iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Donald L. Sparks

GET UPDATES FROM Donald L. Sparks
 

Tipping Point

Posted: 06/13/2012 11:05 am

A group of 22 scientists sounded an alarming call to action last week.

Their paper in the June 7 issue of Nature, a highly regarded, peer-reviewed journal, carries the benign-sounding title, "Approaching a State Shift in Earth's Biosphere." But their conclusions are nothing short of a disaster warning.

This group of biologists, ecologists, geologists, paleontologists and complex-system theoreticians from the United States, Canada, South America, and Europe have spent a year and half reviewing evidence that Earth may be approaching a state shift, a "tipping point" at which the global ecosystem may shift abruptly and irreversibly from one state to another.

If this happens, the world as we know it may not be recoverable, and these scientists conclude that this outcome is looking more and more likely.

An article by Paul Basken in last week's Chronicle of Higher Education explains the scientists' findings in layman's terms. According to Basken, the report centers on a measure of how much of the Earth's surface has been altered by people, "from forests and prairies to uses such as cornfields and parking lots."

Human beings now number more than 7 billion, and we have transformed 43 percent of the land we live on from its natural state to something else. That figure is expected to top 50 percent by 2025, when the world's population reaches 8 billion. At that point, environmental damage such as species extinctions, climate change, and chemical contamination may have accumulated to such an extent as to be catastrophic.

The report's lead author, Anthony D. Barnosky of the University of California at Berkeley, told Basken that the scope of these problems demands a global response. And this is where scientists like Barnosky and his co-authors begin to get really worried. Up to now, the nations of the world have not shown themselves to be either willing or able to cooperate on the scale that scientists now believe is necessary to avert irreparable harm to the planet.

We will have another opportunity this month at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 20-22. Dubbed Rio+20 because it is taking place 20 years after the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992, this conference may be one of our last, best chances to come together as a species and take concrete actions in time to avoid that environmental tipping point that Barnosky and his colleagues have warned us about.

At the Delaware Environmental Institute, the multidisciplinary research and education institute at the University of Delaware that I have the privilege of directing, we recognize the complexity of the environmental challenges we are facing. Responding to these challenges involves more than scientists providing data and politicians passing laws based on that data. Our global society encompasses a myriad of ideological, cultural, economic, and psychological factors that must be taken into account to structure workable solutions.

In order to navigate our way forward, we do need scientists to measure what is happening to the Earth and engineers to devise technological fixes. But we also need philosophers to examine the ethics of what we do in relation to our environment, and historians, writers, and artists to tell the story in a way we can hear and respond to. We need psychologists and sociologists to tell us why we are so resistant to change as individuals and communities and how we can overcome those barriers. And we need economists and policymakers to build in the proper incentives to our markets and our governance so that we adequately value and protect the natural systems on which our lives depend.

People from all walks of life and all schools of thought have one thing in common: we spend our lives on this planet being sustained by a natural system that provides us with air, soil, water and food -- and abundant wonder and beauty -- but which is showing increasing signs of strain. There can be little doubt that we are the primary source of that strain. Let's hope that we can find a way to ease the strain before we reach the breaking point.

Dr. Donald L. Sparks is the S. Hallock du Pont Chair in the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences and director of the Delaware Environmental Institute at the University of Delaware. He is an internationally recognized scientist in the field of environmental soil chemistry.

 
FOLLOW COLLEGE
 
 
  • Comments
  • 88
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcbmack
11:45 PM on 06/22/2012
Dr. Judith Curry on Muller from her blog:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526

Hide the decline. Stop saying end the skepticism.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcbmack
11:37 PM on 06/22/2012
In addition, I have completed grad work in psychology prior to taking pre-requisite courses and majoring in IT. There will no more arguments about claimed or what is my background, as that should suffice. Regarding Mann's hockey stick it ignores the laws of thermodynamics, which in a nutshell means we cannot measure temperature which such accuracy on a global scale and it ignores the immense buffering of: plant life, phyto plankton, the global oceans and lakes, with such heat capacity, and changes in cloud cover to form potent negative feedbacks. Now, yes, the Mann's and Hansen's acknowledge and discuss negative feedbacks but they have not resarched them enough and been forthcoming about many uncertanties and gaps in the literature as well as huge error bars more significant than they make claim.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcbmack
11:33 PM on 06/22/2012
Now on to my background: B.S. Psychology, with an emphasis placed upon: statistical analysis physiological/neuropsychology, paid NSF funded laboratory research into the biological basis of human behavior, a biochemistry/chemistry evolutionary biology background in calculus, linear algebra, computer networking, computer repair, Object oriented programming, procedural programming, analyzing linear trends, and now in a graduate program in software engineering, among other classes and work experience, some already mentioned. I also have a background in physics.

