The changing temperatures are effecting the ph balance of water bodies. As such certain animals, such as starfish are dying at alarming rates. Bees are also dying off, mostly due to insecticides and herbicides.
What "possible" canard articles? Sure there is going to be variability in the system from on place to the next and one year to the next but the overall trend is clear. You can see it in a lot of factors besides the hydro cycle or snowpack. Nobody claimed it applied to all areas at all times and the canard articles all cited scientific studies which all due respect to your brother, you do not. Here is more: "A new study of long-term snow monitoring sites in the western United States found declines in snowpack at more than 90 percent of those sites -- and one-third of the declines were deemed significant. Since 1915, the average snowpack in western states has declined by between 15 and 30 percent, the researchers say, and the amount of water lost from that snowpack reduction is comparable in volume to Lake Mead, the West's largest manmade reservoir. The loss of water storage can have an impact on municipal, industrial and agricultural usage, as well as fish and other animals. Results of the study are being published this week in NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, a Nature publication. "It is a bigger decline than we had expected," said Philip Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University and lead author on the study. "In many lower-elevation sites, what used to fall as snow is now rain. Upper elevations have not been affected nearly as much, but most states don't have that much area at 7,000-plus feet. "The solution isn't in infrastructure. New reservoirs could not be built fast enough to offset the loss of snow storage -- and we don't have a lot of capacity left for that kind of storage. It comes down to managing what we have in the best possible ways." The researchers attribute the snowpack decline to warmer temperatures, not a lack of precipitation. But the consequences are still significant, they point out. Earlier spring-like weather means more of the precipitation will not be stored as long in the mountains, which can result in lower river and reservoir levels during late summer and early fall." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180302124830.htm Can you describe which part of this study or the data they are referencing you consider to be a possible canard? There you go again making it all about management and dismissing completely the warming Pacific and effects in the PNW. British Columbia has vast areas of dead pine that is literally kindling for these massive forest fire seasons we are seeing. Pine beetles have a natural chemical that works as an anti-freeze to help them survive long cold winters. you need a certain early period of sustained cold temperatures such as we used to have in order to kill off a significant number of the critters before they can produce the chemical. Because the winters have been so much warmer more and more beetles are surviving. That is what has led to the pine die-off in BC and has nothing to do with management. It is one aspect of the changes you can see with a warming climate. If you fall in the I don't know category then why are you always throwing up anything other than climate change to explain what is happening or making statements like the fire seasons we are experiencing are 100% management and nothing to do with a warming planet. I give you the benefit of the doubt but you sure sound like a guy who is denying any effect of climate change whatever. Sure there are other factors and you have to take variability into account but the overall trend is quite clear. We have had a carbon tax here in BC for over a decade and we are still the fastest growing economy in Canada and have created more jobs that anywhere else. And the tax is revenue neutral. What other solution do you have. I can propose a bunch but first we have to admit we have a problem and discuss it - no?
I can try to put actual data out there for you to peruse and even try to show you what you missed in your own links but I can't make you take it in or understand it. To your questions, I go back to my question. Was there a civilization back then of 7 billion people all living on a knifes edge of environmental destruction and dependent on a stable climate and exhaustive use of natural resources. Let me put it another way. Changing climate has been a natural driver of evolution since the beginning. Other than the possible asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, runaway catastrophic CO2, methane clathrate and other greenhouse gasses that created catastrophic climate changes have been a major factor in all the other extinctions such as the biggy, the PT event. We are warming faster now and experiencing higher rates of extinction than during the entire 10 million or so years of the Permo Triassic event. Are we so consumed by our own marvelous indestructibility that we think our civilization cannot be wiped out? The dinosaurs were around a lot longer than we've been. We are so far a flash in the pan in terms of species longevity. The question is, are we able to adapt to changing conditions which have always created winners out of losers and losers out of winners evolutionary speaking or are we blindly creating the very conditions that put our civilization at risk of the same fate that has taken every other dominant species on the planet? I think it is a question worth considering. None of this is all based on computer models either. That is a canard of WUWT and the other denier sites. We can measure and observe climate change happening now. And the changes are faster than the conservative computer models predicted in many cases.
The entire argument above is completely bogus. Name some species that have gone extinct due to what you claim. This is all based on some computer models which assume some rate of back ground extinction and then pin this on humans. Ridiculous.
