This video is just shy of 20 minutes but well worth the time to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upjwsf2FnG0
Truly I would, but don't know how to cram the totality of what happens in the world of trucking/warehousing/transportation into a nugget of info that makes sense. Each operation is different, and each has to achieve the same result - fresh produce to the frozen north in the dead of winter is not the same as dry goods to the southeast in fall. Its a grimy, unpleasant world mostly - so when someone you love proclaims to want to marry a trucker, smack it out of them (thats a joke). I think people see a shiny truck all polished up and think, thats trucking. Like how they see a farmer in a pretty green john deere tractor and think, thats farming. In all reality, those images are just images. I'm rambling, I don't know where to begin - I really don't. I guess transportation as we know it will change from tranporting things we want to things we need to finally some things we need and then…? Sorry, this is a waste of your time and mine. Its a broken industry that largely and sporadically pretends to be about professionalism and safety - its about cheap freight, and all that goes with that.
I appreciate all the perspectives that have been expressed on this thread. I'm in the midst of my attempt to go on my usual summer technology hiatus (turn off all technology - internet, cell phone, computer, etc.), but I haven't been too successful. I've definitely cut my use by about 80%, but then I have the urge to see what the newest article/podcast is and then threads like this suck me in. If only our mainstream media could express so many different viewpoints. It's a wonderful testament to this site.
Mark, congratulations on a wonderful podcast. You've devoted a lot of your professional and personal time to this site, and although I don't post much on your PP thread, I read most of it. Thank you so much for all you do.
Stan, Sofistek, Doug, Eric… Your debates on the issues are important and bring forth new contexts.
Arthur, your perspective is, well… always unique, and much appreciated.
Jan, you are forever the voice of reason and respect.
Yogi and Treemagnet, you keep it real, practical, and down at dirt level. So important!
Treebeard, thank you for bringing every issue back to the communal heart, where our spirit lies.
Jdye51, left brain and right brain is so true. I could only smile when I read Stan's post 48, the stark difference between LB/RB.
Chris and Adam (and all who work at PP), you carry a mighty torch! …hope the Kripalu session went well.
Anyone I've left out, all the diversity of your perspectives is what I appreciate. We may not agree with each other, but the dialogue is meaningful.
Okay, now I'm going to try and turn off the computer, go down to the river behind our house with my daughter, take a swim, and try to be one with nature!
Just wanted to voice my appreciation. Great thread!
Hey treemagnet,I get your drift and I had to laugh at smacking someone who wants to marry a trucker. My sister is married to a trucker, and he is one of the best people I know! He delivers beer for Labatt's Brewery, so he is much loved by everyone But for sure I can relate to what you say about people's perceptions.
You are so right about the complexity of the transportation system and I get that. Also that it is broken. I can empathize with you in that I think that all of this talk of climate change, reducing emissions, and so on is a real and direct threat to your way of life - how you make your living and provide for your family. So you are allowed to be angry. I would be too if I was in your position.
Like many I wish I could wave my magic wand and make it all go away. But you and I both know that is not going to happen, so we have to do the next best thing, which is to do what we can to effect change at our own levels, in whatever capacity that may be.
Gotta run…
Jan
[quote=treebeard]One of my favorite philosphers said once that if you are thinking you are already confused. The truth is perceived not reasoned. Plato's cave is for the rational mind and its limitations. If any explanation is necessary then none will do, if no explanation is necessary, than any will do.
[/quote]
I think someone here needs to be hit with the Keisaku. Lip Zen has no business in this discussion. Science is a tool, not a religion.
Can we please talk about climate change and what one can do to prepare for its possible consequences?
Mark,
Thank you for the presentation. I'm still a skeptic, but have a better understanding of the potential. Too many of the sky is falling (heating?) crowd have presented it as a singular and linear problem. If I correctly understand your presentation, it is multi faceted, and non linear.
