Mass Extinction: It's the End of the World as We Know It

[marmar]

Mass Extinction: It's the End of the World as We Know It

Monday, 06 July 2015 09:35
By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Interview




Guy McPherson is a professor emeritus of evolutionary biology, natural resources and ecology at the University of Arizona, and has been a climate change expert for 30 years. He has also become a controversial figure, due to the fact that he does not shy away from talking about the possibility of near-term human extinction.

While McPherson's perspective might sound like the stuff of science fiction, there is historical precedent for his predictions. Fifty-five million years ago, a 5-degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures seems to have occurred in just 13 years, according to a study published in the October 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A report in the August 2013 issue of Science revealed that in the near term, earth's climate will change 10 times faster than during any other moment in the last 65 million years.

Prior to that, the Permian mass extinction that occurred 250 million years ago, also known as the "Great Dying," was triggered by a massive lava flow in an area of Siberia that led to an increase in global temperatures of 6 degrees Celsius. That, in turn, caused the melting of frozen methane deposits under the seas. Released into the atmosphere, those gases caused temperatures to skyrocket further. All of this occurred over a period of approximately 80,000 years. The change in climate is thought to be the key to what caused the extinction of most species on the planet. In that extinction episode, it is estimated that 95 percent of all species were wiped out.

Today's current scientific and observable evidence strongly suggests we are in the midst of the same process - only this time it is anthropogenic, and happening exponentially faster than even the Permian mass extinction did. ..............(more)

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31661-mass-extinction-it-s-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. We had an ok run.

I just wish there was some way to be able to store our knowledge as a species in a way that the next species along that rises to sentience in a few hundred million years could find it and use it without having to relearn it the hard way.

I dunno, maybe bunkers scattered across the moon with libraries in them? Of course, any species that could get offplanet to find them might already have passed us up in many ways.

[luvspeas]

4. What would we store?

How to make endless horrible war and genocide?
How to make one group of humans with a certain lack of melanin gain all the resources and power while the rest suffer?
How to coerce humans into believing that an invisible deity is more important than the welfare of the humans that they see in front of their faces?
How to make humans willingly give up every right and freedom they possess to collect pieces of metal and paper.
How to make humans believe that the ones with the most paper and metal are better and more deserving than humans without?
How to make the humans who do not carry children believe that they possess the ones who do.

I think a clean slate would be much better.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Those would all be good things to store.

The best way to learn not to do stupid things is to have examples of other people who did do those stupid things, and how badly it turned out for them. That's a lot better than making those mistakes yourself.

[StandingInLeftField]

32. Been there,...

....done that, did not work out too well.

[jeff47]

11. We won't be dying out.

These big brains mean our species won't be going extinct from climate change.

Let's say it's worse than all of the worst-case scenarios, and 5 billion humans die from starvation, wars, drought, and similar climate effects. That leaves 2.5 billion humans alive.

It would be chaos, and very unpleasant to live through. But our species would still be here.

[CrispyQ]

23. It's our big brains that got us in this mess.

We are not so special that we will survive anything & everything. Arrogance is one of our biggest faults. Yes, we have some brilliant individuals, but as a collective, we aren't too bright.

Also, where do you get your worse case scenario figure of 5 billion from? Do you have a link for that?

[jeff47]

24. Did you notice the part where I said "worse than the worst case scenarios"?

That kinda indicates that 5 billion was pulled out of the ether as a number much worse than the predictions.

To wipe out our species, you have to kill 7.5 billion of us. Climate change can't do that. The droughts, famines and wars from climate change could kill billions. But when you eliminate several billion, you also eliminate demand for food for those several billion. And now you can actually feed the much smaller number that remain, despite the droughts.

You need a much larger event than climate change to actually kill all of us. Something like a comet impact.

[hollysmom]

41. we won't all instantly die, but as the population takes a serious drop and the major cities

disappear and people have to move underground to avoid the worst of it, the whole way to survive will be challenged - whop is outside working the oil drills with the increase in storms. where will the food come from, where will.....? How will we survive with the changing oxygen content, with the change needed in nutrients,

No we won't die out in a couple of years, but dwindle away until there is no trace.

[jeff47]

46. People won't have to move underground.

Climate change can't turn Earth into Venus. The surface will still be quite habitable.

whop is outside working the oil drills with the increase in storms.

