Fait Accompli

Here’s a failure to comprehend video:

Do I dare comment? Of course I will.

“most of the change to come should be mostly within our ability to control”

This video is pure speculative hogwash. Hopium on steroids. This is another disappointing video that proposes to downplay the seriousness of the unfolding climate emergency.

His time frames are way off. For example, the Arctic is now (in the past few days) showing 50F temperature increases above normal, whereas he’s claiming the 2099 for a new average.

I’m not confused – I realize that the current “anomaly” is not the new average, but it’s ridiculous to claim that it will be another 83 years before these anomaly’s affect the average by 25F. The average is already ratcheting up faster and faster due to these anomaly’s.

Civilization is a heat engine. Emitting carbon is what it does and will continue to do, even under “renewables” (which aren’t renewable, probably one of the worst definitions in our vernacular).

“a 4°C world is unlikely beyond adaptation”

A poor way to express human extinction. It is already well known that 4°C is the end of civilization and probably human survival. The food support system will totally collapse and we all starve. Before that, we fight to death for what remains. That’s already begun.

There is no possibility of “keeping the total warming below 2°C” due to already triggered positive feed backs. Zero emissions today would still exceed this figure.

The carbon budget is bogus and based upon cherry-picked estimates and contributions. 55 billion tons of carbon will be emitted by drying / decomposing SOILS alone.

We do not have a two decade window for meaningful response. This estimate is also based upon limited assessments and ignoring triggered positive feed backs.

Nuclear is not low carbon. Stunning that this guy claims this (doesn’t understand cement production apparently).

Decarbonizing the grid – cannot be done by by hydro, wind, nuclear, etc., it all creates more carbon by virtue of how these technologies are built and maintained. And then of course, it gets worse, as energy consumption begets more energy consumption (carbon emissions at ever step / level).

Note how he claims that in “another 15,000 years we can expect to start moving into another ice age very gradually”. This is how disconnected this guy is from the actual science, which has reported that we have delayed any possibility for another ice age by 100,000 years due to our carbon emissions.

A global emergency exists already and these scientists are still not telling us except in misleading presentations like this.

The ‘saving civilization’ approach is the fait accompli approach that will guaranteed our extinction. The entire approach is human centric as emphasized by how these scientists think they can “manage” the biosphere for survival.

Quite simply, this is fucking insane. What angers me the most about this is the sheer hubris exhibited by bright minds. They never comprehend or question their own assumptions. It’s always more, disguised as it is as “preservation” (of what’s left) when it is already obvious that this cannot possibly work when humans keep practicing what they’ve always done for 300 generations.


admin at survivalacres dot com

14 thoughts on “Fait Accompli

  • December 11, 2016 at 6:31 am

    I’ve watched a number of such videos on the “Understanding Climate Change” channel on YouTube. Yes, it frustrates me when otherwise sober scientists launch into their usual, obligatory, cognitive disconnection such as, “If we don’t keep our emissions down,” or “But, if we can ratify the such-and-such treaty and keep our emissions reductions on target.”

    Really? Let’s say everyone in the United States had a true, mystical, on-the-road-to-Damascus epiphany and we all suddenly started living like the Amish. Would China stop their emissions? Could they? Would India? Mexico?

    Will Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran and Venezuela stop pumping and selling fossil fuels? Would Japan and Europe stop buying? Can they be convinced to transform their economies? Can they transform their economies? Is such a massive endeavor in social engineering even possible at this point?

    I’m reminded of Stalin relocating millions of people to the wilds of Siberia, or the Khmer Rouge depopulating the cities. How will emissions be reduced on the scale that’s needed, within the time frame that’s needed, without social engineering the likes of which we’ve never seen before and which, when it’s happened on smaller scales, resulted some of the most abominable holocausts of human history?

    We’ve known since (at least) 1968 that we were too many (The Population Explosion, Ehrlich). We’ve known since (at least) 1972 that resources were not inexhaustible (The Limits to Growth, Meadows).

