IPCC Report on Climate Change

Science and Technology
81
Guess you aren't familiar with some of the monster tipping points out their such as methane hydrates http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790
Actually I presume it is going passed those tipping points that will trigger off the wars. Our so called leaders can operate on denial until then but once things are obviously passed the point of not return then it will be no holds barred every man for himself at the national power game level. Then it will be who survives after the nations are destroyed. psik
82
So you can believe I am stupid. I do not have a problem with that. But that does not mean ALL HUMANS would be killed in a large scale ecological disaster. What record do we have of billions of a somewhat intelligent species trying to cope with large scale ecological disasters? NONE! We are both just speculating. But 500,000,000 people would not be all that many spread over the entire planet. That is half the population in 1800. psik
I'm not labelling you anything, I don't agree with some of your views. We have the geological records of what happens when the global environment is suddenly pushed into a new state and the effects can be catastrophic. We're already driving one of the largest extinction events and the presence of 7 billion people is coming at an ever increasing loss in species diversity and overall ecological health. There will be an endpoint at which the crucial biological systems that make make such a diverse biosphere possible in the first place will begin to break down, we're already seeing it in very important habitats like coral reef systems, equatorial rain forests and more. And it really doesn't matter what number of people are present at the beginning of a system wide ecological collapse if the resulting changes are so severe that it's not possible for any large land animals of our size to survive. Modern civilization is tissue thin in some important respects and becomes even more vulnerable to breakdown as it becomes more complex. Without it we're left with not much more than the basic skills and tools that our distant ancestors had and they nearly went extinct in recent geological times due to other climate changing events like the Toba eruption. But now any people left after a major collapse will have to deal with oceans more acidic and with greatly deplenished fish stock, many land mammals at threatened status already, pollution on a huge scale, and more. The challenges of surviving without modern civilization would be much more difficult now than for our distant ancestors. Maybe some people would survive, but that is just based on conjecture, what isn't up for debate is that we're currently driving one of the largest extinct events in the geological record and that could very well include us. Why even take the gamble on the faint hope that some people may survive into a much starker world. The moral and ethical thing to do on both human and overall ecological terms is take the lessons we've learned about good stewardship and true conservation and apply them in a truly effective manner instead of continuously rolling the dice and hoping they don't come up craps. Once it's too late then there will be nothing left to do, and following business as usual stacks the odds greater and greater on the side of the situation being completely out of our control.
83
It's pure hubris to think that we can be so destructive and still not be threatened with extinction ourselves.
ditto As the human population goes down the amount and rate of destruction should go down Guess you aren't familiar with some of the monster tipping points out their such as methane hydrates http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790 We have a tendency to look at issues isolated from one another - but there are many threats developing in concert http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/11-human-health-threats-from-climate-change.htm And the deal with the ocean acidification {or dealkinization}, Craig Welch at the Seattle Time recently wrote some enlighten and most frightening articles reporting on ocean acidification and the damage that is already being observed (it's no longer conjectures of the obvious) I put together a short summation and links to Craig Welch's work over here http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/04/ocean-acidification-already-eating-away.html ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Our climate system has huge momentum behind it, and like a freighter it takes a lot of effort to get it to change course - society has been pushing with increasing ferocity for a couple centuries now, and the monster machine has been perturbed and is heading off into a direction not seen in many, many million years - Actually, never since this is an absolutely unique experience for our planet. But, scientists say when looked at in perspective the changes are happening with a speed only rivaled by an asteroid hits. Here's one for the road: "A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms" http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm Exactly, the scale of the effects of coming tipping points vastly overwhelm the ability to deal with them in very limited human terms. If we start seeing large methane "death burps" it's probably all over. The shifts in climate will become so sudden that it will be virtually impossible to react. And climate change is just one of a constellation of human driven negative impacts on the biosphere that have already driven many species into extinction and will accelerate as the impacts become much deeper. Just strip mining the oceans of fish as industrial fishing is currently doing is going to have profound impact on the ecological balance of the home of about 95% of life on the planet. It's possible that as many as 1/4 of a billion sharks are caught each year to feed a need for products like shark fin soup. The quality of life in the oceans is already in steep decline. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080813144405.htm
Human activities are cumulatively driving the health of the world's oceans down a rapid spiral, and only prompt and wholesale changes will slow or perhaps ultimately reverse the catastrophic problems they are facing.
So this, "don't worry be happy" nonsense that some keep pushing is based in ignorance, quite often intentional on the part of people who don't want to change whatever the risk.
