[jedrider]

More profound is to ask why in the first place is there a need to fix a date or level of doom?

Well, if we are talking about the breakdown of our present society, then that matters. Maybe, some of us, will be better off, lead a more interesting existence! Interesting for few of us only. I don't care a wit about myself, but I wonder what my two children will have to deal with.

If it is the equivalent of an asteroid strike, as Guy seems to indicate, then the quicker the better.

Unfortunately, it could be in between, which basically boils down to more suffering overall and very hard to accept.

[onlooker]

More profound is to ask why in the first place is there a need to fix a date or level of doom?

Here is where I agree with Ibon. The timeline is difficult to pinpoint. Apparently Dissident and Cid had some argument related to precisely that relative to what is happening in the ESAS. My impression is Dissident is an expert in Earth sciences. On the other hand my layman assessment is that Cid's case relative to what is happening in the ESAS is persuasive and strong especially because he is citing scientific sources. So affixing a timeline does seem like overkill regarding the overshoot matters we discuss

[dohboi]

When we got this lopsided, it was pretty clear that it was over:

[ralfy]

Communities aren't going to prepare, and we are probably not going to see any positive collective action. We are likely headed for the worst case that will happen rapidly on a geological timescale. However, that doesn't mean we should entertain self-serving doom peddlers like McPherson and Cid Yama.

I think the first and second sentences contradict the third.

[Cid_Yama]

Hey-Zeus, thanks for the laugh! HAAAAAAA! Something really pushed your button.

Funny how you sometimes remember what you want to remember. Dissident was claiming methane mixed rapidly in the atmosphere so Mauna Loa should have been showing the rise in Methane, as well as other ground station is the Arctic. this was in 2011, I believe.

Methane rises rapidly in the atmosphere, and ground stations 1400 miles away would not immediately register new methane releases.

Methane does NOT mix rapidly throughout the atmosphere as Dissident claimed, which explains the overburden of methane in the Arctic. The methane rise did, in time, register elsewhere.

The methane rise is now self-evident.

I was the one who was correct, contrary to your mis-remembrance, and the pigeon chess players claims of victory.

[Cid_Yama]

As for McPherson. I am not in the same boat. His message is not mine.

The degradation of the subsea relic permafrost began when the ESAS submerged 8000 years ago. We may have brought forward the time that the permafrost no longer acted as a cap and released the methane. But that release was inevitable the second we prevented the natural cycle of cooling to commence.

That subsea relic permafrost was formed when the shelf was exposed to air. Once it submerged, it's fate was sealed.

There is no way to reform the permafrost cap and the ESAS covers 2 million sq km.

The release has always been inevitable. And there is so much methane, temperature WILL NOT remain within a range that warm blooded creatures can survive.

Because the change will be so rapid, the web of life will be unable to adapt, and the natural systems on which human life depends will collapse. Diversity has already fallen. Species have already gone extinct faster than at any time in the history of the planet. Ocean acidification and oxygen depletion will turn the oceans into a desert.

This is a natural cycle that has happened several times in the past. (Just not this quick.) and it CANNOT be stopped.

As for my prediction (KJ, there is a big difference between prophecy and prediction), it is that by 2020 abrupt climate change will severely impact food production globally. Resulting in the collapse of delivery systems, widespread famine and subsequent pandemic, initiating human die-off. Nothing more than that. Nothing about near-term extinction. (Unless we get a massive CIE, then all bets are off.)

10 years ago, most considered that claim outrageous, impossible. Now, not so much.

(The US government has been worried about non-linear abrupt climate change since 2001.)

I have no motivation beyond knowledge for knowledge's sake. I sell nothing, I do not advocate any course of action.

Yet the pigeons still try to ascribe evil motivations. I just think people have a right to know, and I just can't stand when the truth is shouted down.

[Cid_Yama]

Also a word in McPherson's defense. I'm not willing to just throw him to the wolves. McPherson has a doctorate in Ecology and the Environment, he is a Professor Emeritus from the University of Arizona.

The lukewarmer who wrote the article that KJ posted taught undergrad Earth Sciences as a graduate student while working on his masters in hydrogeology.

He worked briefly on a survey conducted by the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. He has since been a blogger.

You need to watch your sources.

Also, in his attack on McPherson, he was just making pigeon chess attacks, without actually addressing any of the claims by McPherson, no argument was given. Just crap on the board, kick over the pieces, then fly away claiming victory.

