[TheClimate.Vote] September 9, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest..
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Mon Sep 9 10:09:08 EDT 2019
/September 9, 2019/
[it's back - water 5 degrees warmer]
*Marine heatwave hits Pacific, raising fears of a new hot 'blob'*
Phenomenon could be as damaging as 'the blob' that caused algae blooms
and killed sea lions several years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/08/pacific-ocean-marine-heatwave-blog
- -
A giant mass of warm water off the Pacific Coast could rival 'the blob'
of 2014-15
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-09-05/second-blob-may-be-coming
[Amazon is the biggest]
*Amazon Employees Will Walk Out Over the Company's Climate Change Inaction*
The planned event will mark the first time in Amazon's 25-year history
that workers at the company's Seattle headquarters have participated in
a strike.
https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-walkout-climate-change/
[Water in regenerative agriculture]
*How much water is in my steak?!?*
Just Have a Think - video 13 min
Published on Sep 8, 2019
Water is not not something you expect to ooze out of your nice juicy
rare rib eye. But the amount of water that goes into producing that slab
of beef may surprise you. This week we take a look at how climate change
and over consumption are conspiring to brew up a major problem that'll
hit us sooner than we think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnOlB93bIho
Twitter presentation
https://twitter.com/Jumpsteady/status/1163728382963716096
- - -
Professor Will Steffen full lecture on YouTube:
*The Big U-Turn Ahead: Calling Australia to Action on Climate Change*
Published on Feb 11, 2019
This presentation by Professor Will Steffen was made at an event called
'THE BIG U TURN AHEAD; Calling Australia to Action on Climate Change',
held in Byron Bay, NSW on 27 June 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzQsjuzr3_M
[from Science News for Students]
*Today's global warming is unlike the last 2,000 years of climate shifts*
Previous cooldowns and warm-ups were regional and driven by natural forces
Carolyn Gramling
Sep 6, 2019
Temperatures across 98 percent of Earth's surface were hotter at the end
of the 20th century than at any time in the previous 2,000 years.
Such nearly universal warming occurred in lockstep across the planet.
And it is unique to this current era, scientists report. There were
other well-known cold and warm snaps in the past. They include the
Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Some people have cited
these episodes as evidence that modern warming is nothing out of the
ordinary. But those past periods were only regional, not worldwide, new
research shows.
Today's warming is truly global. And nothing like it has been seen in
the past 2,000 years. What's more, temperatures are increasing now much
faster than at any time in the last 2,000 years. These conclusions come
from a trio of new papers. They examined temperature trends over the
last 20 centuries years. The papers were published online July 24 in
Nature and Nature Geoscience.
Scientists Say: Climate
Previous climate ups and downs were mainly driven by natural causes,
such as powerful volcanic eruptions, the research shows. Modern warming
is due to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. These mostly come
from the burning of fossil fuels.
The findings are based on newly available global paleoclimate data.
(Paleoclimate is another way of saying ancient climate.) They reinforce
an inescapable conclusion, says Michael Mann. He is a climate scientist
at Penn State University in State College, Penn. He was not involved in
the new studies. "The current period of warmth is unprecedented in its
global scope in the last 2,000 years," he says.
Data, data and more data
Raphael Neukom led the team behind the Nature study. He's a climate
scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland. His team started
with many different types of temperature records from around the world.
Scientists Say: Stalactite and Stalagmite
Modern temp records usually are taken directly with a thermometer or
other instrument. To get ancient records, a stand-in -- or proxy -- for
temperature is needed. The new study used proxies derived from tree
rings, glacier ice cores, and lake and ocean sediments. Other proxies
came from cave deposits such as stalactites and stalagmites. There were
other sources of data, too. These included records in historical
documents. There were direct temperature measurements collected in some
places since the 1800s. And there were also some climate simulations
made using computers.
An international group of researchers, the PAGES 2k Consortium, combined
all of these data. They produced more than 15,000 different climate
reconstructions of the last 2,000 years of global temperatures.
