to 350.org and/or the NOAA.
LikeLike
It was a really huge (not a scientific term) hurricane, that occurred during the hottest year in US recorded history and it caused 50 billion dollars in damages. Even my grade 7 students understand the link between strong hurricanes and climate change. And, at this point, there is no more debate about this “issue”. If, as a society, we had half-a brain, the only debate would be about how we bring our carbon emissions to ZERO as soon as possible.
LikeLike
If people like Guy MacPherson are right, we need to do better than ‘simply’ zero carbon emissions. We need to aim for ‘negative emissions’ (ie, extraction of CO2 from the ecosphere) as fast as possible if we are to have any chance at all of reversing the trend.
LikeLike
As per my (very similar) comment on your own blog, Pendantry, thanks for drawing this video to my attention: I am very shocked by the fact that the 1990 UN document warning of the dangers of just 1 Celsius global average temperature rise. The very recent research including positive feedbacks seems to be reflected in the parabolic curve (for sea level rise) in the 2013 National Climate Assessment (NCA) report just issued for public comment. The sad thing is that even the NCA does not warn that the parabolic curve is the most likely trajectory that we will now follow (it is just presented as the upper bound upon a range of supposedly equally-probable possibilities). I am also concerned by the fact that the 2009 PNAS warning that climate change is (already) irreversible seems to have been ignored too (especially since this is the conclusion I reached after reading James Hansen’s Storms of my Grandchildren book). In the USA at least, it would appear that 80% of the general population has now woken up to the reality of climate change as a problem. Therefore, since our politicians generally do not read peer-reviewed scientific literature and ignore their own scientific advisors, you might an ice-free Arctic as soon as 2015 would be the kind of wake-up call they will need. However, my confidence is reduced by the spectacle of President Obama effectively admitting – in his news conference about new measures on gun control – that our politicians do not do what we the people want them to do; they do what powerful vested interests tell them to do. This does not augur well for climate change because I do not think the fossil fuel lobby will ever admit that the best thing to do is leave fossil fuels unburnt. So, I wish people like Schalk Cloete godspeed in their endeavours to make carbon capture and storage a reality – because our future existence may well depend on their success.
LikeLike
I wonder what we could do with massive re-forestation efforts? Any ideas?
LikeLike
In 20 years we might just be able to reforest areas lost in the last 200 years. Trouble is we don’t have the luxury of time. However, artificial trees are already more than just a fanciful idea; and may even be in commercial scale production long before CCS is widely available.
LikeLike
Very interesting article. Thanks Rick. I’m all for it, as long as the put the carbon dioxide to use. The idea of sequestering the carbon in the ground makes no sense to me. It’s like asking a kid to clean up his room and he just stuffs everything under the bed. And turning CO2 into new fossil fuels doesn’t cut it for me either.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand your argument JP, unless it would be possible to force-feed the CO2 to algae in a controlled environment. Not burying the CO2 would, in my view, be like mucking-out the stables but leaving a ever-growing pile of sh!t in the corner of each horse box… Have you read Pendantry’s latest post with the Guy MacPherson video? If not, skip to this comment (and link) about oxygen depletion and come back to MacPherson later… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfUrRsXrSj8
LikeLike
I’m simply concerned about the stability of underground structures to keep the sequestered CO2 in the ground. I figured that in our “infinite wisdom” we could find a way to use the CO2 for some industrial purpose that won’t eventually return it to the atmosphere. For example, if we could use it to produce carbon fibre. Or plastics.
LikeLike
As I am sure you are aware, I am with you on that front: Burying CO2 is more dangerous than burying radioactive waste (because CO2 has no half-life and must never escape)… Using it to make carbon fibre is an interesting suggestion though…
LikeLike
@jpgreenword I wonder what we could do with massive re-forestation efforts? Any ideas? To me, planting trees (and banning cutting down existing ones) has seemed to me, for a long time, like an obvious thing we should be doing. However, if Gail at Wit’s End is right (and I strongly suspect that she is, though I’m puzzled by her apparent failures to get the subject discussed in mainstream science), reforestation won’t help unless we first tackle atmospheric pollution (notably low-level ozone), because that is killing trees worldwide. @Rick artificial trees are already more than just a fanciful idea Any technological solution will require a truly heroic investment of energy (just to make and distribute the things) at a time when we are fast approaching another tipping point; energy demand will soon outstrip supply (as a result of peak oil). Technology got us into this mess; I firmly believe that it’s a mistake to rely on it to get us out.
LikeLike
I completely agree with the need to control atmospheric pollution. Although, I didn’t know that low-level ozone was “killing trees worldwide”. Holy crap! We suck!
LikeLike
What with atmospheric pollution and our facilitating mountain pine beetle population explosions (by warming the planet), aliens would be forgiven for thinking we are actually trying to kill off trees… 😦
LikeLike
Ok. I have to admit, that made me laugh! Even though it’s painfully true…
LikeLike