Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dirk Dunning's avatar

Thank you Richard. I wish I had as rosey a perspective on the future as you do. (not being facetious).

CO2 is a bad measure. Global warming gases (as CO2) is the better measure. By that with a 100 yr timeframe we are about 550-560 ppm. On a real scale measuring current impacts we more like 750. Those numbers put us back 30-35 million years ago fir the last time the earth was here. Mankind has maybe a decade or two to go before full collapse kills us. And with the burn it all option now in vogue, we seem likely to add another 30-50 ppm to the 550 number and another 60-70 to the 75- number. That only pushes us back another couple million years. Either way, ice free earth here we come. Welcome to the Oligocene - coming soon to a planet near you. And maybe, just maybe - welcome to the Eocene.

Expand full comment
Alternative Lives R Available's avatar

Thanks Richard, an excellent analysis as always.

I note that whilst you mention CO2(e), Carbon Dioxide levels with Methane effects included, the graphs are just registering 430ppm rather than the 530ppm or more with the fast- increasing contributions of methane and other CO2 equivalents. Of course, that addition seems to make it all so much worse.

I am also interested in the effects of sea level rise, both from ice melt and from expanding warmer waters, and whether the slow timeline with long lag will change. Sea levels in previous times with these CO2 levels were tens of metres higher, which suggests that such rises are 'baked in'(literally), so the question becomes 'How fast?'

I am also concerned about increasing tectonic activity from ice cover melt at the poles and Greenland allowing rebound, and the warmer seas allowing tectonic plates to expand. On the one hand, increasing earthquake and volcanic activity may make some densely populated regions unliveable, but on the other hand, a large volcanic eruption might even change the reflectivity of the planet and cool the climate.

I am 70 so am hoping for another decade of reasonable survival as the news around me gets worse and worse. Best I can manage to hope for.

On a personal note, at the moment I am wondering whether it is better to stay in this small and resilient town in France, relatively safe and with suitable local resources, where I might survive for longer (do I really want to?), or to 'go out in style' by selling up and moving to a more happening and fun city for my remaining few years. My mind switches, almost day by day. I suspect many of us are going through similar calculations.

I think the psychological impacts will be as dangerous to us all as the physical ones, with hopelessness, depression, insanity for those unable to accept, suicide, and expressions of anger and violence, all becoming more and more commonplace. Worse in America, with all those guns......

I am also aware, and your post reinforces this, that here in Europe we will need to deal with a flood of migrants from Africa that will either be stopped by increasing force and State violence, or will swamp the southern European and Mediterranean countries. Our remaining days are likely to become increasingly brutal.

Is Trump on the right path? For rich Americans, I can see that they may think so. Secure the remaining resources and let all the poor, sick, old and non-productive people die off. They will live in a world of isolation of course, rich pariahs, too scared to go outside in case someone kills them, each in their lonely bunkers of privilège. Alive perhaps, but not really living. I think I'd rather stay here in Europe and take my chances.

Keep the information flowing please, Richard. I understand the task you have set yourself is a difficult, perhaps one with personal costs, but we do appreciate your intelligence and integrity, however hard the truth may be for us to absorb, accept and understand.

Thanks!

Expand full comment
61 more comments...

No posts