Climate-Change Summary and Update 2 August 2016. The Great Dying wiped out at least 90% of the species on Earth due to an abrupt rise in global-average temperature about 252 million years ago. The vast majority of complex life became extinct. Based on information from the most conservative sources available, Earth is headed for a similar or higher global-average temperature in the very near future. The recent and near-future rises in temperature are occurring and will occur at least an order of magnitude faster than the worst of all prior Mass Extinctions. Habitat for human animals is disappearing throughout the world, and abrupt climate change has barely begun. In the near future, habitat for Homo sapiens will be gone. Shortly thereafter, all humans will die. There is no precedence in planetary history for events unfolding today. As a result, relying on prior events to predict the near future is unwise.
*****
Iâm often accused of cherry picking the information in this ever-growing essay. I plead guilty, and explain myself in this essay https://guymcpherson.com/2014/01/picking-cherries/ posted 30 January 2014. My critics tend to focus on me and my lack of standing in the scientific community, to which I respond with the words of John W. Farley http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming/: âThe scientific case is not dependent on citation of authority, no matter how distinguished the authority may be. The case is dependent upon experimental evidence, logic, and reason.â In other words, stop targeting the messenger.
A German-language version of this essay, updated 26 June 2014, is available in pdf form here https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/introduction/mcpherson-climatechange-deutsch-2/ with my thanks to Wermer Winkler. A Russian version focused on self-reinforcing feedback loops, courtesy of Robin Westenra and colleagues, is here https://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/blog-post_16.html. A Polish version, updated often, is available here https://exignorant.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/podsumowanie-zmian-klimatycznych-i-aktualizacja/.
Loading Image...
American actress Lily Tomlin is credited with the expression, âNo matter how cynical you become, itâs never enough to keep up.â With respect to climate science, my own efforts to stay abreast are blown away every week by new data, models, and assessments. It seems no matter how dire the situation becomes, it only gets worse when I check the latest reports.
The response of politicians, heads of non-governmental organizations, and corporate leaders remains the same, even though they surely know everything in this essay. Theyâre mired in the dank Swamp of Nothingness. Margaret Beckett, former U.K. foreign secretary said in September 2008 on BBC America television
with respect to climate change: âWill it harm our children? Will it harm our grandchildren? Actually, itâs a problem for us today.â As Halldor Thorgeirsson, a senior director with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said on 17 September 2013 http://phys.org/news/2013-09-world-climate_1.html: âWe are failing as an international community. We are not on track.â These are the people who know about, and presumably could do something about, our ongoing race to disaster (if only to sound the alarm). Tomlinâs line is never more germane than when thinking about their pursuit of a buck at the expense of life on Earth.
Worse than the aforementioned trolls are the media. Fully captured by corporations and the corporate states, the media continue to dance around the issue of climate change. Occasionally a forthright piece is published, but it generally points in the wrong direction, such as suggesting climate scientists and activists be killed (e.g., James Delingpoleâs 7 April 2013 hate-filled article in the Telegraph~ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100210866/an-english-class-for-trolls-professional-offence-takers-and-climate-activists/). Leading mainstream outlets routinely mislead the public.
Mainstream scientists minimize the message at every turn, with expected results. As weâve known for years, scientists almost invariably underplay climate impacts http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/10/climate-alarmism (James Hansen referred to the phenomenon as âscientific reticenceâ in his 24 May 2007 paper about sea-level rise in Environmental Research Letters http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024002/fulltext/). A paper in 27 June 2016 online issue of Nature Climate Change reinforces the idea of scientific conservatism, pointing out http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html that dependence upon historical records leads to missing about one-fifth of global warming since the 1860s.
In some cases, scientists are aggressively muzzled by their governments http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/scientist-silencing-continues-for-federally-funded-research-1.2538273. Britainâs Royal Society began actively ignoring observational science about Arctic methane in 2014 https://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/15/ignoring-the-arctic-methane-monster-royal-society-goes-dark-on-arctic-observational-science/. Canada no longer allows some climate-change information into the public realm http://o.canada.com/news/federal-government-puts-polar-briefings-on-ice (and see this report http://boingboing.net/2014/08/20/canadian-government-orders-sci.htmlfrom 20 August 2015. Even museums are not safe from misinformation about climate science to appease fossil-fuel philanthropists, as reported in the 17 June 2014 issue of AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/environment/appalling-war-science-now-includes-war-science-museums. Iâm not implying conspiracy among scientists. Science selects for conservatism. Academia selects for extreme conservatism. These folks are loathe to risk drawing undue attention to themselves by pointing out there might be a threat to civilization. Never mind the near-term threat to our entire species (most couldnât care less about other species). If the truth is dire, they can find another, not-so-dire version. The concept is supported by an article in the February 2013 issue of Global Environmental Change http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215 pointing out that climate-change scientists routinely underestimate impacts âby erring on the side of least dramaâ (also see overviews of this phenomenon from 21 May 2014 http://americablog.com/2014/05/erring-side-least-drama-climate-scientists-inherently-conservative-video.html and from 15 July 2014 http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24485-arctic-warming-and-increased-weather-extremes-the-national-research-council-speaks, the latter from the U.S. National Research Council as reported by Truth-out). Even the climatic response to greenhouse gases has been too conservative, as reported in the 14 December 2015 online issue of Nature Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2888.html. And even the often-conservative Robert Scribbler points out in his 18 July 2014 essay https://robertscribbler.com/2014/07/18/tracking-the-footprints-of-the-arctic-methane-monster-black-craters-in-the-siberian-tundra-methane-lacing-2500-mile-wide-smoke-plumes-over-gigantic-arctic-wildfires/: âNASAâs CARVE study has been silent for a year, the University of Maryland has stopped putting out publicly available AIRS methane data measures, the NOAA ESRL methane flask measures, possibly due to lack of funding, havenât updated since mid-May, and even Gavin Schmidt over at NASA GISS appears to have become somewhat mum on a subject that, of late, has generated so much uncomfortable controversy.â (Apocalypse 4 Real blog responded to Scribbler on 24 July 2014, and the response is linked here http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com/2014/07/major-arctic-methane-research-underway.html.) Schmidt increased his efforts to discredit the work of other scientists in early October 2014 with unfounded, unprofessional behavior http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/99-russian-scientists-excluded-from-presenting-important-research-as-nasa-goddard-director-tries-to-discredit-observational-scientific-research. His insanity was made apparent in an interview for the August 2015 issue of Esquire http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/ with a single sentence: âThereâs no actual evidence that anything dramatically different is going on in the Arctic, other than the fact that itâs melting pretty much everywhere.â
In addition, the consolidation of the scientific publishing industry is accelerating, with expected, profit-based results. A paper published in the 10 June 2015 issue of PLoS One http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013 found that the top five most prolific publishers account for more than half of recent papers published.
