This US summer is 'what global warming looks like'

[al bupp]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - If you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, scientists suggest taking a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks.

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.

...

So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120703/D9VP9J681.html

[neohippie]

1. Global Warming is confusing to some people especially in the South

Climate Change, is a more fitting description becuase, when Winter comes, and southern cities get snow, people all begin chiming in, about how can there be global warming when we are having colder winters, but climate change, describes more extremem weather, hotter summers, colder winters, extreme storms, etc....


This is just my two cents, but I keep having to explain to people that global warming doesnt necessarily mean milder winters and comfortable weather like the tropics, all year round

[leftyohiolib]

3. cause and effect-global warming is causing climate change

untill the planet heats up enough to trigger an ice age

[caseymoz]

44. Which might happen.

The real worry with Global Warming is not what's going to happen in the next century. We're releasing carbon that hasn't been in the atmosphere for 300 million years, which in turn is causing other greenhouse gases to get released.

The real problem is that previous checks against runaway warming might not be enough. Instead, the warming might end up with the earth looking like Venus, which is 800 degrees in the shade on average, and the entire planet is shady due to the cloud cover.

In other words, there's a chance that we really are killing the planet, for all life. We won't see it in our lifetime, but give it another 500 years.

[dixiegrrrrl]

109. 800 degrees..damn, that will make my hair impossible to manage.

[randome]

110. A more horrible case of split ends than you can possibly imagine!

[AverageJoe90]

115. Sorry, but real climate scientists have totally debunked the 'Earth turning into Venus' baloney.

I don't doubt this planet is in serious trouble, and it's likely to get quite a bit worse over the years, but Earth turning into Venus, Mark II? C'mon, you gotta be joking. I know you meant no harm but these kinds of extreme theoretical beyond-worst-case scenarios aren't helping us. What we need, more than ever, are to keep releasing cold hard facts.

[caseymoz]

117. Worst case scenario.

Of course, scientists aren't contemplating it yet, mainly because they're studying the more immediate effects of Global Warming. However, this doesn't mean they've debunked it. I really would like you to cite the paper that does, much less does totally.

Now, I never meant it could happen immediately, or even within a thousand years. I would say it would take thousands of years of screwing up to activate it and tens or hundreds of thousands of years for the earth to reach the state where life can't survive. Nevertheless, it can happen. That is to say, the odds are somewhere better than one in ten thousand. It can be triggered but only if humankind keeps producing prodigious amounts of greenhouse gases way into the future.

I'll tell you the truth, the way things are going, it looks like nothing substantial will ever be done to alleviate the problem. However, current trends are also not evidence of continuing trends into the future.

The earth has to end some way. We should take a hint from our cosmic neighborhood. Our one sister planet, Mars, has been pulverized by collisions. Venus has been sterilized by a runaway greenhouse effect. If you ask me, those are the best guess for the two biggest threats to our planet.

In the Cold War, it was always possible that we'd blow the world up. In fact three times at least, we almost did. I think it's absolutely healthy to keep in mind that it's possibility of catastrophic screw-up is always there, without sensationalizing it. So, I add runaway greenhouse effect to the possible outcomes.

Is it likely? I agree, no. Nowhere near as likely as blowing ourselves up in nuclear holocaust.

[AverageJoe90]

120. Venus's plates became locked in place at some point, and have stayed that way. (On the other hand..)

That was one of main contributions to Venus becoming a baking hell-hole if it ever was anything else.......

(In any case, I don't doubt we will be in terrible trouble, though, and who knows? This planet might end up becoming one big old musty jungle in a few thousand years, possibly, with runaway warming and nothing being done to stop it at all. )

[AverageJoe90]

116. I can vaguely recall a documentary that ran on an Austin, TX area indie station back in '96 or so...

.....with this same premise. I believe the program was called 'Alternative Views', and many of their shows are now available to download for free on the Archive.org site.....though I've forgotten the name of the documentary at the moment.

[nobodyspecial]

5. I agree

I'm not sure what drives the word choice for the media, but climate change makes it less confusing.

[al bupp]

6. I agree, "climate change" is a much better name

Although the "warming" title aptly describes the basic symptom, it also confuses, especially when warmer temperatures lead to increased moisture in the air, and in winter, more snow.

[Rozlee]

11. If by South, you mean all those Cletus teabaggers and their misspelled signs,

then I totally agree. And the theories they come up with. Example: "Even if there is global warming, we can stop it by putting more smog in the air to keep most of the sun's rays from reaching us and making the planet hotter." This sage advice was greeted with much nodding by others in this optimist's clique. It's hard to get through to people when they don't even know what global climate change is. When teabaggers complain that schools nowadays aren't as good as they were in their day, I feel like putting my face in my hands and weeping.

[JoeyT]

34. Yep.

The same dipshits screeching at three days of slightly cold weather never seem to chime in when it's 90 at Xmas time or when it's a hundred and five and hasn't rained for six months.

[caseymoz]

42. Why should it be confusing anybody?

Just tell them that record highs are being set at four times the rate of record lows. That should straighten them out.

You might add that more heat means more energy for storms and more water vapor, also for storms.

[progressoid]

101. Yep-increased flooding, droughts, tornadoes, etc

it's all related to a warming globe.

[Auggie]

2. Still to come: famine.

We haven't seen anything yet.

[leftyohiolib]

4. and with famine will come horrible disease

[RC]

7. as the Earth gears up to eradicate a parasite.

It will know better next time, not to allow any creature to cause so much wide spread and long lasting damage to the only home it can ever have.
We have totally upset the natural balance, all but totally oblivious to causing our own destruction, as we rush head long to our extinction.

[Odin2005]

13. Wow, wishing suffering on others and calling them parasites? Disgusting!

[stockholmer]

22. +100000, it is that type of Malthusian anti-humanistic rhetoric from absolute extremists in the

environmental debate that destroys any hope gaining a majority consensus to do something positive.

I second your

[Odin2005]

23. I often ask these types why they haven't offed themselves yet.

[slackmaster]

24. They're really cowards, afraid to suck it up and go out and get a job

[leftynyc]

27. Agree with you both

Extremists suck - no matter what they are defending.

[GaYellowDawg]

41. +100000 to you. Right on the money.

Anti-humanistic rhetoric. That's a great way of putting it. I think the people who engage in it are the same personality types as religous fundamentalists. Look at the similarities - everyone except for me and my little cadre of people with identical views is evil, all the evil people don't deserve to live, all the evil people will get theirs someday while I and my crowd grimly laugh at them, etc., etc. Perhaps we should call them gaiafundamentalists.

[antigone382]

79. Well, I wouldn't put our collective failure to take action on their shoulders.

I find the "humans are parasites and should all die" mentality distasteful to say the least, and notably more common among those who don't actually have to face the immediate consequences of environmental destruction--like starvation, disease, famine, etc. But I'd say our complete failure to do anything remotely adequate to address the track to destruction that we are currently on is due more to the "business as usual" actors convinced that endless growth is the only way, that their wealth will somehow save them from the world they are creating, as they fund and promote bogus challenges to core environmental facts to save themselves a few bucks in the short term.

