Who is Dr. Guy McPherson

[EdEarl]

 

Nature Bats Last

Our days are numbered. Passionately peruse a life of excellence.

His prediction is dire. We have already destroyed ourselves, but are ignorant of the fact.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Is there a news story you meant to link to?

(This being posted in Science News)

[EdEarl]

Maybe there is news here and maybe not. Dr. McPherson contends that climate change has started an abrupt change that will result in mass extinction soon, perhaps 2030. I don't know if his case is strong or not. You may move this to another section of the forum.

 

Dr McPherson's credentials seem OK. He is sincere, his data is probably OK. I question his conclusions.

Edited February 26, 2016 by EdEarl

[Strange]

 

Who is Dr. Guy McPherson

 

Dunno. He seems very keen to promote himself, his books and his services as a speaker. But apparently that doesn't make him enough money so he asks for "donations" as well. <shrug>

[EdEarl]

His predictions resulting from anthropomorphic change of the environment are not mainstream, which may mean he isn't getting grants. His name in the U of Az phone directory has no department associated with it, probably because he is professor emeritus.

Edited February 26, 2016 by EdEarl

[swansont]

Maybe there is news here and maybe not. Dr. McPherson contends that climate change has started an abrupt change that will result in mass extinction soon, perhaps 2030. I don't know if his case is strong or not. You may move this to another section of the forum.

 

Dr McPherson's credentials seem OK. He is sincere, his data is probably OK. I question his conclusions.

!

Moderator Note

Still going to need more detail on what you wish to discuss. Just a link, or very vague summary, doesn't cut it.

[EdEarl]

Swanson says that he studied particulates in the atmosphere, which reduce solar radiation before it affects the Earth. It falls from the sky quickly, as evinced by a shutdown of air traffic in the US for three days, whereupon temperature rose a measurable amount as particulates fell. By his calculations particulates are keeping about 3 C degrees of temperature rise from occurring. As burning of coal and oil wane, the there will be a 3-4C rise in climate temperature. We are doomed if climate temperature rises that much.

[Robittybob1]

Swanson says that he studied particulates in the atmosphere, which reduce solar radiation before it affects the Earth. It falls from the sky quickly, as evinced by a shutdown of air traffic in the US for three days, whereupon temperature rose a measurable amount as particulates fell. By his calculations particulates are keeping about 3 C degrees of temperature rise from occurring. As burning of coal and oil wane, the there will be a 3-4C rise in climate temperature. We are doomed if climate temperature rises that much.

Is this true Swansont?

[EdEarl]

Is this true Swansont?

Oops:) McPherson said, not Swansont.

[Robittybob1]

Oops:) McPherson said, not Swansont.

Thanks - I'm listening to McPherson ATM. I think he is wrong so far but he may just be right. It needs a bit of research.

It is unusual like "we are all doomed to extinction so we should all live a life of excellence for life is short". Does that make sense?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Robittybob1

[overtone]

Most of the doom scenes rest on the methane bomb. The issue there, for me, is that all the arguments I've seen against the likelihood of a methane bomb - with one exception - seem very weak. (One often sees reassuring calculations of methane release that depend on the assumption that clathrates in marine sediments will be heated by diffusion only, for example). Also the "alarmists" regarding the methane bomb issue seem quite low key, not raving, and among the informed rather than the publicity seeking - like this:

 

The one exception to the weak arguments is the most obvious: it hasn't already happened. If it had, at any time in the last few million years, we would be looking at a much different planetary ecology than we see. So we are to assume that (aside from - possibly - some deep time major extinction events like the Permian, once or twice in the entire history of the planet and never during the millions of years of the current glaciation epoch) past warming spikes were somehow never enough to touch it off.

 

Resting one's hopes for human civilization on that seems an unwise justification for failure to restrict industrial CO2 emissions, though.

Edited February 28, 2016 by overtone

[EdEarl]

Most of the doom scenes rest on the methane bomb.

Yes, speculation is that methane hydrate will come up in huge amounts if the climate warms to about 5C hotter than 1900. However, I think climatologists think the 5C warming is a catastrophe without the additional methane. Arctic temperatures now are 6C to 8C above nominal and large quantities of methane are already escaping from tundra in Siberia, Canada and Alaska; afaik it has not been called a bomb, but it is serious.

 

I think there is a way to circumvent the dilemma that McPherson describes. In one of the videos I watched, a reporter suggested we control particulates using aircraft. McPherson suggested we couldn't keep it up forever and the idea would fail. However, we have been flying continually since WWII. If particulates and sulfates are sprayed by airplanes (or whatever) and we reduce CO2 significantly, I'd think we could eventually reduce the particulates and sulfates, too. At least there is a chance.

 

Managing the environment, including climate, must become a finely tuned science.

Edited February 28, 2016 by EdEarl

[Robittybob1]

@EdEarl - you could imagine a huge row over who is going to do this and who is paying for this but at least some new ideas are still possible.

[EdEarl]

@EdEarl - you could imagine a huge row over who is going to do this and who is paying for this but at least some new ideas are still possible.

Yes. Maybe we should fill negotiation rooms with snakes, and lock the doors.

[Robittybob1]

Yes. Maybe we should fill negotiation rooms with snakes, and lock the doors.

We might just get a rushed decision under those circumstances!

[EdEarl]

Yes, but there would be a decision:) Seriously, independent countries can do things their own way. IDK what will occur, but there is a hope something can be done. Perhaps my suggestion is not the best; maybe it wouldn't work.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, but there would be a decision:) Seriously, independent countries can do things their own way. IDK what will occur, but there is a hope something can be done. Perhaps my suggestion is not the best; maybe it wouldn't work.

I hadn't realised the problem was as big as it is. The amount of carbon locked up in the methane hydrates dwarfs the amount in fossil fuels (crude oil etc). So even if it was possible to capture and burn it to CO2 plus H2O that will only be a small advantage for the CO2 is a greenhouse gas as well.

So does that mean we should burn the methane and pump the CO2 deep into the ground. Even that sounds problematic for the reservoir could leak or rupture causing a massive cloud of CO2.

 

Biochar was a possibility but that too is too slow. Instead of allowing enormous forest fires to occur burn the trash in a biochar oven, and bury the biochar in the land. Prove whether it is beneficial for agriculture or not. If not just bury it in huge pits below the ground surface.

McPherson seemed to think biochar would be ineffective to deal with the problem, but it could be a start in the right direction.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Robittybob1

[EdEarl]

Algae can grow as fast as doubling mass every hour, daily doubling is common in good conditions, and faster than anything else is usual. It can be compressed into pellets and burned to make char and particulates. Some species grow in salt and soda water; saving fresh water. It can be grown anywhere by anyone.

Edited February 28, 2016 by EdEarl

[Robittybob1]

Algae can grow as fast as doubling mass every hour, daily doubling is common in good conditions, and faster than anything else is usual. It can be compressed into pellets and burned to make char and particulates. Some species grow in salt and soda water; saving fresh water. It can be grown anywhere by anyone.

We would have to be careful not to induce some other limiting factor eg like running out of phosphate (for I'm sure the algae aren't just going to grow on nothing, they will need nutrients.) I'll have to look into it further, but with biochar at least the nutrients are put back into a cultivated area. I was not convinced that all the hype over biochar was backed by evidence either (I looked into a couple of years ago, so there maybe some new results to consider). It would be really disastrous to damage our agricultural land if biochar wasn't the right stuff to use.

[EdEarl]

Life has been recycling for billions of years, including algae; although, IDK how long it has been helping. Among the documented uses of algae is fertilizer. Re: Wikipedia. Also note: atoms such as phosphorous are not destroyed by living processes, it would take a nuclear process, either fusion of fission, which is why they are always available for recycling. Some plastics are slow to degrade, but AFAIK, living organisms do not produce such molecules.

Edited February 29, 2016 by EdEarl

[Robittybob1]

Life has been recycling for billions of years, including algae; although, IDK how long it has been helping. Among the documented uses of algae is fertilizer. Re: Wikipedia. Also note: atoms such as phosphorous are not destroyed by living processes, it would take a nuclear process, either fusion of fission, which is why they are always available for recycling. Some plastics are slow to degrade, but AFAIK, living organisms do not produce such molecules.

OK so you are not just using algae as a way of sequestering carbon but as fuel (oils extracted) and the waste as a fertilizer. As long as the nutrients are recycled maybe the process could be made to work. I'm exploring the idea behind the use of algae. I don't know enough about it.

What does McPherson think of the use of algae to solve the impending crisis? I can't remember him mentioning it.

McPherson doesn't advocate any solution as he thinks "we are ****ed".

Edited February 29, 2016 by Robittybob1

[EdEarl]

I hope there is a way out and we do it. Unfortunately, people don't seem to care enough. For example, I've been led to believe that raising beef requires about 2000 gallons of water per pound of beef. People will install a water saving toilet that will save 20% per flush, but eating a single Big Mac offsets the savings of such a toilet. People drive fast in SUVs, trucks and cars with little consideration of their environmental impact. Some people are concerned, most are not. Many are more concerned their luxury lifestyle will be changed more than their care to do anything about climate change. The Fermi paradox seems to favor self genocide.

[Robittybob1]

I hope there is a way out and we do it. Unfortunately, people don't seem to care enough. For example, I've been led to believe that raising beef requires about 2000 gallons of water per pound of beef. People will install a water saving toilet that will save 20% per flush, but eating a single Big Mac offsets the savings of such a toilet. People drive fast in SUVs, trucks and cars with little consideration of their environmental impact. Some people are concerned, most are not. Many are more concerned their luxury lifestyle will be changed more than their care to do anything about climate change. The Fermi paradox seems to favor self genocide.

I believe you have applied the The Fermi paradox incorrectly. Where did you get that idea from? From some of the solutions that might be an outcome.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Robittybob1

[EdEarl]

The Fermi Paradox asks why have we not seen evidence of ET. One reason is all or most ET are killed before they become space faring. Natural disasters can kill them, or they can kill themselves.

[Robittybob1]

The Fermi Paradox asks why have we not seen evidence of ET. One reason is all or most ET are killed before they become space faring. Natural disasters can kill them, or they can kill themselves.

"One reason is all or most ET are killed before they become space faring. Natural disasters can kill them, or they can kill themselves."

They are the possible solutions to the paradox not the paradox itself.

Any technology that will enable us to really go interstellar is (likely in my opinion) to be rather dangerous to test on Earth.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Robittybob1