Forum Post: Earth Facing Imminent Environmental 'Tipping Point': Report
Posted 12 years ago on June 7, 2012, 1:16 p.m. EST by PeterKropotkin
(1050)
from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Human kind is facing an imminent threat of extinction, according to new research released on Wednesday by the science journal Nature. The report Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere reveals that our planet's biosphere is steadily approaching a 'tipping point', meaning all ecosystems are nearing sudden and irreversible change that will not be conducive to human life.
The authors describe what they see as a fast paced 'state shift' once the tipping point is reached, which contrasts with the mainstream view that environmental change will take centuries. "It's a question of whether it is going to be manageable change or abrupt change. And we have reason to believe the change may be abrupt and surprising," said co-researcher Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada's British Columbia.
"The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations," stated lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California in Berkeley.
"My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the Earth's history are more than pretty worried," he said in a press release. "In fact, some are terrified," said co-researcher Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada's British Columbia.
The report, written by 22 scientists from three continents ahead of this year's Rio+20 summit, claims that the 'state shift' is likely; however, humans may have a small window to curb over-consumption, over-population growth and environmental destruction, with drastic efforts to change the way we live on planet earth through international cooperation.
Agence France-Presse: Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists
Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature. The factors in today's equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The paper by 22 top researchers said a "tipping point" by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century. [...]
The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.
The factors in today's equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.
Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.
To support today's population, about 43 percent of Earth's ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.
On current trends, the 50 percent mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.
If that happened, collapse would entail a shocking disruption for the world's food supply, with bread-basket regions curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.
"It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California in Berkeley.
Montreal Gazette: Earth reaching an environmental 'state shift': Report
Or, as Canadian co-author Arne Mooers, at Simon Fraser Univeristy in British Columbia, puts it: "Once the shift occurs, they'll be no going back." The "ultimate effects" of a state shift are unknown, but the researchers suggest it could have severe impact on the world's fisheries, agriculture, forests and water resources. And they warn that "widespread social unrest, economic instability and loss of human life could result."
A shift or tipping point is "speculation at this point," Mooers told Postmedia News.
"But it's one of those things where you say: 'Hey, maybe we better find out,' because if it's true, it's pretty serious." [...]
The climate is warming so fast that the "mean global temperature by 2070 (or possibly a few decades earlier) will be higher than it has been since the human species evolved," they say.
And to support the current population of seven billion people, about 43 per cent of Earth's land surface has been converted to agricultural or urban use. The population is expected to hit nine billion by 2045 and they say current trends suggest that half Earth's land surface will be altered by humans by 2025.
That's "disturbingly close" to a potential global tipping point, Barnosky says in a release issued with the report. The study says tipping points tend to occur when 50 to 90 per cent of smaller ecosystems have been disrupted.
"I think that if we want to avoid the most unpleasant surprises, we want to stay away from that 50 per cent mark," Barnosky says.
The "ultimate effects" of a state shift are unknown, but the researchers suggest it could have severe impact on the world's fisheries, agriculture, forests and water resources. And they warn that "widespread social unrest, economic instability and loss of human life could result."
Live Science: Tipping Point? Earth Headed for Catastrophic Collapse, Researchers Warn
Barnosky and his colleagues reviewed research on climate change, ecology and Earth's tipping points that break the camel's back, so to speak. At certain thresholds, putting more pressure on the environment leads to a point of no return, Barnosky said. Suddenly, the planet responds in unpredictable ways, triggering major global transitions.
The most recent example of one of these transitions is the end of the last glacial period. Within not much more than 3,000 years, the Earth went from being 30 percent covered in ice to its present, nearly ice-free condition. Most extinctions and ecological changes (goodbye, woolly mammoths) occurred in just 1,600 years. Earth's biodiversity still has not recovered to what it was.
Today, Barnosky said, humans are causing changes even faster than the natural ones that pushed back the glaciers — and the changes are bigger.
If we're undergoing a major climate shift for whatever reason, we'll figure out how to get through it. What scares the hell out of me is the population explosion and the peak oil theory. "To support today's population, about 43 percent of Earth's ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.".............that's scary too.
And with all this, there is this push to make birth control illegal.
Get your priorities straight, Nevada1. The right-wingers believe in smaller government so intrusive that it even involves a woman's vagina and control of her body. That same small government they envision also defines marriage by their terms, and elevates myth to the position of scientific status in the educational system. At any rate, according to them, the earth is actually cooling.
I believe in small government, almost infinitesimal. The quotation Thoreau used at the beginning of Civil Disobedience is one of my favorites: "That government is best which governs least."
I just wish all those damned small-government right wingers believed it.
Every high school level kid who took biology should understand this. It's the simple petri dish experiment. Inoculate a petri dish with any organism and chart it's growth rate. The growth rate is always exponential (that darned hockey stick graph that denialists hate). The organism takes over all the food resources in the dish until it kills itself off in a mass extinction.
Look at the chart of our global population growth rate, and tell me how we are doing:
http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif
Aye, but if you add some diversity to the dish the dynamic does change (assuming there is still energy input, not necessarily chemical).
The analogy does however apply pretty well if we keep converting diversity into food and people.
Spring fever: US smashes heat record for season
WASHINGTON—Call it spring's fever. Federal records show the U.S. just finished its hottest spring on record.
March, April and May in the Lower 48 states beat the oldest spring temperature record by a full 2 degrees. The three months averaged 57.1 degrees, more than 5 degrees above average. That's the most above normal for any U.S. season on record. Meteorologists define those three months as spring.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also reported Thursday that it was the second warmest May since records began in 1895. May averaged 64.3 degrees, just behind 1934.
