Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[The Brain]

Yi and FB at least.

[Syt]

[The Brain]

Let's wait for the 2019 numbers before we panic.

[frunk]

I'd say it is absolutely guaranteed that enough others will survive - but they will likely not be the ones we humans want.

The concept here is "weed species". "Weed species" is a term sometimes used to define species, plants or animals, that adapt easily to new climates, resist all attempts at eradication, and spread widely - like rats, pigeons, dandelions or raccoons in urban environments. They are not susceptible to elimination by changes in environment. They are generalists and survivors.

I have no doubt that hardy weed species will survive and even thrive, as the competition gets killed off by climate change - but humans would probably find a planet full of "weed species" a lot less attractive. 

[Note that humans themselves are basically a "weed species"!]

Enough survive for what?  If it was just climate, just the temperature rising, I think you are right.  However there are a lot of ecosystems that are already undergoing tremendous stress from pollution, habitat destruction and human predation.  Some of them have already become mostly weed species with the resulting loss in diversity.

Humans will survive in the short term (100s of years) barring a complete and total environmental collapse (or other doomsday scenario such as nuclear war or asteroid).  However the number of humans that can effectively live on the planet may drop significantly due to big chunks of the food web getting blown away.  It's possible, with genetic engineering, we might be able to plug those holes but we are a ways off from doing that on the scale that may be necessary.

[Valmy]

You are talking to Malthus here. He did once predict "positive checks" would stop the human population from getting too large.

[grumbler]

The problem is that it isn't a continuous change.  Not 1.5 degrees in fifteen years, then 2.0 degrees in 20 years, then 2.5 degrees in 25 years, etc.  Once 2.0 degrees sets in, Mother Nature says "fuck that" and unleashes 3.5 degrees five years later*  There's a lot of carbon held now in fragile environments that won't tolerate much heating before they break down. Today Borneo released more CO2 than the entire US did.

I used to be a believer, like Legbiter, in the technological solution.  That me now seems quaint to informed me.  Ignorance was so much more fun and hopeful.



* Generalized here, don't hold me to these precise numbers

[Oexmelin]

You are talking to Malthus here. He did once predict "positive checks" would stop the human population from getting too large.

Was that before, or after Observations on the Effects of Strollers?

[viper37]

I'll play devil's advocate.

And the question of reduction of sea life which reduces the amount of protein available to humans,

Eat more plants, it's gonna save the world, or so I was told by the greens
Fishes tend to move to the north.  Salmons are seen in the arctic nowadays.  A few of them, anyway.

reduction in farm yields because of reduction in soil quality not to mention loss of land itself.

Well, that can be offseted as more and more northern and highter lands become available for culture.  Wine production should be relatively safe, House Torres has bought lands higher up in the Andes and other producers are starting to grow vines in Great Britain
As long as I can die drinking wine, the rest is of no consequence.

Abitibiti (not too distant from Malthus' cottage) could become a land of culture. In fact, Chinese and other financials are already buying lands in the northern parts of Quebec and many places that used to have one or two harvest a year are now seeing one more.  In my own neck of the woods, there used to be a rarity of farmers who would harvest grain more than once a year.  Now, twice is the norm.

  The fact there are still some who try to say there is an upside is an indication that people don't yet fully understand the ramifications of climate change.  Its not a matter of nice weather moving north.

There is an upside to some.  Saying there is none is shooting yourself in the foot.
It's like alcohol.  A few drinks a week may gain you some positive health effect, but past a certain point, the negatives way outway the positive.
And we are at this point: the negative effects way outway the positive, and it will require a fuckton of money to adapt to it, if we can.

[viper37]

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

I'd say it is absolutely guaranteed that enough others will survive - but they will likely not be the ones we humans want.

The concept here is "weed species". "Weed species" is a term sometimes used to define species, plants or animals, that adapt easily to new climates, resist all attempts at eradication, and spread widely - like rats, pigeons, dandelions or raccoons in urban environments. They are not susceptible to elimination by changes in environment. They are generalists and survivors.

I have no doubt that hardy weed species will survive and even thrive, as the competition gets killed off by climate change - but humans would probably find a planet full of "weed species" a lot less attractive. 

[Note that humans themselves are basically a "weed species"!]

dandelions make excellent soup, and racoons are excellent in a stew!

[viper37]

The problem is that it isn't a continuous change.  Not 1.5 degrees in fifteen years, then 2.0 degrees in 20 years, then 2.5 degrees in 25 years, etc.  Once 2.0 degrees sets in, Mother Nature says "fuck that" and unleashes 3.5 degrees five years later*  There's a lot of carbon held now in fragile environments that won't tolerate much heating before they break down. Today Borneo released more CO2 than the entire US did.

I used to be a believer, like Legbiter, in the technological solution.  That me now seems quaint to informed me.  Ignorance was so much more fun and hopeful.



* Generalized here, don't hold me to these precise numbers

technology will help us mitigate the impact though, so we can't lose faith.  But we can't rely on Faith alone.

[Eddie Teach]

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

I'd say it is absolutely guaranteed that enough others will survive - but they will likely not be the ones we humans want.

The concept here is "weed species". "Weed species" is a term sometimes used to define species, plants or animals, that adapt easily to new climates, resist all attempts at eradication, and spread widely - like rats, pigeons, dandelions or raccoons in urban environments. They are not susceptible to elimination by changes in environment. They are generalists and survivors.

I have no doubt that hardy weed species will survive and even thrive, as the competition gets killed off by climate change - but humans would probably find a planet full of "weed species" a lot less attractive. 

[Note that humans themselves are basically a "weed species"!]

dandelions make excellent soup, and racoons are excellent in a stew!

You are more country than I realized.

[Malthus]

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

I'd say it is absolutely guaranteed that enough others will survive - but they will likely not be the ones we humans want.

The concept here is "weed species". "Weed species" is a term sometimes used to define species, plants or animals, that adapt easily to new climates, resist all attempts at eradication, and spread widely - like rats, pigeons, dandelions or raccoons in urban environments. They are not susceptible to elimination by changes in environment. They are generalists and survivors.

I have no doubt that hardy weed species will survive and even thrive, as the competition gets killed off by climate change - but humans would probably find a planet full of "weed species" a lot less attractive. 

[Note that humans themselves are basically a "weed species"!]

dandelions make excellent soup, and racoons are excellent in a stew!

As I said, humans are also a "weed species" ... though some of us are 'weedier' than others. 

[Malthus]

This is encouraging - as pointed out earlier, people are starting to notice solar and wind power is now much cheaper than it was.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies

[crazy canuck]

Viper, go read about the effects of climate change.  All your claims are wrong.  But to summarize, we are not going to replace the protein lost from the sea because total farming output will drop - a lot. 

[Valmy]

This is encouraging - as pointed out earlier, people are starting to notice solar and wind power is now much cheaper than it was.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies

Business people have known this for awhile. They cannot build that stuff fast enough out here.