Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

How to Talk About the Climate Crisis

by Captain Future Tue Nov 29th, 2005 at 05:44:24 AM EST

International climate talks have begun in Montreal, while a disconnect, a gap, grows ever larger and more tragic.

 On the one hand, this conference is the occasion for the latest research to be announced, which is telling us one story.  On the other, there is the diplomatic dithering, posturing and above all, the distance between what action is proposed---not only in degree but in kind---and what science is telling us about the problem.

In this space I'm going to summarize a very basic framework that I believe is emerging from the science and from the reporting on it by analysts with far more specific experience and better credentials in the field than me.  

The effects of global heating have been difficult for people to understand, as well as to face.  Global heating involves factors like time lag, feedback and tipping points, that are unfamiliar in political discourse and approaches to societal crises.

In the past year it has become increasingly clear that we are facing two basic problems, requiring two sets of actions.  They are:

1. The Climate Crisis: 2005 (the Year of Katrina) to 2055.

2. Earth=Mars: 2055-2355.

Much more to come, with links.


These are rough approximations, meant to suggest that we have two problems: the first is the Climate Crisis we are already in, though these are early stages.  It will unfold over the next several decades, regardless of what we do about CO2 emissions.  We can't prevent it, but there are other actions we need to take to respond.

Earth=Mars is the possible second stage, the long-term future.  It is the outer limit of possibility, a planet with no life.  We don't know if that's what will happen, or if the climate will stabilize at some intermediate stage that nevertheless could mean the end of life as we know it on earth (killing many species of animals and plants, except those that can survive and evolve in the heat of the dinosaur age), which would include the end of civilization and probably our species on this planet.

 If such Armaggedon were to happen, we don't know if it will take two hundred or five hundred years.  But in fifty years, it's likely we'll know a lot more.  But the end of this century going forward is likely to be frighteningly bad.

The important thing to emphasize about the far future is, because of time lag and feedback effects and tipping points, what we do now will contribute to this future, one way or another.  It could even cause the Climate Crisis to worsen and become Earth=Mars.    

It may already be too late: Earth=Mars may already be in the cards.  But right now it's most useful to look at this in two stages.  If we do, we'll see   the actions necessary are different, and the actions that people are fighting about now aren't the appropriate ones.

  One thing is becoming pretty certain: even if Kyoto-style reductions in fossil fuel emissions were to actually be enacted, they will probably not reduce the Climate Crisis for the next several decades, and they certainly will not end it.  

 And when they don't, and people have misunderstood why they are necessary (which is to possibly save Earth from becoming Mars in the farther future), they will feel lied to and cheated.  And if we don't do what we really need to do for the Climate Crisis period, people and the environment will suffer because the kinds of actions that could ameliorate the effects of the Climate Crisis weren't taken.

It's Here

This is what we must accept first.  It's not almost too late to stop the Climate Crisis.  It is too late.  Moreover, it has been too late for decades.

It's here.  It's inevitably going to get worse for our lifetimes, and the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren.  We have to deal with it.

Perhaps the time beyond that can be affected for the better by what we do today.  And that's the reason we should cut emissions.  For the farther future, beyond 2055.  So the Earth does not become Mars.

Until then, the Climate Crisis will be our reality, and very likely our defining reality.  

Lag-time

We're used to dealing with crises when they become crises, not when someone predicts they will.  Most of the time, even though people have suffered and died needlessly, the problem is fixed before it gets out of hand, or the crisis ends (like an epidemic that runs out of victims without immunity) and eventually things get back to normal.

That's not the nature of the Climate Crisis.  The Cause is cumulative over time.  What's done to cause it occurs decades before the effect.

And ending the crisis, changing the effect, is not a matter of slowly subtracting the stuff that caused it.  Because once the effect is caused, it takes on a life of its own.  

So the first factor is lag-time: the time between the cause and effect.  When that time is measured in decades, while so much of our political life is measured in much smaller increments of time (from tomorrow's news cycle to next week's poll numbers to four years at most), it is difficult for politicians to take responsibility.  Especially when nearly everything else in our lives geared to small time frames: the quarterly report, the yearly income, the flavor of the week.