Pretty much the same kind of people who work them today. If we still have to drill in the oceans, we'll figure out how to harden the rigs so they can withstand storms. Or we'll get better at disconnecting them and moving them out of the way.

where will the food come from

Generally, from land closer to the poles or artificial environments (massive greenhouses, massively irrigated areas, etc.)

Again, there's about 75% fewer humans in this nightmare scenario. That means we have a lot less mouths to feed.

How will we survive with the changing oxygen content

Oxygen levels are not going to change much. We're talking about atmospheric changes on the parts-per-million scale. It's not like we're going to go from 23% oxygen to 10% oxygen.

Photosynthesis will still work. And will still produce oxygen.

with the change needed in nutrients

We will still need the same nutrients. We aren't going to suddenly mutate into a new species.

[haikugal]

51. We need to factor in disease...

And die off of the biome. If the ocean dies we won't have those oxygen producers and on land the growing things and insects etc. will be stressed as well...

As you say, not pleasant...everything we know, and love, may die.

I don't know if we can make a difference now, twenty years late, but we should get moving anyway.

[jeff47]

62. Which still won't wipe us out.

If the ocean dies we won't have those oxygen producers

The "oxygen producers" are algae at the bottom of the ocean's food pyramid. They are much less susceptible to acidification than higher-order species.

and on land the growing things and insects etc. will be stressed as well.

Yes they will. But we would still be able to feed ourselves in that dystopia.

I don't know if we can make a difference now, twenty years late, but we should get moving anyway.

All it takes is sufficient money and will.

[NickB79]

64. Correction: *PARTS* of the planet will be habitable. Much smaller parts, far from the equator

Because, in addition to rising temperatures, you also encounter rising relative humidity.

And the relative humidity expected over equatorial regions of the planet in the next 200 years will be above anything humans can survive unaided by technology.

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html

We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."

Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees would be intolerable after a matter of hours.

"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next."

[jeff47]

72. Yet that still won't require the remaining humans to relocate underground. (nt)

[Mojorabbit]

73. Where would they live? nt

[jeff47]

75. You just posted that near the equator would be a problem...

golly...I wonder if that leaves other parts of the planet's surface...

[RKP5637]

76. A core will survive IMO, but millions upon millions would likely be wiped out. n/t

[snooper2]

3. C-

[SidDithers]

5. Truth Out ranks down there with HuffPo on their science writing...

They published Joseph Mercola, as if he was credible, while questioning the credibility of Dr. Paul Offit.

Any publication with an eye toward accuracy would know that situation should be reversed.

Edit: rationalwiki on Guy McPherson
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson

Sid

[truebluegreen]

8. Is National Geographic more to your liking?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140218-kolbert-book-extinction-climate-science-amazon-rain-forest-wilderness/

We have embarked on the sixth great extinction, and since we are basically doing fuck all to change course (instead doubling down on climate change) it would be totally unsurprising to me if we ended up taking ourselves with it...or at least destroyed our civilization as we know it.

Are you familiar with the concept of runaway warming? Unlike the opposite extreme of a "snowball" planet, it is not recoverable.

[jeff47]

9. The difference is Kolbert is not predicting human extinction.

Which is quite a large difference.

[truebluegreen]

13. "Mass Extinction--it's the end of the world as we know it." nt

[jeff47]

14. And if you actually read the article you linked, you'll find she is talking about other species.

So....you didn't bother to read your own link?

[SidDithers]

16. Is NatGeo citing Guy McPherson?...nt

Sid

[haikugal]

52. Methane and the tipping point... It's exponential.

Climate change has always pushed us to the brink and we almost died out once before..we should take this very seriously. Billions of lives, not just ours, depend on us.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. I agree with you on McPherson. However, you pointed out the problem but offered no solution. Or...

in this case, you offered no alternative to McPherson as to who we can believe where it relates to the timing of consequences related to climate change.

May was recorded as the hottest month in recorded history. June will probably break that record. So, who should we be reading for the latest forecast on the effects of climate change?

[NV Whino]

6. Like crocodiles, some form of Homo sapiens would survive.

[appalachiablue]

49. What a thought, and image!

[jeff47]

12. TruthOut: We find the most unsupportable but exciting claims, and publish them!

Humans won't be dying out. These big brains mean we can adapt quickly enough to survive as a species.

