First species extinct due to climate change possibly identified

[spacejamz]

They're well on their way....

Excelsior!!!!!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I consider it better than even odds that Polar Bears will be extinct by the end of this century...


___________

lol...you bought into their shameless lie.

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec12/polar_bears.asp

But he looks so lonely....

 

[Jaskalas]

I consider it better than even odds that Polar Bears will be extinct by the end of this century...

That's a curious thing. Because it sort of ties into the island rat problem.

100k years ago that island was under water. Because more ice had melted than today. I don't expect we'd see significantly higher sea levels without the Arctic in worse condition than today. Meaning Polar Bears survive this threat every interglacier.

If we're going to be the cause of their demise... it'll probably be via a more direct method.

 

[werepossum]

Well you are from Scotland. It is understandable you don't have a clue.

Scotland, where men are men and sheep are nervous.

those hungry snakes will need to find a new source of food, and will likely migrate to more human-inhabited areas in search of that food.


Hopefully we have enough Samuel L Jacksons to distribute strategically around this earth when that happens.

We can never have enough Samuel L Jacksons.

Do you actually believe this tripe, or are you just being humorous in a stupid way?

It's weird how you can be lucid and smart on certain issues, but when it comes to something like climate change science, you have to create hilarious assumptions about "your enemy" and argue from that swampland of false belief.

As much as you claim to not be a conservative, your true nature really does revert to its well-honed tactics whenever your unfounded belief structure is challenged by something as offensive as science.

Well, let us test my assertion with couplets. Just follow the B forks.

The article uses the phrase "Climate change". Does that mean:
A. Just a change in climate that randomly happened as it always has.
B. "Climate change" means "Manmade climate change", which will be catastrophic and is fundamentally different from all climate change that has come before.

Manmade climate change is caused by:
A. The body odor of unwashed men.
B. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, beginning with the Industrial Revolution and the widespread use of coal.

The Industrial Revolution happened:
A. In each country and region equally.
B. Mainly in white-dominated greater Europe.

The well-documented Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been brushed aside as merely small local phenomena by:
A. Mormons and Scientologists.
B. Scientists promoting the theory of greenhouse gas-fueled catastrophic global warming (e.g. Mann et al.)

If you believe something, why blame me if it looks stupid when someone writes it down? The fact is that literally everyone reading this story knows from the start that by "climate change" the author means "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming." An obscure rat rendered extinct by climate change is no story at all; only if an obscure rat is rendered extinct by catastrophic manmade global warming climate change is it a story. Do you deny this?

It is amusing how many on the left find me "lucid and smart" when I agree with them, yet the polar opposite when I disagree. Where's that famed liberal tolerance again? Oh right - you guys can tolerate anything but dissent from the Holy Writ of the moment.

It is doubly amusing how often those on the left take issue with me baldly stating an undeniable fact even when I agree with them on an issue. In point of fact, my description of the progressive definition of "climate change" was spot-on.

EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that I DO call myself a conservative, albeit one with some liberal and especially libertarian views. Over and over again. "Conservationist" has the exact same root; if modern Republicans have rejected that facet of conservatism, that's on them, not on me.

 

[Paratus]

Scotland, where men are men and sheep are nervous.


We can never have enough Samuel L Jacksons.


Well, let us test my assertion with couplets. Just follow the B forks.

The article uses the phrase "Climate change". Does that mean:
A. Just a change in climate that randomly happened as it always has.
B. "Climate change" means "Manmade climate change", which will be catastrophic and is fundamentally different from all climate change that has come before.

Manmade climate change is caused by:
A. The body odor of unwashed men.
B. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, beginning with the Industrial Revolution and the widespread use of coal.

The Industrial Revolution happened:
A. In each country and region equally.
B. Mainly in white-dominated greater Europe.

The well-documented Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been brushed aside as merely small local phenomena by:
A. Mormons and Scientologists.
B. Scientists promoting the theory of greenhouse gas-fueled catastrophic global warming (e.g. Mann et al.)

If you believe something, why blame me if it looks stupid when someone writes it down? The fact is that literally everyone reading this story knows from the start that by "climate change" the author means "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming." An obscure rat rendered extinct by climate change is no story at all; only if an obscure rat is rendered extinct by catastrophic manmade global warming climate change is it a story. Do you deny this?

It is amusing how many on the left find me "lucid and smart" when I agree with them, yet the polar opposite when I disagree. Where's that famed liberal tolerance again? Oh right - you guys can tolerate anything but dissent from the Holy Writ of the moment.

It is doubly amusing how often those on the left take issue with me baldly stating an undeniable fact even when I agree with them on an issue. In point of fact, my description of the progressive definition of "climate change" was spot-on.

EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that I DO call myself a conservative, albeit one with some liberal and especially libertarian views. Over and over again. "Conservationist" has the exact same root; if modern Republicans have rejected that facet of conservatism, that's on them, not on me.

The MWP from 1000-1500 well documented? Yup

Looks like the MWP was localized to me.

The LIA, plenty of support for that:

Lower solar output
Increased volcanic activity
Greenland freshwater melt from the previous warm period slowing the North Atlantic "conveyor"
Black Death reducing European population and decreasing deforestation.

So what did you mean again by "brushed aside"?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Looks like the MWP was localized to me.

Skepticalscience...lol.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years

Deep Heating

Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

Abstract

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

Abstract

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/0...l-warm-period-and-little-ice-age-were-global/

Antarctica: New Evidence Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age Were Global

Although the Lu team is the first to use akaite as a proxy, they are far from the first to find evidence of the MWP outside of Europe. The Medieval Warm Period Project of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reviews (by my count) 20 studies in Africa (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/africa.php), 8 in Antarctica (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/antarctica.php), 68 in Asia (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/asia.php), 6 in Australia/New Zealand (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/australianz.php), 92 in North America (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/northamerica.php), 31 in various Ocean areas (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/oceans.php), and 19 in South America (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/southamerica.php), in addition to 97 in Europe (http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/europe.php) – all indicating a period of climatic warmth approximately one thousand years ago. Many of those studies indicate that the MWP was warmer than the Current Warm Period (see the chart at the top of this post).

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcgeek11
Well you are from Scotland. It is understandable you don't have a clue.

Scotland, where men are men and sheep are nervous.

Are ya sayen MajinCry's got dags clingen to his pubes?

 

[Paratus]

Skepticalscience...lol.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659



http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/0...l-warm-period-and-little-ice-age-were-global/

You do understand that lower solar output, volcanism, and the effects of reduced population would mean that the little ice age was a global phenomenon and that global temperatures before and after the LIA would be warmer?

The data shows however that the prior medieval warm period was mostly a strong regional effect in the North Atlantic and lesser effect in the Pacific but globally surface temperatures were cooler than the mid 20th century.

It's good that you now accept OHC as a robust indicator for global warming since global OHC shows massive increases in the last 50 years. :thumbsup:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You do understand that lower solar output, volcanism, and the effects of reduced population would mean that the little ice age was a global phenomenon and that global temperatures before and after the LIA would be warmer?

The data shows however that the prior medieval warm period was mostly a strong regional effect in the North Atlantic and lesser effect in the Pacific but globally surface temperatures were cooler than the mid 20th century.

It's good that you now accept OHC as a robust indicator for global warming since global OHC shows massive increases in the last 50 years. :thumbsup:

Look at the studies cited ffs.

 

[Paratus]

Look at the studies cited ffs.

I did. I agree with what the research shows and what the authors say should be inferred :

Notice the gray areas on the chart I provided? Your Antartica research fills in one of those little gray squares. Straight from the author:

http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html

It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.” - See more at: http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_20...s_climate_STATEMENT.html#sthash.qpfFCXj9.dpuf

Pacific Temps were warmer in the past and had been cooling until the LIA. Now it's increasing at a rate faster than anytime in 10,000 years. From the authors:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/01/global-warming-oceans-fastest-10000-years

clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."

I'm not sure what you thought they showed since you didn't actually state your opinion of them. It's possible you misunderstood the studies since they were misrepresented at some of those links you provided.

Globalwarming.org is the blog of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of more than two dozen free market and conservative non-profit groups in the U. S. and abroad that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy-rationing policies. GlobalWarming.org is one of the Coalition’s principal educational outreach activities.

their staff include folks with law, business and political degrees...
lol indeed

 

[fskimospy]

I did. I agree with what the research shows and what the authors say should be inferred :

Notice the gray areas on the chart I provided? Your Antartica research fills in one of those little gray squares. Straight from the author:

http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html

Pacific Temps were warmer in the past and had been cooling until the LIA. Now it's increasing at a rate faster than anytime in 10,000 years. From the authors:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/01/global-warming-oceans-fastest-10000-years

I'm not sure what you thought they showed since you didn't actually state your opinion of them. It's possible you misunderstood the studies since they were misrepresented at some of those links you provided.
their staff include folks with law, business and political degrees...
lol indeed

I feel like we should consider a new rule that prevents providing links without comment the same way there's a prohibition on images without comment. People like DSF like to do the whole 'who, me?' thing where they provide links that very clearly imply something that they later disavow if/when it gets proven wrong. It's a silly way to do things.

Also DSF: sources, sources, sources.

 

[glenn1]

You do understand that lower solar output, volcanism, and the effects of reduced population would mean that the little ice age was a global phenomenon and that global temperatures before and after the LIA would be warmer?

The data shows however that the prior medieval warm period was mostly a strong regional effect in the North Atlantic and lesser effect in the Pacific but globally surface temperatures were cooler than the mid 20th century.

It's good that you now accept OHC as a robust indicator for global warming since global OHC shows massive increases in the last 50 years. :thumbsup:

Ahh, the let's argue the science so we don't need to talk about our shitty economic ideas ploy.

Or how about we make it simpler, I don't give a flying fuck how many species go extinct due to climate change, I'm not changing my lifestyle and no one else is either except for trivial ways. And why should you, so that Al Gore and other rich folks can claim another corporate tax subsidy for their "alternative energy" speculative investments or sell you a premium priced "earth friendly" product while living in luxury on the back of your exploitation?

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh, the let's argue the science so we don't need to talk about our shitty economic ideas ploy.

Or how about we make it simpler, I don't give a flying fuck how many species go extinct due to climate change, I'm not changing my lifestyle and no one else is either except for trivial ways. And why should you, so that Al Gore and other rich folks can claim another corporate tax subsidy for their "alternative energy" speculative investments or sell you a premium priced "earth friendly" product while living in luxury on the back of your exploitation?

I feel very confident that Paratus would like nothing better than to stop arguing the science. The problem is that conservatives keep trying to argue the science. After all, if the earth isn't heating up there's no need to do anything. It would be great if conservatives just accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you would like to go on to discussing the economics we can look at the massive advances in renewable energy that have happened in recent years and the huge increases in efficiency that we've seen. On top of that we appear to have genuinely decoupled economic growth from carbon emissions, which is likely a direct byproduct of investments in efficiency and alternative energy. Seems like we've made an enormous amount of progress, even if there's still a long way to go.

 

[werepossum]

The MWP from 1000-1500 well documented? Yup

Looks like the MWP was localized to me.

The LIA, plenty of support for that:

Lower solar output
Increased volcanic activity
Greenland freshwater melt from the previous warm period slowing the North Atlantic "conveyor"
Black Death reducing European population and decreasing deforestation.

So what did you mean again by "brushed aside"?

By "brushed aside", I mean people inventing new proxies to show what they need to show - that there really was no Medieval Warm Period and thus, that the hockey stick is correct. Because without the hockey stick, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is not very compelling.

Are ya sayen MajinCry's got dags clingen to his pubes?

lol Closer than I want to look.

 

[master_shake_]

Obviously tax the shit out of the middle class, duh.

this is probably the only solution scientists and politicians working together (some scary shit) can think of.

if you want to see how that works out just look up ontario.

we're mean and out of green.

green energy we have tonnes of it just cost a fortune to make and our hydro bills show it.

i think in four or 5 years it's gone up something like 400 percent.

 

[master_shake_]

They're well on their way....

:awe:

 

[agent00f]

It is amusing how many on the left find me "lucid and smart" when I agree with them, yet the polar opposite when I disagree. Where's that famed liberal tolerance again? Oh right - you guys can tolerate anything but dissent from the Holy Writ of the moment.

Most things people believe aren't novel ideas derived by themselves, so really we're talking about ideas of others we happen to favor. For the most part this kind of picking and choosing isn't done through careful research & consideration. In fact that's often done without any understanding that expertise in objective reality matters.

Consider the people posting here, and what percentile have any of the requisite training to understand any sort of scientific paper. Yet they often hold strong beliefs which run counter to trained experts who do this for a living. This necessarily means they either lack much expertise in what they do for a living, or lack introspection ability to grasp why that matters. In other words, they believe said experts are doing the same thing they do; and that belief itself is an idea propagated by modern american conservatism.

 

[agent00f]

Look at the studies cited ffs.

Let's explain a bit how this science thing works. Contemporary studies you see in major journals are at the very cutting edge of what is known to humans. This usually means their contents are complex/sophisticated, which is why it takes many years of difficult & directed post-secondary study to reach a point where they even make sense.

The idea that random people not particularly immersed in the nuanced details can meaningfully judge claims within is entirely comical, and only serve to highlight dunning kruger posterkids who believe they can.

As some practical advice, what you want to look for is material simplified by relevant experts to an appropriate level. If those simplifications don't go the way you want, the alternative isn't to source other posterkids who'll say different, they don't have a clue either.

