I think this debate has become overly narrowed by it's focus on survival. Our existence is testament to to survival of a mere fraction of our ancestors. The genetic records suggests that at several point in human history, entire races or the species itself were reduced to a few individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe
I think we should be looking at preserving civilisation, not merely a few scattered individuals eking out an existence in a post-apocalyptic wasteland (a la Mad Max or Terminator). Many writers have suggested that civilisations of whatever complexity just aren't that stable in the face of even temporary climate change. The Toba eruption, the Mayan collapse, the Clovis event and the 1159BC cooling event are examples among many. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10884-collapse-of-civilisations-linked-to-monsoon-changes.html Further, the complexity of our society makes it far less robust than distributed, agrarian societies of the past. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826501.500-the-demise-of-civilisation-may-be-inevitable.html I think we need to be focussed very carefully on preventing any significant sudden climate change. According to my reading of the Arctic sea ice data, this means we have to act almost immediately if we are to use 'gentle geoengineering'. Something far more onerous may be required if we dawdle and argue for a year or two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage A 2009/1/15 Bonnelle Denis <[email protected]>: > > Dear all, > > I am surprised that time orders of magnitude are not considered as a main > parameter in such a debate. > > It is an interesting idea that "Although windows of stability are possible, > they are simply respites between catastrophic boom-and-bust cycles", but > those windows have proved able to be stable during tens of millions years > (ice ages oscillations - driven by positive feedback forces - have developed > within a "tunnel" of precise limits which operated as rather efficient > negative feedbacks, so I'm speaking only about the major events which really > threatened life itself). > > I agree with the anthropic principle, which says that things are what they > are but that if there had been thousands of narrow escapes, very likely we > wouldn't be here to discuss them. So, things are what they are but there are > some reasons that the number of such narrow escapes is lower than ten in 4 > billion years. > > So, three time orders of magnitude should be considered: > > - geological time: the Gaia model would probably provide us with some tens of > millions years of security, even if in the longer run the Medea one could > override it; > - anthropogenic perturbation time: will we, e.g., reach the 800 ppm CO2 level > in 2040 or 2100 or never? > - science progress time: when will there be enough knowledge for us to either > offer the economy clean and cheap solutions such a renewable energies, or be > able to fix the climate (using geoengineering) in a safe way? > > Two conclusions can be drawn from this: > - the Gaia / Medea debate is not an emergency from a practical point of view > (it may be relevant from a political / symbolic one) > - there is a race among anthropogenic perturbation time and science progress > time, and every efforts should be considered as adding up rather than > competing against each other: curbing the CO2 emissions is necessary to slow > the anthropogenic perturbation down, and investigating, at the same time, > "fundamental applied physics", massive renewable energies economics, and > geoengineering, is safer than relying on only one tool to fix the climate up. > > The third possible debate: "should geoengineering be promoted in order to > protect us from Medea's dangers?" (surveying and fighting every dangerous > asteroids, and biological equivalents of such an idea) is, from a theoretical > point of view, equally interesting, but it is clearly not that urgent. > > Cheers, > > Denis Bonnelle. > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > De la part de John Nissen > Envoyé : mercredi 14 janvier 2009 18:08 > À : [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc : geoengineering; Peter Read; [email protected]; Martin J Rees > Objet : [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective of > Earth > > > > Dear all, > > I think this kind of life-force thinking runs very deep, and prevents us > acting appropriately. > > Just about the whole environment movement seems to be based on a thinking > that the planet is naturally stable, and if only mankind can behave > "naturally", all will be well - the negative feedbacks will kick in to halt > the current global warming and bring the temperature back to normal. > Putting vast amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is not "natural". Putting > sulphur in the air is not "natural". Both are CO2 and sulphur compounds are > seen as pollutants, and therefore, by definition bad. > > This leads to illogical behaviour. We have to reduce sulphur emissions, > although this leads to exacerbate global warming - possibly causing the > visible acceleration in global warming in mid 80s shown in the glacier ice > mass loss record (a good proxy for global temperature) [1] [2]. I know that > the argument is supposedly all about acid rain and asthma, but it has > inhibited our clear thinking about the possibility of using stratospheric > aerosols to cool the planet. > > And, as another illogicality, our view of CO2 as pollutant makes us think > that, because CO2 has caused global warming, therefore cutting our emissions > will