Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Faster Than You Think

Posted 11 months ago on Aug. 21, 2013, 9:05 a.m. EST by shooz (17843)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Scientists were wrong!!

It's worse.

"The scientists are wrong, but not the way you think.

As global warming picks up, scientists and researchers are finally coming to grips with just how serious that problem is, and how quickly we’re running out of time to solve it.

For example, when it comes to sea level increases, scientists have notoriously underestimated how fast the waters are rising."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18301-climate-change-is-happening-faster-than-you-think

80 Comments

80 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

*Scientists are not biased toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates…We call this tendency ‘erring on the side of least drama.’”

I think I said that sometime ago - it was obvious. Most scientists are not given to confrontation and drama. They really are ill equipped to deal with it. What should be alarming to everyone is the speed with which scientists have begun dispensing with their caution. If Global Warming is pushing them from the rear, then obviously it is pushing rather hard.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Perhaps the alarm is in the other link I posted.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/five-terrifying-statements-ipcc-report

that really is some scary shit.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

I had already surmised most of what that other article said when Monbiot and McKibben were posted here last . . . summer? Fall?

.

But this from your most recent link is interesting:

  • Furthermore, scientists know, from analyzing the isotopes of the carbon in the atmosphere, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels and forests, and not the result of natural processes.

I did not know they had provided a definitive answer to those denying fools who tried to blame the forests or the oceans or something. We've had a couple of them here in the past.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

You and I know these things and have argued for their acceptance against some true fools around here over these months.

Now it seems we will have to deal with the nihilists.

More fools?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

the genuine nihilists are just hopelessly disenchanted with the system, with attempting to understand it, with the losses that have been inflicted on the middle class over the last 50 years and the concerted, obstinate, steadfast refusal to address any of it -

they think if dems really were any good they would all band together and just tell the truth, at the same time, over and over and over until shit began to shift. To some degree they have a point I guess.

What they do not understand is that we do not have time to completely redesign the entire method of government. And anarchy is not a solution.

It is in large part I think an acknowledgement and complete rejection of conditioned helplessness. And again, they have a point. Both parties tend to benefit from that state among the public - or they did, or thought they did. That is I think coming to an end.

As for those nihilists around here - some of them are likely repelicans in OWS clothing . . .

I think the proof is Global Warming. It's an OWS issue - the fukers around here in the past have attempted to deny it. Then they got themselves banned and came back with new names.

fukers

[-] 3 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Understood

I find actions in recent times have shown signs of increased involvement.

Vilifying a sell out Dem in Wisconsin.

Aiding in the recall of a GOP in New Hampshire.

Indeed, increased support for what's happening politically, in Wisconsin and Michigan.

And now, putting support for move to amend to a vote. I would vote twinkle!!

Good signs.

To me anarchy was always a long term goal. It's not that don't think it would work, it's that I don't believe mankind is mature enough to make it work.

It will need to morph and change over time to adapt to mankind's abilities..

I also believe that history has shown that pure systems never work.

Adaptability. The ability to adapt to changing conditions in a way efficacious to the 99% is vital.

In the mean time, there is an immediate need to affect the system as it stands.

To do so helps prep the system and the population.

The current need, is to lessen the damage currently being inflicted on the 99%.

Oh and the local nihilists?

Damned if I know.

I just tend to find them confused and off track.

That's why I like to spend some time perusing actual OWS info sites.............:)

It will be fun seeing what comes out of Kalamazoo.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

There was a think up in New Hampshire that was really interesting - they got one repelican candidate to pass up on at least one campaign event and in the end he lost - I think at the start he was favored to win.

It's hard to stand up to charges of corruption when they happen to be true.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Their level of desperation should be on every front page.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/21/louisiana-republicans-party-blaming-obama-katrina.html

They are lost in both time and space these days.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Tell it like it is ZD. People - wake up!!! Those of you who can - start moving out of low lying areas.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

LoL!

Not you hc, you and allah your friends can stay right where you are . . .

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

And start a cement life-jacket business.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

While you're fiddling.

Other important documents have been leaked.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/five-terrifying-statements-ipcc-report

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

lets see . . .

  • We're on course to change the planet in a way "unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years."

    • that's not news, I made that assertion arguing with hc's best pal, Betsy Ross
  • Ocean acidification is "virtually certain" to increase.

    • Doesn't that kinda go without saying?
  • Long-term, sea level rise could be 5 to 10 meters. Journalists are already citing the draft report's prediction that by the year 2100, we could see as much as three feet of sea level rise.

