Comments witsendnj has made
- All of this discussion is going to be rapidly moot, is the impression I get. I think "the worst early effects of the ecocollapse" are going to manifest themselves well before 2030 or 2040, and in fact already are in many places. Once people connect the dots I expect pandemonium to rule and who know what sort of demagogues will arise. To focus on one issue alone, that of ocean acidification, is enough to demonstrate that we are well past our ability to put the genie back in the bottle. There is no question that the food chain will collapse as the oceans absorb more and more CO2, not to mention the disruption due to overfishing - and not only does that mean the vast numbers of people who rely on seafood will go hungry (thus reducing the population problem magically) but it will be quite interesting to see what the remaining people are able to breathe, since most of the oxygen in our atmosphere originates with life in the sea.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week ago 174 Responses
- I once thought that viewing overpopulation as a root cause of our ills made sense. But I read two articles which you can find here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.700-population-overconsumption-is-the-real-problem.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news and here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich and they completely changed my mind.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 1 day ago 174 Responses
- Wow, awesome link, THANKS Dan!!On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 2 days ago 174 Responses
- Hey, what's your concern about the other greenhouse gases? here's mine: (you have to scroll past the pictures) http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/10/other-greenhouse-gases.html, also, have you seen this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111804162.htmlOn We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 3 days ago 174 Responses
- Joke! It's a joke! Here's one of my favorite bits which I've never forgotten, because it explains just about everything, now more than ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-M3Q2zhGd4On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 4 days ago 174 Responses
- "We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other leads to total extinction. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice." Woody AllenOn We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 4 days ago 174 Responses
- Hi Steve - I'm not advocating anything less than a full-out effort to reduce/eliminate emissions, on the slender hope that it will buy us enough time for the brightest among us (that wouldn't be me) to devise some means to reverse the process without creating results worse than the initial problem through unintended consequences. Having said that, from my reading of the science, it's really too late. Heating leads to more heating, the only question is how quickly. Did you read that link? The prediction is for catastrophic warming based on CO2 alone, given the surprisingly accelerating rate of concentration recently, and the likelihood that CO2 sinks are saturated. It doesn't even factor in methane, or positive amplifying feedbacks such as the albedo effect, or this study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091117102036.htm about other greenhouse gases whose effects have been underestimated or even ignored. Add to that the influence of the professional deniers, and the unwillingness of most people to even consider a reduction in their pattern of consumption, and the prognosis looks pretty bleak to me.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 5 days ago 174 Responses
- http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html It would seem that it's all over but the shooting.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 5 days ago 174 Responses
- Margaret, you can add to the collapsing ecosystems list (not sure why you hate that term - to me it seems quite descriptive of the interconnectedness that exists between species that have evolved over time to share particular environments) the Eastern Seaboard of the US. The trees went into irreversible decline in 2008, and in 2009, at least 3 states are declaring an agricultural state of emergency due to crop failure, which they are blaming on a wet summer. Ha! http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/11/closing-out-season-farmers-want-to_1324.htmlOn We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 6 days ago 174 Responses
- Well said, Wildfire! I used to think a new specialty of psychiatry was going to spring up, to treat climate anxiety syndrome...which come to think of it, reminds me of the time my ex-husband persuaded me to ask our daughter's oncologist if perhaps she should freeze some eggs before starting chemotherapy, and he just looked at me like I was an idiot and said, "There's no time for that." She's fine now but I don't think our planet will be.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 6 days ago 174 Responses
- A agree with you, Sindark. I have managed to convince my beloved Significant Other that AGW is not a global conspiracy by scientists drunk on government funding, but he still believes there will be a techno fix that will enable all of us patriotic Americans to continue business as usual, without any sacrifice or fundamental change...which I think is crazy. Either we are going to decide to stop emitting carbon, or there is going to be so much violent upheaval on multiple systems that we will involuntarily stop emitting carbon. Americans in particular seem to harbor a ridiculous sense of entitlement, as though everyone, or at least whoever can afford it, deserves to drive a car or fly in a plane to whatever destination they wish, or eat every last fish in the sea. It's quite difficult to imagine them suddenly becoming willing to give up what they are convinced they somehow deserve. Heads are going to