Climate Change(d)?

[bigfield]

I notice that you didn't say who made such a prediction. I would assume that it was a fear monger seeking clicks. You are surely not claiming that it was from a peer reviewed scientific journal are you?

When did it become a thing to say "the science says" followed by some asinine claims?

Sorry. I didn't know that the Amazon forest's fragility was little-known. These should help you get started:

Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s - Nature Climate Change

The Amazon rainforest is increasingly under pressure from climate change and deforestation. The resilience of three-quarters of the forest, particularly in drier areas or close to human activity, has been decreasing since the 2000s, indicating that the system may be approaching a tipping point.

www.nature.com

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949

I didn't Google to see if these scientists are "asinine." Perhaps you can do that for us.

Sorry, my antivirus software won't let me open that link unless I disable the cookie blocking...which I'm not going to do. Does your link really state that "the Amazon rain forest is projected to become arid by 2064"? If so who is credited with the research? What peer reviewed journal was the research published in? I can check their credentials if I know their name.

Fragility is not a magic word that causes thinking people to suspend all reason and accept any claim that follows it.

The article makes no predictions about how arid the Amazon will become. It makes the related claim that, as rainfall declines in the Amazon, rainforest is more likely to die off, and that this has been happening since 2000.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01287-8.pdf

Doing my best potholer54 impersonation, the claim seems to originate with Robert Walker:

Amazon rainforest will die by 2064, scientist predicts

The Amazon rainforest stands on the verge of a 'tipping point' as a consequence of human-caused disturbances, 'for which we are all responsible', a University of Florida expert warns.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Robert Walker Professor - Expert with University of Florida | ExpertFile

Connect with expert Robert Walker (Professor) at University of Florida for media, speaking opportunities and more. Robert Walker is an expert in a wide variety topics including Land Change, The Amazon, Latin American Studies, Land Use Change Modeling, Geospatial Analysis and Techniques...

expertfile.com

Walker's paper is published in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. It's a peer-reviewed journal.

Collision Course: Development Pushes Amazonia Toward Its Tipping Point

Published in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development (Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021)

www.tandfonline.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I notice that you didn't say who made such a prediction. I would assume that it was a fear monger seeking clicks. You are surely not claiming that it was from a peer reviewed scientific journal are you?

When did it become a thing to say "the science says" followed by some asinine claims?

Sorry. I didn't know that the Amazon forest's fragility was little-known. These should help you get started:

Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s - Nature Climate Change

The Amazon rainforest is increasingly under pressure from climate change and deforestation. The resilience of three-quarters of the forest, particularly in drier areas or close to human activity, has been decreasing since the 2000s, indicating that the system may be approaching a tipping point.

www.nature.com

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949

I didn't Google to see if these scientists are "asinine." Perhaps you can do that for us.

Sorry, my antivirus software won't let me open that link unless I disable the cookie blocking...which I'm not going to do. Does your link really state that "the Amazon rain forest is projected to become arid by 2064"? If so who is credited with the research? What peer reviewed journal was the research published in? I can check their credentials if I know their name.

Fragility is not a magic word that causes thinking people to suspend all reason and accept any claim that follows it.

The rain forests are being deforested. The Sahara and Gobi Deserts are growing. This can't be helpful for the long-term comfortable sustainability of our species. All three of these things are losses in the planet's ability to absorb the natural CO2 production on the planet. Then we add on top of that. So we have:

• the excess CO2 we produced over 150 years in the atmosphere now
• the reduced ability of the planet to absorb CO2
• excessive CO2 production today and into the future

The trouble with climate change is it isn't a Hollywood movie. There isn't (as far as we are aware) a magic threshold where we can just stop right before it and we are saved or when it goes to complete heck. We have observed the planet warming over the last 50 years. Hence the title of the thread with the Change(d). The arguments being passed forth against climate change vary and often appear to be taken from a spinning wheel: no climate change, it is a lie, it isn't that bad, scientists predicted we'd die in a global freeze in the 70s, and maybe now shifting a new 'it won't be that bad'.

 

[Elixir]

population growth has declined sharply

Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

population growth has declined sharply

Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.

This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.

 

[Elixir]

population growth has declined sharply

Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.

This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.

Wut?
Humans have been around for a geologic blink of an eye. We have proven nothing. The last few hundred thousand years have been relatively placid geologically, and HSS seems to have barely survived the Toba bottleneck of 70-75,000 ya.

