Curt StagerReseñas

An amazing book, everything looks a little different after reading it. The whole book is mind-blowing but the last two chapters are in a class by themselves.

In "Still Waters: The Secret World of Lakes", the world of lakes still remains a secret while the authors field trips to various lakes does not. There were simply too many biographical anecdotes and too little information on lakes in general. The author focuses on a handful of lakes to discuss various concepts in the most rudimentary manner. The language is beautiful but I wanted to know more about lakes and less about Stager.

Well. Where do I begin.

On the plus side, Stager is obviously enormously qualified to discuss his own field of expertise, climates and ecosystems in the very distant past. These discussions were informative and fascinating and if he occassionally delved a bit too deeply into the minutia he can be forgiven for it.

However. "Too optimistic" does not really begin to describe the book's major failings, which is his utter failure to treat any global warming subject that didn't fit neatly into his "it's a big problem for sure but nothing to panic over" thesis. So, he's got two climate change scenarios: one where we see a further 2-3C warming, and one where we see another 5C or so. The first he calls "moderate," based on what will happen if we stop burning fossil fuels in the next few decades; the second he calls "extreme," based on what happens if we burn everything left in the ground. Except for one potential little problem, which is that every climate model I've seen recently concludes that we'll be lucky to only get another 2-3C of warming if we stop burning all fossil fuels TOMORROW, and if we continue on a business-as-usual path and burn everything left in the ground, we could see 8-10C.

So if you're going to read this, do keep in mind that the 5C path he describes is far the more likely one, and in itself will take a fair bit of work on the part of the human species in short order.

As well: Where are the Canfield Oceans? Where is desertification? Where are the agricultural problems brought on by declining aquifers, disappearing glaciers, changing growing seasons, issues with seed germination (already an issue in some countries, as seeds really only germinate in narrow temperature bands), etc.? Where in hell are the four previous mass extinction events caused by rapidly climbing carbon levels and the associated ocean acidification and global warming? Shouldn't a paleoecologist at least mention them in a book about long-term climate change, even if only to describe why he dismisses it as an option? Where is any even brief discussion of the positive feedback loops already being triggered, decades ahead of schedule at relatively low levels of atmospheric carbon? Where is any even brief discussion of how the rate of increase in carbon levels is unprecidented, so no one really knows how ecosystems will react? It doesn't even come up.

So: go ahead and read it, but don't think of it as a reliable guide to what we are actually facing. Having read the whole thing, my overall impression is that he went through his substantial data-sets and picked whatever scenarios and issues that best supported his wish to believe that global warming is not a catastrophe that can threaten the human species. He may or may not be right, but there are so many holes in his reportage that I am simply not convinced.

I was exactly the Carl Sagan loving hippie atheist that this book was conceived/designed/written for. I knew I had to have it nearly the second I heard it existed. (First I had to check its bona fides to make sure that it wasn't a tome of woo. It wasn't.)

But early in the book I struggled to love it as much as I wanted to love it. Was Stager just not yet hitting his stride in balancing his scientific and poetic language? Were my expectations just unreasonable? Was it my common struggle of wanting to understand the issues at a deeper level than the book was written for? Specifically, a lot of the element tracking in this book is down by isotope analysis, yet not all the explanations of why that particular isotope of that element is preferentially absorbed/retained/concentrated were as successful as I would have liked.

Let me back up here. Stager organizes the book element by element -- carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, etc. -- and devotes a chapter to each. So, carbon: where did the carbon in your body come from? How long does it stay there? How does it change (in what molecules is it involved)? How does it leave your body? And so on.

But I fell totally in love during a discussion of the rhizomatic bartering system -- the way that plants share and "buy" nutrients from their fungal neighbors in the soil. Magical and fascinating! I found myself spilling over and trying to explain it all to random people at work.

Once I was hooked, I stayed hooked, and ended up extremely pleased with the book overall. I brought the book to work to keep as a reference and am avidly hoping for some good excuse to look up isotopic accumulation and re-read the sections of the book that I struggled with the first time.

Clearly I need to pitch a "we are all stardust" camp, right?

There were those moments of "science mysticism" that I was longing for -- the "who am I, when I am constantly shedding atoms, molecules, sharing them with my neighbor, the potted plant on the other side of the room..." and also the "breathing the same air as Einstein, Aristotle, Hitler," and the "I remain." moments. Definitely worth a read. And even a re-read.

This book was a fascinating book, and it most definitely contained a relevant amount of scientific information and background. The information was more than merely trivia - it was presented in a way that provided understanding, rather than the memorization of fact. I also appreciate that the book weaves vivid imagery throughout. There were, however, a handful of times when I felt that the descriptions were over-exaggerated and overly flamboyant. That being said, the book forces the reader to think about their existence, which is an accomplishment in itself.

Curt Stager is a professional palaeontologist and experienced science communicator. Regrettably this skill leads him to present some basic chemical and physical issues in a puerile manner. Nonetheless there is much good science reported here; although there is also confusion as he wrestles with the radical inconsistencies of his views and motives. He is certainly not a climate denier: he fully accepts all the predictions of climate science. What is more, he recognizes that humanity is causing the changes. However, he notes that nature has probably delivered similar climate shifts in the past. Furthermore the archaeological record shows that many species do survive such changes. So why worry? He struggles with this question throughout the book. He notes that the global climate is fickle and unreliable over the long time. CO2 pollution is cumulative and long lasting. Reasonably he concludes that we should not panic. Furthermore he is unconcerned with the inevitable death toll or societal collapses. Thus he argues that full-scale climate change is a likely problem not the apocalypse.

His reasoning is not reassuring. Disappointingly he finds it hard to acknowledge any responsibility for the unintended consequences – even when known – produced by actions such as carbon pollution. He takes comfort from his suspect beliefs that the rich (ie supposedly America) will always command most of the world’s resources, and North America will fair relatively well as climate changes occur. He explains how the acidification of the oceans will decimate important fish stocks for many nations, the rising sea level will inundate low-lying countries like Bangladesh; desertification will encroach on the productive Southern-most regions of Europe, Africa and Australia. Thus crop yields will fall in previously fertile areas, and many species will be driven to extinction. However, these changes happen gradually over human lifetimes. Meanwhile a hypothetical insular beef-eating America will have more sun and more rain to grow their corn.

Nevertheless he does acknowledge we should move away from the carbon economy. However, his primary reason is that we should lock up some easily accessible coal as a safeguard against future needs to manipulate the climate. Hence he sees no urgency; he advocates an aim of 600 ppm of CO2 – not the safer limit of 450 ppm (or lower) suggested by most climate scientists. He might think he is being a political realistic: actually he displays reckless naivety. Crises – war, famine, disease, financial, commercial, piracy and terrorism – will spread across borders.

The title doesn't make it clear that this is actually an Earth-sciences book, written by a paleoecologist. Message: after anthropogenic warming peaks, the ebbing of its side effects will take tens or hundreds or thousands of centuries. (The next scheduled ice age, however, won't happen.)