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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: GLOBAL EXTINCTION WITHIN ONE HUMAN LIFETIME? [View all]FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)88. Heat.
There are feedback loops that are going to add exponentially to the damage we have done and will cause the warming of the planet to reach levels that cannot support life.
As the world warms, trees absorb less carbon. As the world warms more of the carbon sinks of the world die. When these die they no longer function as carbon sinks. In fact they typically then become carbon emitters.
The largest of these has to do with ocean acidification. Ocean acidification has grave consequences and is not limited to your limited food chain point of not eating seafood.
In photosynthesis, plants -- including phytoplankton -- convert CO2 from the atmosphere into their tissues, and produce the oxygen that we breathe. Other animals up the food chain feed off of this carbon that was pulled out of the atmosphere by the miniscule plants. A lack of iron appears to slow this process down, which could affect the food supply for other ocean life, and reduce the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide the ocean can soak up.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/phytoplankton-iron-ocean-acidity.html
Did you get that? The oceans and seas are the single biggest carbon sink of the planet and provide the most oxygen. The oceans and seas are dying and losing this ability. And this is just one, only one, part of the big picture.
So at a time when greenhouse gases are being absorbed at a slower rate, the planet is rapidly increasing natural sources of these gases. Methane is pouring into the atmosphere as the world warms.
You listed a few things and mentioned that not a single one of them would be sufficient to extinguish life on this planet. Yet you fail to realize it won't be just one. Every one of those scenarios is guaranteed to occur under the current warming trend. All at the same time. You will have dying oceans, while you have planetary droughts and the resulting famines, while you have sea level rises and floods, while you have countless natural disasters, while you have grid strains, while you have displacement, while you have unprecedented warming....
Big picture thinking is hard for humans. That is why i think you're overly optimistic.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
End of 2011, methane gas surfacing caused "holes" in the sea surface kilometers across
BelgianMadCow
Dec 2012
#5
there are huge swatches of land area that putting solar on wouldn't harm food production at all
NMDemDist2
Dec 2012
#19
they're still viable ecosystems-- converting them to solar farms would destroy them....
mike_c
Dec 2012
#32
Welcome to DU, Dennis! My name is Patrice. & I think working the odds makes very rational sense.
patrice
Dec 2012
#58
If 70% of land vertebrates go extinct, humans will almost certainly be in the 30%
Silent3
Dec 2012
#22
The only hyperbole I'm talking about is the use of the word "extinction" is regards to humans
Silent3
Dec 2012
#44
They had 100,000 years to reshuffle their genes and adapt via natural selection
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#79
The word extinction is not hyperbole when used to describe the state of the natural world.
Uncle Joe
Dec 2012
#100
So the fact that you only know one limitation on phytoplankton makes you an expert?
jeff47
Dec 2012
#110
"We don't know the lower threshold for a viable population. It's probably somewhere between a dozen"
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#67
And intelligence means humans "evolve" much, much faster than natural evolution.
jeff47
Dec 2012
#57
It means we do not really evolve at all, as we have removed ourselves from the natural system
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#60
As you mentioned earlier, it only takes 12 of us inbreeding in a dome to carry on
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#68
We wont even have temperatures that support photosynthesis in the US breadbasket
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#131
That graph seems more than a little too pessimistic to even be partly realistic, TBH.
AverageJoe90
Dec 2012
#141
It'd be funny if it weren't so painful that the End-Timers are right, just not in the particular
patrice
Dec 2012
#52
Yes. Gore would have made a difference. Enough? Who knows, but it would have been better.
The Wielding Truth
Dec 2012
#73
Drought: an old movie that left a VERY deep mark on me was The Man Who Fell to Earth. nt
patrice
Dec 2012
#56
I did a lot of work for the Rainforest Action Network in the late 80s.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2012
#72
Yes- 'cuz if we dont sign on to every piece of absurdist hyperbole, we dont care about the problem.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2012
#90
This is where we part ways. I think lying to people makes them tune it out.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2012
#95
I don't think presenting a possibility as a predetermined outcome is an equivilent to a "lie"
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#96
Not trying to be snarky, but you're using the internet right now, right?
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2012
#104
It IS indeed, very much absurdist hyperbole, and that's being a tad polite, IMHO.
AverageJoe90
Dec 2012
#148
Re: "Being reminded WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! every other day accomplishes nothing."
AverageJoe90
Dec 2012
#117
Which to me possibly explains maybe a little something about Citizens United. nt
patrice
Dec 2012
#54
and then we have reports from DOHA about the US refusing to decarbonise further
BelgianMadCow
Dec 2012
#86
People have been predicting "GLOBAL EXTINCTION" within their lifetime for thousands of years...
cbdo2007
Dec 2012
#121
It's irrational that it will happen at all....but narcissistic that we will witness it.
cbdo2007
Dec 2012
#132