Guy McPherson - credible or alarmist?

[morls (Stephen)]

Hi,

I've been reading some writing by Guy McPherson, and was wondering if anyone has a strong view either way about his ideas and projections for the course of climate change? I have to say, if he's right the outlook is pretty depressing...

Cheers

Stephen

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-cha...ry-and-update/

[Wavytone]

I regard him as an alarmist, and the article is an unstructured rant from someone with no formal scientific credentials in climatology. The article lacks any real logic, draws on hysteria and misplaced fear of things like PRISM.

While some of the material he draws on is factual (such as geological records) there is a fundamental difference: humans didn't exist at the previous extinction events, nor did any other species have both the science to understand what is going on, nor the technological capabilities to intervene in any way. The result was evolution - and the survival of the fittest - or non-survival of the least fit - running its course. We have the ability to fast-track that, both by deliberate selective breeding as well as direct genetic modifications. In addition we are able to assist or interfere in the reproductive cycles of plants, at will.

While I would agree on several points though:
- global warming is happening faster than most want to admit, and will probably exceed the forecast extremes by 2100;
- it cant be undone, as the genie (CO2) is already out of the bottle;
- there are several regions where humanity has already exceeded the population sustainable on rainfall, and the human population has to be drastically reduced by one means or another;
- The most likely outcomes are famine, disease and/or wars fought over resources (primarily water). All will happen (and are happening now on a small scale).

China's one-child policy was effective and in many respects admirable as the only effective peaceful effort to reduce population in a generation. It did show it is possible, though only in a non-democratic state.

He is right in one respect in a very broad sense - America has been quietly taking steps to ensure it will survive long after any other country has fallen into ruin. This thinking started way back in the Cold War period in the 1950s.

But the details he offers are frankly very flawed, hysterical rubbish.

[morls (Stephen)]

Interesting to get your thoughts, thanks. A friend of mine who is an academic thinks highly of his general assumptions (extreme changes are imminent) but I'm still not sure, at the moment I'm wary of extreme views either way.

Whichever way things go, we're in for some interesting times...

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by morls

Hi,

I've been reading some writing by Guy McPherson, and was wondering if anyone has a strong view either way about his ideas and projections for the course of climate change? I have to say, if he's right the outlook is pretty depressing...

Cheers

Stephen

https://guymcpherson.com/climate-cha...ry-and-update/

Make no mistakes, we are screwed alright. As soon as the methane really gets going this planet will wreak like the arse end of a bovine....

[xelasnave]

The things that will take us out will be the things we are not expecting.
I expect everyting so nothing will ever get me☺
Alex

[E23 (Andras)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

I regard him as an alarmist, and the article is an unstructured rant from someone with no formal scientific credentials in climatology. The article lacks any real logic, draws on hysteria and misplaced fear of things like PRISM.

While some of the material he draws on is factual (such as geological records) there is a fundamental difference: humans didn't exist at the previous extinction events, nor did any other species have both the science to understand what is going on, nor the technological capabilities to intervene in any way. The result was evolution - and the survival of the fittest - or non-survival of the least fit - running its course. We have the ability to fast-track that, both by deliberate selective breeding as well as direct genetic modifications. In addition we are able to assist or interfere in the reproductive cycles of plants, at will.

While I would agree on several points though:
- global warming is happening faster than most want to admit, and will probably exceed the forecast extremes by 2100;
- it cant be undone, as the genie (CO2) is already out of the bottle;
- there are several regions where humanity has already exceeded the population sustainable on rainfall, and the human population has to be drastically reduced by one means or another;
- The most likely outcomes are famine, disease and/or wars fought over resources (primarily water). All will happen (and are happening now on a small scale).

China's one-child policy was effective and in many respects admirable as the only effective peaceful effort to reduce population in a generation. It did show it is possible, though only in a non-democratic state.

He is right in one respect in a very broad sense - America has been quietly taking steps to ensure it will survive long after any other country has fallen into ruin. This thinking started way back in the Cold War period in the 1950s.

But the details he offers are frankly very flawed, hysterical rubbish.

Agreed. I just had a quick scan of his views and he appears to be a semi-qualified nutcase, extreme alarmist. Even if we are heading into some very rough weather (sorry) and it's too late to stop at 2 degrees warming, it will not be the 'end of days' for humanity. As sure as technology created the problem, technology can fix it. Think geo-engineering. Eg putting a reflective substance like sulphur dust in the stratosphere. It is however too late for the Great Barrier Reef. It's doomed by increasing frequency of bleaching events due to hot oceans.. Sadly also for ground based astronomy, it will also be doomed for a hundred years or so while the 'solution' settles back to Earth. By that time we would have stopped the CO2 and CH4 emissions.

