Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Consequences => Topic started by: Theta on October 28, 2015, 02:08:02 PM

Title: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on October 28, 2015, 02:08:02 PM
We have opened pandoras box in 2015 and a myriad of feedbacks have spurred, these feedbacks ranging from wildfires to the present El-Nino which is poised to bring the temperature well beyond 1C (http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/ (http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/)), and these bring about a lot of known unknowns about how the overall system will respond because, as we all know, the IPCC is overly conservative with their worst case scenarios constantly being pushed all the way towards the end of the century.

So, I thought I would bring a new element into the Climate Change debate that doesn't seem to get thrown around often and that is the theory of Near Term Human Extinction that is discussed by Guy McPherson. The most well known theory in this area is that humans will become extinct in 2030. However, it should be noted that Guy seems to move this date around a little, even going as far as to say that humans, aside from those in bunkers, won't live beyond a few months (http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/ (http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/)), so it is a testament to how bad the current climate feedbacks can actually get.

Another element to also add is the idea of peak oil hitting us rather soon as shown by Gail Tverberg on "Our Finite World" who doesn't really talk about Climate Change a whole lot, but her ideas are very relevant to the near term because of the consequences of Peak Oil from Deflationary Collapse(http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/08/26/deflationary-collapse-ahead/ (http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/08/26/deflationary-collapse-ahead/)). If we were to hit peak oil in the near term, that would rapidly cause the temperature to rise, on top of the El Nino and on top of the god knows how many other feedbacks there are out there which could cause earth's temperature to rise quite rapidly over an indeterminable period of time (some articles by Guy suppose 10C over a decadal timescale). 

So with this thread, I thought I would bring about a debate on the prospect of near term extinction and whether it is actually possible for humans to become extinct by 2030, or if that should be pushed to a latter or even earlier time period.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Laurent on October 28, 2015, 03:10:22 PM
If the limit is 3°C then there is no way that 2030 will see mass extinction across the globe, certainly if the drought going on south west of US will die, same for Sao paolo area, etc... but humans will prevail until we will reach that limit that is certainly around 2070-2100, earlier may be, I have no doubt at some point the elites will react, we will try to stop our emissions but feedback are kicking in so globally RCP8.5 seems pretty reasonable.

Some places may remain livable...?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on October 28, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
If the limit is 3°C then there is no way that 2030 will see mass extinction across the globe, certainly if the drought going on south west of US will die, same for Sao paolo area, etc... but humans will prevail until we will reach that limit that is certainly around 2070-2100, earlier may be, I have no doubt at some point the elites will react, we will try to stop our emissions but feedback are kicking in so globally RCP8.5 seems pretty reasonable.

Some places may remain livable...?

Isn't RCP8.5 supposed to be conservative though?

That last line is very hard to determine because we don't know the future as of yet and computer models have shown from time to time again that they are inaccurate so the future is extremely foggy and we can only place our trust in those who have their hand on their pulse, and although I was sceptical of Guy, I am now starting to realise that he is actually right and that human extinction will occur in the short term because of the temperature spikes from natural forgings, loss of aerosol after the death of industrial civilisation, and the release of Methane, not only from the Arctic, but also from the world's oceans as well. So honestly, it will be hard to quantify which area will be liveable, perhaps the far north and south will be liveable for a few years before climate mayhem reaches them, but other than that, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 28, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
The following link leads to a thread about what scientists think about the risks of human extinction, and in general terms they discount the risks of human extinction due to climate change by 2030 (of course there is always some very long tail pdf risks):

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1307.0.html#lastPost (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1307.0.html#lastPost)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Laurent on October 28, 2015, 05:24:47 PM
Because of that foggyness, I won't say more. What I do know is that we won't be peaceful until we bring the CO2e back around 320ppm. It may take centuries or millenia but we have to do it, if we can't do it, the specie will be extinct along with many others.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on October 28, 2015, 05:35:19 PM
Because of that foggyness, I won't say more. What I do know is that we won't be peaceful until we bring the CO2 back around 320ppm. It may take centuries or millenia but we have to do it, if we can't do it, the specie will be extinct along with many others.

I think we can all agree on that, the problem is just getting back to that. Peak oil seemed to do it, but there are consequences so the best that can be done is to invent technology that extracts carbon from the atmosphere, or invest A LOT more into re-forestation. In addition to this, bring about a controlled crash of civilisation, encouraging less births instead of allowing severe die-offs to take place, because nobody deserves to suffer that, not even the politicians who got us into this mess.

Honestly, when considering Guy's scenario, I don't understand why we continue to live the same way of life that is destructive to the planet when someone, despite criticism, has frequently gone out and listed the various consequences of our actions. Guy's words should spur action, not denial, it's like denying treatment for an illness when there is a high chance of that treatment being successful. I wouldn't expect the general public to rise to action because Guy is in the minority and his messages convey a sense of hopelessness, but our leaders should be taking his words into consideration and instead of blissfully denying, which gives the public reason to do the same, they should be taking action and trying to avert it whatever way they can because when it comes down to it, even their short term interests are threatened by Near Term extinction. So hopefully the general consensus of Guy's outlook turn out to be true and we can really turn this ship around, or at least create make-shift lifeboats of some sort, because the general public don't deserve to suffer the horrible world that Guy foresees, especially if people have seen this coming and decided to prepare and live a life in harmony with nature, very similar to what Guy is doing right now.

Anyways, sorry for the long rant, just something I wanted to add.

Thanks for the link by the AbruptSLR.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on October 28, 2015, 11:54:21 PM
Another comment I wanted to add was something Wili brought up in the "What are you worried about" Thread, which was the fact that if civilisation cracks, we could experience .5 to 2C warming, that is pretty drastic and is something that Guy has talked about (it is the prime reason why he believes that humans will be nothing within a few months of civilisation crashing coupled with radiation from nuclear power plants and killer Climate Change).

Another side of this was posted by Malcolm Light on Arctic News. Now I know that people might see him as extreme, but I think it is important to throw an extreme prediction out there as it is relevant to the possibility of near term human extinction. Basically Malcolm believes that we will see a 6C warming by 2028 which is a little over a decade away. In a sense, this coupled with El Nino and loss of aerosols, could actually contribute to an overall trend of 10C warming from now (if civilisation crashed right now this very second) to 2028, a scary thought.

I'm not entirely sure if what we are facing is a general dieoff or an extinction, but one thing's certain, the future is not bright...


References
http://arctic-news.blogspot.ie/ (http://arctic-news.blogspot.ie/)
http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/ (http://guymcpherson.com/2015/07/near-term-habitat-loss-for-humans/)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: plinius on December 16, 2015, 12:42:44 AM
Only an crackpot would believe in 6K warming till 2028. But what am I saying, also only a crackpot would believe in extinction of the entire human race till 2030. My friend, get horror movies that do not falsely pretend factuality, there are good ones with better visual effects than a doomsday prophet who lost his marbles.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on December 16, 2015, 02:48:00 AM
And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on December 16, 2015, 08:05:27 AM
And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Wouldn't human prospects be better because the temperature change is not as intense so it is easier for ecosystems to adapt, thus there is still habitat for humans, or would ecosystems need more than a century to adapt to 6C?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Neven on December 16, 2015, 10:14:45 AM
Wouldn't human prospects be better because the temperature change is not as intense so it is easier for ecosystems to adapt, thus there is still habitat for humans, or would ecosystems need more than a century to adapt to 6C?

Maybe desert ecosystems could handle that rate of change. Others not so much.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Gray-Wolf on December 16, 2015, 11:39:07 AM
And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Wouldn't human prospects be better because the temperature change is not as intense so it is easier for ecosystems to adapt, thus there is still habitat for humans, or would ecosystems need more than a century to adapt to 6C?

How many extreme weather events does it take to kill a tree? How long does it take to grow a tree?

^c rise in temp by 2100 is the 'average' rise across the globe but we know that this does not really show the true impacts around the planet? What is the current rate of warming across the Arctic? How is relative humidity altering across the Poles? What would we expect of RH over the poles in a world 6c warmer ( on average) than today?

We are at 1c warming and already some areas are suffering the insults that a more extreme climate brings. Here in the UK we are amid another 'flood' winter. Cumbria put in flood defences to withstand a 1 in 200yr storm after the 2009 , '1 in a hundred year' ,flood event. 2 weeks ago they were trashed by a record rainfall event. Here in the Calder Valley we were mere cm's away from repeating our 2012 major flood event ( even though extensive 'extra' works were done on top of the flood alleviation schemes of the noughties that the 2012 floods over topped).

If we are already suffering from the increased load 1c places on the atmosphere then what the heck will 6 times that bring? 

There is nothing 'slow' or gradual about a developing flood.

We have seen issues from continental summer High pressure systems and the heat domes they build. Record fire years across Siberia and Canada ( are we there yet in Ozz and western U.S.?) hint at what is to come should global temps continue to increase?

3 years ago stalactites in a permafrost cave showed us that 1.5c was as high as temps could be allowed to rise ( odd that Paris suddenly grabbed this number eh?) so why could 6c be 'do-able'?

I do not know climate as a 'gradual' thing, I witness it as stepped with plateaus. Each lurch raises the prospect of 'Black Swan Events' being forced into existence. Our permafrost lands appear to be one of the favourites to host such an event. Should we see 6c warming I fear we will have already seen major events from the north thst will only serve to compound our issues?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 16, 2015, 07:42:12 PM
Near term human extinction?????????? I am very pessimistic but, depending on what you mean by near term, this is not a serious thread in my opinion. I actually believe there could be billions of deaths over the next 100 years but extinction???????
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on December 16, 2015, 07:46:37 PM
Near term human extinction?????????? I am very pessimistic but, depending on what you mean by near term, this is not a serious thread in my opinion. I actually believe there could be billions of deaths over the next 100 years but extinction???????

It was mainly to put forward the idea that is posed by Guy McPherson mostly along with the idea of the feedback loops accelerating Climate Change further, resulting in the entire food chain unravelling, rendering the earth impossible for humans to inhabit for a long time.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: plinius on December 16, 2015, 10:59:33 PM
And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Humans are extremely adaptive due to their intelligence, omnivores, and made for warm to hot climates. I cannot see any reasonable pathway for us to go extinct in the next millenia, given that there are billions of individuals. What 6K do in a century? Maybe change our civilization, far less probable, destroy it, let the population numbers dwindle, ok. But again, we have seen civilizations fall and completely disappear (e.g. the Maya). Did humans die out there? Certainly not.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on December 19, 2015, 11:38:41 AM
And what do you think about the possibilities of 6K by century's end? And what are humans prospects in such a world?

The difference of a few decades means very little in the big scheme of things, imho.

Humans are extremely adaptive due to their intelligence, omnivores, and made for warm to hot climates. I cannot see any reasonable pathway for us to go extinct in the next millenia, given that there are billions of individuals. What 6K do in a century? Maybe change our civilization, far less probable, destroy it, let the population numbers dwindle, ok. But again, we have seen civilizations fall and completely disappear (e.g. the Maya). Did humans die out there? Certainly not.

Humans are adaptable, the things we need to eat aren't, and the Habitat that we need may not be there in the future
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 20, 2015, 03:18:16 PM

Humans are adaptable, the things we need to eat aren't, and the Habitat that we need may not be there in the future

All life forms are adaptable. The Atlantic Cod are moving north into the Arctic as I type.

I absolutely believe that we are heading to a temperature that is incompatible with human civilization. We are not simply heading towards this temperature. We are racing towards it. This civilization will collapse. Think of something like the collapse of the Mayan civilization, only planet wide. The earliest impact will be the death of billions with the wholesale abandonment of regions of the planet that have had human occupation for thousands of years. The ghost cities will stand as monuments to this civilization, not unlike the pyramids. The longer term impact will be the disconnection for the human species from our civilized past, a profound loss of culture and accumulated knowledge. Imagine something like the destruction of the royal libraries at Alexandria in 30BC but, again, on a planetary scale.

Despite my dismal view of our near term future, the human species will survive in niche environments all over the planet as far into the future as I can imagine.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 20, 2015, 03:33:31 PM
The more interesting question for me is what these niches will look like, perhaps a more appropriate discussion for science fiction aficionados.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on December 28, 2015, 12:29:11 PM

Humans are adaptable, the things we need to eat aren't, and the Habitat that we need may not be there in the future

All life forms are adaptable. The Atlantic Cod are moving north into the Arctic as I type.

I absolutely believe that we are heading to a temperature that is incompatible with human civilization. We are not simply heading towards this temperature. We are racing towards it. This civilization will collapse. Think of something like the collapse of the Mayan civilization, only planet wide. The earliest impact will be the death of billions with the wholesale abandonment of regions of the planet that have had human occupation for thousands of years. The ghost cities will stand as monuments to this civilization, not unlike the pyramids. The longer term impact will be the disconnection for the human species from our civilized past, a profound loss of culture and accumulated knowledge. Imagine something like the destruction of the royal libraries at Alexandria in 30BC but, again, on a planetary scale.

Despite my dismal view of our near term future, the human species will survive in niche environments all over the planet as far into the future as I can imagine.

Would it even be possible for humans to live in these niches? It seems to me that the loss of global dimming in conjunction with spent fuel rods and methane blowout will kill everything barring microbes

Guys explanation on global dimming loss:http://guymcpherson.com/2015/12/presentation-in-miami-beach/
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: prokaryotes on December 30, 2015, 02:40:21 AM
NTHE is not backed up by anything i know. Sure there can be ugly feedbacks on the way, but humans can adapt to some degree, and there are negative feedbacks as well, and we still did not seriously embraced emissions reductions (even if you get that sense when reading the news on clean tech). As long most people fire up their fuel driven vehicles we unleash the dirty energy spigot.


The grain of truth with this alarm is that there are indeed processes (think large scale nuclear warfare) or years with extreme weather which renders farming impossible, thus have the potential to make any meaningful efforts to draw down emissions much much harder, and kill of many populations in turmoil.

 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on December 30, 2015, 02:00:10 PM
NTHE is not backed up by anything i know. Sure there can be ugly feedbacks on the way, but humans can adapt to some degree, and there are negative feedbacks as well, and we still did not seriously embraced emissions reductions (even if you get that sense when reading the news on clean tech). As long most people fire up their fuel driven vehicles we unleash the dirty energy spigot.


The grain of truth with this alarm is that there are indeed processes (think large scale nuclear warfare) or years with extreme weather which renders farming impossible, thus have the potential to make any meaningful efforts to draw down emissions much much harder, and kill of many populations in turmoil.

Guy's point is that we will lose all of our habitat which will cause everyone to.die. think of it like what happens to yeast after alcohol is applied to it. The reasons for this are that to him, we have triggered a bunch of self reinforcing feedbacks, we see this with wildfires, el.nino, albedo loss, along with problems from civilisation collapse leading to global dimming loss, which can lead us to 2 or 3 degrees rapidly, and finally there is the issue of the spent fuel rods that will not be cooled after collapse as power for the back-up generators will eventually run out as no one will be putting more diesel into them.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Buddy on December 30, 2015, 02:38:41 PM
When a lot of people are taking one side of the bet......it is usually best to take THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BET.

I'm not doing so JUST to be a "contrarian."  I live in Atlanta, Georgia....which feels like "climate denial central"......and the home of Judith Curry (Georgia Tech).

Remember.....the US is the country with the greatest percentage of "denialists"......and the state of Georgia is pretty close to the top of the list of greatest percentage denialists in the US.

I happen to believe that the events of the current time (really the last 3 years or so.....and this coming year) are a "turning point".  Events are going to be SO NOTICEABLE.....that more and more people are going to realize that global warming really IS A NASTY PROBLEM.  We have seen the polls show that "movement" in the US over the past couple of years.....and I think that movement in the polls will continue as weather events continue to hammer the planet.

You're seeing a MUCH greater awareness of the planet by the younger generations (age 15 - 30).  They seem to "get it".

What most people don't realize YET....is how much work there is to do over the coming decades TO CORRECT ALL THE CRAP WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.....and continue to do.  THAT...is why I think we are getting closer to implementing change at an accelerated rate over the next 5 - 10 years (and it may have already started........it will be logarithmic......so we're at the beginning).

Further weather events.....whether they be huge snowfalls, floods, droughts, large Greenland ice melts, large Arctic ice sheet melts, etc.....are going to push humanity to change at an increasingly faster rate........and leave many politicians and one news channel in its wake.

The deniers (supported by fossil fuel companies) are running out of ammo......and they can get away with openly lying for so long.  I think we are in that turning point.

I know that we have already "booked" some serious climate events FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS ALREADY.....and humanity WILL have to deal with those.

I happen to believe that we will.  So I don't see the destruction of humanity in the next 30 years.  I also don't bet on ISIS to be around for very long.  An organization that advertises that they kill innocent people for a living will draw a "certain segment" of the population.  But it won't EVER be a significant portion of the population.  It reminds me that our press gives TOO MUCH ATTENTION to the 3% of climate scientists who don't view CO2 as a problem....and too little attention to the 97% who understand the issue with CO2.

Do we face SERIOUS ISSUES over the next 30 - 50 years (at least) that are "already baked in the cake"?   ABSOLUTELY.  There will continue to be issues with some populations having to move either because of drought, famine, rising sea levels, or other calamities caused by the mistakes mankind has already made.

Personally....I would like to see mankind understand that 9 - 10 billion people on this planet is NOT an option.....and SHOULDN'T be an option.  THAT....is the 800 pound gorilla in the room (or at least ONE OF THEM).

There are a LOT of "good things" that have already started:  (1) smaller houses, (2) awareness of healthier eating...and eating less meat (3) over consumption in general, etc.  These are "small things" now.....but I never saw a BIG THING that didn't start out as a small thing.

There is a TON of work ahead.  Hard work....difficult work.  But there are too many smart people that see the work that has to be done.....and they won't let the politicians paper over it for much longer.


   
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: A-Team on December 30, 2015, 04:15:08 PM
Quote
I live in Atlanta, Georgia ...  "climate denial central"
I can agree with about everything you wrote except this part is soooo wrong -- it is where I'm living that is 'climate denial central' -- Tucson, Palm Springs, LA, parts in between and to the north and east. I mean, can you top an Ivy League educated in-law driving a Tesla 100 S powered by a coal plant to a steak house after 18 holes of golf on irrigated desert?

La Brea tar pits ... a lot of animals large and small got stuck in the tar but it was primarily the largest animals that went extinct during the early Holocene (as in almost every mass extinction event): http://tinyurl.com/q944sp5 (http://tinyurl.com/q944sp5) ). Dinosaurs didn't go extinct in the end-Cretaceous, just the ones too fat to fly.

This safe habitat in cislunar orbit -- what exactly is the urgency and who will it really house? My theory is the 0.001% are exploring options for waiting out coming the coming unpleasantries at a distance, letting the earth revive itself after the rabble are gone, and then returning. This was the plot anyway in a recent sci-fi movie (don't recall name) except that the elite's rocket blew up on launch.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nasa-deep-space-habitat-mars_56836f72e4b014efe0d99912 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nasa-deep-space-habitat-mars_56836f72e4b014efe0d99912)

Quote
Researchers for the first time [2010] have calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.

The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that is currently available online and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100 degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said. "This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html (http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html)
http://www.livescience.com/34128-limits-human-survival.html (http://www.livescience.com/34128-limits-human-survival.html)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on December 31, 2015, 03:00:56 AM
When a lot of people are taking one side of the bet......it is usually best to take THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BET.

I'm not doing so JUST to be a "contrarian."  I live in Atlanta, Georgia....which feels like "climate denial central"......and the home of Judith Curry (Georgia Tech).

Remember.....the US is the country with the greatest percentage of "denialists"......and the state of Georgia is pretty close to the top of the list of greatest percentage denialists in the US.

I happen to believe that the events of the current time (really the last 3 years or so.....and this coming year) are a "turning point".  Events are going to be SO NOTICEABLE.....that more and more people are going to realize that global warming really IS A NASTY PROBLEM.  We have seen the polls show that "movement" in the US over the past couple of years.....and I think that movement in the polls will continue as weather events continue to hammer the planet.

You're seeing a MUCH greater awareness of the planet by the younger generations (age 15 - 30).  They seem to "get it".

What most people don't realize YET....is how much work there is to do over the coming decades TO CORRECT ALL THE CRAP WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.....and continue to do.  THAT...is why I think we are getting closer to implementing change at an accelerated rate over the next 5 - 10 years (and it may have already started........it will be logarithmic......so we're at the beginning).

Further weather events.....whether they be huge snowfalls, floods, droughts, large Greenland ice melts, large Arctic ice sheet melts, etc.....are going to push humanity to change at an increasingly faster rate........and leave many politicians and one news channel in its wake.

The deniers (supported by fossil fuel companies) are running out of ammo......and they can get away with openly lying for so long.  I think we are in that turning point.

I know that we have already "booked" some serious climate events FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS ALREADY.....and humanity WILL have to deal with those.

I happen to believe that we will.  So I don't see the destruction of humanity in the next 30 years.  I also don't bet on ISIS to be around for very long.  An organization that advertises that they kill innocent people for a living will draw a "certain segment" of the population.  But it won't EVER be a significant portion of the population.  It reminds me that our press gives TOO MUCH ATTENTION to the 3% of climate scientists who don't view CO2 as a problem....and too little attention to the 97% who understand the issue with CO2.

Do we face SERIOUS ISSUES over the next 30 - 50 years (at least) that are "already baked in the cake"?   ABSOLUTELY.  There will continue to be issues with some populations having to move either because of drought, famine, rising sea levels, or other calamities caused by the mistakes mankind has already made.

Personally....I would like to see mankind understand that 9 - 10 billion people on this planet is NOT an option.....and SHOULDN'T be an option.  THAT....is the 800 pound gorilla in the room (or at least ONE OF THEM).

There are a LOT of "good things" that have already started:  (1) smaller houses, (2) awareness of healthier eating...and eating less meat (3) over consumption in general, etc.  These are "small things" now.....but I never saw a BIG THING that didn't start out as a small thing.

There is a TON of work ahead.  Hard work....difficult work.  But there are too many smart people that see the work that has to be done.....and they won't let the politicians paper over it for much longer.


   

I see that people are becoming more aware of the impact of Climate Change. My worries, however, are that this knowledge may be worthless and that our actions will not change the future which is that all of our available habitat will be lost quite quickly (months to years) after the collapse of industrial civilisation.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Buddy on December 31, 2015, 01:27:46 PM
Quote
I see that people are becoming more aware of the impact of Climate Change. My worries, however, are that this knowledge may be worthless and that our actions will not change the future which is that all of our available habitat will be lost quite quickly (months to years) after the collapse of industrial civilization.

I CERTAINLY understand your concern....and I HOPE you aren't right.  In fact....it is VERY HEALTHY that we have folks like you who are EXTRAORDINARILY concerned.  Your thinking will help to push others (perhaps like myself) to think about the possibility of that happening.

This loading of the atmosphere with CO2 is one ongoing science experiment that we still don't know the ending to (because it is a future event/process).  And I do get both FRUSTRATRED and PO'd at politicians in the US (and in Atlanta/Georgia) who are more than willing to pass over or ignore a HUGE BODY OF EVIDENCE that tells us we need to act ASAP.

My belief....AND concern....deals with the next 5 - 10 years.  During this time period....the Arctic will increasingly be more ice free (and I believe almost LITERALLY ice free)....for a longer period of time with each succeeding year.  And we don't seem to really have a handle on what that impact will be.  I suspect....that scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the effect in the SHORT TERM (5 - 20 years) of what that effect will be.  Will that increasing amount of less ice/open dark ocean push temperatures up more quickly than we think....and provide more ammunition for the melting of the Greenland ice sheet (its neighbor).....and create much more melting than we think?

I suspect that the answers to those questions/thoughts will be YES.  But I also believe that once the impacts are felt and seen by more and more people.....that relatively quick action will occur. 

I understand that you "can't put hope in the bank".....so it a GOOD THING that folks (like you) are EXTRAORDINARLY concerned with the POSSIBLITY of near term extinction.

Humanity has such a LONG WAY TO GO on so many fronts.  It is truly amazing to me.  I view myself as someone of very AVERAGE intelligence.....and I look around at some supposedly intelligent people are saying and doing....and it amazes me.  Maybe it points out the difference between INTELLIGENCE...and WISDOM (wisdom....people are able to USE the amount of intelligence THEY HAVE to make good decisions because they are UNBIASED...and look for the truth). Of course....especially in the US....having our political system so corrupted with money from lobbyists really throws a wrench in good policy making.

Again....I encourage EVERYONE IN THE US to VOTE in the upcoming elections come November 2016.  And I encourage everyone to START talking with others about the importance of global warming because it effects EVERYTHING.





Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on December 31, 2015, 02:36:44 PM
Quote
I see that people are becoming more aware of the impact of Climate Change. My worries, however, are that this knowledge may be worthless and that our actions will not change the future which is that all of our available habitat will be lost quite quickly (months to years) after the collapse of industrial civilization.

I CERTAINLY understand your concern....and I HOPE you aren't right.  In fact....it is VERY HEALTHY that we have folks like you who are EXTRAORDINARILY concerned.  Your thinking will help to push others (perhaps like myself) to think about the possibility of that happening.

This loading of the atmosphere with CO2 is one ongoing science experiment that we still don't know the ending to (because it is a future event/process).  And I do get both FRUSTRATRED and PO'd at politicians in the US (and in Atlanta/Georgia) who are more than willing to pass over or ignore a HUGE BODY OF EVIDENCE that tells us we need to act ASAP.

My belief....AND concern....deals with the next 5 - 10 years.  During this time period....the Arctic will increasingly be more ice free (and I believe almost LITERALLY ice free)....for a longer period of time with each succeeding year.  And we don't seem to really have a handle on what that impact will be.  I suspect....that scientists have UNDERESTIMATED the effect in the SHORT TERM (5 - 20 years) of what that effect will be.  Will that increasing amount of less ice/open dark ocean push temperatures up more quickly than we think....and provide more ammunition for the melting of the Greenland ice sheet (its neighbor).....and create much more melting than we think?

I suspect that the answers to those questions/thoughts will be YES.  But I also believe that once the impacts are felt and seen by more and more people.....that relatively quick action will occur. 

I understand that you "can't put hope in the bank".....so it a GOOD THING that folks (like you) are EXTRAORDINARLY concerned with the POSSIBLITY of near term extinction.

Humanity has such a LONG WAY TO GO on so many fronts.  It is truly amazing to me.  I view myself as someone of very AVERAGE intelligence.....and I look around at some supposedly intelligent people are saying and doing....and it amazes me.  Maybe it points out the difference between INTELLIGENCE...and WISDOM (wisdom....people are able to USE the amount of intelligence THEY HAVE to make good decisions because they are UNBIASED...and look for the truth). Of course....especially in the US....having our political system so corrupted with money from lobbyists really throws a wrench in good policy making.

Again....I encourage EVERYONE IN THE US to VOTE in the upcoming elections come November 2016.  And I encourage everyone to START talking with others about the importance of global warming because it effects EVERYTHING.

Thanks, I just wish these concerns manifested decades ago, then our species would be able to stay alive. Now though, I don't know if there is any reason for optimism because we are looking at some pretty radical changes in the climate already and it feels like society is mere seconds from collapse every day, like the lights will go out in the blink of an eye, and then suddenly cannibalism takes hold for a few weeks until the last human has kicked the bucket as global dimming is lost. To me, all hope for the future is lost and 2016 will show us one final lesson as to why this is the case.

This is especially frightening with Guy's Miami Presentation where he states that we could hit 4C quickly after society collapses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2tT66C3t9o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2tT66C3t9o)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: plinius on December 31, 2015, 08:30:33 PM
and just because some "Guy" says that, you want to believe it? Come on, the human brain can do better than doomsday babble and world's end phantasies.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 31, 2015, 10:23:51 PM
Thank you Plinius.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on January 01, 2016, 01:29:13 AM
and just because some "Guy" says that, you want to believe it? Come on, the human brain can do better than doomsday babble and world's end phantasies.

Except what he says is reasonably true in terms of global dimming as the following article, (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html)) states, a study carried out notes that there was a temperature spike of 1.8 degrees following the cessation of air traffic following 9/11. Now, if American planes alone can increase the temperature that drastically, how bad can the cessation of ALL industrial activity be for the temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that we will hit 4C instantly which is extinction, especially with how abrupt the rise is.

I am aware of the conflict within the linked article, but that cannot be counted on for reasons discussed by the article itself as the second study that indicates that the first study was incorrect, only analysed naturally occurring clouds, and not contrails. In addition to this, although literature does not say that Guy's drastic temperature increase could occur, climate change literature tends to be extremely conservative, so they can't be counted on either.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: plinius on January 01, 2016, 01:45:22 AM
and just because some "Guy" says that, you want to believe it? Come on, the human brain can do better than doomsday babble and world's end phantasies.

Except what he says is reasonably true in terms of global dimming as the following article, (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html)) states, a study carried out notes that there was a temperature spike of 1.8 degrees following the cessation of air traffic following 9/11. Now, if American planes alone can increase the temperature that drastically, how bad can the cessation of ALL industrial activity be for the temperature, so it is reasonable to assume that we will hit 4C instantly which is extinction, especially with how abrupt the rise is.

I am aware of the conflict within the linked article, but that cannot be counted on for reasons discussed by the article itself as the second study that indicates that the first study was incorrect, only analysed naturally occurring clouds, and not contrails. In addition to this, although literature does not say that Guy's drastic temperature increase could occur, climate change literature tends to be extremely conservative, so they can't be counted on either.

Jessas, please at least read texts without just trying to confirm what you think: The article says that the "diurnal range" increased by 1.8K, which is the difference between nighttime and daytime temperatures. That is nothing like a temperature spike, just taking out the dimming effect during daylight and the warming effect during the night. Also, probably a bit larger than expected from better data.
If you want to see the dimming in a proper graphics, look e.g. at the GISS forcings:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/)

That is approximately as aggressive as you can reasonably go with the Aerosol effect, and as you also see, negative albedo effects (soot/black carbon) are pretty significant as well.
Very roughly estimated, the aerosols have masked around 0.4K or so of warming, an order of magnitude less than your "Guy" claims.
If you want to see it from another angle: We know pretty well that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is around 3K (Paleodata without aerosols, etc.). That does not leave a lot of space for catastrophic warming when we cease emissions.


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: DaveHitz on January 10, 2016, 05:03:24 AM
Extinct is such a strong word.

Even if things got horribly, crazily, speedily bad, I would expect a handful of survivalists with food stockpiles in caves to survive for quite a long time.

I think it's much more interesting to dig into the survival requirements for civilization than to worry about out how long there might be cavemen with canned food.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: magnamentis on January 10, 2016, 11:49:03 AM
well spoken, the doomsday talk appears to me exactly as annoying and counter productive like all the denialist babble,  just the other side of the same medal  :) it's like with religions, all extreme stances are usually ego related and damaging to the cause, cause as to the best possible, based on facts and ethical motives. the doomsday babblers deliver the perfect ammunition for the denialists because it's quite easy to doubt and deny doomsday scenarios. thank you for this because it's not easy to get through with such an approach for above mentioned reasons. one gets dangerously provoking feedback at times LOL.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 10, 2016, 03:38:59 PM
This is not about survivalists hiding out in caves with canned goods. In a 4C warmer world, even a 6C warmer world, there will be habitats which will be favorable for human habitation as well as the means to access food and potable water.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Theta on January 10, 2016, 03:44:30 PM
This is not about survivalists hiding out in caves with canned goods. In a 4C warmer world, even a 6C warmer world, there will be habitats which will be favorable for human habitation as well as the means to access food and potable water.

Would that still be the case in terms of rapid climate change? I can understand the point that we would still have habitat if we had let's say, slower methane release or less climate feedbacks that are rapid (i.e human aerosol reduction from societal collapse), but from what I can see, we are about to enter a period where the change will be rapid, and ecosystems wont be able to adapt fast enough to provide habitat for humans to either farm (due to increased weather volatility), or hunt (due to animals becoming extinct).
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 10, 2016, 04:12:08 PM
This is not about survivalists hiding out in caves with canned goods. In a 4C warmer world, even a 6C warmer world, there will be habitats which will be favorable for human habitation as well as the means to access food and potable water.

Would that still be the case in terms of rapid climate change? .

Short answer......Yes.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 18, 2018, 08:45:09 PM
I'm going to revive this thread with my thoughts as they have not been previously presented in this manner.

This is going to be a long post, so I'll break it into numbers to make it more easily digestible.

1.  In my opinion, the problem is that climate change is going to occur on a rapid scale and civilization will collapse in a sudden, and catastrophic fashion.  Climate change is already occurring faster than any other point - the only close analog to what's currently taking place was Permian mass extinction.  I've seen the 4C number thrown around so let's talk about that.

2.  IMO - A 4-6C world would is something that Dr. McPherson represents as a realistic possibility once the methane clathrate gun is fully triggered, combined with increased water vapor (a potent greenhouse gas), AND the removal of global dimming.  This sudden rise in temperature from current 1.5C above preindustrial levels to 4-6C within a decade would, in my opinion, represent the death of almost all humans on this plane.  So, in my view that's probably (just a guess using my imagination) an immediate death of 5 billion dead humans within a year or two, and the "consequences" of such a die off all over the world.  These consequences include pollution and nuclear radiation (I'll talk about that later).  The other 2.6 billion would probably die off more slowly (over a couple of years), but it's hard to imagine how they're going to feed themselves other than eating other dead apes and canned goods in stores etc that are still around.

3.  if Dr. McPherson is right, then we could experience an abrupt increase in global average temperature from around 1.5C currently, to something like 4-6C in a very short period of time.  Civilization will not be able to cope.  It can barely cope at 1.5C, all countries on earth are severely in debt and there's no known method for alleviating this debt other than inflating the currency away - that alone could bring civilization to its knees, regardless of climate change.

4.  As a consequence of the collapse of civilization in a rapid fashion (years) all the coal power plants will stop functioning because apes will be starving to death around the world all at the same time.  If coal power plants stop functioning, aerosols will drop out of the atmosphere and within a couple of months, global average temperature will increase ANOTHER .5-3C.  Guy refers to this as the reversal of global dimming, and when global dimming goes away the full brunt of climate change will suddenly rear its head.

5.  Anything in the range of 3-6C within 10 years would be unimaginably catastrophic to every single form of life on this planet.  The higher the temperature, the more catastrophic.

6.  There would be no coral reefs left, and the base of all foodchains on the planet would die.

7.  **A major issue is this**: 
As I indicated, one of the consequences of a full scale collapse of civilization is the melt down of spent fuel rods stored at every nuclear power plant on earth.  These plants have fuel rods that require a constant supply of electricity to prevent catastrophic melt downs, similar to fukishima.

Its a distinct possibility that the northern hemisphere will be full of radioactive material being emitted out of melted down spent fuel rod containment facilities that ran out of power to circulate cold water over the rods.

8.  These rods NEED cold water for 10+ years to prevent catastrophic melt downs- the material once removed from the reactor facility, maintains a very high temperature for a long period of time.  This is why fukishima melted down - the spent fuel rod facilities lost power, and the spent fuel rods overheated because water was not being passed over them any longer.  The spent fuel rods also weigh TONS, and require careful and orchestrated planning to move.  It's not something that can be organized in a month or two - this takes years of planning, and there's 450 nuclear power plants all over the planet, most of which are in the northern hemisphere.  I don't know how many hundreds of tons of spent fuel rods exist on this planet, but I do know that they all require 10+ years of constant electricity supply to prevent them from melting down after they've been removed from the reactor facility.

9.  So if you folks plan on surviving, you'll have to be in the southern hemisphere, and somewhere that gets reliable precipitation for growing crops to feed your livestock and grow some sort of crops.

At best, I can't imagine more than a few million humans surviving in a 6C above baseline world.  Maybe you're already living in New Zealand with the rest of the billionaires with bunkers - they will be the last surviving humans on this planet.

I'd suggest getting a new Zealand residency, with a reliable form of transportation to go wherever is livable once this all starts to accelerate.

10.  In conclusion, the principle point of focus needs to be the arctic.  Once the methane clathrates begin to melt and enter the atmosphere, it's game over for civilization.  An ice free arctic could release these methane clathrates and permafrost methane/CO2 within a VERY short period of time.  No one knows for sure, but it's sort of like poking a stick at a land mine buried in the sand - no one knows which poke will set off the detonation, but if you keep poking it at some point it's going to blow up.  Once the arctic time bomb, so to speak is released, positive feedback loops of epic proportions will occur all over the earth simultaneously for the foreseeable future.

The second principle point of focus needs to be nuclear reactors and spent fuel rods.  If nothing is done, and civilization collapses quickly due to exponential climate change, there's going to be hundreds of Fukishima-like events( but of much greater magnitudes) occurring simultaneously all over the planet. 

That's not good for life.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 18, 2018, 08:57:17 PM
I'm not sure what you've been reading and who this Guy is, but what you describe are processes that take decades, not months and years. Climate doesn't jump from 1.5 to 3.0 degrees in one year just because Guy said so. Sorry.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Alexander555 on February 18, 2018, 08:59:38 PM
I'm going to revive this thread with my thoughts as they have not been previously presented in this manner.

In my opinion, the problem is that climate change is going to occur on a rapid scale and civilization will collapse in a sudden, and catastrophic fashion.  Climate change is already occurring faster than any other point - the only close analog to what's currently taking place was Permian mass extinction.  I've seen the 4C number thrown around so let's talk about that.

IMO - A 4C world would represent the death of almost all humans on this planet, that's probably (just a guess using my imagination) an immediate death of 5 billion dead humans within a year or two, and their consequences all over the world.  These consequences include pollution and nuclear radiation.  The other 2.6 billion would probably die off more slowly (over a couple of years), but it's hard to imagine how they're going to feed themselves other than eating other dead apes and canned goods in stores etc that are still around.

  If Guy is right, then we could experience an abrupt increase in global average temperature from around 1.5C currently, to something like 3C in a very short period of time.  Civilization will not be able to cope.  It can barely cope at 1.5C, all countries on earth are severely in debt and there's no known method for alleviating this debt other than inflating the currency away - that alone could bring civilization to its knees, regardless of climate change.

As a consequence of the collapse of civilization in a rapid fashion (years) all the coal power plants will stop functioning because apes will be starving to death around the world all at the same time.  If coal power plants stop functioning, aerosols will drop out of the atmosphere and within a couple of months, global average temperature will increase ANOTHER .5-3C.  Guy refers to this as the reversal of global dimming, and when global dimming goes away the full brunt of climate change will suddenly rear its head.

Anything in the range of 3-6C within 10 years would be unimaginably catastrophic to every single form of life on this planet.  The higher the temperature, the more catastrophic.

There would be no coral reefs left, and the base of all foodchains on the planet would die.

The major issue is this: 
As I indicated, one of the consequences of a full scale collapse of civilization is the melt down of spent fuel rods stored at every nuclear power plant on earth.  These plants have fuel rods that require a constant supply of electricity to prevent catastrophic melt downs, similar to fukishima.

Its a distinct possibility that the northern hemisphere will be full of radioactive material being emitted out of melted down spent fuel rod containment facilities that ran out of power to circulate cold water over the rods.

These rods NEED cold water for 10+ years to prevent catastrophic melt downs- the material once removed from the reactor facility, maintains a very high temperature for a long period of time.  This is why fukishima melted down - the spent fuel rod facilities lost power, and the spent fuel rods overheated because water was not being passed over them any longer.  The spent fuel rods also weigh TONS, and require careful and orchestrated planning to move.  It's not something that can be organized in a month or two - this takes years of planning, and there's 450 nuclear power plants all over the planet, most of which are in the northern hemisphere.  I don't know how many hundreds of tons of spent fuel rods exist on this planet, but I do know that they all require 10+ years of constant electricity supply to prevent them from melting down after they've been removed from the reactor facility.

So if you folks plan on surviving, you'll have to be in the southern hemisphere, and somewhere that gets reliable precipitation for growing crops to feed your livestock and grow some sort of crops.

At best, I can't imagine more than a few million humans surviving in a 6C above baseline world.  Maybe you're already living in New Zealand with the rest of the billionaires with bunkers - they will be the last surviving humans on this planet.

I'd suggest getting a new Zealand residency, with a reliable form of transportation to go wherever is livable once this all starts to accelerate.

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: bbr2314 on February 18, 2018, 09:47:11 PM
I'm not sure what you've been reading and who this Guy is, but what you describe are processes that take decades, not months and years. Climate doesn't jump from 1.5 to 3.0 degrees in one year just because Guy said so. Sorry.
I think 1.5C in one year is dramatic however, in 2015, temperatures *did* indeed jump about a full degree C over the course of a year...

Clearly, if events like 2015-2016 can occur, worse is possible.

I would imagine a 1.5C increase is indeed plausible if a super-Nino were to coincide with a major global economic depression. The super Nino provides the baseline response, the depression would reduce aerosols substantially and aggravate it further.

Unlikely, but very slightly plausible.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 18, 2018, 10:20:12 PM
Quote

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future.  No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically. 

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1.  How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?
2.  How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

See my original post for more information and context.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 18, 2018, 11:04:34 PM
We are roughly about 1.5 C warmer than 1750 baseline, and i see us hitting 2 within the next few years. Everything we see now is just the start. I want to say I will be around in 10 years...... idk tho
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on February 18, 2018, 11:32:07 PM
The billionaires will be some of the first to go. Knowing how to make money in the futures market is not a transferable skill. The people most likely to survive currently live in cultures that still are close to nature, growing their own foodstuffs. Think high elevation dwellers in Ecuador and Peru, growing potatoes and raising grazing animals. And those billionaires should not expect to be treated kindly by the native cultures.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: bbr2314 on February 19, 2018, 12:26:56 AM
Quote

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future.  No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically. 

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1.  How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?
2.  How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

See my original post for more information and context.

If order broke down in the Northern Hemisphere, barring nuclear conflict, human civilization would continue in a substantially reduced functionality a la Rome post-400AD.

There would likely be mass chaos (think Syria, but everywhere). However, this would be a function of late-stage capitalism failing to relinquish control. Given this, it seems that it would come alongside continued faith in currency, however tenuous.

We could see the evolution of a society where portions of critical infrastructure (nuclear power plants) are managed by vast multi-national corporations while civic obligations are left unmet by puppet governments which only exist to prevent chaos worse than whatever is already on the way. We are kind of approaching this point already.

In that case, it would be unlikely that nuclear power plants would degrade to the point of meltdowns. The global elite would not be thrilled confined to the islands of New Zealand, and while I'm sure it's still an option, there are solutions that allow depopulation and maintenance/drawdown of some critical infrastructure. Remember that apes have a thing for currency, and currency is a product of upbringing/education -- as long as education continues, society will keep functioning to some degree.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 20, 2018, 12:38:37 AM
Quote

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future.  No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically. 

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1.  How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?
2.  How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

See my original post for more information and context.

If order broke down in the Northern Hemisphere, barring nuclear conflict, human civilization would continue in a substantially reduced functionality a la Rome post-400AD.

There would likely be mass chaos (think Syria, but everywhere). However, this would be a function of late-stage capitalism failing to relinquish control. Given this, it seems that it would come alongside continued faith in currency, however tenuous.

We could see the evolution of a society where portions of critical infrastructure (nuclear power plants) are managed by vast multi-national corporations while civic obligations are left unmet by puppet governments which only exist to prevent chaos worse than whatever is already on the way. We are kind of approaching this point already.

In that case, it would be unlikely that nuclear power plants would degrade to the point of meltdowns. The global elite would not be thrilled confined to the islands of New Zealand, and while I'm sure it's still an option, there are solutions that allow depopulation and maintenance/drawdown of some critical infrastructure. Remember that apes have a thing for currency, and currency is a product of upbringing/education -- as long as education continues, society will keep functioning to some degree.

No body knows what the future will bring, but in a world that is 4-6C above pre industrial baseline within the next approximately 10 years, it's difficult to imagine a situation where none of the 450+ nuclear reactors have spent fuel rods that catastrophically melt down.  Even just a single power spent fuel rod facility in a place like Iran, India, Russia, or United Arab Emirates (etc) melting down is enough to cause an event that is substantially more potent than Fukishima.   

Imagine a Fukishima like situation that does not end, nuclear radiation continues to spew out of the melted down spent fuel rod containment facility.  The more radiation that spews out, it becomes more and more impossible to send humans to the site to repair the damage because they'd all die rather quickly. In Japan, robots were unable to access the facility where spent fuel rods melted down.  And that was in one of the richest, and most technologically advanced country on earth.  Not only that but ALL other countries on earth rushed to help Japan - it was a global effort, and that was just a single spent fuel rod containment facility.  All it did was lose power.  Nothing else - Fukishima was caused by a power failure of the water pumps that keep the spent fuel rods cool. 

There are facilities like that in Countries like Brazil, or Romania (and numerous other countries of similar status) who simply do not possess the means of combatting a catastrophic failure.

In a world that warms to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 years, I find it difficult to imagine this scenario not playing out in some of the more unstable regions of the planet that have very large nuclear facilities with less than ideal methods for storing spent fuel rods.  Spent fuel rods are the problem, they weigh many tons, and cannot be transported out of these facilities without EXTENSIVE planning.

Most (if not all of them - I don't honestly know if the exact information is available to civilians) countries just have them in these spent fuel rod containment facilities, sitting there in cooling baths for 10+ years - if at any point the power is lost for a period of time, the spent fuel rods WILL melt down catastrophically in a fukishima like event.  They all have generators with plenty of fuel, but what happens if the fuel runs out ?  No one knows how long the fuel tanks last, but it's probably not longer than a couple of days, maybe a week?

As I mentioned in my previous post, relevant questions include:

1). How will the radiation spread throughout the globe from one or more catastrophic melt downs of spent fuel rod containment facilities? 
2). How will this radiation affect the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: bbr2314 on February 20, 2018, 03:23:55 AM
Quote

Lets assume it would get so bad. There want be places left to hide. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in Canada..... There are 4,5 billion people living north of Australia, New Zealand.... How long would it take before they start to flood these places ? Or they have to shoot them all, but than you still have to face their armies. And there is plenty of all kinds of military equipment. These western democraties are already open doors, Europe, USA, Canada..... they are already overrun by foreigners. There want be a single place left as soon you enter that phase.

Welcome to the future.  No one knows how this is all going to play out, geopolitically. 

It certainly helps to be on an island in the middle of the south pacific with a low population at the bottom of the southern hemisphere in a location that gets plenty of precipitation.

The most important pieces of information to know in regards to moving to a "safe" location are as follows:

1.  How quickly will the abrupt rise in global average temperature spread to the southern hemisphere?
2.  How will the radiation from 450+ nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities in the Northern hemisphere affect the atmosphere - and how will this radiation spread around the globe?

See my original post for more information and context.

If order broke down in the Northern Hemisphere, barring nuclear conflict, human civilization would continue in a substantially reduced functionality a la Rome post-400AD.

There would likely be mass chaos (think Syria, but everywhere). However, this would be a function of late-stage capitalism failing to relinquish control. Given this, it seems that it would come alongside continued faith in currency, however tenuous.

We could see the evolution of a society where portions of critical infrastructure (nuclear power plants) are managed by vast multi-national corporations while civic obligations are left unmet by puppet governments which only exist to prevent chaos worse than whatever is already on the way. We are kind of approaching this point already.

In that case, it would be unlikely that nuclear power plants would degrade to the point of meltdowns. The global elite would not be thrilled confined to the islands of New Zealand, and while I'm sure it's still an option, there are solutions that allow depopulation and maintenance/drawdown of some critical infrastructure. Remember that apes have a thing for currency, and currency is a product of upbringing/education -- as long as education continues, society will keep functioning to some degree.

No body knows what the future will bring, but in a world that is 4-6C above pre industrial baseline within the next approximately 10 years, it's difficult to imagine a situation where none of the 450+ nuclear reactors have spent fuel rods that catastrophically melt down.  Even just a single power spent fuel rod facility in a place like Iran, India, Russia, or United Arab Emirates (etc) melting down is enough to cause an event that is substantially more potent than Fukishima.   

Imagine a Fukishima like situation that does not end, nuclear radiation continues to spew out of the melted down spent fuel rod containment facility.  The more radiation that spews out, it becomes more and more impossible to send humans to the site to repair the damage because they'd all die rather quickly. In Japan, robots were unable to access the facility where spent fuel rods melted down.  And that was in one of the richest, and most technologically advanced country on earth.  Not only that but ALL other countries on earth rushed to help Japan - it was a global effort, and that was just a single spent fuel rod containment facility.  All it did was lose power.  Nothing else - Fukishima was caused by a power failure of the water pumps that keep the spent fuel rods cool. 

There are facilities like that in Countries like Brazil, or Romania (and numerous other countries of similar status) who simply do not possess the means of combatting a catastrophic failure.

In a world that warms to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 years, I find it difficult to imagine this scenario not playing out in some of the more unstable regions of the planet that have very large nuclear facilities with less than ideal methods for storing spent fuel rods.  Spent fuel rods are the problem, they weigh many tons, and cannot be transported out of these facilities without EXTENSIVE planning.

Most (if not all of them - I don't honestly know if the exact information is available to civilians) countries just have them in these spent fuel rod containment facilities, sitting there in cooling baths for 10+ years - if at any point the power is lost for a period of time, the spent fuel rods WILL melt down catastrophically in a fukishima like event.  They all have generators with plenty of fuel, but what happens if the fuel runs out ?  No one knows how long the fuel tanks last, but it's probably not longer than a couple of days, maybe a week?

As I mentioned in my previous post, relevant questions include:

1). How will the radiation spread throughout the globe from one or more catastrophic melt downs of spent fuel rod containment facilities? 
2). How will this radiation affect the atmosphere?
What you suggest is possible however I believe it is extremely unlikely. In fact, I believe part of the reason behind the global push for nuclear power has been its effect as an additional deterrent against MAD -- i.e., the prospect of a devastated US or Russia's nuclear power plants melting down *after* any substantial conflict would be sufficient to render it pointless beyond the impact of mere shockwaves and ordinary fallout.

If this is the case, it suggests that humans are more connected than ever, with elites working in concert across most every nation towards policies that maintain the status quo.

That is also why multi-national corporations are becoming increasingly prominent and will continue to do so. With ample private mercenary forces and events like Chernobyl and Fukushima verifying how terrible nuclear accidents can become, I do not think it is likely that a decay in civilization will get to the point where the massive sums of resources currently hoarded away are insufficient to prevent the security of infrastructure that is critical on a planetary level.

It is definitely possible, but imagining a world without the current government of the United States or France probably makes the rise of a supra-national corporate power like Blackwater substantially more plausible.

And with an ample supply of humanity, there is no reason that residual benefits of the current accumulation of wealth will not result in enough capital that security forces cannot be deployed to specific locations en-masse (thousands to tens of thousands). I think that the preference of the global rich to *not* be stuck on New Zealand outweighs any hesitance towards spending $ on legions of mercenaries and whatever would remain of national militaries.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 20, 2018, 04:49:08 AM
In a world that warms to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 years, I find it difficult to imagine this scenario not playing out in some of the more unstable regions of the planet that have very large nuclear facilities with less than ideal methods for storing spent fuel rods.
While you are theoretically right, the world will not warm to 4-6C above baseline in the next 10 or 20 years. Large systems have built in lags (such as the thermal capacity of the oceans and of the ice sheets), and such timescales are simply not possible. Since most of your theory is based on the speed of temperature changes, it is fatally flawed.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on February 20, 2018, 05:51:19 AM
Good point, oren. But don't those lags themselves have lags?

If atmospheric temperature suddenly jumped up 5 or so degrees C for whatever reason, how long would it take the oceans etc to absorb the better part of that heat? Not instantaneously, I presume.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on February 20, 2018, 06:02:30 AM
Good point, oren. But don't those lags themselves have lags?

If atmospheric temperature suddenly jumped up 5 or so degrees C for whatever reason, how long would it take the oceans etc to absorb the better part of that heat? Not instantaneously, I presume.


Ouch!
I've never seen it stood it on it's head like that before.


Nice insight!
Terry
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on February 20, 2018, 06:38:14 AM
Good point, oren. But don't those lags themselves have lags?

If atmospheric temperature suddenly jumped up 5 or so degrees C for whatever reason, how long would it take the oceans etc to absorb the better part of that heat? Not instantaneously, I presume.
What would be the cause of a 5 to 6 degree temperature rise in the next 10 years ? Without a plausible scenario, slow human extinction is more likely as temperature increase accelerates due to melting permafrost  on land and sea and degradation of carbon sinks. So 50 years , not 10. I will be dead and buried by then, (as will Trump, Pruitt etc).
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on February 20, 2018, 08:47:40 AM
As I understand it, geront, the people that are claiming such things  assume that aerosols are blocking much more insolation than most models admit so that removing them suddenly (as may happen at least partially in a major global economic crash) would lead to a pretty immediate jump in global (atmospheric) temps of about 2 C. Another assumption is that such a sudden and drastic jump would rapidly trigger major and rapid carbon feedbacks of various sorts (tundra, other soils, massive wild fires...)

It all seems to me like too many assumptions that everything will always happen at or beyond the high end of the catastrophically bad side of the best current predictions...

but on the other hand that has pretty much been the trend recently  :-\


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 20, 2018, 10:55:34 AM
Below is Guy McPhersons climate change update essay. If you havent seen it, i suggest checking it out.

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: bbr2314 on February 20, 2018, 07:55:25 PM
As I understand it, geront, the people that are claiming such things  assume that aerosols are blocking much more insolation than most models admit so that removing them suddenly (as may happen at least partially in a major global economic crash) would lead to a pretty immediate jump in global (atmospheric) temps of about 2 C. Another assumption is that such a sudden and drastic jump would rapidly trigger major and rapid carbon feedbacks of various sorts (tundra, other soils, massive wild fires...)

It all seems to me like too many assumptions that everything will always happen at or beyond the high end of the catastrophically bad side of the best current predictions...

but on the other hand that has pretty much been the trend recently  :-\

I think part of the problem in making ^ assumptions is that a very substantial proportion of aerosols are generated from home industry and agriculture in developing countries. It is unlikely that any major global economic crisis is going to effect these staples of human history and while China + The West could see rapid reductions, if you actually check any satellite map of the globe, you can see that the largest producers of dirty aerosols are actually all generally quite close to the Equator (Sub-Saharan Africa and India).
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 20, 2018, 10:26:24 PM
As I understand it, geront, the people that are claiming such things  assume that aerosols are blocking much more insolation than most models admit so that removing them suddenly (as may happen at least partially in a major global economic crash) would lead to a pretty immediate jump in global (atmospheric) temps of about 2 C. Another assumption is that such a sudden and drastic jump would rapidly trigger major and rapid carbon feedbacks of various sorts (tundra, other soils, massive wild fires...)

It all seems to me like too many assumptions that everything will always happen at or beyond the high end of the catastrophically bad side of the best current predictions...

but on the other hand that has pretty much been the trend recently  :-\

I think part of the problem in making ^ assumptions is that a very substantial proportion of aerosols are generated from home industry and agriculture in developing countries. It is unlikely that any major global economic crisis is going to effect these staples of human history and while China + The West could see rapid reductions, if you actually check any satellite map of the globe, you can see that the largest producers of dirty aerosols are actually all generally quite close to the Equator (Sub-Saharan Africa and India).

I think really whats more important is the fact that the loss of aerosols will result in more warming, therefor raising the global ave temp.

Also according to https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on February 21, 2018, 06:53:36 AM
bbr, sorry, I should have been more specific. The relevant aerosols for this discussion (cooling) are primarily the sulfate aerosols, and even more specifically sulfur dioxide, the main anthropogenic source of which is coal combustion, except where scrubbers have been installed.

But certainly in general the whole aerosol issue is much more complex than the proponents of certain imminent human extinction generally seem to want to acknowledge.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 21, 2018, 12:28:20 PM
The conversation about human extinction is the conversation no one wants to have, but i think its one we need to have. We need to live with our mistakes, and act as if death is near. We all have things and people we love.... I'm sure. If we are gonna be extinct in 10 years, then shouldnt we be living life with love, and peace. Even if the whole human extinction thing turns out to be pure rubbish, whats so bad about leaving the world a better place than before.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 21, 2018, 03:33:30 PM
Below is Guy McPhersons climate change update essay. If you havent seen it, i suggest checking it out.

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
I have taken a quick look but I wish I hadn't. Scaremongering such as this is in my opinion not better than risk denying. Both are unscientific efforts to mislead.
Should you discuss near-term human extinction in 100-200 years, it could be an interesting conversation. But 10 years for climate-related extinction is nonsense. I suggest to read rigorous scientific sources and avoid the stuff this Guy McPherson is drumming up.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 21, 2018, 05:18:45 PM
Below is Guy McPhersons climate change update essay. If you havent seen it, i suggest checking it out.

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
I have taken a quick look but I wish I hadn't. Scaremongering such as this is in my opinion not better than risk denying. Both are unscientific efforts to mislead.
Should you discuss near-term human extinction in 100-200 years, it could be an interesting conversation. But 10 years for climate-related extinction is nonsense. I suggest to read rigorous scientific sources and avoid the stuff this Guy McPherson is drumming up.

Having read his essay, I will agree with you.  However, I will say that his opening line is the most accurate, "There is no precedence in planetary history for events unfolding today. As a result, relying on prior events to predict the near future is unwise."  Based on his premise, I fail to see how he can make the predictions he does in this essay.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Alexander555 on February 21, 2018, 05:42:30 PM
We lost 75 % of all the sea ice in good 35 years. Why should we not lose the other 25 % in the next 10 years ? And that's probably when the big changes start , when that arctic becomes ice free for a while. Now you still have a big chunk of ice in the arctic. It's getting much thinner, but it's still there. So i would think the big changes still have to start, not ? Probably not human extinction in 10 years, but big changes for sure. Our entire  climate will be upside down.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 21, 2018, 06:29:44 PM
Big changes will come. Actually big changes are already occurring. I can argue for massive human die-off (not extincion) in 50 years, due to climate change and other carrying capacity issues. But forget those two years or ten that this Guy is scaremongering about. Large system - large lags. When it does go it will be unstoppable for the exact same reason.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: ritter on February 21, 2018, 06:45:32 PM
Big changes will come. Actually big changes are already occurring. I can argue for massive human die-off (not extincion) in 50 years, due to climate change and other carrying capacity issues. But forget those two years or ten that this Guy is scaremongering about. Large system - large lags. When it does go it will be unstoppable for the exact same reason.

What's the difference between 10 years and 50 years aside from which generation gets clobbered? The point is, catastrophic changes are coming and coming soon. No one has a divine certainty as to how bad and when but that is beside the point. Is mass human die off in 50 years really so different than potential extinction in 10? If either happen within 40 years, I'll likely be alive to witness it, so would rather get an all hands on deck approach to mitigating/adapting to it sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: jmshelton on February 21, 2018, 06:51:37 PM
Not to be too technical, but the idea of "extinction" is pretty strong.  I agree with the worries that a large human population contraction is a likely outcome of our messing with climate, but full extinction is not likely for a long time.  I do not wish the life of the remaining survivors on anyone, except those that didn't make it.  In other words, we shouldn't use extinction in a scientific sense if we want to be accurate, but the future will be very bleak for those humans trying to avoid it.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 21, 2018, 07:44:33 PM
I have no idea when the general public is going to realize how bad of a situation we have created for ourselves. I sometimes question their cognitive abilities.
 Preparation for massive climatic disruptions is difficult for anyone to prepare for. Do you run for it and try to protect your own ass? Do you try to develop survival techniques that will help some later generations struggle to survive through what will be this species greatest challenge ? Or do you just hope for someone else to come up with a miracle? All of those options will be utilized by various segments of society. I have opted for trying to help someone in the future. Whether anyone cares to walk this thing back with me is questionable but I currently have all the assets nessesary for experimenting. I believe as we get closer those options will be restricted. Time is not on our side and like Ritter says 10 years or 40 years are but a blink of the eye. I have never personally met anyone I could honestly say was trying to prepare. I enjoy human company, I enjoy my animals, I don't understand my fellow human beings...nobody will come through this without some psychological damage. I think Guy's response is flawed , I don't think all the love in the world will help if you can't help future generations and the man has simply given up.
 Mostly we are acting like a deer looking into the headlights.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Alexander555 on February 21, 2018, 08:01:48 PM
Nobody will come up with a miracle. And nothing is going to change. Most politicians are crippled. With all respect for cripple people, in general they are more usefull than the average politician. But as soon as a politicians takes the donations, they just become the puppets of their masters. And that makes them useless for society. And what also worries me, take Puerto Rico for example. That's just a small place, and a half year later they are still not recovered. And that's US soil. And they can expect less help in the future. Let's hope we don't lose the internet to fast. Otherwise we are going to miss a big part of the show.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 21, 2018, 08:29:14 PM
I personally think a collapse is coming. Our population is in overdrive, and you can bet that while our population is growing, nothing will get better. Nature is gonna do us good. I also personally think Guy McPherson is mostly on point with what he says. I think the time scale part of it is a bit extreme but i think it will happen sometime between now and 2050. I think scaremongering is not the right way to put it. more like scareawareness. Our whole way of living is not connected with nature, and that alone has ad consequences. Humans can't live on earth without the right climate, habitat, and air to breath. Considering the highest tempurature humans have ever been thru on earth was 3.3 C above current baseline, once we go beyond that.......Not to mention how the animals, plants, and insects will respond. Human extinction? Idk maybe....but you can count on billions of people to die.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on February 21, 2018, 08:38:13 PM
The projections for temperature change differ based on latitude. Tropical regions will likely see 1-2 degrees higher temps by 2050-70 which is not a problem and won't hamper food production at all. Temperate regions will likely see 2-4 degrees higher temps  and more rain which is also no problem for food production - in fact it will open up new areas for grain production.

Growing enough food will not be a problem in the foreseeable future. And basically the only place where the population will grow is Africa. They WILL have a problem growing enough food as their population will go from 1 billion to 4 billion by 2100! Expect wars and mass migration out of Africa, but other places will have no problems with food.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 21, 2018, 09:23:01 PM
El Cid, As long as you keep pouring fossil fuels into the tractors, pump out nitrogen with natural gas power, mine what phosphorus is left with current mining technology, strip what carbon still remains in our farm soils while shipping the resulting food stores around the world with planes, ships,trucks and rail.All collectively known as BAU then everything is going to be just fine. Don't worry and please just eat your cake ! I would like you to post on the "walking the walk" thread if you have something else in mind otherwise I consider you a troll and worse.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on February 21, 2018, 09:55:39 PM
Allright, so just because I do not agree with your imminent human extinction view, I am a troll - now that is a very sophisticated answer. By the way, I am working on regenerative agriculture projects (increasing soil OM/C, biodiversity, etc.), so maybe you should not be so harsh on me. Still, i do not see any evidence that with projected temperatures (by 2050) we would not be able to feed mankind. Just one thing: if everyone stopped eating meat, we could immediately feed 10-15 bln people. Just sayin' ...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 21, 2018, 11:32:08 PM
I would not worry to much about it.  I find that those resorting to the troll slurs are usually those that cannot argue their position very effectively, and must resort to ad hominems.  The real irony is that your response is more typical of the scientific community, whereas the troll responses are often from extremists.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 21, 2018, 11:50:27 PM
I don't have any projections of when our human population starts into decline. I also believe El Cid is correct in that we can keep feeding ourselves. My problem is with the notion that that makes everything peachy. Don't worry about the thirty percent that the food economy and infrastructure contributes to our carbon emissions . Put your foot on the gas pedal , we'll figure it out later... Magical thinking is like I said earlier one of the expected responses of a certain segment of society. I said troll or worse and in my opinion apologists for BAU are worse than trolls.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: CDN_dude on February 22, 2018, 12:12:59 AM
El Cid, what about the prospect of declining crop yields in key agricultural areas of the world, as are projected. What about this graph of projected precipitation in one of the world's breadbaskets, the Western North American region https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/07/WesternUSA-precipitation.png

I personally find it laughable to think that humans can go extinct this century, but at the same time, the possibility up to a billion may die is far from remote, indeed even likely under BAU.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: CDN_dude on February 22, 2018, 12:17:33 AM
As for extinction, the reason that won't happen is because rapid population decreases are a kind of negative feedback. Eventually we would get back to close to the carrying capacity of the Earth, even if at that point there were only say a million people left alive worldwide. The only real threat of total extinction I can think of is abrupt global warming combined with some kind of mega-pandemic for which there is no cure. Climate change alone won't do it.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Human Habitat Index on February 22, 2018, 12:28:21 AM
Below is Guy McPhersons climate change update essay. If you havent seen it, i suggest checking it out.

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
I have taken a quick look but I wish I hadn't. Scaremongering such as this is in my opinion not better than risk denying. Both are unscientific efforts to mislead.
Should you discuss near-term human extinction in 100-200 years, it could be an interesting conversation. But 10 years for climate-related extinction is nonsense. I suggest to read rigorous scientific sources and avoid the stuff this Guy McPherson is drumming up.

Can you be more specific about Guy McPherson's essay, as all you are saying is it's unbelievable.

Below is Guy McPhersons climate change update essay. If you havent seen it, i suggest checking it out.

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
I have taken a quick look but I wish I hadn't. Scaremongering such as this is in my opinion not better than risk denying. Both are unscientific efforts to mislead.
Should you discuss near-term human extinction in 100-200 years, it could be an interesting conversation. But 10 years for climate-related extinction is nonsense. I suggest to read rigorous scientific sources and avoid the stuff this Guy McPherson is drumming up.

Having read his essay, I will agree with you.  However, I will say that his opening line is the most accurate, "There is no precedence in planetary history for events unfolding today. As a result, relying on prior events to predict the near future is unwise."  Based on his premise, I fail to see how he can make the predictions he does in this essay.

The paleo record gives us an accurate insight into climate events in the past, which can then be extrapolated to predict the future based on current conditions and trends.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Human Habitat Index on February 22, 2018, 12:35:42 AM
As for extinction, the reason that won't happen is because rapid population decreases are a kind of negative feedback. Eventually we would get back to close to the carrying capacity of the Earth, even if at that point there were only say a million people left alive worldwide. The only real threat of total extinction I can think of is abrupt global warming combined with some kind of mega-pandemic for which there is no cure. Climate change alone won't do it.

A lot of temperature rise is baked in.

The negative feedback of rapid polulation decrease will only likely occur with civilisation breakdown which causes massive fast temperature rise due to loss of aerosol masking.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 22, 2018, 01:00:49 AM
As for extinction, the reason that won't happen is because rapid population decreases are a kind of negative feedback. Eventually we would get back to close to the carrying capacity of the Earth, even if at that point there were only say a million people left alive worldwide. The only real threat of total extinction I can think of is abrupt global warming combined with some kind of mega-pandemic for which there is no cure. Climate change alone won't do it.

Apparently you missed my post (s).  I refer you to those posts above for reference before responding to this comment.

Long story short, In an event of rapid population decrease, it's almost certain (please refer to my post for more detailed information) that more than one, possibly nearly all, (depending of the heroics and ingenuity of the nuclear engineers at the sites and the speed of the population decrease) - of the 450 nuclear reactor spent fuel rod containment facilities around the world, especially in already unstable regions, will melt down catastrophically in a Fukishima style event.  This time, however, it's going to be the version of Fukishima WITHOUT any ability to remedy the situation like Japan and the rest of the world mobilized to do - Multiplied by 450. 


Can you please explain to me how even JUST 1 million humans ( even 20 million or 70 million.  The number doesn't really matter so long as it's an extreme event like you're describing) will be able to survive the spent fuel rods from 450+ nuclear reactors all over the world melting down simultaneously? 


I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, or argumentative.  I'm honestly concerned for life on this planet, especially the life that large apes depend upon for survival.  Dr. McPherson presents evidence that abrupt change in climate or an abrupt event that reduces human population is certainly on the cards.

  Heck, even if we weren't undergoing abrupt climate change, all it would take is an orchestrated 9-11 style attempt by terrorists to release an enormous amount of radiation into the atmosphere (I will not go into details but if you do research on the topics I've discussed you can use your imagination).   That ALONE would reduce human population rapidly enough to cause meltdowns of all the other nuclear spent fuel rod containment facilities on the planet within a relatively short period of time.  To suggest that something far more catastrophic, like a reduction in human population down to 10 or even 100 million from present levels, wouldn't cause unimaginable levels of radiation being released into the atmosphere is, quite frankly, not very open minded.

  I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where large apes somehow survive an extinction event event that is already claiming 75%+ of insect biodensity within a 20 year time frame -  and we're only at 1.5C above baseline.  Add incomprehensibly copious quantities of gamma radiation circulating through the atmosphere, for thousands of years... it's Permian extinction in 250-300 years instead of thousands + gamma radiation.  99+% of all life on the planet will perish in a very short period of time.  Humans, ruminants, birds, and all other forms of life that we recognize as our co-habitants will perish all within the same time period.  Sure, there's going to be some apes in bunkers who survive, for a while.  How long can they stay in those bunkers?  CO2 and radioactive isotopes last thousands and thousands of years.

In Conclusion:

1.  I'm genuinely interested in a direct response (especially from someone with experience in nuclear physics and atmospheric science). 

2.  I'd also like to understand how the atmosphere of earth is going to respond to the radiation emitted from the melt down of spent fuel rods from the 450+ nuclear reactors all over the planet?

3.  I honestly do apologize for the bad news.  I don't want to ruin anyone's day.  I honestly don't think many have considered the spent fuel rod situation.  I encourage everyone here to do some research on the fragility of these facilities.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 22, 2018, 03:48:50 AM
Near term human extinction? No way. There are places such as Cheyenne Mountain were thousands of humans will survive for decades even centuries.  99.99% reduction in world population, maybe, but not extinction.

99.99% population reduction places human population at pre-historic levels, where it has been for 99 % of the existance of humanity. We live in extraordinary times.

That said I belive 99.99% is only posibble if we go to war. If we try to survive these changes the population reduction will be much less. If we seriously prepare for it might even be good for most.

 Humans are very adaptable and we have lots of resources. Many of those resources will be gone with the ice but we have vast reserves. The number of people that fail to adapt is unthinkable, but many will adapt, specially when all available resources are redirected towards surviving.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 22, 2018, 04:00:19 AM
Near term human extinction? No way. There are places such as Cheyenne Mountain were thousands of humans will survive for decades even centuries.  99.99% reduction in world population, maybe, but not extinction.

99.99% population reduction places human population at pre-historic levels, where it has benn for 99 % of the existance if humanity. We live in extraordinary times.

That said I belive 99.99% is only posibble if we go to war. If we try to survive these changes the population reduction will be much less. If we seriously prepare for it might even be good for most.

 Humans are very adaptable and we have lots of resources. Many of those resources will be gone with the ice but we have vast reserves. The number of people that fail to adapt is unthinkable, but many will adapt, specially when all available resources are redirected towards surviving.

What you're suggesting is that humans will have to live underground in a bunker for, most likely thousands of years before the radioactive isotopes on the surface and in the atmosphere decay into stable elements.   Even if the half life total of the isotopes was only 100 years, and humans had to somehow survive in that mountain for 100 years - that's something like 2 or 3 generations.  It's pretty tough to get the necessary vitamins and nutrients in an underground bunker. Humans need those to survive and reproduce, how are they going to manufacture vitamin D for centuries?  Thats' just one vitamin humans essentially need to be on the surface of the planet to obtain. 

In reality, it will most likely take thousands of years for the consequences of 450 spent fuel rod containment facilities melting down to decay naturally into harmless elements.  The amount of radiation thats going to be released is something on the order of like 1000000 chernobyls (I don't think anyone outside of the UN and the military/intelligence agencies even knows how many thousands upon thousands of tons of spent fuel rods exist in cooling ponds).

Your post certainly demonstrates a commendable level of optimism for your species.

I'd suggest doing some research into spent fuel rods:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-spent-fuel-damage-pool-accident

Here's some of the radiactive isotopes released from a melt down:

https://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/toolboxes/half-life-radioisotopes.htm

You're looking at hundreds of years, and if there's sufficient plutonium - thousands of years.

The exclusion zone for chenobyl is thousands of square kilometers.  That was a relatively small amount of radiation compared to the events that are going to unfold if all of the nuclear fuel rod containment facilities melt down. 

So humans need to immediately move all of these spent fuel rods, dump them in the ocean and bury them close to the tectonic plates that are converging to prevent them from ever reaching the surface...or spend 250+ years in bunkers, most likely dying from vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition in a few decades. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on February 22, 2018, 04:03:31 AM
Well, if there were a 99.99 % reduction in the human population, that would, as you suggest, just leave few smallish enclaves of humans. But then it would only take a major natural or human disaster to wipe any one of those out, and there will be more and more of both of those on hand to do the job.

So what you say may be true (none of us is likely to be around to witness the results either way), but I can't see how one can completely confidently rule out the possibility of total extinction.

Just sayin
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Tony Mcleod on February 22, 2018, 05:09:05 AM
McPherson is probably right about a lot of things but I think he gets it wrong about the immediate causes. He suggests what will do us in is a collapse of the global grain growing system - in his terms "a loss of habitat". He is a population ecologist, so that is a fair way of putting it I suppose. But don't think that alone will send us extinct, not in a short number of years anyway.

If he talked in terms of that grain collapse being the death-blow for modern civilisation, then I think he'd be more on the money. Three of four billion might perish but there are plenty more where they came from.

Ok, the rest scrambling over each other for the remaining niches doesn't sound that appealing either but humans are pretty adaptable and you'd expect some to find a way.

Hundreds of nuc meltdowns - hmmm, that might be difficult for any species except subterranean bacteria to survive.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on February 22, 2018, 05:59:15 AM
One thing to keep in mind that in the Sixth Great Mass Extinction that we are already deep in the middle of, far before anything like the worst results of GW kick in (not to mention various other calamities mentioned here, and others), tens to hundreds of species are already going extinct every single day.

All of humanity is, in the end, just one other species.

We are not immune.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 22, 2018, 06:20:09 AM
Can you be more specific about Guy McPherson's essay, as all you are saying is it's unbelievable.
This essay is more than 32,000 words. I believe he is obfuscating on purpose. From the ~5,000 words I've read until I've given up, I couldn't find a clear explanation for his expected timeline, whether it's 10 years or 50. All he says is "rapid", "accelerated" and so on. Heck, in geologic terms 1000 years is rapid too.
As extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or just even plain evidence, I suggest to flip this argument on its head. Find me the parts in this essay that discuss an actual timeline (rather than convincing a catastrophe is coming but just creating the sense that it's coming in a couple of years), and then I can relate/refute.

To all those wondering the difference between 10 and 50 years, the shorter one doesn't allow any prevention/mitigation action, thus meeting the deniers full circle, while the latter does allow some action (even though we don't seem to actually take much advantage of that).
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 22, 2018, 07:48:46 AM
Oren, Thank you for explaining your ten year fifty year critique. I spent the day angry, a ridiculous response to blog comments.
 I have been living without any wheat and I can also demonstrate that pigs and chickens don't need grains. Not that I can demonstrate keeping civilization running should we lose grain harvests for some reason but most definately survival potential for small groups.
 We humans are facing an existential challenge. There will be reasonable responses from some people and unreasonable responses by others. I see no reason to believe extinction is in our immediate future. Humans did get by without grains for most of our history.



   
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: aperson on February 22, 2018, 09:17:59 AM
If you want to argue for extinction of a species, you need a clear cascade that results in every single member of the species dying.

If you want to say that mass nuclear reactor meltdowns cause it, provide the mechanism that causes the meltdown, the rate and amount of radioactive material emitted, and the resulting action of that material that leads to the extinction of the species.

Personally, the main extinction threat to us I see is the classic one in the paleontological record: Carbonic acid load and ocean heat content create euxinic oceans that emit fatal amounts of hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere.

