Climate change extinctions

submitted by ActuallyNot from science.org

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Climate has always been changing since the earth was formed. It will always continue to change. Anyone saying we can control the weather by submitting to tyranny needs to get CEO'd.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Government says if I eat the bugs, and get rid of my car, and pay the carbon tax, the weather will get gooder!

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Does it?

Which government?

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://saidit.net/s/environment/comments/frae/climate_change_extinctions/1794l

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

When you increase it, the greenhouse effect increases.

This is not controlling the weather. But it is driving global warming.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is absolutely not driving climate change. And you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. There is no difference in saying that it drives climate change and saying it controlls the climate.

It is a minor greenhouse gas and even at the bare minimum for the survival of life on earth it already blocks all of the UV radiation in the spectrum it is opaque. It can ever block more, at any concentration.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is absolutely not driving climate change.

Okay, you're making a claim that is counter to what science established 24 years ago, when the warming was first decomposed into warming due to natural forcing and warming due to anthropogenic forcing, when Stott el al, showed that natural forcing alone would have resulted in a cooling over the previous 50 years, and only anthropogenic forcing was responsible for global warming.

So you're going to need to provide some kind of evidence or reasoning to back up this exceptional claim of yours.

There is no difference in saying that it drives climate change and saying it controlls the climate.

Controlling the weather to me means being able to choose the wind speed and direction, the precipitation, the cloud cover, and the temperature. Driving global warming means being the reason that the earth is taking more energy from the sun than it is emitting into space.

It is a minor greenhouse gas

Its increase is the most significant contribution the current global warming.

and even at the bare minimum for the survival of life on earth it already blocks all of the UV radiation in the spectrum it is opaque.

You should read some informed and unbiased sources about that. You would learn that:

  • You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts
  • It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2.
  • These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

An excellent study, where every sentence and graph is highly significant and well-researched. That said, to the graph, 'Predicted proportional extinction risk from climate change relative to projected global temperature rise (°C).' one could also consider extinctions and wildlife losses since 1970. That earlier information is for a different topic, though relevant:

The World Wildlife Fund studied more than 5,200 species for its Living Planet Report, and found that out of the nearly 32,000 populations analyzed, there was an average decline of 69% since 1970. Up to 2.5% of mammals, fish, reptiles, birds and amphibians have already gone extinct, the report says.

Key findings. Between 1970 and 2020, Wildlife populations declined by 73% in just 50 years. The region that recorded the steepest decline was Latin America and the Caribbean with a 95% decline. Habitat loss and degradation driven mainly by our food system was the most reported threat to wildlife.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Yeah climate change just arisen as a major factor in the extinctions that we are seeing.

But pollution has been taking a heavy toll for hundreds of years, habitat loss for thousands, and over-exploitation for tens of thousands.

But in the last decades we've seen people saying ... "we've only got about 10 years to stop this mass extinction", and now we're watching as those extinctions manifest from the global warming we have seen.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Remember the temps went up only 1% in 100 years of data.

[–]cunninglingus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Have you not seen that explained numerous times?

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/degrees-matter

https://news.mit.edu/2023/explained-climate-benchmark-rising-temperatures-0827

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231130-climate-crisis-the-15c-global-warming-threshold-explained

Or this:

The average global temp is actually super consistent. If the average changes by 1°C it can actually mean fluctuations in certain areas by like 10° on any given day. Because the heat is not evenly spread. Which is why we've been seeing record high temps in many areas.

This then throws off other things. Certain species of plants and insects are wired to reproduce around certain temperatures but when it's thrown off, the whole species gets thrown off. Hence why we see some species missing a whole breeding year and facing extinction. Flowers blooming at the wrong time, birds migrating at the wrong time, etc. Eggs not hatching because the temperatures are off.

These temperature fluctuations also throw off weather patterns like el Nino and la Nina which then throw off the whole planet's weather and water systems.

The issue is not exactly that the global average temperature is changing - it's the speed at which it is changing that is causing all the chaos. Deniers will often tout, "oh but the planet has always had temperature changes!" But those changes in the AVERAGE temperature are supposed to happen gradually across millenia, not in the space of 100 years like they have due to human-driven greenhouse gasses. When the temperature changes this rapidly, delicate insect and plant species aren't able to evolve and adapt around it. So they just die. And then because of the food chain, the animals that rely on those species also die.

[–]Enugh 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"due to human-driven greenhouse gasses."

You have provided no evidence for that claim, neither has anyone else. Because there is none! Plenty of hard evidence against it though!!

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's plenty of proof.

We know how much CO2 has increased due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and we know the greenhouse effect of that.

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you've created an account 9 hours ago in order to troll users with lies? I and others provided the evidence.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What were the temps when Dinosaurs roamed the planet? Cooler or warmer?

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Climate change is not so difficult to understand

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then explain it like I am five years old.

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/kids-guide-to-climate-change/

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Generally warmer.

It may have been cooler for a few million years about 10 million years into the Mesozoic, and possibly again 70 million years after that.

So if stegosaurus was about, they would be less likely to be under extinction pressure from climate change as the animals, plants and fungi of today.

Unfortunately, they're already extinct, and the things alive today have not existed with temperatures as warm as this year, so there's no reason to expect them to be able to survive from empirical reasoning.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Remember the temps went up only 1% in 100 years of data.

1% of what? And why is the percentage relevant?

The earth's temperature last year averaged about 288.13 Kelvin. 1.5°C is only about half a percent warmer than that.

And yet we're still seeing damage from that that is unprecedented.

Last year was 1.5°C warmer than pre-industrial times. This year will be warmer still. The reason the Paris Agreement targeted 1.5°C is because more than that comes with high-cost, high-casualty impacts.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The automoderator removed your comments, because of your new account.

    I have let one of them through, but please have a look at the saidit values and particularly the pyramid of debate.

    As the saidit values says, in relevant part: If a person is caught repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate, they will be removed.

    Make an effort to back up your claims with relevant, scholarly citations, or at least rational argument.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [removed]

      [–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Global climate change is projected to threaten 7.6% of species with extinction [95% credible interval (CI95): 6.6, 8.7%], averaged across all emissions scenarios and modeling assumptions.

      What do you mean "Not climate change"?