The first five months of 2012 were the hottest start to a year in U.S. weather record history. The 12-month period starting last June is also the hottest on record.
Meteorologists blamed a persistent weather pattern.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2012/06/07/spring_fever_us_smashes_heat_record_for_season/
Good thing such reports only link to the temperature records since 1895. If they listed the historical temperatures that have occurred on this planet that they have been able to derive using scientific methods, we'd all be able to chart the fact that temps have risen and fallen on this planet for billions of years.
And this wouldn't be a story at all.
Here's a simple site that explains what I mean. http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
Its a story for those species who cease to exist because of a massive collapse of the ecological equilibrium. We are not JUST changing the climate, we are influencing thousands of systems we depend on in ways that are counterproductive for the continuance of our own species long term survival.
Are you so blind that you don't even recognize that the reason we exist at all is BECAUSE millions of other species of animals and plants ceased to exist before us?
If dinosaurs still existed...do you think they'd be productive or counterproductive to the survival of our species?
If oceans STILL covered the vast majority of our now dry land-would THAT be productive or counterproductive to us today?
Would our soil be as fertile and nutrient rich of it hadn't been covered by a LIVING ecosystem millions of years ago? And each one of these ecosystems came and went without ANY influence from humanity at all.
Maybe HUMAN LIFE is counterproductive to the NEXT phase of evolution on planet earth and our extinction is just part of the process.
How egotistical are you to think that WE as a species are so special and so important that we must survive long term, or even forever?
We ALL return to the earth whose DNA we share eventually. It's called NATURE.
Or maybe it is not our destiny to go extinct? Who can tell these things. I agree with a lot of what you say in your post, so I do think you misunderstood me a bit. Or I didn't clarify my point well enough. I don't want to start a game of blame.
I just like living, so I do not think it is wrong to want to save the world I live in. We are making the Earth less capable of supporting human life and also for much life that exists here now (perhaps not all of it, I don't mean to imply we will end all life, or are the pinnacle of evolution, or any of that anthropocentric garbage, but I am human, and I can't not care about our future).
rest easy .. the end will not come in your life time. you will be dust and bones before that.
We all "like" living. But what gives us the right to assume that WE are in charge or responsible for the living or dying of every other thing on this planet? Things have lived and died here for millions of years. And I suspect that things will live and die here for a million more.
We may or may not be a part of it's future-no matter how much we want to live. No matter how hard we try to keep things alive.
We don't know WHAT the earth's capability of supporting human life even IS-so how can we possibly know if we've made it less capable or more capable or affected it's capabilities at all?
We're the most sentient creatures that this world has ever known...according to all of the data we have currently. That we CARE about our planet and mourn things that no longer are is unique to us. But that doesn't mean that we have the power or ability to CONTROL this orb or it's atmosphere or it's oceans.
If more sentient creatures, or races are to "evolve" on this planet, then humanity as it is now known MUST die or at least disappear in order for them to come into being.
You're pretty scary.
[Removed]
If they listed the historical temperatures that have occurred on this planet that they have been able to derive using scientific methods, we'd all be able to chart the fact that temps have risen and fallen on this planet for billions of years. Here's a simple site that explains what I mean.
No one has ever denied that temperatures rise and fall.
Picking one set of data from one location (greenland) and drawing conclusions for global conditions doesn't work.... even when he added the Vostok set... that's only two locations.
But picking one set of limited data out of a historical time frame and screaming that the sky is falling-when once it's placed back into the big picture it is CLEARLY nothing new or unusual-DOES work for you?
The entire "sky is falling" platform rides on a select set of data from a select time frame in history. But you're perfectly fine with that. Nice.
Now, take the data sets from ALL THE OTHER "hockey stick" graphs-the ones of your own choosing-as many as you can find-and place them into a timeline plot-and then extrapolate them backwards based on ALL of the data we've collected and tell me that what is happening today has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and can ONLY be the result of humanity's influence.
If you actually have the scientific balls, and skill, to actually do it yourself, you let me know what the result is ok?
But picking one set of limited data out of a historical time frame and screaming that the sky is falling-when once it's placed back into the big picture it is CLEARLY nothing new or unusual-DOES work for you?
Not at all. The data sets that I have seen have been from at least 8 major glacial fields from around the world in key locations. Maybe you are thinking of the IPCC reports.
BTW, I am not a fan of the IPCC, as they are a political organization.
I detect some butt hurt here Betsy. Step away from the keyboard, take a few breaths and let the anger go.
If you actually have the scientific balls, and skill, to actually do it yourself, you let me know what the result is ok?
Over the past 20 years I have done just that with as many fields of study as possible, at my own personal expense, researching and checking into as many journals as I could find, including ones that are no longer in print. It's tough since AGW has been investigated for over 100 years. I have come across some really nice papers from physicists from the 1890's.
There is a preponderance of evidence that clearly suggests that 'what is happening today has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and can ONLY be the result of humanity's influence.'
Have you ever heard of the term 'Anthropocene'? It’s the name proposed for a new geologic epoch....one defined by our own massive impact on the planet. Naming a Geologic Epoch is a very big deal. It's not even considered unless there is very clear evidence and proof for a need to do so. Right now those discussions are taking place by key geologists around the world. Let that sink in.
It is a concept that has caught on in many other research fields. If you have read this before please forgive me, but this simplified overview by National Geographic does a fairly good job of explaining the concept.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/age-of-man/kolbert-text
[Removed]
the world will end.. it inevitable.. but only about 75% will die off.. after that human will start over again.. there is nothing to be done about this.. let nature take it course.
sounds like Doctor Doom's plan from champions hero games systems
On no start packing your bags everyone
Envirowhackoism is the new religion.