Separating REAL Threats To Human Existence From Specious Ones: The Case Of WR 104

The object WR 104. Why are so many more concerned about it than global warming?


An interesting question directed at me, and received at ALL Experts barely a week ago, concerned how to "defend" against a monster gamma ray burst from the object WR 104. Evidently, this possible event (supernova)  has been on a number of questioners' minds for at least seven years now. It reflects again the inability of the human species to distinguish distant, improbable threats (and events) from much more dangerous proximate ones that concern us in the here and now.

Of course, in the fantasy world of pie-eyed optimists no one would fret about any cosmic threat - or even the Earth getting a little warmer (in their minds). We should all just enjoy the lives we have and simply dismiss all such concerns, understanding that compared to the brutish, short lives of past humans we are living the 'life of Riley'.

Alas, the sober realist, and especially those of more serious scientific bent, can't be so blase.

Anyway, getting back to the question, I had to inform the person that those in the know (astronomers and astrophysicists)  ascribe a large uncertainty to powerful gamma rays bursts from WR 104 . In fact, most of the popular accounts that insist it's "coming" really mean any time from today to 500,000 years from now. That's how much uncertainty is attached to the potential event.

 For my odds, it is likely much later, and global warming is much more likely to take humans out than gamma rays from WR 104.  (Note the most recent data indicate that the mean global temperature rise by 2100 to be 4C-6c - in runaway greenhouse territory).  The worst effect of a gamma ray burst (GRB) from WR 104 would be violently eradicating up to 50 percent of the ozone layer, leading to much higher levels of UVB radiation being absorbed and a major uptick in skin cancers, as well as cataracts.

As for "defending" ourselves I  informed the questioner that I saw no technological way to do it. In fact the only moderate way to do it is passive: i.e.  to ensure we aren't enlarging the ozone hole over the Antarctic given any WR 104 GRB is estimated to take out 50 percent of the ozone layer.

Thankfully the cessation of use of CFCs (chloroflourocarbons) via the 1987 Montreal Protocol has caused human input of CFCs to stop - which were eroding the ozone layer. The bad news is that erosion is still going on because of the long length of time (up to 1,000 years) that CFCs remain in the atmosphere.  Still, recent research suggests that it is feasible all ozone hole erosion can be halted by 2070.

I then reiterated that it is much more important  we concern ourselves with the vastly more immediate threat for human extinction:  the runaway greenhouse effect. Are we talking about  a "little warmer Earth" to make us sweat a bit more and feel uncomfortable? No, we're talking about extinction level events and heat - with all existing human technological prowess reduced to useless dross, especially power grids.

We're talking of fires blazing across two thirds of the planet from dawn to dusk and temperatures topping 120F, or close to what New Delhi experienced for over a week earlier this month. Only this time going on for months. We're talking of little respite even at nightfall with temperatures still in the 100F -110F range. We're talking of millions dying, unable to get relief from the unbearable heat - or  even  to garner enough water because the electricity use will face such demand that even the pumps to bring up water into pipes will cease working.

Thus the Pope was absolutely correct in his encyclical when he warned:

"Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades."

The problem is that the onset of the runaway greenhouse may be as close as two decades.

However, the effects of unmitigated climate change are experienced in the here and now, and have drawn alarm in serious quarters. For example, both insurance and re-insurance companies (like Munich Re) are already factoring in major extreme weather events - such as the flooding in TX and drought in CA - as climate change related and computing current and future costs of premiums on this basis - as well as potential future payouts.

Meanwhile, few ordinary citizens are aware that on April 24 this year the 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' was held in Washington, D.C.  At the Symposium Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:

"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"

Referencing here, for example, that in Bangladesh - the 'ground zero' of global warming- rising sea levels could displace 15 million by 2050. Oxford University's Norman Myers has projected there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by mid-century.

Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflict climate triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".

Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.

Less well known is the Dept. of Homeland Security's Climate Action Plan. In effect since 2013, the Plan acknowledges that it may be necessary to prepare U.S. border for "frequent, short term, disaster driven migration".  The Plan anticipates legal and illegal movements across the U.S. border because of "severe drought and tropical storms".

More unsavory, the presence of over 100 military weapons vendors at the 9th annual 'Border Security Expo' in Phoenix in April - all slavering at the potential to make war on climate refugees - which would spell profitable business opportunities.

Climate change - global warming, never mind the seemingly small increments (which delude too many into complacency), is the most serious threat humans face. Can humans still be happy with their situations and not be overtaken by constant misery? Of course! But it would be stupid to single-mindedly pursue a perpetual "happy"   while being oblivious to the calamity unfolding around us- to the extent of emulating the proverbial ostrich with head buried in the sand.
 

The Paragraph Of "Laudato Si" Most Papal Cheerleaders Won't Reference

Pope Francis - blows it, in one paragraph of his encyclical.

