So, what are we going to do about it? Plant tons of trees?

Probably noting in the short term... anything that's expensive to respond to, treads on vested interests and won't materialize for a while isn't going to be taken seriously. When things start to materialize some form of drastic global climate engineering will be resorted to at the last moment.

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

>>8294196
Go suck a dick you retarded cunt.
There are so many horrifying pollutants and you stupid bastards cry about carbon dioxide and "muh climate change".

How about you swallow a bunch of seeds and shoot yourself you stupid fucker, this way you'll have zero emissions.

>>8294196
>So, what are we going to do about it?
Ignore it until it goes away.

When 2100 appears people will laugh in the face of the fucking idea as we'll have better models and observations to totally demolish the retarded concept that contemporary hypothesises peddle.

aren't all climate models de facto speculative when it comes to the endgame?

>>8294266
>>8294673
flatlanders >>>/x/

>>8294683
yes. We can barely predict the average weather for 2 weeks. The climate is extremely complex and chaotic.

>>8294691
kys

Artifical photosynthesys, store a gained material in tank, get it for spaceships so we can escape, meanwhille build snowboard halls and powercells.

>>8294196

Why do you want the planet to be so green and pretty? Are you an athiest commie hippy muslim or something?

Make an army of drones fitted with paintball guns that can shoot tree seeds into the ground.
Send them out over a deforested area and plant that shit.

File: Overshoot.gif (17KB, 440x489px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 440x489px

Climate change is only one factor leading to ecosystem degradation and potential collapse, beside from increasing absolute quantities of material needed to maintain an increasing population over the long term (inorganic fertiliser depletion etc), the phenological shifts accompanying a changing climatic system on a global scale, are just one of the many pressures straining the carrying capacity. With many of the current chains of interaction (natural and man made ecosystems) being without historical precedent in type or magnitude.

>>8296326
>ecosystem degradation and potential collapse
I am studying ecology. I wonder what you mean with this, I find it extremely subjective.
Usually what are called degraded ecosystems are different or depauperate compared to the original ecosystem but I don't see them as non-functioning.

I can think of only one ecosystem that did sort of collapse and it was the Sahara which used to be greener. But even the Sahara is a functioning ecosystem.

I personally think climate change is a bigger threat to humans as non-humans as we are much more sedentary and it potentially threatens our crops.

When it comes to species we certainly will see a bunch of losers but we are also and already witnessing winners. Secretly I am kind of glad for climate change as ice ages have been really destructive to Europa's flora. At least as I understood if it was not for climate change we might have another ice age.

But I do worry, especially if we let climate change go out of hand. The feedback loops and so on.

What I find ironic is how nature conservationists are pushing for rewilding with large herbivores, getting more methane in the air, instead of opting for forestation (ecological boring perhaps, but hey).

If I got something wrong please let me know.

>>8294266
someone has issues ...

>>8294683
>de facto speculative
>endgame
moar buzzwords fgt pls

>>8296346
In Australia there's a fair few bad situations already, worst mammal extinction rate in the world, severe salinity issues in the Murray-Darling basin which is an important agricultural area (not quite the Aral sea though), mangrove clearing with the potential to impact fisheries, and I've studied a bit of urban ecology in particular and I see the anthropogenic and natural division as kind of arbitrary, the widespread establishment of various introduced species worldwide. And I didn't mean to downplay climate change, just point out that it's a more complex issue in general.

>>8296373
*the widespread establishment of various introduced species worldwide are now seemingly permanent fixtures, similar in a way to the Great American Interchange.

and I have heard some good things about European populations of lynx, wolverine, wolf and bear increasing.

>>8296346
>>8296346
>What I find ironic is how nature conservationists are pushing for rewilding with large herbivores

This is probably more common than i'm aware of, but here the push is more towards culling large feral mammals and reforestation, piecemeal though. The lowering of the water table from deforestation is also a problem here and is exacerbating the soil salinity issues, those feedback loops..

>>8296373
I come from the Netherlands and any original nature we had is gone.

From what I know Australia changed drastically in a short period. I just finished a book that talked about Aboriginals shaping the landscape using fire. Add to that novel species, changed landscape use and so on. Even hooves are novel.

I can see how one would call land that becomes less usable degraded. I am less fond of applying it to non-humans as there are both winners and losers. Even in Australia you had native winners: crocodiles, forest and (thus) koalas increased after Aboriginal fire management stopped among more.

Though sometimes we can rightly assume it is worse. I think monocultures are one of the phenomenon when intervention is worthwhile.

To come back to Australia, it seems that the lack of burning makes natural fires worse.
>>8296380
>and I have heard some good things about European populations of lynx, wolverine, wolf and bear increasing.
More productive farming might make farmland into ecological deserts it also allows more nature.

I've read that wolves and bears partly rebounded because of trash. I find it interesting how the wolf adapts so greatly to anthropogenic habitats.

I am wondering if they can make the Netherlands their home. I feel golden jackals fit better, a species also expanding and growing.

But I also remind myself that it are farmers who have the most skin in the game. Ecologists are all too glad to have certain species but they are often not the ones caring the burden that some bring.

It is nice seeing that farmers are more tolerant of wildlife, at least here in the Netherlands, but I hope that it remains so.

I am starting to think that it isn't that bad to think anthropocentric in the sense of a functional nature as long as there is some room of natural autonomy.

I think that wanting to opt for original ecosystems might not always be that beneficial for the planet.

