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]caraher
(6,278 posts)111. It's an extreme view of a serious problem
Note that while it has the structure of a scientific paper and is attributed to a retired climate scientist, there's no evidence of peer review, so calling it a "scientific paper" is at best generous.
A British chemistry student followed up on this:
With no evidence of peer-review for Lights report, I decided to ask members of the University of East Anglias School of Environmental Sciences (where I am currently studying) to comment.
Professor Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the Tyndall Centre, disagrees with Lights report stating that it uses a very narrow perspective of the overall methane picture, adding further that the recent unusual methane activity in the Arctic ice and oceans has never been measured before.
We dont know whether these spikes are natural or not. In the Arctic there are storms, changes in ice coverage and fluctuations in weather systems so before you can make this kind of extrapolation you have to look in terms of time and space, and consider other sources of methane production also.
<snip>
Dr Andrew Manning is lead researcher of the Carbon Related Atmospheric Measurement (CRAM) laboratory at UEA. He had this to say: Some of AMEGs claims, and certainly their more extreme claims regarding such things as an ice-free Arctic in a few years, are in strong disagreement with current understanding of ice dynamics experts. Much of the science they give is valid, it is the timescales that they have wrong.
Professor Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the Tyndall Centre, disagrees with Lights report stating that it uses a very narrow perspective of the overall methane picture, adding further that the recent unusual methane activity in the Arctic ice and oceans has never been measured before.
We dont know whether these spikes are natural or not. In the Arctic there are storms, changes in ice coverage and fluctuations in weather systems so before you can make this kind of extrapolation you have to look in terms of time and space, and consider other sources of methane production also.
<snip>
Dr Andrew Manning is lead researcher of the Carbon Related Atmospheric Measurement (CRAM) laboratory at UEA. He had this to say: Some of AMEGs claims, and certainly their more extreme claims regarding such things as an ice-free Arctic in a few years, are in strong disagreement with current understanding of ice dynamics experts. Much of the science they give is valid, it is the timescales that they have wrong.
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