Which brings me to an unresolved question in my simple linear brain… With the apparent heating that is taking place, there has to be an H2O phase transformation. What impact with the phase change have on the total atmospheric energy?
There is a Coursera Course on Climate Change that starts on Aug. 12th. It's free, and I think these things are fun. This one is out of Austrailia, so it should be free from our media bias in the U.S. For a person with no scientific training like myself, it should be informative.
In my other classes the forums have been very interesting. If nothing else, you could start your own threads to get a conversation going. In two of my classes there were over 10,000 students participating, so you would have a wide audience from all over the world.
I am in no way associated with Coursera, except that I am taking three classes right now.
Rob made a point that I think is worth repeating: i.e. how we are all so embedded in the system we are currently living in and how difficult it is to change that due to inertia, denial and structural issues. Billions of people have never even heard of the phrases climate change or peak oil. Governments are too invested in the status quo and too broke to do anything of real significance. How much can be done on a local level that will make a big enough difference when the rest of the world continues business as usual? Earthquakes kill in China because of shoddily built buildings. They fall, people die, and new shoddy buildings are built in their place. Increasing water and food scarcity results in more violence and destruction. Economic collapse means less money for infrustructure upkeep and more failed systems which means more dead people, particularly when the next Sandys hit with increasing frequency. Cities are going bankrupt and cutting police and fire services. Look at any aspect of modern life and you will see the cracks widening. As Tony said, big changes are needed right now and what will get us to make those changes?
I'm not particularly optimistic either because of the staggering numbers of serious problems we face without the will to face them. We can't change that which we don't acknowledge. Everything - everything must be demolished if we are to have a chance. Industrial civilzation must fall. It's all connected, so it all has to unravel. Oil underlies everything we do. The world, especially the developed countries, are hostage to it. Without enough of it/too high a price, systems will fail right and left and the consquences will be famine, strife, and the general breakdown of society. This is radical and life altering. Then there is the tick tock of climage change and environmental degredation closing the noose even tighter. We're looking at cascades of failure on a gigantic scale.
You see, we are so captured and blinded by normalcy we can't begin to imagine these things actually happening. But that is our inexorable path at present. Things are breaking down. Too many things at once. And too many of us are oblivious or in denial. The reality and magnitude of our predicament is not easily grasped. Our imagination fails us and we fall back on familiar coping mechanisms. We here at PP have been able to allow in enough of this awareness to be alarmed and to make moves to adjust our lifestyles however we are able to. Even so, IMO there is still a certain level of denial here. Understandable when contemplating the end of everything we know. (Some denial can be a good thing when it allows us to carry on and function.) One thing I know from working with clients, is that reality is hard to face. But a surprising thing happens when we do. The energy shifts in a more positive direction. So far, there hasn't been such an acknowledgement by a sufficiently large number of people for the energy to shift on a global scale. We tend to compartmentalize and focus on one thing at a time when the problems are systemic and need simultaneous action.
Facing reality doesn't mean giving up. It doesn't mean giving in to despair. But it has to happen before change is possible. More and more of us need to speak the truth - to ourselves and others. That's not easy to do. People push back, find fault, denigrate, attack because reality is too frightening to them and they have so much invested in prolonging the status quo.
These are interesting times to live in. I wonder how it will all turn out.
Joyce
Gillbilly,Thank you for articulating the great benefit of the quality and diversity of viewpoints for this discussion. It is great to have real discussions about real issues where disagreement doesn't necessarily mean being disagreeable. We depend on each other more than we know.
One life experience that has stuck with me is the years I spent out at sea in a submarine. Talk about social experiments. Stick 170 people from all sorts of backgrounds in a metal can without sunlight or communications with the outside world for months. Add in long hours of work, tedium, danger, lack of privacy and psychological games as a sport, mix with nuclear missiles and a reactor, and wait for the fun to develop. Being stuck living more closely with people I didn't know and sometimes couldn't stand than anyone in my own family was a lesson in tolerance. Everyone's lives depended on everyone doing the right things at the right times, especially when things went wrong (and they did!). You didn't have to like someone to learn to depend upon and respect them.