Regarding Bob Carter what he did was remove bad proxy and falsified GCM data and showed the so called hockey stick trend was not accurate. The tree rings were shown not to be so responsive to temperature as was once believed, there are altitude alterations, humidity and all sorts of other considerations that alter the responses of proxies like sediment cores and tree rings.

I am not in agreement with Carter we are headed into a cooling trend at least not of any statistical significance.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcbmack
11:26 PM on 06/22/2012
Maxwells and Publicola I will answer you both as complete as I can within 3 posts.

1.) Here are two links to quotes from Dr. Curry about Muller:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1yaE9vRWQ

http://junkscience.com/2011/10/30/curry-damage-control-mullers-oversell-a-mistake-not-a-new-scandal/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hikerguy22
This is your carbon footprint
01:54 PM on 06/17/2012
Alarms are sounding in every corner of the earth. But are enough of us listening, and how many of us are acting, and how much of a hurry are we in. Alarms are not enough at this stage of the global climate crisis. No action now means terrible times for the next generation. But getting the biggest users of the world's resources to agree and take action is not likely to occur without civil disobedience.
09:27 PM on 06/15/2012
"All things considered, the simplest solution is usually the correct one"

Even if the simplest one is tragic to envision. We are overpopulated, plain and simple. It will take a population collapse of humans to save most life on earth, ultimately including us. I believe it is coming, and it will likely be a combination of disease, famine, and lack of clean water.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SoleProp
08:52 PM on 06/15/2012
I look at the problem Europe is having getting together to make the necessary political changes to save the Euro and despair of any real changes being made in time to deal with global warming. A really ugly event that gets everybody's attention? Maybe, but what I'm seeing is that frog sitting in a pan of water that's being heated slowly as it sits on a stove, never noticing the point at which he's ready to be served as a course with dinner.
05:46 PM on 06/15/2012
As an undergraduate student majoring in environmental studies, I understand the complexity of global climate change from a variety of perspectives-- from the technical and scientific to structural and cultural and ethical perspectives. My political ecology professor stated that these overwhelming global issues make us feel as though our actions are dwarfed. I agree, and many concede with this analysis. Regardless of size, individual or collective action has repercussions. In approaching these issues of climate change, emissions, consumption, non/renewable energy resources, conservation, and food politics etc, we MUST think critically and creatively to find solutions that are sensitive to a globalized context. For example, China's coal emissions rise continually. But why? China produces goods for Global North consumption. The Gobal North's consumption patterns demand China to increase production and energy consumption which is largely coal-based. So to blame China solely for increasing greenhouse gas emissions is cursory and shortsighted. We, ourselves, are often to blame, and can be the to first change. The globalized world of today requires us to thinking in global terms, thus the issue at hand-- global climate change.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
10:12 PM on 06/15/2012
China is using some of its wealth to build nuclear and solar alternatives to coal. As they master space travel and tele-robotics, they may use robots to build solar microwave platforms in orbit out of moon and asteroid materials that beam energy down to the planet. the solar exposure area of the geo-synchronous sphere is many times that of Earth. The Sun is the only energy source that we'll ever need.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:19 PM on 06/14/2012
If there are climate scientists reading these blogs, it sure would be good to hear from you... are we approaching the tipping point? Or have we already passed it, as I keep hearing?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:17 AM on 06/15/2012
They are here and they do speak up. They simply don't call attention to themselves, but to the actual science.
05:05 PM on 06/14/2012
The planet has already passed the tipping point. Even if all coal fired plants were stopped today, the existant momentum will carry the process further, and China is adding one new coal fired plant every WEEK! Any effort to abate would require coordinated global cooperation, and that is about as likely as the moon turning into green cheese tonight at 2 a.m.. Hip waders and a gas mask are best bets. Some will survive, some won't.
photo
mbkeefer
Elder Amateur Scientist
09:38 PM on 06/14/2012
Depends on which tipping point. There is one where the increase in CO2 results in enough additional water vapor in the atmosphere that a runaway greenhouse effect occurs. The additional water vapor makes it warmer still which drives still more water into the air and so on. The end result is like Venus. A world cooked to dead with the oceans turned to steam. Fortunately, pretty sure the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will prevent that while they last.
02:59 AM on 06/16/2012
Good science fiction, but the unrestrained consumption of CO2 by plants and cyanobacteria over the last billion years has driven the world to a virtual CO2 famine.

