the Impending Demise of Humans

Here is a miscellany of comments regarding the impending demise of humans.

I stand with Guy and regard any "solutions", whether 'divestment', 'geoengineeing' - anything other than a choice made as an individual moral choice, as nothing less than delusional

For Those Who Still Refuse to Accept the Impending Demise of Humans

Guy McPherson

Nature Bats Last,

9 March, 2015

I’m frequently disparaged by relatively wealthy, Caucasian men who cannot think for themselves. It turns out to be a stunningly large proportion of the demographic. The line they trot out, time after time, is that I do not explain how a rapid rise in global-average temperature will cause human extinction.

Allow me, yet again, to explain with small words and short sentences. I doubt it’ll help, but I’m giving it one more try.

The genus Homo has occupied the planet for about 2.8 million years. We’ve never had humans at 3.3 C or higher above baseline in the past (baseline = beginning of the industrial revolution, commonly accepted as 1750).

Even when the genus Homo was present at relatively high global-average temperatures, the rise in temperature paled in comparison to the contemporary rate of change. Even the Wall Street Journal realizes it’s too late to mitigate. Well, of course it is: The rate of evolution trails the rate of climate change by a factor of 10,000, according to a paper in the August 2013 issue of Ecology Letters.

And that’s based on the relatively slow rate of change so far. It fails to take into account abrupt climate change, which has begun only within the last few years.

Plants cannot keep up with the rate of change. So they die. For those without the slightest clue about biology, this seems to be a technical problem to which we’ll simply design a technical solution. Not so fast, engineers. The living planet is not merely a complex set of cogs to which we can apply wrenches and screwdrivers. 

Evolutionary change requires random mutations and subsequent heritability. Alas, there is no time for multi-generational adaptation to a rapidly changing physical environment.

Without plants, there is no habitat for the genus Homo. Without plants, our species has no food. Never mind the lack of water for Earth’s current human occupants. Never mind the early deaths of millions of people due to ongoing climate change. After all, the techno-fantasies of the engineers include the ability to create potable water with “free energy.”

Starvation lurks.

Even if we could manage to move plants from one area to another, don’t expect the plants to thrive unless we move the soil, too. And the rich array of organisms within the soil. And the relatively stable weather system with which the plants evolved.

Whoops, too late. The weather is too weird. The soils are too interactively live.

We’re human animals. As with every other animal on the planet, we need habitat to survive. Once the habitat is gone, we won’t last long. But, immersed in abject misery, every moment will seem to last forever.

Forever is a long time. Especially toward the end.

There is always room for satire and humour

Scientists Consider New 

Names for Climate Change

BY ANDY BOROWITZ

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-consider-new-names-for-climate-change

NEW HAVEN (The Borowitz Report)—After a report from the Yale Center on Climate Change Communication showed that the term “climate change” elicits relatively little concern from the American public, leading scientists are recommending replacing it with a new term: “You will be burnt to a crisp and die.”

Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods” and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life.”

Scientists were generally supportive of the suggestions, with many favoring the term “your future will involve rowing a boat down a river of rotting corpses.”

“Any of these terms would do a better job conveying the urgency of the problem,” Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for the newly renamed Yale Center for Oh My God Wake Up You Assholes, said.

For some reason, the artistically-bent seem better able to see things clearly

Chill the arctic, save the 

world

http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2015/03/chill_the_arctic_save_the_worl.html

So it's official: According to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS), we're in a "climate crisis" of our own making due to the ever increasing amounts of "greenhouse gases" we humans have been pumping into the Earth's atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Age.

But just like those absurdly naïve news articles lately about the "positive economic impacts" of the Arctic's ongoing meltdown (which is picking up speed even as I write this, no lie), the NAS seems oblivious to the full scope of what we all now face due to stubbornly refusing to get off fossil fuels when we had the chance back in the 70's (or 80's, or 90's or...).

True, they are now calling for dramatic reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions along with major reforestation and soil restoration efforts beginning this decade (all good ideas, long overdue).

But they (like many) don't seem to understand that this will no longer be enough to stave off a near-term catastrophe of epic (dare I say, Biblical?) proportions.

The alternative media (such as "Truth Out") are all over what's happening to the Arctic, and the serious implications from it.