Every other species? Well, they might be in trouble.

[truebrit71]

15. And we feed those big brains what, precisely?

I would imagine that it'll be pretty hard to survive with no food....ymmv...

[jeff47]

19. And we can grow food everywhere on the planet.

Yes, it's not possible to feed 7.5 billion humans from greenhouses and food production moved towards the poles. We don't need to feed all 7.5 billion to keep the species alive.

[truebrit71]

26. Not if the temperatures continue to rise we can't...

...

[jeff47]

27. Dead people don't use electricity or drive cars.

"Do nothing" will eventually cut greenhouse gas emissions, due to the massive reduction in the number of living humans. But that still leaves some humans alive.

[truebrit71]

34. But not before all of the ice has gone and the temperature has gone through the roof..

....There may well be some humans left alive....but alot of that depends upon whether anything else edible survives as well...

[jeff47]

37. Which, again, still leaves some humans alive.

but alot of that depends upon whether anything else edible survives as well...

There are advantages to being omnivorous.

If we have to, we can feed people from crops grown in artificial conditions. We will not be able to feed anywhere near 7.5 billion people that way. But we could easily feed a billion or two with our current technology.

[NickB79]

68. "we could easily feed a billion or two with our current technology."

Why do you assume we'd still have current technology?

When Rome fell, centuries worth of technological advances were lost. Same goes for the loss of the Library of Alexandria, and multiple Greek city-states. The new civilizations that took their place had to relearn much of what was lost on their own, or piece it together from scraps.

A global die-off would not be orderly, or give any assurances much of our ability to maintain modern tech would be intact. At the same time, we've reached the point where most of the mining of raw materials for maintaining modern tech are themselves dependent upon modern tech. IE, the easy oil gushers are all gone, and more and more you need advanced deepwater or fracking rigs to get to the remaining large oilfields. Easily smelted ore reserves are now largely played out, and the remaining ones are in inhospitable areas or deep underground. Coal seams close to the surface are largely played out as well.

A global collapse (and lets be fair, that's what 2/3 of the global population dying off would be) is a crapshoot in every way. We might come through with a fair amount of technology, or we might be thrown back to Medieval times. IMO, how the global nuclear-armed powers react to the constriction of resources will be the deciding factor.

[jeff47]

70. Because we don't need supercomputers to handle irrigation. (nt)

[truebluegreen]

17. Maybe you are correct, maybe not.

I've thought for some time that our "big brains" are exactly what has gotten us into this mess, and I am doubtful that they can get us out. I think the ability to alter one's environment in a wholesale fashion--in effect, to perform a scientific experiment on a global scale--is not a survival trait.

[jeff47]

21. Our brains are what got us into this situation. But how would you wipe us out?

Climate change will create famines and droughts that lead to wars. But that still won't kill all of us.

Let's say it's worse than every prediction for "we do nothing". And 5 billion people die. That leaves 2.5 billion people alive.

It will not be pleasant to go through that. But we do not need pleasant to survive as a species.

[Teacheral]

42. Plate tectonics

will subduct all evidence of man's existence in the convection cycle of the earth's mantle. Jesus will be pissed.

[jeff47]

44. Only if we stop moving for a few hundred million years. (nt)

[truebluegreen]

50. Runaway global warming certainly has the potential to kill us all,

and that's with the assumption that the collapse of our ecosystem doesn't do it first. With the speed the climate is changing, plus the fact that we are doing nothing but accelerating the destructive process, plus the fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gases will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years after we stop emitting them...I wouldn't give good odds on our chances. Big abilities + big egos + zero forethought is not a good combination.

[jeff47]

61. Except we aren't going to turn into Venus.

Even the worst-case scenarios have the temperature leveling off well below the point where the planet is uninhabitable by humans.

Again, to actually go extinct you have to wipe out all humans. That's actually really damn hard to do. Wipe out all but a million? That means we are still around.

[AZ Progressive]

63. Humans are dependent on a lot of things

including plants and food, oxygen, fresh water, etc...

You don't really get how sensitive organisms are until you have tropical fish as pets. Then you can understand ecosystems and the sensitivity of life.

[jeff47]

71. We aren't tropical fish.

If we were, we'd still be living on African savannas. Instead, we successfully moved into every biome on the planet. Long before we invented writing.

[SidDithers]

20. Gotta get the clicks!...

Sensationalism sells.