    People are sleepwalking and dreaming that they’re awake. Perhaps it has always been thus.

    I do have one small proposal for the improvement of such individuals as the above scientist: interdisciplinary training. For example, if Dr. Davies could taught how the monetary system works….

    Money is created out of debt. More debt mandates more growth. That growth involves the conversion of low-entropy earth-stock into product, and high entropy heat and waste, with the products themselves eventually becoming heat and waste too.

    Faster and faster, the more debt requiring still more growth, requiring still more conversion, resulting in the arrow of planetary entropy moving yet faster and faster.

    Could Dr. Davies see the end result then? Might he say something slightly different then?

    Anyway, I wonder if an intrinsic curiosity for general knowledge isn’t required to see these issues? Perhaps not everybody—even every scientist—has this gift (curse)? Maybe the difference between us, those few who know the truth, and them, the ones who, even with appropriate scientific training, don’t, is a broad interdisciplinary background?

    If we come to understand not only the earth science, but the importance of living habitat, evolutionary time scales, imperialism, the debt-based Ponzi scheme, cognitive dissonance, propaganda, elite management of the masses, political corruption, exponential growth, and so on, we get a much broader picture than those with a narrower focus.

    Unfortunately, it’s difficult enough to get people to see only a small part of the picture, much less so many different interconnected facets of it.

    • December 11, 2016 at 7:34 am

      It is a myth that individuals will change this particular outcome. They won’t. They can’t. That opportunity didn’t even exist 200 years ago. The Taker culture has long been too large to overcome with simple refusal to participate and expect different results. We would have to kill them all to have any effect.

      I’m expecting depopulation to occur on a massive scale (a planned event). Genocidal efforts. The elite have already tired of supporting the masses and with their fingers on the support systems, military, economy, production, et. al, they’ll eventually decide on eradication (again). It will be their attempt at self-preservation.

      Too many people don’t see it, but I do.

      I strongly disagree with what is oft-used as “awake”, a term that has come to mean conservative snooze connedsumption. That’s not awake, that is part of the delusion. I know you mean differently.

      If scientists could… they should, but nothing will avoid the coming conflicts now. The gross over-extension of people, resource consumption, pollution, heat, demands has piled up far too high now to avoid it. We would have to have 110% global cooperation and compliance to just avoid the violence to come, which will never happen, while millions still compliantly starve to death “for the greater good”. It’s a dream-like fantasy of delusional morons.

      I reached whatever you call the place I’m in (state of mind / awareness) through disgust of the incessant lies, which triggered insatiable quest for knowledge and awareness. My own life was very much a part of those lies and I broke the glass-walls into a million pieces. I realized that life had to be something far more then the lies I was living, so the so-called “journey of knowledge” began. I had to kill my life, my dreams, ambitions, all of it along the way. I became “Survival Acres” and started writing all of this down, only withholding what was private, but still writing about the experience(s) and discovery.

      I have often tried to kill even that too to be honest. To lay it all aside, and just stop. I’ve failed to do that. The point being, self-awareness is a good thing, but it is not enough. Repeated 7 billion times over would not be enough. It would only be a start, hundreds of years too late.

      Ian mentioned that he no longer tries to educate people, he just bothers to speak the truth now. I’ve said that many times too, because it’s not as if it changes anything. This is an expectation based in misunderstanding of human dynamics and desires. We do desire change, but realize it won’t be happening. So at times, we waver between instructing and educating with what parts we can share, and futility of what can’t be changed.

      Here’s the real truth – truth will only get you so far, and in a human-controlled world, not very far at all. Truth is incompatible with human demands and desires. Truth, once spoken or written, earmarks the author / speaker for a lonely existence. Civilization and human expectations is not built upon truth, it is built upon exploitation and distortion. From this, arises all kinds of avarice and destruction, the very fabric which civilization depends. It is the very food which civilization nourishes for consumption. The despair that writers record is not because of their own failures, it is because of the human failures and embracement of lies and delusions magnified daily.

