Dauvillier, through his studies, demonstrate that a rise of 2 degrees, of the average temperature of the planet represents a point of no return, beyond which an irreversible process would trigger, which would bring the earth to become unfit to originate carbon based forms of life. My request does not concern the accuracy of the 2°C value, (yet I'm curious of course), but the correctness of the arguments that led Dauvillier to such result. Is about to know if the path was the right one, while the exact destination my differ.

Would his job, if it were repeated today, in the light of current knowledge, do lead to similar conclusions, or is it based on erroneous assumptions and therefore no longer valid?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please edit your question and quote (the main points of) Dauviller's conclusion. Questions on SE sites need to be self-contained as much as possible. $\endgroup$ – Jan Doggen Apr 21 '17 at 8:16
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure to understand your request: 1)are you asking to retrive the chapter on the book and write it down here. 2) a reference to the page number. 3) a synthetic summary? For the first two option, both would be an issue for me, since I've read the book many years ago and lost it. I assumed that who had read the book know what I'm talking about anyway. About the third option, I could try to improve what I'have wrote already. (Consider I'm not very skilled with english,as you may have noted). Regards. $\endgroup$ – Tonix Jesse Apr 21 '17 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ Meanwhile here is the link to the book (on google books) tinyurl.com/m5z8lhk . $\endgroup$ – Tonix Jesse Apr 21 '17 at 11:19
  • $\begingroup$ @TonixJesse A summary would do, preferably with a reference to the original text for details, but without knowing what Dauvilliers arguments are, how can we possibly consider whether his arguments are still valid? $\endgroup$ – gerrit Apr 21 '17 at 12:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is the Dauvillier part of the question actually necessary? What you seem to be asking is whether the current state of scientific knowledge suggests that a 2C global temperature rise is a point of no return. That's a perfectly reasonable question; you might want consider just asking it, rather than demanding that we read a book from 50 years ago. $\endgroup$ – Semidiurnal Simon Apr 25 '17 at 19:05

Possibly, but they don't apply to today's world

I'm reasonably sure, without having read the book but having looked at summaries online, that Dauvillier was arguing that the conditions on Earth when life first developed were such that life would not have developed if the Earth were 2 C warmer.

First of all, you would need to specify from what baseline the 2 C rise was measured. There are many times in the past where the Earth was at least 2 C warmer than the present and covered in advanced life (possibly up to 10 C warmer at time during the Mesozoic). NOAA suggests that parts of the Neoproterzoic saw global temperatures of 90 F and up, and of course life managed to persist through that.

Since his book is about biogenesis in general, there isn't much comparison to the conditions on Earth today. On that early Earth where life developed, the sun was much weaker (a paradox not completely resolved). There was no oxygen and much more carbon dioxide, ammonia, and/or methane, depending on who you ask. There were also (obviously) no photosythesizing plants and no biological component to the carbon cycle.

Life has profoundly changed how the Earth is. The atmospheric dynamics of the early Earth are not comparable to those of our Earth, and thus a 2 C rise then has almost nothing to do with a 2 C rise now.

Again, I haven't read the book so I can't asses what specific theories Dauvillier made about the early Earth. However, it could be possible that both things are true: a 2 C rise 4.5 billion years ago would have sterilized the Earth forever, and a 2 C rise today would not.

  • $\begingroup$ I re-read this answer twice, the first time I was distracted because it was not what I was looking for. Now the information is interesting but I can not use them. If I do not mistake, Dauvillier was referring to the temperatures known in 1965, and made a projection for the future, considering the various cycles starting from the origins of course. I would like to verify Dauvillier's work in the light of today's knowledge, to be update my own and, depending on whether it is still valid or not to adjust accordingly. Of course, if he was right, in principle, I woud also try to give him credit. $\endgroup$ – Tonix Jesse Apr 22 '17 at 4:04
  • $\begingroup$ Just based on the fact our understanding of the early earth's atmosphere has changed in the last fifty years I am willing to bet it is inaccurate. $\endgroup$ – John Apr 27 '17 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ @ john, Basically, on the sole basis of your knowledge, you "bet" (against me, or who?) That dauvillier was wrong. I do not think it is a response complying with the SE rules. I ask moderators to check. $\endgroup$ – Tonix Jesse Apr 27 '17 at 7:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.