Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

The Heat Death of American Dreams

By Ed Merta, AlterNet. Posted October 12, 2005.


Overshadowed by last month's hurricanes was the news that global warming is likely to accelerate much faster than feared, and it's already begun.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A number of news reports and commentary on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have linked the disasters to global warming. Almost nobody noticed a crucial scientific finding, two weeks earlier, that foreshadows disasters on a far greater scale in the decades to come.

According to August 11 articles in the magazine New Scientist and the British newspaper the Guardian, a pair of scientists, one Russian and one British, report that global warming is melting the permafrost in the West Siberian tundra. The news made a little blip in the international media and the blogosphere, and then it disappeared.

Why should anyone care? Because melting of the Siberian permafrost will, over the next few decades, release hundreds of millions of tons of methane from formerly frozen peat bogs into the atmosphere. Methane from those bogs is at least twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide that currently drives global warming. Dumping such a huge quantity of methane on top of already soaring CO2 levels will drive global temperatures to the upper range of increases forecast for the remainder of this century.

According to the most recent forecast by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), compiled in 2001, human industrial emissions are on course to raise global temperatures between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. The IPCC models didn't account for methane releases from the Arctic, nor did they consider other natural sources of greenhouse gases that could be released by human activity. The agency judged Arctic methane releases to be a real but remote possibility, not likely to emerge for decades. Now we find that it could very well be happening today.

The news of melting Siberian permafrost means, in all likelihood, that global warming is accelerating much faster than climatologists had predicted. The finding from Siberia comes amidst evidence, presented at Tony Blair's special climate change conference last February, that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be in danger of disintegrating -- another warming-induced event once thought to be decades or centuries away.

Meanwhile, according to a September 29, 2005 report in the Guardian, scientists at the University of Colorado, Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center have measured a drastic shrinking of ice floes in the Arctic Ocean. Arctic waters are now expected to be ice-free well before the end of this century.

How many more milestones will there be? The prospects of a worst case scenario, with a temperature increase approaching or exceeding 5.8 degrees Celsius, are increasing dramatically, with all the attending disasters that would entail -- inundated coastlines, extreme storms and drought, disease pandemics, collapsing agriculture, massive environmental refugee flows.

And how far will it go? Climate forecasts have long noted that every increase in global temperature heightens the odds of runaway global warming, beyond any human control. Continued overheating could unlock more methane from Arctic regions beyond Siberia. It could cripple the vital ability of plants and oceans to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, turning them into gushing sources of new CO2 that accelerate the superheating even further. The ice caps that help cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight into space could vanish. In the end, the relentless rise in temperature could induce a cataclysmic venting of billions of tons of methane from the oceans.

A paper by British scientists Michael J. Benton and Richard J. Twitchett, published in the July 2003 issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution, shows how this could happen. 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian era, a release of carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions apparently heated the Earth's atmosphere by about 6 degrees Celsius.

This initial increase in temperature triggered, in turn, a massive release of methane from Arctic tundra and the oceans. Research by Jeffrey Kiehl and others at the National Center for Atmospheric Research at University of Colorado, Boulder, tells us what happened next. According to their paper in the September 2005 issue of the journal Geology, the Earth's annual mean surface temperature rose by an additional 10 to 30 degrees Celsius.

The result of this runaway global warming was the greatest mass extinction since life emerged from the sea -- 95 percent of all species in existence died. That from an initial temperature rise only 0.2 degrees Celsius more than what the IPCC says could occur by the end of this century. We now know that human industry is causing in our lifetimes the same kind of methane release that triggered the Permian extinction.

The news from Siberia means that putting a brake on climate change in our lifetimes, or our children's, is impossible. If the entire human race miraculously slashed industrial carbon dioxide emissions today by the most drastic feasible amount, the temperature would continue to increase for decades, maybe centuries, according to IPCC forecasts.

The Arctic methane driving the atmosphere toward runaway warming would thus continue to spew from the permafrost. In any case, the reality of human behavior is that we will almost certainly not cut our carbon emissions to zero, so long as current politics and paradigms endure. Unless something changes in the global zeitgeist, nations will debate and muddle along, and maybe eventually adopt some further showpiece compromises like the Kyoto protocol, and we'll tell ourselves it's enough.

