Human Warming Hobbles Ancient Climate Cycle
WASHINGTON - Before humans began burning fossil fuels, there was an eons-long balance between carbon dioxide emissions and Earth’s ability to absorb them, but now the planet can’t keep up, scientists said on Sunday.
The finding, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, relies on ancient Antarctic ice bubbles that contain air samples going back 610,000 years.
Climate scientists for the last 25 years or so have suggested that some kind of natural mechanism regulates our planet’s temperature and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those skeptical about human influence on global warming point to this as the cause for recent climate change.
This research is likely the first observable evidence for this natural mechanism.
This mechanism, known as “feedback,” has been thrown out of whack by a steep rise in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum for the last 200 years or so, said Richard Zeebe, a co-author of the report.
“These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change … that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years,” Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. “Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.”
In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.
This antique excess carbon dioxide — a powerful greenhouse gas — was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical. In the end, it was washed downhill into oceans and buried in deep sea sediments, Zeebe said.
14,000 TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE
Zeebe analyzed carbon dioxide that had been captured in Antarctic ice, and by figuring out how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at various points in time, he and his co-author determined that it waxed and waned along with the world’s temperature.
“When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age,” he said. And while Earth’s temperature fell during ice ages and rose during so-called interglacial periods between them, the planet’s mean temperature has been going slowly down for about 600,000 years.
The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air.
Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.
That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.
And it appears to be speeding up: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.
The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years.
“This is a time period that we can hardly imagine,” he said. “They are way too slow to help us to restore the balance that we have now basically distorted in a very short period of time.”
Editing by Eric Walsh
© 2008 Reuters
all of this has happened on “men’s watch.” why not put the blame where it goes, on the masculine species? women were kicked out of the decision-making process long ago because they were deemed to have inadequate mental capacities.
Turns out men are not so smart after all. In fact they’re dummer than ever–even now they want to keep their half-assed road show going.
Welcome to Easter Island.
I fear this is a problem we should have started to address decades ago. The scientific evidence is showing that climate change is occuring much much faster than the models predicted. We’ve stretched the earth’s resources to the limit, and we show no signs of slowing down. The end may indeed be nigh. This is one I wish the right was right about.
I wish the right were right about this one, too. However, as the saying goes…”Wish in one hand and sh– in the other and see which one fills up first.”
According to The Arizona Republic (April 7, 2008), after rising only 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, the earth’s average temperature rose another degree between 2003-2007.
Is global warming a hoax or for real? The answer could be as simple as this: check the earth’s average temperature every Presidential year. If it’s gone up a degree or more, bad news; if it’s the same, who knows?; if it’s dropped, we’re obviously the victims of an elaborate hoax.
If this 1 degree Fahrenheit rise every four years continues, the catastrophic result (extinction of most species) will arrive in 2032 (24 years), not too far off.
Unfortunately, with the rate of warming speeding up, I think we’ll see the end of life as we know it by 2020.
This article makes no distinction between positive and negative feedback( and I’m not talking about whether you compliment your wife’s new hair style or insult it). Negative feedback will tend to reduce the amount of carbon in the air, but the positive type will augment it. According to James Lovelock, the positive feedback mechanisms are already running amok, and the new equilibrium composition of the atmosphere will be much richer in carbon when it finally settles down—long after the time when a small fraction of human beings that survive settle down in Scandinavia. It may be all but impossible to calculate the net effect of all the mechanisms in the system and try to figure out where this is all going to go. Hence, we should really base our actions on the limitations of our ability to tamper successfully with our home planet. We should take a page from Wendell Berry, and respect our own ignorance and our own smallness. We should demand an end to lavish consumption as the basis of global culture.
cutbankid:
Really? Reallyyy? Blame it on men? I’ll agree that women were left out of the decision making, but do you think that 200 years ago, women wouldn’t have come up with the same ideas for fuel? I mean, your argument implies that if left up to women, we’d have been using solar power and hydrogen engines since the 1800’s. That is an absolutely ridiculous notion.
The fact of the matter is the men in power during the industrial revolution took the best options available at the time, the best technology, and used them. These days, we know better but still cling to these same fuel sources because entire national infrastructures and economies are built on top of them. Thus, the issue isn’t that they were wrong for using oil or coal or wood - the issue is that we STILL USE oil, coal and wood when we’ve developed better options.
Also - there is no such thing as “the male species”. We are human, you are human, there are only gender differences. Stop placing women on a podium. We are equal, and since women used and continue to use “mens’ technology” stop blaming all men for society’s ills.
arise257 — men and women have only begun to realize some sort of ‘gender equity’ with the advent of available, reliable birth control methods in the second half of the 20th century.
The real problem is overpopulation, which is a direct result of women’s historic lack of control over their fertility. For as long as the ‘male species’ could make babies and walk away (or not), there has been no gender equity. That is biological fact.
However, in the bigger picture, global warming might just turn out to be a flash in the pan. Where is the expected return of the sunspot cycle ? Lack of sunspots indicates global cooling.
There are NO sunspots. The weather is wacky. Maybe the warming/cooling trends will balance each other out ?
There are other factors too, I don’t think all the thawing in the Arctic is atmospheric, there is lots of evidence of increased volcanic activity which is contributing to the rapid ice melt. Not much we can do about that !
