Friday Funny: Science by the kilogram

The report “Arctic Biodiversity Assessment ” was prepared by 253 scientists from 15 countries under the auspices of the Arctic Council. The printed 674 pages report weighs an impressive 2.9 kg! (Click image)

From Aarhus University, and the department of weighted (by the kilogram) peer review comes a really heavy new report. See actual photo caption at right, bold mine, I kid you not. I loved this quote from the press release: ‘Polar bears and the other highly adapted organisms cannot move further north, so they may go extinct’

Arctic biodiversity under serious threat from climate change according to new report

Climate change caused by human activities is by far the worst threat to biodiversity in the Arctic

Unique and irreplaceable Arctic wildlife and landscapes are crucially at risk due to global warming caused by human activities according to the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), a new report prepared by 253 scientists from 15 countries under the auspices of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council.

“An entire bio-climatic zone, the high Arctic, may disappear. Polar bears and the other highly adapted organisms cannot move further north, so they may go extinct. We risk losing several species forever,” says Hans Meltofte of Aarhus University, chief scientist of the report.

From the iconic polar bear and elusive narwhal to the tiny Arctic flowers and lichens that paint the tundra in the summer months, the Arctic is home to a diversity of highly adapted animal, plant, fungal and microbial species. All told, there are more than 21,000 species.

Maintaining biodiversity in the Arctic is important for many reasons. For Arctic peoples, biodiversity is a vital part of their material and spiritual existence. Arctic fisheries and tourism have global importance and represent immense economic value. Millions of Arctic birds and mammals that migrate and connect the Arctic to virtually all parts of the globe are also at risk from climate change in the Arctic as well as from development and hunting in temperate and tropical areas. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems such as vast areas of lowland tundra, wetlands, mountains, extensive shallow ocean shelves, millennia-old ice shelves and huge seabird cliffs are characteristic to the Arctic. These are now at stake, according to the report.

“Climate change is by far the worst threat to Arctic biodiversity. Temperatures are expected to increase more in the Arctic compared to the global average, resulting in severe disruptions to Arctic biodiversity some of which are already visible,” warns Meltofte.

A planetary increase of 2 °C, the worldwide agreed upon acceptable limit of warming, is projected to result in vastly more heating in the Arctic with anticipated temperature increases of 2.8-7.8 °C this century. Such dramatic changes will likely result in severe damage to Arctic biodiversity.

Climate change impacts are already visible in several parts of the Arctic. These include northward range expansions of many species, earlier snow melt, earlier sea ice break-up and melting permafrost together with development of new oceanic current patterns.

IMAGE: This image shows a sea butterfly (Limacina helicina), a key Arctic sea snail. With the acidification expected in Arctic waters due to the increased concentration of CO2, populations of sea…Click here for more information.

It is expected that climate change could shrink Arctic ecosystems on land, as northward moving changes are pressed against the boundary of the Arctic Ocean: the so called “Arctic squeeze”. As a result, Arctic terrestrial ecosystems may disappear in many places, or only survive in alpine or island refuges.

Disappearing sea ice is affecting marine species, changing dynamics in the marine food web and productivities of the sea. Many unique species found only in the Arctic rely on this ice to hunt, rest, breed and/or escape predators.

Other key findings

  • Generally speaking, overharvest is no longer a primary threat, although pressures on some populations remain a serious problem.
  • A variety of contaminants have bioaccumulated in several Arctic predator species to levels that threaten the health and ability to reproduce of both animals and humans. However, it is not clear if this is affecting entire populations of species.
  • Arctic habitats are among the least anthropogenic disturbed on Earth, and huge tracts of almost pristine tundra, mountain, freshwater and marine habitats still exist.
  • Regionally, ocean bottom trawling, non-renewable resource development and other intensive forms of land use pose serious challenges to Arctic biodiversity.
  • Pollution from oil spills at sites of oil and gas development and from oil transport is a serious local level threat particularly in coastal and marine ecosystems.
  • Uptake of CO2 in sea water is more pronounced in the cold Arctic waters than elsewhere, and the resulting acidification of Arctic seas threaten calcifying organisms and maybe even fisheries.
  • Shipping and resource development corridors are rapidly expanding and may dramatically increase the rate of introduction of alien species.
  • There is an enormous deficit in our knowledge of species richness in many groups of organisms, and monitoring in the Arctic is lagging far behind that in other regions of the world.
  • The multitude of changes in Arctic biodiversity – driven by climate and other anthropogenic stressors – will have profound effects on the living conditions of peoples in the Arctic.
###

Contact:

Chief scientist and executive editor, senior advisor DSc. Hans Meltofte
Department of Bioscience and Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University
Chief Scientist and executive editor of the ABA
Tel. +45 8715 8691
Mobile tel. +45 2988 9278
Email: mel@dmu.dk

About these ads
This entry was posted in Arctic, Extinction, Humor. Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Friday Funny: Science by the kilogram

  1. wws says:

    All of the “studies” along these lines fall into the same tired old piece of circular logic.

    “If all the really horrible things that we’ve convinced ourselves will happen, really DO happen, then it will be really horrible!!!”

    Yeah, and if they don’t, then it won’t. This isn’t “science”, it’s wishcasting, an art that once was the domain of medieval soothsayers. I guess they’re back, or maybe they never really left.

  2. Ron says:

    Shows what can be produced when funding grants are provided by groups with an agenda. World domination of all natural resources and human behavior is the goal of those who would be in power through “global environmentalism”.

  3. Latitude says:

    they never question the “science” they base their claims on….just repeat it for fact

  4. WestHighlander says:

    Hans: If the current unseasonably cold conditions in the US should become more common — the Polar Bears can always migrate South to the shores of the Great Lakes — Superior is nearly completely frozen over for one of the few times in a century

  5. If the polar bears cannot go north, they can go under…

  6. Akatsukami says:

    Now we know what niche telephone directory publishers went into.

  7. Jeff says:

    Remember the infinite number of monkeys able to type out all the works of Shakespeare? It looks like three of them pictured on the cover came up with this report….

  8. Ian L. McQueen says:

    Latitude says:
    February 14, 2014 at 7:26 am
    they never question the “science” they base their claims on….just repeat it for fact

    Lattitude: I coined the word “assumerism” to cover their actions. They assume that a scientifically-valid link has already been shown between CO2 concentration and climate and that all they have to do is enlarge on it, suggest ways to ameliorate this problem that does not exist.