    • nope, not even close. Much of the Greenland Ice Sheet will be gone by 2100, and I'm pretty sure the math indicates that would be significantly more than three feet. But I note they acknowledge as much, for they go on to say:

    • Add it all up, and what that means is that if we exceed 2 degrees of warming beyond pre-industrial levels, then we could be looking at radically higher oceans, and submerged coastal cities, in the long run. And just how close are we to exceeding 2 degrees Celsius? Several scenarios used for the draft report project "high confidence" that we'll get there by the end of the century. At that point, seas would continue to rise well beyond the year 2100, and by much more than three feet.

  • If Greenland were to melt entirely, it is estimated that sea level would rise by about seven meters.

    • I thought it was significantly more than that. That's just over 21 feet.
  • Much of the carbon we've emitted will stay in the atmosphere for a millennium…even after we've stopped emitting it. The draft report says that 20 percent of the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere will stay there for an almost unimaginably long time—more than 1,000 years. Even if we were to completely cease all greenhouse gas emissions, the draft report adds, warming would continue for "many centuries." "A large fraction of climate change," the document intones, "is thus irreversible on a human time scale." The only way out would be if our emission levels were "strongly negative for a sustained period"—which, to put it mildly, seems highly unlikely.

    • Ain't that a bitch. Hence the need for volcanic perturbation - but that is a tricky business and one not without consequence. Not all volcanoes produce the same emissions, some spew large amounts of sulfur dioxide, and that can be very bad when it rains. And planes don't much care for the fine particulate matter which I believe is very good at reflecting heat.
[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Let's hope most of Antarctica stays under the ice.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

I don't think it will, unless we engage in geo-engineering of some kind. I think a lot of the decision makers have already decided that geo-engineering would be or is a necessity. We blew right on past the CO2 ppm the IPCC had called for by 2007 or something like that - blew right on by without even a blink.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

The biggest issue with CO2 now is that for every gain we make here, we lose 10x over in the third world.

I find it hard though, to consider India and China as third world these days.

From industry to their desire for personal transportation.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

I'm not sure what the designation is based on. Probably the percentage of people living in poverty. I think it was Shanghai in the late 90s had a homeless population of over one million people.

That was a single city.

60 Minutes has a segment on the real estate bubble in China, which is way over due to implode. Fukin surreal. We've got a completely empty and never been lived in development in Colorado I think - In China they have ten story buildings and shopping malls - completely empty. It's crazy.

Modern society has some inherently unsustainable processes that incentivize self destruction. I'm not sure what it will take for us to understand the necessity of eliminating them - let alone how.

I wonder if it becomes a lesson we actually can learn and apply? If not then soon it will be as if we had bred ourselves into extinction.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Look to Germany, who's weaned themselves off of fossil fuel and nuclear power generation. in a very short period of time.

I do recall those who came here railing about how that could never work..

The problem at this point are corporations who want to protect their vested interests in selling high carbon fuels. Particularly nasty stuff like that extremely dirty, yet high profit petroleum coke.

Left overs of tar sands refinement.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

sure, the price of a barrel of oil has rarely been higher, and it provides more than enough profit margin for things like the tar sands.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Wonder what that would do to the wobble at the poles.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

I don't want to find out.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Me either.

[-] 1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

How does it make someone in Florida feel to know that the shit is gushing all over, and while working with groups like Greenpeace against a gigantic machine, other people are actively on the phone promoting the person who is accepting BP money more than anyone else in history.

How is that suppose to make someone feel?

Tell me. Your intolerance is astounding. Because through all your threats, and all your visions of blood and guts, I want to know what you think when you envision that situation.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

I think you're a fukin idiot. If it were up to me, I'd make the entire fossil fuel industry, and all their chief executives, and all of their chief spokesmen, pay

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

In the great tradition started by Bernie Madoff - riches to rags to prison.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

How do you plan to do that until you denounce those that accept them as viable employers based off of the average person's sweat?

[-] 4 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

honestly - who gives a shit

Coal men risk their lives because they really just don't know any better - it's what their daddy did, and his daddy before him. The states where coal mining takes place don't provide a lot of other opportunities. Keep 'em ignorant. Keep 'em hungy

Let's just lynch McConnell and Paul and see what happens . . . the fukin scumbags

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

The successful test grounds for the dumbing down of America.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

you don't mind if I butt in do ya?

thanks . . .

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 months ago

I firmly believe that "mother" nature will be the hidden "saviour" of the planet. Ratcheting up the causes behind climate change, by simply ignoring the warnings, and continuing down the same roads, meaning escalating wars, burning more fossil fuels, refusing to acknowledge a need for more efficient transport, et al, will precipitate even more extreme weather patterns, with severe storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, tsunamis, floods, droughts, and the rest of it.

Insurance will become too costly for most to afford, infrastructure repairs will bankrupt many local authorities, food sources will become scarcer, and meanwhile, the corporations will offshore themselves to their tax havens, and kick back for retirement.

Stalemate. Game over.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Is that from your book?