 

[steve_bank]

Humans by virtue of science and technology enabled by our brains, dexterity, and speech has taken us out of the usual population checks and balances in the ecosystem. We have not yet developedthe capacity to use technology wisely and we blindly maximize consumption.

Large populations around tge world exist far beyong=d the capcity to feed themeves. The world depends o a few major grain producers that maximize production.

Large scale science based agriculture and now desalinization will only put off the inevitable.

Evolution is selecting us for extinction in a manner of speaking.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

population growth has declined sharply

Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.

This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.

Wut?
Humans have been around for a geologic blink of an eye. We have proven nothing. The last few hundred thousand years have been relatively placid geologically, and HSS seems to have barely survived the Toba bottleneck of 70-75,000 ya.

Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa. The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The sieges of WWII and predating it. Humans survived enough from the black death, which is really one of the only blights to really take a shot at our wider population. Substantial extinction is always possible, but those usually require a remarkably significant event that spans the globe.

 

[Elixir]

population growth has declined sharply

Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.

This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.

Wut?
Humans have been around for a geologic blink of an eye. We have proven nothing. The last few hundred thousand years have been relatively placid geologically, and HSS seems to have barely survived the Toba bottleneck of 70-75,000 ya.

Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa. The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The sieges of WWII and predating it. Humans survived enough from the black death, which is really one of the only blights to really take a shot at our wider population. Substantial extinction is always possible, but those usually require a remarkably significant event that spans the globe.

Your perspective is incredibly myopic on this subject. Blips like the holocaust are tantamount to examining a zit on a terminal cancer patient and declaring them healthy because the pimple popped and the site healed. My prediction applies on the scale of millennia or tens or hundreds of millennia, not days months or years. Yes, it’s very possible that HSS could wipe itself out tomorrow before lunch time, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

 

[Swammerdami]

population growth has declined sharply

Hoo-weee.

Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.

Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa.

I think Elixir was referring to extinctions of species OTHER than H. sapiens.
Even those who don't care about other species may dislike for other reasons the ecological collapses that cause extinction.
Climate change and other problems, while very unlikely to extinctify mankind quickly, may cause war, periods of high death rates, and political turmoil.

I remain befuddled by ongoing apathy to ecological troubles.

The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. . . .

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?

 

[Elixir]

The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. . . .

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?

Ya gets no bed in the internment camp!
But seriously, I am coming to doubt my communication skilz. Yes, the mention of extinctions is about the general degradation of the biome that supports the human species. It is happening fast, and ecologists are already warning that due to the interdependence of species we might be about to cause global famine. I don't think that will be the end of us, but it may well be something that, over the next few hundred years, oversees an actual decline in human numbers, not just a slowing of the growth rate.

I've envisioned a spacefaring society wherein every "unit", i.e. craft holding people, includes a machine that can take any X amount of mass and turn it into the same mass of anything else, transmuting elements as necessary. This form could accomodate trillions or quadrillions of humans in our home solar system alone, limited only by the amount of mass available to be transmuted.

Also envisioned a post-apocalyptic terrestrial society consisting of a few million humans, widely dispersed geographically, but still possessed of today's (and tomorrow's) technology, plus the hard-won wisdom of how to avoid another apocalypse of the kind that wiped several zeroes off the number of humans on earth.

I consider both of those scenarios equally far-fetched, though I have experienced both of them in extremely vivid dreams. More likely in reality, there will be intermittent wars and famines in the (relatively) near future that will permit the slowing and speeding up of the growth rate of human population until a real catastrophe - physical or biological - strikes and "we" are back to the neolithic sans any of the benefots of current technology, assuming that there's anyone left.

I think we should bear in mind that if humans disappeared today, all superficial evidence of our existence would disappear from the face of the earth in 10,000 years or less. In ten million years, only science on a par with our current science would be able to detect that humans had ever been here at all. We are just not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

population growth has declined sharply

Hoo-weee.

Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.

Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa.

I think Elixir was referring to extinctions of species OTHER than H. sapiens.
Even those who don't care about other species may dislike for other reasons the ecological collapses that cause extinction.
Climate change and other problems, while very unlikely to extinctify mankind quickly, may cause war, periods of high death rates, and political turmoil.

