Apologies, wrong reference - it should have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage for details of the 'end of the world' arguments.
If anyone's interested, I'm happy to serve on one of the proposed red/blue teams. I suggest that anyone who's up for it gives me a shout and I'll compile a list. A 2009/1/17 Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>: > I think we're at the crux of the issues here. I tried to set out the > 'end of the world is nigh' arguments in my 'Arctic Geoengineering' > wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_geoengineering > > In my view, research is the key, not opinion. We need to prove our > techniques are safe, affordable and effective. Models are not enough. > The public and policy makers need to get use to artillery and ocean > tankers, and trust the results they see from the projects we deliver. > Only then will they have the confidence to sign the cheque for the > 'Apollo project' we need. > > If we fail to prove our case (as opposed to merely making it), then > we're toast. > > A > > 2009/1/17 David Schnare <[email protected]>: >> Albert has asked me how to argue in a manner that will help build wide >> public support for geoengineering. Here are my suggestions, drawn from my >> paper of last March entitled The Uncomfortable Middle Ground (see: >> http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/Schnare_speech_2.pdf >> >> Step 1 - Identify all the high profile statements that the Kyoto limits have >> not worked, that governments refused to pass laws strict enough to prevent a >> climate catastrophe, and that people world wide refused to give up economic >> and personal growth in the name of climate change. >> >> Step 2 - Explain the belief that the failures of step one will destroy >> mankind as we know it due to the otherwise inevitable climate change. >> >> Step 3 - Explain that Step 1 and Step 2 result in the destruction of >> civilization as we know it, either by economic catastrophe or by >> environmental catastrophe. >> >> Step 4 - Offer a third way - geoengineering (See the Wigley papers on how to >> use it in companion with carbon emission reduction) - an option that avoids >> destruction of civilization as we know it; and admit that it may harm 5% of >> the world (and less than 1% of civilization), but that is a much smaller >> risk than harming 100%, than seeing food riots, than seeing mass starvation, >> than seeing inundation of the homes and businesses of over half the world >> economy, of death of families, neighborhoods, and nations. >> >> Publicly challenge the environmental activists to pick a side - death by >> economic harm, death by political inaction, death by climate change, or life >> through geoengineering. >> >> End of argument. >> >> Now comes the hard part - getting that message out. I have thoughts about >> that too, but until I see some environmental activists, including several on >> this group, speak up and admit their approach (world socialism, population >> reduction, and economic misery) is not going to be politically acceptable, >> and thus geoengineering research NOW is essential, then I'm just going to >> watch this area of research remain in its muddle, since any further effort >> would be a waste of time. Leadership must come from the extreme left at >> this point. >> >> David Schnare >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Albert Kallio <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I just wonder if you could suggest we overcome these innate evolutionary >>> tendencies. >>> >>> I think our best chance as a survival of human species is to intensively >>> train ourselves and society to sustainability. >>> >>> Otherwise, there is a risk that mankind becomes like overgrown mushroom, >>> still growing but rot inside and full of worms. In a way this is how the >>> Popcorn Theory of Evolution sees the apex of evolution. Classical evolution >>> being the thesis where life develops into higher and higher forms (physical >>> evolution >> biological evolution >> social evolution), then comes the >>> antithesis, the crash and all advanced higher forms began to fail due to >>> resource over-exploitation, the final phase being the synthesis where all >>> the advanced life degenerates back into a stable form of primitive single >>> cellular life, the consumed resources being locked until the solar system >>> comes to its natural end. >>> >>> In a way the pop-n'-puff ('popcorn') evolution is a directionless movement >>> of life phenomenan through spacetime that creates and degenerates life >>> indiscriminately without any indefinite, deterministic, >>> directional tendencies for the higher species continuously becomed 'better >>> and better' as the classical Darwinian theory of natural selection may >>> suggest. >>> >>> As it is Darvins 200 year anniversary, I would not accuse Darwin not >>> spotting 150 years ago that the process is entirely directionless: so far we >>> have been riding on the rising wave crest, but now the climate change may >>> well reach the tipping point of the wave crest in our evolutionary phase >>> within the Earth's history. >>> >>> SETI proves that the Earth system may be a typical executor of the >>> 'popcorn' evolution where the dominant leading species is hell-bent to >>> dismantle its own collective ecological foundations. >>> >>> People who say Darwin is so wrong, I think they should look better at him >>> more like Isaac Newton of his age who created basic theory of mechanics, it >>> later to be complemented with the additional perspectives and complexities >>> of Albert Einsteins theory of relativity and quantum phenomena. >>> >>> In case of Darwin he could never have seen that man was about to destroy >>> major Earth systems in their entirety such as the Amazon rainforest, world >>> wide coral reef bleachings and ocean acidification, fish out the ocean to >>> the last individual fish, starting to melt the Arctic Ocean sea ice and >>> glaciers by all his greehouse gases emissions, excessive recless tree >>> felling, fossil fuels use, and over-fishing destroying the balances >>> from tropics to permafrost. >>> >>> Your comments would much be appreciated how do we encounter and re-train >>> ourselves away from this suggested deterministic evolutionary outcome of a >>> more recent evolution so that we as a species do not produce the final crest >>> and get