Sid

[jeff47]

22. Our 10 celebrity apocalyptic secrets will amaze you! You'll never believe #6! (nt)

[Avalux]

47. Those big brains wouldn't know how to survive.

Let's say all of a sudden, we lose electricity and satellites for good. How many people would be able to survive without their phones? How many people would be able to survive without modern conveniences?

I don't think very many. Geez I know a lot of people that have no idea how to cook a meal as it is now.

We're the ones who will be in trouble, because we'll be aware of what's happening to us and we'll know it's our fault, unlike the other species.

[jeff47]

48. There's 7.5 billion of us. Plenty will be able to survive without modern electronics

In fact, about 1.3 billion of us live without electricity right now.

[Mojorabbit]

74. I had a friend ask me what a broccoli plant was

while walking around my garden. I think a lot of people cannot even identify what edible plants look like whilst growing. I think the mass migration of people will cause a lot of death. No area can absorb the amount of people who will need to be absorbed and sustain them.

[NickB79]

66. The danger comes from the final massive fights over the remaining resources and habitable lands

A half-dozen countries, all armed with massive militaries and nuclear weapons, trying to stop waves of human refugees from flooding their borders while at the same time fighting to secure habitable land in the Arctic Circle, has the potential for disaster.

A nuclear war wiping out billions and poisoning the planet with fallout for a century, followed by a nuclear winter, followed by massive global warming as the soot settles, would be a multi-punch assault that may indeed push our species to the brink.

I think it is naive to expect humans to just die out by the billions as climate change ravages the planet and not fight one another for resources with all the horrible weapons at our disposal.

[RiverLover]

67. Its not just TruthOut.

Planet in peril: Humans must act against a new mass extinction (7/6/15)
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/07/06/Planet-in-peril-Humans-must-act-against-a-new-mass-extinction/stories/201506300045

Measuring the sixth mass extinction (7/6/15)
https://cosmosmagazine.com/life-sciences/measuring-sixth-mass-extinction

The Sixth Mass Extinction: We Aren’t The Dinosaurs, We’re The Asteroid (6/28/15)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/28/the-sixth-mass-extinction-we-aren-t-the-dinosaurs-we-re-the-asteroid.html

We're Entering A Sixth Mass Extinction, And It's Our Fault (6/24/15)
http://www.popsci.com/were-entering-sixth-mass-extinction-and-its-our-fault

And many more~
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=mass+extinction&oq=mass+extinction&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0j43i53.800.5098.0.5614.15.7.0.8.8.0.113.658.6j1.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.HN0MbFolhCk

[NobodyHere]

18. And I feel fine

[KamaAina]

45. Nice post, Stipe!

[RiverLover]

65. Someone had to say it, but NobodyHere did ;)

[Rex]

25. We could lose billions of people, but we would survive so he is wrong.

That is nice, but the title is AS WE KNOW IT...which I guess is too hard to argue with a shitty hand.

"professor emeritus of evolutionary biology, natural resources and ecology at the University of Arizona, and has been a climate change expert for 30 years"...but you know...what does he know compared to the DU experts (that have no reply but snark).

[madinmaryland]

28. I would rather hear from DU's experts than from free republic's experts!!!!

[haikugal]

53. Amazing isn't it?

From the link..

"A Child Born Today May Live to See Humanity's End, Unless ..." reads a recent blog post title from Reuters. It reads:

Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable, according to Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner, one of the leaders of the effort to eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. He blames overcrowding, denuded resources and climate change. Fenner's prediction is not a sure bet, but he is correct that there is no way emissions reductions will be enough to save us from our trend toward doom. And there doesn't seem to be any big global rush to reduce emissions, anyway.

But some might survive..

I want more than that for the world and it's children...

[raouldukelives]

56. Whats a few billion between friends?

Some think we will engineer our way out. Some think Jesus will save us.

Both are as likely.

So many feedback loops, so little time.

Say, while those lucky billions are running around with all that extra space and extra food. Or at least, whatever is considered "food" at that point, I hope a few of them will take the time to make sure all those nuclear power plants are properly shut down. I've heard those can be tricky if you don't keep an eye on them.

Bah, I'm sure someone will leave a post it note.