I must say reading all that ecology gives me a lot of headaches.

>>8296419
I just wrote a big response out but accidentally deleted it, the quick summary would be, The erosion and stream turbidity from hooved animals is actually quite significant.

That there is still controlled burning being done, but not to the extent or familiarity from 10's of thousands of years of living here.

I agree that monocultures are far from ideal.

Often the generalist species benefit disproportionately from urbanisation.

And there are forests of non-native camphor laurel here that are providing habitat for natural species being impacted by habitat loss and fragmentation, and I agree that not all the impacts from introduced species are negative.

and it definitely is a topic with a few difficult implications.

>>8296449
native species*

ggg

Does anyone know which trees are the best?

According to my teachers bog (English names are confusing so I hope I got this right) is actually better at capturing CO2 than forests.

File: 56432632134.png (42KB, 1113x778px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1113x778px

>>8296488
I'm not sure how it compares to bog (peat swamp), but mangroves are definitely up there.

>>8296488

mangroves and other wetland environments are absolutely crucial as natural filters and carbon sinks

also support large biomass of fish and purify drinking water

>>8296256
Id like to come back to this because with the rise of sophisticated drone and quad copters and the like, it's something that is certainly becoming feasible

Just dragoon Brazil into sending a fleet of them in the wake of the slash and burn cattle ranchers or whatever

>>8296419
God made the world, but the Dutch made the Netherlands

>>8296256
Most forest will regrow unless you fucked up the soil. Why do you think sowing seeds is necessary?

As an ecologist I prefer seeds over planting though. It is mostly for aesthetic reasons tho.

Also it is interesting how in some parts of the world reforestation or to be more correctly forestation is seen as a problem, of course it has a reason because the ecologists want the original ecosystem with its species.

This happens in South Africa with the beautiful fynbos (I think with both non-native and native tree species, since fynbos needs fire to exist) and in the United States with native juniper. In New Zealand it happens on former sheep grazing land, tussock grassland, with non-native pines and firs.

Did you guys know that North-America used to have less forest but after the disease killed the Indians much land returned to forest? I even read of it causing the little ice age but I am unsure of that.

>>8296645
It goes the other way around too. If it wasn't for all that peat we wouldn't have the golden age. At least that's what teachers taught me.

Move coastal cities a few dozen miles inland and hope for the best. At this point we're just going to have to take it

So I gave some examples of forest increasing, be it they are not wanted, are there any examples of regions in which tree growth will be impossible?

I imagine the taiga will increase as well by the way - right?

>>8296715
Well aridification and salinisation in various regions would impact impact the potential for tree growth.

If we changed how we farmed and ranched. Then the soil and grasses would recover. Soaking up a significant amount of carbon.

Right now, industrial farming practices basically render soil a sterile growth medium for plants.

grass and brush lands developed in the presence of huge herds of herbivores. herds that would chomp down and mash down the plants. leaving behinds urine and feces to improve the soil. the matted down and chomped plants covered the soil from sun and eliminated dead vegetation. Which created moist soils ready for new plant growth. This is an easy fix though. We just have to herd cattle in tight groups and move them around more. To simulate the ancient herds that were moving from predators and to new grazing land.

>>8298248
>huge herds of herbivore
Methane is worse. How do you respond?

I honestly fear the worst
I think it's inevitable for us to go through some sort of extinction event

>>8298621
>I honestly fear the worst
>I think it's inevitable for us to go through some sort of extinction event
I come from an ecology background and this kind of thinking is not uncommon within environmentalists. But what makes you think so?

I consider myself a pessimist as opposed to the techno-optimists but pessimist in the sense of a lot of potential suffering, not human extinction or some kind of post-apocalyptic scenario.

That reminds me, I always thought it was funny how post-apocalyptic movies (Mad Max, the Road) and games (Fallout, Rage) lack nature but have a lot of humans. There should be a lot more greenery actually.

1) Kill off everyone in Africa, China, the Middle East, India, and everything south of the US in the Americas.

2) The remaining world focuses on adapting sustainable permaculture practices while developing fusion and effective space travel for asteroid mining.

>>8298629
I'm not one of those Guy McPherson types if that's what you're thinking.
I come from a paleontology/geology backround and my first feelings of dread about all of this came when I looked at what sort of things lead to mass extinctions in earth's history. To give one example, there are several well known big extinction pulses in the late Devonian who correlate with the first appearance of vascular plants with a growth of more than 30cm. That's when I thought to myself: if the growth of primitive plants can result in one of the biggest mass extinction events in geologic history, what might be possible for an unprecedented superpredator of global proportions like ourselves?
it's almost scientifically uncontroversial among paleontologists that we're on the verge of a new extinction event, immediately following the Quarternary extinction that wiped out almost all of the megafauna. And there's a good possibility that stratigraphers will declare the Holocene to have ended and a new series (Anthropocene) to have begun (this will likely happen in 2020 when the new edition of "Geologic Time Scale" will be published).

>>8298648
>I'm not one of those Guy McPherson types if that's what you're thinking.
I did not associate you with anything yet. I am very curious how people who aren't in the world of ecology or environmentalism see things.

I do however associate ecology or environmentalism with a more pessimistic outlook. There's even a particular brand of environmentalists that think a societal collapse would be beneficial for both humans and nature.
>And there's a good possibility that stratigraphers will declare the Holocene to have ended and a new series (Anthropocene) to have begun (this will likely happen in 2020 when the new edition of "Geologic Time Scale" will be published).
I check out a fella named Erle Ellis often, the Anthropocene is his thing. So I am very aware of it.

