Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

Ladyloafer

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
2,084
Points
154
Now that's an interesting point. But climate change is surely not to blame? After all the common bugs are pretty tough creatures - most of them have been around a lot longer than us and have survived through previous temperature cycles. . That could maybe do with a separate discussion.
yeah that's not neccessarily climate change as such but part of the general ecocide that is taking place. but with insects dying from agricultural pesticides, loss of habitat, gardens being paved over there are a lot less of them about. then an extreme late cold snap will kill a few more while only freshly hatched. a too warm winter or very early spring will mean some plants bloom too early so when the insects hatch their food sources have gone already.

the windscreen test- i never have to clear dead insects off my windscreen. never.
 

Cochise

Never give up, never surrender
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,930
Reaction score
7,014
Points
284
the windscreen test- i never have to clear dead insects off my windscreen. never.
I regularly drive back from Essex to north Wales on a Friday afternoon/evening. Been doing it more than 10 years now. When I was first doing it in the summer months I was constantly washing bugs off the windscreen - I had a left hand drive car at the time so the memory is quite clear. But I haven't had to do it for the last couple of years. There is still the odd bug but nothing like it used to be.

The bugs are/were a pain because substantial parts of the journey in midsummer are in to the sun.

I really hadn't thought about it until Krepostnoi pointed it out.
 

hunck

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
5,070
Reaction score
6,802
Points
284
Location
Hobbs End
Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described. In 2016, scientists reported that 1 trillion species are estimated to be on Earth currently with only one-thousandth of one percent described.”

maximus otter
Don't want to be nit picky but that's quite a discrepancy.
 

Ladyloafer

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
2,084
Points
154
One of the defining things about autism is the developmental delay that almost all autistics have on one area or another.

Couple that with our "spiked" ability profile, and you get people who are capable of synthesising, analysing many many data and coming to a firm point of view backed up by evidence, while being most comfortable in clothes that signal formal, conservative and often younger than calendar age.

One theory on the younger face thing, which is common but not universal, is that we use our faces less to display emotion. As wrinkles, laughterlines and general use of the face contrinutes to an aged look, we miss out on some of that process!

Personal examples.

I'm aware that my most common mode is resting bitch face. Then something happens and I emote enthusiastically, before returning to RBF. Most NTs I have observed moves their faces about a lot more - to what end I can only guess. To me it looks like most people have nervous tics!

I didn't speak until 7ish. I recon I could have done with a gap of 2-3 years before uni. It's one of the things I try to get across to parents. Little Callum may be missing all his milestones but that is the NT developmental path; He may be spot on for being autistic!
thanks for the reply @Frideswide :)
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
4,102
Points
169
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
I'm out here in the Australian bush, and my experience has been that insects are seasonal, dependant on the local Flora and topography.

I rode bikes for 25-30 years in various parts of Australia, preferring an open face with wrap around sunnies, and so, I copped my fair share of insects in the face.

These ranged from bee's and moths/butterflies in spring, along with the odd dragonfly, summer brought out the nemesis of all bikers, the christmas beetle along with the blow fly and when it was going to rain, flying ants.

Autumn brought out the moth (late crops), while through the year there was the consistent unconcentrated dung beetle, fly etc.

Now that I drive, I still need to clean my windscreen every time I drive anywhere, but the thought has just occurred...what if our habits are part of the equation?

We are consistently city and suburb bound, our immediate environs are relatively clean - no dung, carcasses etc. domestic animals of burden which do attract various species of insect - maybe it is a natural progression of our divorce from what once was.

When I go to the big smoke to see the Daughters there are buggerall flies, whereas out at home, there are tonnes of insects - Wasps, hornets, flies, mosquito's, moth's, butterflies, dungbeetles, butterflies.

As I grow older I worry less at what is demanded of me by NGO's, governments etc., and instead, concern myself with what is self explanatory or evident. And if something doesn't sit right, then I ask questions.

I reckon that the age of objective thought has been murdered by Corporations, with governments having their own agenda's too.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
Yeah but what's your point? I doubt the people studying extinctions are using Wikipedia as a source.
lf you have a convenient source for numbers of species & extinctions, and its figures are significantly different from Wikipedia’s, then let’s hear about it.

maximus otter
 

Min Bannister

Possessed dog
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
4,507
Reaction score
5,731
Points
234
lf you have a convenient source for numbers of species & extinctions, and its figures are significantly different from Wikipedia’s, then let’s hear about it.

maximus otter
The Wikipedia link seems to have picked out a few prestige species, mainly mammals and birds. The current extinction rate is thought to be 1000x background rate. That works out to 100 to 1000 species per million per year. And yes, mainly caused by us.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...cience-animals-species-endangered-extinction/