Specifically, they looked at A.D. 1 to 2000. Then, they took a close
look at the precise timing of warming or cooling within four "climate
epochs." The Roman Warm Period lasted from about A.D. 1 to 300. The Dark
Ages Cold Period occurred from 400 to 800. The Medieval Warm Period
happened from about 800 to 1200. And the Little Ice Age was from 1300 to
1850.
The same datasets were put into the climate reproductions. But the team
then used different methods to process the data and calculate past
temperatures. Some methods were simple. Others were complex. Regardless
of which was used, the story was the same, the researchers found. None
of those past climate epochs were simultaneous, global events.
The Little Ice Age, for example, was a cold snap. It is thought to have
lasted from roughly 1350 to 1850. But the deep freezes didn't occur
everywhere at the same time, the new research shows. Northwestern Europe
and southeastern North America got their coldest temps during the 17th
century. Meanwhile, the central and eastern Pacific Ocean were coldest
200 years earlier, during the 15th century, the team found.
a photo of Mount Tambora
A series of powerful volcanic eruptions, including the 1815 eruption of
Mount Tambora (shown here), powered the end of the cold period known as
the Little Ice Age, which spanned from about 1350 to 1850. Such climate
fluctuations were once thought to span the entire globe but are now
known to be regional.
JialiangGao/Wikimedia commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
The Medieval Warm Period showed the warmest temps in northwestern Europe
and eastern North America during the 11th century. But peak warmth
occurred several hundred years later in central South America. And it
was several hundred years earlier in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean.
"The traditional understanding is that these [climate epochs, like the
Little Ice Age] were global-scale phenomena," says Nathan Steiger. He's
a climate scientist at Columbia University in New York City. In fact,
the data now show, "That's not the case."
This finding stands in stark contrast to the team's conclusions about
the current era of warming. Today's warming is occurring concurrently
around the globe. And the hottest temperatures in the study were found
to be right at the end of the 20th century. "It is coherent in a way we
didn't experience over the last 2,000 years," Steiger says.
Because the study's temperature data go only to 2000, the last two
decades weren't included. But NASA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration reported in February that nine of the 10
warmest years on record have occurred since 2005. Plus, the last five
years were the five hottest on record. Human activities have been
repeatedly cited by scientists as the cause of these ongoing
record-breaking temps.
Steiger spoke at a news conference on July 22. He noted that the Nature
study didn't specifically mention that the current warming is due to
human activities. That was in part because so many previous studies have
repeatedly and clearly shown that link. "We don't need to look at
paleoclimate to know that."
A second study appeared in Nature Geoscience. It does address the
question of modern warming more explicitly. That study was authored by
Neukom and other members of the PAGES 2k Consortium. It used the same
temperature proxies as the Nature study. The team looked at the average
global temperature through time.
This revealed that the current rate of warming is much faster than
anything observed in the last 2,000 years that can be attributed to
natural variability. "It's another angle to look at the extraordinary
nature of current warming," Neukom said at the news conference.
Volcanoes and greenhouse gases
A third study also appeared in Nature Geoscience. It added another layer
of context to the trends. This study looked at what natural forces may
have been behind large regional temperature ups and downs, such as the
Little Ice Age.
This study was led by University of Bern climate scientist Stefan
Bronnimann. In it, the researchers found that powerful volcanic
eruptions were the main engine behind large-scale temperature changes in
the past.
For instance, there were five powerful eruptions -- including the 1815
eruption of Mount Tambora -- that occurred toward the end of the Little
Ice Age. The eruptions initially led to cooling and climate upheaval.
That was followed by a period of recovery. The planet warmed up again.
That recovery coincides with the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
That's when people began burning fossil fuels in large amounts. And it's
when greenhouse gases became the primary driver for warming, the
researchers note.
Mann notes that the studies' findings aren't exactly new ideas. In 1998,
he and colleagues published a famous study in Nature. It's sometimes
referred to as the "hockey stick" paper. It revealed a dramatic upward
tick in temperatures at the end of the 20th century. This pattern, when
plotted through time, takes the shape of a hockey stick. "It's
gratifying that independent, international teams using entirely
different approaches have come to virtually identical conclusions," Mann
says.
