Catastrophic Climate Change


Hain't posted in a bit. Thanks for your patience. The change of the seasons does drive me to much labor, as the onset of the rains hereabouts prompts many malingerers to loudly lament the state of their sieves...er, roofs. Obviously this enables me to ignore everything at the drop of a hat and industriously serve the myriad centers of the universe these folks reckon they are without surcease or days off. But, methinks I doth complain too much, as I quite enjoy it. Nonetheless, it keeps me busy, without days off.

Anyway, I have just done some digging into evolution of life, and provide this for your edification.


The Carboniferous stripped the atmosphere of CO2 and essentially committed suicide, because the innovation of lignin that enabled trees to stand tall was not something detritivores had evolved to process, and this left all that delicious carbon trapped in the corpses of early trees, which became coal after a bit of geological processing.

When massive vulcanism dumped a bunch of light reflecting sulphur into the atmosphere, global temperatures plunged, and terrible conditions for tropical and temperate plants ensued - an ice age - leading lots of herbivores to starve, and so on and so forth.

These corpses of trees didn't only plunge the Earth into massive extinction once, but seem to have done it again at the end of the Permian, when the ~1m year long eruption of the Siberian Traps vulcanism seems to have set the coal seams on fire, releasing something like 170k GtC (170,000 Gigatons of Carbon) into the atmosphere, along with all the mercury necessary to make life impossible for the vast majority of creatures on the planet.


The above video is ~an hour long, so to avoid the details of the research cut to the end and the summary the presenter provides.

The Siberian Traps alone released more CO2 than humans ever will (we have released less than 1% of that amount in all of history), and without any filtering of heavy metals or soot, which we already are dramatically reducing in our emissions. The atmosphere seems to have been flooded with 30x the CO2 it presently holds. The presenter notes that anoxia (lack of O2) and heavy metals pollution - not runaway greenhouse warming - was the cause of the most catastrophic global extinction event Earth has experienced.

These are not events AGW alarmists are interested in discussing, because no one predicts we are going to produce that much mercury and CO2. We never will. We just can't. Long before the CO2 and acidification of the oceans were anywhere near modern levels, living things came back, including reef building organisms. Our atmosphere has lost CO2 ever since, until it bounced off ~190ppm during the LGM (Late Glacial Maximum). Below that, the lowest CO2 level recorded in the fossil record Earth keeps, almost all plants become unable to photosynthesis and starve to death, and this has very bad implications for everything that depends on photosynthetic plants for their own sustenance. If CO2 drops below that almost all life on Earth will die, leaving only chemosynthetic life, those weird deep sea ocean vent ecosystems, left.

We don't want to overproduce CO2 like the Siberian Traps did, but we sure want to release a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than we presently have, because CO2 ~ten times extant levels enables far higher plant productivity and creates vastly improved living conditions for temperate and tropical living things.

AGW alarmists call CO2 pollution, and fail to recognize it as the essential nutrient that makes life possible. These videos simply prove them wrong, and that all the draconian predictions they make are false. The totalitarian politics they claim are necessary aren't. The blocking of insolation (sunshine) being undertaken is absolutely harmful to all living things, the exact opposite of what we need to do globally.

We barely avoided the worst global extinction event the world could experience a mere ~20kya, and only global warming at the end of the ice age that released CO2 from the oceans allowed us to survive to begin releasing CO2 trapped in mineral deposits, returning it to our global ecosystems that depend on it to survive.

AGW alarmists claim current climate changes are unprecedented. That's completely false, as these videos prove. What we are seeing today is quite mild. They claim it's completely human caused, and that's clearly false, because humans didn't even exist during these events, and haven't produced even 1% of the CO2 one big volcanic event did in all of human history. Every claim they make is false, and all the policies they propose are actually harmful to living things on Earth.

Interestingly, the AGW environmental movement is largely funded by Big Oil. Why would the banksters that own oil, pharmaceutical, and media corporations work together to push these lies? I can only note that if the atmosphere doesn't contain enough CO2 for natural ecosystems to survive, everyone in the world will depend on agriculture controlled by folks that control the supply of carbon. We see the push for carbon credits as the policy that will save the world according to the propaganda.

Carbon credits appear to be the chosen method of gaining ownership of CO2, upon which all life depends. We should fight against carbon credit legislation as if our lives depend on defeating it, because it does.

Source - geol.umd.edu


Comments 11


To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

11.11.2019 01:41
0

I would not call it information war. Sure its central planners against freedom of choice, but both parties don´t know, their information is plain noise. Simply because they cant know. One can not even predict the trajectory of a double pendulum (and it has only two interdependent elements. The climate system has how many? ;D).
Trajektorie_eines_Doppelpendels.gif

The reasoning behind AGW is that relatation does not matr. A small change in input can cause a big change in out-put. Its non-lineaear. Yes, other C-Elements dwarf our output, but our output can easily trigger a change in the output of the Siberian traps and those traps than cause an serous change in the dynamics of the e system (tipping elements).
NE swflake causes and avalanche ´, only nly one andfact it could also be a butterfly, the system does not care. On the other her hand, it coul as you described it, that emission of CO2 will be indirectly beneficial for us, then avoidvoiding emission a worse efe effect than pushing emission. Its undable and nnd not an empiricroblemblem. Itt about climate, its about economics. Its about convincing people to sell their new cars to Africa in order to buy a new electric car in order to stimulate economic growth. Pro-Climate effectively means moremore CO2, so why being mad at them?

11.11.2019 12:43
3

lol. they just pump & dump their broken economy once again. and then need market regulations to safe it. again. so why be mad at them?

11.11.2019 16:21
1

exactly, of course they do, its just a Konjunkturprogram for European Industry, to extract more wealth from middle-class aka workers. The industry went very well after 2008, credit was cheap, demand was high, we pushed China through the roof, we pushed our economy through the roof but now every family has a car, many have two cars and lots of debt. And now? Not only Europes future is based on the employment of the middle class, which is based on self-directed-production.

11.11.2019 20:42
1

"ONE snowflake causes and avalanche..."

No. One snowflake contributes one snowflake's worth to an avalanche. The apparent correlation with the snowflake and commencement of the avalanche is a classic cause for the misunderstanding many suffer. The scientific fact is that correlation is not causation.

Being mad at people deliberately lying to fool me is not wrong. The fact that extant climate propaganda cannot be true, for the reasons you point out, proves that competent scientists know for a fact it is not true, and that means they are deliberately lying.

Siding with liars, in any context and for any reason, will always bite you in the ass.

As to your example with the pendula, the reason we cannot predict it's movements is that our grasp of the forces involved is inadequate. It's not that those movements cannot be predictable. It's that we don't have the ability to predict it. Recognizing that difference is what separates science from faith.

Hubris is the curse of the ignorant. Humility enables science because it enables objective facts to be understood, and excludes faith.

At our present CO2 concentrations, plants are retarded in both growth rates and absolute productivity. I know this from experience because I have grown plants in CO2 boosted environments. Plants with more CO2 available not only make more food, they make more O2 for us to breathe, more water for us to drink, and stronger ecosystems to resist negative impacts of stressors from every source, including rapine centralized misdevelopment.

11.11.2019 20:57
3

Yes, then those scientists are not scientific. They do research, research is not science. Research is lobby-confiscated, industrialized, highly regulated and consensus. Truth is not democratic.

At our present CO2 concentrations, plants are retarded in both growth rates and absolute productivity. I know this from experience because I have grown plants in CO2 boosted environments. Plants with more CO2 available not only make more food, they make more O2 for us to breathe, more water for us to drink, and stronger ecosystems to resist negative impacts of stressors.

They are perfect CO2 sinks, same goes for moor.

The problem you draw is the core problem of research. There are populations where we have to extract 50% of the wisdom teeth. The frame work is simply: There is no space for the teeth --> hence we have to extract them. This practice generates income. Hence --> the frame-work is accepted. Most diseases (same goes for ecosystems) could easily be transferred into another more holistic framework: teeth don´t fit because the jaws see no forces during childhood ...BUT this is no product, ergo this is where research ends.

How to solve the interdependence of science and seeing the world in a economic framework? guess its not possible. So how to make a sexy product from planting and saving CO2 sinks?

12.11.2019 01:13
1

Across all industries technological advance is ongoing. Advance is always more decentralized, and decentralization always reduces centralization. Individuals gain greater power versus institutions. One of the recent developments in agricultural technology is aquaponics, the practice of growing aquatic species and using the wastewater from those tanks to fertilize other plant crops, reducing the waste in the water such that it can be reused for the aquatic species. With LED lighting, solar power, a cheap source of appropriate food for the aquatic species, nominal water, and good design, it is possible to grow all of the food an individual or small group requires, in very small space.

This tech is also able to be multiplied with other recent innovations, such as CRISPR, 3D printing, and ad infinitum, greatly extending the capabilities from mere foods, to pharmaceuticals, various useful materials, and security mechanisms, although there really is almost no limit to the conceivable uses these tech advances might provide.

These uses certainly include dentistry, for example. Basic tooling and entry level equipment for all aforementioned systems combined are well below 1% of the cost of a single family home. The greatest barrier to immediate and widespread adoption isn't poverty, but the terrible education most people have suffered in public school.