If that one is too long here is a nice link with a diagram giving that statistic and including percentages of creatures currently under threat.

https://socratic.org/biology/human-impact-on-ecosystems/species-extinctions-caused-by-humans
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
The Wikipedia link seems to have picked out a few prestige species, mainly mammals and birds. The current extinction rate is thought to be 1000x background rate. That works out to 100 to 1000 species per million per year. And yes, mainly caused by us.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...cience-animals-species-endangered-extinction/

If that one is too long here is a nice link with a diagram giving that statistic and including percentages of creatures currently under threat.

https://socratic.org/biology/human-impact-on-ecosystems/species-extinctions-caused-by-humans
Read the National Geographic one, ta. My first thought? Remove all the question marks, suppositions, weasel words, rhetorical questions and "used statistical modeling to fill in holes in the record", and that article would be eleven words long.

"...before humans [boo! hiss!] evolved, less than a single species per million went extinct annually...", now it's "100 to 1,000 species lost per million per year, mostly due to human-caused [boo! hiss!] habitat destruction and climate change."

To sum up: their (axe to grind) estimate of how many species become extinct every year (100? 1,000? Out of how many?) is based on (their) interpretation of a tiny amount of data with a wild range of variables, and proceeds from the assumption that human activity is significantly altering the planet's climate.

I wonder if they factor in the numerous creatures "species rediscovered after being thought extinct"? (1.75M Google hits on that phrase). A quick scan of the Wikipedia (sorry!) article "Lazarus taxon" might be relaxing for them.

Note: I'm against pollution, habitat destruction, waste and littering. However, I'm also against being forced back to a horse and buggy lifestyle based on anti-capitalist scare stories.

maximus otter
 

hunck

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
5,070
Reaction score
6,802
Points
284
Location
Hobbs End
Here's an interesting article & interview with paleontologist Doug Erwin explaining that we're not in the midst of a mass extinction event as has happened previously, in which he points to catastrophic collapse of ecosystems resulting in the majority of life on Earth being wiped out. We're not in that state. Whew.

A few snippets

The fossil record is incredibly incomplete. One rough estimate holds that we’ve only ever found a tantalizing 0.01 percent of all the species that have ever existed. Most of the animals in the fossil record are marine invertebrates, like brachiopods and bivalves, of the sort that are both geologically widespread and durably skeletonized. In fact, though this book (for narrative purposes) has mostly focused on the charismatic animals taken out by mass extinctions, the only reason we know about mass extinctions in the first place is from the record of this incredibly abundant, durable, and diverse world of marine invertebrates, not the big, charismatic, and rare stuff like dinosaurs.
“So you can ask, ‘Okay, well, how many geographically widespread, abundant, durably skeletonized marine taxa have gone extinct thus far?’ And the answer is, pretty close to zero,” Erwin pointed out. In fact, of the best-assessed groups of modern animals—like stony corals, amphibians, birds and mammals—somewhere between 0 and 1 percent of species have gone extinct in recent human history. By comparison, the hellscape of End-Permian mass extinction claimed upwards of 90 percent of all species on earth.
When mass extinctions hit, they don’t just take out big charismatic megafauna, like elephants, or niche ecosystems, like cloud forests. They take out hardy and ubiquitous organisms as well—things like clams and plants and insects. This is incredibly hard to do. But once you go over the edge and flip into mass extinction mode, nothing is safe. Mass extinctions kill almost everything on the planet.
It goes on

While Erwin’s argument that a mass extinction is not yet under way might seem to get humanity off the hook—an invitation to plunder the earth further, since it can seemingly take the beating (the planet has certainly seen worse)—it’s actually a subtler and possibly far scarier argument.

This is where the ecosystem’s nonlinear responses, or tipping points, come in. Inching up to mass extinction might be a little like inching up to the event horizon of a black hole—once you go over a certain line, a line that perhaps doesn’t even appear all that remarkable, all is lost.

“So,” I said, “it might be that we sort of bump along where everything seems okay and then . . .”

“Yeah, everything’s fine until it’s not,” said Erwin. “And then everything goes to hell.”
So whilst we're not in a mass extinction event, you'd have to be fairly blinkered to ignore wildlife & ecosystems struggling in many parts of the world.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
Here's an interesting article & interview with paleontologist Doug Erwin explaining that we're not in the midst of a mass extinction event as has happened previously, in which he points to catastrophic collapse of ecosystems resulting in the majority of life on Earth being wiped out. We're not in that state. Whew.

A few snippets







It goes on



So whilst we're not in a mass extinction event, you'd have to be fairly blinkered to ignore wildlife & ecosystems struggling in many parts of the world.
Believe me, I’m not blinkered or complacent. It’s obvious that we have things to sort out. I’m just tired of the constant background noise of doom and despair.

