Peak Oil News and Message Boards

I read the article, but I would like to point out a few things, assuming the assumptions made by the scientists are all accurate, which obviously we don't know but for the sake of argument:

Their base comparison about the 55mya example of the CO2 pulse that had a significant atmospheric presence for a long time according to the geologic record indicates that although it probably caused significant disruption in the biosphere, the fact that we are still here shows that it was not an apocalyptic event. Of course it also was probably not as severe.

"THE PALEOCENE-EOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM CLIMATE EVENT
Sediment cores from the deep ocean reveal a climate event 55 million years ago that appears to be analogous to
the potential global warming climate event in the future. Isotopes of carbon preserved in CaCO3 shells reveal an
abrupt release of carbon to the atmosphere-ocean system, which took about 150 thousand years to recover. Isotopes
of oxygen show a parallel perturbation, reflecting warming of the climate and the deep ocean in response to the
carbon release. Although specifics of the event remain uncertain, such as the source, amount, and release timescale
of the CO2, the event confirms the long timescale for recovery from CO2 release, as predicted by the models in this
study."

So there will be a long tail with increased CO2 in the air if things are left to known natural processes. So what? The acidification of the ocean will be in small part countered by the increased volume and surface area of oceans that will cover now-low-lying land areas from land ice melt. This will also increase the available ocean volume in which chemical reactions can take place. Furthermore, a warmer surface (assuming surface temperatures in the tropics will not preclude land life) will be a more humid environment, which will probably allow for increased plant growth and CO2 storage in the form of jungles in much wider areas than currently. I would predict that these effects would allow to prevent desertification in South America and the growth of masses of vegetation in the North American Plains and the now Sahara desert.

Remember that a few hundred million years ago the planet was much warmer than now and life did just fine.

Now, I won't deny that this will absolutely wreck the biosphere and provide multiple catalysts for human conflict that could easily escalate to extinction, but not due to natural processes. I mean that the environmental pressures will lead human power factions into conflict against themselves and within themselves in such a manner as to precipitate TEOTWAWKI with things such as disease (natural and artificial), nuclear war, pollution, starvation, violence, etc. with the possibility of extreme artificial events that could perhaps cause extinction of humans but also irrecoverable biosphere damage (such as precipitating a Venus like transformation).

TL;DR: The scientists may as well be right, but it is inadvisable to jump to conclusions when the premises may not be true and unknown unknowns could have very significant impact in such predictive models, either way. Regardless, CO2 air ppm will continue to go up no matter what in the next few decades due to human society requirements and inertia. I find it irrelevant to ponder more than a few hundred years into the future as if we could change what will transpire (barring "divine" intervention, magic bullets, etc). Whatever happens, either we will adapt and survive as a species, or we will not, which would make the entire point moot anyway.

35Kas wrote: I find it irrelevant to ponder more than a few hundred years into the future as if we could change what will transpire (barring "divine" intervention, magic bullets, etc). Whatever happens, either we will adapt and survive as a species, or we will not, which would make the entire point moot anyway.

I agree.

Of course, we don't want to look very far into the future.

If we do, we may have to face our increasingly evil role in our story...we may be in the midst of crashing life down to a level that it will never fully recover from.

Some people can handle facing such dark realities/possibilities; others have to limit themselves to their life times, or only a few centuries, or other forms of denial to avoid seeing the depth of damage they/we are causing.

Each to her or his own, I suppose.

dohboi wrote:

Some people can handle facing such dark realities/possibilities; others have to limit themselves to their life times, or only a few centuries, or other forms of denial to avoid seeing the depth of damage they/we are causing.

Each to her or his own, I suppose.

It is best to consider this question from the perspective of governments / authorities needing to balance the truth with maintaining social stability as their declining populations adapt to a changing and volatile world.

Truth or deception in communicating dire circumstances to your population would be carefully considered. I am not referring only to an elite that would manipulate information to preserve their self interests. There would be altruistic unselfish reasons for governments to carefully consider how to communicate scientific evidence that would preclude any chance or hope of conditions moderating within the span of a few generations.

It can be assumed the most volatile period are the initial generations when populations levels are still way above what can be sustained due to deteriorating climate conditions. Later generations may be restricted in the bio regions that are habitable and what future equilibrium can be established will certainly depend on population levels and climate conditions.

It is not necessary to know ahead of time the outcome. We have little control anyway.

