From one of the paper's authors: 'If today’s human-caused warming continues on its current trajectory, Müller said, “this effect will dwarf all other processes for a long time to come. But the geological record still provides us with valuable insights about how the oceans operate in a warmer world.”'
The paper itself says that this is more about how the oceans can keep churning despite things like the AMOC shutting not, and not nearly as much on Mars's influence on temperature changes.
People should recognize climate deniers when they pop up. It is not that difficult. Mars!!!! Give me a serious scientist like James Hansen who will not laugh his ass off if you tell him that global warming is due to Mars. Please!
Thanks B. "Net oil" peaking in late 2018, just before the financial crises of 2019 (Repo-Crisis) nd the economy-freeze and "going direct" of COVID lockdowns, is the same timeline I have seen.
The "Grand Illusion" is transparent to some of us, but never to most people. I think that is just how our species is set, with different cognitive types and personality types.
It definitely feels like most of the Big Moves made in the last five years have been to re-orient the world economy around these big energy realities (as well as the reality of looming shrinking populations). I'm sure there are more moves to come, whether dramatic or not. Because even if there is enough energy in the ground to last a long while (as some argue), it will continue to benefit a shrinking sub-set of the population while the vast majority finds their quality of life continuously trending downward (while being pushed further into virtual worlds). It's really quite brutal and I imagine a lot of folks will simply opt out, but I wonder what the real alternatives might be from a truly global macro perspective.
I think one has to explore more personal, household and local economy, grow vegetables, live where the weather won't kill you without fuel and electricity...
That's already really complicated.
Got a good well?
;-(
I don't think we can wait for global or macro "solutions", as they seem to assume that "enough of us will survive", and so on.
"They" assume with the gene therapy shots that less than half will survive. All that I have seen of people that decided that Rachel "Madcow" was right ( you won't be sick, won't be hospitalized and won't die) look like they are already at death's door.
As for plays I look to and visited Gates 100 Circles farm on the Columbia River. In the future I can see, not nuke plants running the irrigation, but more run of the river hydro. (He probably already locked in the power contracts.) Harvests then can go down the Columbia to Portland and Vancouver Washington then like the old days, on to trains to markets both north and south. His location also has (I used to even do site assessments for potential hydro) areas that may work for pumped storage water reservoirs and so hydro that can work during drought.
All of that also assumes that Gates can convince the Chinese to quit doing terraforming and oil and gas development in the western Tarim Basin which will I think, threaten the entire western USA water cycle.
Heavy stuff. So is it now time for writing alternative collapse scenarios? I cannot help but seeing the "Limits to Growth" footprint all over this exceptional essay.
"This is how infinite growth ends on a finite planet, much sooner than the resulting climate change could wreak havoc on the economy." I am really not sure of that when I see the rate at which the planet is heating. It seems to happen much faster than the depletion of our resources, with all the related consequences on the economy and the survival of humans. Everything is connected. And then the world is also changing politically, with the rise of fascism everywhere (where not already firmly installed like in Russia), with ever growing extreme inequality, leading the latest stage of capitalism (a financialized neo-liberal system) back to feudalism. But yes, certainly, the end of this civilization anyway. Adam Flint, author of "Mona."
This is the same tired, old argument of climate change deniers resurfacing regularly like Nessie in the right wing media. If there were a grand solar minimum for the next solar cycle (eleven year: a span between 2020 and 2053 doesn't mean anything), that would not compete, not even close, with the current anthropogenic global heating. Below is a serious article about this topic. Mrs. Zharkova retreated her paper for lack of seriousness (for lack of anything close to science, really). And this, even with little consequence, would be a real big "if"; no serious scientists EVER predict what the next solar cycle will be because they just can't, unless they are charlatans.
When I see the thought terminating cliché 'climate change denier' and a link to the guardian as a reference that tells me all I need in terms of critical faculties in operation.
Climate change denialism is very real, very well funded, and massive on Youtube and other social media. It is not a cliche', but a powerful propaganda machine. The announcement of the "next ice age" whether by the sun activity or otherwise has been used for decades; Zharkova has been propagating this lie for at least a decade (the article about her in the Guardian is 8 years old.) Meanwhile, we approach the peak of this solar cycle (that will be in 2025,) and this is just a modest, unremarkable cycle, higher in intensity of sun spots than the last one (so, not even a lilliputian "cooling effect"), but not extreme either. Science and facts are very much adverse to your "critical thinking," it seems.
Here is a video explaining in simple terms what the major natural factors influencing the climate are, under what conditions, with what magnitude and timeframe, and what reallyb heats the planet now: us.