It’s amazing how slowly research trickles out. Similar research has been previously published and used in Gore’s movie. Here the emphasis is on what I thought was the most impressive data in Gore’s movie: CO2 levels have exceeded anything in the “recent” geological record so much so that the natural CO2-temperature correlation is dashed. That is, so much CO2 has been produced so fast that earth is playing catch-up. And, when you put a system out of equilibrium like that it tends to rebound violently and behave erratically as it again approaches equillibrium. Attaining equillibrium may take thousand of years, but the road there is what’s gonna get us. Carbon sequestration may be the only way to damp the bounding temperature fluctuations.
And another thing. This is an issue for the common man. Rich people need not care because they can go where ever they need to when things get bad. Regular folks are stuck with their homes in the coastal cities and will be the ones who pay for this with their lives and livelihoods. The rich folks disctate what energy and transportation systems we use though, so where does that leave us?
Oh dear, cubankid, I would love to agree with you. Once I thought women were more reasonable, less aggressive, less greedy and violent than men. Then the internet introduced me to lots of on line women, singly and in groups, and I learned better as I lurked and read their posts and saw their graphics. And believe me, my heart broke. I saw a passion for people (including women) in uniform. I saw a passion for guns and bladed weapons (especially if wielded by women). I saw the same ruthless determination to prevail over all others as in men. I saw colossal amounts of venom and spite - directed at both men and women. Nope, it’s all of us, cubankid. Men and women. And the solution will come from the minority who have climbed out of the jungle. Men and women alike.
OldBadgertoo—-I hear you. But, look at it this way: who are women emulating? Who are the ultimate role models? Face it, this is a masculine world we live in. They have all the cards and it’s a stacked deck. Look beyond the internet; it’s a mere blip at the end of 5000 years of male domination, war and destruction. And let’s not forget rape, the man’s wild card. Women on the internet are just trying to keep up with the boys.
arise 257—-Sure, once we got to the Industrial Revolution, women would most likely have turned to use fossil fuels. BUT, if women had had a say in things, going back a few thousand years, the course of history would have been dramatically different. For starters, no war. The so-called Industrial Revolution would not have necessitated the increased enslavement of women and children and a much more difficult world for most people, except the few at the top–a bit similar to today come to think of it. The invention of poverty, 5000 years ago, would not have happened.
Give women a break–we’ve been breaking them for too long–is there any question that, if they had a voice, we’d still be in Iraq?
cutbankid
Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Reagan, Eva Peron, Madame Mao Jiang Qing, Condoleezza Rice, Imelda Marcos, Catherine II of Russia, Angie Merkel…
…cured yet?
The problem is the patriarchal, oligarchal, plutocratic - and often gerontocratic - system. Whether it’s a man or a woman who occupies the corner office in that system makes no difference.
That’s the idea.
Sorry cutbankid, I don’t buy it. Many societies have matriarchal roots and cultures and for the most part have turned out the same as everyone else. Secondly, unless you were a rich, white, land-owning man, the industrial revolution enslaved EVERYONE. Do you really believe women are less prone to war than men? I don’t. I’ve lived with and around women and I can tell you with a straight face that most are catty and petty, and many have come to blows over the same things men fight over. Ever notice how fights break out when there’s more than 3 women in the same household?
The bottom line is you (or anyone else) have no historical evidence to support the idea that the world would be better off ruled by women. You’re basing your arguments entirely upon hypothetical and rhetorical statements. I’m not saying the world would be worse off, I’m just saying we’d be about in the same spot save a few details.
What makes you think that women with power wield it any more responsibly than men? Pelosi, Clinton, Albright - they’ve all had nothing apologetic to say when their decisions cost others their lives, or when their aspirations for power produce the same results as their male compatriots. Clinton beats her chest harder than Bush and McCain combined.
So no, I won’t give women a break - I’ll give them the same scrutiny I do men because as far as my experience is concerned, both are prone to error in judgement and action. You want an equal playing field? - that’s what it looks like. Enjoy.
Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, NO ONE has a voice when it comes to Iraq. Unless your name is Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, or Nancy-I’m-to-fucking-scared-to-do-my-job-and-impeach-Bush-Pelosi, you don’t matter.
If there were a giant scale, and all the scientific conclusions as to whether climate change were caused by humans - pro and con, which side would be heavier?
I am amazed that even here on Common Dreams, there are those who deny what so many others have concluded.
As for the gender issue of climate change - it really isn’t. To whit:
“One of the major contributions that we all make to the economy is through buying things. Women’s role as care givers has meant that women play an especially prominent role in buying things that provide sustenance for home and family. Studies show that women are responsible for buying 80% of household goods.1 Although it is often played down, it is clear that women have a great deal of influence in the economy as consumers, in other words, a lot of spending power.”
http://unpac.ca/economy/consumers.html
“From politics to technology, women have played a vital role in shaping today’s society. Some of these achievements and other various tidbits are being highlighted during International Women’s Day on March 8. In regards to the technology spectrum, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) reports that women are the primary consumers when it comes to wireless gadgets and gizmos.”
http://www.gizmag.com/go/6935/
The articles and studies to support these findings are as endless as those on climate change that support human influence.
The problem is a human/cultural problem.
arise257, etc.
No one’s arguing for women to rule the world. It’s just that there’s no real feminine input–the “women” (wannabe-men) that have been mentioned are simply proof that the world has a masculine tilt to it. A woman has to “be a man” to get anywhere. Iron Woman Thatcher being a good example (Clinton another).