explode in the not too distant future. I took a look at your blog which I bookmarked. It's humbling for an old(er?) person like me who has only recently become fully enlightened about the enormity of climate change consequences, to see such wisdom in a young person. I just want to say to this post of yours about the carbon footprint of pets, which is interesting to me because I have several - since it's a bit outdated at your blog: You said "If you want to go it by land area, the fairest comparison would probably be this: For the car, the amount of land it would take to grow enough biomass to produce the liquid fuel to run it. For the dog, the amount of land to grow the plants to feed to the animals that the dog eats. I am not sure if that is the methodology those running the study used. Both are effectively about sunlight, and energy return on investment when converting primary products (plants) into final fuels (meat or liquid fuel). Doesn't this ignore the enormous carbon footprint of producing the car in the first place? Mining the minerals and forging the steel and making the plastic etc? If you factor that in, it seems to me the equation would become vastly different. Also, if you're going to factor in the impact of pets, shouldn't you also compare their existence to the carbon footprint of wild animals? Just sayin'! GailOn We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 6 days ago 174 Responses
- I'm not at all sure Mother Nature has three out's left. If other ecosystems are as damaged and as underreported as the one I inhabit, then we have passed many tipping points towards collapse already. Here is my comment on this subject on Climate Progress: Oh boy, David Lewis, who said this: “I also see that biologists didn’t get it until recently either. Their attention was riveted observing parts of the biosphere. They were busy. Then they suddenly noticed what they knew in such rich detail was changing, duh, the biosphere is an expression of climate, climate is changing, geez. Now they are realizing what a catastrophe it is. Now you hear them agonizing, can we even talk about trying to move some plants and animals to the new places the climate they evolved in are and will be?” I agree, the idea of species being moved in any viable population to a place that can’t possibly afford the same ecosystem niche that they came from, including sources of food and shelter as well as every other aspect, would be laughable if it weren’t so desperate. I’m not so sure most biologists get it now either. Or botonists, or foresters, or farmers. Sure, they understand the environment somewhere far away is in trouble but try to get them to understand the enormity of the trouble going on right in front of them and they start frantically pointing to bugs or fungus or weather. Anything but a broad, intractable source of damage, like toxic emissions from burning fossil and biofuels. Case in point, the NYTimes article today that I blog about here: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 11/ closing-out-season-farmers-want-to_1324.html I’ve been predicting crop failures for some time. I’ve called and written the state dept. of Agriculture, Rutgers, the DEP, the EPA all summer, asking for data on production. Everybody told me all summer, even farmers, everything is just fine. Now look at what it says in the article, which is basically, once the farmers get hit in the pocketbook, they are declaring a state of emergency in New Jersey, New York and probably Connecticut. Some of the farmers lost over 90% of their crops and they’re using words like “surreal”. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the cost of falling trees to hit the pocketbooks of home owners, the utilities, road maintenance, businesses, the insurance companies – not to mention firefighters – for people to understand that we are poisoning vegetation to the point of widespread crop failure and irreversible tree decline. Do I sound peeved? I am. The atmospheric physicists and chemists and the botanists and the soil experts need to stop staring at their microscopes and take a good look at the big picture. We need to stop this while we still have seeds to start anew. Otherwise we can say goodbye forever to apples, cherries, peaches, nuts, and maple syrup, among other things.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 174 Responses
- Yes. There is a unification of thinking. Where should we go with this, how can we effectively marshall our energy to stave off the looming climate catastrophe? Assuming that is possible...On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 174 Responses
- Master of Disaster, instead of thinking of CO2 as 0.04% of the atmosphere, think of the percentage increase since preindustrial times - FORTY PERCENT. "Since the industrial revolution humans dug, pumped and burnt more than 320 billion tons of carbon which accumulated as the result of biological activity during 400 million years. 320 billion tons of carbon is more than 50% the carbon concentration of the original atmosphere (540 billion tons). As a consequence the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by about 40%, from 280 to 388 ppm." http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/11/01/the-lungs-of-the-earth - a good primer on climate change if you actually want to learn something. And of course, your assertion that the world is cooling is a joke. I like this analogy: think of the earth as a huge, sealed garage, and we humans are sitting in a big car, with the engine running. After a bit, we get a little sleepy because the carbon monoxide gas is building up and poisoning us. But it's invisible, and odorless, so we just sit there, burning gasoline. Eventually we slip into a coma and then, we die. See?On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 174 Responses
