Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

You can point all you want at your own silly opinions, they aren't getting any more convincing. Every time you disagreed, I presented evidence that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest, while you repeatedly said the opposite of the facts you claim I don't understand.

You haven't done that in the slightest; this is delusional self-aggrandisement. Not once have you addressed the fact that species extinction and ecosystem collapse are already at a massive high as a direct result of climate change. Your feeble, nonsensical counterargument to that was... to point to human and domesticated animal variation over the last 1000+ years as proof we're adaptable (!?), and then completely ignore the question about whether we have any responsibility to avoid driving all the others to extinction.

Elsewhere you pointed at D-O events, and lauded the 8 degree rise, while completely ignoring the facts presented in response that make clear the image isn't so rosy: that it didn't accompany a corresponding rise in global mean temp, and that the levels of released Co2 has experienced a rise unprecedented in 800,000 years.

We agree the climate is changing, and on average the Earth is warming. We agree that the best way forward is to embrace largescale changes in behavior that would control or counteract those effects. As best as I can tell, the only practical issue you have with what I'm saying is that it doesn't contain sufficient fear and loathing.

...because this isn't primarily a discussion about practicalities. We're discussing climatology, not policy.

"Silly opinions", says someone flying utterly in the face of the overwhelming consensus of the climatology community. Give me a break, because your grasp of the topics thus far has genuinely been embarrassingly poor (equating wildfires with controlled burns being a particular low point).

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Also, who knew rice farming was so bad?

Yeah, it's an issue... but trying to tell people about this often turns into one of the more creative opportunities to be called a racist.

 

[tstorm823]

Not once have you addressed the fact that species extinction and ecosystem collapse are already at a massive high as a direct result of climate change.

Why would I address that fantasy?

then completely ignore the question about whether we have any responsibility to avoid driving all the others to extinction.

That question hasn't even come up. Humans have driven animals to extinction: over hunting, habitat loss, pollution, etc. You are acting under the premise that these things are directly tied to rise in global temperatures, but that connection is pretty flimsy. I do think humans should avoid driving other species to extinction, but you're wrapping a bunch of disjointed things into one big one to catastrophize over, and I don't see how that's supposed to help.

"Silly opinions", says someone flying utterly in the face of the overwhelming consensus of the climatology community.

You once again have imagined your specific beliefs to be consensus. Remember the last time you tried to establish a consensus around your own opinion? I expect this time to be the same.

 

[Silvanus]

Why would I address that fantasy?

It's literally true.

That question hasn't even come up. Humans have driven animals to extinction: over hunting, habitat loss, pollution, etc. You are acting under the premise that these things are directly tied to rise in global temperatures, but that connection is pretty flimsy. I do think humans should avoid driving other species to extinction, but you're wrapping a bunch of disjointed things into one big one to catastrophize over, and I don't see how that's supposed to help.

It has certainly come up: I directly asked the question and you ignored it.

It is not seriously disputed that habitat loss and ecosystem collapse are currently driven in large part by climate change. You may as well be in here claiming vaccines don't work or cigarettes don't have negative health impacts, that my "silly opinions" that they do is not the scientific consensus, and at this point I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

You once again have imagined your specific beliefs to be consensus. Remember the last time you tried to establish a consensus around your own opinion? I expect this time to be the same.

I remember last time I provided a body of research and surveying, and you provided nothing but your own speculation, and then smugly opined that because I didn't have a survey focusing solely on gay people (though i had 2 with strong corollaries) it didn't count.

You parrot this shit that's frankly scientifically laughable, fail to address criticisms (or present rebuttals that are almost satirically nonsensical), and then have the complete obliviousness to pretend the argument has gone your way.

 

[tstorm823]

It has certainly come up: I directly asked the question and you ignored it.

Quote yourself directly asking the question then, please.

It is not seriously disputed that habitat loss and ecosystem collapse are currently driven in large part by climate change.

Things that people aren't saying aren't heavily disputed, that is true. But since you are saying them here, I'm obligated to dispute them. Lots of people talk about how habitat loss and ecosystem collapse contribute to climate change. That is a much more serious discussion. The inverse really isn't, unless you're talking about specifically polar bears and coral reefs, but you aren't, you're acting as though the many species losing habitat right now are being driven by climate change. Which isn't a thing, that's not a consensus, nobody serious is going to agree to that.

 

[Silvanus]

Quote yourself directly asking the question then, please.

Here:

those are the changes in distribution and variety of humanity and the species that we are largely controlling. Species extinction and ecosystem collapse outside of that are at a monumental high. Are you solely concerned about species that you can directly benefit from? Is there no wider consideration for life on earth for you?

---

Things that people aren't saying aren't heavily disputed, that is true. But since you are saying them here, I'm obligated to dispute them. Lots of people talk about how habitat loss and ecosystem collapse contribute to climate change. That is a much more serious discussion. The inverse really isn't, unless you're talking about specifically polar bears and coral reefs, but you aren't, you're acting as though the many species losing habitat right now are being driven by climate change. Which isn't a thing, that's not a consensus, nobody serious is going to agree to that.

OK, so it really is just sheer ignorance of the scientific standpoint.

Projected Impacts of Climate and Land-Use Change on the Global Diversity of Birds

Evaluating changes in range size of land bird species using Millenium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios reveals that land conversion, as well as climate change, will lead to the decline of many species, particularly those in the tropics.

journals.plos.org

Over the past few decades, land-use and climate change have led to substantial range contractions and species extinctions. [...]climate change will severely affect biodiversity

Species and climate change

The ~1ºC rise in mean global temperature is causing serious and often unexpected impacts on species, affecting their abundance, genetic composition, behaviour and survival. Species declines threaten the services that nature provides to people, which include functioning as carbon sinks and...

www.iucn.org

The ~1ºC rise in mean global temperature is causing serious and often unexpected impacts on species, affecting their abundance, genetic composition, behaviour and survival.

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaa4984

(^ there's a free access option; click through below)

Results suggest that extinction risks will accelerate with future global temperatures, threatening up to one in six species under current policies.

Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity - Nature

Amphibian populations are declining; here, the spatial distribution and interactions of threats from climate change, land-use change and the spread of fungal disease are assessed.

www.nature.com

Amphibian population declines far exceed those of other vertebrate groups, with 30% of all species listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The causes of these declines are a matter of continued research, but probably include climate change

The implications of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant biodiversity areas - Climatic Change

Climate change is already affecting species and their distributions. Distributional range changes have occurred and are projected to intensify for many widespread plants and animals, creating associated risks to many ecosystems. Here, we estimate the climate change-related risks to the species...

link.springer.com

There appears to be an almost linear relationship between warming in terms of annual global mean temperature rise above pre-industrial levels and species extirpation risks

Media Release: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’

Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history — and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely, warns a landmark new report from IPBES, the summary of which was approved at the 7th session of the IPBES Plenary...

www.ipbes.net

Ecosystems, species, wild populations, local varieties and breeds of domesticated plants and animals are shrinking, deteriorating or vanishing. The essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and increasingly frayed,” said Prof. Settele. “This loss is a direct result of human activity and constitutes a direct threat to human well-being in all regions of the world.”

The assessment’s authors have ranked, for the first time at this scale and based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species

Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

archive.ipcc.ch

Recent estimates indicate that 25% of the world's mammals and 12% of birds are at significant risk of global extinction. Climate change is only one of a long list of pressures on wildlife.

OK, so we have there statements from some of the most authoritative bodies globally on the topic, academic case studies, as well as reviews covering hundreds of scientists. I look forward to the quibblings and vague dismissals.

 

[tstorm823]

Here:

Oh, you mean the comment that I responded to with a specific anecdote of a specific species that you completely ignored. Yes, there is wider consideration for life on earth, you didn't need me to say that, you know the answer.

OK, so we have there statements from some of the most authoritative bodies globally on the topic, academic case studies, as well as reviews covering hundreds of scientists. I look forward to the quibblings and vague dismissals.

I'll give you a very specific dismissal: everything you found says exactly what I'm telling you. Climate change is just one of many effects, and by no means the largest, endangering species around the world.

"Climate change and habitat loss threaten species" is not the same statement as "climate change destroys habitats to threaten species".

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, you mean the comment that I responded to with a specific anecdote of a specific species that you completely ignored. Yes, there is wider consideration for life on earth, you didn't need me to say that, you know the answer.

Fucking lol. "This butterfly benefited from controlled burns" is not a robust or relevant reply, and doesn't reflect any better on your wider complacency about species extinction.

Not to mention the fact your butterfly story wasn't even given in reply to that question anyway. You snipped the question out, and then later acted as if i never asked it. No, the butterfly story was given in reply to an unrelated analogy about wildfires-- the hilarity of you equating wildfires with controlled burns has already been noted.

I'll give you a very specific dismissal: everything you found says exactly what I'm telling you. Climate change is just one of many effects, and by no means the largest, endangering species around the world.

"Climate change and habitat loss threaten species" is not the same statement as "climate change destroys habitats to threaten species".

Those links directly link climate change to both habitat loss and species extinction. They directly contradict your insane posturing about how climate change is beneficial for life on earth and denialism that it drives extinction.

You cannot just weasel away from your earlier position now and pretend you always acknowledged it as a negative, just as "one of many". You were loudly, smugly dismissing it having a significant negative impact on life on earth just a few short posts ago. Anyone can go back and read that.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

See below graphs.

The first would strongly suggest global methane was roughly constant until about 1800. The second shows the increase in production of methane by humanity since 1860, which is around a fivefold increase; livestock emissions roughly three- to fourfold. This manmade production almost certainly accounts for the majority if not pretty much all of the increase in total global methane since 1800, although general warming processes may also contribute (for instance by releasing methane trapped in land that was previously frozen.)

Without doing much precise number crunching, putting these together would very, very strongly suggest that methane emissions from animals have increased heavily since 1800 (or 0 A.D. when man's impact on the overall animal population of the world was probably negligible). Either way, livestock farming is a major contributor to high global methane production.

Also, who knew rice farming was so bad?

View attachment 8950

View attachment 8951

That doesn't tell me what I'm asking. Livestock =/= all animals, which is what I'm asking. We've increased livestock but many other animal numbers have decreased like 26 million elephants to 100,000 for example (that I doubt are considered livestock). Again, what's the total methane emissions (or just general GHG emissions) from animals today and in yesteryear? Also, how much can the environment take in/repurpose today vs yesteryear as well. Then, how much surplus (if any) do we have from just normal living creatures to what the environment can handle? I'd be willing to guess that when you look at that, cows will be such a minor problem (if any) that it will be pretty ridiculous arguing over it at all. I'm also willing to bet methane in permafrost is also a much bigger issue than cows.

Yes, but that didn't happen.

It literally did.

 

[Silvanus]

It literally did.

Then I'll ask you again.

How did they ask random numbers to self-evaluate?

Because without self-evaluation, it's not the same study. You're not going to get away from that simple fact.

 

[tstorm823]

You snipped the question out, and then later acted as if i never asked it.

You rephrased the question sufficient that I wasn't finding it and needed you to point to it. That doesn't mean my response was unrelated.

They directly contradict your insane posturing about how climate change is beneficial for life on earth and denialism that it drives extinction.

What you don't see is how these are not mutually exclusive. The other conversation in here is about cows driving global warming. From your perspective, you can surely imagine a situation where massively decreased numbers of cows equates to better circumstance for everything else. Now step a bit further away, you might see how change can be very bad for some species but good for many others. That if not for other human activity, we would expect more rainforest on a warmer earth.

 

[Silvanus]

You rephrased the question sufficient that I wasn't finding it and needed you to point to it. That doesn't mean my response was unrelated.

Your response to... an unrelated part of the post, that a species of butterfly benefitted from controlled burns?

What you don't see is how these are not mutually exclusive. The other conversation in here is about cows driving global warming. From your perspective, you can surely imagine a situation where massively decreased numbers of cows equates to better circumstance for everything else. Now step a bit further away, you might see how change can be very bad for some species but good for many others. That if not for other human activity, we would expect more rainforest on a warmer earth.

Right. So you're basing this on speculation about forestation on a hypothetical earth thousands of years from now. For which you have no models, just "warmer = rainforests". And you consider that to be a solid enough basis to happily watch as biodiversity plummets and huge numbers of extinctions happen /right now/.

Even as all authoritative bodies, and the scientific community, are directly warning that its disastrous for biodiversity.

This is complacency to the point of delusion and just another (admittedly slightly weirder) form of climage denialism.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Then I'll ask you again.

How did they ask random numbers to self-evaluate?

Because without self-evaluation, it's not the same study. You're not going to get away from that simple fact.

That's literally the point. How did a random number generator roll a D20 for example when rolling dice with an app?

 

[Silvanus]

That's literally the point. How did a random number generator roll a D20 for example when rolling dice with an app?

You've just said "that's literally the point" in reply to a post pointing out how the procedure of the original study was not replicated.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For those playing at home, which argument that Silvanus is responding to is more obviously wrong?

 

[tstorm823]

Right. So you're basing this on speculation about forestation on a hypothetical earth thousands of years from now. For which you have no models, just "warmer = rainforests". And you consider that to be a solid enough basis to happily watch as biodiversity plummets and huge numbers of extinctions happen /right now/.

You are referring to almost entirely unrelated extinctions. Poaching and pesticides aren't caused by temperature change.

And I'm not talking about thing thousands o years away, I'm talking right now, where a variety of species are increasingly thriving and people call them an ecological disaster for not being the same as it ever was.

 

[tstorm823]

For those playing at home, which argument that Silvanus is responding to is more obviously wrong?

You think something is obvious because you choose not to think about it.

 

[Silvanus]

You are referring to almost entirely unrelated extinctions. Poaching and pesticides aren't caused by temperature change.

You've now been presented with multiple sources from the most authoritative sources available directly linking climate change to extinctions.

And I'm not talking about thing thousands o years away, I'm talking right now, where a variety of species are increasingly thriving and people call them an ecological disaster for not being the same as it ever was.

You've been presented with multiple sources from the most authoritative sources available directly stating that biodiversity is severely badly affected by climate change.

You're now just at the point of point-blank contradicting the expert statements right in front of you, and providing nothing but simplistic speculation in return.

 

[tstorm823]

You've now been presented with multiple sources from the most authoritative sources available directly linking climate change to extinctions.

You're now just at the point of point-blank contradicting the expert statements right in front of you, and providing nothing but simplistic speculation in return.

Again, these expert authoritative statements do not match your own. You contradict your sources, and don't understand that you're doing it.

 

[Trunkage]

For those playing at home, which argument that Silvanus is responding to is more obviously wrong?

So, I've been away for a day. Catch me up

Did Silvanus talk about Greenland core results on going up to the 1950s?

Edit: Wait, I got a better one. The Greenland core temperature thing is just people taking one scientist out of context