By the time political and economic elites realize the ghastly scope of what's happening, the truly catastrophic changes in our climate and biosphere will probably be unfolding already.

It seems likely that we are staring down the barrel of the full force, worst-case scenarios studied by the IPCC and other research organizations. The future foreseen in those scenarios is hidden amidst a mind numbing tedium of graphs and scientific jargon. The language is bland, almost routine. Implicit in the abstract language, though, are real events and consequences that will devastate the lives of real human beings, on a scale no one has ever seen. Katrina was a harbinger. The future will be far worse.

To imagine what it might be like is to invite charges of fear mongering, because it violates the scientific ethos of caution, restraint, and neutrality, the political and cultural norms of can-do optimism. But we've reached the point now where we have to start envisioning what we will face. We have to see the data and projections in human terms, if we hope to be ready for what our children and their children will have to endure. We have to start thinking clearly about what the numbers might mean.

For decades, the right derided environmentalists as doom-sayers. Environmental organizations themselves often hesitated, for fear of losing credibility, to put their case in stark, apocalyptic terms. It may not be politic to say so, but growing evidence suggests that the worst-case forecasts are coming true. The ability of our planet to sustain life is beginning to disintegrate.

The collapse will accelerate and intensify with each passing year. At some point, the cataclysm that ended Earth's Permian era, 251 million years ago, will repeat itself. During the decades or centuries of its recurrence, we will see the end of technological progress, the destruction of our civilization, and quite possibly the extinction of our species.

Preventing that outcome will, and should, override any other political and social issue. Quite literally, nothing else matters now. Every policy, every issue, must be viewed in terms of how it contributes to human survival. The impractical and the impossible are now imperative, whether we know it or not. We will have to eliminate carbon emissions. All of them. Post-carbon energy sources will be crucial to the eventual recovery of our climate, centuries or millennia from now.

In the meantime, the environmental collapse will continue regardless, over many human generations. Human societies face the task of riding it out as best they can, minimizing the death and misery their inhabitants must endure. In the end, they will have to redefine civilization.

It's time for progressives to face what's coming. Normal politics isn't enough anymore. Once, the left sought justice and plenty for everyone in the world of material abundance created by the Industrial Revolution. The task now is to save something decent and humane as the former things pass away.

What do we need to do, here and now? How can we do it? What comes next? Let the conversation begin here.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Ed Merta is a freelance writer based in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not with a Rapture, but with a whimper.
Posted by: digitalzen on Oct 12, 2005 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, it's OK. The Earth will survive...better off for the loss of its worst plague ever: us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a bit late, don't ya think?
Posted by: lobdillj on Oct 12, 2005 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of the referenced articles provides a clue as to how we're going to be able to stop the massive ice melt and reverse the 3 degree Centigrade increase in average temperature experienced in the last 40 years in the Siberian permafrost area.

The changes we are seeing are not small. I do not see how simply ceasing our carbon dioxide emissions would do much. This seems to be like trying to stop a supertanker on a dime.

Mertz says we must make this our number one priority but gives no analysis of what effect we could have on the situation at this late date, even if we could convince our sociopathic president and all nations to get on board an emergency program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Did you read the same article? Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Did you read the same article? Posted by: ConnecttheDots
good article
Posted by: kalima on Oct 13, 2005 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm passing this one on . We need more people speaking out like this. I'm so tired of the head-buried-in-the-sand attitude that so many have. And the argument that this is what happens to the earth on a regular basis, so we just need to ride it out, doesn't fly with me. It's one used by those who don't want to admit that they're the cause of the catastrophic changes the planet is going through right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: good article Posted by: gmadoll789
"We're Doomed?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 13, 2005 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My fellow Americans (and everybody else): the party's over.

Will the last one left please just turn out the lights? Leave the heater on...it's broken, so you can't turn it off, anyway. . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"We're Doomed? – pt. II"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 13, 2005 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were not destined (as our western religion has pounded into our heads) to dominate this Earth; we were destined to be just a part of it: its stewards, its caretakers – as if Earth really needed a protector, except to protect itself from us.