Pope Francis' encyclical (Laudato Si)  on global warming and the care of the Earth, has much to commend it. As a teaching document (predicated on the Church's 'Magisterium' or teaching office) it is unique in holding all humans to account to care for the Earth. The Pope, in the 183 page document, writes:

"The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth"

Yes, indeed it is!  One doesn't have to look far to see that, whether viewing waste pits in Delhi or immense refuse and garbage piles in U.S. dumps or fracking  -devastated lands. He also clearly targets the consumptive capitalist economic system, i.e.:

"Economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain. As a result, whatever is fragile is defenseless before the interests of the deified market which is the only rule"

Totally nailing the Neolberal imperative, now prepped to metastasize even further if the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)  is passed, by hook or more likely, crook.

The Pope also defines the scientific aspect:

"A very solid scientific consensus indicate we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system, contributing to a constant rise in sea level and an increase in extreme weather events."

Adding that:

"A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) released mainly as a result of human activity."

Having called out humans as prime culprits, the Pope goes on to assert:

"Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming, or at least the human causes which aggravate it."

All very well and good, except that in one small paragraph the Pope effectively drops the proverbial 'turd' into the punch bowl. Must we suck it up? Must we ignore it? I believe the answer is 'no' to the first and 'yes' to the second.

This is the paragraph that all the Pope's green cheerleaders - including Bill Maher last night - appear to have missed.  For those who may have missed it, let me highlight it below in the context of the Pope's observation of the "two extremes":

"At one extreme we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology without any need for ethical considerations or deep change.

At the other extreme are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited."

But here is where his logic breaks down, and indeed, the thrust of the encyclical is muted and effectively all its exhortations rendered empty. Because, in fact, human population IS the biggest contributor to global warming, climate change, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/earth-day-alert-biggest-problem-remains.html

As I noted therein:

At the root of all the problems, including fouled water, polluted air and soil, melting glaciers, severe crowding - not to mention mass panic migrations (such as claimed over 850 lives this week) is overpopulation.  And showing a highlight graphic, e.g.


The Pope, by his "extremist at the other end" reference, appears totally oblivious to this, which also means he doesn't truly grasp global warming in the sense of its human inputs. More people = more energy needed, for toys, cars, consumption (even at minimal levels) as well as for keeping cool or warm...in other words more CO2 generated, no matter how you cut it.

So, the pontiff has even failed miserably to understand that the energy industry,  that's the biggest generator of CO2,  extends far beyond merely its discovery and exploration aspects. It drives the global economy by powering the production and consumption of virtually all consumer goods. Each added human for which we are adjured to permit an "intervention" (i.e. individual consumption - whether of toys, food, cars or computers) inevitably increases its own carbon footprint in the process as well as humanity's on the planet. It is basic math, which seemingly escapes Frances.

It also escapes Wall St. Journal hacks like Holman W. Jenkins Jr. who, in his claptrap column today, referred to the "humanity haters" as the "gestalt of the Left and its totalitarian push" into global warming debates. Obviously, without even seeing a professional diagnosis, we can assert Holman is insane. If he can't even distinguish between humanity haters and excessive human numbers critics!

Worse, we are now informed of the shrinking water resources of our planet, That is the conclusion of a new study published by researchers at NASA, which drew on satellite data to quantify the stresses on aquifers. The researchers found that over the decade-long study of the 37 major aquifers worldwide, 21 experienced a depletion of their water supply. Especially alarming was the study’s finding that the Indus Basin aquifer, which supplies much of India’s water supply, has depleted rapidly.

All this coincides with an earlier State of the World study. In the ‘State of the World’ report (2000, pp. 46-47), it is noted that the ever increasing water deficits will likely spark “water wars” by 2025.As they note (p. 47):

Quote:

---

“When a country’s renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita (what some analysts call the water stress level) it becomes difficult for the country to mobilize enough water to satisfy all the food, household, and industrial needs of its population"

---

The same 'State of the World’ report notes at present rates of decline and even without factoring in the worst global warming influences – the number of people living in water-stressed countries will rise from 470 million to 3 billion by 2025. More than a six-fold increase.

All this shows the Pope's "other extreme" remark is totally disingenuous and misplaced. You simply cannot - I repeat CAN NOT - regard additional humans in our overpopulated world as "benefits" or beneficial! Too much "life", in terms of the human population, can overtake and overburden a fragile world which can barely provide for all the people living on it as it is.  On any given day nearly 1 billion are living on half or fewer calories than they need and it will only get worse with climate change ramping up. Not yet attended to is the scarcity of water. 

More to the point, the existing mass of 7.3 billion humans is currently gobbling the equivalent of 1.6 Earths each year. This is clearly unsustainable and one of two things must happen: humans must cut their numbers radically - preferably by cutting birth rates, or those uncontrolled  numbers will overwhelm the existing resources leading to mass starvation and destitution.