 

[glenn1]

I feel very confident that Paratus would like nothing better than to stop arguing the science. The problem is that conservatives keep trying to argue the science. After all, if the earth isn't heating up there's no need to do anything. It would be great if conservatives just accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you would like to go on to discussing the economics we can look at the massive advances in renewable energy that have happened in recent years and the huge increases in efficiency that we've seen. On top of that we appear to have genuinely decoupled economic growth from carbon emissions, which is likely a direct byproduct of investments in efficiency and alternative energy. Seems like we've made an enormous amount of progress, even if there's still a long way to go.

Yeah, kinda like how we've seen massive improvement in computers, cars, communications, medicine, physics, and every other field of human endeavor. And all without carbon taxes, banning SUVs, forcing increased housing density, or a massive "Manhattan Project" style government spending binge.

And how can that be! Al Gore said we would be beyond the point of no return by now. It's almost like what so-called skeptics said has come true, that you can't simply use the force of will to wish into existence technology that doesn't exist yet to be economically viable at scale. And just giving tax money to 3rd world islanders as some sort of economic reparations is a nonstarter.

 

[glenn1]

Let's explain a bit how this science thing works. Contemporary studies you see in major journals are at the very cutting edge of what is known to humans. This usually means their contents are complex/sophisticated, which is why it takes many years of difficult & directed post-secondary study to reach a point where they even make sense.

The idea that random people not particularly immersed in the nuanced details can meaningfully judge claims within is entirely comical, and only serve to highlight dunning kruger posterkids who believe they can.

As some practical advice, what you want to look for is material simplified by relevant experts to an appropriate level. If those simplifications don't go the way you want, the alternative isn't to source other posterkids who'll say different, they don't have a clue either.

Science and politics are separate realms and the former doesn't entail the moral judgement of the later. Eugenics was considered the most cutting-edge science of its time and we would have been morally bankrupt to follow its proposals to kill blacks and other undesirable persons. Likewise we would be morally bankrupt today to follow the suggestions to take money from the middle class to give to the wealthy under the scheme of climate change.

 

[Paratus]

Science and politics are separate realms and the former doesn't entail the moral judgement of the later. Eugenics was considered the most cutting-edge science of its time and we would have been morally bankrupt to follow its proposals to kill blacks and other undesirable persons. Likewise we would be morally bankrupt today to follow the suggestions to take money from the middle class to give to the wealthy under the scheme of climate change.

The part where you are full of shit Glenn is when you pretend like the only solution is financial remuneration to the third world oh I meant the rich.

 

[agent00f]

Science and politics are separate realms and the former doesn't entail the moral judgement of the later. Eugenics was considered the most cutting-edge science of its time and we would have been morally bankrupt to follow its proposals to kill blacks and other undesirable persons. Likewise we would be morally bankrupt today to follow the suggestions to take money from the middle class to give to the wealthy under the scheme of climate change.

Climate change like most results of pollution disproportionately affects the poorer, which is why doing nothing is the prescription from socioeconomic classes above you. Take a moment to think about why that makes more sense than your theory.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, kinda like how we've seen massive improvement in computers, cars, communications, medicine, physics, and every other field of human endeavor. And all without carbon taxes, banning SUVs, forcing increased housing density, or a massive "Manhattan Project" style government spending binge.

And how can that be! Al Gore said we would be beyond the point of no return by now. It's almost like what so-called skeptics said has come true, that you can't simply use the force of will to wish into existence technology that doesn't exist yet to be economically viable at scale. And just giving tax money to 3rd world islanders as some sort of economic reparations is a nonstarter.

Advances in communication, physics, medicine, etc are frequently the product of major investment by the government in research. What are you talking about?

 

[Subyman]

I feel very confident that Paratus would like nothing better than to stop arguing the science. The problem is that conservatives keep trying to argue the science. After all, if the earth isn't heating up there's no need to do anything. It would be great if conservatives just accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you would like to go on to discussing the economics we can look at the massive advances in renewable energy that have happened in recent years and the huge increases in efficiency that we've seen. On top of that we appear to have genuinely decoupled economic growth from carbon emissions, which is likely a direct byproduct of investments in efficiency and alternative energy. Seems like we've made an enormous amount of progress, even if there's still a long way to go.

I remember when CAFE was going to decimate the auto industry, people wouldn't be able to afford a car! Only difference is my newer truck gets 20mpg instead of 15mpg. Thanks progress!

 

[agent00f]

Advances in communication, physics, medicine, etc are frequently the product of major investment by the government in research. What are you talking about?

To be fair, it makes sense these folks aren't aware that the vast majority of basic research is substantially funded by the government.

For example, the first one on his list, computers are a product of math/physics/ee/material. All of these are research depts on academic campus, like for example the work from quantum theory to semiconducting material to algorithms, etc.

Generally, after the ball's already in the red zone, industry only takes it the last few profitable yards.