84
Guess you aren't familiar with some of the monster tipping points out their such as methane hydrates http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790
Actually I presume it is going passed those tipping points that will trigger off the wars. Our so called leaders can operate on denial until then but once things are obviously passed the point of not return then it will be no holds barred every man for himself at the national power game level. Then it will be who survives after the nations are destroyed. psik You're still missing the point, the ecological changes that would occur with a planet rapidly shifting to a much warmer state would drive most species including us extinct. The human scale is much smaller than the possible ecological scale of change into a much more hostile global environment. I suggest studying things like the end Permian extinction and the end Cretaeous to get a general idea of how bad it can get. It makes a full scale nuclear war look fairly tame in comparison as the effects last much longer are more wide scale and can result in things like anoxic oceans which can create the perfect conditions for bacteria that produce vast amounts of hydrogen sulfide a deadly gas. Think of the oceans water column being saturated with poison and poison drifting from the oceans inland to kill most life there. That''s how bad the geological record indicates it can get, still want to roll the dice?
85
We have the geological records of what happens when the global environment is suddenly pushed into a new state and the effects can be catastrophic. We're already driving one of the largest extinction events and the presence of 7 billion people is coming at an ever increasing loss in species diversity and overall ecological health. There will be an endpoint at which the crucial biological systems that make make such a diverse biosphere possible in the first place will begin to break down, we're already seeing it in very important habitats like coral reef systems, equatorial rain forests and more.
And all previous extinctions have been of unintelligent animals which had no idea what was happening. And the current extinction event is like none that has ever happened before with CO2 levels that have not existed for a million years. Your speculations are simply more pessimistic than mine but neither can be called scientific. What other species has existed under a wider range of climatic conditions than Man? psik
86
And all previous extinctions have been of unintelligent animals which had no idea what was happening.
And without Star Trek level technology how are we going to recreate a destroyed biosphere we depend on for food, water and oxygen. And I question how intelligent we are collectively when we do things as foolish as causing so much destruction of natural systems in the first place.
And the current extinction event is like none that has ever happened before with CO2 levels that have not existed for a million years.
CO2 levels are approaching those that existed about 30 million years ago and have increased at a rate rarely seen in the geological record, this alone should be alarming, but it's just one of many negative human impacts on the natural world. These include: - Wasteful overfishing of the oceans. - The creation of dead zones in some of the most productive regions of the oceans. - Habitat destruction for development. - Removal of old growth forest in temperate and equitorial regions.
Your speculations are simply more pessimistic than mine but neither can be called scientific. What other species has existed under a wider range of climatic conditions than Man?
Show me in scientific not fictional terms where what I'm posting is speculative. We know that the levels of CO2 have rapidly increased in the last century from fossil fuel use. We know from the basic physics that CO2 is the main persistent atmospheric gas that creates the warming effect that allows complex life to exist here in the first place. We know there has been and will continue to be warming as the radiative balance is restored. We know from past records that CO2 has played an important role some of the major mass extinction events including the most serious the end Permian. We know that there are trillion of tons of methane clathrates in tundra and seafloor deposits that will become unstable at some point as the planet warms. It's also know that conditions in the last 35 million years have favoured the buildup of these deposits as a cooling trend has allowed polar ice. Methane clathrate formation is a product of temperature and pressure, the colder the temperature the shallower they can form. The Arctic is now thawing and the Antarctic will follow as we continue to drive the planet into a warmer state. The question isn't if we'll ever see a release of massive amounts of methane, it's at what point do the deposits become unstable. And there's also no question about whether climate change is going to drive mass extinction, it already is. Coral reef systems are one of the most diverse habitats on the planet and we've already lost 1/4 of them. That represents thousands of associated species lost. We're also seeing the same rate of loss as rainforests are quickly removed. Where's the speculation in this, it's not pessimism to acknowledge reality. And all that range of environments that man now occupies have the necessities of life including food, water and oxygen. If we mess the oceans up so bad the ecological matrix collapses there it won't matter how adaptive we are, it's simply not possible to live without oxygen, the same goes for food and water. The fact you're even debating these central facts tells me you're either in this for a lark or you're beyond reason. Either way this has reached the point of being a waste of my time.
87
And all previous extinctions have been of unintelligent animals which had no idea what was happening.
And without Star Trek level technology how are we going to recreate a destroyed biosphere we depend on for food, water and oxygen. I wasn't aware that there was any kind of event that would destroy the oxygen. psik
88
For the record, it's 7 billion and rising and every one of us is burning something every day in a closed atmosphere. Lois
You haven't seen the previous posts. I am presuming 6 billion plus would be killed off in the apocalypse. The issue is whether or not the remainder would survive the post-apoc. There would then be fewer people to cause more ecological damage. But how much infrastructure would be left to work with. But if humans survived without it 10,000 years ago why shouldn't some still do it? psik So you're saying that as long as some of our species are likely to survive an apocalypse, we shouldn't worry too much because the human race will survive. Let's not do anything to stave off an ecological disaster that will kill off most of the human race as long as a few are likely to survive it. Good thinking. Lois
89
I wasn't aware that there was any kind of event that would destroy the oxygen. psik
I guess I didn't make myself clear, I won't be responding to you again on this subject.