Lag-time is also a major concept in understanding the reality of today's Climate Crisis (Katrina-to-2050.)  

Mark Hertsgaard explained all this last February:

"At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: It is already too late to prevent global warming and the climate change it sets off.

Environmentalists won't say this for fear of sounding alarmist or defeatist. Politicians won't say it because then they'd have to do something about it. The world's top climate scientists have been sending this message, however, with increasing urgency for many years.

After studying the matter since 1988, the United Nations panel of some 2000 scientists issued its report in 2001:  

"the panel said that human-caused global warming had already begun, and much sooner than expected. What's more, the problem is bound to get worse, perhaps a lot worse, before it gets better."
--snip--
Until now, most public discussion about global warming has focused on how to prevent it -- for example, by implementing the Kyoto Protocol...But prevention is no longer a sufficient option. No matter how many "green" cars and solar panels Kyoto eventually calls into existence, the hard fact is that a certain amount of global warming is inevitable.

The world community therefore must make a strategic shift. It must expand its response to global warming to emphasize both long-term and short-term protection. Rising sea levels and more weather-related disasters will be a fact of life on this planet for decades to come, and we have to get ready for them."
--snip--

The problem is that Kyoto governs only future emissions. No matter how well the protocol works, it will have no effect on past emissions, which are what have made global warming unavoidable.

Contrary to the impression given by some news reports, global warming is not like a light switch that can be turned off if we simply stop burning so much oil, coal and gas.

There is a lag effect of about 50 to 100 years. That's how long carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere after it is emitted from auto tailpipes, home furnaces and industrial smokestacks. So even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the planet would continue warming for decades. "

Several studies announced last week confirm both the reality of global heating now in comparison to the past, and also suggest that it began with the Industrial Age, some 150 years ago. Results of a Rutger's University Study announced last week show the rate of sea level rise has doubled in the past 150 years over the rate of the previous 5,000 years.

But time lag isn't the only structural element involved.  The climate is at its simplest a complex system, and systems have their own behaviors that "systems dynamics" and related disciplines are only beginning to understand.  

Much system behavior is counter-intuitive.  My own example is sitting in traffic twenty or so cars away from a red light.  If you notice, you tend to move up when the light is red and stop when it is green.  That's counter-intuitive, but it's the way that system works.  A lag effect is part of the reason.

 Counter-intuitive is not very helpful when you need to convince large numbers of people, in a society that prizes simple if not simplistic issues and solutions.

Feedback

Feedback is another important factor in global heating.  Feedback is basically an effect becoming a cause of other effects, which affect the original cause.  Often it amplifies the original effect, like feedback from a noisy speaker into a microphone makes more noise, or distortion.

In the past year, climate scientists have studied several feedback effects.  
A study of the 2003 heat wave in Europe--extreme summer heat which itself led to deaths estimated in the tens of thousands, making it a severely underreported catastrophe--showed that plants expended more CO2 "breathing" in the heat than they took out of the atmosphere in photosynthesis.

 They were actually sending more carbon dioxide into the air than they were absorbing---a finding that shocked experts who believed that climate change would accelerate green plant growth in Europe, which normally would take carbon out of the atmosphere.  But extreme heat set up a feedback system, in which heat caused plants to behave in ways which would eventually increase the heating.

A related study showed that extreme heat waves also released CO2 stored in soil, which would add to the feedback effect of heat creating heat.

What feedback means for the Climate Crisis is substantially more trouble ahead than more linear analyzes suggested.  Because of lag time, experts expect that heat waves like the one in 2003 will occur every other year by the 2050s.  "By the end of the century," one scientist warned, "2003 would be a cool year."   Add to that not-yet quantified increases due to feedback effects.

Another example is the melting of Arctic ice, as one scientist explained in September:

"What we're seeing is a process in which we start to lose ice cover during the summer," he said, "so areas which formerly had ice are now open water, which is dark.