[Ghost Dog]

122. You are right. We are not parasites (which often contribute to wider ecosystemic stability).

We are a cancer. And we're going to win.

[RC]

26. I forgot to mention our collective arrogance.

Thanks for reminding me.

[GliderGuider]

43. +1

From one "neo-Malthusian extremist" to another:

I think we're experiencing the beginning of an evolutionary selection event - a bottleneck that could well accelerate the development of the next phase of the human experience. I'm working with the idea (thanks to George Mobus) that true sapience is an evolutionary fitness trait that could be amplified as we pass through the bottleneck - people with lower sapience get selected out of the gene pool at a slightly greater frequency than people with high sapience.

Talk about having to reach to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, though!

[caseymoz]

47. The thing about those "bottlenecks" is . . .

. . . you only call them that if the species recovers. Otherwise you call it "extinction," which is also a possible outcome of any "bottleneck." Dinosaurs did not survive their "bottleneck."

No, I can't see a bright side of a "bottleneck." The principle of genetic drift says the merest accident can wipe out the species then, and that would have nothing to do with fitness.

[GliderGuider]

51. What you say is true. However, most people function better with a little hope.

I tried to live without hope for several years after I realized what the human race is facing. It didn't work out at all well.

My biggest challenge has been finding something quasi-realistic to hope for in the face of this knowledge. The possibility that what we are entering may be a bottleneck and not an extinction event is the closest I've come.

[caseymoz]

62. My optimistic scenario, too.

At least we're prepared. We've diversified our genome with 7 billion variants. That should be difficult to kill off.

[Ghost Dog]

123. We think some of those dinosaur reptillian species, however, developed through their 'bottleneck'

to become the myriad avian species we know today.

Edit: Is that optimistic enough for y'all?

[randome]

124. It helps.

[caseymoz]

129. Birds developed long before the K-T extinction.

And they seem to have swung off of the dinosaur line much earlier than thought. The thighbone structure is unique to birds and took some time to develop. Though if it's back far enough, you may be talking about the Permain-Triassic extinction even.

But the fact about bottlenecks are, we usually call them extinctions.

[randome]

131. Okay, that didn't help.

But accuracy is welcome.

[Ghost Dog]

132. Yup. Thanks.

A bit like comparing evolution of humans apes to that of mammals in general, I guess. My bad.

[chervilant]

77. Calhoun's research

from the 60s still supports the conclusion that overpopulation in our species is resulting in a plethora of self-destructive behaviors.

We humans are manifesting a level of mental dis-ease that is both frightening and corrosive. Far too many of us are in react mode, driven by inchoate fears and resentments. Far too many of us are willing to pollute our spirits with negativity, eagerly engaging in name-calling and other forms of vilification. Far too many of us are willing to glorify violence or resort to violence, often just for entertainment or personal gratification.

We seldom acknowledge the import of overpopulation, but Calhoun's research with rats has proven that when a critical level of overpopulation occurs, the outcome isn't pretty. With rats, abnormal sexual behavior, hyperaggression, eating their young, and increased mortality are a few of the problems that occurred. With humans, well...isn't it past time we acknowledge that our species has passed a critical tipping point?

[GliderGuider]

84. Very few people are aware of Calhoun's research, let alone its implications for humanity.

Whenever I read the world's news I wonder how much of what I'm seeing is due to an overcrowding syndrome. I remember those mice in their Mouse Utopia and think of us - in our People Utopia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun

Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. After day 600 the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction.

During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones”.

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

In a way I think I've become like one of those "beautiful ones" Calhoun describes: no offspring, somewhat withdrawn, introspective and meditative, interacting primarily with my mate and a bunch of Internet friends, engaged in solitary pursuits like thinking and writing. Even my recent spiritual shift to Advaita has led me inward, away from the outer world.

It's going to be very interesting to watch the next couple of decades unfold.

[chervilant]

96. Wow...

It's going to be very interesting to watch the next couple of decades unfold.

I've been saying this to my friends for the past five years.

[chervilant]

107. Just read a Howard Zinn quote

that nicely summarizes how I feel about our species' tragic missteps du jour:

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.
What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.
And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

[GaYellowDawg]

106. Yeah, we live in uniquely horrible times.

We humans are manifesting a level of mental disease that is both frightening and corrosive.

Specifically, what?

Far too many of us are in react mode, driven by inchoate fears and resentments.

Yes, because large-scale inchoate fears and resentments have never been part of the human condition. And really, this statement isn't anything more than an attempt to discredit someone who calls you on your b.s. "Oh, I can't possibly be wrong. That person is just in react mode!"

Far too many of us are willing to pollute our spirits with negativity, eagerly engaging in name-calling and other forms of vilification.

Yes, because name-calling and vilification are so unfamiliar in human history. It must be the overpopulation! Why, surely no one ever did any kind of name-calling in the 50's! Wait... Communists. Um, no one ever did any kind of name-calling in the 1800's! Wait... name an ethnic group other than English, and there was a pejorative for it. Um, no one ever did any kind of name-calling in ancient history! Wait... where did the term "barbarian" come from? Nastiness is not solely brought on by overpopulation.

Far too many of us are willing to glorify violence or resort to violence, often just for entertainment or personal gratification.

Yes, like glorifying the extinction of the evil population of parasitic humans by "Mother Earth." And then, long before the human population was an issue, there were the Romans, who never resorted to violence for entertainment. Because the Colosseum was a venue for flower shows, obviously. Not to mention Elizabethan bear-baiting, or Aztecs ripping beating hearts out of people... I think there's a great case to be made that violence in our society is much less acceptable than in past times. Otherwise, Michael Vick wouldn't have spent a second in jail.

We seldom acknowledge the import of overpopulation, but Calhoun's research with rats has proven that when a critical level of overpopulation occurs, the outcome isn't pretty. With rats, abnormal sexual behavior, hyperaggression, eating their young, and increased mortality are a few of the problems that occurred.

First, ethology, especially Skinnerian-based behavioral research, is not directly transferable to humans. Second, Calhoun's research involved very strict limits on space. The human population is nowhere near the type of physical crowding leading to the social density that results in Calhoun's consequences - and your mention of it demonstrates that you don't fully understand the original research, but a popularized version of it instead. Third, different cultures have demonstrated adaptability to population pressures - there are Southeast Asian cultures that allow a much greater level of involuntary social interaction than ours. Fourth, have I missed the epidemic of baby-eating?

With humans, well...isn't it past time we acknowledge that our species has passed a critical tipping point?

No, it's not, because tipping points are only discernible in hindsight. And are you talking about a critical tipping point for population? Resource use? Resource partitioning? The biggest problem with your post, though, is the attempt at redirect. My objection here wasn't to the idea that people should act better. My objection was to calling the entire species a parasite and crooning about its destruction. And nothing in your posts justifies that.

[caseymoz]

45. Instead of collectivizing it . . .

. . . why not just take responsibility and act on your own self-loathing. Go off yourself. You could only help the earth doing that by your own estimate. Or are your entertained by the idea that everyone is ruining it and you're only helping?Sorry, what's happening is a function of population, of which your are one.