Almost everybody reading these words has a vested interest in not wanting to think about climate change, which helps explain why the climate-change deniers have won https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming. Theyâve been aided and funded by the fossil-fuel industry, the memos from which âreveal decades of disinformationâa deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today,â according to an in-depth analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.VZ6DbvlViko in July 2015.
Investigative journalist Lee Fang, writing for The Intercept https://theintercept.com/2015/08/25/chris-horner-coal/ on 25 August 2015, uncovers a relationship between climate-denying attorney Christopher Horner and big coal. Horner is an attorney who claims that the earth is cooling, is known within the scientific community for hounding climate change researchers with relentless investigations and public ridicule, and he often derides scientists as âcommunistsâ and frauds.
Horner is a regular guest on Fox News and CNN, and has been affiliated with a number of think tanks and legal organizations over the last decade. He has called for investigations of climate scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA, and inundated climate researchers at major universities across the country with records requests that critics say are designed to distract them from their work.
The 20 August 2015 bankruptcy filing of Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal companies in America, includes line items for all of the corporationâs contractors and grant recipients. Among them are Horner individually at his home address, as well as the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, where he is a senior staff attorney.
Itâs not only the scientists who underestimate the damage. Itâs the science itself, too. Consider, for example, information derived from satellites which, according to a March 2015 paper in Journal of Climate http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1, significantly underestimate temperature of the middle troposphere. âIn short, the Earth is warming, the warming is amplified in the troposphere, and those who claim otherwise are unlikely to be correct.â https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming
Some university professors will promote climate-change denial for the right price. According to the 8 December 2015 issue of The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science, âAn undercover sting by Greenpeace has revealed that two prominent climate skeptics were available for hire by the hour to write reports casting doubt on the dangers posed by global warming.â The professors in question are William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University and Frank Clemente, professor emeritus of sociology at Pennsylvania State University.
Beyond Linear Change
Iâm often told Earth canât possibly be responsive enough to climate change to make any difference to us. But, as the 27 May 2014 headline at Skeptical Science points out http://www.skepticalscience.com/Rapid-climate-change-deadlier-than-asteroid-impacts.html, âRapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earthâs past.â Thatâs correct: climate change is more deadly than asteroids.
Ever late to the party, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits global warming is irreversible without geoengineering in a report released 27 September 2013 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html#.UkMIHYYqhng. The IPCC is among the most conservative scientific bodies on the planet, and their reports are âsignificantly âdilutedâ under political pressure.â https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interests On 22 April 2014, Truth-out correctly headlines their assessment http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/23228-ipcc-report-leaves-hopes-hanging-on-fantasy-technology, âIntergovernmental Climate Report Leaves Hopes Hanging on Fantasy Technology.â Time follows up two days later with a desperate headline, âNASA Chief: Humanityâs Future Depends On Mission To Marsâ http://time.com/76178/nasa-chief-humanitys-future-depends-on-mission-to-mars/ (first up: greenhouses on Mars https://rt.com/news/157228-nasa-mars-greenhouse-plants/). As pointed out http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/455/2013/esd-4-455-2013.html in the 5 December 2013 issue of Earth System Dynamics, known strategies for geoengineering are unlikely to succeed http://phys.org/news/2013-12-geoengineering-approaches-climate.html (âclimate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/12/09/reducing-sunlight-unlikely-to-cool-earth-scientists/â). âAttempts to reverse the impacts of global warming by injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere could make matters worse http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25639343,â according to research published in the 8 January 2014 issue of Environmental Research Letters. In addition, as described in the December 2013 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres https://news.mongabay.com/2014/0114-edwards-geoengineering-would-alter-rainfall-patterns.html, geoengineering may succeed in cooling the Earth, it would also disrupt precipitation patterns around the world. In the Arctic, âany sea ice or snow retention as a result of geoengineering is lost within a decade,â according to a paper in the 15 February 2014 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020627/abstract. Furthermore, ârisk of abrupt and dangerous warming is inherent to the large-scale implementation of SRMâ (solar radiation management), as pointed out http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/2/024005/article in the 17 February 2014 issue of Environmental Research Letters. About a week later comes this line from research published http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4304/full/ncomms4304.html in the 25 February 2014 issue of Nature Communication: âschemes to minimize the havoc caused by global warming by purposefully manipulating Earthâs climate are likely to either be relatively useless or actually make things worse http://www.livescience.com/43654-geoengineering-ineffective-against-climate-change.html.â Finally, in a blow to technocrats http://phys.org/news/2014-07-climate-mitigation.html published online in the 25 June 2014 issue of Nature Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n7/full/nclimate2278.html, a large and distinguished group of international researchers concludes geo-engineering will not stop climate change. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences piles on with a report issued 10 February 2015 https://www.thenation.com/blog/197521/scientists-we-cannot-geoengineer-our-way-out-climate-crisis, concluding geoengineering is not a viable solution for the climate predicament. An analysis in Europe reached the same conclusion http://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/research/sustainable-interactions-atmosphere-siwa/news/new-study-climate-engineering-not-option-near in an assessment published 16 July 2015. As it turns out, the public isnât impressed, either: Research published in the 12 January 2014 issue of Nature Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2087.html âreveals that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative.â Despite pervasive American ignorance about science http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/22-1, the public correctly interprets geo-engineering in the same light as the scientists, and contrary to the techno-optimists.
