4 ms·
The author is conflating two things, the fact that change has occurred with the rate of the change. And that one species is threatened vs entire ecosystems. I
by TSiege 3y ago
The author is conflating two things, the fact that change has occurred with the rate of the change. And that one species is threatened vs entire ecosystems.
I don't think there is anyone scientist saying if earth transitioned slowly over the course of thousands of years to a higher temperature there would be a mass extinction. We know for a fact from our recent ice ages thawing and freezing that this isn't the case. The rate of change is totally different. The Holocene warm period was slightly warmer than our preindustrial era and had CO2 levels around 300ppm. The Eemian period was 1-2C warmer than preindustrial society and had 280ppm of CO2 (and sea levels were about 30m higher). Those periods of warmth happened SLOWLY over the course of thousands if not tens of thousands of years. We've gone from ~280ppm to ~420ppm of CO2 in less than 300 years, half of it happened in the last 30 years. (And it's really 500ppm if you add methane and other greenhouse gases.) The last time atmospheric concentrations were this high was 2-3 million years ago and temps were 4-5C higher with sea levels at 60m higher than today.
My point is that it is the meteoric rise on a geological timeframe of CO2 that is the issue. If the sea ice melts but also the surrounding tundra, boreal forest, and marine ecosystems collapse what would an apex predator like a polar bear survive on?
I also think focusing solely on polar bears is bit of misguided when we're talking about the effects of climate change. They are one species and deciding whether or not things are bad given the outcome of that one species is misguided. We're talking about complex interdependent ecosystems where it's estimated half of all species on the planet are experiencing some stage of decline. Will polars survive? Who knows! They could interbreed with grizzlies and form a new species, the real question is do we want to continue making their existence our own more difficult and less likely?
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/26/almost-half-worlds-species-seeing-rapid-population-decline-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/26/almost-half-worlds...
- junofan 3y agoI dunno, haven’t most populations sometimes gone through boom-bust cycles on the order of a few years/decades? It feels a little absurd to consider only a single ecological factor.
- Kerrick 3y agoI think that most people would like to avoid the population of humans going through a bust. Personally I have no worries about human-induced rapid climate change eliminating life on Earth. I am, however, concerned about it affecting humankind.
- TSiege 3y agoA population is not a species. Species declines means all populations of said species are simultaneously in decline
- pookha 3y ago"the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years." https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtm... ..It's happened before. Didn't look like a pleasant experience but it's not something that's unheard of in recent history (rapid climate change). During these events ancient humans fought tooth and nail against each other. Doesn't bode well now that we're (Humans) armed with Nuclear Weapons.
- nvm0n2 3y agoActual warming in the past 20 years has been at a trivial speed, bordering on undetectable unless you use very well sited stations and very accurately calibrated instruments: barely a fraction of a degree per decade. You can't even see a trend with the naked eye, you have to work it out by computer: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-tempera... (select one month/all months for hi-res data). Note that data before 2005 (and after it outside the USA) comes from heavily corrupted sites that were never meant for climatologists and which have experienced a lot of urban development and building-related warming. The post-2005 US CRN data comes from weather stations meant specifically for monitoring the climate. And after that new weather station comes online US warming turns out to be way slower than predicted, and not alarming. > I also think focusing solely on polar bears is bit of misguided when we're talking about the effects of climate change. They are one species and deciding whether or not things are bad given the outcome of that one species is misguided. There are very few species that have been seriously claimed to be endangered by climate change, polar bears are by far the most often presented to the public. It's right and proper that false predictions about one species informs people's expectations about predictions for others, especially as it's not the only failure. Corals have stopped being referred to as being killed off by climate change after the Great Barrier Reef made a sudden and unexpectedly huge recovery after its last bleaching, reaching record levels and completely confounding the "experts" who had data stretching back only a few decades.