“You can force a system through a period of time and it seems that the system doesn’t respond at all. It seems like there’s no problem, we can continue what we’re doing, it’s not going to affect the environment. Then you suddenly hit a threshold where the effect has been accumulating but you didn’t see it and suddenly the system just moves into another state.”  (Source: The Planet)

 

What is runaway global warming?

Runaway global warming or positive feedback carbon cycle is something that we’ve only been properly aware of for the past 8 years and therefore it’s not something that many people understand. The equivalent destructive power of thousands of times the worldwide nuclear arsenal is interspersed in several of our Planet’s major ecosystems (read our section on the interaction of the Earth’s ecosystems to gain an understanding of that). Carbon is stored everywhere and is kept where it is thanks to the current temperatures. If temperatures rise by just over two degrees they will continue rising until we face extinction. Methane trapped under the Oceans has the destructive power of 10,000 times the world’s nuclear arsenal. No life could survive an explosion of such magnitude. It will leak out once the world warms by just six degrees.

To avoid the disastrous domino effect of ecosystems shifting into different states, global carbon dioxide levels need to peak by 2015 and be cut down worldwide by 90% by 2050. Carbon emissions need to remain below 400ppm (they are at 387ppm increasing at 2ppm each year) and then need to be brought back below 350 ppm.

What is the greenhouse effect?

If the Earth were a basketball and you sprayed it with paint, the thickness of that paint would be 10 times greater than the thickness of our atmosphere. The thin and fragile layer of gases retained by gravity filter the most damaging elements of sunlight and enable sunlight to be reflected back into space so that the Planet doesn’t overheat. That is the natural greenhouse effect where CO2 is a friend, not an enemy.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is something that has been happening for decades now where greenhouse gases concentrate in the atmosphere and trap sunlight here rather than reflecting it back into space. This causes temperatures to rise and as they rise, they destabilize our ecosystems causing them to warm, melt, thaw, burn and dry, a phenomenon that will release far greater amounts of CO2 than we are capable of producing ourselves. The Planet is already 0.7 degrees warmer and if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, it would continue to warm by 0.5 degrees. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are 30% higher than they were prior to the industrial revolution and methane concentrations are 150% higher than they were.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof that greenhouse gas concentrations drive temperatures. Instead, both are correlated and the increase of one appears to follow or precede the increase of the other. In the Earth’s history, there have been many instances where greenhouse gases caused global warming but there have never been any where this change has occurred as quickly as it is occurring now. The rate at which these changes are happening create a major problem: ecosystems do not have time to adapt. Normally, trees and wildlife would have time to migrate. This time, they don’t and this means that rather than move, they will disappear exacerbating the effects of the warming to a level that has not existed in the 4.4 billion years of our Planet’s existence. Every life supporting system on the Planet is already in decline. There is a serious risk that our numbers could be dramatically reduced at higher temperatures or that we could go extinct.

What is global warming?

"Scientific experts believe we are in the midst of the fastest mass extinction in Earth's History" (Source 1, Source 2)

Global warming is just one of the environmental issues receiving media attention; there are many more but none is so urgent or so threatening to mankind’s long-term survival.

Global warming is the transition from a stable climate state to a hostile unstable one. Life on Earth is the product of a few unique circumstances: the right distance from a burning star, water, an atmosphere and oxygen. All of these things over millions of years of slow development create life. As life dies, it reverts back into the soil and underground. Life is created using solar energy. When it dies, not all of it disappears, some of it fossilizes. Through photosynthesis, plants grow, absorbing carbon and releasing oxygen. This is a phenomenon that has existed for 3.9 billion years. As the plants die, some disappear back into the soil, others, under the right geological circumstances accumulate into stored carbon reservoirs. Peat, oil, methane and coal are fossilized solar energy. The first formations of oil are 60 million years old. They were formed at the end of the Cretaceous mass extinction when CO2 levels reached 3000-3500 parts per million (ppm). Coal is 360 to 286 million years old and was also most likely formed as a result of excessive carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere after the Permian mass extinction.

These reserves form so that the biosphere maintains the ingredients it needs in adequate amounts to facilitate life. By extracting and burning stored sunlight reserves for energy and pouring them into the air, mankind is destabilizing the balance of atmospheric ingredients facilitating life. Worst still, by pouring stored reserves of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are recreating the circumstances that caused the fifth mass extinction of life on Earth, the extinction of the dinosaurs.

How much time do we have left?

Up to 2014. Our time may be gone already as the melting in the North Pole has already reached catastrophic proportions. We are on the dawn of the largest and most terrifying crisis we have ever had to face as a species.

The mass extinction has already begun. Animal species are disappearing much faster than they would naturally due to our invasion of their natural habitats. As the dominating species, mankind hasn’t quite come to terms with the fact it is at the top of the food chain and therefore dependent on a host of ecosystems for its own survival. A fly for instance is viewed as a nuisance and a dirty insect. However, if it weren’t for flies, excrement would not be eaten and it would rot degassing methane and destabilizing the atmosphere’s composition. Flies are not an endangered species yet but bees are. Within 10 years, they could be extinct worldwide. Bees, other than being annoying stinging pests are a major contributor to pollination. If they go, one third of our diet goes with them.

