The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

For those interested: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/56643993-hurricane-lizards-and-plastic-squid

"... the remarkable story of how plants and animals are responding to climate change: adjusting, evolving, and sometimes dying out. Anole lizards have grown larger toe pads, to grip more tightly in frequent hurricanes. Warm waters cause the development of Humboldt squid to alter so dramatically that fishermen mistake them for different species. Brown pelicans move north, and long-spined sea urchins south, to find cooler homes. "

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[magnemoe]

On 12/26/2021 at 7:40 PM, NFUN said:

LOL, amazing to get the Rexthor the dog bearer idea. Now if you was pewdiepie you might make an new star sign  
 

[SunlitZelkova]

On 12/31/2021 at 4:38 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

"... the remarkable story of how plants and animals are responding to climate change: adjusting, evolving, and sometimes dying out. Anole lizards have grown larger toe pads, to grip more tightly in frequent hurricanes. Warm waters cause the development of Humboldt squid to alter so dramatically that fishermen mistake them for different species. Brown pelicans move north, and long-spined sea urchins south, to find cooler homes. "

I have no ill will towards the author, he seems to be a good fellow and decent scientist.

But just based on the description, things feel off about this book.

Grievances-

1. Nothing has really "evolved" since science became a thing. That takes millions of years. To put that into perspective, science itself is (according to English language sources) not more than 3000 years old.

2. Regardless of how lizards and squid change to "weather the weather", it doesn't matter- regardless of what the "real" implications on climate are of CO2 emissions, ocean acidification will happen anyways, causing a collapse of marine ecosystems, which has the potential to spread to land ecosystems as well.

3. Animals moving to another area is not a good thing. It will put pressure on existing species already in their destination. It isn't a solution to habitat destruction: it just leads to the destruction of another habitat.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

9 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I have no ill will towards the author, he seems to be a good fellow and decent scientist.

But just based on the description, things feel off about this book.

Grievances-

1. Nothing has really "evolved" since science became a thing. That takes millions of years. To put that into perspective, science itself is (according to English language sources) not more than 3000 years old.

2. Regardless of how lizards and squid change to "weather the weather", it doesn't matter- regardless of what the "real" implications on climate are of CO2 emissions,

3. Animals moving to another area is not a good thing. It will put pressure on existing species already in their destination. It isn't a solution to habitat destruction: it just leads to the destruction of another habitat.

3 Not sure the author is recommending the shifting of habitats, as much as reporting it. 

1 Also - I'm not sure they're saying they evolved into a different species, rather that natural selection seems to be at play where certain characteristics of a species in a given area seem to be favored.  Certainly that can lead to speciation, but if you put one long legged lizard in a box with a short legged lizard of the opposite sex, they'll still have lizard babies.

 

11 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

ocean acidification will happen anyways, causing a collapse of marine ecosystems, which has the potential to spread to land ecosystems as well.

Ummmm.  It might happen.  

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Ummmm.  It might happen.  

Ocean acidification is already measurably happening.

It's pretty much an automatic consequence of increasing the CO2 concentration. More CO2 in the air means more gets absorbed into the ocean, and the mechanism for that absorption is the creation of carbonic acid.

(The ocean is still basic. But it's not as basic as it used to be.)

Edited January 2, 2022 by mikegarrison

[Jacke]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. Nothing has really "evolved" since science became a thing. That takes millions of years. To put that into perspective, science itself is (according to English language sources) not more than 3000 years old.

Ah, evolution has been commonly observed.

Significant evolution has been observed in as little as 20 generations.  This was first observed in selective breeding of plants and animals in the 19th and 20th Centuries, which is evolution by artificial selection.  Later many other common natural evolutions have been seen.  And here's the evolution experiment that shows this in spades.

 

[DDE]

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. Nothing has really "evolved" since science became a thing. That takes millions of years. To put that into perspective, science itself is (according to English language sources) not more than 3000 years old.

Because this was a major Young Earth Creationist talking point, there are many caches left over from the Atheist-Creationist Wars era of the Internet.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[kerbiloid]

The evolution has created the species, now the evolver is making them equal.

Why should the process stay random?

[SunlitZelkova]

Grievance No. 1 was poorly phrased. Basically it can be divided in to two questions his statement raised-

1. Is this actual speciation or just a more frequent trait of a few populations? Can it be expected to last over the next thousand or ten thousand years?

2. How widespread is this?

These questions come to mind as it feels as though the author is using these observations to make the case that climate change will be survivable in the long term. The description calls it a story of hope (among other things such as resilience and risk), but I don't understand why the few examples are actually hope filled (and thus why I should read it).

Another excerpt from the review site- "A beloved natural historian explores how climate change is driving evolution". But is this lasting evolution or just a widespread appearance of a certain trait prior to ecological collapse and extinction? I wonder, as I get the vibe that "climate change is driving evolution" is a statement intended to make me think the rest of the organisms on Earth will "just evolve" and therefore we don't need to worry about CO2 emissions and pollution.

