1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

What abrupt warming did, by one estimate

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by chogan2, Mar 24, 2013.

  1. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species | ThinkProgress

    I guess I should preface this with, three times in the last 300M years we've seen CO2 increases. But what's the point, it's like talking to the wall. We're at 10x the increase of the last natural experiment, and this (above) is the endpoint of that.

    We're at one order-of-magnitude faster than what killed 3/4 of species.

    Want to buy farmland in Kansas, anyone? Nova Scotia, I think, suits me better. Too
    little light at the arctic circle.
     
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    so what you are saying is in the past there was natural ghg that caused more extinctions than we think will happen today from man made ghg. That seems obvious, but again what is the point. Other things were happening in the past to accelerate extinctions. Today we have fences for breaking up the ecosystems.
     
  3. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    No, "more" rather than "fewer".

    So ... you think that fencing will save us? Or, more realistically, our grandchildren? Do tell.
     
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Fences cause segmentation of ecosystems -> more extinction. Polution + segmentation of ecosystems is much more of a driver of extinction than ghg today. That video of polar bears playing, that some film pretended was about extinction was a bald faced lie that violated any integrity.

    There were other things going on in the Triasic than man burning fossil fuel. Many theories but lower oxygen levels and massive change of tempearature where major factors in extinction.

    climate change is real. extinction is real. This is not the CT boundary though. I despise partial information pretending cause and effect. There is strong evidence of an asteroid, I guess me driving my prius will cause more asteroids hitting russia.:(
     
  5. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    "There were other things going on in the Triasic than man burning fossil fuel."

    Geez., let's try that again. If you increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere, rapidly, you get a rapid temperature increase and a rapid ocean acidificiation, And from that, a lot of species extinctions.

    The originally cited research was about atmospheric CO2 increase.

    Man-made, volcanoes, ... it doesn't make much difference.
     
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    A' is correlated with B
    Does not say if B->A

    No one has said that ghg alone caused the extinctions.

    Ask this question - "how many of the extinctions would happen if we cut down on ghg"? Almost all of them, and I worked on grants trying to determine this. Most extinctions are about loss of habitat, not ghg. Simply cuttting down on habitat, increased pollution, and natural varyblility will cause most of those extinctions that some pretend are about global warming.
     
  7. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    My gosh, if that's the level of your argument -- then READ THE DAMNED RESEARCH. Because, yes, the research is EXACTLY about the increase in GHG causing extinctions.

    As the MIT News release puts it:
    Some 200 million years ago, an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused acidification of the oceans and global warming that killed off 76 percent of marine and terrestrial species on Earth.
     
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Well yes, as someone that has done research in this area of current extinctions, I do think that reading some article on the internet does not make you an expert. In fact reading articles on the internet, and missing key things in them may actually make you less informed.

    Q1) was the only thing going on increased ghg, like today
    From casually reading, no, the situation was not at all like today, and neither were the spiecies.

    Q2) Is the research definative?

    I guess we have the strongest evidence according to one source for the extinction being caused by volcanoes, but this is hard to narrow down even to a million years, and was in a situation quite unlike today. Although that article does not mention it darkness from the volcanic activity and changes in oxygen levels levels on creatures that depended on it were also key parts theorized to have led to the extinction.
     
  9. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    Just like talking to a wall.

    Let me simplify.

    Of the five major mass extinctions on earth, how many were associated with rapid increase in atmospheric CO2?
    Five.

    Try it the other way. Of all the known episodes in the last half-billion years where there was a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2, how many of them are associated with mass extinction of (at least) marine life.
    All. (With some significant measurement uncertainty there.)

    Does the study of coral reefs strongly suggest buildup of atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to cause (i.e., is by itself an adequate explanation of) marine extinctions?
    Yes, eg., here:
    Earth's five mass extinction events


    Have I oversimplifed this?
    Sure.

    If this were some academic exercise, looking for a government grant, sure, play all up all that uncertainty. Blame marine extinctions on fences, if that's what the grant givers want to hear.

    By contrast, if we have to make some type of policy decision about fossil fuel use, I think it's adequate to say, if we continue doing what we're going, the most likely outcome appears to be a mass extinction event, for marine life at least. Based on the evidence in the geological record. Likely from the causative mechanism sketched out in that nice skepticalscience summary.

    That's not guaranteed. Nothing in the future is.

    And, obviously, instead of just having some informed scientists suggesting this, you'd like to have the consensus of informed scientific opinion give you some odds on that before acting on it.

    Oh, wait, we've already had that, haven't we?

    IPCC 4th report:

    ""Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."

    Ah, well, just because they assemble the world's experts and try to see what the consensus is, that doesn't mean we have to pay them any mind. And they only go as far as medium confidence and likely, which don't really mean much.

    All told, plenty of reason to sit back and do nothing. Just like talking to a wall.
     
  10. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Here is the response from the wall -

    How many of those extinctions were caused only by increased carbon dioxide? None that I have heard of, there were other factors.

