We will soon go the way of the dinosaur, but the main difference is that we did it to ourselves. The period of global warming and severe climatic change which the dinosaurs succumbed to was natural, probably resulting from a period of increased volcanic activity or a giant meteor impact. Millions of years from now, when another "intelligent" species once again roams the Earth, they will display our bones and fossils in museums, and we will be remembered as the species that drove around in those crazy metal machines, filling our skies with poison.

"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal."

Albert Einstein

Albert knew it would happen this way, but no one listened. Or maybe they listened, but were just too dumb and lazy to change.

Carbon at 20 million year high

By environment correspondent Alex Kirby

Two British scientists say the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere is higher than for 20 million years.

But their study of levels over the last 60 million years suggests that the gas was once even more abundant than it is today.

Carbon dioxide is the main gas caused by human activity that has been linked to global warming. Concentrations now are about 360 ppm (parts per million), but will continue to rise as emissions increase.

Based on current trends, by 2030 the total climatic impact of rising levels of all greenhouse gases will be equal to that caused by the doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations. By 2100, the effect would be trebled.

The research, by Dr Paul Pearson of the University of Bristol and Professor Martin Palmer, of Imperial College, London, is reported in the journal Nature.

Shelling out

They used a new technique to establish CO2 levels in the ancient atmosphere, analysing the shells of planktonic organisms that once lived near the surface of the ocean.

This enabled them to establish past seawater acidity, which in turn was dictated by the amount of atmospheric CO2.

The researchers estimate that between about 60 and 52 million years ago, CO2 concentrations reached more than 2,000 ppm.

But from about 55 to 40 million years ago, there was "an erratic decline", which may have been caused by a reduction in CO2 emissions from ocean ridges and volcanoes, and by increased carbon burial.

Since about 24 million years ago, concentrations appear to have remained below 500 ppm and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 million years ago.

"Our observations put the modern greenhouse effect into a long-term perspective," said Dr Pearson.

Back to the future

Commenting on the prospect suggested by climate models, that the 2100 CO2 level could be as high as that last seen in the Eocene period, 50 million years ago, he said: "This does not necessarily mean we will recreate Eocene-type conditions.

"There are still too many unknowns involved in climate prediction. But the sweltering ice-free world of the Eocene does warn us of what might happen if a runaway greenhouse effects sets in."

Some researchers still doubt that human activities are inducing rapid climate change. They highlight the inconsistencies between the temperature records taken at the Earth's surface, which show rapid warming over the last century, and the data produced by satellite and balloon studies.

These show little if any warming, in the last two decades, of the low to mid-troposphere - the atmospheric layer extending up to about 8 km from the Earth's surface.

Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming recorded at ground level.

-- (humans@not.too.bright), August 19, 2000

Answers

ignoring=truth--has=consequences!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), August 20, 2000.

you got that right al baby!

-- (god.loves.truth@humans.can't.handle.it), August 20, 2000.

Why do I not give a shit?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 20, 2000.

Because you're dumb?

-- (the.reason@we're.doomed), August 20, 2000.

This is why none of us can remember anything.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 20, 2000.

That's correct Oxy, insufficient oxygen to the brain. No wonder people are getting dumber.

-- (no@one.cares), August 20, 2000.

"the.reason",

How did you know I am a mute? Usually people can't tell over the computer.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 21, 2000.

nemesis, it's because you left your web-cam on, and we can see you typing sign language into your computer.

-- we see all (at@least.some), August 21, 2000.

Plant some trees people...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), August 21, 2000.

Nice thought Bob, and will be good for the future, but it is just a band aid. We need to eliminate the illness, not just live with the symptoms.

-- (smokey@the.bear), August 21, 2000.

Who was there to measure the CO2 levels 20 million years ago???

Your line of "humans not to bright" sure applies to you and your kind...you won't even admit that you fell for this green nonsense just like you fell for y2k nonsense....without doing ANY RESEARCH.

-- Feeling sorry for Morons like you, (sad@really.sad), August 21, 2000.

CO2 was fine but the human blood supply was low

-- (20millionyearoldvampire@count.dracula's), August 21, 2000.

Feeling Sorry, you might try reading the article: "They used a new technique to establish CO2 levels in the ancient atmosphere, analysing the shells of planktonic organisms that once lived near the surface of the ocean.