About Martin Durkin, a charlatan who made this film and others before, it is not hard to debunk his (not subtle) lies. See the video below if you want some real scientific insight on the process of the lies. Sure, one might argue people will believe what they want anyway, what fits their interest or convenience. But sorry, what is at stake is billions of lives, so it cannot be unadressed.
What is the "mainstream ghetto? The terms are contradictory in themselves: by definition, a ghetto is not "mainstream." If Russia is not a bloody dictatorship with a gangster at its head, what is? Anyway, you make clear who you support. (who knows for what reason?)
"you make clear who you support" is a logical fallacy: simply pointing out an error of thought [i.e. "fascism everywhere (where not already firmly installed like in Russia)" You need to get out if the mainstream ghetto.] does not identify which camp is being supported!
Let me put it another way, "mainstream ghetto" is an ironic expression that is designed to pair the tensions you point out to poke fun at the absurdity of a) mainstream media and b) the chilling fact that its sole purpose is to propagandise its consumers, whilst gas lighting them into believing they are being offered 'facts' - i.e. thinly disguised opinions designed only to further enrich the so called ruling class or TPTB or whatever those psychopathic shits want to call themselves - i.e. devaluing / ghettoising rational analysis !
Meanwhile, if Russia is, as you suggest "a bloody dictatorship" then why is Russia so popular in the global south and in China and Africa etc.? Why has Russia been demonised by the 'west' since the 1930s? Which country has the greatest volume of natural resources (energy etc.)?
whoa! talk about heavy propaganda. I feel I have the Kremlin directly on line. First, define "mainstream media." It is very clear what it is in Russia, the only and only one voice allowed from the government controlled by only one man: Putin, its "president" for life. "Mainstream" there means unique.
In the USA, this term is used by the Republican media and politians to point to the media that are not on their side, by Fox, Newsmax and such, clearly as fascist as the Republican Party istelf became, now entirely under Trump's control (an admirer of Putin and many other dicators, and wannabe dictator himself). And these Republicans are all open advocates for more extreme inequality, not only in words but with policies. I dearly hope my country will not become a dictatorship at the image of Russia, and I will do everything in my power to prevent it.
Talking about "enrich the so called ruling class," It is a very hard sale from a Russian propagandist. I don't deny, and would blame every time the extreme inequality situation in the USA, but being lectured on inequality by a Russian operative is so laughable. Below is a chart regarding wealth inequality in Russia.
Concerning the Vladimir Putin dissertation about mining, for peope who are interested about the context and want to approach the truth of it, here is an article about this mystery.
You claim that Russia is "so popular in the global south and in China and in Africa." How so? I bet it is what the Russian media say day in and day out. And what does the fact that Russia is fortunate to have a lot of natural resources has got to do with being a dicatorship regime?
About the Russian election (the sad truth of it), here is an article from Le Monde (not one of those "mainstream" American media). Who in their right mind can believe in your defense of a corrupt, totally anti democratic system? Again, I much rather live in an imperfect democracy than in a perfect dictatorship.
Great piece, I recently was reading Hannah Ritchie's Not the End of the World and looking at Our World in Data and the UK was such a big point in how it has decreased it's coal use but I noticed that it peaked around WWI like you said. It seemed odd to me that they were framing it as a green energy win even though the reality is closer to what you're saying here. I think what really gives away the fact the it was a depletion of easy to access coal is that the UK had an uptick in imported coal around 2000.
Meanwhile. here in Australia we have people wanting to stop coal mining altogether to "save the planet" when in fact we need to make our higher quality coal available to nations less endowed with fissil fuels because otherwise the social unrest is gonna come harder amd faster
I make no assumptions... but I am steadfast in my Argument that can neither be dismissed nor pushed aside nor dismantled.
And with the utmost brutality of Truth i shall destroy the "Net Zero" SCAM that is and the shall I put it mildly the below average Intellectual argument of the Carbon debate.
There are two forms of CO²... natural and artificial.
We can only do what we can do and the cleanest house is that winch produces the least dirt.
So if we create no emissions we have no problem
So eliminate the problem... by using Water as energy source.
Writing : "Water as energy source" exposes your lack of knowledge about thermodynamics, since "water" when it is broken into its constituent atoms by electrolysis or whatever, then becomes an energy storage mechanism i.e. the energy inputted to create the hydrogen and oxygen as gas, is later released when the hydrogen is ignited, less losses due to for example building the hydrogen storage and transport equipment.
Your angry response simply exposes your childish grasp of basic science, and acts as a warning that readers here can safely ignore your links as similarly misguided and useless.