"These dark areas absorb a lot of the Sun's energy, much more than the ice; and what happens then is that the oceans start to warm up, and it becomes very difficult for ice to form during the following autumn and winter. It looks like this is exactly what we're seeing - a positive feedback effect, a 'tipping-point'."

Tipping Point

Over the period of the Climate Crisis half-century, feedback will worsen situations that seem to occur without cause, but are results of time-lag.

 What this might mean for this period of present to near future will be discussed a bit below.  But let's follow the logic of the feedback effect to the ultimate danger of Earth=Mars.

The greatest threat scientists fear is reaching the point of no return, when a process takes on a life of its own and can no longer be stopped.  These days it's often called the tipping point.

The tipping point might be described as the moment when positive feedback effects reacting to phenomena that can't be controlled because their cause was in the past (time-lagged), creates catastrophic and self-reinforcing change.  

Where most of the world's ice is now concentrated, once the melting ice passes its tipping point, it could mean complete melting, with huge rises in sea level that would inundate coastal cities. Consider this report:

Experts say Greenland's 3,000 metre (9,800 ft) thick ice sheet, which has been melting at ever higher altitudes in summers in recent years, may be vulnerable to a runaway thaw.
If the Greenland sheet melted entirely over the next few centuries, world sea levels would rise by about 7 metres (23 ft). Antarctica's far bigger ice cap is likely to be more resilient as the giant continent acts as a deep freeze.

A melting of the Arctic "may happen very abruptly. It's one of the big unknowns and would be irreversible," said Paal Prestrud, head of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.

"The concern is that there are tipping points out there that could be passed before we're halfway through the century," said Tim Lenton, an earth systems modeller at Britain's University of East Anglia.

The infusion of cold water into certain warmer ocean currents possibly could create another tipping point, which would result in the ultimate paradox of global heating causing a new Ice Age---the scenario in both a report to the Pentagon in 2004, and the movie "The Day After Tomorrow."

 Though one of the authors of the report on the Greenland ice shelf admitted that assessing risks of tipping points is almost impossible, he polled " 12 experts on the chances of a collapse of the Gulf Stream: four said risks were above 50 percent if world temperatures rose by 5C (9F) by 2100."

"That was unexpected for me, I reckon the risks are lower," he said of the so far unpublished survey. A rise of 5C is at the top of a range forecast for global warming by 2100 by the scientific panel that advises the United Nations.

Atmospheric temperature change is itself a candidate for causing a cascade of effects that could radically change the planet. That possibility was given a dramatic and shuddering boost last week with thefinding that global temperature now is higher by some 27 % than it has been for the past 650,000 years.  That's a point in time at which our species still had nearly a half million years to evolve to the point we could be called almost human.

Back beyond 650,000 years is an earth that cannot support humans or much of any other familiar life forms. This is the ultimate end point: a planet too hot and dry to sustain much of life as we know it.

The 2 degrees of separation

The difference between the Climate Crisis and Earth=Mars is a matter of degree.  Maybe one degree.

According toMark Lynas in his Open Letter to the Montreal conference, at two degrees above pre-industrial temperature or more, "we'll likely lose the Greenland ice sheet - flooding coastal cities across the world - as well as coral reefs, the Amazon rainforest, and many of the world's major breadbaskets, as deserts sweep across continental interiors."  He reckons the planet has ten years to prevent this by seriously reducing emissions.

We're at about one degree F higher now, about a half degree C.  Some predictions, based on our current rate of increasing fossil fuel CO2 levels through 2050, show a large rise by the end of the century of from 2 to 11 degrees C. (I assume Lynas means 2 degrees C.)  

There are bound to be more surprises as information is gathered and calculations become more sophisticated.  No climate scientists, however, are looking for things to cool off anytime soon.

The lesson of 100 year predictions is this: we may be able to affect the future of our great-grandchildren's children by moving aggressively to renewable and sustainable energy systems.  Some people alive right now will have to do something anyway when oil starts to run out, and renewable energy is likely to benefit people in their own lifetimes with better health, for instance.

