Feel like you're just not depressed enough today? Read the last bit of this Dot Earth post:
During a break, I asked [Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Dr. F. Sherwood] Rowland two quick questions. The first: Given the nature of the climate and energy challenges, what is his best guess for the peak concentration of carbon dioxide? ...
His answer? "1,000 parts per million," he said.
My second question was, what will that look like?
"I have no idea," Dr. Rowland said. He was not smiling.
What will a planet with 1,000 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere look like? Worldchanging runs an excerpt from Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future, wherein he describes just such a world, which actually existed toward end of the Triassic period:
Waves slowly lap on the quiet shore, slow-motion waves with the consistency of gelatin. Most of the shoreline is encrusted with rotting organic matter, silk-like swathes of bacterial slick now putrefying under the blazing sun ... [W]e look out on the surface of the great sea itself, and as far as the eye can see there is a mirrored flatness, an ocean without whitecaps. Yet that is not the biggest surprise. From shore to the horizon, there is but an unending purple color -- a vast, flat, oily purple. No fish break its surface, no birds or any other kind of flying creatures dip down looking for food. The purple color comes from vast concentrations of floating bacteria, for the oceans of Earth have all become covered with a hundred-foot thick veneer of purple and green bacterial soup. ...There is one final surprise. We look upward, to the sky. ... We are under a pale green sky, and it has the smell of death and poison. We have gone to Nevada of 200 million years ago only to arrive under the transparent atmospheric glass of a greenhouse extinction event, and it is poison, heat and mass death that are found in this greenhouse.
In other words: 1,000 ppm will look like the end of industrial civilization and possibly the human race.
But hey, let's stay focused on the real problem: high gas prices!
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Why the ‘SuperFreakonomics’ global-warming chapter is worth your time
Comments
View as Flat
oystercatcher Posted 1:22 pm
29 May 2008
the world is habitable. I believe that it was the start of the dinosaur era. Perhaps what was meant was 200 billion years ago.
I think the scenario as presented with bacteria
entirely populating the sea represents the earth
before much life was on the planet.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:55 pm
29 May 2008
The theory is that massive CO2 release from intense volcanic activity 200 million years ago caused global warming. Warm water can hold less oxygen than cold water. As the oceans warmed, anaerobic bacteria (oxygen is deadly to them) began to dominate the seas. They give off methane and CO2 as waste products, which caused a tipping point. He touched on this in an earlier book called Gorgon.
Tipping points. Once we cross one it's over. Just finished celebrating my daughter's 14th birthday party. We are all so stupid.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:40 pm
29 May 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:56 pm
29 May 2008
Permalink
LGT Posted 3:21 pm
29 May 2008
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/oceans-where-life-st ...
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:34 pm
29 May 2008
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/pet ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061021115722 ...
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:44 am
30 May 2008
Naturally, humanity will try to save itself once the majority become sufficiently convinced that the end is a distinct possibility. But there is the possibility that it will be too late. The kinds of processes of which we speak have inherently high momenta once started and cannot be turned on a dime. Ergo, by the time we collectively grasp the significance, the tipping point will have been passed (and many more reputable scientist think we have already passed it wrt: global warming), and there will be nothing that we as a species can do to stop it, or even stall it. Nothing except diminish our numbers drastically.
Even then the damage will have been done to the planet's biosphere. Peter Ward's description may yet be applicable. But what does it mean for humanity to go extinct?
It could be the finality of self-conscious, abstract symbol processing sentience on this planet, with no likelihood that any other genera would eventually give rise to our capacity for thought and artifact production. Or it could mean that the old species gave rise to a new species, something better adapted to whatever the future holds in store.
I actually take solace in the latter meaning. Evolution has had its ups and downs, certainly, but it always has resulted in more information processing capacity eventually. The solution to mankind's woes may look very different from what the conventional wisdom suggests. We may not be able to save the species, but we should endeavor to save the genus.
Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:26 am
30 May 2008
Looks like CO2 might soon drop faster than gold:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_tren ...
Check out the last few quarters...dropping from its high.
Oil Is So Hot!
http://oilismastery.blogspot.com
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 3:37 am
30 May 2008
What we are facing is a tipping point that may well set life back several hundred million years. At the least we are facing a civilization-disrupting unbalancing of the earth's climate, meaning the unpleasant deaths of billions from warfare, starvation and disasters such as floods, hurricanes, etc. in the short term (present lifetimes).