On the contrary, not only is your language foul, but once again, you expose your ignorance of basic maths in particular: energy in (area of a swimming pool) MUST = energy out, or you are proposing a 'free energy' machine, which, had you bothered to ask, yes I have attempted to build in the late 1990's (e.g. Stanley Meyer etc.). Unfortunately for you, you make yet another logical error 'appeal to authority' citing an "MIT / Harvard Prof" as if that settles your case that the 'free energy' machine being proposed by the good prof axiomatically works.
IF such machine work, then Q: WHY aren't YOU or indeed anyone with enough $$$$ building them now and utterly dominating the global supply energy industry NOW?
If you read Project Drawdown you find that politicians picking economic winners and losers is a sure fire way of burning cash to heat your house when all you wanted was better insulation, windows, thermal storage and radiant barrier roofs to keep summer ceiling temperatures below 96 degrees.
if you are waiting for government to save you, one of these days they would sooner see you die than be saved or will tax you into poverty.
Thank you B🙏
Mars influence on warming.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/mars-influences-earth-climate-scientists-discover-sun/
From one of the paper's authors: 'If today’s human-caused warming continues on its current trajectory, Müller said, “this effect will dwarf all other processes for a long time to come. But the geological record still provides us with valuable insights about how the oceans operate in a warmer world.”'
The paper itself says that this is more about how the oceans can keep churning despite things like the AMOC shutting not, and not nearly as much on Mars's influence on temperature changes.
People should recognize climate deniers when they pop up. It is not that difficult. Mars!!!! Give me a serious scientist like James Hansen who will not laugh his ass off if you tell him that global warming is due to Mars. Please!
One should never crow too loudly in this life. After all you may be wrong?
I have learned that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. I also know that you can run any scam you want once you silence dissent.
I presume I do not have to remind you of times in the past where the 'consensus'/prevailing belief turned out to be false.
Thank you B, a great essay. If anybody doubts you or thinks you are being unnecessarily pessimistic, see "Life After Growth" by Dr. Tim Morgan.
Thanks B. "Net oil" peaking in late 2018, just before the financial crises of 2019 (Repo-Crisis) nd the economy-freeze and "going direct" of COVID lockdowns, is the same timeline I have seen.
The "Grand Illusion" is transparent to some of us, but never to most people. I think that is just how our species is set, with different cognitive types and personality types.
It definitely feels like most of the Big Moves made in the last five years have been to re-orient the world economy around these big energy realities (as well as the reality of looming shrinking populations). I'm sure there are more moves to come, whether dramatic or not. Because even if there is enough energy in the ground to last a long while (as some argue), it will continue to benefit a shrinking sub-set of the population while the vast majority finds their quality of life continuously trending downward (while being pushed further into virtual worlds). It's really quite brutal and I imagine a lot of folks will simply opt out, but I wonder what the real alternatives might be from a truly global macro perspective.
I think one has to explore more personal, household and local economy, grow vegetables, live where the weather won't kill you without fuel and electricity...
That's already really complicated.
Got a good well?
;-(
I don't think we can wait for global or macro "solutions", as they seem to assume that "enough of us will survive", and so on.
"They" assume with the gene therapy shots that less than half will survive. All that I have seen of people that decided that Rachel "Madcow" was right ( you won't be sick, won't be hospitalized and won't die) look like they are already at death's door.
As for plays I look to and visited Gates 100 Circles farm on the Columbia River. In the future I can see, not nuke plants running the irrigation, but more run of the river hydro. (He probably already locked in the power contracts.) Harvests then can go down the Columbia to Portland and Vancouver Washington then like the old days, on to trains to markets both north and south. His location also has (I used to even do site assessments for potential hydro) areas that may work for pumped storage water reservoirs and so hydro that can work during drought.
All of that also assumes that Gates can convince the Chinese to quit doing terraforming and oil and gas development in the western Tarim Basin which will I think, threaten the entire western USA water cycle.
Heavy stuff. So is it now time for writing alternative collapse scenarios? I cannot help but seeing the "Limits to Growth" footprint all over this exceptional essay.
"This is how infinite growth ends on a finite planet, much sooner than the resulting climate change could wreak havoc on the economy." I am really not sure of that when I see the rate at which the planet is heating. It seems to happen much faster than the depletion of our resources, with all the related consequences on the economy and the survival of humans. Everything is connected. And then the world is also changing politically, with the rise of fascism everywhere (where not already firmly installed like in Russia), with ever growing extreme inequality, leading the latest stage of capitalism (a financialized neo-liberal system) back to feudalism. But yes, certainly, the end of this civilization anyway. Adam Flint, author of "Mona."