It may not save the far future, but if there's any chance for us to save it, we should take it. That's our responsibility, and I believe it will be the defining test of our civilization and of humanity itself.  

If we don't face this responsibility and Earth=Mars because we didn't, we don't deserve to survive anyway.  Unfortunately we'll take down the only known ecosystem in the universe with us.

The Climate Crisis

Even though cutting emissions may benefit the far future no matter why we do it, I believe it's wrong to continue insisting that cutting CO2 is going to prevent the Climate Crisis, and especially that it is the single way to deal with the Climate Crisis.

If we insist that cutting emissions will do it, and the climate continues to get worse, all credibility will be lost.  Let's do it, but for the right reasons.
More to the point, we're going to have our hands full long before the end of the century, and we'd better face up to what might be needed.  That's what our science fiction gathering of scientists and world leaders would be talking about now.

What are those effects?  As Katrina was about to hit the Gulf Coast,Ross Gelbspan wrote an oped piece that catalogued the year's weather effects the press wasn't reporting, at least not coherently as a gathering Climate Crisis.  They included: a two foot snowfall in Los Angeles, 124 mph winds that shut power in Scandavia, the Midwest drought that sent the Missouri River to its lowest recorded level, drought in Europe that caused wildfires in Spain and low water levels in France, 37 inches of rain in one day in Bombay that killed 1,000;, and a lethal heat wave in Arizona that killed 20 people in one week.

"The consequences are as heartbreaking as they are terrifying, " he wrote. Yet the dots are not connected "because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue."    

 Just this past week, studies on a couple of large but specific problems were released.
Disease: AWorld Health Organization study estimated that the Climate Crisis contributes more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, now.  By 2030, a conservative estimate is they could double.

Why? Hotter temperatures mean that disease-carrying insects flourish where it was too cold before, and they live longer and reproduce more in places where cold winters kept their numbers down.  For example:

Just this week, WHO officials reported that warmer temperatures and heavy rains in South Asia have led to the worst outbreak of dengue fever there in years. The mosquito-borne illness, which is now beginning to taper off, has infected 120,000 South Asians this year and killed at least 1,000.

Senior U.S. and international officials said they now regard climate change as a major public health threat. Howard Frumkin, who directs the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called climate change "a significant global health challenge" in an interview this week.

Parasites that cause killing diarrhea flourish in the heat.  Though poor people and poor countries are the most vulnerable to disease as well as heat waves and hurricanes, being rich doesn't guarantee immunity.  Rising temperatures also correlate with deaths from air pollution---from smog.

Water.  In a study also released last week:

Climate change experts led by Tim Barnett at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., found that at least one-sixth of the world's population, including much of the industrial world and a quarter of global economic output, appeared vulnerable to water shortages brought about by climate change.

Another study of 12 other models agrees generally with this conclusion. "I think this will be one of the first greenhouse gas-related problems that will fall on the civilized world," Barnett said.
In particular, glacier and snow melt that furnishes fresh water to many places will fade in warmer climate.  This will also affect the ecosystems of rivers and their relationship to the ocean, and could lead to a lot of other effects, like a drain on protein from disappearing fish species.  

This is another way that the Climate Crisis interacts with systems dynamics: it fools with the existing webs of life.  Species crash is already a problem, as habitats disappear or change because of development and exploitation.  The wetlands around New Orleans that used to protect the city against the force of hurricanes have disappeared, and the lack of them is an acknowledged cause of that city's flooding.

 Just because we ignore how the natural world supports our lives doesn't mean we won't suffer when those systems collapse, even before we've cared enough to figure out how they interrelate and are interdependent. Destroying keystone species and otherwise shredding the web of life can affect us even in the Climate Crisis period.

As it becomes worse, the Climate Crisis can unleash the ultimate human folly: warfare.

As Mark Hertsgaard  pointed out, that Pentagon study "said that by 2020, climate change could unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes including mega-droughts, mass starvation and even nuclear war as countries like China and India battle over river valleys and other sources of scarce food and water."

What Should We Be Doing?

