New Category suggestion. Climate change.

[sculptor]

UM
Sea-level falls are associated with most of the mass extinctions, including all of the "Big Five"—End-Ordovician, Late Devonian, End-Permian, End-Triassic, and End-Cretaceous.

sea level falls = ice = cold and dry

Sixth?

Science always needs consensus?

as/re: science is not qualified
"science" is not a disembodied entity ---it is just an ordered way of looking at things
scientists are humans with all that that brings to the table

many "scientific consensuses" have gone aft agley

 

[Write4U]

Sixth?

Yep, it has been named the Holocene extinction and is currently in progress.

The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the Sixth extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is a current event, and is one of the most significant extinction events in the history of the Earth. This ongoing extinction of species coincides with the present Holocene epoch (approx. 11,700 years), and is a result of human activity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Shall we take this concensus scientific information to heed or ignore it as "speculative"? Is there any law that says only an ice-age or falling sea levels qualify as extinction events?

In this case global warming and the resulting polar ice-melt and rise in ocean levels may well be causal to the extinction of a large portion of land dwelling organisms, especially along the coastal areas, with disasterous secondary domino effects both on land and in the oceans.

Some current statistics on human activity this year (5 months). Read them and weep.

ENVIRONMENT
1,547,180 Forest loss this year (hectares)
2,082,923 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
12,019,767,978 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
3,570,055 Desertification this year (hectares)
2,913,277 Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year (tons)

https://www.worldometers.info/

How long can the earth's eco-system deal with this onslaught?

 

[Jeeves]

Therefore, what??????? Ignore the problem in the hope it will magically disappear?

Have you not read the scientific concensus that we are already in the sixth extinction event?
It's got a name, that's pretty definitive, IMO.

Are you suggesting that science is not qualified to make such an "observation"?

You got all that from my pithy little demo of what the range to which Sculptor referred might stand for?
Amazing power of deduction.

 

[Write4U]

You got all that from my pithy little demo of what the range to which Sculptor referred might stand for?
Amazing power of deduction.

It is your attempt to discredit the urgency of the problem that will get us all killed.

Capping the well after someone drowns is not going to work when dealing with global disasters.
When a certain treshold has been breached, there is nothing that can be done to reverse a global process.

The whole point is to stay on this side of the runaway process and that requires the most pessimistic assumption and early preventive measures and changes in human behavior.
There is no room for error.

So let's see if humans have free will or are doomed to submit to natural deterministic penalties for our wanton unnatural behavior and lack of stewardship of mother earth's abundant benign resources and potentials.

 

[sculptor]

...
urgency of the problem that will get us all killed.
global disasters.
there is nothing that can be done
There is no room for error.
... .

Gee
thanx for the
doom and gloom

as/re
There is no room for error.

eeeeeeeeekkkk oh---noooooooooooooooo
you do realize that we are intrinsically talking about human beings here?

"to err is human"

(irish language lesson: Whale oil beef hooked----said rapidly alltogether)

 

[Write4U]

"to err is human"

That's what I am afraid of. Human error will get us all killed.

Do you have any more optimistic scenarios? It'll just go away by itself? Human will devolve over a few centuries to return to being an aquatic mammal or adapt to a high CO2 content atmosphere, only to be devoured by insects.

Have you watched the Hellstrom Chronicle? 88% liked this movie (in spite of its age 1971)

 

[sculptor]

The NOAA scientists are 90+% certain that sea level will rise somewhere between 8 inches and 80 inches in the next 80-90 years.
or between 2 and 20 mm/yr
considering that recent sea level rise is about 3mm/yr
I'd say that the low end of their prognostication was a fairly safe bet.

The rest seems more speculative

optimistic scenario is largely symbiotic
The primary producers were here first
unfortunately, the damned fools kept poisoning the atmosphere with their waste product--oxygen.
They were most likely choking on their own filth
and then
came the wild fires---set off by the tiniest of sparks, they raged across the land, killing the primary producers in their billions
and then
we evolved to fill a symbiotic ecological niche
We consume their waste product, O and give them back CO2 which they appreciate as though it were a gourmet meal.

So far, we seem to be the best CO2 producers of all our animal cousins
or
did you think that that was all just an accident?

 

[Write4U]

did you think that that was all just an accident?

No, that is evolution and natural selection at work.
Humans are a result of that evolutionary process, but that does not mean we are no longer subject to extinction, when there is a drastic and rapid change in the biosphere and biology.