Let’s show a little imagination here. If mankind had gone in the direction of bonobos, to whom we’re closely related, rather than to the violent-prone chimps, we’d be a lot happier. Sex would not be taboo, rape wouldn’t happen and no wars. True, we might not have “civilization,” but that’s starting to look like a good thing. Is there any way that’s it’s civil?
Funny how such a deadly serious subject has turned into a debate of male versus female. What I love about females is, they are usually femmine and have beautiful bodies and eyes and a lot of common sense and deceny and are our mothers. Their worst flaw may be a problem of parallel parking a car.
This is a “deadly serious” subject and no intelligent HUMAN, male or female, can deny the following.
1. The Arctic, Greenland and Anarctic ice packs are thawing at incredible and alarmng rates.
2. All of the world’s mountains are losing their glaciers, one in South America for example has reduced in thickness of (90) feet to (9) feet in just three years.
3. Huge lakes are drying up, one of the largest in Africa is now less thn half the size and depth it has been since recorded history.
4. Russian scientists recently discovered that lakes in the Arctic are ice free for the first time during the past five million years and their surface waters now are churning from escaping Methane gas. It both shocked and frightened them. ___ It should.
None of those things are deniable. Climate change and global warming are two seperate issues. ‘Global warming’ is causing ‘climate change’. ___ What’s the major concern? ___The release of Methnae gas in the Arctic and then the Methane gas release from the oceans is a deadly serious concern. It truly is a “Ticking Time Bomb” and we’d better stop the clock.
This link is an article penned in 2004 by a world renouned geologist. Few have taken his words to heart and unfortunantly we have lost four years too begin a fight against global warming and attempt to insure his words are not prophetic.
I find the nost interesting sentence in the article is,__ “Once it starts there is NO turning back, NO do-overs. Once the methane begins to burp out, it will play itself out to the end.” The last two times that occurred in the history of Earth, THE END was the end of almost all life, save some deep sea creatures, bacteria, some vital to all life plankton and worms.
This is about a two minute read. I’m not qualified to argue with the author, so I don’t. It is our MOST important issue. I know of no other where something is going to kill all life on Earth, except perhaps a full blown atomic war. Both issures can and must be addressed.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Gender power relations, fostered by evolution and culture, are a side issue. The big burning issues are coal and oil. Without even the extra carbon content of coal,there is enough oil left in the ground, now being extracted at maximal rates, to push Gaia into carbon dioxide positive feedback mode. That is the existing warming heats the soils and causes a net release of carbon, and the tundra melts and is releasing its cache of methane from decomposed organic matter as we read these words. The methane eventually breaks down, but into carbon dioxide. We are now facing a methane spike as well as carbon dioxide spike.
And as far as the general attitude goes, it seems to go something like this. Few understand science well enough anyway, so we can ignore the scientists as weirdos. We may all have some religious after life in heaven or hell. And if the scientists are right, we are all going to die anyway, might as well enjoy the privileged lifestyle to which we are accustomed to now, and damn if we leave future generations or not. My consciousness is now, and I am mainly concerned with my share of resources now. If the greens got into power, they would only ruin Everything. The greens would subject us all to more immediate pain without gain, because it is all going to fail anyway. So you would be world destroyers, with your nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, see if you can wipe out the ninety five percent of humanity virtually overnight, because that is what is required now to stave off the changes that will later wipe out ninety nine percent all of known species, including most mammals. And best of all, make sure to wipe out the parts of civilization that are contributing the most now to green house gases, starting with Washington DC.
KEM — Perhaps the Madam Speaker was just accessorizing the new House Chamber of Whorors ?
Heterosis hide, neoCONutosis hide - I cannot tell the difference, but how would you know ?
Hegdology. Good ponts, but it reminds me of a man who knows a armed madman is racing towards his home and is going to kill him and his entire family, and instead of taking fast sensible action, the guy shrugs his sholders and says, “Oh well, shit happens.”
We used to have a pet Heterosis, also called a “DZO”. He had dark blue/black hide under his long shaggy coat. He was also a good scrabble word, if you get the “Z” on a triple letter score.
Maybe that’s a Speaker of The House hook/club, used to knock things off the table?
That’s some attitude, hedology. Lets party till we drop. (And every other species does too.) Leave the lights on, the thermostat up and cruise in the ‘68 Camaro all night.
The world probably isn’t ready for the Greens’ solution, at least not the simpler life style (aka enforced poverty) part. Some people even consider that “hysteria”.
We do have to get things moving towards sustainable GHG emissions. Some scientists find we actually have to reduce CO2 from where it is now.
People are going to suggest technological solutions to counteract what we are doing, like fertilizing the ocean to produce phytoplankton blooms (just so they don’t gobble up all the oxygen, and they have to be eaten by someting that will die and fall to the bottom of the sea before rotting to methane and CO2..)
Then there is planned global dimming. Imitate volcanoes by spreading aerosols in the sky.
I know a guy who keeps the theromstat down and drives a 30 mpg Chevy. His wife left him (and their family and a house full of her purposeless QVC and e-bay knickknacks) for a hot shot with a 260 hp G35 and a big GMC, three houses, sauna, heated swimming pool and a boat. So much for the women ruling things.
She have big jugs?
