Well, see, the thing is, life doesn't adapt to changes THAT quickly, it takes a while.
Earth on the verge of Mass Extinctions
- Thread starter PlutonianEmpire
- Start date
Well, see, the thing is, life doesn't adapt to changes THAT quickly, it takes a while.
deanej
Deity
It did a pretty good job adapting to the little ice age. So good that we now think of the little ice age as "normal".
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
They started evolving before the Cretaceous extinction. I meant they managed to survive and continue evolving after the extinction.
Oh, goodness no. With the great extinctions, most of the extinctions occurred within the centuries after the impact. The impacts caused runaway ecosystem collapses that took a lot of time to complete. The damage was done, and then the system frayed into mass extinctions as time went by.
This is one reason for the worry. Indicators look like we'll be approaching great extinction rates of extinction by the 2020s. This is actually really bad, because tipping points can unravel something fierce.
Well, not quite. We're currently nearly at MWP levels of temperature. We're going to surpass MWP temperatures even if we'd stopped emissions last decade. This is the problem with AGW: it's a slow buildup, and so delays on solutions are really problemactic, because we've got to experience the consequences of any delays.
There's no way to know if that's true. You and I can reasonably expect to live another 70 years or so, even without great breakthroughs in science. It would really suck if the planet got increasingly worse throughout our lifespan, to the point where its going to towards runaway disaster.
I'm pretty big on the rate of technology, but I don't think that we solve problems fast enough to prevent them from being problems. At best, we can mitigate the effects of a crisis as we're experiencing it. I think energy technology will be the best example. Technologies will come online to prevent the rise in the cost of energy from spiraling out of control (if we're smart enough to do sufficient R&D in time), but I don't think they're going to come online quickly enough to actually prevent energy from increasing in price.
We spend much too little of our profits on R&D, as it is. Most people aren't learning enough and innovating enough. Most of our profits are going towards consumption of non-renewable and non-profitable goods.
Extinctions are like bankruptcies. We can handle a few. Some can even be 'creatively destructive' But we don't know which pulled string can unravel everything into crappiness. And the politicians are going to be less capable of mitigating ecological crises than they were with the economic crises.
The Department of Redundancy Department would like to see you.
deanej
Deity
If we're at MWP temperatures now, why don't we have the same climate we did back then?
We're at MVP temperatures- on average. Some parts are warmer than they were 1000 years ago, some are colder.
Because the MWP was a somewhat local event, not everywhere experienced the MWP. It was a convergence of cycles causing warming in some parts of the world, that caused those parts to be warmer than before or earlier. As well, the cause of the MWP is different than the current heating.
It's like a sunbeam on the floor of your room and the thermostat. The sunbeam can make the local floor the same temp as a high thermostat could, but you'd not expect the same climate in the rest of the room.
Needs capitals, some of those words are proper nouns.
"Great Extinction rates of extinction"
At least I didn't have to report to the Department of Unnecessary Redundancy Department!
deanej
Deity
And to think I considered the MWP Earth's normal climate in a post-Central America time.
Few people are saying that we'd be in trouble if we merely stopped warming near the MWP levels of warmth. But, like I said, that's already built into the pollution we've done so far.
The worry is that, even with the weak interventions we're performing now, we're going to cause runaway effects that're going to be unpleasant to deal with. The MWP is a red herring. Think 1.5 C or more greater than that, even with best-case scenarios.
The worry is that, even with the weak interventions we're performing now, we're going to cause runaway effects that're going to be unpleasant to deal with. The MWP is a red herring. Think 1.5 C or more greater than that, even with best-case scenarios.
deanej
Deity
Does one degree even have that much of an impact on anything? I know I can barely tell the difference between say, 70 and 72 (Fahrenheit, so about 1 degree C).
Well, the damage isn't from how it makes us feel - it is from the fact that, for example, a lot of polar/glacial ice is right on the line of freezing/not freezing, so a 1C change will melt a lot of it.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
1-2 degrees could mean the destruction of reefs.
How do you feel when you're at 100 F and when you're at 102 F? It's a serious analogy, actually. And the 1.5 degree change is IF we follow a best-case scenario of mitigating carbon, which we're nowhere close to doing. If you knew that you'd go to 102 F, you'd be distressed at the people who caused it to happen. If you knew that going to 102 F was a best-case scenario, you'd be worried. Especially when people were pshawing it.
Ecosystems are alive and integrated systems. Whether or not a specific plant or animal can withstand a change in temperature is unimportant. There're temperature thresholds that can change the breeding cycles of animals, or disrupt the breeding between the sexes. There're temperature cycles than change the rate at which organisms mature. There're temperature thresholds that change feeding and migration patterns. The difference between mass death of coral reefs is a couple of degrees, one bad El Nino on top of pre-warmed water can cause a wipeout.
AGW is going to cause changes in precipitation patterns and species migrations. Precipitation patterns are important, because we've co-opted so much land, and all the current borders are drawn with current climate factored in. Species migrations are important, too, because there's the strong possibility that AGW will cause migrations that species will be unable to perform.
A robust ecosystem can survive a few shocks. It can even weather quite a few of them. The problem is that we're hammering over and over. AGW is one thing. Land co-option is another. Changing ocean pH is another. Overharvesting and deforestation is even another. For goodness sake, we don't feed certain seafoods to pregnant women anymore, because of the risk of neurological damage.
AGW is not a red herring. Even if we're just talking about humans, it's going to be a factor in disrupting global politics as the climates shift irrespective of international borders. And the long-term justice issues of the rich nations polluting into the Commons is another issue of international stress.
And that's without mass extinctions, which are sufficiently likely to cause a runaway effect, that it's actually worth worrying about. Like I said, it's like bankruptcies. Once things start to unravel, you might not have the resources required to fix it. Even worse, there's future decay built into the system, so even when you notice the problem and decide to stop, you still have to live with what you've done.
bigdog5994
Lady Day
theres only one way to save this planet
the Madagascar way
the Madagascar way
Abaddon
Deity
I disagree. It is going to get increasingly worse. This is not going to cause a collapse of humanity, or any visible changes. The species we NEED, we can "protect".
How can you possibly know that? Our ability to spot essential species is only gained through experimentation. You know, where we cause extinctions until the critical species causes a whole natural service to collapse. But the natural service will always collapse AFTER (and even well after) the extinctions.
It seems that our ability to gain the essential knowledge is limited by our ability to perform experiments.
While I don't think humanity will 'collapse', what I want is a system where we consistently improve, in perpetuity.
It seems that our ability to gain the essential knowledge is limited by our ability to perform experiments.
While I don't think humanity will 'collapse', what I want is a system where we consistently improve, in perpetuity.
Abaddon
Deity
Humans can survive a pretty basic diet. Unless the sun goes out, or we run out of fuel, we will always be able to feed ourselves.
... but "having a very basic diet" is not the same thing as not suffering "any visible changes".
Similar threads