My own idea is that climate change will cause a lot of trouble in vulnerable regions, that we could see local collapses but that overall humanity muddles through.

As for plants and animals, I think the tropics will get worse but when it comes to Europe I am more positive.

I have great interest in urban environments, brown fields, old-fields, something like Chernobyl and so forth and it makes me positive that nature can recover.

Hope to see more /sci/entists from different backgrounds give their insights.

>>8298639
US people multiplying like rabbits, and
consuming 10x resources more per person
than the rest of the world
kys, amerifat pos

>>8296106
>We can't predict what the result of a coin flip will be
>Therefore anyone who tells you the number of heads and tails will be equal in the long run is a liar
You people are so dumb.

Oh look, it's this thread exactly copied:

http://veekyforums.com/thread/8294196/science/so-what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it-plant-tons-of.html

>>8298665
I can't predict what you'll do tomorrow but you're sure to still be a faggot 50 years from now.

>>8298660
>heads
this, killing 300 million americans will be better than killing 3-4 billion other people. Plus the obesity, diabetes and gun crime numbers will plummet.

I vote to kill the fatties. It's the best option.

>>8298672
Why not tax?
Of course that would work better in Europe than in the United States. I know that taxing is highly controversial within the USA.

>>8294196
nothing

climate will always change and currently it looks like it is changing in a good direction

>>8298656
>I do however associate ecology or environmentalism with a more pessimistic outlook.

sure that makes sense, if you weren't skeptical you'd exploit the potential out of the resources rather than being hesitant. because if you have no fears, it makes no sense to leave them untapped.

>There's even a particular brand of environmentalists that think a societal collapse would be beneficial for both humans and nature.

the concern is that society will drag the whole nature down with them and cause more long-term destruction this way for the future. man is very sophisticated, with things like nuclear it is clear we can no longer rely on us being ineffectual enough to be benign only by that.

>>8298769
>the concern is that society will drag the whole nature down with them and cause more long-term destruction this way for the future.
I think mankind is capable of bringing down a lot of species but the whole of nature seems a very unlikely scenario. If I remember correctly even after several mass-extinctions biodiversity has been increasing and increasing.

I do agree that the downfall of humans could be very destructive to nature. But it makes it kind of strange for some people to wish for it, no?

>>8298665
Chaotic non-linear systems are not ergodic.

>>8298639
That first part what I came to post, but leave the America's and Europe alone.

>>8294196

die

>>8294196
> implying there is a "we"

>So, what are we going to do about it?
probably die

>>8299075
That doesn't respond to the point. And it's irrelevant to climatology as well.

>>8294196
carbon capture, power to gas, synthetic fuels.

the carbon economy will become real but it won't be as bad as people think.

File: Weather is Chaotic.png (157KB, 619x460px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 619x460px

>>8299398
>That doesn't respond to the point.
> I don't know what ergodic means.
Flipping a coin is trivially ergodic so that you know in the long run you'll have 50% heads and 50% tails. Its a path-independent process. However, weather is chaotic which means it is path dependent (not ergodic). For example along one possible path you may get a severe hurricane. Along another you don't. Now sense climate is the mean value of the weather over time, you should get the same number of hurricanes in either scenario. But you don't. Generalizing means that climate is path-dependent and you don't know what future path you're going to take. Therefore, you can't predict climate.

>>8299414
This is a fairly nuanced strawman but still a strawman. If climatology was primarily a physical or thermodynamical science you would be correct. But climatology is primarily a statistical science. We are not trying to solve the climate system, we are trying to model its statistics. This is achievable regardless of whether the climate as a whole is ergodic because at least certain parts of it show ergodic behavior. For example, the cyclicity of the seasons. This can be summed up well in the rest of the quote which you selectively ignored:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential."

Oh, and by the way, hurricanes are weather, moron.

>>8299476
*hurricanes are predictable, moron.

>>8299503
>*hurricanes are predictable, moron.
"Butterfly effect" idiot.

>>8299514
Yeah I saw that movie too

>>8299476
>If climatology was primarily a physical or thermodynamical science you would be correct.
>But climatology is primarily a statistical science
Statistical "Science." Good luck applying statistics to a non-ergodic system. What's the mean value of the temperature going to be in 50 years? What's the variance going to be in 50 years?

You've begun to engage in projection, using the term "strawman" while saying certain aspects of climate are predictable. Like the seasons. That, of course is a strawman, because the seasonal cycle is completely irrelevant and because you gave no substantive examples of predictable aspects of real world climate that are relevant to climate change.

>>8299543
It's already been done. The fIeld of climatology exists and has successful models. No amount of sticking your fingers in your ears changes that. The idea that non-ergodic systems cannot be statistically modeled is baseless and empirically false. If it were true then the seasons would not be predictable. So your argument is disproved. Now what you should do is attempt to argue that global temperature cannot be predicted.

File: El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation.png (150KB, 696x624px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 696x624px

>>8299543
>predictable aspects of real world climate that are relevant to climate change

How about intensification of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation?

Long terms shifts in phenology of many species showing sustained movements in distribution indicative of a warming climate?

File: images.jpg (32KB, 406x362px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 406x362px

>>8294196
Plant a tree instead of a tombstone.
>Forest is better than graveyard.

>>8294196
Grow metric fucktons of algae then compress them and drop them to the bottom of the ocean

File: Alien-Processor3.jpg (10KB, 356x193px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 356x193px

Atmospheric Processors
>its the only way to be sure

File: deforestation-1.jpg (264KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1200x675px

>>8296650
>Most forest will regrow
...in two hundred years
>forestation is seen as a problem
...but deforestation is just fine.
>North-America used to have less forest
O RLY

>>8300085

w..what did they mean by this?

>>8300947
>...in two hundred years
Where you got that from?
>...but deforestation is just fine.
NO. But if we really wanted more forest we could make it happen.
>O RLY
There are a lot of people who still think that the nature that colonists found was there all along and not a result of Indians dying by the thousands.

>>8300990
>But if we really wanted more forest we could make it happen.

Reforestation have been an ongoing effort in a lot of first world countries for over a hundred years. Nations like denmark was on the brink of ecological disaster with forest levels at less than 1% and erosion and desertification ongoing. Today they're at 10% or so in forest cover.

Thank to the industrial revolution, fossil fuels and forest management practices we have 10 times more people and ten times more forests.

But of course the enviromemers are still going to try to blame modern man and high tech society for deforestation and somehow suggest that going back to primitive living where we chop down the forest for firewood to cook and heat with is the solution to all mankinds problems.

File: 100 percent failure rate.png (111KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1440x1080px

>>8299915
>has successful models.

200+ models and every single one of them a failure. What kind of success are you talking about?

>>8301004
Note this is just for the sake of the topic and not necessarily a reply to you.
>desertification ongoing.
In the Netherlands ecologists recreate desertification. I know they do it for rare plants, insects and reptiles but it still feels kind of wrong. In this case not so much that it could be a forest but that one is recreating a habitat that is essentially degraded.

We have many such projects were forest is kept from growing so hence I state that forestation can be done if we really want. And I know of similar stuff in other countries. I think I've even read that parts of the great plains is turning into a forest because of lack of fire and grazing.

Note not saying that it ought or should be done since in most cases it means loss of certain species, but what I am saying is that if we had no choice we could.

I do not know that much about tropical areas. Only of former agricultural lands in Puerto Rico turning into forest again and specifically by non-native trees acting as a nursery.
>somehow suggest that going back to primitive living where we chop down the forest for firewood to cook and heat with is the solution to all mankinds problems.
I suggest environmentalists to learn about Haiti and the Dominican republic. Picture related.

Anyway I am not knowledgeable enough on whatever forestation helps to mitigate climate change enough, just saying that if it would and if it was necessary it could be possible, be it at a cost.

I personally wish that there wasn't such dislike of nuclear energy. I myself am not fond of the personal car but wouldn't be surprised if that had benefits for the environment too (by uncoupling).

File: haiti-dominican-republic-border.jpg (162KB, 1024x926px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1024x926px

>>8301061
Forgot the picture, here it goes.

File: CMIP5.jpg (108KB, 953x649px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 953x649px

>>8301010
>every single one of them a failure
A later run showed one single exception (INM-CM4), a Russian model. Source: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf
"Even if climate models were correct, a 50% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would avert only 0.07°C of warming by 2100."

>>8296502
Shouldn't marine phytoplankton be more efficient and a more rapid carbon sink than mangroves?

>>8298639
Fuck off back to /pol/

>>8301010
Where is the uncertainty in the models and data? Without them the graph does not show discrepancy between the models and data because it does not accurately represent them.

Also, showing that some models have failed does not respond to the point that climatology has successfull models. It is in fact necessary that most of the models in your graph would fail since many of them are the same model with different initial conditions, but only one set of initial conditions is correct. Additionally, by focusing on the TMT, you ignore all the successful models that describe global surface temps, ocean heat content, sea levels, etc.

>>8300085
Not a very effective sequestering method, that. It'll be better to just bury it deep within the driest desert there is. Probably the Atacama.

>>8301308
Well, the models are fabricated so they didn't feel any uncertainty was needed, they were producing true facts after all.

>>8294266
Fucking nigger. The problem with global warming is that if the temperature goes up, even by a minuscule amount such as 0.5 Celsius, then all life on the planet could die.

Reminder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

(interview starts at 2:55)

>>8301369
Ah I see we've reached the limits of your memegraphs and cherrypicked quotes folder.

>>8294196
Nothing, agriculture is booming as a result of increased CO2 and temperature increase.

Plants love this climate change, remember that circa 100 million years ago it was much warmer than even global warming predictions are set to take us in the next 100 years. The average global temp was 75F at one point. Its 60 now...

>>8301391
shhh don't make climate change fags feel uncomfortable. He's obviously another "denier".

>>8301404
Yes of course there will be no consequences in reversing a change in temperature that took previously took hundreds of millions of years in only a few centuries. And everyone knows that humans were doing so well 100 million years ago anyway. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

>>8301391
Reminder: Dyson has no idea what he's talking about

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html?m=1

>>8301404
What about all the methane under the permafrost?

What about densely populated areas becoming potentially inhabitable?

What about agricultural lands potentially becoming less productive or not productive at all?

I am more worried about humans than nature and that comes from someone studying ecology.

>>8301425
that blogpost is so shitty i'm pretty sure it's your own. I read the original Dyson's interview and he said nothing wrong.

>>8301433
Great response. Really convinced everyone with those rock solid counterarguments.

>>8301382
hahaha I hope this is bait or at least I hope you're underage.