Unimpressed with evidence and public opinion, some scientists forge on, illustrating that the progressive perspective often means progresssing toward the cliffâs edge. As reported in the 27 November 2014 issue of New Scientist https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429974.000-geoengineering-the-planet-first-experiments-take-shape.html, initial efforts to cool the planet via geo-engineering have taken shape and might begin in two years.
The IPCC operates with a very conservative process and produces very conservative reports for several reasons, among them the failure to include relevant self-reinforcing feedback loops (as pointed out in the 1 April 2015 issue of the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/the-arctic-climate-threat-that-nobodys-even-talking-about-yet/). And then governments of the world meddle with the reports http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614097/Top-climate-experts-sensational-claim-government-meddling-crucial-UN-report.html to ensure Pollyanna outcomes, as reported by a participant in the process http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/ (also see Nafeez Ahmedâs 14 May 2014 report in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interestsand the 3 July 2014 paper in National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140703-ipcc-climate-report-deleted-data-global-warming-science/). According to David Wasdellâs May 2014 analysis http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Sensitivity%20and%20the%20Carbon%20Budget.pdf, which includes a critique of the IPCCâs ongoing lunacy, âequilibrium temperature increase predicted as a result of current concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses is already over 5°C.â I see no way for humans to survive such a rise in global-average temperature.
Wasdellâs analysis from September 2015 http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Harsh%20Realities.pdf includes several noteworthy conclusions: (1) âCurrent computer estimates of Climate Sensitivity are shown to be dangerously low,â revealing (2) âan eight-fold amplification of CO2 forcing (in contrast to the three-fold amplification predicted by the IPCC climate modelling computer ensemble), (3) âthe 2°C target temperature limit is set far too highâ (emphasis in original), and (4) âanthropogenic change is at least 100 times faster than at any time in the Paleo record.â The reportâs bottom line: âThere is no available carbon budget. It is already massively overspent, even for the 2°C target.â
Further evidence of the conservative nature of the IPCC is revealed by a paper in the 8 January 2016 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans focused on warming of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JC011346/full: âThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment of projected global and regional ocean temperature change is based on global climate models that have coarse (âŒ100 km) ocean and atmosphere resolutions. In the Northwest Atlantic, the ensemble of global climate models has a warm bias in sea surface temperature due to a misrepresentation of the Gulf Stream position; thus, existing climate change projections are based on unrealistic regional ocean circulation. Here we compare simulations and an atmospheric CO2 doubling response from four global climate models of varying ocean and atmosphere resolution. We find that the highest resolution climate model (âŒ10 km ocean, âŒ50 km atmosphere) resolves Northwest Atlantic circulation and water mass distribution most accurately. The CO2 doubling response from this model shows that upper-ocean (0â300 m) temperature in the Northwest Atlantic Shelf warms at a rate nearly twice as fast as the coarser models and nearly three times faster than the global average.â
Less than two weeks later, a paper in the 19 January 2016 issue of Geophysical Research Letters http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067050/full addresses the issue of Sandy-like superstorms under the influence of a substantially warmer Atlantic Ocean. The abstract of the paper includes these lines: âwe find that possible responses of Sandy-like superstorms under the influence of a substantially warmer Atlantic Ocean bifurcate into two groups. In the first group, storms are similar to present-day Sandy âŠ, except they are much stronger, with peak Power Destructive Index (PDI) increased by 50â80%, heavy rain by 30â50%, and maximum storm size (MSS) approximately doubled. In the second group, storms amplify substantially âŠ, with peak PDI increased by 100â160%, heavy rain by 70â180%, and MSS more than tripled compared to present-day Superstorm Sandy.â
Gradual change is not guaranteed, as pointed out by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in December 2013 http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/26/looming-danger-of-abrupt-climate-change/: âThe history of climate on the planet â as read in archives such as tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores â is punctuated with large changes that occurred rapidly, over the course of decades to as little as a few years.â The December 2013 report echoes one from Wood Hole Oceanographic Institution more than a decade earlier http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83339&tid=3622&cid=9986. Writing for the 3 September 2012 issue of Global Policy http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/climate-change-energy-and-sustainability/climate-disruption-are-we-beyond-worst-case-scen-0, Michael Jennings concludes http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00193.x/ that âa suite of amplifying feedback mechanisms, such as massive methane leaks from the sub-sea Arctic Ocean, have engaged and are probably unstoppable.â During a follow-up interview with Alex Smith on Radio Ecoshock http://www.ecoshock.info/2014/03/climate-dark-age.html, Jennings admits that âEarthâs climate is already beyond the worst scenarios.â Truth-out piles on 18 March 2014 http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22469: ââclimate change'â is not the most critical issue facing society today; abrupt climate change is.â Skeptical Science finally catches up to reality on 2 April 2014 with an essay titled, âAlarming new study makes todayâs climate change more comparable to Earthâs worst mass extinction.â http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html The conclusion from this conservative source: âUntil recently the scale of the Permian Mass Extinction was seen as just too massive, its duration far too long, and dating too imprecise for a sensible comparison to be made with todayâs climate change. No longer. Piling on in January 2015, a paper in press in the journal Progress in Physical Geography concludes the abstract with this line: âAll the evidence indicates that most long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than in incremental changes.â The Brisbane Times catches up with abrupt climate change on 18 August 2014 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/beware-the-dragon-of-runaway-climate-change-20140816-1040cw.html: âLet us be clear: if these methane escapes continue to grow, the risk is they could drive the planet into accelerated or ârunawayâ global warming. The last time this happened, 50 million years ago, global temperatures rose by an estimated 9 or 10 degrees. In the present context, that would mean the end of the worldâs food supply.â Robert Scribbler finally joins the uprising on 29 October 2014 https://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/29/ominous-arctic-methane-spikes-continue-2666-parts-per-billion-on-october-26th/: âWhat is clear is that feedbacks to the human heat forcing are now starting to become plainly visible. That they are providing evidence of a stronger release from some sources on a yearly basis.â The Daily Kos summarizes evidence indicating abrupt climate change on 14 March 2015 with an article headlined https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/15/1370965/-The-World-is-Set-for-Rapid-Warming, âThe Earth is Set for Rapid Warming.â A paper published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 12 October 2015 finds http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/07/1511451112 âabrupt changes in sea ice, oceanic flows, land ice, and terrestrial ecosystem response âŠ. A particularly large number is projected for warming levels below 2°.â The latter paper was the focus of an an article in the 15 October version of the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/15/the-biggest-question-about-climate-change-isnt-if-or-when-its-how-abrupt/. Also that month, a paper in the 15 October 2015 issue of Paleoceanography furthers the case for abrupt climate change: âThis record reveals that the climatic shift during the early deglacial occurred rapidly (explained co-author Kennett, a professor emeritus in University of California Santa Barbaraâs Department of Earth Science. âOf the 13 degree Fahrenheit total change, a shift of 7 to 9 degrees occurred almost immediately right at the beginning.â
The California Climate Change Symposium was held in Sacramento on 24 and 25 August 2015. The conclusion is reported via headline in the 25 August 2015 edition of the Daily Breeze http://www.dailybreeze.com/environment-and-nature/20150825/california-climate-researchers-sound-the-alarm-at-symposium-theres-no-way-out: âCalifornia climate researchers sound the alarm at symposium: âThereâs no way out.ââ
Susanne Moser, a leading Santa Cruz-based climate change researcher, was quoted in the article: âWe need transformational change. We donât need more studies as much as we need to communicate the urgency âŠ. We need to not debate forever.â A scientist admitting we donât need more study of an issue is stunning.
