“The Great Dying” Redux? Shocking Parallels Between Ancient Mass Extinction and Climate Change

[peoli]

I grew up planning for my future, wondering which college I would attend, what to study, and later on, where to work, which articles to write, what my next book might be, how to pay a mortgage, and which mountaineering trip I might like to take next.

Now, I wonder about the future of our planet. During a recent visit with my eight-year-old niece and 10- and 12-year-old nephews, I stopped myself from asking them what they wanted to do when they grew up, or any of the future-oriented questions I used to ask myself. I did so because the reality of their generation may be that questions like where they will work could be replaced by: Where will they get their fresh water? What food will be available? And what parts of their country and the rest of the world will still be habitable?

...............


We are currently in the midst of what scientists consider the sixth mass extinction in planetary history, with between 150 and 200 species going extinct daily, a pace 1,000 times greater than the “natural” or “background” extinction rate. This event may already be comparable to, or even exceed, both the speed and intensity of the Permian mass extinction. The difference being that ours is human caused, isn’t going to take 80,000 years, has so far lasted just a few centuries, and is now gaining speed in a non-linear fashion.

A study published in the prestigious journal Nature this July suggested that a 50-gigaton “burp” of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea is “highly possible at anytime.” That would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide.

Even the relatively staid IPCC has warned of such a scenario: “The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out. Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/17/the_great_dying_redux_shocking_parallels_between_ancient_mass_extinction_and_climate_change_partner/

[daleanime]

1. Kick....

[ErikJ]

2. Reminds me of a barrel of wine.

The barrel's yeast population skyrockets giving off alcohol as a waste product which eventually kills all the yeast. Yeast are alcohol deniers I guess.

[HereSince1628]

7. Replacing solar energy inputs with fossil fuel put humans on a very risky path

Many sages speculating on the future have pondered what percent of civilizations in the universe survive the discovery of atomic energy, yet have ignored or simply remained oblivious to the risks of a k-selected species getting caught in a population flush built upon fossil energy reserves.

As a species we now face risks from both environmental degradation related to the wastes of our flush in resource exploitation and the crash of the energy subsidies that have enabled it.

It's an open question about which process will soon shrink the human population by billions--environmental degradation or the exhaustion of fossil fuels.

[jsr]

3. Humans excel at causing their own demise

and screwing things up.

[newfie11]

4. And yet most of the population seems blissfully unaware or unconcerned

Of course the msm says very little about this and most folks I know have no idea about the methane time bomb.
I kind of wish I was one of them. It doesn't seem anything is going to change the direction we are headed.

[dipsydoodle]

5. As its the sixth

its pretty safe to say we'll bounce back and then either nature or ourselves will fuck it up again at a future date.

[Delphinus]

8. Let us hope

(or pray, whichever you prefer) that humanity really will be humane when they bounce back. The inhumanity of this species I am part of makes me cringe way too often.

[CrispyQ]

9. Why are you so sure we'll bounce back?

[dipsydoodle]

10. I meant Earth always has done.

I give somewhat less than a shit about "we".

[CrispyQ]

12. Got it.

I'm not hopeful for our species one bit.

Everyday I am grateful to have lived my few years in the space-time that I did.

[scheming daemons]

6. if there is no hope, why even try?

Articles like this are the opposite of helpful.

If it is all irreversible and we're doomed.... might as well buy the biggest gas guzzler we can find, pollute all we want, and party until the end of time.

When you push the "there is no hope" meme, you provide a disincentive to do the right thing.

Humanity needs to believe a problem can be solved or they won't act accordingly.

The author does a great disservice with his doom and gloom stuff.

He needs to make us believe there is something that humans can possibly do to get through this and survive to the other side.

[CrispyQ]

11. We are consuming our ecosystem for the profit of a few.

We don't need to believe a problem can be solved. We see a problem, we solve it. Unless of course the solution gets in the way of the almighty dollar.

There is virtually no political will to address climate change. The degree to which we need to change our lives, our entire system, is not even being discussed.

“Economic growth is the biggest destroyer of the ecology,” Dawe says. “Those people who think you can have a growing economy and a healthy environment are wrong. If we don’t reduce our numbers, nature will do it for us.” And he isn’t hopeful humans will be able to save themselves. “Everything is worse and we’re still doing the same things. Because ecosystems are so resilient, they don’t exact immediate punishment on the stupid.”

And what are we all hoping Congress will do? Spur the economy! Personally, I think our species is headed for the dustbin. I believe as a collective we know we're FUBAR'd & we're partying like it's 1999.

[CrispyQ]

13. A little humor:

Not surprisingly, scientists with such views are often not the most popular guys in the global room. McPherson, for instance, has often been labeled “Guy McStinction”

Very sobering article. The section "out of the frying pan & into the fire" was stunning.

* Late 2007:The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)announces that the planet will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100.

* Late 2008:The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research predicts a 2C increase by 2100.

* Mid-2009:The U.N. Environment Programme predicts a 3.5C increase by 2100. Such an increase would remove habitat for human beings on this planet, as nearly all the plankton in the oceans would be destroyed, and associated temperature swings would kill off many land plants. Humans have never lived on a planet at 3.5C above baseline.

* October 2009:The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research releases an updated prediction, suggesting a 4C temperature increase by 2060.

* November 2009:The Global Carbon Project, which monitors the global carbon cycle, and the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a climate science report, predict 6C and 7C temperature increases, respectively, by 2100.

* December 2010:The U.N. Environment Programme predicts up to a 5C increase by 2050.

* 2012: The conservative International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report for that year states that we are on track to reach a 2C increase by 2017.

* November 2013:The International Energy Agency predicts a 3.5C increase by 2035.

[FarCenter]

14. You are only responsible for approximately 1 / 7,000,000,000 th of what happens

So live in the present -- you cannot do anything about the future.

You are to humanity as a cup of water is to a pond 20 feet deep and a third of a mile square.

[truedelphi]

15. However since this nation spends more on "defense" than the next 25nations combined

All our "elected" officials have a serious and immense responsibility for the planet.

If they all attempted to downsize the military, and to downsize the black opp programs (one of which contributes 15% of the damage being done and that is causing Climate Change,) they might lose out in terms of campaign contributions, but their kids and grandkids would inherit a more enjoyable planet.