Ecological Doom Loops: Why Ecosystem Collapses May Occur Sooner Than Expected (phys.org) 150
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: An article in Nature Sustainability suggests that models may have underestimated the impact of warming on ecosystems. Two main reasons for this are the difficulty in accounting for variability and combining climate change with other pressure factors: for instance, pollution, excessive exploitation of species, deforestation due to increased demographics growth and meat consumption, ecosystem fragmentation, also harm wildlife.
After using software to simulate over 70,000 ecosystem scenarios, the two professors and a postdoctoral researcher issued this warning in The Conversation: Around the world, rainforests are becoming savanna or farmland, savanna is drying out and turning into desert, and icy tundra is thawing. Indeed, scientific studies have now recorded "regime shifts" like these in more than 20 different types of ecosystem where tipping points have been passed. Around the world, more than 20% of ecosystems are in danger of shifting or collapsing into something different.
These collapses might happen sooner than you'd think. Humans are already putting ecosystems under pressure in many different ways — what we refer to as stresses. And when you combine these stresses with an increase in climate-driven extreme weather, the date these tipping points are crossed could be brought forward by as much as 80%. This means an ecosystem collapse that we might previously have expected to avoid until late this century could happen as soon as in the next few decades. That's the gloomy conclusion of our latest research, published in Nature Sustainability.
Human population growth, increased economic demands, and greenhouse gas concentrations put pressures on ecosystems and landscapes to supply food and maintain key services such as clean water. The number of extreme climate events is also increasing and will only get worse. What really worries us is that climate extremes could hit already stressed ecosystems, which in turn transfer new or heightened stresses to some other ecosystem, and so on. This means one collapsing ecosystem could have a knock-on effect on neighbouring ecosystems through successive feedback loops: an "ecological doom-loop" scenario, with catastrophic consequences...
There is no way to restore collapsed ecosystems within any reasonable timeframe. There are no ecological bailouts. In the financial vernacular, we will just have to take the hit.
After using software to simulate over 70,000 ecosystem scenarios, the two professors and a postdoctoral researcher issued this warning in The Conversation: Around the world, rainforests are becoming savanna or farmland, savanna is drying out and turning into desert, and icy tundra is thawing. Indeed, scientific studies have now recorded "regime shifts" like these in more than 20 different types of ecosystem where tipping points have been passed. Around the world, more than 20% of ecosystems are in danger of shifting or collapsing into something different.
These collapses might happen sooner than you'd think. Humans are already putting ecosystems under pressure in many different ways — what we refer to as stresses. And when you combine these stresses with an increase in climate-driven extreme weather, the date these tipping points are crossed could be brought forward by as much as 80%. This means an ecosystem collapse that we might previously have expected to avoid until late this century could happen as soon as in the next few decades. That's the gloomy conclusion of our latest research, published in Nature Sustainability.
Human population growth, increased economic demands, and greenhouse gas concentrations put pressures on ecosystems and landscapes to supply food and maintain key services such as clean water. The number of extreme climate events is also increasing and will only get worse. What really worries us is that climate extremes could hit already stressed ecosystems, which in turn transfer new or heightened stresses to some other ecosystem, and so on. This means one collapsing ecosystem could have a knock-on effect on neighbouring ecosystems through successive feedback loops: an "ecological doom-loop" scenario, with catastrophic consequences...
There is no way to restore collapsed ecosystems within any reasonable timeframe. There are no ecological bailouts. In the financial vernacular, we will just have to take the hit.
Do you mean... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize the opposite of "woke" is "inert", yes?
Re: (Score:1)
worse - those woke nutjobs believe in syense not God...
They think they can measure work of God and that the world was not created 7000 years ago by God and that the Earth is not flat...
What makes them think they are so smart they can contradict the Bible?
This seems quite pretentious IMHO but after all, that's what those dumb woke nutjobs are, pretentious fucks thinking they know everything and can predict the future. As far as predicting the future, they failed many times already with their silly prediction
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody said the earth was static. The article is warning about ecological doom-loops.
Re: (Score:2)
Not very long ago and Florida was a desert. I'd be interested in what you consider "not very long ago" I can only find references to the super-continent Gondwana about 200 million years ago.
Re: Do you mean... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I'll file this under TIL...although with the caveat that 'it's commonly taught in Florida' (or most U.S. states for that matter) is not a ringing endorsement for a scientific fact.
what me worry (Score:5, Funny)
Why worry? A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!