We have proven ourselves to be unworthy of our position on this planet: to be too greedy, too violent, too short-sighted, and too ignorant to honor the supreme potential for intelligence that we, either through powers greater than we know or through dumb chance, have been given. And we are about to suffer the same fate as other species that either overgrew or overused their environment. Mother Nature will not exact revenge; that is a human trait. Mother Nature will seek balance – and humanity is now on the heavy side of the equation.

What's frustrating is that with all of the intelligence we possess, with all of the technological ability that we have developed, we were too stupid to see and deal with the problem that now threatens to engulf us, preferring instead to squander our ability on techno-toys like I-Pods and on vacuous "entertainment" like the crap that today infects 90% of media production. This problem was understood by people and groups like Paul Erlich and The Club of Rome ("The Limits to Growth") thirty years ago, and by Thomas Malthus nearly a century before that. I'm no genius, but I read those works and could see the problem too; why in hell didn't anyone else? Is it that nobody reads anymore, or is it that greed, short-term profit, the need to relentlessly pursue riches – hallmarks of our "best of all worlds" economic system – overshadows everything else in our wasted little brains?

At this point, the answer may not matter – to us anyway: the Earth will go spinning on, like it had for 5 billion years without us; the eco-system will eventually repair itself, after a few droughts, ice ages, and other environmental convulsions. It may take a few centuries, or a few millenia; but what's profoundly sad is that we – humanity, the only way that we know of for the universe to contemplate and wonder at itself – may not be here to see it by then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lowellscience
Posted by: LOWELLSCIENCE on Oct 13, 2005 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the extreme that humans were to stop immediately all their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, there would be an immediate response of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. In the case of of carbon dioxide, this would likely be an average decrease of maybe 1 to 2 parts per million in CO2 concentration each year, with implications that it would take about a century or more to return atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to pre-industrial levels.

Based on our present understanding of the how the Earth System functions, this would likely lead over the next decade or so to a slowing and then reversal of global climate change. Changing continenatal surface air temperatures could be first to reverse, followed by slowing and then reversing the current acceleration of the hydrological cycle, and then reversal of ocean warming. Rising sea levels could be the last to reverse, perhaps several centuries hence. It would take this long to return fully to the climate experienced approximately a hundred years ago.

Now, the above scenario is highly unrealistic. We humans will not suddenly cease releasing all our GHG emissions to the atmosphere today---nor at any time in the forseeable future. So the real question is: how much we must reduce our GHG emissions to keep climate change to an acceptable level? And, how rapidly must we make these changes?

Tipping points (threshholds) are a theorectical construct in a scientific sense. That is, we cannot say with a high degree of certainty what may consist of a tipping point, and what the consequences of passing this might be. Conversely, we cannot say that they do not exist, nor that no adverse consequences will result from exceeding a hypothetical tipping point. The critical experiments have not been done with today's climate system, and cannot be realistically done without changing our climate system. The problem is that once we do the experiment and it turns out badly, there is no going back for human society as we know it. As reasonable humans, it is foolhardy to jump over the cliff to test if our concept of gravity is valid or not. We have learned to be prudent and put up guard rails. Should we do no less with our climate system?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

virus
Posted by: karyse on Oct 13, 2005 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have long thought that human life was like a kind of planetoid disease (bacteria or virus) or like a Kudzu -- the kind that kills its host. The host, Earth, has an immune system that is effective and will alter its weather when the disease reaches a critical mass to eliminate the bacteria/virus causing the harm (humans).

A billion years is nothing to the host, and all viruses/bacteria/invaders are easily eliminated by raising its temperature (equivalent to a human with a fever), or lowering its temperature (equivalent to a refridgerator preventing growth of bacteria).

When the bacteria count is low or causes no harm, it can be safely ignored.