You forgot earthquakes.

When enough ice melts, deformed earth will rebound.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 months ago

I'm writing an historical piece, shooz.

Two years running, Australia saw the monsoon trough extend across all four eastern states and the Australian Capital Territory, all the way down into the roaring forties of the Southern Ocean, to Tasmania. The whole eastern seaboard suffered extensive flooding, all at the same time. This, of course, overextended our emergency services, our health system, and many people are still fighting for "justice" from their insurers. Meaning, no repairs to flood damaged house, or nowhere to live.

City councils, and their associated water boards, are being sued by the insurers, and the whole process is draining funds from taxpayers faster than they can be recouped in taxes.

Now, if it's earthquakes you want to discuss, New Zealand still has cities without even basic services, after many tremors, both large and small. A serious fault-line slip at a critical point would send a tsunami large enough to destroy most of our east coastline, south of Brisbane. Quite possibly, America's west coast as well.

On the ice melting scenario, I'm surprised at the lack of rise in ocean levels. I'm on the coast, and I don't detect any noticable difference at this point.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Time to start taxing or nationalizing natural resources to pay for it.

They'll squeeeel, but it's he best way.

I saw that NZ had one the other day. No major damage thank God.

The way I understand it, your lack of visual confirmation is due to ocean currents.

Although the volume is rising, the currents cause it build up in localized areas. Think Venice, which is particularly vulnerable..

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 months ago

The vaunted "Resources Rent Tax" has, to date, netted zero dollars in income for the govt. The argument is that income taxes from the workers pay a lot into the coffers.

NZ has been in recovery mode for about three years. Christchurch is pretty much uninhabitable, and those who could leave, have left.

The moon has more to do with controlling where the waters of our oceans move to. The currents circulate water, but the gravitational pull of the moon is the main mover and shaker in our oceans.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

If I find the study on the currents, I'll link it. It was a while ago that I found it.

[-] 1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

The planet will get rid of us all soon. Theres no other way to save the planet as it stands now.

For every push that a good group makes, theres 10 more clinging to the status quo fucking it all up.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

That was my conclusion on reading the information from these links:

I think at the time I guessed the arctic would be ice free most of the year sometime around 2018 - 2020. And I still say it's very likely.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

I guess all those fools who told us the IPCC was wrong, were right, just not the way they thought they were..........;(

Oh.

China isn't waiting.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/china-sends-first-merchant-ship-via-arctic-sea-route-130819.htm

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago
[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Can't let a little thing like global warming stand in the way of easier profits.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Waiting for Carnival Cruise to have a North West Titanic moment. Hell they have had disasters everywhere else - haven't they?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13495) from South Burlington, VT 11 months ago

sure seems it - they may have missed having one in the Straights of Magellan

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Well unless they go under ( funny ) they still have time ( bring in the clowns ).

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

The best thing people can do, as one person, is stop endorsing those that entertain this type of behavior.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Yeah, we wouldn't want to endorse those scientists.

What you don't know can't hurt you.....right?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Count to ten..............and when I open my eyes......................

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

He'll be on about some bullshit to change the conversation away from global warming.

We stayed on target for a while anyway............:)

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

You are psychic =

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (313) 1 minute ago

Which will be more effective, honestly, on an internet platform?

Sowing the seeds of discontent and pointing out the entire paradigm and system of which 99% of us are being repressed by?

Or blaming Republicans?

I mean, honestly, if the second one was the answer, the Dem party would be gaining people, not losing them (same for the Republican party).

The first one is what launched this, made it different than other actions and campaigns. Embrace it. At least stop fighting me at every step of the way.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


Do you think he really believes that there is any republican leadership in office right now?

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

I believe, he doesn't know what to believe.

It's why he never questions anything. He thinks he already knows. Which must be why he gets so upset when questioned about his beliefs.

I started two nonpolitical threads

He's attempted to politicize, both of them. .

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Well he definitely has issues - can't stay on topic about global warming - because he can't admit that there is a large contingent of RINOS standing in the way of making any proper policy on ending the use of fossil fuel.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

It's like he's trying to wind things up for the next election cycle.

I can wait....................................:)

and yeah he has real issues understanding just how bad the GOP has been of late.

How bad they are right now in the States, escapes him completely.

Scares him apparently.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

It must be rough when your (his) leanings/party is almost all Corp(se)oRATist.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Who knows, but he sure does politicize everything.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Well if you mean he steadfastly defends the Corp(se......oops....Rep party in office. . . . then - yep.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Soap opera of the banned inc.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

It's one of those? OH-My

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

Again, the people you endorse are more corrupt and to the right than anyone I would consider endorsing.

If you want to keep going around lying your ass off, go ahead. Go for it.

And then when the topic of honesty and clarity comes back up tomorrow, lay low.

Have a nice night.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Have a nice night. Try to work on the ability to stay on topic. In this instance - Global Warming and the speed at which it is happening.

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

Its hysterical that because the few of you cant stand that someone goes around pointing out corruption, that I must be a Republican.

If we have some regular Republican posters, I'd like to see em. I spun that last one Stormkeeper or whatever in so many circles he simply left.

I'm trying to set the bar a bit higher than "fascsist" or "kinda fascist".

Quite frankly the few of you and your views of whats acceptable in society is more conservative than me on most accounts.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

There is nothing wrong with being conservative - like say conserving the environment - But that has nothing to do with the corp(se)oRATist....... . . . . ......scuse me - Rep party in office.

So will you now be able to get back on topic? GLOBAL WARMING and the unexpected speed at which it is happening.

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

Heres your 4 coward Dems that should have been thrown out of the party after this:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/454789/senate-republicans-protect-big-oil-subsidies-as-their-gasoline-profits-soar/

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

WOW 4 DINOS on that vote - it's a conspiracy I tells ya.

Might as well tell folks who you are talking about so that they can take note:

Democrats who joined the Republicans included Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Jim Webb (D-VA).

You also forgot to laud/applaud these two:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) broke ranks and voted to cut the tax breaks.

So it came down to 45 dems and 2 reps voting to end tax breaks for fossil fuel and 47 RINOS who voted to keep em + 4 dinos

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

And those 4 Dinos are welcomed back with open arms by a bunch of fellow cowards who claim to be liberal.

Same shit, different vote. Always the same bullshit reasons.

Screw em.

Change is going to come. And it wont be by letting people like that slide.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Who wants to let em slide? Not I.

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

No I dont. Who would? And why would you assume that out of what I said?

Dont like oil? Stop electing their whores.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

That's funny as the only time you say such things is after you get called out for supporting ( defending ) the RINOS in office. Now can you get back on topic? GLOBAL WARMING ( in case you forgot ).

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

You cant support Dems OR Reps and claim to truly care about the environment in my book.

If thats too radical for you, too bad. Be happy theres people pushing the envelope further than the usual bunch of patsys.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

I do not support Dems I do not support Reps. I support issues for the good of the people. It is not my fault if Reps are hard to find supporting issues "FOR" the PEOPLE.

Case in point:

[-] 1 points by TropicalDepression (320) 39 minutes ago

Heres your 4 coward Dems that should have been thrown out of the party after this:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/454789/senate-republicans-protect-big-oil-subsidies-as-their-gasoline-profits-soar/

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

How many Rep votes for ending? Two.

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

We'll just discuss it and ignore the 800 lb elephant in teh room which is BP funding both sides and people actually believing one of them will save them.

Talk the issues to death. Go for it. At the end of the day it takes action, and your precious Dems are just a bought out as the other ones so you better stop talking the obvious and start putting a real plan together for change.

Or keep repeating the obvious.

You simply dont like someone coming in and pointing out the corruption you endorse out of one side of your mouth while acting all caring out of the other.

And if that makes me unpopular with the die hard party folks then so be it. Because thats whats it going to take.

Nothing will change until the people wake up and realize they have been played.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

I really don't believe you politicized this before Zen did.

Leading

and

Pathetic.

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

Which will be more effective, honestly, on an internet platform?

Sowing the seeds of discontent and pointing out the entire paradigm and system of which 99% of us are being repressed by?

Or blaming Republicans?

I mean, honestly, if the second one was the answer, the Dem party would be gaining people, not losing them (same for the Republican party).

The first one is what launched this, made it different than other actions and campaigns. Embrace it. At least stop fighting me at every step of the way.

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

The scientists dont entertain them. The politicians do.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

No.

They entertain you.

That's why you inject them into everything. This time? Even before ZEN did!

Huzzah for you!

We were concerning ourselves with what's happening.

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

If he was concerned he wouldnt be such an adamant supporter of those who take the money and such an adamant hateful person.

Enough is enough with em.

If reminding people every turn that they need to stop endorsing the people who keep it going is what is needed, then that is what is needed.

They have moved on from us. We are no longer relevant. Its time we came to the same conclusion rather than tugging at their robes as they shoosh us away.

A closed door has two sides you know?

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Somehow, I couldn't find a word concerning global warming in that.

It's always back to the soap opera.

The only thing I see closed here is your mind, and it goes 'round and' round..

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 11 months ago

I dont like the oil companies. Neither do you two. The difference is that I dont humor those that take their money for campaigns.

And I really have a problem with those who act all environmental while electing Democrats (or the random idiot who elects Republicans).

If you care about the environment.... THEN STOP ELECTING THEM.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17843) 11 months ago

Still nothing?

Still on a political bent?

I'm really not in the mood.

You should start a political thread about it.