Oh, wait, the AIs will Kill All Humans before Musk makes it happen....Oh, well!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Just think what those billions would do if they were not sucked off the company in R&D, wages and infrastructure
They could have been used to return massive dividends to shareholders!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: what me worry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The woke right lectures the woke left? Lol
Exactly. Is it not funny that the term "woke" now refers to right wing kooks as well?
you are obvious right woke troll (Score:2)
The first sign of right woke troll is that he claims he is normal and he defines what normal is and what je does not like is not normal plus classic troll id as they have problems with coming up with login without numbers.
Secondly he has simple view socialism vs. capitalism while actually everywhere in the world there is combination of the two, with the exclusion of North Korea that has authocrathic totalitarian dictatorship posing as communism.
Thirdly - no one mentioned iPhones here so you are doing classi
Re: what me worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the guy whose been obsessively trolling a slashdot user for well over a year now with hundreds of variations of his user name try to look like a reasonable human being.
If you're normal I'd hate to see what unbalanced looks like.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look at the guy whose been obsessively trolling a slashdot user for well over a year now
Oh no no no he’s been doing this since APK was a thing. His attempts to troll rsilvergun predate trolling creimer
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, it's like I'm listening to the crazy person shouting at cars from the street corner tell me I'm unstable.
Normal people don't obsessively troll people for eons as you do. That level of obsession is what's unbalanced
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm absolutely certain you believe you're engaged in some sort of nobel endeavor just like the guy shouting at cars does.
Have you ever noticed though how no one else on this site acts like this when they have political disagreements with others? Food for thought! I'm done with this conversation now.
Re: (Score:1)
Since you proved you only act in bad faith with all your many accounts, we know not to take anything you say seriously.
We do take your mental illness seriously, though. We don't want to get swatted.
Pathetic Lesser Troll! (Score:2)
Oh lord here you’re simping for Elon Musk! Jesus Christ you’re an embarrassment to trolls everywhere go back to Russia please.
I don’t even have the energy for my normal schtick after reading this. ahem Begone Lesser Troll before I don’t know Before I crush your head like a like a billionaire’s uncertified submersible! and use your bones to decorate.. jesus fuck Elon Musk. Come on Elon Musk?
Elon Musk. lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah he only made Tesla the biggest EV company and spaceX the biggest rocket company
To be fair, government money had a lot to do with that.
For the record, Musk is no dummy. He's just not as brilliant as the legend he is building with his money wants you to believe. For the most part the lone genius inventor is a fairy tale for a public with an attention span too short to understand the actual history of an innovation. But an individual businessman with a big enough pile of cash *can* make a difference if he has a good sense of timing -- like Steve Jobs. Jobs invented literally nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Your precious Democrats and Biden did fuck all for a us.
As I recall Obama pushed for privatizing launch services.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we need swarms of little autonomous, solar-powered planet remediation bots that do things like turn non-native plants into mulch and plant native species in their place.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait, the AIs will Kill All Humans
Four year life span.*
*About the same as the Windows update life cycle.
collapsed ecosystems (Score:2)
There is no way to restore collapsed ecosystems within any reasonable timeframe
I assume that's not from the paper, because we have literally restored collapsed ecosystems before.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, yeah, we've done that in the garden after we bought the house. Using resources from OUTSIDE the garden.
But when the environment is the whole planet... well, where do you get extra resources from?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the Evangelicals are concerned, it isn't a problem. They figure if they fuck up the planet hard enough and quickly enough, they'll get Jesus to return. However, it might not go as expected:
Trumpets blare, the clouds part, Jesus descends majestically waving to greet the people all prepared for the Rapture, He lands...
JC: JC here, how are ya (greets and meets)
The faithful are all a'twitter.
JC looks at his iWatch: Well folks, it's been real, gotta run, I'm a busy guy.
Trumpets blare, the clouds part,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not 100%, but enough to make human life a miserable struggle for millions of years.
There were quite a few major extinctions throughout Earth's history, not to mention countless smaller ones (either localized or global, but not as sharp).
There is evidence that 1.2 million years ago there were under 20K humans on Earth.
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
The point is, there comes a time (or maybe we're already past it) where reversing the process becomes impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pick one.
Ocean acidification; oceanic current breakdown (e.g. Gulf Stream); water level increase; excessively strong weather events (storms, tornadoes, monsoons, floods); ozone layer depletion; carbon dioxide level increases; bee die-off; biodiversity reduction; and so on.
Before mass famine, there will be wars, and they have a good chance of fucking up the planet way faster, especially if nukes are involved, and before you say "nobody will be crazy enough to use them", just remember 4 out of 5 (or 5 out of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was just a non-exhaustive list of things that have a good chance of happening. You cherry-picked one, linked an article and proved me wrong. Congrats?