Below 200 ppm CO2, the biosphere will face mass extinction unlike ant the world has ever seen. Humans are saving the planet, not destroying it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
03:08 PM on 06/15/2012
The focus of this article was on land-use changes, with the author discussing forests and prairies [ecosystems] devolving into corn fields and parking lots. Our terrestrial ecosystems are Earth's most endangered and create and support the vast majority of all life on the Earth, including homo sapiens.

Ecosystems naturally "regulate and moderate the climate" as well as naturally taking care of those climate warming gases. When they rape ecosystems for agriculture, houses, parking lots and shopping malls, the sequestered heat trapping gases are re-released back into the atmosphere. Also, what sits on the surface of the Earth influences climate, precisely why cities and agriculture have hotter climates.

Ecosystems not only supply mankind with his natural resources that drive the financial economy, they provide mankind free gratis with all his lifelines to existence, from oxygen releasing, the atmosphere, the nitrogen cycle, fresh water, decomposition, seed dispersal, 99% of all pest control, including the control and regulation of human disease pathogens that cause epidemics. Science relates, frogs are in this eco-nomy and probably lizards and some species of birds. Frogs are falling extinct globally en masse and lizards aren't far behind. Most birds are in steep decline.

Cities, houses, parking lots, shopping malls and office complexes are as life giving as the dust on Mars, and Earth has lost 43% of her terrestrial ecosystems to "corn fields and parking lots".
04:47 PM on 06/14/2012
After reading this article an old song lyric popped in to my head:

"Saved by science.
Can science rescue me?
High technology, put me in the place I seem to be."
04:13 PM on 06/14/2012
With worldwide fossil to nuclear conversion in a new "New Deal" program well within our capabilities over the next 15 years while a fossil to renewable conversion utterly impossible financially, industrially, and politically; malevolent not so renewable advocates might start wondering if their uninformed Big Oil funded opposition to a nuke conversion is worth the pollution deaths of three million folks worldwide every year the conversion is delayed and the deaths of billions more when they cause us to slide over the fast approaching climate precipice.

According to Bloombergs tracking of renewable expenditures since 2004, if the money wasted to date on wind and solar (35 and 85 cents a kwh) with low efficiency gas backup producing less energy and more GHG's than if the wind/solar was just skipped and high efficiency gas used instead, had been spent on nuke power the world would now be coal free saving a million lives annually from coal air pollution. The impeding warming precipice would have be moved back 50 years or more potentially saving billions of more lives.

Without gas or hydro backup and its enormous subsidy in money and blood of innocents, there would be no wind or solar.

The world's foremost climatologist James Hansen tells us these greenie Denialists are drunk on spiked Green Koolaid - there is a no future for civilization without a massive conversion to nuclear power.
07:06 PM on 06/14/2012
"According to Bloombergs tracking of renewable expenditures since 2004, if the money wasted to date on wind and solar (35 and 85 cents a kwh) with low efficiency gas backup producing less energy and more GHG's than if the wind/solar was just skipped and high efficiency gas used instead, had been spent on nuke power the world would now be coal free saving a million lives annually from coal air pollution."

Care to provide a link for this entirely unsubstantiated and completely fabricated statement (which you appear to be attributing to a specific source)?
12:51 AM on 06/15/2012
Why I just used Google. Amazing

http://www.newenergyfinance.com/PressReleases/view/224
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
03:31 PM on 06/15/2012
You made some valid points about conserving Earth's ecosystems as the author of this article who stated, 43% of Earth's ecosystems have been ravaged for "corn fields and parking lots". Ecologically literate scientists claim man is "suicidal" when he kills ecosystems for any reason.

