Extinction or Evolution: Rise Of A Global Warmth.
Extinction or Evolution: Rise of a Global warmth
Picture this scenery: A planet almost filled with undrinkable water, no greenery and everything that was once verdant was now bleak, the grounds are barren, incapable of producing anything edible, the air is filled with noxious fumes that the very act of breathing damages the lungs. Sounds like an almost dead planet doesn't it? Where life is unwelcome and death lingers even in the air, and yet, from the look of things, one does not need an augur to predict that unless a solution is provided and fast, this point might be where we, humans and our planet earth is headed. While the movie industries try to project our existence into the apocalypse, an effect which can be seen in movies like I am Legend, walking dead and the book of Eli, each of these movies in their attempt to demonstrate what a possible extinction event might look like, anticipating the main cause for such a happening to be biological related. This may, however, not be the case.
How so?
Zombies? Rehabilitated dead? War? All these, as dismal and thought-provoking as they might appear are far from taking us out from the equation. The prime enemy, however, and one that does not seem farfetched or far away indeed is ourselves. Yes, humans might be the most efficient facilitation of their own extinction. But how is this possible? Global Warming. Yes, the head cause of many of our problems today including anomalous climate change.
Speculations after speculations, theories follow analysis, discussions are made in the media, people decry pollution but in the end, the problem appears only to exacerbate. In this article, we will see what global warming means, its various effects and consider its long-term effect, if this is only an anomaly that would soon resolve itself or if it is an evolutionary process that might perhaps result in the extinction of an acclaimed highly intelligent species.
First of all, what is global warming and what is its effect? That is, how does it affect the planet, the society, and the individual.
What is Global Warming?
Global Warming can define in really simple terms: An increase in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceanic temperature as well. It is also referred to as "Earth warming" although this is not a generally used term. Nevertheless, the concept signifies an increase in global temperature.
What causes Global warming?
Global warming occurs as a result of the accumulation of carbon dioxide (a heavy colorless gas CO2 that does not support combustion but is formed in the combustion of animal and vegetable matter such as fossils fuels), air pollutants and greenhouse gases. This gases are released as a by-product as a result of our day to day activities, accumulate in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight or nuclear photons and solar radiation that "bounce" off the surface of the earth. Under normal conditions, these radiations are expected to radiate into space Space, but these gases which can endure for a very long time without dissociative trap these radiations and heats up the surface of the planet. This phenomenon is known to as the Greenhouse effect.
What is this greenhouse effect?
According to Merriam-webster dictionary, it is the warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases.
source@
Every day, thousands of factories release these gases into the atmosphere, our fuel and diesel engine vehicles emit these fumes whether actively or passively, millions of cigarette burn each day with each of these cigarette sticks containing about ten (10) milligrams of carbon dioxide and there is no way of controlling this dispersion, making it seem like a hopeless situation.
Source@
Consequences of global warming
These consequences of this effect far outweigh its supposed benefits (if there are really any) and are as dire as we would expect. On such consequence is the increase in extreme weather conditions and aberrations in the weather cycle. There are longer and hotter heat waves, heavier rainfalls, aberrant weathers and even famine. More storms are likely to occur, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and medicine in 2006, predicted that anomalies in certain weather events, like some heat waves, can be linked directly to this phenomena.
Most affected are the arctic regions like Antarctica which according to geographers, loses about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002. There are speculations that the rate could increase, resulting in a great increase in sea levels.
Lives are also affected, there is an increase in water shortages, famines increased risks of conflagrations, flooding, heat waves, higher levels of air pollution resulting in infectious disease and increased rate of cancerous infections.
habitats are lost as well and this easily can easily be seen in the case of the ice bear, the polar bear, penguins, and seals that inhabit the arctic regions, as they are rendered homeless by human activities.
source@
Are humans to blame?
When it comes to where the blame lies, we must judiciously know where to point the finger. Even as a civilized and intelligent species, our innate animalistic natures cannot be completely repressed and evolution comes into play. After all, some may argue, nature is all about the survival of the fittest species, and we humans have in many ways proved our superiority over the other animals, but in this case where we are simply making our own home very inconducive for us and other species to live in is considered by many as just unreasonable and unjustified. It may very well be that instead of the extinguishing of the sun, global warming might be the event that
Delivers the knock out blow and wipe us out. Still, others like Mr. Romanus, a senior lecturer in the field of Astrophysics at the federal university of technology, Owerri, a man who I have had the honour of working with for several years, claims that the whole global warming is just a sham, a story cooked up by the world powers and all this heat effects may just be the results of a climate-manipulating clandestine weapon or the after effect of an experiment gone wrong. Whatever it is, one thing is certain, the planet is no longer safe for both humans and other occupants and unless we come up with a plan soon enough, we will be ancient history as the dinosaurs.
So what do you think?
Is it really a hopeless situation? Do you have a part to play in all of this? Are we really destroying the planet or just following our evolutionary innate instinct to survive, an instinct which seems as if it is leading us down the path to our very own extinction. Or will you stand by the side of the conspiracy theorists like the lecturer and blame a weapon or a failed experiment for what looks like an apparent, inescapable outcome that we may very soon eject ourselves from our own home?
Whatever position you take, always remember to play your part and reduce pollution as much as you can. Although some countries such as Germany, the United States, and other developed countries are taking a swift turn and are looking into renewable energy sources, we as individuals must play our part as well. Thanks for reading, and remember to Stay Scientific, Always.