      I’ve no real interest now in obtaining a large audience and would if this happened, shun it as I always have. There are those who crave this, I do not. This isn’t false humility, it’s the knowing that it is a false audience like all such audiences are. The crowd is worse then fickle, it is voracious. I’ve experienced the effects many times before, it is exhausting. Only those who can learn and then stand on their own are actually fully welcomed, because they are mature persons, capable of independent thought and action and contribution. It is not me that is needed – it is a world of capable, competent and good people that is needed. I’m just a mote with an opinion, soon to be blown away.

    • December 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

      I probably wasn’t specific enough when I wrote this sentence:

      “How will emissions be reduced on the scale that’s needed, within the time frame that’s needed, without social engineering the likes of which we’ve never seen before and which, when it’s happened on smaller scales, resulted some of the most abominable holocausts of human history?”

      What I meant to say:

      “[W]ithin the time frame that’s needed” supposes whatever time frame Dr. Davies or similar scientists are supposing. The question is a hypothetical aimed at them.

      The ultimate point being, of course, that even if we grant that we had until (say) 2040 (!) to reduce emissions by such-and-such an amount, that seriously attempting such reductions results in the most massive, failed, social engineering cluster-fuck imaginable.

      And the point about the need for interdisciplinary competence is that if more scientists had such knowledge, the more they’d understand the gargantuan scope of what a true anti-global warming policy would look like in outline, bare minimum, just for starters:

      1. Negative emissions;
      2. Monetary system reform;
      3. Population control;
      4. Localization, reversing globalization;
      5. De-urbanization, de-suburbanization, re-ruralization, re-wilding, re-forestry;
      6. Sustainable agriculture;
      7. Preserving oceans, stopping overfishing;

      The point here is not the claim that we could actually turn things back by enacting this list. Much of it is outright impossible at this point, if it was ever even possible. The point is that the people who want to try to “save the earth” aren’t talking in terms that even remotely approach the severity of what’s occurring. They’re talking in terms of fake emissions treaties that can do, and will do, nothing. The disconnect is astonishing.

      You know, I had a Zen teacher once who suggested we save trees by using less paper towels! He was an Obama supporter. I guess he was in tune with the universe itself, but not so tuned in to other things.

      • December 11, 2016 at 11:26 am

        Light bulbs, anyone?

        We both know there is no such thing as negative emissions within civilization. There isn’t even renewables within civilization. Both terms have come into popular discussion with improper definitions designed to deceive and perpetuate business-as-usual. Language engineers for continued profits.

        The same goes with all the other terminology you shared, monetary system reform, population control, etc. The terms don’t even begin to describe what would be essential to enact functional change. Watered down as words with improper definitions, they are used to disguise their real intentions and meaning: save civilization by modest adjustments (while smokin’ the hopium pipe that this will save us all). I know you know this.

        The so-called “Greens” are guilty, as is everyone else. Civilization isn’t salvageable and is incompatible with a living biosphere. One or the other has to go, or both will go (the end result will always be the same). Humans have made their accelerated choice, both will be gone by century’s end (or sooner).

        It’s noteworthy in a way to know that some scientists are saying the same thing, but not in ways which are well communicated or widely spread. Their still operating in a climate of fear despite knowing what the most likely outcome for civilization is going to be. It’s a good reason to not be popular, as chaos too early would ensue. Humans are not going to go quietly into the night with grace and distinction. This is where I differ from others. We do need to prepare for what is coming. It is what we always do when faced with hardship or suffering.

        • December 12, 2016 at 1:12 am

          I don’t know if it’s the same where you are but here we are constantly bombarded with oxymorons and mutually exclusive statements by bureaucrats, their favourite being ‘sustainable development’.

