Climate change: The bubbles are rising

For well over a decade Breaking the Code of History (BTCH) has argued that the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached a critical point where, even if we stopped putting in anymore C02 into our atmosphere going forward, we have built in an 11-degree temperature shift in our climate which will be catastrophic.

Those that have challenged the concept of climate change, have tried to defend their argument by saying that there is no evidence to support global warming and even if the temperature is rising we cannot be sure that it is attributable to man's industrial production. However, this is simply not true as the graph below clearly shows .i.e. that the temperature is rising on land and sea which correlates to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

In desperation, climate change deniers have tried to argue that the stability of global temperatures over the past decade supports their case. However, the population of the world has during that time seen many extreme and persistent changes to their climate which tells them otherwise.

Meanwhile, BTCH has argued that this decade's relative hiatus in planetary temperature change has been due to the heat sinks of the oceans absorbing the sun’s energy. The analogy is much like a frog being boiled slowly in a pot. Initially, there seems little damage or discomfort as the metal of the pot and the water absorb the energy of the heat source, until there comes the point where the bubbles start to rise. In our climate’s case, the bubbles have manifested in many ways, in some areas as a dramatic increase in the energy of planetary weather systems (like the recent triple hurricanes) and their associated increased destructive effect on human societies. In other regions, such as Cape Town and the Eastern Cape, as persistent droughts and water shortages.

On a geopolitical level, the resistance to climate change first came from China and now comes from Trump’s America. This obstructive behaviour was based on the political need to unfetter their respective in industrial complexes from climate limitations and to maximise growth. However, we are now at or close to the point where the damages caused by the increase in climate energy are greater than any perceived industrial advantage by clinging on to a carbon-based energy complex. I believe that when we look back from the future, that critical point of collective realisation was reached this year in 2017 with the sequential hurricanes of Katia, Irma, and Jose lashing the American and Caribbean coastlines and causing untold destruction. Ironically, the areas of America most affected were its oil producing heartlands in Texas. But still Trump has chosen to deny climate change.

Today and in the future, the cost of rebuilding caused by ongoing disastrous events will be accompanied by the need for significant national resources to be put into much larger disaster relief plans. These will inevitably give the respective nations’ armed forces an increased dual role of defence and disaster relief. Perhaps, in the days of stretched Western defence budgets, there might be a need for a dedicated international, civilian organisation in the form of international rescue with civilian ships under the merchant marine dedicated to this task. But either way, it is going to cost billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, I doubt that America with its economic debt limitations will quickly recover from the smashing impact of the triple storms. These exemplified, our observations that climate disasters will impact the older Western nations with their limited national energies more than emerging countries like China who display a higher level of national energy due to their position on the five stages of empire cycle. This realisation for America and Trump should be the driver to bring America back to the climate change prevention club. Most importantly, this issue is no longer one that global politicians can kick into the future, but one which immediately demands action today.

If this CO2 picture was not just alarming enough, when one looks at the methane and nitrous oxides gas increases, it should turn us all grey instantly. These gases have a 28 and 265-times greenhouse effect compared to CO2.

Levels of methane gas have more than doubled since the start of the industrial age over the past 200 years. While we strive to reduce global reliance on fossil fuels, one of the greatest sources of methane comes from the human food chain, In the form of cows and marine life such as shellfish that are increasingly farmed for human consumption. As such, the growth of the human population and its migration up the wealth cycle with higher protein requirements represents a significant climate change challenge. Thus, climate change is not just related to the carbon consumption cycle and use of oil as an energy source, but most importantly to the size of the human population.

To solve this climate crisis that is racing towards mankind, we will need not just to stop using oil, but to develop technology that extracts the CO2, methane and nitrous oxide we have put into our atmosphere, and simultaneously develop non-carbon energy, as well as new protein food production techniques that do not create greenhouse gas emissions. As such, we have a massive challenge to overcome, but perhaps 2017 will go down as the year that nations appreciated that climate change is real, destructive and costly and the only way forward is its reversal and mitigation. The alternative is unthinkable.

Category: 

Comments

Sorry, research what is really going on with the CO2 control knob for global temperature, in that, it is not. There are a couple of decent sites thar look at the latest peer reviewed paper on this subject, which show how the Climate models and theie output are disproved, thus the hypothesis for CO2 bolstering the overwhelmingly important ‘greenhouse’ gas, H2O, does not happen. Look up the likes of Judith Curry or the notrickszone.com site as a couple to start with, all who use peer reviewed literature and the accepted temperature measurements. It has been an eye opener for me, I now feel foolish, I should have known better sooner, as there were plenty of anomalies I was aware of, I just believed the consensus at the time, which is, thankfully, starting to crack.

Many thanks for your thoughts on Co2 not being the primary climate regulator. However, I have to continue to disagree. During my degree in Geophysics I spent a lot of time on the earth's magnetosphere, which is fascinating in the way it acts as a shield against the very charged particles described on the site you recommended. This magnetic shield mitigates the worst effects of charged particles on our atmosphere. Whilst solar and interstellar winds may have a short term secondary effect, they are not the primary regulator of our climate's temperature change. Rather, the periodicity of the 800,000 years ice cores suggests that the temperature regulation of our near recent (in geological time) planetary cycle has been self-regulating, until we started to change the gas composition though industrialisation. The only other external possibility to drive such temperature cycles excludes the random distribution of interstellar events, and leaves the sun as the only option. We know that there is an eleven year sunspot cycle that corresponds to various intensity of the solar wind as the sun unwinds its quadruple field eines after they are twisted by the spin of the sun. However, this short periodicity does not match that of the Earth's long term cycles. Which is a relief, as if it did, then our current increase in planetary temperature would suggest something very unpleasant might be happening to our sun. In which case 11 degrees of temp increase would look like the softer option!