• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2019430_63350523_compress_42.jpg
 

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
 
..."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
 
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!
 
Proposal to use empty North Sea oilfields to bury 10m tonnes of CO2

Three of the largest ports in Europe – Rotterdam, Antwerp and Ghent – are to be used to capture and bury 10m tonnes of CO2 emissions under the North Sea in what will be the biggest project of its kind in the world.

The ports, which account for one-third of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg region, would be used to pipe the gas into vast cavities about two miles (3km) below the seabed.

It is hoped the project could be completed by 2030 but the scale of the storage, in two empty gas fields, is unprecedented and raises questions about how the CO2 will affect the deep subsurface, according to the Dutch government.

Scientists in Belgium and the Netherlands have largely welcomed the plans.

Prof Mark Saeys of Ghent University told De Morgen newspaper: “Of course I would prefer to see investments in renewable energy, but you have to be realistic: as long as we as a society remain dependent on fossil fuels, underground CO2 storage may be a crucial lever for achieving our climate targets.”

The world’s first large-scale carbon storage project was developed in 1996 off the Norwegian coast, injecting nearly 1m tonnes a year into a space 800 to 1,100 metres beneath the seabed.

But the development of carbon capture and storage has been stilted in Europe. In 2009, the European commission committed €1bn to finance six pilot projects with the hope of having 12 schemes up and running by 2015. Due to the high costs, none of the projects were developed.

More than 70% of the 30m tons of CO2 captured annually by facilities for use or storage is captured in North America.

The largest initiative in the world to date is the Petra Nova project in Texas, which was launched in 2017 and is attached to a coal-fired power station. It has an annual capture capacity of 1.4m tonnes of CO2, the equivalent of the emissions produced by 350,000 cars. The pipeline planned for the European ports project, known as Porthos, would have the capacity to transport 5m tonnes of CO2 a year.
 
It is hoped the project could be completed by 2030.

Pointless then, as the UN - :bdown: - tells us that we’ll have reached (yet another) irreversible tipping point by 2030.

I was just reading this very morning about how abrupt climate change 8,000 years ago led to a dramatic decline in the population of South America. If only they’d given up cars and jet travel and buried their CO2 under the sea, eh?

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
Pointless then, as the UN - :bdown: - tells us that we’ll have reached (yet another) irreversible tipping point by 2030.

I was just reading this very morning about how abrupt climate change 8,000 years ago led to a dramatic decline in the population of South America. If only they’d given up cars and jet travel and buried their CO2 under the sea, eh?

maximus otter

Maybe Graham Hancock is right about the advanced ancient civilisations!
 
I was just reading this very morning about how abrupt climate change 8,000 years ago led to a dramatic decline in the population of South America. If only they’d given up cars and jet travel and buried their CO2 under the sea, eh?

maximus otter

That's a pretty sketchy report. It says there was population decline but doesn't give any details as to how much. It says

While the research shows that there was a significant disruption to population, the study highlights that indigenous people of South America were thriving before and after the middle Holocene.
So nothing very drastic it would seem. It points to rainfall being the driver, with drier weather in some areas affecting crop yields, hence population centres being abandoned, & nothing to do with CO2 increasing.

To equate this fairly localised scenario with worldwide temperatures rising is stretching things a bit.

Frankly it was a surprise to me that CO2 is captured at all, & that the US collects 70% of world capture. I wonder what they do with it - store it in tanks, freeze it?

As far as I know they're not empty.

I dunno - I've read stories about oilfields refilling but don't know if it's actually been shown to be true, or true in the 'empty' fields they're talking about. Maybe you know more than them.
 
At least Cromer won't suffer that much given that 90% of it's denizens are amphibians.

England’s flood planners must prepare for the worst on climate change, the Environment Agency has warned.

Its chairwoman, Emma Howard Boyd, said on current trends, global temperature could rise between 2C and 4C by 2100 and £1bn a year would need to be spent on flood management.

She said some communities may even need to move because of the risk of floods.

The government said it would be seeking evidence for its own flood policy in the autumn.

Ms Howard Boyd, launching the consultation on the agency’s flood strategy, said government policy should ensure that all publicly-funded infrastructure is resilient to flooding and coastal change by 2050.

“We can’t win a war against water by building away climate change with infinitely high flood defences,” she said. ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48206325
 
CO2...0.0406% of the atmosphere.

Oxygen...20.95% of the atmosphere

Nitrogen...78.09% of the atmosphere

Water Vapour...0.4% of the atmosphere.

What is all the fuss about?
 
Back
Top