          To a bureaucrat, ‘sustainable development’ means increasing the population size, expending huge amounts of fossil fuels to cover farm land with concrete and asphalt, and using huge amounts of fossil fuels to demolish existing structures and replace them with larger ones. More roads, bigger roads, more houses, bigger houses, more hotels, more motels, more factory farms, more sports stadia, more people consuming more resources and energy and generating more emissions.

          Since we live in a truth-free world as far as politics and governance go, pointing out that increasing the dependence on fossil fuels, the extraction of which is about to go into terminal decline, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be sustainable and brings forward the moment of collapse makes no difference. The politicians and bureaucrats (and media) just carry on lying to the masses.

          Since we live in a truth-free world, pointing out that increasing CO2 emissions cannot possibly be sustainable and brings forward the moment of collapse makes no difference. The politicians and bureaucrats (and media) just carry on lying to the masses.

          Since we live in a fact-free world, pointing out that everything less than 5 metres above current high tide is likely to be under water in a few decades makes no difference; politicians, bureaucrats and the media continue to promote the squandering of energy and resources on infrastructure that has no future.

          Pointing out to politicians and bureaucrats that, by promoting what they do promote they promote, they actively destroy their own progeny’s futures makes no difference. Pointing out to young bureaucrats that, by promoting what they promote, they actively promote the premature termination of their own lives makes no difference. I’ve done all that. And last year’s lies are followed by this years lies. And next year there will be yet more lies.

          The other absurd aspect to this whole ‘game’, as we here know, is that other groups and websites supposedly devoted to raising social awareness, improving social justice, increasing ecological sustainability etc. have a remarkable capacity for ignoring all the elephants in the room. The worst of these are the so-called Greeens, who here in NZ have promoted international tourism as a component of a ‘sustainable thriving economy’. I think they still do. A few years ago the Greens were promoting the nonsense of biofuels…..the absurd notion that we can maintain current living arrangements by converting industrially-grown food into fuel for motor vehicles.

          People hate it when I point out there is no way that we will ‘all be driving electric cars by 2030’ because it takes huge amounts of fossil fuels to make electric cars, and a lot of electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels -even in ‘clean green NZ’, which during a good season can generate about 65% of its electricity via [unsustainable] hydro-electricity. I also point out that road surfaces are made of petroleum byproducts, and all the slowly decaying infrastructure that makes long distance road transport possible is dependent on fossil fuels. Everything in the modern world is.

          So, for the moment, we are being driven towards the cliff at an ever-faster pace by mendacious governments everywhere. And apparently that will continue until either the financial system goes kaput or there is a significant decline in the global availability of petroleum-based fuels -or both, since everything is connected.

          There are few people I know who have any idea what is happening and how close to the end we are -despite the massive efforts I made several years ago to raise awareness. Those who are aware are staggered that the system has kept going for so long.

          When will CO2 emissions begin to decline? Maybe when people in industrial nations cannot acquire fossil fuels and have burned everything around them to stay warm or cook food.

          • December 12, 2016 at 4:29 am

            All good points. It’s not just bureaucrats-at-large, it is the very people themselves who stupidly insist on maintaining these suicidal living arrangements. They absolutely do not get it. The connections are already breaking, and still they don’t get it. They assume that solutions are in hand. They’re not.

            C02 won’t decline for thousand of years after our extinction. C02 will continue to go up as permafrost melts, and soils and remaining forests continue to emit their carbon long after we are gone.

            There won’t be any food either. Over a billion people will have attempted migration to escape intolerable heat. Hundreds of millions more from rising sea levels. All food producing regions worldwide will have collapsed. Fantasy farms (vertical, indoor, underground) will have failed too due to energy collapse (they produce tiny levels of calories and are extremely energy intensive, ie., they are non-solutions). The U.S. grain belt will collapse as soils dry out, aquifers deplete and severe drought and storm conditions devastate food production. You’re taking about die-off on a massive scale – from starvation.