I think we could make it very hard to avoid that by our actions before about 2050 or so, but the full cascade that puts a fatal amount of H2S into the atmosphere will take a few hundred years at least. The underlying chemical reactions only happen so quickly.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 22, 2018, 06:57:47 PM
I tend to take all these end-of-the-world claims with a grain of salt.  I Have lived through predictions of annihilation by nuclear war, food shortage due to overpopulation, killing the plant with pollution, acid rain, ozone depletion, Islamic terrorist, and now global warming.  Each time the claim was we were on the eve of destruction (to quote Barry McGuire), only to work together to alleviate the crisis.  Much of the cries were exaggerations in order to stir action.  I see nothing different this time around. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Bernard on February 22, 2018, 07:19:50 PM
I tend to agree with Daniel B., having survived myself similar predictions. My oldest recollection of such dates back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, back in '62. I was 9 years old, and I remember very well some playground conversations about the upcoming end of the world.
My take on this is that it's not specific to the human species to expand as wildly as it can until hitting some wall. It's been the logic of life since the very beginning. The so-called balance of nature belongs to mythology, akin to the belief that the creator made a perfect world, and humans led by the devil have introduced disorder. Living things are dissipative systems, no one is really caring about its environment more than we do. 
We are certainly in a crisis, through which life will change a lot. Species will disappear, the total biomass will certainly drop, some opportunists will benefit the disaster of some others. But I really doubt that life can be eradicated. It has survived 3 billion years through many global and local catastrophes.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Alexander555 on February 22, 2018, 07:22:38 PM
I tend to take all these end-of-the-world claims with a grain of salt.  I Have lived through predictions of annihilation by nuclear war, food shortage due to overpopulation, killing the plant with pollution, acid rain, ozone depletion, Islamic terrorist, and now global warming.  Each time the claim was we were on the eve of destruction (to quote Barry McGuire), only to work together to alleviate the crisis.  Much of the cries were exaggerations in order to stir action.  I see nothing different this time around.

This time is different, don't you think ? How many people across the globe are on the run ? Half of Africa and the Middle-East is running into Europe. Wars and conflicts are everywhere in Africa and the Middle-east. Water supplies are gone or polluted. And it's almost everyday 40 degree below the equator in Africa. And the forests dissapear fast, leaving not much more than a desert behind. A desert where it's 40 degree almost every day. Mexico are the new killing fields, and the people from Venezuela are spreading across Latin-America. Where they already have giant favelas everywhere. And in the future the arctic will become ice free at some point. Creating chaos on top of all that chaos. Asia is overpopulated and is having severe troubles with his water supply. That's 4,5 billion people.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 22, 2018, 08:50:30 PM
People have always been on the run, seeking greener pastures.  Wars have occurred since time began.  Some have argued that we are actually in a declining state of war.  Water has always been an issue, especially in areas like the Middle East and American Southwest, which are not capable of sustaining such a population naturally.  Most of the deforestation has already occurred.  This is not leaving deserts behind, unless you call cities deserts (this has some validity).  The destruction of the forest and land degradation in general is the biggest issue, in my opinion.  Ironically, the recent warming has caused an expanse of plant life in recent decades.  If we can increase our efforts at re-forestaton, we may be alright.  We are definitely moving towards an ice-free Arctic in the summer.   Whether this creates chaos or not is open to debate.  The Arctic has been ice-free before.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 22, 2018, 09:59:46 PM
This time IS different, and the difference is in the time factor. The problems you describe took years to resolve, while their damage was longer-acting. (Nukes are a different story, but mutual deterrence was an effective solution). Here you have a problem that takes decades to fix, and also takes decades to identify, causing much of its baked-in damage to play out before the fix is applied.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 22, 2018, 10:41:43 PM
Quote
A shepherd-boy, who watched a flock of sheep near a village, brought out the villagers three or four times by crying out, "Wolf! Wolf!" and when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains.

     The Wolf, however, did truly come at last. The Shepherd-boy, now really alarmed, shouted in an agony of terror: "Pray, do come and help me; the Wolf is killing the sheep"; but no one paid any heed to his cries, nor rendered any assistance. The Wolf, having no cause of fear, at his leisure lacerated or destroyed the whole flock.

The moral of the story? The wolves are coming, if you don't take the threat seriously your flock will be destroyed.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: zheega on February 23, 2018, 03:06:46 AM
I think there is simply no way for even worst-case climate change scenarios to cause the direct extinction of the human race.

The problem is that deteriorating conditions caused by CC will probably start big wars for resources and for survival of entire countries, if not continents. And if we use nuclear weapons in those wars, we could cause the extinction of the human race. So getting rid of nuclear weapons should be a priority. Just India and Pakistan alone probably have enough nukes to end the human race.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 23, 2018, 05:05:06 AM
Ah, finally a thread into which I may post a link to my blog post I haven't particularly advertised. I agree with the most in the thread that a full-scale nuclear war is the fastest way to get humans to go extinct (abt. the same as a supervolcano of VEI9 or a 10K asteroid style dinosaurs) and that environmental factors are (only) contributing factors on many conflicts around the world. I haven't touched the technology at all in the post. Mechanized non-nuclear warfare (as opposed to small arms and land troops) can continue as long as there is fuel to power those killing machines and troop carriers, so converting the energy system completely to dispersed small production could be advantageous to humanity's survival in some world war three situations. A normal passenger car runs way further than a tank with the same amount of fuel. I think I might prefer a solar powered vehicle and a good supply for RK-95 (the modernized AK-47) ammo in an escape situation on a sunny area. No way petrol-heads such as Churchill (mechaniser of British army before and during WWII) would give up their reserves to deserters. As the blogpost spans the years 2015-2020 and it's already 2018, it is clear that the stuff described hasn't happened and in the autumn 2014 when I wrote it, there was no divine inspiration present  :P ::) 8) .

The rest of the blog might also contain some readable and climate related stuff, in the beginning there are some historical vignettes and I think this is the first directly climate related chapter
from 2008 (2007 convinced me I need to write some thoughts on environment on paper and the blog was a good place to get them out.) : http://erimaassa.blogspot.fi/2008/11/jonkun-verran-pelkotilaa.html). The chapters written after Sept-18th, 2014 (http://erimaassa.blogspot.fi/2014/09/delays-and-daleks-short-note-9.html) concern mainly Middle Earth, this is the time I pretty much gave up on parts of humanity. Life has been better since deciding not trying to convince those deniers of the error of their ways. But the administrative changes around globe that favor nuclear warfare, environmental destruction and other terror have produced some funny pieces (well, to me at least) some of you may have enjoyed here in ASI Forum.

Of course it's still entirely possible that we only have to relocate all infrastructure at under 9 meters ASL and change the species or at least variants of species in agriculture and find a way to accommodate only the 2 billion people directly affected in 300 years. Hmm.

long post (for me) so ending with the link here. environmental destabilization as seen by yours truly in late 2014
http://erimaassa.blogspot.fi/p/blog-page.html , there's of course the caveat that 'this is probably not the speed of CC'. Radiative equilibrium to space is of fourth power and it takes plenty of positive feedbacks to surpass this.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Martin Gisser on February 23, 2018, 05:18:45 AM
My worst case scenario is not Near Term Human Extinction but long term human nonextinction without cultural evolution. Then the planet is fucked forever.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Avalonian on February 23, 2018, 10:01:20 AM
I think there is simply no way for even worst-case climate change scenarios to cause the direct extinction of the human race.

Then you really need to have a close look at the Permo-Triassic, because that's the scenario we seem to be approaching, based on warming rates. Mass methane realease, sudden warming by 5-10C, oceanic anoxia and mass hydrogen sulphide release to lethal levels appear to have done the job for over 90% of species then. It's entirely possible that the same can happen again, especially since clathrate levels are likely much greater in an ice house world. (And that's not even the very worst-case; it's difficult to prove that a runaway warming is categorically impossible...)

The question is whether that really is the path we're heading down, and if so, how quickly. We're all interpreting the evidence in slightly different ways, but ruling out any scenarios that cannot, logically, be ruled out is just not helpful.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Gray-Wolf on February 23, 2018, 01:36:38 PM
There was a post , upthread, telling us not to worry as higher Lat's were only progged to see a 3 to 4c raise in temps? I think the person needs to revisit how 'averages' work?
As I witness it we are seeing 'extreme' lurches in temps from the lows of polar plunges to the highs of summer heat domes? Over the year the extremes might average out as zero but will have had a major impact across the area suffering those extremes?

Not that far north of the UK is Svalbard and they have seen another winter of extreme temp excursions and I have to ask myself what the UK would think if they were happening here on a regular basis? To see a february day in the 70f's might wake folk up to how altered the planet is becoming? Sadly the recent SSW is set to plunge temps below freezing for a week so we will be fighting the 'where's the global warming eh?' tirade.....
Last low solar saw Russia bake in a summer long heatwave ( and wildfires ) , here we are again approaching solar min. Will we see a repeat? Will russia run low on grain again?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 23, 2018, 02:05:06 PM
Permian extinction stuff is scary, I admit. By burning all the coal easily harvested we might get there but it isn't yet an issue, I guess. Unless of course it happened for external reasons. Note on the Methanosarcina-hypothesis, the postulated acidic substrate isn't there anymore, so Permian-style horrors cannot happen this route anymore.

(some note found elsewhere stated some Th/U-enrichments are found on a layer near end-Permian. Has Earth been hit by a radioactive asteroid or were the Siberian traps a natural nuclear reactor? )
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on February 23, 2018, 02:23:56 PM
Human Extinction ?- Huh, get real and look at what's really really important in the world

Front Page of the SUN, UK's biggest selling Newspaper (Murdoch, of course)
Quote
SNAPCRASH Kylie Jenner wipes £1BILLION off value of Snapchat just by saying she doesn’t use the app any more
The reality star wiped more than $1.5billion off the tech firm's market value after asking her Twitter followers 'does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore?'

If the SUN doesn't think climate change et al important - then it can't be !!
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 23, 2018, 04:21:33 PM
Human Extinction ?- Huh, get real and look at what's really really important in the world

Front Page of the SUN, UK's biggest selling Newspaper (Murdoch, of course)
Quote
SNAPCRASH Kylie Jenner wipes £1BILLION off value of Snapchat just by saying she doesn’t use the app any more
The reality star wiped more than $1.5billion off the tech firm's market value after asking her Twitter followers 'does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore?'

If the SUN doesn't think climate change et al important - then it can't be !!


Ok. Thanks and a thumb-up. Glad there's no 'like'-button here.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 23, 2018, 06:56:40 PM
There was a post , upthread, telling us not to worry as higher Lat's were only progged to see a 3 to 4c raise in temps? I think the person needs to revisit how 'averages' work?
As I witness it we are seeing 'extreme' lurches in temps from the lows of polar plunges to the highs of summer heat domes? Over the year the extremes might average out as zero but will have had a major impact across the area suffering those extremes?

Not that far north of the UK is Svalbard and they have seen another winter of extreme temp excursions and I have to ask myself what the UK would think if they were happening here on a regular basis? To see a february day in the 70f's might wake folk up to how altered the planet is becoming? Sadly the recent SSW is set to plunge temps below freezing for a week so we will be fighting the 'where's the global warming eh?' tirade.....
Last low solar saw Russia bake in a summer long heatwave ( and wildfires ) , here we are again approaching solar min. Will we see a repeat? Will russia run low on grain again?

You are correct that an average may not correct reflect what is occurring around the globe.  However, your extremes are a little off.  Current temperature anomalies are resulting from warming winter temperatures, but little change in summer temperatures.  We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Gray-Wolf on February 23, 2018, 07:27:35 PM
There was a post , upthread, telling us not to worry as higher Lat's were only progged to see a 3 to 4c raise in temps? I think the person needs to revisit how 'averages' work?
As I witness it we are seeing 'extreme' lurches in temps from the lows of polar plunges to the highs of summer heat domes? Over the year the extremes might average out as zero but will have had a major impact across the area suffering those extremes?

Not that far north of the UK is Svalbard and they have seen another winter of extreme temp excursions and I have to ask myself what the UK would think if they were happening here on a regular basis? To see a february day in the 70f's might wake folk up to how altered the planet is becoming? Sadly the recent SSW is set to plunge temps below freezing for a week so we will be fighting the 'where's the global warming eh?' tirade.....
Last low solar saw Russia bake in a summer long heatwave ( and wildfires ) , here we are again approaching solar min. Will we see a repeat? Will russia run low on grain again?

You are correct that an average may not correct reflect what is occurring around the globe.  However, your extremes are a little off.  Current temperature anomalies are resulting from warming winter temperatures, but little change in summer temperatures.  We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.
I understand where our 'gains' are being experienced ( winter and nightimes) but we are also seeing extremes in local climate ( like Capetown and its water issues?) where 'unusually persistent' patterns bring extremes be it drought /rainfall or hot/cold.
It does not take long to see a crop in the fields ruined if conditions become overly hostile?
If we continue to intensification in extremes then we will run into major issues over the coming decades.
 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Alexander555 on February 23, 2018, 07:44:18 PM
There was a post , upthread, telling us not to worry as higher Lat's were only progged to see a 3 to 4c raise in temps? I think the person needs to revisit how 'averages' work?
As I witness it we are seeing 'extreme' lurches in temps from the lows of polar plunges to the highs of summer heat domes? Over the year the extremes might average out as zero but will have had a major impact across the area suffering those extremes?

Not that far north of the UK is Svalbard and they have seen another winter of extreme temp excursions and I have to ask myself what the UK would think if they were happening here on a regular basis? To see a february day in the 70f's might wake folk up to how altered the planet is becoming? Sadly the recent SSW is set to plunge temps below freezing for a week so we will be fighting the 'where's the global warming eh?' tirade.....
Last low solar saw Russia bake in a summer long heatwave ( and wildfires ) , here we are again approaching solar min. Will we see a repeat? Will russia run low on grain again?

You are correct that an average may not correct reflect what is occurring around the globe.  However, your extremes are a little off.  Current temperature anomalies are resulting from warming winter temperatures, but little change in summer temperatures.  We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.
I understand where our 'gains' are being experienced ( winter and nightimes) but we are also seeing extremes in local climate ( like Capetown and its water issues?) where 'unusually persistent' patterns bring extremes be it drought /rainfall or hot/cold.
It does not take long to see a crop in the fields ruined if conditions become overly hostile?
If we continue to intensification in extremes then we will run into major issues over the coming decades.

And on top of these extremes you have the extreme population growth in the last 40 years. So the same drought will have a much bigger impact. A flood 40 years ago had a much bigger chance not to have a big impact because there was nobody living. Today they are building everywhere, they cut the vegetation or forests that keeps the soil together, so in many places it's just waiting for a disaster. And if you look at the number of big hurricanes in the Atlantic. The number went up by 200 % in a little more than 100 years. And the cradle of these atlantic hurricanes is in posittion for big changes. Because the atlantic will have to face the consequences in the first place from the arctic sea ice that is melting. Maybe a good time to evacuate the people living in the caribean.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 23, 2018, 09:23:48 PM
Quote
We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.

So I gather you define extreme and mild according to how it feels to humans?  I would think that mild and extreme should be defined by the local climate effect of the increase, not how it feels to humans. In some places half a degree is enough to change precipitation patterns. In some places 2 degrees wouldnt even make a difference.

A good example is the regional changes in the Arctic. It is now close to 0 degrees in some places when it should be -30. According to your definition thats just a mild temperature and nothing to be concerned about. Yet, those "mild" temperatures are causing havoc in weather patterns all over the world.

I guess your big mistake is assuming that as temperatures rise, weather patterns will remain the same. It is not like  that at all.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 23, 2018, 09:43:33 PM
Quote
We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.

So I gather you define extreme and mild according to how it feels to humans?  I would think that mild and extreme should be defined by the local climate effect of the increase, not how it feels to humans. In some places half a degree is enough to change precipitation patterns. In some places 2 degrees wouldnt even make a difference.

A good example is the regional changes in the Arctic. It is now close to 0 degrees in some places when it should be -30. According to your definition thats just a mild temperature and nothing to be concerned about. Yet, those "mild" temperatures are causing havoc in weather patterns all over the world.

I guess your big mistake is assuming that as temperatures rise, weather patterns will remain the same. It is not like  that at all.

Actually, it has nothing to do with that at all.  Previous posters (and indeed, most others) referred to extreme heat as being hotter than usual in the summer, and extreme cold as being colder than usual in the winter.  Conversely, a milder summer is cooler than usual, while a milder winter is warmer.  I guess your mistake is assuming definitions that do not apply.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 23, 2018, 10:03:00 PM
We may be extinct in 10 years, we may not be. One thing we need to remember is the future is impossible to predict 100%.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Alexander555 on February 23, 2018, 10:09:21 PM
Quote
We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.

So I gather you define extreme and mild according to how it feels to humans?  I would think that mild and extreme should be defined by the local climate effect of the increase, not how it feels to humans. In some places half a degree is enough to change precipitation patterns. In some places 2 degrees wouldnt even make a difference.

A good example is the regional changes in the Arctic. It is now close to 0 degrees in some places when it should be -30. According to your definition thats just a mild temperature and nothing to be concerned about. Yet, those "mild" temperatures are causing havoc in weather patterns all over the world.

I guess your big mistake is assuming that as temperatures rise, weather patterns will remain the same. It is not like  that at all.

Actually, it has nothing to do with that at all.  Previous posters (and indeed, most others) referred to extreme heat as being hotter than usual in the summer, and extreme cold as being colder than usual in the winter.  Conversely, a milder summer is cooler than usual, while a milder winter is warmer.  I guess your mistake is assuming definitions that do not apply.


About what milder summer are you talking ? Over here ( Europe) we have heat wave after heat wave. Every year we break a new record. And i can't remember a cold winter. If we are lucky we get some cold in the next weeks. And we are in the middle of the winter.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: SteveMDFP on February 23, 2018, 10:21:18 PM
We may be extinct in 10 years, we may not be. One thing we need to remember is the future is impossible to predict 100%.

“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

― Yogi Berra
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 23, 2018, 10:30:17 PM
There was a post , upthread, telling us not to worry as higher Lat's were only progged to see a 3 to 4c raise in temps? I think the person needs to revisit how 'averages' work?
As I witness it we are seeing 'extreme' lurches in temps from the lows of polar plunges to the highs of summer heat domes? Over the year the extremes might average out as zero but will have had a major impact across the area suffering those extremes?

Not that far north of the UK is Svalbard and they have seen another winter of extreme temp excursions and I have to ask myself what the UK would think if they were happening here on a regular basis? To see a february day in the 70f's might wake folk up to how altered the planet is becoming? Sadly the recent SSW is set to plunge temps below freezing for a week so we will be fighting the 'where's the global warming eh?' tirade.....
Last low solar saw Russia bake in a summer long heatwave ( and wildfires ) , here we are again approaching solar min. Will we see a repeat? Will russia run low on grain again?

You are correct that an average may not correct reflect what is occurring around the globe.  However, your extremes are a little off. Current temperature anomalies are resulting from warming winter temperatures, but little change in summer temperatures. We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.
I am sorry but this statement is simply incorrect. Winter is warming faster than summer, and nighttime is warming faster than daytime, but the AGW signal is still clearly present in all of these.
Quick googling finds this discussion from 2010, I am sure there is plenty more if you care to look.

The human fingerprint in the seasons
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=474&p=4 (https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=474&p=4)
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/winter_warming_nh.gif)
Quote
Figure 1: Yearly temperature anomaly for Northern Hemisphere winter (light blue) and summer (light red) plus five year moving average for winter (thick blue) and summer (thick red). Data comes from CRUTemp, base period is 1961 to 1990.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 23, 2018, 11:02:31 PM
There was a post , upthread, telling us not to worry as higher Lat's were only progged to see a 3 to 4c raise in temps? I think the person needs to revisit how 'averages' work?
As I witness it we are seeing 'extreme' lurches in temps from the lows of polar plunges to the highs of summer heat domes? Over the year the extremes might average out as zero but will have had a major impact across the area suffering those extremes?

Not that far north of the UK is Svalbard and they have seen another winter of extreme temp excursions and I have to ask myself what the UK would think if they were happening here on a regular basis? To see a february day in the 70f's might wake folk up to how altered the planet is becoming? Sadly the recent SSW is set to plunge temps below freezing for a week so we will be fighting the 'where's the global warming eh?' tirade.....
Last low solar saw Russia bake in a summer long heatwave ( and wildfires ) , here we are again approaching solar min. Will we see a repeat? Will russia run low on grain again?

You are correct that an average may not correct reflect what is occurring around the globe.  However, your extremes are a little off. Current temperature anomalies are resulting from warming winter temperatures, but little change in summer temperatures. We are not  experiences more extremes.  Rather, we are seeing milder temperatures overall, which are resulting in an average increase.
I am sorry but this statement is simply incorrect. Winter is warming faster than summer, and nighttime is warming faster than daytime, but the AGW signal is still clearly present in all of these.
Quick googling finds this discussion from 2010, I am sure there is plenty more if you care to look.

The human fingerprint in the seasons
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=474&p=4 (https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=474&p=4)
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/winter_warming_nh.gif)
Quote
Figure 1: Yearly temperature anomaly for Northern Hemisphere winter (light blue) and summer (light red) plus five year moving average for winter (thick blue) and summer (thick red). Data comes from CRUTemp, base period is 1961 to 1990.

Your link in no way invalidates my statement.  See the epa heat wave and cold wave indices.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/print_high-low-temps-2016.pdf

While there has been a steady decline in cold waves, there has been no discernible trend in heat waves.  Your graph simply shows the increase in nightly low temperatures, as stated in the epa link.  Also, in the past twenty years, only two states have set all-time record highs (SC and SD) and two have set record lows (ME and OK).  Sometimes you need to do research than just googling.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on February 23, 2018, 11:17:18 PM
The last post uses data from the USA. The area of the USA is 9+million km2. The area of the earth is 510.1 km2. To base a claim about global climate on a contiguous part of the earth comprising 2 percent of the total area is not a good random sample. Australia might give a contrary view and again its location might be a major factor.

I'm off for a snowball fight with Lamar Seeligson Smith.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 24, 2018, 01:09:33 AM
Here are just 3 of the factors that will cause human extinction in the near term, detailed in Guy's essays and Presentations - and backed up by peer-reviewed scientific studies (or a quick google search about spent fuel rods):

1.  The melt down of hundreds of spent fuel rod containment facilities.  These facilities cannot be without power for more than a day or two before you have Fukishima events all over the world simultaneously.  Any number of events can cause one of these facilities to lose power for un unprecedented length of time, leading to an extinction level event without the below 2 factors.  I challenge everyone here to do some research into spent fuel rod containment facilities.  Even the QUICKEST facilities require FIVE YEARS of constant electricity supply to prevent catastrophic melt downs.  That's FIVE YEARS of constant electrical supply or you have an extinction level event within a week or two (at most - Fukishima only took a couple of days) after losing power, and there's hundreds of such sites all over Earth, some in extremely unstable regions. 

2.  Methane clathrate release in the arctic during a blue ocean event. Increases global average temperature by .5-1C within a short period of time.  Natalia Shokova et al details the amounts.  Dr. McPherson details this in his essay.  If those methane Clathrates are released even partially, we could experience a sudden increase in global average temperature in the northern hemisphere which will trigger even more positive feedback loops, and even more methane clathrate release.  Do some research into methane clathrates - they're not very deep, and there's gigatons and gigatons of them just sitting there.

  3.  The reversal of global dimming via coal power plant aerosols (and shipping aerosols from container ships). If civilization collapses, the collapse of global dimming will increase the temperature of earth by ANOTHER 1-3C within a month or two.  Civilization will collapse, and when it does there's a guaranteed 1-3C rise that will happen almost immediately.  Dr. McPherson links to the Global dimming study, check it out for yourselves.

When you factor in all 3 of these, and the fact that civilization cannot control any of these 3 factors particularly well, it's hard to imagine a situation where humans don't go extinct in a short period of time of any one of these 3 factors from occurring. 

Here's some extremely basic examples of how just these 3 factors alone (there's hundreds of other positive feedback loops that I'm not even considering here, this is just 3 of the big ones):

For example, if global dimming is eliminated, you have #2 take place, which leads to #3 which leads to certain extinction. 

Or if you have #2 take place, you likely lead to #3, which will lead to #1 taking place which leads to certain extinction. 

Finally, if you have #1 take place, you have #3 and then #2 take place, which ensures extinction.


Now just remember, there's hundreds of other positive feedback loops I haven't even discussed here. 

Quite frankly, I have yet to see a single post that refutes any one of these 3 factors.  All I see are "well that's an unknown, or that's never happened before, or we can't predict the future".  Most posts here are aimed at claiming that 10 years not right and that for that reason Dr. McPherson is wrong - but who cares if he's wrong by a couple of years?  There's evidence that these factors do exist, and we're just pushing the pedal down harder and harder on global emissions and doing nothing.  For this reason, it seems highly unlikely that we're going to survive as a species.   

In regards to Dr. McPherson's evidence - he's just presenting the global dimming study and Shakova et al.s study.  In regards to nuclear spent fuel rods, he's just talking about information that's publicly available.  Do a quick google search on spent fuel rods, you'll find links on the public domain.  The global dimming and methane clathrate papers have already been published - the information about temperature changes due to global dimming and methane clathrates has already been calculated and then verified via peer review.    Guy lists these papers right in his essay.  There are peer-review published papers documenting this evidence, and they've never been proven wrong.  Mostly just ignored.

This is a dire emergency.  We don't have until 2100 to fix our problems, we probably don't even have until 2020 - we need to fix them tomorrow, and even if by some miracle all the countries of the planet got together to figure out the global warming problem - it's probably too late at this point for the vast majority of humans on this planet.  If we don't do something about those spent fuel rods immediately, and figure out some way to cool the arctic immediately, we're all going to die in the near term. 

It's not going to be a pleasant death either - we're not all going to be holding hands and walking into the sunset together.  It's going to be horrendous, unimaginably horrifying and happen in a sudden catastrophic fashion - radiation sickness combined with starvation and dehydration is not a pleasant way to go.  The good news is that humans can survive without water during radiation sickness for only a couple of days, so the pain will be short.  I recommend an alternative plan for anyone reading, if you know what I mean.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 24, 2018, 01:29:40 AM
The last post uses data from the USA. The area of the USA is 9+million km2. The area of the earth is 510.1 km2. To base a claim about global climate on a contiguous part of the earth comprising 2 percent of the total area is not a good random sample. Australia might give a contrary view and again its location might be a major factor.

I'm off for a snowball fight with Lamar Seeligson Smith.

True, but do you have any data to contradict this (such as Australia)?  Incomplete data is not the same as contradictory.  Most of this world does not sufficient temperature data for comparison.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 24, 2018, 01:57:31 AM
Harpy, you a potential situation without explaining how it could possible occur.  Any explanation? Secondly, are you aware that over 500 atmospheric nuclear tests have been conducted, releasing several times the estimated radiation potential from the spent fuel rods.  That does not count the more than a thousand underground tests.  Yet, this has not resulted in mass extinction.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 24, 2018, 01:58:58 AM
Quote
1.  The melt down of hundreds of spent fuel rod containment facilities.

This will not happen until total collapse happens. The chance any of us is alive after the collapse requiered for this meltdown to occur is very low. So in some ways it is irrelevant.

I grant you that this will indeed place humans in danger of extinction, but there are many catastrophes that must happen before it becomes an issue.

Quote
2.  Methane clathrate release in the arctic during a blue ocean event.

Forget about methane chaltrate. A blue ocean event is likely to cause enough climate chaos to bring about scenario 1. The weird  and extreme weather already happening might be just a preview of things to come. 

Quote
3.  The reversal of global dimming due to coal power plant aerosols (and shipping aerosols from container ships).

Yeah that will suck.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on February 24, 2018, 02:06:43 AM
The 3 factors that will cause human extinction in the near term are as follows:

1.  The melt down of hundreds of spent fuel rod containment facilities. 

2.  Methane clathrate release in the arctic during a blue ocean event. Increases global average temperature by .5-1C within a short period of time.

3.  The reversal of global dimming due to coal power plant aerosols (and shipping aerosols from container ships).

This is a dire emergency.  If we don't do something about those spent fuel rods immediately, and figure out some way to cool the arctic immediately, we're all going to die in the near term.
Let us assume these events happen

Radiation. Wildlife has thrived in Chernobyl since the explosion even in the hottest places. There are people living there as well.
After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many died from radiation sickness. The lucky few had immune systems that coped. Some had children. Some of them were deformed but some were not. True, life expectancy was poor but an average life expectancy of just 35 is OK for long term human survival

Methane. Yes quite likely to happen.
Reduced air pollution. Happening now.

So yes, very possible that global temperature rise makes parts of the earth uninhabitable by humans.
So yes, hot spots of radiation levels fatal to humans.
So yes, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
So yes, large reductions in population and life expectancy.

But extinction? You underestimate the driving forces of all species - to survive and to reproduce. You underestimate the ability of humans to adapt to climates from arctic to tropics to desert.
You give us no reasons why some humans will not survive cataclysm.

Just saying we are all going to die as a consequence of these events is an insufficient basis for discussion.

Over and OUT.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 24, 2018, 02:32:35 AM
Daniel B.

  Let me try again.

Temperature anomalies by themselves are not the worst danger.  The changes in climate systems induced by the temperature anomalies are the worst danger.

Your argument and the one from other posters seem to imply something like a little heat is not so bad. That is only trivially true.

  It is true that if everything else is held constant, small temperature increases are not civilization killers, but everything else will not hold constant. The climate will change as temperature increases.

We haven't  seen any abrupt climate change yet because earth climate systems have inertia. We have been gnawing at that inertia for a century now. Some Earth systems are begining to show that the inertia is runing out, like the Arctic.

Once large systems like the Arctic "break" then we will necesarily see cascading abrupt climate change. If the Earth climate follows the same rules as every other natural system I know of, such change will be really bad for all of us. Rich or poor, northerner or southerner.

I do believe that once abrupt climate change commences (it might have already) we will fight it, adapt and eventually win, but not before things get really bad for most.

 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: aperson on February 24, 2018, 02:37:50 AM
The biggest problem in this thread is that people correctly document catastrophic outcomes that are real threats, but they don't indicate how those lead to *extinction*.

So I want to make this point clear again: Extinction is the death of every single member of the species. If one mating pair survives, it's not an extinction. It's a catastrophe.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 24, 2018, 04:03:28 AM
I think one thing we can all agree on is we are walking into a scary world.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on February 24, 2018, 04:10:42 AM
I don't believe that our current culture can cope with the climate change that's already in the pipeline. Billions will die, but no extinction.
Bruce is the only person I know of that is seriously exploring alternative food technologies, but he is assuredly not the only person learning and teaching new methods of feeding ourselves. He may not survive, and eating acorns may not be the path, but someone, somewhere will be able to subsist on whatever is left after the debacle, and he, or his followers will feed themselves, reproduce, and the species will persist.


Humans, cockroaches, jellyfish, & perhaps oak trees and piggies. Together into the future.
Terry
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 24, 2018, 04:27:22 AM
I don't believe that our current culture can cope with the climate change that's already in the pipeline. Billions will die, but no extinction.
Bruce is the only person I know of that is seriously exploring alternative food technologies, but he is assuredly not the only person learning and teaching new methods of feeding ourselves. He may not survive, and eating acorns may not be the path, but someone, somewhere will be able to subsist on whatever is left after the debacle, and he, or his followers will feed themselves, reproduce, and the species will persist.


Humans, cockroaches, jellyfish, & perhaps oak trees and piggies. Together into the future.
Terry

The biggest problem in this thread is that people correctly document catastrophic outcomes that are real threats, but they don't indicate how those lead to *extinction*.

So I want to make this point clear again: Extinction is the death of every single member of the species. If one mating pair survives, it's not an extinction. It's a catastrophe.


The major issue is not just climate change, it's the combination of climate change and radiation from the spent fuel rods from 450+ nuclear reactors melting down catastrophically and contaminating the entire globe.  The dose of radiation that's going to be emitted into the atmosphere will most likely kill off anything on the surface that cannot burrow under ground and stay there for hundreds of years.  The most dangerous radioactive isotopes have half lives that will contaminate the surface of the planet for hundreds of years. 

Bunkers exist, and this is a major argument on this thread for the avoidance of extinction.

Let's just explore that option for a short period of time here:

1.  All it takes is one cataclysmic event in the bunker, like a virus to wipe out the rest of the species.
Last time I checked, humans didn't evolve underground in bunkers.  I already posted this but I'll post it again because apparently ppl don't read my posts:  how are humans going to even survive a few decades underground and get all the required nutrients and vitamins from a diet of canned goods and meals ready to eat?    Decades to centuries...that's a long time, to date humans have NEVER lived underground in a bunker for even a fraction of that length of time.  no experiments have been done, at least not in the public domain to prove that humans can survive that long in a confined place.  Humans can barely survive in the international space station for a period of 6 months to 1 year, how do you expect them to survive in bunkers for centuries and centuries ?  This isn't a science fiction movie, this is reality.  In reality humans need to walk around, eat food, spend time in the sun and eat a variety of food sources in order to successfully breed.  Without modern infrastructure to go to hospitals and heal bacterial infections and recover from viruses, they will slowly die from self inflicted wounds, malnutrition, disease, and injury. 

2.  Due to radioactivity all over the surface of earth, it will take hundreds of years before anything that resembles food for humans is not full of cesium 134, cesium 137, strontium-90, and plutonium-241 (which decays into Americium-241), and the other radioactive isotopes that result from spent fuel rods melting down.  I've already posted links in above comments regarding the isotopes that are released.  The radiation load from the spent fuel rod meltdowns is massive - it's not Fukishima it's fukishima X 1,000,000 - no one even knows how many millions of tons of this highly unstable waste exists on the planet.  Do some research into spent fuel rod cooling ponds - many of these facilities are 5X at their recommended capacity right now, because there's no where else to put the stuff.  They are maintained via deisel generators that can run out of fuel, resulting in catastrophic meltdowns that will make Fukishima seem like a new years eve celebration.  The number of spent fuel rods is something in the order of multiple millions of tons of this stuff (that is metal that resembles lead in density - it's heavy and cannot be moved easily because it's thousands of degrees C), and once it gets hot it doesn't stop, sets the material on fire and evaporates water turning it into hydrogen gas causing explosions - then just a constant dose of radiation being emitted indefinitely from hundreds of locations all over the globe.

3. I think a discussion regarding technicalities, like having a couple of small pockets of humans here and there in bunkers living off of vitamin pills and protein powder is missing the broader theme here - the truth is that climate change is happening so rapidly at this point that anything larger than a small rat is going to go extinct.  With the radiation dose, small rats will die too.  Nothing can adapt quick enough to survive this extinction event......well - bacteria can, and small organisms like fungi, algae, and ...yes maybe jellyfish can as well - but nothing that humans would be able to identify as food.  Certainly not pigs, unless they're underground - but pigs need sun, and without sun pigs will be using up the vitamin pills that the humans need.  Pigs chickens, rabbits even - all require food themselves - how are you going to feed these things underground in a bunker with limited supplies of vitamins and minerals and food? 

Only the KT extinction resulted in climate change this rapid, and the result was 70% die off of all species, most of which were not much larger than moles and rats.

How do you expect something large like an ape to survive on a diet of radioactive cockroaches and radioactive jellyfish for thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years, on an earth that continues to get warmer and warmer and warmer and warmer? The time lag for Co2 and temperature is hundreds and of years - the globe will continue to warm for a VERY long time, and that's not counting feedback loops.

4.  I'm not going to lie and say I think every single human will die near term- there's going to be some idiots who go into bunkers and think they can outlast climate change.  Technically, we won't be extinct until these idiots slowly die off over the decades and centuries (I doubt they'll last that long, but hey - you never know how perserverent humans can be - they might even breed and continue to propagate under these circumstances, but again it will all be for naught as the surface will remain radioactive for centuries, if not millennia). 

I suppose it's theoretically possible that while in the bunker these folks may figure out some way to produce food, or just eat other humans in such a way that they continue to survive for decades, if not hundreds of years. 


Climate change will outlast these feeble attempts at survival.  This isn't a nuclear winter they're waiting for to end, it's the death of an entire surface of a planet.  It took millions of years for earth to recover from the permian extinction, and that extinction event took thousands of years to unfold - not 250-300.  The permian extinction also didn't include megadoses of radiation emitted in a sudden fashion.   Does it seem possible that these bunker billionaires, military personnel, and politicians, etc etc -  will be able to survive for millions of years, first underground for centuries, and then subsequently on the surface of a planet that resembles mars with no food sources other than other humans, red green algae, slime molds, and ...maybe, if they're really lucky - some cockroaches, nematodes, and poisonous species of jellyfish?

I think not.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 24, 2018, 05:04:11 AM
Terry, There are millions of other people following traditional farming traditions , I just don't know them. We here tend to judge humanities challenges to a civilization as we know it  Those people far enough separated from our ideas of civilization are also somewhat protected from issues like radiation
It all comes down to how fast collapse happens and slow collapse is one version of our collective human future. Isolated humans will have to contend with climate change but they have the advantage of living a lifestyle that doesn't freak out when challenged by hard times. They aren't going to break out their stockpile of AK-47s and go on a rampage. I however will be toast if LA runs out of food. I do know several dozens of remote springs in the back country and I have a good enough grip on survival techniques to feed a small group of humans for awhile but my wife says she will never take that option.
If I can be any service to future generations I can only offer up my knowledge in a slow collapse scenario.
 Fast collapse is just going to be too damn chaotic to be much help.
 For now I am enjoying the challenges of farming without fossil fuels. I think I can stretch last years stored food well into spring and summer. I already have potatoes planted and spring is just around the corner. Life is good.
 That doesn't mean problems aren't coming ,it just means I think keeping calm, planning ahead and enjoying my time here on earth are as good as I can do. + I am going to figure out how to sink some carbon without utilizing fossil fuels to do so.


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on February 24, 2018, 06:05:22 AM
Bruce
Soon the agave season comes, and the sweetness of it's heart.
I know of some beautiful hot springs in Southern California where food could be cooked without lighting a fire. At one time they were only known to a few hundred hippies, and the parties were epic!
I'd probably opt for your wife's option. I'm old, enfeebled, and I like my iced Starbucks Lattes.
I'm surrounded by Mennonite and Old Amish farmers, but Toronto is only a two day walk.