Mark Mark Hertsgaard:

The need for such a two-track strategy of prevention and protection is gaining acceptance from most of the world's governments. In Britain, the Department of the Environment promises to publish its strategy for adapting to global warming by the end of 2005.

At the most recent international meeting on global warming, held in Buenos Aires in December, a majority of the delegates supported the establishment of a fund to aid countries already suffering from the early effects of global warming.

The world community therefore must make a strategic shift. It must expand its response to global warming to emphasize both long-term and short-term protection. Rising sea levels and more weather-related disasters will be a fact of life on this planet for decades to come, and we have to get ready for them.

Among the steps needed to defend ourselves is quick action to fortify emergency response capabilities worldwide, to shield or relocate vulnerable coastal communities and to prepare for increased migration flows by environmental refugees.

We must also play offense. We must retroactively shrink the amount of warming facing us by redoubling efforts to remove existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequester them where they are no longer dangerous.

Mark's list still seems like a good start.  In addition, A 2004 study suggested that global heating could mean the extinction of a million species by 2050. We need to put preventive measures on the Climate Crisis agenda.

 The major effort must be to begin a serious inventory of what may be needed.  That will only happen if citizens are aware of the realities of The Climate Crisis and Earth=Mars, and demand action based on this understanding.

As Gelbspan's list suggests, the Climate Crisis is well underway.  But for Americans, the catastrophe of Katrina will probably be where we will date its beginning, and the start of our awareness of what it means.

Katrina also suggests that in the near term, we can simply avoid arguments over global heating's current effects by concentrating on the Climate Crisis, whatever its contributing causes.

Some scientists say that the virulence of Katrina and other unusually violent storms are caused by the effects of global heating, specifically hotter ocean water.

  Other scientists disagree, and say that hurricanes typically come in cycles of a decade or two, and we are probably at the beginning of a new one.

Why are they arguing?  The reality is that for whatever reason, we are in for ten or twenty or more years of an increasing number of more violent hurricanes, capable of striking and devastating major parts of the U.S. and elsewhere, even in Europe.  So we've got a lot of serious thinking and planning, and a lot of work to do.

It may even help people paralyzed into denial by the spectre of Earth=Mars to concentrate on the Climate Crisis they can do something about now.  It's no solution for Earth=Mars, and we must work to prevent that as well, but we need to get started somewhere.

  As Gelbspan wrote,"the ignorance of the American public about global warming stands out as an indictment of the US media." But part of the problem, along with the millions spent on disinformation and on p.r. positioning,  is that people just don't want to hear about it much---not in the way it is presented.  Because it seems so hopeless.

Europeans may see other reasons, because they've engaged in more sensible discussion of the Climate Crisis, and have begun to work on it.

But maybe by adding some clarity and a different context for action, we may begin to face up to it, and live up to our responsibilities to each other and this living planet we have abused and may yet destroy.    

Display:
This was my first attempt with embedded links.  Not too bad?

One mistake got by me: the loss of a million species was predicted for 2050, not 2005.

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

by Captain Future (captainfuture is at sbcglobal dot net) on Tue Nov 29th, 2005 at 06:07:03 AM EST
Another link for you:  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051125105107.htm

Greenhouse gases are at a level that has not existed in 650,000 years:

"The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years," Brook said. "There is now no question this is due to human influence."

You are right--it's very hard to get people interested even in saving money for their old age or for their children.  So to get them interested in saving the planet for future generations is a real uphill struggle.

Personal discomfort and financial pain often have to occur before large-scale social changes can happen.

On the other hand, I never thought that I would walk into a smoke-free bar or cafe in the USA, but in San Francisco, New York, and a lot of other places, smoking has been banned.

The US administration is incapable of big-picture thinking or longterm energy planning.  Politicians say what people want to hear.