KEM PATRICK
dear kem, thank you for your unstinting (is that a word?) dedication to the methane problem. your reference to the lake in africa reminded me of the same problem in the dead sea. pictures are available of the reduction of the depth of the sea. there is talk of trying to pump water back into it. the situation is THAT SERIOUS. but this futile endeavour is like putting sour milk back into the fridge and believing it will be ok the next day. we have to address the cause and not the symptom…………and whether the cause is man made is certainly a viable reason. and addressing that issue is one that will be very difficult to implement. you know and i know and many people here know, what it will take to stop the destruction of our planet; if indeed it is ‘us’ causing this. many theories abound as to the reason. one of which is ‘us’. and that is the only one we can do anything about. so it makes sense to stop all the harmful things we do. but how do we stop billions of humans giving up their need for electricity, oil, gas, petrol, commodities, furniture, cars, pesticides, insecticides, air freshners (that’s a joke, isn’t it?), polishes, deodorants, perfumes, disinfectants, and the list goes on and on and on. ridiculous things that are perhaps contributing to our demise. ridiculous things that we don’t really need. but by the same token, things that most will not be happy to give up. if on the other hand, this is a natural phenomenon, we have no control. but wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution? like if you were standing on the edge of a cliff and you knew that one more step would send you plummeting to your death, you wouldn’t take that step. unfortunately, we are not ‘individually’ standing on that cliff. we have millions/billions before us till we reach that edge. and the millions before us are the birds and the bees and the fauna and the whales and now the bats, and many more species that are disappearing before our eyes. falling off the cliffs. this is documented information. it is happening. and you and i and others here know this and are concerned about it. but it’s very difficult to convince others as to how dire the situation is. i saw the idea of the ‘bandanas’ and i’m willing to give it a try. but would anyone ask what the bandana represents? and would they care when they were told? most people don’t see the BIG PICTURE. but if you decide on a special bandana to be worn, please let me know so i can promote your idea.
tempus fugit
KEM PATRICK
btw, the tax rebate check should be in your bank account now (and dubya says it will help the economy) and warren buffet (the world’s richest person) said that the recession will be worse than most people expect……………..so use your rebate well.
I can parallel park, am feminine and gorgeous-I’m the trifecta!
All kidding aside,Kem has it right.
Anyone see Nature on PBS last night about the penguins?
Corporations are already finding ways to cash in on global warming like they do with trumped up wars.
for coco….
Two thousand years ago a Roman senator suggested that all slaves wear white armbands to better identify them. “No”, said a wiser senator. “If they see how many of them there are , they may revolt.”
It is very clear we have come to a crossroads. We have a choice to make.
We can choose Empire
OR
We can choose Earth Community.
We can choose to continue to be slaves to the Empire or we can choose to build on a new Earth Community.
A bandana is a simple easy symbol that can represent solidarity for Earth community and be used as a visible signal that you reject Empire.
Take a bandana and
Tie it on your car, your briefcase or your bag.
Wear it on your head, your neck or your arm.
Hang it in your house window, tie it to your mailbox.
Remember while we are busy waging armchair guerrilla warfare Empire is succeeding in destroying us because we can’t even see who “us” is. I say stand out where you are and let me see you. A traveling visible symbol lets me know in a gas line, a supermarket or at work who you are and what you stand for. Earth Community needs us. Now.
Does that help explain the bandana revolution?
If they ask you what it signifies the simple answer is Earth community and a rejection of Empire. And the only thing special about it is the idea that if people of all colors wear or wave all colors of bandanas we will know the strength of our numbers.
Psssst…….do something………pass it on.
Four major sectors produce carbon emissions.
Electricity generation is responsible for the largest share—42 percent.
Transportation generates 24 percent of global emissions. Industrial processes account for 20 percent
Residential and commercial uses produce the remaining 14 percent.
On an individual level, countries carbon emissions adding to the global total stackup like this graph.
United States 24 percent of the global total.
China 14 percent,
Russia 6 percent
India 5 percent
From 1990 to 2004
US emissions rose 18 percent with Texas and Nevada leading the way
Texas’ carbon emissions grew by 95.8 million metric tons during the period
Carbon emissions from
power generation grew by 28 percent
transportation sector grew by 23 percent
(Vehicle miles traveled grew the fastest in the state of Florida, up 79 percent during the period)
This is not a simple problem of engineering with some quick fix coming down the pike to save the day. It’s a planet. You can’t just take it apart and put it back together again.
This new millenium is all about the use of energy. We are already 8 years behind in understanding impact and consequences.
Are you ready to rumble?
Those penguins can’t parallel park though, male or female. ~Recycle 1~. Notice you didn’t post your phone number after teasing us old guys. You must be a really swell person BTW.
Hi COCO babe, how ya doin? Thank you for the good information about the lakes. ___ Hey, just a suggestion. If you would break your long blogs up with more spacing, they would be much much easier to read.
Like this. Some of us don’t have the eyesight we had 40 years ago. I love your common sense opinions and wish you were writing articles for this site.
That check BTW will fill our gas tank about ten times, or buy 2,400 beers at happy hour. It’s going to the local food bank, they don’t sell stuff made in China.
WOW__ great info there ~CIVIL BEHAVIOR~ I’m ready to rumble.
We must have ALL of the world leaders get together and agree to lay down their swords and fight a combined war on Global Warming. That is the only solution. We can do it. __ We must.
Im pretty sure I heard the global mean temperature has dropped .5 degrees.
If you heard it, it’s nis-leading information.
The Arctic and Anarctic, Greenland ice, etc are melting and Doing so much faster than anyone ever dreampt would occur.
When the Global Warming Unbelievers have all the Guns, whaddaya gonna do ’bout it?
