[Ibon]

Nobody's forcing anybody to participate, but this disconnect is why there's only a handful of active posters.

This would be true if there were other more relevant sites where folks are flocking to. But that is not the case. There simply is not all that much interest out there in the topics we discuss.

I for one would join another forum that would be focused on the inquiry of the upcoming consequences of human overshoot....

There are none.

[Ibon]

It will be however very asymmetric in its impacts around the planet. The extinctions caused will also be very asymmetric.

You haven't made a very strong case for this. Past mass extinction events like the end of the dinosaurs were pretty universal, reducing biodiversity down to a small host of physically small survivors.

5 mass extinctions in 600 million years puts the burden of proof not on me making a strong case against it! One of those was extra terrestrial in the form of a meteor so that means actually 4 home grown mass extinctions in 600 million years. I really doubt that a couple hundred years of elevating CO2 levels is going to take us anywhere near the results of those past 4 mass extinctions. But who am I to really know. I make no claims really.

You could put the consequences of climate change in two broad categories. The first being the local consequences caused by rising sea levels, rising temperatures, shifts in weather patterns, more droughts or more rain, etc. etc. These are the consequences that will disproportionately effect certain bio regions more than others. This is the asymmetric part of the equation I mentioned in my previous post. This will lead to extinctions. A significant rise of extinctions actually. Bye bye polar bears. ... but I don't think this would trigger in and of itself mass extinctions. Natural ecosystems have a plasticity and redundancies to weather (no pun intended) and adapt to quite significant changes.

There will be some localized major extinctions. To elaborate on the asymmetry. Cloud forests in Central America, the habitat I live in, would essentially disappear as temperature rise would shift this habitat higher to where there is no more land. A couple tiny islands of cloud forest in the highest elevations will not support much biodiversity. So this would be a pretty significant extinction event. Cloud forests in South America on the other hand do have vast areas of highland areas to migrate up to, replacing current paramo landscapes. This one example of cloud forests shows devastation in Central America and an adaptation to higher elevations in South America. That is about the best definition of asymmetry I can come up with. We would lose the Resplendent Quetzal and Three Wattled Bellbird. And countless other species. Tragic. Horrible.


The 2nd category of climate change consequences are those cascading systemic consequences and feedback loops that have been hypothesized; ocean acidification leading to the die-off of calcium based zooplankton and macro fauna like corrals and shellfish with calcified exo skeletons. This would be an example of a mass extinction event. I am not here to disprove this. It might well happen. There is absolutely nothing on the short term horizon to indicate that we are slowing down on the linear growth of emissions we have seen for the past 150 years. I do have a pretty strong distrust though of linear trends defying cyclical correction this late into human overshoot. Having said that the longer it takes for consequences to disrupt the status quo the more likely a mass extinction event will occur.

I do expect major disruptions this century to stop that trend of emission growth. I can't predict what will trigger this, from where it will come, what the vector will be but let's just say the overshoot predator will work in mysterious ways!

To claim any one position with any certainty at these volatile times is pretty stupid frankly.

Mass extinction? Maybe so.

I hope before I exit this planet that I can see some significant disruptions to the juggernaut of Kudzu Apes on the planet. I will rest in peace if that happens. Otherwise I will exit the scene wondering about how bad it will get.

As I am the ever optimist, and as I once mentioned, the mass extinction of the Cretaceous period ended the age of dinosaurs, but we got birds as a result. Over 9000 species today in all myriad forms and plumage.

[AdamB]

Someone remind me, what is the significance of the number of “hard core peakers” on this board?

Historical significance? A metric to figure out if more people were banned back in the bad old days than there are defenders left of the flawed ideas that got them banned? A measure of how many tucked tail and ran, or stuck it out insisting they were and still are right to the point of highlighting an obvious psychological dysfunction? Those who actually could think for themselves and just fell for the sales job of the time, and have stopped being hard core peakers?

[Ibon]

Probably worth mentioning that we are basing the lack of engagement on the topics we discuss on how few members join po.com or related forums. This is potentially misleading because we cannot really assess how many folks out there are actually engaged with these topics but have left digital and social media as a venue to engage in.

I myself have considered many times just abandoning engagement here and in this whole digital ecosystem. It has severe limitations.

[asg70]

You could put the consequences of climate change in two broad categories. The first being the local consequences caused by rising sea levels, rising temperatures, shifts in weather patterns, more droughts or more rain, etc. etc.