    How many of the predicted animals to go extinct in the near future, or recent past will do it because of carbon dioxide? Very few. Over hunting, fishing, loss of habitat, pollutions, these are the causes. When you over simplify things to look at extreme examples you miss the obvious. Even the damage to the great barrier reef is mainly from agricultural waste and a couple of animals attracted to the pollution and over breading that are destroying it. These are the factors stopping recovery from temperature shocks. Missing the obvious by t wanting to put everything into this driving cars will kill everything is counter productive. What will destroy the ecosystem more, the waste washing into the chesapeak bay causing a dead zone, or driving 5 miles in your prius.

    That is not to say that dumping plumes of carbon dioxide into the air helps all spiecies, but you need to chill and think. What else happens other than carbon dioxide when volcanos erupt. Sulfur ash, pollution, darkness. Mass extinctions went with large loss of habitats. Volcano didn't kill the giant sloth or the mammoth. When someone does a fund raiser for global warming showing pictures of polar bears playing and claims they are drowning, I cringe a little bit. When people read stories on the internet about how something quite wrong is going to do them in, I guess I am like talking to a wall. I will not agree with your crack pot theory. Want to continue to dump polution into rivers and cut down forests, fence in habitats to reduce their size and extinctions increase. Its not difficult to understand, but I guess its easier to blaim ghg. Many extinctions are natural. We get warmer after ice ages, volcanos blow and destroy habitats, but lets not ignore the leading man made causes and ghg doesn't rank in the top 5.
     
    PLSPUSH likes this.
  11. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    Oh, sure, after that response, I'm the one who needs to chill.

    I never said that CO2 was the only cause. That's your straw man. Nor did I draw a link to any individual extinctions. Again, that's your straw man.

    What I said is that it appears to be a sufficient cause. A large-enough, rapid-enough increase in atmospheric CO2, by itself, appears sufficient to cause mass extinction of marine life, via the ocean acidification mechanism outlined in the very nice cited article on skepticalscience.

    FWIW, at least one credible scientists puts the threshold at around 1000 PPM CO2. So on our current track, we likely won't see the "mass" part of mass marine extinctions until next century.

    Anyway, it's not my "crackpot theory", based on "reading stories on the internet". First I cited the article in Nature, on one of the great mass extinctions, clearly labeled in the thread title as one estimate. Then I sketched the broader evidence, including a mechanism by which rapid ocean acidification alone would be sufficient. Then I cited the consensus of scientific opinion expressed in the IPCC 4th report.
     
  12. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    In each historical case, warming was not necessary or sufficient.

    Warming can be contributory with other factors. Is it the main factor? No research I have seen shows that. What you have done is elevated a very minor factor to be the main one. When Hansen one of the pushers of this crack pot theory was asked - What percent of extinctions that he was predicting would occur without AGW, the answer was over 90%. Skeptical science's claim to fame is its supposed to be impartial because its run by an evangelical Christian. Aren't those the guys pushing the appocolypse. The guy isn't even a climate scientist, or biologist, chemical engineer, zoologist, or any scientist related to this. He is a blogger. When I worked on projects in the field, I worked with zoology, biology, and chemical engineering professors. You know the guys actually trying to get the research right.


    That is quite different. Hmm. One chart said the earth wasn't habitable at 333 ppm carbon dioxide. When you get to 2.5x current levels things are likely to happen. What if the oceans buffer the carbon dioxide and we don't get to 1000 ppm? hmm. Seems like there are more likely culprits to track down until then.


    But what is going to cause most of the extinction from the scientists studing it? Over hunting, over fihing, pollution, habitat destruction, segmentations of habitats. That is happening now, not at some future far off date where carbon dioxide more than doubles. Let's burn a little more oil, and dump less pollution in the oceans:), reforest some of the planet that has been destroyed, restore wetlands. Have they made that tradeoff?
     
  13. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    ,Let me clarify what I am calling crack pot theories.

    NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance' - USATODAY.com
    The magic number required to avert 20%-50% of species to go extinct?

    In other words now in 2013, we must be doublely doomed to cause mass extinctions at 396.8.

    Or alternatively 350 ppm is from an organization Hansen belongs to and there is no scientific research that this is a magic number.

    Now what about those volcanos? Was it only the ghg that caused extinctions? If you have been to pompei or looked at the devastation from mount saint Helens you might have an understanding that it isn't the ghg that cause most of the destruction. If you haven't please take a look at some of the pictures on the internet. You may also be cautioned that doubleing from 2000ppm-4000ppm is quite different from going from 280 ppm (pre-industrial) - 560 ppm. If things could live at 2000ppm I would expect that some can live at 560 ppm.

    So what is real, and included in the research? Coral bleaching occurs with high seasonal temperatures, and as the oceans warm these instances will happen more often. Pollution hurts the ability to of the coral to recover. Many different corals exist that can live in higher temperatures, but these do not exist near many sights of coral, and when a reef can not recover the ecosystem that depends on it can die. Coral death is a real result of warming. We have loaded the system against them, and need to take steps to remove the pollution that we can.