Too bad folks, if we can't control our numbers, our days are numbered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free Energy is already here
Posted by: bluestar on Oct 13, 2005 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are multiple inventions which offer free energy but they haven't reached the market place for a variety of reasons. One being the political energy marriage vested interests won't allow this to happen. Some of these inventions have been discredited not because they don't work but because it goes against these vested interests. So what needs to happen. New leadership needs to emerge across the planet. Will this happen? I don't know. Michio Kaku a physicicist that broadcasts on KPFA speculates that other planets probably at the same juncture we are at didn't make it and burned themselves up. Will the mother of necessity bring new leadership? A quantum shift in consciousness is what is needed and this shift has not happened yet but could be coming in the next 15 to 20 years but what is needed now is to keep the awareness alive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Free Energy is already here Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Thoughts from the author - Part 1
Posted by: ed_merta on Oct 14, 2005 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many thanks to all for the comments on my article. I thought I'd offer a few of my own...

As I was writing the article, I kept asking myself the question, "My God, what are we going to do?" I decided that I just didn't know, so I left out any detailed discussion of responses to global warming.

My instincts tell me that we should at least try to do something. From Nature's perspective, our species does indeed appear to be a plague on the biosphere, unworthy, as monkeywrench observes, of our self-appointed role as planetary stewards. From my own personal point of view, though, I'm a human being and I want future generations of my species to have the same opportunities for a decent life that I had. I want a world of justice, prosperity, peace and mercy for every living human -- and every living thing.

But the question remains: in the face of such an unspeakable catastrophe bearing down on us, what, exactly, can be done? I do think we need to eliminate human CO2 emissions as soon as possible, not because doing so will make everything right but because it's an essential minimum for salvaging any decent future at all. If the human race has a chance, that chance lies in adapting to whatever climate change occurs. Without eliminating CO2 emissions, any kind of adaptation at all will become prohibitively difficult. Or impossible. We may be doomed even if we do eliminate emissions, but we have to try anyway.

That being said, mainstream policy solutions nevertheless seem totally inadequate to me. The IPCC documents talk in bland technocratic language about incremental policy adjustments in the status quo. In other words, we plow onward with our hideously exploitative and destructive global economy while creating new international agreements and regulations. Through rational debate and policy implementation, in this worldview, human institutions gradually adapt to altered climate and life goes on pretty much as it has since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Corporations make stuff, people buy stuff, problems arise and are solved and somehow the human race just muddles through.

To be continued in next post...

-Ed Merta

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thoughts from the author - Part 2
Posted by: ed_merta on Oct 14, 2005 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, the mainstream perspective I outlined in the previous post seems dangerously inadequate to deal with the potential for a planetwide disaster on the scale of the Permian extinction. Something much more radical is needed, a call to arms, followed by sweeping, unprecedented action. To be honest, I don't think any such action is even remotely likely in the near future, or perhaps ever. But that's what it would take.

What, exactly, would such action look like? Again, I haven't really thought this through, but here are a few more or less random ideas. They will seem utopian in the present politcal and cultural situation, but here they are, admittedly vague goals with no discussion of how they might be achieved. This is just a sketch of some potential new memes for the climate change debate.

1) A crash global research program to develop post-carbon energy sources, on a scale dwarfing the Manhattan and Apollo projects.

2) The transformation of economic research and policy into "ecological economics," wherein human impact on the biosphere is fully integrated into all market transactions and economic policy decisions.

3) A transition toward a post-corporate, and even a post-urban, economy with a vastly reduced ecological footprint. Giant, exploitative, transnational corporations would give way to regional, worker owned cooperatives; mega-cities would disperse to smaller, localized communities.

4) A crash program of research into exotic new technologies like nanotechnology and artificial intelligence that could help human communities do more with less.

To be continued in next, and final, post...

-Ed Merta

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thoughts from the author - Part 3 (conclusion)
Posted by: ed_merta on Oct 14, 2005 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Continuing my list of ideas and memes:

5) The creation of new international institutions -- with real authority embodied in military force -- to supervise massive resettlement of threatened populations, enforce the dismantling of CO2 producing industries, disseminate new technologies, create economic incentives for social reorganization, and prevent environmental and resource conflicts.

6) A crash program of research into what planetary scientists call "terraforming." Usually this refers to the creation, via exotic technologies, of an Earth-like environment on an alien planet such as Mars. In this context, it would refer to a massive effort to restore the Earth's environment and biosphere to something like their pre-1800 conditions.