The earth means absolutely nothing to me if humankind doesn't survive. I don't care about "natural balances" or "uncorrupted nature." I have no connection to the earth without other human beings. They are my family, my friends, my neighbors, my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, everybody who I've ever loved and ever could love. Everything.

And if humankind becomes extinct, the earth can fall into the sun for all care. I'm not saving the earth for the earth because humankind isn't good enough for me. That's misanthopic, self-loathing idiocy.

My own thought: humankind is only doing what any other animal does and would do. There is no animal that's adapted to limit it's own population, and population pressure is really what's driving this. Every time in history humankind avoided a crash, most recently with the Green Revolution, it was followed by an increase in population.

There's no animal that limits its population. The environment limits it for the species. We've just been smart enough to keep avoiding the crash.

And we did what any other animal should do in good times: diversified our gene pool, and 7 billion people is very diverse.

[GaYellowDawg]

74. BINGO!

Absolutely right on!!

[chervilant]

76. Wow...

I had to log out to witness the ridiculous brouhaha caused by your initial post. Every single one of the DUers stomping their widdle feets over your post are on my IL. Their derision, sarcasm, and intellectual arrogance are the primary reasons I put them on my IL (you'd think someone with 'multiple degrees' could write a cogent rebuttal without resorting to sarcasm and derision).

Do you recall Calhoun's research on overpopulation (using mice)?

Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. After day 600 the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones”.

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

Observing that our species is blindly and blithely ignoring the handwriting on the wall (parasite: an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host) certainly torques the resident charlatans...

[RC]

83. Thanks. There are a few that see what is happening. Too few, I'm afraid, to correct the course we

Last edited Thu Jul 5, 2012, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

are on.

Edited to add:
If I remember correctly, there was never any shortage of food during the whole experiment. It was just the overcrowding causing the problems. Mice are social creatures too. What does that say for us?

[caseymoz]

87. And so why do you pity the mice and not people?

There's something else going on with you, and not just concern for the fate of the earth.

I loathe particular people, the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh. But no, I can't loathe humanity as a whole wish for their destruction. Morally, you're no better than Christians who wait for the rapture to prove them right.

[RC]

108. The mice can't know any better.

Except for the love of money, we should be intelligent enough to know better. Where is the profit in limiting our numbers? There is none. The more of us there are, the more profit there is. And so we go blindly on as if everything will work out to our benefit, even when it is obvious it is not any longer.

Morally, I think I am better than the "Christians", for I know this planet, our own nest, is all we have and we are destroying it. There is no reward in an afterlife. And if there were, do you really think whatever Deity would reward a this "superior species" with everlasting life, for destroying the rest of this Deity's creation for our own selfish greed?

[caseymoz]

111. Mice certainly knew their space was limited.

If evolution didn't equip mice for that environment, it hasn't equipped us for this one. Nothing in our natural history prepares us to confront worldwide resource depletion and environmental catastrophe. Consider human beings have an equal drive to reproduce, by accident if no other way. In other words, reproduction is a drive that usually will thwart our minds' decision to stop it.

And if it weren't the love of money, it would be something else. Even with the love of money, it wouldn't have mattered if during the Green Revolution we controlled our population. However, instead of stopping our population there, humankind did what it did every time it escaped a crash prior. We increased our numbers. We took more food and turned it into more people.

Believe me though, if it weren't greed, it would have been something else. The drive to reproduce is just that strong, even if some individuals and even nations can succeed for a while, it will be thwarted. The population that won't reproduce gets overrun by immigration of a population that will.

We can be very intelligent about seeing what the problem is. Unfortunately, the part of our brain that sees it is subordinate to the part that controls behavior. What we lack is anything that gives us the ability to socially organize on anything like the scale necessary. Nation-states aren't cut out for it.

So, it won't matter what you come up with as a solution because it has to be cooperative and coordinated. Our natural history has left us just as deficient for it as the mice were.

I get angry at individuals or groups who won't even consider the problem possible, like the Koch brothers or Rush Limbaugh. I'm being part of the problem, however, if I despise all humanity for it, especially when it doesn't match my POV. That is: if humankind fails and dies out, it's because we weren't capable of succeeding. My best hope is for a die back and "bottleneck" which selects for a human descendant which can organize more effectively against the problem. Homo Sapiens Sapiens haven't shown the ability to do it. We might be confronted with a "bottleneck" or it might be extinction where the even the fittest don't survive.

Two things failed in the twentieth century which put us in this position: space travel and fusion energy. Every view SF writers up to the 1960s had of future society involved those two coming through. Unfortunately, both have proved far more daunting than we thought.

Have you wondered why we haven't heard from intelligent extraterrestrial life, yet? Maybe this is the problem that gets all of them. If that's the case, its unsolvable.

On you're final point, if it's a matter of us saving our nests, why wish for the destruction of humankind? That's what you started out saying. You've backpedaled. I can't see what you've said in this latest post as reconcilable with what you said before, which sounded for all the world like a prophet calling down God's judgment. That especially doesn't make sense when you don't believe in God.

[chervilant]

98. You are correct.

The mice had ample food and water, but the limited space spelled disaster for the entire population.

I read on another OP that photosynthesis stops at 104 degrees F. I wonder how this will affect our 'bread basket' over the next decade...

Some years ago, the LA Times published a letter I wrote in response to the predictable criticisms of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth:

Goldberg's column lambasting Al Gore and others who are warning us about global warming only serves to amplify the hyperbole characteristic of this burgeoning number of Chicken Littles crying that the sky is falling. We humans are a puny infestation on this amazing planet. How arrogant to presume we're going to have any lasting impact on Earth. We will simply go the way of the dinosaur -- no huge loss.

The real issue is that we disrespect what we have and fail to understand that our ecosystem tends toward a balance that is beyond our control. When it is time for Earth to roll over in the grass and scrape us off her backside, we'll just have to go along for the ride.

Of course, they edited out the section where I noted that I find it fascinating to witness these key events in our species' evolution.

(BTW, I have to wonder how intransigent must be someone who posts responses to me when they know they're on my IL...)

[ronnie624]

91. *

[caseymoz]

94. Then, letting everyone else know what I think:

The earth is not a living organism. It has no immune system. There's no "sinning" against it. Humankind is killing themselves through the environment without a Greater Good as an intermediary for punishment.

I'll return to that subject after I ask this question: why would evolution have made humankind any different from mice regarding reproduction? If you can forgive, or at least keep some detachment, for mice, who ruined their own limited environment, when they could clearly see that they were trapped, why should humankind as a species be accorded anything less? I'll repeat, there is not an animal species that limits its population not until environmental stresses make reproduction impossible.

There may be some individuals who do, but Darwinism says that by having the forethought to not reproduce they remove the genes that enabled that forethought from the population. This has been a constant for generations. In other words, biological organisms are rigged by their natural history to reproduce until space and resources make further doing so impossible.

Now, the earth is not an organism. The hypothesis, more like the notion, comes up regularly, but it has never been demonstrated in the least. The only reason why it keeps coming up is hope. People want it, especially people who find traditional religion defective, and I could understand the inspiration and excitement, but unfortunately, that's what's also driving their conclusion, not science.