solve all our problems. This blinds us to seeing that the Arctic sea > ice problem cannot be solved by cutting CO2 emissions and we have to apply > geoengineering. > > But geoengineering in general is seen as unnatural. Our instinct is to let > the planet sort itself out, with minimum interference from ourselves. We > seem even happy for another 2 degrees global warming, although global > warming is already causing enormous problems. > > The trouble is that the Earth system is not driven by some life force, as in > the Gaia theory. Nor is it driven by suicidal tendencies, as in the Medea > idea. The Earth system has behaved in the way it has, because it needed to > produce us. Putting that the other way round, we wouldn't be here to > appreciate our own development if the universe wasn't precisely as it is, > and the history of our planet had not been much as it has been. This is the > anthropic principle [3] [4], but I'm applying to geological history. > > So, if you like, there may have been many chance events during the past four > billion years that enabled human life to develop eventually. And there have > almost certainly been chance events and situations that have enabled > civilisation to develop and the human population to explode to its current > level. > > These chance events (and absence of events) for our own survival are > unlikely to continue. Therefore we are most likely to have to intervene for > own survival. This message is most obvious for the absence of events such > as super and large bodies colliding with the Earth. We can appreciate the > danger, partly because we can think of it as far in the future or very > theoretical, and therefore can be detached about it [5]. > > What we seem unable to do is to appreciate an impending disaster which could > take us all out. We cannot think that such a thing is possible. Yet it is > staring us in the face. It is the Arctic sea ice disappearance and > consequent massive methane release. That could kill us all, and most of > life, through global heating far above the 6 degrees hell mark. > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance > [2] See also Haeberli comments in: > http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/17/record-global-glacial-melt/ > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle > [4] See also Sir Martin Rees's book "Just six numbers", and the multiverse > idea. > [5] See Sir Martin Rees's book "Our final century". > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:43 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective of > Earth > > >> >> Dear all, >> >> One should hold judgment until seeing the book, but the Medea idea >> seems at odds with the fact that we are still here. What has >> happened is that the planet has got close to disaster, but >> negative feedbacks have eventually kicked in. The evidence of >> "our" current existence (a planet with life on it, that is) >> shows that there are finite bounds. The fact that these are >> widely separated (in terms of global temperature, CO2 level, or >> whatever) is irrelevant. >> >> Suppose we hypothesize that Medea is the basic model, then the >> only way to prove this would be for life to become extinct. In >> which case we'd not be here to appreciate the proof. At some >> future date we may be able to sample lots of other planets and >> find that life was universally ephemeral. That would provide >> at least statistical evidence in support of Medea and suggest that >> we've just been lucky so far. >> >> A Popper approach might be to try to disprove the Medea hypothesis. >> If Medea is a universal model, then it can be disproved by a single >> counter example. Our very existence already does this. Or does it? >> Perhaps we have to wait until the end of time? >> >> One can turn this around and think of the hypothesis that Gaia is >> the universal model. If life ever existed on Mars (and if it does >> not now), then this disproves the Gaia hypothesis. >> >> Hmmm -- it seems that both hypotheses are nugatory. >> >> So ... does God exist? Why do donuts have holes? etc., etc. >> >> Tom. >> >> +++++++++++++++++++ >> >>> >>> I casually made a similar point a year or two ago at Erice. It drove >>> lots of people crazy. On could also add to Ward's point that the >>> universe is not our friend and without our intervention will destroy us >>> with meteors and other nefarious devices. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Whaley >>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 8:05 PM >>> To: geoengineering >>> Subject: [geo] Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective of >>> Earth >>> >>> >>> Boston.com >>> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/11/dark_green?m >>> ode=PF >>> >>> Dark green >>> A scientist argues that the natural world isn't benevolent and >>> sustaining: it's bent on self-destruction >>> >>> By Drake Bennett | January 11, 2009 >>> >>> WHEN WE LOOK at nature, it has become commonplace to see a >>> fastidiously self-regulating system at work: wildebeest trim the >>> savannah grasses, lions cull the wildebeest herds, and vultures clean >>> the bones of both. Forests take in the carbon dioxide we exhale, use >>> it to grow, and replace it with oxygen. The planet even has a >>> thermostat, the carbon cycle, which relies on the interplay of >>> volcanoes, rain, sunlight, plants, and plankton to keep the earth's >>> temperature in a range congenial to life. >>> >>> This idea of nature's harmonious balance has become not just the >>> bedrock of environmental thought, but a driving force in policy and >>> culture. It is