|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2019 11:56:35 GMT -5
From what I had read scientists had thought that the 1000 ppm levels reached in the Permian Extinction event were probably an all-time high caused by the volcanic action of the Siberian Traps, but some of the new extrapolations suggest that CO2 levels of 1500 ppm are possible in the future if the current trend is not significantly reversed I'm having trouble finding solid data on this, but the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Measuring_ancient-Earth_carbon_dioxide_concentration) says something else. I'm happy to learn something new if you've got another source with some details. Quoting that page: ... There is evidence for high CO2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm ... I'm currently not an "alarmist", but I may be moving in that direction. I don't have degrees in the fields, but I've studied a fair amount of sciences and I'm trying to come at this rationally. I open to changing my position. As I'm sure you all know, the CO2 in fossil fuels used to be in the air. Plants fixed it to organic compounds using photosynthesis. This is part of why I haven't felt too scared (yet) - burning fossil fuels is returning CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 that used to be there. However, I do see the point about the rate of change. That CO2 was sequestered over millions of years and we're releasing it in decades. That, among other things, is disturbing. At the moment I think there is zero hope of humanity proactively moving to clean energy in an extreme way. Our only hope seems to be to continue the fast but not immediate move to cleaner energy (and efficient power lines), and then work on ways to protect against or undo global effects if and when they happen and people then have the motive. I'll try to provide some source materials as soon as I get back to Nashville where my books on this subject are located. I've never read any estimates of CO2 levels during the pre-Cambrian period, but the atmosphere is thought to have been a reducing atmosphere prior to cyanophytes oxygenating it via photosynthesis and killing off aneroibic organisms, so perhaps the CO2 levels were actually in the 6000 ppm range prior to that time. I've never read anything suggesting numbers above 1000 ppm that supposedly occurred during the Permian Extinction event, but perhaps I need to read more about that, too, just out of curiosity. I also don't know how CO2 levels from that particular period of time are estimated, but I do know that CO2 levels are known with considerable accuracy during the last million years from core samples that yielded trapped gas bubbles in ice sheets. I initially stated that the levels oscillated between 150 and 250 ppm during the Holocene Epoch (prior to the Anthropocene), but last night I was reading an article that suggested 180-280 is a more accurate range. In 1950 I think it went to 300, then dropped back a bit, and in the last thirty years has skyrocketed. Global temps and ocean temps in the top 700 feet of water have risen and the ocean's ph level has dropped from (if I remember correctly) from 7.8 to 7.6, which is huge considering that it's a logrhythmic scale. I think that change translates to a 30% rise in acidity over a very short period of time. We're lucky that the oceans are such a large sink for CO2, but we're cranking out so much carbon now, as well as cutting down more and more forests, that the whole system is being overwhelmed. Humans are indeed a geological force of epic proportions. Most of the past periods of increasing CO2 occurred over very long periods of time, but it is now happening fast. I agree that there is virtually no hope that humans will collectively do anything dramatic about this issue until truly cataclysmic events make what's happening so obvious that it cannot possibly be ignored. It will be extremely hard just to bend the curve, much less turn the direction of the graph around. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 12:46:55 GMT -5
Even if there's only a ten percent chance of catastrophe, it's radically illogical to not err on the side of caution. If you start with the premise that there's going to be the potential for a significant human population bottleneck, then the question of what exactly should be done isn't really as clear to me. Run your imagination on the scenario where everyone stops using fossil fuels one day. The scenario's in-between have to do with the scarcity that happens in the transition. Remember, the negative effects on humanity predicted because of climate change have to do with climate-caused destruction of coastal and other habitats and famine because of disruption to food supplies and a greater scarcity of fresh water. My understanding is that there's evidence that the planet's history is full of these bottlenecks, and cross-discipline theories based on what we can infer from the natural sciences about them suggest that climate change of one form or another is the likely culprit. But, recorded history tells another tale: genocide and the destruction of civilizations and cultures caused by war. Some pre-historical evidence for this is starting to emerge, as well. So to me, the optimal course of action isn't really so simple or clear, even if we take the most dire of the warnings as settled science. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 13:19:44 GMT -5