I can definitely post some ideas and links to smarter folks than I who have studied that question. Thanks for asking BTW Have to get back to that when I get more time.
This is all BS. Name some species that have gone extinct ?? BTW we are not warming faster. This current warming period that we has a warming rate less than half the previous warming periods in the current interglacial period that we are in called the Holocene which has been going on for the last ~ 11,000 years. And the previous 9 warm periods took place with no CO2 increase. And the 3 previous warm periods (Minoan, Roman, and Medieval) are characterized by great progress in human civilization.
You can name all kinds of species that are in deep, deep peril due to human activity and not just climate change. I don't think you could find a single ecosystem on this planet that is not affected by human commercial activity and the habitat that that activity threatens with destruction. Acidification of the oceans is a huge problem for all kinds of species not just reefs and shelled invertebrates but all the species up the food chain that depend on them.
The Medieval era, the dark ages, was characterized by great progress in human civilization? Minoan is an era?
Sure, horseshoes, plows, eye glasses, aquaculture, the three-year crop rotation system, chimneys, clocks, wheelbarrows, and other inventions. Musical notation, Gothic architecture, oil-based paints, sonnets, universities, the foundations of science and freedom for slaves are also medieval achievements. And they did erect the great Gothic cathedrals, such as Notre Dame. Also see: https://slate.com/human-interest/20...-characterized-as-dark-or-less-civilized.html
I chose not to run over several turtles on the interstate recently on my last drive cross country. I feel better about that. I feel like i'm giving nature that chance it needs. Oh, and I did it driving a hybrid. I rock... (kidding). But I swear, this is how econazis talk.... Oh, the turtle and hybrid thing are true. I just don't demand folks praise me for my own choices.
It was stated, "progress in human civilization" The Medieval era was marked by the feudal order, not exactly an advancement in civilization. It was the renaissance and the Enlightenment where real advancements were made, where humans began to shed the ignorance of the past.
99% of the species who are now extinct disapeared thousands of years before the first human appeared...
And this is all the same canard I've seen over and over again from people who hang out at WUWT and the other denier sites and throw out the same BS to try and show that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. I don't know how many times I've seen people throw out the Roman and medieval periods as proof that CO2 emissions are not effecting climate. I'm not going to go into all that drivel again but I will try to post some actual data that shows the fallacy of your argument: "Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period. Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5-6 degree Celsius spike in annual temperatures by the end of the century." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142420.htm https://www.newscientist.com/articl...en-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/
Well, if you look at the eco Nazis out there, if for example, you are Leonardo DiCaprio, you get to jet around on private jets, own one of the worlds largest yachts, drive in caravans of legions of Chevy Suburbans, and lecture the rest of the population on what they do... It's quite a treat to be lectured to by some of the largest individual contributors in terms of their carbon footprints. Oh, comes with a private Helo as well.... Now that's being "light" on the planet...
I think they would prefer that we all drive a Prius with a Bernie sticker while wearing a vagina hat, with an angry scowl plastered our faces.
Yeah, so? That means we shouldn' t be concerned about being the force behind another extinction event?
Human civilization is a rather broad concept which includes artistic and technological achievements, not just political organization. The feudal order was an advancement over the previous slave based societies. (And oddly enough, the Renaissance was the recovery of the wisdom of the past.) The Enlightenment would not have been possible without the philosophy of the Scholastics. Occam's razor, for example, was a medieval idea.
No. We all have better things to do in our life to worry about other species or trying to save an orbiting ball of mud and rock. We average about 75 years of life. What happens after I'm gone I don't give a hoot. Drink, sing and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
You'll be just as dead in a few yourself and you'll not have saved any species in the process of being instinct. You're going against nature if you do. It's adapt or die for all, even us.
I care when something I care about goes extinct. But humankind has almost certainly saved far more species from extinction than we have caused to go extinct. We are the only species that cares one whit for other species, even those we never met and will never experience up close and personal. We are the only species that cares about our own species even those we will never meet or experience up close and personal. We are the only species that makes any effort to correct the problems that we create for other species or that occur naturally. And we humans are also God's creation and a species ourselves. If you remove us from the planet to save the planet, who will be around to understand and appreciate that?