"This enabled them to establish past seawater acidity, which in turn was dictated by the amount of atmospheric CO2."

Are you saying that if no one was there to see and measure it, then it didn't exist? What about the anti-global warming argument that this is just a "normal climate trend" based on geologic, nonhuman records? No one has ever seen climate alterations like this before. Green nonsense? We've got open water at the North Pole for the first time in *recorded* history. The only none-sense is the inability of some people to confront reality.

-- Heater (getting@warmerallthe.time), August 21, 2000.

>> Why do I not give a shit? <<

Maybe it is because you rightly identify this problem as yet another variation of the tragedy of the commons, where, in this case, the resource shared in common is the atmosphere and the competitive need to maximize personal use of this resource ensures that consuming actions of others will invariably negate any conserving efforts on your part.

On the other hand, maybe it is because you are as ignorant and as complacent as a cow chewing its cud.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 21, 2000.

"The tragedy of the commons" was the episode I was most wanting to reference for several other threads. Can you enlighten me as to the date of this incident? What an excellent learning experience that was.

I read about it years ago and lost its reference point, but its premise has remained with me ever since. I would like to retrieve it in detail from some source.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 21, 2000.

Brian, are you sure that you want to bring "Tragedy of the Commons" up here? "Tragedy of the Commons" is usually a Conservative's argument against too much public ownership (ie, no individual has a personal stake in the property in question); ie, why are public parks so often filthy?

Last I heard, cud-chewing was part of the problem (too much flatulence). Or am I confounding the CO2 issue with the ozone issue.

So much to worry about and so little time!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 21, 2000.

Oxy,

The tragedy of the commons wasn't an event but a principle, based on observations.

The essential premise is that when a particular valuable resource is held in common (such as a pasture set aside as a village commons) that each individual with rights to that resource (such as a villager with some cows he wants to graze) will attempt to maximize his individual gain from that resource (meaning - graze the cows there as much as possible and increase the number of cows he can graze for free as quickly as possible).

Now suppose that, in order to derive the maximum efficiency from the commons (pasture), there is a naturally optimal number of cows that can be grazed on it. For many years, the villagers herds are below the optimal number and they continue to increase to rise up to the capacity of the pasture. Up until this point, everyone is benefitting from the commons and getting richer.

Eventually the herds increase beyond the optimal number, the commons progressively becomes overgrazed and each cow begins to lose weight, give less milk and have more problems dropping calves.

So long as the access to the commons is unlimited, each individual with grazing rights can be fully aware that the resource is being ruined because of overgrazing, and that he is benefitting less than before. But the rational behavior remains the same: maximize your own benefit for as long as you can. This means you must compete even harder for the vanishing resource, to get as much for yourself as you can before it is all gone. You drive your cows out ever earlier in the morning, trying to get the jump on your neighbors. They see this and respond in kind.

With unlimited communal access, no one individual's actions can prevent the overgrazing. If villager X voluntarily reduces the number of his cows grazing on the commons, it does no good. Villagers Y and Z will simply drive their own cattle into the space vacated by X. That is the tragedy. Even if there are some few individuals who want to act to save the commons and who act exercise the needed restraint, it will still be ruined anyway.

The only way out of this trap is to impose new rules. Instead of destroying the commons itself, you must destroy the ancient and respected right to use the commons as you see fit. Either way, something valuable is lost.

>> "Tragedy of the Commons" is usually a Conservative's argument against too much public ownership <<

It is also a powerful argument for recognizing that the only way out of our current global environmental crisis is to place limits on our ancient and cherished right to use the atmosphere and the oceans as free "sinks" for industrial waste materials.

The only alternative is letting these "commons" be utterly ruined for everyone - as corporations, countries and individuals seek to maximize their own profits through unlimited abuse of the commons. BTW, this seems to be the approved capitalist strategy: grab as much as you can now and put it in your own pocket before someone else does it first.

The environmentalist alternative is to establish treaties that limit "drawing rights" on these commons (like the sea and sky) based on some scientific estimate of what they can bear, then to distribute those rights annually as a form of currency or wealth. Then an aftermarket in "drawing rights" could be established and they could be bought and sold.