- Adam, thank you for articulating this phenomena. Ever since I became aware that climate change is a real threat now, to me, to my loved ones, I have been astonished that even scientists who know the facts appear to be in denial. I have written to dozens of physicists, chemists, botanists, biologists, foresters, and researchers at government agencies. Virtually none of them will acknowledge what I can plainly see - the ecosystem is collapsing. This is the inevitable consequence of toxic greenhouse gases, and yet even the experts who should know better prefer to think it will happen, maybe, in 50 or 100 years. But not here and now! What is killing the trees? Oh, it's a beetle, or a fungus, or bacterial wilt! Not something like, me taking a hot shower or driving to the office or buying junk from China or grapes from Argentina. I showed this video about ocean acidification to my dad http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-cant-fish-and-not-have-hope.html, who is in his 80's, and he got furious. "You can't tell people that!" he yelled. So I didn't bother to point out that casually mentioned in the narration is that most of the oxygen that we breathe comes from life in the sea. It reminds me of many years ago when I was in college and we students were taught about the "controversial" theory of plate tectonics. I just couldn't understand where the debate was in something so obviously true. We have to acknowledge the problem before we can begin to do something about it. It may be too late. But better to try than just give up, if only for sanity's sake. Actually, it's the right thing to do.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 174 Responses
- If I may intrude, whew, the reply function is bewildering. I keep getting messages via email that new comments are posted and then, I can't find them unless I scroll up the thread. Anyway, you are having a very interesting exchange and I just wanted to add a few thoughts. One, I think the notion that nature is resilient as reflected in Fred Pearce's book With Speed and Violence, is a misinterpretation of what he was saying. He was talking about Nature's ability to exact retribution, not the ability of species to survive abrupt temperature increases. It seems to me that if you accept the theory of Darwinian evolution you have to understand that any major and rapid change in the environment - whether average temperature, the composition of gases in the atmosphere, the PH of the ocean waters - must inevitably cause mass extinctions, for the simple reason that individual species have evolved over thousands of generations to occupy their very own particular niche in an ecosystem. When that ecosystem is disrupted in a fundamental way, the species whether plant or animal can't adapt. Merely migrating, assuming that is possible, can't possibly do the trick either, because the other components can't migrate at the same rate. It's not a linear, gradual process. One particularly poignant account of this I read somewhere or other, a teacher in Mexico. She described how earlier warming meant that the annual arrival of monarch butterflies no longer coincided with the blooming of the cacti, and the butterflies were essential to pollination. Thus the cacti have been dying out for some time. Some species take their triggers from the hours of light, and others from the temperature. This basic example is indicative of the chaos we have created by burning fossil fuels, heedless of any consequences.On Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair posted 2 weeks, 5 days ago 112 Responses
- Steve, no doubt they are counting on Survivaballs to save them! http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/25/survivaballs-take-manhattan-and-pittsburgh/ The odd thing is, I don't think that's really going to work for anybody in the long run, no matter how wealthy or how much food they've stashed in a northern mountain cave. Although, I did read somewhere that survival counseling has become a growth industry.On Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 112 Responses
- Steve Wineman, That was a beautifully written treatise. I have arrived at enlightenment more recently than you - until just over a year ago, I expected climate change to be a gradual, steady warming, that would confine any particularly nasty aspects to exotic locales, in the distant future. I guess, partially I was to blame for my blissful ignorance - but also, the experts were and still are pulling the punches. Only recently did they start linking Hurricane Katrina directly to climate change, before that, they pussyfooted around the connection - "oh, no particular weather event can be blamed blah blah blah" and also, the scientists by way of consensus say things like, sea levels MIGHT rise and droughts COULD occur. All of which is nonsense, they should be saying, sea levels WILL rise and droughts ARE occurring! Anyway... as an avid gardener, I began to notice that the trees were looking very sick, and I started reading up on their symptoms, and realized that for whatever reason - drought, or acid rain, or lack of snow - by the times the symptoms or wilted, singed leaves appear, they are already in irreversible decline. Irreversible. Trees are the foundation of our terrestrial ecosystem, just as coral reefs are the foundation of life in the sea - without them, all the other species that are dependent upon them will perish. I attribute the damage to vegetation to the "other" greenhouse gases - ozone and nitrous oxide pollution - although in the longer term CO2 induced warming will guarantee the collapse of many species. My observations of trees led me to read every book I could find about climate change, and I had a similar awakening as you describe. By its very definition, evolution ensures that climate change is always followed by mass extinctions, it cannot be otherwise. Species can't just migrate to cooler latitudes or altitudes and survive - if the even can migrate from their niche, they leave its shelter and food sources behind them. This is just obvious and logical, and indelibly recorded in the paleoclimatic record. "With Speed and Violence" by Fred Pearce is an excellent introduction.On Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago 112 Responses