California is devouring our fragile desert ecosystems for biodiversity killing windmills and dead fields of solar panels, mined from a rare earth mineral. More roads have to be built for construction and access, killing more ecosystem. Outside of Palm Springs there is a windmill factory. This desert ecosystem is as dead as if they had dropped a nuke bomb on it. One desert solar project had to be stopped because it was killing protected foxes. Killing ecosystems, kills all the reasons mankind is alive and Earth is a life giving and supporting planet.

Conversely, nuclear power consumes infinitely less tracts of the Earth and produces higher energy yield than all other sources of energy. You are correct. Wind and solar kill the planet and ecosystems like all the other sources; however, nuclear destroys less for high energy yield.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
08:21 AM on 06/14/2012
Spaceship Earth

Duck and cover
your head in the sand.

There discover
a bright fairyland.

Dare not hover
with your helping hand.

Ditch your lover.
Don't take a last stand.

She'll recover
as she ditches man.

When we're fossils underground
she'll spin gayly round and round.
Wiser species will be found.
photo
mbkeefer
Elder Amateur Scientist
10:06 PM on 06/14/2012
May not be enough time for that. In 200 to 500 million years the sun's increasing solar output will be enough to evaporate the oceans. All the steam in the atmosphere with create such a powerful greenhouse effect that the Earth's surface temperature will be high enough to melt basalt. The result will be a dead planet with oceans of lava.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
10:02 PM on 06/15/2012
Then it shall happen on some other planet in another solar system. Perhaps it could happen within a solar system heading towards us as our galaxy crashes into a nearby galaxy. There are many worlds yet to be.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:30 AM on 06/14/2012
Malthus was right.
04:21 AM on 06/14/2012
Someone please tell me what to do. I feel so helpless. I am a college/university educator, even teach a course in this area, talk with friends about it, and take many actions like namely, below, and climate change marches on. I don't really believe in giving up, but is it too late to do ENOUGH to make a difference?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:41 AM on 06/14/2012
Those of us who do see the seriousness of the situation need to change how we live, and show others how to do it too. AND show them that it's not a sacrifice. If you are an expert on this subject, I think showing laypeople the actual science instead of dumbing it down might help? I don't know. I do know that just saying it's so isn't convincing people. People need to see pictures of animals running from fires, people starving, graphic examples of what's really at stake. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was required to go see it for themselves?
01:59 PM on 06/14/2012
Reading that the planet "may" be reaching a tipping point is the same as reading that the planet "may not". I appreciate that you're modeling a complex system. Is there a strong correlation between specific human activities and specific damage that is being given short shrift. Every time I see weezel words related to this subject, I conclude that it is nothing I need to jump up and down about. Besides, with the level of corruption over all things political, nothing can get fixed without campaign finance reform. That is where I'm donating.
06:11 PM on 06/14/2012
I've done all of that. I'm doing all of that. 15-30 college students at a time. And they end the 10-15 week term with very strong knowledge of what's going on, great disturbance, and a big feeling that they must do something. I know many other educators are doing the same. But that's not enough. What will happen at Rio? ANYTHING? What we really need is to upend our energy grid NOW, and that's not possible. We can't wait 5, 10, 15 years for policies to slide into place, if they're even made in the first place. I give us 2-3 decades before life on this planet becomes untenable for many, if not most.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
03:14 PM on 06/14/2012
The emphasis of this article was on land-use changes. The author addressed prairies and forests [Earth's natural and wild surface or ecosystems] devolving into corn fields and parking lots, and also hot hot cities, shopping malls, office complexes and housing tracts. Ecosystems not only furnish man with their natural resources, but ecosystems generate man's only life giving and sustaining cycles, functions and services.

We need to ask, can a house, parking lot or city release oxygen, balance the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, naturally regulate and moderate the climate, naturally sequester those heat trapping gases that will be re-released back into the atmosphere upon ecosystem deforestation; provide the entirety of Earth's heat trapping gases and fresh water, plus create and renew a life giving soil;

provide seed dispersal, pollination and decomposition; 75% of all new medicines, 99% of all pest control and the control and regulation of human disease pathogens in the food chain with mankind?

All ecosystems are integrated with loops and feedbacks to both the climate and the atmosphere, and all ecosystems create the life zone of Earth, her biosphere/ecosphere.

Simplistically, man is killing all his lifelines to his very existence.
06:06 PM on 06/14/2012
Yeah, I know that. I know all of that. But what can I do? Me, with my limited funds, consistent concern, and small actions? What's the most effective way for me to help?