Now, I don't really know enough about McPherson's claims to address them, but I do know the author of the article didn't.

And some of what the author claimed was outright untrue, without providing any documentation to support his accusations.

He also made statements like, other scientists say he is wrong. WTF? About what? In what way?
You are just posting crap that you uncritically accept, because you don't like the message.

But then, if you guys had any critical thinking skills you wouldn't be trying to deny what has become the obvious.

ut oh

[Cid_Yama]

I've been trying to assess Dr. Guy McPherson's position and I'm having difficulty finding anything in the form of a paper, or even his argument in text form. Everything seems to be in the form of interviews. What I have heard isn't any different from what we have discussed here over the years. He could just be repeating what we have discussed here.

I'm especially interested in why he is anticipating near-term extinction. If someone could direct me to something other than an interview.

So far I haven't found anything to disagree with other than near-term extinction. If he said near term initiation of die-off, I could agree. Near term collapse of civilization I could agree. Short of a massive methane excursion suddenly raising temperatures an additional 6 degree C abruptly, I think it will take a while to finish off the last of us.

Our level of technology should at least ensure the survival of tens of thousands for a good portion of this century. I guess some would call that virtual extinction, but I make the distinction.

I do, however, doubt we will survive this century.

[dohboi]

Here ya go:

Part 1--Intro: https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/introduction/
Part 2--69 feedback loops: https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/ ... k-loops-2/
Part 3--How far we've come: https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/ ... k-loops-2/

It seems to me, though, that I've seen his essential points more briefly stated somewhere. I'll keep looking around. (And for the record, I don't accept all of his conclusions, but I don't think most of his detractors have actually managed to completely destroy what I see as his central tenets.)

Most of this is simply a collection of summaries of (admittedly dire) articles.

Skimming, the most succinct he seems to be is in the section "Extinction Overview" about half way through part 1, where he just points out that a world 4C above preindustrial global temperatures is not compatible with human life.

The most forceful statement on this seems to be here: "...we’re human animals, and I know animals require habitat to survive. When there is no ability to grow food or secure water, humans will exit the planetary stage"

I don't see in this doc where he purports to show that such a temperature will be reached by 2030 or any other fixed date. But perhaps he has now backed of on such a specific claim and fallen back to human extinction within the century. As Cid points out, it is hard to absolutely rule out that scenario, even if I don't think there is absolutely clinching proof.

[onlooker]

Cid, I think I found something for you. McPherson lists 6 avenues to near term extinction. Again, by near does he mean 2030 or by end of this century? Well according to this link http://www.ecoshock.org/2014/09/human-e ... -much.html
He does call for extinction by 2030 . Also the link contains a rebuttal to this scenario by science journalist Scott K Johnson
Also, here are the 6 catalysts for extinction
Abrupt climate change resulting from the loss of global dimming when civilization falls. I’ve spoken about this issue recently, and my presentations in the near future will continue to pound this drum.

2. Abrupt climate change resulting from firing the clathrate gun (item 1 on this list). I’ve written and spoken repeatedly about this topic.

3. Abrupt climate change resulting from moistening of the upper troposphere (item 39 on this list). As the planet warms, the most-abundant greenhouse gas becomes more abundant, thus further warming the planet.

4. Overt, rather than the ongoing covert version of World War leading to use of nuclear weapons. We can duck, but there’s no cover. So much for “duck and cover.”

5. Meltdown of the world’s nuclear power facilities. Fukushima was a harbinger. Many people, all of them more knowledgeable about the subject than me, believe Fukushima is an extinction-level event for our species.

6. Driving to extinction many other species. At some point, we become the species driven to extinction by industrial civilization. We will die without a living planet to sustain us.

[Ibon]

Some people collect coins, collect comic books, insect collections, life list of birds seen. And then some people collect short term extinction scenarios. We love to covet our collections, look at them every day. Dust off the cases. Keep them freshened up.

[Tanada]

My problem with Dr. McPherson is not his sources, but rather that whatever projections are made he always focuses in on the worst case scenario. History is replete with grim events taking place, but if every event had been the darkest of outcomes then civilization would not exist as we know it.

[Cid_Yama]

Thanks Dohboi. It shows where he got the date, and what he is calling extinction. He is not saying we will all be dead by 2030, but rather, we will reach 4C by 2030. That sounds reasonable.

He then goes on to say that 4C will lead to extinction. Which is also a reasonable assumption, since the warming won't stop there and long before 4C the natural systems on which we depend will be on life support.