When my elevator can't respond because the grid is permanently down, it'll be time for me to make an exit. I've a much improved trompe that I'd love to build a working model of, and I know enough about enzymes to build an efficient biogas system.
Not enough skills to pay for my upkeep when TSHTF, and that's OK.
Terry
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 24, 2018, 07:24:38 AM
I don't believe that our current culture can cope with the climate change that's already in the pipeline. Billions will die, but no extinction.
Bruce is the only person I know of that is seriously exploring alternative food technologies, but he is assuredly not the only person learning and teaching new methods of feeding ourselves. He may not survive, and eating acorns may not be the path, but someone, somewhere will be able to subsist on whatever is left after the debacle, and he, or his followers will feed themselves, reproduce, and the species will persist.


Humans, cockroaches, jellyfish, & perhaps oak trees and piggies. Together into the future.
Terry

The biggest problem in this thread is that people correctly document catastrophic outcomes that are real threats, but they don't indicate how those lead to *extinction*.

So I want to make this point clear again: Extinction is the death of every single member of the species. If one mating pair survives, it's not an extinction. It's a catastrophe.


The major issue is not just climate change, it's the combination of climate change and radiation from the spent fuel rods from 450+ nuclear reactors melting down catastrophically and contaminating the entire globe.  The dose of radiation that's going to be emitted into the atmosphere will most likely kill off anything on the surface that cannot burrow under ground and stay there for hundreds of years.  The most dangerous radioactive isotopes have half lives that will contaminate the surface of the planet for hundreds of years. 

Bunkers exist, and this is a major argument on this thread for the avoidance of extinction.

Let's just explore that option for a short period of time here:

1.  All it takes is one cataclysmic event in the bunker, like a virus to wipe out the rest of the species.
Last time I checked, humans didn't evolve underground in bunkers.  I already posted this but I'll post it again because apparently ppl don't read my posts:  how are humans going to even survive a few decades underground and get all the required nutrients and vitamins from a diet of canned goods and meals ready to eat?    Decades to centuries...that's a long time, to date humans have NEVER lived underground in a bunker for even a fraction of that length of time.  no experiments have been done, at least not in the public domain to prove that humans can survive that long in a confined place.  Humans can barely survive in the international space station for a period of 6 months to 1 year, how do you expect them to survive in bunkers for centuries and centuries ?  This isn't a science fiction movie, this is reality.  In reality humans need to walk around, eat food, spend time in the sun and eat a variety of food sources in order to successfully breed.  Without modern infrastructure to go to hospitals and heal bacterial infections and recover from viruses, they will slowly die from self inflicted wounds, malnutrition, disease, and injury. 

2.  Due to radioactivity all over the surface of earth, it will take hundreds of years before anything that resembles food for humans is not full of cesium 134, cesium 137, strontium-90, and plutonium-241 (which decays into Americium-241), and the other radioactive isotopes that result from spent fuel rods melting down.  I've already posted links in above comments regarding the isotopes that are released.  The radiation load from the spent fuel rod meltdowns is massive - it's not Fukishima it's fukishima X 1,000,000 - no one even knows how many millions of tons of this highly unstable waste exists on the planet.  Do some research into spent fuel rod cooling ponds - many of these facilities are 5X at their recommended capacity right now, because there's no where else to put the stuff.  They are maintained via deisel generators that can run out of fuel, resulting in catastrophic meltdowns that will make Fukishima seem like a new years eve celebration.  The number of spent fuel rods is something in the order of multiple millions of tons of this stuff (that is metal that resembles lead in density - it's heavy and cannot be moved easily because it's thousands of degrees C), and once it gets hot it doesn't stop, sets the material on fire and evaporates water turning it into hydrogen gas causing explosions - then just a constant dose of radiation being emitted indefinitely from hundreds of locations all over the globe.

3. I think a discussion regarding technicalities, like having a couple of small pockets of humans here and there in bunkers living off of vitamin pills and protein powder is missing the broader theme here - the truth is that climate change is happening so rapidly at this point that anything larger than a small rat is going to go extinct.  With the radiation dose, small rats will die too.  Nothing can adapt quick enough to survive this extinction event......well - bacteria can, and small organisms like fungi, algae, and ...yes maybe jellyfish can as well - but nothing that humans would be able to identify as food.  Certainly not pigs, unless they're underground - but pigs need sun, and without sun pigs will be using up the vitamin pills that the humans need.  Pigs chickens, rabbits even - all require food themselves - how are you going to feed these things underground in a bunker with limited supplies of vitamins and minerals and food? 

Only the KT extinction resulted in climate change this rapid, and the result was 70% die off of all species, most of which were not much larger than moles and rats.

How do you expect something large like an ape to survive on a diet of radioactive cockroaches and radioactive jellyfish for thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years, on an earth that continues to get warmer and warmer and warmer and warmer? The time lag for Co2 and temperature is hundreds and of years - the globe will continue to warm for a VERY long time, and that's not counting feedback loops.

4.  I'm not going to lie and say I think every single human will die near term- there's going to be some idiots who go into bunkers and think they can outlast climate change.  Technically, we won't be extinct until these idiots slowly die off over the decades and centuries (I doubt they'll last that long, but hey - you never know how perserverent humans can be - they might even breed and continue to propagate under these circumstances, but again it will all be for naught as the surface will remain radioactive for centuries, if not millennia). 

I suppose it's theoretically possible that while in the bunker these folks may figure out some way to produce food, or just eat other humans in such a way that they continue to survive for decades, if not hundreds of years. 


Climate change will outlast these feeble attempts at survival.  This isn't a nuclear winter they're waiting for to end, it's the death of an entire surface of a planet.  It took millions of years for earth to recover from the permian extinction, and that extinction event took thousands of years to unfold - not 250-300.  The permian extinction also didn't include megadoses of radiation emitted in a sudden fashion.   Does it seem possible that these bunker billionaires, military personnel, and politicians, etc etc -  will be able to survive for millions of years, first underground for centuries, and then subsequently on the surface of a planet that resembles mars with no food sources other than other humans, red green algae, slime molds, and ...maybe, if they're really lucky - some cockroaches, nematodes, and poisonous species of jellyfish?

I think not.


I recently watched the movie downsizing with Matt Damon. In the movie the world was ending due to methane release. So all the little people moved into an underground complex beneath a mountain. With trees and light and crops. So basically it was a city underground providing all human needs. And in the movie it said it would keep that population alive for 8,000 years, until the world was livable again. Maybe we can do that but on a much bigger scale?? Sounds better than a bunker imo
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Paddy on February 24, 2018, 09:04:56 AM

And on top of these extremes you have the extreme population growth in the last 40 years. So the same drought will have a much bigger impact. A flood 40 years ago had a much bigger chance not to have a big impact because there was nobody living. Today they are building everywhere, they cut the vegetation or forests that keeps the soil together, so in many places it's just waiting for a disaster. And if you look at the number of big hurricanes in the Atlantic. The number went up by 200 % in a little more than 100 years. And the cradle of these atlantic hurricanes is in posittion for big changes. Because the atlantic will have to face the consequences in the first place from the arctic sea ice that is melting. Maybe a good time to evacuate the people living in the caribean.

Before you do anything so drastic, maybe have a look at disaster-related mortality today compared to 100 years ago. We're actually much more resilient to hurricanes etc than we used to be:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Deaths-by-catastrophe-type.png
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 24, 2018, 09:26:33 AM

And on top of these extremes you have the extreme population growth in the last 40 years. So the same drought will have a much bigger impact. A flood 40 years ago had a much bigger chance not to have a big impact because there was nobody living. Today they are building everywhere, they cut the vegetation or forests that keeps the soil together, so in many places it's just waiting for a disaster. And if you look at the number of big hurricanes in the Atlantic. The number went up by 200 % in a little more than 100 years. And the cradle of these atlantic hurricanes is in posittion for big changes. Because the atlantic will have to face the consequences in the first place from the arctic sea ice that is melting. Maybe a good time to evacuate the people living in the caribean.

Before you do anything so drastic, maybe have a look at disaster-related mortality today compared to 100 years ago. We're actually much more resilient to hurricanes etc than we used to be:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Deaths-by-catastrophe-type.png

Nature is supposed to kill us, but we have been escaping death due to medicine, technology etc... this is bad, why? It's bad because we have lost our connection to the world..Once a card falls on the house of cards, you have to be ready for it to crumble.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on February 24, 2018, 10:35:07 AM
El Cid, what about the prospect of declining crop yields in key agricultural areas of the world, as are projected. What about this graph of projected precipitation in one of the world's breadbaskets, the Western North American region https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/07/WesternUSA-precipitation.png


I do not want to be the Pollyanna here, but from what I have seen in regenerative agriculture I conclude:

1. Sequestering Carbon into the soil is a difficult but viable way and I think that if we really started working on it, the potential is much bigger than current scientific papers project.
2. The good thing about soil with higher C (OM) content is that you need much less water as the water holding capacity of the soil increases by a lot, so you are more drought-resistant
3. And as surprising as it is, plants are generally "healthier" and more able to withstand cold or heat waves.

So I believe that regenerative agriculture will be one of the most important ways in the next decades that will help us feed mankind and at the same time reduce the atmosheric Co2.
I do think it is totally possibble to feed all of us at least until 2050-70 even under RCP8.5 scenario. With no hunger, no collapse in civilization.

My only great worry is Africa, where populations are projected to quadruple by 2100 from 2000 levels. It could lead to famine, wars and mass migration on a grand scale that could disrupt not only that continetn but others as well.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 24, 2018, 11:24:01 AM
I am seeing so much denial really on here. It's how people think tho, we don't want to admit we are going extinct. It's not how we are wired (most of us). I've woken up. I'm about to invest in a 2K Sq foot bunker and i'm mentally preparing myself. I recommend you all do the same. Even if this is all bs, its best to be prepared!
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 24, 2018, 03:18:23 PM
I remember over 50 years ago that people were talking about building underground bunkers and stocking it with years (decades) of canned food.  That was in order to survive the inevitable nuclear war.  Those were the crazies or the people who had given up, and could not envision a better future.  Funny how what goes around comes around. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 24, 2018, 03:25:25 PM
I always wonder why the villagers didn't remove the shepperd after the first false alarm. That was stupid of them. But even more stupid was not responding to the wolf threat even when they knew wolves are real and have a taste for sheep.  Hopefully that herd wasn't  an important source of calories for the village.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sleepy on February 24, 2018, 03:55:59 PM
I remember over 50 years ago that people were talking about building underground bunkers and stocking it with years (decades) of canned food.  That was in order to survive the inevitable nuclear war.  Those were the crazies or the people who had given up, and could not envision a better future.  Funny how what goes around comes around.

Crazies are different today.

Wonder what this Guy would've said nowadays:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxdM9LKUkAAllGv.jpg)

About the top 10% on this planet (us) failing to mitigate at 10-15% per year, and these:
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 24, 2018, 04:43:36 PM
I am seeing so much denial really on here. It's how people think tho, we don't want to admit we are going extinct. It's not how we are wired (most of us). I've woken up. I'm about to invest in a 2K Sq foot bunker and i'm mentally preparing myself. I recommend you all do the same. Even if this is all bs, its best to be prepared!

Denial and stubbornness are impressive aspects of human behavior.  These two factors are a large part of the reason that our species has managed to expand to all areas of the planet (infinite growth, human ingenuity!), and it's also the reason we're not preparing for our extinction (infinite growth will last indefinitely, human ingenuity will save us regardless of the climate!). They're characteristics of our species that have evolved to permit us to survive unusually dire situations, but with modern technology they've boomeranged and are now leading to our imminent demise.


Humans can survive in a bunker for a period of time, but if you re read my post you'll recall that humans did not evolve in bunkers, and cannot survive in confined spaces with any sort of quality of life. Many who live in situations like maximum security prison (which is basically what you're existence is going to be) die miserable early deaths from illness.    Think of that situation, WITHOUT modern medicine - life expectancy will drop precipitously.  I hope you have windows, you're going to need them from going insane.

Remember what I wrote earlier:  the surface of earth is going to be contaminated for hundreds of years, and plutonium will be all over the surface for even longer. Even if you and your family survive the first couple hundred years of Cesium 134, 137 - your children will still have to deal with plutonium.  If you ingest plutonium in large enough quantities, you're pretty much guaranteed cancer - and if you eat an animal that ate plutonium, you're still going to get cancer.  Expect an absolutely miserable existence for hundreds - thousands of years.  After that, global warming and feedback loops will continue for thousands and thousands of years, getting worse and worse over time.  You're not looking to survive a nuclear winter here, you're trying to survive a multi million year process.

Interestingly, the truth is that right now, near term catastrophic extinction is avoidable.  If all of the large governments and military organizations worked together to remove spent fuel rods from flimsy cooling ponds powered by diesel generators, and worked on a plan to bury them in the bottom of the ocean near the subduction plates - or even just dump them somewhere with current and depth, the catastrophic melt downs that will contaminate the surface of the planet can be avoided.  This is, of all the problems we face, the easiest to solve, technically.  Just dump hundreds of millions of tons of spent fuel rods in the ocean - the alternative is the extinction of nearly every life form on this planet when the diesel fuel runs out.

So long as these spent fuel rods DON't melt down, I'd argue that we may in fact have longer than 10 years.  Is this going to happen?  Of course not, that would make too much sense.  There's too much money to be made!  Look at that stock market!  Infinite growth doesn't have a budget for trillions of dollars needed to safely transport these spent fuel rods to the pacific ocean and bury them in subduction zones! 


Good luck, you'll live longer than the rest of us on this forum.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on February 24, 2018, 05:15:32 PM
Dear Harpy,

Increasing the font size does not make your argument more convincing.
Indeed, for this person, it is a right old turn-off. It reduces the discussion to a mere shouting match - my font's bigger than your font - yah-boo and sucks to you.

By the way, you will never convince me that the radiation from unlooked after spent fuel rods will kill us all. Many, but not all.

Toodle-pip,

Gerontocrat.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 24, 2018, 05:17:55 PM
Dear Harpy,

Increasing the font size does not make your argument more convincing.
Indeed, for this person, it is a right old turn-off. It reduces the discussion to a mere shouting match - my font's bigger than your font - yah-boo and sucks to you.

By the way, you will never convince me that the radiation from unlooked after spent fuel rods will kill us all. Many, but not all.

Toodle-pip,

Gerontocrat.

Fair enough, I'm still new here - I'll take your suggestion. 

Well, millions of tons of spent fuel rod material melting down catastrophically and radiation that lasts for hundreds of years spreading around the world will most likely not kill the folks in bunkers surrounded by concrete walls.  But as I've written, they'll all die from suicide, disease, injury, murder, and malnutrition over the decades as they all go insane and run out of supplies that cannot be replenished.  Until they die, our species is technically not extinct - it's more like the last Tasmanian Tiger in the zoo, just waiting to die from unnatural causes.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on February 26, 2018, 01:06:41 AM
Here's a rough estimate of the amount of radiation that would be released if all the spent fuel rods melted down simultaneously.

1.  Chernobyl itself released more radiation than all detonated nuclear bombs in history.

2.  Fukishima had the potential to release 66 X the amount of radiation of Chernobyl.

3.  Multiply that number by multiple hundreds and we arrive at what earth is going to look like within a decade, if things keep going at their current rate - OR if militaries all over the world don't immediately make plans to dump this spent fuel into the pacific ocean in the very near future. 

 In the event of societal collapse of some form, a nuclear war may break out - if a nuclear bomb is dropped on a nuclear reactor, you're looking at 66X Chernobyl, and the vaporization of the spent fuel rods combined with the high altitude smoke of the nuclear blast would result in this radiation traveling all over the world. 

So during a nuclear conflict, the world will have to cope with a nuclear winter AND thousands of Chernobyl's worth of radiation being released simultaneously around the world...  yeah, good luck surviving that if you're not in a bunker.

Not trying to scare anyone, but this is reality.  This information is not my own pet theory - it's simply a realistic calculation based on information provided from Fukishima.  Do we want to acknowledge that we're all going to die from radiation sickness if the grid goes down, or if we want to keep pretending the threat doesn't exist?

I provide a solution:  dump all of these spent fuel rods into the pacific ocean and bury them somewhere near the subduction zones.  Obviously this isn't going to happen, and the grid will go down, these spent fuel rods will melt down and we're all going to die.  Even worse, this is going to happen in the near term.  This is not some distant threat.  This is an immediate existential threat and no one seems to be taking it seriously.

I feel like I'm wasting my time and my effort writing these comments, it's not like this is going to change anything.  Our fate is sealed, and I think most everyone on this thread has more or less acknowledged that at minimum, most humans on this planet are going to die in the near term.


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: CDN_dude on February 26, 2018, 04:24:04 AM
El Cid, what about the prospect of declining crop yields in key agricultural areas of the world, as are projected. What about this graph of projected precipitation in one of the world's breadbaskets, the Western North American region https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/07/WesternUSA-precipitation.png


I do not want to be the Pollyanna here, but from what I have seen in regenerative agriculture I conclude:

1. Sequestering Carbon into the soil is a difficult but viable way and I think that if we really started working on it, the potential is much bigger than current scientific papers project.
2. The good thing about soil with higher C (OM) content is that you need much less water as the water holding capacity of the soil increases by a lot, so you are more drought-resistant
3. And as surprising as it is, plants are generally "healthier" and more able to withstand cold or heat waves.

So I believe that regenerative agriculture will be one of the most important ways in the next decades that will help us feed mankind and at the same time reduce the atmosheric Co2.
I do think it is totally possibble to feed all of us at least until 2050-70 even under RCP8.5 scenario. With no hunger, no collapse in civilization.

My only great worry is Africa, where populations are projected to quadruple by 2100 from 2000 levels. It could lead to famine, wars and mass migration on a grand scale that could disrupt not only that continetn but others as well.

Ok, sustainable ag is really not my area, so those were genuine questions. Thanks for your response. I do agree with your last point that other conflicts in society may inhibit stable food production apart from the more direct impact of climate/weather. Regenerative ag could be a boon for politically stable societies, the question is, how many of those will remain going forward? Also, if we think of this issue as just food in general, there are other issues, like the decline of fish and salinization of rice paddies etc. that could be very disruptive in Asia. Anyway, regarding the subject of this thread, I do not believe that the challenges in food production will lead to our extinction, which I probably should have been more clear about. But high food prices, increased famine across Africa and parts of Asia, will lead to huge social strife, which is bad enough.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: sidd on February 26, 2018, 06:04:13 AM
Re: spent fuel risk to humans

I don't think human extinction from that risk is likely.

I seem to recall there's about half a billion curies in spent fuel about. It takes about a millicurie to reliably kill a human, so say 5 billion potential fatalities if one could reliably insert a millicurie into that many humans.

Most of the spent fuel is in dry cask storage because space in pools is at a premium. Every refuelling cycle (several years) the fresh, hot rods get dragged outta the core and dumped in the spent fuel pools. But there's a finite amount of space, so at the same time a load of rods that have cooled off some is taken out and transferred to dry casks. Nukes are decades old on average, so they have been thru several refuelling cycles. 

If your wet pool develops a leak you cant fix, you get fukushima type object. If your core catches fire (graphite) you get a Chernobyl or Windscale. But not too many graphite moderated reactors left.

To reliably get all the radiactivity spread efficiently, you need a big enuf bang to reach the stratosphere. This would be quite difficult to arrange. Dry casks are pretty solid, you can hit one with a locomotive and it don't rupture. So mebbe a nuclear explosion at each dry cask storage + one each at the reactors and wet storage might do it.

But extinction ? thats tough. Cheetahs went thru a bottleneck estimated at less than a hundred breeding pairs.

sidd

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 26, 2018, 10:08:18 AM
"If not enough water flows into the reactor’s core, the fuel rods will boil the water away faster than it can be replaced, and the water level will decrease. Even when the reactor is turned off so nuclear reactions no longer occur, the fuel rods remain extremely radioactive and hot and need to be cooled by water for an extended period of time. Without enough water, the fuel rods get so hot that they melt. If they begin to melt the nuclear reactor core and the steel containment vessel, and release radiation into the environment, nuclear meltdown occurs." (phys.org)

"You better be at least 50 miles from a nuclear power plant, and preferably not in a downwind location based on the prevailing winds."

Considering there are 450 nuclear power plants in the world, I think this issue is serious. most of the plants are in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. 50 nuclear power plants are under construction currently, with around 300 coming near term.

"If there is a prolonged interruption of cooling due to emergency situations, the water in the spent fuel pools may boil off, possibly resulting in radioactive elements being released into the atmosphere." (Union of concerned scientists).

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: johnm33 on February 26, 2018, 11:27:47 AM
Some people seem to think radiation is harmless others are more pessimistic. https://yourradiationthisweek.org/
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 26, 2018, 10:36:05 PM
Regarding the spent fuel rods, there is a lot of talk about what would happen if they all melted down simultaneously, but no explanation as to what might cause it.  My question to all the Mad Maxes is what might cause all these to melt down at once? 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: sidd on February 26, 2018, 11:45:07 PM
Correction: The amount of radiation in spent fuel is enuf to kill about 500 billion humans if each were dosed with a millicurie ...

sidd
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Iceismylife on February 26, 2018, 11:54:41 PM
Regarding the spent fuel rods, there is a lot of talk about what would happen if they all melted down simultaneously, but no explanation as to what might cause it.  My question to all the Mad Maxes is what might cause all these to melt down at once?
In 2008 we almost went there.  The flow of money broke down internationally.  If the money doesn't flow then the cooling water doesn't as well.

The underlying macroeconomic picture isn't that different now as apposed to then. 

Sea level is going to start going up big time soon.  That could trigger a bubble pop.

Take your pick, it is the trigger you don't see coming that gets you not the one you do see coming.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 27, 2018, 03:28:43 AM
Of course if you do not know the trigger, how can you possibly know the consequences?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Iceismylife on February 27, 2018, 03:36:21 AM
Of course if you do not know the trigger, how can you possibly know the consequences?
Say that standing on 10,000,000kgs of ammonium nitrate.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on February 27, 2018, 10:27:26 AM
i have decided to just live life. If we go extinct, so be it. I certainly dont want to worry about it if it is the end.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Iceismylife on February 27, 2018, 10:16:56 PM
i have decided to just live life. If we go extinct, so be it. I certainly dont want to worry about it if it is the end.
The problem is far less pressing if we shut down the reactors now.

I've had to many relatives die from radiation exposure.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 27, 2018, 11:52:58 PM
Of course if you do not know the trigger, how can you possibly know the consequences?
Say that standing on 10,000,000kgs of ammonium nitrate.

And stockpiles of ammonium nitrate have resulted in how many deaths?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Iceismylife on February 28, 2018, 12:03:29 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster

Quote
And stockpiles of ammonium nitrate have resulted in how many deaths?

But that doesn't matter. The point is this. It doesn't matter what sets off the Ammonium nitrate. But the consequences are easy to figure out.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 28, 2018, 04:26:58 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster

Quote
And stockpiles of ammonium nitrate have resulted in how many deaths?

But that doesn't matter. The point is this. It doesn't matter what sets off the Ammonium nitrate. But the consequences are easy to figure out.

Yes.  143 deaths over the past 30 years.  Exactly how does this compare to extinction?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on February 28, 2018, 08:14:38 AM




Ok, sustainable ag is really not my area, so those were genuine questions. Thanks for your response.

I would like to stress that sustainable agriculture is not equal to regenerative agriculture. The former aims "just" to be sustainable, to keep the status quo so to speak, however, regenerative agriculture aims to improve the current situation by sequestering carbon, increasing the organic matter content of the soil which should partially counterbalance Co2 emissions, reduce external inputs, improve soil life and plant health, and thereby make plants more drought/heat resistant. Unfortunately, this is currently going on a very low scale, still being somewhat experimental but I believe that the potential is huge especially considering that land use effects on climate change might have been underestimated in the past...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Coffee Drinker on February 28, 2018, 08:43:40 AM
Biggest threat to humanity is still an asteroid impact or super volcano with collapse of agriculture.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Avalonian on February 28, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
Biggest threat to humanity is still an asteroid impact or super volcano with collapse of agriculture.

Depends how you assign threat. If those happen, they'd be a very big problem... but the odds of humans ever seeing either are pretty tiny. Climate change on the other hand is perhaps less dramatic, but likely to be nearly as disruptive in the long term, and is practically guaranteed; in my books, that makes it a far bigger threat.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on February 28, 2018, 11:58:16 AM
Biggest threat to humanity is still an asteroid impact or super volcano with collapse of agriculture.

Depends how you assign threat. If those happen, they'd be a very big problem... but the odds of humans ever seeing either are pretty tiny. Climate change on the other hand is perhaps less dramatic, but likely to be nearly as disruptive in the long term, and is practically guaranteed; in my books, that makes it a far bigger threat.
Very well said.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 28, 2018, 01:42:36 PM
How many years with 300 billion worth of natural disasters can the US withstand? What about other countries?

 If the Arctic holds 30 more years, then global warming alone will make years like 2017 happen again and worse. That alone leads to a dimished capacity to withstand and rebuild, that eventually leads to the end of society as we know it. Can we make a transition where loses are minimized and nuclear facilities protected? Sure, but there will be severe loses, specially since we are making the transition blind, without preparation, pretending it is all a hoax or a problem for 2100.

If the Arctic doesn’t hold, then 2017 will look like a walk in the park.  I really don’t want to talk about it in depth, but think of a giant cyclone fed by meandering jet streams, that can last weeks or months in one place. Monsters like that positioned along the east coast of the US could make it impossible to service nuclear facilities. Specially if California is dealing with deadly heat waves and the midwest with a dust bowl. At the same time, Canada and Siberia would probably will probably take turns with wildfires that make the ones over the last few years look like camp fires, and episodes of ferocious, not too cold, snow storms, followed by floods.

Basically, what we are already seeing, but all over the world, every year and whatever new things the transition to a new earth with just one frozen pole will bring.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 28, 2018, 03:30:12 PM
How many years with 300 billion worth of natural disasters can the US withstand? What about other countries?

 If the Arctic holds 30 more years, then global warming alone will make years like 2017 happen again and worse. That alone leads to a dimished capacity to withstand and rebuild, that eventually leads to the end of society as we know it. Can we make a transition where loses are minimized and nuclear facilities protected? Sure, but there will be severe loses, specially since we are making the transition blind, without preparation, pretending it is all a hoax or a problem for 2100.

If the Arctic doesn’t hold, then 2017 will look like a walk in the park.  I really don’t want to talk about it in depth, but think of a giant cyclone fed by meandering jet streams, that can last weeks or months in one place. Monsters like that positioned along the east coast of the US could make it impossible to service nuclear facilities. Specially if California is dealing with deadly heat waves and the midwest with a dust bowl. At the same time, Canada and Siberia would probably will probably take turns with wildfires that make the ones over the last few years look like camp fires, and episodes of ferocious, not too cold, snow storms, followed by floods.

Basically, what we are already seeing, but all over the world, every year and whatever new things the transition to a new earth with just one frozen pole will bring.

Obviously if they happened every year, it would be a huge drain.  At the current pace of every dozen years, not so much.  Unless we start to see a change in the near future, this is just fear mongering.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 28, 2018, 04:14:42 PM

Quote
Obviously if they happened every year, it would be a huge drain
Thats an understatement.  If years like 2017 happenned every year it would be the end of the world as we know it and could easily lead to the meltdown scenario.

Quote
At the current pace of every dozen years, not so much

How do you know that?   We have just enteted that pace, and the evidence indicates that it is only going to get worse. 

Quote
Unless we start to see a change in the near future, this is just fear mongering

I get the feeling that you would have said the same thing 10 years ago. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 28, 2018, 05:30:58 PM

Quote
Obviously if they happened every year, it would be a huge drain
Thats an understatement.  If years like 2017 happenned every year it would be the end of the world as we know it and could easily lead to the meltdown scenario.

No, it would not.  It was less than 10% of the total federal budget.  If necessary, funds could be diverted.

Quote
At the current pace of every dozen years, not so much

How do you know that?   We have just enteted that pace, and the evidence indicates that it is only going to get worse. 

One year does not a trend make.

Quote
Unless we start to see a change in the near future, this is just fear mongering

I get the feeling that you would have said the same thing 10 years ago.

Yes, as not much has change in the interim.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 28, 2018, 06:38:10 PM
Quote
No, it would not.  It was less than 10% of the total federal budget.  If necessary, funds could be diverted

If 2017 happened every year the collapse of the insurance industry alone would end the world as we know it, let alone the economic contraction and the strain on actual rebuilding resources.

Not that you know if 10% of the budget for disasters is sustainable. You are just assuming that.

Quote
One year does not a trend make.

 Of course not. But the trend that does exist is clear. Climate change is getting worse. Worse years than 2017 are expected.


Quote
Yes, as not much has change in the interim

You have to pardon me, but there has been significant change in so many metrics that I simply can't take this statement serious. There is a huge gap between that statement and my reality.  My logic, knowledge and life experience can not compute it, help me understand it better.

Is there anything that can convince you of the dangers of climate change?  Why are you so confident about the human response to this unprecedented change?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 28, 2018, 07:33:02 PM
You seem to be seeing a different trend.

(https://theclimatefix.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/1990-2017-disgdp2.jpg?w=656)

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2018/01/04/weather-disasters-as-proportion-of-global-gdp-1990-2017/ (https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2018/01/04/weather-disasters-as-proportion-of-global-gdp-1990-2017/)

The three highest year in the U.S. have been 2017, 2005, 1993.  What evidence can you present that shows that we have changed from this oscillating trend?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Alexander555 on February 28, 2018, 08:10:28 PM
It depends how you look at it. That 0,5 % of GDP losses in 1995 stands for 165 billion. That 0,4 % of GDP losses in 2017 stands for 360 billion. Thats almost double in nominal terms. And that still seems small. If you look at the numbers from the 3 big hurricans that hit the US in 2017, they were talking about a few hundred billions. So probably there is a difference between losses and insured losses.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on February 28, 2018, 08:27:34 PM
How many people have abandoned Puerto Rico for good ?
When will the first significant number of climate refugees be abandoning part of the 48 ?
How many residences in the USA are now without flood insurance?

The 300 billion the three hurricanes cost directly are merely part of the true cost.
Trump wants to use just 200 billion of Fed money for infrastructure.

I could go on, but Archimid was there, is there and knows that much has not been fixed and will not be fixed before the next one hits.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: magnamentis on February 28, 2018, 08:43:39 PM
How many years with 300 billion worth of natural disasters can the US withstand?

that depends on the definition of "whitstand" and/or which thresholds should be applied.

seen from a objective point of few the "system" including the U.S. or even especially the U.S. is already broke and is kept alive "artificially" / "hangs on the drip"

while naming each ingredient of that drip would reveal nasty details, death tolls in the milliions and destruction of mother nature beyond any chance of repair or unforced turnaround.

the force as opposed to unforced will be total collapse and desaster while i'm not yet sure whether it will be "sudden death" are a long painful downslide.

in case of the U.S. i'm quite positive that the downfall has begun quite a few years ago and is currently accelerating, coming to declared loss of current status in about 150 years from now.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sleepy on February 28, 2018, 08:49:47 PM
Munich Re's numbers always go back to 1980.
https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/2018/01/2017-year-in-figures (https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/2018/01/2017-year-in-figures)

(https://www.munichre.com/site/topics-online/get/documents/mr/assets-topicsonline/2018/01/year-in-figures/NatCat_Grafiken_versicherte_1980_2017_en_979x551.png)
(https://www.munichre.com/site/topics-online/get/documents/mr/assets-topicsonline/2018/01/year-in-figures/NatCat_Grafiken_1980_2017_en_979x551.png)
(https://www.munichre.com/site/topics-online/get/documents/mr/assets-topicsonline/2018/01/year-in-figures/NatCat_Grafiken_2017_en_979x551.png)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on February 28, 2018, 09:39:42 PM
Munich Re's numbers always go back to 1980.
https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/2018/01/2017-year-in-figures (https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/2018/01/2017-year-in-figures)

(https://www.munichre.com/site/topics-online/get/documents/mr/assets-topicsonline/2018/01/year-in-figures/NatCat_Grafiken_versicherte_1980_2017_en_979x551.png)
(https://www.munichre.com/site/topics-online/get/documents/mr/assets-topicsonline/2018/01/year-in-figures/NatCat_Grafiken_1980_2017_en_979x551.png)
(https://www.munichre.com/site/topics-online/get/documents/mr/assets-topicsonline/2018/01/year-in-figures/NatCat_Grafiken_2017_en_979x551.png)

As noted above, the nominal dollar figures are meaningless. The relevant figure is insurance losses to GDP, and as shown above that is not rising. Climate change so far has not caused big losses for insurers. This will probably only change when global sea levels rise significantly. I do not think that will happen before 2040-50. WHEN sea levels rise by more than 50 cm, we will have serious problems.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on February 28, 2018, 10:00:29 PM
Quote
The relevant figure is insurance losses to GDP, and as shown above that is not rising. Climate change so far has not caused big losses for insurers.

One figure that is hard to find is the amount of business that insurers have abandoned (or are only continuing because of Government subsidies) because risks are too high. I believe the UK Government has a deal with insures about flood insurance for properties identified at high risk, and the US Federal Government has a travesty called the "National Flood Insurance Fund" that is going bust? Businesses need to be able to make business.

And how many families have been bankrupted and / or lost their home by not having insurance?

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: JimD on February 28, 2018, 10:34:59 PM
Quote
As noted above, the nominal dollar figures are meaningless. The relevant figure is insurance losses to GDP, and as shown above that is not rising.

This is complete nonsense.  A denialist argument from one of the most well know denialists (Pielke - big surprise).

He is only counting one factor (cherry picking) and there are others to take into account. 

What is important here is the systemic effect.  Cherry picking one metric which makes it seem like things are getting better (insurance losses to GDP) does not tell the whole story.  What is happening to the entire civilizational system is what actually counts.

Here are a few other factors left out.

Insurance premiums have risen thus moving cost from insurers to their customers.

Insurance coverage for weather disasters has been dramatically lowered thus reducing costs to insurers. (and they raised premiums at the same time)

Deductables are much higher now than they used to be.

Caps on maximum coverage are lower than they used to be.

Insurers offset risk by issuing securities which couple the losses to their stock from disasters with the purchase of construction stocks which rise after disasters.

Insurance used to cover the upgrading to current building codes when older structures were damaged in disasters and now they do not cover those costs.

They have removed concurrent disaster causes; i.e. if your home is blown down by hurricane winds and then there is a flood from the storm surge they will not cover both losses.

It is by the use of methods such as these that insurance companies are guaranteeing their profits and are not in danger of bankruptcy. Thus you get your chart produced by Pielke which was undoubtedly produced to further another thread of climate denial - as that is all the Pielke's have been doing for the last 20 years.  In other words the claim is pure BS.  The chart does NOT actually measure the losses from natural disasters at all.  It is a graph of the losses to insurance companies.  A very different thing.

A blind man could see that we are facing constantly increasing global losses to natural disasters and that recovery from such disasters has moved beyond our ability to fully fix and replace.  This situation is only going to get a lot worse over time.



Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on February 28, 2018, 10:59:50 PM
So if the data does not fit your beliefs, you call it nonsense?  How very unscientific of you.  Is a new car less affordable now than 25 years ago, because it’s cost as doubled?  Would not the better comparison be what fraction of your income was necessary to buy a new car then and now?  You could argue and cherry pick all you want about how a new car is different today, but that does not change the basic facts.  The best argument is fraction of gdp.  This is the standard economic parameter, and is used by  every other economist.  The clearest example that you have no counter to this data is your degeneration to referring to it as a denialist argument, said that comment will refute the statement, and you do not need to present any evidence (if which you have shown none).  If you are looking for other meaningful statistics, how about the deep decline in deaths due to natural disasters?  Is not that equally or more important than a dollar figure?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Iceismylife on February 28, 2018, 11:09:04 PM
...

Yes.  143 deaths over the past 30 years.  Exactly how does this compare to extinction?
It doesn't.

But that is beside the point of the interchange we were having.

Of course if you do not know the trigger, how can you possibly know the consequences?
This statement of your's contains a logic error.  It is very posible to know the consequenses of a trigger without knowing what the trigger is.  Just look at the detonation of 10 kt of HE.  How it gets set off is unpredictable the outcome is very predictable.

As far as how this relates to an extiction event try this on for size.  What safegards do you put in place around 10kt of HE?  What safegards do we put around spent reactor fuel? In light of climate change how do those need to be changed?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on February 28, 2018, 11:14:51 PM
Sleepy beat me to the graphs, thanks Sleepy.

The graphs posted by sleepy are made from the same data set that Pielke used for his GDP/disaster costs graph. Natural disasters are increasing in both frequency and intensity. There is a significant change going on and it is just starting.

Here is what the creators of the dataset had to say:

Quote
Both overall and insured losses from natural disasters in 2017 were significantly higher than the corresponding averages for the last ten years, which, after adjustment for inflation, amount to US$ 170bn and US$ 49bn respectively. The hurricane season in the North Atlantic proved particularly costly, accounting for US$ 215bn in overall losses, of which US$ 92bn is expected to be insured. There were also two earthquakes in Mexico with a combined loss of over US$ 8bn, and widespread flooding in China which caused losses of more than US$ 6bn. Severe wildfires were raging in the USA until the end of the year. Losses from the October fires alone exceeded US$ 10bn, with the bulk of this amount – more than US$ 8bn – insured. By the end of the year therefore, losses from wildfires are likely to be substantially higher.

https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/2018/01/2017-year-in-figures

By plotting against the GDP it is obvious that GDP grew faster than natural disasters did.  But what does Pielke's graph really means?

What is the Gross Domestic Product?  (Google's definition)
Quote
the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year.