Talking about doomsayers, remember the Club of Rome report 'Limits to Growth' 1972 by a group of very eminent experts regarding the approaching doom due to 1. population growth, 2. air pollution, 3. depletion of resources, by year 2000. Well, they missed global warming as well as they badly overestimated population growth. Air pollution is fixed, there is no sign of depletion of resources and world population will peak at 11 billion by 2050. (all demographers agree on that).

Global warming is different and is serious but I'm optimistic that we can fix it. I'm an engineer.

Andras

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by E23

As sure as technology created the problem, technology can fix it. Think geo-engineering. Eg putting a reflective substance like sulphur dust in the stratosphere.

Global warming is different and is serious but I'm optimistic that we can fix it. I'm an engineer.

Andras

Its this kind of thinking that put us in the predicament in the first place.

Engineers believe there is always a technological fix, believe me I deal with a super duper version on a regular basis, but I can assure you, nature cannot be "engineered".

To solve an engineering problem, you first have to have a detailed understanding of the system, and we aren't even in the ballpark on that when looking at the planet as a whole.

There are multi-level feedback processes that we are only touching on now, including ocean mixing rates, for example, and more we don't even know about yet. There is so much methane in deep ocean deposits and permafrost that we just can't even begin to comprehend what will happen once that starts really moving... and it's started. Temperature measurements in deep permafrost are rising way to fast and... surprise, surprise, we don't understand why Like I said, we are screwed, but good!

If the U.S. corps of engineers is anything to go by, we might as well just burn all the coal on the planet today and get it over an done with faster

[morls (Stephen)]

Originally Posted by E23

Think geo-engineering. Eg putting a reflective substance like sulphur dust in the stratosphere. It is however too late for the Great Barrier Reef. It's doomed by increasing frequency of bleaching events due to hot oceans
Andras

I shudder to think what would happen if we pumped millions of tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere, if only because there is no way we can fully understand the long-term ramifications (not to mention sulphuric acid H2SO4 and Venus and runaway greenhouse)...

As far as the great barrier reef, the real problem is not a "hot ocean" but acidification of the ocean which causes problems in the calcium-carbonate system upon which many many organisms depend.

Stephen

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Regardless if he is right or wrong further on, I got no further than “In the near future, habitat for Homo sapiens will be gone. Shortly thereafter, all humans will die.”

[xelasnave]

We need to move underground ro survive climate change or the next big hit.
Lets face it we are here today because many mammals lived in the protection of the Earth itself...besides I would love a Hobbit house☺
Alex

[morls (Stephen)]

That's it! I'm off to Coober Pedy. Imagine the night sky...

[E23 (Andras)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Its this kind of thinking that put us in the predicament in the first place.

Engineers believe there is always a technological fix, believe me I deal with a super duper version on a regular basis, but I can assure you, nature cannot be "engineered".

To solve an engineering problem, you first have to have a detailed understanding of the system, and we aren't even in the ballpark on that when looking at the planet as a whole.

There are multi-level feedback processes that we are only touching on now, including ocean mixing rates, for example, and more we don't even know about yet. There is so much methane in deep ocean deposits and permafrost that we just can't even begin to comprehend what will happen once that starts really moving... and it's started. Temperature measurements in deep permafrost are rising way to fast and... surprise, surprise, we don't understand why Like I said, we are screwed, but good!

If the U.S. corps of engineers is anything to go by, we might as well just burn all the coal on the planet today and get it over an done with faster

Rom

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of the problem but I still think there is an engineered solution. There must be one otherwise we are really stuffed seeing the pollies still haven't pulled their finger out. The species that has worked out how nature works at the quantum mechanics level and taken high resolution images of Pluto's moon Charon and engineered your iPhone is not going to throw its hands up at a bit of climate engineering. When the politicians finally realise that we are being cooked they will ask the successors of Einstein, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Teller et al(by the way, Teller was onto this before he died about 20 years ago) to organise a Manhattan or Apollo style project and fix the climate problem. There is no other way. It's too late to stop our CO2 emissions.

Andras

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by E23

Rom

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of the problem but I still think there is an engineered solution. There must be one otherwise we are really stuffed seeing the pollies still haven't pulled their finger out.

Ah, yeah... That's what I said.