90
So you're saying that as long as some of our species are likely to survive an apocalypse, we shouldn't worry too much because the human race will survive. Let's not do anything to stave off an ecological disaster that will kill off most of the human race as long as a few are likely to survive it. Good thinking. Lois
Do people find exaggerating a lot of fun? I just think that expecting the apocalypse to annihilate our species is nonsense. You can worry all you want. Let me know what good it does. I made my contribution. http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html I have not heard to many climatologists point out that planned obsolescence could contribute to unnecessary CO2 production. psik
91
There would then be fewer people to cause more ecological damage. But how much infrastructure would be left to work with. But if humans survived without it 10,000 years ago why shouldn't some still do it?
hmmm, perhaps because 10,000 years ago Earth was a cornucopia of resources and ripe regions waiting for the plucking.
And all previous extinctions have been of unintelligent animals which had no idea what was happening.
Yea, you know Fuzzy, when I sometimes climb into some denialist blogs and immerse myself in their arguments within their selective bubble, and even more when I get into big cities and deal with those people immersed in the good side of life - it all seems so perfect and secure. There's no looking outside the bubble when you're in the lap of comfort. When I got to walk around Seattle and interact with folks, getting in occasional discussions and bios, listening to the big plans folks have for the next decade and beyond - the business and families and houses, and oh all the pregnant ladies I saw, and as beautiful as I know all that is, I think of what those kids are going to be living through, and it's freaky. Then I look around at latest studies and various global weather events, and it's horrifying and changes happening fast than ever imagined even though we knew they were coming yet most remain totally oblivious to it, they sort of know about it, but there's no connect to their daily reality. Sometimes I wonder if that's all just as well, considering where we're at and the obvious inability of our business political leaders to change their ways.
92
And all previous extinctions have been of unintelligent animals which had no idea what was happening.
Psik, does the concept "food chain" add up to anything?
93
qWhat other species has existed under a wider range of climatic conditions than Man? psik
Bacteria.
94
Yea, you know Fuzzy, when I sometimes climb into some denialist blogs and immerse myself in their arguments within their selective bubble, and even more when I get into big cities and deal with those people immersed in the good side of life - it all seems so perfect and secure. There's no looking outside the bubble when you're in the lap of comfort. When I got to walk around Seattle and interact with folks, getting in occasional discussions and bios, listening to the big plans folks have for the next decade and beyond - the business and families and houses, and oh all the pregnant ladies I saw, and as beautiful as I know all that is, I think of what those kids are going to be living through, and it's freaky. Then I look around at latest studies and various global weather events, and it's horrifying and changes happening fast than ever imagined even though we knew they were coming yet most remain totally oblivious to it, they sort of know about it, but there's no connect to their daily reality. Sometimes I wonder if that's all just as well, considering where we're at and the obvious inability of our business political leaders to change their ways.
I think it's referred to as consensus trance reality, where most people are basically in a waking sleeplike state that allows them to deal with the complexities of modern life without thinking too deeply. The problem is that sleepwalking can be deadly when you come to a cliff and any rational examination of the facts would indicate that we're currently on the precipice of an ecological disaster that will make it impossible for anyone to remain in such a state let alone survive an ecological collapse that leaves only a few species remaining. Life makes life possible on Earth and that includes the role organisms play in turning CO2 into breathable oxygen. What happens when we mess the oceans up so badly and remove so much of the tropical forest cover that the oxygen producing capacity of the biosphere is seriously compromised and what happens to the food chain when we remove so many links it no longer has any integrity?
95
qWhat other species has existed under a wider range of climatic conditions than Man? psik
Bacteria. The same species of bacteria survive under freezing and hot conditions? psik
96
And all previous extinctions have been of unintelligent animals which had no idea what was happening.
Psik, does the concept "food chain" add up to anything? Of course. Didn't some species survive through all known mass extinction events? If they didn't we wouldn't be here. But you have no mass extinction events where an intelligent species that knew what was happening had to cope. We are arguing about speculation. psik
97
qWhat other species has existed under a wider range of climatic conditions than Man? psik
Bacteria. The same species of bacteria survive under freezing and hot conditions? psik Cockroaches.
98
Cockroaches.
That is funny considering this: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Invasive-Roaches-NYC-Highline-235001441.html Otherwise roaches depend on humans for enough heat. psik
99
I wasn't aware that there was any kind of event that would destroy the oxygen. psik
And not to get into further debate with this member who seems to have their own version of "science", but there is no event that will destroy oxygen. Billions of animals constantly convert atmospheric oxygen into CO2, the only reason that free oxygen doesn't quickly disappear is that billion of photosynthetic organisms quickly turn that CO2 back into free oxygen. What happens when we cause so much ecological damage that this natural cycle is seriously compromised as during the end Permian event. Only the smallest animals with the lowest oxygen requirements survived that extinction.
100

Houston we have a problem:
White House on Climate Change Report

psik