Raymond Bradley is a climate scientist at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst. He coauthored the hockey stick study. He also
agrees with Mann. "In that paper, we were widely criticized for saying
the last decade was the warmest in the last 1,000 years," he says. Now
scientists can say that the last decade was the warmest in the last
2,000 years.
Bradley adds that the new studies are a valuable addition to his and
Mann's past research. "They've done everything right," he says of the
PAGES 2k Consortium.
But the PAGES 2k database of temperature proxies still contains some
glaring holes. They exist in places like tropical regions and the
oceans. Such data won't change the underlying storyline. However,
filling in the holes could help scientists see global temperature ups
and downs even more clearly, Bradley says. Efforts to collect more
temperature data from South America are already afoot. Researchers are
looking in caves across Brazil and Argentina as well as at ancient trees
in the Amazon forest. "That's exactly what's needed," Bradley says.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/todays-global-warming-unlike-last-2000-years-climate-shifts
[3 min summary by authors]
*7 Climate Experts Each Give Three Minute Summation Of Current Climate
Change Situation*
The Real Truth About Health
Published on Aug 18, 2019
7 Climate Experts Each Give Three Minute Summation Of Current Climate
Change Situation with Mark Serreze, Danny Kennedy, James Hansen, Ph.D,
Leah Parks, Janet Larsen, Katie Singer, Peter Carter, M.D.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0yFqyXRhAw
[Science for scientists]
In Twitter, Michael Mann say he is
*troubled by some very misleading statements and claims made at this
public-facing*
Using sound statistical methods, hurricane expert @JBElsner and
collaborators have demonstrated a very clear, statistically-significant
relationship between sea surface temperature and the intensity of the
strongest storms (https://t.co/QLYm3KdLYX).
Michael E. Mann
Verified account @MichaelEMann
Sep 6
They find a roughly 7% increase in maximum hurricane intensity for each
1C increase in sea surface temperature. Since destructive potential goes
as the 3rd power of maximum wind speed, that corresponds to a roughly
23% increase in destructive potential.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170140378873376768
- - -
[from 2008]
*The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones*
We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the
70th percentile,... We note separate upward trends in the estimated
lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones
(99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase
at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic,... Our results
are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas
warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07234
[huge shift - This should be a prologue for a greater essay]
Cultural Comment in the New Yorker
*What If We Stopped Pretending?*
The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit
that we can't prevent it.
By Jonathan Franzen
- - -
Today, the scientific evidence verges on irrefutable. If you're younger
than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical
destabilization of life on earth--massive crop failures, apocalyptic
fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of
refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent
drought. If you're under thirty, you're all but guaranteed to witness it.
If you care about the planet, and about the people and animals who live
on it, there are two ways to think about this. You can keep on hoping
that catastrophe is preventable, and feel ever more frustrated or
enraged by the world's inaction. Or you can accept that disaster is
coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope.
Even at this late date, expressions of unrealistic hope continue to
abound...The facts have changed, but somehow the message stays the same.
Psychologically, this denial makes sense. Despite the outrageous fact
that I'll soon be dead forever, I live in the present, not the future.
Given a choice between an alarming abstraction (death) and the
reassuring evidence of my senses (breakfast!), my mind prefers to focus
on the latter. The planet, too, is still marvelously intact, still
basically normal--seasons changing, another election year coming, new
comedies on Netflix--and its impending collapse is even harder to wrap
my mind around than death. Other kinds of apocalypse, whether religious
or thermonuclear or asteroidal, at least have the binary neatness of
dying: one moment the world is there, the next moment it's gone forever.
Climate apocalypse, by contrast, is messy. It will take the form of
increasingly severe crises compounding chaotically until civilization
begins to fray. Things will get very bad, but maybe not too soon, and
maybe not for everyone. Maybe not for me.
Some of the denial, however, is more willful. The evil of the Republican
Party's position on climate science is well known, but denial is
entrenched in progressive politics, too, or at least in its rhetoric.
The Green New Deal, the blueprint for some of the most substantial
proposals put forth on the issue, is still framed as our last chance to
avert catastrophe and save the planet, by way of gargantuan
renewable-energy projects. Many of the groups that support those
proposals deploy the language of "stopping" climate change, or imply
that there's still time to prevent it. Unlike the political right, the
left prides itself on listening to climate scientists, who do indeed
allow that catastrophe is theoretically avertable. But not everyone
seems to be listening carefully. The stress falls on the word theoretically.
Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate
change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of
control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we'll
pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by
more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a
little less). The I.P.C.C.--the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change--tells us that, to limit the rise to less than two degrees, we
not only need to reverse the trend of the past three decades. We need to
approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades.
This is, to say the least, a tall order. It also assumes that you trust
the I.P.C.C.'s calculations. New research, described last month in
Scientific American, demonstrates that climate scientists, far from
exaggerating the threat of climate change, have underestimated its pace
and severity. To project the rise in the global mean temperature,
scientists rely on complicated atmospheric modelling. They take a host
of variables and run them through supercomputers to generate, say, ten
thousand different simulations for the coming century, in order to make
a "best" prediction of the rise in temperature. When a scientist
predicts a rise of two degrees Celsius, she's merely naming a number
about which she's very confident: the rise will be at least two degrees.
The rise might, in fact, be far higher.
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future
scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology
and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy
consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy
have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios
in which collective action averts catastrophe. The scenarios, which I
draw from the prescriptions of policy-makers and activists, share
certain necessary conditions.
The first condition is that every one of the world's major polluting
countries institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of
its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its
economy. According to a recent paper in Nature, the carbon emissions
from existing global infrastructure, if operated through its normal
lifetime, will exceed our entire emissions "allowance"--the further
gigatons of carbon that can be released without crossing the threshold
of catastrophe. (This estimate does not include the thousands of new
energy and transportation projects already planned or under
construction.) To stay within that allowance, a top-down intervention
needs to happen not only in every country but throughout every country.
Making New York City a green utopia will not avail if Texans keep
pumping oil and driving pickup trucks.
The actions taken by these countries must also be the right ones. Vast
sums of government money must be spent without wasting it and without
lining the wrong pockets. Here it's useful to recall the Kafkaesque joke
of the European Union's biofuel mandate, which served to accelerate the
deforestation of Indonesia for palm-oil plantations, and the American
subsidy of ethanol fuel, which turned out to benefit no one but corn
farmers.
Finally, overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of
government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe
curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. They must
accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme
measures taken to combat it. They can't dismiss news they dislike as
fake. They have to set aside nationalism and class and racial
resentments. They have to make sacrifices for distant threatened nations
and distant future generations. They have to be permanently terrified by
hotter summers and more frequent natural disasters, rather than just
getting used to them. Every day, instead of thinking about breakfast,
they have to think about death.
Call me a pessimist or call me a humanist, but I don't see human nature
fundamentally changing anytime soon. I can run ten thousand scenarios
through my model, and in not one of them do I see the two-degree target
being met.
To judge from recent opinion polls, which show that a majority of
Americans (many of them Republican) are pessimistic about the planet's
future, and from the success of a book like David Wallace-Wells's
harrowing "The Uninhabitable Earth," which was released this year, I'm
not alone in having reached this conclusion. But there continues to be a
reluctance to broadcast it. Some climate activists argue that if we
publicly admit that the problem can't be solved, it will discourage
people from taking any ameliorative action at all. This seems to me not
only a patronizing calculation but an ineffectual one, given how little
progress we have to show for it to date. The activists who make it
remind me of the religious leaders who fear that, without the promise of
eternal salvation, people won't bother to behave well. In my experience,
nonbelievers are no less loving of their neighbors than believers. And
so I wonder what might happen if, instead of denying reality, we told
ourselves the truth.
First of all, even if we can no longer hope to be saved from two degrees
of warming, there's still a strong practical and ethical case for
reducing carbon emissions. In the long run, it probably makes no
difference how badly we overshoot two degrees; once the point of no
return is passed, the world will become self-transforming. In the
shorter term, however, half measures are better than no measures.
Halfway cutting our emissions would make the immediate effects of
warming somewhat less severe, and it would somewhat postpone the point
of no return. The most terrifying thing about climate change is the
speed at which it's advancing, the almost monthly shattering of
temperature records. If collective action resulted in just one fewer
devastating hurricane, just a few extra years of relative stability, it
would be a goal worth pursuing.
