7 ms·

As someone who grew up in Miami and took many field trips to mangrove forests as a student I was unaware they weren’t indigenous to all of Florida. The article

by yardie 2y ago

As someone who grew up in Miami and took many field trips to mangrove forests as a student I was unaware they weren’t indigenous to all of Florida. The article doesn’t touch on this but there are 3 species of Florida mangroves. Red mangroves grow directly from salt water up to 3 ft deep. They also have spindly roots that trap sediment that builds up into soil. And after a storm colonies of them can break away and form floating mangrove islands. So not only do they migrate by germinating in new locations, they physically lift up and move.

verisimi 2y ago
You're not on point. They probably only started to 'physically lift up' because the climate warmed. It says so in the second line. /s I get that the human lifespan is quite a short thing, but it's it so hard to conceive of nature itself being in continuous flux? Is it really anthropogenic global warming? The historical record indicates huge changes.. I tend to think it was ever thus, and that 'climate change' is better considered a a corporate marketing initiative to get the consumer to happily accept more expensive yet inferior products.
- unlikelymordant 2y ago
  Of course there has been 'climate change' and 'global warming' before, caused by things like large volcanic eruptions (deccan traps) or meteorites. But they have pretty universally coincided with mass extinctions. And when we say glabal warming is anthropogenic, we mean this time humans are causing the warming by emitting a lot of co2 (and methane and no2 etc). It is fairly unequivocal at this point. This time its entirely within our power to prevent another mass extinction, because this this time we are causing it. Why wouldnt we try?
- oblio 2y ago
  Let's assume you're right and I don't know, something major at the bottom of the food chain, like fitoplancton, dies en masse due to climate change. Will you just roll over and die like a dinosaur if you could do something about it?
  - verisimi 2y ago
    Do you genuinely feel threatened?
    - oblio 2y ago
      Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes. Also the fossil fuel economy is: 1. Polluting regardless of climate change, go behind an older bus and smell some fumes, see all the plastic littered about leading to things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. 2. Ultimately unsustainable. We <<will>> run out of cheap fossil fuels, and biofuels take land away from agriculture and other land uses. Plus, technologically, the writing is on the wall. Why would we be stupid and not use the sun's energy and not create advanced batteries, which can be used for all sorts of amazing things? Just to perpetuate combustion engines which are a miracle of technology for how well their work considering their rudimentary principles?
      - verisimi 2y ago
        > Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes. Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying. If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise? The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies. For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business?
        defrost 2y ago
        Why would anyone watch a film with a second rate USofA VP when they could read the IPCC report in full or even just start with something basic like Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity ? It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages). https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... Heat equations aren't that hard and the changes made by humans to the atmosphere are on record in gas libraries dating back to the Cold War and available in real time high resolution by dedicated satellites today. There is no doubt in the matter of AGW anymore save in the minds of those challenged by math and susceptable to the FUD spread by denialists. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
fuzzfactor 2y ago
When I was a boy we played capture the flag in some of the undeveloped waterfront acreage that is all covered by condos for decades now. If you found a place that was dry land and you had to go through mangroves to get to, that was an isolated place. Before development, lots of the Intracoastal and side canals had mangroves before the first seawalls were built, we thought they were a nuisance when there were so many it was difficult to find a sandy spot to beach a small boat and go ashore. The local kids called them gooli-gooli plants, everybody else was from up north and they didn't know what they were either :)

by yardie 2y ago

verisimi 2y ago

You're not on point. They probably only started to 'physically lift up' because the climate warmed. It says so in the second line. /s I get that the human lifespan is quite a short thing, but it's it so hard to conceive of nature itself being in continuous flux? Is it really anthropogenic global warming? The historical record indicates huge changes.. I tend to think it was ever thus, and that 'climate change' is better considered a a corporate marketing initiative to get the consumer to happily accept more expensive yet inferior products.

unlikelymordant 2y ago
Of course there has been 'climate change' and 'global warming' before, caused by things like large volcanic eruptions (deccan traps) or meteorites. But they have pretty universally coincided with mass extinctions. And when we say glabal warming is anthropogenic, we mean this time humans are causing the warming by emitting a lot of co2 (and methane and no2 etc). It is fairly unequivocal at this point. This time its entirely within our power to prevent another mass extinction, because this this time we are causing it. Why wouldnt we try?
oblio 2y ago
Let's assume you're right and I don't know, something major at the bottom of the food chain, like fitoplancton, dies en masse due to climate change. Will you just roll over and die like a dinosaur if you could do something about it?
- verisimi 2y ago
  Do you genuinely feel threatened?
  - oblio 2y ago
    Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes. Also the fossil fuel economy is: 1. Polluting regardless of climate change, go behind an older bus and smell some fumes, see all the plastic littered about leading to things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. 2. Ultimately unsustainable. We <<will>> run out of cheap fossil fuels, and biofuels take land away from agriculture and other land uses. Plus, technologically, the writing is on the wall. Why would we be stupid and not use the sun's energy and not create advanced batteries, which can be used for all sorts of amazing things? Just to perpetuate combustion engines which are a miracle of technology for how well their work considering their rudimentary principles?
    - verisimi 2y ago
      > Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes. Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying. If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise? The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies. For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business?
      - defrost 2y ago
        Why would anyone watch a film with a second rate USofA VP when they could read the IPCC report in full or even just start with something basic like Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity ? It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages). https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... Heat equations aren't that hard and the changes made by humans to the atmosphere are on record in gas libraries dating back to the Cold War and available in real time high resolution by dedicated satellites today. There is no doubt in the matter of AGW anymore save in the minds of those challenged by math and susceptable to the FUD spread by denialists. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

fuzzfactor 2y ago

When I was a boy we played capture the flag in some of the undeveloped waterfront acreage that is all covered by condos for decades now. If you found a place that was dry land and you had to go through mangroves to get to, that was an isolated place. Before development, lots of the Intracoastal and side canals had mangroves before the first seawalls were built, we thought they were a nuisance when there were so many it was difficult to find a sandy spot to beach a small boat and go ashore. The local kids called them gooli-gooli plants, everybody else was from up north and they didn't know what they were either :)