I shitpost too (ie CTs don't cause cancer, 500mSv are safe etc) but your level of shitposting is either too high or too low.

>>8301429
>What about all the methane under the permafrost?
Thawing out is a slow process and methane is cleared out of the atmosphere in a few decades. If temperatures spike hard enough to cause mass thawing it will burn us to crisps from the spike that precedes the thawing.

>What about densely populated areas becoming potentially inhabitable?

If they can't build a seawall at a rate of 5mm per year then fuck them. Cities have risen and fallen and relocated several time in history so having to move wouldn't be unprecedented.

>What about agricultural lands potentially becoming less productive or not productive at all?

They are becoming more productive due to high levels of CO2. Longer seasons in addition would be a fantastic boon to agriculture.

>>8301487
Thanks for the answers.
>They are becoming more productive due to high levels of CO2.
We surely will lose some farmland, right? But I can imagine it doesn't matter much because productivity goes up and maybe new land becomes available.
>Cities have risen and fallen and relocated several time in history so having to move wouldn't be unprecedented.
But I am worried about potential immigrants. Where do they need to go? And I imagine social unrest increasing if immigration would increase once again.

As I am not exactly fond of /pol/ ideology. But I also do think that immigration has its issues. I think it would be quite scary if whole regions would be displaced. Not sure if it will, but hey.

>>8301516
>We surely will lose some farmland, right?
Why?

> I am worried about potential immigrants. Where do they need to go?

10 minutes further inland and they'll have three decades to do so. Or up a few meters to get a good margin. Assuming it's rising waters they're fleeing.

>>8301542
>Why?
Desertification? Drought? Floods? Though now I am feeling it is more a matter of soil.
>Assuming it's rising waters they're fleeing.
You don't think there's other climatic changes that make regions less hospitable?

File: bait.outta.10.jpg (46KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x800px

>>8301516

wtf /sci/ is this bait?

>whole regions will be displaced, low lying indo-pacific islands are copping it already

>high CO2 --> ocean acidification = goodbye fish stocks, reefs, life sustaining ecosystem processes

>oceanic temperature spike catalyzing mass thawing can definitely occur while ambient air temperature remains close to current temp
>in fact it has happened before
>google please 'siberian traps event'
>last time the result was called 'the great dying'

the ocean is a fkin massive carbon and heat sink

>global warming
>should be called ocean warming

>>8301442
I don't think you have any idea how fragile the ecosystem is. For example of krill go extinct then half of the marine species will go extinct as well. If bees go extinct then so do half the land animals and plants.

>>8301568
the PT extinction methane release was due to biological sources of methane, not thawing. The latter was concluded to be over a magnitude too slow to ever play a role in an extinction event.

The rest of your post is equally bullshit, next time you might add niburu and the lizard NWO to it as the degree of hysterics surrounding something seems to be equated to fact in your tiny mind.

>>8301579

lmfao

this is absolutely incorrect, but not willing to argue with brainlet over well-established scientific consensus

>geology major detected

>>8301568
????
I am possible a fucking imbecile but why is your reply directed to me? I am just asking stuff, if anything I should be the one getting baited.
>google please 'siberian traps event'
>last time the result was called 'the great dying'
I know these events but will recheck them anyway.
>>8301576
>For example of krill go extinct then half of the marine species will go extinct as well. If bees go extinct then so do half the land animals and plants.
Ecosystems do not collapse like that. You seem to be thinking of the honey bee which is not the only pollinator. Do you have anything to back up your claims?

Even if all pollinators were go to extinct, wind pollination plant species would persist and this will still allow several species to survive.
Maybe you would be right that if all pollinators would go extinct half the land animals and plants would go too. But it would take all pollinators not just bees.

I do not know enough about ocean ecology. It seems more likely that if krill would go extinct many marine species would go extinct too. In fact there is a lot I don't know, so enlighten me. I thought the purpose of /sci/ was learning.

But maybe I should stay away from /sci/ and for science stick to asking questions on related subreddits.

>>8301640

wrong anon, my apologies old boy

>ecosystems do collapse like that when you are referring to crucial trophic links like krill

not terrestrial biologist so cannot say whether bees can be ecologically replaced

but krill absolutely cannot... in this instance, yes that is exactly how ecosystems collapse

>>8294196
It would require a global effort, which means bringing developing nations like China and India on board, which won't be easy because of the appeal of cheap fossil fuels.

>>8301650
>not terrestrial biologist so cannot say whether bees can be ecologically replaced
>but krill absolutely cannot... in this instance, yes that is exactly how ecosystems collapse
Ok I believe you since I know a lot more of terrestrial ecology.

Where you talking of bee species in general? That makes the difference.

Flies, beetles, butterflies and moths are all pollinators. I have no clue which species is the most important, who knows it could be bees.

I actually read a book on pollination some time ago.

>>8294673
>When 2100 appears people will laugh in the face of the fucking idea

Actually, they will probably be wondering why we allowed several trillion dollars worth of damage to be done because we didn't take preventative measures.

>>8301661
>Did you hear that they wanted to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on crazy shit in addition to destroying the global economy in the early 2000s to combat some magic change in climate and environment that they couldn't even model?

>Yes grandpa, the great environmentalist mass-psychosis is mentioned every time a topic touches on critical thinking and the importance of rational analysis in the face of alarmist clickbait.

t. 2100

>>8294673
Haha you're incredibly naive. Even if you ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus, does it really seem rational to your likes that all the changes humans brought to the biosphere after the industrial revolution, has had no impact whatsoever on the climate?