The obvious problem here would be enforcement. Creating a system capable of enforcing these treaties would erode our traditional freedom to use the commons as we please and create a vast new bureaucracy.

I don't exactly relish that thought, but the old "system" resolves these things by wars, famines and turning green places into deserts. That's where we're headed right now. Whoopee!

>> Last I heard, cud-chewing was part of the problem (too much flatulence). Or am I confounding the CO2 issue with the ozone issue. <<

Not ozone. Not CO2. Methane - another greenhouse gas.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 21, 2000.

Oxy,

The tragedy of the commons wasn't an event but a principle, based on observations.

The essential premise is that when a particular valuable resource is held in common (such as a pasture set aside as a village commons) that each individual with rights to that resource (such as a villager with some cows he wants to graze) will attempt to maximize his individual gain from that resource (meaning - graze the cows there as much as possible and increase the number of cows he can graze for free as quickly as possible).

Now suppose that, in order to derive the maximum efficiency from the commons (pasture), there is a naturally optimal number of cows that can be grazed on it. For many years, the villagers herds are below the optimal number and they continue to increase to rise up to the capacity of the pasture. Up until this point, everyone is benefitting from the commons and getting richer.

Eventually the herds increase beyond the optimal number, the commons progressively becomes overgrazed and each cow begins to lose weight, give less milk and have more problems dropping calves.

So long as the access to the commons is unlimited, each individual with grazing rights can be fully aware that the resource is being ruined because of overgrazing, and that he is benefitting less than before. But the rational behavior remains the same: maximize your own benefit for as long as you can. This means you must compete even harder for the vanishing resource, to get as much for yourself as you can before it is all gone. You drive your cows out ever earlier in the morning, trying to get the jump on your neighbors. They see this and respond in kind.

With unlimited communal access, no one individual's actions can prevent the overgrazing. If villager X voluntarily reduces the number of his cows grazing on the commons, it does no good. Villagers Y and Z will simply drive their own cattle into the space vacated by X. That is the tragedy. Even if there are some few individuals who want to act to save the commons and who act exercise the needed restraint, it will still be ruined anyway.

The only way out of this trap is to impose new rules. Instead of destroying the commons itself, you must destroy the ancient and respected right to use the commons as you see fit. Either way, something valuable is lost.

>> "Tragedy of the Commons" is usually a Conservative's argument against too much public ownership <<

It is also a powerful argument for recognizing that the only way out of our current global environmental crisis is to place limits on our ancient and cherished right to use the atmosphere and the oceans as free "sinks" for industrial waste materials.

The only alternative is letting these "commons" be utterly ruined for everyone - as corporations, countries and individuals seek to maximize their own profits through unlimited abuse of the commons. BTW, this seems to be the approved capitalist strategy: grab as much as you can now and put it in your own pocket before someone else does it first.

The environmentalist alternative is to establish treaties that limit "drawing rights" on these commons (like the sea and sky) based on some scientific estimate of what they can bear, then to distribute those rights annually as a form of currency or wealth. Then an aftermarket in "drawing rights" could be established and they could be bought and sold.

The obvious problem here would be enforcement. Creating a system capable of enforcing these treaties would erode our traditional freedom to use the commons as we please and create a vast new bureaucracy.

I don't exactly relish that thought, but the old "system" resolves these things by wars, famines and turning green places into deserts. That's where we're headed right now. Whoopee!

>> Last I heard, cud-chewing was part of the problem (too much flatulence). Or am I confounding the CO2 issue with the ozone issue. <<

Not ozone. Not CO2. Methane - another greenhouse gas.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 21, 2000.

Oxy,

The tragedy of the commons wasn't an event but a principle, based on observations.

The essential premise is that when a particular valuable resource is held in common (such as a pasture set aside as a village commons) that each individual with rights to that resource (such as a villager with some cows he wants to graze) will attempt to maximize his individual gain from that resource (meaning - graze the cows there as much as possible and increase the number of cows he can graze for free as quickly as possible).

Now suppose that, in order to derive the maximum efficiency from the commons (pasture), there is a naturally optimal number of cows that can be grazed on it. For many years, the villager's herds are below the optimal number. Consequently, they continue to increase to rise up to the capacity of the pasture. Up until this point, almost everyone is benefitting from the commons and getting richer. Only the slackers aren't getting ahead.