    What about mass extinction caused soley by increased carbonic acid concentrations or temperature. These are unlikely at these levels. Double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, and the surface waters should get double the concentration of carbonic acid, which will be detrimental to many shelled creatures. Will a mass extinction happen if we double the concentration? Theories go on both sides, but I don't really want to find out. If you are concerned about extinction though protect the habitat of these species. That will do much more good than trying to block the keystone pipeline, as those 350.org folks want to do.

    Not all people that espouse crackpot theories are crack pots. I believe this one was politically motivated and it doesn't matter to the proponents of the theory whether it is true or false. Many other scientists doing good work have shown that it is unlikely to be correct though.
     
  14. dbcassidy

    dbcassidy Toyota Hybrid Nation, 8 Million Strong

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    1,581
    290
    3
    Location:
    Middlesex County, MA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    The more we learn, the less we know.

    DBCassidy
     
  15. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    What does "species extinction" really entail when examined closely? Usually it means a better suited species took over when given a chance. It certainly does not mean 3/4 of all living organisms left a 3/4 void in biomass. There is HUGE difference between a change in environmental conditions and elimination of the environment.

    I'm not minimizing the issue or the problems we face. However, solving the problems is not served by painting the outcome as guaranteed universal suffering, it's best solved by showing how the solutions are much better than the present path.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  16. dbcassidy

    dbcassidy Toyota Hybrid Nation, 8 Million Strong

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    1,581
    290
    3
    Location:
    Middlesex County, MA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    Time to move to the moon an other planets. :D

    DBCassidy
     
  17. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    Wandering off-topic a bit, I'm just going to take 60 seconds to point out the lack of logic in this. To identify "solutions much better than the present path" requires that we have to have some estimate of what the present path will most likely create.

    Take this hypothetical. Suppose that the best available current science said the following: The American Midwest will become desert. That in the year 2080, say, Michigan is projected to have a summer climate close to present-day Texas, and most of Texas will have more than 120 days a year where maximum daytime temperature exceeds 100F. That, absent irrigation, no currently-know food crops will be able to exist in what is now the bread basket of the US.

    Should we say, sagebrush and cactus are now better suited to that land than corn, so in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter? Or would that projected outcome (and, yeah, that's the likely projection for 2080 or so) motivate more strenuous efforts to fix this problem?

    I guess my point is, don't confuse small changes in species within a stable climate, with climate change. If we're talking about taking half the species on earth, rolling the dice, and seeing what can survive, you're just not paying adequate attention to the details if you're not worried.
     
  18. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Do you honestly think that 50% of the species on earth will likely disappear by 2080 or similar date, but some US government program will stop it? Please tell us the government program to stop this near term disaster? Could you point to some scientific paper or a science fiction movie that you learned this from?

    Please do not site the bible or koran.
     
  19. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    You missed the bigger point entirely. I made it clear that I was not dismissing or minimizing the problem. What I was pointing out is the fallacy of using "fear" as a motivator. It fails for both the educated and uneducated readers, but for different reasons.

    The educated reader looks at such an article and notes the difference between a correlation and causation link. There definitely is correlation, but a one-to-one causation of "CO change = global death+destruction" is not justified with what is contained in that article. Saying 3/4 of the species was eliminated was meant to be scary when in fact it is unavoidable. Perfect stasis is not possible when dealing with evolutionary driven life. What one can say is that massive climate change drivers of the past do not seem to leave CO2 levels unaffected.

    Correspondingly, the vast majority of the worlds population and the vast majority of the worlds political leadership does not understand enough science to matter here. No amount of fear based motivation, no matter how solidly based on science will turn the tide. What will happen with every fear based motivation technique is it will backfire. Instead of motivation, what you get is despair and hopelessness. That is the worst thing to cultivate. What will work is showing how profitable sustainable solutions can be.

    Again, there is no question that big changes are needed. We are not debating that. What we are debating is how to get the gigatons of political and cultural resistance to start moving in the right direction. Fear won't cut it, no matter how much "Science" is used as justification for the fear.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  20. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Absolutely, but more to the point, the fear is rarely wrapped in policies that address any problems in some rational way. Historically, in the US the biggest fear based policy was internment of the Japan se during WWII. Definitely some in the government had a huge fear of Iraq giving WMD to terrorists, and we got the Iraq war. I don't think the fearmongers here want anything that destructive but seem to be putting faith in blocking the keystone pipeline will somehow work some magic and save the world. The irrationality is its world oil use not a pipeline that sets the level of ghg from oil. The more dangerous path is if you give into the fear, and go to the next logical fear based conclusion that Chinese coal plants are weapons of mass destruction and we go to war with China to prevent them from increasing energy use.


    Now there is a chance that we are headed to a mass extinction event. One happens about every 100 million years. Many have theorized that agriculture and pollution has transformed the worlds ecosystems making species more susceptible to extinction. A giant asteroid may hit the earth, or massive volcanic eruptions may happen as they have in past extinction events. It would be wrong to misunderstand the science and think simply reducing fossil fuels would prevent a quickly approaching extinction event if one is coming. The odds of one coming is low but not zero. One must convince people that going from 2000ppm to 4000ppm is the same as going from 290-400 ppm, and only ghg, nothing else from the volcanos happened.