>>8301752
Changes in land use have affected climate. Local and regional climate in particular. That started to happen when we figured out agriculture.

The CO2 boogeyman is just that, a scary tale to tell children so they get environmentally concerned.

>>8301763

>what is ocean acidification
>what is reef ecology
>what are reef based foodwebs

where does food come from

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

>>8301802
>what is ocean acidification
A meme disaster based on the CO2 boogeyman. CO2 levels have been magnitudes higher in prehistoric time and we still find shells as fossils. Historic PH measurements of ocean water also show large variability in both directions.

>what is reef ecology
A field populated by doomsday prophets whose pessimistic predictions are constantly proven wrong by actual reef observations. Damaged reefs recover in years, not decades. Dead reefs that are predicted to recover in 100 years do it in 10. Corals that are supposed to die from ph changes are found near water runoff and thriving in pH that the prediction say is fatal. And then of course there's the completely clueless idiots that say the coral reefs are millions of years old and permanent fixtures of the earth, when in fact the great barrier reef for example was ON LAND around 10k years ago.

>what is other memes.

Alarmism. If anything was as finely tuned and fragile and sensitive as suggested then nature would've already wiped it out. Tsunamis, impactors, ice ages, volcanism or just a short term fluke of weather and climate would've toasted it long ago.

200 years ago we had the Year Without Summer, according to modern climate doctrine that would've killed all life on earth irreversibly, yet on the grand scale of shit that have happened it was nothing, and everything recovered and shrugged it off.

As you're clearly thinking of this all as a FAITH I suggest you sacrifice yourself through self immolation to the climate meme god to appease him.

>>8294196
NUCLEAR

File: download.jpg (6KB, 258x195px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 258x195px

>>8301842

you are amazing

>i love GW denialists

i'm imagining you furrowing your little brow in anguish and pushing your glasses up the ridge of your nose while sweating profusely and typing at warp speed whilst writing this

>you are referring to acroporas and other resilient / competitive / adaptie genus
>one coral is the same as all corals though

acroporas are even starting to appear in sydney harbour now, so no worries right?

>muh reef is saved
>what is lizard island
>what is bleaching event of 2016

anon probably thinks those shilling scientists at GBRMPA and CSIRO are misreporting statistics to keep those big paychecks they receive

>bette willis is laughing all the way to the bank in her new ferrari

kekathon

>environmental factors have fluctuated before
>faunal assemblages have fluctuated with them

key difference: now we depend on these faunal assemblages

>'anon youre an alarmist, things have fluctuated before so therefore future fluctuations cant affect my livelihood'
>woah.jpg

>>8301842
>If anything was as finely tuned and fragile and sensitive as suggested then nature would've already wiped it out.

99% of all species are extinct. Nature has wiped them out.

>>8302005
BREEZY

>>8302428
>Nature has wiped them out.
Over the past 150 years, virtually all species
that have become extinct did so because of
habitat destruction, ecosystem conversion,
and predation. Guess who did all that.
Protip: it wasn't "Nature".

>>8301404
>agriculture is booming as a result of...
...selection and nurture by farmers.
>100 million years ago it was much warmer...
...and there were no people. You sentimentalists
may want to take that into consideration.

>>8301425
>Dyson has no idea what he's talking about
..but unlettered blogger does have.
Riiight.

>>8301004
>But of course the deniers are still going to try
>to evade blame for what modern man and high
>tech society have done, and somehow suggest
>that any other course of action means going
>back to primitive living
That is the "two-choice" scenario being pushed
by the corporazi, and swallowed whole by the
denialists who feel muh freedumbs and muh
demockery threatened by sustainable resource
management.

>>8300990
>>...in two hundred years
>Where you got that from?
I have walked through the meagre second-growth
forests of Pennsylvania and New York, where
the old-growth was cut down two hundred years
ago. What have you done?

>>8301004
>ten times more forests
That is such a blatant lie that it would be
laughable if it were not so tragic.

>>8302853
And yet you still haven't responded to the argument.

>>8302835

Humanity is a part of nature. We are still animals, and behave accordingly. We simply have an adaptation unique to the animal kingdom.

We are not outside the laws of physics or 'reality', we are still a part of nature, not separated or above it.

During the End Permian, there were no humans. 83% of all genera at the time went extinct. The likely culprit for the Permian Mass Extinction was a feedback loop coming out of an ice age (Late Paleozoic Ice Age) caused by increased volcanic activity, particularly the release of large quantities of CO_2 from the Viluy/Siberian Traps.

We are pumping CO_2 into the atmosphere as the Earth is coming out of an Ice Age. We may or may not be a major contributor to climate change in our time. Just like any period of time in the past, life will adapt or go extinct, just as it always has from environmental stressors. We are not special, this is not a new phenomena, and I would bet that even if humanity goes extinct, the Earth will keep on spinning, and life will keep on breathing.

>>8302893
We know for a fact we are currently the make major contributor. And if you don't care about humanity hurting itself then you definitely shouldn't care about humanity saving itself.

File: Radiative-forcings.png (138KB, 2000x1600px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 2000x1600px

>>8302893
> We may or may not be a major contributor to climate change in our time.

We most certainly are the major contributor to climate change in our time.

>We are not special, this is not a new phenomena, and I would bet that even if humanity goes extinct, the Earth will keep on spinning, and life will keep on breathing.