7) The creation of worldwide cultural and spiritual movements that would promote what Vaclav Havel once called, in a 1990 speech to the US Congress, "a global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness." There needs to be basic cultural change, in the hearts and souls of human individuals, to promote a new, more ecologically aware worldview. Not an easy thing to do, I know.

8) The permanent crippling of the US radical right as an effective force in national politics, thereby making the world's (presently) most powerful nation-state somewhat more amenable to sensible policy proposals.

So there are some ideas...Thoughts, anyone?

-Ed Merta

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some thoughts on the article.
Posted by: Zach on Oct 14, 2005 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read through all the comments, so my apologies if I repeat some of them.

If the methane in the oceans and former permafrost gets loose, most of us will probably die. Perhaps there are food crops which will do well in those Permian conditions, but I doubt it.

There is a possibility mankind won't die out entirely. A functional moon base might serve as a "technology island" to supply small outposts on the earth.

The Earth's polar regions may remain cool enough to raise current crops. Being hyper-paranoid these days, i couldn't help but notice China's recent interest in setting up bases in Antarctica. That land is fairly large, and would undoubtedly have oil and other useful materials. Life there might be like that in today's Ohio valley, or Scotland, or Panama. Or maybe not, for if the pendulum swung that way, the desirable sites in and around the poles could become a nuclear wasteland as the elites fight for a future for their families.

Perhaps we've not made it to an irreversible "tipping point" - yet. Drastic cuts in fossil fuel use might be engineered. Artificial clouds such as high altitude contrails might be made and maintained. Certain other types of light-blocking pollution might be encouraged.

But with the current crowd of idiots in charge, there is no chance at all. If Bush is able to continue his misrule for much longer, count yourself and your family as goners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article
Posted by: bogman on Oct 14, 2005 9:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. It lays out the unfortunate mess we're in that no one wants to look at in the America of overfed, over-extended adolescence. I don't know what the answers are. I do have some thoughts, though.

o Why would the universe create an apparently rare animal of awareness only to see it destroy its habitat? Too ironic, universe.
o Why are there no studies on Republican forehead? I mean, have you seen the melons on guys like Rove, Cheney, McCain and that actor/former Senator? I can predict a guy's politics by his forehead.
o Human beings have shown a propensity to kill each other or let others die for a long time. I can't see that changing under global warming.
o Sooner or later, when the Guggenheim rich are affected, it will be like the Titanic -- everyone will be scrambling for a boat. 'Cept there won't be any, of course.
o The reverse side of your view -- the Discovery Times cable channel ran a program on the BENEFITS of the polar ice melting -- creating the long-sought northwest passage. I kid you not.
o I can't even read or look at anything to do with the Bush administration. It literally makes me want to puke.
o We don't have any real men or women in America anymore (Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding). Real men and women stand up for their babies' futures.
o This country is all about the extremes of pain and pleasure (true to our Puritan roots). No one does anything unless there's money in it or it hits them in the ass.
o All the people, even the Republicans, get all wet over the possibility of a microbe of life on Mars. Yet they'll let God's creatures go do the drain back on Earth without blinking an eye.
o I think you are correct. The human species, and most if not all the other species, are going down. The Earth may or may not be able to support life after climate change reaches its zenith. Game over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Warming: A prelude to the next ice age?
Posted by: Gazza126 on Oct 15, 2005 1:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's an issue here that hasn't been raised. Which is this: As the volume of Co2 in the atmosphre increases, it not only reflects back the heat that we're generating, it also reflects back the sun's energy. We're actually recieving fewer photons on the ground now than we did 50 years ago. (I have a NASA press release on the subject somewhere on file, but naturally can't find it when I need it.)

The point is this: As we pump more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, we also increase the planet's albedo. That is, we increase the amount of sunlight being reflected away from the planet. Eventually, we will reach a point where we are reflecting away more energy that we let in.

And that is the point where the problem will not be one of global warming, but of global cooling leading to the next ice age.

Goodbye Alaska, farewell Canada, au revoir Siberia and most of the former Soviet Union. Ditto all of Scandanavia.

And when an ice age starts, it comes on fast. It took only 100 years for Britain to go from having hippos basking on the banks of the Thames to finding itself buried under more than 100 ft of ice.

