https://guymcpherson.com/debating-noam-chomsky/
Based on this and this talk it appears the Spanish site in Argentia was the "mediator" between Noam Chomsky and Guy McPherson such that Guy McPherson's responses never went directly back to Noam Chomsky, thus leaving me wondering if Noam even READ the responses that Guy sent!! Meanwhile the English translation is being still worked on.
Googletranslate does a good enough job on Spanish.... in my opinion. So let's just post a Google Translation of Guy Mcpherson's RESPONSE to Noam Chomsky:
As environmentalists have been pointing out for decades, environmental impacts are a result of the size of the human population and the consumption levels of those humans. The Earth may be home to many more hunter-gatherers than there are capitalists seeking more material possessions. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the latter instead of the former. Ecologists have proposed changes in human behavior since at least the early 20th century. These recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. Now, even if it is possible to achieve substantial changes in such behavior and that they result in an effective slowing down or stopping of industrial activity, it is arguable that the above constitutes a useful means to ensure our continued survival. One of the reasons for this lies in the knowledge of what the effect of "aerosol masking" could imply for the climate crisis.
The “climate masking” effect of aerosols has been discussed in the scientific literature since at least 1929, which consists of the following: at the same time that industrial activity produces greenhouse gases that trap part of the heat resulting from light light that reaches the Earth, it also produces small particles that prevent said sunlight from even touching the surface of the planet. These particles, called "aerosols", thus act as a kind of umbrella that prevents part of the sunlight from reaching the earth's surface (hence, this phenomenon has also been called "global obscuration")9 .
In other words, these particles (aerosols) prevent part of the sun's rays from penetrating the atmosphere and thus prevent further heating of the planet. This means, then, that the current levels of global warming would, in fact, be much lower than those that should be associated with the volumes of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere today (hence the designation of this phenomenon as "masking"). climate"). In other words, the situation of global warming today would actually be much more serious than what is indicated not only by the already extremely high global temperatures, but also by the projections (already catastrophic) of their increase over the coming decades. The latter, especially if we consider the (optimistic) possibility of a future reduction in the amount of aerosols present in the atmosphere as an effect of a potential drop in greenhouse gas emissions over the next few years, which should paradoxically produce a drastic increase in global temperatures.
In other words, global temperatures today should not only be much higher than they are today, but also the expected increase in them will necessarily be much higher than what most climate models suggest. According to the father of climate science, James Hansen, it takes approximately five days for aerosols to fall from the atmosphere to the surface. More than two dozen peer-reviewed papers have been published on this topic, the latest of which indicates, for example, that the Earth would warm by an additional 55% if the “masking” effect of aerosols were lost. , which should happen, as we said, as a result of a significant decrease or change in industrial activity generating a considerable reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases, thus producing a potential additional (sudden) increase in the temperature of the Earth's surface by about 133% at the continental level.
This article was published in the prestigious magazine "Nature Communications" on June 15, 2021. In conclusion, the loss or substantial decrease in aerosols in the atmosphere could lead us, therefore, to a potential increase of more than 3 degrees centigrade global warming above the 1750 baseline very quickly. I find it very difficult to imagine many natural species (including our own) being able to withstand this rapid pace of environmental change.
In reality, a mass extinction event has already been underway since at least 1992. This was reported by Harvard professor Edward O. Wilson, the so-called "father of biodiversity," in his 1992 and 2002 books " The diversity of life” and “The future of life”, respectively. The United Nations Environment Program further reported in August 2010 that every day we were leading to the extinction of some 150 to 200 species. This would thus be at least the eighth mass extinction event on Earth. The scientific literature finally recognized the ongoing mass extinction event on March 2, 2011 in "Nature." Further research along these lines was published on June 19, 2015 in "Science Advances" by conservation biologist Gerardo Ceballos and colleagues entitled "Accelerated human-induced losses of modern species: entering the sixth mass extinction."
Coinciding with the publication of this article, the main author Ceballos stated that "life would take many millions of years to recover and that our species would probably disappear soon". This conclusion is supported by later work indicating that terrestrial life did not recover from previous mass extinction events for millions of years. It is true, however, that indigenous perspectives can help us understand current events. However, I am convinced that rationalism is key to giving a positive response to these events.
Noam Chomsky's latest interview streamed 15 hours ago...
he's calling for the Phasing out of Fossil Fuels and the "moving to renewable energy" - OOPS clearly he doesn't realize the Aerosol Masking Effect will doom life on Earth from "moving to renewable energy."
No comments:
Post a Comment