Professor Valentina Zharkhova - Grand Solar Minimum between 2020 and 2053.
NASA & NOAA now project 2030 sunspots in line with this model.
https://youtu.be/tgMK2QIw-YE?si=Q1qQbxyXhi2xWIqK
This is the same tired, old argument of climate change deniers resurfacing regularly like Nessie in the right wing media. If there were a grand solar minimum for the next solar cycle (eleven year: a span between 2020 and 2053 doesn't mean anything), that would not compete, not even close, with the current anthropogenic global heating. Below is a serious article about this topic. Mrs. Zharkova retreated her paper for lack of seriousness (for lack of anything close to science, really). And this, even with little consequence, would be a real big "if"; no serious scientists EVER predict what the next solar cycle will be because they just can't, unless they are charlatans.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming
When I see the thought terminating cliché 'climate change denier' and a link to the guardian as a reference that tells me all I need in terms of critical faculties in operation.
Climate change denialism is very real, very well funded, and massive on Youtube and other social media. It is not a cliche', but a powerful propaganda machine. The announcement of the "next ice age" whether by the sun activity or otherwise has been used for decades; Zharkova has been propagating this lie for at least a decade (the article about her in the Guardian is 8 years old.) Meanwhile, we approach the peak of this solar cycle (that will be in 2025,) and this is just a modest, unremarkable cycle, higher in intensity of sun spots than the last one (so, not even a lilliputian "cooling effect"), but not extreme either. Science and facts are very much adverse to your "critical thinking," it seems.
Here is a video explaining in simple terms what the major natural factors influencing the climate are, under what conditions, with what magnitude and timeframe, and what reallyb heats the planet now: us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6bVBH9y5O8
Have a watch before you spread the gospel.
https://www.climatethemovie.net/
About Martin Durkin, a charlatan who made this film and others before, it is not hard to debunk his (not subtle) lies. See the video below if you want some real scientific insight on the process of the lies. Sure, one might argue people will believe what they want anyway, what fits their interest or convenience. But sorry, what is at stake is billions of lives, so it cannot be unadressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&t=84s
"fascism everywhere (where not already firmly installed like in Russia)"
You need to get out if the mainstream ghetto.
What is the "mainstream ghetto? The terms are contradictory in themselves: by definition, a ghetto is not "mainstream." If Russia is not a bloody dictatorship with a gangster at its head, what is? Anyway, you make clear who you support. (who knows for what reason?)
"you make clear who you support" is a logical fallacy: simply pointing out an error of thought [i.e. "fascism everywhere (where not already firmly installed like in Russia)" You need to get out if the mainstream ghetto.] does not identify which camp is being supported!
Let me put it another way, "mainstream ghetto" is an ironic expression that is designed to pair the tensions you point out to poke fun at the absurdity of a) mainstream media and b) the chilling fact that its sole purpose is to propagandise its consumers, whilst gas lighting them into believing they are being offered 'facts' - i.e. thinly disguised opinions designed only to further enrich the so called ruling class or TPTB or whatever those psychopathic shits want to call themselves - i.e. devaluing / ghettoising rational analysis !
Meanwhile, if Russia is, as you suggest "a bloody dictatorship" then why is Russia so popular in the global south and in China and Africa etc.? Why has Russia been demonised by the 'west' since the 1930s? Which country has the greatest volume of natural resources (energy etc.)?
https://factsanddetails.com/russia/Economics_Business_Agriculture/sub9_7e/entry-5176.html
whoa! talk about heavy propaganda. I feel I have the Kremlin directly on line. First, define "mainstream media." It is very clear what it is in Russia, the only and only one voice allowed from the government controlled by only one man: Putin, its "president" for life. "Mainstream" there means unique.
In the USA, this term is used by the Republican media and politians to point to the media that are not on their side, by Fox, Newsmax and such, clearly as fascist as the Republican Party istelf became, now entirely under Trump's control (an admirer of Putin and many other dicators, and wannabe dictator himself). And these Republicans are all open advocates for more extreme inequality, not only in words but with policies. I dearly hope my country will not become a dictatorship at the image of Russia, and I will do everything in my power to prevent it.
Talking about "enrich the so called ruling class," It is a very hard sale from a Russian propagandist. I don't deny, and would blame every time the extreme inequality situation in the USA, but being lectured on inequality by a Russian operative is so laughable. Below is a chart regarding wealth inequality in Russia.
Concerning the Vladimir Putin dissertation about mining, for peope who are interested about the context and want to approach the truth of it, here is an article about this mystery.