There is not the least scientific evidence of it, not even in principle. For one thing, there's always reproduction involved in a biological organism. That's the force that motivates and "organizes" and organism. Earth is not going to reproduce. Ever.

Furthermore, if you look at other planets as far as we could see, most of them have no life. This means you can't, by default, expect a planet to be an organism.

Therefore, the Earth has no intelligence. It has no immune system. It's an environment, not an organism. To think is fighting us, or even is capable of caring, is wishful thinking. People want a goddess, or a greater good. Also, it gives them a "moral compass." We become the parasites. However, if you're going to be biological about it, why should parasites be morally worse? The bacteria that enables you to digest food were all parasites at one point. Evolution landed the creature there, not any moral choice.

Even if the earth were a living unit, why should it be given any more regard than any other biological organism, other than the fact that it's bigger? Disease bacteria and cancer kill off their "world" with astounding regularity. It doesn't seem that they worship their host, and if they did, would it really help?

I'm just saying, there's a lot of logical, scientific, moral and theological problems with making the Earth the greater good according to some newfangled mysticism. You can't read morality into biology and come up with morality.

You're not going to save any planet. You fail to see the shaky premise of your own thinking. It allows you to indulge in loathing for others, and this means you and RC will never have enough power to do anything but destroy. If you did gain power, what plan would you have besides the Aztec solution? Sacrifice human beings to your goddess until overpopulation isn't a problem anymore. You definitely aren't an environmentalist if you consider the Earth an organism instead of an environment.

What's the solution? I don't know. But escape into delusion just misinforms you, and will likely only exasperate the problem.

[randome]

95. The dreaded 'Ignore List' hammer has descended on you!

IMO, anyone wanting to ignore someone else's opinion simply proves their position is untenable.

Nicely written response.

[caseymoz]

97. Ty, but I don't know.

There's an aggravation factor there, too. I just can't see anybody calling that a principle.

I think my first posts expressed my outrage, though, and so I blew it. This previous post should have been my first.

BTW, I replaced the last paragraph on edit.

[GaYellowDawg]

104. OutSTANDING!!

I should have written this.

[coalition_unwilling]

14. The British poet William Wordsworth said it best (back in 1800s):

THE world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
The Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.--Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Correct

[chervilant]

16. Hello, Fellow Parasite, with whom I totally agree.

Our entire political system is broken--totally co-opted by the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our government, and our global economy...

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

I read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring when I was 12. When I finished Carson's iconic treatise, I made two fundamental decisions: 1) I would not bear children, and 2) I would be an activist for the rest of my life. I am thankful that I've achieved both these goals, considering our species' imminent ecocide.

During my 56 years on this planet, I've witnessed:

~heavy metal pollution of virtually all of our groundwater

~inexplicable declines in honeybee populations (now linked to clothianidin)

~nutritional deficiencies in almost every fruit or vegetable harvested since the 70s

~vast swaths of soil erosion and silt runoff

~measurable declines in the quality and flavor of most produce

~GLOBAL monopolies on seed stocks, and genetically modified foods

~cross contamination of vegetable foodstuffs from cattle and dairy operations

~inhumane treatment of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, calves, chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks

~Bhopal

~Three Mile Island

~Chernobyl

~Fukushima

~oil spills in the Gulf (and, apparently, an irreparable fissure still leaking more oil)

~the nationwide existence of 'Superfund Sites' that are so toxic, massive amounts of our tax dollars have been allocated to 'clean up' these abandoned, hazardous areas (visit Superfund websites and you'll find "Superfund for Kids!&quot

~destruction of the planet's rain forests (actually, widespread deforestation)

~global climate change, resulting in extreme weather conditions worldwide

~a pile of floating garbage--in surface area, twice the size of the state of Texas--in the doldrums of the Pacific Ocean (and another similar carpet of plastic in the Atlantic...)

~a measurable decline in the amount of food fish we pull out of our oceans and lakes (with toxic levels of mercury in tuna and other large fish)

~an exponential increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases directly linked to the consumption of refined sugars (let's not even BEGIN to discuss hydrogenated oils...)

~a growing percentage (almost half) of functionally illiterate (thus, easily manipulated) adults in the US

~a now ubiquitous 'message delivery system' (television) that has turned a significant number of humans into distracted, misinformed zombies

~a dangerous economic system that concentrates the wealth of this planet into the hands of a VERY few at the expense of the VERY many

~destructive, endless 'wars' based on lies and profitability

-Depleted Uranium (and bio-weapons so toxic that the US stockpile alone could decimate the entire world population)

~a radical shift to exponential growth (read 'change') that few recognize and even fewer discuss.

Sigh...

We are like a plague of voracious locusts on this planet, fouling the air, water, and land while destroying entire ecosystems. AND, in these exponential times, the catastrophic economic 'transformation' we're witnessing in our global economy promises to inflict challenges we have yet to envision.

Did you know that a third of US students surveyed do not expect to live into their old age? (In case you don't remember, for teenagers thirty is old age...)

The 'whining' that Mr. Obama and his sycophants denigrate is actually the justifiable grumbling of the hoi polloi, as more of us awaken to the reality of the jack boots of the uber wealthy clamping down across our necks. These vile corporatists are daily increasing their stranglehold on our lives and our livelihoods. Do they expect us to go quietly into their dark night?!

Our species has reached critical mass. The decisions we make RIGHT NOW will determine whether we continue to evolve into the erudite, peaceful and creative beings we KNOW we can become; or devolve into the ignorant, aggressive, and fearful beings we vociferously deny being at present *and* during most of our past.

At this unavoidable fork in our evolutionary path, which way do YOU think we'll go?

[Delphinus]

29. Wow.

That is one impressive post. You certainly do know your stuff ... and boy is it scary. Thank you for posting.

[GaYellowDawg]

40. Sigh.

Much of what you say is true. Much of it is bullshit.

~heavy metal pollution of virtually all of our groundwater

Not even close to "virtually all." How many different locations have you tested for heavy metal pollution yourself? I've had students test a lot of different sites, including a river adjoining campus and an old graveyard for arsenic, lead, and mercury. All negative, and that was a major surprise to me, especially beside the graveyard. If that system isn't polluted, then there's a lot of cleaner water out there that isn't, either. Gross exaggeration here.

~inexplicable declines in honeybee populations (now linked to clothianidin)

Nosema apis, Israel acute paralysis virus, Nosema ceranae, imidacloprid, and Varroa mites have all been proposed as causing the honeybee declines. Not just the one pesticide.

~nutritional deficiencies in almost every fruit or vegetable harvested since the 70s

Really? Because my dad used to raise some pretty awesomely nutritious vegetables. This is an outlandish statement.

~measurable declines in the quality and flavor of most produce

Measurable, how? How do you know that your taste buds haven't just aged? Or that you've been struck with a major case of nostalgia? These things do happen, you know.

~GLOBAL monopolies on seed stocks, and genetically modified foods

Um, no. Still lots of different brands of seeds. You must live in the city.

~cross contamination of vegetable foodstuffs from cattle and dairy operations

Honestly, what this even mean? It's just alarming-sounding blather.

~inhumane treatment of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, calves, chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks

Dogs and cats, living together!!