The serious question is what way can large-scale changes be made in the way we generate energy?  How can people learn to weigh the risks and benefits of large-scale energy resources that can do the most to mitigate future emissions?  Conservation, though essential, is a limited resource and is too dependent on fickle humanity.

by Plan9 on Tue Nov 29th, 2005 at 05:37:20 PM EST
Captain Future: where you talk about the last 65,000  years and then talk about half a million years, I was puzzled. However, Plan9's post shows what the mistake was: you are missing a zero in 650,000.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 29th, 2005 at 05:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks.  I am such a math klutz.  The correct number is 650,000 years.

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan
by Captain Future (captainfuture is at sbcglobal dot net) on Tue Nov 29th, 2005 at 09:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've now corrected both numerical mistakes.

I suppose it will affect my grade anyway.

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

by Captain Future (captainfuture is at sbcglobal dot net) on Tue Nov 29th, 2005 at 09:17:44 PM EST
You get a high grade for pulling all this information together and pointing out what many  scientists are deeply worried about:  that the present trend is likely to have catastrophic consequences.

You are also right to point out that people will forget that those consequences remain and that in the short run whatever we do is not going to change the trend that has already been set in motion.  

All the more reason to have in place at the governmental level (as France and Finland and Lithuania do) long-range plans and basic, large-scale electricity production that is independent of fossil fuels.  Then the political whims of the moment have less impact.

by Plan9 on Tue Nov 29th, 2005 at 10:01:18 PM EST
Provoking a new ice age would be disastrous for humans, but otherwise not so bad:  The biosphere could adjust and recover.  

The bad possibility that has not been ruled out is that the warming would not only continue, but self-reinforce and accelerate into the zone where life is not possible.  Such an end state can already be imagined:  If temperatures rise enough, and circumstances are unlucky, enough CO2, CH4 (the worry here is methane hydrates in the deep ocean being melted to release their methane), and water vapor could be put into the atmosphere to make the warming self-sustaining and lethal.  (This is the Venus scenerio.)  

Short of that, the biosphere could be thoroughly damaged by widespread mass extinctions if climate zones move too quickly for plants to adapt.  

Right now it appears that in at least one sense the climate has already popped:  The ongoing melting of the Siberian permafrost guarantees enough release of methane to move us into a far warmer climate regime in the near term, more or less permanently.  

Surviving this still seems possible.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 05:28:51 AM EST
I"ve had several comments elsewhere too saying that Venus is more appropriate, which I'm sure it is, scientifically.

I was trying to make a quick association: a live planet becoming a dead one, and Mars seemed to do the trick.  People think of Mars as a desert, although a cold one.  Venus seems to have complex associations and isn't as immediately recognizeable as a dead world.  Or am I wrong about that?

Is Earth=Venus as immediately powerful as Earth=Mars?  Or will the science literate be put off by Mars as a false analogy?

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

by Captain Future (captainfuture is at sbcglobal dot net) on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 07:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right: people have a mental picture of Mars but they don't of Venus.

On the other hand, Venus is the Earth's twin in many ways, and is inhospitable to life because of its greenhouse atmosphere.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 07:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As Gaianne already pointed out, the Venus scenario is more likely, if you want to compare with planets. I believe both comparisons are rubbish and another example of over-dramatic scare-mongering. Earth is Earth.

We will not become Mars, barren and devoid of water, simply because the Earth's gravitational pull is larger. The Earth's atmosphere can lose molecules up to 6-7 atomic weights, such as helium. Water is ~10 atomic weights and, dependent on velocity energy, hardly escapes. The gravitational pull of Mars is smaller, Mars being smaller (that's oversimplified, but I won't touch density now). Water can escape from the Martian's  atmosphere into outer space. It leaks water drop by drop; given enough time, all of the fabled oceans of Mars can drip into outer space and are lost. There are more and more signs this is a likely scenario.

Like the Earth, Venus keeps its water. How the runaway greenhouse happened to Venus is still a bit of a mystery, nor do we know for how long its atmosphere has been this way, or whether the planet held any life. If it had life, it is very likely the rage and fury of that planet have removed every trace of it.

