The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by myself

...humankind gained all the knowledge it needs to be a success in Universe by the 1970s. Marine electrodeposition is one example, the Apple ][ is another.

.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

.

It may want to wait a few hundred thousand years. Marine biologists are confident that carbonic acid from CO2 entering the oceans will prevent shellfish and crustaceans from forming shells in the not-so-far future.
Any calcium carbonate formed on a ferrous armature during electrodeposition would just dissolve and return to solution.
You can take a piece of hamburger in the evening, and drop it into freshly-opened Coca-Cola, and by morning, it will be 'gone.'
At Yellowstone National Park, if you have the 'time,' you can watch carbonic water surface onto 'Minerva's Castle,' and as it evaporates, leaves a new layer of limestone behind, an 'ocean in reverse.'

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

It may want to wait a few hundred thousand years. Marine biologists are confident that carbonic acid from CO2 entering the oceans will prevent shellfish and crustaceans from forming shells in the not-so-far future.
Any calcium carbonate formed on a ferrous armature during electrodeposition would just dissolve and return to solution.
You can take a piece of hamburger in the evening, and drop it into freshly-opened Coca-Cola, and by morning, it will be 'gone.

You're conflating acidification with acid. The oceans will never be acidic.

When we look back through the geological record, we see that for much of the last 500 million years there was an abundance of life in the oceans and that atmospheric carbon dioxide was much higher than today for the vast majority of that time. Though it may seem counterintuitive, especially considering that ocean pH was lower than present-day, the ancient oceans were generally more hospitable to marine calcification (building shells or skeletons of calcium carbonate) than they are now [Arvidson et al (2013)].

Numerous examples exist to support this, such as the enormous coccolith deposits that make up the White Cliffs of Dover in England. These tiny coccolith shells are made of calcium carbonate (chalk) and date from the Cretaceous Period (Cretaceous is Latin for chalk) about 145 to 65 million years ago - when atmospheric CO2 concentration was several times that of today. So conducive to marine calcification was the Cretaceous ocean that it also saw the emergence of giant shellfish called rudists as a major reef-builder.

Shellfish arrived when ocean pH was way lower than it is today, or the foreseeable future.

We're probably underestimating how rapidly creatures can adapt to change. I'm reminded of that example they teach in high school of a peppered moth that turned into a black moth relatively quickly in response to pollutants creating a black environment.

That's not to say that rapid climate change is trivial, but it is a denial of apocalyptic doom.

Finally, we'll probably be genetically modifying most creatures we care about in the future. It will probably be trivial to create crabs that survive lower pH even decades from now, as an example.

Our capacity to not only adapt ourselves to a changing environment, but other creatures, will be insanely better in the future.

We're entering the Golden Era. I'm only sad knowing I won't be around in a thousand years to see just how great everything is.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

It may want to wait a few hundred thousand years. Marine biologists are confident that carbonic acid from CO2 entering the oceans will prevent shellfish and crustaceans from forming shells in the not-so-far future.
Any calcium carbonate formed on a ferrous armature during electrodeposition would just dissolve and return to solution.
You can take a piece of hamburger in the evening, and drop it into freshly-opened Coca-Cola, and by morning, it will be 'gone.'
At Yellowstone National Park, if you have the 'time,' you can watch carbonic water surface onto 'Minerva's Castle,' and as it evaporates, leaves a new layer of limestone behind, an 'ocean in reverse.'

Then why didn't that happen when CO2 levels were 1,600ppm not that many millions of years ago.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You're conflating acidification with acid. The oceans will never be acidic.



Shellfish arrived when ocean pH was way lower than it is today, or the foreseeable future.

We're probably underestimating how rapidly creatures can adapt to change. I'm reminded of that example they teach in high school of a peppered moth that turned into a black moth relatively quickly in response to pollutants creating a black environment.

That's not to say that rapid climate change is trivial, but it is a denial of apocalyptic doom.

Finally, we'll probably be genetically modifying most creatures we care about in the future. It will probably be trivial to create crabs that survive lower pH even decades from now, as an example.

Our capacity to not only adapt ourselves to a changing environment, but other creatures, will be insanely better in the future.

We're entering the Golden Era. I'm only sad knowing I won't be around in a thousand years to see just how great everything is.

* If the numbers are conflated, that will be on the marine biologists. Not me.
* What happened 165-million years ago would not be representative of Earth as it is today. Your reference authors are not providing that context. I won't speculate on the reason(s) the caveat was omitted.
* I believe that your way-overestimating the time-frame 'quickness' in which species could adapt to non-linear environmental changes. Perhaps you could cite one example of species evolution which occurred on a time-scale of a few hundred years.
* As to genetic engineering, there exist no extant species from which to extract DNA from, which presently could withstand the environmental changes predicted in the models. The 'reservoir' of genetic material you'd need to work from is zero.
* You would find 'some' species which could replace those going extinct, until their thresholds are reached.
* There's not enough money on Earth to pay for adaptation, if that's all you did. Where will $88-trillion/year come from ?
* By all metrics, we're clearly heading for mass extinction.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Then why didn't that happen when CO2 levels were 1,600ppm not that many millions of years ago.

These 'Hot-House Earth', 'Ice-Ball Earth' episodes occurred on an 'Earth' which no longer exists.
There have been broadcasts on PBS which addressed the particulars of those phenomena. I'm not sure that I have any notes on it.
We are talking about a planet devoid of any ice at all at times.
Times of heavy meteoric and cometary bombardment along with millions of years of continuous volcanic eruptions and lava flows.
Zero vegetation.
Zero plankton.
Times of massive ice sheets.
No opening yet of the Bering Sea.
No Drake Passage
No Circumpolar Circulation.
Tropical weather at both poles.
There was enormous changes in orbital solar-forcing due to the three Milankovich cycles.
A number of mass extinctions.
It'd amazing stuff!
I'll look around.
Thanks for bringing it up.

[freebeard]

* As to genetic engineering, there exist no extant species from which to extract DNA from, which presently could withstand the environmental changes predicted in the models. The 'reservoir' of genetic material you'd need to work from is zero.
* You would find 'some' species which could replace those going extinct, until their thresholds are reached.

The varied extant species today have survived the prior Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycles and Heinrich Events , and Milankovich Cycles. Life wll find a way.


“No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it up to forced consciousness expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten.”

― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

[aerohead]

All good points.
I think that the magnitude, and rate of change is what we'll want to focus on.
' Rapid' means 1,000-years to a climatologist.
I did not bring anything with me today that would help. I'll try for next Monday.

[redpoint5]

Minutes, hours, and days are also considered rapid to a climatologist, which is the timeframe the earth experienced meteorite caused climate change. Life persisted.

Existential is off the table. Degree of stress to various species is where the rational discussion is.

Those proclaiming existential aren't engaged in a debate of reason, but regurgitating religious dogma. We can take them as seriously as the guy on the street corner proclaiming the return of Jesus in 12 years.

[freebeard]

Those proclaiming existential aren't engaged in a debate of reason, but regurgitating religious dogma

Yes but it's religious dogma that's been recapitulated by the CIA, expurgated, and regurgitated by conspiracy 'analysts'.

duckduckgo.com/?q=chan+thomas+the+adam+and+eve+story