~a growing percentage (almost half) of functionally illiterate (thus, easily manipulated) adults in the US

Half, functionally illiterate? That is completely wrong. I grew up in a rather poor city in the South, and education is my career, and I can tell you that a great deal less than half of adults are functionally illiterate. That is pure bullshit.

We are like a plague of voracious locusts on this planet, fouling the air, water, and land while destroying entire ecosystems. AND, in these exponential times, the catastrophic economic 'transformation' we're witnessing in our global economy promises to inflict challenges we have yet to envision.

Here we go again with the hyperbole. Locusts? Please. You must do a wonderful job as an activist, having this attitude towards your fellow humans.

Did you know that a third of US students surveyed do not expect to live into their old age? (In case you don't remember, for teenagers thirty is old age...)

Which survey? Which students? Where? Are you claiming that one-third of all students don't expect to live into old age? And honestly, who surveys teenagers for wisdom? There are exceptions, to be sure, but most teenagers don't have the experience to know their ass from a hole in the ground. And their views are incredibly fluid because most of them are in the process of developing into adults. I don't know why in the world you would even include this.

Our species has reached critical mass. The decisions we make RIGHT NOW will determine whether we continue to evolve into the erudite, peaceful and creative beings we KNOW we can become; or devolve into the ignorant, aggressive, and fearful beings we vociferously deny being at present *and* during most of our past.

This, I'll agree with - but how much good do you contribute to the dialogue by calling the entire species parasites and locusts? You stand a much greater chance of pushing people in the opposite direction. I view people who talk like that as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Mojorabbit]

52. The poster is correct about seeds

There are a few companies that provide heirloom non hybrid seeds but they one by one are being bought by huge companies. There are groups of people and organizations that are trying to keep various heirloom varieties alive and available though. I belong to a couple and grow out several types of veggie seeds that are ancient but more are needed. We need the diversity these seeds provide in case our monocrops develop a fatal disease. Not good to put all ones eggs in a basket esp with so many mouths to be fed.

[Marrah_G]

57. One of the most important thing people can do is buy heirloom seeds

Everything we grow at my guys house is heirloom now. There is only the initial cost, after that you save them from year to year. Organic sustainable gardening is something people are going to need to relearn. Every year we learn a dozen more do's and don'ts through trial and error. I'm learning to can food also, so nothing goes to waste.

[chervilant]

60. Hello, fellow organic gardener!

I started my organic life with a French Intensive approach (now called Biodynamic gardening). I had more beautiful, flavorful produce from four raised beds than our family could consume. The root crops (and winter squashes) lasted throughout the winter and required a significant enlargement of our root cellar. We gave away copious amounts of eggplant, potatoes, tomatoes, okra, cucumbers, onions, and squash.

I love canning. The flavor and quality of hand processed foods is incredible.

Growing up on a farm gave me a deep appreciation for home grown and processed foods. The foods produced by today's ginormous agri-businesses have significantly less nutrients--and flavor--than the foods I ate as a child.

If you have not already done so, watch the 2010 PBS documentary called "Food, Inc." Much of what is covered in that film is vital information to which few are privy.

[Marrah_G]

63. Nice !!!

I loved Food Inc!

My goal is to someday move to VT and have some land I can turn into a permaculture paradise We just harvested snap peas..... they are huge and so juicy and sweet right off the vine! We are learning as we go, reading up on everything we can get our hands on. Our latest lesson is on little worms that ate our poor brocolli. I think this weekend we are going to plant more and start off using some concotion the man found online to combat them


We also bought half a highland cow this year from VT. totally grassfed and the meat is SOOO good. I think it will probably last the entire year. It was only affordable because it was split 3 ways and the price per pound after all is said and done runs around 4.50 a pound. We offset that by using half the meat we used to and going heavier on the veggies.

I would love to eventually have goats for cheese making and fibers and maybe a highland milk cow ( has a high fat content for butter and cream) and some chickens/ducks/geese.

I'm looking for a good salsa recipe for canning? Do you have one?

[chervilant]

64. You'll laugh at my insect control method...

I used to go out in my garden at the crack of dawn with a coffee can filled with two inches of vegetable oil. Any malicious insects I found (I did use companion planting and friendly pests to mitigate the bad guys--but they were relentless) were deposited in the oil, which went to the chickens. Trust me, the chickens LOVED that little treat!

My sister has a great recipe for salsa. I'll get it for you and send it.

BTW, we had a Jersey/Guernsey mix that my sister and I milked twice a day. We would get close to three gallons per milking. When her body heat dissipated from the milk, more than half of it was cream--thick, almost yellow, heavenly cream. We were also responsible for churning this cream into butter, and I have never found butter that tastes anywhere NEAR as good.

[Marrah_G]

65. I adore freshly made butter and whipped cream

I also have one son who hated milk until I educated myself and started buying organic milk. The taste is hugely different. I'm also fortunate to have a farm near my work that is grandfathered in for raw milk and cheese. The farm is actually behind Gillete stadium. it's a little gem that that's been run by the same family forever.

[chervilant]

54. Sad, really,

your defensive, derisive response. I will address your first point only--you should do your own research before you start slamming posts.

In the late 80s, a few articles about groundwater pollution hit the M$M. Estimates of levels of contamination by petrochemicals (benzene, toluene, lead, and gas additives), livestock waste (manure, bacteria, antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste), and agri-business chemicals (sulfates, nitrates, arsenic, mercury, and close to fifty other chemicals classified as 'heavy metals') ranged from 'well below dangerous' levels to well over 2 and 1/2 times 'dangerous' levels. The majority of the aquifers providing water for human consumption (80% was the estimate at that time) had some measurable level of heavy metal pollution.

You don't even know me, Dawg. Your sarcasm

You must do a wonderful job as an activist, having this attitude to wards your fellow humans.

is wholly unwarranted. I have been an advocate for survivors of relationship violence for more than thirty years. I have been a math teacher for the last five years--in fact, I've been advocating for children who must survive toxic family environments for the past 15 years. I can make my observations about our species without being a misanthrope.

Like you, most people are ignorant about the extent of the damage our species has caused to our planet. I postulate that it's part of the human frailty that motivated the trite adage, "ignorance is bliss." You might benefit from using your energy to do research about the points I've enumerated, rather than posting derisive, sarcastic, ugly rebuttals.

[GliderGuider]

67. +1

[caseymoz]

46. There's a third.

Extinction. And not just of humankind. Darwin's coldest scenario where even the fittest can't survive.

But no, I don't think it's humankind's fault, other than the fact that we do what any animal would do. The disappointment is we don't seem to be any better.

[slackmaster]

17. At one time James Lovelock might have agreed with this idea, but he's changed his position a bit

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

[GaYellowDawg]

38. Riiiight.

Yes, obviously, the earth is conscious and "gearing up to eradicate a parasite."