Yet, there's a creepy, "Stay calm, don't panic, everything's under control, keep consuming", feel about things coming from the "mainstream" these days.

And maybe this is because the truth is far worse than you (and perhaps even "they") may want to know:

Even as I type this, the Arctic is in a "Death Spiral", and seems hell-bent on dragging us down along with it.

Its sea-ice pack (less than two-fifths of its former glory and very thin now) is "gunning" for a "Blue Ocean" this summer or next.

(Those poor Eskimos and Polar Bears!).

Greenland is also showing signs of "rapid collapse". If it were to "let out", this would raise seas substantially and quickly, well before "later this century or next".

And Arctic Methane ("Natural Gas") is increasingly erupting from thawing tundra and shallow sea floor permafrost (most notably, along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf) in amounts that have been described by scientists as "horrific" and the like.

Not good, because Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, capable of "super-heating" the atmosphere if it builds up.

(It then breaks down into Carbon Dioxide, which has a "life-cycle" of about 200 years, give or take. Getting the point yet?)

This is all happening because at some moment, not too long ago, a "tipping point" (remember that?) was finally reached. Inconveniently.

At that point, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans decided they'd had enough of overheating due unnatural global warming from fossil fuel emissions.

(How much heat? Nearly 4.5 BILLION Hiroshima bombs worth since 1970 alone, literally several per second. Tick, tick, tick...)

Now, they are giving this heat back to the Arctic Ocean (therefore the Arctic and the world) in trumps.

Because of this, the Arctic has warmed up to a point where the temperature difference (gradient) between it and the equator has diminished enough to substantially weaken the Polar Jet Stream.

This is allowing for "freak", "stuck" air patterns unprecedented in human history (and probably then some).

These in turn are leading to the increase in extreme, "abnormal," weather disasters of late, such as the prolonged drought, heat waves and cold snaps, super storms, torrential rains, and massive, repetitive snowfalls.

(Don't believe me? Check out the current issue of "Scientific American")

Scientists are currently saying that the last time "greenhouse gas" levels were this high on Earth was millions years ago (at least the late Pliocene) when the Earth was much warmer and humans weren't around.

Wanna' go there? Neither do I. Who would??

But now the planet is trying to "catch up", and wants to do it in within a few decades. (That's gonna be a bit hard to adapt to, don't you think?)

And a number of top scientists now say it could get much worse, real fast.

They say things have become so unstable "up top" that a massive "gigaton" release of Methane is possible "at any time", especially along the rapidly thawing East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

And if this were to happen, then "all bets are off".

The Pliocene could arrive in a decade's time, give or take. (WTF??)

It is said that this type of significant, rapid heat-up will be catastrophic.

That it will cause major ecosystem and agricultural collapse, rapid sea level rise, ever more extreme weather events, and the like.

And these in turn will end civilization, and trigger mass extinctions (maybe even our own), well before mid-century.

(Well, that figures...)

And this is why a growing number of top climate experts (all of whom have friends, families, and reputations to uphold) are SCREAMING about a "planetary emergency".

They argue we're actually now in a fight for our very lives, due to a climate that is now beginning to go "out of control".

They're saying the Earth's biosphere is so maxed out from greenhouse gases that not even serious emissions reductions and far better stewardship will be enough to "save the day" anymore.

That in order to stave off catastrophe, a safe and efficient way to capture excess carbon from the atmosphere and put it back in the ground where it belonged in the first place must be found before long.

Of more immediate concern, they now insist that (so as to minimize future Arctic Methane releases, and prevent that "gigaburst") it is imperative to engineer a "Hail Mary" style "cool down" of the Arctic during its sunny months, beginning this spring (utilizing "cloud seeding", an established technology, at least).

Not much in this world makes sense these days, but I guess this does.

So, here we are, at least half-way to heck with a HUGE decision on our hands:

(And it hasn't been as if there haven't been ample warnings along the way.)

Do we continue to go along with global warming and climate change deniers, even 'though their "worm tongue" claims seem ever more ridiculous with each new, disastrous, day?

With those who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and resisting change?

And just take out chances with an "On The Beach" (or at best, "Beyond Thunderdome") scenario, despite what a growing number of experts are saying?

