Skip to main content

Looking Deep into the Future

Last week, I finished reading Curt Stager's amazing book Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth. It was a book that is certainly worth reading, but at first glance one might ask what good is a book like this, one that purports to look far into the future beyond not only our own lifetimes but those even of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren (and many generations beyond that too). Of course, none of us will be here to witness whether Stager's predictions are true, but we can be assured that they are not blind prognostications. Stager is a paleoclimatologist by trade, meaning he looks to the record of rocks, ice and lake-bottom deposits to determine what past climates were like, using this information to help us understand what might be coming based on our actions in the present. This book is one of evidence-based reasoning presenting a range of possibilities for our future on this planet, based on whether we take a moderate-emissions path or a high-emissions path. The future will look quite different if we choose to burn through our fossil fuel reserves in the 5,000 Gigaton emissions scenario rather than the moderate 1,000 Gigaton emissions path (which will still have consequences).

Taking the long view of the climate crisis is instructive in several ways. We are reminded that, beyond any reasonable doubt, humans are responsible for the current and ongoing changes in climate. Our fossil fuel resources are finite, a one-shot gift from earth's long past. We should be cautious in using them all up within a period of several hundred years, because we will not get this chance again, and future generations of humans may need them for something far more important than the running of cars. The changes in climate are long-term; by reminding us of this Stager is certainly not an "alarmist". The changes will happen slowly, but at the same time the long perspective reminds us that these changes are still far more rapid than anything the earth has previously witnessed. The Greenland ice sheet may take a thousand years to fully melt (though there is some uncertainty that may point towards the possibility of a rapid disintegration), but melt it will, raising the levels of the seas and changing the world as we know it.

The changes in climate that we are likely to witness will not be the end of the world, and humans as a species will be here to witness it. However, because of our actions many other species will not be. Stager spends some time on the ocean acidification that is resulting as a consequence of our actions, a very troubling prospect indeed, and on the divergent paths that it may take. The long view of the climate is somewhat reassuring, as life will survive and the full effect of our changes will take thousands of years to come fully into effect. However, the long view also reminds us that the actions we take now will shape the climate far into the future. Our current emissions will take over a hundred thousand years to cycle back out of the atmosphere (for the moderate emissions scenario; for the high emissions scenario around half a million years will pass before carbon levels in the atmosphere return to what they were before the burning of fossil fuels). Given the length of time involved, we have a grave responsibility to act to mitigate our emissions, for the future good of life on earth. All in all, Stager reminds us that we shouldn't panic, that there is time to mend our ways, but that we are still obliged to take action to mitigate our impact whatever that action will turn out to be.

Read this book, that's all the more I can say. It is a book on science that is written to be accessible to the educated reader.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...