the sentiment behind Henry David Thoreau's dictum, "In >>> wildness is the preservation of the world." It lies behind last >>> summer's animated blockbuster "Wall-E," in which a single surviving >>> plant helps revive an earth smothered beneath the detritus of human >>> overconsumption. It underlies environmental laws that try to minimize >>> the damaging influence of humans on land and the atmosphere. >>> >>> In this line of thought, the workings of the natural world, honed over >>> billions of years of evolution, have reached a dynamic equilibrium far >>> more elegant - and ultimately durable - than the clumsy attempts >>> humankind makes to alter or improve them. >>> >>> According to the paleontologist Peter Ward, however, nothing could be >>> further from the truth. In his view, the earth's history makes clear >>> that, left to run its course, life isn't naturally nourishing - it's >>> poisonous. Rather than a supple system of checks and balances, he >>> argues, the natural world is a doomsday device careening from one >>> cataclysm to another. Long before humans came onto the scene, >>> primitive life forms were busily trashing the planet, and on multiple >>> occasions, Ward argues, they came close to rendering it lifeless. >>> Around 3.7 billion years ago, they created a planet-girdling methane >>> smog that threatened to extinguish every living thing; a little over a >>> billion years later they pumped the atmosphere full of poison gas. >>> (That gas, ironically, was oxygen, which later life forms adapted to >>> use as fuel.) >>> >>> The story of life on earth, in Ward's reckoning, is a long series of >>> suicide attempts. Four of the five major mass extinctions since the >>> rise of animals, Ward says, were caused not by meteor impacts or >>> volcanic eruptions, but by bacteria, and twice, he argues, the planet >>> was transformed into a nearly total ball of ice thanks to the >>> voracious appetites of plants. In other words, it's not just human >>> beings, with our chemical spills, nuclear arsenals, and tailpipe >>> emissions, who are a menace. The main threat to life is life itself. >>> >>> "Life is toxic," Ward says. "It's life that's causing all the damn >>> problems." >>> >>> Ward, a paleontologist at the University of Washington and a scholar >>> of the earth's great extinctions, calls his model the Medea >>> Hypothesis, after the mythological Greek sorceress who killed her own >>> children. The name makes clear Ward's ambition: To challenge and >>> eventually replace the Gaia Hypothesis, the well-known 1970s >>> scientific model that posits that every living thing on earth is part >>> of a gargantuan, self-regulating super-organism. >>> >>> Ward holds the Gaia Hypothesis, and the thinking behind it, >>> responsible for encouraging a set of fairy-tale assumptions about the >>> earth, and he'd like his new book, due out this spring, to help >>> puncture them. He hopes not only to shake the philosophical >>> underpinnings of environmentalism, but to reshape our understanding of >>> our relationship with nature, and of life's ultimate sustainability on >>> this planet and beyond. >>> >>> Although Ward's ideas have yet to reach a broad audience, some >>> scientists are welcoming his portrait of a constantly off-kilter earth >>> as a corrective to the gauzier precepts that have cast their spells on >>> environmental philosophy and policy. Others, however, describe his >>> hypothesis as simply Gaia's dark twin, a model undermined by the same >>> inclination to see one tendency as the whole story. Ward is open to >>> the criticism that he's taken things too far; what's important, he >>> believes, is weaning people from the idea that the earth works better >>> without us. Even if Medea is an incomplete framework for viewing the >>> natural world, it introduces a hardheadedness into environmental >>> debates often driven by an unexamined idealism about Mother Nature. >>> >>> Ward himself believes that the only help for the planet over the long >>> run is management by human beings - whether that means actively >>> adjusting the chemical composition of the atmosphere or using giant >>> satellites to modify the amount of sunlight that reaches us. As Ward >>> sees it, the planet doesn't need our help destroying itself. It will >>> do that automatically. It needs us to save it. >>> >>> . . . >>> >>> For most of human history, it would have been alien to think of the >>> planet as a "system" at all - the earth seemed an essentially infinite >>> expanse of lands and seas that, depending on your theology, awaited >>> human cultivation or demanded human deference. But with the Industrial >>> Revolution it started to become clear that humans themselves were >>> making changes with far-reaching, unintended, and destructive >>> consequences, and over the 20th century an alternative understanding >>> of the natural world began to take hold. This view saw the earth as a >>> closed system with an inherent natural order, and pointed out the ways >>> it broke down when we stressed it by pumping chemicals into the air or >>> killing off animals that were vital links in food chains. >>> >>> By the late 1970s, when the British scientist James Lovelock proposed >>> the Gaia Hypothesis, something that once might have seemed like >>> science fiction - the notion that all living things on the planet were >>> linked like the cells in a single body - seemed like a persuasive >>> model. >>> >>> Lovelock was a serious scientist - a creation of his, the electron >>> capture detector, was to prove instrumental in revealing the depletion >>> of the ozone layer - and