    Ian M

  9. lenbilen says:

    If the polar bears are so threatened by rising temperatures, then why have their numbers more than doubled the past 50 years? Secondly, why is it always acidification by CO2, not by sulphuric emissions from Chinese coal fired power plants?

  10. UK Marcus says:

    Pseudo-science really pays well these days. It must derive from extrapolation-science.

    And these ‘scientists’ work at a ‘university’, paid for by taxpayers!

    If all the experts are so clever, how come the world’s in such a mess?

  11. Vince Causey says:

    It is a fact of nature that species go extinct. Strangely enough, periods of mass extinction have always heralded a diversity of new groups that evolve to take over the new environments. Without the two mass extinction events of the past we would probably be no further advanced that primitive rat-like mammals.

    Not that I expect these apocalyptic predictions to materialise.

  12. Alan the Brit says:

    A planetary increase of 2 °C, the worldwide agreed upon acceptable limit of warming, is projected to result in vastly more heating in the Arctic with anticipated temperature increases of 2.8-7.8 °C this century. Such dramatic changes will likely result in severe damage to Arctic biodiversity.

    ◾Shipping and resource development corridors are rapidly expanding and may dramatically increase the rate of introduction of alien species.

    Firstly, the Einstein statement that “A scientific consensus can be undone by a single fact!”. e.g. The last four Inter-glacials going back half a million years were warmer than today by………………………between 2 & 4 degrees C! This suggests to me that the Arctic was warmer also back then! We also know that the Arctic & indeed the Antarctic were ice free in the geological past. Where did the 7.8 degrees figure come from, from what I have been able to glean UNIPCC upward figures have been substantially reduced.

    Secondly, if alien species are being transported from temperate climes to Arctic climes, suddenly, to all intense & purposes, are they remotely suggesting the these “alien species” will adapt so rapidly as to threaten local species, that have spent thousands of years if not millions, learning to adapt to the second most hostile environment on Earth! I doubt that very, very much!!! More likely the other way around & they wouldn’t be able to adapt so readily, & simply plain old curl up & die! I am not saying that it couldn’t happen, worse things happen at sea, but I find it highly unlikely (95% confidence level – if it’s good enough for them to pluck numbers out of the air, it’s good enough for me!) Happy Valentine’s Day folks, & HAGWE!

  13. Paul Westhaver says:

    … in other words…

    HYPE HYPE HYPE from biologists clanging for more research money….

    There is a catastrophe looming!!! Fund me, fund me, fund me, they say or doom will befall us all.

    Brought to you by ManBearPig. the offsping of the Club of Rome.

    http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/club-of-rome.html

  14. outdoorrink says:

    Is there anything that CO2 doesn’t destroy?

  15. more soylent green! says:

    Two recently articles from the Wall Street Journal I haven’t seen covered elsewhere:

    The first is about a breakthrough for fusion power:

    A Star Is Born: U.S. Scores Fusion-Power Breakthrough
    Experimental Reaction Yields Energy, but Sustainability Still Proves Elusive

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304888404579378920296615030

    There’s also a video, but you have to sit through some ads — http://live.wsj.com/video/us-scientists-make-fusion-power-breakthrough-and-more/9A617B6B-4313-4AC0-8D24-9ED71DAE8222.html

    The second is about the new solar power station in the Mojave killing birds.

    The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project
    At California’s Ivanpah Plant, Mirrors Produce Heat and Electricity—And Kill Wildlife

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329484

    This also has a video — http://live.wsj.com/video/wildlife-worries-cause-solar-project-reassessment/CD1F2735-6EE2-4B51-8DB2-7327783BD3B2.html

  16. John Tillman says:

    Should the Arctic suddenly melt, polar bears would likely blend back into their ancestral stock of brown bear & Arctic foxes into swift foxes.

  17. jakee308 says:

    It never ceases to amaze me that those who accept the past positives derived from evolution (which more or less assumes the extinction of some species at some point.) cannot accept the positives of any extinctions NOW for any reason.

    It’s almost as if they believe they’re GOD. (or at least Mother Nature)

  18. Alan the Brit says:

    Latitude says:
    February 14, 2014 at 7:26 am

    they never question the “science” they base their claims on….just repeat it for fact

    Lenin said, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it become truth!”
    Hitler said in Mein Kampf, “The mass of the people would more readily believe a big lie, than a small one”.

    AGW follows both these apt & highly accurate statements. What they do, particularly the left &
    neo-left, is create a scare story, reinforce with as much hype as possible, they then close down debate as far as possible with trite remarks such as “the debate is over, the science is settled”. They then rapid move the scare story onwards to what are we going to do about it. Then they provide the solutions, which they already knew all along because it is part of then long term agenda. It’s very similar to how things operate in the PDRofEU. The EU pay WWF/FoE/Greenpiss & any other tin-pot NGOs to provide reports, upon which they can then base their Socialist agenda, on the grounds of something along the lines of “We don’t want to do this but well, look at the evidence, so we’d better do what the experts recommend!”

    They’re doing exactly the same thing in the States. The EPA is the perfect subversion of the democratic process, ruling on “environmental & health endangerment” grounds, all based on flawed science. Using that august body of Presidential appointees, Obama can force through his agenda, right or wrong, virtually unchallenged! m The USA must take its country back, rein in the EPA & reduce its powers.

  19. Col Mosby says:

    So how come polar bears live in Chicago zoos? Seems to me these guys are having a hard time finding reasons to care, even should their future come to pass. And why do these yokels believe we will still be emitting CO2 from our cars and power plants a hundred years from now? Carbon emissions are not a future technology, although I worry about what will happen if we succeed in reducing CO2 level to unhealthy levels. Now THAT would be mass extinction – of humans.

  20. Dave in Canmore says:

    wws says “Wishcasting”

    Brilliant!!! Perfect description of this nonsense! The University bubble can’t crash fast enough.

  21. Alan the Brit says:

    outdoorrink says:
    February 14, 2014 at 7:48 am

    Is there anything that CO2 doesn’t destroy?

    Nope, nothing! Fact! sarc off.

  22. R2Dtoo says:

    The second to the last bullet says it all. ” …an enormous deficit in our knowledge…” and “…monitoring in the Arctic is lagging far behind…” is not only a cry for more funding, but also a tacit admission that most of what the say is speculation based on the speculation of worst case climate models. The fact that 253 scientists are associated with this one group shows how many folks worldwide have their snouts in the trough.