But if you dig deeper (in the same article, no less), you'll find that there are other ozone depletion causes, such as large forest wildfires. Interestingly, the ozone hole size started slowly increasing year-over-year since 2017-2018.
Re: (Score:2)
You cherry-picked one, linked an article and proved me wrong.
Yeah, you shouldn't have included it in your list. Fact check your own stuff before other people do. That's how you avoid talking nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... you had to keep reading that article. You had proven yourself wrong. Appreciate the attempt, though.
And I don't have to prove anything to you (anymore), given that you compromised yourself. Good luck with the future of the human race!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Not that I am aware of. Got any examples where that actually worked long-term?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not an example for the discussion at hand. That is an example for the very opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are several examples on small scale. They all depend on removing the insult and doing remedial action. (Remedial action == additional expense.)
Restore the famous "Cedars of Lebanon" and you'll have a talking point. (This would require removing all the goats from the area, among other things. Possibly also reverting climate changes, but I'm less sure of that.)
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.amazon.com/After-I... [amazon.com]
Rapid climate change has occurred before. In fact, it also happened 130,000 years ago, and then went the other way about 100,000 years ago.
You might also look up Green Sahara. Oh heck, I'll do it for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In fact if you look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You can see the climate has been psychotic for the last two million years.
If the kids live on the coast tell them to move uphill. Or get a houseboat.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly - not so rapid...
Secondly - the sea levels rised then a lot. 30m rise was not a problem then. Imagine it now with bilions of people impacted.
Thirdly - most likely there were catastrophic events triggering it like major volcanoes eruptions etc. do we see any such events now? Now. The best match we have
is CO2 level in the atmosphere and this seems to be our work.
Re: (Score:2)
You might also look up Green Sahara.
You might want to look up what happened to the people who lived in the Green Sahara after the African Humid Period ended.
We all gonna die. Buy your ticket to heaven (Score:2)
before it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if I'm not into hookers and blow?
Seems humanity will not get a passing grade (Score:2)
That becomes clearer and clearer. A pity really. Things could have worked well on this planet, but apparently not with the current mix of people we get here.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. It seems to me as if these interactions should already be a part of the climate models. If they aren't, someone's just building an overly simple model because it's easier.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK. ChatGPT will soon replace us all anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
I shit you not, aliens pull the puppet strings of the Russian mafia, who pulls the puppet strings of a giant cabal of Satanists, who pull the puppet strings of everyone else influential. This is really happening, but humans left to their own devices would not have caused it on their own. Maybe they'll mod me up funny in irony, or maybe they'll mod me down, or maybe they'll just ignore this post to try to play it cool since I called them out directly, but this is really happening and we need to get better at
Re: Seems humanity will not get a passing grade (Score:2)
Seems like if a species can travel halfway across the galaxy that they would have more direct means of destroying our planet. We can't even visit a nearby star yet we can nuke the shit out of this planet anytime we want to. We could even nuke Mars or Venus if we were so motivated.
Trying to fit 20 kg of (Score:2)
I think we're past the tipping point (Score:2)
I'd love to be wrong, but I'm afraid that even if we hit 'net zero' tomorrow our climate and ecosystem would still be in a death spiral. And I'm nigh on certain that we have no chance of reaching net zero for a minimum of 10 years, and probably more like 20 or 30. If civilization even lasts that long...
Re: (Score:2)
We'll hit net zero when there's no fossil fuels to burn anymore - because we've burned them all.
Running out of ways to make people understand... (Score:2)
Tick-tock, time whispers its plea,
No longer can we rely on renewables solely.
Let's broaden our horizons, embrace the diverse,
Nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, a low-carbon universe.
With urgency we must act, the clock won't wait,
Diversify our options, before it's too late.
For time is running out, a truth we must face,
Embrace all clean energies, in this urgent race.
Dear Scientists (Score:2)
Are current efforts to address it working? If so when will temperatures stop rising? If not, do we need to double efforts or triple efforts?
And most of all tell us if we need to step out of the capitalist paradigm and spend money even if it means not making a profit. [genolve.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop studying how bad the climate crisis is and study:
Are current efforts to address it working?
No. [noaa.gov]
If so when will temperatures stop rising?
That's like digging a hole and asking, "When will this thing stop getting deeper?" It depends on how fast we are digging and when we stop. The short answer is anything from 20 years from now to centuries in the future, it depends on us.
If not, do we need to double efforts or triple efforts?
Getting started would be a start.
And most of all tell us if we need to step out of the capitalist paradigm and spend money even if it means not making a profit.
The problem isn't economics, it's politics. Market economies would prevent pollution if the producers had to pay for the consequences of polluting, but they don't. It's an "externality". So I can maximize the profits of my factory by
also people with power (Score:1)
Who are positive their wealth will insulate them from the troubles.
And for a while it surely will.
So we let them continue to destroy the planet, socializing the losses and privatizing the profits.
Meanwhile everyone on slashdot, as far as I can tell, is mad because Biden wants to forgive student loans.
Forgiving loans : bad! moral hazard ! it's the end of society !
Companies and billionaires destroying the planet : don't regulate them ! capitalism ! Freedom !
The greening of the Earth (Score:3)
Rather than relying on flaky models, NASA actually measures this stuff using satellites.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
Yep (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the good news is, if that happens, people will stop emitting greenhouse gases!
Re: (Score:2)
More realistically, in the year 700,002,023 CE there will be no complex life left on the planet at all. By the year 4,000,000,000 CE the whole place is likely to be a whiff of plasma in the Sun's outer atmosphere.
I would like to keep things from now until 700,002,023 as pleasant as possible for my descendants, though. We really ought to be aiming for that. An artificially static environment, fighting off entropy for as long as possible, isn't a crazy idea, it's the only way to optimize a long term future
scientists and engineers need to be (Score:2)
Not anytime soon, though. We're not going to actually do ANYTHING about this until things are bad. Really, really, REALLY bad. Large regions becoming uninhabitable. Large migrations toward the poles. Entire breadbasket regions collapsing. Millions of people cooking to death. Until that sort of stuff happens, we won't lift a finger. A third of our species has been programmed to deny any sort of climate change whatsoeve
Re: (Score:2)
Not anytime soon, though. We're not going to actually do ANYTHING about this until things are bad. Really, really, REALLY bad. Large regions becoming uninhabitable. Large migrations toward the poles. Entire breadbasket regions collapsing. Millions of people cooking to death. Until that sort of stuff happens, we won't lift a finger.
All that stuff is happening now except for millions dying all at once due to heat. There are already climate migrations away from the equator.
Amazing! (Score:2)
It's just amazing all the ways you can die. Surely, we can find more of them before you finish reading this post.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's one possible method (bear in mind I am painting it with broad strokes).
Input data from 1900-1980. Run simulations for 1980-2000, pick the ones where output data points are closest to reality, run those simulations further for 2000-2020, rinse and repeat.
Of course, in reality it's much more complex than that, but you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(bear in mind I am painting it with broad strokes)
Maybe you missed that.
Re: (Score:3)
...And you would have no way of knowing whether extrapolation into the 2050s is wildly off or spot-on.
That's why you run tens of thousands of simulations.
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend reading the paper. It will be in there and it will have passed peer review.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Peer reviewers are not paid and they do not get any instructions as to how to rate a paper. I know, I have done this countless times.
At least do some basic research before shitting on all scientists. Yes, like in all professions, there are bad apples. But that does in no way mean the whole profession is dishonest or corrupt. That you add a completely invalid AdHominem and that you do not even respond to my main comment just means that you are a cretin arguing in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
That is complete and utter nonsense. Climate scientists are usually academically employed with no career path and not a great deal of pressure to produce a lot of research. Also, there are new ones coming in all the time and there is no way to indoctrinate them all in the way that would be needed to keep a scam of this size going.
Well, you really have some serious issues with reality perception there. On the level of a moron flat-earther or anti-vaxxer that understands nothing.
Re: Only one question that matters (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review does not work like you think it does. You don't get paid, you don't know what the conclusion of other peers, and if you mess up too much (as if, you just validate and let errors go through), you get thrown out of the review loop (and your name will be associated with a paper that gets thrown out later if errors are found).
As of today, this is the most efficient way to rate papers, and to have faith in actual science outputs. A lot better than listening to clueless slashdot comments. Plus you can
Re: (Score:1)
They already used it to predict lottery numbers, stock market and create new folded proteins with create finan... just kidding they've done none of that.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that planet is gonna last the 20-30 years I have left, and I have no kids, so I don't give a fuck.
What's your excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Mosquitos. They've been moving north in America because it is now warm enough for the winters to fail to kill them off. And they bring a nice smorgasbord of diseases, Yum.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I don't give a fuck. I only need this planet another 20-30 years, as said. After that, you and your kids can, as far as I am concerned, drown or die of a heat wave, or get sucked away in a tornado. I don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite this, you will ultimately face a solitary and agonizing death, with no one to remember you. Those connected to you will feel a deep sense of shame, and any family members you have will hold nothing but disdain for you, choosing to erase you from their lives completely. Your existence holds no value, and you lack any meaningful purpose.
Nobody gives a fuck that you don't give a fuck. As I pen these words, my pity for you arises, although you hardly register as a presence. You are akin to a powerless m
Re: (Score:2)
For the longest time I did actually give a fuck. Then I realized: Hey, wait. Why the heck should I try to keep the planet habitable for people who actually have a reason to do so but don't give a fuck?
And then I stopped giving a fuck.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, you may spend 2 of those years suffering if you get one of those tropical diseases like Melioidosis, suddenly able to spread into your area.
Or it might be the a dramatic increase in the cost of one of your favorite foods.
Or it might be an influx of refugees from somewhere that has become uninhabitable.
Or it might be a global war with nuclear weapons that breaks out due to avoidable, needless resource conflicts.
Or it might be burning to death in a forest fire.
Or it might be dying of heat stroke decades s
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you may spend 2 of those years suffering if you get one of those tropical diseases like Melioidosis, suddenly able to spread into your area.
Free healthcare in my country, I'm not worried.
Or it might be the a dramatic increase in the cost of one of your favorite foods.
I'm among the 3% richest people in my country, if I can't afford food anymore, there's already food riots. Governments will not allow that.
Or it might be an influx of refugees from somewhere that has become uninhabitable.
Already happening. But not where I am, we priced them out and government won't put them here. It helps if they're in your pocket and you're in a NIMBY area.
Or it might be a global war with nuclear weapons that breaks out due to avoidable, needless resource conflicts.
Then others will lose more than the 20 years I lose. I still come out ahead. You work from the premise that I somehow need to live. I don't.
Or it might be burning to death in a forest fire.
Then I move to one of my other
Russian troll detected... (Score:2)
Greta Thurnber - bad
Zelensky - bad
And classic phrase:
all is theater
Strange they never criticize Big Oil...
Re: (Score:2)
That is called denial. You have some more way to go before you see reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is that your children will suffer and your children's children may well die from climate change and never mind the rich pricks. The rich pricks are a problem, but they are a _different_ problem. And you putting your head in the sand will not make climate change go away.
Incidentally, vaccines are another _different_ thing. And what "fate" am I accepting here? You mean that I can actually think and recognize facts and make decisions based on them? Yes, that one I do not only accept, but I work at gett
The Rich Pricks *are* the problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The scientists that found out and then agreed to kept silent were not rich. They just went along with it. As to whether the ones that made the decision were rich, well. Probably not in the sense of today's "rich pricks", but they were certainly pretty well paid.
Re: The Rich Pricks *are* the problem (Score:1)
Two things become clear in your posts:
First: It's always 'they' vs 'us', isn't it?
Second: You always have someone to blame. Looks like you always need a scapegoat for not changing anything yourself.
In reality, it is the indifferent masses that are the problem, regardless oft status, wealth and origin.
You should watch this movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Give it up (Score:1)
No they wonâ(TM)t. People will adapt ad they always have in this dynamic world. Unless of course we sequester co2 to the point that plant life dies out. CO2 was around 1000 ppm during the time of the Dinoâ(TM)s after all
Re: (Score:2)
It was pretty close a number of times. Apparently the human race was well below 100 breeding pairs at one point due to a climate disaster. Sounds familiar?
Also remember the Anthropic principle. So far we have simply been exceptionally lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is that your children will suffer and your children's children may well die from climate change
wtf no. You're being unscientific.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, while the powers of self-delusion you are demonstrating there are impressive, their impact does not not go as far as actually changing reality.
Incidentally, nobody is "bleeding me dry" and I earn way more than 90k scaled on full-time (I do not work full-time, because I do not need to). You are trying very hard to put me into some box because apparently that simplistic way of thinking is all you can do regarding people. Your problem is that I do not fit any of the limited number of boxes you have avail
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is that the rich preach about climate change from their yachts and beach mansions.
The two things are unrelated. It is true that rich people are less affected by climate change, and poor countries and individuals suffer more. The truly wealthy don't want you to care about climate change. They don't talk about it because it's better for them if climate change continues and the poor bear the brunt of it. That's why the middle class, like you, hasn't taken climate change seriously. The rich have successfully influenced public opinion through lobbying.
You, as a middle-class person, mistakenly