The mass extinction for humans will start, like it does for animals, when human habitats can no longer be inhabited and humans have to evacuate. An example of this is New Orleans. Although people have moved back there after Katrina, some haven’t. What is the point in rebuilding a city if it is to be destroyed by a hurricane every few years? Another real example that has barely gone noticed is Lolasa Island. The highest point of the islands is 170cm above the sea. Over the past few years they have been repeatedly inundated by spring tides wiping out the islanders subsistence. 2600 people are being prepared for full evacuation. Sea levels could rise by 1 meter by 2050 and displace 10% of worldwide population, 700 million people. Displacement is one problem, loss of subsistence is another. If CO2 levels move past 400ppm, the threshold for carbon cycle feedback will be reached triggering the demise of major carbon sinks and releasing natural stocks of CO2 stabilized for millions of years. Temperatures will rise inexorably. They don’t need to rise by much to create mass extinction. One example of this (and there will be many) is the melting of the glaciers in Tibet which will occur at four degrees of global warming. Hundreds of millions of people in China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will find themselves without water. No water, no food, they move. As they move, they will invade countries, wars will start, people will die. People will also die of malnutrition and starvation. If we do not cut down our current emissions drastically, temperatures will be four degrees higher by 2050.

Eminent scientist James Lovelock has called this the Revenge of Gaia, he thinks that human population, having peaked at 9 billion in 2050 will be reduced to 1 billion by 2100. He also thinks mankind is too stupid to save itself.

Can technology save us?

No. The idea that technology will save us is symptomatic of our flawed thinking as the dominant species. We think that we are intelligent, that we can control the Planet and the elements. Technology creates as many problems as it solves. Take a laptop for instance widely considered to be a technological prowess. A laptop generates 4000 times its own weight in waste and is designed to last only three years! Can we expect such technological prowess to save us?

Geo-engineering methods are an example in point of our relatively inadvanced technological development. The solutions proposed are merely patches. We haven't come up with a cure yet for global warming although there is considerable tought being put into the matter as we speak. Even if we do come up with a cure, trying to repair ecosystems in advanced decay is going to be incredibly expensive and difficult. That's why it's so important that we all make an effort to reduce our emissions now.

In the very distant future when we are far more advanced, technology may help us enormously but right now, we are heavily dependent on the Planet for subsistence. If there were a five year worldwide drought, it is a safe assumption that most of us would die. This is a fact that must not be discounted: no computer in the world is going to save us if we run out of food. Several years ago, Costanza calculated that it would cost $35 trillion for us to do what Nature is doing for us for nothing. At that time, the total output of all the economies in the world was $18 trillion. Thus if we were to try to replace the enormous amount of work done by Nature for free, our economies would collapse. Maintenance is a far better option but one that has been very much discounted to date. Dominating the environment through technology is simply not sustainable if the technology is part of the problem. If we can’t compete with Nature, we have to cooperate with it and this means living within its limitations and boundaries and obeying its law. Natural law has no mercy.

Science is warning us that we need to act quickly on climate change or face extinction. It is not a meaningless matter when our reserved, intellectually rich elite turns to activism, as they have done recently, as a last resort to warn our politicians of the impending disaster awaiting us if we do not make rapid and profound changes to our way of life.

It is worthwhile noting that it is our scientific and technical knowledge that has put us in the crisis we’re in. It has given us a degree of self-assurance that we are in control. We must revert back to a balanced approach where we recognize that we are biological entities dependent on our environment. At the time of writing, millions of tonnes of toxic chemicals are being released in the Oceans, forests are being cut down at breakneck speed, billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases are being pumped into the air, the hole in the ozone layer is getting larger and the list goes on... Nature is being treated like a toilet. Does it make sense to treat the mother that gives us food, oxygen and water like this? What happens when Nature is so weakened that it can no longer meet our needs?

Is there hope?

Yes, we think so. We need to have faith in our creative potential, our capacity to empathize and our ability to change and adapt. This change starts with individuals and is extended into the fields of control of individuals: consumption and industry. We all have a moral obligation to cut down on our use of fossil fuel and to restore the Natural environment we have been plundering.

If we are the problem, we can also be the solution. This is a very optimistic view in the face of irreversible changes to our ecosystems but there is tremendous power in numbers. In 40 years, there will be 30% more humans. That’s a billion more hands that can be used to create positive change. It would help a lot, if collectively, we realized that we don’t have much time left to find solutions.

References:

New Proof that man has caused global warming
Manmade global warming evident on every continent
Climate change evacuation
It's already too late: the fallacy of climate activism
It's too late to stop climate change: assessment of and solutions to the problem