Regional warming events during the past 56,000 years were described in the 7 August 2015 edition of Science and led to the expectedly âunexpectedâ outcome http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6248/602.short: âUnexpectedly, rapid climate changes associated with interstadial warming events are strongly associated with the regional replacement/extinction of major genetic clades or species of megafauna.â In short, âit doesnât bode well for the future survival of the worldâs megafauna populationsâ http://www.livescience.com/51654-mammoths-extinction-climate-change.html. In this study, megafauna refers to animals exceeding 45 kg (about 99 pounds). Similarly, according to the abstract of a paper in the 17 June 2016 issue of Science Advances http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/6/e1501682, âThe causes of Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions (60,000 to 11,650 years ago, hereafter 60 to 11.65 ka) remain contentious, with major phases coinciding with both human arrival and climate change around the world. The Americas provide a unique opportunity to disentangle these factors as human colonization took place over a narrow time frame (~15 to 14.6 ka) but during contrasting temperature trends across each continent. ⊠We identify a narrow megafaunal extinction phase 12,280 ± 110 years ago, some 1 to 3 thousand years after initial human presence in the area. Although humans arrived immediately prior to a cold phase, the Antarctic Cold Reversal stadial, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until the stadial finished and the subsequent warming phase commenced some 1 to 3 thousand years later. The increased resolution provided by the Patagonian material reveals that the sequence of climate and extinction events in North and South America were temporally inverted, but in both cases, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until human presence and climate warming coincided.â
Loading Image...
As reported by Robert Scribbler https://robertscribbler.com/2014/05/22/global-sea-surface-temperatures-increase-to-extraordinary-1-25-c-anomaly-as-el-nino-tightens-grip-on-pacific/ on 22 May 2014, âglobal sea surface temperature anomalies spiked to an amazing +1.25 degrees Celsius above the, already warmer than normal, 1979 to 2000 average. This departure is about 1.7 degrees C above 1880 levels â an extraordinary reading that signals the world may well be entering a rapid warming phase.â By July of 2015, Scribblerâs writing had become alarming https://robertscribbler.com/2015/07/ â consistent with the situation â even though he still refused to accept the concept of human extinction as he adhered to 2 C as a target https://robertscribbler.com/2015/07/16/halfway-to-2-c-according-to-nasa-we-just-blew-past-an-ominous-milestone/.
Not to be outdone, now that abrupt climate change has entered the scientific lexicon, is dire news published in the 25 July 2014 issue of Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444. âThe study found that synchronization of the two regional systems began as climate was gradually warming. After synchronization, the researchers detected wild variability that amplified the changes and accelerated into an abrupt warming event of several degrees within a few decades http://phys.org/news/2014-07-synchronization-north-atlantic-pacific-abrupt.html.â Global-average temperature rising âseveral degrees within a few decadesâ seems problematic to me, and to anybody else with a biological bent. As reported eight days later in Nature Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2330.html, rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. When this phenomenon ceases, likely rapid changes will include a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2014080411490015.html.
Loading Image...
A paper in the 10 November 2015 issue of Nature Communications reports http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151110/ncomms9890/full/ncomms9890.html that the pace of past episodes of climate change is likely to have been underestimated. The abstract concludes: âA compilation of 194 published oceanic and continental temperature changes spanning the Ordovician period (476âMyr ago) to the present provides a holistic picture of the attainable magnitude and rate of both warming and cooling episodes through Earth history across a range of measurement timespans. We demonstrate that magnitudes and rates of geological temperature changes in this compilation exhibit power law scaling with timespan, emphasising how geological data alias (sic) short-term climate variability. Consequently, the true attainable pace of ancient climate change may be commonly underestimated, compromising our understanding of the relative pace (and severity) of both ancient and recent climate change.â In this case, the title of the paper tells the story: âMaximum rates of climate change are systematically underestimated in the geological record.â
A paper published in the 9 March 2015 online issue of Nature Climate Change indicates http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2552.html that we are on the verge of ânear-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change.â In this case, near-term means by 2020. As indicated in the paperâs abstract, âWe find that present trends in greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions are now moving the Earth system into a regime in terms of multi-decadal rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years.â âAnthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years,â according to the title of a paper in the 21 March 2016 online issue of Nature Geoscience http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2681.pdf. The summary of a paper in the 8 April 2016 issue of Science concludes http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6282/151: âThe climatic changes during the PETM occurred over longer time scales than those of anthropogenic climate change. The impacts of the latter may thus be even more severe.â
Deniers of abrupt climate change are running out of arguments. We are in the midst of abrupt climate change. This event has ample precedence, as reported in the aforementioned paper in Nature Communications. Even voices from the mainstream media are catching up to the reality of abrupt climate change. An article in the 11 January 2016 issue of The New Yorkerpoints out the rapidity with which climate can change http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/11/the-next-great-famine, leading to large numbers of dead humans: âOne of the most important insights of recent studies is that, when the climate changes, it can do so swiftly and relentlessly. It is possible, in a human lifetime, to see sea levels rise and ice shelves break away, and, when they do, nothing about what happens next can be taken for granted. The climate record is full of sudden disasters.â Sea-level rise is proceeding at the fastest rate in the last 28 centuries, according to a paper in the 22 February 2016 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113. And record-setting hot years are attributed to anthropogenic climate change as far back as the 1930s, according to a paper in the 7 March 2016 online issue of Geophysical Research Letters http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067448/abstract;jsessionid=6D8F1D2F9FD3DDD573476A45807F0410.f02t04.
As headlined in the 6 July 2016 issue of Grist magazine https://grist.org/living/new-york-city-hopes-a-10-foot-wall-can-save-it-from-rising-seas/, âNew York City hopes a 10-foot wall can save it from rising seas.â I wouldnât bet on hope, prayer, or unicorns. And New York City will cease to exist in the years ahead.
Geoengineers will not be able to do away with rising seas, according to a paper published in the 10 March 2016 issue of Earth System Dynamics http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/203/2016/. The proposed approach of pumping water from the sea and storing it as ice on the continent of Antarctica will not delay sea-level rise. Rather, unless the seawater is pumped enormous distances at tremendous energy cost, the strategy will only accelerate the flow of the glaciers and it will all end up back in the sea again.
A study published in the 10 November 2015 issue of Nature Communications http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151110/ncomms9751/full/ncomms9751.html presents âgeomorphological data that reveal the existence of a large buried paleodrainage network on the Mauritanian coast.â An article the same day in The Guardian includes these lines https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/10/ancient-river-network-discoverd-buried-under-saharan-sand: âA vast river network that once carried water for hundreds of miles across Western Sahara has been discovered under the parched sands of Mauritania. ⊠Water may last have coursed through the channels 5,000 years ago.â The Guardian quotes Russell Wynn at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, who was not involved in this study: âPeople sometimes canât get their head around climate change and how quickly it happens.â
An article in press in the journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, presumably to appear in the February 2016 issue, reports on massive ice loss from the Mauna Loa Icecave in Hawaii http://www.aaarjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1657/AAAR0014-095. The icecave was surveyed in 1978, and then rediscovered by the authors of this study in 2011. Extensive measurements between 2011 and 2014 are reported as follows in the abstract: âPerennial ice still blocks the lava tube at the terminal end, but a previously present large ice floor (estimated 260 m2) has disappeared. A secondary mineral deposited on the cave walls is interpreted as the result of past sustained ice levels.â
According to an article published in the 28 December 2015 issue of Hawaii News Now http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30842551/new-study-shows-massive-ice-loss-in-mauna-loa-ice-cave, a 1978 article published in the âLimestone Ledgerâ included a meticulous map of the 656-foot-long cave, and vital information about where permanent ice was found. But after reading the piece, the researchers quickly noticed something: The 1978 survey, which included photos, showed a contiguous, walkable ice floor (known as the âskating rinkâ) and large ice blocks. In contrast, the teamâs new survey of the cave showed far less permanent ice. The team said the âskating rinkâ was gone by the time they conducted their multi-year analysis. All of the former known ice blocks had melted away, too. And ice patches on the wall are now seasonal, rather than year-round. In short, the research team found that in three decades, much of the ice in the ice cave had disappeared.
A paper in the 4 January 2016 online issue of Nature Geoscience further illustrates the rapid rise of contemporary changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide compared to past events http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2627.html, even those long-thought to be characterized by rapid change. âDuring the Aptian Oceanic Anoxic Event 1a, about 120 million years ago, ⊠The rise of CO2 concentrations occurred over several tens to hundreds of thousand years.â Contrary to the notion that this event transpired very quickly, according to the lead author of the paper http://phys.org/news/2016-01-current-pace-environmental-unprecedented-earth.html: âThe change, however, appears to have been far slower than that of today, taking place over hundreds of thousands of years, rather than the centuries over which human activity is increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.â In other words, ârapidâ in the fossil record is nothing compared to today.
A paper in the 3 February 2016 issue of Nature finds a long-sought âsmoking gunâ with respect to carbon storage in the deep ocean. As it turns outs, carbon was stored in the depths of the Southern Ocean when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were quite low http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature16514.html. Further confirmation was published in the 9 May 2016 issue of Nature Communications http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160509/ncomms11487/full/ncomms11487.html: In the past 800,000 years of climate history, the transitions from interglacials and ice ages were always accompanied by a significant reduction in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. It then fell from 280 to 180 ppm (parts per million). Where this large amount of carbon dioxide went to and the processes through which the greenhouse gas reached the atmosphere again has been controversial. This paper reports a major carbon dioxide reservoir at a depth of 2000 to 4300 metres in the South Pacific and it reconstructs the details of its gas emission history.
Extinction Overview
If youâre too busy to read the evidence presented below, hereâs the bottom line: On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction (from Oliver Tickellâs 2008 synthesis in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange). Tickell is taking a conservative approach, considering humans have not been present at 3.3 C or more above baseline (i.e., the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, commonly accepted as 1750). I cannot imagine a scenario involving a rapid rise in global-average temperature and also retention of habitat for humans. Neither can Australian climate scholar Clive Hamilton, based on his 17 June 2014 response to Andrew Revkinâs fantasy-based hopium http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/. According to the World Bankâs 2012 report http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/11/17097815/turn-down-heat-4%C2%B0c-warmer-world-must-avoided, âTurn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoidedâ and an informed assessment http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/peak-oil-solved-climate-will-fry-bp-report of âBP Energy Outlook 2030 https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook-2015/bp-energy-outlook-booklet_2013.pdfâ put together by Barry Saxifrage for the Vancouver Observer, our path leads directly to the 4 C mark. The conservative International Energy Agency throws in the towel on avoiding 4 C in this video from June 2014
(check the 25-minute mark). The 19th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 19), held in November 2013 in Warsaw, Poland, was warned by professor of climatology Mark Maslin: âWe are already planning for a 4°C world because that is where we are heading. I do not know of any scientists who do not believe that.â Among well-regarded climate scientists who think a 4 C world is unavoidable, based solely on atmospheric carbon dioxide, is Cambridge Universityâs Professor of Ocean Physics and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics, Dr. Peter Wadhams (check the 51-second mark in this 8 August 2014 video
who says: ââŠthe carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere, which now exceeded 400 parts per million, is sufficient, if you donât add any more, to actually raise global temperatures in the end by about four degrees.â Adding to planetary misery is a paper in the 16 December 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesconcluding https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131216154851.htm that 4 C terminates the ability of Earthâs vegetation to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide. According to a story in the 6 December 2015 issue of the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html: âWith no government action, Exxon experts ⊠[said] average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.â
Iâm not sure what it means to plan for 4 C (aka extinction). Iâm not impressed that civilized scientists claim to be planning for it, either. But I know weâre human animals, and I know animals require habitat to survive. When there is no ability to grow food or secure water, humans will exit the planetary stage, as finally realized by the mainstream scientific community with a paper in the 2 October 2015 issue of Science: a stable food web was critical to the few species that survived the most severe mass extinction event in planetary history http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6256/90.abstract. Even 10-year-olds understand that climate change is poised to cause human extinction, as indicated in this short video
posted online 16 November 2015. And Wikipedia accepts the evidence for near-term human extinction, as indicated by the caption on the figure below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane.
Loading Image...
A 550ppm CO
2 level correlates to +9° C temperature rise, which was previously enough to trigger self-reinforcing climate change feedback loops leading to the Permian Extinction Event with 95% planetary die-off. Even more worrying is that current levels of atmospheric methane (>1820ppb) indicate near-term human extinction. According to Colin Goldblatt https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/globalwarming-armageddon-it-may-be-more-likely-than-you-thought-8736249.html, author of a paper published online in the 28 July 2013 issue of Nature Geoscience http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1892.html, âThe runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought.â Furthermore, as pointed out in the 1 August 2013 issue of Science https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142420.htm, in the near term Earthâs climate will change orders of magnitude faster than at any time during the last 65 million years. Tack on, without the large and growing number of self-reinforcing feedback loops weâve triggered recently, the 5 C rise in global-average temperature 55 million years ago during a span of 13 years http://phys.org/news/2013-10-climate-geological-instant.html (subsequently strongly supported by this paper in the 15 December 2014 online issue of Nature Geoscience http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n1/full/ngeo2316.htmland then questioned in this paper from January 2015 http://www.clim-past.net/11/95/2015/cp-11-95-2015.html, and it looks like trouble ahead for the wise ape. This conclusion ignores the long-lasting, incredibly powerful greenhouse gas discovered 9 December 2013 by University of Toronto researchers https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131209124101.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fearth_climate+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Earth+%26+Climate+News%29: Perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) is 7,100 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and it persists hundreds of years in the atmosphere. It also ignores the irreversible nature of climate change: Earthâs atmosphere will harbor, at minimum, the current warming potential of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for at least the next 1,000 years http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html, as indicated in the 28 January 2009 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full The marine situation is similarly catastrophic: The Guardianâs headline from 16 July 2015 screams: âWarming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientistsâ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/16/warming-of-oceans-due-to-climate-change-is-unstoppable-say-us-scientists in response to the annual State of the Climate in 2014 report http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2015BAMSStateoftheClimate.1. According to a paper published in the 3 August 2015 issue of Nature Climate Change: âCarbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere has been proposed as a measure for mitigating global warming and ocean acidification. ⊠Focusing on pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen, we find that even after several centuries of CDR deployment, past CO2 emissions would leave a substantial legacy in the marine environment.â In other words, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide, even if it were possible, would be insufficient to overcome the damage experienced by the ocean. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n12/full/nclimate2729.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_marine-chemistry
Finally, far too late, the New Yorker posits a relevant question on 5 November 2013: Is It Too Late to Prepare for Climate Change? http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/is-it-too-late-to-prepare-for-climate-change Joining the too-little, too-late gang, the Geological Society of London points out on 10 December 2013 https://geolsoc.org.uk/Policy-and-Media/Press-Releases/Earths-sensitivity-to-climate-change-could-be-double-previous-estimates-say-geologists that Earthâs climate could be twice as sensitive to atmospheric carbon as previously believed. New Scientist piles on in March 2014, pointing out https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25187-how-much-hotter-is-the-planet-going-to-get.html?full=true#.UycPgfldWSo that planetary warming is far more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration than indicated by past reports. As usual and expected, carbon dioxide emissions set a record again in 2013 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html, the 5th-hottest year on record (since 1850). Ditto for 2014 and 2015, the new hottest years on record. The previous top three hottest years (2010, 2005, and 2007) were influenced by El Niño events, which cause short-term warming of the Earthâs atmosphere.
Loading Image...
Rate of temperature change today (red) and in the PETM (blue). Temperature rose steadily in the PETM due to the slow release of greenhouse gas (around 2 billion tons per year). Today, fossil fuel burning is leading to 30 billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year, driving temperature up at an incredible rate. Figure from http://www.wunderground.com/cl imate/PETM.asp?MR=1 http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp?MR=1 Is There a Way Out?
All of the above information fails to include the excellent work by Tim Garrett, which points out that only complete collapse avoids runaway greenhouse http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/. Garrett reached the conclusion in a paper submitted in 2007 (personal communication) and published online by Climatic Change in November 2009 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-009-9717-9 (outcry from civilized scientists delayed formal publication until February 2011). The paper remains largely ignored by the scientific community, having been cited fewer than thirty times since its publication. Support for Garrettâs work finally came from the broader scientific community with a paper published in the 15 July 2015 online issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/14/1508353112. But then, a later response to Garrettâs work is the expected one, as elucidated by a paper in the 4 April 2016 issue of Nature Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2977.html: âThis highlights the importance of maintaining economic growth in a carbon-constrained world and reducing the cost of backstop measures, such as large-scale CO2 removal, in any ambitious consumption-maximizing strategy to limit peak warming.â
Garrett was preceded by Ted Turner. He pointed out on the 2 April 2008 edition of the Charlie Rose Show
that continuing to burn fossil fuels âis suicide.â
According to Yvo de Boer https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/kyoto-veterans-say-global-warming-goal-slipping-away.html, who was executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2009, when attempts to reach a deal at a summit in Copenhagen crumbled with a rift between industrialized and developing nations, âthe only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy.â Politicians finally have caught up with Tim Garrettâs excellent paper in Climatic Change.
. FW mail:
..In such a science-based and spiritual community as ours, where we have had decades of frustrating experience in attempting to have other scientists appreciate the Paradigm changing research that was peer published in scientific journals about Transcendental Meditation and the TM Siddhi's Program,
it is our hope that our professors and scientists, and community are willing and open minded enough to accept the validity of another Paradigm changing concept, that paradigm change being the imminent unstoppable near-term annihilation of the global human habitat based on copious volumes of peer-reviewed published research.
Paradigm Change: Runaway Global Climate
Arctic Ice Melt and the Paradigms Shift..
Interview with Conservation Biologist Dr. McPherson â Mankind Will Be Extinct in 8 Years or Less h https://www.youtube.com/embed/cw0AAsGaDg0?start=6&end=1078&version=3ttps://www.youtube.com/embed/Gh30Kx1o5lI?start=219&end=1426&version=3 https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gh30Kx1o5lI?start=219&end=1426&version=3
FW:
..here is a brief list of a few of the brilliant scientific minds of our time who totally agree with Dr. McPherson. I am sure some of these infamous scientists hold positions of credibility in your awareness.
Frank Fenner (June 2010) http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/about- us/honour-roll/frank-fenner http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/about-us/honour-roll/frank-fenner Malcolm Light (February 2012) Louise Leakey (July 2013) Richard Leakey (December 2013) Neil Dawes (August 2013 Sir Bob Geldorf (October 2013) Sam Carana (November 2013) John Feffer (April 2014) Noam Chomsky (June 2014) Larry Schwartz (July 2014) Ken Rose (July 2014) Jennifer Hynes (August 2014) Also
Paul Beckwith - Professor in climatology; working on Ph.D. in abrupt climate change (Department of Geography;
Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology) at University of Ottawa, Ontario.
Biologist Paul R. Ehrlich - Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and
president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology
Reply email: Governors and Sidhas who are not taking Super Radiance meditation as important because most of them have been ostracized and disillusioned by the movement. And many of those who havenât are not looking terribly healthy or sane.
With the Dome meditation attendance having fallen to be so low there is a serious questioning about the endurance of the Dome group meditation in Fairfield. This Wedsnesday meeting becomes an important way post in the journey of the meditating community in Fairfield, Iowa.
Subject. Communal Meeting this Weds.
Phoenix Rising Hall (Burlington and 3rd).
7:30 PM,
Maharishi Effect: Fact or Fiction?
David Orme-Johnson, PhD, a leading long-time scientific researcher in the Maharishi Effect, invites you.
FW email:
I don't feel climate change is (necessarily) scary. It can be sufficiently controlled mainly (not only) by higher Super-Radiance (SR) attendance.
My concern has to do with Movement Governors and Sidhas who are not taking SR as important as it is, not prioritizing it as much as they could. There is more power in SR than in the people doing the climate change, gmo, vaccinations, pharmaceuticals, and electromag, etc.
Takes a lot of integration to see through.
Archer Anangel wrote :
Yes there is some good science in meditation research, but seemingly there is not much.
Perhaps 1% of the studies meet the gold standard. So out of 700 studies you have seven that are really decent.
As the quality of the journal published in goes down, so does the quality of peer review. There are top-level scientists, mid-level scientists, and incompetent scientists.
So peer review is a check on quality only if you have good quality reviewers and statisticians to check the math. Really bad quality journals are pay for play, and you can get published even if the study is highly flawed, and the paper may not get any peer review.
Meditation studies are a niche market within the field of consciousness studies, and are typically associated with various religious-based movements which are not the best mental platforms on which to implement impartial research.
Because most of the meditation research is bad, the baby is getting thrown out with the bath water.
Climate science is much more advanced and there is wide consensus that climate change is a serious problem if you ignore politicians and political views. Science on meditation is far behind in getting the kind of consensus we have with climate change. It is the result of a bad approach, using science for marketing rather than knowledge.
Promoting bad science in the name of meditation is like offering rotten vegetables in the market. If we like meditation and it benefits us, that does not give us the ability to evaluate the science. Subjective experience and emotion and the results of scientific experiments are often at odds.
The best we can say now is meditation looks promising but more research is needed. It is when non-meditating scientists in droves come into the consensual fold that meditation is good for something, then is the point when the case can be made.
This is not cynicism, this is the state of affairs. Meditation is great. It is for self-realization. If you are doing meditation for some other reason, you are already halfway to failure. Blame it on Western culture which does not have a good social underpinning for this kind of practice.
Actually there is some lot of good science in it, meditation. Peer review. What? Like the global climate science, what, 'all the science is no good because some of the science is no good'?
That is what the cynicism offers. That one title said that way in that journal is certainly evil,âThrow it all out because some is bad, poorly doneâ. This and someone saying it sounds so rational and intellectual except, like tossing in a Trumpism, the underlying assertion is simply not entirely true, a fake news headline in itself.
Archer Angel writes,
It is great that there is an attempt to do research on TM, but TM and other forms of meditation has a very poor record as far as quality scientific papers, as this summary in Scientific American indicates.
Meditation is essentially for self-realization/enlightenment. Promoting it for heath and societal effects so far has not set the scientific world on fire.
It does seem to impress people who know little about the nature of scientific research and who seem unable to grasp the difference between a scientific study and what they want to believe.
I think people benefit from meditation, but it is still not clear scientifically what it does.
Paste:
Compelling and Activating,
the evident science research comes now also as Clarion call in life policy to meditators to come together in meditation practice of transcendence in groups and change the catastrophic future of mankind into Heaven on Earth. Everyday matters.
A:
It is a fair descriptor, exponential. Graphs of so many of the variables within the long differential equation of rapid climate change show exponential growth, not just some linear changes since the 1870 baseline of the industrial age.. Coal burning, oil burning for internal combustion power, introduction of exotic greenhouse gases, melt off of polar ice caps, chopping down rainforests for palm oil production,
These are exponential peer review variable in a long equation that some would want to wait on more and do nothing..(claiming untested assumptions?) for more research? The person writing email also makes a good human observation in expression about the limited capacity of some folks to think their denial and inaction about this complex compounded problem in only linear ways. I feel the conservation biologists are doing a good job of having a rational conversation about this now in heightening awareness of something very complex that evidently can overwhelm a lot of peopleâs thinking.
Archer Angel asks:
Q: What is "exponential science"? I have never heard of it.
Mail: I have yet to find any scientist who understands exponential science, and who has an expanded consciousness capable of comprehending holistic events provide valid peer-reviewed scientific arguments contrary to McPherson's observations.
email: ..members of Mother Divine and to Members of Purusha and every person who was close to Maharishi (MMY) confided in us that foretold that the impending phase-transition from Kali-Yuga into full blown Sat-Yuga would occur between 2020 and 2025 at which time MMY said that chaos would reign in the streets of the world like a living nightmare too horrible to describe. Oddly enough, MMY's predictions seem to coincide in time-space with Dr. McPherson's which in my mind provides a valence of creedence to McPherson's predicted time-frame.
reply email: Good luck to any serious, rational, science-based person trying to debunk the science now! There are more peer-reviewed journal hot links than one could click on and read through in a week!
P.S. The 69 Self-Reinforcing Climate Feedback Loops all with hot links start about half-way down the essay.
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/ https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
wrote :
Maharishi would host/promote symposia to consider matters. Inviting speakers and papers. Conversation. Consideration.
Radical Change is happening Now: Rapid Climate Change
This needs wider platform for consideration.
Think of the papers that could be given, the titles..
A Conference program, published.. Presentations, Presenters...
Radical Transcendentalism, Phenomenology and Rapid Climate Change.
Iowa Farming and Carbon sequestration
Greenhouse Agriculture in a Hot House
Public Policy and Transportation
Earth Science
Architecture and Global Warming. Designing for a warmer future.
Civil Order in a Changing World.
Global Economies and Meteorology, Changes in Iowa
etc.,
.a same kind of anti-science discredit they try to pull on meditation research.
..
FW: emails:
reply: Yes, we know that the majority of scientists disagree with Dr. McPherson.
This does not surprise us since we know that precious few if any scientists ever accepted Maharishi's scientific work yet we all know the validity of that body of evidence. I encourage you to do some personal research by peer reviewed published scientific research before you accept the unsubstantiated conclusions of others less informed and certainly less validated in their opinions .
It is one thing to disagree with Dr. McPherson's hypothesis it is quite another to refute the peer reviewed and published scientific papers underlying his position.
"Three years to safeguard our climate" http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2017-07-02-three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate.html http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2017-07-02-three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate.html
"..all in one summary essay on conservation biologist Dr. Guy McPherson's website, including links for 69 individual runaway feedback loops. This is the Clarion call for transcendence meditators to come together in groups and change the catastrophic future of mankind into Heaven on Earth. Everyday matters.
https://guymcpherson.com/ climate-chaos/climate-change- summary-and-update/ https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
P.S. The 69 Self-Reinforcing Feedback Loops all with hot links to the peer review research start about half-way down the essay."
FW: Paradigm Change..the last week in May atmospheric scientists at: http://www.copernicus.eu/ http://www.copernicus.eu/ reported a huge albeit temporary spike in Methane gas release in the northern hemisphere. This indicated to us that we may not even have 1-3 years before the 'preverbal SHIT hits the fan' as Dr. McPherson so aptly referred to what is about to unfold.
FW email: "..Finally we must inspire and motivate those present that collective consciousness can and must alter this apparent scientific inevitability of climate change. Now is the final call for our consciousness based community to rally together in large groups to routinely do their meditation practices."
An Irony is that climate change peer review science and meditation peer review science are both met with the same strategies of character assassination, assertions by false truth, posing doubt about the economy being able to afford remediation and skepticisms sown about science in whether correlation means causation. In the same way that the scientists of meditation have known the hateful works of the deniers the same strategies carried out by the same kind of anti-science people and ideologies the meditation scientists can have a lot of empathy for climate change scientists by shared experience.
Public Policy should be driven by Science. Considering the science of climate change and science of meditation it is worth making a stand in human life.
"Live urgently: meditate now! The end is plainly very near!"
We can contribute spirituality in to the rational consideration of of the consequent of Arctic Ice Melt.
Considering Human life brings up spirituality right away.
Such overwhelming fatalism like the climate science gives will bring
the push back of materialistic nihilism. Spirituality then as we know it in our
meditational experience is the antidote to all that of 'nothing of purpose' and
materialistic thinking.
The meditating community has its work cut out for it with the
reaction to the stark climate research. The argument is rational.
https://guymcpherson.com/2018/05/nihilism-nonsense/ https://guymcpherson.com/2018/05/nihilism-nonsense/
"Doom sayers"? Not entirely, some scientists are quite rational and spiritual. We see the same kind of anti-science character discredit with the climate peer review science that establishment ideologies try to pull on meditation peer review science research.
Yes, Prof. Guy McPherson's peer review based earth science just may not be rationally fluent with the spiritual side of the science like the broader meditation peer review research offers.
He has responded positively to an invitation to come to a climate change a conference symposium at Maharishi University of Management to consider related matters. He seems an extremely compassionate rational guy who ought to be part of a conversation about public policy.
These doom sayers are forgetting the Almighty Power of Being which is the source of life, love and the bliss for sentient beings in the entire universe or multiverse. They've limited their view based on frail human understanding and intelligence.
.