Big John ‘Wayne’ Daddy Warmonger McCain is an Unbeliever. Neither he nor ABSOLUTELY ANY REPUBLICAN ANYWHERE should be allowed to be elected. How’s that gonna happen? The Republican Party must be destroyed, yet I don’t hear any Dem candidate saying that.
Instead the Dems whine about ‘cooperation’ when there is none to be had, and the Reptilicans turn cooperation into ‘co-option’. And they just laugh at the pathetic Dems as they thrash around like landed fish. But the Reps are kind, and practice catch-and-release, so the same damn putrid Dem fish are caught again and again (the Clintons).
In fact, I don’t hear much on the Dem side either about the environment, but at least their two main prez candidates both rank around 90% positive with the League of Conservation Voters. Instead of the ACTUAL ZERO PERCENT ranking of that Reptile McInSane, who is, yes that’s right, 100% AGAINST the environment. Damn him.
Yet McInSane does wear a Flag Pin on his lapel from time to time, so he is A-OK with the MSM! Job well-done, MSM!
Reptilipublicans don’t need ANY real evidence to wage massive trillion-dollar illegal Wars; but all of a sudden… wait a minute, must not rush into anything precipitous, gotta have all the evidence even though conclusive evidence is in, gotta study it for some decades more, might negatively affect our money and corporate profits, and so on… when it comes to the potentially world-ending catastrophes global warming may cause.
So maybe the Reptilipublicans and their children deserve to die in a methane gas cloud of their own making, but they are making damn sure that everyone else and everyone else’s children do, too. Because these Reptilicans have the Power given by the gun and the gold and the falsehood and the fraud… just like it says it is in the New Testament. And above all, they are good christian folk. Aren’t they just, though.
Reference the site www.planetextinction.com and weep. For the Reptilipublican gunslingers will prevent any antidote that could save life on Earth from total tragedy.
For the American political/ruling class now consists of treacherous and treasonous-to-life snake-spirited devils, that care not for the living Earth, nor the American people. Instead they are blinded, depraved and spiritually-deformed by the gold ring of Power.
Storm is coming.
Prepare.
Civil Behavior-I hope you don’t mind, by I copied and posted your bandana idea on my blog.
Kem-If I gave out my phone number, I’d never get anything done around here.
Coco,
Copying and Pasting the bandana idea is EXACTLY what I hoped everyone would do. Thank you.
And Dannydog at 12:51am
You’re staying up too late and reading too many sci fi sites.
When trying to lose weight most experts tell us that it is not a good idea to weigh yourself on extremely accurate scales every few hours and worry about a few ounces gained or lost. They say that it is best to weigh oneself no more than once a week - and to be more concerned about the generally trend than the exact number of pounds lost.
Could be you are making too much of a temporary blip in temperature and that we should take a long term view of the trend.
Just saying.
what bullshit
All this talk above is just so divisive. Get your heads out of your asses: we in the first world are what keeps the scales tipping toward catastrophe. The West has set the president of gluttonous living.
What? You’ve got energy saving light-bulbs? Good for you. You eat vegan meals. Good for you. You save water by installing low-flo shower heads. Good for you.
You and I are still sitting in the middle of the juggernaut and as long as the machine is allowed to continue and we don’t raise our collective voice more often in protest to the way things Get Done, than it’s men, women and children to blame.
The children too?
maybe some reframing is in order. rather than speak of “global warming,” which isn’t immediately observable to most people, and therefore susceptible to the usual disinformation techniques, how about “global climate instability?”
—as in wetter wets, drier drys, colder colds and hotter hots, which most can relate to in their immediate environments. (source: every damn day on the weather channel)
key point is that it’s still anthropogenic, as is the only possible solution.
thanks KEM & CIVIL BEHAVIOR for the hints and tips. i feel though, i will be quite alone here in southern europe with my bandana. but i’ll see what happens and how many people ask its purpose. i think it’s more an ‘american’ thing. but let’s see…………..
tempus fugit
Make a bikini out of two bandanas ~CoCo~.
Ir more if necessary for the top.
Thank you so much! Thank you, _Mark_, for saying this, which I will simply quote, verbatim, loud and clear:
“what bullshit
All this talk above is just so divisive. Get your heads out of your asses: we in the first world are what keeps the scales tipping toward catastrophe. The West has set the president of gluttonous living.
What? You’ve got energy saving light-bulbs? Good for you. You eat vegan meals. Good for you. You save water by installing low-flo shower heads. Good for you.
You and I are still sitting in the middle of the juggernaut and as long as the machine is allowed to continue and we don’t raise our collective voice more often in protest to the way things Get Done, than it’s men, women and children to blame.”
I suppose your kids are included ~greenspark~?
Or are you childless? ____ Hope so.
Do you believe that type of ranting does anything to assist any to find ways to have our world leaders work on solving a serious issue? Got anything else that intelligent to offer?
@cubankid: (1) I recommend: http://www.engendertruth.com
(2) Consider the following: Let’s forget that for a long time “behind every man is a good woman,” pushing him to: rip up the forest and “build me a larger house”; “I’m cold, cut down more trees and burn them to keep me warm”; hunt and kill the animals for food so she can cook, and wear animal fur (so she can look successful and wealthy); develop technology to make her life easier; and kill anything that may terrify her especially “those pesky insects that make house cleaning a horror” and “my poor elbow ache” scrubbing to clean up their mess, “So please find some toxic chemicals and solvents or no nooky for you m’dear and while you’re at it develop some poison bait for the rodents cos I can’t control my fear”; “Oh, and dear, I need to look and smell more beautiful so kill more whales so I can have some ambergris for all my perfumes, and I need some toxins to turn my hair into different colors so I can keep you turned on as I wrinkle into old age” (with a complete lack of grace); “Oh, and now I’ve got equality I need my own car to add to the lovely haze at sunset and sunrise.” “Gosh, I’ve only got 200 pairs of shoes! I need a much larger wardrobe so I can add another 200 pair! Breed and kill more cows faster and get their leather to the shoe factory, husband dear!”