[4dsc]

29. We don't have time for mass extinction

the masses are too busy being consumer of goods to be bothered with mass extinctions. As long as the malls are open and their credit cards allow them to buy goods they are happy. They don't care about the future because they have been brainwashed that way. Like most people here.

[RiverLover]

69. +1

Sad but oh so true.

[luvspeas]

30. I actually prefer the idea of the whole universe going out through a teeny tiny black hole...

created by the Hadron collider. This is all just a figment of a Boltzman's brain anyway. There will always be other dimensions.

[Roland99]

31. Wayward Pines

[BlueJazz]

33. I'm going to point out something that everybody here knows: Most of the politicians are older...

...people. I like to think that those on the left would feel the same as we do...we care and want the best for our planet and it's life forms.
However, most of us also know how a lot of Republicans think: Why should I give a damn about Global warming ? It's not true anyway. My children won't have to deal with much and they'll be rich anyway...and the MOST important thing..heh..heh..I'll be dead..so screw it!

That's the kind of thinking we have to fight.

[cstanleytech]

36. Yup its foolish because more people should care about the long term consequences of their actions

but look at the size of our population? The current expansion is totally unsustainable because the resources of the planet are finite but people keep on having more than one child and in some countries they are literally breeding like blowflies.

[olddots]

38. agree 100%

The word responcabilty comes to mind .We may never know what makes some people believe that the world owes them a living and others believe that they owe the world a living .

" snark " is a defence mechanism maybe we can defend ourselves from ourselves before its too late .

[Cleita]

39. Too bad some scientist doesn't try to prove reincarnation as a real event.

If some of those who think they will miss out because they are supposed to die soon, what if they knew they would have to be reborn? Maybe they would think differently about the world they are leaving behind, which they will have to reenter.

I know, it's crazy, but I sometimes wonder if that belief would change people's actions.

[BlueJazz]

43. Not as crazy as you think. Read your mail.

[cstanleytech]

35. Actually last I they still didnt know for certain what caused the Permian extinction

and the lava one in Siberia was still only considered as one of a number of possible explanations.

[C Moon]

40. Cockroaches will reign.

[NV Whino]

55. Cockroaches and raccoons.

[StevieM]

54. I am so glad that I don't have children. (eom)

[LiberalElite]

57. I don't know who said this but: "Nature bats last." eom

[AZ Progressive]

58. Was the Industrial Revolution worth it if it led to the destruction of life on earth in only a few..

centuries?

[AZ Progressive]

59. So the greedaholics have really destroyed this world

Greed built empires, greed built the industrial revolution, greed hollowed the hearts of many, and greed has kept society from effectively fighting back and saving humankind from it's own destruction.

[AZ Progressive]

60. BTW, here's an article that the author wrote months ago that outlines this in more detail

Dahr Jamail | The Methane Monster Roars

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28490-the-methane-monster-roars

Natalia Shakhova is a research associate professor of the University Alaska Fairbanks, International Arctic Research Center, where she focuses on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). Shakhova believes we should be concerned about her group's findings from the ESAS, specifically, because that area differs significantly from methane emissions happening elsewhere around the world.

A study published in the prestigious journal Nature in July 2013 confirmed what Shakhova has been warning us about for years: 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. (Remember, for perspective, humans have released approximately 1,475 gigatons in total carbon dioxide since the year 1850.)

She explained that the transition from the methane being frozen in the permafrost, either on land or in the shallow northern shores of the East Siberian Arctic, "is not gradual. When it comes to phase transition, it appears to be a relatively short, jump-like transformation from one state of the process to another state. The difference between the two states is like the difference between a closed valve and an open valve. This kind of a release is like the unsealing of an over-pressurized pipeline."

Read more at: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28490-the-methane-monster-roars

[wundermaus]

77. Funny thing about humans... they think they are the center of the actiion.

We are part of the web of life on this planet. And when we alter the atmosphere by making it a global, corporate toilet, things can and do go horribly wrong. Like killing off foundation species that feed the plants and animals that feed us. The earth is like an island. Take a good look at Easter Island. There is an example of what can go wrong when people keep doing the same stuff expecting different results. The other funny thing about us is we think in human time frames... The stuff we have been doing for the past couple of hundred years has set in motion feedback loops that are already in process. There is nothing we can do about them now. The cows are already out of the barn. The best we can do is now is enjoy the trip over the cliff. Flying is fun, hitting the ground sucks. Have a nice trip everybody.