The point of this digression is that we are all sailing together on the good ship Earth. We need to stop thinking of 'us' and 'them'. The economic, energy, and environmental problems are all holes in the hull of the current social paradigm. When the water is coming in you better start bailing/pumping. Don't wait for everyone else to wake up before you start. They'll be bailing alongside of you soon enough. Saying that 'we' aren't going to bail if 'they' don't start bailing too, while the only ship we all have to live on is sinking is beyond foolish. Grab anything you can from a bucket to a teacup (depending on your individual means) and lend a hand. As friends and family awaken, hand them a pail.
It may seem a hopeless task but the point is not to save our current society, it is to keep things afloat long enough for us to make the transition to a more sustainable way of living in concert with the rest of life on our planet.
Mark
I love the dude. He's a Brother, to all causes of fairness and justice. Forgive me Gillbilly for being so nice.
Phecksel,A very good question. As the atmosphere warms it is able to hold more water (as per the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). Heat evaporates water, water vapor rises and condenses to form clouds and then rain/snow. What this means is that all of the energy needed to evaporate the water gets released into the atmosphere at the height and location of the water condensation imparting the heat at that location.
Water vapor in the atmosphere increases by 6-7.5% for every 1 C increase in atmospheric temperature. So far we've warmed about 0.8 C (with another 0.8 C already unavoidable). The atmosphere holds about 12,900 cubic kilometers (3,100 cubic miles) of water, so we have added about 722 cubic kilometers (174 cu/mi) of water to the atmosphere. That makes 7.22e+11 kg of water and 1.622 exajoules of extra energy bouncing around the atmosphere. The key thing to keep in mind is that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas too. What this means is that for every 1 C of forcing we get from increased CO2, we get another 1 C of warming from increased water vapor that goes into the atmosphere. Additional feedbacks (methane, albedo) may add up to another 1 C of forcing.
The second major phase change going on is that global warming is causing glaciers around the planet and the Arctic sea ice to melt. Glaciers are losing about 300 billion tons of ice a year and that rate is going up each year. That means that the past ice ages are providing an energy sink of about 100 petajoules per year that is slowing global warming but increasing sea levels. The loss of glaciers and especially the loss of Arctic sea ice is changing the albedo (shininess) of the planet. What this means is that less sunlight gets reflected off snow/ice and more gets converted to heat in the oceans and land. This means faster warming. For the Arctic:
During the first two weeks of July, ice extent declined at a rate of 132,000 square kilometers (51,000 square miles) per day. This was 61% faster than the average rate of decline over the period 1981 to 2010 of 82,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) per day. (source)The sea ice is not bouncing back each year as it would in a stable climate. If it were stable the monthly lines on the figure below would form concentric circles. We are now spiraling toward ice fee Arctic summers in the near future. Mark
Adding to the complexity, suspending that water vapor, will use up some of that excess energy, which in my uneducated opinion, will lead to higher propensity for larger storms.
Which brings up another question, after 911, aircrafts were grounded. Some post 911 environmental studies I've seen have suggested aircraft have a greater environmental impact then previously thought. During those few days, it was suggested nights were cooler and days hotter with the clear skies. I remember how blue the sky was, in that I hadn't remembered it being that blue before.
Phecksel,
Something that attaches to Mark's point about the amount of Water Vapor per 1 degree celsius is that the atmosphere has standard rates of lapse (Adiabatic Lapse Rates) which at standard is 1 degrees celsius per every 100m or ~6 degree F per 1000'.
This rate corresponds to atmospheric stability, and an atmosphere that warms with height will be more 'stable', leading to stratiform cloud formation, whereas cooling with height will lead to a more unstable or conditionally unstable atmosphere.