            This is what so few grasp. We do not die from heat first as the temperatures climb, destroying habitability. We die from starvation. And from thirst. As regions dry out, people will try to remain (having no real place to go). Their food crops will fail and so will many of the water supplies. Other regions will experience immense flooding, destroying agriculture and infrastructure alike. Atmospheric moisture has already increased 7% and will go much higher, resulting in huge killer storms, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, hail, etc. All this water vapor represent heat energy. It is agriculture that cannot be protected from this and will be the first major casualty. We’re next.

            Why do you think I was in the food industry for so long? It was because I deduced what was most critical for so many. I cannot produce water, but food is something that can be stored away for decades if you buy the right products, making the global / individual decline tolerable (at least you won’t starve to death). Food is the new gold, the only thing more precious is water. We can shelter from heat, storms, cold, rain, snow, etc., but we cannot do this for our food production. As this fails, we die. And we will die from food failure FIRST.

            This is why preparing for collapse remains #1 priority. The world habitat is GOING TO FAIL. Preparing will not stop it. But it will give one opportunity to exist and to endure and to be far more comfortable then trying to get anything done while hungry. To what end, many want to know? That is for you to decide. I’ve decided for myself – it’s not time for me to go. I get to enjoy life, family, relationships, and so forth which is what makes life worth living. A collapsing world does not change that desire. I will still want to hold my children, my wife, I will still want to hang on. It’s what people DO. They choose LIFE.

            This is where I strongly disagree with those that say there is no need or reason to prepare. They are lying to themselves and any fool who will listen to them. If they actually believed this, they would stop buying food now. They would stop going to the grocery store so that they have something to eat for the next few days. They would stop buying insurance or paying into their retirement plans. They would stop working and earning money. They would just give up, right now, and crawl off into some hole somewhere and die. But they don’t. They hold onto life and what is theirs, because this is what humans do. We hold on, as long as we can. But their stupidly advocating that preparing for collapse is pointless. They do not understand what is going to happen, and their own desperation that will arise when our food systems fail. Or the violence and extreme competition to come. They don’t even understand their own reactions that will arise from being hungry.

            I do. I have prepared for this for decades now (thanks for giving me space to rant). The earliest victims are already here. People starve to death in America because of the system failures already here. It will get far, far worse, globally. Climate collapse affects food production most of all. Everything else (provided we still have energy) is fixable. However, agriculture is not. There is no possible way to fix agriculture (food production). I’ve investigated this and once we lose our farms, it’s OVER for all of us. Civilization fails. But it does not happen all at once, it happens by degrees as crops fail, prices rise, distribution is impacted and competition escalates. Then comes the violence, which always follows food failures.

            People are simply stupid. They place their faith in the invisible, magical, mystical and imagined. It will not be enough. It’s never been enough. It’s never worked. Always, in every case, somebody has intervened to save their sorry asses. This will not happen for long in the climate collapse future, because it will mean that YOU starve faster, quicker and so will your family.

            In the past, we could share, because we knew that spring was coming (new growth / new harvests) and there were other places and things where we could turn to. But what does it MEAN when global agriculture fails to provide for 7+ BILLION? When it absolutely CANNOT produce enough? When food production is in chronic, irreversible decline? There will be no new harvests to look forward to. There will be no abundance. It will be chronic, irreversible, unstoppable decline – and global hunger on an unimaginable scale.

            Distribution will also be hugely problematic, because along with climate collapse we have energy collapse too. Transportation of food stocks to impacted regions will not always function. Exacerbated by war, violence, strife, theft, vandalism and civil unrest.

            Civilization was built and designed to produce food, it is the very reason civilization exists (it’s not so we can have Xbox’s). It is the most vulnerable component of civilization too when habitat collapses, when temperatures exceed wet-bulb survival (respiration) for plants, animals and then humans. That is what the world is facing, but widely ignoring. It is absolutely stunning that billions of people, governments, institutions, scientists, policy-makers are this f’n STUPID. They simply refuse to believe the conclusions of their own studies, reports and assessments when it’s RIGHT THERE IN THEIR DATA.

