Mass Extinction Threat: Earth on Verge of Huge Reset Button?

[GT5_komp]

Ive read the Ice Age thread and thought this maybe of interest to some.

Mass extinctions have served as huge reset buttons that dramatically changed the diversity of species found in oceans all over the world, according to a comprehensive study of fossil records. The findings suggest humans will live in a very different future if they drive animals to extinction, because the loss of each species can alter entire ecosystems.

Some scientists have speculated that effects of humans — from hunting to climate change — are fueling another great mass extinction. A few go so far as to say we are entering a new geologic epoch, leaving the 10,000-year-old Holocene Epoch behind and entering the Anthropocene Epoch, marked by major changes to global temperatures and ocean chemistry, increased sediment erosion, and changes in biology that range from altered flowering times to shifts in migration patterns of birds and mammals and potential die-offs of tiny organisms that support the entire marine food chain.

The Linky

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Although I also support the quest for diversity and thus protection of any life form.

Although it is very difficult to state what the influence of humans and what the influence of the natural way of things is.

So for me:
1) We should fight to make our influence on the environment the most positive one (an ethical consideration).
2) There are things we do not influence but that influence us a lot, Volcanic explosions, solar flares, floods, ...

There is a strong link for me to "survival of the fittest", will human kind be able to use their capabilities to their advantage or will they lead to destruction of themselves?

 

[Omnis]

Don't worry, the earth won't reset. I still got some more quarters.

 

[Sam48]

You really believe all of this komp? It is called propaganda, and I don't think I need to continue.

 

[homeforsummer]

You really believe all of this komp? It is called propaganda, and I don't think I need to continue.

No, please do. How exactly is it propaganda?

It's just a hypothetical situation based on hypothetical changes caused by humans. The author of the article isn't saying "IT WILL HAPPEN, PANIC, PEOPLE!"

It's no more or less likely to happen than any other mass extinction threat. Equally, that means it isn't impossible.

The only difference is this one is potentially caused by humankind, but of course rather than taking it as-is, some people see any kind of human-caused environmental problems immediately as some kind of affront to their "human right" to consume beyond our species' means. I get the impression that some people think that we're more likely to be vapourised by aliens than we are to damage civilisation by pollution or other factors.

 

[Sam48]

I get the impression that some people think that we're more likely to be vapourised by aliens than we are to damage civilisation by pollution or other factors.

And that's basically what I was getting at when i said "propaganda". After reading the link through, I personally found it to be one of those eco-worrior style articles that attempts to leave readers with the thought that it's our fault when the world ends, at least by the author's standards (Assuming his/her scenario works out). When I originally posted, I just quickly derived the word "propaganda" to sum the article up.

I suppose it depends which way you take it.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well, if you immediately assume every single article that suggests that future events will in any way be dictated by human actions as some kind of "eco worrior [sic]" article then you immediately remove any form of impartiality or rationality from your own arguement.

I'd personally lean towards articles like the one above rather than away from them, but it doesn't mean that I'd immediately dismiss out of hand any article that suggests that man-made climate change (or man-made anything else) is automatically not worth reading.

The scientific community rarely agree on anything but it seems like once their work hits the public domain all semblance of rationality disappears out the window and people take either the "eco warrior" point of view or, for want of a better term, the "gas-guzzler" point of view. Each side hates the other and it's depressingly infrequently that anyone takes a step back and tries to form an opinion based on the facts presented to them rather than an irrational hatred for the other side and everything they stand for.

So again, the article above isn't propaganda just because you disagree with the man-made climate change theory.

 

[Sam48]

So again, the article above isn't propaganda just because you disagree with the man-made climate change theory.

Maybe not to others, but to myself, that's what I would consider it. I'm not what you call the "gas guzzler" type. I do look at all the facts, and then draw my conclusion, and I have nothing against most "green" alternatives. I just want choice.

Do you still believe in anthropogenic climate change?

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't disbelieve in it. As far as I'm concerned there's too little evidence to either prove or disprove the theory as of the moment. Much as people would like to say it's a load of baloney there seems to be enough evidence to suggest at least some of the theory is true.

I don't like the theory being used for scaremongering or profiteering but I don't like people dismissing it out of hand either as it just strikes me as being incredibly ignorant.

I'm reminded of a quote I heard not so long ago.

What's the worst that could happen if the scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are wrong and we ignore them? Not a lot really. And what's the worst that could happen if they're right and we ignore them?...

 

[Keef]

I don't like the theory being used for scaremongering or profiteering but I don't like people dismissing it out of hand either as it just strikes me as being incredibly ignorant.

I generalize and stereotype for humorous effect, but truthfully I feel similarly to you. I'm all for scientific study and advancement, but when some hippie or some government uses their evidence - and we all know "evidence" means different things to different people - to try and swindle me out of a dollar, I tend to defiant to put it nicely. Get back to me with an environmentally friendly system that's just as convenient and economically feasible to my life situation as the current system and then we'll talk. But until you make life better for me you're going to have a hard time convincing me to change my ways, much less trying to change them for me.

 

[Sam48]

What's the worst that could happen if the scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are wrong and we ignore them? Not a lot really. And what's the worst that could happen if they're right and we ignore them?...

That's the problem though, isn't it? Because I believe they are wrong, but no one ignores them. This then does create a problem. Because if they are wrong, which I'm certain they are, but no one ignores them, like in todays society, we end up with things like carbon taxation and more regulations. Or to put it plane and simple, here's what I see the end result being.



And yes, that was from a real leftist group trying to spread climate change awareness.

 

[Keef]

That's the problem though, isn't it? Because I believe they are wrong, but no one ignores them. This then does create a problem. Because if they are wrong, which I'm certain they are, but no one ignores them, like in todays society, we end up with things like carbon taxation and more regulations. Or to put it plane and simple, here's what I see the end result being.

And yes, that was from a real leftist group trying to spread climate change awareness.

What would happen if they were right, but instead of people being lazy and allowing their governments to regulate and rule unchecked, they took their lives into their own hands, made their own decisions, and held the government in its proper role by reminding it of their ability to retaliate?

You seem to think science is the variable that makes the equation of climate change undefined. It isn't. Science is all the other numbers that actually work. Government is the one number that tries hard for the sake of everyone, but instead ruins the whole thing.

 

[PzR Slim]

The problem as I see it with the climate change debate is who to trust. Each party would appear to me to have something to gain from the 'evidence' they present as fact. Whether for their survival, to make money or for our votes.

 

[Sam48]

What would happen if they were right, but instead of people being lazy and allowing their governments to regulate and rule unchecked, they took their lives into their own hands, made their own decisions, and held the government in its proper role by reminding it of their ability to retaliate?

If they were right, they should have a substantial amount of evidence that proves anthropogenic climate change, but they do not. And sadly, people these days are willing to let government take charge in such situations. So the scenario you depict is quite unlikely.

You seem to think science is the variable that makes the equation of climate change undefined. It isn't. Science is all the other numbers that actually work. Government is the one number that tries hard for the sake of everyone, but instead ruins the whole thing.

Yes, but in the case of anthropogenic climate change, they are one. As demonstrated by the UN/IPCC.

Each party would appear to me to have something to gain from the 'evidence' they present as fact. Whether for their survival, to make money or for our votes.

Maybe all but the libertarian party. The large majority of us would rather completely dismiss it all together.

 

[Keef]

If they were right, they should have a substantial amount of evidence that proves anthropogenic climate change, but they do not. And sadly, people these days are willing to let government take charge in such situations. So the scenario you depict is quite unlikely.

Have you considered the fact that science is ever-evolving, always looking for new answers to the same old problems because scientists by nature are rather suspicious. If the evidence is never 100% perfect and repeatable then there is all the reason in the world to try the experiment again. And the evidence isn't 100% very often.

They may not be right, but calling them wrong is not a good way to sum it up. They're simply not finished yet. That doesn't mean you have to agree and accept it as right. You can disagree and do your own thing all you want, but "wrong" is just being thick-headed.

Yes, but in the case of anthropogenic climate change, they are one. As demonstrated by the UN/IPCC.

Do you mean "are one" as in science is the problem child, or that in the case of the UN and IPCC, science and government are one in the same? Because science-by-government is still government, and that means you check where the funding came from before you read any of the evidence at all.

 

[Sam48]

Have you considered the fact that science is ever-evolving, always looking for new answers to the same old problems because scientists by nature are rather suspicious. If the evidence is never 100% perfect and repeatable then there is all the reason in the world to try the experiment again. And the evidence isn't 100% very often. They may not be right, but calling them wrong is not a good way to sum it up. They're simply not finished yet. That doesn't mean you have to agree and accept it as right. You can disagree and do your own thing all you want, but "wrong" is just being thick-headed.

Once again, that is the problem. The scientist (or at least whoever administers their work) does not want to them to be "right". In fact, their IPCC report stated in five chapters that they were not certain as to what contributes to climate change. However, these statements never made it to the final draft as they were edited out by one of the head administrators. Also, according to Mike Hulmes, a former IPCC insider,

"Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies".

In short, as long as the scientists are wrong, they will continue to receive funging/grants (Which is exactly why this sort of thing happens). Also, keep in mind that as long as their wrong, the government will continue to receive carbon taxation money. (Which already generates over 75 billion in revenues alone each year)

I can go into more detail on why other aspects of the IPCC and other leading climate research bodies, such as NOAA, are wrong with their assumptions as well if you'd like.

Do you mean "are one" as in science is the problem child, or that in the case of the UN and IPCC, science and government are one in the same? Because science-by-government is still government, and that means you check where the funding came from before you read any of the evidence at all.

Yes, I mean government and science are one. What you state after, I don't quite follow. Can you explain it a bit more?

 

[Keef]

Once again, that is the problem. The scientist (or at least whoever administers their work) does not want to them to be "right". In fact, their IPCC report stated in five chapters that they were not certain as to what contributes to climate change. However, these statements never made it to the final draft as they were edited out by one the head administrators.

What, you mean to tell me that government administrators edited out parts of a scientific report that would have hurt their agenda? Curses!

Yes, I mean government and science are one. What you state after, I don't quite follow. Can you explain it a bit more?

Do you believe everything the government tells you?

 

[Sam48]

Do you believe everything the government tells you?

Not everything.

 

[Azuremen]

Sam48, are you a neo-Luddite of sorts? Science and the Government are one? Do you just choose to ignore anything that isn't convenient to your ideas regarding the world?

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Sam48, are you a neo-Luddite of sorts? Science and the Government are one? Do you just choose to ignore anything that isn't convenient to your ideas regarding the world?

What he's saying is that these 'scientists' are dependent on government funding and that creates a huge conflict of interest. Support AGW; get $$$. Don't support AGW; no $$$.

It's the Golden Rule: he who has the most gold rules. In this instance, it's governments picking winners and losers for their own benefit and not for the pursuit of truth.

Read before you start throwing around big words you probably don't understand the meaning or history of.

 

[Azuremen]

What he's saying is that these 'scientists' are dependent on government funding and that creates a huge conflict of interest. Support AGW; get $$$. Don't support AGW; no $$$.

It's the Golden Rule: he who has the most gold rules. In this instance, it's governments picking winners and losers for their own benefit and not for the pursuit of truth.

Read before you start throwing around big words you probably don't understand the meaning or history of.

My apologies, oh wise one. He seems to have confused more than just I.

The conflict of interest maybe there, but certainly not as much as he is portraying.

And honestly, you really need to stop with the insults. It grows old and tiresome, lacking any creativity in it as well.

 

[Touring Mars]

While some scientists make a healthy living, and attract large amounts of government funding, it is frankly absurd to suggest that the entire scientific community itself cannot be trusted because of a 'conflict of interest'. The beauty of science is that it doesn't matter who discovers something, or reports something, or how much individual scientists stand to gain (or lose) financially, or if the media/blogosphere spin a story out of all recognition, the science itself will always be open to scrutiny, subject to correction, and ultimately, if it isn't right, it will not survive. The problem is not about the science, but the conflict that arises when political decisions are being made based on it. In the case of climate change, policy is being driven by science that is not (and possibly never will be) complete - and as such, it will always come down to an assessment of risk rather than a more straightforward decision based on certainties.

But, on a more general note, science and technology (esp. the internet) have, in the last few decades, led to an increasing awareness of the fact that we are more than capable of affecting the habitability of our planet. We are among the first generations to realise that we have a responsibility to future generations to ensure that we do not make the planet inhospitable, not just for ourselves, but for the biosphere in general (on which we completely depend).

On that front, while we are very good at making the planet more hospitable (for some) in the short term, we are also more than capable of making the planet less hospitable for everyone in the long term - and there is mounting evidence that certain activities are doing exactly this (habitat destruction, overfishing, ocean acidification, atmospheric pollution etc.). While the consequences of this behaviour may be difficult to predict, it is clear that these things are happening and that they bring with them tremendous risks of which we ought to be keenly aware. As a species, we have achieved great things, and I'm sure we will continue to do so - but it is not a given. We cannot afford to ignore the long term cost of short term gains. And we cannot simply pretend that the Earth will continue to provide hospitality for our species no matter what we do to it. That would be a blind assumption based on no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The beauty of science is that it doesn't matter who discovers something, or reports something, or how much individual scientists stand to gain (or lose) financially, or if the media/blogosphere spin a story out of all recognition, the science itself will always be open to scrutiny, subject to correction, and ultimately, if it isn't right, it will not survive.

The earth is flat survived very long.
The earth is "sphere like" was brought up several times before it got accepted.

So I believe indeed the conclusion from this is, let people express themselves, educated people to be critical and verify what others are saying to put the right value on it. This is the way that we will make most progress.

But we can not deny that people with Public Relation power will support theories that fit their goals, more then they will support the theories that make most sense.

 

[Keef]

What he's saying is that these 'scientists' are dependent on government funding and that creates a huge conflict of interest. Support AGW; get $$$. Don't support AGW; no $$$.

It's the Golden Rule: he who has the most gold rules. In this instance, it's governments picking winners and losers for their own benefit and not for the pursuit of truth.

This is the point I've been making, and very plainly I thought. Sam48 continued to quote scientific sources that are actually part of the government, even though I said that was the problem in the first place and he said he knew it was a problem.

 

[OG_Wretch]

The thing about going around saying the End is near is that some day you will be correct.

In the meantime there is living to do.

 

[Sam48]

Sam48 continued to quote scientific sources that are actually part of the government, even though I said that was the problem in the first place and he said he knew it was a problem.

Yes, however, I was careful to only quote scientists who had either retired, and therefore had nothing to gain, or ones who had joined these government groups, and then retracted due to the fact that they did not want their work administered by an outside body.

 

[Dotini]

A Queensland physicist, perhaps suffering from snakebite, famine or the effects of cooking over kangaroo dung, is predicting that Earth will have two suns, perhaps at the fateful year 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/two-suns-twin-stars_n_811864.html

Earth could be getting a second sun, at least temporarily.

Dr. Brad Carter, Senior Lecturer of Physics at the University of Southern Queensland, outlined the scenario to news.com.au. Betelgeuse, one of the night sky's brightest stars, is losing mass, indicating it is collapsing. It could run out of fuel and go super-nova at any time.

When that happens, for at least a few weeks, we'd see a second sun, Carter says. There may also be no night during that timeframe.

Personally, I will bet $100 that this does not happen.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[BobK]

It could happen by 2012. It could also happen (equally likely, I think) by 20012. Or 200012. In either of the latter cases, I'm not too terribly concerned about it.

 

[Starfirebird]

I just found out the other day that methane is now seeping from the ocean into our atmosphere.I'm not sure how much because the show i was watching wouldn't exactly say.

I do know that methane is 25 times more powerful than CO2,so should there be some concern with this?

 

[Dotini]

I just found out the other day that methane is now seeping from the ocean into our atmosphere.I'm not sure how much because the show i was watching wouldn't exactly say.

I do know that methane is 25 times more powerful than CO2,so should there be some concern with this?

Nothing to worry about overmuch. Methane is released from vast areas of decomposing arctic tundra and warming permafrost, as well. No harm is done. Climactic conditions have varied wildly in the distant past. There have been times when the Earth was a snowball, but still the CO2 was off the clock. We don't know enough about Earth to get too excited and jump to conclusions about what we ought to do or not do, or get worried about.

The basic driver of Earthly climate is the Sun. Let's study what's going on there to know what's about to happen here.


Kind regards,
Dotini