And maybe you could make the case for that if you remove the massive impact of human influence from the equation. Remember that piece not that long ago that said something like 40% (or was it higher) of all wildlife has been wiped off the planet since 1970? The planet has been systematically strip-mined for human use. As agriculture fails, areas that were designated off-limits will be strip-mined as well, including the cloud forest. There really won't be any choice after all other lands have been denuded and desertified. This at a macro level will mirror what happened historically during local famines where everything including treebark was razed in the hopes of providing some calories. This is what the zombie horde is. Billions of increasingly hungry refugees looking for any place left with a shred of greenery. And when all else fails, we revert to cannibalism. It's a joke for now but it's the endgame of population overshoot and die-off. It's wishful thinking to assume these events will be isolated safely far away and out of sight.

The 2nd category of climate change consequences are those cascading systemic consequences and feedback loops that have been hypothesized; ocean acidification leading to the die-off of calcium based zooplankton and macro fauna like corrals and shellfish with calcified exo skeletons.

Plus the clathrates "methane bomb". Cid hasn't posted here in some time but he was the main proponent of that and it's still a looming threat.

[asg70]

I for one would join another forum that would be focused on the inquiry of the upcoming consequences of human overshoot....
There are none.

Sure there is. Like this one created by Peakoil.com anti-civ dissidents. I don't know how active it is these days, though.

[AdamB]

I for one would join another forum that would be focused on the inquiry of the upcoming consequences of human overshoot....
There are none.

Sure there is. Like this one created by Peakoil.com anti-civ dissidents. I don't know how active it is these days, though.

That site isn't. The last member is like a 2012 registrant or something. I was discussing this site with someone else, because it was run by Shanny and she went missing at some point due to family issues.

Interesting that for all the hysteria about global doom and whatnot, doom always seems up being local.

[Ibon]

I for one would join another forum that would be focused on the inquiry of the upcoming consequences of human overshoot....
There are none.

Sure there is. Like this one created by Peakoil.com anti-civ dissidents. I don't know how active it is these days, though.

You made my point.

[Plantagenet]

You'll find the hardcore peakers today at places like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. Check out this recent Forbes article:

the-u-s-accounted-for-98-percent-of-global-oil-production-growth-in-2018

The world actually is at peak oil, except for the US and the increases in new oil production coming from fracking.

And how much longer can the US continue to increase oil production? When will the US peak?

Not much longer, IMHO. The US frackers are in trouble because they're losing money and the new wells aren't as productive as they used to be as they move off the "sweet spots" in the shale. US oil production growth is slowing.

And when US shale oil production stops growing...well.....that will be it. That will be peak oil in the US......and most likely in the world as well.

CHEERS!

[asg70]

That's kind of how doom always is, though, isn't it? Nigh rather than now?

Wake me when the lines form at the gas-stations, not that it will impact me directly since I don't use gasoline anymore.

[KaiserJeep]

The definition of peak oil is the production peak when half the resource is consumed. That took approximately 140 years to occur. YES, I do understand that demand is very much higher today when we burn petroleum in various grades of fuel in various vehicles, than it was when the main usage was for kerosene which replaced whale oil in lighting.

The second half of the resource will not take 14 decades before it is gone. Nor will it abruptly disappear, as thousands of wells slowly deplete and various techniques are used to squeeze out the remaining oil. In fact, when it is going away, there will be variations in supply and demand as price increases and we pull the next process off the shelf and squeeze those wells again.

Perhaps, due to high demand and increasing prices, the second half of the resource will go in 1/3 to 1/2 the time in which we consumed the first half. Meaning that in 40 to 70 years, there will be a real pinch in the supply of petroleum fuels, and they will by then be prohibitively expensive.

I will of course, not be around to see that. Most PO members will not. Sorry, but I can't even seem to work up a decent sense of panic over that future energy shortage.

YES, I do wish that somebody would formulate and execute an ordered plan to deal with a future shortage. But I have seen too many politicians just "kick the can" to be truly optimistic about that.

[Ibon]

Remember that piece not that long ago that said something like 40% (or was it higher) of all wildlife has been wiped off the planet since 1970?

It's all about refuge populations surviving which will be the source of recolonization of former human artificial landscapes once the human footprint recedes.

Once extinct gone forever. 95% species loss still has 5% population remaining to recolonize.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Probably worth mentioning that we are basing the lack of engagement on the topics we discuss on how few members join po.com or related forums. This is potentially misleading because we cannot really assess how many folks out there are actually engaged with these topics but have left digital and social media as a venue to engage in.

I myself have considered many times just abandoning engagement here and in this whole digital ecosystem. It has severe limitations.

Um. You may be doing that and a number of us older farts may be doing that (this is as close to ANY "social media" as I get. Never on FB or ANY of that nonsense. Never had a smart phone and no plans to unless they truly become very useful instead of expensive, small distraction devices, since I have all the one-low-price internet I need and want at home.)

But we're in the VAST minority. To where being addicted to one's phone is a very common joke meme, as well as the subject of many serious articles, etc. So, somehow, the idea that people en masse "abandoning" digital and social media being the cause for the decline here just doesn't make sense to me.

Unless they're interested in OTHER social media or digital media tools, instead. After all, there are many, MANY dog and cat videos to watch on Youtube. And more and more games. And much other "can't miss" stuff.

[Ibon]

But we're in the VAST minority.

I never knew obsolescence would feel so good!

If I sweep across in my mind the couple of thousand visitors who have come to visit us the past several years I have to admit that the only ones not interested or addicted to social media are in their 60's or older.

[asg70]

Once extinct gone forever. 95% species loss still has 5% population remaining to recolonize.

That's dependent on a suitable habitat. There won't be anything left to recolonize on a desertified hothouse earth and an acidified/anoxic ocean. Maybe give things millions years I guess, for all new species adapted to such a hostile environment. But then it would be just like past mass-extinction events which I'd classify as effectively total-losses of complex life.

[Ibon]

There won't be anything left to recolonize on a desertified hothouse earth and an acidified/anoxic ocean.

Bullshit

[KaiserJeep]

It IS an interesting psychological phenomenon. Some minority of people seem to derive a kind of glee when contemplating TEOTWAWKI. Not only that, but in order to satisfy this minority, the end when it arrives REAL SOON must be sudden, savage, and thoroughly deadly, killing everyone.

YES, my own mind has done this to me, a few short years ago. However I recognized the dysfunction and worked my way through it. I realized that (the mathematics of exponentials aside) nothing happens suddenly, everywhere, to everyone, when 7-8B folks are busily engaged in making sure BAU rules the day. Except possibly another giant meteor/comet/etc. impact from space - a truly random event, but so very unlikely at any single moment as to be unsuitable as a FUD generator.

So, to all of you out there, you can pray for that celestial body to strike from deep space - but don't forget to get up, put your pants on, have a cuppa, and go to work. Because after all, all us apes are in this together, our fate is interlinked.

And by some chance one of you FINALLY calls out TEOTWAWKI correctly, feel satisfied in the few hours before you perish. Enjoy the panic. As of yesterday I am so prepared and positioned for the end - I brought home a 1.75L bottle of Maker's Mark bourbon from Costco. With that and the ice in my freezer, I will relish the end. Although, speaking personally, I don't think it's happening soon.

[AdamB]

You'll find the hardcore peakers today at places like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. Check out this recent Forbes article:

the-u-s-accounted-for-98-percent-of-global-oil-production-growth-in-2018

The world actually is at peak oil, except for the US and the increases in new oil production coming from fracking.

The world actually is at peak oil...except...<insert stupid conditional here>.

Because aliens haven't landed to give us fusion technology, because a 70 year old completion technique was applied to resource plays, because OPEC can't get its act together, ad infinitum.

New oil production comes from wells. Hydraulic fracturing is just a completion technique.

And how much longer can the US continue to increase oil production? When will the US peak?

In oil production, the EIA says within just a couple years, according to the AEO reference case.

Not much longer, IMHO.

I'm betting the EIA arrived at the same answer using, you know, knowledge and stuff, rather than the precognitive inabilities of peak oilers who have been saying the same thing for nearly 30 years now.

The US frackers are in trouble because they're losing money and the new wells aren't as productive as they used to be as they move off the "sweet spots" in the shale. US oil production growth is slowing.

Frackers don't tend to own wells, they are just service companies that do the work. US E&Ps are the ones who produce the oil, choose where to drill, etc etc. US oil production growth stopped and created yet another US peak a few years back. That didn't stop it from reversing, and creating yet another US peak. Funny how peakers don't spend any time guessing at how many more peak oils there will be, instead always just predicting one more, even after having it pointed out to them how often they have made this mistake.

[asg70]

There won't be anything left to recolonize on a desertified hothouse earth and an acidified/anoxic ocean.

Bullshit

Well there's a reasoned argument for you. LOL. Enjoy your fantasy narrative of a conveniently selective and karmic Malthusian culling that leaves your neck of the woods as a pristine nirvana, I guess. I feel I'm on the winning side of this argument in the long run, not that I relish it.

[Ibon]

There won't be anything left to recolonize on a desertified hothouse earth and an acidified/anoxic ocean.

Bullshit

Well there's a reasoned argument for you. LOL. Enjoy your fantasy narrative of a conveniently selective and karmic Malthusian culling that leaves your neck of the woods as a pristine nirvana, I guess. I feel I'm on the winning side of this argument in the long run, not that I relish it.

Your post did not merit anything more than a one word response when you just throw out this tired meme of scorched and lifeless earth.

Use your brain instead of regurgitating bullshit.