How are the losses defined ?(NOAA's  definition, but they shouldn't  differ much)

Quote
These costs include:

Physical damage to residential, commercial, and government or municipal buildings
Material assets within a building
Time element losses like business interruption
Vehicles and boats
Offshore energy platforms
Public infrastructure like roads, bridges, and buildings
Agricultural assets like crops, livestock, and timber
Disaster restoration and wildfire suppression costs

Here is the catch. For every disaster loss there is an increase of the GDP equal to the goods and services  created in response to the disaster. Disaster losses are good and services that were created in the past, got destroyed and through insurance, government or personal funds the goods and services are produced again.

https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/commentary/296804/How-Natural-Disasters-Affect-US-GDP/

So if natural disasters increase the GDP,  it is expected that as natural disasters increase, GDP's increase, which is exactly what is seen in the Pielke's graph.  As usual, deception is these peoples game.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 01, 2018, 12:02:17 AM
That sounds good, but do the math.  If the gdp increases by the amount equal to natural disaster losses, it is barely perceptible in the total.  Any change in disaster losses will have a much bigger impact than the small change in gdp.  The implication that the dollar amount used to replace losses somehow cancels out the percent loss is ridiculous.  Just who is engaging in deception here.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: sidd on March 01, 2018, 12:22:01 AM
"The best argument is fraction of gdp."

Why ? The majority of benefits of GDP increase go to the top few % by income, who are not those who suffer most of the losses.

"This is the standard economic parameter, and is used by  every other economist."

That point might have had more weight before 2008.

But this is perhaps best discussed in the thread called "Economic Inequality"

sidd

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 01, 2018, 12:47:11 AM
Dollar amounts are irrelevant to ecosystems, especially considering that the dollar is a make believe currency with zero backing and zero connection to reality.  Maybe if the dollar was backed by something like, oh I don't know ounces of gold, which have a finite supply and a readily obvious energy input to create - dollar amounts would be more relevant because every time a disaster occurs, the US would lose gold having to purchase supplies from other countries (it's a lot more complicated than that, but this is just an illustration for brevities sake).  In reality, the US basically just uses war as a currency - when we need more supplies, we just use economic hitmen, or literal armies (i.e., middle east) to take other countries natural resources, and print more fairy tale currency (the us dollar) and pretend like nothing has changed.  In reality, the carrying capacity of those regions drops, while the carrying capacity of the US remains unchanged or slightly increases.

When considering the damage that takes place during natural disasters, the correct metric is an analysis of how it affects the ecological carrying capacity of the region.

A disaster like the Harvey storm most likely lowered the carrying capacity of that particular ecosystem, as did the storm in peurto rico.  If less humans are capable of surviving on a plot of land that was ravished by a storm, that's the real cost.

So long as fools use dollar amounts to calculate the cost to a species of animal on this planet, humans - the argument is not based in reality.

This discussion should be focused entirely on how natural disasters affect ecological carrying capacity.  Dollars can be printed (literally just magical fantasy idiot currency on a computer screen) by the FED without any effort, and GDP figures can be manipulated - the entire economic system is based on a fairy tale, literally - it's a fake economy completely removed from reality. 

Climate change is lowering the carrying capacity for humans on this planet in a hurry, and when methane clathrates are released by an ice free arctic, that carrying capacity suddenly drops even further.  When giant cyclones sit in one spot, causing melt downs of spent fuel rods, and irreparable damage to important cities - and cause droughts in the breadbasket regions of the planet, that significantly lowers carrying capacity.

Fairy tale "dollar" figures just represent a rough direction of ecological carrying capacity.  They're just make believe data points that demonstrates make believe trends that are occurring for a species that is artificially above its carrying capacity because of the existence of fossil fuels and technology.

This discussion may wish to identify the fact that dollars are not real, and are not based upon anything in reality - dollars are just digital ideas that have long since been connected to anything in the physical world.   The discussion of near term human extinction needs to focus upon how our ecological carrying capacity is decreasing, not the "dollar costs" of environmental catastrophes.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on March 01, 2018, 12:53:29 AM
GDP measures activity. It does not care what that activity is. Making weapons and armaments, killing people with them so as to produce demand for more increases GDP. Some might say that this does not increase the assets / wealth of a country.

Having to use a portion of GDP to replace assets has an opportunity cost - the opportunity to use that activity to create new assets, i.e. to increase a country's wealth (though these days more likely to be used for consumption of ephemera).

Some might say that by looking at GDP growth as the prime measure of economic success has effectively disguised that many countries are poorer in terms of wealth as the basic infrastructure required for the countries to function has decayed.  To my surprise Trump's call for 1.5 trillion iron men to be spent on infrastructure is probably a pretty good guess.

My guess is that the wealth of Puerto Rico, Lousiana, Florida, and California (to name a few obvious examples) has been and will be permanently and substantially reduced by natural disasters  and other climate change influenced events even as GDP continues to rise and again quoted as economic success.

Economics - the price of everything and the value of nothing
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 01, 2018, 01:00:07 AM
GDP measures activity. It does not care what that activity is. Making weapons and armaments, killing people with them so as to produce demand for more increases GDP. Some might say that this does not increase the assets / wealth of a country.

Having to use a portion of GDP to replace assets has an opportunity cost - the opportunity to use that activity to create new assets, i.e. to increase a country's wealth (though these days more likely to be used for consumption of ephemera).

Some might say that by looking at GDP growth as the prime measure of economic success has effectively disguised that many countries are poorer in terms of wealth as the basic infrastructure required for the countries to function has decayed.  To my surprise Trump's call for 1.5 trillion iron men to be spent on infrastructure is probably a pretty good guess.

My guess is that the wealth of Puerto Rico, Lousiana, Florida, and California (to name a few obvious examples) has been and will be permanently and substantially reduced by natural disasters  and other climate change influenced events even as GDP continues to rise and again quoted as economic success.

Economics - the price of everything and the value of nothing

Yes, I agree that economics is basically examining fantasy prices, while ignoring value or at least distorting it greatly.  However, economics is not based in reality - and certainly not connected to the planetary processes that make life possible (at least the ecological costs are simply not considered in an economic model, which makes all models of economic activity irrelevant and simply a religious exercise).  Economics is nothing more than a cognitive exercise that humans carry out to make sense of our species activity.  In reality, all that matters is ecological carrying capacity of all species on this planet.  If any metric of activity does not take into consideration ecological carrying capacity, then it is not based in reality - it's just a cognitive exercise.

Economics is a religion, nothing more.

Humans have been overly zealous about or economic religion to such an extent that we've set into motion the destruction of the ecological carrying capacity for our species on this planet.  It's now just a matter of waiting for:

1). The planet's positive feedback loops to collapse civilization

2). Which leads to the removing of global dimming

3.  Which leads to further accelerated positive feedback loops, and the melt down of spent fuel rods - ultimately removing what little ecological carrying capacity remained on this planet for large apes.


"Yes, the planet got destroyed.   But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
https://imgur.com/gallery/tsCYc
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: sidd on March 01, 2018, 01:25:55 AM
For those who need to think in terms of money, here is a paper on ecosystem service pricing By Constanza et. al (2014)

" ... the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit
values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in
2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at
$4.3–20.2 trillion/yr ..."

They backpedal a bit:

"We emphasize that valuation of ecoservices (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them."

But then fall right back in the hole:

"However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account."

In the body of the paper :

"Some have argued that estimating the global value of ecosystem services is meaningless, because if we lost all ecosystem services human life would end, so their value must be infinite ..."

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Read all about it, copy available at

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/19113/Costanza_et_al_GEC_2014_%2B_SI.pdf

sidd
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Human Habitat Index on March 01, 2018, 02:21:25 AM
How about a Human Habitat Index  8)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 01, 2018, 03:34:16 AM
If the gdp increases by the amount equal to natural disaster losses, it is barely perceptible in the total.

 That is not what I said. What I said was:

Quote
For every disaster loss there is an increase of the GDP equal to the goods and services  created in response to the disaster.
...

Quote
Any change in disaster losses will have a much bigger impact than the small change in gdp.

The GDP increase could easily by higher, a lot higher, than the size of the losses, it could also be much lower. A disaster in a low production area might be costly in terms of losses but have a small impact on the GDP. A disaster in a high production area might cost the same but impact on the GDP might be far larger.

 
Quote
The implication that the dollar amount used to replace losses somehow cancels out the percent loss is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is to use these two different amounts in such fashion, for the argument that there has been no significant change, and then deny the subtleties around it.

Quote
  Just who is engaging in deception here.

Pielke and you.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 01, 2018, 03:43:49 AM
How about a Human Habitat Index  8)
lol
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 01, 2018, 05:29:39 AM


In the body of the paper :

"Some have argued that estimating the global value of ecosystem services is meaningless, because if we lost all ecosystem services human life would end, so their value must be infinite ..."

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Read all about it, copy available at

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/19113/Costanza_et_al_GEC_2014_%2B_SI.pdf

sidd

This quote from the paper essentially nails it. 

Ecosystem is completely seperate from economy - and therefore economy, in my view, is nothing more than a religion.  Talking about money and value and cost, etc is meaningless unless these costs factor in the effect of "economic" activity into the carrying capacity of large apes.

Large apes have destabilized the atmosphere to the point that the planet itself is now self reinforcing.

This process is basically the societal equivalent as going into your family safe deposit box, getting your great grandfathers gold coins and your great grandmothers jewelry - bringing them to a pawn shop, selling them for 15% of what they're worth -  and buying some black tar heroin with it.

We're trashing resources that are priceless in exchange for, essentially, a religious experience.

B-but...for a short period of time 401k, IRA, and money market accounts experienced incredible gains! 

I hope that felt good, you stupid apes.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 01, 2018, 11:33:14 AM
Quote
As noted above, the nominal dollar figures are meaningless. The relevant figure is insurance losses to GDP, and as shown above that is not rising.

This is complete nonsense.  A denialist argument from one of the most well know denialists (Pielke - big surprise).

He is only counting one factor (cherry picking) and there are others to take into account. 

What is important here is the systemic effect.  Cherry picking one metric which makes it seem like things are getting better (insurance losses to GDP) does not tell the whole story.  What is happening to the entire civilizational system is what actually counts.

Here are a few other factors left out.

Insurance premiums have risen thus moving cost from insurers to their customers.

Insurance coverage for weather disasters has been dramatically lowered thus reducing costs to insurers. (and they raised premiums at the same time)

Deductables are much higher now than they used to be.

Caps on maximum coverage are lower than they used to be.

Insurers offset risk by issuing securities which couple the losses to their stock from disasters with the purchase of construction stocks which rise after disasters.

Insurance used to cover the upgrading to current building codes when older structures were damaged in disasters and now they do not cover those costs.

They have removed concurrent disaster causes; i.e. if your home is blown down by hurricane winds and then there is a flood from the storm surge they will not cover both losses.

It is by the use of methods such as these that insurance companies are guaranteeing their profits and are not in danger of bankruptcy. Thus you get your chart produced by Pielke which was undoubtedly produced to further another thread of climate denial - as that is all the Pielke's have been doing for the last 20 years.  In other words the claim is pure BS.  The chart does NOT actually measure the losses from natural disasters at all.  It is a graph of the losses to insurance companies.  A very different thing.

A blind man could see that we are facing constantly increasing global losses to natural disasters and that recovery from such disasters has moved beyond our ability to fully fix and replace.  This situation is only going to get a lot worse over time.
So if the data does not fit your beliefs, you call it nonsense?  How very unscientific of you.  Is a new car less affordable now than 25 years ago, because it’s cost as doubled?  Would not the better comparison be what fraction of your income was necessary to buy a new car then and now?  You could argue and cherry pick all you want about how a new car is different today, but that does not change the basic facts.  The best argument is fraction of gdp.  This is the standard economic parameter, and is used by  every other economist.  The clearest example that you have no counter to this data is your degeneration to referring to it as a denialist argument, said that comment will refute the statement, and you do not need to present any evidence (if which you have shown none).  If you are looking for other meaningful statistics, how about the deep decline in deaths due to natural disasters?  Is not that equally or more important than a dollar figure?
A classic case of cherry-picking the argument itself... The way I understand it, JimD is telling you counting insurance losses to GDP is cherry-picking, and lists several major reasons why insurance losses have been limited by various strategies, while actual losses continued to grow. Out of his argument you picked on GDP, and the whole thread has continued to argue that point.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 01, 2018, 04:06:32 PM

[/quote]
A classic case of cherry-picking the argument itself... The way I understand it, JimD is telling you counting insurance losses to GDP is cherry-picking, and lists several major reasons why insurance losses have been limited by various strategies, while actual losses continued to grow. Out of his argument you picked on GDP, and the whole thread has continued to argue that point.
[/quote]

Not really.  GDP is a classic argument for this and other cases.  Cherry-picking is selectively using those reasons why it might be lower, while ignoring those making it higher.  The major factor omitted by JimD is more people living in disaster-prone areas.  This alone is likely to overshadow all his arguments.  How much has water management altered flooding; likely decreasing the number of floods, but making those that do occur worse.  Likewise, how much as land changes affecting the disasters that do occur?   All three of these factors contributed to the situation in Houston.  That is why GDP is a better indicator; it incorporates all these factors, and more.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 01, 2018, 04:58:27 PM
The only thing that graphs tells me, is that local  natural disaster costs so far have no discernable impact on GDP, except perhaps to increase it.

It says nothing about the risks of climate change.  The fact that the destruction of life and property naively appears to add to to the GDP should be a matter of great  concern. Your result does not match expectations.

Natural disasters are bad. So why a measure typically associated with good things going up as these bad things are happening?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 01, 2018, 05:44:37 PM
The only thing that graphs tells me, is that local  natural disaster costs so far have no discernable impact on GDP, except perhaps to increase it.

It says nothing about the risks of climate change.  The fact that the destruction of life and property naively appears to add to to the GDP should be a matter of great  concern. Your result does not match expectations.

Natural disasters are bad. So why a measure typically associated with good things going up as these bad things are happening?

Why?  Because yesterday you stated, "If 2017 happened every year the collapse of the insurance industry alone would end the world as we know it."  I was simply countering that years like 2017 have occurred repeatedly in the past, and the world has handled them.  The burden of these disaster shows no signs of increasing, as the economies of the world have been able to overcome them.  The greatest burden to the world last century was WWII.  These natural disasters pale in comparison to what mankind can do.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 01, 2018, 06:20:27 PM
Quote
  I was simply countering that years like 2017 have occurred repeatedly in the past, and the world has handled them

Sigh. From the source cited in your link:

Quote
At US$ 330bn, overall losses in 2017 were far greater even than those in the extreme years of 2005 and 2008. Only the record year of 2011 with losses of US$ 350bn, due mainly to the Tohoku earthquake and floods in Thailand, has seen higher loss figures
.

I repeat what I said. If every year was like 2017 it will be the end of the world as we know it. Hopefully, we are not there yet and the losses from disasters give us a few more years to prepare before we get there.
 
Quote
The burden of these disaster shows no signs of increasing, as the economies of the world have been able to overcome them. 

Wait. Are you saying that because the global economy is still going, the impact of natural desasters is not increasing? That doesn't even makes sense.

 The burden of these disasters keeps increasing in almost every metric except for GDP. 

Quote
These natural disasters pale in comparison to what mankind can do.

Finally some truth.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on March 01, 2018, 06:43:53 PM
One final (honest, no more) comment on the inadequacy of GDP.

Agriculture and water are a tiny fraction of GDP in the OECD economies, while they are the most essential (= valuable) for human existence. The price of everything and the value of nothing. I have worked in places where famine and drought are things that happen on a regular basis. Free market economics falls to pieces when it happens, unless you believe Social Darwinism is the way to go,
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 01, 2018, 07:24:16 PM
One final (honest, no more) comment on the inadequacy of GDP.

Agriculture and water are a tiny fraction of GDP in the OECD economies, while they are the most essential (= valuable) for human existence. The price of everything and the value of nothing. I have worked in places where famine and drought are things that happen on a regular basis. Free market economics falls to pieces when it happens, unless you believe Social Darwinism is the way to go,

Nine meals away from anarchy

https://www.utne.com/environment/nine-meals-away-from-anarchy-zm0z13jfzros
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 02, 2018, 06:50:07 AM
https://guymcpherson.com/2016/08/the-politics-and-science-of-our-demise/

I recommend giving this a chance
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 02, 2018, 07:48:33 AM
https://guymcpherson.com/2016/08/the-politics-and-science-of-our-demise/

I recommend giving this a chance
I recommend to avoid it. I am sorry to use such generalities on this fine forum, but this is alarmist claptrap posing as science.
(https://guymcpherson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IMG_2888.png)
Trying to fight the claims one by one is futile,  this is pure troll feeding. I will refrain. Take my word for it, global temps will not rise 8 degrees C in the next 10 years. (The headline says 10 but never mind the details). I'm just a nobody , but at least I'm not a liar like these folks, so my word might be good for something.
Note: I dislike anyone who bends science on purpose, whether it's deniers or alarmists, both of whom make a good living out of their evil. I recmmend to avoid reading such sources,  and stick to the actual science.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: aperson on March 02, 2018, 07:58:20 AM
Trying to fight the claims one by one is futile,  this is pure troll feeding.

That image is almost a canonical version of the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on March 02, 2018, 08:15:21 AM
Note: I dislike anyone who bends science on purpose, whether it's deniers or alarmists, both of whom make a good living out of their evil. I recmmend to avoid reading such sources,  and stick to the actual science.

I fully agree. Conclusions should be always based on avalilable Science and not emotions.

As for insurers: GDP is a valid measure, because on the long run global insurers' equity grows by GDP.

Consider this:

https://www.intelligentinsurer.com/media/project_ii/document/global-reinsurance-guide-2017.pdf

Global reinsurers had 271 billion dollars in equity (excluding Berkshire Hathaway which is in an even better shape than the others!!!), catastrophe losses for them were 10 bn usd, and they made 21 billion dollars in profit, which shows that even in 2017 they were profitable, and also shows that they have huge reserves which could buffer even much bigger losses than 2017. 
Natural disasters nedd to be many-many times bigger than 2017 to cause a problem for global reinsurers and deplete their equity.
 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 02, 2018, 08:49:33 AM
https://guymcpherson.com/2016/08/the-politics-and-science-of-our-demise/

I recommend giving this a chance
I recommend to avoid it. I am sorry to use such generalities on this fine forum, but this is alarmist claptrap posing as science.
(https://guymcpherson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IMG_2888.png)
Trying to fight the claims one by one is futile,  this is pure troll feeding. I will refrain. Take my word for it, global temps will not rise 8 degrees C in the next 10 years. (The headline says 10 but never mind the details). I'm just a nobody , but at least I'm not a liar like these folks, so my word might be good for something.
Note: I dislike anyone who bends science on purpose, whether it's deniers or alarmists, both of whom make a good living out of their evil. I recmmend to avoid reading such sources,  and stick to the actual science.

I am open to disscussion because I think thats what science is all about, but if you could provide me with proof to explain why 8 degrees wont happen. That would be of great help. I personally think we are headed for about a 4 C rise by 2050.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 02, 2018, 09:29:49 AM
https://phys.org/news/2013-10-climate-geological-instant.html
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 02, 2018, 01:43:40 PM
I fully agree. Conclusions should be always based on avalilable Science and not emotions.

That's only an aspiration. In reality that's an impossibility. Being unaware of it's impossibility leads away from the goal of total objectivity.

In climate change objectivity is even harder. Scientists are inside the experiment, as are we all. Any line of research leading to horrible outcomes will necesarilly have an emotional effect on the scientists.


On using the GDP as a measure for ignoring the dangers of climate change, I think many good arguments have already been written. These people do not wish to understand the subtleties of the GDP or  insurance.

Let's hope years like 2017 do not become a yearly occurrence anytime soon.  That's probably the only thing that will convince them, but by then it'll be too late.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 02, 2018, 02:44:02 PM
https://guymcpherson.com/2016/08/the-politics-and-science-of-our-demise/

I recommend giving this a chance
I recommend to avoid it. I am sorry to use such generalities on this fine forum, but this is alarmist claptrap posing as science.
(https://guymcpherson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IMG_2888.png)
Trying to fight the claims one by one is futile,  this is pure troll feeding. I will refrain. Take my word for it, global temps will not rise 8 degrees C in the next 10 years. (The headline says 10 but never mind the details). I'm just a nobody , but at least I'm not a liar like these folks, so my word might be good for something.
Note: I dislike anyone who bends science on purpose, whether it's deniers or alarmists, both of whom make a good living out of their evil. I recmmend to avoid reading such sources,  and stick to the actual science.

I am open to disscussion because I think thats what science is all about, but if you could provide me with proof to explain why 8 degrees wont happen. That would be of great help. I personally think we are headed for about a 4 C rise by 2050.

It is extremely difficult to prove today what might happen 30 years in the future.  Still, physicists have estimated that global temperatures will wise another 1C by 2050, if we do nothing.  This is actually higher than the worst case IPCC scenario.  With the bulk of scientists asserting 2C temperature rise or less by 2050, I think the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-threshold.amp
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 02, 2018, 03:47:36 PM
Whereistheice, the short answer is the thermal inertia of the huge ice sheets, and of the ocean, and moreover the lack of sufficient forcing to cause such fast warming (despite Guy Mcphearson's lies).
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 02, 2018, 05:36:50 PM
Oren, now you're resorting to name calling towards Dr. McPherson.   

The thermal inertia of the glaciers on land in antarctica and greenland have little to no effect on the temperatures in that chart.

Here's the factors that matter (feel free to refute these claims, this is what Dr. McPherson is discussing - the evidence has been posted earlier in this thread, feel free to revisit):

1.  Arctic sea ice is very thin, and the extent is the lowest on record - an ice free arctic will reduce albedo in that chart, resulting in an increase in global average temperature - let's say even by .50C (a conservative approach). 

2.  an Ice free arctic is going to warm the arctic ocean and allow warm currents to penetrate these waters from the south, which will lead to methane clathrate release.  Let's be conservative and say just 0.5C in a short period of time.

3.  This brings us to 2.5C over baseline (we're at 1.5C above baseline right now).  Civilzation will utterly collapse at 2.5C over baseline, leading to:

4.  Let's say a conservative estimate of 0.50C from lack of global dimming.

Now we're at 3.0C over pre industrial baseline.

At 3.0C over baseline, the effects from increased water vapor will increase temps again by another oh, 0.5C (lets be conservative here).

Now we're at somewhere around 3.5C above pre industrial levels within a short period of time ( by 2030).

The chart that whereistheice posted is a worst case scenerio, I'll give you that Oren.  But a conservative estimate brings us to 3.5C above baseline within 10 years if we get an ice free arctic and methane clathrates are released in large quantities.

If nothing else happens at 3.5C above baseline, then humans could probably survive in some remote areas of the planet for a while if they bring livestock and seeds with them.

But you know that once we hit 3.5C, the positive feedbacks that will be triggered at that point will be self reinforcing and will not stop for tens of thousands of years.

Whereistheice asked for someone to prove this data wrong, and I've seen no evidence that Dr. McPherson's claims are wrong - if anything, his claims are becoming more and more accurate as temperatures continue to skyrocket and the arctic continues to head straight for ice free territory in short order.

I see many posts that basically conclude:  "he's a liar, that can never happen".

3.5C above baseline by 2030, that's a conservative value, it could be far higher than that by 2030 - and even at 3.5C above baseline, the thermal inertia of greenland and west antarctic glaciers will not matter.

Most humans are dead at 3.5C above baseline, some may still be alive - extinction by 2030?  Maybe not, but 95% die off by 2030, that's more realistic in my opinion.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on March 02, 2018, 06:03:20 PM
Oren, now you're resorting to name calling towards Dr. McPherson.   

1. - an ice free arctic will reduce albedo in that chart, let's say even by .75C (a conservative approach). 

2.  an Ice free arctic is going to warm the arctic ocean and allow warm currents to penetrate these waters from the south, which will lead to methane clathrate release.  Let's be conservative and say just 0.5C in a short period of time.

1.  Arctic sea ice is very thin, and the extent is the lowest on record - an ice free arctic will reduce albedo

True - Extent on March 1st is at a record low by 42,000 km2 on a total of nearly 14,000,000 km2.

2.  an Ice free arctic is going to warm the arctic ocean and allow warm currents to penetrate these waters from the south, which will lead to methane clathrate release.

True - but how quickly? If extent will not disappear overnight then methane from places like the ESAS will not appear overnight.

There is nothing in what you have posted to justify the statement that this will all happen in the next 5, 7,10 years.

And that is the problem with your argument - that it is all going to happen almost immediately, while you give no evidence to say why it is going to happen immediately and all at once.

I did some Armageddon scenarios and could not make the shit hit the fan before 2030, and even then nothing like the picture you present by 2025.

Where is the data, where is the evidence to substantiate your assertion about the timing of Armageddon ? Then a reasoned response can be given. Until then "name calling towards Dr. McPherson" seems a pretty good idea to me.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sebastian Jones on March 02, 2018, 06:36:02 PM
Harpy and Where is the Ice, the extraordinary claims of Guy McPherson require extraordinary proof, which has not been supplied. This forum is a very polite place and almost free from ad hominem attacks. McPherson- not so much. Try disagreeing with him or questioning his conclusions to his "face"  on line sometime. Which does not make him wrong per se....
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on March 02, 2018, 08:01:37 PM


3.  This brings us to 2.5C over baseline (we're at 1.5C above baseline right now).  Civilzation will utterly collapse at 2.5C over baseline



So in effect you are saying that if global average temps go up 1 (ONE!) degree C from current levels, civilization will collapse.

Why would that happen?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 02, 2018, 08:04:00 PM
https://guymcpherson.com/2016/08/the-politics-and-science-of-our-demise/

I recommend giving this a chance
I recommend to avoid it. I am sorry to use such generalities on this fine forum, but this is alarmist claptrap posing as science.
(https://guymcpherson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IMG_2888.png)
Trying to fight the claims one by one is futile,  this is pure troll feeding. I will refrain. Take my word for it, global temps will not rise 8 degrees C in the next 10 years. (The headline says 10 but never mind the details). I'm just a nobody , but at least I'm not a liar like these folks, so my word might be good for something.
Note: I dislike anyone who bends science on purpose, whether it's deniers or alarmists, both of whom make a good living out of their evil. I recmmend to avoid reading such sources,  and stick to the actual science.

I am open to disscussion because I think thats what science is all about, but if you could provide me with proof to explain why 8 degrees wont happen. That would be of great help. I personally think we are headed for about a 4 C rise by 2050.

On that chart, the top two effects have already occurred, resulting in an estimated warming of 1.9 degrees C since pre-industrial. 

Further down the chart, the aerosol masking is not going to go away in an instant, it will take decades to reduce it, as fossil fuel use and wood burning are not going to be instantly reduced to zero.  Also, the increased black carbon from forest fires and other impacts of climate change will probably offset the cleaning up of smokestack emissions and the reductions in coal use.  So that 2.5 degree change will be closer to zero.

As to increasing CO2 emissions, they tend to take effect slowly (sometimes referred to as the"in the pipeline amount").  The more instantaneous effect has been estimated by climate scientists such as James Hansen as 0.1 to 0.2 degrees per decade.

This chart relies on older estimates of methane release.  More recent articles show that even in periods of much higher global warming than we're currently experiencing, such as the Younger Dryas near the last warming maximum from the previous ice age (about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago), the arctic sea ice clathrates didn't melt. Abstract of article is at this link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23316 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23316).   So again, the feedbacks from increased arctic methane release are much closer to zero than what's shown on that table.

As to the increase in temperature from the albedo changes in the arctic, 1.6 degrees in the next decade seems extremely unlikely.  Research in 2014 showed that increases in Arctic Sea surface temperature from 2000 to 2012 was 0.58 degrees per decade.  (Article here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058951/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058951/full)).  During that time, global temperatures, calculated by NASA, increased much less, roughly 0.1 degrees C (data here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt).

And the water vapor feedback tends to equal the CO2 increase at about a 1:1 ratio.  So that 2.1 degrees in the chart should be about 0.1 to 0.2 degrees.

In short, we're much more likely to see a slight increase over current warming (0.1 to 0.2 degrees per decade) in the near future, maybe even a doubling to 0.2 to 0.4 degrees by 2026; not an additional 8 degrees C.  So an extinction event (due to climate change) by 2026 is not going to happen.  If we continue on the "business as usual" emissions guidelines, an extinction event in a century or so is possible.  However, so much progress in renewable energy, battery storage, and other technologies to decarbonize our economies has been made that it's clear that we'll emit far less carbon than the business as usual model assumes.

Even so, the effects of our previous and future emission have lead to climate change and it will get worse over the next few decades.  Call me an optimist, but I believe that even with the upcoming troubles ahead, the human race will survive.  And posting extremely alarmist articles like the McPherson one just gives ammunition to deniers who will use it to discredit legitimate science when the alarmist projections don't pan out.

It's helpful to read some of the background science and do your own analysis rather than just accept something that shows up on the internet.  You can start with the IPCC reports.  The latest, AR5, is available at this link:  http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/full-report/ (http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/full-report/).

Edit:  Corrected link to IPCC AR5 report.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 02, 2018, 08:10:49 PM
10C  aren't needed for SHTF, neither is methane.  It can happen this very year with a melting season similar to 2012 and a BOE.  The meandering jetstreams and ocean currents will see to that. That said I agree with Oren about very quick temperarure rise.

About McPherson. I think he is wrong in many aspects, but he is more right than the IPCC about the impact of climate change on humanity. I think he saw it coming years ago and has been on a campaign to warn others as best he could. Because of the outright rejections of his points by pretty much everyone he has become jaded and his knowledge clouded. In my opinion he is brave for doing what he is doing, although I wish he dialed back
 and focused in much more likely but almost equally scary scenarios.

He offers fear without hope and that is as paralyzing as the hope without fear offered by the IPCC. There is very real hope even with a BOE , the methane bomb or nuclear meltdown but there are very real dangers of global catastrophe.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Iceismylife on March 02, 2018, 08:18:31 PM
<snip>

So again, the feedbacks from increased arctic methane release are much closer to zero than what's shown on that table.
We aren't seeing a zero methane feed back loop now.  The arctic is currently 10% higher than the rest of the world and that is climbing.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 02, 2018, 09:02:27 PM
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full

4-7 C rise by 2100 (possible)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 02, 2018, 09:09:51 PM
<snip>

So again, the feedbacks from increased arctic methane release are much closer to zero than what's shown on that table.
We aren't seeing a zero methane feed back loop now.  The arctic is currently 10% higher than the rest of the world and that is climbing.

I said close to zero, and I meant over the decade from 2016 to 2026, which is what we're discussing.  And science backs me up on this. The radiative forcing from methane hasn't increased much in the past decade.  Here it is in graphical form:

(https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/climate-forcing-download1-2016.png)



Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 02, 2018, 10:16:13 PM


3.  This brings us to 2.5C over baseline (we're at 1.5C above baseline right now).  Civilzation will utterly collapse at 2.5C over baseline



So in effect you are saying that if global average temps go up 1 (ONE!) degree C from current levels, civilization will collapse.

Why would that happen?

Correct.  Modern civilization is on the brink of collapse right now.  Without any changes in global average temperature from today, civilization will collapse utterly - and most apes on this planet will die. Albeit it may be a much slower collapse (i.e., may take decades rather than years).

As other members here have accurately pointed out, all it would take is consistent years like 2015, 2012, 2017  to collapse the United States economy - which would collapse the world economy, and most likely collapse civilization.  A decade with yearly catastrophic hurricanes decimating entire countries and portions of states, and droughts like the one CA experienced in 2015.  This is not sustainable, even without a further temperature rise.  Have a look at the CA precipitation amounts for 2018.  CA supplies virtually all of the nuts and green vegetables for the united states and much of the world.  Groundwater doesn't last forever.

Human population is also not sustainable and it's extraordinarily unlikely that human population will simply plateau at 8 billion and stay at that level indefinitely.  Nature doesn't work like that.  Apes are not an exception.

Factor in an ice free arctic, and now how will the agricultural regions in the world avoid climate extremes that prevent agriculture from being produced sufficiently to support 7.5 billion+ apes?

Collapse of civilization is ensured at 2.5C above baseline - it's ensured at 1.5C above baseline, and it was ensured even at 0.5C above baseline.  It's just going to happen a heck of a lot quicker at 2.5+C above baseline.

At 3.5C above baseline...I have a hard time imagining this planet at 3.5C above baseline.   


How a collapsed civilization handles 450-500 spent fuel rod containment facilities?  As far as I know, there's no plan for this outside of business as usual.

-and it will not take decades for the aerosol effects to be removed.  Aerosols do not enter the stratosphere, they stick to the troposphere, and are removed from precipitation events.  This process would only take, at most, a couple of months. 

+1-3C if civilization collapses due to removal of global dimming aerosol effect, and civilization is going to collapse.  I don't see any way that we experience anything less than a catastrophic drop in human population by 2026 or 2030.  Extinction?  I don't know .  There's going to be bunker idiots and folks who try to live in the tundra, but that won't last long with lethal doses of radiation, and/or half the year where the sun is not shining.  Good luck growing radioactive wheat in the arctic. 

Too many factors are working against large apes.

The age of the large apes will end soon, and that applies to all of us on this forum.  It's been fun debating this subject, but our fate is sealed.  It's a matter of when, not if at this point.  Unless something fundamentally changes in regards to human population, ecosystem collapse, spent fuel rods, and arctic sea ice thickness and extent - the fat lady has begun to sing.  It's going to be a beautiful and horrifying song, might as well try to enjoy yourselves.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 02, 2018, 11:19:32 PM
Quote
-and it will not take decades for the aerosol effects to be removed.  Aerosols do not enter the stratosphere, they stick to the troposphere, and are removed from precipitation events.  This process would only take, at most, a couple of months.

But new aerosols are being produced from burning fossil fuels and biomass.  There won't be an instantaneous reduction in aerosols, because of the new production.

And the current IPCC reports estimates that the cooling effect of aerosols is 0.35 w/m-2.  However, 0.13 w/m-2 comes from dust and organic sources, so the amount caused by "apes" is about 0.22 w/m-2.  If you assume a climate sensitivity of 3 degree increase due to a doubling of CO2 (mid-range of current estimates), removing the cooling effect of aerosols results in about a 0.2 degree temperature increase.  Compared to the 2.5 degree increase (in a decade no less), that's pretty minor.

Edit.  Corrected assumed climate sensitivity and calculation of cooling effect.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 02, 2018, 11:43:15 PM
Harpy,
You fail to give s reason as to why civilization will collapse without any further temperature rise.  This seems rather presumptuous, considering most scientists believe that we could survive another 1C temperature rise.  When the Arctic finally becomes ice-free is uncertain, with many predictions still 50 years into the future.  Assuming that one bad year will repeat annually is baseless, considering it has been a dozen years since the previous occurrence.  California precipitation is around 75% of average to date in the main agricultural regions.  This coming after a well above 2017.  California rainfall has always been quite variable.  This is nothing new.  Weather is very cyclical.  Assuming that the worst of each cycle will prevail in the near term is very short-sighted.  Long-term trends are much more useful in climate science.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 03, 2018, 04:47:00 AM
Lets not forget the fact that we are destroying the biosphere as well. If yall really think we can just somehow escape collapse.... we cant.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: aperson on March 03, 2018, 04:57:08 AM
Lets not forget the fact that we are destroying the biosphere as well. If yall really think we can just somehow escape collapse.... we cant.

How do you think phytoplankton communities will fare? What do you think has changed in ocean algal community resilience since diatoms emerged after the end-Permian?

You're making a lot of sweeping generalizations that you can't support. It's more interesting to dig into the details of what actually happens instead of just saying "X will collapse". Taking a more critical approach may allow you to evaluate the likelihood of claims like the 10C by 2026 graph you posted above.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 03, 2018, 05:09:52 AM
Lets not forget the fact that we are destroying the biosphere as well. If yall really think we can just somehow escape collapse.... we cant.

How do you think phytoplankton communities will fare? What do you think has changed in ocean algal community resilience since diatoms emerged after the end-Permian?

You're making a lot of sweeping generalizations that you can't support. It's more interesting to dig into the details of what actually happens instead of just saying "X will collapse". Taking a more critical approach may allow you to evaluate the likelihood of claims like the 10C by 2026 graph you posted above.

Ask me what you want to know about any of these topics and I will give you the best answer I can. Want to know how 10 C would happen? Collapse will happen. Could be tommorow or 100 years. But our current way of living can’t last forever.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: aperson on March 03, 2018, 05:24:15 AM
Lets not forget the fact that we are destroying the biosphere as well. If yall really think we can just somehow escape collapse.... we cant.

How do you think phytoplankton communities will fare? What do you think has changed in ocean algal community resilience since diatoms emerged after the end-Permian?

You're making a lot of sweeping generalizations that you can't support. It's more interesting to dig into the details of what actually happens instead of just saying "X will collapse". Taking a more critical approach may allow you to evaluate the likelihood of claims like the 10C by 2026 graph you posted above.

Ask me what you want to know about any of these topics and I will give you the best answer I can. Want to know how 10 C would happen? Collapse will happen. Could be tommorow or 100 years. But our current way of living can’t last forever.

Okay, explain how collapse gives 2.5C GMSTA increase due to "fading away of the aerosol masking effect". Please cite actual papers.

Please explain how albedo changes in the Arctic give 1.6C GMSTA by 2026. Please cite actual papers. You are free to assume a seasonally ice free Arctic by 2026.

Please explain how Seafloor methane hydrates contribute 1.1C by 2026. Please cite actual papers. Emission rates as a function of time would be preferred.

Please explain how water vapor feedbacks yield 2.1C of warming by 2026. Please cite actual papers.

Also, please explain what 0.3C of "further feedbacks" in the image he provided is.


And for the record, I know what the actual ranges of some of these feedbacks are based on literature. I don't expect you'll find valid sources for some of these claims. I also think the onus is on the person making a claim to justify it, so if you want to post a picture of 10.02C GMSTA by 2026, back it up with evidence.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on March 03, 2018, 07:10:12 AM


3.  This brings us to 2.5C over baseline (we're at 1.5C above baseline right now).  Civilzation will utterly collapse at 2.5C over baseline



So in effect you are saying that if global average temps go up 1 (ONE!) degree C from current levels, civilization will collapse.

Why would that happen?