I remain befuddled by ongoing apathy to ecological troubles.

I'm not denying much of anything. I started the thread indicating climate has changed, past tense, and we need to figure out how we are going to deal with it, as we continue to make things worse.

The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. . . .

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?

Stating that people have survived much much worse, with fewer resources. We are a rare species in being able to adapt technologically to expanded needs. In general, we only have hunger on this planet because of leadership and apathy.

 

[Elixir]

In general, Currently we only have hunger on this planet because of war, leadership and apathy.

FIFY

 

[bilby]

The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.

True. According to our best demographers, it will stop in around thirty years.

That you imagine this to be a major problem is something I can’t help you with.

We are likely already below replacement rate; The remaining growth is ‘locked in’ by the fact that women don’t have children as soon as they are born, so the growing number of girls being born in the late 1990s implies a growing number of mothers having babies today - so even with each mother now having fewer than two children, population continues upwards for a few decades.

 

[bilby]

Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.

Sure, maybe.

Though if we choose to continue to reject nuclear power even as our species suffers catastrophic population decline due to that rejection, perhaps we deserve it.

The reason why we are currently ignoring good solutions is that things really aren’t bad at all. Yet.

 

[Elixir]

if we choose to continue to reject nuclear power even as our species suffers catastrophic population decline due to that rejection, perhaps we deserve it.

If we blow ourselves up, or fail to avert an avoidable impact event … we will deserve it. And if we overcome all an thrive for hundreds of millennia, we will deserve that.

If I was god I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[southernhybrid]

I need to use up my "gifted" articles, so I'm linking one about all of the recent evidence about climate change in the US.

https://wapo.st/3zI208H

"In Montana and Wyoming, massive flooding has destroyed bridges, swept away homes, and forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 visitors from Yellowstone National Park. Half a million households in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley lost power earlier this week after violent thunderstorms swept through. And a record-setting heat wave pushed temperatures into the triple digits from Nebraska to South Carolina, leaving more than 100 million Americans under heat warnings and killing at least 2,000 cattle in Kansas.
10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The official first day of summer has not even arrived and already the country is overheated, waterlogged and suffering. Extreme weather is here early, testing the nation’s readiness and proving, once again, that overlapping climate disasters are now becoming more frequent and upending Americans’ lives.
“Summer has become the danger season where you see these kinds of events happening earlier, more frequently, and co-occurring,” said Rachel Licker, principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. “It just shows you how vulnerable our infrastructure is and that this is just going to get increasingly problematic.”


Several experts say these types of simultaneously occurring disasters reveal the extent to which Americans remain unprepared for the escalating impacts of climate change. Downed power lines, homes swept away amid flooding and overwhelmed storm water systems highlight how little progress governments have made toward girding communities for extreme weather.
Yet, they caution, there are limits to how much the nation can adapt. The world has already warmed between 1.1 and 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. If countries continue emitting carbon pollution at historically high rates, the future will be hotter — and harder to bear."

There's a lot more in the article if anyone is interested in reading it, it should be available for two weeks without a paywall.

 

[bilby]

I need to use up my "gifted" articles, so I'm linking one about all of the recent evidence about climate change in the US.

https://wapo.st/3zI208H

"In Montana and Wyoming, massive flooding has destroyed bridges, swept away homes, and forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 visitors from Yellowstone National Park. Half a million households in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley lost power earlier this week after violent thunderstorms swept through. And a record-setting heat wave pushed temperatures into the triple digits from Nebraska to South Carolina, leaving more than 100 million Americans under heat warnings and killing at least 2,000 cattle in Kansas.
10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The official first day of summer has not even arrived and already the country is overheated, waterlogged and suffering. Extreme weather is here early, testing the nation’s readiness and proving, once again, that overlapping climate disasters are now becoming more frequent and upending Americans’ lives.
“Summer has become the danger season where you see these kinds of events happening earlier, more frequently, and co-occurring,” said Rachel Licker, principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. “It just shows you how vulnerable our infrastructure is and that this is just going to get increasingly problematic.”


Several experts say these types of simultaneously occurring disasters reveal the extent to which Americans remain unprepared for the escalating impacts of climate change. Downed power lines, homes swept away amid flooding and overwhelmed storm water systems highlight how little progress governments have made toward girding communities for extreme weather.
Yet, they caution, there are limits to how much the nation can adapt. The world has already warmed between 1.1 and 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. If countries continue emitting carbon pollution at historically high rates, the future will be hotter — and harder to bear."