Even if there's only a ten percent chance of catastrophe, it's radically illogical to not err on the side of caution. If you start with the premise that there's going to be the potential for a significant human population bottleneck, then the question of what exactly should be done isn't really as clear to me. Run your imagination on the scenario where everyone stops using fossil fuels one day. The scenario's in-between have to do with the scarcity that happens in the transition. Remember, the negative effects on humanity predicted because of climate change have to do with climate-caused destruction of coastal and other habitats and famine because of disruption to food supplies and a greater scarcity of fresh water. My understanding is that there's evidence that the planet's history is full of these bottlenecks, and cross-discipline theories based on what we can infer from the natural sciences about them suggest that climate change of one form or another is the likely culprit. But, recorded history tells another tale: genocide and the destruction of civilizations and cultures caused by war. Some pre-historical evidence for this is starting to emerge, as well. So to me, the optimal course of action isn't really so simple or clear, even if we take the most dire of the warnings as settled science. What you're implying is that cataclysms are acceptable because they've occurred throughout history. Given the means to avert one, wouldn't that be preferable. I believe we have the means. It's just plain greed that restrains us. The weight and pull of the oil lobby and others who have so much invested in fossil fuels. There's a parallel here to the story of tobacco. I find it ironic that mass extinctions are providing the fuel, literally, for the next mass extinction. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2019 13:52:25 GMT -5
From what I had read scientists had thought that the 1000 ppm levels reached in the Permian Extinction event were probably an all-time high caused by the volcanic action of the Siberian Traps, but some of the new extrapolations suggest that CO2 levels of 1500 ppm are possible in the future if the current trend is not significantly reversed I'm having trouble finding solid data on this, but the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Measuring_ancient-Earth_carbon_dioxide_concentration) says something else. I'm happy to learn something new if you've got another source with some details. Quoting that page: ... There is evidence for high CO2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm ... I'm currently not an "alarmist", but I may be moving in that direction. I don't have degrees in the fields, but I've studied a fair amount of sciences and I'm trying to come at this rationally. I open to changing my position. As I'm sure you all know, the CO2 in fossil fuels used to be in the air. Plants fixed it to organic compounds using photosynthesis. This is part of why I haven't felt too scared (yet) - burning fossil fuels is returning CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 that used to be there. However, I do see the point about the rate of change. That CO2 was sequestered over millions of years and we're releasing it in decades. That, among other things, is disturbing. At the moment I think there is zero hope of humanity proactively moving to clean energy in an extreme way. Our only hope seems to be to continue the fast but not immediate move to cleaner energy (and efficient power lines), and then work on ways to protect against or undo global effects if and when they happen and people then have the motive. The Wikipedia reference you provided is worth reading all the way. Thanks for the reference. It explains several things that I hadn't realized before about the various carbon cycles and measuring methods, but the major takeaway is near the bottom of the article--the natural carbon sinks (oceans, vegetation, etc) can no longer fully absorb the CO2 that humans are now emitting, 48% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, and even if we stopped emitting CO2, it would take thousands of years before the levels would drop back down significantly. That's pretty sobering because it's obvious that we're going to keep increasing the CO2 levels for many years to come before there's any hope of reversing the trend. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 13:55:52 GMT -5
If you start with the premise that there's going to be the potential for a significant human population bottleneck, then the question of what exactly should be done isn't really as clear to me. Run your imagination on the scenario where everyone stops using fossil fuels one day. The scenario's in-between have to do with the scarcity that happens in the transition. Remember, the negative effects on humanity predicted because of climate change have to do with climate-caused destruction of coastal and other habitats and famine because of disruption to food supplies and a greater scarcity of fresh water. My understanding is that there's evidence that the planet's history is full of these bottlenecks, and cross-discipline theories based on what we can infer from the natural sciences about them suggest that climate change of one form or another is the likely culprit. But, recorded history tells another tale: genocide and the destruction of civilizations and cultures caused by war. Some pre-historical evidence for this is starting to emerge, as well. So to me, the optimal course of action isn't really so simple or clear, even if we take the most dire of the warnings as settled science. What you're implying is that cataclysms are acceptable because they've occurred throughout history. Given the means to avert one, wouldn't that be preferable. I