What a load of utter shit. I detest this entire mode of thinking. It's condescending, arrogant, ignorant, and dehumanizing. When you call the species a parasite, and describe how the earth will shake us off, or eradicate a parasite, or some other completely ignorant anthropomorphism* that implies a chunk of rock and iron is alive and all people deserve death, you are gleefully casting a whole lot of really good people in the role of "parasite." Well, you know what? You're not really any different from the "Rapture Ready" sickos who gleefully anticipate the return of Jesus 2.0 to slay the undeserving. The only difference is that they want Jesus to do the killing, and you want to make a big chunk of rock do it. You've judged our species, and found it wanting. And you have the sheer nerve to call anyone else arrogant? Let me ask you this: are you a parasite? How about your spouse? Your friends? Parents? Nieces and nephews? Surely you don't have kids. I mean, the idea of infesting the world with your own little parasites must be horrifying to you. Are you so incredibly antisocial that you see a parasite every time you see a human being? Why are you even on this board? Why would you lower yourself to hanging out with a bunch of parasites?

And your primary thesis is even wrong. We're going to be around for a long time. We are an incredibly intelligent, tough, and adaptive species. Even in the event of global catastrophe, it's quite likely that some Homo sapiens will survive and repopulate the place. I wonder how long it would take them to get stupid and pampered enough to develop a loathing for their own species.

*For the rest of you who are this dumb: "Gaia" is an analogy, not a literal truth. The world is not conscious, or even alive. There is no "Mother Earth." Humans are not an infestation, or a parasite. Too many of you listened to Agent Smith in the Matrix. All organisms will exploit the environment to the absolute extent of their ability. Leave goats on an island, and they will strip it bare. Pine trees will eradicate every other plant species that they can. Ants will eat anything they can digest. Crack a fucking biology book and you might learn something; the only thing that holds any species in check is the ability of other species to combat it.

[chervilant]

56. Really?

So, now you're an expert on evolution?

"...the only thing that holds any species in check is the ability of other species to combat it."

Extinction of a species can be caused by environmental changes.

If the environment changes slowly enough, species will sometimes evolve the necessary adaptations, over many generations. If conditions change more quickly than a species can evolve, however, and if members of that species lack the traits they need to survive in the new environment, the likely result will be extinction.

(BTW, one does not have to assign sentience to 'Gaia' to understand that this entire ecosystem tends toward a balance about which we know very little, despite our intellectual arrogance. Metaphorically speaking, when it's time for 'Gaia' to roll over and scrape us off her backside, we'll just have to go along for the ride.)

[GaYellowDawg]

61. Really.

Assuming an otherwise hospitable environment, the only thing that holds any species in check is the ability of other species to combat it. Ecosystems tend towards a balance because of the interplay between different species. For instance, the only thing that keep a mouse population from completely exploding are its predators. In the absence of predation or particularly virulent pathogens, just about any species will go through cycles where its numbers explode, then get pared back when it exceeds the carrying capacity of an environment.

ALL species will do this. Not just humans. And yes, given my degrees, I'm more of an expert on evolution than most. There are plenty of people who know a great deal more than I do, and they understand the checks and balances in ecosystems to an extraordinary degree. You accuse them of intellectual arrogance, when they are simply much more educated than you are. The moment I see anyone referring to humans as "parasites," etc., as if our instinctual drives make us somehow more evil than other species, I know that person is just another individual who is Tea Party level ignorant and loud.

[GliderGuider]

66. Where do food supply limits come into it, in your view?

An environment can be totally hospitable with no predators, but the food supply can be drawn down through over-reproduction of the subject species, resulting in a population crash. This tends to happen when a species expands into new territory with a pre-existing store of food that replenishes more slowly than the species can reproduce. The St. Matthew Island reindeer are the canonical example of this effect. It's called "overshoot".

Many ecologists think humans are in an overshoot condition. I agree with them.

[GaYellowDawg]

70. That's what carrying capacity means.

..

[chervilant]

68. Crossing a line, Dawg,

accusing me of being "another individual who is Tea Party level ignorant and loud." Silly me, I thought other members of DU might agree, but you are a 'star' member, and I'm sure your contributions are representative of the caliber of discourse that has become so common and acceptable online--and, sadly, herewith.

I will now use another option to insure I do not ever again have to view your arrogant, derisive, sarcastic, ignorant blather. Welcome to ignore.

[GaYellowDawg]

71. Anyone who calls the entire human race "parasites" crosses a line.

That means that they're calling me, all of my friends, all of my relatives - everyone I treasure - a parasite. The fact that you find that acceptable - or should I say "common and acceptable" - frankly makes me think of you as a hypocrite. So go ahead and ignore.

[GliderGuider]

69. Feels good, doesn't it?

Driving another human being into the dirt for their beliefs, I mean. What an adrenaline rush! And best of all, you know you're Right.

[GaYellowDawg]

73. Well -

Actually, if someone refers to the entire human race as parasites, then it does feel pretty good driving that kind of stupid, crazy shit into the dirt. And best of all, I am right. The human race isn't reducible to a simple pejorative term like "parasite," and anyone who does that deserves to get their ass handed to them.

[randome]

78. I, for one, appreciate the information you give us.

Keep the objective viewpoint. Self-loathing sometimes comes out where you least expect it.

[GliderGuider]

86. It's interesting to me

How much easier it is to detect self-loathing in others than in oneself. It's as though the label is more of a combined judgement and punishment than an objective assessment.

[randome]

89. Calling humanity parasites comes across as just that -self-loathing.

There is more to us than despoiling and killing. That's the point I thought needed to be made.

We have done some amazingly stupid things in our history. We have also done some amazingly wonderful things. And since we stand alone in intellectual capacity, I don't think comparisons to bottom-feeders is appropriate.

[LanternWaste]

90. It is though, an apt descriptor regardless of how we ourselves may feel about it.

It is though, an apt descriptor regardless of how we ourselves may feel about it.

Although I do realize many of us pretend we know who may deserve what, I imagine pretending is the extent of it.

[GaYellowDawg]

105. Not at all, despite your "regardless."

A parasite is an organism that lives on or inside another organism, and benefits to the host's detriment. The planet is not an organism. The biosphere is not an organism. The ecosystem is not an organism. The environment is not an organism. Therefore, humans are not parasites. Not an apt descriptor at all. Further, parasites universally do harm as a species to their host species. Not all humans act alike towards the environment, so it isn't even a good analogy, much less a descriptor. It is simply an insult by someone who thinks that their viewpoints make them an intrinsically superior person, fit to judge others and find them wanting.

[Nihil]

92. "just another individual who is Tea Party level ignorant and loud"

Your own words describe you perfectly (or, I should say, "... describe your behaviour
in this thread perfectly" as I don't recall you from any past threads).

The abuse being thrown at people who express themselves in more poetic
or emotive terms than you'd personally choose is unnecessary and only serves
to illustrate the irony of your comment.


> Assuming an otherwise hospitable environment

"Assuming"

The thread is about the difficulties - the "less than hospitable" nature - of the recent
weather and how that has been triggered by climate change drive by human behaviour.
It is about the failure of that assumption - a failure brought about by the actions
of people who cling desperately to the assumption because to recognise the situation
would require genuine change and such people are incredibly fearful of change.


> just about any species will go through cycles where its numbers explode,
> then get pared back when it exceeds the carrying capacity of an environment.

We are already in the overshoot part of the cycle and that applies whether you
describe it in your words ("get pared back&quot or other peoples' ("shaking off parasites&quot .