There's a lot more in the article if anyone is interested in reading it, it should be available for two weeks without a paywall.

The UCS bear significant responsibility for climate change, as they have consistently lobbied for the closure of low carbon generating plants, and against the construction of more such plants.

Where they have been successful in getting plants closed, the shortfall in electricity generation has invariably been made up largely by the burning of more fossil fuels.

To have them express concern about climate change is like having the KKK express concern about the number of lynchings that are happening. They are a large part of the problem, and can take their feigned concern and shove it.

 

[southernhybrid]

I need to use up my "gifted" articles, so I'm linking one about all of the recent evidence about climate change in the US.

https://wapo.st/3zI208H

"In Montana and Wyoming, massive flooding has destroyed bridges, swept away homes, and forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 visitors from Yellowstone National Park. Half a million households in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley lost power earlier this week after violent thunderstorms swept through. And a record-setting heat wave pushed temperatures into the triple digits from Nebraska to South Carolina, leaving more than 100 million Americans under heat warnings and killing at least 2,000 cattle in Kansas.
10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The official first day of summer has not even arrived and already the country is overheated, waterlogged and suffering. Extreme weather is here early, testing the nation’s readiness and proving, once again, that overlapping climate disasters are now becoming more frequent and upending Americans’ lives.
“Summer has become the danger season where you see these kinds of events happening earlier, more frequently, and co-occurring,” said Rachel Licker, principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. “It just shows you how vulnerable our infrastructure is and that this is just going to get increasingly problematic.”


Several experts say these types of simultaneously occurring disasters reveal the extent to which Americans remain unprepared for the escalating impacts of climate change. Downed power lines, homes swept away amid flooding and overwhelmed storm water systems highlight how little progress governments have made toward girding communities for extreme weather.
Yet, they caution, there are limits to how much the nation can adapt. The world has already warmed between 1.1 and 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. If countries continue emitting carbon pollution at historically high rates, the future will be hotter — and harder to bear."

There's a lot more in the article if anyone is interested in reading it, it should be available for two weeks without a paywall.

The UCS bear significant responsibility for climate change, as they have consistently lobbied for the closure of low carbon generating plants, and against the construction of more such plants.

Where they have been successful in getting plants closed, the shortfall in electricity generation has invariably been made up largely by the burning of more fossil fuels.

To have them express concern about climate change is like having the KKK express concern about the number of lynchings that are happening. They are a large part of the problem, and can take their feigned concern and shove it.

The UCS may have done some negative things, but the article was only demonstrating examples of how the climate has changed. It wasn't meant to advocate for the UCS, imo. In fact, the article only quoted on scientist who is a member of the UCS. We really don't know if she holds the same views as the entire organization. I'm only vaguely familiar with the UCS, but if some of their efforts have made climate change worse, I'm sure that wasn't their intent. Comparing them to the KKK is absurd An organization can be misguided without purposely meaning to do harm. Sometimes the most well meaning people cause harm. There is nothing well meaning about the KKK.

I would simply say that the USA as well as other advanced westernized countries are significantly responsible for climate change. I live in an area where most people drive either gas guzzling pick up trucks or SUVs, where people run their A/C 24/7, with settings on unrealistically low temps, where people eat meat at most meals, etc. etc. It's ordinary people, often due to ignorance, that are significantly responsible for climate change.

We have no mass transit here. Everything is so spread out, that it's close to impossible to walk anywhere. Consumerism is over the top too. Government and industry are also significantly responsible for climate change. I would imagine that whatever harm the UCS has done is small compared to the American lifestyle.

But, I digress. I wasn't posting to place blame. I was simply posting an article that explains some of the most recent examples of the impact of climate change.

 

[steve_bank]

Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.

 

[lpetrich]

Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.

Except that much of what is now low-lying land was drowned during much of that time.

Look at Florida for the Cretaceous, K/T, Eocene, and Miocene at Earth History
Also look in the "Global Series Thumbnails" at Global Series - Deep Time Maps™

Florida was underwater from the Cretaceous to the Miocene.

I've also found Plate Tectonics and Earth History though it is more abstract.