believe we have the means. It's just plain greed that restrains us. The weight and pull of the oil lobby and others who have so much invested in fossil fuels. There's a parallel here to the story of tobacco. I find it ironic that mass extinctions are providing the fuel, literally, for the next mass extinction. No, what I'm saying is that the proposed solutions might wind up being worse than the problem they purport to solve. The reference to the past climate-caused bottlenecks and/or civilization collapse was actually an acknowledgement as to the danger that man-made climate change poses. The point is, that there are other existential threats to the species besides that. As far as greed goes, the greed of the oil companies is obvious, while the opportunists that would benefit from dismantling the fossil fuel industry can hide their avarice behind the appearance of altruism. What can't be denied is the increase in CO 2, and a warming trend seems likely supportable as well, but the most extreme predictions of catastrophe seem to me based on less certain foundation. As far as action is concerned: name one historical top-down rearrangement of a civilization that was carried out peacefully, without mass suffering .. the stories all paint a grim picture. This isn't to suggest that it can't be done differently this time around, but those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 14:45:54 GMT -5
What you're implying is that cataclysms are acceptable because they've occurred throughout history. Given the means to avert one, wouldn't that be preferable. I believe we have the means. It's just plain greed that restrains us. The weight and pull of the oil lobby and others who have so much invested in fossil fuels. There's a parallel here to the story of tobacco. I find it ironic that mass extinctions are providing the fuel, literally, for the next mass extinction. No, what I'm saying is that the proposed solutions might wind up being worse than the problem they purport to solve. The reference to the past climate-caused bottlenecks and/or civilization collapse was actually an acknowledgement as to the danger that man-made climate change poses. The point is, that there are other existential threats to the species besides that. As far as greed goes, the greed of the oil companies is obvious, while the opportunists that would benefit from dismantling the fossil fuel industry can hide their avarice behind the appearance of altruism. What can't be denied is the increase in CO 2, and a warming trend seems likely supportable as well, but the most extreme predictions of catastrophe seem to me based on less certain foundation. As far as action is concerned: name one historical top-down rearrangement of a civilization that was carried out peacefully, without mass suffering .. the stories all paint a grim picture. This isn't to suggest that it can't be done differently this time around, but those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Estimates say that there is only 50 more years of oil left in the planet. At some point the change to non-oil civilisations is inevitable. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 14:47:39 GMT -5
 there's this one bird that I've noticed starting from this spring in my backyard because of his(or her) song. It's like .. really intricate. I mean, this dude's got something to say .. so who knows, maybe if there's another major extinction we'll just sort of flip places with the past masters of the planet, and if you go back to the Cambrian times, that german penisroaches ancestors were the predators because the size difference between invertebrate/vertebrates didn't establish until we hit land -- and even to this day, there's some interesting footage you can find of an octopus predating on a shark in a tank. Octopi, are really really smart. The potential for new intelligence to fill the void if we kill ourselves off is definitely going to be there, 'cause as any new-ager will tell ya', it's really the planet that's alive, after all. Yes, octopi are cool. They can recognize humans, make plans, unscrew jar tops, and do all kinds of other interesting things. There's a video of an octopus that gets attacked by a shark, and the octopus plugs the shark's gills with its arms, and does other amazing stuff to make its escape. They don't have localized brains, and apparently their intelligence is distributed through their bodies and arms. In labs, cameras have recorded octopi waiting and watching with their big eyes until the last humans have left the lab before they get out of their tanks to escape. I had never heard of an octopus attacking a shark, so I'd be interested in what methodology it used.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 14:52:37 GMT -5
No, what I'm saying is that the proposed solutions might wind up being worse than the problem they purport to solve. The reference to the past climate-caused bottlenecks and/or civilization collapse was actually an acknowledgement as to the danger that man-made climate change poses. The point is, that there are other existential threats to the species besides that. As far as greed goes, the greed of the oil companies is obvious, while the opportunists that would benefit from dismantling the fossil fuel industry can hide their avarice behind the appearance of altruism. What can't be denied is the increase in CO 2, and a warming trend seems likely supportable as well, but the most extreme predictions of catastrophe seem to me based on less certain foundation. As far as action is concerned: name one historical top-down rearrangement of a civilization that was carried out peacefully, without mass suffering .. the stories all paint a grim picture. This isn't to suggest that it can't be done differently this time around, but those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Estimates say that there is only 50 more years of oil left in the planet. At some point the change to non-oil civilisations is inevitable. They first predicted peak oil at least as far back in the 1960's, while fracking technology, in addition to setting Pa. faucets on fire, has led to the U.S. from having a massive trade deficit in energy for many decades to the current position as a fossil fuel exporter. Who knows what the future will bring. My hope is that nuclear fusion just changes the ballgame completely, and the sooner, the better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 14:56:39 GMT -5
Estimates say that there is only 50 more years of oil left in the planet. At some point the change to non-oil civilisations is inevitable. They first predicted peak oil at least as far back in the 1960's, while fracking technology, in addition to setting Pa. faucets on fire, has led to the U.S. from having a massive trade deficit in energy for many decades to the current position as a fossil fuel exporter. Who knows what the future will bring. My hope is that nuclear fusion just changes the ballgame completely, and the sooner, the better. Your post has reminded me of the Kardashev scale.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2019 15:15:27 GMT -5
Yes, octopi are cool. They can recognize humans, make plans, unscrew jar tops, and do all kinds of other interesting things. There's a video of an octopus that gets attacked by a shark, and the octopus plugs the shark's gills with its arms, and does other amazing stuff to make its escape. They don't have localized brains, and apparently their intelligence is distributed through their bodies and arms. In labs, cameras have recorded octopi waiting and watching with their big eyes until the last humans have left the lab before they get out of their tanks to escape. I had never heard of an octopus attacking a shark, so I'd be interested in what methodology it used. Far out! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 15:43:56 GMT -5
What you're implying is that cataclysms are acceptable because they've occurred throughout history. Given the means to avert one, wouldn't that be preferable. I believe we have the means. It's just plain greed that restrains us. The weight and pull of the oil lobby and others who have so much invested in fossil fuels. There's a parallel here to the story of tobacco. I find it ironic that mass extinctions are providing the fuel, literally, for the next mass extinction. No, what I'm saying is that the proposed solutions might wind up being worse than the problem they purport to solve. The reference to the past climate-caused bottlenecks and/or civilization collapse was actually an acknowledgement as to the danger that man-made climate change poses. The point is, that there are other existential threats to the species besides that. As far as greed goes, the greed of the oil companies is obvious, while the opportunists that would benefit from dismantling the fossil fuel industry can hide their avarice behind the appearance of altruism. What can't be denied is the increase in CO 2, and a warming trend seems likely supportable as well, but the most extreme predictions of catastrophe seem to me based on less certain foundation. As far as action is concerned: name one historical top-down rearrangement of a civilization that was carried out peacefully, without mass suffering .. the stories all paint a grim picture. This isn't to suggest that it can't be done differently this time around, but those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Action is afoot. As Elon celebrates renewables surpassing coal as a source of power and more civilized societies than ours adhere to Paris, plus some US states with the means to act do so, the drive to decrease CO2 is on. Whether it's too little too late remains to be seen. There is no doubt that the fire seasons in California are much longer, that the average first day of frost in northern climes is ever later. How many will die because of this, we do not know. The fact remains that with relatively painless adjustments we can reduce this number drastically. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 16:05:20 GMT -5
They first predicted peak oil at least as far back in the 1960's, while fracking technology, in addition to setting Pa. faucets on fire, has led to the U.S. from having a massive trade deficit in energy for many decades to the current position as a fossil fuel exporter. Who knows what the future will bring. My hope is that nuclear fusion just changes the ballgame completely, and the sooner, the better. Your post has reminded me of the Kardashev scale. heh heh .. I guess that we don't see aliens having had snowball fights with stars out in the distance tells us something. There are so many factors that go into the riot of life on Earth, even though our means for comparison with other worlds are quite modest as of yet, the more we learn, the more the word "miracle" seems to apply. One reason for the Fermi paradox I only read in one place (and so long ago I can't even remember where) is that the chemical makeup of stars and planets had to reach a certain mix toward the range of the heavy elements before a technological civilization could emerge. This theory speculates that the 8 billion years of cycles prior to the formation of Sol were a necessary prelude. So I'm a bit more optimistic than ZD about the "Great Filter". ... IOW, some set of civilizations had to have been the first, and we may very well be one of them. This theory seems to me less interesting to folks who like to write and speak about the Fermi paradox (and, there are many!) because it's less dramatic, at least, on the personal/interpersonal/human-centric level. Peeps do seem to love their Doomsday's.  Leonard Nimoy narrated a doomsday special on the next ice age (backed by the consensus of the day) in the '70's when there were gas shortages here in the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2019 16:09:01 GMT -5
