[Terrapreta] ACTION NOW to combat GCC vs INACTION is a MORAL QUAGMIRE
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Sat Apr 26 16:42:20 CDT 2008
Hi Max,
This is a terribly interesting idea. Both camps right? This could throw the analysis of this problem into a whole new realm. More about what is a problem or not and what to do about any of it? This makes us stray from realizing the important issues, I think.
In most natural systems, maintenance of equilibrium is done by reciprocating back and force around a mean, or equilibrium point. The mean doesn't move so much and if the system is "achieving" a more stable equilibrium, then the size of the reciprocations diminishes. When the mean of this system is moving, though, there is more going on. There is a new force (or a force more pronounced than previously) which is moving or changing the equilibrium point. It is a force not previously in the system which was attempting to "achieve" a more stable equilibrium. Human activity is an observationally obvious and effective force on the climate equilibrium point.
This "Both camps right" issue is very disturbing to me? This inkles about the moral quagmire involved between Global Warming, Global Climate Change, the skeptics, coal mining and petroleum exploration, energy interests, local/national/international agri-business, world population, food production, population, migrations, and politics. This is an another example of an opportunity some people may see to justify their personal inaction and to ignore the effects of there actions on other people in the world.
Which two camps? Its really the group, who would adhere to a motto like,
"Status quo is good. We're good. Nature was, is, and will be in control, everywhere, forever, so we can't do anything about what goes on elsewhere anyway."
Then, there is the group who I think are ...
"People who are more alive, observant, and awake. They are self-actualized enough to be compassionate for other humans on the planet. They see that there are personal actions which can and do effect the lives of many other people in the world. They choose to act for the greater good even in the face of self sacrifice."
In modern America, like it or not, admit it or not, self-preservation and conservatism should begin with immediate actions to improve not merely our own personal lives, but rather, more the lives of everyone else on this planet, including first, people in developing third world countries, and then our ancestors. That means addressing the Climate Crisis now. If we cannot muster as many people or more to this cause, as we currently do to military actions to protect dwindling oil for ourselves, then we will make our world into our own HELL and the HELL for our children.
We cannot do BOTH thinking GW is OK because GCC does not exist, or that we can bury charcoal carbon into soil, so we can continue to use fossil fuels. We cannot use the fossil fuels for ourselves and ignore the impacts on the rest of the world. USA is the STANDOUT. Our moral position on Global Climate is unconscionable. Business and giving up "The American Way of Life" cannot reconcile what we do here. Not anymore. Its is well beyond late enough that we should be recognizing what is occurring and doing something about combat it.
1) Vote for the Presidential candidate who will sign the Kyoto Protocol, tell them to sign it, and participate in it under the current rules.
2) Stop using fossil fuels as much as you can NOW.
3) Use anything else to get your fossil fuel and petroleum products consumption down to zero as soon as you can.
4) Put geo-thermal heating and cooling into your home.
5) Teach your children how to and the need to combat Global Climate Change (i.e. teach them the correct answer to the moral questions).
6) Ask your teachers to teach your children, so they can come home and teach you how to combat Global Climate Change.
7) Bury some charcoal into soil now and continue to do that as much as you can until you die.
8) Help someone grow a garden somewhere with charcoal-in-soil. Make that someone on the other side of the planet from you. Make that more than one someone.
9) Do SOMETHING to combat Global Warming and Global Climate Change or you are missing the moral obligation of your life, I think.
10) Don't whine about whether you believe any of this or whether this ACTIVITY on your part is warranted or not. YOUR POSITIVE AND SUPPORTIVE REACTION IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED!
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: MFH<mailto:mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
To: 'Kevin Chisholm'<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> ; 'lou gold'<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>
Cc: 'terra pretta group'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?
Apparently there is a theory that in fact the Earth is cooling, or rather,
it would be cooling if this effect wasn't masked by the offset warming
caused by excess CO2.
I confess to wondering how this can be measured?
Max H
-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org>
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Saturday, 26 April 2008 10:45 AM
To: lou gold
Cc: terra pretta group
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?
Dear Lou
lou gold wrote:
> Hey Kevin,
>
> I'm gonna take my own advice.
>
> as always,
Well, of course! We all have to go with what we are comfortable. :-) No
problem with that!
Given that you favor Global Warming, would you care to comment on the
following questions:
Given that we are now in a period of Global Warming, the only question
is: When will our present Global Warming Episode turn into a Global
Cooling Episode? Would you agree that this is a reasonable question to
ask? Are we going to enter the Global Cooling Phase in 1 year, 5
years...10?...20?...50?....100 years?
Can the "activities of Man" diminish the extent of Global Warming, and
extend our present warm period in a controlled manner? Can the
activities of Man then be modified to delay the onset of the next Global
Cooling period and Ice Age?
Two other interesting questions could be:
1: Given that 100% of Mankind accepted that Global Warming was going to
get worse, and that we all agreed to do whatever was necessary to hold
Climate Change to within acceptable limits, what would be the cost to
Mankind?
and
2: What is the cost to Mankind if we do nothing?
Best wishes,
Kevin
>
> lou
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Kevin Chisholm
> <kchisholm at ca.inter.net<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>>> wrote:
>
> Dear Lou
>
>
> lou gold wrote:
>> Denial, skepticism and odd takes have always been part of the
>> great weather story. The fact that they are duly represented here
>> by a small minority should come neither as a surprise nor as an
>> indicator that they are embraced generally by the readers of the
>> forum.
>>
>> We could take Bob Dylan's advice -- "you don't need a weatherman
>> to know the wind blows" or, if you need more, try the trick of
>> "mind over matter" -- pay it no mind and it won't matter.