What will the Pope's solution be - if not mass birth control programs? Does he have plans for a new, giant  ion space ship to carry the excess humans to other worlds?  Does he have ideas by which to restore the planet's dwindling water sources? Can he change salt water to regular water without the enormous cost of desalination plants?  Does he have the means or plan to feed the additional five billion humans (if no  birth control is in the offing) due by 2100?

Does he have any plan to get rid of the excess CO2 they will generate?

Sadly, the Pope is too much a mental hostage to the "natural law" nonsense churned out in Church dogma. Nonsense that would value excess or surplus human lives at the expense of those who are already inhabiting the planet. In an infinite world, the presence of ever more humans would not be an issue, and perhaps such a world would also sport the reservoirs to absorb all the extra CO2.  But we don't have such a world, but rather a finite one.

Which the Pope, to his credit,  recognizes with one part of his brain, but sadly dismisses with the other. The part gutted by an antiquated theology and belief system we can no longer afford if serious about global warming.

Birth Control Must Figure Into Any Papal Encyclical On Climate Change

Pope Francis is preparing an encyclical on global warming-climate change. If it is to mean anything it must allow provisions for birth control, not merely adjure people to consume less.

The news (Denver Post, June 12, p. 13A)  that Pope Francis is now finishing a papal encyclical on global warming has conservatives - Catholics and non-Catholics alike- fretting on the implications. Republican conservos, as is their misguided wont, fear the pontiff conferring benediction on the validity of human -caused climate change which they regard as a "hoax". Catholic conservatives are terrified because it inevitably interjects the issue of the world's growing population - a basic generator of CO2. They fear that any acknowledgement of climate change - especially traced to humans- leaves the door open to accepting the UN agenda that universally gives women access to artificial contraception and abortion.

Since both are claimed to violate Catholic moral tenets, this would be unacceptable. Never mind that before 1869, the Church allowed abortion up to the end of the first trimester. John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, has been quoted as citing a long standing collection of Canon Law that “it was not until 1869 that abortion for any reason became grounds for excommunication” (See, e.g. Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990).

The larger point here is that clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows its moral positions are malleable and not set in stone!  What this means is that the Church itself cannot be free of errors in faith or morals if it has already made one that was since covered up.

As for birth control, let's not forget that the Papal Commission set up by Pope Paul VI advised that he alter the Church's stance to allow artificial contraception (cf. Contraception and Holiness- The Catholic Predicament, Collins Publishers, UK, 1964. ) Despite that, Paul rejected his own Commission opting instead to adhere to Vatican hardliners like Joseph Ratzinger.

All this is germane given that how Francis deals with the inexorable population growth as it affects the environment, has to be one of the key questions to be answered when the encyclical, 'Laudato si, on the Care of Our Common Home' is released June 18.

As I noted in earlier posts, over-population is at the root of all the problems, including fouled water, polluted air and soil, melting glaciers, severe crowding - not to mention mass panic migrations (such as  seen this past week to Europe).  There are UN estimates that project a global population of 10.9 billion by 2100. If, however, women - mainly in the poorest nations and without access to contraceptives -  have even 0.5 more offspring each than projected,  that 2100 estimate could turn into 12.3 billion or even 15.8 billion.  See e.g.

The latter pointing to a certain 'Soylent Green' world. Meanwhile, Adrian Rafferty of the University of Washington, publishing in a recent issue of Science, computed there's an 80 percent probability that world population - now 7.3 billion - will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion by 2100

All this means that the Pope, if he is serious, cannot ignore or dismiss the adverse role human over -reproduction plays in contributing to a host of problems - including mass poverty and the greenhouse effect. In the case of the first, we note too many people outstripping the resources to provide for them - especially in places like Africa - which at its current rate of reproduction could see 5 billion people by 2100.

 Clearly also, the pollution of the atmosphere* in tandem with the accelerating greenhouse effect, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time of birth.  The more people generated the more CO2 produced as a result of their gobbling resources and assorted carbon footprints. While the latter are greatest in the West, because our societies are based on consumption, the lesser footprints also matter in the sense that wars, tribal unrest and religious wars can result in millions fleeing their home nations and disrupting the balance of life in those countries fled to.

The most salient point for the pope is that the existing mass of 7.3 billion humans is currently gobbling the equivalent of 1.6 Earths each year. This is clearly unsustainable and one of two things must happen: humans must cut their numbers radically - preferably by cutting birth rates, or those uncontrolled  numbers will overwhelm the existing resources leading to mass starvation and destitution.

So artificial birth control, and yes - abortion too (if the birth control fails) must be available for a world teetering on the brink of catastrophe.. Failure to acknowledge this will mean the encyclical will be essentially a still born, sterile document - all form and no substance.
-------

* New research has found that natural gas "flaring" at frack sites has added pollutant emissions to the atmosphere equivalent to "77 million cars". The noxious substances entering the atmosphere include:  carbon monoxide, benzene, and volatile organic compounds. (EOS: Earth and Space Science News, Vol. 96, No. 10, p. 5)