            But I don’t. There can only be one real conclusion to what climate collapse really means for humanity. We starve to death. All of us. First. After we consume the last calorie. After we’ve engaged in wanton slaughter and violence in competition for food and water and living space. After we’ve rooted out every idea, every technology, every innovation. The search for sustenance and calories will be the largest war ever imagined by mankind. And in the end, we will fail and die. Not from heat, but from lack of food. And thirst (this point needs another rant of its own).

            Temperatures are expected to exceed survivability very soon. Within my lifetime. The war (search for sustenance) has already begun for millions of people, but what they don’t yet realize is it is going to get much, much worse as habitat declines. There are extreme levels of violence to come. It’s just dumb beyond belief that people can’t see this or refuse to prepare for it.

            This xmas, people are going to buy shit-tons of absolutely useless crap that will do nothing to prepare them for the coming collapse. It just boggles the mind that they can be so blind. This is a nation of zombies, brain-dead morons who think they’re going to out-last, out-survive and outwit by ‘foraging’ or stealing from their neighbor. I’ve long since covered the bug-out bullshit fantasies they embrace. They don’t seem to understand that not only are the oceans collapsing, but so are the forests too. Those that don’t burn up will have nothing within them to eat.

            Nobody is buying food storage by the way. There has been a industry-wide collapse. The grand delusion is complete – Trump is going to save them as he orders what is left of the environment destroyed to profit his billionaires. It’s like living in la-la land here. Except it is a nightmare.

  • December 11, 2016 at 6:46 am

    Acres, have you considered showing up on Ian Welsh’s blog as a commentator now and again? You can insert a link to your own blog. Other commentators with their own blogs do this, and Ian has no such objections. People who like your comments there will come here to check out your site.

    The cross-traffic might prove rewarding. A number of commentators there—and Ian himself—understand the coming human extinction event. I, myself, regularly read both sites. I can’t be alone in seeing the congruence.

    Just a suggestion.

    • December 11, 2016 at 7:05 am

      Actually no, I had not considered this before your suggestion. I’ve been banned from many sites due to the disagreements / points I raise. Ian might not do that, from what I’ve read we seem to be in agreement on most things. I also did not realize that he understands the coming human extinction yet either. I’ve tried for many years to generate some level of interest to avoid this event, but now realize that it was inevitable in the end.

      • December 11, 2016 at 7:28 am

        I’m pretty sure he considers extinction likely or plausible. I don’t recall him coming out and saying that it’s inevitable. But he has stated that billions will die. And commentators have referenced human extinction without getting banned.

        From an 21 October 2013 article of Ian’s, that is, just a little over three years ago:


        I don’t recall him emphasizing that NTHE is inevitable to the extent that you, yourself do. But with him it is certainly on the table.

  • December 11, 2016 at 7:21 am

    I don’t whether we should classify the following as news or just shrug our shoulders and say: “As expected.”

    ‘Last month was easily the hottest November on record globally, according to satellite data sets.’


    There is no doubt about this, though: ‘Of course the deniers and fake news providers are, by definition, impervious to the facts.’

    • December 11, 2016 at 7:58 am

      Hah! I hadn’t seen that Taylor Swift comment. She’s right of course.

  • December 13, 2016 at 3:54 am

    ‘A global emergency exists already and these scientists are still not telling us except in misleading presentations like this.’

    Many years after the UNIPCC raised the 100-year multiplier to 34 times CO2 and raised the 20-year multiplier to 86 times CO2 the masses are being told by ‘newspapers’ such as the Guardian that ‘Methane warms planet 20 times as much as similar CO2 volumes’.

    The UNIPCC figures are dubious anyway, since they are calculated on the basis of oxidation of methane in the atmosphere and ‘decay curves’ which do not apply if methane is being released faster than it is being oxidized -which is clearly the case, since the atmospheric CH4 concentration is increasing. In a runaway scenario the warming multiplier should be close to the instantaneous multiplier…..which apparently nobody knows but must be around 300. What is more, nobody is ever likely to know the instantaneous multiplier because nobody is doing any research on the matter.