 

[sculptor]

... we are ...[still] subject to extinction, ....

amen to that
we have dodged many extinction bullets
recently, circa 70-75 kyrs ago we dodged an extinction bullet when at least 4 volcanoes blew including toba---which may have dropped temperatures another 6 degrees in the middle of a period of glaciation---we may have been down to several hundreds---some geneticist claim as few as 40 breeding pairs--considering that---the survivors have done well.

 

[Write4U]

the survivors have done well

Or so it would appear. But have we learned from the experience and are now able to recognize an existential threat when it stares us in the face?

There is a lot of denial out there in spite of overwhelming evidence.
Five record setting years and no sign of relief.

With the five warmest years on record happening during the past five years — and the 20 warmest occurring over the past 22 — a consistent warming trend couldn’t be clearer. Meanwhile, monthly averaged atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen to 411 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory, thanks in part to an estimated 2.7 percent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record

 

[sculptor]

You may be doing yourself a disservice in quoting "climate central" "data".

 

[Write4U]

You may be doing yourself a disservice in quoting "climate central" "data".

I have no clue as to their reputation.
But I think that even a HS group could collect a few well known statistics without resorting to misdirection, no?

I heard similar claims from other sources

Why would they feel compelled to alter these stats?.....

I am curious to see the 2019 stats, to see if it resumes the upward trend.

 

[sculptor]

misdirection?-------------all human beings are biased---we often make decisions on incomplete data based on our biased assumptions. We may err greatly while thinking that we err not at all.

meanwhile:
100% of the energy entering earth's atmosphere comes from the sun

Cycle 24 was much lower(colder---less energy) than those of the end of the last century. We are/will be leaving cycle 24......most (not all) predictions indicate that # 25 will be less energetic than #24(which was lower than 23 which was lower than 22...etc. ... )

ghg may limit what is re-radiated into space, but is, of it's nature, a secondary tool, not primary
less incoming energy should, most likely, lead to lower temperatures as the atmosphere re-radiates out into space the energy stored in and on the earth's surface

If, indeed, cycle 25 proves to provide less energy, the next decade should be interesting......................?
It seems that we know very little about the sun's long term(centuries) output............?

 

[Jeeves]

Thermometers are not biased. The human being who can't read one is suffering from something other than natural bias.

--we often make decisions on incomplete data based on our biased assumptions. We may err greatly while thinking that we err not at all.

Well, I was given a choice when my cancer was diagnosed with 95% certainty.
Start treatment immediately, or wait for 100% conclusive diagnosis* I went with the 95%.

* provided by an autopsy.

 

[sculptor]

Thermometers are not biased. ... .

thermometers
USHCN weather stations
some are located where excess heat (concrete, asphalt, parking lots, air conditioning units. etc...) negates the veracity of their readings
over 32% of the USHCN stations exhibited an increase in impervious surface(concrete/asphalt) area of ⩾20% between 2001 and 2011.

 

[Jeeves]

thermometers
USHCN weather stations
some are located where excess heat (concrete, asphalt, parking lots, air conditioning units. etc...)

Where people live. Which is a lot of places. And those temps don't count... because?

an increase in impervious surface(concrete/asphalt) area of ⩾20% between 2001 and 2011.

And this doesn't contribute to heating?

 

[sculptor]

Where people live. Which is a lot of places. And those temps don't count... because?

Because they are too localized
if location x started where it should be--at least 100 feet from any heat source---and now it is in a parking lot next to an air conditioner unit---it can tell you of the effect of the urbanization change at that location-------extrapolating that out to global climate becomes problematic.

We all know of the urban heat island effect---------
when urban sprawl encroaches on a USHCN weather station it gives a reading that is not the same as a reading that would show a long term unadulterated change.

just as in navigation, little errors have a way of adding up

 

[Jeeves]

Okay, then. Don't rely on the data. Don't trust the climate scientists or their methods.
Go outside and see for yourself.

 

[sculptor]

Okay, then. Don't rely on the data. Don't trust the climate scientists or their methods.
Go outside and see for yourself.

well
that's a tad rad dad

 

[Write4U]

just as in navigation, little errors have a way of adding up

That truth also holds the other way. A bunch of small local contributions, such as smelter smoke stacks or busy freeways do add up to regional or even global instabilities.

From worldometers;
12,354,909,809 CO2 emissions this year (tons)!