>
> What you say above could be used equally appropriately by those
> who are concerned about an impending Ice age, with the exception
> that there seem to be more people on the TP List supporting GW. :-)
>
> It is an absolute fact that there have been periods of Global
> warming in the past, and that these warming periods have been
> followed by periods of Global Cooling. These periods of Global
> Cooling have in turn been followed by periods of Global Warming.
> There is no question that temperatures have been going up and down
> for millennia.
>
> Some people question the accuracy and integrity of the data
> reported US Surface Stations. However, even ignoring this valid
> concern, we can still have a period of global warming that can be
> followed by a period of global cooling. Indeed we have many
> thousands of years of history showing that a period of Global
> Warming is guaranteed to be followed by a period of Global Cooling.
>
> Given that we are now in a period of Global Warming, the only
> question is: When will our present Global Warming Episode turn
> into a Global Cooling Episode? Would you agree that this is a
> reasonable question to ask? Are we going to enter the Global
> Cooling Phase in 1 year, 5 years...10?...20?...50?....100 years?
>
> Concerning the impact of Man on Global Warming, we have had
> "warmer warms" and "colder colds" in the past, when Man's impact
> on the environment was very much less. Temperatures swung up and
> down in the past, and they have been swinging up and down in the
> present (and recent past)
>
> Weather predictions are notoriously unreliable. The Weather People
> cannot accurately predict the weather a week ahead. They cannot
> accurately predict the number and intensity of Hurricanes for the
> coming season. It seems obvious that they would have difficulty
> predicting weather conditions 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 years into the
> future.
>
> I don't "believe" we are into a period of Global Cooling, any more
> than I "believe" we are into a period of Global Warming. We
> "believe" in something when:
> 1: we have no facts to support or contradict the belief
> or
> 2: it is convenient or advantageous for us to accept the belief,
> in the face of insufficient or conflicting evidence..
> or
> 3: we have conflicting evidence that seems to support both sides
> of the position, and we take an "honest stand" based on what we
> feel is the best stand for us to take.
>
> So, given that we are now in a period of Global Warming, how long
> do you feel it will be before we enter a Global Cooling period?
> Can the "activities of Man" diminish the extent of Global Warming,
> and extend our present warm period in a controlled manner? Can the
> activities of Man then be modified to delay the onset of the next
> Global Cooling period and Ice Age?
>
> Two other interesting questions could be:
> 1: Given that 100% of Mankind accepted that Global Warming was
> going to get worse, and that we all agreed to do whatever was
> necessary to hold Climate Change to within acceptable limits, what
> would be the cost to Mankind?
> and
> 2: What is the cost to Mankind if we do nothing?
>
> Following is an interesting reference:
>
>
> Global Warming:
> A Chilling Perspective
>
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html<http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>> hugs to all,
>>
>> lou
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Ron Larson
>> <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>>
>> Terra Preta List Members:
>>
>> I write because I think it is exceedingly counter productive
>> to the growth of biochar activity to allow the idea of an ice
>> age to have any credence. Kurt's cited reference (Phil
>> Chapman) said something I believe to be a big lie (Chapman,
>> not Kurt). I do not use the word lie loosely - minimum
>> research shows the direct opposite. The lie from Chapman I
>> claim was:
>> /All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the
>> Hadley Climate
>> Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for
>> Space Studies in
>> New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and
>> Remote
>> Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by
>> about 0.7C in
>> 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the
>> instrumental record and
>> it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature
>> does not soon
>> recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
>> /
>> Going through each of these one by one:
>>
>> 1. NASA (GISS) at
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/> says that 2007 was
>> the second highest temperature year on record. The year
>> 2007 number has been obtained using methodologies that have
>> been in place for decades.
>>
>> 2. The Hadley Center at
>>
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html>
>> put 2007 a little lower in ranking - but still a high year.
>> See also
>>
http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-deniers-piel<http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-deniers-piel>
ke-global-warming-not-cooling/
>>
>> 3. The Christy group at the University of Alabama
>> (Huntsville) was much harder to find. See
>> http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html<http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html>. As near as I
>> can tell, Dr. John Christy does not report on world average
>> temperature. However, I found at
>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903<http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903>
>> /"While he now acknowledges that global warming is real
>> and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a
>> long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite
>> climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and
>> even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been
>> widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will
>> have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2
>> emissions from human activities are a net positive."/
>> (Needless to say I find his change positive. but believe
>> his conclusion that warming is beneficial to be ludicrous. In
>> any case, I doubt he is a reasonable authority to cite on
>> global cooling.)
>>
>> 4. Remote Sensing Systems Inc capabilities are at
>> http://www.remss.com/<http://www.remss.com/>. I did not find a data base on world
>> average temperatures. There is one satellite data base on
>> sea surface temperature and they report that temperature has
>> been going down slightly recently. But as I trust the first
>> two authorities on world average, this can only mean that
>> on-land temperatures are increasing even faster than the
>> average - and this is where w temperature would see the
>> biggest impact of an (totally implausible) ice age.
>>
>> In conclusion, I urge our terra preta group to really
>> get behind the idea of warming as a big problem - that can
>> probably only be stopped and reversed in the near term with a
>> combination of urgent forestry re-growth and biochar. If you
>> aren't yet convinced about unconscionable warming , you must
>> not yet have read the latest still-un-published Hansen
>> material. I just tried to get back to it at
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126<http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126> and the Supporting Material
>> at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135<http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135> , but only got "access
>> denied". Anyone know of where else these might be? (I have
>> them, but want others to also.)
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> SNIPPING MATERIAL FROM SEAN, MARK, AND KURT - ALL TODAY.
>>
>> _
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080426/895aed66/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list