Sure, it’s “all the man’s fault” what an irresponsible cop-out viewpoint that is in utter denial.
The truth is: Humankind, men and women, created the industrial age which has polluted this planet and women have just as much to do with this excessive consumerism deathstyle that is inimical to all life on this planet and I’d wager women have a carbon and ecological footprint larger and more damaging than the male of the species, who are usually far more easily pleased and satisfied with simpler things.
The truth is: there is no point in affixing blame to anybody, when what we need to be doing without any waste of time is: making constructive changes to our excessively consumptive deathstyles. Which as iammyself has pointed out so well, is 80% attributable to women being the First World’s largest consumers of goods. Good job iammyself.
@KEM: I agree. Create Peace. End War. Fix planet.
@civil behavior: bandanas, eh? Love it. but I thought it was agriculture that was the largest contributor to greenhouse gas, particularly animal husbandry.
“These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change … that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years,” Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. “Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.”
Zeebe, please keep your vocabulary consistent. We have put the system out of homeostasis. I hope I’ve nudged the unfamiliar to Google a bit on the difference between those two terms.
Commondreamers,
Friends, get a grip on yourselves. Please, settle down, take a deep breath and stop the self-loathing, self-pity and blaming of others.
Sit back and let’s consider this essay written by Deborah Zabarenko. Ms. Zabarenko makes several errors of reasoning. For instance, the universe (or Earth in this case), when considered to be a machine, is incorrect. Machines are a product of their designer’s will, and thus, machines do not evolve independently of their creators. All machines have a human inspired goal to accomplish which marks a kind-of still point in time. But, evolution means constant change. There are no still points in evolution! It is incorrect to suggest that we humans can control (or fix) the “nature machine”. Every attempt to do so has always yielded unintended consequences.
Anyway, for most of the past 200,000 years, our ancestors survived and thrived as tool-makering scavengers, gatherers, and sometimes, as hunters living in small, kin-related groups, of say, 30 to 300 members. They didn’t live very long compared to our standards today. A person of 40 years was really old. Then about 60,000 years ago, our kind migrated from Africa to occupy most of the available land and seascape. Good on ‘em!
Some 10,000 years ago, the earth began to warm up. I mean really warm up. Many large mammals went extinct at that time. And, in the Levant region of Asia Minor (present day Lebanon and Syria) people living at the margins of survival began to domesticate animals and plants. Herding and small-scale cultivation began. Villages emerged. Civilization began.
Over the next five thousand years, wherever civilizion took root, perhaps in seven places worldwide, human populations increased rapidly. This development caused the insatiable need to acquire ever more resources, often by warfare. Empires arose. And fell. Then arose, again.
It amused me to realize our ancestors did not “progress” to agricultural based civilization, nay, they accepted it only as a last means of survival. So much for progress!
I think it is very important to understand the social structure of being civilized. Think of a pyramid with the ruling elite as the capstone and the base representing the mass of people. All civilized cultures, including democratic ones, produce a pyramid of power, influence and wealth. Further, all civilized cultures function by separating and dividing people into classes - by gender, by age, by skill, by income, by phenotype, etc. Naturally, this has the consequence of setting culture against culture, man against woman, “black” against “white”, rich against poor, traditionalist against experimentalist. Just read the entries above and you’ll see what I mean. To be civilized means to be separated from your own powers and your fellow human being.
Anyway, the warming cycle of Earth continues to this day. Evidently, we civilized human beings, you and I, have been contributing to the warming up. And, that’s OK. I say it’s OK because we are members - not masters - of life on this planet. There is a tremendous passion by many good-hearted people to do something about the warming up of Earth. And, that’s OK, too. But, friends, evolution will continue. And, there will be great suffering, misery and death, as well as, forgiveness, compassion and love, just like there has always been, regardless of what we do or don’t do about the ever-changing climate.
So … have a GREAT day, change that light bulb and stop worrying so much about the weather!
Thank You ~WIDHALM 19~ ____ For NOTHING.
Obviously you didn’t read the links offered and just merrily posted some comments which are not going to do one single thing to help inform others, that we humans must stop the Arctic methane gas from burping out into the atmosphere.
The history of the planet you failed to mention, was when that methane release happened twice previously, it eradicred all human and animal life. It’s not the weather I worry about. It’s what we are doing to our atmosphere that worries me and should worry anyone who has the brains God gave to a baboon.
KEM PATRICK
Friend, your response sounds twisted with loathing and self-pity. And, yes! I did write my words merrily.
KEM PATRICK, free your mind from fear and hate. Perhaps, study beyond the reductionism of science and try to reason outside the hysteria of the moment. In the late 1960’s, American scientists were warning of a return to the Ice Age! Two decades ago, American scientists were screaming the ozone hole atop the Antarctic would cover the entire Earth!
Settle down, breathe.
By-the-by, how do you think that computer you’re typing on got delivered to you?
How do you suppose all that food and those supplies got to the market where you shop?