You claim that Russia is "so popular in the global south and in China and in Africa." How so? I bet it is what the Russian media say day in and day out. And what does the fact that Russia is fortunate to have a lot of natural resources has got to do with being a dicatorship regime?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/482573/russia-population-by-average-wealth/
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Putin-Dissertation-Event-remarks-with-slides.pdf
"a Russian operative is so laughable" as are your blinkered assumptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Russia
About the Russian election (the sad truth of it), here is an article from Le Monde (not one of those "mainstream" American media). Who in their right mind can believe in your defense of a corrupt, totally anti democratic system? Again, I much rather live in an imperfect democracy than in a perfect dictatorship.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/03/20/the-extent-of-fraud-in-russia-s-presidential-election-begins-to-emerge_6638830_4.html
Great piece, I recently was reading Hannah Ritchie's Not the End of the World and looking at Our World in Data and the UK was such a big point in how it has decreased it's coal use but I noticed that it peaked around WWI like you said. It seemed odd to me that they were framing it as a green energy win even though the reality is closer to what you're saying here. I think what really gives away the fact the it was a depletion of easy to access coal is that the UK had an uptick in imported coal around 2000.
Meanwhile. here in Australia we have people wanting to stop coal mining altogether to "save the planet" when in fact we need to make our higher quality coal available to nations less endowed with fissil fuels because otherwise the social unrest is gonna come harder amd faster
I make no assumptions... but I am steadfast in my Argument that can neither be dismissed nor pushed aside nor dismantled.
And with the utmost brutality of Truth i shall destroy the "Net Zero" SCAM that is and the shall I put it mildly the below average Intellectual argument of the Carbon debate.
There are two forms of CO²... natural and artificial.
We can only do what we can do and the cleanest house is that winch produces the least dirt.
So if we create no emissions we have no problem
So eliminate the problem... by using Water as energy source.
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/prof-daniel-nocera-and-his-artificial
Problem 1: Aviation
The greatest Polluter of all... Solution?
Replace all Aviation with Hypersonic Zero Emission Trains... Problem solved.
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/the-invention-the-illuminati-does
Problem 2: Cars:... Solution? Hydrogen from water.
This technology exists for 40 years from Stanley Meyer to JCB and Toyota.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBHGm-J-bc
Problem 3: Energy... Solution? Energy from Water
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/prof-daniel-nocera-and-his-artificial
Nothing I tell here I haven't told before and my Argument can neither be dismissed nor dismantled.
Nor can it be proven inadequate.
On the other hand there is a reason why those traitors in power who all should be killed do not want you to know the Truth.
!) War & Oil create death and disease.... famine... Population Reduction
2) Interstellar space Travel needs an absolute Zero Emission Environment.
3) The Children Fuckers in Power are holding back Humanity by at least 500 years
The Truth is Water as energy... the Lie are all Politicians who should all be killed.
The future belongs to those who dare... and I dare thee.
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/the-future-according-to-fritz-freud
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/a-revolution-of-ideas
Yawn, read some thermodynamics to expose your links as childish appeals to magic.
Writing : "Water as energy source" exposes your lack of knowledge about thermodynamics, since "water" when it is broken into its constituent atoms by electrolysis or whatever, then becomes an energy storage mechanism i.e. the energy inputted to create the hydrogen and oxygen as gas, is later released when the hydrogen is ignited, less losses due to for example building the hydrogen storage and transport equipment.
Your angry response simply exposes your childish grasp of basic science, and acts as a warning that readers here can safely ignore your links as similarly misguided and useless.
On the contrary, not only is your language foul, but once again, you expose your ignorance of basic maths in particular: energy in (area of a swimming pool) MUST = energy out, or you are proposing a 'free energy' machine, which, had you bothered to ask, yes I have attempted to build in the late 1990's (e.g. Stanley Meyer etc.). Unfortunately for you, you make yet another logical error 'appeal to authority' citing an "MIT / Harvard Prof" as if that settles your case that the 'free energy' machine being proposed by the good prof axiomatically works.
IF such machine work, then Q: WHY aren't YOU or indeed anyone with enough $$$$ building them now and utterly dominating the global supply energy industry NOW?
A: because such machines are BULL SHIT.
'Climate : The Movie'
Well worth watching for a balanced perspective.
A good sequel to the earlier Channel 4 documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.
https://www.climatethemovie.net/
If you read Project Drawdown you find that politicians picking economic winners and losers is a sure fire way of burning cash to heat your house when all you wanted was better insulation, windows, thermal storage and radiant barrier roofs to keep summer ceiling temperatures below 96 degrees.
if you are waiting for government to save you, one of these days they would sooner see you die than be saved or will tax you into poverty.