It's all over but for the sweating?

[NeilBlanchard]

The cycle of life is a "circle" - life itself provides the requirements for more life. We did not even have free oxygen before cyanobacteria, and animals then evolved to use the oxygen and return carbon dioxide for plants to use.

The ocean is getting more acidic because of climate change, and this is killing off the plankton, among other things. I give you one guess at what is at the base of the food chain.

If the ocean gets too acidic and too warm, it will kill all the life in it, and we will get high levels of hydrogen sulfide.

Seems pretty deadly to me.

[Arragonis]

Plankton seems to be doing OK as do coral reefs despite predictions to the contrary.

The Arctic ice is doing well to, all those eco-warriors planning to cross it this summer to illustrate the disaster seem to be getting stuck. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

None of those depend on "climate change being addressed".

We could address all of those (and much more) and use less resources through development and increasing wealth.

Is it really moral to spaff a sizable percentage of the world's GDP on this "problem" which (according to the original post that started this journey) it is already too late to address or which has gone away for nearly 20 years ?

They all depend on climate change being addressed. You can't have access to food and water if land that was once capable of supporting crop growing or acting as water catchment has reduced yields because the rainfall has gone away, or is now flooded with salt water twice a year.

You can't protect forests, rivers or oceans if the climate has altered so much that the plants and animals that once lived there are no longer able to.

Trying to address any of those things without addressing climate change is a tail chasing exercise; the very definition of uneconomic growth.

It's too late to avoid some of the effects of climate change; we've already seen several. It's not too late to avoid it being a complete catastrophe (at least for human beings).

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Plankton seems to be doing OK as do coral reefs despite predictions to the contrary.

The Arctic ice is doing well to, all those eco-warriors planning to cross it this summer to illustrate the disaster seem to be getting stuck. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Actually, no. The micro-organisms at the base of the ocean food chain are being altered by the increasing ocean acidity (thinner skeletons), coral reefs are disappearing - due to ocean acidity, warming ocean temperatures, storm damage and increased run off due, at least in part, to increasingly severe and frequent storms - and Arctic sea ice is still reducing at a rate towards the high end of the predictions.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

They all depend on climate change being addressed...

There is no evidence of this happening any more than it has in the past prior to the age of humans. If you have such evidence then post it.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Actually, no. The micro-organisms at the base of the ocean food chain are being altered by the increasing ocean acidity (thinner skeletons), coral reefs are disappearing

Nope. The great barrier reef is fine, they adjust - who knew ? They are older than human history - maybe there is a clue ?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

They all depend on climate change being addressed.

Well fine, but how do you define 'addressed'?

My sources suggested that 'climate change' is manifest as increasing chaos. But less than chaos that you can see on other planets in a Solar System experiencing a declining magnetic field in the Sun—causing increases in Cosmic radiation.

I would address change, climate and otherwise by building out infrastructure designed with an expanded performance envelope. For fixed or moored structures I would think -50° to 140°F, and windspeeds to 120mph.

As for the oceans, learn to love the taste of jellyfish?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

My sources suggested that 'climate change' is manifest as increasing chaos.

Freeb old bean, define "chaos".

If you mean more extreme weather then actually the CAGW "theory" suggests less because there is more warming at the poles (damn you antarctic for not cooperating) spreading towards the equator. That means less extreme weather and not more.

The Muller (BEST project lead) interview I linked to several tens of pages ago includes a similar statement.

Not that there has been anything historically unusual anyway.

Oh and the arctic is just fine too.

[cbaber]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

They all depend on climate change being addressed. You can't have access to food and water if land that was once capable of supporting crop growing or acting as water catchment has reduced yields because the rainfall has gone away, or is now flooded with salt water twice a year.

You can't protect forests, rivers or oceans if the climate has altered so much that the plants and animals that once lived there are no longer able to.

Trying to address any of those things without addressing climate change is a tail chasing exercise; the very definition of uneconomic growth.

It's too late to avoid some of the effects of climate change; we've already seen several. It's not too late to avoid it being a complete catastrophe (at least for human beings).

Man is not killing the earth with CO2, we are killing it because of the way we use its resources. The population will continue to soar, meaning larger cities, more developed countries, more resources needed, etc. A new construction project that levels out a forest area is much more of a threat to the earth than our CO2 emissions. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but switching to renewable energy and reducing CO2 emissions won't solve our problem.

The once beautiful places in our country and across the globe are gone because man develops cities and theme parks, not because of CO2. Species go extinct because of mans continuing expansion into their habitats, along with over hunting and poaching, not because of CO2.

Whether or not you believe in man made global warming is irrelevant and not worth arguing over, because in the end the outcome isn't based on our CO2 emissions, it's the expansion of the human population that requires more space, and more resources to live our increasingly needy lives.

[radioranger]

Hard to talk logic when its becomes a belief system and substitute for religion,

[NeilBlanchard]

The area of the Arctic ice is declining quickly, and the volume of the Arctic ice is declining even more quickly. The volume is down 80% since just 1979.

Look at the graph you posted:

The 90's are lower than the 80's and the 2000's average is lower than the 90's. And the end of the 2000's and early teens are lower than the 2000's. 2008 and 2009 and 2010 "rebounded" after 2007 but then we got 2011 and 2012 setting new lows - so how does a "rebound" in 2013 mean anything? It is still lower than the 2000's average (which includes 2007 in the mix).

Plant productivity declines when temperatures get too hot, as they are now, and too much carbon dioxide is very hard on them as well. Pollinators are in deep decline.

Plankton is down about 40% since the late 1950's. And many reefs are bleached and dying. Jellyfish are the only species on the rise.