Italy Beppo Grillo and De-Growth

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

stevecook172001 wrote:Simply by existing, we are both complicit in the most negative trend of life on Earth since that last mass extinction event.
It's easy to blame the Human race for everything, but the planet existed quite happily before we evolved and will exist quite happily when we are gone. Evolution has created and destroyed more species than we can imagine, and just because we consider a particular butterfly beautiful doesn't make it any more significant than a dung-eating ant in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.
Little John

Post by Little John »

Catweazle wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:Simply by existing, we are both complicit in the most negative trend of life on Earth since that last mass extinction event.
It's easy to blame the Human race for everything, but the planet existed quite happily before we evolved and will exist quite happily when we are gone. Evolution has created and destroyed more species than we can imagine, and just because we consider a particular butterfly beautiful doesn't make it any more significant than a dung-eating ant in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.
Life will, of course, recover. However, it may take millions of years to recover from the mass extinction that is now well underway. You may not realise it, C, but the rate of extinction that is currently occurring is at least on a par with the Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago and quite possibly far greater.

Hopefully, a significant proportion of us humans will have f***ed off before it gets that bad.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

stevecook172001 wrote:
Catweazle wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:Simply by existing, we are both complicit in the most negative trend of life on Earth since that last mass extinction event.
It's easy to blame the Human race for everything, but the planet existed quite happily before we evolved and will exist quite happily when we are gone. Evolution has created and destroyed more species than we can imagine, and just because we consider a particular butterfly beautiful doesn't make it any more significant than a dung-eating ant in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.
Life will, of course, recover. However, it may take millions of years to recover from the mass extinction that is now well underway. You may not realise it, C, but the rate of extinction that is currently occurring is at least on a par with the Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago and quite possibly far greater.

Hopefully, a significant proportion of us humans will have ****** off before it gets that bad.
Does it matter if it takes millions of years to recover ? All life has evolved, and life will continue to evolve until the end of the planet when everything will die. In cosmic terms it all happens very quickly and matters not a jot.

The only reason I can see for preserving the environment is so that we can leave our children a nice place to live. A malformed shrimp in the Gulf might not make much difference to them, a lack of bees certainly will, so perhaps we could concentrate our efforts on the important stuff.

I'll be planting flowers and not losing any sleep over the shrimp.
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6977
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

One shrimp doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but shrimp and their ilk are the bottom of the food chain in the oceans and a major stabilising factor in the global climate, if Gaia theory is correct. Life won't last forever on this planet, the sun is slowly warming, and if Gaia has been stabilising the global temperature in the 'goldlocks zone' there is a chance that our human triggered mass extinction could knock the whole planet into run-away global warming from which it never recovers.

Even without that, life has got about 3 billion years left on the planet, tops.
Blue Peter
Posts: 1939
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Milton Keynes

Post by Blue Peter »

RalphW wrote: Even without that, life has got about 3 billion years left on the planet, tops.
Thanks for reminding me. I really must get my bug-out bag sorted :wink:


Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

That follows on from my theory of life, the universe and everyfeckingthing - that the universe could collapse back on itself eventually, hit a singularity and go big bang again, something it's done an infinite number of times and will do for a comparably infinite number of times. :lol: :shock: Ahem. Well, this theory that I have - that is to say, which is mine...is mine.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

RalphW wrote:........... the sun is slowly warming, ............
Oh! no it isn't!! Not at the moment anyway.

I have a theory, which is someone else's but I've borrowed it, that the sun is cooling and will remain so for at least thirty years. It's a cyclical thing and relates to the Dalton and Maunder Minima, and several before that, when the sun goes into a quiet stage with low numbers of sunspots caused by low magnetic activity. It's the low magnetic activity that is the cause of the cooling not the sunspots which are only a symptom.

This graphic from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Centre clearly shows the dip in the early 1800s, which is the time of the Dalton Minimum cold period, with sunspot numbers in the 40s.

Image

The predicted sunspot high for the current cycle is about 60 but could be lower looking at the way the graph is going at the moment.

Image

The effect is explained in a paper here. This solar effect doesn't in any way denigrate the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming which could work in tandem with the solar effects. Global Warming could mitigate the loss of heating from the sun and give us a much less dramatic cooling over the next 35 years. The current cooling cycle, which should have started in about 2005, could be the reason that we have had three extremely cold winters in a row, which, in itself, is an unusual occurrence in my lifetime at least.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Blue Peter
Posts: 1939
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Milton Keynes

Post by Blue Peter »

kenneal - lagger wrote: The current cooling cycle, which should have started in about 2005, could be the reason that we have had three extremely cold winters in a row, which, in itself, is an unusual occurrence in my lifetime at least.
Though would not people argue that the last 3 really cold winters are a local, not global, phenomenon (2010 being the warmest year on record), perhaps best explained by the changes in the arctic?


Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

kenneal - lagger wrote:the reason that we have had three extremely cold winters in a row, which...
Have we. By 'we' do you mean
a) Berkshire,
b) the surface of the planet as measured by a lot of land-based observations, a few ocean surface measurements and a very few shallow ocean water temperatures,
or
c) temperatures in the whole ocean-atmosphere system, noting that 93% of the energy is in the oceans?

Hypothesis: variation of El Nino masks variation in sunspots.
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6977
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

I was talking about warming over billions of years.

It is the standard evolution of a main sequence star.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

We have had Climate Change throughout the world with warming and cooling and flood and drought in different places at different times. Yes, we have a warming trend but it could be significantly warmer with a more active sun.

What drives the El Nino/La Nina cycle? The sun? Landscheidt has both related past El Nino/La Nina events to solar cycles predicted future ones.

Anyone doubting that CO2 is responsible for all the temperature changes on this planet brings out a certain tetchiness in some people! I am convinced that man made CO2 is a major source of warming but cyclical variations in the sun, which have been seen to affect climate in the past, could do so again. Just because we are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't mean that the sun can't go on holiday for a few years just the same as the fact that solar cycles are unlikely to be the sole source of warming or cooling of this planet.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
JavaScriptDonkey
Posts: 1683
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 00:12
Location: SE England

Post by JavaScriptDonkey »

Take no notice of Biff, he has belief.

The increase of CO2 by volume in the atmosphere is doubtless man made but its impact is hard to discern amid other variables.

The problem with the linear 'more burning = more CO2 = more global warming' concept is that it clearly is not the whole story but once people subscribe to it you have a terrible job getting them to admit that they may have overlooked something else.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Take no notice of Biff, he has belief.
Actually I find the idea of 'belief' pretty meaningless. I think in terms of a hypothesis supported by observation that is used to inform action until further observation suggests that an improved or alternative hypothesis is better supported.

Oh, all right, I believe the Earth is not flat. We all lapse from the scientific analysis occasionally.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

biffvernon wrote:Actually I find the idea of 'belief' pretty meaningless.
Well said. Received language can be powerful and it's easy to slip into a sentence starting with, "I believe that..." Avoid.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
the_lyniezian
Posts: 1125
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 11:40
Location: South Bernicia
Contact:

Post by the_lyniezian »

biffvernon wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:Take no notice of Biff, he has belief.
Actually I find the idea of 'belief' pretty meaningless. I think in terms of a hypothesis supported by observation that is used to inform action until further observation suggests that an improved or alternative hypothesis is better supported.

Oh, all right, I believe the Earth is not flat. We all lapse from the scientific analysis occasionally.
So in other words the precautioonary principle.
Post Reply