Climate Change is the Big 2020 Issue

[PhilRisk]

The problematic assumption you make is, that moving into another area is unproblematic and the changes are continuous.

They don't have to be, these larger animals are intelligent and can adapt within their lifetimes quite a bit. How much do you think these zones are moving?

Let's take a moose living 20 years -- how many miles are we talking?

The movement speed of nature is not universal, especially for plant species.

It doesn't have to be, but these animals also carry these plants with them as their habitats move, whether in feces or on fur.

Whole ecosystems are not able to move with the speed of shifting zones.

I don't think they have to. You should be able to move a while tailed deer from North America to China or Australia or Argentina. Very few animals are highly dependent on one single food source like bamboo.

This could have quite a big impact on wildlife, because of mutual dependence in ecosystems.

I think you're overestimating those dependencies, particularly for the large long-lived animals we're talking about. Smaller species can go extinct without significant harm to individuals.

This is not just a problem for same small fraction, because all animals species depends upon specific ecosystems. Some can find new functional ecosystems, estimates are 20-50% of all species (animals and plants) who are endangered.

Mostly insects and flowering plants that depend on them for pollination I would imagine, and even those cases are likely overstated. What kind of animal suffering does that really involve?

Furthermore, not only zones are shifting in a continual manner, but there could be abrupt changes on the local level e. g. by increasing extreme weather (drought, heat, precipitation, storms).

I granted that already, but I'm not sure how significant that's going to be.

We are talking about some kilometers per year. Large animals can walk such distances in one day, for sure, but I see the risk of changing ecosystems and extreme weather, the animals are not adapted to.

As life in the wild is pretty harsh anyway I am not sure either, what impact this will have regarding overall animal suffering. However, I suspect that it will add suffering by simply destroying ecosystems, shifting and proliferating e. g. forest fires and bush fires and extreme heat stress. There might be less stress from cold, but the species are adapted to traditional cold, which still causes suffering, because natural selection is not selecting for welfare, but reproductive success. This leads me to my conclusion. The change of the ecosystem leads to selective pressure. Selective pressure means more death. Therefore, I would suspect, that there is more animal suffering in a changing climate, than in a stable one. But this is a fairly general conclusion.

The article I had linked lists some measures to make the transition easier, helping to adapt, for example artificial relocation and minimizing barriers.

Edit: I add an interesting article about adaptation research on mammals and lions in Southafrica: https://www.carbonbrief.org/lions-could ... study-says

[teo123]

We've already talked about how publishing scientific papers means very little.

You don't value that, because you probably have published exactly zero scientific papers so you have no idea how difficult and frustrating that is. Yeah, sometimes there are mills that will publish anything, but they usually fall out of business very soon.
And you are deleting the posts of somebody who has published scientific papers in two sciences and who disagrees with your philosophy of science, so that only your mistaken ideas about how science works can be read on this forum.

Study physics and read research and summaries, like the IPCC report, which includes a simple summary for policy makers and a technical summary.

But how did you determine that's worth studying? I am studying computer science at the FERIT university and I don't have infinite amount of time. I mean, climate science, from what I know, doesn't appear to follow the scientific method. When you look at the history, early computer models predicted that a small increase in CO2 will lead to global cooling, because melting of the glaciers will decrease the salinity of the ocean, thereby irreversibly stopping the sea currents and preventing the hot air from spreading. Of course, that was wildly wrong. But what climate scientists did in response to that is not figuring out better descriptions of the effect of the salinity of the ocean on the sea currents, what they did was to simplify the computer models not to include the effect of the salinity of the ocean on the sea currents. Well, that's not how science should work.

A brighter sun would lead to a feedback loop as well.

As far as I understand it, climate models generally assume the solar cycles have little to no effect on the temperature of the Earth. The sun is getting dimmer and it will continue getting dimmer until 2060s, and the climate models predict the temperature will rise.
Furthermore, the brightness of the Sun was at its peak in the 1950s, when 1950s were significantly colder than the 1930s.

It is enough to know there had been ice ages, so quite big changes. To explain these you need to assume feedback mechanisms.

CO2 doesn't explain that, because the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is low.

The infrared radiation has only been measured since 1970.

Well, that's right when we started emitting significant amounts of CO2.

This is the summary you can find in the IPCC-report.

Well, my perception is that there is a big difference between what most climate scientists think about global warming, and what the climate scientists working for the UN think about it.

The data is adjusted for know errors and for statistical inhomogeneities

And how do you know that's being properly done? I'd guess that the globe is actually warming, primarily because the narrative has changed from global cooling to global warming (Why would they change the narrative if there wasn't good evidence of the warming?), but that alone is definitely a complicated topic in itself. Yet alone what's causing the warming. It's not simple physics.

By looking at the continental US, you are cherry picking.

I don't think I am, it's just that we only have actual data for the US temperatures and actual data for the ocean temperatures. We have no actual data for temperatures in Africa, Latin America or most of Asia.

