Slashdot Mirror
Extinctions Due to Global Warming Predicted
PizzaFace writes "A study being published today in Nature predicts that global warming will doom 15 to 37 percent of plants and animals to extinction by 2050, according to various news sources. The study looked at how predicted warming would affect the suitability of the areas that particular species inhabit, and whether displaced species would be able to migrate to suitable habitat. Many of the unlucky species are being caught between the hammer of global warming and the anvil of habitation destruction." The BBC has a story about climate engineering: long-range planning on making major changes in order to reduce the effects of global warming.
Humanity is trying to solve the problems we've caused for selfish reasons: if we don't, we'll be taken down by them. It has nothing to do with keeping life going, and everything to do with the perpetuation of the species.
That fact is probably the only reason I'm able to look at the problem without passing out in terror: the knowledge that we can't fuck things up enough to destroy all life on the planet.
There seems to be an unstated assumption in the article that dooming 15-37 percent of species to extinction is in itself a negative thing, which means that we have somehow accepted as true the idea that a species should exist perpetually. The historical record suggests that species tend to have their time and then disappear; either in some form of mass extinction event or by slowly
fading away.
Our understanding of bio-history suggests that the cycle of evolution and extinction is the way things work and has always worked. This cycle is partly in response to events like global warming or cooling or cataclysms like, as a recent slashdot article suggests, when a supernova rips off the ozone layer andlets the sun barbecue a whole bunch of species.
However, in spite of this, looking at the life surrounding the volcanic heat vents on the ocean floor, the return of life to devastated area like Mt. St. Helens, it seems that life itself seem to be rather stubborn, versatile and adaptable. The planet as a biosystem seems to be able to recover from massive damage which can eliminate most of the life on earth.
Yet as a caveat, I wonder if we as a species have thrown a destabilizing factor into that robust bio-system by stressing it past its ability to recover. After all, who knows how the various forms of pollution and destruction of natural
resources will impact the ability of the planet to rebound from this bout ofglobal warming or ice age, whether or not it is natural or man made.
I think it odd for us to thik this chage should lead to an ever stable temperature and perfectly preserved artic ice shelves..
This is stupid because there is no one (except perhaps /bin/laden and his ilk) who would find any joy in seeing Americans have to adjust their lifestyle a bit. Most of the rest of us either don't care or do our best to emulate it anyway.
No, the only people actually feeling the effects of the environmentalists' crusade are those of us living in "progressive" countries where gas has been $5/gallon for a long time already and where every conceivable form of energy is taxed through the roof "in order to save the environment".
Nevermind that we need that energy to go about our daily business whatever the cost so demand isn't reduced anyway, nevermind that those same progressive governments put exactly zilch of that tax revenue back into alternative energy research and nevermind that it doesn't make any difference anyway because the rest of the world is still polluting at least as much as they ever did, so....
You get the drift. It's enough to make a poor sod wonder if this global warming panic isn't a huge scam cooked up by politicians to allow them to tax the populace with impunity.
Not that I doubt that the climate is changing, but wouldn't it be a good idea to get everyone to agree on the scientific basis for claiming man is (at least partly) behind the change, what measures to implement and then to implement them globally? Reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases 1% globally must be better than reducing them by 10% in a just couple of medium/small countries.
Also, it wouldn't leave those of us living in those countries feeling like we're having to do all the lifestyle adjusting in a massive and costly gesture of futility while the rest of the world doesn't really give a rat's ass.
Note that I'm not saying that the claims that the climate is changing are a scam, but I do think it's prudent to wonder out loud about the global warming panic that, as far as I can see, has only ever resulted in raised taxes in some countries. Where is the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gasses? Where is the reduction of the ozone holes? In short, where did our money go?
So, my dear Americans. Be prepared for the day when you too have to pay $5/gallon for gas, only make sure that when that day comes your money will actually be used for something that makes a difference.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
If it's not caused by man, then there's not much we could do to stop it anyway.
Don't mistake our skepticism to mean that we think nothing is wrong. Just because we aren't chicken littles doesn't mean we're ostriches with our heads in the sand instead. Just because we don't want to ban the internal combustion engine means that we approve of inefficient transportation.
To take the example of the recent blizzard, storms have happened since the beginning of the earth. It *may* have been caused by global warming, but it overwhelming odds are that the recent blizzard was caused by the same thing that caused all blizzards in the past.
About a decade ago when global warming started entering the public consciousness, I kept seeing weather reports saying that a record had been broken. I seem to recall a record breaking high or low temperature about once or twice a year. Surely that's evidence of global warming? A lot of people around me were saying it was. But simple statistics shows that it's hardly unusual. The average temperature in a location fluctuates. Since accurate temperatures were not recorded until recently, the probability is rather high that any particular day might break a recorded temperature. 365 days in a year, with temperature records for 100 years. Think about it. For example, a temperature of 98 on June 1st might break a record, but a temperature of 98 on June 2nd might wouldn't.
