Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
11 replies, 2284 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Human Extinction within 10 years (Original Post)
Binkie The Clown
Dec 2016
OP
"Tipping points" that destroy all human life in less than a decade certainly are.
FBaggins
Dec 2016
#6
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)1. Well, that would save the planet. nt
MFM008
(19,818 posts)2. Is tomorrow available?
?????
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)3. This really belongs in Creative Speculation
There is no rational scientific basis for the claim that we'll all be dead within the next decade.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)4. Global warming tipping points are hardly speculation.
Every new study that comes out concludes with "sooner, faster than expected, worse than we thought before..." or words to that effect.
sue4e3
(731 posts)5. No study concludes we'll all be dead in 10 years or less
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)6. "Tipping points" that destroy all human life in less than a decade certainly are.
Every new study that comes out concludes with "sooner, faster than expected, worse than we thought before..." or words to that effect.
Even were that true (it isn't), so what? None of them are in the same zip code as "kills all humans in ten years".
Even were that true (it isn't), so what? None of them are in the same zip code as "kills all humans in ten years".
TXCritter
(344 posts)7. That's a relief.
It's completely wrong but it's a nice idea.
sue4e3
(731 posts)9. It's not a relief at all. I'm just wary of forcasting the appocalypse. it doesn't work out well.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)8. Especially if Trump is in charge for 8 of those 10 years...
I claimed before the election that the best thing the Deep Green Resistance types could do to save the planet, is work to get The Donald elected. Now we'll all get a chance to see if I was right!
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)10. How Guy McPherson gets it wrong
https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]How Guy McPherson gets it wrong[/font]
02/17/2014 by SJ
[font size=3]
First, I want to go over general problems with McPhersons claims and talk about what climate science is really telling us. For those wanting specifics, Ill post a list of point-by-point corrections of McPhersons main Climate Change Summary and Update post in the third section.
In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed climate skeptics who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way. The skeptics often quote snippets of science that, on full examination, doesnt actually support their claims, and this is McPhersons modus operandi. The skeptics dismiss science they dont like by saying that climate researchers lie to keep the grant money coming; McPherson dismisses inconvenient science by claiming that scientists are downplaying risks because theyre too cowardly to speak the truth and flout our corporate overlords. Both malign the IPCC as political and therefore not objective. And both will cite nearly any claim that supports their views, regardless of source putting evidence-free opinions on par with scientific research. (In one example I cant help but highlight, McPherson cites a survivalist blog warning that Earths atmosphere is running out of oxygen.)
McPherson bills himself as a scientist simply passing along the science (even as he dismisses climate scientists and their work), but he cites nearly as many blog posts and newspaper columns as published studies. When he does cite a study, its often clear that he hasnt taken the time to actually read it, depending instead on a news story about it. He frequently gets the information from the study completely wrong, which is a difficult thing for most readers to check given that most papers are behind paywalls (not to mention that scientific papers arent easy to understand).
McPherson leans heavily on claims from people associated with the Arctic News blog about a catastrophic, runaway release of methane that supposedly is already underway in the Arctic. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), the data dont match their assertions. The latest IPCC and NAS assessment reports, in fact, deemed such a release very unlikely this century. One reason for that is that the Arctic has been this warm or warmer a couple times in the last 200,000 years, yet that methane stayed in the ground. Another reason is that scientists actually bother to study and model the processes involved. One thing McPherson and others like to point to is the recent work by Natalia Shakhovas group observing bubbling plumes of methane coming up from the seafloor on the Siberian Shelf. Since weve only been sampling these plumes for a few years, we have no idea whether that release of methane is increasing or if these are long-term features. Similar plumes off Svalbard, for example, appear to be thousands of years old. (More to put this methane in context here.)
[/font][/font]
02/17/2014 by SJ
[font size=3]
First, I want to go over general problems with McPhersons claims and talk about what climate science is really telling us. For those wanting specifics, Ill post a list of point-by-point corrections of McPhersons main Climate Change Summary and Update post in the third section.
In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed climate skeptics who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way. The skeptics often quote snippets of science that, on full examination, doesnt actually support their claims, and this is McPhersons modus operandi. The skeptics dismiss science they dont like by saying that climate researchers lie to keep the grant money coming; McPherson dismisses inconvenient science by claiming that scientists are downplaying risks because theyre too cowardly to speak the truth and flout our corporate overlords. Both malign the IPCC as political and therefore not objective. And both will cite nearly any claim that supports their views, regardless of source putting evidence-free opinions on par with scientific research. (In one example I cant help but highlight, McPherson cites a survivalist blog warning that Earths atmosphere is running out of oxygen.)
McPherson bills himself as a scientist simply passing along the science (even as he dismisses climate scientists and their work), but he cites nearly as many blog posts and newspaper columns as published studies. When he does cite a study, its often clear that he hasnt taken the time to actually read it, depending instead on a news story about it. He frequently gets the information from the study completely wrong, which is a difficult thing for most readers to check given that most papers are behind paywalls (not to mention that scientific papers arent easy to understand).
McPherson leans heavily on claims from people associated with the Arctic News blog about a catastrophic, runaway release of methane that supposedly is already underway in the Arctic. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), the data dont match their assertions. The latest IPCC and NAS assessment reports, in fact, deemed such a release very unlikely this century. One reason for that is that the Arctic has been this warm or warmer a couple times in the last 200,000 years, yet that methane stayed in the ground. Another reason is that scientists actually bother to study and model the processes involved. One thing McPherson and others like to point to is the recent work by Natalia Shakhovas group observing bubbling plumes of methane coming up from the seafloor on the Siberian Shelf. Since weve only been sampling these plumes for a few years, we have no idea whether that release of methane is increasing or if these are long-term features. Similar plumes off Svalbard, for example, appear to be thousands of years old. (More to put this methane in context here.)
[/font][/font]
hunter
(38,326 posts)11. Nah, it's an asteroid named "Matilda."