Originally Posted by E23

The species that has worked out how nature works at the quantum mechanics level and taken high resolution images of Pluto's moon Charon and engineered your iPhone is not going to throw its hands up at a bit of climate engineering.

Spoken just like an engineer. Despite our perpetual arrogance... we know virtually nothing about how life works or the planets systems beyond the most basic superficial functions of some of the earths cycles.
- We don't even have a remotely complete map of the ocean floor.
- Can't predict weather with any accuracy beyond a few weeks, and regularly get it COMPLETELY wrong.
- Have not even catalogued, let alone studied, 80% of the species on earth that we THINK may be there.
- Cant cure the common cold...
- Can't maintain any kind of natural balance with nature.
- Yadda, yadda, yadda

If we knew anything of real consequence, we would not be in this predicament now. We operate basically like a cancer on this planet and the host is dying.

Originally Posted by E23

When the politicians finally realise that we are being cooked they will ask the successors of Einstein, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Teller et al(by the way, Teller was onto this before he died about 20 years ago) to organise a Manhattan or Apollo style project and fix the climate problem. There is no other way. It's too late to stop our CO2 emissions.

Andras

You are dreaming.... For a long time, the scientists warned the wankers and the wankers ignored them pretty much the way they do today; nothing has changed, despite all the warning signs and all the incontrovertible evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Its now just a case of the frog in the pot slowly cooking as the water heats up. In fact, the wankers in this country and Yank land, for example, have attacked the scientific community for speaking up. NOTE, we don't even have a minister for Science atm. http://theconversation.com/no-scienc...ustralia-91739

We are already completely screwed. This joke we call "civilisation" has a life expectancy of about 20 years, tops... IMHO

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

We are already completely screwed. This joke we call "civilisation" has a life expectancy of about 20 years, tops... IMHO

You beauty ... I'll be 83 then and ready to fall of the perch ... it won't matter to me ....

Col.....

[E23 (Andras)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Ah, yeah... That's what I said.



Spoken just like an engineer. Despite our perpetual arrogance... we know virtually nothing about how life works or the planets systems beyond the most basic superficial functions of some of the earths cycles.
- We don't even have a remotely complete map of the ocean floor.
- Can't predict weather with any accuracy beyond a few weeks, and regularly get it COMPLETELY wrong.
- Have not even catalogued, let alone studied, 80% of the species on earth that we THINK may be there.
- Cant cure the common cold...
- Can't maintain any kind of natural balance with nature.
- Yadda, yadda, yadda

If we knew anything of real consequence, we would not be in this predicament now. We operate basically like a cancer on this planet and the host is dying.




You are dreaming.... For a long time, the scientists warned the wankers and the wankers ignored them pretty much the way they do today; nothing has changed, despite all the warning signs and all the incontrovertible evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Its now just a case of the frog in the pot slowly cooking as the water heats up. In fact, the wankers in this country and Yank land, for example, have attacked the scientific community for speaking up. NOTE, we don't even have a minister for Science atm. http://theconversation.com/no-scienc...ustralia-91739

We are already completely screwed. This joke we call "civilisation" has a life expectancy of about 20 years, tops... IMHO

You are missing the point. This frog can feel the heat and wants to do something about it. What's your solution?

If you are into laying the blame for the current situation look no further than the Greens and their predecessors the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) in the UK. Their hysterical obsession of conflating nuclear weapons with nuclear power in the 60s. Expect for them we would not have any fossil fuel power generation buy now.

Andras

[Oddity (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by E23

Air pollution is fixed

I recommend a visit to China to set the record straight on this. When I visited you could literally see smog inside the airport terminal looking from one end of the hall to the other. The sun on a day with no clouds, looked more like an orange moon.

world population will peak at 11 billion by 2050. (all demographers agree on that).

“All” seems a grandiose embellishment. If by “all” you mean “some” and by “agree” you mean “see it in some models and not others”.

[E23 (Andras)]

Originally Posted by Oddity

I recommend a visit to China to set the record straight on this. When I visited you could literally see smog inside the airport terminal looking from one end of the hall to the other. The sun on a day with no clouds, looked more like an orange moon.



“All” seems a grandiose embellishment. If by “all” you mean “some” and by “agree” you mean “see it in some models and not others”.

Yes, a bit like Los Angeles in the 70s. Check it out now. If they did it in 30 years the Chinese will fix theirs in less than 15.

What happened to Paul Ehrich's exponential population bomb?