> as if our instinctual drives make us somehow more evil than other species

It's not the "instinctual drives" that make (some of) us more evil than any
other species, it is the choices being made by nominally intelligent people.
(Yes, even those with "degrees" like you & me.)


A lioness isn't evil when it kills an antelope.

A killer whale isn't evil when it uses a live seal cub as a means of training
its offspring how to hunt.

A human who chooses to destroy creatures, habitats, even whole ecosystems
for the sake of numbers in a spreadsheet, for the further accumulation of
nebulous intangibles or for share certificates or dollars - that is evil and that
is what has lead to the situation that more people are gradually (so gradually)
realising that we are all in.

[randome]

93. Some of the choices we make are exceptional.

Love. Sharing. Kindness.

We have gone to the Moon. We DARE to unlock the secrets of the Universe.

I am not aware of parasites that do those things.

[GaYellowDawg]

103. Loud, perhaps.

Last edited Thu Jul 5, 2012, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Ignorant, no. Not even close. I have graduate degrees in biology. We are not in the overshoot part of the cycle; we can still sustain our current population. Admittedly, it's a fragile proposition, and things may very well crash - but right now, there are still resources enough to feed everyone on the planet if we had the will.

It's not the "instinctual drives" that make (some of) us more evil than any other species, it is the choices being made by nominally intelligent people... A human who chooses to destroy creatures, habitats, even whole ecosystems for the sake of numbers in a spreadsheet, for the further accumulation of nebulous intangibles or for share certificates or dollars - that is evil and that is what has lead to the situation that more people are gradually (so gradually) realising that we are all in.

Do we all do that? What proportion of the human species chooses to destroy creatures, etc. for money? How many destroy environmental resources for survival? How many live with a minimal footprint? How, then, do you justify calling the entire species "parasites"? Why are you getting angry with me when someone else called you, and all of your friends, and all of your loved ones parasites? Do you know the actual meaning of the term parasite? I do. The other poster clearly does not. And I'm the ignorant one? Please.

How many people do you think you can win over to your side of the argument by calling them parasites? How many people do you think will change their ways after being referred to as parasites? How many people will react to that by entrenching into their positions and habits? You already know the answer to those questions. Someone who talks about the human species as parasites is ultimately going to do much more harm than good, and as such, is part of the problem rather than a solution. Someone who talks about the human species as parasites and, in a tone that is nominally dolorous, actually celebrates our extinction - this is no different than anyone else who says, "only I and the select few are good people, and are therefore actually human. The rest deserve their awful fate." That type of dehumanization is a very fundamentalist/Tea Party thing to do.

Where I differ from anyone in the Tea Party is that I will call out and harshly criticize anyone who spouts stupid, destructive b.s. even if they are ostensibly on my side of the political spectrum. Loud? Yes. Harsh? Yes. Ignorant? Not in the slightest. Tea Party? Just the opposite.

And, on edit: if you find calling the entire species a "parasite" emotionally expressive or poetic, then I'm quite surprised that you didn't find "Tea Party ignorant" to be positively melodic. After all, given the reaction it sparked in you leads me to believe it's quite expressive. And poetry, dear one, is in the eye of the beholder.

[chervilant]

20. Not to mention water shortages...

I am reminded of a joke I heard more than two decades ago:

A grandmother, mother and granddaughter are having coffee in the granddaughter's kitchen. The granddaughter says that if she could only have ONE modern convenience, she'd have to choose her stove, because she just couldn't live without hot coffee and cooked food. The mother replies, "Well, I have to go with the fridge, because I don't know how you'd store your food without a fridge. Besides, I couldn't live without iced tea!" They both look expectantly at the grandmother, who shakes her head, as she says, "I'll take running water every time!"

How many of us take for granted the clean water that comes pouring out of our taps?

The little town where I currently reside will run out of water by the end of this week. They will have to bring in water by tanker trucks to serve a fairly significant number of people. Apparently, this has become a standard outcome of our hot, dry summers.

[Nihil]

53. Excellent point.

> How many of us take for granted the clean water that comes pouring out of our taps?

Too many.

I suspect that there will be a fairly harsh "educational session" coming up for a lot of them.



> The little town where I currently reside will run out of water by the end of this week.

Take care of yourself - I love your posts!

[chervilant]

55. Thank you

for your supportive post. I sometimes wonder if others are reading my posts.

While I can deduce that I've hit a nerve whenever I get a sarcastic, bombastic response (as from that poor wee mannie above), I feel sad that our fellow humans feel the need to attack each other, rather than engage in civil discourse.

[rrneck]

80. And when people get hungry - they fight. nt

[antigone382]

8. Holding out hope that these constant, excessive heat waves will change some minds.

It may be too late...but as a matter of ethics we just have to keep trying.

[chervilant]

18. Have you seen this?

[link:|

[antigone382]

19. Wow...and I'd say it's expanded since then.

I'm in Eastern Kentucky, just south of Lexington, and our grasses and other vegetation are all turning brown from heat and lack of water.

[magical thyme]

31. here in midcoast Maine, we are back out of abnormally dry

we had an abnormally wet June, and have already had some rains in July. It was like a tropical jungle here last weekend with temps about 90 and high humidity.

[hatrack]

33. More recent version here - and these update every Thursday morning at around 9:00 Central Time, IIRC

[caseymoz]

49. Denial of Global Warming is dead.

If this weather and that drought keep up for another year, there won't be a Global Warming debate no matter how much money conservative front-groups pour into it.

And liberals can then remind conservatives how utterly wrong they were.

[Patiod]

9. The USDA has changed its planting maps

Spokespeople deny that it's due to climate change, but oddly enough, it shows earlier, warmed springs and later, warmer falls, all farther North. Plants that used to die in Pennsylvania and Iowa are surviving.

But that's not climate change.

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/blogs/climate-change-gives-gardeners-new-options

[magical thyme]

32. they hid their changes under a software upgrade, whereas commercial seed growers

quietly changed their zoning maps 15 or so years ago.

Here in Maine, we can now grow things that never grew as recently as 10 years ago. And we've been invaded by ticks. My dog vet gives a standard tick lecture, complete with pix, every spring. Locals are just not used to having to use tick stuff on their dogs.

We also had an outbreak of babesiosis last year -- a tick borne disease similar to malaria that migrated north from Martha's Vinyard.

The south can look forward to dengue fever and other tropical, mosquito-borne diseases...

[Odin2005]

35. We have ginkos and sugar maples growing in Fargo.

Those are zone 4b-hardy plants, in 1990 Fargo was 3b.

[Marrah_G]

59. Sugar maples are a fantastic resource

Now I have to go look up ginko

[harun]

81. I am an avid gardner and everyone went up one to two USDA zones this year based

on the new maps.

I am in PA and I am buying drought and heat tolerant varieties that flourish in the Southwest now. North East is the Southwest and the Southwest is an inferno (literaly).

All the gardners and farmers know this.

[mainer]

121. Yay from Maine. We're now approaching a Zone 6.

But the mosquitoes and blackflies are no fun.

[Odin2005]

12. It was 97F in Fargo, yesterday. The Dew Point was 77F.

It's last summer's heat wave all over again, when we were the most humid place on earth for a few hours, YUCK!