[mikegarrison]

We are reaching into some basic questions of evolutionary theory. Do species (shared gene pools) slowly change over time? Or do they rapidly adjust to new conditions? Or both?

Keep in mind, however, that the only mechanism for "rapid adjustment" is a mass die-off of everything that doesn't survive the new conditions. The difference between rapid evolution and mass extinction is simply whether you happen to be in the small fragment of the population that survives or whether you are in the large fragment that dies.

Edited January 2, 2022 by mikegarrison

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

9 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

not as basic as it used to be

Differs from 'it will inevitably happen'. 

Part of what I was reacting to was a fatalistic tone in Sunlit's phasing.  I'm not outright rejecting the possibility (the worst is in the realm of possibility), I just don't think it likely.  

[kerbiloid]

When a human sees that a cat is not looking like a dog, he calls it "species".
He gets ensured when there are no catdog kittens and puppies.

The cats think that the dogs are wrong cats.
The dogs think that the cats are wrong dogs.

Edited January 2, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

53 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

both

Is the likely answer.  We see natural selection and genetic manipulation since we started playing around with dogs, chickens, cows and more recently peas and flowers.

Speciation is a larger issue - hard to argue that Mastiffs are different from Pugs when they don't produce mules (just messed up Dawgs). 

In the 'big events' where only some things have survived they do have a large impact on the next Period's flora and fauna - evolution is easier to point to. 

Regardless of the details, the answer is likely both. 

[SunlitZelkova]

On 1/2/2022 at 7:22 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Differs from 'it will inevitably happen'. 

Part of what I was reacting to was a fatalistic tone in Sunlit's phasing.  I'm not outright rejecting the possibility (the worst is in the realm of possibility), I just don't think it likely.  

I have done a little searching in response to your comments, but I am unable to find anything indicating ocean acidification and the associated massive damage to (or destruction of) marine ecosystems is "unlikely" or "not likely".

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification - Here is a nice run down by Smithsonian's Ocean Initiative.

On an individual basis, some species appear to be capable of adapting, but many others are not. You need everyone generally good to keep an ecosystem functioning, and unfortunately it is largely the most critical organisms that are threatened.

Although I am personally more pessimistic about the future, the most conservative outlook for ocean acidification (that I am aware of as of this post) could be summed up with this metaphor: "While the extent of climate change's effects are debatable, ocean acidification is like swerving towards an oncoming car- you don't know whether you will be killed outright, survive paralyzed, lose your legs, or just suffer a large number of broken bones, but it will happen and it will be bad and widespread".

There are "more conservative" views of the situation, but these appear to be mainly held by people who just haven't conducted deep research on the subject, rather than evidence it will be "mild". I recall an interview with a marine biologist in Time a couple months ago who said something to the effect of "the chemistry of the ocean is changing. And that's big". No disastrous panic, but that's probably because her main area of research was turtles, not anything related to ocean chemistry or marine ecosystems.

Unrelated comment- the lack of coverage of ocean acidification in the media and government makes me wonder whether the public actually is "concerned" about climate change (which it supposedly is according to polls) or if it is just "eating the news" and reacting to it, instead of responding. To use a morbid metaphor- if one cares about human life and is taking a walk in the woods, if they hear screaming they go investigate or call for help, not just think to themselves "that's terrible" and continue walking.

[NFUN]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I have done a little searching in response to your comments, but I am unable to find anything indicating ocean acidification and the associated massive damage to (or destruction of) marine ecosystems is "unlikely" or "not likely".

It is unlikely because it is extreme and extreme outcomes are unlikely qed

[DDE]

[miklkit]

Polar bears are in trouble.  There is a lot less sea ice, which they rest on while fishing.   This means they aren't eating so well since they can't go out as far where the fish are. 

Plus the Grizzly bears are moving North and are taking over their breeding grounds.  The Grizzlies are better fighters and are killing a lot of the Polar bears too.  They may go extinct.

[StrandedonEarth]

Another reason why I keep saying that the Arctic needs floating PV arrays to soak up the sun before it heats up the water. It can also serve as artificial sea ice for the polar bears and seals!

[SunlitZelkova]

On 1/7/2022 at 8:34 AM, NFUN said:

It is unlikely because it is extreme and extreme outcomes are unlikely qed

I apologize, I am unsure whether you are being sarcastic or not.

Here is an interesting article on using the extreme end of things to talk about climate change- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0076-2 apparently a bias does exist towards believing in the worst.

With ocean acidification though my problem is there aren't really any "non-extreme" predictions or models. It's not like climate change you have models that say there will only be a few inches of sea level rise and slightly more common extreme weather. At best, local food webs and the associated ecosystems are food sources are devastated, affecting maybe "only" 400 million people minimum. At worst, we have a broad extinction across the oceans. We don't know how that might potentially affect land ecosystems.

At this moment in time, believing in a "non-extreme" outcome would require one to hope chemical oceanographers suck at their job and got the data wrong, and that marine biologists suck at their job and are incorrect about the tolerance of different species to change.