Ocean temperatures show a significant warming trend, most of it illusionary due to temperatures being measured by smaller ships or buoys before and now being measured by large ships (whose movement heats the water around it up). US temperatures show a significant cooling trend, all of it illusionary and caused by the time of observation bias. And you are telling me we can make reliable science based on that?

[teo123]

And, what do you think @brimstoneSalad, doesn't it seem to you that climate science, especially this global warming theory, is basing itself on measurements that are within the margin of error? I mean, ocean temperatures show a significant warming trend, most of it illusionary due to temperatures being measured by smaller ships or buoys before and now being measured by large ships (whose movement heats the water around it up). Continental temperatures show a significant cooling trend, all of it illusionary and caused by the time of observation bias. Clearly, the potential errors are larger than the supposed global warming. So, doesn't that suggest climate science, at least the global warming part, is pseudoscience?

[Jamie in Chile]

Teo, we can be at least 99% sure that human beings are causing climate change but even if you are 50% sure that humans cause climate change, then isn't it worth making the necessary changes? The net benefit of making the changes needed if it does turn out that humans are causing global warming is tremendously high. If it were a hoax, then, so what? We end up with cleaner air and less pollution anyway. The required changes are probably good for humanity ever if climate change were a hoax.

You are like someone who has a gun being pointed at their head who can't be bothered to move out of the way because there is no certainty that the gun has been properly loaded. Even if you don't know for sure, still move out of the way!

This thread is a classic example of how engaging climate change deniers in science takes the debate away from action and just enables more delay.

I think it's time we move on and stop engaging the deniers in science as a general rule and try and engage them in understanding that the needed changes are no sacrifice, that yes there is some hassle to get there, but after you make a few changes your life is no better or worse. And engage the deniers on the benefits of acting like a larger number of better, local jobs, quieter transport, and the fact that vegan meals are tastier than people realize.

We have been discussing the science for 164 years, ever since Eunice Foote observed in 1856 after a science experiment that "the highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas" and that "an atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature". 164 years is surely enough discussion. It's time to act on the best available science as quickly as we can, and discuss the action, not the science.

I'm off to check how the solar panel installation in my garden is doing. If anyone has any questions about solar, or how to reduce your carbon footprint, let me know.

[Jamie in Chile]

Better world for nothing.jpg

[brimstoneSalad]

I mean, ocean temperatures show a significant warming trend, most of it illusionary due to temperatures being measured by smaller ships or buoys before and now being measured by large ships (whose movement heats the water around it up).

Teo, scientists aren't that stupid, you haven't learned anything since the Flat Earth thread have you? Look up the specific heat of water, then calculate the amount of energy that would require for the water even in the first few meters around a ship to be heated that amount, then multiply that by the distance the ship travels divided by the length of the ship.
It's like your claim about atmospheric lensing all over again.
That's all I'm going to say about this, and that's all you're going to say about it in this thread too. Start a NEW thread if you're interested in discussing this particular theory and want help calculating that.

Also, don't post links to quack sites like that, and don't refer people to them as evidence or argument. You really shouldn't even be reading conspiracy theory blogs anyway, you're too prone to delusion not to fall for that stuff.
Make your own arguments, and link reputable sources on science matters or NONE at all. Don't make me take away your ability to link websites.

[PhilRisk]

But how did you determine that's worth studying? I am studying computer science at the FERIT university and I don't have infinite amount of time. I mean, climate science, from what I know, doesn't appear to follow the scientific method. When you look at the history, early computer models predicted that a small increase in CO2 will lead to global cooling, because melting of the glaciers will decrease the salinity of the ocean, thereby irreversibly stopping the sea currents and preventing the hot air from spreading. Of course, that was wildly wrong. But what climate scientists did in response to that is not figuring out better descriptions of the effect of the salinity of the ocean on the sea currents, what they did was to simplify the computer models not to include the effect of the salinity of the ocean on the sea currents. Well, that's not how science should work.

As far as I understand it, climate models generally assume the solar cycles have little to no effect on the temperature of the Earth. The sun is getting dimmer and it will continue getting dimmer until 2060s, and the climate models predict the temperature will rise.
Furthermore, the brightness of the Sun was at its peak in the 1950s, when 1950s were significantly colder than the 1930s.

CO2 doesn't explain that, because the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is low.

Well, that's right when we started emitting significant amounts of CO2.

Well, my perception is that there is a big difference between what most climate scientists think about global warming, and what the climate scientists working for the UN think about it.

And how do you know that's being properly done? I'd guess that the globe is actually warming, primarily because the narrative has changed from global cooling to global warming (Why would they change the narrative if there wasn't good evidence of the warming?), but that alone is definitely a complicated topic in itself. Yet alone what's causing the warming. It's not simple physics.

I don't think I am, it's just that we only have actual data for the US temperatures and actual data for the ocean temperatures. We have no actual data for temperatures in Africa, Latin America or most of Asia.

Ocean temperatures show a significant warming trend, most of it illusionary due to temperatures being measured by smaller ships or buoys before and now being measured by large ships (whose movement heats the water around it up). US temperatures show a significant cooling trend, all of it illusionary and caused by the time of observation bias. And you are telling me we can make reliable science based on that?

You do not have to study climate science in whole. But if you do not do this, there is a big probability, that your assertions about the topic are wrong, if it contradicts the scientific experts. I can recoomend for exampl a youtube series, which is largely based on interview of scientists: https://www.youtube.com/user/denial101x/videos

- Even in early modelling warming was the dominant result. The dominant cooling factor in the models were aerosols, which still is considered a cooling factor. What is your source for the assertion?
- climate models do not assume, that solar cycles in general, have a small impact. The sun do no account for the current change. But this is not an assumption, but a consequence of observations and models.
- It is complex physics for sure, but that is why many scientist are working on the models and on observations. But this does not substantiate your points as you say you do not have time to study it. If it is complex, you might not be the one to make bold assertions contradicting the science. You should not be surprised, if no one takes your assertions for being reliable.
- The scientists are not working for the UN. The IPCC is build from researchers around the world using mainly published scientific literature available like in traditional scientific reviews, but on a larger scale and incorporating political bodies from around the world including countries, who have no interest whatsoever in identifying greenhouse gases as the cause. It is a political body, but consist out of picked scientifically recognized scientists.
- The assessment of the reliability of the temperature record is done other scientist. You might have heart about the Berkeley Earth project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth). If you are interested you might look at their assessment. They have more stations available, than your source suggests, which seems not to include europe, but low density is a big problem in the early record, hence the uncertainty is larger for these. See Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).
- You make the assertion, that the record is unreliable, but in the beginning you say you did no study it a lot.

[brimstoneSalad]

@teo123 You were warned. Start a new thread if you want to go on about climate change denialist conspiracies. If you keep going on that here you'll be banned.
Your claim that "most of" the measurement in difference being "illusory" was false even by what you linked later. 30-something percent even if it is that high for various reasons is not "most".
There are likely any number of reasons more modern techniques are more accurate, but a ship heating the water throwing them off by so much as to create a false perception of warming where there is none isn't plausible for many reasons.

I said make your own arguments vs. parroting conspiracy theory sites, stay off the conspiracy theory sites and don't link them here -- they are not credible sources and they add nothing to the discussion (I'm not referring to the links from your last deleted post, but the prior one).
Obviously mainstream scientific sources are better than your own inclinations, but at least your own arguments require work on your part to formulate and you can ostensibly defend them. Nobody here wants to have a proxy argument with some non-expert conspiracy theorist blogger who isn't even on the forum.

[brimstoneSalad]

We are talking about some kilometers per year. Large animals can walk such distances in one day, for sure, but I see the risk of changing ecosystems and extreme weather, the animals are not adapted to.

I'm not sure these animals can ever really be adapted to natural disasters like tornadoes and hurricanes/flooding that by their nature are infrequent. The increase in frequency is a concern, but I think it's much more so for humans who have to deal with serious infrastructure damage. Wild animals seem pretty good at seeking high ground wherever they're from.

As life in the wild is pretty harsh anyway I am not sure either, what impact this will have regarding overall animal suffering.

While I think life for these macrofauna are probably slightly positive overall, if not it might even have a negative impact on suffering IF those stresses reduce reproduction and there are fewer animals to suffer those circumstances.

There might be less stress from cold, but the species are adapted to traditional cold, which still causes suffering, because natural selection is not selecting for welfare, but reproductive success.

Sanity and psychological stability is an important part of reproductive success in the wild for these larger/more intelligent animals. I don't find it plausible that animals adapted to cold suffer much from it.
I think that is true of farms where reproduction is selected for by humans and it doesn't matter how miserable the animals are.

This leads me to my conclusion. The change of the ecosystem leads to selective pressure. Selective pressure means more death. Therefore, I would suspect, that there is more animal suffering in a changing climate, than in a stable one. But this is a fairly general conclusion.

I don't think that necessarily follows. For many animals even slightly less food can drastically reduce fertility. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're suffering from famine in a way that bothers them. Look at how many human women on these low calorie raw diets (that they choose to be on) lose their fertility while on those diets. There is a point where it causes suffering, but a drop in fertility comes long before that as the body begins conserving resources.

Edit: I add an interesting article about adaptation research on mammals and lions in Southafrica: https://www.carbonbrief.org/lions-could ... study-says

The heat seems to be also limiting the lions' ability to hunt, so there's probably a trade-off there. Also, those animals dying from heat stroke may just be replacing the animals killed by lions (and the lions are likely eating those animals). It may even be a better way to die than being attacked by a lion.

There are just so many variables here that it's really hard to measure the actual change in suffering, and that's particularly difficult because the people who study ecology don't necessarily care about animal suffering so much as species preservation so it's not usually something they're even looking at.

[brimstoneSalad]

@teo123 kept going on this conspiracy theory thread derailment instead of starting a new thread as directed (if he wanted to continue discussing it), he's been banned for two weeks.