Vivian on 17/6/2013 at 08:40
The whole 99% of species thing IS an estimate based on the fossil record, so that is pretty much '99% of species that are even capable of leaving fossils AND by random chance happened to leave fossils, multiplied by some coefficient derived from a regression somewhere to try and get a bearing on what that means for all of life'. I mean, the guy who did a lot of the major work on it is my old super, and he knows his stuff, but even so. I doubt the 95% thing applies much once you get out of metazoa.
But, yeah, that seems to be about as heavy a hit as the biosphere has ever taken, and like you say, it seems plausibly to have been caused by something we might well be about to do to ourselves. Although last time I checked properly (2004ish), I thought supervolcanism was supposed to be a major part in it as well - trap-type volcanoes, laval provinces, entire coal-beds being ignited etc. Although I suppose we are also burning fossil fuels at a geologically significant rate.
faetal on 17/6/2013 at 11:16
Yeah, that's what I read too - sheet basalt eruptions are thought to have caused the initial 5 degree rise, but that was over several thousand years. This is why the most important factor of anthropogenic climate change is the rate of change. From what I can tell the death is all bout life cycle cues for plants and insects being fucked to the point where nothing gets pollinated, eggs aren't put in the right places at the right times and then food webs fall apart. The less tolerant species probably get fucked too, irrespective of food webs just by dint of not having the appropriate temperature regulation. So if most of life on earth couldn't hack a change of 10 degrees over 20k years, it sure as shit isn't about to survive a faster onset.
I get what you're saying about the 95% too - I'm guessing if humans were about during the PME, we'd not have done so well.
Kolya on 17/6/2013 at 15:21
Quote Posted by Muzman
We're not still on the environmentalism movement for these quibbles are we? Thirty years or so on.
"No I can't take your ideas seriously sir! as your three word slogan is far too short and lacking in caveats, clarifications and disclaimers. When you print a T-Shirt that says "Save the Planet! Not in the sense that it should be stored or is in imminent danger to its person, but only in the sense that the ecology in which humans evolved and live ought to be preserved chïefly for their own safety and other ancillary values concerning the wellbeing of other species, which may or may not influence said ecological well being. And when we say preservation of the ecology, let it be known that ecology is by definition an evolving dynamic system in which humans are only a part and whose role is often variable and treating it is static is to misunderstand the concept. Human impact is an multi-various debate with a variety of factors both cultural and economic and should be assessed and scientifically and practically as possible and as such no one specifc issue or controversy can represent the entirety of the planetary ecology as stated above and any given human passion for any such cause should not be confused for such a statement"
When that is on your shirts, I may subscribe to the newsletter sir!
I'd subscribe to yours right away! :D
demagogue on 17/6/2013 at 16:21
For the record, half of the climate change regime isn't even about abating carbon & GG release, but mitigating & adapting to the rise in temperature & consequences we already know is coming over the next century.
Also worth noting that a lot of the carbon & GGs being released in the atmosphere were originally taken out of the atmosphere in the first place & sequestered by plant life back when the earth was a hothouse swamp compared to today.
faetal on 17/6/2013 at 18:25
Yes, but the majority of those changes occurred at a rate which evolution could handle. When it happens too fast, it doesn't work out quite so well.
Doesn't matter though, I can't envisage a situation whereby humanity will stop being business as usual until it is too late.