Classes in genetic engineering take a while to undertake, and cost a few to several hundred dollars, and similar classes for 3D printing and aquaponics aren't as readily available as are classes in using CRISPR from the-odin.com, but various free university level educational platforms are extant where suitable knowledge can be gained at similar cost, if not less. The educational materials aren't as much the problem as is the deeply indoctrinated aversion to learning modern public schools effect in people subjected to them.

However, the extraordinary beneficiality of gaining such a massive degree of individual capacity to produce bespoke and commodity goods and services as these technologies provide is nominal incentive for almost everyone to eventually undertake the expense and learning curve to gain those benefits. Large communities are presently adopting, developing, and improving the ease of use in all cases, and once the AI mechanism is suitably developed to deploy such tech relatively autonomously, much of the educational burden will be removed, along with the physical labor necessary to keep such systems productive.

Software development is perhaps the key to viral dissemination of these systems, and each individual deploying any of them multiplies the decrease in power of affected centralized institutions, such as corporations, governments, and financial networks.

I expect that a century from now, money, government, and war will be obsolete. We will be an extrasolar species, availed of unimaginable wealth, and the vector for the dispersal of terrestrial life across the universe.

I can't imagine anything sexier.

12.11.2019 01:45
1

thank you for your explanation, I have seen some courses at our university on plant modifacation and technology, probably I have underestimated the possible impact and should really look into it!

12.11.2019 11:21
1

Early adopters undertake the most severe learning curve. If you enjoy learning, and want to advance the tech, have fun!

12.11.2019 21:14
1

They claim it's completely human caused, and that's clearly false, because humans didn't even exist during these events, and haven't produced even 1% of the CO2 one big volcanic event did in all of human history.

Here you are breaking the fundamental laws of logic. Just because something was caused by event A in the past, it does not mean it cannot be caused by a completely different event B in the future.

That the current GW is rather mild in comparison to earlier GWs is true, but back then, no human civilization existed. It's the cilivization that is running into big problems with adapting, not the planet itself.
That the current GW is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions (it's not just CO2, but also methane and others) is as-good-as-proven (>99% probability).

What is not proven, and this is what alarmists get wrong all the time, is how the warming will continue. This we simply don't know for sure. Prognosis and extrapolations are very error-prone.
However, as the events are potentially catastrophic, the precautionary principle has to be applied nevertheless.

And the question which measures are adequate and which are not is as also very difficult, as also @lauch3d explained.

12.11.2019 10:12
1

"Just because something was caused by event A in the past, it does not mean it cannot be caused by a completely different event B in the future."

A demonstrable mechanism could conceivably cease. In this matter, I have seen no evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, AGW simply speculates that has happened, and further speculates that people effect climate change. That is the actual logical fallacy. It's rank speculation undertaken for political goals and effected via false narratives inflicted on a generally uninformed public via rank propaganda.

"That the current GW is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions (it's not just CO2, but also methane and others) is as-good-as-proven (>99% probability)."

This is exactly that false narrative. It's complete horseshit. This is why I point out that the entire history of humanity has not produced even 1% of the 'greenhouse gasses' produced by 1 volcanic event. That fact completely disproves that humanity is causing climate change by producing outrageous amounts of CO2.

The fossil record exists, and shows that 1) so called greenhouse gasses do not lead temperature on Earth. Instead temperature changes are shown to lead to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. AGW alarmists do not know this, because they simply believe what shills tell them, rather than researching the actual data, and 2) increased CO2 in the atmosphere (~ten times extant levels) dramatically increases the fecundity of natural ecosystems without consequential negative impacts. While our transitory infrastructure has been undertaken before we knew this, the benefit to society of increased productivity so grossly outweighs the costs of simply improving our infrastructure (which it's transitory nature requires we do anyway, just because it wears out, and technological advance renders it obsolete) that the entire FUDding is laughable.

The goals of AGW alarmists are revelatory. Carbon credits are simply the privatization of the basis for life on Earth, and the effect of that privatization is no less than the utter dependence on multinational corporations for the necessities of life, air, water, and food, of all people on Earth. In other words, the total enslavement of all people everywhere to extant equity holders in multinational corporations. Every policy change propounded by AGW alarmists is similarly totalitarian in effect.

Greater productivity of natural ecosystems creates greater prosperity, which creates greater freedom, which is a relative decrease in power of centralized institutions. This is a power grab, nothing more, nothing less.

To ignore this is tantamount to ignoring what stabbing a knife into your carotid will do when evil trolls tell you to.

It's suicide.

12.11.2019 21:40
0