>It doesn't matter if you get your head blown off by a shotgun blast because there are people who will not get their heads blown off by a shotgun blast.

How comforting.

>>8302893
>Humanity is a part of nature. We are still animals, and behave accordingly. We simply have an adaptation unique to the animal kingdom.

This is such a poor argument. And what the hell is it supposed to mean anyway? That conservation is pointless because some gook's superstition that rhino horns will make them horny, is more important? We have the power to stop the vast majority of these extinctions, ESPECIALLY the senseless ones like the rhinos.

File: Relative_sea_level_rise_in_Miami_is_2.3_mmyr_since_1931.png (181KB, 750x571px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 750x571px

>>8301680
>t. 2100

I miss Florida

>>8302885
>responded to the argument
There is an "argument"?
No, there are unfounded claims, unsupported
statements, unreasonable accusations, and
unthinking knee-jerk reactions. Those do not
constitute an "argument".

>>8302893
>We simply have an adaptation unique
>to the animal kingdom.
What you're trying (and failing) to describe
is "art", which is not unique to humans,
although we excel at it. We take the natural
world and adapt it to what we desire. Other
species also do it ~ nestbuilding birds,
dambuilding beavers, etcetera ~ but nowhere
near the extent that we do.
>we are still a part of nature
Not so much over the past ten millennia,
and less so as time goes on. Step outside,
and look about once in a while.

>>8296326
Has there ever been a comparable magnitude of introduction of exotic species into novel environments, compared to the anthropogenic activities of the past 500 years?

>>8298668
Well played senpai

>>8302931
>2.3 mm/year

Oh noes, the world is going to sink into the sea.

>>8303229
Oh no, I know nothing more than memes on a topic.

we do nothing
its a test of patients
anything we do now could have effects much worse down the line

>lets just spray aerosols into the atmosphere
>lets suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere
juvenile knee jerk responses

>>8294196
I think we better get slowly rid of the biological depedence in human beings. Only cost-effective way to survive in the very long term.

>>8303238
>lets suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere

You mean balance emissions?

>>8303240
>>>/x/

>>8302877
>I have walked through the meagre second-growth
>forests of Pennsylvania and New York, where
>the old-growth was cut down two hundred years
>ago.
I know there is a big difference between old growth and second growth when it comes to biodiversity. But never in the discussion was it specified that we were talking of such.

All the time that I was speaking of forestation I was speaking of forestation alone. Heck when talking of old growth it might even take longer, but I was talking of forestation, not old growth.

I've walked through plenty of forests in the Netherlands. A lot are depauperate former plantations with conifers or beech forests with little to no undergrowth. No such thing as old growth here, all gone.

I've also been to a place in Germany where the soil was destroyed and saw the first pioneer species growing.

I do not like fellow ecologists downplay nature and reduce it to something that is only fragile.

And like others mentioned nature on its own can be destructive too. Europe lost a lot of its flora thanks to the ice age. We used to have hickories, sweetgums and sequoias in Europe.

It bothers me that this discussion has a tendency to resort to one side downplaying the impact man has on nature and the other side exaggerating the fragility of nature.

It is very hard to find nuance this way. But it is also to be expected from an anonymous board.
>>8303196
No that is unique. However invasions have happened by long distance ocean dispersal and there was for example the Great American Interchange.

I hope you are also aware tho that ecosystems don't move but species do. Many trees in North America and Europe haven't reached their climatic potential and have been together with other trees in the past.
I am saying this because some even talk of non-native species when they are from the same continent and possibly been together.

Not all non-native species are that damaging and the subject of non-native species also unfortunately lacks nuance.

>>8302893
The thing is, yeah, we probably wont damage earth so bad it wont be able to bear life anymore, its unlikely. But we can easily destroy ourselves and everything we are used to. So all that "save the climate" thing is more about saving us. Who will care about rhinos when humanity will step to the path of extinction? Its a good thing to help animals, but first we need to be sure nothing happens to us. And thats why smart people reasearch climate change and try to warn everybody that we are in trouble. Couse we can if not exctinc but to damage our habibtat and our society with it. And all our "satbility" will go away completely.

I mean, climate changes can easily bring us to the third world war just like this.

>>8303298
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=39m15s

>>8296256

I've had this exact same idea. Only I make the projectiles out of frozen water absorbing crystals and nutrients, with fibers to form a pykrete that could be shot into the soil several inches. Grant me some money please.

>>8296645

So there are roman records of the Netherlands having dykes which they flooded with sea water after a roman conquest of the area. How did they pump out the water 2000 years ago?

File: dead_earth_by_mob_mizuno.jpg (319KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1024x768px

>>8294196
We're fucked. Humanity is too stupid and arrogant to survive. We're damned dirty apes dressed in fancy clothes and little more.

When climate change begins to fuck crops and flood coasts civilization will begin to break down. Riots and wars will be the norm, and you can fucking bet the nukes will come out.

The vast majority of humanity will perish in the best case scenario.

What you do is say fuck it, don't have kids so as not to subject them to the inevitable shitstorm, and try to be happy and not too much of a dick.

>>8303724
No

>>8303726
Well in that case, take a blue pill.

Everything will be fine and work out. Technology and science will save us. We're fucked anyways, so if believing this makes you happy, go ahead!

If you cannot delude yourself, there is another blue pill you can take: religion. God will fix things, or at least you and those you love will have a wonderful afterlife.

If it's impossible for you to be religious, well then you've joined me in the comfy chair.