If there is data to suggest otherwise, I would gladly change my view, but "it is unlikely because it is extreme" feels like a flimsy reason. Extreme climate change outcomes are unlikely because the IPCC and other climate researchers actually feel they are unlikely, not just "because they are extreme".

Quote

Humans throughout history- "this event is unlikely [solely] because it is extreme"

The extreme events-

Spoiler

 

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

And yet, somehow we muddle along.

@SunlitZelkova - I get and respect your concern.  I just don't share your sense of the inevitable that the worst is going to happen.

Bad things can and do happen... but that does not mean they always must.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

For those interested:

https://bookshop.org/books/fresh-banana-leaves-healing-indigenous-landscapes-through-indigenous-science/9781623176051?gclid=CjwKCAiA5t-OBhByEiwAhR-hm-aHwwGfMM5gZ-zC23Tqa_9e8EgPLR8WAv54gKQ1FEWJo-LIlWh5nxoC-R4QAvD_BwE

Book describes indigenous people's success at conservation and the disparity between the Western science-driven-by-outsiders approach compared to traditional land use. 

[Rakaydos]

On 1/9/2022 at 2:24 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

And yet, somehow we muddle along.

@SunlitZelkova - I get and respect your concern.  I just don't share your sense of the inevitable that the worst is going to happen.

Bad things can and do happen... but that does not mean they always must.

Anyone with a "Jesus take the wheel" attitude toward ANYTHING needs to remember that god helps those who help themselves. It is -possible- to avoid all the holes and trees in the path, but only if you know they are there and have the ability to steer around them.

[MKI]

 

On 1/7/2022 at 5:57 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

Unrelated comment- the lack of coverage of ocean acidification in the media and government makes me wonder whether the public actually is "concerned" about climate change (which it supposedly is according to polls) or if it is just "eating the news" and reacting to it, instead of responding. To use a morbid metaphor- if one cares about human life and is taking a walk in the woods, if they hear screaming they go investigate or call for help, not just think to themselves "that's terrible" and continue walking.

Being concerned and being able to do something about it are two very different things.

Hearing screaming and going to investigate is a singular choice that is either made or not made.

When it comes to ocean acidification, idk what choices even exist. Or more broadly, how does one care for their environment? Sure you can end up with the same level of concern for both, but the actions you can take, or even know you can take are vastly different. 

As Joe said, "we muddle along", and I don't think its just willful ignorance on a vast majority of people, I think it comes down to lack of clear actions that can be taken. Its one thing to be a hero and go to someone screaming, its another to make all the "right" decisions on a vague problem you know exists, but with no clear direct solutions.

 

However, I do think bad things will happen simply because I don't see how they wont happen. Either now or later. Its easier to stick on that path and ignore screaming, when your not in a forest, but in a forest of society and that voice requires you and the rest of society to make the right choices every day for decades to even get to that voice. Meanwhile that society/forest is more like a river with a waterfall at the end, and your only now getting into the rapids. 

[kerbiloid]

Quote

Most of the substantial coral reefs found today are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old, according to CORAL. 

Quote

Coral reefs first appeared 485 million years ago

Quote

Most coral reefs are less than 10,000 years old

That's not the first coral reef extinction.
Probably, even not the 50th.

A periodic process which has happened many times and now running by sled from its current peak.

Quote

...
Time Prophet:

I look into the Cycles of Time
Not very clearly, mind you
I gaze into the Future Past
And I see the <...>'s doom.
...
Time begins, and then Time ends
And then Time begins once again
It is happening now, it has happened before
It will surely happen again.

Edited January 12, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, MKI said:

Being concerned and being able to do something about it are two very different things

The thing I appreciate about @SunlitZelkova 's concern with acidification is that he's highlighting something that not many people seem aware of, much less concerned about.  When I was a kid, the 'new threat' was acid rain.

Acid Rain: An Increasing Threat - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Quote

Sulfur dioxide, which comprises about 60 per cent of the acid components of acid rains, is created almost entirely by the combustion of coal and oil in power plants, smelters, steel mills, factories and space heaters. Nitrogen oxide, which makes up about 35 percent of the acid in the rains, originates in the exhausts of internal combustion engines, mostly in automobiles, and in the emissions resulting from high‐temperature fossil fuel combustion processes.

Even then, the information was often controverted and sometimes odd:

Acid Rain Doesn't Hurt Most Crops, Actually Helps Some - The Washington Post

...and one of the things I recall from back then was concern that Acid Rain was harming our statues.  Like, it's hard to get people excited about saving the monuments. 

Reefs, on the other hand have been better 'marketed' as a biomarker that our pollution is adversely affecting the planet and our environment.  If you do a search for "Ocean Acidification" highlighting the 80s-90s, it's almost never mentioned.  Acidified lakes in Ontario, yes.  But Ocean Acidification is rarely discussed.

ocean acidification - Google Search

It wasn't entirely unheard of - ( 1988 Internal Shell Report "The Greenhouse Effect" (climatefiles.com) ) but it also wasn't part of the public awareness.  I think that's changing.   Again, dying reefs are something people can see and appreciate.