Nature is not hanging by a rotting thread over a chasm of tragedy. Technology, education and goodwill will see us right.

maximus otter
 

Naughty_Felid

Antediluvian
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,038
Reaction score
8,694
Points
294
Believe me, I’m not blinkered or complacent. It’s obvious that we have things to sort out. I’m just tired of the constant background noise of doom and despair.

Nature is not hanging by a rotting thread over a chasm of tragedy. Technology, education and goodwill will see us right.

maximus otter
Like what? I thought your view was that climate change was some sort of natural event that happened every once in a while rather than anything we as a species have done. Changing your mind finally?

Also, I'm sick to death of it too. However, the reason we are in this shit is because of idiots who have denied culpability for the last 50 years not getting on board with the fact that there is something wrong. These fall into three categories namely, a) they've got an interest in making money from dirty fuel, b) have a major chip on their shoulder about accepting information from beardy scientist-types or c) Believe anything the criminals from A told them via the Daily Mail.

And to believe we have the will or money to "re-terraform" the planet like something out of Star Trek makes you more deluded than any of the climate change loonies you've so witheringly put down over the years.

'Goodwill"? Not seen much of this from your posts over the years.

"Education"? - You've rejected the notion of climate change. It's a bit late getting on board now.
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
4,102
Points
169
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
In my view, the ones who stand guilty of adding to climate change are Industry, and the manufacturers of concrete, steel, and glass - along with our 'glorious' power providers who all knew the science, but went with convenience.

And advertising. And consumers who didn't stop to think about why we needed a new car every two years.

I think that Capitalism needs to shoulder the burden...and those who still pump for it.

In the mean time - arguing over it solves nothing.
 

Naughty_Felid

Antediluvian
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,038
Reaction score
8,694
Points
294
What do we maybe reckon Earth would be like if humans had died out, long time ago?
I've no idea what you mean. I'm all for a world without humans. But we've been here and changed the world and it's likely we've messed things up enough and the best thing we can do is try and fix it.

I think this impossible and I think our race will suffer badly.
 

Naughty_Felid

Antediluvian
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,038
Reaction score
8,694
Points
294
Believe me, I’m not blinkered or complacent. It’s obvious that we have things to sort out. I’m just tired of the constant background noise of doom and despair.

Nature is not hanging by a rotting thread over a chasm of tragedy. Technology, education and goodwill will see us right.

maximus otter
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
 

Min Bannister

Possessed dog
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
4,507
Reaction score
5,731
Points
234
To sum up: their (axe to grind) estimate of how many species become extinct every year (100? 1,000? Out of how many?) is based on (their) interpretation of a tiny amount of data with a wild range of variables, and proceeds from the assumption that human activity is significantly altering the planet's climate.
It is very difficult to be completely accurate, especially when you don't know exactly how many species exist in the first place. I know you want to demand an itemised list but there just isn't one. And their statistics are still more believable than such things as:-
Google hits on that phrase
Which means nothing.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
6,438
Reaction score
12,796
Points
309
Globally, there are 19 polar bear populations.

One, maybe two, of those are declining. The rest are stable, increasing, or there is “insufficient data”.

In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.

“Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.”

https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-be...r-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/

“Too many polar bears are roaming the Canadian Arctic, and the growing population is posing an increasing threat to Inuit communities, according to a controversial new government report...”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rs-canadian-arctic-inuit-controversial-report

“Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades.

The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000–31,000)7 but additional surveys published 2015–2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,5009 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.”

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/0...n-increases-to-the-highest-levels-in-decades/

maximus otter
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
5,577
Reaction score
8,735
Points
279
Location
Phone
..."Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades"...
Sorry... was having a wee kip there...

Thanks so much for really informative data.

FWIW, personally unconvinced, although open minded...

Profoundly appreciate, whilst we may try to inject some humour occasionally, it's a serious concern.

Anyway, where was I before...

2019430_72138815.jpg
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
50,383
Reaction score
23,969
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Globally, there are 19 polar bear populations.

One, maybe two, of those are declining. The rest are stable, increasing, or there is “insufficient data”.

In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.

“Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.”

https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-be...r-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/

“Too many polar bears are roaming the Canadian Arctic, and the growing population is posing an increasing threat to Inuit communities, according to a controversial new government report...”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rs-canadian-arctic-inuit-controversial-report

“Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades.

The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000–31,000)7 but additional surveys published 2015–2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,5009 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.”

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/0...n-increases-to-the-highest-levels-in-decades/

maximus otter
May you be eaten alive by polar bears and foxes!
 
Top