Oolite Bulletins

Eric Walch wrote:

So I keep my opinion that climate change will be bad for the human species, but not for life in general.

Well, the pace of change is likely to be rather faster than the nice evolutionary timescales since the Jurassic. So extinction of most or all surface and shallow ocean life is quite a possibility. Rapid changes (end of the Pre-Cambrian, end of the Permian, end of the Cretaceous) tend to be much more unpleasant.

Eric Walch wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

I suggest you properly read the "Climate-change summary and update" I linked to.. we may be looking at the extinction of all life on Earth within a few decades.

I don't see anything in that link that supports your claim. The only 'evidence' in that article is claiming that 'other people say'.

I guess you missed the multitude of links he posted (many of them scientific reports) and videos to back his statements up.. Perhaps you should take the time to follow them up before jumping to conclusions.. Guy has been following the science for a long time.. he knows whereof he speaks.

Eric Walch wrote:

It keeps speaking about 400 ppm CO2 as a safe limit above no live could exist.

Nowhere in that article does he make that claim. Nor does the UN's climate chief, whom I also linked to in another post.. such a dishonest statement ill becomes you, Eric.. 400ppm simply represents a tipping point, beyond which things are certain to get considerably worse than if that line were not crossed.

Eric Walch wrote:

But, keep in mind that at the end of the Jurassic period, the CO2 levels were around the 2000 ppm and we all know there was live in that period. See next graph:



From: Carboniferous climate

So I keep my opinion that climate change will be bad for the human species, but not for life in general.

See cim's response above..

Diziet Sma wrote:

I guess you missed the multitude of links he posted (many of them scientific reports) and videos to back his statements up.. Perhaps you should take the time to follow them up before jumping to conclusions.. Guy has been following the science for a long time.. he knows whereof he speaks.

No doubt he is informed, but the truth of the matter is that someone taking the other side of the argument could find just as many links and videos to discredit him. There's very little absolute truth in science, just theories and conjecture, learned or otherwise. Basing research on other research is problematic, and the chain needs to be traced back to its ultimate source, at which point a count should be made of phrases like "if we assume" or "extrapolating this data leads us to believe" and see how many question marks can be raised on the amount of measured or first hand experience that is cited in the works.

I'm not saying he's wrong, just that the cause of the trends can't be nailed down easily, especially when looking at planetary behaviour cycles. Our part in it could be only PART of it.

As regards the fact that we "COULD" affect global life by unleashing a global nuclear event or something, I don't dispute that, I'm more asking if we could do that by accident. I accept that it's possible, due to 6 billion people generating quite a lot of pollution. I often wonder if the ambient body heat of 6 or 7 billion people could have an effect on the mean temperature of the planet.

I read somewhere that dinosaurs couldn't live in our world now, because the oxygen count in the atmosphere is far lower than it was 100 to 65 million years ago. I find that interesting, given that it seems to be a common trope to picture the Earth in those days as covered in trees and jungles, which would convert MORE oxygen to carbon dioxide.

Selezen wrote:

...picture the Earth in those days as covered in trees and jungles, which would convert MORE oxygen to carbon dioxide.

It's actually the other way round - plants convert CO2 onto oxygen (and use the carbon to build themselves). Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere is down to the plants. Also it was much hotter back in the Mesozoic era.

Selezen wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

I guess you missed the multitude of links he posted (many of them scientific reports) and videos to back his statements up.. Perhaps you should take the time to follow them up before jumping to conclusions.. Guy has been following the science for a long time.. he knows whereof he speaks.

No doubt he is informed, but the truth of the matter is that someone taking the other side of the argument could find just as many links and videos to discredit him. There's very little absolute truth in science, just theories and conjecture, learned or otherwise. Basing research on other research is problematic, and the chain needs to be traced back to its ultimate source, at which point a count should be made of phrases like "if we assume" or "extrapolating this data leads us to believe" and see how many question marks can be raised on the amount of measured or first hand experience that is cited in the works.

When 98%+ of climate scientists are in agreement, that's a pretty powerful argument.. the few who disagree have been shown to have financial ties to Big Oil.

Selezen wrote:

I read somewhere that dinosaurs couldn't live in our world now, because the oxygen count in the atmosphere is far lower than it was 100 to 65 million years ago. I find that interesting, given that it seems to be a common trope to picture the Earth in those days as covered in trees and jungles, which would convert MORE oxygen to carbon dioxide.

Ummm.. you have that backwards.. trees and jungles are a CO2 sink, not a source.. (though it has been discovered that when they are severely stressed, (such as by climate change) they begin to emit CO2.. yet another positive feedback effect.)

Diziet Sma wrote:

.. trees and jungles are a CO2 sink, not a source..

Have you read the TED Talk linked by commander Wilmot? He concludes with his speech that, when we make the desserts green again, this would be such a big CO2 sink that all emitted fossil CO2 would be captured. Interesting if his figures are correct.

Ho-hum... time for some possibly apposite prog rock, I think.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Ummm.. you have that backwards.. trees and jungles are a CO2 sink, not a source.. (though it has been discovered that when they are severely stressed, (such as by climate change) they begin to emit CO2.. yet another positive feedback effect.)

Yeah, I got that. Can't imagine why I made that mistake. In my head I know they do the opposite to humans. Made myself look a right tit there. Soz.

Selezen wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

Ummm.. you have that backwards.. trees and jungles are a CO2 sink, not a source.. (though it has been discovered that when they are severely stressed, (such as by climate change) they begin to emit CO2.. yet another positive feedback effect.)

Yeah, I got that. Can't imagine why I made that mistake. In my head I know they do the opposite to humans. Made myself look a right tit there. Soz.

No worries mate.. we all do it at some point..

In my defence, by that point in the day I had been staring at spreadsheets for about 9 hours straight so my brain was a little fuzzy. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it...

That's a damn good excuse, IMO..

Change is the universal constant. Stars are born and stars die. Civilizations rise and fall. Worlds populated with intelligent beings are extinguished. The cosmos is a wondrous, beautiful and cruel place. Humans change the environment to suit their needs, and other species either adapt or perish. There is no going back to Eden. We have only been here a very short time. If we could shed our hereditary behaviour's and become truly wise, we may yet see the dawn of a new world.

Sorry for that bit of nonsense. I have lived in a city for quite some time, but grew up on a farm. I have been a keen birder all my adult life, but the city offers far less diversity than the rural / agricultural setting polluted with chemicals.