Collapse of civilization is ensured at 2.5C above baseline - it's ensured at 1.5C above baseline, and it was ensured even at 0.5C above baseline.  It's just going to happen a heck of a lot quicker at 2.5+C above baseline.



Ok, no more questions here. In your world, whatever happens (you dont even need an ice free arctic, dont need higher temps or anything else), mankind disappears and we all starve to death. Just one last remark: agricultural commodities, ie. food prices are near ten year lows. That is very interesting - to say the least - considering the terrible situation you described. Low prices in my world signal oversupply and an abundance of a certain product...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 03, 2018, 10:55:53 AM

Lets not forget the fact that we are destroying the biosphere as well. If yall really think we can just somehow escape collapse.... we cant.

How do you think phytoplankton communities will fare? What do you think has changed in ocean algal community resilience since diatoms emerged after the end-Permian?

You're making a lot of sweeping generalizations that you can't support. It's more interesting to dig into the details of what actually happens instead of just saying "X will collapse". Taking a more critical approach may allow you to evaluate the likelihood of claims like the 10C by 2026 graph you posted above.

Ask me what you want to know about any of these topics and I will give you the best answer I can. Want to know how 10 C would happen? Collapse will happen. Could be tommorow or 100 years. But our current way of living can’t last forever.

Okay, explain how collapse gives 2.5C GMSTA increase due to "fading away of the aerosol masking effect". Please cite actual papers.

Please explain how albedo changes in the Arctic give 1.6C GMSTA by 2026. Please cite actual papers. You are free to assume a seasonally ice free Arctic by 2026.

Please explain how Seafloor methane hydrates contribute 1.1C by 2026. Please cite actual papers. Emission rates as a function of time would be preferred.

Please explain how water vapor feedbacks yield 2.1C of warming by 2026. Please cite actual papers.

Also, please explain what 0.3C of "further feedbacks" in the image he provided is.


And for the record, I know what the actual ranges of some of these feedbacks are based on literature. I don't expect you'll find valid sources for some of these claims. I also think the onus is on the person making a claim to justify it, so if you want to post a picture of 10.02C GMSTA by 2026, back it up with evidence.



Water Vapor- https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.
 
How much have we warmed from CO2? well most would agree its at least 1 C, so according to this you got another 2 C right there. As far as time scales go, basically once the warming affect of CO2 kicks in, you get more water vapor warming soon after. Which is scary because according to http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 it takes about a decade for the CO2 warming to kick in. Think about it. We havent felt all the CO2 we have released in the last decade (which is a lot).

Seafloor Methane- http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/global-warming-arctic-storms-releasing-methane/ A 50 GT release of methane could warm the planet 1 degree C or more (1.3 C). The 50 GT burp is highly possible at any time according to https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23923-huge-methane-belch-in-arctic-could-cost-60-trillion#.UpK05sS1ym4 . The methane is already being released, https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2007 . Methane levels have been rising in the arctic. Thats just observation.

Albedo Changes- https://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/477/2016/  The darkening of the Greenland ice sheet started becoming significantly less reflective of solar radiation from around 1996, with the ice absorbing 2% more solar energy per decade from this point. “Future darkening is likely underestimated. We all know im sure that snow and ice reflects radiation from the sun back into space. I havent looked into this part much so idk about the 1.6 C rise from Albedo ( not my predictions)

Further Feedback Loops- https://phys.org/news/2013-02-sunlight-climate-warming-gas-arctic-permafrost.html ..Sunlight stimulates release of climate-warming gas from melting Arctic permafrost, study says... http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/183 ...Speleothems Reveal 500,000-Year History of Siberian Permafrost .... https://phys.org/news/2014-12-warmer-pacific-ocean-millions-tons.html#nRlv ....Warmer Pacific Ocean could release millions of tons of seafloor methane. Theres dozens more i could list. 0.3 C from that seems very conservative.

Aerosol Masking effect- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/  The new study relied on four global climate models, which the researchers used to simulate the effects of removing all human-caused emissions of the major aerosols, including sulfate and carbon-based particles like soot. The resulting global warming, they concluded, would be anywhere from 0.5 to 1.1 degrees Celsius.

Lets all remember that science in general is very conservative. 

Do the math. Instead of looking at individual aspects of Climate change, add everything together. Even with all this, we are not considering the biological annihilation we are causing on the planet, Ocean acidification, etc. Nuclear plants, war, disease, thats all another story :-\ .

I am not predicting a 10 C rise in 10 years, but rather about 4 C. Humans probably wont survive that kind of rise.

But hey! Maybe all this is just talk and we will survive. Which for you the readers information I support 100%. I dont want to die, and I want the world to be peaceful and happy. I got important people in my life, losing them and this amazing world would be horrible. Lets all remember just how lucky we are rn! At the end of the day, we are all connected to everything in the world.

Lets make the world a better place, regardless of the outcome!
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on March 03, 2018, 04:54:17 PM
Wti, elements of your position above seem rather confused. Water vapor is a fast ('Charney') feedback, so the ~1 degree C of warming we have already seen is not just from CO2, but from CO2 plus water vapor plus a couple other Charney feedbacks (clouds and sea ice).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-feedbacks-anyone.html

It is the slower (but not all that slow) feedbacks that are going to start hitting us hard, plus loss of the 'aerosol parasol.'
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Steven on March 03, 2018, 05:33:44 PM
https://phys.org/news/2013-10-climate-geological-instant.html

That paper about PETM is flawed. See

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/E1062
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/E1064


If civilization collapses, the collapse of global dimming will increase the temperature of earth by ANOTHER 1-3C within a month or two. 

Nonsense.  The "collapse of global dimming" would cause a long-term temperature rise of perhaps as much as 1°C.  Moreover, your timescale is completely wrong.  Even if all anthropogenic aerosols were instantly removed from the atmosphere, it would still take decades for global temperature to catch up to that. The Earth's climate system has huge lags, especially due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, as other commenters upthread have already pointed out.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 03, 2018, 06:07:48 PM
There’s clearly two sides to this argument
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 04, 2018, 04:50:00 AM
Wti, elements of your position above seem rather confused. Water vapor is a fast ('Charney') feedback, so the ~1 degree C of warming we have already seen is not just from CO2, but from CO2 plus water vapor plus a couple other Charney feedbacks (clouds and sea ice).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-feedbacks-anyone.html

It is the slower (but not all that slow) feedbacks that are going to start hitting us hard, plus loss of the 'aerosol parasol.'

When the earth warms more, the water vapor will cause further warming.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 04, 2018, 05:11:04 AM
https://phys.org/news/2013-10-climate-geological-instant.html

That paper about PETM is flawed. See

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/E1062
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/E1064


If civilization collapses, the collapse of global dimming will increase the temperature of earth by ANOTHER 1-3C within a month or two. 

Nonsense.  The "collapse of global dimming" would cause a long-term temperature rise of perhaps as much as 1°C.  Moreover, your timescale is completely wrong.  Even if all anthropogenic aerosols were instantly removed from the atmosphere, it would still take decades for global temperature to catch up to that. The Earth's climate system has huge lags, especially due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, as other commenters upthread have already pointed out.


I think there is a lot of unknowns surrounding "Global dimming“. But what we can say for a fact is that the aerosols are preventing some warming currently. What we can also say is that when they fall out the temperature will rise. Civilization is continuing to pump aerosols in the environment so if civilization went away, the aerosols would definitely fall out. Note that in large volcanic eruptions it’s takes several years for the aerosols to fall out. So maybe after civilization collapses it won’t take a month but rather 5-10 years. We just don’t really know enough about the topic to really know what’s gonna happen. I think both spectrums should be open to discussion.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 04, 2018, 02:38:19 PM
https://phys.org/news/2013-10-climate-geological-instant.html

That paper about PETM is flawed. See

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/E1062
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/E1064


If civilization collapses, the collapse of global dimming will increase the temperature of earth by ANOTHER 1-3C within a month or two. 

Nonsense.  The "collapse of global dimming" would cause a long-term temperature rise of perhaps as much as 1°C.  Moreover, your timescale is completely wrong.  Even if all anthropogenic aerosols were instantly removed from the atmosphere, it would still take decades for global temperature to catch up to that. The Earth's climate system has huge lags, especially due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, as other commenters upthread have already pointed out.


I think there is a lot of unknowns surrounding "Global dimming“. But what we can say for a fact is that the aerosols are preventing some warming currently. What we can also say is that when they fall out the temperature will rise. Civilization is continuing to pump aerosols in the environment so if civilization went away, the aerosols would definitely fall out. Note that in large volcanic eruptions it’s takes several years for the aerosols to fall out. So maybe after civilization collapses it won’t take a month but rather 5-10 years. We just don’t really know enough about the topic to really know what’s gonna happen. I think both spectrums should be open to discussion.

Sure, aerosols will begin to fall out if civilization collapses.  So too will carbon dioxide, methane, carbon black, and a host of other contributors to future warming.  There are a lot of unknowns surrounding global dimming, but would seem to be overshadowed by the greater reduction in greenhouse gases.  This addition to warming is likely to never occur.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Gray-Wolf on March 04, 2018, 03:45:06 PM
China's headlong dash for clear urban environments appears to have played a part in the flip in Pacific drivers back in 2014.

China has not ceased in its 'clean up' so ever more solar will be making it to the surface of the Pacific and augmenting the positive drivers we see at work there currently.

Mix that in with the crazy issues in the atmosphere over the pole and we have some very 'interesting times' ahead of us.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 05, 2018, 06:43:44 AM
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/aerosols.html

Some of you will ignore this because it is ´alarmist´. But there is some actual scientific papers tagged on this post.

I have come to my conclusion. Humanity is screwed. Near term we are gonna see billions die and populations decrease to pre- Industrial levels. This will likely be the last time posting on this thread due to the back and forth arguing on who is right and wrong.

Good day to all!
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 05, 2018, 06:28:59 PM
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/aerosols.html

Some of you will ignore this because it is ´alarmist´. But there is some actual scientific papers tagged on this post.

I have come to my conclusion. Humanity is screwed. Near term we are gonna see billions die and populations decrease to pre- Industrial levels. This will likely be the last time posting on this thread due to the back and forth arguing on who is right and wrong.

Good day to all!

That blogger can't do math.  In his write up, he indicates that the IPCC AR4 report attributes a cooling effect of 2.7 W/m-2 to aerosols.  He then indicates that James Hansen believes the climate sensitivity is 0.75 degree/W/m-2.  He comes to the conclusion that removal of aerosols would lead to a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees.

However, 2.7 * 0.75 = 2 degrees.  And that's assuming all aerosols disappear overnight.  They won't.  It will take decades to eliminate the fossil fuel plants that produce most of the human caused aerosols and there is no indication that the natural aerosols (from ocean organisms, volcanos, dust, etc...) are going to disappear in the near future.  As I noted above, a temperature change of an order of magnitude less, 0.2 degrees, is what the science currently supports for loss of the aerosol cooling effect.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 05, 2018, 07:41:55 PM
There's a new paper on aerosol emissions that has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.  It's available here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aab1b2/pdf (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aab1b2/pdf)

Here are the findings related to near term and long term increases in temperature due to reductions of fossil-fuel aerosol emissions:
Quote
We found that aerosol emission reductions associated with the co-emissions with CO2 have a significant warming effect during the first half of the century and that the near-term warming is dependent on the pace of aerosol emission reductions. The modeling results show that these aerosol emission reductions account for about 0.5◦C warming relative to 2015 on top of 1◦C above pre-industrial levels that have been already reached in 2015.

Quote
Aggressive aerosol control due to air quality legislation impacts the peak temperature which is 0.2-0.3◦C above the 1.5◦C limit even within the most ambitious CO2/GHG reduction scenario.

So a mid-century impact of 0.5 degrees C due to the loss of cooling and a long-term impact of 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C due to the loss of cooling being offset by the reduced carbon emissions from retiring the fossil fuel plants.

And it's possible that the decrease in anthropogenic aerosols may lead to an increase in natural aerosol productions and/or that climate change will lead to increases in natural aerosol production.  Here's a good summary of the current science: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-018-0086-1 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-018-0086-1) 

The key point is: 
Quote
In regions where anthropogenic aerosol loads decrease, the impacts of climate on natural aerosol variabilities will increase. Detailed knowledge of processes controlling aerosol concentrations is required for credible future projections of aerosol distributions.

There's a lot of uncertainty about this subject, but I have yet to read any peer reviewed science that supports a huge temperature increase due to a reduction in fossil fuel produced aerosols.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on March 05, 2018, 08:51:35 PM
Does anyone remember a temperature increase in the US that supposedly was caused by the no fly rulings just after 9/11?
IIRC some were measuring a 1c or 2c increase during this very short period.


I don't know if that was all BS, or even where I might have come across it.
Terry
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 05, 2018, 09:32:12 PM
Does anyone remember a temperature increase in the US that supposedly was caused by the no fly rulings just after 9/11?
IIRC some were measuring a 1c or 2c increase during this very short period.


I don't know if that was all BS, or even where I might have come across it.
Terry

There was a dramatic, immediate spike. Can't recall how much. I'll check into it.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 05, 2018, 09:36:36 PM
There was a 1.8C increase in the diurnal temperature range. This was caused by increased solar radiation during the day with increased radiation into space at night.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on March 06, 2018, 12:15:44 AM
There was a 1.8C increase in the diurnal temperature range. This was caused by increased solar radiation during the day with increased radiation into space at night.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings)


Thanks
That's a huge swing for something that seems so widely spaced in many locals.
Terry
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 06, 2018, 02:19:04 AM
There was a 1.8C increase in the diurnal temperature range. This was caused by increased solar radiation during the day with increased radiation into space at night.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings
This link is on what seems like a non-scientific site with some agenda. Best to browse the original Nature article, which puts it in slightly different terms.
Quote
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11218772_Climatology_Contrails_reduce_daily_temperature_range (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11218772_Climatology_Contrails_reduce_daily_temperature_range)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on March 06, 2018, 05:21:42 AM
Thanks Oren


The change of 2 standard deviations in diurnal spread, the only time that this occurred in their 30 year research window, is significant.  The 1c upturn during daytime would prove more disruptive under warming conditions than any relief that the - .8c nights might provide.


This seems to indicate that shifting to HSR, or other clean transportation systems, could extract a penalty of at least 1c in daytime temperatures at these latitudes. Understanding what effects this would have on weather patterns is well above my pay grade, but I wonder if anyone else knows for a fact what would ensue if jets were ruled to be too dirty, and were permanently grounded.


Terry
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Gray-Wolf on March 06, 2018, 01:20:56 PM
I may very well just be going off on one here but I remember my Grandparents bemoaning the Space flights as they 'messed up the weather'. To me in early adult life that seemed laughable but then just how much water Vapour does each vehicle leave in the Stratosphere? How much mixing of boundary layers over the full depth of the atmosphere do we see?

If we believe the entrepreneurs we will be seeing sub orbital fast transfer flights over the next few decades so if planes cause issues what will that 'mixing' and addition of water vapour drive when we have multiple launches every day?

When Falcon Heavy goes up that's one hell of a butterfly wing beat!
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 06, 2018, 03:38:21 PM
Granted it was a short-term change, but the net 0.2C cooling effect of clouds may be significant.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on March 06, 2018, 04:16:44 PM
I'm not too concerned with loss of aerosol masking but here's my 2 cents;

In science we want to duplicate results right?
So what other airplane grounding events do we know of besides 9-11?
Was the Iceland volcano grounding of similar scope and what was the temperature data involved?
Any other events where aerosol emitting industry was halted for a few days, airlines or other?
The oil crisis a few decades ago perhaps?
Interestingly enough this is the one thing we could easily test i believe, a nice task for the IPCC.
Repeat the situation of 9-11, maybe shut down some coal plants for a weekend or so as well....and just watch what happens to diurnal/nocturnal temperature.
According to the hypothesis we should see rapid warming as a result, and who cares if we shut industry down for a few days in light of the threatening situation....go on then IPCC!  ;D
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on March 06, 2018, 05:36:33 PM
I would like to point out a few misconceptions throughout this topic;

- Wildlife is not thriving in Tchernobyl despite radiaton.
The famous wolves there i. e. have already been shown to have health/reproductive problems.
Wolves travel thousands of kilometers and thrive where they are not killed in Europe, which is why they are successful in Germany, but not in France.
We have no idea how many are local in Tchernobyl and these are not stupid animals, study is near impossible and they would know it is safer from mankind there quickly.
Most positive result i saw was how voles appear to be making antioxydants that help cope with radiaton but it's all preliminary stuff, undesirable to begin with.
Remember cadavers disappear in nature anyway, we have no decent idea usually anywhere and we can't have it in Tchernobyl by a long shot...that is bullshit.

- Nuclear bomb testing can not be compared to reactors, dumps etc.
It was poorly studied and all of it moved underground after Tsar Bomba anyway but has a different signature, time span etc.

- Nuclear disaster as feared upon societal collapse can not be compared to accidents such as in Russia or Japan.
Those are being cooled/ encapsuled or whatever and are mere accidents compared to full meltdowns as described under societal collapse scenario.

- The amount of nuclear threats is much higher.
Unless i have been misinformed the 450 energy reactors + 1260 spent fuel dumps(?).
Not to mention every military and other industrial nuclear industry.
Submarines, tankers and so on.

- Societal collapse means many more industrial disasters.
Remember Bhopal and multiply by a few hundred thousand in the chemical industry alone.
Other leakages everywhere, pollution etc.

- You can not compare to previous extinction events at all and say: "Oh well, life always came back and humans included".
That is total denialist bullshit of the myriad of threats present now and not even historically accurate.
Humans/hominins and other species were wiped out and had nothing like our industrial society which is already responsible for mass extinction nr. 6.
They never even went through the 5 big ones anyway.

- Human/anthropocene influence on disastrous climate, overpopulation, pollution or extinction is a myth.
All of the above and more are witnessed in industrial society, not the agrarian or hunter-gatherers present or past.
We blame humans in general because we do not want to see our complicity as industrial cogs in the machine right now is all whereas non-industrial humans suffer none of these problems while being erased by us all the same.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Andre Koelewijn on March 06, 2018, 06:07:01 PM
Thanks, Forest Dweller.

The recent discussion boils down to the question: "Is there a spark imaginable that will cause the more or less simultaneous loss of control at 5 to 20 'nuclear locations'?"

If so, the rest of the story seems to be only a matter of time: other locations will follow, mass starvation will occur, and those surviving may last a number of generations, but extinction will follow.
If not, then life will likely become unpleasant for many, at some point mass starvation will occur as well, but by far most of the really dangerous stuff will likely be stored safely in time and a probably unhappy few (order of millions) will survive.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: johnm33 on March 06, 2018, 11:48:06 PM
"Is there a spark imaginable that will cause the more or less simultaneous loss of control at 5 to 20 'nuclear locations'?"
The day before the tsunami in Japan there was a news item that announced all the reactors in Japan were being shut down as fast as possible; somehow stuxnet had got into the isolated systems of the plants. I haven't been paying attention to it much lately [intersting times] but as far as i know they are not confident the systems have all been purged, and so mostly they're still in shut-down.
 So yes. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 07, 2018, 01:50:09 AM
"Is there a spark imaginable that will cause the more or less simultaneous loss of control at 5 to 20 'nuclear locations'?"
The day before the tsunami in Japan there was a news item that announced all the reactors in Japan were being shut down as fast as possible; somehow stuxnet had got into the isolated systems of the plants. I haven't been paying attention to it much lately [intersting times] but as far as i know they are not confident the systems have all been purged, and so mostly they're still in shut-down.
 So yes.
Stuxnet worked by destroying the centrifuges involved in the uranium enrichment processing.  Any speculation that it lead to the Fukushima meltdown (or caused the tsunami) is pure conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 07, 2018, 02:35:26 AM
I would like to point out a few misconceptions throughout this topic;
FD thank you for your detailed post. Much of the misconception in this thread has to do with timelines. Everything you wrote is of relevance, but could (and probably will) play out over several decades, let's say around the 2050 time frame - when continued human population growth coupled with carrying capacity issues and severe climate change all come together - rather than in the next 10 years or whatever.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 07, 2018, 03:25:48 AM
the collapse is coming, no denying that. I do agree tho that the timing is hard to figure right now, id say sooner than later.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: RikW on March 07, 2018, 09:07:16 AM
"Is there a spark imaginable that will cause the more or less simultaneous loss of control at 5 to 20 'nuclear locations'?"
The day before the tsunami in Japan there was a news item that announced all the reactors in Japan were being shut down as fast as possible; somehow stuxnet had got into the isolated systems of the plants. I haven't been paying attention to it much lately [intersting times] but as far as i know they are not confident the systems have all been purged, and so mostly they're still in shut-down.
 So yes.

And still they managed to shut them down.

Chances are very high that the earth will be very different from today in 100 years. I fear a large belt around the equator will be unlivable, so massive numbers of refugees. I won't be surprised if it will be several billions of refugees and that massive genocides will happen at borders to 'save' regions. I also won't be surprised if total disintegration of civilization will happen in large parts of the world, for example most or all of Africa. And that will likely trigger massive waste-problems with sudden disruption of service of energy plants/ industries, which will also lead to environmental disasters. But I don't expect that will lead to the extinction of the human race. The human race will survive.

Edit: In my opinion we have lost as humanity when our only solution is massive genocide, but I fear it will happen if we won't save the climate
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 07, 2018, 01:27:25 PM
"Is there a spark imaginable that will cause the more or less simultaneous loss of control at 5 to 20 'nuclear locations'?"
The day before the tsunami in Japan there was a news item that announced all the reactors in Japan were being shut down as fast as possible; somehow stuxnet had got into the isolated systems of the plants. I haven't been paying attention to it much lately [intersting times] but as far as i know they are not confident the systems have all been purged, and so mostly they're still in shut-down.
 So yes.

And still they managed to shut them down.

Chances are very high that the earth will be very different from today in 100 years. I fear a large belt around the equator will be unlivable, so massive numbers of refugees. I won't be surprised if it will be several billions of refugees and that massive genocides will happen at borders to 'save' regions. I also won't be surprised if total disintegration of civilization will happen in large parts of the world, for example most or all of Africa. And that will likely trigger massive waste-problems with sudden disruption of service of energy plants/ industries, which will also lead to environmental disasters. But I don't expect that will lead to the extinction of the human race. The human race will survive.

Edit: In my opinion we have lost as humanity when our only solution is massive genocide, but I fear it will happen if we won't save the climate

Curious as to why you feel that a belt around the equator will be unlivable.  To date, that has been that area experiences the least effects from any climate change.  What do you expect to change in the future?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: johnm33 on March 07, 2018, 02:49:04 PM
"And still they managed to shut them down" Well almost the three operational at the coastal Fukushima all went into meltdown, [full china]one of them wrecked it's housing and collapsed the spent fuel storage tanks faclility above the reactor. Who thought that was a good idea? Have you noticed the beautiful zirconium sunsets of recent years? No more than rumours of similar problems ar other sites, but my best guess would be that at least one other criticality will be announced 25-50 years down the road, it usually takes that long.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: RikW on March 07, 2018, 03:53:47 PM
"Is there a spark imaginable that will cause the more or less simultaneous loss of control at 5 to 20 'nuclear locations'?"
The day before the tsunami in Japan there was a news item that announced all the reactors in Japan were being shut down as fast as possible; somehow stuxnet had got into the isolated systems of the plants. I haven't been paying attention to it much lately [intersting times] but as far as i know they are not confident the systems have all been purged, and so mostly they're still in shut-down.
 So yes.

And still they managed to shut them down.

Chances are very high that the earth will be very different from today in 100 years. I fear a large belt around the equator will be unlivable, so massive numbers of refugees. I won't be surprised if it will be several billions of refugees and that massive genocides will happen at borders to 'save' regions. I also won't be surprised if total disintegration of civilization will happen in large parts of the world, for example most or all of Africa. And that will likely trigger massive waste-problems with sudden disruption of service of energy plants/ industries, which will also lead to environmental disasters. But I don't expect that will lead to the extinction of the human race. The human race will survive.

Edit: In my opinion we have lost as humanity when our only solution is massive genocide, but I fear it will happen if we won't save the climate

Curious as to why you feel that a belt around the equator will be unlivable.  To date, that has been that area experiences the least effects from any climate change.  What do you expect to change in the future?

Because of the wet bulb temperature. It's getting hotter everywhere, but the air is dry at some places or wet at other places. Around the equator it's hot and wet. But I'm probably making an error in my reasoning ;)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 07, 2018, 06:40:51 PM
The idea that 400+ nuclear reactors are going to melt down at once is just pure fantasy.  Most of the reactors operating today will have been shut down for economic reasons long before climate change impacts start reducing the human population (if that ever happens).  The fuel rods will have been cooled in temporary ponds and moved to longer term dry storage casks which can contain the spent rods for a century or more before needing to be replaced.  There wont be a lot of radiation leaking or Chernobyl/Fukushima events happening. 

Humans are the most adaptable species on the planet.   Climate change will cause disruptions and perhaps slow population growth when impacts above 1.5 C to 2 C (such as long term droughts wiping out a lot of crops) start happening, but even those events will take a long time to occur and people will adapt.  Although some people don't like GMO crops, they are being developed and will be used when the alternative is massive famines.  Drought resistance, heat tolerance, the ability to grow in areas where salt water intrusion occurs, are all things that can be bred into plants.  And people will eat less meat which will allow our crops to feed more people.

Yes, some coastal areas will flood due to rising sea levels later in this century, but people will just rebuild on higher ground.  Hurricanes like Maria and Katrina will cause devastation in their paths, but they're not extinction events.

I've yet to see anything from the doom and gloomers that leads me to believe we'll see large decreases in the human population, much less a collapse.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Martin Gisser on March 07, 2018, 07:12:28 PM
I've yet to see anything from the doom and gloomers that leads me to believe we'll see large decreases in the human population, much less a collapse.
Darfur, Somalia, Syria, Yemen. When ecocide and (sui)genocide go hand in hand and form a feedback loop of death and destruction. Just small examples, yet...

The Arab Spring riots were fuelled by rising prices of bread, after Russia stopped exporting due to drought and fires.

Problem is, people just can't starve peacefully.

For some optimistic counter examples from e.g. Ethiopia and Rwanda see John d Liu's films https://knaw.academia.edu/JohnDLiu
Let's hope the agricultural enlightenment he documents happens quick enough -  and does not get steamrolled by rapid climate disruption.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 07, 2018, 07:55:50 PM
I've yet to see anything from the doom and gloomers that leads me to believe we'll see large decreases in the human population, much less a collapse.
Darfur, Somalia, Syria, Yemen. When ecocide and (sui)genocide go hand in hand and form a feedback loop of death and destruction. Just small examples, yet...

The Arab Spring riots were fuelled by rising prices of bread, after Russia stopped exporting due to drought and fires.

Problem is, people just can't starve peacefully.

For some optimistic counter examples from e.g. Ethiopia and Rwanda see John d Liu's films https://knaw.academia.edu/JohnDLiu
Let's hope the agricultural enlightenment he documents happens quick enough -  and does not get steamrolled by rapid climate disruption.

All of the examples you site are situations that could've been avoided.  For example,
Quote
The Arab Spring riots were fuelled by rising prices of bread, after Russia stopped exporting due to drought and fires.
  Why did Russia stop exporting?  Why didn't some other country fill the need?  I don't think it was climate change.

In fact, the hypothesis that climate change will lead to more conflict is unproven.  The evidence currently doesn't support it:

Quote
It is true that impoverishment and human insecurity may arise as a result of climate change, if preventive measures are not undertaken. But there is missing evidence that global warming directly increases conflict. The temperature has risen in the last three decades, but the number of conflicts has significantly dropped since. A prominent study by scholars from the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, claims that “the causal chains suggested in the literature have so far rarely been substantiated with reliable evidence

Here's a link to the article that quote is from: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2017/01/20/does-climate-change-cause-conflict/ (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2017/01/20/does-climate-change-cause-conflict/)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 07, 2018, 08:01:09 PM
Seriously, what's with all the climate change deniers on this forum?  Aren't you people supposed to be over at Alex Jones's message boards?

There's a lot of very interesting responses in this thread, but the deniers (you know who you are) tend to say "I don't think, or that can never happen, or humans are invincible".

The baseline temp is wrong, we're at 1.5C over baseline, not 1 or 0.8 or whatever you're using.  1.5C.  Stick to the facts.  Baseline is PRE Industrial.  We're measuring changes that have occurred since industrialized civilization, not since some date ranges two centuries later. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 07, 2018, 08:17:04 PM
Seriously, what's with all the climate change deniers on this forum?  Aren't you people supposed to be over at Alex Jones's message boards?

There's a lot of very interesting responses in this thread, but the deniers (you know who you are) tend to say "I don't think, or that can never happen, or humans are invincible".
Kindly avoid the name calling please.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 07, 2018, 08:19:21 PM
That's an objective statement not name calling.  We're not talking politics here, we're discussing reality.    There's not two sides to this argument.  There's reality, then there's deniers who deny reality.

That's it.  This is a climate emergency, and we have people pretending that nothing is wrong.  Anyone that denies the emergency is denying reality. 

Typical, ignoring the argument and focusing on "rules".  Typical avoidance tactic.

It's the same as folks who can't quit smoking, even though they have cancer.  They'll argue that it's one of the other factors that is causing cancer, never not the cigarettes.  Cigarettes are fine, there's 100000 other way to get cancer, and it's probably one of those. LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE.  Couldn't possible be the pack of cigarettes they've been smoking for 30 year, NEVER.  It's that one time in college they drank too much, or all the year they spent breathing in smoke at work, or that one time they touched lead paint, this or that, etc etc. 

But no, not my precious cigarettes. Just replace cigarettes with addiction to fossil fuels, and cancer as the climate emergency caused by CO2 levels.


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 07, 2018, 08:35:57 PM

(https://www.munichre.com/site/topics-online/get/documents/mr/assets-topicsonline/2018/01/year-in-figures/NatCat_Grafiken_versicherte_1980_2017_en_979x551.png)


That graph deserves a second look in view of the discussions so far.

The first thing I notice is that disaster cost have a similar trend to global temperatures.  As global temperatures increase, disaster cost increase. More warming is expected. An increase in disaster cost are expected unless measures are taken to mitigate disaster loss that can beat the increasing entropy of the climate.

The other thing I notice is that even as disasters increase, insurance losses managed to increase at a much slower pace. The reason for this was clearly stated before. Insurance manage risk. When there is more risk, they make insurance more expensive or payouts more restrictive. They got it down to a science.

 That means that many disasters are already becoming uninsurable. Disasters costs will keep rising but insurance loses remain the same.

So who pays to rebuild if the insurance companies can't pay for everything? The government? In the case of the US they must pay with debt. So the disasters are getting more expensive and we are already paying for them with debt. Thats not sustainable.

Are people going to pay for something insurance companies are not willing to pay for? The answer is clear.


Harpy. prepare for more dissappointment becasue the same people that were claiming that climate change was fake a few years ago have already moved on to climate change is real but is nothing to worry about. 

I understand how you feel. I know with every fiber of my being that CHANCES are that climate change will be really bad. These people downplaying the risk are literally putting our lives, and our families in danger.

Yet we must treat them with respect. It really irks me too, but we are talking about dangers in the future (present for some) and we are trying to preserve civilization.You can't  preserve civilization  by being uncivilized.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: jai mitchell on March 07, 2018, 08:40:22 PM
Since we have already locked-in a warming of over 2.4C at today's greenhouse gas emissions this is what is likely to occur (note: http://nationalpost.com/news/world/scrubbing-aerosol-particles-from-the-atmosphere-a-faustian-bargain-study-finds )

1.  We will lose the arctic sea ice during summer minimum during the next 5 years
2.  We will work to reduce our emissions of CO2 but will also reduce our aerosols which will lead to an additional 1C of warming over land and 3.5C warming in the Arctic
3.  We will experience earlier zero sea ice and later refreeze with winter temperatures above freezing in the arctic circle on a regular basis
4. Massive shifts in northern hemisphere jet stream flows will cause massive droughts in the midwest and the south west united states, the amazon basin, congo and indonesia.
5. Large precipitation events in europe and the eastern united states will occur on scales not seen in recorded history
6.  heat waves will begin to affect key regions of Asia and the Middle east but especially including Pakistan and India.
7.  We will begin to experiment with global dimming as a geoengineering strategy. - with catastrophic impacts to the asian monsoon and further increasing western united states' drought.
8.  by 2045 we will see migrations and regional conflicts bloom with up to 1.5 billion people under direct threat.

No near-term human extinction possible in fact the term itself is fake to even consider.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 07, 2018, 08:46:24 PM
Harpy,
Just because disagrees with you, does not mean that they are denying reality.  An example is the temperature baseline which you are choosing.  It is from the coldest period in recent history, and not a true baseline.  Yes, the temperature has increased more since that date, but atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide did not start rising until almost a century later.  Given the choice between your "facts" and scientific data, I will choose the science any day. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 07, 2018, 09:01:44 PM
Seriously, what's with all the climate change deniers on this forum?  Aren't you people supposed to be over at Alex Jones's message boards?

There's a lot of very interesting responses in this thread, but the deniers (you know who you are) tend to say "I don't think, or that can never happen, or humans are invincible".

The baseline temp is wrong, we're at 1.5C over baseline, not 1 or 0.8 or whatever you're using.  1.5C.  Stick to the facts.  Baseline is PRE Industrial.  We're measuring changes that have occurred since industrialized civilization, not since some date ranges two centuries later.

I've argued with climate deniers on other forums and haven't seen any here.  What this argument we've been having is how soon the climate impacts are going to occur and how severe the impacts are going to be.

I've used scientific studies, the IPCC reports and observed facts to support my arguments that we're not heading to a near term human extinction or a collapse of human society.  If you disagree with these studies, find some peer-reviewed scientific studies that support your arguments and post them here. 

As to the temperature increase, the IPCC AR5 published in 2013 concluded:
Quote
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a
warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.
The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C,
based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}
The past 5 years have been warmer still, bring us up another 0.3 degrees (maybe slightly less when you consider the effects of the large El Nino we experienced in 2015-2016).  So we are at about 1 degree C warmer than preindustrial.  That's according to those deniers at NASA and the IPCC. ;D
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on March 07, 2018, 09:28:09 PM
Seriously, what's with all the climate change deniers on this forum?  Aren't you people supposed to be over at Alex Jones's message boards?

There's a lot of very interesting responses in this thread, but the deniers (you know who you are) etc etc etc .....................

I hate being shouted at. I hate being told who or what I am by somebody who knows diddly squat about me. And who is Alex Jones ?

For the first and last time:-
The argument is not about the reality of climate change. The argument (in the proper definition of the word) is about the severity and timing of AGW and the severity of consequences. Demanding aquiescence to your point of view is counterproductive and a right old turnoff.

End of message.
Over and out.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Gray-Wolf on March 07, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
I'm with You Gero!

Let us not forget the latest MetO release about the number of times 1.5 above preindustrial will be reached by 2022 and the early teens paper exploring the loss of Northern Permafrost ( when temps go beyond 1.5 above pre industrial?).

During the recent Nino we saw temp approach the 1.5 figure ( above it in the Feb?) so we are on our way , over the next 5 years, to a planet killer.

I'd also caution of the 'mounds' now across Yamal and the prospects of a warm,sunny summer this coming year ( courtesy of northern blocking aided by low solar).

Only 6 months away. Surely we can be patient only half a year longer?

Some of us have been at this over 25 years so aimlessly waiting another 6 months, after years of failing to muster support for measures to curb warming, is a trifle is it not?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: magnamentis on March 07, 2018, 10:17:14 PM
i know that the title is eye-catching and perhaps that's how it was meant to be :-)

i'm just proposing to consider to change the title into something like: thread to human population or thread for a significant drop in human population.

thing is that is see the tile and command-W it is :-) i'm sure i'm not the only one, while the topic as to which amount human race is threatened by events that could happen or have to be expected, is very interesting indeed.

there will be no human extinction due to global worming or total loss of sea-ice etc there are risks as to feeding and inundations etc. that could indeed reduce the number of humans living on planet earth.

if extinction will happen it would be indirectly, by events that could be triggered or boosted by climat change and it's effects.

i would gladly see this topic discussed further but without spending too much energy on explaining why extinction due to climate change won't happen within reasonable time and beyond that we simply can't see.

too much interaction and unkown feedbacks and/or their significance are part of the game.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 07, 2018, 10:23:44 PM
i know that the title is eye-catching and perhaps that's how it was meant to be :-)

i'm just proposing to consider to change the title into something like: thread to human population or thread for a significant drop in human population.

thing is that is see the tile and command-W it is :-) i'm sure i'm not the only one, while the topic as to which amount human race is threatened by events that could happen or have to be expected, is very interesting indeed.

there will be no human extinction due to global worming or total loss of sea-ice etc there are risks as to feeding and inundations etc. that could indeed reduce the number of humans living on planet earth.

if extinction will happen it would be indirectly, by events that could be triggered or boosted by climat change and it's effects.

i would gladly see this topic discussed further but without spending too much energy on explaining why extinction due to climate change won't happen within reasonable time and beyond that we simply can't see.

too much interaction and unkown feedbacks and/or their significance are part of the game.

What is this, now you're proposing to change the title of the subject because you disagree with the content of Dr. McPherson's message?  Because it's "shocking" so to speak? 

Near term human extinction is the subject being discussed, not human population reduction by a large degree.  That's not what Dr. McPherson proposes, he proposes near term human extinction.

 Dr. McPherson admits that there's going to be survivors in bunkers.

It's the analogy of the last Tasmanian tiger in the zoo - yes, Tasmanian tigers didn't technically go extinct until that last member finally died of unnatural causes in the zoo.  I've posted previously about my personal opinions about how long humans can reliably survive in isolated locations and in bunkers.

The subject seems appropriate considering that we're discussing and debating (hotly at times) the extinction of humans.  In my opinion, there are a couple of posts here that are basically stating  "humans have accomplished so much, and are not like other animals, therefore will be an exception" - that level of reasoning is not ideal, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on March 07, 2018, 10:32:10 PM

What is this, now you're trying to change the title of the subject because you disagree with the content of Dr. McPherson's message?