In fact, it would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all. To
fail to conserve a finite resource when conservation measures are
available, to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very
well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong. Although the actions
of one individual have zero effect on the climate, this doesn't mean
that they're meaningless. Each of us has an ethical choice to make.
During the Protestant Reformation, when "end times" was merely an idea,
not the horribly concrete thing it is today, a key doctrinal question
was whether you should perform good works because it will get you into
Heaven, or whether you should perform them simply because they're
good--because, while Heaven is a question mark, you know that this world
would be better if everyone performed them. I can respect the planet,
and care about the people with whom I share it, without believing that
it will save me.
More than that, a false hope of salvation can be actively harmful. If
you persist in believing that catastrophe can be averted, you commit
yourself to tackling a problem so immense that it needs to be everyone's
overriding priority forever. One result, weirdly, is a kind of
complacency: by voting for green candidates, riding a bicycle to work,
avoiding air travel, you might feel that you've done everything you can
for the only thing worth doing. Whereas, if you accept the reality that
the planet will soon overheat to the point of threatening civilization,
there's a whole lot more you should be doing.
Our resources aren't infinite. Even if we invest much of them in a
longest-shot gamble, reducing carbon emissions in the hope that it will
save us, it's unwise to invest all of them. Every billion dollars spent
on high-speed trains, which may or may not be suitable for North
America, is a billion not banked for disaster preparedness, reparations
to inundated countries, or future humanitarian relief. Every
renewable-energy mega-project that destroys a living ecosystem--the
"green" energy development now occurring in Kenya's national parks, the
giant hydroelectric projects in Brazil, the construction of solar farms
in open spaces, rather than in settled areas--erodes the resilience of a
natural world already fighting for its life. Soil and water depletion,
overuse of pesticides, the devastation of world fisheries--collective
will is needed for these problems, too, and, unlike the problem of
carbon, they're within our power to solve. As a bonus, many low-tech
conservation actions (restoring forests, preserving grasslands, eating
less meat) can reduce our carbon footprint as effectively as massive
industrial changes.
All-out war on climate change made sense only as long as it was
winnable. Once you accept that we've lost it, other kinds of action take
on greater meaning. Preparing for fires and floods and refugees is a
directly pertinent example. But the impending catastrophe heightens the
urgency of almost any world-improving action. In times of increasing
chaos, people seek protection in tribalism and armed force, rather than
in the rule of law, and our best defense against this kind of dystopia
is to maintain functioning democracies, functioning legal systems,
functioning communities. In this respect, any movement toward a more
just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate
action. Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combatting extreme
wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines
on social media is a climate action. Instituting humane immigration
policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for
laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press,
ridding the country of assault weapons--these are all meaningful climate
actions. To survive rising temperatures, every system, whether of the
natural world or of the human world, will need to be as strong and
healthy as we can make it.
And then there's the matter of hope. If your hope for the future depends
on a wildly optimistic scenario, what will you do ten years from now,
when the scenario becomes unworkable even in theory? Give up on the
planet entirely? To borrow from the advice of financial planners, I
might suggest a more balanced portfolio of hopes, some of them
longer-term, most of them shorter. It's fine to struggle against the
constraints of human nature, hoping to mitigate the worst of what's to
come, but it's just as important to fight smaller, more local battles
that you have some realistic hope of winning. Keep doing the right thing
for the planet, yes, but also keep trying to save what you love
specifically--a community, an institution, a wild place, a species
that's in trouble--and take heart in your small successes. Any good
thing you do now is arguably a hedge against the hotter future, but the
really meaningful thing is that it's good today. As long as you have
something to love, you have something to hope for...
- - -
Jonathan Franzen is a frequent contributor to The New Yorker and the
author of, most recently, the novel "Purity."
[more at:] -
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending
[It's called Soylent Green, "it's people"and it's a 1974 movie, and was
Edward G. Robinson's last]
*Swedish scientist advocates eating humans to combat climate change*
A scientist in Sweden makes a controversial presentation at a future of
food conference.