Or do we actually do something about all this before it really is too late?

Getting off fossil fuels isn't as impossible as some say it is.

(Not doing so sure looks terminal, 'though.)

Major advancements have been made in efficiency and solar (room for big gains here!). And the technology exists (or is rapidly developing) for far less polluting fuels, lubricants, and plastics from hemp (and even algae).

Better stewardship practices will certainly help (along with more "thinking global, being local").

But it is going to take some technological breakthroughs, such as for carbon capture (not to mention better storage of the large amounts of spent, but still radioactive, nuclear fuel currently being "temporarily" stored at aging, closing fission reactors worldwide, lest there be more Fukushimas).

Hey, this is the era of nanotechnology. Let's do it!

In the true spirit of the "open, free market", let's have some real innovation!

If there can be any better investment than "saving the world" for all those corporate trillions currently "parked" in offshore accounts, I don't know what that could possibly be (talk about a jobs and infrastructure program!).

True, to deal with the climate threat we all now face, far more cooperation and forgiveness (and far less confrontation) will be necessary worldwide (not that!).

Yet, it just seems like such a damn, stupid, shame to be touching the stars, and then self-destruct due to greed, inefficiency, war, ignorance, apathy, and denial.

Maybe things are already "too far gone" to re-stabilize the Earth's climate back where our species (and most life) needs it in order to survive (let alone thrive).

And sooner or later, "we're doomed" (unless we get off the planet, 'though that "coming singularity" is still only a dim light down a long tunnel).

At least we went out trying to fix the mess we've made instead of dumping it on the heads of today's beautiful, innocent, children and countless other species.

At least we went down "giving it our best shot" instead of "firing drunk and blind".

First and foremost, there's the issue of "chillin' down the Arctic", preferably before the Sun returns to the North Pole...

(You listening, world "movers and shakers"? How "lucky" are you feeling now?)

A good thought and a prayer to all Creation amidst the Whirlwind...

Cody Michaels, - piano soloist, composer, storyteller, poet, poet, rock roller, student of life

"The wild party's over. Here's the bill." (Mother Earth)

A word about veganism

Seemorerocks

I have a had a range of comments, ranging from a friend referencing desertification and the disappearance of Habitat - “I have long thought the Chinese purchases of farms in NZ were in part to protect agaisnt this phenomenon”

To -

“I think people concerning themselves with careerists like McKibben whilst ignoring the great contribution animal agriculture places to climate change, are suffering from the same hypocrisy that Bill McKibben is.”

It has got me thinking, because we get a lot of aggressive prosetylising about veganism these days, so I would like to record what I think about it.

If people want to adopt veganism on a personal basis to reduce their own participation in violence, as a moral choice, I can only support that.

However, that is where it ends.

Veganism is not going to “save the planet” (all due respect to Chris Hedges), any more than geoengineering, changing the lightbulbs or anything else – right up to things that are definitely “right”, like permaculture

The train has left the station.

The horse has bolted.

As a personal dietary choice I am far more in favour of lactovegetarianism (if for nothing else than for the ability to have a more balanced diet).

As a way of approaching how we manage our land (and I mean our land, as I am not naïve enough to think that there is going to be any positive changes in agriculture.

It has always made me wonder what these folks would propose doing with those cattle, sheep and pigs that actually exist in today’s world in the highly unlikely event of a change of heart about industrial farming. Letting them lose to destroy what remains of our land? Culling them? (I hope not)

All of this makes me think of two things – both related in some way to Tibetan Buddhism. The first, is the statement by a Lama when asked about diet - “You are not going to become enlightened by eating” and the second is the rather hypocritical practice of Tibetans who need meat to survive getting Muslims to carry out the deed because of their ban on killing.

Human nature is a funny and contradictory thing. I prefer to see things as they are rather than adopt some ideal.

To make it clear to those with closed minds, I abhore the practice of industrial farming as much as I do the practices of Wall Street and crony capitalism. But , seeing none of these things is going to go away until we witness a sudden and catastrophic meltdown I will live what remains of my life as I see best.

In the meantime, I dislike implications that I am a hypocrite because I don’t embrace somebody else’s ideology.