According to the World Bank’s 2012 report, “Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided” and an informed assessment of “BP Energy Outlook 2030” put together by Barry Saxifrage for the Vancouver Observer, our path leads directly to the 4 C mark. The conservative International Energy Agency throws in the towel on avoiding 4 C in this video from June 2014 (check the 25-minute mark). The 19th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 19), held in November 2013 in Warsaw, Poland, was warned by professor of climatology Mark Maslin: “We are already planning for a 4°C world because that is where we are heading. I do not know of any scientists who do not believe that.” Among well-regarded climate scientists who think a 4 C world is unavoidable, based solely on atmospheric carbon dioxide, is Cambridge University’s Professor of Ocean Physics and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics, Dr. Peter Wadhams (check the 51-second mark in this 8 August 2014 video), who says: “…the carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere, which now exceeded 400 parts per million, is sufficient, if you don’t add any more, to actually raise global temperatures in the end by about four degrees.” Adding to planetary misery is a paper in the 16 December 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluding that 4 C terminates the ability of Earth’s vegetation to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide. According to a story in the 6 December 2015 issue of the Washington Post: “With no government action, Exxon experts … [said] average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.”

I’m not sure what it means to plan for 4 C (aka extinction). I’m not impressed that civilized scientists claim to be planning for it, either. But I know we’re human animals, and I know animals require habitat to survive. When there is no ability to grow food or secure water, humans will exit the planetary stage, as finally realized by the mainstream scientific community with a paper in the 2 October 2015 issue of Science: a stable food web was critical to the few species that survived the most severe mass extinction event in planetary history.

Clearly he is documenting his claims, providing links.

He has just made himself a combat dummy, with his sensationalized (and not quite correct) headlines. So he brought it on himself. But it keeps the money flowing in from lectures and interviews.

Some may find his ticket punching distasteful, but it is, of course, the American way.

[dohboi]

If he is going to be so prominent, I just wish he would correct some errors that have been in his standard lectures for some time now. For example, as far as I know, it has not (yet) been documented that five million people are now dying from global warming. What has been documented iirc is that about five million die every year from all varieties of air pollution.

He can make his claims perfectly well without resorting to such claims, so why not correct them rather than repeating them. Being as accurate as possible on things that are easily correctable can only improve his reputation, it seems to me.

There really should be more people more prominently pointing out how likely it is that we are totally f'd and in how many potential ways. This is just truth, and basing whatever decision one is making on truth is preferable to basing it on delusion, imvho.

[Cid_Yama]

Agreed. People like that need to come spend some time with us, where they can be tempered in the fire.

One claim that lukewarmer attacking McPherson made was that Beckwith claimed he was being misrepresented by McPherson. So let's see what Beckwith actually said.

For the sake of argument, let us pick September 2020 for the first “blue-ocean” event in the Arctic. This would occur for about a month. Within two or three years, it is highly likely that the duration of this “blue-ocean” state would be three months or so, thus occurring for August, September and October in 2023. Within an additional few years, say by 2025, it is highly likely that the “blue-ocean” event would be extended for another few additional months, and we’d have ice-free conditions from July through to and including November — or five months of the year. Then, within a decade or two from the initial 2020 event we can expect to have an ice-free “blue-ocean” Arctic year round — some year between 2030 and 2040.

Once the Arctic is essentially ice-free for ever-increasing durations in the summer months, and then over the entire year, there are two enormous feedback risks that we face — Methane and Greenland.

Methane is the mother of all risks. The Russians have measured large increases in emissions from the continental shelf seabed in the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). Over the timespan of a few years, they observed that methane bubbled up in vast numbers of plumes that increased in size from tens of metres in diameter to hundred and even thousand metre diameter plumes in the shallow regions of ESAS. Global atmospheric levels of methane are rapidly rising, and although they average about 1900 ppb or so, there have been readings over 3100 ppb in the atmosphere over the Arctic. Since the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane versus carbon dioxide is 34x, 86x and close to 200x on timescales of 100 years, 20 years and a few years, respectively, a large burst of methane can virtually warm the planet many degrees almost overnight.

Recently, we have passed about 405 ppm of CO2, with a record rise of 3.09 ppm in 2015 alone. When accounting for methane and other greenhouse gases and putting them into CO2-equivalent numbers, we are at about 490 ppm CO2 equivalent. We are literally playing with fire, and the outcome will not be pretty.

Greenland ice melt is the next enormous feedback risk. When we lose snow and ice in the Arctic – and the cascading feedbacks like albedo destruction kick in – and the methane comes out, then the enormous warming over Greenland and in the water around and under the Greenland ice will viciously destroy the ice there and greatly accelerate sea level rise.

The level of certainty over these future effects is close to 100% if we continue to be stupid and do nothing.

The only difference between Beckwith and McPherson appears to be that McPherson recognizes it's too late and there is nothing that can be done. While Beckwith desperately wants something to be done. He doesn't know what could be done, but advocates action.

Oddly, Beckwith's message is far more specific and near term. He just can't go the final step to connect the dots between what he says and what that means.

[jedrider]

Some people collect coins, collect comic books, insect collections, life list of birds seen. And then some people collect short term extinction scenarios. We love to covet our collections, look at them every day. Dust off the cases. Keep them freshened up.

That is a terrific way of looking at it. Eventually, though, a valid story can come out of our collections.

[regardingpo]

regardingpo, I will acknowledge that the globe is warming, has been warming since the Pleistocene Ice Age, and will continue to warm for another 2000-20,000 years from entirely natural causes. Evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW, you must prove that the warming itself is caused by mankind. For all of the computer modelling of climate and the billions in funding, this remains unproven.

What you wrote is factually wrong. I can see that you didn't even bother to read the link that I posted, because it debunks everything you wrote.
I'm not interested in talking to you anymore, since you clearly have no interest in trying to research actual science. Please don't respond to me anymore, I've had enough of arguments with deniers who simply refuse to read scientific arguments.


For other forum users who care to know what science really says about AGW, read below.

1. The claim that AGW is happening is proven with almost complete certainty. Models are not even necessary to prove it. They are only necessary to try to predict exactly how things will play out in the future.
A couple of youtube videos on that topic:
The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC
Understanding Climate Change: A Conversation with Michael Mann
Playlist with videos debunking climate deniers' myths:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... PfAIyI7VAP

2. Since 1980s other factors have been cooling the earth, but humans have been warming it faster then other factors have been cooling it. We're heading for a new ice age thousands of years from now, but that is happening so slowly that it can't offset the warming that humans are causing right now.
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

[dohboi]

Good points, repo.

Really, all that is needed is a few undisputable facts and basic physics:

1) CO2 is a GHG (proven more than a hundred years ago, and about as 'controversial' as the boiling point of water)
2) CO2 is generated by the burning of fossil fuels (duh)
3) We have been burning lots of ff, enough to now generate about 40 billion tons of CO2/year (duh)
4) All those extra CO2 emissions has increased the net amount of it in the atmosphere: from ~270 ppm to ~400 today
5) Not surprisingly, then, given it's GHG properties, average global temps have risen by about 1 degree C (most recently proven by the Berkley study, ironically funded by fossil fuel interests who presumably thought that the very conservative physicist who lead the study would skew the data in their favor)

Anyone who can't connect those dots is TRYING not to do so.

Old Navaho saying (iirc): "You can't wake someone up who is only pretending to sleep."

[KaiserJeep]

Now both of you tell me if the words you typed are worth killing 4 billion people. That is what stopping the burning of fossil fuels for energy means, it means that 300X the number of people killed by Hitler starve to death.

The (natural) warming of the Earth is survivable, ceasing to use FF's before we have adequate replacement energy sources is not. Even if the burning of FF's is accelerating the warming process, that's better than letting 4 billion starve by abandoning petroleum fuelled mechanized agriculture.

Each coin has two sides. If you honestly are going to advocate that we quit growing food with petroleum fuels, best have a plan to feed all those people first, or face the fact that you are advocating genocide.

You would call me a "denialist", but I have faced this grim choice and come down firmly on the side of people and their right to live. You are the ones denying reality.

[kiwichick]

@ kj....worrying about feeding people would involve thinking about the fact that there already too many human beings on the planet, unless at least a billion of us are prepared to dramatically reduce both our food intake and our consumption of nonrenewable resources

the data at https://www.populationmatters.org/docum ... _index.pdf gives a estimate for our sustainable population of approx. 4.3 billion

our current population is 7.4 billion and increasing by one extra human being every 1-2 seconds

one example from the data; Japan; current pop. 126-127 million.....estimated sustainable pop. .....18 million ......and yet what do the headlines scream about Japan's population declining???