Jump to content
NC_Palms

Could climate change be good?

Recommended Posts

NC_Palms

It is safe to say that as palm addicts, we have a bias towards the tropics and subtropics. So for the past few days, I have been wondering if climate change is as bad as it is being projected to be. Within the past few decades, we have been seeing an extraordinary growth of the global tropics and subtropics towards both poles. On average, the tropics expand toward the poles 93 miles per decade. This is very noticeable in Florida, where mangrove trees are being found as far north as Saint Augustine. 

I predict that it may be too late to reverse the effects of climate change. If this is true, we as a society will need to adapt to a tropical expanding world. This includes but is not limited to how we will defend coastal regions from sea level rise and how the global population will attain resources. The latter one is especially true for people in the temperate and polar regions of the world.

I also predict that this tropical expansion will lead to an agricultural revolution. The temperate world could see a longer growing season with a more diverse availability of produce. This agricultural revolution could allow for more jobs and more natural resources. 

I have no idea how much of what I wrote is true. I was just pondering this all for the last few days. Climate change nevertheless is a challenge for survival and adapting to a changing world.  So please give me your input, I am actually very curious as to what others may think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill H2DB

  Here is an interesting article from this week . Via science Daily .

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180917153615.htm

  Another thing to consider , other than Climate Change , is the effect of humans having introduced 

Flora  and  Fauna  into and from all over the world , to almost everywhere . That continues , and has

and will continue , to be a major phenomenon .

Some folks just dump their plants , and or exotic animals , rather than take them away when they move .

Fish included .

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GottmitAlex

The climate has always "changed". 

My brother moved into NC last October and come January 2018 he was in for a "climatic change".  I think the weather to some degree or other shifts. (Humans or no humans)...

 

 

 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kinzyjr

I fall into the camp that feels that, whether or not there is climate change or warming, a few things are true:

1) We have nothing to gain from polluting our own air, water, and food

2) If the ice melts, we're in trouble: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-earth-would-look-like-if-ice-melted-world-map-animation-2015-2

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GottmitAlex
6 minutes ago, kinzyjr said:

I fall into the camp that feels that, whether or not there is climate change or warming, a few things are true:

1) We have nothing to gain from polluting our own air, water, and food

2) If the ice melts, we're in trouble: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-earth-would-look-like-if-ice-melted-world-map-animation-2015-2

I'm with you there.

Nothing will be gained, or lost for that matter by any creature on earth which contributes to global warming, err, "climate change". Ever since recorded history, there has always been "climate change. "

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kinzyjr
5 minutes ago, GottmitAlex said:

I'm with you there.

Nothing will be gained, or lost for that matter by any creature on earth which contributes to global warming, err, "climate change". Ever since recorded history, there has always been "climate change. "

And hence the old adage: The best time to plant a palm was 25 years ago.  The second best time is right now. :)

 

3 hours ago, NC_Palms said:

It is safe to say that as palm addicts, we have a bias towards the tropics and subtropics. So for the past few days, I have been wondering if climate change is as bad as it is being projected to be. Within the past few decades, we have been seeing an extraordinary growth of the global tropics and subtropics towards both poles. On average, the tropics expand toward the poles 93 miles per decade. This is very noticeable in Florida, where mangrove trees are being found as far north as Saint Augustine. 

I predict that it may be too late to reverse the effects of climate change. If this is true, we as a society will need to adapt to a tropical expanding world. This includes but is not limited to how we will defend coastal regions from sea level rise and how the global population will attain resources. The latter one is especially true for people in the temperate and polar regions of the world.

I also predict that this tropical expansion will lead to an agricultural revolution. The temperate world could see a longer growing season with a more diverse availability of produce. This agricultural revolution could allow for more jobs and more natural resources. 

I have no idea how much of what I wrote is true. I was just pondering this all for the last few days. Climate change nevertheless is a challenge for survival and adapting to a changing world.  So please give me your input, I am actually very curious as to what others may think. 

The predicted changes are very troubling.  Yes, zone 10 might end up in Atlanta, but: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Let's hope this one is as accurate as the prediction I was given in grade school that the metric system will take over in the USA.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve the palmreader

Mangroves were common in the ST. Augustine area before the freezes of the 1980s ,

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cikas

Thing is, ice on pols is not normal for Earth. We are still in ice age. Planet Earth was once much, much warmer place without ice on pols. Antartica was covered with forest. Climate is always changing, with or without humans. 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palm crazy

Some scientist around the world are already working on some pretty impressive tricks to make the planted cooler just in case it does get too hot.  Some are thinking of making a giant mirror in space to reflect the sun rays away and others are thinking of putting particle high in the atmosphere to shield the planet from ultraviolet rays as volcano do. These are just a few of the crazy ideas. I'm not sure we should intentionally manipulate the earth's climate this way unless it is actually helpful. I for one would like my area to be warmer. 

 

Edited by Palm crazy
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silas_Sancona

Here's the thing regarding the positives and negatives of potential Climate change..

On one hand, yes, shifts in growing zones will ( and appear to be currently) allow the cultivation of more or newer crops in places where X crop is either considered marginal or more of a challenge. Think about the up and coming cultivation of Coffee in portions of Southern CA. / Shifting of the *Bread Basket* / cultivation of stone fruits in the Plains states. 

While such places benefit, areas like southwestern AZ / Imperial Valley in CA. where a lot of winter crops are grown, may loose out as winters stay and/or grow warmer. The Central Valley in California is also quite vulnerable as well..  

While smart planning and diversification of ...or investigating / investing in new crops may help farmers adjust to the changes, the big question may come down to availability of resources such water..  Will we, by the time such an issue becomes significant, be addressing it, via innovative solutions such as Desal,  ...or will we continuing to be fighting tooth and nail about who gets what.. 

In places like Phoenix, where summer heat is already excessive, will cities invest in things which will mitigate any potential / continuation of an upward trend, or ignore the obvious / not initiate projects that will help.. Personally, we should be planting boat loads of trees.. and "greening" the desert instead of ripping everything out when new projects are given the green light..  Tucson has been out-pacing Phoenix with such thinking, even regarding how they construct ( or adjust existing ) street medians / sidewalks so that they will collect / distribute runoff.. instead of allowing most of it to run off into local waterways where it can have more negative impacts than positive ones.. 

As far as how shifts might effect the local flora / fauna: Obviously, there have and will be changes in distribution patterns.. Some things will shift north in latitude, or up in altitude to pioneer a certain degree of new territory. Anything introduced may continue colonizing where ever it is currently enjoying new turf . This has always happened.. Native people may have helped Saguaros expand their territory here in AZ.   

The problem comes down to how quickly the currently "Native" things in an area can adjust to a much quicker pace of changing habitat / preferred climate than is assumed to have occurred in the past.. and what degree of complementing or competition introduced critters bring to the table.. will people allow critters moving north to populate new or previously inhabited territory / fill evacuated niches or respond with  miss-guided fear and un-acceptance and try to thwart mother nature's progress..  

On the other hand, there are things that have a "Goldie locks" type of climate / habitat preference that may not be able to migrate, or migrate fast enough.. and may disappear entirely, especially in an era of far separated / much more segmented places to move to.. Again, will people help bridge potential gaps, or sit back on the couch and say things like " Aw shucks, that's too bad X animal / plant is now extinct"

Then there are the potential effects on us humans.. and the way we choose to exist day to day.. 


I could go on and on but there really is no point to do so, most minds are clued in..

Honestly, while i get that you can't just suddenly stop utilizing all the things that have played a part in " loading the climate dice", so to say, i'll back any intelligent minded initiative that positively benefits the environment, and everything in it over wayy out dated, dinosaur-age ways of doing things / thinking.. No one will convince me that we don't  have the means to balance things out in a way that benefits all, not just a select / selected few. 
 
My ideal world would be a perpetual monsoonal climate.. with more Oxygen.. Mild n' mostly dry in the winter, ( Highs 65 / 75F, Lows no lower than 40F below the Arctic Circle)  Plenty of rain and clouds, with highs no higher than the mid- 80s, lows in the 60s /70s all summer.. none of this dry and 105-120+ from May- October, with less than 10" of rain, all year nonsense..  If only...:innocent:

Fyi, article i saw today, written by Pat Michaels: "The most amazing greening on earth"  worth a read..

-Nathan

Edited by Silas_Sancona
edit
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NC_Palms
On 9/19/2018, 8:01:45, Bill H2DB said:

  Here is an interesting article from this week . Via science Daily .

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180917153615.htm

  Another thing to consider , other than Climate Change , is the effect of humans having introduced 

Flora  and  Fauna  into and from all over the world , to almost everywhere . That continues , and has

and will continue , to be a major phenomenon .

Some folks just dump their plants , and or exotic animals , rather than take them away when they move .

Fish included .

We are seeing many invasive species once thought to be only a problem in Florida move up into Georgia and the Carolinas. I don't know if this is climate related or these species may just have no other natural limitations. 

 

On 9/19/2018, 8:18:46, GottmitAlex said:

The climate has always "changed". 

My brother moved into NC last October and come January 2018 he was in for a "climatic change".  I think the weather to some degree or other shifts. (Humans or no humans)...

 

 

 

Climate change may actually benefit the Carolinas and other parts of the subtropical south. Centuries ago many native palm species in North Carolina had a much more extensive range, including sabal palmetto which extended further into the Outer Banks. Sabal minor was most likely growing in the Raleigh area not too long ago. 

On 9/19/2018, 9:52:20, kinzyjr said:

I fall into the camp that feels that, whether or not there is climate change or warming, a few things are true:

1) We have nothing to gain from polluting our own air, water, and food

2) If the ice melts, we're in trouble: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-earth-would-look-like-if-ice-melted-world-map-animation-2015-2

I completely agree with you. Since moving to the South and gaining a deeper understanding of the natural history, it has made me wonder about the validity in climate change itself, due to the fact that the climate here has rapidly been cooling for most of recent history. 

 

15 hours ago, Steve the palmreader said:

Mangroves were common in the ST. Augustine area before the freezes of the 1980s ,

 

I never knew that, so cool!

3 hours ago, Palm crazy said:

Some scientist around the world are already working on some pretty impressive tricks to make the planted cooler just in case it does get too hot.  Some are thinking of making a giant mirror in space to reflect the sun rays away and others are thinking of putting particle high in the atmosphere to shield the planet from ultraviolet rays as volcano do. These are just a few of the crazy ideas. I'm not sure we should intentionally manipulate the earth's climate this way unless it is actually helpful. I for one would like my area to be warmer. 

 

Scientist have to be VERY careful when it comes to artificially fix the climate. A small change could cause a big negative impact. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdsonofthesouth

I am all for cleaning up our act but More co2 = more plants. More plants = more food. Also less deaths from extreme cold. I would post some YouTube videos from an ex Greenpeace MIT PhD ecologist (I think) but it's on a right leaning channel and most folks wont take the time to listen to it due to that alone. He explains it from an actual scientific place and how it's not the "fire and brimstone" we have been sold all these years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Okay, first things first:  The Earth is warming, globally on average.  Locally the climate may change, the temps will likely go up, and in some rare cases go down (at least for some seasons).  There is no logical science-based argument for there not being global climate change and global warming at this point.  It is real and it is happening now.  Full Stop 

 

Locally, it may be "good" for some species, especially those that are already invasive.  Warmer climate in the southern states allows the spread of animals that otherwise have never been able to live here, or have been exiled to the most southern tip of Florida.  Not just Iguanas, but Tegu, Pythons, etc.  (which is an across the board negative for native species)  You may even be able to grow warmer crops in areas that wouldn't support them before.  As far as our agriculture goes, that may be one of the few positives.

What is important to remember is that a warmer climate means there is more energy in the system.  More energy means greater potential for flux and more powerful storms.

The USDA zones may be marching northward slowly, but there is also greater potential for abnormal conditions.  I would love to see coconuts further north, amongst other tropical palms, but what good does it do if the polar vortex busts out every 2 or 3 years and kills everything?  

But also consider the psychological effects.  There are a lot of people who still "believe" and they have this weird human trait that somehow what they believe can change reality.  Some of them don't "believe" in global warming, and they are being smacked in the face monthly or weekly with information that says they are wrong.  It messes with a person's head when they are intractable but also told over and over that what they think is a mistake.  It makes people angry.  

I think this "what is good about global climate change" mentality is perhaps a step away from "belief" and towards what science can prove.  It is perhaps an easier step knowing that where you are about to plant your feet "isn't all bad".  

I mean, it is all bad, in almost every way.  But if believing that it will be okay makes the leap to science-based reasoning easier to take, then I'm more than happy to let people think it will be fine in the long run.  (and it will!  Geologically!  But we'll all be long dead so no biggie!)

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GottmitAlex
12 hours ago, Funkthulhu said:

Okay, first things first:  The Earth is warming, globally on average.  Locally the climate may change, the temps will likely go up, and in some rare cases go down (at least for some seasons).  There is no logical science-based argument for there not being global climate change and global warming at this point.  It is real and it is happening now.  Full Stop 

 

 

I agree:FULL STOP with that premise.

Everyone is entitled to.their opinion.

:greenthumb:

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walt

No doubt in my mind that man is upsetting the ecological balance of planet earth. Just how much GW/CC is attributed to man, and how much to nature (increased solar activity) is anyone's guess. Frankly, at my age now, I really don't gave a damn. It's beyond my control. I know planet earth has gone through cycles of warming and ice age long before man walked this earth, or at least had any ability to negatively impact it causing GW/CC. So GW and CC is cyclical, regardless of man.

I have no political ax to grind on this subject, and I realize the Palmtalk moderators don't care for us members to be engaging -- at least too deep -- in the political aspects of GW and CC.

I hear feel good proposals about banning plastic straws, grocery bags, mandating almost economically unattainable higher CAFE standards in a matter of a few years, etc. That's all well and good -- and I don't have too much objection to some of it, but the way I see it, increased global population is the biggest factor now driving the man-made part of GW/CC and earth's ecology.

Right now the global population is increasing about 83 million more humans a year (do a Google check). That is, the birthrate is exceeding the death rate by 83 million humans.  IMO, this is insanity. I feel global population should be capped, even reduced.  Calculate the energy, food, water, waste, pollution, etc., 83 million humans require.

The oceans are being over fished -- and polluted more and more. Treed land  and rain forests, etc., are being clear cut and burned for farm land, etc. in order to grow more food so so as to sustain the earth's burgeoning population. All this clear cutting is destroying habitat for flora and fauna, species becoming extinct. How can this continue to go on and not have more and more environmental negative consequences?

Technology (automation, robots, drones, kiosks, etc, etc.) is displacing human workers more and more each day. The need for low skilled workers becomes less every day.. I just don't see any positive advantage to continue growing the earth's population.  Capping and reducing the earth's population doesn't mean people can't bear children, only that some bear less children so sustain a better earth to live on.

Heck, my maternal grandfather was the oldest of 19 children. But that was well over 100 years ago when this country was largely agrarian, and big families were common place. My wife's mother was born and raised on the farm, and my wife's grandmother also bore 19 children and two miscarriages.  Having this many children today would, IMO, be absurd, illogical, and insane.

The upshot for me is, I'm willing to do my part to help mitigate and reduce pollution and cut back on carbon emissions (in a reasonable manner), and I'm all for the research and development for clean renewable energy (as long as we don't go off the deep and and it costs the consumer inordinately). But if we aren't going to mandate some kind of cap and reduction on global population, then I just can't get interested in it.

What I have done and will continue to do is plant more and more palms and tropical trees and plants that absorb CO2 and emit life giving oxygen! 

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill H2DB

   I am pretty much where Walt is overall on the subject .

Mom Nature will sort it all out in the long run .

Here is an interesting site .  Scroll on down , there's a bunch of info there .

Yes , it is interpolated , but is a decent guide to population growth .

 I have lived in the Daytona area for over 65 years , and have seen our population increase beyond anyone's 

expectation.  Florida in general  ,of course , has grown way more then the Nat'l average , and to some folks

in much lower , or almost no growth  places , it may be difficult to see some of the impacts .  Here , it is in our face daily ,

big time .

Enjoy !       http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GottmitAlex
3 hours ago, Bill H2DB said:

   I am pretty much where Walt is overall on the subject .

Mom Nature will sort it all out in the long run .

Here is an interesting site .  Scroll on down , there's a bunch of info there .

Yes , it is interpolated , but is a decent guide to population growth .

 I have lived in the Daytona area for over 65 years , and have seen our population increase beyond anyone's 

expectation.  Florida in general  ,of course , has grown way more then the Nat'l average , and to some folks

in much lower , or almost no growth  places , it may be difficult to see some of the impacts .  Here , it is in our face daily ,

big time .

Enjoy !       http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

 

 

 

https://www.pop.org/project/debunk-the-overpopulation-myth/

https://overpopulationisamyth.com

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walt
18 hours ago, Bill H2DB said:

   I am pretty much where Walt is overall on the subject .

Mom Nature will sort it all out in the long run .

Here is an interesting site .  Scroll on down , there's a bunch of info there .

Yes , it is interpolated , but is a decent guide to population growth .

 I have lived in the Daytona area for over 65 years , and have seen our population increase beyond anyone's 

expectation.  Florida in general  ,of course , has grown way more then the Nat'l average , and to some folks

in much lower , or almost no growth  places , it may be difficult to see some of the impacts .  Here , it is in our face daily ,

big time .

Enjoy !       http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

 

 

 

I'm originally from the suburbs of Washington, D.C., in suburban Maryland. My wife and I moved to Florida in 1997. We would drive back up to Maryland to visit family each summer until 2002, the last time I drove up. After that my wife would fly up each summer to visit family. Well, this past May I drove up to visit family, first time since 2002. I could hardly believe the amount of traffic. It was just wall to wall vehicles, delays, back ups, bumper to bumper stop and go traffic. This started 20 miles south of D.C. on I-95. I told family that would be the last time I would ever drive up here again. You can have all the traffic and population and all the high taxes to go with it. I will be content to just stay in Lake Placid where the living is far more slower and less expensive.

My contention is not that the world is overpopulated at the present time, my contention is that, if one asserts GW/CC is due to man (and not mother nature) -- then continuing to growth the world's population by 83 million more humans a year will just exacerbate man made GW/CC, that's just a fundamental fact -- for the reasons I've already stated.

I've read accounts here and there that the world can support far more humans that it currently does, that's probably so,  but that's not my point. My point is the ecological damage man is doing to the planet at the current way man is living. 83 more million humans a year, year after year is surely not going to reduce the damage man is causing to the earth -- unless man substantially changes the way he lives (reduced energy use, less air and water pollution, less use of finite nature resources, etc.). Look at all the fuse going on now about the acquisition of more and more land to grow the African oil palm for the harvesting of its oil. https://epthinktank.eu/2018/02/19/palm-oil-economic-and-environmental-impacts/

Regardless of what belief one subscribes to about the causes of GW/CC (that is, whether it is caused mostly by man; whether it is cyclical and caused by fluctuating solar radiation activity, or a combination of both) man is definitely disrupting the earth's ecology and ability to naturally cleanse itself. That's just an unalterable fact.

I just yesterday was skimming over an article saying how Orca whales are dying off due to man made causes: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5937113/Killer-whales-Pacific-Northwest-starving-disappearing-human-activity.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/science/orcas-whales-endangered.html

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/07/11/killer-whales-are-dying-off-in-pacific-northwest.html

Three above sources so no one accuses me of using biased sources. Again, I have no ax to grind. I'm just saying man needs to clean up his act if we want to survive as a species. I think a smaller global population would go a long way to better the earth's ecology. But I realize my opinion, a coconut, and $3.80 will buy a gallon of regular -- and in 20 years or less I will be dead and gone, and my opinion will be academic.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PALM MOD
On 9/28/2018, 7:48:41, Walt said:

I have no political ax to grind on this subject, and I realize the Palmtalk moderators don't care for us members to be engaging -- at least too deep -- in the political aspects of GW and CC.

True - all previous discussions have been terminated because it has become almost impossible to separate GW/CC from politics these days. Because it is an interesting topic, and very much a part of what we care about as "gardeners," as long as we can discuss the topic respectfully, and without including politics and/or religion, I'm willing to try again - and let it continue.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walt
4 hours ago, PALM MOD said:

True - all previous discussions have been terminated because it has become almost impossible to separate GW/CC from politics these days. Because it is an interesting topic, and very much a part of what we care about as "gardeners," as long as we can discuss the topic respectfully, and without including politics and/or religion, I'm willing to try again - and let it continue.

I understand the moderator's position, and I respect that. I sure don't want to engage in futile arguments over GW/CC, and I know that the political side of GW/CC wasn't the intent of this thread by the person that started it.

My only point was, if GW/CC is mostly man made, then increasing the earth's population by 83 more humans a year is just going to exacerbate GW/CC -- all other factors staying equal. Maybe I shouldn't have interjected it into this thread, but I honestly see global overpopulation as a threat to the earth's ecology, and a factor in GW/CC. Yet, I never see any sentiment to control global population.

Speaking non politically, as far as GW/CC, IMO, even if it does raise a given location's average temperature, it won't do much good if there are wild temperature swings that for just one night a year or two could freeze palms in an otherwise high average temperature location.

For years I keep hearing about GW and how my area (9b might become 10a)  - and I thought to myself, well, that's at least some consolation, as now I will be able to grow more cold tender species of palms.Yet, in December of 2010 I experienced my all-time coldest record low temperature since I moved to Florida in 1997 (20.8 degrees F). I think the upper Keys dropped into the mid to high 30s on the coldest night. Key West and Havana, Cuba, dropped to 45 degrees. I know the Homestead Fruit and Spice park was heavily damaged. and I think they recorded 28 degrees. I guess this was one of the swings I'm referring to with regard to GW/CC that could negate what one might desire (higher temperatures to grow more species of palms).

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NC_Palms

This thread was never made to become another climate change debate. I created this thread because I completely understand the negative consequences of global climate change. I thought it would be an okay idea to discuss if climate change may have any positive aspects. 

Edited by NC_Palms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdsonofthesouth

Just to clarify I'm not saying we arent contributing as just existing as an animal that breathes oxygen has you as a contributor to greenhouse gases. Can we do better? Sure! But a few degrees warmer around the world would be an adjustment for coastal folks maybe, but more trees and more food and less cold deaths. Currently we are at one of the lowest co2 levels in history (not the lowest) at around 400. That's damn close to the lowest it's ever been (180) and that was the most extreme glaciation earth has seen. The maximum was around 4000 and that happened 540million years ago. 

 

So currently we are WELL within "spec" and even below previous periods of warming such as the middle ages long before industrialization.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

SUUUUUUPER brief history of CO2

4.6 Billion years ago - earth forms.  Not a cool place to be, instant death and all that.

3 Bya - Life?  Maybe even earlier, single-celled, similar to bacteria.

2.4 Bya - earliest photosynthesis?  Hard to prove, but we're pretty sure there was life and 2.4-1.8 Bya there was a LOT of banded iron formations laid down.  Like, whole thick layers of rock that are just iron rust precipitating out of the ocean.  

2.4 Bya - 650 mya - Cyanobacteria going crazy-town all up in this joint, keep pumping out the Oxygen, may have "used up" all available CO2, which quite frankly was very bad for everybody.  (see snowball earth)

650 mya - the most extreme glaciation the earth has ever seen.  Like, literally the whole thing, completely covered in ice, even the oceans.  Very nearly ending life on Earth.  (hoo-ray hot ocean vents! Our bacteriological geologic Noah's ark!)

540 mya - The Cambrian Explosion!  (no more snowball earth, just lots of weird critters in the ocean)  Also, nothing on land.  No plants, trees, anything.  Just bare rock.  Hard to relate to.   (but a LOT of erosion, this is important later)

~300 mya - The Carboniferous!  Holy crap we got a lot of trees here.  Like seriously, trees on trees on trees, not rotting!  (This is when most coal comes from)  Sucking all that CO2 out of the atmosphere to make trees, levels in the low 300s ppm, lots of glaciation, maybe even more than recently but the continents were in weird places, so not as much as it could have been. 

250-65 mya - Rawr! Dinosaurs!  Mesozoic shenanigans ensue. CO2 is usually between 1000-2000 ppm or roughly 3 to 5 times current CO2 levels.  Global temperature averages were higher (like, seriously, maybe 10 degrees C higher) than today.  That's palms near the arctic circle level of weirdness there.  Also, continents are still in weird places, so ice at the poles was possible, but likely sparse sea-ice or very very limited land ice depending on which epoch you're in.  

65-34 mya - The Paleocene and Eocene.  Mammals are taking over in a huge way.  CO2 still close to Mesozoic levels at first, peaking around 2000 ppm around 50 mya but then slowly dropping off.  A lot of Carbon is sequestered in oil, gas, shale, coal, etc.  There's still a lot available, but as grasses take over the plains and forests get thick and weird in places, a lot of what's out there gets sucked up and locked away.  CO2 tapers off gradually, gets below 800 ppm and Antarctica starts to ice over (~44 mya?).  CO2 drops even more and about 33.9 mya, at the end of the Eocene, the arctic ice sheet emerges in the north.

Side note: Carbon is released from the erosion of rocks and through life is converted into CO2.  If you drastically reduce the amount of erosion you reduce the base block of the Carbon Cycle.  Sooooooooo, if you freeze a lot of land, you automatically reduce the amount of available carbon in the atmosphere.  Plants need Carbon to grow, global CO2 will drop.  Plus, as old rock is subducted through plate tectonics that carbon is "lost" until it re-emerges at a mid-ocean ridge or through volcanism.  A process that takes 10s or 100s of millions of years.  So CO2 can drop even more!

33.9 mya to present - Lots of weird AF mammals (like 5 horned "deer" and rhinos as tall as giraffes, etc.)  Now that there's ice caps on both poles, and one of them over a significant continent (antarctica), there is less erosion of old rocks and less "new" carbon released into the atmosphere.  CO2 levels continue to fall.  We get down into the sub-300 ppm where a lot of funky feedback cycles can significantly affect the climate. (like, to some extent, the distance to and angle of the sun)  First non-snowball earth ice age hits about 2.6 mya and starts a cycle of ice advancement and retreat and CO2 fluctuates between about 180 and 300 ppm at any given point over the last 2.6 million years.  

About 300 years ago we really start getting into coal, Industrial revolution happens in the 1800s and we start cranking out the smoke.  There is a complex chain of bio-geo-chem cycles that will "eat" extra CO2 and sequester it.  Either (very) slowly in rocks as future hydrocarbons, or more quickly but geologically temporarily in new plant growth and in the deep ocean currents.  We (humans) also started deforestation several centuries ago and keep on cutting, so that route to sequestration is hindered.  The deep ocean currents circulate every few hundred years, so we're getting to a place where the oceans are "full" of CO2 and beginning to slightly acidify.  Coral ain't cool with that bro.  Ocean life is stressed, more chances for catastrophic algae blooms (especially near all our major river mouths where all our extra fertilizer is dumping in).  We are upsetting the balance.  

We have bumped CO2 levels up from about 250 ppm pre-industrial revolution to over 400 ppm now (and rapidly rising both in total number and rate of rise).  Fluctuations have happened in the geologic record, obviously.  And in the past we have had CO2 levels much higher than today.  However, there is no evidence from the geologic record that CO2 has ever shot up so quickly.  The natural cycles that take thousands or millions of years to react to CO2 changes are inadequate to accommodate the volumes of material that we have pumped out into the atmosphere.  

To be clear, the Carbon Cycle operates on orders of magnitude beyond what we've pumped out in 200+ years.  But, the key thing to take away is how quickly that cycle reacts and accommodates more (or less) CO2 in the atmosphere.  It is a finely balanced scale on both sides of the equation of give and take, and we've been putting our human thumb on one side.  Maybe not that much compared to the whole, but more by far than the system can quickly absorb.  The result is higher and increasingly higher global average temperatures.  And that, Ladies and Germs, is why Anthropogenic Global Warming is a real thing that we totally did, for reals.

Okay, I'm done. (For Now!  mwa ha ha ha ha)

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GottmitAlex
10 hours ago, mdsonofthesouth said:

Just to clarify I'm not saying we arent contributing as just existing as an animal that breathes oxygen has you as a contributor to greenhouse gases. Can we do better? Sure! But a few degrees warmer around the world would be an adjustment for coastal folks maybe, but more trees and more food and less cold deaths. Currently we are at one of the lowest co2 levels in history (not the lowest) at around 400. That's damn close to the lowest it's ever been (180) and that was the most extreme glaciation earth has seen. The maximum was around 4000 and that happened 540million years ago. 

 

So currently we are WELL within "spec" and even below previous periods of warming such as the middle ages long before industrialization.

 

Yeah.. pretty much, this.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdsonofthesouth

Excuse me when I take that with a grain of salt. By now per the original predictions and even more recent with Al Gore we should be totally devastated by now. So doomsday predictions like this don't paticularly phase me and I'm surely in an area that would be displaced if their "predictions" are close to right. Heck they dont even claim a distance or above sea level that is going to be effected in this article. Extremely vague and much akin to what's been preached to me my whole life that was supposed to happen already but hasn't. Don't mean to be rude or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
10 hours ago, mdsonofthesouth said:

Excuse me when I take that with a grain of salt. By now per the original predictions and even more recent with Al Gore we should be totally devastated by now. So doomsday predictions like this don't paticularly phase me and I'm surely in an area that would be displaced if their "predictions" are close to right. Heck they dont even claim a distance or above sea level that is going to be effected in this article. Extremely vague and much akin to what's been preached to me my whole life that was supposed to happen already but hasn't. Don't mean to be rude or anything.

"Excuse me while I be rude.

 

Don't mean to be rude or anything."

 

Many people live within a few miles of the coast. Most of the world doesn't have the luxury of packing their things into a U-Haul and moving away from their coastal homes with the money they get from flood insurance or FEMA. A few degrees warming would affect a lot of people, especially those in the developing countries. This would cause a huge diaspora of people fleeing from their coastal towns, which is difficult for both the refugees and the places that they seek refuge. 

This isn't about predictions. This is about your statement: "But a few degrees warmer around the world would be an adjustment for coastal folks maybe." which is a huge understatement and ignores the actual logistics of how many people in developing countries would have their lives torn apart by "a few degrees of warming". 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdsonofthesouth
6 hours ago, Zeeth said:

"Excuse me while I be rude.

 

Don't mean to be rude or anything."

 

Many people live within a few miles of the coast. Most of the world doesn't have the luxury of packing their things into a U-Haul and moving away from their coastal homes with the money they get from flood insurance or FEMA. A few degrees warming would affect a lot of people, especially those in the developing countries. This would cause a huge diaspora of people fleeing from their coastal towns, which is difficult for both the refugees and the places that they seek refuge. 

This isn't about predictions. This is about your statement: "But a few degrees warmer around the world would be an adjustment for coastal folks maybe." which is a huge understatement and ignores the actual logistics of how many people in developing countries would have their lives torn apart by "a few degrees of warming". 

 

I'm one of those people...and sorry you thought I was rude but I've been lied to my entire life about all this mess so excuse or dont excuse my cynacism it's totally up to you.

 

Oh and fyi taking something with a grain of salt isnt rude, was merely saying that due to some folks being more sensitive than others. 

 

How about this? This shows losses less than gains meaning 2100 might be wary off given the changes we have done in the last 20 years...

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Edited by mdsonofthesouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
41 minutes ago, mdsonofthesouth said:

 

I'm one of those people...and sorry you thought I was rude but I've been lied to my entire life about all this mess so excuse or dont excuse my cynacism it's totally up to you.

 

Oh and fyi taking something with a grain of salt isnt rude, was merely saying that due to some folks being more sensitive than others. 

 

How about this? This shows losses less than gains meaning 2100 might be wary off given the changes we have done in the last 20 years...

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

This still has nothing to do with the point that I'm arguing against. Your point of "a few degrees warmer around the world would be an adjustment for coastal folks maybe" is a huge understatement. The thread isn't "is global warming real" or anything like that, because those discussions devolve very quickly on this forum, and are not allowed. The thread is "can climate change be good". A few degrees warming would be very bad for the coastal population, and sea level rise is only one reason why. Stronger storms due to higher energy in the system will negatively affect coastal populations more than they'll affect inland ones. Millions of people will be displaced by a few degrees increase in global temperature. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

Some countries will benefit from global warming, particularly northern countries with major cities inland, like Russia, Canada and parts of the US. 

Here's a few interesting videos about this:

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NC_Palms
12 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

This still has nothing to do with the point that I'm arguing against. Your point of "a few degrees warmer around the world would be an adjustment for coastal folks maybe" is a huge understatement. The thread isn't "is global warming real" or anything like that, because those discussions devolve very quickly on this forum, and are not allowed. The thread is "can climate change be good". A few degrees warming would be very bad for the coastal population, and sea level rise is only one reason why. Stronger storms due to higher energy in the system will negatively affect coastal populations more than they'll affect inland ones. Millions of people will be displaced by a few degrees increase in global temperature. 

You are correct. I created this thread because I wanted to discuss how climate change is expanding the tropics and if that could be beneficial under any circumstances.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdsonofthesouth

The point was the world IS warming and the poles got bigger per NASA's study therefore coastal flooding may not be what we think. Wasnt denying anything and the reason why I'm a cynic is I've been told stories like the Cornell one that have been false hence why I took it with a grain of salt. There is nothing saying it will be 1in or shore or 100 miles that we lose. Obviously losing a whole mess of coast is bad, but they saying "it was a fool who built his house upon the sand" reigns true still. People take a chance living on the coast and expecting to be immune to the earth's cycles especially that close to the volatile ocean is lunacy. I'm not saying they deserve it but they did chance living on the beach. I live about 100 miles as the crow flies from the ocean give or take and in between there is the biggest estuary. So I understand full and well of the consequences of waters rising. I'm just saying it's likely not going to be as bad as Cornell claims....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdsonofthesouth

I see this is an echo chamber. Good luck in your future discussions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
2 minutes ago, mdsonofthesouth said:

The point was the world IS warming and the poles got bigger per NASA's study therefore coastal flooding may not be what we think. Wasnt denying anything and the reason why I'm a cynic is I've been told stories like the Cornell one that have been false hence why I took it with a grain of salt. There is nothing saying it will be 1in or shore or 100 miles that we lose. Obviously losing a whole mess of coast is bad, but they saying "it was a fool who built his house upon the sand" reigns true still. People take a chance living on the coast and expecting to be immune to the earth's cycles especially that close to the volatile ocean is lunacy. I'm not saying they deserve it but they did chance living on the beach. I live about 100 miles as the crow flies from the ocean give or take and in between there is the biggest estuary. So I understand full and well of the consequences of waters rising. I'm just saying it's likely not going to be as bad as Cornell claims....

People in developing countries don't really have the luxury of choosing to live close to the coast or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NC_Palms
Just now, Zeeth said:

People in developing countries don't really have the luxury of choosing to live close to the coast or not. 

I was low key thinking that too. Even the Southeast has groups of people who have lived on the coast for centuries, either it be the Hoi Toiders of NC or the Gullah people of the Sea Islands. Coastal living isn't always a luxury. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdsonofthesouth
2 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

This is off topic.

 

No. You linked videos and it wasnt off topic? These are an MIT PhD on climate change being good and it touches on water levels so how is a PhD much better versed in all this talking on the OPs topic offtopic?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
Just now, mdsonofthesouth said:

No. You linked videos and it wasnt off topic? These are an MIT PhD on climate change being good and it touches on water levels so how is a PhD much better versed in all this talking on the OPs topic offtopic?? 

Your video is titled "Climate change is a scam".

My videos were about countries benefitting from global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...