Eventually the herds increase beyond the optimal number, the commons progressively becomes overgrazed and each cow begins to lose weight, give less milk and have more problems dropping calves. Overall productivity for the village herds drops.

So long as the access to the commons is unlimited, each individual with grazing rights can be fully aware that the resource is being ruined because of overgrazing, and that he is benefitting less than before. But the rational behavior remains the same: maximize your own benefit for as long as you can.

This means you must compete even harder for the vanishing resource, to get as much for yourself as you can before it is all gone. So, you drive your cows out to pasture ever earlier in the morning, trying to get the jump on your neighbors. They see this and respond in kind. You put more cows onto the land to make up for the dropping weight of your other cows. So do your neighbors.

With unlimited communal access, no one individual's actions can prevent the overgrazing. If villager X voluntarily reduces the number of his cows grazing on the commons, it does no good. Villagers Y and Z will simply drive their own cattle into the space vacated by X. That is the tragedy. Even if there are some few individuals who want to act to save the commons and who act exercise the needed restraint, it will still be ruined anyway.

The only way out of this trap is to impose new rules. Instead of destroying the commons itself, you must destroy the ancient and respected right to use the commons as you see fit. Either way, something valuable is lost. Either the resource stops producing, causing poverty, or ancient freedoms are lost.

>> "Tragedy of the Commons" is usually a Conservative's argument against too much public ownership <<

It is also a powerful argument for recognizing that the only way out of our current global environmental crisis is to place limits on our ancient and cherished right to use the atmosphere and the oceans as free "sinks" for industrial waste materials.

The only alternative is letting these "commons" be utterly ruined for everyone - as corporations, countries and individuals seek to maximize their own profits through unlimited abuse of the commons. BTW, this seems to be the approved capitalist strategy: grab as much as you can now and put it in your own pocket before someone else does it first.

The environmentalist alternative is to establish treaties that limit "drawing rights" on these commons (like the sea and sky) based on some scientific estimate of what they can bear, then to distribute those rights annually as a form of currency or wealth. Then an aftermarket in "drawing rights" could be established and they could be bought and sold.

The obvious problem here would be enforcement. Creating a system capable of enforcing these treaties would erode our traditional freedom to use the commons as we please and create a vast new bureaucracy.

I don't exactly relish that thought, but the old "system" resolves these things by wars, famines and turning green places into deserts. That's where we're headed right now. Whoopee!

>> Last I heard, cud-chewing was part of the problem (too much flatulence). Or am I confounding the CO2 issue with the ozone issue. <<

Not ozone. Not CO2. Methane - another greenhouse gas.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 21, 2000.

Sorry about the triple submission. It appeared not to get through the first two times - including the hourglass cursor on my screen for up to a minute before I hit "Stop" and tried again.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 21, 2000.

Is a triple post another Tragedy of the Commons or a Tragedy of the Uncommon?

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 21, 2000.

Seriously, Brian, I recall reading the Tragedy of the Commons not as a hypothetical principle but as an observation of an existing event over a definite period of time, perhaps written in the 1600's? Can anyone enlighten me further? I no longer have the textbook. I need a source.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), August 21, 2000.

human,

Recommend *Rare Earth*. Written by a couple of U. of Wash. profs. The focus is different than you post's but it offers excellent insight regarding past freezeovers and hothouse events the earth has endured. Definately a good read.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), August 21, 2000.

Carlos,

What makes you think the future of Earth will be the same as the past? That is at least as naive as the people who thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

-- (you.one@of.the.dimmest), August 22, 2000.

Oxy--

The Tragedy of the Commons is what Brian said it was. As far as I can tell, there was no historic event known as The Tragedy of the Commons. The term seems to have been coined in 1968 by one Garret Hardin. Here is a link that contains links to many references of the Tragedy of the Commons including the original Hardin paper.

LINK1

As in so many things, there are conflicting opinions on The Tragedy of the Commons. Here is an alternate view--

There are many references to "Tragedy of the Commons" to be found on the various search engines.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 22, 2000.

Try again. Tradegy of the Commons, another view

LINK2

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 22, 2000.