    As always in such reporting, the masses are indoctrinated into thinking matters are under control, with CO2 emissions being descried as ‘levelling off’ when the atmospheric concentration has actually been increasing like never before in human history:

    “The levelling off we’ve seen in the last three years for carbon dioxide emissions is strikingly different from the recent rapid increase in methane. Unlike CO2, where we have well-described power plants, almost everything in the global methane budget is diffuse. From cows to wetlands to rice paddies [as well as other sources], the methane cycle is harder.”

    And as always in such reporting and politically-motivated commentary, there is the mandatory final paragraph to assure readers that there are solutions and that ‘the problem’ can and will be dealt with at some stage in the near future, thus implyimng the economic system which is driving the rapid meltdown of the planet has a future.

    I must admit that 15 years ago I was very much into ‘solutions’, and actually believed there would be serious attempts to prevent planetary meltdown. Over a period of a decade or so I opened many, many doors (doors most people don’t know exist) and either found someone who was very ignorant and stupid or someone who was a manipulative liar behind most of them.

    I do occasionally have fantasies about the media reporting things as they actually are, e.g. the Guardian reporting that methane has a warming potential over 100 times that of carbon dioxide for time frames that matter, that methane is oxidized to the highly problematical gas carbon dioxide, and that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing at an unprecedented rate of over 3 ppm per annum.

    Sure, people are ignorant and stupid. But their ignorance and stupidity are encouraged by most of the media.

    The Guardian item:


    • December 13, 2016 at 5:00 am

      Thanks for the chemistry lesson, AFK. Please keep them coming. Like Acres himself, you deserve a wider audience for what you’re saying. As you know, I’ve been on board with various resource issues for a long time now, but you’re helping me fill in a lot of blanks. I was always better at biology than chemistry!

      Anyway, I know what it’s like to possess knowledge that other people lack and need, but are nevertheless unreceptive to. Since you, yourself, have so much more, it’s got to be that much more frustrating.

      • December 13, 2016 at 1:08 pm

        The oxidation of methane in the atmosphere is largely dependent on OH ions and OH radicals, which are generated when water molecules (HOH) are split by high-energy radiation. As long as methane is released into the atmosphere relatively slowly it is oxidized (with a half-life about 7 years from memory). However, if methane were to be released in a major ‘burp’ it could easily overwhelm the oxidation mechanism and persist in the atmosphere with a much longer much longer half-life, thereby significantly increasing the trapping of heat. The Guardian item I lambasted correctly identified the potential for a massive positive feedback system to be triggered by rising methane:

        ‘For instance, the melting of the Arctic tundra releases methane as the vegetation underneath is gradually and sometimes suddenly exposed. This has been regarded by scientists as a potential “tipping point” whereby warming of the Arctic leads to greater releases of methane, therefore greater warming, in a runaway and uncontrollable cycle.’

        I have been highlighting the vital need to decouple from combustion of fossil fuels in order to prevent triggering runaway greenhouse for about a decade, practically all of my words falling on deaf ears, of course. The Guardian item fails to identify that it is the industrial system that is triggering release of methane. And it fails to mention methane clathrates, which have a far greater potential cows to destabilize the Earth’s heat balance (imbalance).

        Like Survival Acres, I have been highlighting the need to prepare for the mass starvation that will engulf much of the world fairly soon; as for SA, my words fell on deaf ears. And many of my messages were deliberately sabotaged. (Those who ‘shot the messenger’ will be getting their just rewards soon.)

        I believe we will have a fairly good idea how bad the predicament is within 3 years, and may even know as early as May 2017.

        In the meantime I watch the major indicators closely, not because I expect anything to change politically as a consequence of rapidly deteriorating metrics of our well-being, but as a scientist observing ‘an experiment’.


Leave a Reply