<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Photos of species threatened by climate change]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by dobermanmacleod http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:47:25 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/1 Cutting emissions an unfeasible strategy

The climate is TWICE as sensitive to carbon in the air as current climate models assume, per Dr James Hansen of NASA.  Therefore, we passed the threshold of dangerous warming about four decades ago, and we need to remove that excess carbon from the air as soon as possible, not wait for a damaged earth to do it for us.

I suggest a low cost method called "biosequestration"-seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air, and put it back into the ground where it came from.

All ecosystems are quickly destroyed at 0.4 C/decade (per Leemans and Eickhout 2004).  The IPCC says the rate of warming is now 0.2 C/decade, caused by carbon put into the air decades ago (due to the time lag between emissions and temperature rise).  We've put alot more into the air since then, and when some ecosystems are quickly destroyed soon, it will result in abrupt climate change and a rapid lowering of the carrying capacity of the earth.

It is highly unlikely that a growing population rapidly developing its economies will cut their emissions so fast and so drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.  Any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing carbon from the air.

Read my blog at http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod

]]> Cutting emissions an unfeasible strategy

The climate is TWICE as sensitive to carbon in the air as current climate models assume, per Dr James Hansen of NASA.  Therefore, we passed the threshold of dangerous warming about four decades ago, and we need to remove that excess carbon from the air as soon as possible, not wait for a damaged earth to do it for us.

I suggest a low cost method called "biosequestration"-seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air, and put it back into the ground where it came from.

All ecosystems are quickly destroyed at 0.4 C/decade (per Leemans and Eickhout 2004).  The IPCC says the rate of warming is now 0.2 C/decade, caused by carbon put into the air decades ago (due to the time lag between emissions and temperature rise).  We've put alot more into the air since then, and when some ecosystems are quickly destroyed soon, it will result in abrupt climate change and a rapid lowering of the carrying capacity of the earth.

It is highly unlikely that a growing population rapidly developing its economies will cut their emissions so fast and so drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.  Any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing carbon from the air.

Read my blog at http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod

]]> Comment #2 by dobermanmacleod http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:55:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/2 Important quotations

"There is no linear predictability in terms of how ecosystems respond. The phenomena of collapse is one that we have under-appreciated, partly because of the feed-back mechanisms that we are still trying to understand." Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme, Oct '07

"But getting billions of humans to make serious cuts in CO2 emissions anytime soon may be even less realistic politically. As Dr. Lovelock and Dr. Rapley write:

Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system -- and that of our response -- make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo. What is needed is a fundamental cure." (NY Times, Oct 1, 2007)

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds.  As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored.  We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves.  In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

]]> Important quotations

"There is no linear predictability in terms of how ecosystems respond. The phenomena of collapse is one that we have under-appreciated, partly because of the feed-back mechanisms that we are still trying to understand." Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme, Oct '07

"But getting billions of humans to make serious cuts in CO2 emissions anytime soon may be even less realistic politically. As Dr. Lovelock and Dr. Rapley write:

Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system -- and that of our response -- make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo. What is needed is a fundamental cure." (NY Times, Oct 1, 2007)

"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds.  As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored.  We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves.  In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)

]]> Comment #3 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:34:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/3 Global Warming Extinctions Began Decades Ago

Extinctions caused by global warming began at least as long ago as the 1980s.  These extinctions are NOT some future possibility, they are a reality that has already begun.  Follow this link to a Washington Post article from last year for more details:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 ...

]]> Global Warming Extinctions Began Decades Ago

Extinctions caused by global warming began at least as long ago as the 1980s.  These extinctions are NOT some future possibility, they are a reality that has already begun.  Follow this link to a Washington Post article from last year for more details:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 ...

]]> Comment #4 by zubiewhan http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:43:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/4 "biosequestration"

How would biosequestration affect acidity?

]]> "biosequestration"

How would biosequestration affect acidity?

]]> Comment #5 by Steve Erickson http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:50:25 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/5 Have you got stock . .

. . . in one of the companies pushing this? You repeat this paragraph in almost every post you make:

"I suggest a low cost method called "biosequestration"-seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air, and put it back into the ground where it came from."

It contains numerous assumptions, including:

GMOs can be extensively tested to indicate what they'll do when released into the open environment, and that the effects of such release can be accurately predicted and are tolerable.

A "magic" GMO organism released into the ocean actually can and in practice will take up "tremendous quantities" of atmospheric carbon.

That carbon will then actually be "biosequestered" and not simply cycle back into the atmosphere.

If the biosequestered carbon remains in the marine environment, its impacts are tolerable.

And that this will somehow end up with the carbon being "put it back into the ground where it came from."

Nothing personal, but I have a problem with used car salesman and that's what you're sounding like. Maybe you could address some of the assumptions that you are implicitly and explicitly making with this refrain.