he had plenty of evidence for his theory. He >>> pointed to the fact that, despite the wide variability of the sun's >>> heat over the eons, microbes and plants have altered both the >>> atmosphere and the ground to keep the temperature almost entirely >>> within the narrow range in which terrestrial life thrives. For nearly >>> as long, the amount of oxygen that plants and geological processes >>> released into the atmosphere has remained at a point high enough to >>> feed the metabolisms of quintillions of animals, but not so high that >>> every forest was constantly going up in flames. >>> >>> In the Gaian model, the world is maintained by an interlocking >>> feedback system that puts a brake on drastic changes. Lovelock pointed >>> to the role that plants play in the carbon cycle's planetary >>> thermostat: When the planet warms, forests and phytoplankton suck >>> carbon dioxide out of the air at a faster rate and create sheltering >>> layers of clouds, both of which work to cool the planet. In a more >>> familiar example from the animal kingdom, populations of predator and >>> prey limit each other's sizes. >>> >>> While the Gaia Hypothesis may be the most explicit version, the idea >>> of a self-regulating, counterpoised planet has been central to the >>> thinking of conservationists and environmentalists, and to the >>> policies they have helped to shape. Removing dams, fighting the >>> encroachment of alien plant and animal species, restoring the >>> Everglades, reintroducing wolves into the American West, all are >>> justified at least partly because they help restore a balance that man >>> has disturbed. >>> >>> As Ward sees it, however, this is almost exactly backward. Looking at >>> the evidence of past extinctions - written in fossils and in the >>> chemical makeup of deeply buried rock sediments - as well as the >>> workings of today's oceans, atmosphere, and myriad food chains, he >>> finds evidence of a planet that tends not toward harmony but toward >>> extremes. Although windows of stability are possible, they are simply >>> respites between catastrophic boom-and-bust cycles. He attributes one >>> of the largest extinctions in history to the out-of-control >>> proliferation of plankton feeding on upwellings of nutrients from the >>> ocean floor. Rather than being elegantly brought back to equilibrium, >>> the tiny organisms reproduced until they choked off much of the life >>> in the upper ocean. Exhausting their newfound food supply, they died >>> en masse, and decaying by the trillions used up all the oxygen in the >>> water, killing off everything else. >>> >>> As for the earth's temperature control, Ward, drawing on the writing >>> of the environmental scientist James Kirchner, points out that more >>> often than not the thermostat seems to be hooked up backward, with >>> warming triggering more warming, and cooling more cooling. In a >>> process we're seeing today, as the planetary temperature rises, >>> warming increases the rate at which soil releases greenhouse gases - >>> not only carbon dioxide, but methane and nitrous oxide. It leads to >>> more forest growth in places that formerly were barren tundra, even as >>> more carbon dioxide in the air makes plants hardier and better able to >>> grow in areas once given over to desert. More plants in more places >>> means a darker earth, and therefore a more heat-absorbent and warmer >>> one. It's an escalating feedback loop that becomes even more powerful >>> as the planet's white, ice-covered poles give way to darker open >>> water. >>> >>> The dangerous positive feedback can run the other way, too, Ward >>> argues. He blames a planetary glut of plant life for the two >>> prehistoric "snowball earth" episodes, 2.3 billion and 700 million >>> years ago, when the planet froze from pole to pole. In a reverse >>> greenhouse effect, the earth's plants, photosynthesizing madly, sucked >>> so much carbon dioxide out of the air that temperatures plunged. Far >>> from nurturing life, the world's plants nearly froze it to death. >>> >>> . . . >>> >>> Although Ward is a leading expert on the Cretaceous-Tertiary >>> extinction (the one, 65 million years ago, that killed off the last of >>> the dinosaurs), his reputation in recent years has been as a writer of >>> popular science books - his best known, "Rare Earth," is an argument >>> against the likelihood of complex life being found elsewhere in the >>> universe, coauthored in 2000 with the astronomer Donald Brownlee. Ward >>> hopes the forthcoming book will find a wide readership, but also >>> intends it as a serious theoretical framework for research into the >>> interplay between living things and their environment. >>> >>> So far, since Ward has not presented the Medea Hypothesis in papers or >>> at conferences, it remains relatively unknown to environmental >>> researchers and earth scientists. But among those familiar with it, >>> there is a sense that its focus on nature's lethal erraticism could >>> shape the debate, both in and out of academe, over the planet's long- >>> term prospects. >>> >>> "I think that it's a very valuable contribution to be focusing on the >>> very serious destabilizing effects of life," says David Schwartzman, a >>> professor at Howard University who reviewed a draft of Ward's book. >>> Schwartzman's field, biogeochemistry, grew to prominence largely out >>> of arguments over the Gaia Hypothesis. "There's no a priori reason to >>> think that life's feedback with the environment necessarily is >>> stabilizing." >>> >>> "We do tend to think about everything being coordinated and helping >>> each