Basically what I'm saying is that I do not trust anecdotes. Neither do I trust sensationalist reporting. Heck, I can't even trust climatology models when the climatologists are still out looking for data to improve the models!
The average world wide temperature fluctuates. We have had ice ages in the past. We have had warm periods in the past. I'm not talking about ten thousand years ago, but only a few hundred. The temperature is changing, I have no doubt. What I do doubt is that mankind is causing it.
We shouldn't be polluting. We shouldn't be clearcutting rain forests. But we shouldn't be panicking.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What amazes me is that as a nation we can spend what will sure to be hundreds of billions of dollars to invade a nation with the flimsy pretext that they're a threat to the world--which turns out to have been a lie by the way--but yet when a much more tangible threat appears on the horizon we hear all these voices demanding absolute proof.
Which as you suggest, isn't possible.
If we're going to run out of oil anyways, and if the combustion engine is such a threat to our environment, then why wait? Why not deal with it now?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
So how come there are still articles about it being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals like the one cited? I don't see them printing articles about astrology or the healing power of crystals.
Certainty regarding the unknown is anathema to science. Environmentalists say "x and y may occur in the event of z." Critics of global warming theory say "x y and z will never ever happen." Which one sounds like a good scientist?
You said: "Balance will be achieved. It is the way of things."
Balance may be achieved with 95% of all species extinct.
As far as it concerns global warming, there are many positive and negative feedback loops, but there are only two that really concern me.
The first is solubility of CO2 in seawater. As ocean temperatures rises, the equilibrium in the oceans will change such that the oceans become a source of atmospheric CO2 rather than a sink. This rate will increase as seawater temperature rises.
The second is the rising of the zone of methane hydrate stability. As seawater floor temperatures rise, this zone of stability rises and allows increased methane releases to the ocean. If sea floor temperature increases to some critical point (where the zone of methane hydrate stability has a depth of zero from the ocean floor), massive releases could occur. Considering that methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 and that there are considerable deposits of methane hydrates under the ocean floors, this is probably the larger concern.
Since methane and CO2 take time to heat the atmosphere there will be a considerable delay time. By the time that significant results are seen, the global warming effect will have achieved enough power that cutting all human added greenhouse gases to zero will not be able to reverse the spiral of destruction that global warming will bring.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
"Simple statistics shows that it's hardly unusual"
/ ann/ann03.html ). There is reasonable (though disputed) evidence to show the 20th century as the warmest of the millenium (Mann study).
Do you really think that climate change science is based on a few anecdotes? That there aren't statisticians working in this field?
There is significant work being done looking at global average temperatures, looking at global extreme weather events, looking at el nino/la nina incidence rates, looking at droughts, heat waves, etc. etc.
And certaintly for global average temperature, the evidence from land and ocean based measurements is very strong that the earth has been warming rapidly (oft cited statistic of 10 warmest years on record all coming since 1990 - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003
El nino/la nina incidence is certainly up (though possibly due to complex causes).
Data on extreme weather events vary: For examples, reported tornadoes are up, but we have better reporting, so who knows if actual tornado incidence is up. I believe that heat waves, hurricanes, droughts, and floods are all supposed to have had measured increases, but I'm not as sure about this as I am about the rest of the post os don't quote me.
And the people who care like insurance agencies (who have really good statisticians) believe in global warming - do a search on Munich Re and climate change...
In any case: we increase the concentration of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 50 to 130% (CO2 + CH4), and you don't expect this to have any impact??? Yes, temperature changes naturally, and to a certain extent we have to adapt to it. The worry is that if we apply enough forcing to the system, the temperature will change so rapidly as to cause major disturbances to our way of life.*
*Actually, mostly disturbances to the way of life of the third world. With irrigation, dyke building, air conditioning, etc. the US will probably be able to adapt with only minor disruptions. Though we will probably lose much of southern Florida at some point in the next 150 years...
Take a fucking science class.
Seriously. The proofs are there. The proofs are messy, and require actually learning things to understand, and aren't anything that can fit neatly and succinctly into a newsweek article or a slashdot comment. But the fact that you aren't willing to go out and *read* something so you know what the proof is doesn't mean you automatially the right to say that none exists.
There isn't some big smoking gun they found in the FBI basement or something. The "proof" is that information from a number of different disciplines of science, but mostly from atmospheric science, points in a consistent manner toward a certain conclusion. You want me to tell you what the specific evidence is? No. Either pay for your education like everyone else or go to a library. In the meanwhile I would like to respond to some specific misconceptions in what you have said.