>>8303014
>Dyson makes baseless claims about a field he has no expertise in
>I give counterarguments
>no counterargument is given
So you admit Dyson is wrong. Good.

File: Miami_high_tide.jpg (386KB, 720x578px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 720x578px

>>8303229
>Oh noes, the world is going to sink into the sea.

Well yes.

>>8303270
>Not all non-native species are that damaging and the subject of non-native species also unfortunately lacks nuance.

I probably have a bit of bias due to a greater familiarity with the situation in Australia and New Zealand in terms of the impacts of non-native species.

>>8296106
>weather
>at all related to climate

Well, someone hasnt done any research.

>>8303773
>Being this retarded
Do you even realise what the enthalpy magnitude would be to fucking melt the whole south pole? That wouldn't rise the ocean so fucking much. And if it happened we all would be already trying not to die in a desertic-like 50+ºC temperature.
It doesn't make sense. And also, if the sea level rose, the CO2 levels would drop.
The trees absorb a 95% LESS (If I remember well from my biology book) CO2 than the fitoplanctom which sits on the ocean. Poblation which would rose if the sea volume increased.

>>8303773
Which matters more
The couple inches the seas have risen in the last century.

Or millions of tons of building material causing a coastal city to sink like 20 feet?

Think carefully before you respond

>>8304986
>The trees absorb a 95% LESS
A good deal of plants don't even net out to negative CO2 production.

>>8303270
>I was talking of forestation, not old growth.
It takes a lonnng time for clearcut forest
to restore itself, and the re-plantation done
by logging industry (here in USA) is a
monoculture of "tree farms", which are not
forest.

>>8304999
How does that "good deal" of plants
obtain carbon for growth?

>>8304999
What the fuck are you even talking about?

>co2 production

>>8304992
>Or millions of tons of building material causing a coastal city to sink like 20 feet?

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/sorry-daily-caller-sea-level-rise-is-real-and-miami-isnt-just-sinking-because-of-too-many-condos-8594225

>Think carefully before you respond

Go back to bed, Steve Goddard.

>>8303724
>the nukes will come out

it'll get going in the 2030's

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=39m15s

>>8305628
>it'll get going in the 2030's
Sure. Just like the UK stopped being a nation by 2000 due to "resources" running out, like the Ehrlich retard predicted.

This is the same manner of retarded predictions, just by a different retard prophet.

>>8303741
>>8303724

All I can see in my mind's eye when you post is that fat 10 year old in modern family every time he did his little 2deep4u cynical rebel forsaken fallen angel crawling in my skin gag

>>8305959
well whew it's solved then,
the shitposter has spoken,
and as usual, not a single argument
was given

>>8305982

you're real mature anon

>>8306123
My argument was that previous doomspeakers have said similar bullshit and repeatedly been not just wrong, but completely fucking wrong.

Your argument was "Look at this youtube video, a doomspeaker is saying the same fucking thing as the one proven wrong did 40 years ago! certainly This Time It's Different™"

Keep beating the dead horse if you want to be a gullible idiot.

>>8306123
>>8306850
Not only that but this video has literally been posted >>8305628 >>8303655 TWICE in this thread and in fact has been posted in EVERY climate thread on this board for months like it actually means something. The guy speaking isn't even a climatologist he's some Canadian military historian. I think it's less likely that Steven Goddard is posting at this point and ole gwynne is pushing his book. What's the matter sales dropped off so you have to shill on a slow ass Mongolian pottery scribbling board?

Climate chang is a complex issue being boiled down to two extremes "it's a hoax!" And "it's going to kill us all our hubris and there's nothing we can do the models were too conservative!" But in reality it's more likely somewhere in the middle and is likely to disrupt some places and help others but is not an unsolvable issue. And regardless RCP 8.5 was never meant to be "business as usual"

>>8305959
>Ehrlich predictions were inaccurate
>therefore all of science is inaccurate
fgt pls

>>8308150
All of it? I had no idea all of science agrees with this one guy 100% for certain

>>8306907
> likely somewhere in the middle
If what's going on in Syria and the refugee crisis is that, then yeah sure.
That's how it plays out in the real world.
Stay tuned.

>>8308156
>I had no idea
yes

>>8308167
so every scientist in the whole world agrees with this one guys views? like every single one?

>>8308166
>syria
even the guardian liberal rag doesnt buy that shit
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/climate-change-syria-civil-war-prince-charles

>>8304298
I could be biased the other way around, since Europe does not have the same problems as islands, Australia and New Zealand have. I cannot think of any species gone extinct in Europe thanks to non-native species.

The red squirrel almost by the grey squirrel, but the red squirrel seems to be particularly poorly adapted to broadleaf forest. I wonder if the ice age has anything to do with it since it fits much better in conifer forests.

Then there's the Canadian beaver in Finland and American mink in some places but they are also particular since they are the exact niche as the species they exclude (Eurasian beaver and European mink).

There's also crayfish. Which seems more complicated as native crayfish do not seem to do as well in polluted water and are vulnerable to disease.

It is usually more complicated. Even Australia and New Zealand did not have to cope with non-natives alone: changed fireregime in Australia, (over)grazing by sheep and cattle in both cases, and a lot of wood clearning in New Zealand.

There's a lot I don't know. When I say lack of nuance it means things are more complicated as the novel species alone and that some species are not as bad as they are claimed to be. Europe wants to exterminate the sacred ibis but what from I've read it does not pose such a large threat, see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849724