Think on it, if civilization suddenly abandoned the use of fossil fuels (meaning plastics, too) the global economy would collapse very quickly. What do you think would follow the collapse? What do you think would happen to you, your family and friends?
KEM PATRICK go take a long look in the mirror if you want to see just who is contributing to global warning. It’s you. And, it’s me. It’s all of us.
Now, I say, take all the righteous action you can muster and conserve all the resources you possibly can …. good on you! …. but, see the world as it actually exists and don’t waste your brief life in fear and hate.
Hey! I don’t believe in God but I do like baboons!
Well, `WILDHALM~ There is NO self pity, loathing or hate in me, you’re assuming. Why?
What I was attempting to convey was, the methane gas situation is not a myth and that’s what we’d better tend to if we want our children to have a fair chance.
Your post just didn’t address the issue here. Instead you’re telling us to settle down and stop the self pity etc, as if we are little children. What does that disertation you gave have to do with, ___ (there is a global warming problem)___ and we have to correct it, or attempt to.
Your post is saying don’t worry, be happy, which is rather childish if you think about it. Would that be your attitude if you or a close family member were diagnosed with cancer and you just smiled happily and didn’t attempt to fight it?
Have you read any hate in any of mine or any others posts here? __ I haven’t. If you have, you have a reading disability or a word comprehension problem. There is ample concern by the majority here and there should be, that’s not fear or hiding under the sheets. That’s common sense.
Did you read the articles in the links offered? If so, what’s your opinion on the subjects, do you agree or disagree and if so, why? We don’t need to have a sermon or unasked for lessons on our personalities and your belief or disbelief of a God is irrevelant.
Hey, once in Africa years ago, a fellow who had lost both legs in a train accident, had a pet baboon who operated the train tracks swithching tower where he lived. The baboon was as good as any other worker on the line. That’s a true story.
MR. KEM PATRICK,
As it is, my wife and I hold graduate degrees in environmental science and education, we live in Alaska and work with the Wilderness Society and we own a Wildlife Sanctuary and an organic grain farm in Colorado. We have been engaged in North American conservation and sustainability issues the past 35 years. Those melting glaciers you’re excited about are just outside our living room window. Two summer’s ago, we explored the tundra north of the Brooks Range plus Prince William Sound out of Whittier. Sir, we understand the issue of glabal warming first-hand.
For Pete’s sake, I read all of your posts on this essay …. that’s where I got the idea of your loathing, self-pity and hysteria; which only serves to harm the conservation / sustainability movement MR. KEM PATRICK. How do you expect to build community and influence people who hold differing opinions with your attitude?
MR. KEM PATRICK do realize your zeal is exactly the kind that powered the crusades and Manifest Destiny and colonialism world-wide? Perhaps, sublimate all that energy of yours into action. What say you?
MR. KEM PATRICK, if you want to educate yourself beyond the hysteria of Commondreams, Alternet, Smirking Chimp, etc. please read the “Tao Of Abundance” by Laurence Boldt or anything by Terry Tempest Williams or Wendell Berry.
And, have a GREAT day! A worry free day!
What is wrong with you MISTER WIDHALM?
I’m attempting to help promote the fact, that global warming is NOT a myth and the methane gas is a very serious issue and so many citizens are unaware of it and the Bush administration has been insuring that burning coal is alright and clean enegy is not necessary. There are 26 new coal fired plants being built or planned to be right now.
By attacking me with nonsense you display either ignorance or stupidity. You condemn me and write a post that in essence says for us to stop worrying about global warming.
YOU got the IDEA from reading my posts that I’m consumed with loathing, self pity and hysteria??? Specifically where did I ever exhibit that? You charge me wthh that for some strange reason, where is the evidence? I used a highly regarded scientist’s findings as the basis of my opinions on the subject.
I offered a very good article, which was published here at Common Dreams in 2004, about the Arctic Methane gas issue and state I believe it’s a very serious issue. Do you disagree with that author? ____ That’s what you are doing by attacking me.
You also must disagree with Civil Behavor, CoCo, Matti, FVHorn, BBr-001, and a dozen or so more here. None of them think I’m being hysterical, nor did I think that of them.
This was a decent and iformative thread and some good ideas were discussed. If you can see the global warming problem, you should be able to realize it’s very serious and therefore what in hell is wrong with ANYONE sayinng it is? Answer?== None.
I have serious doubts about your claims of what you claimed, because any person who was in that situation you described would never have written what you have here, unless they were insane. I thnk you’re more likely a Neo-con Bushie shill and troll. You cannot have it both ways you know.
I almost always have great days BTW, and don’t care if you do or not.
Mister WIDHALM. If you don’t wish to be classifed as a troll BTW, don’t act like one. I asked what your opinion was on the article about the Arctic Methane gas and you refused to answer it, instead you came back with more bullshit.
That’s exactly what Trolls do, avoid fair questions and the issues and attack others for no good reason who may disagree with them. Troll on, you’re not fooling anyone here.
KEM:
I have been a reader for a long time, and have long admired your grasp on the issues pertaining to the environment, particularly the methane issue. I’ve learned a lot from you.