- Thanks to Richard Pauli for emailing me the link to this post! It is refreshing to see that somebody is saying what needs to be said, the unvarnished truth. The comment made by Adam Sacks about how much to say to his pregnant daughter resonates with me. I have three grown daughters, and work with young parents every day. It is an intimidating task, to enlighten and prepare them without delivering the soul-crushing news that everything the expect and hope for isn't going to be. There is much ugliness ahead. For my own part I started a blog where I record my observations and document with photographs and links to scientific research, partly in an attempt to raise general awareness but also as a message to my beloved children. Someday I hope they will understand that I'm not crazy! Yesterday I came across a concept that is one I never pondered before, that of "shifting baselines". It was written about in the context of Jacques Cousteau, who began as a spear fishing enthusiast and wound up an impassioned conservationist. One of his movies was in the Mediterranean Sea, where he returned 30 years later only to find that the thriving sea life was completely gone. The idea behind shifting baselines is that people either never saw, or forgot, what the ecosystems really looked like before we humans degraded them. It is a useful notion for me because it helps explain why I seem to be just about the only person who is aware that toxic greenhouse gas emissions are poisoning the vegetation on the East Coast - and quite likely elsewhere. The leaves fell off the trees at least a month earlier than normal this fall, and nobody but me seems to have noticed. When I mention this to anyone they invariably change the subject, as though I had said nothing at all. It's quite astonishing that even scientists who acknowledge the poisonous effects of ozone and other pollutants do not recognize the damage that is being done. www.witsendnj.blogspot.comOn Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago 112 Responses
- In my lifetime I have planted hundreds of trees, of many species. I stopped this year. Young seedlings and saplings are dying at the same velocity as the ancient tree. We need to clean up the air if trees and other forms of life that need to photosynthesize and produce chlorophyll are to thrive. As it is, the biomass is shrinking.On Is Freeman Dyson really "brave"? posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago 20 Responses
- There is no point in planting trees if emissions are not drastically reduced. Fossil and biofuels emit other greenhouse gases besides CO2. It's well documented that ozone is toxic to humans (cancer, emphysema and asthma) as well as vegetation. In parts of the world - certainly, where I live on the East Coast of the US - the level of invisible poisonous emissions is already lethal for trees - old and young, of every species, are dying in vast numbers. Trees are the foundation of our terrestrial ecosystem, just as coral reefs as the foundation for life in the oceans. Without them all species dependent upon their shade, lumber, fruits and nuts, and shelter, will perish in mass extinctions. The degree of denial about this is astonishing to me. I've been tracking with photographs and linking to scientific research at www.witsendnj.blogspot.comOn Is Freeman Dyson really "brave"? posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago 20 Responses
I am very concerned that ozone is killing trees and other vegetation at a rapid rate on the Eastern Seaboard of the US and perhaps other places around the globe as well. witsendnj.blogspot.com I wish somebody with more qualifications than I have would take a serious gander at the condition of trees, all of which appear to be exhibiting damage, and bring this to public attention. Trees are the foundation of our ecosystem and without them all dependent species are in peril. Not to mention, if the atmosphere is so polluted trees cannot thrive, what does that say about annual crops?
On Climate change fueling forest fires in Europe, says Greenpeace posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 2 ResponsesSusanR, I do agree that we must address the population increase however, it is important to remember that even if every single inhabitant of the planet were to disappear except for Americans and those who supply us with stuff(China), we would still be in the process of destroying at habitable climate for future generations, albeit perhaps a tad more slowly. It is our average carbon footprint that is causing climate change, not the sheer number of people (yet).
I read somewhere that the population could be hugely and rapidly reduced if we stuck to a one-child per couple police, worldwide. Not likely though. More likely is the population will be reduced, but not voluntarily, but through disease, famine, and war.
On A civilizational tipping point posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 5 Responsestree senescence
Recently I have written to various environmental groups and so far found, to my surprise, that even those whose mission is to preserve the environment are strangely oblivious to some immediate and recognizable effects of climate change and pollution. Perhaps that is because there are so many impacts, such as coral reef bleaching and melting glaciers, that compete for scientific study and press attention. However I think the wholesale demise of trees on the East coast should be of particular interest, since the consequences are likely to directly impact even elected officials who make US policy. Not even the most privileged among us will be immune from the transformation to a treeless landscape.
As a non-scientist but observant naturalist, I believe we are on the brink of total ecological collapse - at least here where I live, in western NJ - and the states around here I have had occasion to visit recently, PA, NY, CT and RI.