  23. kenin says:

    “Climate change is by far the worst threat to Arctic biodiversity. Temperatures are expected to increase more in the Arctic compared to the global average, resulting in severe disruptions to Arctic biodiversity some of which are already visible,” warns Meltofte.

    That’s interesting, I would think that the raping of the arctic resources is the one and only threat to arctic biodiversity. Military bases, hydro dams, new roads, oil /gas and what about the rail-lines being proposed by the mining companies; but no, its about CO2 only.. lol. Only God knows what their doing up there with those military bases.

    Don’t look over there… no no no, look over sheeple.

  24. goldminor says:

    outdoorrink says:
    February 14, 2014 at 7:48 am

    Is there anything that CO2 doesn’t destroy?
    ——————————————————-
    University grants are known to thrive from increased CO2.

  25. Mindert Eiting says:

    Dutch proverb: ‘when the sky falls down everyone gets a blue hat’.

  26. negrum says:

    jakee308 says:
    February 14, 2014 at 8:03 am

    ” It never ceases to amaze me that those who accept the past positives derived from evolution (which more or less assumes the extinction of some species at some point.) cannot accept the positives of any extinctions NOW for any reason. …”
    —-l
    If you could point out the positives of the current extinctions I am sure you could convince people to accept them.

  27. Rascal says:

    Guess they didn’t study anything about polar bears and Arctic foxes adapting to their environments.

  28. TomRude says:

    Melthofe has a public meltdown… One truly wonders how Polar Bears and the rest of the Arctic biodiversity managed during the Holocene Optimum, the Roman, the Medieval etc…
    Reports compile literature. If the literature is biased…

  29. Bill Parsons says:

    The printed 674 pages report weighs an impressive 2.9 kg!

    ———————————————–

    And the Aarhus University professors who require it in class should be able to extort equally hefty fees from the students who are forced to buy it, a price they can conveniently increase next year with a cd, – and the following year with supplemental information, and the following year with a new chapter… ad nauseum.

  30. urederra says:

    From the iconic polar bear and elusive narwhal to the tiny Arctic flowers and lichens that paint the tundra in the summer months, the Arctic is home to a diversity of highly adapted animal, plant, fungal and microbial species. All told, there are more than 21,000 species.

    I just recall an article on WUWT about a paper where they claimed that some lichens were growing in places where no lichen was found during the last 50000 years and that was perceived as a bad thing. Some commenters pointed out the lack of logic in the statement. (I am trying to find the article, no luck so far)

    Same happens here. If ice recede, more rock will be exposed for lichens to grow. You do not need a 100 million dollars supercomputer to see that.

  31. Ralph Kramden says:

    There has been no global warming in this century, the catastrophic global warming theory is going down by the bow. A these guys are rearranging the deck chairs.

  32. Jim Cripwell says:

    Thinking about the Arctic, there are currently some 20 yachts overwintering at Cambridge Bay, when they go stuck there last fall, when the ice closed the eastern exit at Prince Regent Inlet, and the western end at Cape Bathurst. I wonder whether they will be able to escape this season, without the help of icebreakers, at a cost of $50,000 per day

  33. milodonharlani says:

    negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 8:13 am

    Which current extinctions do you have in mind? There haven’t been many of multicellular organisms since the supposed onset of CACA c. 1977.

    I personally am glad to see the smallpox virus go extinct in the wild. Too bad more pathogens haven’t been eradicated, along with some of their vectors. It’s unclear to me what benefit Anopheles (from the Greek for “good for nothing”) mosquitoes confer to ecosystems, for instance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases

  34. richard says:

    I have written a lot of dumb things on this site and sometimes reading them back embarrases me, but nothing i have written compares to this,

    ‘Polar bears and the other highly adapted organisms cannot move further north, so they may go extinct’

    The usual may, might or could in an alarmist story.

    Damn if only I could earn millions for coming up with any crack pot story with the same auxiliary verbs .

  35. mpainter says:

    Well, now, such timing! Released in a winter of record cold with record arctic ice extent. These global warmers are never embarrassed and do not mind looking ridiculous.

  36. “The report “Arctic Biodiversity Assessment ” was prepared by 253 scientists from 15 countries under the auspices of the Arctic Council. The printed 674 pages report weighs an impressive 2.9 kg!”

    My warmist friend, Ernie, just called to discuss this report. I like talking to Ernie because it’s a good way to keep a finger on the pulse of the general public when it comes to CAGW. He was beside himself. “OMG!,” he said, “It’s worse than we thought. Hundreds of scientist, the Arctic Council, 700 pages. Do you know that 2.9 kg is 6.8 pounds! Do you have any books anywhere near that heavy? I don’t even need to read this. The Arctic is over, man, over. Melted, gone, fini.”

    No reasoning with him, he’s a true believer. He wants me to contribute to his “Polar Bear Rescue Project”, geoengineering, I think. Next summer he wants to barge a refrigeration plant up to the North Slope of Alaska to make ice in environmental quantities to save the flora and fauna. The first of many. Of course it will have to be powered by diesel generators like everything up there. I didn’t bother to point that out. Or that it’s been much warmer in the past up there. Just upsets him even more.

  37. Don Easterbrook says:

    Amazing! 674 peer-reviewed pages and they didn’t bother to check real data from the Arctic. If they had, they would have found that recorded temperatures from multiple stations in Greenland were warmer in the 1930s than the recent warming (after 1978) and that 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were 3.5 to 5 degrees F warmer than present in the GISP2 ice core.

  38. Gary Pearse says:

    The trouble with university profs, bless their hearts, is they themselves tend to be 10-20 years out of date. I remember my first mining exploration job when I graduated and discovered geochemical sampling of soils, stream sediments and even spruce twigs was standard practice in grassroots mineral exploration. In university we learned that geochemical sampling was a new thing, presently being used in Finland – turns out this was recycled lecture notes for a couple of decades and industry had evolved the method over this time. The profs don’t go out to see what is really happening in the industry. I recall one economic geology prof who set up a consultancy for exploration and was surprised when he didn’t get any work.

    This tome will have been in production for 10 years at least, fieldwork done a long time ago and a complete lack of awareness about the 1/7 of century with no warming. The reading they do will be the sanitized crap from Nature, etc. This is why it is called the ivory tower – they are remote from not only the arctic but the real world itself. They are like monks in a mountain-top monastery. This is precisely why the “Ship of Fools” set sail into the antarctic summer to chronicle the end of snow and ice and got stuck fast in ice and were whipped by blizzards. Like Candide, they live in the best of all possible worlds despite all the things to the contrary that are happening out in the real world.

    http://www.shmoop.com/candide/summary.html

  39. squidlyrumskadoo says:

    Completely o/t but… hi folks, long time reader, first time commenter. I’ve been reading the Delingpole thread about Steyn and peeps keep bringing up the bunked-debunked-undebunked hokey stick.. what’s the deal for real? I’m a geologist with a warmist coworker and would dearly love to send him some links. Ty in advance. . Work nights.. probably won’t respond. . Back to lurk mode..