Andras

[AndrewJ]

If you are into laying the blame for the current situation look no further than the Greens and their predecessors

I think you need to look more at how economists have come up with schemes that require constant growth to function, and how science and engineering has now given the money /power hungry capitalists /developers an ability to utilise these theories to build/pollute at levels never before possible.
Just look at the microcosm of Victoria/Melbourne.
( the worlds most wonderful place :-) )
We now import lots of "people" per year as required by theory.
They need houses and infrastructure so we pay huge numbers of people to build houses/infrastructure and claim that this is aiding our economy, but its not a stable income without ever increasing growth, and it doesnt actually generate new "external" money.
Its also making the place impossible to move around in.
Second problem is a lot of the money used to pay for building the now overpriced product is "borrowed", and is also being siphoned off bit by bit by all the vultures in the "finance" sections of society, who dont actually do much for their money.
We are like one of those Attenborough films where everyone is feeding off an ever diminishing bait ball, and patting each other on the back at how good the times are whilst we can see the ball.
What happens when the bait ball is consumed????
I also note a huge chunk of our last budget is now based on Fines and Stamp duties, vs exports that bring in fresh money.
Not a good sign for sustainable living.

Andrew

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by E23

You are missing the point. This frog can feel the heat and wants to do something about it. What's your solution?

If you are into laying the blame for the current situation look no further than the Greens and their predecessors the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) in the UK. Their hysterical obsession of conflating nuclear weapons with nuclear power in the 60s. Expect for them we would not have any fossil fuel power generation buy now.

Andras

Let me see... It would have been much better to accumulate megatons of nuclear waste with an "extended" half life and proliferate nuclear weapons.... not to mention add a few dozen more 3 mile islands, Fukushimas and Chernobyls... I guess. I believe the European Union just spent how many billions replacing the tomb at Chernobyl for a hundred years? http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017...e-in-the-world

You are blowing smoke bubbles at "greenies" the same way everyone with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo does.

I believe the U.K went coal free for 3 days a week or so ago... still burning gas of course, but its a bit better than a 100,000 year commitment to a waste dump, I guess...

Engineers don't like "greenies" because they make engineers feel inadequate... From what I gather, the dastardly "greens" have been trying to protect our common environment since the 1960's The wankers have been on the Man V Nature kick for generations. Check out this 10 minute clip on DDT; the arrogance of the chemist is breath taking, and that was what, 60 odd years ago...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipbc-6IvMQI

So, you asked what my solution would be...

As I said, to late, we are screwed. Even if you pulled the plug today, shut down human industrial carbon emissions entirely and ditched the farmed meat chain, simple inertia will keep the process going for centuries... and that's just ONE of our engineered issues.

Here is another! There is so much crap in the oceans now, they'll be dead in a decade or so as the micro plastics wipe out the base of the marine food chain... and thats not even addressing warming or acidification, the later would continue even with a sulphur aerosol turning the sky the colour of piss...

If you want even a faint chance of avoiding the worst of it, start by killing at least 5 or 6 billion humans... nah, don't bother, nature is about to do it for us...

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Let me see... It would have been much better to accumulate megatons of nuclear waste with an "extended" half life and proliferate nuclear weapons.... not to mention add a few dozen more 3 mile islands, Fukushimas and Chernobyls... I guess. I believe the European Union just spent how many billions replacing the tomb at Chernobyl for a hundred years? http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017...e-in-the-world

You are blowing smoke bubbles at "greenies" the same way everyone with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo does.

I believe the U.K went coal free for 3 days a week or so ago... still burning gas of course, but its a bit better than a 100,000 year commitment to a waste dump, I guess...

Engineers don't like "greenies" because they make engineers feel inadequate... From what I gather, the dastardly "greens" have been trying to protect our common environment since the 1960's The wankers have been on the Man V Nature kick for generations. Check out this 10 minute clip on DDT; the arrogance of the chemist is breath taking, and that was what, 60 odd years ago...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipbc-6IvMQI

So, you asked what my solution would be...

As I said, to late, we are screwed. Even if you pulled the plug today, shut down human industrial carbon emissions entirely and ditched the farmed meat chain, simple inertia will keep the process going for centuries... and that's just ONE of our engineered issues.

Here is another! There is so much crap in the oceans now, they'll be dead in a decade or so as the micro plastics wipe out the base of the marine food chain... and thats not even addressing warming or acidification, the later would continue even with a sulphur aerosol turning the sky the colour of piss...

If you want even a faint chance of avoiding the worst of it, start by killing at least 5 or 6 billion humans... nah, don't bother, nature is about to do it for us...

Rom .... without appearing to be sarcastic .... have you anything to look forward to in life

Col....