Near term human extinction is the subject being discussed, not human population reduction by a large degree.  That's not what Dr. McPherson proposes, he proposes near term human extinction.


Dr. McPherson, the fount of all wisdom.

What is the Yankee expression?

Ah, I remember. " Three strikes and you're out".  Goodbye.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 07, 2018, 10:34:09 PM

What is this, now you're trying to change the title of the subject because you disagree with the content of Dr. McPherson's message?

Near term human extinction is the subject being discussed, not human population reduction by a large degree.  That's not what Dr. McPherson proposes, he proposes near term human extinction.


Dr. McPherson, the fount of all wisdom.

What is the Yankee expression?

Ah, I remember. " Three strikes and you're out".  Goodbye.

I hate to say this, but this post seems off topic.  It also appears to be an ad hominem attack.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on March 07, 2018, 10:44:09 PM
mag said:

Quote
there will be no human extinction due to global worming

...but how about worm extinction due to global de-worming??  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 07, 2018, 11:40:49 PM

 Dr. McPherson admits that there's going to be survivors in bunkers.


There are going to be communities of humans in niche environments for the indefinite future regardless of how stupid we are and we are pretty stupid. There lives will be unrecognizable to anyone living in a developed country but they will exist.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: liefde on March 08, 2018, 12:09:12 AM
Only an crackpot would believe in 6K warming till 2028. But what am I saying, also only a crackpot would believe in extinction of the entire human race till 2030. My friend, get horror movies that do not falsely pretend factuality, there are good ones with better visual effects than a doomsday prophet who lost his marbles.
Do you still stand by this ridiculously optimistic view, plinius?

If a 76% decline of insects was observed in 27 years in German nature reserves, the ‘decline’ would reach 100% in 35.5 years (conservatively, ignoring ecosystem collapse feedbacks). Meaning *all* insects in these nature reserves could be gone by 2027. Oh, and plants are in decline too. These are all assuming linear decline rates, while all we observe is exponential rates of change. That’s not good for human survival prospects.

If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years, wouldn’t the remaining 40% also disappear in the coming 30 years? We’re not significantly changing that course of events, are we? And wouldn’t we, humans, then be part of those remaining 40%? If not: What bees do we expect pollinate our crops? Are we going to create sufficient artificial biospheres in time for it to actually function as a stable fake-earth, a replacement habitat? Do we know enough to get the details right? Where are we getting the resources and funding for that? Who gets to go inside that fake-earth when wet-bulb temperatures or radiation levels become too high? We can’t shut down all our nuclear facilities in time for it not to cause extinction level dosages worldwide, can we? There’s no miracle cure for thyroid cancer, or protection of the water-column against cesium-137 and iodine-131. So, you may well be able to hide and survive a little longer, but not more than a couple of years until the cancer kicks in.

We have built a life of growth and prosperity, with ridiculous energy usage patterns, based on finite (and soon-to-max-out) resources with no equal replacement in sight. This is uncharted territory, and the fact that generations have experienced the fossil-fueled upswing holds no predictive power over our future. Just because growth has been thematic does not mean it will always be there. The failure of most people to treat this possibility seriously is disheartening, because it prevents meaningful planning for a different future. We can all hope for new technologies to help us. But this problem is too big to rely on hope alone, and in any case, no practical technology can keep growth going indefinitely.

Let's, optimistically, assume we'll have a year round ice-free Arctic (ignoring Greenland) in 2024, which seems entirely plausible considering what the jet-streams seem to be doing lately. Do you have any idea what that will do to sub-sea permafrost?
It adds up. And, according to Semiletov and Shakhova:
"For the permafrost, the past three decades is not a huge period of time, because the processes, the consequences of which we are studying right now and have to deal with, started long long ago. This was triggered by natural warming associated with replacement of the cold climate epoch with the warm interglacial period and followed by permafrost inundation by sea water. Scientists agree that submerged permafrost would eventually start degrading, but how soon and at what pace this degradation would occur became the major point of disagreement between them.
It was suggested by some scientists that subsea permafrost would keep its integrity for millennia, which means that in the areas submerged less than 1000 years ago (as we investigated in our study) it should not have occurred yet. Our study proved that not only has it already occurred, but it has been progressing to higher rates, which have almost doubled since this degradation started.
It is most likely that we are now dealing with the consequences of when natural warming is enhanced with anthropogenic warming, and together they are accelerating the pace of natural processes. This appears to be continuing the processes of permafrost degradation at levels that we have never observed before."

You do realize that methane has 34 x the CO2 equivalent GWP over a 100 year span? We're already at 1840 ppb total column CH4. This used to never be higher than 800 ppb for the past 800000 years. This is a new IR bounce blanket trapping even more heat than CO2 and H2O are already doing.
Either way, assuming it takes about 2 years more before enough CH4 has left the clathrates and other frozen carbon storage locations to make enough of an impact, we could reach +4Celsius above baseline around ~2027. That's not going to bring equilibrium for cold spots anywhere on the planet. It basically means stormy warm moist weather everywhere, too little water in the ground and only artificially grown crops remaining. Trying to feed 8 billion humans is not going to work, in 2027.

References:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0185809
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_640529_en.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a6098/are-plants-around-the-world-really-dying/
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/lpr_2016/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/future-technology-cannot-rescue-mankind-climate-change-global-warming-a8187806.html
https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/mass-extinction-event-under-way-threatening-survival-of-human-race/
http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-decline

https://theecologist.org/2016/nov/18/debate-over-earths-sixth-great-extinction-has-arrived
https://un-denial.com/2017/11/28/on-winning-the-game/
https://medium.com/@FeunFooPermaKra/the-collapse-of-global-civilization-has-begun-b527c649754c
https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/brace-for-impact/
https://brooklynculturejammers.com/2018/02/25/extinction-news-blah-blah/
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Iceismylife on March 08, 2018, 12:09:39 AM
mag said:

Quote
there will be no human extinction due to global worming

...but how about worm extinction due to global de-worming??  ;D ;D
A bad apple joke came to mind...

But...

Cook off the methane in the permafrost and it could be a bit warm. But that wasn't the worm.

An economic crash could lead to the shut stoppage of food transport.  That would tend to interrupt cooling water flow.

If we shut down the reactors now...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: liefde on March 08, 2018, 12:26:39 AM
And, adding to all that: We have to consider the very real possibility that when shit starts hitting fans, lunatic 'leaders' with 'power' will want to go use nuclear weaponry, because they're going to assume, at some point, it doesn't matter much any longer. A lot of humans will respond with that state of mind. A nuclear winter will be the end of the groups trying to survive in bunkers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: sidd on March 08, 2018, 12:58:29 AM
" ... If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years,  ..."

Of the thirteen citations provided, which ones support this claim ?

sidd
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: harpy on March 08, 2018, 01:50:04 AM
" ... If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years,  ..."

Of the thirteen citations provided, which ones support this claim ?

sidd

https://imgur.com/a/Ko8M5

Edit:  Apparently the image doesn't work or isn't self explanatory.

Copy this sentence:   60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years

Paste into google search.  Press enter.

Considering how easy this was, I'm posting an equally low effort response to a low effort question.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: sidd on March 08, 2018, 02:03:30 AM
A picture from imgur ? Gee, now i'm convinced.

Not.

sidd
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 08, 2018, 04:31:45 AM
WWF says by 2020 2/3 of wildlife gone...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 08, 2018, 07:50:24 AM
WWF says by 2020 2/3 of wildlife gone...
It's better to quote sources.
Quote
More than two thirds of the world's wildlife could be gone by the end of the decade if action isn't taken soon, a new report from the World Wildlife Fund revealed on Thursday.

Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index.
If accurate, that means wildlife across the globe is vanishing at a rate of 2% a year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/index.html)
It's a very bad thing, but not necessarily leading to human extinction. To all the other posters affected by McPhearson et al, extinction is a very hard word, certainly near-term extinction. And I'm not talking about bunkers and stuff. It's enough that some tribes remain in some jungle for the species to survive. So I suggest to lay off with extinction, and focus on what actual science has to say.
We have bad enough problems as it is without running wild with unscientific exaggerations that may lead society to avoid the hard work of climate change mitigation and environmental rehabilitation, as "it is too late anyway".
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 08, 2018, 09:55:10 AM
WWF says by 2020 2/3 of wildlife gone...
It's better to quote sources.
Quote
More than two thirds of the world's wildlife could be gone by the end of the decade if action isn't taken soon, a new report from the World Wildlife Fund revealed on Thursday.

Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index.
If accurate, that means wildlife across the globe is vanishing at a rate of 2% a year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/index.html)
It's a very bad thing, but not necessarily leading to human extinction. To all the other posters affected by McPhearson et al, extinction is a very hard word, certainly near-term extinction. And I'm not talking about bunkers and stuff. It's enough that some tribes remain in some jungle for the species to survive. So I suggest to lay off with extinction, and focus on what actual science has to say.
We have bad enough problems as it is without running wild with unscientific exaggerations that may lead society to avoid the hard work of climate change mitigation and environmental rehabilitation, as "it is too late anyway".

I didnt quote the source because I knew someone would. Ok, no to human extinction. How about a 99% drop in population. Is that better? Cant have infinite growth on a finite planet. Systems fail, Civilzations collapse, species go extinct. We will go extinct.... when we go extinct..... Who knows. One thing for sure the way we live currently, its not working. And the planet is collapsing.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on March 08, 2018, 11:05:59 AM
Cant have infinite growth on a finite planet.
One thing for sure the way we live currently, its not working.
I agree.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: liefde on March 08, 2018, 11:24:04 AM
" ... If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years,  ..."

Of the thirteen citations provided, which ones support this claim ?
Are you seriously trying to pick that bit out to downplay the dangers?
It's not a "claim". And most likely an underestimate of the actual number.
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/custom/lpr2016/
This analysis looked at 3,700 different species of birds, fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles - about 6% of the total number of vertebrate species in the world.

"We're confident that the method we are using is the best method to present an overall estimate of population decline. It's entirely possible that species that aren't being monitored as effectively may be doing much worse - but I'd be very surprised if they were doing much better than we observed."

By the way, the normally warm North sea just suffered a hit: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/05/mass-die-off-of-sea-creatures-follows-freezing-uk-weather

And this site's death list, even though it's collected for religious tinfoil hat purposes, is all true as well: http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/animal-deaths-birds-fish-end-times.html
Extreme weather will take a lot of life and biodiversity down with it. Simply because it does not have enough time to migrate, move or adapt. And because its patterns are gone. Birds may migrate South during winter, only to find a polar vortex ruined their lunch.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on March 08, 2018, 04:10:38 PM
Thank you to several people for complimenting my post.
Extinction is here yesterday and we should know.
There is much talk about Mcpherson which i consider irrelevant.
He is or was not the first nor the last.

Here i research wildlife around me and estimate the loss at 70-80%.
The most annoying thing to me is how authorities brag about helping and improving it in midst of destruction.
Research is sabotaged.
Industrial Society destroys mind and environment.
It produces industrial technophiles in that way and i bust their dreams all the time.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 08, 2018, 04:29:14 PM
WWF says by 2020 2/3 of wildlife gone...
It's better to quote sources.
Quote
More than two thirds of the world's wildlife could be gone by the end of the decade if action isn't taken soon, a new report from the World Wildlife Fund revealed on Thursday.

Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index.
If accurate, that means wildlife across the globe is vanishing at a rate of 2% a year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-animals-disappear-report-wwf/index.html)
It's a very bad thing, but not necessarily leading to human extinction. To all the other posters affected by McPhearson et al, extinction is a very hard word, certainly near-term extinction. And I'm not talking about bunkers and stuff. It's enough that some tribes remain in some jungle for the species to survive. So I suggest to lay off with extinction, and focus on what actual science has to say.
We have bad enough problems as it is without running wild with unscientific exaggerations that may lead society to avoid the hard work of climate change mitigation and environmental rehabilitation, as "it is too late anyway".

Christine Dell'Amore wrote an in-depth analysis of the WWF report at National Geo.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-animals-wildlife-wwf-decline-science-world/

She noted that two years ago, WWF claimed a 28% reduction, using the same data.  What changed?  Recently, WWF re-calculated their index, giving more weight to reptiles, amphibians, and fish, and less to birds and mammals.  This gave greater weight to those species that were declining, and less weight to those that were increasing.  Nothing in nature changed, just their fiddling with the numbers.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: dnem on March 08, 2018, 05:25:19 PM
Recent paper on impact of removal of aerosols:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076079/full
Abstract

Limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2.0°C requires strong mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Concurrently, emissions of anthropogenic aerosols will decline, due to coemission with GHG, and measures to improve air quality. However, the combined climate effect of GHG and aerosol emissions over the industrial era is poorly constrained. Here we show the climate impacts from removing present-day anthropogenic aerosol emissions and compare them to the impacts from moderate GHG-dominated global warming. Removing aerosols induces a global mean surface heating of 0.5–1.1°C, and precipitation increase of 2.0–4.6%. Extreme weather indices also increase. We find a higher sensitivity of extreme events to aerosol reductions, per degree of surface warming, in particular over the major aerosol emission regions. Under near-term warming, we find that regional climate change will depend strongly on the balance between aerosol and GHG forcing.

Quotation from the Author in e360:
Samset: That’s what we tried to find out in the paper that came out earlier this year — we turned off all anthropogenic aerosol emissions from all over the world. So if you removed all our emissions today, then the world would rapidly — within a year or two — warm between a half of a degree and 1 degree Celsius additionally.


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 08, 2018, 06:11:33 PM
Quote
Nothing in nature changed, just their fiddling with the numbers.

You lie. Although the article you linked speaks about the nuances of the problem of calculating the number of species and their growth rate, the article is very clear that there is a mass extinction going on. 

The lie Daniel B. uses is very similar to the "NOAA fudged the data" lie.  It is a very effective lie. He uses the fact that this is a very complicated calculation with a lot of room for interpretation to cast doubt about the overarching claim. There is a mass extinction going on. That little bit of doubt gets multiplied in a scared audience who would cling to any beacon of hope that allows them to ignore the danger and continue their lives.

There is a mass extinction going on, and no reason to think that the trend will reverse. The globe is warming. The climate is changing. Humanity keeps expanding as if the world was infinite, like any other animal would.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: GeoffBeacon on March 08, 2018, 06:25:22 PM
I'm trying to write something on town planning and housing. I believe creating new ways of living is one of the few slim chances to avoid Near Term Human Extinction. The thread I started about a target for our individual carbon budgets didn't seem to take off so can I ask here if the following sounds reasonable.

Quote
The science isn’t exact but it is reasonable to say:

Quote
Humanity can emit about 100 tonnes CO2e per person before the Earth’s temperature rises 2°C above pre-industrial times. A rise of 2°C will cause changes in the natural environment but above 2°C there there will be much greater changes. These changes may see the deaths of billions of people and the extinction of many other species.

The exactness of this may be open to question but it's sure that if everyone in the world emitted 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over the next 50 years, the climate response would be terrible.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 08, 2018, 06:34:20 PM
Quote
Nothing in nature changed, just their fiddling with the numbers.

You lie. Although the article you linked speaks about the nuances of the problem of calculating the number of species and their growth rate, the article is very clear that there is a mass extinction going on. 

The lie Daniel B. uses is very similar to the "NOAA fudged the data" lie.  It is a very effective lie. He uses the fact that this is a very complicated calculation with a lot of room for interpretation to cast doubt about the overarching claim. There is a mass extinction going on. That little bit of doubt gets multiplied in a scared audience who would cling to any beacon of hope that allows them to ignore the danger and continue their lives.

There is a mass extinction going on, and no reason to think that the trend will reverse. The globe is warming. The climate is changing. Humanity keeps expanding as if the world was infinite, like any other animal would.

Seriously?  You do not like the results and cannot refute them, so you resort to calling them a "lie."  I suspect you have read neither the WWF report nor the National Geographic article.  Both will state that WWF changed their weighting formula.  Yes, their is a major loss of animal life, possibly to the point of extinction.  However, it was mostly among reptiles, amphibians, and fish.  The only way to include birds and mammals was to change the calculations to overweight the declining species.  Your tactics may fool the uninformed, but not the scientific community.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Avalonian on March 08, 2018, 07:04:59 PM
I see little problem with the WWF's methodology that reached the higher figure. The previous analysis was over-representing birds and mammals, because those are the groups for which we have the most complete data, for a higher proportion of species. They are also the groups with the most effective conservation and protection programmes, and unsurprisngly are doing much better than the less-represented groups. As a result, the first results were biased towards low declines.

The figure they're trying to give is the decline in all vertebrates. You can't accurately estimate that figure based on a biased subset, and therefore they've tried to allow for the biases by weighting the data towards the less-known (but very diverse) groups, extrapolating from data that are available. You can question how much use the figure is, given that vertebrates are so hetergoeneous, but the approach seems to be sound as long as they've got their sums roughly right.

 Personally, I'd have preferred to see the figures by group, rather than trying to lump everything together... but the media like soundbites.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 08, 2018, 08:06:27 PM
I see little problem with the WWF's methodology that reached the higher figure. The previous analysis was over-representing birds and mammals, because those are the groups for which we have the most complete data, for a higher proportion of species. They are also the groups with the most effective conservation and protection programmes, and unsurprisngly are doing much better than the less-represented groups. As a result, the first results were biased towards low declines.

The figure they're trying to give is the decline in all vertebrates. You can't accurately estimate that figure based on a biased subset, and therefore they've tried to allow for the biases by weighting the data towards the less-known (but very diverse) groups, extrapolating from data that are available. You can question how much use the figure is, given that vertebrates are so hetergoeneous, but the approach seems to be sound as long as they've got their sums roughly right.

 Personally, I'd have preferred to see the figures by group, rather than trying to lump everything together... but the media like soundbites.

I agree.  They really should have been more specific in reporting their results.  Instead of stating that global populations of all the groups has declined by 58%, they should more accurately report which populations are in decline.  For instance, they grouped all land animals into a terrestrial living planet index (TLPI), which showed a 38% decline.  Habitat loss and overexploitation have account for over 75% of the decline.  The freshwater living planet index showed the greatest decline at 81%.  Their marine living planet index showed a 38% decline, all of which occurred prior to 1990.  Also lacking is the bottoming out of many indices around he turn of the century.  Tropical forest life index has increased since they bottomed out in 2000, Grasslands have increased since their bottom in 2002, wetlands in 2003, and rivers in 2002. 

Yes, the soundbite sounds good, but how accurate is it to lump all species on this planet into one conveniently calculated index?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 08, 2018, 09:07:01 PM
The claim was:

Quote
Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index.
If accurate, that means wildlife across the globe is vanishing at a rate of 2% a year.

The evidence for the claim:

http://www.livingplanetindex.org/projects?main_page_project=LivingPlanetReport&home_flag=1


The overall decline? 58% as claimed

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livingplanetindex.org%2Fassets%2Fcms%2Fimages%2FFigure_02_The_Global_Living_Planet_Index-279.png&hash=65539686c6c77df2f9ca9973357f43f6)

The breakdown.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livingplanetindex.org%2Fassets%2Fcms%2Fimages%2Fsystems-280.png&hash=08ecc33a5f171cb2d7368b490d28d52a)




Now lets take the context. The initial claim is true,with nuances, like always. Daniel B. goes in a rant discrediting the number in a way that seeded the most doubt posible without outright dismissing it. He of course can't outright dismiss the evidence because it will be illogical to most, but by smearing it's reputation he takes legitimacy from the initial claim, which was correct.

Then after a strong refusal he back tracks. His first argument was:

Quote
Nothing in nature changed, just their fiddling with the numbers.

Then he changed his argument, admitted to the scope of the situation to gain credibility so that his next claim gains credibility:

Quote
Your tactics may fool the uninformed, but not the scientific community.

Sadly, this last statement is true. Most scientists, like any sane human would, go into denial when they read this info. They tell themselves all kinds of fallacies to not accept this scary reality and substitute it for fake but comfortable skepticism.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on March 08, 2018, 10:29:16 PM
Please do not apply your tactics to my post.  If you think that demanding truth and accuracy is a rant, then sobe it.  I will not encourage sensationalism.  As stated previously, they arrived at their figures by changing the weighting of their numbers, without posting their methodology.  Extrapolating into the future based on a two-point line is highly illogical.  Personally, I tend to agree with the scientists at the National Geographic over those at WWF, based on past history. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on March 08, 2018, 10:39:40 PM
They are saying the same thing.

I'm not being sensationalist. I'm being realist. The problem is that the reality is so bizarre and scary that your psychological defenses go up and substitutes scary reality for comfortable but fake skepticism.  It is actually a real scientific problem.  If we don't solve it in time we'll have to adapt to climate change without preparation, like the rest of the animals.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: magnamentis on March 08, 2018, 10:47:15 PM

What is this, now you're proposing to change the title of the subject because you disagree with the content of Dr. McPherson's message?  Because it's "shocking" so to speak? 

Near term human extinction is the subject being discussed, not human population reduction by a large degree.  That's not what Dr. McPherson proposes, he proposes near term human extinction.

 Dr. McPherson admits that there's going to be survivors in bunkers.

It's the analogy of the last Tasmanian tiger in the zoo - yes, Tasmanian tigers didn't technically go extinct until that last member finally died of unnatural causes in the zoo.  I've posted previously about my personal opinions about how long humans can reliably survive in isolated locations and in bunkers.

The subject seems appropriate considering that we're discussing and debating (hotly at times) the extinction of humans.  In my opinion, there are a couple of posts here that are basically stating  "humans have accomplished so much, and are not like other animals, therefore will be an exception" - that level of reasoning is not ideal, in my opinion.

you may do as you like, it was a friendly proposal to open an important topic to more users.

there won't be human extinction du to the general topic of this forum and if the owner of the thread tells me no i'm totally fine. suggestions are just that, suggestions and they can be considered or not.

i for my part, which is not expected to be mutual understanding, do not like to discuss illusions and/or any other things that will not happen the way they're advertised. it's inefficient, blowing time and energy into the void and leads to arguments, mostly due lack of "good and consistent arguments"

since you're already driving another one of your various aggressive fallouts (by tone) i suggest that you watch your tone by keeping your anger in check, another suggestion that won't be followed up.

cheers


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on March 09, 2018, 05:50:25 AM
https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on April 26, 2018, 09:53:02 AM
This guy makes you think - especially because he bases what he says on data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention


'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention
By Patrick Barkham
The 86-year-old social scientist says accepting the impending end of most life on Earth might be the very thing needed to help us prolong it

Quote
“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.”

Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.

From Malthus to the Millennium Bug, apocalyptic thinking has a poor track record. But when it issues from Hillman, it may be worth paying attention. Over nearly 60 years, his research has used factual data to challenge policymakers’ conventional wisdom.


I recommend it as worth a read.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on April 26, 2018, 02:02:02 PM
I see he has changed his view from "How we can save the planet," to "We're doomed."
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Archimid on April 26, 2018, 02:15:12 PM
I see he has changed his view from "How we can save the planet," to "We're doomed."

And while we keep hiding our heads in the sand, we will be doomed. Only by facing climate change head on can we escape certain doom.  We need to stop CO2 emissions, remove CO2, geoengineer,  and mitigate as much as possible. Because of climate change denial, reducing emissions is no longer enough. It's too late to avoid considerable damage. It isn't too late to save our way of life.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on April 26, 2018, 02:27:11 PM
I've read it, and he is not really wrong unfortunately. The only unknown is the timing. Human civilization is doomed and the tragedy of the commons prevents meaningful action. (Note: this is not human extinction.)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on April 26, 2018, 02:38:15 PM


Because of climate change denial, reducing emissions is no longer enough.

[/quote]

Actually, there is not much climate change denial around the globe except for the USA. Why this is so is a mystery to me as the science is quite solid.

The question is not about denial but about action. Global, coordinated incentives are needed and as I see the Americans are the main obstacle to that...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: CalamityCountdown on April 26, 2018, 06:20:57 PM
It's depressing to look at the issues that US voters consider most important. The attachment is from a March poll of U.S. Democrat voters indicating the issues they would like to be prioritized.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/5/17070920/democrats-president-congress-priorities-health-care-immigration-guns-climate-change-poll-survey

And although this poll is among Democrats, it suggests that Republican politicians can continue to appeal to their base with climate denialism without much concern that it will cost them votes. And even for Democrat politicians, focusing on climate change probably does not need to be core aspect of their platform.

But I have to admit that my own behavior is part of the problem. I've greatly reduced my posting of climate alarmist news to my social media accounts, as my friends apparently to want to see kitten video's, and seemingly have little interest in any sort of issue oriented posts.


Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 26, 2018, 07:29:32 PM
I see he has changed his view from "How we can save the planet," to "We're doomed."

And while we keep hiding our heads in the sand, we will be doomed. Only by facing climate change head on can we escape certain doom.  We need to stop CO2 emissions, remove CO2, geoengineer,  and mitigate as much as possible. Because of climate change denial, reducing emissions is no longer enough. It's too late to avoid considerable damage. It isn't too late to save our way of life.

Not only is it too late to save our way of life, it is essential that we alter our way of life if we want to eliminate CO2 emissions and prevent further damage that is not yet baked in. It is this "changing our way of life" that is getting in the way of addressing the problem.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on May 18, 2018, 05:26:33 PM
The simple fact is that we are too vain and stupid to learn from good examples staring us in the face.
Hunter-gatherers live sustainable for millions of years already.
Agrarian society causes damage since about 12,000 years.
Industrial society wipes out most everything in just about 100 years only.
Let's pin our hopes on "smarter" industry many say...vain and stupid.
All the smart industry of yesterday is destroying us today.

Infinite growth, population increase etc has little to do with our dilemmas.
Every living being is biologically programmed to reproduce, it is the greatest natural force in the world, always was.
Industrial society is the greatest destructive force in the world ever, destroying everything that was built up in millions of years at lightning speed.
The lesson is with the hunter-gatherers clearly.

And because i know all the clichés and false assumptions usually replied with i will tackle some already;

- "But without industrial society we would only live to 35 years old!"

Nonsense, with only a handful of prehistoric human remains they are already dated to 60+ years old.
And when those hunter-gatherers of today are forced out of their habitat we see very old people, tough as nails.

- "You are propagating the Noble Savage theory!"

Nonsense, never heard of it and it sounds pretty stupid. These are simple facts for al to see.

- "But you would have us all living in caves and chucking spears half naked!"

Rubbish, learning from your neighbors does not mean copying them like parrots.
When your garden is all dead and your neighbor's garden is thriving with luscious crops do you try to become your neighbor?
Or do you ask him for growing tips?

- "But those guys don't even have modern medicine and die from diseases!"

So what?
Industrial society has way more suffering and disease, and it's medicine is still largely based on traditional knowledge to begin with anyway.
All beings on Earth have disease, predation, disaster, violence...natural selection which was abandoned by our society.
It only added more problems.

- "But you are a HYPOCRITE Forest because you are writing on a laptop which is an industrial product!"

No shit hey?
People born into industrial society can't escape it's dominance 100% for it is a slave chain and you would end up in jail or dead.
I only managed to discard 80% of industrial participation and footprint personally.
I use a hand me down laptop and fridge and even a Philishave!
I have a 20 year old tv that makes peoples faces purple too!
Shoot me!

So what can one learn from hunter-gatherers?
What is it they do?
It is what they don't do one can learn from, and that would be a million things we think we need to do to our own demise.
They focus on food/water/shelter, a few basic necessities, a song and a dance...pretty damned simple.

To suggest that some of those "primitive" people will survive to restore mankind while 99% of other people kill themselves is ridiculous.
We have already killed 99% of them and the few remaining will be affected like anybody else.

To suggest that life has survived previous mass extinctions, and therefore will again is ridiculous.
What stares us in the face this time is disastrous climate+societal collapse+thousands of nuclear disasters+ hundreds of thousands of chemical disasters, pollution and possibly indeed resulting in nuclear war on top.
Industrial legacy...mankind will go extinct and possibly all life.
And it will indeed be quite 'near term".
Everything is near term in industrial society except that second planet for humanity to mess up as we do this one.
Too bad for Elon Musk who is clearly as insane as he is intelligent....industrial moron  ;D



Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: CDN_dude on May 18, 2018, 05:54:55 PM
Forest Dweller, I'm glad to see your post because it touches on a lot of my own feelings. When I look at the graph of CO2 and see the spike starting in the Industrial Revolution, it's impossible for me to conclude anything other than that this entire era has been one enormous historical error. One way to correct it would be for our Western societies to admit that we have made a mistake. This would involve admitting that the Indigenous peoples we displaced here in North America were right all along however, making it unlikely such a recognition of our error will ever take place at the deep level it needs to in order for our practices to truly change. The lack of recognition of how deep the errors in our thinking go leads to things like sustainable development, the have cake and eat it approach. We need a philosophical revolution similar to the Enlightenment, which will lead to a new ethic that values nature. Changes in practices can only follow from a change in thinking, and we are still not there yet despite everything you hear.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on May 18, 2018, 07:03:17 PM
Well thanks CDN_dude.
It is not just the CO2 graph that shows exponential increase since the industrial dominance.
(which is different from the date of industrial revolution)
It is nearly all graphs, methane, population, pollution, extinction rate and so on.

Industrial society is rooted in agrarian society or civilization as many have described.
So the problems go back further, but industrial society ramped them up exponentially.
The native Americans are not a good example in my opinion therefore.
They were often agrarian, and managing their own destruction as well as that of others.
They managed the plains, the animals like buffalo as well not as part of nature but as masters.
The civilizations of the mound builders, Maya etc all destroyed themselves.
What was left returned to hunter-gathering and living in nature usually.

The North Sentinelese are a good example of hunter-gatherer sustainable life.
60,000 years on an island only a few miles in size, and no problems at all.
Or the Clovis/pre-Clovis ancestors of the Native Americans if you like.

I don't think the point is valuing nature, all societies do that but not all destroy it exponentially by thinking they are better...Shell Oil Company values nature.
Enlightened philosophy, sustainable development...new thinking...
No offense but that is missing the point Imho.

The point i made is much simpler.
Sushil Yadav makes the same point and is worth a read in case you are interested.
He is very boring and repetitive haha!
Simple logic and pretty much faultless though;
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2915

Whatever we try hardly matters though anymore, too darn late mate but it is good to learn regardless.
Have a great weekend.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sebastian Jones on May 19, 2018, 05:39:50 AM
There is not much of a data base to use to learn from societies that have persisted for thousands of years (I'll have to check the North Sentinelese). I certainly would not characterize pre-Clovis North Americans as particularly sustainable- look what they did to the mega fauna in the Americas. There are examples of North American societies that did achieve a form of equilibrium later on, and some of these were still functioning into the 20th century. I cannot state this for a certainty, call it a hypothesis if you will, but I suspect that extreme conservatism- an antagonism to innovation- is key to not upsetting the ecological balance. It is as if ideas, inventions, are akin to invasive species in their effects. Which really saddens me, because one of the most delightful attributes of humanity is our curiosity and inventiveness. Perhaps we need to channel our creativity into the arts instead the sciences....
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on May 19, 2018, 10:54:25 AM
Just a quick correction for accuracy: hunter-gatherer societies existed for tens of thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands though I very much doubt that, but certainly not millions of years.
And the main solution to all these troubles, rather than living half naked in caves and killing each other to advance natural selection, is to sharply limit reproduction to achieve a deep and prolonged decline of human population. Then we can all live in high rise luxury condominiums with a relatively small effect on the environment.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: dnem on May 19, 2018, 01:43:05 PM
When I read Forest Dweller's post this morning, I knew someone would chime in with "but look what [early humans] did to the mega-fauna."  True enough.  I think it makes a nice analogy to our fossil fueled age.  When ANY species comes across packets of densely stored energy, whether it's a copepod and it's a big spring algal bloom or a spear-chucking hominid chasing a mastodon, it's going to exploit it and convert that energy into its species' success.  That's just how the game of life works.  But grazing down a spring bloom, or decimating the mega-fauna is not a planet killing event.

For better or worse, and it sure looks like worse, OUR species stumbled upon 100s of millions of years of densely stored solar energy and we've been busily converting that energy into our massive, hugely over-large global industrial society over a period of just a century or two.  And that leaves us with a wicked dilemma: continuing to power industrial society on fossil fuels is a path to global ecocide.  Trying to power it up (much less still grow it!) on "renewables" before too much damage is done looks highly unlikely.  That leaves a third path: greatly wind down the human enterprise.  Peak everything needs to happen fast, or we're in for a world of hurt.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 19, 2018, 04:03:33 PM
With all of the wonderful inventions of the past 300 years, humanity has the ability to achieve a sustainable equilibrium of sorts with a carrying population that is likely higher than the earth's population at the dawn of the industrial age (It was about 1 billion then). This sustainable equilibrium will not look like the hunter gatherer sort but it will not threaten the ultimate destruction of the living ecosystem.

I think 2-3 billion might be manageable with a rapid adoption of those inventions that reduce our impact on the planet. If we fail to do this, the planet will use its own means to winnow the human population and it will be really ugly.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on May 26, 2018, 02:37:02 PM
Just a quick correction for accuracy: hunter-gatherer societies existed for tens of thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands though I very much doubt that, but certainly not millions of years.
And the main solution to all these troubles, rather than living half naked in caves and killing each other to advance natural selection, is to sharply limit reproduction to achieve a deep and prolonged decline of human population. Then we can all live in high rise luxury condominiums with a relatively small effect on the environment.

That depends on how you look at it oren.
If we define hunter-gatherers as non humans as well, then billions of years of history would be accurate.
If we define them as hominids then millions of years.
If we look at Homo sapiens alone then the latest dating from Morocco is 300,000 years.
(in dispute of course, but the dates are only being pushed back further with every find)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on May 26, 2018, 03:17:23 PM
There is not much of a data base to use to learn from societies that have persisted for thousands of years (I'll have to check the North Sentinelese). I certainly would not characterize pre-Clovis North Americans as particularly sustainable- look what they did to the mega fauna in the Americas. There are examples of North American societies that did achieve a form of equilibrium later on, and some of these were still functioning into the 20th century. I cannot state this for a certainty, call it a hypothesis if you will, but I suspect that extreme conservatism- an antagonism to innovation- is key to not upsetting the ecological balance. It is as if ideas, inventions, are akin to invasive species in their effects. Which really saddens me, because one of the most delightful attributes of humanity is our curiosity and inventiveness. Perhaps we need to channel our creativity into the arts instead the sciences....


I don't think the so called mega fauna extinction by human hunter-gatherer migration into North America, or Australia is a proven fact.
The usual argument to counter that hypothesis is something like this;
'Imagine a population of bushmen or pygmies in Africa wiping out all the elephants, giraffes, rhino, wildebeest etc'

And that is a pretty good argument while we see those very species declining by civilization and industrial means.
Predator/prey relationships in nature are pretty well balanced.
And yeah, those early humans should have left us some written history...lazy bastards ha  ;D
Now all we have is some cave art showing...many big animals.
The geometric signs are the real mystery...

curiosity and inventiveness i don't think is a human trait alone.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on May 26, 2018, 03:28:15 PM
"'Imagine a population of bushmen or pygmies in Africa wiping out all the elephants, giraffes, rhino, wildebeest etc'"

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you're saying here, but one argument about why that didn't happen is that those animals co-evolved with humans and so learned to avoid them.

See the book "Why Big, Fierce Animals Are Rare," among others.

But yeah, the transition from glaciation into the current inter- (?) -glacial likely played some role in at least some of the extinctions.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on May 26, 2018, 04:05:54 PM
Then we can all live in high rise luxury condominiums with a relatively small effect on the environment.

Who the hell wants to live in a high rise condo??? I prefer my house by the forest, surrounded by all sorts of fruit trees, flowers and veggies
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on May 27, 2018, 08:24:34 AM
Then we can all live in high rise luxury condominiums with a relatively small effect on the environment.

Who the hell wants to live in a high rise condo??? I prefer my house by the forest, surrounded by all sorts of fruit trees, flowers and veggies
To each his own. Some prefer that, some the other. But I'm saying we could, not that we should.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on May 27, 2018, 08:49:46 AM
Actually I do agree with you, that humanity should aim (in the longer term) for max 1-2 bln people. We could live in the best places for human existence and left the rest for Mother Nature...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on May 27, 2018, 10:58:42 AM
Actually I do agree with you, that humanity should aim (in the longer term) for max 1-2 bln people. We could live in the best places for human existence and left the rest for Mother Nature...

That sure would be nice!
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on May 27, 2018, 02:19:22 PM
"'Imagine a population of bushmen or pygmies in Africa wiping out all the elephants, giraffes, rhino, wildebeest etc'"

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you're saying here, but one argument about why that didn't happen is that those animals co-evolved with humans and so learned to avoid them.

See the book "Why Big, Fierce Animals Are Rare," among others.

But yeah, the transition from glaciation into the current inter- (?) -glacial likely played some role in at least some of the extinctions.

It's just a pretty decent argument how hunter-gatherers arriving somewhere would not necessarily be able to wipe out so many species.
37 species in North America for instance...that is a lot and it includes not only prey species but also predators such as big cats.
Who knows indeed, there may well be other factors involved that combined at least.
One theory speculates on an impact from space, leaving no crater by striking the ice sheets.
Another plausible argument against mega fauna extinction by primitive mankind is that it did not occur everywhere they migrated.
Not in Asia, Africa etc...a combination of events is hard to recognize of course wherever and we really don't have much information.
I can see your point as well about there being a surprise effect outside of Africa where humans and animals co-evolved more.
Animals adapt pretty quickly as well though...it's well studied how prey species quickly learn when a reïntroduction or rewilding of long lost predators occurs somewhere.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on May 27, 2018, 11:38:57 PM
"...hunter-gatherers arriving somewhere would not necessarily be able to wipe out so many species."

That's basically an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

We know that the relatively recent migration of humans into the Pacific islands lead to massive extinctions. Why do you find it so incredible that the same could happen on the American continent at an earlier period?

The human predator is not like others. They/we can plan ahead and carefully coordinate attacks. We don't seem or smell or look like other predators...no big teeth or razor sharp talons...