  40. mpcraig says:

    Not only is CO2 plant food; Co2 is grant food.

  41. Resourceguy says:

    Is it a pound foolish?

  42. richard says:

    Gary Pearse,

    “Ten years”

    and debunked in an afternoon.

  43. Jim Steele says:

    All the data shows that the whole food web has benefited from the recent loss of ice from plankton, to cod to seals to bears.Polar bear experts have observed that heavy ice causes greater hardships, but then speculate less ice is the most dangerous.

    http://landscapesandcycles.net/less-arctic-ice-can-be-beneficial.html

    The polar winters will always be dark causing freezing winters with plenty of ice.
    Most of the Arctic ice loss is due to intruding warm waters controlled by natural oscillations. http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-sea-ice–climate-change-indicator.html

  44. TRM says:

    wws says: “wishcasting”
    Ian L. McQueen says: “assumerism”
    mpcraig says: ” Co2 is grant food.”

    and of course Don Easterbrook killing their study with those pesky FACTS from reality. A place the authors don’t visit much :)

    God I love this site! You guys just made my day. Love it and keep it coming. Cheers

  45. negrum says:

    milodonharlani says:
    February 14, 2014 at

    “Which current extinctions do you have in mind? … ”
    —-l
    I am trying to work out which extinctions jakee308 had in mind. Given the subject of the post I don’t think he was referring to the same extinctions as you were (which, I agree, do not seem to be to the disadvantage of humanity). Can you think of any possible extinctions (multicellular or otherwise) which would not be of benefit to the human race?

    I am assuming that his references to positives refer to human point of view, and not the species that became extinct or the biological kingdom as an entity :)

  46. Steve Keohane says:

    I think the validity being inversely proportional to the number of contributors applies here.

  47. kenin says:

    If we had to trace back all propaganda to the source, it would eventually take you to The Inner City Of London. Actually maybe even further…….The V_ _ _ _ _ n

  48. tim maguire says:

    It is expected that climate change could shrink Arctic ecosystems on land,

    When you have to double up on your disclaimers like that, you need to think carefully about your conclusions.

  49. negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 9:30 am

    I am trying to work out which extinctions jakee308 had in mind.

    From context it’s obvious. He’s talking about the mechanism by which evolution occurs: extinction of the less suitable. Extinctions are always good because they give more suitable organisms access to the resources that the less suitable organisms were formerly hogging.

  50. Mike Smith says:

    The greatest threat to bio-diversity is the Marxist/Leninist outlook displayed by the warmists.

  51. LT says:

    More predictions based on Playstation Climatology, gawd!

  52. Paul says:

    I kid you not. This is the leader of the UK green party demanding sackings of government ministers who deny global warming. Watch the video here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26191047

  53. Steve from Rockwood says:

    A quick review of polar bear populations shows there aren’t any recorded populations within the centre of the Arctic Basin (the geographic north pole).

  54. Of course, poley bears live where they do because they got kicked out by the other animals. They’re probably preverts* of some kind, so we’re better off without them anyway.

    * Tip of the cap to Keenan Wynn.

  55. CaligulaJones says:

    ” Col Mosby says:
    February 14, 2014 at 8:03 am

    So how come polar bears live in Chicago zoos?”

    Sorry, bad analogy. They are hand fed in zoos, sometimes giraffes, I think (although I could be mistaken there…).

    I once stumped a teacher who was going on about how much of a range predators in the wild need, and how little they get in zoos: “Sir? Maybe that means they need every square centimeter of that range to survive, and are quite content with getting fed thrice-daily”. I believe I almost failed that course for some reason.

    Just ask the warmist who raises this “report”: how on earth did they survive the LAST time it was [insert scare-mongering temperature]?

    IF they believe in evolution, they would have to consider that natural selection would breed bears that would be adaptable to the new environment.

    THAT always stumps them.

  56. M. Nichopolis says:

    None of the arctic doomsayers that I’ve asked have ever been able to answer one simple question:

    Q: How much of the floating arctic ice melted during the last interglacial?
    A: All of it. Every last ice cubes worth. It is natural, normal, and expected during the peak of the interglacials. Now if it DOESN’T all melt before the next big freeze.. Then we are probably in for some serious trouble on the next cycle…

  57. It’s completely ludicrous to think Arctic biodiversity or humanity is under threat due to human CO2 emissions.

    P.S. Marc Morano is on Alex Jones Infowars radio at 1:30 ET,

    http://prisonplanet.tv/news/watch_free/free_to_look_audio.php

  58. dp says:

    Unless polar bear food relocates chances are good the bears will stay put. Unless the food polar bear food eats relocates chances are good the bear food will stay put. In any event all these creatures are where they are now because that is the right place for them. It wasn’t always so. If that right place moves again, that is where they will all go. Just like the last time. They weren’t born stupid.

    The Fins showed us what happens when the right place moves and you don’t follow it – they froze to death during the LIA. Same thing happened at Greenland.

  59. milodonharlani says:

    negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 9:30 am

    It seems to me that he was talking about hypothetical extinctions, as CACA has not yet produced any extinctions. I suppose that ringed seals might welcome the extinction of polar bears.

    Anti-vaccine campaigners seem to want to preserve pathogenic organisms along with cuddly ones.

  60. Speed says:

    So, as the arctic becomes warmer and more like tropical rain forests, the most diverse ecosystems on earth, they will exhibit less biodiversity. Sounds like a theory based on intelligent design rather than evolution.

  61. george e. smith says:

    I recommend retraining those polar bears.

    Just keep on walking baby , and you will come to a whole new planet, that opens out before you, And the further “north” you go, the more food you will find and more room to raise a family, and it will be a bit more coy than where you are now.

    Problem solved

  62. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @outdoorrink

    Is there anything that CO2 doesn’t destroy?

    My current favourite is the UK National Health Service, which has a web site providing medical advice. Under their data for Migrane are the following lines:

    Many factors have been identified as triggers for a migraine. These triggers include emotional, physical, dietary, environmental and medicinal factors. They are outlined below.

    Environmental triggers

    Environmental triggers include:
    bright lights
    flickering screens, such as a television or computer screen
    smoking (or smoky rooms)
    loud noises
    changes in climate…..

    See http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Migraine/Pages/Causes.aspx

  63. RACookPE1978 says:

    But those “flickering lights” and “loud noises” (at low, subsonic frequencies) do NOT include “flickering wind turbine blades” all around a trapped person, all spinning at slightly different rates, do they?

  64. It is widely accepted that low solar activity reduces TSI by a very small amount and has little effect on cooling planet Earth. However, I posit the effect of low solar activity is amplified by increased cloud cover caused by lower magnetic fields allowing more cosmic rays for cloud seeding, resulting in more cloud cover that reflects TSI warming back into space, as shown by the CREN cloud experiment. The following is another study;

    Wednesday, February 12, 2014
    New paper finds another Amplification Mechanism by which the Sun controls climate, via Water Vapor
    “A paper published today in Advances in Space Research finds changes in solar activity during 11 year solar cycles exert control over interannual changes in atmospheric water vapor. In turn, “Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It plays a major role in the dynamics of atmospheric circulation, radiation exchange within the atmosphere, and climate variability. Knowledge of the distribution of water vapor is important for understanding climate change and global warming.”

    The authors find precipitable water vapor shows cyclic variations of 10-11 years which are inversely correlated with the ~11 year solar cycles. Although the authors say the mechanism is unknown, perhaps there is some tie to the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, which posits increased clouds [water vapor] result during periods of low solar activity, a similar inverse correlation.”

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/new-paper-finds-another-amplification.html

  65. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..more soylent green! says:

    February 14, 2014 at 7:53 am

    Two recently articles from the Wall Street Journal I haven’t seen covered elsewhere:…..”””””

    I already covered that right here at WUWT.

    And NO, they did NOT obtain any net energy, or breakthrough; and they aren’t going to., because electricity “pushes”, but gravity “sucks”.

    The sun “makes” fusion energy because gravity sucks.

  66. negrum says:

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 9:42 am

    ” … Extinctions are always good …”
    —-l
    “Good” is a very subjective word and and “always” is an extreme term. Are you sure? Would that include extinctions caused by humans?

    As an abstract idea: do you think the extinction of humans could be good? If so, then from whose perspective?

    I think that using the theory of evolution to justify the extinction of any specie is a mistake. There are better reasons for wiping out a specie, as milodonharlani pointed out.

    I would still like to hear from jakee308 which current extinctions he had in mind that could have positive effects for humans.

  67. milodonharlani says:

    negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 10:26 am

    In English, “species” is both singular & plural.

    I’m OK with the bacterium Yersinia pestis, the tropical rat flea & some rat species going extinct, too. But they won’t.

  68. outtheback says:

    Negrum:
    If you could point out the positives of the current extinctions I am sure you could convince people to accept them.

    Please advise which species have gone extinct due to AGW.

    At 2.9 kg the 253 scientist authors clearly did not think about the environment when they got the book printed. A lot of trees needed to be cut for that project, loads of energy used to turn them from a living organism into paper. What is the effect of all that on the Arctic? I do hope that they have planted enough trees to absorb the same amount of CO2 that the ones that were cut down did plus enough to absorb the CO2 created in the process to turn them into printed paper. And that is not even thinking about all the CO2 created by them having to get there (and be there for extended periods), assuming that all 253 people plus support teams actually went there to look at this which would have had to happen over a number of years to verify evidence for their hypothesis.
    Why not keep it to an e-report if they are really as concerned about the environment as they make out to be? (It is not as impressive on the coffee table).
    Personally, I find it very depressive to even think about those poor living trees that lost their lives to be turned into paper to have this printed on it. Think of it, they were still happily blowing in the wind absorbing lovely growth giving CO2 even just a few months ago, now they are all gone. Sniff.

  69. negrum says:

    milodonharlani says:
    February 14, 2014 at 10:11 am
    —-l
    I consider anti-vaccine campaigners very dangerous to everyone around them and a perfect example of how a theory can be put into practice without foresight.

  70. CaligulaJones says:

    “I’m OK with the bacterium Yersinia pestis, the tropical rat flea & some rat species going extinct, too.”

    I’m very happy as well that I can make it to the subway station without being hunted by a sabre-toothed cat. Would love to see one in a zoo, or know that there is a healthy breeding population somewhere in the wild in a reserve, where they can eat mammoth and giant sloth.

    Whenever this debate comes up, and maybe its just the bean counter in me, but I always ask: is that loss of species gross, or net? “Huh?”, will come the response from whatever WWFPeace-type I’m confronting.

    Well, are you taking into account all those species we’ve newly “discovered”, THEN deducting the “extinct” ones? “Huh?” will be the response.

    Do you take into account that many of these species are (barely) different on the DNA level from robust populations of similar species? “Huh?”…Etc.

  71. Mike Maguire says:

    Maybe they can move to the South Pole where the ice is growing (-:………………or maybe we can just wait a couple of decades and see that they do just fine, long after the alarmist charades are over and the gravy train for biased scientists has dried up.

  72. Dirk McClaggen says:

    “Hans Meltofte of Aarhus University, chief scientist”
    may disappear up his own Aarhus Hole IMHO !!!

    This is absolute poppycock in his report and it is
    the biggest load of tripe I have seen in years, since
    the Charles Monett “Bowhead Whales” debacle …..

  73. negrum says:

    outtheback says:
    February 14, 2014 at 10:33 am

    ” … Please advise which species have gone extinct due to AGW. …”
    —-l

    Please snip, mods, if too far off topic.

    You might have misunderstood my position. I made no such claim, nor do I think any specie has gone extinct due to CAGW, nor do I think any will, since the theory has been demonstrated false to my satisfaction. As to the publication format, I am not particularly concerned about trees dying, provided there are enough to replace them.

    The discussion concerns extinction from an evolutionary point of view and I am interested in people’s views as to what lengths should be done to preserve a specie (unless our survival is threatened, in which case the question becomes moot :)) or at what point humanity should destroy a specie (if within our power) or just let it die out. I feel that using the evolution theory to justify such decisions is incorrect.

    To avoid any misunderstanding: I have no problem with the evolution theory, which I consider the most likely of those I have come accross, but I wonder to what extent humanity and human behaviour is still defined by the evolution theory. The Darwin awards come to mind, but it seems like a very small corrective action for such a large group :)

  74. Jimbo says:

    I was under the mistaken impression that what matters most to polar bears is Spring sea ice.

    Here are some polar bears which could not move further north during the Arctic ice-free periods of the Holocene Hypsithermal.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/global-warming-climate-change/#comment-1366283

  75. negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 10:26 am

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 9:42 am

    ” … Extinctions are always good …”
    —-l
    “Good” is a very subjective word and and “always” is an extreme term. Are you sure?

    I already explained why. Perhaps you should have read the part you snipped off.

    As far as humans going extinct, we will. This may happen sooner or later, but it will happen. From an evolutionary point of view this would be good, because we were not suited to the conditions. From a human point of view (I can speak authoritatively here, since I have been a human for more than ½ of my life) it would not be very good, since being dead goes against the point & driving principle of life.

    From an evolutionary point of view, your only job is to survive & pass on your genes. If you fail to do this, then you have done correctly as well, since failure is supposed to not pass on its genes. If some humans want to destroy their own species (perhaps because they’re insane, enviro nutjobs) it would be best if they didn’t reproduce, since they are in fact defective. But from an outside view, if they succeed in destroying humanity, then humanity was very poorly suited for survival, QED.

    Since we can’t know the future, we can only do our best to eat & hump lots because that’s our job as living organisms. The other living organisms have to do the same job, & good luck to them!

  76. But if you’re asking what we should do about other species, I say kill & eat them. If they taste good, then we farm them. If they taste bad or they’re too difficult to farm, then just let them die off or let the PETA-fruitcups farm them at their own expense.

  77. John F. Hultquist says:

    squidlyrumskadoo says:
    February 14, 2014 at 9:04 am

    “. . . hokey stick . . .” ???

    Greetings squidly,
    I suggest you start here: [easy to read and gives you the background]

    http://climateaudit.org/?s=ohio

    Then on the left side of Steve’s top page is a list called “Pages” – 2/3 of the way down is a link to “Hockey Stick Studies.” Try that. This stuff is starting to get old and some links may not work – computer crashes, changes, and so on.

    Steve’s blog is referred to as CA and the A stands for “audit” and that means some hard slogging for those not trained in math/stat.

    Also, here on WUWT there is a search box at the top right. In that box, type this single word: Yamal
    Start reading.

  78. negrum says:

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 11:29 am

    ” …I already explained why. …”
    —-l
    I did not find the explanation sufficient, since “good” in terms of evolution is not necessarily good for humanity, which is what I am more interested in. I am familiar with the evolution theory and snipped what I considered to be irrelevant.
    —-l

    ” … From an evolutionary point of view …”
    —-l
    I think that this is where we differ. I look at the universe from a human point of view and do not consider the evolution theory adequate guidance as to what is good or bad.

    If I understand you correctly, you feel that there is no point in preserving any species that has no immediate or obvious use? If so, this sounds remarkable like the philosophy of savages, where the pursuit of science is not considered a priority.
    —-l

    ” …As far as humans going extinct, we will …”
    —-l
    Not being able to forsee the future, I am not so convinced as you are of this “fact” :)
    —-l

    ” But if you’re asking what we should do about other species, I say kill & eat them. …”
    —-l
    That is certainly one of their uses. In case you are also under a misapprehension, I consume other animals (preferably not alive) without any qualm or twinge of conscience and I am no treehugger :)

  79. negrum says:

    milodonharlani says:
    February 14, 2014 at 10:33 am
    ” … species…”
    —l
    Thanks. My mind was otherwise engaged – I will not make the mistake again :)

  80. If I understand you correctly, you feel that there is no point in preserving any species that has no immediate or obvious use?

    Correct. If they can survive, they are good. If they fail at surviving then it’s better in the long run that they don’t. I’m not suggesting we try to figure out which ones we need to kill off (that’s a foolish waste of resources), I’m arguing against spending any time or money preserving useless dead-ends. I have no problem with people wasting their own time, & money they’ve actually earned, diddling poley bears (or blasting cocaine up their noses, or rolling around naked in a blackberry bramble, or watching Woody Allen movies), but I certainly hope you don’t mind that when you publically express some ridiculous urge, I express disdain for it.

  81. David Dodds says:

    As soon as they mention increased ocean acidification I know they’re talking B.S.

  82. negrum says:

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    ” … I’m arguing against spending any time or money preserving useless dead-ends. …”
    —-l
    It’s not always so easy to predict which are the useless dead-ends, hence conservation (often funded by governments). I don’t think your approach would have contributed much to the growth of civilisation or the progress of mankind.

    Your disdain indicates more about yourself than you think. Sneering is not the best way to make your point.

  83. john robertson says:

    Makes me wonder, how much will the combined court documents weigh?
    In the fullness of time, forced by public rage, these charlatans will see their turn in the dock.
    CAGW has cost more than WW2, the victims were mostly unarmed and the guilty parties just as unlovely as those tried at Nuremberg.
    Right now the bankers of the world are engaged in panic mode, trying to save face and fortune.
    CAGW was cause or cover? I don’t know.
    However massive public treasure has been looted and wasted, the fools and thieves who infest our civic infrastructures are exposed.
    Once the banks implode, or admit the losses, the public will be most unhappy.
    Seems to me there may be some species curtailment coming.
    But these species are part of the human condition, they will never be extinguished.

  84. milodonharlani says:

    john robertson says:
    February 14, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Ah, then this explains why then SkS goons felt compelled to dress up like German WWII soldiers, if not fact SS Nazis, their namesakes. Thanks. I wondered.

  85. milodonharlani says:

    negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Humans will eventually go extinct or evolve into something else, same as all other species on our planet.

    Personally I favor conservation efforts for the rhinos, even though their once dominant order, the perissodactyls (odd-toed ungulates) is clearly on the way out. In it are left only the horse family, tapirs & rhinos. Compare & contrast with the vibrant, more newfangled artiodactyls, which order includes not only the huge variety of cud-chewers but the whales. As today’s few remnant rhinos suffer from human activity & have economic if not also ecological value, I’m OK with trying to save them.

  86. negrum says:

    milodonharlani says:
    February 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    ” Humans will eventually go extinct or evolve into something else, same as all other species on our planet. …”
    —-l
    I think you are far too gloomy about the future – for a species at one point on the edge of extinction we have not done too badly to progress to the point where we can wipe out all other life on the planet – ourselves as well :) I would say the biggest risk now ( apart from an inconvenient meteorite) is the madness of crowds.

  87. ntesdorf says:

    This is not even up to Pseudo-Science level. Ice extent and thickness is the arctic is increasing fast and temperatures are down. Polar Bears are highly adaptable and their numbers more than doubled in the past 50 years. There was a Polar Bear called Liya who recently gave birth to a baby Polar Bear at Sea World on the Gold Coast. Temperatures up there are frequently over 30 degrees Centigrade. The Polar Bears get ice blocks in the warmer weather but are generally very happy. The Polar Bears in the arctic do not need to go north, south, east or west.

  88. David McEwen says:

    David Dodds @ 12:41 – Are you the Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation guy?

  89. milodonharlani says:

    negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    We lack the power to wipe out all life. All other life however has the power to wipe us out.

    An animal species typically lasts about two million years, although there are a few “living fossils” which at least superficially beat this term substantially. We’re only less than ten percent into a normal run. Even if we successfully take control of our evolution & don’t go extinct, we’ll most likely evolve into daughter species.

    Unless humans or our descendants engineer the solar system somehow or manage to leave it, we & all multicellular organisms are doomed within about a billion years & even microbes a few billion after that.

  90. negrum says:

    milodonharlani says:
    February 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm
    —-l
    Your comments are interesting. Would you like to continue the discussion off the blog? I think it is getting too far off topic for the post and might irritate some of the less tolerant readers :)

  91. Your disdain indicates more about yourself than you think.

    Indeed, your fumbling attempt at psychology indicates quite a lot, as well. Have a nice day.

  92. wayne Job says:

    It is a sad indictment of our education system, the people doing this study have had their logic circuits shorted by propaganda and an overwhelming faith in science from authority.

    They have lost control of their own brains, and can no long think for themselves, like sheep
    they follow the great oracle.

  93. negrum says:

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Since you felt compelled to comment on my “ridiculous urge” I thought it only fair to return the favour :)
    —-l

    ” … Have a nice day.”
    —-l
    You might not be aware that sarcasm does not assist your point in debate. If it was not intended sarcastically, please ignore the advice.

  94. garymount says:

    I find it absolutely amazing, unfathomable that this “scientific” report didn’t once mention the enhancements to bi-diversity and all biology due to the increase in plant food aka carbon dioxide.
    How is it possible to not mention one of the greatest improvements to our world of the fertilizer effect of elevated CO2 in a document that appears to be largely about this very life giving gas?

  95. garymount says:

    I forgot to mention, the last time I ranted about the lack of acknowledgment of the benefits of CO2, there appeared several articles about the benefits. I don’t know if its the red car syndrome, where when you are looking for a vehicle with certain characteristics, they suddenly appear everywhere, or if my ranting had some effect.
    Anyways, we should be bringing up the subject of CO2 benefits far more often.

  96. Hoser says:

    Hey friend, did you know you might have a problem with elephants? Yes, elephants. If you just wear this button, no elephants will take up residence in your house. If you don’t, they might just show up one day. I can offer it to you for just $10 a month. Do you know how much damage elephants can do to a house? Listen, this is a really good deal. I absolutely guarantee this button will work. I will return all your money if elephants do start living in your house while you are wearing this button. How much is your peace of mind worth to you? Remember, just $10 per month. Isn’t that worth it?

    Oh, and for another $25, you can have a bag of crushed crystals. If you scatter them around your yard, they will prevent glaciers from forming on your lawn. If enough of your neighbors buy some, you’ll never have to worry about another Ice Age, ever. And you get the same satisfaction guarantee as the button – a full refund if a glacier ever does grow on your property.

    And what could it hurt? Could you donate a couple of bucks to fight climate change?

  97. john robertson says:

    @Hoser 5:57
    Unicorn fencing too, amazing stuff invisible, effects only unicorns, guarantee you will never be gored by a unicorn, while paying off the fencing.
    Perhaps it is time to surrender.
    If a person buys into CAGW, why not sell them a bridge or two?
    If we deliberately separated these idiots from their money, they would be less able to damage our freedoms and society.
    This of course will be the major scam artists defence in court.
    By defrauding the federal government of billions, for unworkable “alternate energy” schemes, we saved the taxpayer from even worse harm.
    Who knew Al Gore is a patriot.

  98. negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Since you felt compelled to comment on my “ridiculous urge” I thought it only fair to return the favour :)
    —-l

    ” … Have a nice day.”
    —-l
    You might not be aware that sarcasm does not assist your point in debate. If it was not intended sarcastically, please ignore the advice.

    I see, so you ask a question, & then get all huffy when someone answers. You sound extremely well-balanced & reasonable there. Have a nice day.

  99. Ossqss says:

    So,,,,,,once again we see the 2 degree guarantee.

    Who came up with that number anyhow?

    It seems they know the next decades lottery numbers already.

    “Shakes head and walks away”

  100. sophocles says:

    Whew! That’s a relief. As at least 97% of global climate change is not caused by humans,
    the Arctic biodiversity is under threat from natural causes only!

    We are in an ice age, the Quaternary or Pleistocene Ice Age. We are in an interstadial in
    that ice age and have been for the last 10-12 kYs. Previous interstadials lasted about 10kYs
    and the previous one, the Eemian, made 16,000 years. Much of today’s lifeforms survived
    the previous stadial, and a few didn’t survive man. Most could be expected to survive the
    next one. In other words: most life forms are well adapted to such change. They evolved
    with such change as a given.

  101. Global cooling says:

    Will the biodiversity be in its maximum if we have just ice and snow? Global minimum biodiversity can be found in the tropics?

  102. negrum says:

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    ” … I see, so you ask a question, & then get all huffy when someone answers …”
    —-l
    A bit of projection there ? The only huffiness I see is from you when someone does not automatically accept that you have all the answers and does not immediately bow to your insight. The sneering tone is not helping either.

    You seem not to have grasped that characterising and insulting does not help you to convince someone in debate, no matter how much you feel you might benefit from it. If you are trying to convey information, you might do better if you took note of milodonharlani’s and other regular posters’ style.

  103. negrum says:

    Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    ” … I see, so you ask a question, & then get all huffy when someone answers …”
    —-l
    A bit of projection there ? The only huffiness I see is from you when someone does not automatically accept that you have all the answers and does not immediately bow to your insight. The sneering tone is not helping either.

    You seem not to have grasped that characterising and insulting does not help you to convince someone in debate, especially not skeptics. It makes them wonder if you really have any point worth making. If you are trying to convey information or convince someone who has strayed from what you consider to be the truth, you might do better if you took note of milodonharlani’s and other regular posters’ style.

  104. milodonharlani says:

    negrum says:
    February 14, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Sorry, I’m on deadline & have already played hooky here too long. I’m not sure that discussion of whether extinctions are “good” or “bad” is off-topic however.

    CaligulaJones says:
    February 14, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Some paleontologists think that human occupation of the Americas might have been delayed by the short-faced bear & other fearsome predators not found in the Old World.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-faced_bear

    There was however overlap here between humans armed with advanced weapons & this gigantic carnivore.

  105. [quoting article] “Millions of Arctic birds and mammals that migrate and connect the Arctic to virtually all parts of the globe are also at risk from climate change in the Arctic ….

    Just the fact that all those birds and mammals migrate to and from the Arctic is testimony to the fact that the Arctic was “ice free” many eons ago or those birds and mammals would never have started migrating “north for the summer”. It is the “hours-of-daylight” that triggers the “start” of their migrations …. and it is the snow/ice on the surface that determines how far north to go.

    And if all the Arctic ice/snow melts ….. the Polar Bears will just be getting fatter because all the female seals will no longer be able to give birth and hide their pups in “snow caves” atop the surface ice. And the migratory bird population should explode because it will open up hundreds of square miles of new nesting and feeding areas

    Similarly, in Antarctica, just the fact that those Emperor Penguins will trek 60 to 100 miles across the ice to their nesting site is testimony to the fact that area in Antarctica was “ice free” many eons ago or those Penguins would never have gotten into the “habit” of returning to a “birth site” that far inland from “open” water.

    Just my learned opinion and you can take it for what its worth.

  106. Medicine Man says:

    Comments much crazy, must smokem peace pipe with Chief Hans for enlightenment.

  107. Colonel MacKenzie says:

    Chief Melting Hans is off the reservation.

    The entire tribe is off the reservation seeking wampum beads, kidnapping our children, and pillaging science.

  108. beng says:

    ***
    Jim Steele says:
    February 14, 2014 at 9:26 am

    All the data shows that the whole food web has benefited from the recent loss of ice from plankton, to cod to seals to bears.
    ***

    Thanks for your posts. I’ve wondered if whales have lately been taking advantage (thru the Bering Strait) of the extended open water in the Chukchi Sea?

  109. milodonharlani says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/11/giant-mass-extinction-may-have-been-quicker-than-previously-thought/#comment-1568666

    Comment from another thread which bears on issue of whether extinctions are “good” or “bad”. Most catastrophic extinction of the Phanerozoic Eon made possible the evolution of, for instance, birds & mammals, along with the rest of the wonderful Mesozoic/Cenozoic fauna & such spectacular flora as flowering plants.

  110. JBJ says:

    These are valid points though:

    Generally speaking, overharvest is no longer a primary threat, although pressures on some populations remain a serious problem.
    A variety of contaminants have bioaccumulated in several Arctic predator species to levels that threaten the health and ability to reproduce of both animals and humans. However, it is not clear if this is affecting entire populations of species.
    Arctic habitats are among the least anthropogenic disturbed on Earth, and huge tracts of almost pristine tundra, mountain, freshwater and marine habitats still exist.
    Regionally, ocean bottom trawling, non-renewable resource development and other intensive forms of land use pose serious challenges to Arctic biodiversity.
    Pollution from oil spills at sites of oil and gas development and from oil transport is a serious local level threat particularly in coastal and marine ecosystems.
    There is an enormous deficit in our knowledge of species richness in many groups of organisms, and monitoring in the Arctic is lagging far behind that in other regions of the world.

  111. JBJ says:

    “Stark Dickflüssig says:
    February 14, 2014 at 11:34 am
    But if you’re asking what we should do about other species, I say kill & eat them. If they taste good, then we farm them. If they taste bad or they’re too difficult to farm, then just let them die off or let the PETA-fruitcups farm them at their own expense.”

    You are a nutcase!

  112. Gary Pearse says:

    “milodonharlani says:
    February 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm
    —-l
    Your comments are interesting. Would you like to continue the discussion off the blog? I think it is getting too far off topic for the post and might irritate some of the less tolerant readers :)”

    By all means, continue. This has been an edifying discussion., I love the smart people this magic electronic wonder has been able to find.

  113. milodonharlani says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    February 15, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    OK, my two cents-worth on extinction:

    It’s not good or bad, just natural. Humans might think that humans going extinct is bad. We might also think that reduction in the diversity of other organisms with which we share the planet is also bad, except for species harmful to us & not important components of any ecosystem. Greenies who hate humanity might OTOH wish for more rather than fewer lethal pathogens in our environment.

    Earth is about halfway through its complex large organism phase. So far in the Phanerozoic Eon, the planet has been able to bounce back from major & minor extinction events, & normal background extinctions have given rise to lifeforms better adapted to changed conditions or able to take better advantage of existing conditions.

    Think of humans. Was it a bad thing that australopithecines & other hominids went extinct, to be replaced by members of genus Homo? Was it good or bad that H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, Neanderthals & Denisovans were replaced by anatomically modern humans?

    Complex life on Earth survived even the Mother of All Mass Extinctions, the End Permian. But it won’t survive what’s coming in the next 500 million to five billion years, unless our descendants or some other even more capable species can colonize the galaxy or figure out how to keep the solar system habitable for multicellular organisms or life at all despite the big changes that will naturally occur in it as the sun nears the end of its Main Sequence development.

    Despite big setbacks like the mass extinction events, biodiversity has increased during the Phanerozoic, but the time is coming in which the trend will be down, then out, if nature takes its course. But then humans & intelligent life in general are also part of the natural world, so who knows? Maybe life in this & other galaxies will evolve to keep the universe from ending in either a whimper or a bang.

  114. milodonharlani says:

    PS: Of course right now humans can’t even significantly affect the climate of Earth, so engineering the solar system & the galaxy or universe is a bit of a stretch.

  115. Arninetyes says:

    Sooo…..as long as the warming happens naturally, as it has during every interglacial since Earth became colder some two and a half million years ago, then everything is fine. But if the warming is manmade, then all those species that survived warmer past interglacials will suddenly vanish?

  116. Sooooo…….it is pretty much a given fact that the earth’s climate will return to “ice age” conditions, or even maybe a “snowball” earth. But, it is my opinion that, it is extremely unlikely that the earth will ever morph into an extremely “hot age” simply because the vast amount of liquid water that is resident upon the earth. Atmospheric H2O vapor is a bi-directional thermal energy buffer.

Comments are closed.