"
As for global warming, a non-consensus school of scientific thought,
consisting of a small minority of scientists, believes the ecosystem
is at risk of collapse within current lifetime. These scientists do
not pull punches. Rather, they tell it like it is, as they see it."
This
may be a discreet hat tip to Pro.Guy McPherson
Global Warming and the Planetary Boundary
by ROBERT
HUNZIKER
20
April, 2016
Climate
change is on a fast track, a surprisingly fast, very fast track. As
such, it’s entirely possible that humanity may be facing the shock
of a lifetime, caught off-guard, blindsided by a crumbling ecosystem,
spawning tens of thousands of ISIS-like fighters formed into
competing gangs struggling for survival.
Furthermore,
what if the biosphere is already under stress by “planetary
boundary” or the capacity of the planet to support life? Then what?
As
for global warming, a non-consensus school of scientific thought,
consisting of a small minority of scientists, believes the ecosystem
is at risk of collapse within current lifetime. These scientists do
not pull punches. Rather, they tell it like it is, as they see it.
Whereas,
most leading climate scientists are not willing to honestly expose
their greatest fears, as discovered by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!
while at COP21 in Paris this past December, interviewing one of the
world’s leading climate scientists, Kevin Anderson of Tyndall
Center for Climate Change Research, who said: “So far we simply
have not been prepared to accept the revolutionary implications of
our own findings, and even when we do we are reluctant to voice such
thoughts openly… many are ultimately choosing to censor their own
research.”
Straightaway,
we know from one of the world’s leading authorities that climate
scientists are censoring their own research. They are low-balling.
Consider this; imagine trying to get a “research grant or private
funding” for work that exposes the dastardly truth. That’s the
quickest way forward to an unemployment line of sour-faced
scientists.
At
Paris COP21 just a few months ago, it was agreed by almost every
nation on the planet to take defensive action, on a voluntary basis,
to limit global warming to under 2C post industrialization,
preferably under 1.5C. Mainstream thinking says anything over that
level will cause all sorts of problems in the biosphere from flooding
of major cities to massive droughts, starvation, leading to a
splintering of society into tribal warfare, similar to what’s now
evolving along the southern Mediterranean and throughout the Middle
East.
However,
what if the climate is not onside with the mathematical models of the
consensus? Maybe 2C is already cooked into the books yet only a blip
on the way to 3C, 4C much sooner than the consensus believes.
Already, the Arctic is in ultra rapid turbo-charged meltdown phase,
which could fry humanity to a crisp, burned alive, as gigatons of
methane are released from under the ice. However, this occurrence is
controversial within the scientific community. Nobody knows what’ll
happen when!
Still,
if true, then COP21 should be ringing big resounding alarm bells all
across the land and pressing siren buttons, all hands on deck, but
that would scare the public, possibly causing panic, maybe triggering
a nasty revolt by the populace against fossil fuel interests and
neoliberal interests that sacrifice a sustainable ecosystem for
profits, only profits. Who knows? It could get bloody.
“Temperatures
look set to soar over the coming months over the Northern Hemisphere
at large and over the Arctic in particular,”Record
Arctic Warming, Arctic
News, April 5, 2016.
And,
very disconcertingly “from January 13, 2016, to April 11, 2016,
most of the Arctic Ocean was more than 6°C (10.8°F) warmer than
1981-2011.” As goes the Arctic sea ice, so goes an out-of-control
bonkers climate that is deathly dangerous.
“The
Arctic is in crisis,” claims Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Arctic
Sea Ice Sets Wintertime Record Low Thanks to Global Warming,
USA Today, March 26, 2016.
If
the Arctic is “in crisis,” then, by definition, the planet is in
crisis. Maybe the ole clarion bell in the public square should be
ringing like crazy.
Skyrocketing
Land-Only Temperatures
“The
temperature rise is even higher when looking at measurements from
Land-only stations. The image … compares the March 2016 temperature
with the period from 1890-1910 (250 km smoothing), showing a
Land-only anomaly of 2.42°C or 4.36°F,” Monthly
Mean Global Surface Temperature,
Arctic News, April 16, 2016.
Forget
COP21, it may already be passé.
According
to Arctic News, April 16th: By 2026, temperatures will be 3.9°C on
the low side or 10.4°C on the high side warmer “on land” since
the start of the industrial revolution. Which adds up to a disaster
on the low end. On the high end, a gigantic worse disaster, or total
ecosystem collapse hits hard, as tribes of fearful humans huddle
around the North and South Poles, scaling coconut trees to obtain
sustenance.
Global
Warming & Planetary Boundary Collision Dead Ahead
Not
only is global warming contributing to the prospect of ecological
collapse, a study by 22 biologists and ecologists claims the world is
close to a “state shift” that will trigger ecological collapse.
Here’s the issue: Already >43% of ice-free land has been
converted for crops, livestock, and cities. But, the study shows that
when more than 50% of landscape is lost, i.e., the Planetary
Boundary, the ecological web can collapse.
“We
summarize evidence that such planetary-scale critical transitions
have occurred previously in the biosphere, albeit rarely, and that
humans are now forcing another such transition, with the potential to
transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in
human experience,” Anthony D. Barnosky, et al, Approaching
a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere, Nature
486, 52-58 June 2012.
According
to James H. Brown, a microecologist at the University of New Mexico
and co-author of the study, this “scares the hell out of me. We’ve
created this enormous bubble of population and economy… it’s just
unsustainable. It’s either got to be deflated gently, or it’s
going to bust,” Justin Gillis, Are
We Nearing a Planetary Boundary? NY
Times, June 6, 2012.
For
example, the average person in an industrialized country requires the
equivalent of 2-5 hectares (5-12 acres) of productive land to sustain
material consumption. This is derived via resource flows of goods and
services. However, there are only 1.5 hectares per capita of
ecologically productive land on the planet (World Resources
Institute).
Ipso
facto, there is a sustainability gap, which helps to explain why
natural capital depletion is ongoing rather than a sustainable flow
of natural capital. In fact, rough calculations “suggest the
ecological footprint of all industrial nations, representing less
than 20% of the world population, is larger than the available
ecologically productive land on Earth (Mathis Wackernagel and William
E. Rees, Perceptual
and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital: Economics
from an Ecological Footprint Perspective,
Ecological Economics 20, May 28, 1996).
In
other words, 20% of the world’s population consumes 100% of the
ecological productive capital of the planet, beyond which natural
capital goes into deficit, helping to clarify why 2.7 billion people
live on $2 per day (World Bank) and will stay that way.
“It
is simply not possible… for everybody in the world to consume at
current industrial levels without risking irreversible resource
depletion and ecosphere collapse” (Wackernagel).
In
consequence, an impending clash of global warming and the planetary
boundary, as it exceeds 50%, may very well trigger unimaginable
colossal ecological collapse similar to an asteroid collision, loss
of food resources, massive drought, brutal global warfare on a scale
beyond imagination.
Humankind reverts to Neanderthal survival
techniques, which were able to adapt to and survive in some of the
harshest environments known to humans 28,000-300,000 years ago.
All
of which is a poke in the eye at political rhetoric that mesmerizes
audiences with assurances of anything other than the brutal truth
that the prevailing tenure of political, economic neoliberalism,
which revolves around profits, is screwing things up. Maybe there’s
a better way.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.