[NickB79]

85. Two once-in-a-century weather extremes in a row. What are the odds?

[and-justice-for-all]

21. Talked to someone from Bangladesh

who said it was hotter here (Indiana) then it is in Bangladesh. It is also clear that the rest of the world accepts Global Warming as a man-made disaster. The person I was talking with said that Bangladesh is well aware that a 3rd of their country is going to be swallowed by the sea due to sea level rise and the sea walls needed to help make the impending doom less sever for Bangladesh is simply unaffordable for them, there is really nothing they can do about it.

[underpants]

39. The rest of the world doesn't have Fox News and the US news bubble

we live in a bubble. The fact that you spoke to someone outside of the country means that you are more informed than 90% of UH'merkans

[and-justice-for-all]

119. I love talking to people from other countries

When I was in Amsterdam a couple of years ago, I asked a store owner how he felt about his healthcare and taxes..No complaints at all.

[Ghost Dog]

125. Just like most everyone paying attention outside USA reckons 9/11

must have been an inside job that murdered ca. 300 Brits and more of other nationalities.

Very sorry.

[obama4ever11]

25. warming

Way too hot this global warming.

[JCMach1]

28. wettest June in UK history

has rained my entire trip . 5 days straight.

[Psephos]

114. Actually, wettest April-June period in UK since (at least) 1910. n/t

[Ghost Dog]

126. Jet stream consistently not where it used to be.

This year, after crossing the Atlantic, the jet stream has been accelerating much further south than usual, forcing air upwards into the atmosphere and creating a huge low pressure system at the earth's surface right over southern England. This has brought high winds, heavy rain and cooler conditions.

/... (08:46 ON Mon 11 Jun 2012): http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/weather/47343/uk-weather-flood-warnings-jet-stream-brings-misery#ixzz1zwfGhiSL

Flood Threat Looms As Heavy Rain Lashes UK (12:29pm UK, Saturday 07 July 2012)

Britain braces for further flooding as alerts are issued across the country, including a red warning for the South West.

/... http://news.sky.com/story/957220/flood-threat-looms-as-heavy-rain-lashes-uk

(Just a couple of recent and current references...)

[center][/center]

[LanternWaste]

30. Last week on the local news, the "good" news was that only almost all of TX...

Last week on the local news, the "good" news was that only almost all of TX was still under a severe drought condition rather than *all* of Texas being under severe drought conditions.

[roamer65]

36. Imagine what it will be like in 2100.

Glad I won't be around for it.

[slackmaster]

37. Flying cars! Faithful robotics! Limitless power! The Picture Phone! A 30-hour work week!

Oh yeah, we were supposed to have all of that by 1980.

[caseymoz]

50. Yep, all the fifties science fictions said that.

All of them depicted worlds with limitless energy and limitless space. Even then, they knew what American society needed to keep going.

But the two biggest failures of the 20th century, the ones with massive consequences for humankind, were space travel and fusion power. Our society, culture and probably species is going to die because those two techs never panned out.

[hatrack]

113. I was thinking more along the lines of "Kill the pig! Slit her throat! Bash her in!"

You know, Piggy and Ralph and Samneric and the rest of the carefree lil' island hooligans - except on a much, much grander scale.

[RebelOne]

100. Me too. n/t

[GliderGuider]

48. The impact on the food supply may be enormous

Newsflash: Global warming could stop photosynthesis.

Here's something you may not have known about photosynthesis: it only works over a limited temperature range. You are probably not surprised to learn photosynthesis doesn't work well at temperatures where water freezes. You are also probably not surprised to learn photosynthesis doesn't work well at temperatures where water boils. You might be surprised to learn that photosynthesis stops at a temperature well below the boiling point of water. The magic number? 104 degrees Fahrenheit, or 40 degrees Centrigrade.



This would be interesting only to academics except for the fact that temperatures of 104 degrees and higher are starting to crop up in more and more places as the average temperature of the planet's surface increases. That's why this is important. Most discussions about global warming talk about average temperatures. If you think about it, it should be obvious those averages are calculated based on temperature extremes that go above and below the average. Sometimes the range is pretty large.

Remember the heat wave that crippled Europe in 2003? That lasted for almost two weeks. Temperatures reached 104 degrees Fahrenheit in France, and 105 in Germany. About 35,000 heat related deaths were recorded that summer. It's understandable that newspapers would focus on the human toll of these heat waves, but they also had a huge impact on crops.





The impact of these sustained extreme temperatures will be catastrophic for life as we know it. We're not just going to lose food production, we will also see plants dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That will just make things worse. The economic impact would pale in comparison to the toll on human life.

[Marrah_G]

58. I think that is one big reason to change what you eat and how you cook now.

Those big huge midwest farms may not always be there. We've been trying to eat alot more local and in season. Except Avacados...I love love love avacados...hehe.

[harun]

82. Temperature also has huge impact on the microbial activity in the soil

Which makes things like Nitrogen available to plants, and to blooms and pollination.

We have a very small window.

Too hot and your microbes in the soil stop making nutrition available to plants and also your flowers can't set and the pollination can't happen.

It is very easy to observe. Gardners have crops every year that slow down or halt in the warmest months and pick back up when it cools down.

[chervilant]

99. I just read about this!

Thanks for posting it here.

When I look at current drought conditions in the US, and contemplate the cessation of photosynthesis due to extreme heat, I begin to understand the random scarcity of organic foodstuffs over the past two years.

[LeftyMom]

72. Awesome, I'll go idle my car for a while to do my part.

Not really, I know it doesn't work that way. But the weather here in California has been a bit cooler than normal, which is fantastic.

[Brigid]

75. Just came in from watching the fireworks,

Which I am surprised even took place considering how dry it's been here in IN the past few months. It's 11:30 pm and 85 degrees out. It's scary.

[AngryOldDem]

88. Did it ever drop below 80 last night?

I've been doing early morning runs (around 7:30 or so) and each day it's gotten worse, with today THE worst. The last mile, I kid you not, was like a death march. It's the humidity.

And the thing is, there's no sense in trying to go even earlier, because it never really cools off. They're calling for "cooler" temperatures beginning Monday. I really miss the mornings that were in the mid to upper 60s.

This is insane. And it's only going to get worse.

[Brigid]

112. I'm not sure.

But I'm sure it didn't get lower than the upper 70s, and today was another killer.

[dipsydoodle]

102. Then go back to 1960 and dont burn so much oil

You broke it : now fix it.

[GliderGuider]

128. The USA no longer controls the global climate single-handedly.

If anyone does, it's China:



Since 2002 China's consumption of fossil fuel has increased by 250%. The USA's consumption has been essentially flat for the last 12 years. The USA looks like a model global citizen next to the Chinese climate pirates.

I wonder how much of the lecturing the US gets on this issue is due to the Calvinist moral judgement that people attach to American consumption compared to Chinese production?

[wordpix]

118. so far, 10 days above 95F in DC with high humidity, drought

Not to mention our Big Storm leaving people without power.

[agent46]

127. I think we need more research to be sure.

[Tiggeroshii]

130. "Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the

month of June."

lol