Our future will be fun!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear Winter
Posted by: optimist on Oct 15, 2005 3:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May be the answer!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism Solves All
Posted by: Kowboy on Oct 17, 2005 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Develop a way to capture the methane and sell it as a substitute for natural gas. Solves two problems, makes money and saves the world. Get a life, Chicken Littles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capitalism Solves All Posted by: birdman
Re: Heat Death
Posted by: boris on Oct 18, 2005 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way back in the Permian, the insolation the Earth received was appreciably less than today. One can assume that a similar runaway warming could produce even higher temperatures than back then....

Many other factors apply though. The melting of the icecaps would require a lot of heat, and result in a layer of cold light water on top of the oceans. It has been noted that the melting of the Greenland icecap would result in a dramatic cooling of Europe for instance.
The configuration of landmasses now is very different from the Permian. It has been suggested that the latest (million years or so) round of ice ages is at least partially as a result of the distribution of the landmasses, including the separation of Atlantic and Pacific due to North and South America joining, and the effective entrapment of the Arctic Ocean.

Nonetheless, the disturbance to the ecosystem should be quite dramatic, and entirely sufficient to end the industrial phase of homo sapiens.

Here's something else to worry about. Note the current severe droughts in the Amazon, and consider what a combination of the loss of tropical rainforests, and the plankton populations of the oceans (either due to warming or the consequent flooding with freshwater icemelt) might do to the oxygen producing capacity of the biosphere. There is considerable evidence that the atmospheric composition has been dramatically different in other geological eras.

Cooked AND suffocated. Have a nice day.

p.s. What did you do to prevent nuclear war, back when it was considered a major threat to human existence? Nothing? Still driving your SUV too no doubt....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals will just sit on their hands, as always, and offer clever remarks.
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 18, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FIRST, folks need to become FURIOUSLY upset that a couple generations down the line, life will at least be torturous if not impossible.

We've become numb to bad news. We kill the messengers. It's what kings have always been doing. And we immitate royalty because it's what we all think we want.

No one's listening. As some other post on this site suggests, we are the choir singing ourselves to sleep. If not enough folks even accept the old news about global warming to elect an environmental president (Gore), and even Katrina likely soon will be old news, those ready to die, sooner than later, will stay put.

A suicidal people (read the book, "Collapse" or just Google 'extinction' to see the sites that have been there forever now) gets what it wants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What to do?
Posted by: csweet on Nov 5, 2005 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> What do we need to do, here and now? How can we do it? What comes next?

My answer (which is personal, but hopefully somewhat transferrable) is here: A Strategy for Apocalypse

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Warming - Who Needs It?
Posted by: gmadoll789 on Nov 14, 2005 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello!

I have solved Global Warming. Not the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, getting into the oceans and making them soda pop.
Just the warming part. Very, Very, simple.

You remember Krakatoa? 19th century volcano? Spewed megatons of dust into the upper atmolsphere? COOLED the entire planet by several degrees? For several YEARS?

Well, we have the technology!! We can rebuild it!!
Sort of.
Instead of dust, we use starch-based silver mylar. Very, very thin mylar, and very, very small and lightweight. That can stay in the jet streams for a good long time. And at least stop the thaw of our icecaps, tundras, and glaciers. And - it would be *Soooo* cool to look at! :-)

Anyway, starch-based because it will definitely fall back to earth, there to bio-degrade. Exact size and shape to be a matter of experimentation, and, maybe we don't want quite so much of it in the winter. Public outcry, and all. But definitely heavy around the solstices, when the sun is at peak output for the hemesheres.

Please nominate me for the Nobel Prize!
Gar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The solution
Posted by: dayahka on Mar 7, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Warming or cooling both take place on the surface and affect life on the surface...The solution is to go under the surface...

That said, we will probably have to wait until the "end of time" for any massive movement under the surface, and that is good. I do not think the existence of the human species is an unmitigated good, nor can I think of any other way to destroy a culture of narcissistic capitalism that has so degraded life on the planet...

So, let it happen, whatever it happens to be, cooling or warming, and let the great majority of us be wiped out, then let a few survive under the surface, and maybe they'll build a better civilization than he one we have now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement