The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

For those interested - a little known bit about the ocean's carbon cycle. 

Also of interest to fans of Submarines and sonar 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

while current extant fauna and flora have survived a lot in the past, it doesn't mean they will now

True.  One of the odd things I've noticed is that Nature has experimented with giantism a few times and keeps correcting to smaller, more efficient forms. 

Certainly, giant dinosaurs were around for a very long time - but there at the end, it was already evident that smaller dinosaurs were becoming more prevalent.  Similarly, giant mammals roamed the earth, but those that survived are currently smaller than even their cousins from time before the pleistocene

[NFUN]

26 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

True.  One of the odd things I've noticed is that Nature has experimented with giantism a few times and keeps correcting to smaller, more efficient forms. 

Certainly, giant dinosaurs were around for a very long time - but there at the end, it was already evident that smaller dinosaurs were becoming more prevalent.  Similarly, giant mammals roamed the earth, but those that survived are currently smaller than even their cousins from time before the pleistocene

what you're saying is no more than "different things work at different times in different environments". Gigantism worked until it didn't and then it worked again until it stopped and some day it will once more be in vogue when the conditions are right. I don't think there's much to glean from here 

[kerbiloid]

Unlikely the natural evolution can evolve something bigger than dog anymore, because it would anyway intersect with human sphere of interest.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Unlikely the natural evolution can evolve something bigger than dog anymore, because it would anyway intersect with human sphere of interest.

Unless humans go extinct or are reduced to very small (near-relict) populations.

Now that's not to say that will happen, but it is a possibility.

But that said, if humans were to go extinct, you would need to kill off quite a few other species as well, so whether capybaras in South America could once again achieve the size of J. Monesi (like cow level) once humans go extinct is unlikely, because for humans to go extinct you need a lot of other major species, including capybaras, to go extinct too.

So while gigantism could become common again, it probably wouldn't look like the Miocene or Pliocene, it would be completely new.

I think that is what @NFUN meant. Not "we are going to go back to having widespread mammoth populations in Russia and giant sloths and rodents in South America" but more so "something may be very large again one day".

As far as hypotheticals go though, I can't think of any fauna occupying a similar role in the Cenozoic to that of mammals in the late Mesozoic. Those would be the best candidates for future gigantism, assuming humans go extinct relatively soon (within this hypothetical scenario).

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

One of the odd things I've noticed is that Nature has experimented with giantism a few times and keeps correcting to smaller, more efficient forms.

Now, human science is human science, and humans can not not be human, so to expect them to not be human is a rather absurd expectation, but I think in studying evolution it is important not (to put it in frank manner, not directed at you but at everyone including myself) "to get cocky".

I think despite "our" best attempts to remain unbiased and neutral in going about studying the universe, "we" can not help but be influenced by how "we" (humans) went about contemplating the world in the past (this doesn't just apply to science/understanding the world, but all other aspects of human behavior as well, but that is a topic for another thread ). Thus there seems to be a tendency to believe "we" are impervious to nature, capable of overcoming any problem; although it is not actually said like this, the rhetoric sometimes used makes one think "we" are somehow "chosen". This is dangerous, as in reality, "we", so far, are just a blip in the Earth's history. A successful blip for sure, with lots of potential, but still a blip.

"We" have a tendency to personify nature. Thus, "we" end up thinking nature was designed to lead to "us", that "we" are "special" or even "superior"- that we are "the ultimate Earthly fauna" of sorts. But nature is not a person, and we are not the heroes of some movie or novel ("nature" is just a term we use when trying to contemplate "the world" (not the human philosophical concept of "the world", the actual physical things in front of us))- "we" simply "have happened". But because "we" interpret nature in such a manner, "we" end up with statements like that I mentioned earlier. And these statements and the associated mindset then lead to poor interpretation of the severity of what is happening with climate and ocean acidification. Such occurrences underline how silly that human assurance that "we" are "special" and "destined" to "become the first species on Earth to expand beyond the planet", etc., is. That assurance in turn leads to poor understanding and "taking serious-ness" of climate change and ocean acidification. This also occurs with other major issues such as the maintenance of nuclear weapons arsenals ("we don't need to worry about it because we're human, we can solve anything, so we'll solve it someday!"). Such occurrences do not bode well for a supposedly "special" and "superior" species.

If "we" are actually going to solve such problems, "we" need to be humble and neutral in looking at history, "ourselves", and the other physical things around us. If, instead of good science, "we" rely on the thought that humans are "special" and "chosen", "we" are doomed. That's not to say that good science isn't being done (it is), but many of the conclusions being drawn by not necessarily the scientists themselves, but by the people empowered to use that knowledge- the rest of the human population- appear very poor and rather irresponsible (assuming that a majority of the population recognizes some sort of responsibility to protect the lives of other individuals and the species, along with the environment that supports them and it) for a supposedly "chosen" and "superior" species.

I say all of this not to bash the human species but to illustrate my concerns for its long term survival.

As @NFUN said, gigantism was efficient once, is not now, and may be again. It would be unwise to refer to gigantism as "inefficient" and smaller size as "efficient" just because "we" are not giant and a lot of the extant fauna today are small. That would* represent a bias towards thinking that "ourselves" are ideal, which while true from "our" point of view and within "our" own minds, is incorrect in reality. Nature might fling an interstellar object at Earth tomorrow and suddenly "we" would be too big and too needy- not only physically, but behaviorally as well- to survive. But again, this doesn't mean smaller organisms (down to simple life) are somehow now "ideal"- as I said above, they (would) just "be there".

*"Would" as in it would be like so if you had made that statement with such intentions. What followed the use of that word was just a hypothetical of if one (a hypothetical person) was to use such a logic with such beliefs. I do not assume that you meant that or think that, and do not intend to characterize your thoughts or accuse you of having certain beliefs 

[kerbiloid]

18 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Unless humans go extinct or are reduced to very small (near-relict) populations.

Homo S. Sapiens is the only terrestrial species able to turn any other species into pure chemical elements and consume as food.

Spoiler

Like the Equus Caballus is the only species into which you can hammer the nails.

It anyway would be the last existing species on the Earth. If it's gone, the Earth a piece of inorganic matter.

[SunlitZelkova]

7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Homo S. Sapiens is the only terrestrial species able to turn any other species into pure chemical elements and consume as food.

  Reveal hidden contents

Like the Equus Caballus is the only species into which you can hammer the nails.

It anyway would be the last existing species on the Earth. If it's gone, the Earth a piece of inorganic matter.

I'm not talking about extinction as a result of some new species destroying humanity. I'm talking about either climate change + ocean acidification (either artificial or natural) or an undetected asteroid impact eventually killing everything else which then results in most, or all, humans dying off.

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I'm not talking about extinction as a result of some new species destroying humanity. I'm talking about either climate change + ocean acidification (either artificial or natural) or an undetected asteroid impact eventually killing everything else which then results in most, or all, humans dying off.

Exactly what I mean. The last human would eat the last starfish.

[SunlitZelkova]

15 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Exactly what I mean. The last human would eat the last starfish.

It’s rather unlikely that humans could consume literally everything before going extinct. Something, even if it is rather small and seemingly insignificant, would survive probably survive.

That’s not to say it is impossible though.

[kerbiloid]

31 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It’s rather unlikely that humans could consume literally everything before going extinct. Something, even if it is rather small and seemingly insignificant, would survive probably survive.

That’s not to say it is impossible though.

The humans can turn everything into humus, then eat as vegs.

And the sea life is 10 times less in total biomass.

[kerbiloid]

On 12/3/2021 at 4:42 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/great-pacific-garbage-patch-scientists-find-surprise-coastal-life-rcna7292

The life will be populating the garbage spots, sticking them into one spot, covered by plants, crabs, then - bird nests.

The underwater side will be occupied by polyps, molluscs, small fishes.

Several decades later the former garbage will turn into a floating atoll, floatoll.

When the lower end of the floatoll riches the bottom, it becomes a totally new form of land - rooted floatoll,

If help this process form a chain of rooted floatolls across the Pacific Gulf, it will be possible to build a  Transpacific Railroad.

Edited December 7, 2021 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

47 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

help this process form a chain of rooted floatolls across the Pacific Gulf, it will be possible to build a  Transpacific Railroad.

I like the cut of your Jib, Sailor!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ocean-carbon-capture-report-national-academy-of-sciences_n_61b12211e4b04ae319f9d971

At least some of the well intentioned worry about the prospect of being an idiot.  (Article about remediation technologies) 

[FleshJeb]

7 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

At least some of the well intentioned worry about the prospect of being an idiot.  (Article about remediation technologies) 

I can't remember which thread had the reforestation link in it, but here's one way the flaws are being addressed:

https://www.1t.org/faq#question-6

Quote

Q6: How does 1t.org work to ensure responsible forestry practices are maintained?

The success of conserving, restoring, and growing forests requires following ecologically sound principles—such as only planting trees in landscapes where they are ecologically appropriate, and ensuring that biodiversity is maintained or enhanced. Converting treeless native grasslands into forests, for example, would create ecological damage that overrides any environmental benefits the trees would provide.

Furthermore, forestry activities need to incorporate scientific and traditional knowledge considerations such as “the right tree in the right place”, and considerations for planting forests that can withstand future climate change stresses.

To help guide companies that are making commitments we provide best practice inputs, such as the IUCN Standard for Nature-Based Solutions, as resources to consider when developing appropriate approaches.

All companies (and other entities in the case of the US Chapter) making a commitment towards forest conservation, restoration or reforestation are encouraged to include a statement on how they plan to uphold responsible and equitable standards when implementing their pledge. This includes “ecologically appropriate and climate-informed forestry (e.g., right tree right place)” and “long-term stewardship and capacity.”

I looked up those standards and they're very "big-picture", and don't contain technical best practices. But, the specifics are going to be local anyway, and will require study by people familiar with the situation on the ground.

---------------
Second post
---------------

This is fairly long and meandering, but at least it's on the actual topic of the thread. Goes into some minor detail on how sea-level rise is determined, and debunks common "denial" arguments:

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by FleshJeb

[DDE]

17 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

This is fairly long and meandering, but at least it's on the actual topic of the thread. Goes into some minor detail on how sea-level rise is determined, and debunks common "denial" arguments:

 

Dear lord, this guy is still going strong and fairly on-topic.

Almost everyone from the Atheists vs Creationists era of Youtube has gone into politics (and usually at each other).

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I know that weather is not climate... But it is December and we are talking about tornadoes. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wlky.com/amp/article/western-kentucky-tornado-mayfield-bowling-green-weather-beshear/38490463

Record setting tornadoes - and not just because of the month. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/12/11/weather/severe-weather-tornadoes-saturday/index.html

 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/amazon-forests-underground-scientists-want-map-worlds-fungi-rcna7899

Fungi as part of the soil CO2 sink 

[mikegarrison]

On 12/11/2021 at 7:12 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I know that weather is not climate... But it is December and we are talking about tornadoes. 

It's not so much that "weather is not climate". It's more like climate is the time integration of weather.

[Rakaydos]

This was on NPR this morning...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/a-major-antarctic-ice-shelf-could-shatter-within-five-years.html

[kerbiloid]

Quote

A major Antarctic ice shelf could shatter within five years, scientists warn

So, then it's too late to worry, let's just watch and enjoy.

P.S.
I'm missing in the article: how many USD do they bet in case if the Antarctic ice hasn't shattered in five years?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

This was on NPR this morning...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/a-major-antarctic-ice-shelf-could-shatter-within-five-years.html

"Global sea levels will rise two to six feet by 2100 on the current trajectory" 

Hmmmm.... 

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/rising-sea-level

Melting glaciers contribute enough water for 3mm per year rise.  3mm per year for 10 years is 30 mm... which is ... 11 inches, right?   Oh jeez, almost a foot per year?  Oh wow, that is terrible!  

 

... Wait, what?

3mm per year for 10 years is 30mm and 30mm is only 1.18 inch? 

https://www.google.com/search?q=30mm+to+inches&oq=30mm+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i433i512j0i512l2j0i433i512j0i512l4.4054j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

So 1.18 inch per decade?  So a hundred years and not quite a foot?  

But they said 2-6 feet in 80 years... 

Edited December 14, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Rakaydos]

Are you assuming the rate of melting will remain constant, and not vary as temperatures rise as as more ice breaks off and is exposed by cracks and rotting?

 

The article is about a specific glacer that is going to break lose and start dumping land locked ice into the sea "in the next 5 years", so that's in addition to the current rate of melt. (reminder that landlocked ice entering the ocean doesnt NEED to melt for sea level rise, as it displaces it's mass of water as soon as it enters.)

Edited December 14, 2021 by Rakaydos

[kerbiloid]

_{(obsolete after reading whole post)}

36 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Are you assuming the rate of melting will remain constant, and not vary as temperatures rise as as more ice breaks off and is exposed by cracks and rotting?

When the Agassiz icy lake had been dumped into Atlantics, it has cooled it and the Mediterranean.

Why should the melted glaciers of Antarctics, much greater in size, not cool the ocean and lower the temperature?

Does a 1 m thick ice layer has much lower albedo than a 2 km thick one?

If the frozen-but-not-a-glacier Antarctic surface keeps reflecting the sunlight due to the snow and ice, why should the 2 km thick layer of ice not cool the ocean, decreasing its temperature like the ice cubes melting in a cup?

  

36 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

(reminder that landlocked ice entering the ocean doesnt NEED to melt for sea level rise, as it displaces it's mass of water as soon as it enters.)

Thus raises humidity in coastal areas and falls as rain in mountains turning into glaciers.

Edited December 14, 2021 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

33 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Are you assuming

That's my problem with the alarm rhetoric... There are a lot of assumptions and a range of possible outcomes.  Instead of explaining that, the lazy journalist picks the most alarming possibilities and states those in affirmative language as if it is a foregone conclusion and inevitable result. 

I find it counterproductive. 

 

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

That's my problem with the alarm rhetoric... There are a lot of assumptions and a range of possible outcomes.  Instead of explaining that, the lazy journalist picks the most alarming possibilities and states those in affirmative language as if it is a foregone conclusion and inevitable result. 

I find it counterproductive. 

 

Would you be any less skeptical if it said 30 years instead of 10? I prefer they post accurate projections, with the understanding that climate predictions will never be precise.