Right now, the Earth has life. And life resists change. Phrased in the Gaia concept, Earth itself resists change, much like Clapeyron's thermodynamics. Life is the biggest asset we have to stabilise the Earth. Even during climate crises that were much, much more severe, e.g. the Perm/Trias catastrophe, the Eocene methane blow-out, the earth recovered. Not with all the inhabitants it started out with, no. But the Earth and its life pulled through.

by Nomad on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 07:43:43 AM EST
There is no way we can wipe life out of this planet, no matter how hard we try. Higher life? Possible. All life? Impossible.

There are photosynthetic algae living at pH 2 in a natural environment (article and references).

And before you bring up nuclear armageddon, check this one out.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 07:54:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, I'm even a little more hopeful than that just extremophiles and Archeabacteria survive... Prokaryota were around 500-800 million years after the Earth's formation. It took a rough 2500 million years to get to the other stuff. Conditions have changed, of course, but if only bacteria and micro-organisms survive, I do think life is having a huge setback.

The examples I named previously, the Perm/Trias extinction and the Paleocene/Eocene methane blowout, left the earth with a giant reduction in species and families. But many animal kingdoms survived, from which new species and families flourished. Even during the Perm/Trias, when the most proficient life form was the fungi, other species *reptiles, amphibians, mammals(?)) kept it together and survived a harsh period of hundreds, possibly thousands of years.

If bacteria were the lone survivors, it would take a while to get to the sophistication in life we've "seen" for the past 700 million years...

by Nomad on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 08:17:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't bacteria and micro-organisms make up most of the bio-mass (and most of the phytoplankton) anyway?.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 08:22:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a nice circle diagram I once found on the distribution of biomass of the current earth (as far as it is known, anyway). If I knew 1) where it was and 2) how I could upload it, I would do so, but alas.

What I do remember is that the estimations of the bacterial biomass (including phytoplankton/krill) was simply staggering. I thought that even fish was still outstripping mammals, despite the empty oceans, and both are dwarfed by micro organism. Wikipedias has some on biomass but not what I was looking for...

But this is all about quantity, while we should take in quantity of life as well, what you called higher life.

by Nomad on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 08:38:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and as the heat goes up they will start expelling CO2.  In controlled experiments in which the heat is turned up on plots in the desert and in alpine meadows, this is what happens.

Species extinction and habitat destruction are already well underway.

We have the means to mitigate this destructive trend.  The obstacles are all political.  And those political obstacles are based largely on misperceptions.

It seems to me that to speak to the public about this disaster it is important to offer realistic solutions.  There is no single solution.  But those who cling to renewables as the sole answer are in deep denial.  To the extent that those folks sway policy, we are in deep trouble.

It's likely that the gap between, say, a very optimistic scenario of renewables contributing 20% to the grid 20 years from now and that remaining 80% required to meet growing electricity needs is likely to continue to be filled around the world mainly with fossil fuel combustion.  

People who say that all of the grid can be run on renewables must be from Venus.  But then those same people are much more worried about hypothetical populations in remote areas ten thousand years from now than what is occurring under our noses.

by Plan9 on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 08:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Suppose that the mass extinction currently under way ends up being worse than the Permian/Triassic one. Say a staggering 95% of all species, 92% of all genera and 79% of all families went extinct: There would still be a quick (in geological terms) rebound, and a boon of new body plans and ecological adaptations.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 30th, 2005 at 08:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As usual, the comments here are the most informed.  Although from my reading I tend to agree that the least likely scenario is a lifeless earth as a consequence of global heating (unless it does something unforeseen to the existence of the atmosphere), the point of the Earth=Mars analogy is that the earth would become a planet inhospitable to human civilization and "life as we know it."  

It's shorthand for the ultimate catastrophe, separate from near-term manifestations. Maybe it's the wrong label.  One of the reasons I offer it is to learn reactions.

Do you disagree with the idea of separating the response to the near-term effects from actions needed to improve the long-term prospects?

I'm curious also about the assertion that longterm effects are avoidable except for politics.  I don't get the feeling from what I've read that most scientists are certain of that.      

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

by Captain Future (captainfuture is at sbcglobal dot net) on Thu Dec 1st, 2005 at 12:21:49 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries