|
Post by commonsense on Oct 4, 2011 2:14:27 GMT
Excellent attempt to trap instead of actually providing anything productive! Shame on you. Yes, ocean acidification is a big problem. Since, even by deniers' count, 1/2 of crustaceans will be directly negatively affected, and the web of life depends on all species, the total effect will be to hurt nearly all species, including those who thicken their shells as a result of acidification, and importantly, even those species which don't have shells. Of course, there are folks like you who think that a loss of 50% or more of species is no big deal, but the reality is that such a large reduction in diversity will result in weedy conditions. Red tides are NOT a good thing for humans. Jellyfish and toxic algae will flourish, but is that something we want? "Elevated pCO2 levels in seawater, such as those predicted for the year 2300, are known to have diverse effects on calcification rate, little effect on egg production and a negative effect on growth rate and moulting frequency in marine crustacean species. At these levels, embryonic development is negatively impacted, but larval and juvenile stages do not appear to be affected, unless the changes in pCO2 are accompanied by rising temperatures. Overall, marine crustaceans are broadly tolerant to the seawater pCO2 levels expected by 2100 and 2300, but only in the medium-term (weeks) and only in the more adaptable species." c-can.msi.ucsb.edu/articles-of-interest/physiological-and-ecological-responses-of-crustaceans-to-ocean-acidificationCommonsense: I was trying to lead Thermostat to produce some papers supporting his view. To say shame on me is a bit on the wrong order as the intent was to try and get him to participate with literature. Was I asking too much? I have expressed in the past that I think the lowering of the ocean ph to be a very valid concern. I know that approx 1/2 of crustacieans will be helped with a lower ph, and approx 1/2 will have a tougher row. Do I find evidence that lower ph will lead to widespread extinctions? No, I do not. With that said tho, the variability of life within the oceans is so complex that to give one part a head start over another part may produce results that are not benifical for mankind. So....to me it is a concern because of the unkown. Attempting to get Thermostat to produce papers to support his contentions is a fool's errand. That's not his style. Thermostat posts conclusions without evidence, expecting the reader to dig up the evidence herself. Your contention that 1/2 of crustaceans will be helped by lower pH is not robust. If a crustacean's shell is thickened, that doesn't mean the crustacean is helped. If it were so, the crustacean would have already evolved to produce a thicker shell. Thinning is another matter. Loss of a shell means death. Plus, food is important. If a thicker-shelled crustacean feeds on organisms who die off because of the inability to create shells, then that crustacean will be dramatically hurt. Will lower pH lead to widespread extinction? I don't know either. However, stressors build on each other. Increased temperature is a stressor. So is a change in pH. So is a reduction in oxygen. All three are happening at once in the ocean at a rate that is unprecedented.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 4, 2011 2:36:13 GMT
Commonsense: I was trying to lead Thermostat to produce some papers supporting his view. To say shame on me is a bit on the wrong order as the intent was to try and get him to participate with literature. Was I asking too much? I have expressed in the past that I think the lowering of the ocean ph to be a very valid concern. I know that approx 1/2 of crustacieans will be helped with a lower ph, and approx 1/2 will have a tougher row. Do I find evidence that lower ph will lead to widespread extinctions? No, I do not. With that said tho, the variability of life within the oceans is so complex that to give one part a head start over another part may produce results that are not benifical for mankind. So....to me it is a concern because of the unkown. Attempting to get Thermostat to produce papers to support his contentions is a fool's errand. That's not his style. Thermostat posts conclusions without evidence, expecting the reader to dig up the evidence herself. Your contention that 1/2 of crustaceans will be helped by lower pH is not robust. If a crustacean's shell is thickened, that doesn't mean the crustacean is helped. If it were so, the crustacean would have already evolved to produce a thicker shell. Thinning is another matter. Loss of a shell means death. Plus, food is important. If a thicker-shelled crustacean feeds on organisms who die off because of the inability to create shells, then that crustacean will be dramatically hurt. Will lower pH lead to widespread extinction? I don't know either. However, stressors build on each other. Increased temperature is a stressor. So is a change in pH. So is a reduction in oxygen. All three are happening at once in the ocean at a rate that is unprecedented. Basically then, anyone can say anything and should never be expected to provide evidence. Interesting way to form a debate. These look pretty healthy don't they? How can that be?
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 4, 2011 7:31:59 GMT
Attempting to get Thermostat to produce papers to support his contentions is a fool's errand. That's not his style. Thermostat posts conclusions without evidence, expecting the reader to dig up the evidence herself. Your contention that 1/2 of crustaceans will be helped by lower pH is not robust. If a crustacean's shell is thickened, that doesn't mean the crustacean is helped. If it were so, the crustacean would have already evolved to produce a thicker shell. Thinning is another matter. Loss of a shell means death. Plus, food is important. If a thicker-shelled crustacean feeds on organisms who die off because of the inability to create shells, then that crustacean will be dramatically hurt. Will lower pH lead to widespread extinction? I don't know either. However, stressors build on each other. Increased temperature is a stressor. So is a change in pH. So is a reduction in oxygen. All three are happening at once in the ocean at a rate that is unprecedented. Basically then, anyone can say anything and should never be expected to provide evidence. Interesting way to form a debate. These look pretty healthy don't they? How can that be? Thermostat doesn't back up his claims. Your conclusion is that NOBODY should do so? Truly a stupid conclusion. I'm still waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence about your hypothetical Woods/Arrhenius debate. So far you've been even less productive than Thermostat. You EVER going to note what Arrhenius or Woods said about the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 4, 2011 7:50:37 GMT
Your contention that 1/2 of crustaceans will be helped by lower pH is not robust. If a crustacean's shell is thickened, that doesn't mean the crustacean is helped. If it were so, the crustacean would have already evolved to produce a thicker shell.
It appears here you are making the same mistake as the Soviets and Nazis.
Lamarckism was founded on the idea that evolution is influenced by the environment. Its the trap that Lysenko and Michurin fell into.
Popular belief today is evolution is chaotic and competitive. The perfect animal does not exist and if it did it would only be perfect for an instant as change is always going on.
Only by chance does an attribute emerge that provides a competitive advantage and not many species are going to go extinct because the weather changes slightly. They already survive through seasonal changes that exceed what we could reasonably expect in the next thousand years. The ones that do go extinct will go because some other creature was better equipped.
Its not possible to know if that is a good or bad outcome.
And if you think standing pat is a good idea then you are even stupider. Evolution doesn't stop because the weather didn't change! And its impossible know if that is good or bad either.
Where this whole friggin climate change jumps the tracks is in believing you know personally which direction is good or bad and you are intent on forcing those "guesses" down the throats of the masses.
This is the inevitable route to failure.
Socialism, national socialism, and communism will always fall on its own sword from picking a wrong belief and enforcing that belief universally.
It doesn't even matter if you are right half the time the system is going to collapse from its sheer size and lack of responsiveness when half its ideas or even 1% of its ideas fails calamitously.
When these issues are left to free men, thats the process that finds the correct path the most quickly and the most efficiently and greatly limiting the chances of a calamitous outcome. No guarantees of course but there are no guarantees of anything. What we are looking for here are like diversity. Free choice advances far more alternatives to the useful stage and it becomes for the most part as easy as picking between laundry detergents on the shelf at the supermarket. In that socialist market though there is only one brand of detergent on the shelf.
You need a meglamaniac like Al Gore who thinks he is smarter than everybody else combined to violate this fundamental principle. Look for this maniac's in your history books!
Free men should only be regulated to solve manifested problems. If we get to the point of trying to head off problems before they are manifested and documented well in science, e.g. where you can prove stuff is dying at unprecedented rates from too thick or too thin shells then and only then do you have something worthy of regulation.
To do otherwise guarantees failure.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 6, 2011 3:17:33 GMT
I suspect that this is good time to re-introduce the references I provided when this topic first got going. rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2011/anthropocene.xhtmlFrom the Royal Society. "The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? They chose to devote an entire issue to this topic. In addition, regarding the ocean acidification issue, of course I can provide references. I simply need to know what well understood observation is in question. I can provide references to the relevent science for the forum. Who is managing crazy denialist assertions in parallel?
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Oct 6, 2011 4:13:21 GMT
I suspect that this is good time to re-introduce the references I provided when this topic first got going. rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2011/anthropocene.xhtmlFrom the Royal Society. "The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? They chose to devote an entire issue to this topic. In addition, regarding the ocean acidification issue, of course I can provide references. I simply need to know what well understood observation is in question. I can provide references to the relevent science for the forum. Who is managing crazy denialist assertions in parallel? Without a doubt the current epoch has been influenced by human activity, however the extent of our influence in geologic terms is much less certain. As I interpreted the original post, it was based on climate change, however it seems to have morphed into something more, and now includes land use changes, climate, and any other human activity. This is fitting, as naming an epoch over burning some fossil fuels seems rather silly. I think that this is progress. It also seems obvious that the real anthropogenic damage to the environment has little to do with increased temperature, and much more to do with destruction of habitat. I can't help but wonder? If the IPCC funding were diverted to the plight of the South American Rain Forrest could a real disaster be averted?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2011 4:43:14 GMT
I think that this is progress. It also seems obvious that the real anthropogenic damage to the environment has little to do with increased temperature, and much more to do with destruction of habitat.
Bingo!!!
There is no question at all that extinctions so far are almost all associated with habitat destruction, not temperature change. Yet Anthropocene proponents name climate change as evidence of the Anthropocene and suggest that extinctions are the signpost as if extinctions were occurring primarily from climate change and not habitat destruction.
One could not ask for a clearer example of the politics involved in the Anthropocene discussion. Like why wasn't the Anthropocene brought up 37 years ago when the ESA was passed and most nuts thought mankind was causing another iceage?
The truth is nobody had dreamed up the idea yet. Demonstrating how relevant it really is.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 6, 2011 6:27:00 GMT
Your contention that 1/2 of crustaceans will be helped by lower pH is not robust. If a crustacean's shell is thickened, that doesn't mean the crustacean is helped. If it were so, the crustacean would have already evolved to produce a thicker shell. It appears here you are making the same mistake as the Soviets and Nazis. Lamarckism was founded on the idea that evolution is influenced by the environment. Its the trap that Lysenko and Michurin fell into. Popular belief today is evolution is chaotic and competitive. The perfect animal does not exist and if it did it would only be perfect for an instant as change is always going on. Only by chance does an attribute emerge that provides a competitive advantage and not many species are going to go extinct because the weather changes slightly. They already survive through seasonal changes that exceed what we could reasonably expect in the next thousand years. The ones that do go extinct will go because some other creature was better equipped. Its not possible to know if that is a good or bad outcome. And if you think standing pat is a good idea then you are even stupider. Evolution doesn't stop because the weather didn't change! And its impossible know if that is good or bad either. Where this whole friggin climate change jumps the tracks is in believing you know personally which direction is good or bad and you are intent on forcing those "guesses" down the throats of the masses. This is the inevitable route to failure. Socialism, national socialism, and communism will always fall on its own sword from picking a wrong belief and enforcing that belief universally. It doesn't even matter if you are right half the time the system is going to collapse from its sheer size and lack of responsiveness when half its ideas or even 1% of its ideas fails calamitously. When these issues are left to free men, thats the process that finds the correct path the most quickly and the most efficiently and greatly limiting the chances of a calamitous outcome. No guarantees of course but there are no guarantees of anything. What we are looking for here are like diversity. Free choice advances far more alternatives to the useful stage and it becomes for the most part as easy as picking between laundry detergents on the shelf at the supermarket. In that socialist market though there is only one brand of detergent on the shelf. You need a meglamaniac like Al Gore who thinks he is smarter than everybody else combined to violate this fundamental principle. Look for this maniac's in your history books! Free men should only be regulated to solve manifested problems. If we get to the point of trying to head off problems before they are manifested and documented well in science, e.g. where you can prove stuff is dying at unprecedented rates from too thick or too thin shells then and only then do you have something worthy of regulation. To do otherwise guarantees failure. Your jump off the deep end of economics and social systems is pretty pointless. Of course, you even got that wrong. The relevant issue is the Tragedy of the Commons, which states that externalities (the atmosphere, the ocean, and the biosphere - yes pretty much the whole planet) will be abused to destruction or used up inefficiently unless they are woven into the economic landscape. We're seeing exactly that as CO2 is driven upwards simply because driving it upwards is free. We were talking about how ocean acidification will affect sea life. Now, we've already discussed the issue of whether stuff is dying at unprecedented rates - the answer is yes, an increase from 10-100 species a year to 27,000 species a year, with a linear extrapolation to 0 taking 322 years (won't happen, of course. The weeds will survive). Nobody has said a peep contrary to this evidence that a major extinction event has begun. Anybody? Anything? Your "solution", which is to wait until "stuff is dying at unprecedented rates from...shells", is foolish in the extreme. By then it will be far too late. What would you propose then? Acidification follows CO2 levels, so when we get to "Oops, the oceans are dying", we'll have no choice but to watch as the oceans get even more acidic. The planet already ran an acidification experiment or two for us, though at a tremendously slower rate. (The fast rate makes this round that much more dangerous) www.ocean-acidification.net/OAdocs/SPM-lorezv2.pdf"This increase is 100 times faster than any change in acidity experienced by marine organisms for at least the last 20 million years. Sixty-five million years ago, ocean acidification was linked to mass extinctions of calcareous marine organisms, an integral part of the marine food web. At that time, coral reefs disappear from the geologic record and it took millions of years for coral reefs to recover." Here's a new article on the Permian/Triassic extinction event. Apparently, ocean acidification was involved there as well. It even gives a candidate for the first big extinction due to ocean acidification. news.discovery.com/earth/ocean-acidification-110907.html"By between 2030 and 2050, Wignall said, predictions suggest that the first victims of a drop in ocean pH are likely to be pteropods. These tiny snails live in the surface waters of high-latitude regions and form the base of the food chain for many fish and birds." And today? Here's a Scientific American article about current coral conditions. Growth is slowing down: "Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the Great Barrier Reef are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years," www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 6, 2011 7:03:34 GMT
It also seems obvious that the real anthropogenic damage to the environment has little to do with increased temperature, and much more to do with destruction of habitat. I can't help but wonder? If the IPCC funding were diverted to the plight of the South American Rain Forrest could a real disaster be averted? Currently, about 0.8% of the forest is lost per year due to habitat loss. Over the next 100 years, between 20 and 85% of it is expected to die off because of climate change. The two numbers are comparable. I think we have to work on both issues simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2011 7:52:26 GMT
And today? Here's a Scientific American article about current coral conditions. Growth is slowing down: "Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the Great Barrier Reef are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years," www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef"In the meantime, it appears that changes in sea temperatures and increased acidity are already beginning to impact the Great Barrier Reef. "Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the Great Barrier Reef are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years," the researchers wrote. "These organisms are central to the formation and function of ecosystems and food webs, and precipitous changes in the biodiversity and productivity of the world's oceans may be imminent."A CPA would get fired for such an overreaching statement in a financial report. Here we have a study of ONE specie thats not even dying off but exhibiting slower growth and the author concludes catastrophic consequences for the entire world's oceans. Its beyond irresponsible! You are really stupid. Above I pointed out that about half of species would benefit and the other half would suffer from climate change. Its a process that has gone on for billions of years. Extrapolating from a few studies and a few examinations may be the stock and trade of science these days but such irresponsible extrapolations could land you in jail or certainly subject yourself to civil liabilities if you did it as a professional in a financial investment environment. It seems to have the moral turpitude equivalence of salting a mine an act that can also land you in jail. Its amazing that the public condones this. Its like they have made a conscious decision to treat academics like children. Ah let them play! They aren't harming anything! I guess all they do harm are the ignorant. Finally you didn't address my comments on Lamarckism and how 1/2 would benefit and 1/2 would suffer. You seem to think you can make a case by anecdotal stories of individual species. That just demonstrates how stupid you are.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 6, 2011 8:21:32 GMT
I think that this is progress. It also seems obvious that the real anthropogenic damage to the environment has little to do with increased temperature, and much more to do with destruction of habitat. Bingo!!! There is no question at all that extinctions so far are almost all associated with habitat destruction, not temperature change. Yet Anthropocene proponents name climate change as evidence of the Anthropocene and suggest that extinctions are the signpost as if extinctions were occurring primarily from climate change and not habitat destruction. One could not ask for a clearer example of the politics involved in the Anthropocene discussion. Like why wasn't the Anthropocene brought up 37 years ago when the ESA was passed and most nuts thought mankind was causing another iceage? The truth is nobody had dreamed up the idea yet. Demonstrating how relevant it really is. Well, it would be nice if you got your facts straight, and even nicer if you'd apply some logic. "Most nuts thought mankind was causing another ice age"?? Actually, people thought that mankind's emissions would warm the planet while natural cycles would cool the planet, with unknown net results. Turns out, that's exactly what is happening. Your conclusion that things not thought up 37 years ago aren't relevant is IcefisherSpeak for sure. Just gotta shake one's head when it comes to you. You claim that folks who understand the Anthropocene think that (or suggest that) the current extinction rate is being driven by climate change needs substantiation. Find a post which supports your contention. These constant strawmen are getting old, especially with all the crowing. "CAW! CAW! I FOUND A MAN OF STRAW!!!!", said the icefisher. That's two Strawmen in one short post.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2011 8:48:34 GMT
Well, it would be nice if you got your facts straight, and even nicer if you'd apply some logic. "Most nuts thought mankind was causing another ice age"?? Actually, people thought that mankind's emissions would warm the planet while natural cycles would cool the planet, with unknown net results. Turns out, that's exactly what is happening.
A) I was talking about nuts not everybody. B) Nuts thought it was emissions and the resultant aerosols that would cool the planet. C) Here is a sample paper with an abstract that blames anthropogenic causes. D) Jim Hansen wrote the program that computed the cooling. E) Steven Schneider was top salesman. F) Same nuts keep popping up. G) You should actually read your history rather than go gullible on whatever somebody tells you.
Your conclusion that things not thought up 37 years ago aren't relevant is IcefisherSpeak for sure. Just gotta shake one's head when it comes to you.
The perfect squelch was the objective. Objective obtained.
You claim that folks who understand the Anthropocene think that (or suggest that) the current extinction rate is being driven by climate change needs substantiation. Find a post which supports your contention.
No Common Sense, literally!
I was complaining about the quality of your evidence and extrapolations from them. I am perfectly satisfied with your admission above you have no evidence.
These constant strawmen are getting old, especially with all the crowing. "CAW! CAW! I FOUND A MAN OF STRAW!!!!", said the icefisher. That's two Strawmen in one short post.
So how old did you say you were?
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 6, 2011 10:41:24 GMT
And today? Here's a Scientific American article about current coral conditions. Growth is slowing down: "Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the Great Barrier Reef are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years," www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef"In the meantime, it appears that changes in sea temperatures and increased acidity are already beginning to impact the Great Barrier Reef. "Our data show that growth and calcification of massive Porites in the Great Barrier Reef are already declining and are doing so at a rate unprecedented in coral records reaching back 400 years," the researchers wrote. "These organisms are central to the formation and function of ecosystems and food webs, and precipitous changes in the biodiversity and productivity of the world's oceans may be imminent."A CPA would get fired for such an overreaching statement in a financial report. Here we have a study of ONE specie thats not even dying off but exhibiting slower growth and the author concludes catastrophic consequences for the entire world's oceans. Its beyond irresponsible! You are really stupid. Above I pointed out that about half of species would benefit and the other half would suffer from climate change. Its a process that has gone on for billions of years. Extrapolating from a few studies and a few examinations may be the stock and trade of science these days but such irresponsible extrapolations could land you in jail or certainly subject yourself to civil liabilities if you did it as a professional in a financial investment environment. It seems to have the moral turpitude equivalence of salting a mine an act that can also land you in jail. Its amazing that the public condones this. Its like they have made a conscious decision to treat academics like children. Ah let them play! They aren't harming anything! I guess all they do harm are the ignorant. Finally you didn't address my comments on Lamarckism and how 1/2 would benefit and 1/2 would suffer. You seem to think you can make a case by anecdotal stories of individual species. That just demonstrates how stupid you are. "precipitous changes in the biodiversity and productivity of the world's oceans may be imminent" simply expresses a possibility, the speculation of which certainly doesn't rest solely on the words in the article, but on the entire record. I notice that you snipped off the other two references, one of which brought the coral story into perspective by noting that coral reefs disappeared the last time a warming and ocean acidification pulse came through. Your inability to parse the word "may", inability to look at multiple references at once, and inability to understand that in a news blurb all of the supporting evidence can't be presented doesn't reflect on anybody but yourself. If you have any evidence that corals likely won't largely disappear, go ahead and present it. Coral has been demonstrated to be sensitive to both temperature and pH, and has largely disappeared before most likely because of temperature and pH. Currently coral is in widespread decline, with Fox News reporting that "Growth rates among corals on the Great Barrier Reef have slumped to their slowest in at least four centuries and growth is expected to cease within 26 years." www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475068,00.html#ixzz1Zzq9mZ8E The evidence supports the researchers' conclusion, that corals may largely disappear again in the near future. You said (and now want comments on, which demonstrates your intellectual prowess!), "Generally speaking since climate change has occurred in the past, species are grouped around environmental conditions and about 1/2 will benefit and the other 1/2 will have negative affects, balancing out to somewhere around zero." That's a ridiculous claim. Yep, a true Icefisherism. It is wrong on so many levels. Species evolve to take advantage of the specific environmental conditions where they live. There's a range of conditions which suit the species, and when the magnitude of changes exceeds that range, the species has to migrate or die off. If that migration can't keep up with changing conditions, the species goes extinct. Species also interact with each other, and such links can be broken. When flowers bloom at one time and their pollinators mature at another, things die off, for example. Got anything to back up your Magic 50% claim? Quoting you, more or less, "A CPA would get fired for making such a statement on a financial report." You sure ask for high standards for others, but what comes out of your keyboard is just plain unsubstantiated drivel. Substantiate or retract your 50% claim. Lamarckism? Are you a follower of Lamarck? Do you know any followers of Lamarck? Has Lamarck got anything at all to do with the current discussion? What's your point of bringing him up? Why should I comment on Lamarck? You and your Nazis and Communists and Lamarckisms! LOLOL. Your posts are such a hoot.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2011 15:47:25 GMT
You said (and now want comments on, which demonstrates your intellectual prowess!), "Generally speaking since climate change has occurred in the past, species are grouped around environmental conditions and about 1/2 will benefit and the other 1/2 will have negative affects, balancing out to somewhere around zero." That's a ridiculous claim. Yep, a true Icefisherism. It is wrong on so many levels. Species evolve to take advantage of the specific environmental conditions where they live.
You are expressing Lamarckism. Obviously you are missing the point of the Lamarckism issue as you are merely educated on evolution but do not understand it.
Environmental conditions do not direct evolution.
Environmental conditions exclusively determines the winner and loser in a competitive world.
Projections of mass extinctions from minor changes in environmental conditions are entirely without evidence.
Most species will benefit from more CO2. Some will not. Like retreating to ice volume in the Arctic as the last refuge of planetary signs of global warming; nutcases will latch onto any overstatement of the affects of increased CO2 whether a shred of science supports it or not.
I provided your own link that extrapolated from the slowing growth of one coral to worldwide catastrophe of the oceans of the entire world.
You obviously latch onto this stuff without even thinking and that is evidenced by your actually using that link to try to make your case.
Its pure witchdoctory.
Corals have long been the retreat of every environmental issue in the ocean and most of these claims have already been proven wrong.
Give me a real study that actually addresses the global effects in a methodical manner and we can discuss that rather than the nursery school science you seem to prefer.
There's a range of conditions which suit the species, and when the magnitude of changes exceeds that range, the species has to migrate or die off.
Yeah like the Vikings of Greenland!
Species migrate.
If that migration can't keep up with changing conditions, the species goes extinct.
So what? Is this merely stating a fact or do you have some evidence to suggest a doubling or tripling of CO2 will harm more species than it benefits?
Species also interact with each other, and such links can be broken. When flowers bloom at one time and their pollinators mature at another, things die off, for example. Got anything to back up your Magic 50% claim? Quoting you, more or less, "A CPA would get fired for making such a statement on a financial report." You sure ask for high standards for others, but what comes out of your keyboard is just plain unsubstantiated drivel. Substantiate or retract your 50% claim.
Thats a strawman! I did not apply the statement to the situation that you have chosen to attach it to.
Lamarckism? Are you a follower of Lamarck? Do you know any followers of Lamarck? Has Lamarck got anything at all to do with the current discussion? What's your point of bringing him up? Why should I comment on Lamarck? You and your Nazis and Communists and Lamarckisms! LOLOL. Your posts are such a hoot.
Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.
Any claim that environmental conditions create species explicitly designed to take advantage of those conditions implies Lamarckism.
That was your claim that species evolved to take advantage of environmental conditions. Its a concept of perfection of creation that the bulk of species have evolved to an ideal compatibility with their environment. But its false!
Species are only better adapted relative to their competition. There is always room for improvement and the random chance of some specie coming along even better adapted, because there never is perfection.
Thus when environmental changes occur it does to the benefit of some and the detriment of others.
You just reach into the stupid barrel and pull out a conclusion that says what you want it to say that in general species will be harmed. And when questioned about it you link to other stupid people who tend to reach into the stupid barrel for support also.
I am actually being generous to your point of view by saying 1/2 will benefit and 1/2 will suffer. It is is almost certainly that more than 1/2 will benefit.
One can judge that by looking at the change. If you spread a poison generally deadly to life its more than likely more than 1/2 will suffer. The converse is also true, if you spread a substance essential to life its more likely most species will benefit.
One has to only look at the history of man to see mankind benefitted greatly from the increases in CO2 and global warming so far. Nutcases can pretend to know when that benefit will end but they are just nutcases.
Such a simple test of benefit obviously has some shortcomings so I stuck with 1/2 and 1/2. However, logic dictates if anything the assumption should be more than 1/2 will benefit. The burden of proof of anything else is on you as logic says so.
Fear of change is the best way to characterize it as if the world were ideal and all change is bad. There is nothing to support that point of view.
In this day and ages its easy to find real environmental causes. Fact is environmentalism is a worthwhile enterprise, so popular that its been hijacked in to a global political issue.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 6, 2011 16:54:19 GMT
Commonsense, when you said;
"There's a range of conditions which suit the species, and when the magnitude of changes exceeds that range, the species has to migrate or die off."
I laughed and laughed and laughed. Thanks.
|
|