Home | About | Donate

'Completely Terrifying': Study Warns Carbon-Saturated Oceans Headed Toward Tipping Point That Could Unleash Mass Extinction Event

Thing is,. the only potential CO2 repository that has enough capacity for any meaningful direct CO2 capture is the deep ocean,… …that is by compressing and injecting the CO2 to a depth where it becomes a liquid denser than water.
Another alternative is Ocean Fertilization. …This would be far less energy intensive than direct capture, and would sequester the CO2 in the form of carbonates from the algae blooms it generates. Additional benefits to this would be increasing the oceans albedo,. as well as restocking the oceans and gradually reestablishing historical nutrient cycles that would have broken down when the whale populations were obliterated and they could no longer sufficiently cycle nutrients back up from deeper waters to the photic zone.

I’ve been terrified of this since I was in HS and wrote a civics paper on it.
I never thought we’d be so stupid as to continue destroying our home planet, but we are.
I guess most people generally think that, as long as they’re fine now, things will work out…or Jesus will come and make the “evil world anew for them”.
We’ve wasted valuable time with neo liberalism and endless, carbon-based war and Trump Co, etc.
I am profoundly heart broken at the chances we’ve missed or had taken from us by the greedy.
So much for the “sapient experiment” on this Earth.
Most people a r too dumb to even be called that.
Adios, Amigas!

1 Like

It is an unarguable fact that our home, the earth, is a total energy system that operates by natural laws or mechanisms that in one way or another always work to achieve a homeostatic balance. It is also an unarguable fact that the stresses we impose on the system by our actions are causing it to break down. Sooner or later, and that time may be upon us, the earth’s energy system will do whatever it takes to rebalance itself. It may mean that it will rid itself of its tormentors and start anew.

1 Like

Yes, for sure. And the guy on the corner with the sandwich board prophesying the end of the world in five days is exactly the same as 97% of climate scientists, and both have equal credence…

Professor McPherson has connected the dots and speaks the truth.

Ummmm, we are already experiencing a mass extinction event.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Here’s an example: first real job having taken some time off from school. I didn’t have a car and didn’t even want one. I walked, though it was unpleasant because I had to walk part way on a NJ highway. Then it got to winter. I tried hitch-hiking to/from work, but hitch-hiking was illegal - I had to get fined to find that out. In time, I could no longer walk on the highway with the slush spraying on me every time a car would pass. In the end, I didn’t have a choice.

On a larger scale, look into how the public transit in some of our largest cities was destroyed to make way for the car: SF, LA, Chicago. It was literally bought up, and then the trolley cars, which had the right to the roads, were burned.

Going further back, the process of enclosure forced upon us the social cancer of private land ownership. And the colonists enforced taxes on colonized peoples with violence, thereby driving them into the arms of the mining companies, or anyone offering wage labor.

We have been forced down this road every step of the way. It was not our choice.

1 Like

There are sciences, and then there are “sciences”. Anywhere there is too much money, or anywhere knowledge might be a real threat to someone’s power or bottom line, you can not rely on the results. Medicine would fall in that category, as would Economic “Science”. Toxicology, which is a part of Occupational Medicine is similar. Scientific standards are an ethic, and money and power have a tendency to corrupt them as they do all ethics. Physics and mathematics, on the other hand, are self respecting sciences. It’s only far down the line that their discoveries have real-world implications. You can depend on them for the knowledge of quantum theory and material science that gives rise to your cell phone; but you can not depend on medicine for the “science” that tells us cell phone microwave radiation is harmless. You can rely on Chemistry for the knowledge that tells us how to synthesize pesticides, but you can not depend on toxicology for the “science” that tells us the toxicity of those pesticides. Now as for Climatology, that’s a part of physics. A sleepy backwater, until just very recently. None of our plutocrats had the foresight to try to corrupt the field. They have been trying, though. Check out the case of Willy Soon.

It is a hard nut to crack - chicken and egg type argument.

Definitely we have been manipulated, even abused, since the dawn of civilization at least, perhaps it was even so in the tribal times.

But my main point is this - you can’t have it both ways - you can’t say we have a democracy, or even we believe in democracy, unless the people stand up and say yes or no, and accept the consequences.

You can aspire to democracy, some of us anyway, but if half don’t even vote, we have a problem.

As for the half that do vote - self-interest is not the only force in operation.

I see a herd mentality - what kind of democracy is that really.

The powers that be know what they want - and they have got it.

But what do we want?

I think in many cases the answer is the same as the powers that be - money and power.

Net worth - what an incredibly toxic term.