back to Martian stable state of incapacitated single cellular live >>> that ekes out its existence in the silts. >>> >>> I do believe the only solution behind all the other soltutiosn is to solve >>> the global warming is education, education, education.. towards sustainable >>> energy and land use and forms of transportation to get between A and B. >>> People need to be educated to the sustainability and then all the rest of >>> action will follow. >>> >>> Rgs, >>> >>> Albert >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected] >>> Subject: [geo] Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI perspective of Earth >>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:55:15 +0000 >>> >>> >>> E: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI perspective of Earth >>> >>> >>> >>> SETI Implication to Geoengineering >>> >>> >>> >>> I have been a patron of The Planetary Society's project, the Search for >>> the Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), that has been scanning countless >>> nearby stars in the northern and southern hemisphere with very large radio >>> telescopes. >>> >>> >>> >>> Despite massive distributed computer networks and excellent decryption >>> algorithms that are deployed to detect and listen into any intelligent >>> communications that occur in the space using radio communications. What the >>> SETI result is? Is there life, anything, just more advanced than that which >>> NASA yesterday stipulated that may exist in Mars? (References & links >>> below.) >>> >>> >>> >>> The answer is: NO. The SETI scanning has never produced any positive >>> result for advanced life and it seems that there is not any single advanced >>> civilisations in nearby stars using radio communications (due to pure lack >>> of radio signals which should be intense enough and detectable with the >>> radio telescope technology we already posses). >>> >>> >>> >>> We have the answer already. There is no intelligent life out anywhere in >>> space, we need to ask the question: Why? >>> >>> >>> >>> SETI forms an important consideration and possibly a framework within >>> geoengineering why it may or may not be carried out. The answer for the >>> apparent lack (or utmost scarcity) of intelligent civilizations in tens of >>> thousands nearby solar systems scanned is readily answered by "The Popcorn >>> Theory of Evolution". What the hell that means? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Popcorn Paradigm >>> >>> >>> >>> A Popcorn Theory of Evolution suggests that there will always be an >>> inherent lack (or at least immense scarcity) of advanced life forms in the >>> universe because within the destructive processes of evolution itself the >>> populations pop in and out of existence (much alike the vacuum energy that >>> materialises and annihilates upon itself in the vacuum). >>> >>> >>> >>> No advanced life forms have been found in space as the life >>> pops-and-puffs, in and out of the existence, by the whim of its smallest >>> constituent element, individual, that makes up the advanced populations in >>> the planetary ecosystems. >>> >>> >>> >>> The reason for existence-threatening puff is found within the innate >>> resource-hungriness of an individual that then drives out the sustainability >>> of the Gaia (self-regulating ecosystems) to brinks of collapses due to the >>> population booms in combination with associated technological booms (that in >>> initial transition population growth phase facilitate and help in sustenance >>> of all advanced civilizations) that are using radio technologies to >>> communicate. >>> >>> >>> >>> The 'deterministic grab' of an individual, its resource hungriness, then >>> ultimately drives out all advanced specie systems into their ultimate >>> collapses due to the insatiable resource-hungriness in use resources for >>> imminent pleasure. Therefore, the Earth control system is now transiting >>> from the productive pop phase to the puff phase, where the leading species >>> crashes and takes with it much of the rest of the Gaia, leaving no radio >>> operators behind. >>> >>> >>> >>> When a capacity of species is very limited, such as the arctic rodent >>> - lemming, which happily copulates every now and then, enjoying pleasure of >>> sex and food and producing the maximum litter as much as individual can, its >>> population grows and its consumption eventually reaches the supply side >>> limit until no further resource for sustenance is left and the numbers >>> collapse to zero at the core range occupied by that species. Then from the >>> periphery ranges, few survivors emerge who will find the decimated area >>> vacated and growing in plenty of food, and then happily re-fill the area >>> where lemming population had been decimated to zero. >>> >>> >>> >>> The implication of SETI research for geoengineering is that the more >>> advanced a species becomes, the more will be its ecological >>> reach. Therefore, every planetary system arrives to an evolutionary tipping >>> point where the capacity of the advanced species' (either in isolation or in >>> combination) reaches and exceeds the cliff-edge and the entire, >>> self-regulatory, planetary Gaia system ecological high structure falls apart >>> due to the dominant species (or group of species). >>> >>> >>> >>> The puff-phase in the popcorn evolution then leaves nothing behind but a >>> fossil planet (aside a few extremely simple, single-cellular life forms >>> that no longer tip system back towards its earlier complexity) as the >>> materials have been consumed and locked efficiently in a way that they do >>> not re-emerge in the useable life span of ordinary sun. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thus when it comes to technologically advanced species, such as ourselves, >>> The Planetary Society's SETI programme searches suggest that we are alone >>> amongst the tens of thousands solar systems scanned for advanced >>> communications. This leading to conclusion that most advanced life forms >>> must all have gone bust as the individual innate survival instinct is much >>> greater force than the collective architecture for specie's survival. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Deterministic Nature of Evolution >>> >>> >>> >>> Therefore, the Search for the Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is >>> suggestive that no advanced civilisation can exist on sustainable basis and >>> therefore schemes such as geoengineering, well meaning, may be directed >>> against the very nature of universe to create and annihilate its advanced >>> civilizations due to a destabilising resource-hungriness at the core of >>> individual survival instinct and individual pleasure seeking that rejects >>> the ecological architectures. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me suggest, that a great deal more education is put onto ecological >>> sustainability as the SETI research is quite suggestive that no advanced >>> life seems to appear at present even in favourable solar systems in so huge >>> numbers. Can geoengineers train Homo Sapiens to behave sensible instructions >>> like dog, or does it retain individual independence of Felix Catus, until >>> there is no more breathable air and food left for the kitten? >>> >>> >>> >>> By definition the evolution dictates that human species inherited a >>> complex social hierarchy and behaviours from their ancestors, the apes, that >>> are pack animals with a complex set of behaviours related to determining the >>> individuals' position in the social hierarchy of the species. All advanced >>> species do exhibit these various postures and other means of nonverbal >>> communication that express their states of mind to status and control >>> function. These sophisticated forms of social cognition and communication, >>> often expressed through insatiable consumption, and legitimised as need for >>> the infinite economic growth, may still be utilised for mankind's >>> trainability and ability to fit into the Earth system and into ecologically >>> sustainable social situations where individual social hierarchy is still >>> expressible. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let us resolve the problem of reaction and energise the society like a war >>> economy to create energy and transport sustainably, make plans in place for >>> adaptation when the adverse comes, and motivate backing for geoengineering. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let us make geoengineering the end and high apex of the evolution to save >>> the world! >>> >>> >>> >>> Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS >>> >>> Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign >>> >>> of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans >>> >>> >>> >>> References and Links to Primitive Life NASA Claims may have been found: >>> >>> >>> >>> New light on Mars methane mystery Scientists detect seasonal releases of >>> methane gas on Mars and say either geological activity or life could be the >>> cause. >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7829315.stm >>> >>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html >>> http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jan/HQ_09-006_Mars_Methane.html >>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/main/index.html >>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane_media.html >>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2133475.ece >>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2137842.ece >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > 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]. >>> >>> > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:01:03 -0800 >>> > Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective >>> > of Earth >>> > From: [email protected] >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > >>> > >>> > A teleological, anthropomorphic description of a "series of suicide >>> > attempts" seems just as silly as a teleological, anthropomorphic >>> > description of a loving mother-goddess. In the range of possible >>> > states of the system, there are regions of negative feedback and other >>> > regions of positive feedback. The system spends most of its time in >>> > regions of negative feedback, for the obvious reason that it tends to >>> > stay in those when it's in them. But changes such as the appearance >>> > of a new metabolic pathway can nudge it into a region of positive >>> > feedback, sometimes leading to mass extinction. >>> > >>> > Was the argument about anything but imagery and rhetoric? >>> > >>> > On Jan 16, 2:51 am, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > I also agree completely. i thought Andrews email was very clear. >>> > > My hope is that the Royal Society's report this spring will reach the >>> > > same conclusion. >>> > > >>> > > john Gorman >>> > > >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > From: John Nissen >>> > > To: [email protected] ; [email protected] >>> > > Cc: geoengineering ; Peter Read ; [email protected] >>> > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:15 PM >>> > > Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia >>> > > perspective of Earth >>> > > >>> > > Hi Andrew, >>> > > >>> > > I agree with you absolutely: >>> > > >>> > > 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 >>> > > >>> > > That to me is completely rational. But why aren't people leaping >>> > > into action? >>> > > >>> > > My point was that our "world view" affects the way we consider our >>> > > present condition, and can produce irrational behaviour. If we (as a >>> > > society) had a world view that expected disaster, then we would be on >>> > > the >>> > > lookout for imminent disasters to ward them off. As it is, we are >>> > > looking >>> > > at the Arctic sea ice disappearing, and behaving as if we can't or >>> > > shouldn't >>> > > try and save it - quite irrational. >>> > > >>> > > Cheers, >>> > > >>> > > John >>> > > >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> >>> > > To: <[email protected]> >>> > > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >>> > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:16 AM >>> > > Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia >>> > > perspective of Earth >>> > > >>> > > 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... >>> > > >>> > > 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-civi... >>> > > >>> > > 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: >>> > > >>> > > ... >>> > > >>> > > read more » >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the world >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> David W. Schnare >> Center for Environmental Stewardship >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
