Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Wherestheice

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
301
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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

302
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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.

303
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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%.

304
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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.

305
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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.

306
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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/

307
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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/


308
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 19, 2018, 09:50:35 PM »
I think its important to really consider the methane release happening soon. If the methane starts going into runaway.... call it the end.

309
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« 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

310
Consequences / Re: Ocean Temps
« on: February 18, 2018, 08:57:00 AM »
Most people who talk about the collapse of coral reefs don't understand that 50% of the coral reefs are now dead.  There's a lag period before the fish in the oceans start to die off relative to that amount.  I don't know what that lag time is, but it's going to be a sudden drop within a year or two. 

After that point hundreds of millions of humans will starve to death from the lack of food from the oceans.  Perhaps it will be a slow process, they wont have any protein so the humans will turn to carbohydrates for the mean time - but at some point the apes will not be able to sustain their civilization due to the lack of protein in their diets and will undergo massive die offs.

I would suspect this will happen within the next couple of years.

Large pelagic fish have life spans of many many years, but as they die off and the coral reefs no longer exist to replenish their population, the humans that require these fish to survive will all die off as well.

We're already past the pelagic fish tipping point, it's now just a waiting game for the effects of dead coral reefs to work their way up the ecosystems around the world.  Expect massive famines and death tolls across the entire globe within the next couple of years.  Civilization will likely be on the brink of collapse as a result of the collapse of coral reef ecosystems. 

It's just a waiting game at this point, and it's a matter of years, not decades.


I agree with this post in many ways, I think collapse of a lot of things will be unfolding soon, but Bruce is right by saying you should provide some links or cited sources

311
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: February 17, 2018, 10:30:18 AM »


Humans are very adaptable. The rest of the life on earth.... idk.... they will probably die..... leading to our eventual demise

312
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 26, 2017, 11:20:38 AM »
I've been reading this forum for quite a while and it seems - just like last summer - that with 2017 sea ice having come up to 2nd place (meaning 2nd lowest) people are getting excited again, and we start to see the same sentiment that always prevails when ice extent is very low. With this come the usual forecasts of imminent collapse of sea ice (and all life an Earth :D).
I believe this is wrong. Noone, meaning noone can forecast a chaotic system and Arctic Sea Ice being one, it is impossible to say whether we are going to lose (most of) all summer ice in 2018 or 2048. I do appreciate hard data, studies and facts and all the people who contribute, but the expectation of miracles and wild, baseless forecasts (which in fact are not forecasts at all) are really unnecessary and tiresome.
Also, the world will not come to an end when we lose ASI although it seems to me that many people on this forum hope (and at the same tiime dread) to see just that, only to prove them right and everyone around them wrong.
I think that losing the ice is now fait accompli, not much can be done about that. The only question is adaptation which is still possible. Dreaming about the apocalypse is just a waste of time which could be spent much better, preparing for (possibbly very abrupt) climate change.

Anyway, I wanted to write about these things last summer, and even 2016 autumn. I promise not to be so offtopic next time. Thanks everyone for the effort and all the valuable contribution!

The media tends to focus on ice extent, but really what we should be talking about is sea ice volume. I don't have the data with me currently, but the sea ice volume has decreased rapidly in recent decades. As far as the end of the world goes.... Losing the arctic in my own opinion won't end the world, but it will cause the earth to become less habitable. People tend to look at climate change in multiple views... ice decline, heat waves, species extinction, change in weather, etc. If you add everything into one conclusion, you get utter disaster. The observations in the field are getting more and more deadly than ever, and if we want to sustain human life on earth.... we will need to see the changes needed completed within the next decade. My conclusion based off my own personal research is once we lose the arctic, we lose the globe, and based off observations were getting close.

313
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 26, 2017, 08:23:35 AM »
Hello fellow members. I just joined this forum. Just letting you all know i'm here :)

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]