Suspension of water vapor in and of itself won't actually lead to storms, unless there's a lifting mechanism (either terrain induced, or by way of surface confluence/upper level diffluence or thermal convection). In addition, there needs to be a mid level wind gradient to act as exhaust for any developing storm.
So, in order to have any storm develop, you need Moisture, Instability, Lifting mechanism and Exhaust.
More water vapor in the mid levels without very strong convection or exhaust is going to actually inhibit storm development (cyclogenesis) by creating mass over the updraft core of the storm, which actually would cause it to be choked and would eventually lead to a loss of development.
So, surface based water vapor with strong winds and high temperatures are generally to blame. Warm (and therefore saturated) mid level atmosphere generally just leads to fair weather clouds. Updrafts are generally less dense (just like buoyancy) and then freeze as they reach the higher mid level and upper level atmosphere, which forces condesation and the exhaust mechanism allows them to develop vertically, while the water at higher elevations develops into clouds.
As to severity, that's generally a measure of damaging winds and hail. Hail is the result of a strong updraft and a low freezing level (typically around 1000'). Winds can be caused by a number of things, but a strong thermal gradient is generally to blame.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/
Check that link for lots of good information for Meteorology. Jeff Haby has taught me a lot over the years.
Cheers,
Aaron
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/climate-change-and-species-extinction_b_3644578.html#es_share_ended
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/arctic-methane-climate-change_n_3643917.html
The first article talks about the coming extinction of the Iberian lynx as well as the increasing rate of extinction in general. The second article talks about the global economic impact of climate change.
My last post on this thread was pretty dark. I know there are some who will disagree that things are all that bad. My concern is that, as the natural systems we rely on alter and fail, the effects will be unpredictable and may be beyond our ability to adapt. I just read a little on the permaculture thread here and saw that some people are noticing the need to adjust plantings because of different weather patterns brought on by the recent change in the jet stream. As we continue to pour excess carbon (and methane) into our atmosphere, the climate will become even more variable. Changes are occuring faster than was predicted with a .8 C increase. Some climate scientists are saying we could see an increase of 4-5 C by the end of the century. Even if it is less than that, it is entirely new territory for the flora and fauna on the planet. Adaptations that normally take millions of years would need to happen in decades.
I find it hard to speak about these things. I struggle with whether to bring it up even here. No one wants to contemplate a future so radically different and hostile to life. It's an alarming picture based on all that I've read not only about the environment but the general state of things. Book after book, article after article highlight bits of the larger picture. When I connect those pieces together, what I see is that we are in deep trouble. Is it me? Am I overreacting? Have I put the pieces together incorrectly? Are things really as bad as they appear to be?
My gut says yes, things are as bad as that or more. My intellect says there are so many parts to the whole, how can anyone really know? The right brain doesn't have language and communicates differently. Is it speaking to me with these strong feelings of urgency and alarm? Is what it says any less important to listen to?
What does your gut say? Seriously. I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to PM me or write here.
Thanks,
Joyce
Joyce,I have read enough to know well the dark paths you may have been wandering. This like many things is just plain overwhelming when we consider it. How do you begin to contemplate changing everything about the way we live? There are so many things that may happen, how do we plan for them? We are left feeling dread like a child who just broke something at home, and is left waiting for Mom or Dad to come home and punish them.
The climate changes that we face are hostile to the status quo of living organisms but not hostile to life, per se. Everything has to change, and a lot of species will suffer the consequences but big changes have happened several times before. Life is not in question, our current way of living is. We have no idea of what we have been messing with or the effect that it is already having in our lives but our fears can be as bad as our ignorance.
Not knowing what will come is not the same as not being able to deal with it once it arrives. I agree with your gut, things are bad on many levels. This is why I am changing my life in many ways and trying to prepare my family to be more resilient to instability of any sort. Am I there? Not even close. Just trying to get a little closer each day.