Yet, I also must say…
I find your style of “moderating” CD insulting, disrespectful and inappropriate. You insult women regularily (and then justify it with a sort of bashful charming persona, never ever apologizing for comments that in person would get you a slap in the face (EG: asking if someone has good jugs)
You act like the King of CD, when all you are is someone who is good enough with words to bully others who are new, or who do not express themselves the way YOU decide they ought to in order to satisfy YOU. You comment many many times in any one article post, dominating the conversation, and frankly, I don’t understand why CD lets you get away with much of your behavior, more fitting to an adolescent perpetually feeling their spring oats than an adult living on a planet in peril while we’re all just trying to figure out what to do.
You also say that others take things personally, while YOU personally insult people. You say others do not stay on topic, when truly, YOU mention personal matters, personality, personally insulting things…
You’re smart, your funny, and you’re a bit out of control. You’re mean to people, and I really am not comfortable with it. You’re not the watchdog of CD, you’re just another reader and writer. It’s true, these issues will provoke and invoke deep passions, but that can’t justify your ways that make others feel unwelcome. If you’re the initiation committee for CD, they have bigger problems than methane gas… They have someone who obstructs the possibility of community.
~GREENSPARK~
I’ve never asked any bloggers if they had nice jugs. I’ve asked if soemone in Congress did once. And I admit I sometimes cross the line with sexual remarks about some politician or neo-con. I also flirt with the gals here sometimes and none has ever complained to me, most flirt back and it’s all in fun. This isn’t a pre-school forum, we are all adults. I and seven other bloggers share E-mails and they have become friends with me and my wife.
Yeah I get snotty with people like this dude who came on with some remarks as you can readily read. __ ( Re-read his very first sentence in his original blog. ) ___ His stating WE ALL were a bunch of alarmists, for us to get a grip on ourselves and stop our “loathing” and “self pity”, etc. He was talking to all of us, not Kem Patrick alone.
What good did that do to a good thread? My first response to him was not out of line, I asked him why he percieved that of us and what did he think of the Methance gas issue.
Did he reply to that question with any decency, or say that he thought the methane gas situation was a serious problem, or it was a false flag and why it was? ___ Nope. he instead got pissed and blasted me and so I responded in like, ending with a true story about a baboon, in an attempt to ease the discussion. But it got worse, he got more angry and it showed.
Why do you have a problem with me for that. We’re arguing and that’s alright with me here. Just like I’m arguing with you right now and that’s fine too, I’m not angry with you at all and accept some of your constructive critcism. I’d rather not argue with you, but you offered your opinons and I’m replying to them.
If I’m coming across as a bully or someone who thinks they own the place, I’ll sure try to alter that way of writing blogs, because I don’t feel that way about myself at all. I fell as I’m far less educated than the majority who post here and sure don’t want any to get the impression you have of me.
I do show annoyance with trolls, or those who act like trolls, who deny very important issues such as this one, which have been proven to be factual by experts and I don’t mind jumping on their case. If they offer fair reasons for denying, and state why and what references they have to fortify their opinions, that’s fine. I don’t mind that type of fair disagreement or debating anything.
For examplel Billy__y4 and I strongly disagree on the nuclear energy issue and we get along just fine. This guy came on as a “big puffed up daddy” and didn’t offer anything of any substance, just criticized all of us for no good reason whatsoever.
Thanks for the remarks too, I’ll accept them as constructive criticism.
I just re-read all of his posts, and studied them and checked on some of his FACTS. He does not have a clue of what hs’s talking about. For one thing the planet is not warming due to natural causes, we should be in a minor cold age in fact. And if he’s a meber of the groups he stated, he’d know that.
These smart trolls work for the oil and coal industries and they attempt to shut down those who write here and often in soothing terms and belittle others with words such as he first used here. What if no one had replied to his denying remarks.
Talk about new members who may be unaware of enviriommentl issues, it is people like him who help to maintain ignorance with the masses. He evern criticized Common Dreams with a back hand remark. He’a troll. Don’t help him. If he was honest and sincere, he would have answered that question.
KEM:
Thank you for this very dignified, honest, and thoughtful response to my criticism. I’m thankful that you did not dismiss what I said. I am thinking about what you said above. For now, I wanted to thank you, because it is a rare conglomerate of qualities you just demonstrated in your response.
A few things…
–RE jugs: saying it about “absent” (whatever that means in this context) women doesn’t make it any more palatable, especially given that you raised the question as a way to be “humorous”, which means referring derogatorily to women’s body parts AND / OR reducing women to “body parts” (jugs, sic) is a way to get attention to a topic by using the cultural obsessions that already oppress women. You can call it flirting, but unless there’s a specific woman you know, and who is comfortable with your “freshness”, it is automatically taken to be meant for all women in general, and is therefore demeaning. (And would get you a slap in the presence of a real woman, as opposed to a virtual woman, even if, and perhaps especially if, your wife was present…) Even to have to raise this issue here is annoying, given that the methane gas is popping us off into the future millenium as we “speak”. But, you seem receptive to further exploration of the point, so I did…
Also, I agree: Trolls suck. They really are a huge problem, and can ruin forums like these, at which for the most part, I’ve seen some interesting discussion. And, yes, I’ve seen trolls here, too–I think my first post was compelled because I did see a troll, and wanted to tell them so–They piss me off. In that regard, I truly do appreciate your watchdog factor–It’s needed. They can destroy a community.
I just think you might be a little trigger happy with that issue. At the same time, there is no easy answer to how to deal with the corporate shills, the scum of the earth…. They, and anyone like them (such as people who are stupidly still buying into the crap that humans have no responsibility in these matters), do need to be responded to.
Thank you again for seriously considering my perspective.
You are correct of course.
I hate it when that happens.
Thank you again.