LBW: You know this concept of global dimming I know you've discussed it and you
described it as particulates in the atmosphere disappearing as a result of
the lack of industrial activity seems like such a not sure what the right word
is I guess catch-22 is a good word because the idea is that we need to
reduce carbon emissions in order to reduce the heating of the planet and to
get under I guess a 2 degrees centigrade which I guess is some target that has
been I'm not sure who made that up some group of people governments decided that
we need to stay under 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial baseline
levels but that that target seems more and more unrealistic than ever but the
thing that you're describing is this this global dimming concept is not
discussed I mean I I follow of course climate change news anybody who's
probably listening to this episode whenever it comes out is probably
somebody who listens and pays attention to climate change news so you know for
instance this article I mean it was a mainstream publication it was on
Motherboard which is a Vice Media website that described the Antarctic Ice
Sheet has lost 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992 I mean these are mainstream
publications who are reporting on the loss of sea ice the loss of Arctic
Antarctic sea ice but I never hear anybody outside of you or a few other
people discuss this concept of global dimming do you think that that concepts
gonna come up more as we get closer to maybe a real collapse scenario or do you
think that that's going to be completely outside of the discussion up until it
actually happens
GUY MCPHERSON: I think it's gonna remain outside the conversation if you
know we've known about it for a long time the first refereed journal topic
paper on the topic that I'm aware of was published in December 2011 December 2011
and it wasn't in some obscure place by some obscure writer the lead author was
James Hansen so we've known about the important impacts of global dimming for
really a long time and at that time they estimated the temperature rise
associated with the loss of global dimming the particulars falling out of
the sky they estimated to be a 1.2 plus minus .2 degree Celsius
well 2 degrees is a target that was established by the United Nations early
enough with their IPCC but again Hansen in a legal brief and here I'm
quoting from the summer of 2015 concludes that we didn't have a
homosapiens own planet above about two degrees here above the 1750 baseline so
who puts that as a target interestingly the two degrees actually first promoted
by a neoclassical economist of all things is is demonstrated to be
ridiculous when you look at the October 1990 report of the United Nations
advisory group on greenhouse gases so their October 1990 report from the
United Nations advisory group on greenhouse gases points out that above 1
degree Celsius about 1750 baseline the planet would experience all kinds of bad
news climate speaker and writer David Spratt points out and I think it was
2014 in a presentation that probably somewhere between a 1/4 degree and a
half a degree was the actual number that somewhere along those lines we exceeded
the thresholds and we triggered all these self-reinforcing feedback loops so
2 degrees was never a scientific target it was always a political target and you
go back a long time or you go back recently and you find all kinds of
people saying that that's extremely dangerous if we were even remotely
interested in the precautionary principle and it's obvious that we're
not based on the the rabid nature with which we pursue every dollar if we were
interested in precautionary principle we would have taken really really important
actions a long time ago but you know the system is not interested and so
therefore the people who are quote leading the system aren't interested
because no no politicians gonna get elected on
the concept of slowing much less stopping economic growth so civilization
is a heat engine we need to turn off who's gonna run on that campaign we've
known this since at least 2009 when Tim Garrett's first paper on the topic came
out this is based on the laws of thermodynamics these are not the strong
suggestions of thermodynamics these are the laws of thermodynamics and we
keep running from the evidence as if that's gonna get us an extra dollar for
another day it's enough to drive me crazy
yeah yeah I'll blame that yeah sorry
LBW: No no you're okay I mean how do you not get
emotional discussing this as I mean this is the thing and I've seen these
articles popping up along with the climate change news is that more and
more scientists are like I don't the scientists that are discussing this that
are researching this and putting out information feel one they feel like
they're their information that they're presenting isn't doing anything I mean
they may look to for instance the Trump administration as an example of complete
denial or you know acting as if there's you know they're actually reversing a
lot of the things that the government supposedly is doing to research this
type of thing but I think that that climate scientists and people that are
that are looking at this very soberly very scientifically very you know
they're very like okay this is just the information as we understand it they're
expressing emotion they're expressing distress they're expressing despair and
grief at the fact that supposedly we're a rational we're you know
we're a society that's supposed to accept this type of information and
change our behavior based on it but it's all very obviously not the case and and
I think that many scientists and people that are pointing to this like you are
expressing it in an emotional way because how else are we supposed to
react to this I mean that's that's the whole point is that we're supposed to
feel upset and we're supposed to change our
behavior as a result of that and yet nothing has really changed regarding our
systems it's only gotten worse and it's it's upsetting and I understand why you
would feel upset
GUY MCPHERSON: Yeah I think every every single aspect of life in this
so-called civilized system has gotten worse yeah throughout my entire life you
know I'm reminded of something attributed to Thomas Aquinas he who is
not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral why because the anger
looks to the good of justice as you can live amid injustice with that without
anger you are immoral as well as unjust that's where we are so if I get angry I
think it's perfectly justified because this is an unjust system doing
horrible things to all life on earth and for the most part people seem to be
disinterested
For more infomation >> News@10 June Week 3 - Duration: 2:10. 
For more infomation >> நேரலை நிகழ்சியில் ஆடை விலகியதால் இந்த பெண்ணுக்கு ஏற்பட்ட நிலையை பாருங்க | Latest Tamil News - Duration: 1:31. 
For more infomation >> HERZOGIN MEGHAN & PRINZ HARRY: HURRA, WUNDERBARE BABY-NEWS! - Duration: 2:49. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét