Global dimming and warming.

[popeyespappy]

---

The proposed cause of the release of methane hydrate was one of the largest known volcanic events to have ever occurred on this planet. Just for starters. I'd say that puts the event at a slight advantage over our current situation. The volcanic activity of the P-Tr event alone would be capable of causing extinctions, even in the absence of climate change. Pangea was forming. Permian life was by no means adaptable to fluctuations in temperature, and compared to ourselves (and all of our mammalian relatives) they were rank amatuers. A severe anoxic event could have turned the water (and the atmosphere above it) into poison, literally. Not only was there a release of toxic chemicals UV radiation damage seems to have spiked (and these two are likely related). To top it all off, there may have been an impact event. Hows about we leave a little bit of the granduer of the P-Tr event intact eh? We aren't facing a P-Tr, not by any stretch of the imagination.

So yeah Poppy, I'm fairly comfortable proposing that the scenario presented to us as the P-Tr event was considerably more horrid than anything that has us screaming about the sky falling down today. I'm comfortable mentioning that we wouldn't expect anything even approaching the devastation of P-Tr today, with our current situation. Call me fucking crazy.....lol.


As to your comments about our proposed mass exodus northward, I don't even need a link. It's called pumping, storage, and transport. We're good at it. If there is water somewhere, allow me to humbly suggest that we're probably capable of getting that water where we want it. Fun fact, the most productive area of commercial agriculture in the united states was once a desert, we "fixed" that. Our water use is wasteful, granted, but it doesn't have to be, and we don't even need to invent new technologies to shore that up. This exodus bit of yours is fantasy, plain and simple.

---

A future release of methane hydrate due to warming of the oceans is a real possibility. The oceans are warming because of human activity. That activity is changing the climate, and all indications are that it is changing the climate faster than nature did during the P-Tr extinction event. Therein lays the rub. The last time it was volcanoes that caused the methane hydrate to be released. This time around there are no volcanoes to scale therefore it something similar won’t happen again. It’s shit reasoning. In a broad sense it is the equivalent to saying there were forest fires before there were people therefore people can’t cause forest fires. Volcanoes may or may not have been responsible last time, but nothing says it can’t happen again with similar results for different reasons. Rising temperatures due to increased amounts of CO2 leading to the release of large quantities of methane as the tundra thaws and the permafrost melts could be enough to do it without the help of volcanoes.

The it is not going to be that bad mindset is also an indication that the conservative propaganda machine is winning the battle for our hearts and minds. Their message is it is not us, it is not going to be that bad, and even if it does get bad it is God’s will so there is fuck shit we can do about it anyway. You seem to fall squarely into the middle category despite the mountain of evidence that it not only can but probably will get bad unless we actively do something to mitigate it.

I find that interesting in morbid kind of way. Several times lately I have seen articles discussing the psychology of why people believe what they believe on these particular issues. Basically what it boils down to is the deniers are telling us what we want to hear. The scientists on the other hand are armed only with facts and figures of gloom and doom. Despite the evidence those facts and figures are correct it is simply something many of us don’t want to hear so we choose not to believe it. The current thinking is that if the scientists want the rest of us to believe what the data is telling them they are going to appeal to positive rather than negative emotions.

As far as aquifer depletion goes too bad you weren’t interested in reading the article. You might have learned a few of the reasons why I choose China, India and the US for my example. These countries are the largest food producers on the planet. They depend heavily on irrigation to produce that food. That irrigation is depleting the local water resources in some of the most productive regions. In many of those areas the water resources are old and are not being replenished at a rate that is sustainable over the long term even using conservative farming technics. At least not sustainable at any scale comparable to current production rates.

Global warming is going to make many of those areas drier in the future. Local supplies of both ground and surface water are going to get harder and harder to obtain. While it might be technologically feasible to pump the required water in from long distances doing that economically is another question. For one thing in many of the affected areas the only sustainable source of the quantities in question is going to be the ocean. That means not only are we going to be required to move several large rivers worth of water thousands of miles up hill, but the water is going to have to be desalinated before it can be used. The economics of such an endeavor are mind boggling. It is going to be much easier and less expensive to shift the majority of food production to the higher latitudes.

Since many of the areas in question are among the most populated food production isn’t going to be the only concern. It is going to get to a point where just getting enough water to drink will be difficult in some of them. If we take away the economic incentive of food production the likelihood of pumping the required water in from elsewhere goes down. No, the majority of the populations in the worst affected regions are going to be faced with a choice. Relocate to more environmentally friendly areas or die off.