PAUL RATNER - 08 September, 2019
-- A behavioral scientist from Sweden thinks cannibalism of corpses
will become necessary due to effects of climate change.
-- He made the controversial presentation to Swedish TV during a
"Future of Food" conference in Stockholm.
-- The scientist acknowledges the many taboos this idea would have
to overcome.
A behavioral scientist from Sweden thinks cannibalism of corpses will
become necessary due to effects of climate change.
He made the controversial presentation to Swedish TV during a "Future of
Food" conference in Stockholm.
The scientist acknowledges the many taboos this idea would have to overcome.
Is it Halloween already? A Swedish scientist has caused a stir by
advocating that in order to stem the ill effects of climate changes,
humans need to start eating each other. Of course, he's not calling for
all-out cannibalism like it used to be practiced throughout history.
Rather he thinks that if we just get over some very obvious taboos, we
might consider eating human corpses.
While talking about the Gastro Summit focused on "food on the future" on
Swedish TV, the behavioral scientist and marketing strategist Magnus
Soderlund from the Stockholm School of Economics proposed that in order
to truly take on the effects of climate change, we must "awake the idea"
that eating human flesh should be discussed as an option in the future.
Soderlund used his tv interview on the State Swedish Television channel
TV4 to give a powerpoint presentation entitled "Can you Imagine Eating
Human Flesh?" It included such topics as "Is Cannibalism the solution to
food sustainability in the future?" and "Are we humans too selfish to
live sustainably?"
The scientist acknowledged the "conservative" taboos that exist from
ancient times against consuming human flesh and sees that as the main
impediment to the spread of this idea. On the other hand, Soderlund
argued our future food sources would likely be getting more and more
scarce. So people would have to think outside the box to get their
sustenance, considering pets, insects like grasshoppers and worms.
That's also where humans come in. The scientist thinks that if people
were introduced to human flesh little by little, there'd be enough takers.
The resistance that humans have to overcome in order to consider other
humans food is linked to selfishness, according to the scientist. But as
an expert in behaviors, he thinks that people can ultimately be
"tricked" into "making the right decisions".
Indeed, after Soderlund's presentation, 8% of the audience raised their
hands when asked if they would be willing to try human flesh. The
scientist himself is also open to "at least tasting it."
And if you're still not squeamish enough about this whole enterprise,
there is a term to take out of this article, called "mannisko-kotts
branschen". That means "the human flesh industry". Let's hope it's not
really coming.
In the meantime, Soderlund plans to hold more seminars on his idea.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/swedish-scientist-eating-humans-climate-change
- - -
[Movie made in 1973 - set in the year 2022]
*Soylent Green movie review*
- - -
"Soylent Green's" real achievement is to create a 21st Century world
that's convincing as reality; we somehow don't feel we're in a s-f
picture. What director Fleischer and his technicians have done is to
assume a very basic (and depressing) probability: that by the year 2022,
New York will look essentially as it does now, only 49 years older and
more run-down.
- - -
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/soylent-green-1973
- - -
[See the movie trailer]
Soylent Green (1973) Official Trailer - Charlton Heston, Edward G
Robinson Movie HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=N_jGOKYHxaQ
*This Day in Climate History - September 9, 2005 - from D.R. Tucker*
September 9, 2005: At the National Sierra Club Convention in San
Francisco, Al Gore declares:
"There are scientific warnings now of another onrushing catastrophe.
We were warned of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda; we didn't respond.
We were warned the levees would break in New Orleans; we didn't
respond. Now, the scientific community is warning us that the
average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global
warming. A scientist at MIT has published a study well before this
tragedy showing that since the 1970s, hurricanes in both the
Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration, and in
intensity, by about 50%. The newscasters told us after Hurricane
Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a
particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much
stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the
gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans
generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly
consistent with what scientists have predicted for twenty years. Two
thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most
elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of
humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a
string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves
and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. It is
important to learn the lessons of what happens when scientific
evidence and clear authoritative warnings are ignored in order to
induce our leaders not to do it again and not to ignore the
scientists again and not to leave us unprotected in the face of
those threats that are facing us right now."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050924210135/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to
this mailing list.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list