I can find virtually no one who is interested in the fact that ALL the trees in this area are in decline. At the current pace, within 2 to 5 years, there won't be a tree left alive. In this part of the Eastern Seaboard, it's pretty obvious to me that the death of trees, whether coniferous or deciduous, old or young, is ubiquitous and crosses all boundaries to include every species. In hindsight, since I have lived in the same wooded area for 30 years, I can see where this decline began at least a decade ago. Until this year I attributed it to individual blights, and optimistically planted hundreds of trees on my farm.
These past few months however, it has became gradually and painfully clear to me that the decline is accelerating at a truly astonishing pace. I can see lichens smothering tree trunks, spreading by the day. Many pine trees are already utterly bare of needles and those that aren't are yellowing, thinning and covered with cones in a defiant attempt to reproduce.
What is causing this alarming decline? It cannot be any one disease, pest, or fungus, because every single variety of tree is visibly suffering. Having thought about this since last July, when leaves uniformly became shriveled, scorched or brown, I have come to the conclusion that the prolonged drought, and particularly the lack of snow cover in winter which should blanket and saturate the ground with water, must be responsible.
Of course, air pollution doesn't help either, and there are opportunistic parasites and invasive species. But the underlying cause for such a universal impact upon trees ranging in age from 2 to 300 years must be global warming - which has led to a severe, long-term attendant dryness. The NJ state DEP seems to prefer willful ignorance of this phenomenon and refuses to consider any drought indicators other than reservoir levels.
In spite of, or perhaps because of, the inevitable consequences to accepting this premise, few seem willing to even ponder the staggering dimensions of a complete loss of trees. Wildfires, loss of habitat for all dependent critters and plant species (including the destruction of stream life dependent on shaded banks), downed power lines with extended outages, crushed homes and commercial buildings and blocked roads - it seems no one will take notice until these events come to pass here on the east coast, as they have already been more obvious in the West (although still not often linked to global warming).
In the news just the past few days about the ice storm in New England, not one report I heard seems to have considered the idea that the trees are collapsing so badly because they are already weakened due to climate change. Here in NJ, even without an ice storm, trees are toppling. As a mushroom collector for over 30 years, I am sorry to report that the morels I have found in the same reliable spot were completely absent the last two seasons. Another telling indicator is that here, in a very rural locale, rivers, hills, homes and other structures that were until this year shrouded by the woods, even in winter, are now plainly visible.
Also implicit is that the loss of trees will lead to feedback loops, making the climate ever hotter and even drier. I fear that golf courses and long showers will be unattainable luxuries and we will be fortunate to have a cup of water with which to brush our teeth. For my children, I dread the conflicts that will accompany scarce basic resources.
In attempting to communicate my concerns with various environmental groups I have frequently found that even they are in denial. I suppose from their point of view, their own jobs are at stake - who would contribute funding to a conservation society whose mandate is to plants trees, if they admit we are in for desertification and the trees cannot thrive? Nurserymen who you would expect to be aware also stand to lose their livelihood should they advise their customers not to waste money investing in planting trees - and even foresters won't have much of a future if there are no forests to study.
Nevertheless it dismays me that so few people will even acknowledge what is, quite frankly, obvious to anyone who bothers to actually see the evidence in plain view. I wrote to two local newspapers about the issue - they didn't even run them as letters to the editor. I believe if the scientific facts were made available (presuming they exist - I have found it difficult to find very recent studies of forest health, especially in language accessible to non-experts), the general citizenry would be far more receptive to fundamental change in politics as usual.
If there is any hope of averting a complete loss of biodiversity, and ultimately human civilization as we have had the privilege to know it, we really must stop kidding ourselves about the consequences of inaction. It's too bad that it looks like people will not pay attention to this until literally, a tree falls on their house...if then.
I am hopeful that someone who has the appropriate credentials will make a serious, objective study of the trees in their current condition, and use the information (or at least, make it available) in an attempt to reach the public and inspire a real effort to stop this tragedy in the making. It's not that I think this particular aspect of climate change is by any means the worst the world will face. Islands inundated by seawater are surely more terminal.
But I do think perhaps it might be an aspect that will bring the issue alive for the US electorate in a way that a more remote disaster will not. Pretending that we have until 2050, as Thomas Friedman suggests, to fiddle around with emissions, is nothing but self-delusion.
So many have claimed they didn't see the economic collapse on the horizon. There is a far more devastating collapse in our future. For me, it is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. I can't avert my eyes...and it is fast transforming into a fast-action train wreck.On After Poland talks, a new reality starts to set in, says McKibben; 350 ppm must be the goal posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 22 Responses