No, what I'm saying is that the proposed solutions might wind up being worse than the problem they purport to solve. The reference to the past climate-caused bottlenecks and/or civilization collapse was actually an acknowledgement as to the danger that man-made climate change poses. The point is, that there are other existential threats to the species besides that. As far as greed goes, the greed of the oil companies is obvious, while the opportunists that would benefit from dismantling the fossil fuel industry can hide their avarice behind the appearance of altruism. What can't be denied is the increase in CO 2, and a warming trend seems likely supportable as well, but the most extreme predictions of catastrophe seem to me based on less certain foundation. As far as action is concerned: name one historical top-down rearrangement of a civilization that was carried out peacefully, without mass suffering .. the stories all paint a grim picture. This isn't to suggest that it can't be done differently this time around, but those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Action is afoot. As Elon celebrates renewables surpassing coal as a source of power and more civilized societies than ours adhere to Paris, plus some US states with the means to act do so, the drive to decrease CO2 is on. Whether it's too little too late remains to be seen. There is no doubt that the fire seasons in California are much longer, that the average first day of frost in northern climes is ever later. How many will die because of this, we do not know. The fact remains that with relatively painless adjustments we can reduce this number drastically. Never had enough interest to look into the details, but do you know offhand whether or not Musky has ever turned a private-sector profit unsupported by any sovereign and/or debt? That dude should chill 'bout "the singularity". He's only so wigged out 'bout it 'cause he actually believes he's in personal control of the companies he owns and the machinery that gave rise to and sustains them. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2019 16:16:35 GMT -5
Well, in keeping with the theme of this thread I just noticed that Anchorage, Alaska is going to set a new heat record today that will continue for the next six days--temps will rise into the high 80's. Even the weathermen/women are stunned according to the article I read regarding the record-breaking high temps and the fact that the temps will stay at record-breaking levels for a week. They claim that nothing like that has ever happened in recorded history.
This reminded me that when Carol and I traveled to Alaska last month, we talked with Canadians who told us that Canada is now experiencing forest fires on a scale never before seen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 16:35:31 GMT -5
Action is afoot. As Elon celebrates renewables surpassing coal as a source of power and more civilized societies than ours adhere to Paris, plus some US states with the means to act do so, the drive to decrease CO2 is on. Whether it's too little too late remains to be seen. There is no doubt that the fire seasons in California are much longer, that the average first day of frost in northern climes is ever later. How many will die because of this, we do not know. The fact remains that with relatively painless adjustments we can reduce this number drastically. Never had enough interest to look into the details, but do you know offhand whether or not Musky has ever turned a private-sector profit unsupported by any sovereign and/or debt? That dude should chill 'bout "the singularity". He's only so wigged out 'bout it 'cause he actually believes he's in personal control of the companies he owns and the machinery that gave rise to and sustains them. Who cares because of him and his patents, electric cars are here to stay. One more insult to the great E, not Enigma, but Elon, and I will have to have satisfaction. There must be a duel to the death. Choose your weapon. Green and uncombustible. Donuts or fried cheese curds? |
|
there's this one bird that I've noticed starting from this spring in my backyard because of his(or her) song. It's like .. really intricate. I mean, this dude's got something to say .. so who knows, maybe if there's another major extinction we'll just sort of flip places with the past masters of the planet, and if you go back to the Cambrian times, that german penisroaches ancestors were the predators because the size difference between invertebrate/vertebrates didn't establish until we hit land -- and even to this day, there's some interesting footage you can find of an octopus predating on a shark in a tank. Octopi, are really really smart. The potential for new intelligence to fill the void if we kill ourselves off is definitely going to be there, 'cause as any new-ager will tell ya', it's really the planet that's alive, after all. 