I would add something to the above. All of the squirming, denial and rationalizations that you see going on now when we are still in the pre-consequence stage is understandable. Most of our species is still sitting comfortable without experiencing crisis. In the midst of crisis alot of these rationalizations and coping mechanisms around information drop quickly especially when existential crisis is unfolding around you.

We spend an awful lot of time now dealing with this pre consequence squirming stage around the truth. Frankly, there is still a lot we do not know concerning the specifics.

Ibon wrote:It is not necessary to know ahead of time the outcome. We have little control anyway.

This is much like fatalism.

Religious people are often fatalistic because they believe a higher power is controlling what is happening in the world, and that no matter how bad this life is the next life will be better...Christians might say "it is fore-ordained", while Moslems might say "Inshallah. It is written" as they surrender to their "fate."

--------------------------------------

Non-religious people are generally not fatalistic. If this is the only life we get, then we need to take responsibility ourselves to make it work.

Back to global warming

Right now we know enough to know the outcome if we stay on our current course is undesirable. We don't have to know every detail of the future to know unchecked global warming will be a catastrophe.

And in democratic societies we actually do have some control. We can tell the truth and organize and vote and get things changed. Unfortunately we have moronic leaders like Trump who don't understand climate science and we have lying leaders like Obama who say they fixed the problem when they've actually made it worse.

But its our duty as sentient, thoughtful, intelligent humans to keep working to save the planet.

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:

Ibon wrote:It is not necessary to know ahead of time the outcome. We have little control anyway.

This is much like fatalism.

I agreed with your whole post actually. You took the above sentence I wrote out of context. We were discussing the longer time horizon which is what I was referring to and I stand by that, it is not necessary to exactly know the long term outcome beyond the next several generations.

We know that the longer you extend out prediction the less accurate. We have enough short term forecasts whose accuracy we can trust to justify taking action as you suggested in your post.

I am an atheist by the way. I trust in the higher power of the overshoot predator who is the first to spit on theological mumbo jumbo. He is an ecological phenomenon. Spiritual and moral and ethical considerations are not his concern!

Hail to the overshoot predator. Let the cleansing begin.

Ibon wrote:I agreed with your whole post actually.

Thank you.

Ibon wrote:You took the above sentence I wrote out of context.

Sorry.

I generally read along until some sentence strikes me, and then I write something in response. I try not to take anything out of context, but I slipped up here. Sorry again.

Ibon wrote:I am an atheist by the way. I trust in the higher power of the overshoot predator but he is not ruled by theology. He is an ecological phenomenon!

Hail to the overshoot predator. Let the cleansing begin.

I almost wrote a little bit about the quasi-religious overshoot predator when I wrote my post above about religious fatalism, but I know you present the idea as a parody of a vengeful god while making clear it is actually a way to describe being an ecological phenomena so I didn't mention it above. However, since you brought it up:

If the vengeful god is dead then the overshoot predator is dead.

Its up to people to do something about climate change. All it will take is one major climate disaster while Trump is mouthing inanities about no human caused global warming, and the politics could flip in a moment, and carbon taxes and a new UN climate treaty to reduce CO2 emissions could become higher political priorities in the USA.

Let the healing begin.

CHEERS!

Plantagenet wrote:
If the vengeful god is dead then the overshoot predator is dead.

Its up to people to do something about climate change. All it will take is one major climate disaster while Trump is mouthing inanities about no human caused global warming, and the politics could flip in a moment, and carbon taxes and a new UN climate treaty to reduce CO2 emissions could become higher political priorities in the USA.

Let the healing begin.

CHEERS!

Plant, thanks for your comments.

The Overshoot Predator is not dead because our inaction is allowing his wrath to awaken. There is some degree of baked in the cake consequences to correct human overshoot and to this extent the Overshoot Predator is currently sitting on our collective shoulders and whispering into our ears reminding us of his wrath. How many are listening?

The degree to which we can tame him depends on human agency as you suggest. To date not much evidence out there that we can effectively repel his emergence.

He is sharpening his claws as we speak.

Why 'his'?

dohboi wrote:Why 'his'?

Good question. I do not consider the overshoot predator to have a gender. I was toying with putting in he/she or him/her when I wrote the post. It's cumbersome and "it" didn't work either. We need in the English language a gender neutral pronoun. Xe hasn't really become mainstream yet.

Plantagenet wrote:Back to global warming

Right now we know enough to know the outcome if we stay on our current course is undesirable. We don't have to know every detail of the future to know unchecked global warming will be a catastrophe.

But its our duty as sentient, thoughtful, intelligent humans to keep working to save the planet.

Undesirable for whom? People living in Siberia and Patagonia might very well disagree with your opinion on the costs vs benefits of Global warming. Unchecked global warming is here to stay so all your pronouncements about 'democracies' having influence are moot. People voted for the politicians world wide who have created every toothless climate agreement we have had over the last 30 years. Pretending that will change is wishful thinking, at best, and self delusion at worst. Humans life burning fossil fuels despite all the posturing and mumbo jumbo excuses we make in personal, community and national actions. Not one person in a thousand in the west lives an Amish lifestyle, nor will the rest willingly adopt such a low tech way of life.

Also the Earth is in no danger from global warming. If if we managed to kill off every living thing bigger than a single cell life will go on until the sun cooks the planet steil in a few billion years.

That definitely is the case that our capacity to extinguish life on this planet is limited due to the hardiness of cellular life on this planet as witnessed by its presence in almost every nook and cranny of this planet.
So, in relation to the future conditions on this planet, the climate change forcing seems to indicate that a mass extinction is in the works. Past mass extinctions do point to the demise of higher life forms on this planet including ourselves but the persistence of the simpler cellular life forms

Just think of all that rotting biomass. Fungi and decomposers are moving into a golden age.

Ibon wrote:Just think of all that rotting biomass. Fungi and decomposers are moving into a golden age.

Yes, good observation Ibon as the demise of some species paves the way for others to thrive as per the Dinosaurs exiting allowed the mammals to thrive.
As long as Earth remains at the same distance to the Sun and water remains abundant, evolution and natural selection will do their magic and life will reconstitute in diverse forms. Until as Sub says the Sun fries the planet.
The outstanding question pertinent to this thread is will we human with our intelligence and ingenuity manage to stave off extinction as Earth transitions to a hothouse state

35Kas wrote:Their base comparison about the 55mya example of the CO2 pulse that had a significant atmospheric presence for a long time according to the geologic record indicates that although it probably caused significant disruption in the biosphere, the fact that we are still here shows that it was not an apocalyptic event.

Modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago. Genus Homo first appeared 2-3 mya.

Larger mammals, did not appear until around 50 mya when atmospheric oxygen levels doubled.

The oldest known fossils of most of the modern orders of mammals appear in a brief period during the early Eocene and all were small, under 10 kg.

link

So not sure who you are referring to as we.

The Permian-Triassic would be a more fitting comparison for what we are headed for.

Sub wrote: "... People voted for the politicians world wide who have created every toothless climate agreement we have had over the last 30 years..."

True, but more true in the US and a few other places than in much of the rest of the world.

And then there's:

On climate change and elsewhere, politicians more conservative than citizens

http://thebulletin.org/study-climate-ch ... izens10950

Doh,
Have you looked at Yales 6 Americas study? Those demographics pretty well describe why the politicians are conservative.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/ab ... -americas/

Nice breakdown of demographics. I'm not sure what you see in it, though, that is so helpful in explaining the fact that politicians are more denialist than the public, but maybe I'm missing something.

In a real democracy, the politicians views should track fairly close to those of the general populous, broadly. The poll in your study showed that only 20% of the US public were doubtful or dismissive of climate science, yet an entire party of the US is, one that is now in control of all three branches of government.

Any illumination would be most welcome.

dohboi wrote:Nice breakdown of demographics. I'm not sure what you see in it, though, that is so helpful in explaining the fact that politicians are more denialist than the public, but maybe I'm missing something.

In a real democracy, the politicians views should track fairly close to those of the general populous, broadly. The poll in your study showed that only 20% of the US public were doubtful or dismissive of climate science, yet an entire party of the US is, one that is now in control of all three branches of government.

Any illumination would be most welcome.

How about the simplest plain old corruption of the political process . Remember, the Democrats talk the talk but don't walk the walk either

Doh,

I don't know if it's still attached but the original article contain s the questions and a breakdown of the answers by demographics.

Basically the deniers were
Old
White
Make
Well off
Home owners
Well educated

In short, the same profile as most business and political leaders.

I think it's because this demographic has been successful and is interested in retaining the status quo. They don't want change because the current system is good to them. So they enter the self reassuring echo chamber.