]]> Have you got stock . .

. . . in one of the companies pushing this? You repeat this paragraph in almost every post you make:

"I suggest a low cost method called "biosequestration"-seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air, and put it back into the ground where it came from."

It contains numerous assumptions, including:

GMOs can be extensively tested to indicate what they'll do when released into the open environment, and that the effects of such release can be accurately predicted and are tolerable.

A "magic" GMO organism released into the ocean actually can and in practice will take up "tremendous quantities" of atmospheric carbon.

That carbon will then actually be "biosequestered" and not simply cycle back into the atmosphere.

If the biosequestered carbon remains in the marine environment, its impacts are tolerable.

And that this will somehow end up with the carbon being "put it back into the ground where it came from."

Nothing personal, but I have a problem with used car salesman and that's what you're sounding like. Maybe you could address some of the assumptions that you are implicitly and explicitly making with this refrain.

]]> Comment #6 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:14:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/6 biodiversity imperiled

It is always good, however depressing, to get more information about the biodiversity crisis.  Gary Braasch's photos are a valuable resource.

Wolverine,
thanks for the WashPost article on the extinction of frogs in Central and South America, which has already been observed for a number of years.

Also, a few months ago, there was something here in Grist about I think a lizard in the Maldives who has gone extinct, and whose extinction is attributed to some effect of global warming.  But I cannot find a reference to it at the moment.

]]> biodiversity imperiled

It is always good, however depressing, to get more information about the biodiversity crisis.  Gary Braasch's photos are a valuable resource.

Wolverine,
thanks for the WashPost article on the extinction of frogs in Central and South America, which has already been observed for a number of years.

Also, a few months ago, there was something here in Grist about I think a lizard in the Maldives who has gone extinct, and whose extinction is attributed to some effect of global warming.  But I cannot find a reference to it at the moment.

]]> Comment #7 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:17:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/7 Should I tear up my sheepskin?


A central tenet of biology and ecology is that living things are inextricably tied to their habitat.

Wow, I earned a B.S. in Biology at Princeton (Class of '82, yea!), yet I don't remember learning that "tenet".   Did I do all those work-study hours mopping up the cafeteria for nothing?

Biology teaches us that life is infinitely adaptable.  It is a technology more powerful (we learn) than any inorganic technology man has yet devised.

]]> Should I tear up my sheepskin?


A central tenet of biology and ecology is that living things are inextricably tied to their habitat.

Wow, I earned a B.S. in Biology at Princeton (Class of '82, yea!), yet I don't remember learning that "tenet".   Did I do all those work-study hours mopping up the cafeteria for nothing?

Biology teaches us that life is infinitely adaptable.  It is a technology more powerful (we learn) than any inorganic technology man has yet devised.

]]> Comment #8 by blueberrysushi http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/ Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:41:26 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/braasch/8 Life may be infinitely adaptable, but not species

Biology teaches us that life is infinitely adaptable.

This statement is misleading. Biology is partly about adaptability, but it's also about resilience and loss thereof. The ongoing debate about extinction rate and immigration is an example (perhaps you've heard of E.O. Wilson). Biologists and ecologists have long been concerned with how species fail to adapt. Song of the Dodo is a good book that covers this topic. Panarchy is another, demonstrating the interactions between nested systems and the tendency of rigid, simplified systems to "fail" (not recover) from disturbance.

But it's not that life will fail to adapt. As the article above notes, some species will be just fine. Life will go on. But it will not be life as we know it now, and we are biological creatures. The question is not whether there will be mosquitoes and English ivy, the queston is how much biodiversity will be lost, particularly large and rare species? Another relevant question is what will become of mankind, and how will the institutions (political, social, and ecological) that we have built will respond to this crisis? Indications, so far, are not good.

]]> Life may be infinitely adaptable, but not species

Biology teaches us that life is infinitely adaptable.

This statement is misleading. Biology is partly about adaptability, but it's also about resilience and loss thereof. The ongoing debate about extinction rate and immigration is an example (perhaps you've heard of E.O. Wilson). Biologists and ecologists have long been concerned with how species fail to adapt. Song of the Dodo is a good book that covers this topic. Panarchy is another, demonstrating the interactions between nested systems and the tendency of rigid, simplified systems to "fail" (not recover) from disturbance.

But it's not that life will fail to adapt. As the article above notes, some species will be just fine. Life will go on. But it will not be life as we know it now, and we are biological creatures. The question is not whether there will be mosquitoes and English ivy, the queston is how much biodiversity will be lost, particularly large and rare species? Another relevant question is what will become of mankind, and how will the institutions (political, social, and ecological) that we have built will respond to this crisis? Indications, so far, are not good.

]]>