Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

"Dramatic Decline" Warning For Plants and Animals 696

Posted by samzenpus
from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Worldwide levels of the chief greenhouse gas that causes global warming have hit a milestone, reaching an amount never before encountered by humans, federal scientists said. Carbon dioxide was measured at 400 parts per million at the oldest monitoring station in Hawaii, which sets the global benchmark. More than half of plants and a third of animal species are likely to see their living space halved by 2080 if current trends continue."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Dramatic Decline" Warning For Plants and Animals

Comments Filter:
  • for your Grandchildren. Those ignoring or making fun of it don't care about their
    descendants. I guess Slashdotters may be clever, but not very respectful of science
    itself. Very sad indeed !

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by phantomfive (622387)

      but not very respectful of science itself.

      Science doesn't want respect, it wants you to ask, "How do we know?" As soon as you start believing things because it was said by "the institution of science," that's when it's no longer science anymore.

      And there are real scientists, respected climatologists, who are asking "how do we know?" about global warming. And some are coming to different conclusions. So the future is not as clear as some doomologists would have you believe.

      Be especially wary of the ones who use global warming as an excuse to tak

      • by IICV (652597) on Monday May 13, 2013 @09:28AM (#43709153)

        And there are real scientists, respected climatologists, who are asking "how do we know?" about global warming. And some are coming to different conclusions.

        Name one who isn't Richard Lindzen, and you might have a point. Until then you're pretty much just making stuff up.

        • John Christy.

          Richard Lindzen is a lead author of the IPCC report, and is actually well respected among everyone except alarmists, so I can tell what propaganda you've been listening to.
    • by organgtool (966989) on Monday May 13, 2013 @11:31AM (#43710631)

      Those ignoring or making fun of it don't care about their descendants

      This is slashdot! In order for us to have descendants, we'd have to be able to find women willing to procreate with us. Solving that problem would be much harder than solving the global warming issue itself.

  • Mularkey (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, 2013 @09:27PM (#43705611)

    I'm pretty sure some deniers conclusively proved that this is all bunk in the last article. The problem is that 1) the scientists didn't know that the station is on a volcano, 2) they did know it was on a volcano and they still put the CO2 detector inside the volcano right above the liquid-hot magma, 3) there are no ice cores on Hawaii, 4) ice cores are completely unreliable for anything anyway, 5) the CO2 monitored is only applicable to Hawaii, more specifically a few meters around the detector and does not register global CO2 levels, 6) China still exists thereby making all readings void, 7) these readings don't matter, 8) these readings are all faulty because I don't know how they get them, 9) these readings align well with other CO2 stations across the globe, and we all know that repeatable and reliable numbers are a sign of confirmation bias not accuracy, 10) these numbers are void because of Climategate probably, 11) these numbers are valid but don't matter because I don't know why, 12) plants like CO2 therefore any changes in the environment are offset by wonderful new foliage, and 13) these numbers are void because Al Gore still exists.

    Why are we still even discussing this? It has been demonstratively proven false.

    • Re:Mularkey (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lendrick (314723) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @11:00PM (#43706177) Homepage Journal

      You missed three very important points that the global warming denialists have made over the last decade or two:

      * Global warming isn't real.
      * Global warming *is* real, but it's completely natural and not at all man-made.
      * Global warming is real and man-made, but it's good.

  • neverending FUDery (Score:3, Interesting)

    by argStyopa (232550) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @09:32PM (#43705637) Journal

    It seems that the 'talking point' of the eco-marxists today "unprecedented" levels of CO2...was actually disproven in 2008:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf [icecap.us] (from 2008)

    "The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."

    This explains thoroughly that
    a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
    b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).

    • FUDery indeed (Score:5, Informative)

      by microbox (704317) on Monday May 13, 2013 @01:05AM (#43706889)
      This is what counts as evidence for you. Did you ever find some counter evidence? Almost certainly not, right?

      For those who are interested, you can read about Beck 2008 here [blogspot.com], here [blogspot.com], and here [realclimate.org].

      For the full effect, make sure you actually read through Beck 2008.

      Proof that you only need a few bits of junk our there, and that's enough for politics.
  • By the year 2081, more than half of these types of predictions are likely to be shown to be more than half true.

  • Timeframes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wolfling1 (1808594) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @09:35PM (#43705661) Journal
    Seems we're suffering from a bit of Climate Change Fatigue... which suggests that the less than 1% of credible scientists who doubt AGW have managed to sow enough seeds of dramatic dissent for the rest of us to lose interest.

    Or perhaps, it is something a little simpler in the human psyche. Whilst we bemoan politicians who have no more future vision than the end of their current term, it seems that we too are particularly short-sighted about the future of this planet. I suspect that the majority of us look little further than how we're going to satisfy the physical aspects of Maslow's Heirarchy of needs.

    When our life expectancies are extended to 1000 years (or more), and we face the very real prospect of living on the planet we are currently terraforming, we may take a slightly different view. Somehow, I doubt it. Most of the people alive today will live to see an increase of 4-6 degrees C... and yet, we're far more interested in gun control and the Kardashians.

    I feel sad for our children (and their children) when I think about the world they will inherit from us.
    • Re:Timeframes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rrohbeck (944847) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @09:48PM (#43705769)

      Bah. You have it wrong. If you have kids you're biologically required to be optimistic. Cognitive dissonance trumps reality every time.

    • Re:Timeframes (Score:4, Interesting)

      by srmalloy (263556) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @11:39PM (#43706393) Homepage

      Seems we're suffering from a bit of Climate Change Fatigue... which suggests that the less than 1% of credible scientists who doubt AGW have managed to sow enough seeds of dramatic dissent for the rest of us to lose interest.

      ...and the media, seeing their advertising revenue flagging from the loss of interest in the continued "death, doom, and destruction from global warming due to rise in CO2 levels" news 'reporting' in the face of a 17-year stall in global temperature change (can't jack up the price of commercials if people yawn and change the channel when your newscasters announce another 'global warming' crisis), are starting to flock to a new crisis -- pollution causes global cooling [washingtontimes.com].

    • Re:Timeframes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @11:58PM (#43706503)

      The problem is (a) you are no-where near proving we'll see that kind of temperature rise, and (b) you also apparently have no clue what effects a rise would actually have. People like you were saying London would never see another snow, then after many brutal winters claiming that London was equally doomed to suffer harsh winters. Yes weather is not climate but you and your fellow cultists can't even predict how warming modifies weather, therefore you have no reason to validly claim there's really any reason for humanity as a whole to fear temperature increases.

      That's why people aren't excited. Not because they are tired of you telling them to be scared (boy that never gets old!), but because every single time (yes EVERY time) you give them some specific as to why they should be frightened with specifics and predictions, your guesses turn out to be wrong or backwards!

      If you cry wolf fifty million times, and every result ranges from bunny rabbits to benevolent aliens giving us hologram technology, it really should not take a genius to see why people become more skeptical of your fear-mongering.

  • I just ran across Kevin Anderson's lecture again. Watch it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U [youtube.com]

  • by scrad (1085217) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @09:57PM (#43705821)
    CO2 levels of more than 4000 parts per million (ppm) occurred during the Ordovician-Silurian (450 million years ago). There is also evidence of a glacial event occurring during this period. from: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/understand-cc-long-term.aspx [climatechange.gov.au]
    • by Anonymous Coward

      CO2 levels of more than 4000 parts per million (ppm) occurred during the Ordovician-Silurian (450 million years ago). There is also evidence of a glacial event occurring during this period.

      from: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/understand-cc-long-term.aspx [climatechange.gov.au]

      And how were mammals handling those environmental conditions? What's that? They didn't exist yet? I'm sorry, what? Yes, apology accepted. No, no, it's okay, we put up with demonstrations of subpar intelligence around here all the time. All is forgiven. :)

    • by noobermin (1950642) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @11:53PM (#43706473) Journal

      TFS:

      [...]reaching an amount never before encountered by humans, federal scientists said.

      There weren't any humans around 450 million years ago.

      Furthermore, you copy-and-pasted directly but left out the rest of the paragraph

      CO2 levels of more than 4000 parts per million (ppm) occurred during the Ordovician-Silurian (450 million years ago). There is also evidence of a glacial event occurring during this period. This has been used by some to attempt to disprove the link between temperature and CO2. Royer et al. (2006) considered the CO2 forced climate thresholds over the Phanerozoic eon (the last 545 million years). It was found that there is insufficient proxy data to determine that a high CO2 event coincided with the Ordovician-Silurian glacial event. The only proxy CO2 data near this glacial event could be up to five million years younger than the event. Further, the Earth was a very different place during this period including differences in solar luminosity, albedo, distribution of continents and vegetation, orbital parameters and other greenhouse gases.

      You should try to think more, brah. It can actually save you from embarrasment.

  • How many plants and animals are going to see their living spaces increase?

  • Different range? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @10:57PM (#43706161)

    An international team of researchers looked at the impacts of rising temperatures on nearly 50,000 common species of plants and animals.

    They looked at both temperature and rainfall records for the habitats that these species now live in and mapped the areas that would remain suitable for them under a number of different climate change scenarios.

    The scientists projected that if no significant efforts were made to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 2100 global temperatures would be 4C above pre-industrial levels.

    In this model, some 34% of animal species and 57% of plants would lose more than half of their current habitat ranges.

    The interesting part is that they looked at the "habitats that these species now live in". They did not look at habitats that are not currently suitable for the species to live in. For all we know there could be more area that species could live in when the climate changed. By concentrating on current species ranges the scientists are skewing the results. One should look at the whole system before coming to a conclusion.

  • If you burn all the methane in the atmosphere you'd lower the greenhouse effect.
    Methane is 72x better at trapping heat.
    CH4 + 2(O2) = CO2 + 2(H2O)
    There are other compounds worse than CO2 too. Like nitrous oxides produced by plants fed with high nitrogen fertiliser.

  • Climate change will cause one half of species to decline, but the other half will take their place, that's how nature works. Question is, which half will we belong to?

  • pesky plants and animals be gone.

  • where should i send the money?

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...