And it doesn't have to be humans that actually kill the very last member of a species for us to effectively drive them extinct. Group behaviors of many species means that greatly reduced numbers in any given area will lead to their inevitable demise in that region.

But I do assume that the actual reality was likely much more complex than any simple construct we are likely to come up with, from whatever side of the issue.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Paladiea on May 31, 2018, 02:45:21 PM
Sorry to interject, but I can't have been the only one to catch the paper on the large scale hypoxia of our oceans, can I?

You can catch the paper here http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Paladiea on May 31, 2018, 02:54:18 PM
Also, I came across a mechanism that would result in human extinction in the near term:

I'll summarize;

Step 1: The planet warms too fast for oxygen producers to adapt.

Step 2: Oxygen producers start dying en masse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/)
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-shows-oceanic-phytoplankton-declines-in-northern-hemisphere (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-shows-oceanic-phytoplankton-declines-in-northern-hemisphere)

Step 3: The oceans start becoming anoxic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21399 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21399)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240)
https://serc.si.edu/media/press-release/ocean-losing-its-breath-heres-global-scope (https://serc.si.edu/media/press-release/ocean-losing-its-breath-heres-global-scope)

Step 4: When the oceans go anoxic, anaerobic bacteria will flood the atmosphere with toxic and corrosive hydrogen sulphide, killing every human and most oxygen breathers on Earth.
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/33/5/397/29629/massive-release-of-hydrogen-sulfide-to-the-surface?redirectedFrom=fulltext (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/33/5/397/29629/massive-release-of-hydrogen-sulfide-to-the-surface?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2015/december/global-warming-disaster-could-suffocate-life-on-planet-earth-research-shows (https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2015/december/global-warming-disaster-could-suffocate-life-on-planet-earth-research-shows)
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Paladiea on May 31, 2018, 05:16:47 PM
Well considering that this is the same mechanism that occurred during the Permian-Triassic, and one of the papers I linked to gave a timeline of as soon as 2100, I'm a bit confused at your dismissal.

The last paper I read about concerning widespread ocean oxygen loss stated that we wouldn't be seeing large areas of hypoxia till the mid 2030s...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GB005310 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GB005310)

Yet that's exactly what we're seeing today.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: CDN_dude on May 31, 2018, 08:21:43 PM
Paladiea, you might find Jeremy Jackson, of the Scripps Institute, an interesting speaker on these kinds of topics to do with the health of the oceans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fRPiNcikOU
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: aperson on May 31, 2018, 11:05:08 PM
It's a bit presumptive to expect that if we created PT atmospheric conditions we would get the same outcome. The layout of the Earth was drastically different in the end-Permian with a much larger extent of shallow water shelfs which changes how organic matter dies, sinks, and deposits along the sea floor. After the PT, we have also seen fundamental changes in ocean chemistry and large groups of organisms, like diatoms, that would change outcomes.

Also, as far as I am aware, there is still significant uncertainty as to what extent the oceans were anoxic+sulfidic rather than anoxic+ferruginous in the PT extinction.

All that being said, I think it is one of the best analogue events to the forcing that we are creating today.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on June 03, 2018, 09:35:27 AM
‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.’

I do not believe humans will become extinct in the near term, "near term" defined in my head as 2100.
I do believe that in the 21st Century life for most humans will become increasingly a case of "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". from "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes. See below

The cult of personal freedom and resistance to laws and regulations designed to protect our species will ensure that (and might even stop most CO2 emissions). A recent example :-

a) The risks are identified:-
Antibiotic resistance could spell end of modern medicine, says chief medic
Prof Dame Sally Davies says action is needed around the world to tackle ‘hidden’ problem that is already claiming lives

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/13/antibiotic-resistance-could-spell-end-of-modern-medicine-says-chief-medic

World Economic Forum 2013 - Antimicrobial Resistance
Quote
In the 2013 Global Risks Report, a chapter entitled “The Dangers of Hubris on Human Health” warned about the growing risks associated with complacency towards antimicrobial resistance (AMR). It highlighted two underlying drivers: the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, in both human health systems and livestock management; and the fact that no new classes of antibiotics had been invented since the 1980s. The chapter noted newly emerging resistance to the strongest class of antibiotics, carbapenems. It cited estimates of 100,000 AMR-related deaths in US hospitals and 80,000 in China. The potential economic impact was put at 0.4% to 1.6% of GDP.

and the scale of the problem quantified:-
Huge levels of antibiotic use in US farming revealed
Concerns raised over weakened regulations on imports in potential post-Brexit trade deals

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/08/huge-levels-of-antibiotic-use-in-us-farming-revealed

and the response by the EU (under pressure) is to abandon any effective response.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/01/antibiotic-apocalypse-eu-scraps-plans-to-tackle-drug-pollution-despite-fears-of-rising-resistance
Antibiotic apocalypse: EU scraps plans to tackle drug pollution, despite fears of rising resistance
Leaked documents reveal discarded proposals to ward off antibiotic resistance through closer scrutiny of drug firms

Quote
The EU has scrapped plans for a clampdown on pharmaceutical pollution that contributes to the spread of deadly superbugs.

Plans to monitor farm and pharmaceutical companies, to add environmental standards to EU medical product rules and to oblige environmental risk assessments for drugs used by humans have all been discarded, leaked documents seen by the Guardian reveal.

An estimated 700,000 people die every year from antimicrobial resistance, partly due to drug-resistant bacteria created by the overuse, misuse and dumping of antibiotics.

The UK’s chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has warned that failing to act could lead to a post-antibiotic apocalypse, spelling “the end of modern medicine” as routine infections defy effective treatment.

Some studies predict that antimicrobial resistance could cost $100tn (£75tn) between now and 2050, with the annual death toll reaching 10 million over that period.

If people think that fixing CO2 emissions means "job done" they really are living in a fool's paradise.
_________________________________________________
Quote
Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588 to a clergyman and his wife in Wiltshire, and later went to Oxford for his education. In 1651, he wrote a famous book titled Leviathan, in which he expressed his views about the nature of human beings and the necessity of governments and societies.

Hobbes, like Machiavelli, had a low view of human beings. We are all basically selfish, driven by fear of death and the hope of personal gain, he believed. All of us seek power over others, whether we realize this or not. If you don’t accept Hobbes’ picture of humanity, why do you lock the door when you leave your house? Surely it’s because you know that there are many people out there who would happily steal everything you own? But, you might argue, only some people are that selfish. Hobbes disagreed. He thought that at heart we all are, and that it is only the rule of law and the threat of punishment that keep us in check.

The consequence of this, he argued, was that if society broke down and you had to live in what he called ‘a state of nature’, without laws or anyone with the power to back them up, you, like everyone else, would steal and murder when necessary. At least, you’d have to do that if you wanted to carry on living. In a world of scarce resources, particularly if you were struggling to find food and water to survive, it could actually be rational to kill other people before they killed you. In Hobbes’ memorable description, life outside society would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.’

But Hobbes’ theory did not end there: he wanted to find a way out of such an undesirable situation.

‘The solution, Hobbes argued, was to put some powerful individual or parliament in charge. The individuals in the state of nature would have to enter into a ‘social contract’, an agreement to give up some of their dangerous freedoms for the sake of safety. Without what he called a ‘sovereign’, life would be a kind of hell. This sovereign would be given the right to inflict severe punishment on anyone who stepped out of line. […] Laws are no good if there isn’t someone or something strong enough to make everyone follow them.’
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on June 03, 2018, 09:52:03 AM
Thank you gerontocrat. Sad but true.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sleepy on June 03, 2018, 11:12:44 AM
If people think that fixing CO2 emissions means "job done" they really are living in a fool's paradise.
Most still do. The real Paradise was hauled away a long time ago, a great song though.
https://youtu.be/DEy6EuZp9IY
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on June 03, 2018, 05:32:06 PM
While nature's methods for addressing imbalances can be cruel (pestilence, disease, starvation), it is this ruthless behavior that is the source of my optimism about the future of the planet. We are the single largest imbalance in nature and we will be dealt with. The only question is whether the approaching calamity will drive us to extinction. I still think there is a good chance humans survive. It just won't be pretty and the numbers that get through the "Great Winnowing" will be shockingly small. For the wealthy elite, I have some bad news. Your wealth and status is dependent on the system that is driving us to the brink. The skill set you have will be of no use in our inevitable future and you and yours will be early casualties.

For anyone who would like to understand the source of my perspective about many issues on this wonderful blog, all you need do is contemplate the meaning of my nym. We share this planet, have a common fate. Any effort we make to attempt to distinguish ourselves from those around us (wealth, social status, faith, ethnicity, nationality, race etc.) is nothing but a construct that will melt away in times of peril. This perspective is also the source of our salvation. The sooner we recognize our shared humanity, the sooner we can get down to the work of saving ourselves.

For the record, I am not a religious man.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on June 06, 2018, 09:59:22 PM
Many do not think we can go extinct, but that is very ignorant. Every organism goes extinct. We are no exception. Life for humanity will definitely get harder and harder, but there will come a time when the last human dies. We can't live without the living planet. The collapse of civilization is imo a few decades away, and I don't know if we will make it out of the 21 century. It is indeed time to realize we are not invincible, and if we don't start acting like we will die, we will certainly die.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on June 06, 2018, 10:08:42 PM
We have reached the point no return on planet Earth, where the collective intent for biosphere collapse is manifesting at dizzying speed. From widespread social unrest to aggressive threats of nuclear war, to pollution soiling every inch of the planet (and beyond), to mass animal and plant extinction, global overpopulation, and runaway biosphere decay. Many powerful forces are converging to create unprecedented chaos and breakdown.

Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: jacksmith4tx on June 06, 2018, 10:52:18 PM
Many do not think we can go extinct, but that is very ignorant. Every organism goes extinct. We are no exception. Life for humanity will definitely get harder and harder, but there will come a time when the last human dies. We can't live without the living planet. The collapse of civilization is imo a few decades away, and I don't know if we will make it out of the 21 century. It is indeed time to realize we are not invincible, and if we don't start acting like we will die, we will certainly die.

A pragmatic person would observe it was our technology that opened this Pandora's Box. A pessimist would point out our brains are wired to discount future risk. The farther out the risk the less we respond to the approaching danger. (See book by Daniel Kahneman: "Thinking Fast and Slow)". For what it's worth Prof. Kahneman thinks humans lack the will the deal with climate change so he is pretty gloomy about our chances.
Speaking of gloomy...Imagine two futures.
https://qz.com/1295679/why-the-solar-revolution-is-in-grave-danger-and-how-it-can-be-saved/

We don't know what the impact of genetic engineering and Artificial Intelligence will have on our future but we may go into hyper evolution mode and things could look very different. At best we can dimly peer a few years into the future.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: gerontocrat on June 06, 2018, 11:52:53 PM
Australia will have vast quantities of solar and wind power despite their dumb government.

But fish might not be on the dinner plate for much longer. Solve CO2 emissions and the planet is saved? I don't think so. Count the ways to trash the joint.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/05/australias-large-fish-species-declined-30-in-past-decade-study-says

Australia's large fish species declined 30% in past decade, study says
Call for fisheries changes after study says excessive fishing mostly to blame
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on June 07, 2018, 02:05:08 PM
We have reached the point no return on planet Earth, where the collective intent for biosphere collapse is manifesting at dizzying speed. From widespread social unrest to aggressive threats of nuclear war, to pollution soiling every inch of the planet (and beyond), to mass animal and plant extinction, global overpopulation, and runaway biosphere decay. Many powerful forces are converging to create unprecedented chaos and breakdown.

And yet, the prospects of each of these materializing has decreased over the past decades.  Social unrest peaked in the 1980s:

http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflicttrends.html (http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflicttrends.html)

The world's nuclear arsenal peaked simultaneously:

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ (https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/)

Better understanding of our biosphere, has lead to the air and water getting cleaner since the 1970s:

https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution (https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution)

Global action to protect wildlife has lead to a resurgence in many threatened species.  Overpopulation is the one issue that may cause added problems, although the growth rate is about half what it was 40 years ago, and expected to fall by half in the next 20 years. 

All in all, I find these types of posts just defeatism, similar to the man standing on the street corner with a sign saying that the end is near.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on June 07, 2018, 02:54:45 PM
Every once in a great while that man on the street corner is right. The end is near. Not human extinction, but a reduction in the level of human civilization. The problems are immense and their solution very slow, just as expected in systems with high inertia and very slow feedback.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on June 07, 2018, 03:26:02 PM
I guess there is a first time for everything.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sleepy on June 07, 2018, 03:43:08 PM
Every once in a great while that man on the street corner is right. The end is near. Not human extinction, but a reduction in the level of human civilization. The problems are immense and their solution very slow, just as expected in systems with high inertia and very slow feedback.
Most likely so. We still have two or three years and the solution is so brutally simple on a personal level that every child out there understands it. Stop polluting. And if, every westerner could get down to ~2 tonnes CO2eq today. But as a collective we don't want to.
Here's a balanced and well written piece by Franz Baumann:
https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/sustainability/climate-action/1916-climate-change-is-the-central-challenge-for-humanity (https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/sustainability/climate-action/1916-climate-change-is-the-central-challenge-for-humanity)
To me, the timescale in wich all of this is happening has always been the most eyecatching piece.
Quote
Although the human species emerged around 150,000 years ago, most of the population growth – and most of the economic growth – occurred in the last 60 years

And for the environment. This is what we westerners support, in silence supported by ignorance.
Edit; fixed the video...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on June 08, 2018, 06:08:10 PM
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sleepy on June 09, 2018, 04:44:58 AM
"Something to think about: The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Let's scale that to 46 years. We have been here for 4 hours. Our industrial revolution began 1 minute ago. In that time, we have destroyed 50% of the world's forests. This isn't sustainable."
-Vala Afshar.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: oren on June 09, 2018, 10:45:40 AM
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
It still amazes me how intelligent people make wrong assumptions about other intelligent people.
What if we do see the inherent problems? What is it that you suggest in practice?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: DrTskoul on June 09, 2018, 02:24:57 PM
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
It still amazes me how intelligent people make wrong assumptions about other intelligent people.
What if we do see the inherent problems? What is it that you suggest in practice?

And we are here today , intelligent and educated, alive because of that industrialization, able to contemplate and share our opinion through this medium, not dying from deseases like prior to that industrialization. And extinction, pollution, large scale altering of local environments has been happening since the dawn of civilization. All the forests you see now in Europe are there because people found alternative source of energy instead of cutting every single bit down. They did not need industrial revolution to destroy their environment. The fact that we are contemplating clean sources of energy exists because of industrialization. The problem is that humans still act on a personal selfish level. Unless tgey can transcend that instinct and think about the whole , behaviors won't change. They can only be regulated, but such regulation as we are won't go down easily without a fight...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on June 09, 2018, 08:10:23 PM
It still amazes me how even intelligent people such as on this forum cannot see the inherent destruction of industrial society.
Population, extinction rates, pollution of all kinds, greenhouse gases, casualties of war and atrocities etc all explode upon industrialization just as the famous Mann "hockeystick" does.
It still amazes me how intelligent people make wrong assumptions about other intelligent people.
What if we do see the inherent problems? What is it that you suggest in practice?


And we are here today , intelligent and educated, alive because of that industrialization, able to contemplate and share our opinion through this medium, not dying from deseases like prior to that industrialization. And extinction, pollution, large scale altering of local environments has been happening since the dawn of civilization. All the forests you see now in Europe are there because people found alternative source of energy instead of cutting every single bit down. They did not need industrial revolution to destroy their environment. The fact that we are contemplating clean sources of energy exists because of industrialization. The problem is that humans still act on a personal selfish level. Unless tgey can transcend that instinct and think about the whole , behaviors won't change. They can only be regulated, but such regulation as we are won't go down easily without a fight...

Oh come on guys, admittedly i generalized but now i see cherry picking and failure to address the content of what i said.
I mentioned the hockey stick graphs of most problems coinciding with industrialization, because with everything it is important to see cause and effect.
I did not claim there are solutions i know of.
Are there solutions to all the biodiversity lost already?
Of course not, they are gone.

DrTskoul's little piece is so full of false assumptions it is hard to even begin on that.
- intelligence equated to industrialization is stupidity.
- some diseases are better, many more worse or brand new ones as a result of industrialization..how nice! Even the damm air is killing and torturing us now... yippy hurray for industrial progress and medicine!
- the forests of Europe are dieing mate, and they did recover indeed somewhat after past stupidity. They also screwed over a whole new continent in the process, and still do.
Europe is an industrial nature management factory based on stupid ideals from centuries long gone while climate won't even allow it. Shocking extinction is the case more than ever no matter how many damm trees they plant or import. The true old forest such as Romania or a little shitty bit left in Poland is being destroyed by industrial might.
- whatever destruction medieval Europeans caused and did or not somehow mitigate dwarfs in comparison.
- European period of the time is the worst example of health/longevity anyway. Those idiots lived in their own filth while inbreeding, using religion as medicine and working the 90% poor to death.
Small wonder then that "primitive humans" have enjoyed better health and long life and still do without industry or agrarian civilization.
- there are no clean, green, renewable sources of energy or however people want to call it gonna make a damm bit of difference because they are all industrial and inherently and exponentially  destructive and depleting.
That is a marketing strategy of cult-like proportions.
- after stacking false assumptions one on top of the other you fantasize about some industrial forced human regulation...and conflict required?
Yeah...that will be a paradise with a smiling Arctic ice cover and happy plants & animals everywhere i'll bet lol  :P
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Sleepy on June 10, 2018, 06:19:11 AM
Never considered myself as intelligent, I think stepping on the brakes would be an appropriate response to an imminent threat that would snuff you out forever.

Individuals usually change through anxiety and that's mostly due to fear for change. I have read about a priest who seriously suggested that approach to create action regarding climate change. Popular suggestion? Nope. How to? Don't know, maybe ask that priest or some psychologist, but anxiety due to change, will come in some form either way.

Other than that, we better be very careful and smart about how and what we build to keep emissions as low as possible.

There's still no perpetuum mobile and everything we build today creates GHG emissions.
Flooring it here wouldn't be intelligent, unless you have an airplane.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on June 24, 2018, 06:55:30 PM
There are perfectly good examples of what happens when crisis arrives throughout history.
They are well documented so i won't bore you, but there are many recent ones.

- The Argentinian financial collapse caused a violent change in society.
People there are so protected out of fear from rape, theft and murder or just get the hell away if they had any choice.
-New Orleans after the hurricane saw a big rise in criminal affairs and drug use etc.
-Fukushima disaster saw the local Yakuza taking their share from misery.

In context of the historical civilisations collapsing the industrial reality spells much bigger disaster.
It is already the biggest disaster ever and includes billions of victims.
It wipes out all life.
Just stay safe, that is timeless.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Daniel B. on June 24, 2018, 11:18:29 PM
There are perfectly good examples of what happens when crisis arrives throughout history.
They are well documented so i won't bore you, but there are many recent ones.

- The Argentinian financial collapse caused a violent change in society.
People there are so protected out of fear from rape, theft and murder or just get the hell away if they had any choice.
-New Orleans after the hurricane saw a big rise in criminal affairs and drug use etc.
-Fukushima disaster saw the local Yakuza taking their share from misery.

In context of the historical civilisations collapsing the industrial reality spells much bigger disaster.
It is already the biggest disaster ever and includes billions of victims.
It wipes out all life.
Just stay safe, that is timeless.
Who are these billions of victims to which you are referring?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Forest Dweller on July 08, 2018, 11:10:43 AM
Life forms Daniel, including your own species.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ardeus on December 02, 2018, 12:52:03 AM
We have been bombarded with the word extinction for decades, usually applied to this or that species.

We know that the biomass of humans+cattle represents 96% of the total biomass of mammals.

We also know that the fish stocks have been declining for a long time.

There are now more chickens than wild birds.

Can we live happily without wild mammals, birds and fish? I guess we can.

Can we live in a world where insects are functionally extinct?

It was agriculture that set the base for our civilisation and it seems logical that agriculture will be our Achilles heel.

There's little data available on their decline, but the data available suggest that this may happen in the next 10-20 years.

Since there's little information on the reason they are disappearing (it's not pollution or loss of habitat, because it's happening in protected areas), for now we can only predict what will happen based on the little data available on their numbers and biomass.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on December 02, 2018, 10:30:44 AM
Watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6EXFpnjXNc
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ktb on December 02, 2018, 04:59:20 PM
Watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6EXFpnjXNc

We've entered the end game. Yet I’m still trying to convince my dad that climate change is real.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ardeus on December 03, 2018, 12:38:17 AM
Watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6EXFpnjXNc

I am not convinced about the temperature increase being the cause yet. It has been too small over the past decades to justify this massive reduction in the insect population.

I hope that the people reseaching this issue keep all options on the table and don't settle too easily on climate change just because it's the most obvious explanation for a global phenomenon.

There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

We are nearly there and cutting whatever is left in half won't have a big impact.

Soon someone will come up with an economically feasible alternative to insect pollination.

With so many wild biomass disappearing,  something is going to fill these empty spaces in the biosphere.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ktb on December 03, 2018, 06:04:24 AM
There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

Is this just looking at insect collapse? Ignoring the quality of life changes that would result from extinction of pollinators, there is too much coming together all at once for humans to not be massively impacted.

If we look 10-20 years in the future we will be facing: Ice free arctic, global warming/climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fishery collapse (already ~90% in past 50 years), terrestrial animal collapse, insect collapse, amphibian collapse, habitat decimation and fragmentation. It is simply too much that will occur, or has already occurred, all at once in such a short time span. Each of these has its' own cascades and resulting impacts.

And if you read the article that the above video was based on, you would see recommendations that are short sighted and frankly inappropriate. For instance, one of the experts recommended increased reliance on fishing to feed growing populations if complete pollinator collapse occurred. Well how is that supposed to work if we have already seen declines of up to 99% of some of the staple fish.


I will concede that using the broad brush of climate change as the only reason for declining populations is premature. More likely to be habitat destruction and fragmentation, declining fertility rates, increased use of pesticides, etc. Of course climate change is likely to be an additional stressor placed on insect populations.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on December 03, 2018, 06:25:40 AM
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: wili on December 03, 2018, 07:37:29 AM
Good points, Ktb.

It is important to remember that we are not just talking about individual species going extinct, but the collapse of entire ecosystems.

On the one hand, driving or even allowing for species to go extinct and for ecosystems to collapse is on a very basic moral level unconscionable.

But if one wants to insist on putting it in the malignantly narcissistic terms of 'what's in it for me,' well, ecosystems provide all sorts of 'services,' both material and im-. As we are already seeing, regional hydrological cycles tend to get very badly disrupted when you wipe out all or even most of, say, a rain forest. And loss of a major rain forest (or most other terrestrial ecosystems) is also going to have quite an effect on the carbon cycle...ie, it will greatly exacerbate gw. Forests also build and stabilize soils, and without them (or a robust grassland ecosystem to replace them), soils will blow and wash away. And we still do kinda depend on soils to grow the vast majority of our food crops.

Some people tend to think, "Oh, well, the pandas are cute, but really, we can live just fine without them." But when we wipe out not just the pandas but the bamboo forests they inhabit (as we are in the process of doing), and do the same sort of thing over and over again throughout the world...which is pretty much we have been doing at an increasing rate...we create havoc of all sorts that will harm not only ourselves, but yet other eco-systems...
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: bbr2314 on December 03, 2018, 08:11:44 AM
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
We (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel) could launch a nuclear attack on the developing world and halt food exports. That would probably kill off 5-6 billion humans pretty easily. Thereafter, China would still be mostly extant, leaving enough human labor for whatever may be, and we could position troops across Central America, Gibraltar, Turkey, and the Himalayas for any would-be migrants, guaranteeing an invigorated military-industrial complex and lots of jobs for the Middle Classes. Everyone wins! (except for most people currently alive, but whatever).

The only nuclear powers that need to be targeted are India and Pakistan, that could be done pretty easily as their missiles only have limited range, so a first strike with no retaliation would be quite easy for the US. China can have all their land after the fact as long as they maintain population and promise not to increase.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: El Cid on December 03, 2018, 08:16:51 AM



There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

We are nearly there and cutting whatever is left in half won't have a big impact.

Soon someone will come up with an economically feasible alternative to insect pollination.

The solution is already there and it is working large scale: Regenerative Agriculture. Google Gabe Brown, Ray Archuleta, Colin Seis, etc. Keeping biodiversity, sustaining large scale, effective food production AND sequestering carbon at the same time is possibble. This movement is spreading fast and I believe will become dominant during this century. Humanity is able to survive the new, changed conditions and the ecosystem is more resilient than you would think.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ktb on December 03, 2018, 08:49:32 AM
It is important to remember that we are not just talking about individual species going extinct, but the collapse of entire ecosystems.

Again pertaining to the arcticle that the video is based on: they mention that humans are more likely to notice the secondary extinctions rather than the primary. I.e we see the frog that went extinct instead of “the frog went extinct because the food it depended on went extinct”.

And of course by that point it is too late.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Wherestheice on December 03, 2018, 10:10:24 AM
Unless something drastic happens In the 2020’s I don’t see humanity surviving the 21st century
We (US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel) could launch a nuclear attack on the developing world and halt food exports. That would probably kill off 5-6 billion humans pretty easily. Thereafter, China would still be mostly extant, leaving enough human labor for whatever may be, and we could position troops across Central America, Gibraltar, Turkey, and the Himalayas for any would-be migrants, guaranteeing an invigorated military-industrial complex and lots of jobs for the Middle Classes. Everyone wins! (except for most people currently alive, but whatever).

The only nuclear powers that need to be targeted are India and Pakistan, that could be done pretty easily as their missiles only have limited range, so a first strike with no retaliation would be quite easy for the US. China can have all their land after the fact as long as they maintain population and promise not to increase.

If we go down that road, just nuke everything
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ardeus on December 03, 2018, 11:20:10 AM
There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

Is this just looking at insect collapse? Ignoring the quality of life changes that would result from extinction of pollinators, there is too much coming together all at once for humans to not be massively impacted.

If we look 10-20 years in the future we will be facing: Ice free arctic, global warming/climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fishery collapse (already ~90% in past 50 years), terrestrial animal collapse, insect collapse, amphibian collapse, habitat decimation and fragmentation. It is simply too much that will occur, or has already occurred, all at once in such a short time span. Each of these has its' own cascades and resulting impacts.

And if you read the article that the above video was based on, you would see recommendations that are short sighted and frankly inappropriate. For instance, one of the experts recommended increased reliance on fishing to feed growing populations if complete pollinator collapse occurred. Well how is that supposed to work if we have already seen declines of up to 99% of some of the staple fish.


I will concede that using the broad brush of climate change as the only reason for declining populations is premature. More likely to be habitat destruction and fragmentation, declining fertility rates, increased use of pesticides, etc. Of course climate change is likely to be an additional stressor placed on insect populations.

Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

When there's no ice in the Arctic, how will the jet stream behave? Will it even disappear in the following years? How seriously and how quickly will climate patterns change? Will we still have 3 climate cells?

No one has the answer to these questions yet and the speed at which changes will happen will be crucial to the outcome.

Unfortunately we won't know how serious it will be before we're right in the middle of it.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Klondike Kat on December 03, 2018, 07:28:12 PM
There's a chance we can live without a major disruption in a world practically devoid of wild life because our main crops are pollinated by the wind.

Is this just looking at insect collapse? Ignoring the quality of life changes that would result from extinction of pollinators, there is too much coming together all at once for humans to not be massively impacted.

If we look 10-20 years in the future we will be facing: Ice free arctic, global warming/climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, fishery collapse (already ~90% in past 50 years), terrestrial animal collapse, insect collapse, amphibian collapse, habitat decimation and fragmentation. It is simply too much that will occur, or has already occurred, all at once in such a short time span. Each of these has its' own cascades and resulting impacts.

And if you read the article that the above video was based on, you would see recommendations that are short sighted and frankly inappropriate. For instance, one of the experts recommended increased reliance on fishing to feed growing populations if complete pollinator collapse occurred. Well how is that supposed to work if we have already seen declines of up to 99% of some of the staple fish.


I will concede that using the broad brush of climate change as the only reason for declining populations is premature. More likely to be habitat destruction and fragmentation, declining fertility rates, increased use of pesticides, etc. Of course climate change is likely to be an additional stressor placed on insect populations.

I would agree that most of your consequences are not a result of climate change.  Hence, any action that addresses climate change will have little to no effect on them.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Tor Bejnar on December 03, 2018, 07:42:55 PM
Quote
Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

Here's a quote about Environmental Impact Analyses
 (https://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/economics/environmental-impact-analysis/) suggesting AGW is nothing new, just 'larger' in scope:
Quote

Environmental impact analyses are often challenging because they call for making projections with incomplete information. Methods of assessing the impacts typically include both objective and subjective information making it difficult to quantify. Therefore, the methods are frequently seen as complex and, oftentimes, controversial. Despite being a requirement for many development projects, the function of an environmental impact statement is merely procedural. There is no specific legal force of action if information stemming from an environmental impact analysis confirms that a particular project may harm the environment. As a result, it is often left up to the courts to rule on whether risks to the environment are overstated or not.
...
The U.S.A. (at least) appears to contain a large number of people (and the resulting state and national governments) who somehow believe we cannot know enough to justify our doing anything different than what we've "always" done.  Probably something to do with stages of grief (https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/).

From an old [January 2017] EPA website: Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA)
 (https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/climate-change-impacts-and-risk-analysis-cira_.html)
Quote
 
The Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA) project quantifies the physical effects and economic damages under multiple climate change scenarios. The goal of this work is to estimate to what degree climate change impacts and damages to multiple U.S. sectors (e.g., human health, infrastructure, and water resources) may be avoided or reduced in a future under different levels of future global emissions. CIRA advances the estimation of climate change damages by bridging the gap between climate modeling and economic effects, presenting both physical and monetized damages.

The peer-reviewed CIRA reports and analyses demonstrate that global action on climate change will significantly benefit Americans by saving lives and avoiding costly damages across the U.S. economy.
So apparently, the Earth's climate and biosphere, albeit complex, are not too complex to apply models that forecast consequences of different future behaviors (BAU or Green BAU or nuke everything in sight, etc. edit: see, for example this ASLR post (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg182965.html#msg182965)). We use either this information or an old Farmer's Almanac (or do what Uncle Jeb did, cause drilling an oil well made us rich 100 years ago) to serve as the bases for the decisions we actually do make.   We do make decisions that have consequences on our future.  Should we only use data and analyses from the First Century, Common Era (conducted in the Middle East) or should we reach out to the best and the brightest, despite their (our?) acknowledged shortcomings?

And then we'll fight about it in the courts.  (Ahh, the American way!   :o :-\ :'()
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ktb on December 03, 2018, 10:47:40 PM
or more correctly imv “the frog went extinct because the bio-diverse habitat it depended on went extinct”

Frogs need a lot more than just food.

Of course they do. Pedantry for pedantry's sake. I was attempting to simplify the obviously complex message.

I would agree that most of your consequences are not a result of climate change.  Hence, any action that addresses climate change will have little to no effect on them.

My point was simply that it is too late, much too late. At a certain point the species becomes functionally extinct or extinct in the wild.
Hypothetically the world gets around to addressing CC by 2030. That is too late. We missed the boat by 20-30 years from today.


Edit: Misread Klondike's reply, believe him to be agreeing with me.  :-[ :-X

So yes, addressing climate change does not mean we broadly address environmental problems. Okay, hypothetically we go carbon free, but did we stop fragmenting ecosystems? Damming rivers? Using pesticides? Of course not. 
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ardeus on December 03, 2018, 11:28:18 PM
Quote
Truth is we're on uncharted waters and the systems we're trying to model (climate and biosphere) are too complex, so it's impossible to make predictions accurate enough to serve as  base for any decisions.

Here's a quote about Environmental Impact Analyses
 (https://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/economics/environmental-impact-analysis/) suggesting AGW is nothing new, just 'larger' in scope:
Quote

Environmental impact analyses are often challenging because they call for making projections with incomplete information. Methods of assessing the impacts typically include both objective and subjective information making it difficult to quantify. Therefore, the methods are frequently seen as complex and, oftentimes, controversial. Despite being a requirement for many development projects, the function of an environmental impact statement is merely procedural. There is no specific legal force of action if information stemming from an environmental impact analysis confirms that a particular project may harm the environment. As a result, it is often left up to the courts to rule on whether risks to the environment are overstated or not.
...
The U.S.A. (at least) appears to contain a large number of people (and the resulting state and national governments) who somehow believe we cannot know enough to justify our doing anything different than what we've "always" done.  Probably something to do with stages of grief (https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/).

From an old [January 2017] EPA website: Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA)
 (https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/climate-change-impacts-and-risk-analysis-cira_.html)
Quote
 
The Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA) project quantifies the physical effects and economic damages under multiple climate change scenarios. The goal of this work is to estimate to what degree climate change impacts and damages to multiple U.S. sectors (e.g., human health, infrastructure, and water resources) may be avoided or reduced in a future under different levels of future global emissions. CIRA advances the estimation of climate change damages by bridging the gap between climate modeling and economic effects, presenting both physical and monetized damages.

The peer-reviewed CIRA reports and analyses demonstrate that global action on climate change will significantly benefit Americans by saving lives and avoiding costly damages across the U.S. economy.
So apparently, the Earth's climate and biosphere, albeit complex, are not too complex to apply models that forecast consequences of different future behaviors (BAU or Green BAU or nuke everything in sight, etc. edit: see, for example this ASLR post (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg182965.html#msg182965)). We use either this information or an old Farmer's Almanac (or do what Uncle Jeb did, cause drilling an oil well made us rich 100 years ago) to serve as the bases for the decisions we actually do make.   We do make decisions that have consequences on our future.  Should we only use data and analyses from the First Century, Common Era (conducted in the Middle East) or should we reach out to the best and the brightest, despite their (our?) acknowledged shortcomings?

And then we'll fight about it in the courts.  (Ahh, the American way!   :o :-\ :'()

A terrible thought occurred to me recently: had Hitler won the war, we wouldn't be discussing near term human extinction.

He would have turned the planet into his arian eden (a process that would have made WW2 a footnote in history) and as soon as the first studies came out concerning global warming, he would have implemented the necessary measures probably decades ago.

He would have had the power and the will to make it happen. A psychotic sociopath lunatic could have steered civilisation  away from the path to extinction.

This leads me to think that the democratic/capitalist system is terribly ill fitted to deal with climate change.

If indeed there will be hundreds of millions of climate refugees, which countries will be better prepared to deal with the issue and prevent the collapse of civilisation? Democracies or dictatorships?

In the meantime, there's big money to be made in any catastrophe and the people who can potentially earn the most with carbon reduction in all its forms need to be enlisted as soon as possible to push to make it happen asap. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the fossil fuel corporations.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Human Habitat Index on December 04, 2018, 12:52:46 AM
<snip, off-topic; N.>
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Ktb on December 04, 2018, 01:16:32 AM
What did this devolve to?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on December 04, 2018, 01:40:46 AM
What did this devolve to?


Monster films?
Terry
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 04, 2018, 02:30:07 AM
Looks like we have some visitors from Stormfront posting.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Klondike Kat on December 04, 2018, 03:57:44 AM
or more correctly imv “the frog went extinct because the bio-diverse habitat it depended on went extinct”

Frogs need a lot more than just food.

Of course they do. Pedantry for pedantry's sake. I was attempting to simplify the obviously complex message.

I would agree that most of your consequences are not a result of climate change.  Hence, any action that addresses climate change will have little to no effect on them.

My point was simply that it is too late, much too late. At a certain point the species becomes functionally extinct or extinct in the wild.
Hypothetically the world gets around to addressing CC by 2030. That is too late. We missed the boat by 20-30 years from today.


Edit: Misread Klondike's reply, believe him to be agreeing with me.  :-[ :-X

So yes, addressing climate change does not mean we broadly address environmental problems. Okay, hypothetically we go carbon free, but did we stop fragmenting ecosystems? Damming rivers? Using pesticides? Of course not.

Yes, I was agreeing with your last section.  Namely, if we go carbon free but ignore habitat destruction, over hunting, pollution, etc., will we save anything?
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Pmt111500 on December 04, 2018, 04:34:50 AM
Looks like we have some visitors from Stormfront posting.
Ah, those types? "Let's vote for Drumpf since Bannon isn't running"-types?  Too bad, bound to ideological denial of science, like the fact they carry African genes.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Lurk on December 04, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
This lady says what is on my mind far better than I

I do not believe humanity will be able to wake up from the propaganda narrative matrix and create a healthy world without a massive shift in the way we think and perceive. While most tend to look at what is commonly called spiritual enlightenment as an esoteric religious concept, or at most a lofty personal aspiration, I see it as a powerful yet mundane agent of social metamorphosis with far-reaching political consequences.

The fact that it is possible for human beings to radically shift their relationship with thought means that it is possible for us to collectively transcend our current fear-based, easily manipulated relationship with the world and evolve into something unprecedented together. Our unprecedented ability to network and share information already in and of itself represents a drastic change in the way humans relate cognitively with the world, and there are reasons to believe a collective awakening could already be unfolding for us.

Simply the fact that enlightenment is a potential that human beings have, combined with the fact that we have pressed ourselves into evolve-or-die time, indicates such a collective transcendence is a very real possibility.


https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/12/02/who-i-am-where-i-stand-and-what-im-trying-to-do-here/


Lurk369:Best of Bookmarks
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: Lurk on December 05, 2018, 01:00:33 PM
If this is your 'cup of tea'

International Extinction Rebellion
https://xrebellion.org/
INTERNATIONAL signup.
We Declare: International Non-Violent Rebellion Against the World’s Governments for Criminal Inaction on the Ecological Crisis.
Title: Re: Near Term Human Extinction
Post by: TerryM on December 06, 2018, 03:27:34 AM
If this is your 'cup of tea'

International Extinction Rebellion
https://xrebellion.org/ (https://xrebellion.org/)
INTERNATIONAL signup.
We Declare: International Non-Violent Rebellion Against the World’s Governments for Criminal Inaction on the Ecological Crisis.
A "cup of tea" or a glass of hemlock, what a choice. ::)
Terry