There are plenty of things in this world that you can't possibly contemplate dealing with (serious injury or illness, death of loved ones etc) but that you survive nonetheless. You would never choose to experience them but once you are faced with the situation, you just have to muddle through. Looking ahead and following your gut instinct that the future is not likely to be as rosy as we have been led to believe is good. It provides us with an opportunity to make changes and preparations that may shift the odds in our favor however slightly. We need to concentrate on what we can do, not so much on what we cannot control. We also need to work on our muddling skills!
Mark
Joyce,
Like you, I find very little, in terms of science based information, to counter the tide of bad news about our environment and find very little comfort in how societies are dealing with that tide (because I see no effective actions). As Mark said, all most of us can do is inch ourselves and our families towards being in a better position to deal with whatever is coming. In the worst situation, we won't be able to deal with it but no-one knows how the future will pan out, so building in more self-reliance and resilience to your life still seems like a good idea to me.
Tony
Just tossing my thoughts in on this…
Echoing what Dr. Cochrane said, this process isn't going to snuff life as we know it. It's a trend that has developed more rapidly than it would have with growth alone, due to the insane amount of fossil fuels which allowed runaway population growth within our species.
To be concerned for loss of human life at this point is almost futile, as it's a foregone conclusion. There's literally no way that this rate of growth can continue for much longer without some sort of radical innovation, discovery or development, and that seems increasingly unlikely, as the scientific community has high-graded most of the technology that has allowed our population to increase 'vaccus periculum'.
So the question (for me) has shifted over the last few years from:
"Should I worry about a collapse, uncertainty and a large scale loss of life/habitat?"
To…
"How can I best insulate my self, family, people and future generations from the impending Neo-Malthusian Catastrophe?"
Does Climate Change influence this? You bet. It will undoubtably make growing seasons more challenging, make water cycles less predictable and droughts and the associated famines more regular. It's tantamount to a colony of bacteria infecting a host. When the host catches a fever, the bacterias' population levels drop to non-threatening levels and the host resumes normal function.
We're just talking about a MUCH larger host, and a tremendously aggressive parasite.
However, the "feast then famine" cycles that occur in nature (such as a whale carcass hitting the ocean floor, which stimulates an explosion of life, which dies off significantly when the carcass is consumed) apply to us as well, and the more rapidly we deplete our energy source (see: oil) the faster we will reduce our numbers.
The mechanisms that I believe will impact us will be far more "immediate" than Climate Change. This equation has the potential for war on overwhelming proportions, civil strife and loss of life through disease, starvation and drought on a truly epic scale. Never before has mankind looked over the rim of such a steep cliff, and never before in such tremendous numbers. As space on that cliff face begins shrinking, lots of people will be pushed off. That's just biology, and history is very clear on what happens during periods of drastic shortage…
Best thing we can do is size up the cliff from a distance and get as far from it as possible when the pushing starts.
Cheers,
Aaron
Aaron,Ultimately it won't matter what provides the spark but climate change keeps adding fuel to the potential fires for war all over the world. Whether through food insecurity and rising prices, water availability, floods, or rising sea levels the stress levels are increasing year by year. Perhaps some future historian will be able to postulate on the ultimate place of climate change in the geopolitical struggles of this century but there is a lot of thought going into this issue for national and global security right now.
Climate change is no longer the sole province of scientists or environmental activists. What is the top security issue in the Pacific theater? North Korea? China? This year the commander of U.S. forces Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III cited climate change as being the top threat.
Commander of U.S. Forces Pacific: Climate change is top threat Locklear commented that “People are surprised sometimes” that he highlights climate change — despite an ability to discuss a wide-range of threats, from cyber-war to the North Koreans. However, it is the risks — from natural disasters to long-term sea-level rise threats to Pacific nations that has his deepest attention.Admiral Locklear is hardly alone in his thinking. This has been increasingly raised in a national security context in the U.S.“You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”Climate Change merits national security — military — attention for very pragmatic reasons.The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”And, Admiral Locklear is now — almost certainly with Joint Chiefs of Staff and Office of Secretary of Defense knowledge and support — taking this up seriously with other nations.“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’
U.S. Military Prepares for Global Unrest Amid Climate Fears In 2007, CNA, a Pentagon-funded think tank that conducts in-depth research and analysis, released a report from a panel of retired senior military officers and national security experts who predicted that extreme weather events prompted by climate shifts could disrupt the U.S. way of life and cause already weak governments to fall, particularly in many Asian, African and Middle Eastern nations where marginal living standards already exist.Since this came out in 2007, it proved rather prescient " given the subsequent 'Arab Spring' which was sparked by rising food prices. Why did they happen? Many reasons, climate changes being a significant element among them. Then you have the statements by former deputy secretary of defense Sherri Goodman and retired Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army General Gordon Sullivan.
Climate change is ‘threat multiplier’ While the fact of climate change might be fodder for political debate, it is widely accepted across the national security community, which focuses keenly on reducing risk and preserving freedom. The CNA Military Advisory Board — a panel of our nation’s highest-ranking retired military leaders — has identified climate change as a “threat multiplier” because it can exacerbate political instability in the world’s most dangerous regions. Droughts, floods, food and water shortages and extreme weather can uproot communities, cause humanitarian crises and increase the chances of armed conflict. We believe these conditions make it more likely that U.S. troops will be sent into harm’s way — and the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review, the National Intelligence Estimates and the National Security Strategy agree. We saw the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy — families without water, power and shelter. Superimpose on that kind of situation an already fragile political state, and you have a recipe for failed states and civil war. This is what the U.S. military is bracing for. That is why we are already actively engaged in planning against it. Just as sensible people plan ahead to minimize the damage from weather disasters, our nation must take precautions to reduce the risks of climate change.The list goes on but you get the picture. We often think of conflicts such as Israel and Syria or India and Pakistan in terms of religious or social conflict terms but they are largely resource driven conflicts. The resource in both cases being water. With populations rising and water availability decreasing in these regions we have a recipe for all sorts of unpleasantness. Mark
Mark,
Most definitely. That's what makes this situation special, in terms of it's overall potential.
We're dealing with a trifecta of:
- A global economy based entirely on the consumption of oil.
- A global environment heavily impacted by the growth and continued use of population and oil.
- A global socio-economic landscape that requires that cheap oil is continually available, used and in constant demand.
It's a "checkmate" in the style of our financial structure. It's also amazing that we've built this right into the very foundation of our society… a system that is forced to grow and consume more, struggling against a resource who's supply doesn't regenerate fast enough to keep pace with demand and an environment that can't tolerate its excessive use.
I view the climate changes as the backdrop on which all other aspects and components of a systemic failure exist. It is the warning gauge that warns us that whatever's going on is causing a problem.
The Navy in particular (and I hate giving them credit) is light years ahead of the other branches of service and government with regards to resource depletion and peak oil. It doesn't surprise me at all that they're already tracking AGW as a serious concern, and overall strategic net loss.
The quote from the "threat multiplier" article here:
"We saw the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy — families without water, power and shelter. Superimpose on that kind of situation an already fragile political state, and you have a recipe for failed states and civil war. This is what the U.S. military is bracing for. That is why we are already actively engaged in planning against it. Just as sensible people plan ahead to minimize the damage from weather disasters, our nation must take precautions to reduce the risks of climate change."
Is exactly why I feel like the academic banter is a waste of time. It's a threat.
Asking "How much of a threat?" is a responsible academic and theoretical exercise, but it's not what you ask when the threat is pounding your head into the tarmac. Finding a way to avoid, or minimize the damages is where we should be, and I for one, don't see any good reason not to maintain our habitat. That's just common sense (or what passed for common sense when I was a kid).
Cheers,
Aaron