Personally, I am more concerned that we are fast approaching a new Grand Solar Minimum and a little ice-age, similar to the last 3 that have occurred during the last 600 years (Dalton (1809-1821), Maunder (1687-1703) and Spörer Minima (ca 1440-1460):
Morner, N.A. The approaching new Grand Solar Minimum and little ice age climate conditions. Natural Science 7: 510-518 (2015)
Just look at the sunspot numbers:
400 year history of sunspot numbers
Image Source:
Interesting data @davidrhodes124. The sunspot numbers seems to approach a maximum between a 200 years intervals, increasing and decreasing at a steady rate. If i extrapolate correctly, from the data provided above, by the year 2150, the world would experience a drastic rise in sunspot maximum, in such a way that the heat waves would render the planet incapable of holding any form of life we currently know. But, even if we were to experience a little ice age condition, it would have either no long-term effect or would fail sustain itself under such high heat waves. What do you think about that?
I don't think that your extrapolation is correct. We are headed for very low sunspot numbers in the next solar cycle. In the past, such low sunspot numbers have been associated with "little ice-ages". Here's more up to date info. on sunspot numbers:
This is a pretty good article summarizing what we might expect during the next Grand Solar Minimum:
The next Grand Solar Minimum, Cosmic Rays and Earth Changes (an introduction) BY SACHA DOBLER ON 14. JANUARY 2018
Nice article. But if during a grand minimum, more cosmic rays are admitted into the earth's atmosphere, resulting in a dissociation of accumulated gases into a smaller subatomic particle, the energy released by this process is released into the thermosphere which might result in a reaction with the ozone layers(although i have no evidence of this), one thing seems certain. If we are approaching a grand solar minimum by the year 2200, it is still a pretty long time and the damage done a global warming of the earth's atmosphere may be too severe to be reversed. Moreover, a grand minimum according to the article would also cause an ocean warming due to eruption of underwater volcanoes, therefore causing a rise in the ocean level. Nonetheless, whether in the case of a grand solar maxima or minima, the odds all seem to be stacked against our favour. Droughts, famine and low humidity does not bid well for anyone including the plants. Makes me wonder if there is any hope for us.
Agreed, it's not good news for humanity looking forward!
Yeah, I think probably 2 more generations will have a global civilization. After that I fear that we will really start feeling the decline.
There is this haunting work by an anon anarchist called,"The Desert" that goes into why this is the case.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert
That's the link to it if anyone is interested.
the great extinction is what really worries me, and the trend is going away from ecological sensibility. In my view, capitalism, is incompatible with ecological programs.
I'd also like to point out the Co2 emissions are only part of the equation if you really want to talk about the eco-crisis. Deforestation is one concern. The destruction of the top soil by industrial farm Technics as well as others I am probably ignorant of.
To quote the eco-anarchist and social ecologist Murray Bookchin,"The very notion of the domination of nature by man stems from the very real domination of human by human."
The reason this is, is because we dominate each other(politically, economically and so on and so on) so think we have the ability to dominate nature. Hence our coincided notion that we have conquered nature. We haven't because we can't.
So, with this in mind, I honestly think that the future is much bleaker then main stream people think.
In my view it's 30 years to late to not have massive destruction of the environment due to human interference with the biosphere.
So what can we do?
Well at this point really all we can do is mitigate the suffering of humanity from the eco-crisis.
That should be the goal at this point, because the hour is much later then anyone likes to admit.
Well said...although your estimation of how sooner we might destroy ourselves by the social-cultural struggle for dominance seems to supersede the possibility of extinction from eco-crisis. I admire your bluntness and in truth, the future seems bleaker when we look at it through a telescope covered with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. If I may ask, on your profile, you described yourself as "a left anarchist", what does that mean?
Left anarchism in a broad stroke considers that hierarchy is the social question and that domination is an expression of hierarchy.
The first ever ecologist, Murray Bookchin, was a left anarchist. He was the first person to consider having and economy based on wind turbines and solar panels(in his book,"our toxic environment") and founder of the institute for social ecology.
To put it more exactly, what I promote is a federated system of neighborhood assemblies that plan the economy by directly democratic means. Also know as libertarian municipalism. Informed by Bookchins ideas of social ecology and dialectical naturalism. Which is an Economic model known as Communalism.
so plan production around concern for the environment as well as social need(and want I guess)
There is a real world working example of this in Syria known as Rojava.
Left anarchism was the first anarchism actually. All the Anarcho-capitalists you see on this website are a-historical. So we had to add the "left" part to express that we're anti-capitalists.
It's also know as Libertarian Socialism, but you say socialism and people think you mean a system like the USSR, so I go with left anarchist.
Alright. But if I am to go with your definition of left anarchism, then everyone should be one because of the concept of society revolve around hierarchy and domination. Hierarchy is, in fact, a trait found in all forms of society, however subtle it may appear.
The end of hierarchy is more of a long term goal, then one to be accomplished immediately. In my view as it stands today.
Just like the Marxist concept of a classless, stateless and money-less society was a long term end goal.
Same thing here.
I agree, Hierarchy exists in every facet of life. This is why left anarchism is considered a revolutionary concept. It seeks to change a huge factor in our current system.
It exists in the nuclear family, it exists in our political bodies, it exists in our economic structures.
The first step is to organize in web like structures instead of pyramid type structures.
Like for a neighborhood, you organize a general assembly, instead of a home owners association.
Make sense?
Yeah..but i do not agree completely with the idea of classifying hierarchy or democracy as anarchism. Nonetheless, let me take some time to ruminate on the issue.
That's what the historical anarchist movement has always been defined as. Well except proudhon, and goldman they weren't really too fond of democracy.
But yeah, think about it, get back to me.