other," says Tyler Volk, an earth systems scientist at New York >>> University and author of the book "CO2 Rising." "I basically agree >>> with Ward that organisms can come along and create conditions that >>> make it very difficult for a lot of other species." >>> >>> But Schwartzman and Volk, among others, also caution that Medea may be >>> as incomplete a model in its way as Gaia is. Since the late 1970s, >>> even prominent Gaian thinkers such as Lovelock have moderated some of >>> their stronger claims: They no longer describe the biosphere as a >>> single organism, and they concede that not all the planet's feedback >>> loops tend toward stability. >>> >>> In fact, most earth scientists see no need to choose between Gaia and >>> Medea: The earth, naturally, is a bit of both. "The natural world is >>> an interestingly complex place," says Kirchner, director of the Swiss >>> Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. >>> >>> Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, is more >>> dismissive. "Anybody who tells you [the feedbacks] are all positive or >>> all negative is writing a potboiler," he says. >>> >>> Other scientists take issue with Ward's reading of the prehistoric >>> record, suggesting he may be blaming early life forms for catastrophes >>> they did not cause. In the field of paleontology, some of the fiercest >>> arguments of recent decades have been over what caused prehistory's >>> great die-offs, and Ward has been in the middle of a few of those >>> arguments. There's still significant debate, for example, over whether >>> living things actually caused the Great Oxidation Event (and ensuing >>> extinction) 2.5 billion years ago, and whether plants and other >>> organisms can really be blamed for the "snowball earth" deep freezes >>> and some of the more recent mass extinctions. >>> >>> Ward cheerfully concedes that he may be proven at least partly wrong. >>> >>> "I'm just erecting a series of hypotheses - some are going to turn out >>> to be true," he predicts. "But there is nothing else to balance Gaia, >>> there's nothing else for people to take a swat at. I welcome that. I >>> have thick skin." >>> >>> At the very least, Ward hopes to shape the image of the earth in the >>> public imagination, and by extension in public policy. Beneath much >>> environmental regulation lies the basically Gaian belief that, when >>> faced with a brewing global problem like climate change, our best >>> response should be to try as much as possible to take ourselves out of >>> the equation, to reduce our carbon emissions to the point where we're >>> no longer a factor in the feedback loops. Trying instead to manage >>> something as hopelessly complex as the climate is seen as an act of >>> Frankensteinian hubris. >>> >>> Ward, however, argues that this way of seeing things only makes sense >>> if one assumes that the earth will, once righted, inevitably return to >>> the set of conditions most suitable for our continued survival. >>> History, he argues, suggests it very well may not. Faced with a planet >>> where life is almost guaranteed to wipe itself out - and take us with >>> it - he is urging us to be active, and occasionally intrusive, >>> guardians. >>> >>> To combat climate change, Ward sees that role including engineering >>> projects on a previously unimaginable scale, like cooling the >>> atmosphere by seeding it with sulfuric acid or installing giant >>> shields in space to deflect away sunlight. As the scientific consensus >>> around climate change has spread and hardened, these so-called >>> "geoengineering" projects have received more of a hearing, but most >>> climate and earth scientists remain skeptical because of the enormous >>> uncertainties about what their full effects would be. >>> >>> Ironically, Lovelock himself has also, in the last few years, become >>> an advocate for a geoengineering fix for climate change - >>> specifically, an armada of vertical pipes placed in the oceans to >>> bring colder, nutrient-rich water to the surface to absorb more carbon >>> out of the air. But while Lovelock has described his proposal as an >>> "emergency treatment" for a critically ill planet, Ward believes such >>> schemes are going to have to become business as usual if we and our >>> descendants are going to survive. >>> >>> "The longevity of the biosphere can only be sustained through large- >>> scale geoengineering," Ward argues. Without our firm hand, he >>> believes, "the earth will go to hell in a handbasket," just as it has >>> again and again in the past. >>> >>> Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail >>> [email protected]. >>> >>> >>> >>> This transmission is intended only for the personal >>> and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) >>> named above and may contain information which is proprietary, >>> privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. >>> If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are >>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>> or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This >>> communication is for discussion purposes only and should >>> not be regarded as an official confirmation of any transaction >>> unless you are receiving an attached and executed definitive >>> agreement. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be >>> secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that >>> this information is complete or accurate and it should not >>> be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change >>> without notice. >>> >>> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