The task for the portion of humanity that is aware of these threats should be to spread two messages: one, that this threat is real and present, and two, that this threat is solvable and presents an opportunity to change our society for the better.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:42 am
30 May 2008
The evolution of a species that relies for its survival on an overpowering intellect, coupled with the physical ability to make major changes in the physical characteristics of the planet with their opposable thumbs, has been an absolute ecological and environmental disaster and catastrophe. The results have been destruction of every major ecosystem on Earth, unnatural pollution of every inch of land, air, and water, a mass extinction caused by one species, constant unnatural noise and light, and such gross overpopulation by one species that other species have no room to live properly.
Homo sapiens had a lot of potential but, unfortunately, took a wrong turn long ago, resulting in the current mess that's likely unfixable. Human intellect has run amok, totally unguided by wisdom or integrity that are both needed in order to properly control the human mind. A good analogy would be a car with the throttle all the way down but no driving who can either let off the throttle and put on the brakes, or even steer.
The "self-conscious, abstract symbol processing sentience" that Professor Mobus wishes to continue is properly evolved as beings who are barely noticeable, not as a species that resembles a cancerous tumor on the Earth. A highly evolved species would barely be noticed, and would certainly not be overpopulated, consuming much, or causing the ecological or environmental problems that humans are causing. A good example of this was a Star Trek episode called, "Errand of Mercy" from the original series. But alas, with a few rare exceptions like Buddhist monks, this is a Utopian ideal that will never be reality. Unfortunately, it's obvious that the extremely powerful intellect that's needed for Professor Mobus's self-conscious, abstract symbol processing sentience must dominate the other parts of the mind that could control it. The sentience that Professor Mobus wishes to continue thus comes at far too great a cost to the rest of the Earth.
So, the best thing, by far, for the rest of the planet is that Homo sapiens become extinct, and the sooner the better. Environmentalists who really care about the planet should be working to greatly reduce or eliminate the harms caused by humans, not to ensure survival of the human race.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:55 am
30 May 2008
Permalink
gmobus Posted 8:35 am
30 May 2008
You might want to read my blog and other commentary I've made here and elsewhere on the nature of wisdom and the mental capacity called sapience. Your comment above suggests you do not understand that to which I am alluding.
There is nothing wrong with the genus. In fact I have made a study of the evolution of sapience in the species and what did, actually, go 'wrong' that caused the further evolution of the brain basis for wisdom to get sidetracked (as it were). Indeed, elsewhere I have suggested that a population of eusapient beings would behave not much differently from what you suggest. Wisdom extended to the whole earth would and could override some of H. sapiens more emotionally driven decision processes in favor of the long-term and the global scale. It boils down to the scope in time and space of the capacity for judgment. And that is a function of the brain processing power given to judgment.
But what, from one point of view, the one you seem to have adopted, looks like a mistake and a calamity might look very different from a grander view of evolution. After all, what was bad for the dinosaurs appears to have worked out pretty well for mammals and birds, no?
I am suggesting that the genus can yet give rise to a eusapient species out of the evolutionary bottleneck that seems increasingly likely to occur. There might be a solution, it just might not look like anything people now think about.
My sentiment is that evolution has produced something extraordinary in the hominid line. While I agree with you that the current species has acted like a petulant, spoiled child and a reckless teenager (perhaps that is more than just an analogy), I can't agree that total loss of this evolutionary product would be a good thing. What is needed is completion of the effort, not abandonment. H. sapiens might never achieve the status of angels but our distant descendants might have a shot at it. But I think it is our moral responsibility to recognize our own shortcomings and take action to ensure that an adequate gene pool exists after whatever bottleneck we face.
Please read a few posts at Question Everything or visit my academic site at: http://faculty.washington.edu/gmobus/ before assuming too much from my comment here.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
gmobus Posted 8:51 am
30 May 2008
The task for the portion of humanity that is aware of these threats should be to spread two messages: one, that this threat is real and present, and two, that this threat is solvable and presents an opportunity to change our society for the better.
Roboc1
As for #1, I spend much of my waking time doing just that. As for #2 I spend the rest of my waking time searching for the answer to a single question: Is the predicament that we have created solvable?
The truth, a hard truth for many people used to seemingly miraculous technological solutions, is that there are problems for which there are no feasible solutions. This can be mathematically proven. The other truth is that no one knows that our very real problems are solvable or not. We have lots of opinions and beliefs. And there are some reasonable sounding approaches (giant concentrating thermal solar collectors in the deserts). But there is not a person on this planet that can say (with evidence to back them up) that these problems are solvable, let alone what the solution(s) will be. We face not just one threat but many, all brought about by our excess numbers and excessive wasteful consumption. We are not (yet) a wise species.
That doesn't then translate into 'therefore we shouldn't try'. Quite the contrary. We should try very hard, hence your message #1 is right on the money. But we should also recognize that we may need a backup plan in the event of a worst case scenario. That would be wise.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink