Too sad.
QuoteA catastrophic die-off of emperor penguin chicks has been observed in the Antarctic, with up to 10,000 young birds estimated to have been killed.
The sea-ice underneath the chicks melted and broke apart before they could develop the waterproof feathers needed to swim in the ocean.
Casualties of the changing climate, one must suppose. :(
Niche environments are always the first effected by climate change.
Indeed, although some insects have been in a bit of dire straits for a while now.
I suppose generations from now, the world will be quite a different place. Would have loved to see how the biosphere adapts. Alas, being short-lived as humans are... No such luck - or lack thereof.
i used to own a lot of books.
a lot of books.
one of them was this
https://www.amazon.com/After-Man-Expanded-40Th-Anniversary/dp/1911081179
Quote from: Tank on August 25, 2023, 04:04:29 PMNiche environments are always the first effected by climate change.
Hmm, an observation almost Marcusian in its insight. [strokes non existent beard emoji]
Some niche environments would be the first effected, others the last or not at all.
Is there such a thing as a non niche environment? some are obviously narrower.
QuoteHistorically, Antarctic sea ice has extended to about 19 million square kilometers (7 million square miles) in winter and retreated to about 3 million square kilometers (1 million square miles) in summer.
Probably felt like a good solid niche until it turned into a slushy.
...Not to mention that one man's slushy is another man's brand new niche.
There is a validity to referring to those environments thusly though. They are "outliers," in a way. A desert may get hotter and drier, and it's still a desert. Now, an oasis, which may be described as a niche environment within the desert - if that dries up, then it's gone. A boreal forest in similar situation may start sprouting more leaves than needles. Probably a benefit for various leaf eaters, but then equally a detriment to something else. Now ice... Ice just melts.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 31, 2023, 01:52:24 PM...Not to mention that one man's slushy is another man's brand new niche.
Agreed
Quote from: Asmodean on August 31, 2023, 01:52:24 PMThere is a validity to referring to those environments thusly though. They are "outliers," in a way. A desert may get hotter and drier, and it's still a desert.
How are we defining, is a desert still an environment if nothing now lives in it?
Quote from: Asmodean on August 31, 2023, 01:52:24 PMA boreal forest in similar situation may start sprouting more leaves than needles. Probably a benefit for various leaf eaters, but then equally a detriment to something else. Now ice... Ice just melts.
OK, I can't say a forest just burns, but they do burn. The new climate, the new more leafy less needly greenery, with new critters, I'd define that as a new niche. Baby penguins required solid ice and died, baby something elses required something of the old forest and died.
The environment is changing in an evolutionary blink of an eye. If the environment stabilises for a sufficient period of time then selection pressures will shape organisms into that new environment. But that won't stop mass extinctions as it has done on numerous occasions in the past.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 31, 2023, 03:52:41 PMOK, I can't say a forest just burns, but they do burn. ...
True, especially the dry sclerophyll forests of south-east Aus. Burning is one of the things they do best...
Quote from: Tank on August 31, 2023, 07:14:59 PMBut that won't stop mass extinctions as it has done on numerous occasions in the past.
Point of ambiguity. Are you talking about the five-or-so Great Extinctions that weren't stopped, or other extinctions that
were? in the latter case, I'd like to read, watch and/or otherwise cons00m more about it.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 31, 2023, 03:52:41 PMI'd define that as a new niche.
Yes, indeed. A new biome, even.
I think an important question that has to be answered before many "mainstream" concerns is, "do we want to stop it. To preserve the existing biomes? Or do we ride the Sixth (7th..? Lost count) Great Extinction to whatever end?"
Quote from: Asmodean on September 01, 2023, 11:07:52 AMI think an important question that has to be answered before many "mainstream" concerns is, "do we want to stop it. To preserve the existing biomes? Or do we ride the Sixth (7th..? Lost count) Great Extinction to whatever end?"
`
I'd like to preserve them because I value them, I don't need a super yacht, a a kayak and some nice water with turtles in it is enough. "Or do we ride" That may be more of an option in Norway, though Canada doesn't seem to be enjoying the ride. Some waves you don't ride, they just fuck you up.
@Asmo
There have been many mass extinctions which is why the Big 5 are the Big 5. It is often the case that different geological eras are bounded by changes in the fossil record caused by mass extinction. Billy will know the details.
Quote from: Tank on September 01, 2023, 01:27:30 PM@Asmo
There have been many mass extinctions which is why the Big 5 are the Big 5. It is often the case that different geological eras are bounded by changes in the fossil record caused by mass extinction. Billy will know the details.
Yes, I'd be especially interested in
prevented mass extinctions, if such are a thing. Maybe how they... Failed to make the Five, I suppose?
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on September 01, 2023, 01:23:26 PMI'd like to preserve them because I value them, I don't need a super yacht, a a kayak and some nice water with turtles in it is enough. "Or do we ride" That may be more of an option in Norway, though Canada doesn't seem to be enjoying the ride. Some waves you don't ride, they just fuck you up.
That's perfectly valid, although you
can ride a wave to your doom just as well as you can to fun and profit, hence my reference "to whatever end," and even then the doom of mankind is a bit of a hyperbolic scenario. Humans are a pretty adaptable lot, if mostly through tech, so it stands to reason that "Day Zero, Year Zero" will still have people in it. What kind of quality of life they'll have and whether or not we should care... You make the argument one way. There are arguments to be made for the others. Hey, maybe it will be like Ark (The video game, not that Christian thing... Although...) with them dinos making a comeback and letting a enterprising The Asmo from the future ride them. Now there's a thought... (Yes, yes, I know - just using hyperbole to illustrate that life did actually thrive on a much hotter Earth back in them good old days and, given enough time to adapt, it may well do so again)
Practically though, "we" don't have much of a chance when it comes to artificially controlling the population increase, so barring some serious wars and famines, that trend will continue until the wars and the famines
caused by it. Maybe - probably - even beyond that point. Nor can we stick the greenhouse gas backlog somewhere safe in an economically palatable way, so that's likely out of the picture also. Oh, the six-or-so million Norwegians may try, as may some tens of million Americans, Chinese and so forth... It's not enough and too late besides. Even if we cut our emissions to zero today, we are still on the road to a completely different planet than the one our great-great-grandfathers knew.
Am I proposing that "we" do our best to adapt rather than mitigate..? Perhaps. I honestly don't know. I just don't see doing "anything" as beneficial to other than one's own sense of self-righteousness, and doing "something right..." Now therein lie the questions, don't they?
List of mass extinctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events)
Quote from: Asmodean on September 01, 2023, 01:58:51 PMAm I proposing that "we" do our best to adapt rather than mitigate..? Perhaps. I honestly don't know. I just don't see doing "anything" as beneficial to other than one's own sense of self-righteousness, and doing "something right..." Now therein lie the questions, don't they?
righteous: Characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice
self righteous: Excessively or hypocritically pious
I don't think people tend to have a sense of self righteousness.
Adapt rather than mitigate, does one exclude the other?
There are all these wonderful things in the world, they're slipping away.
An attempt to save them, doomed to fail, I can see why we would do that.
I suppose "virtuousness" with a splash of self-importance would make for a better fitting term than "self-righteousness," although I was indeed working within the definitions you've provided.
No, I don't think adapt and mitigate are mutually exclusive. In fact, one necessitates the other, all things considered. So, perhaps there is a third option?
I don't disagree with you from the heart-in-the-right-place sort of angle. However, being rather on the pragmatic side of things... Well... You live in the same world as I, and it cares equally little for our respective wants and needs. Yes, there is still trying and glorious failure - perhaps martyrdom, even, but again, being on the pragmatic side of things, I'd much prefer knowing the end-game and the effect on it of my contribution. You see, I can work within that framework either way. This is what I mean by "doing something right" as opposed to "doing anything."
Quote from: Tank on September 01, 2023, 02:14:02 PMList of mass extinctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events)
That answers the wrong question, but I'll let it lie. Just got fascinated by the idea that some extinctions may have been "overturned" by some... What would one call them? "Anti-extinction events?"