First off, the issue isn't "it's raised 0.8 in the last 100 years". The issue is the *rate* of change. The issue is that if you look at a long-term graph, you find a lot of tiny, slow wobbles followed by a very sudden and sharp increase that begins at the beginning of the industrial revolution and continues steadily until now. We see the temperature fluctuating a LOT, and it's wobbled back and forth this point of warmth before. But it doesn't *seem* to have changed this quickly. This doesn't prove anything, but it should be the first indication something might be going on.
Second off, it doesn't have to be a large change to have radical and very unpleasant effects. Ever heard of El Nino? El Nino is a very, very, very small change in the temperature of the ocean out by California. Despite how small this is, though, it has incredibly dramatic effects on a huge variety of things, including the entire way in which rain systems move across North America. This is because the weather over North America is a very complex, touchy system where if you change one cause-- like the temperature of the pacific ocean-- just a little, you get drastically different behavior. The world is full of complex systems like this, and this is why global warming is worrying. It isn't like we're going to get suddenly up to 300 degrees and bake to death. But what we might get is something like the drought and fertile areas of the world rearranging themselves. Or, far more likely, a very small increase in world overall temperature would move the freezeline further north, allowing, say, malaria mosquitos to live in areas they never could before.
Third off, we do not *need* recorded records. We have recorded records going back 100 years, yeah. However, we have acceptably accurate proxy records from all over the world going WAY back from a variety of sources, and we have well enough to establish a solid baseline from. Now, given, the further back in this record you go the bigger the possible error gets, but it's still good enough for a number of things. This proxy data includes a wide variety of things from tree rings, to oxygen isotopes in fossils, to air trapped in glaciers. Each of these has a totally different and solid scientific reason why it can be trusted. And these different proxies are overwhelmingly in agreement about what the climate record looks like going back FAR, FAR further back than 100 years. You can say "oh, well how do we know the proxy data works". Well, we have different reasons to believe each proxy works, and if you want to say it doesn't you need to find some way to explain (1) why the scientific basis for that proxy is wrong and (2) if the proxies are wrong, for what reason do they agree?
Lastly, the ice age thing was based on an unreasonable methodology. It was basically certain people looking at a graph of the last really long block of time and seeing that the temperature of the earth got into a cycle of slowly rising, then falling abruptly, then slowly rising, then falling abruptly. They then said, hey, if it did this in the past, it will probably do it in the future. They then rea
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
This is not true. You can look at the atmospheric CO2 concentrations before and after any major eruption in the last 50 years (the time during which CO2 has been continually monitored around the world) and see that the amount of CO2 you are talking about was not released into the atmosphere.
Over the past 100 years, fossil fuel burning has released somewhere around 170 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. If a volcanic eruption released this much carbon, it would increase the CO2 concentration from 360 parts per million to 440 parts per million. That didn't happen.
You can also go back 500,000 years using glacial ice cores and see that the CO2 concentration never approached its current value during that time, even though there were many portions of that time span during which volcanic activity was much greater than it is today.
Also, water vapor is a more effective greenhouse substance than CO2
But the concentration of water vapor is limited by the saturation vapor pressure. If I dump a whole lot of water vapor into the atmosphere, the excess will precipitate out. The residence time of a water vapor molecule is quite short.
On the other hand, CO2 is not a vapor at room temperature, it's a gas. Its atmospheric residence time is much longer, so CO2 emitted today will be around for 50-100 years.
Finally, becauee small warming caused by increased CO2 causes the saturation vapor pressure of water vapor to rise, the water vapor effect amplifies the effect of CO2, causing approximately double the warming we would see with CO2 alone. This has been experimentally verified in studies of the troposphere following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
Finally, I would point out that chemical analysis of glacial ice cores demonstrates that over the past 500,000 years, whenever CO2 concentrations were high, temperatures were high. Whenever CO2 concentrations were low, temperatures were low. During ice ages, CO2 concentrations were exceptionally low. During interglacial periods, CO2 concentrations were high.
Today, CO2 concentrations are about 30% higher than they were during any time in that 500,000 year record. Because the oceans take a long time to heat up, we will not see the full warming due to the current CO2 concentration for many decades, but it is a great stretch to assume that the mechanisms that regulated the ice ages will suddenly stop working and fail to deliver substantial warming over the next century.
The Giant Canada Goose was considered extinct decades...until some were found around Rochester, Minnesota. Why were they there? A power plant pond in the city was kept warm all winter, providing a haven which some birds rarely left. The flocks which now clutter suburban grasslands are probably from those Rochester city geese which were willing to live among humans and cars. The birds which stayed away from cities died.
Also remember that we've had several glacial periods recently on this planet. 15,000 years ago the land where I live was frozen. I'm living in an environment which appeared recently -- first after the glacier left. The most recent significant change has been from the grassland prairie to an urban forest. I've heard more complaints about preserving these trees than about burning them and restoring the prairie here as it was a mere hundred years ago.