[clif]

Didn't know scientists did word count when publishing their research papers.

It's still about the actual science not the talking points to distract from the science.

[Tanada]

dohboi two things to keep in mind. First my point about inland and high altitude climates is, we do not know because those environments do not favor fossil formation and preservation.

As for the very emotionally charged and non scientific terminology 'weed species', seems how I have to spell it out for you humans are amongst the weediest of weed species.

[Ibon]

dohboi two things to keep in mind. First my point about inland and high altitude climates is, we do not know because those environments do not favor fossil formation and preservation.

As for the very emotionally charged and non scientific terminology 'weed species', seems how I have to spell it out for you humans are amongst the weediest of weed species.

Kudzu Ape indeed.

The principal here about "weed species" does have some validity. In disturbed or degraded or stressed habitat it is often pioneer species that will first colonize. Also species that are tolerant of more varied habitat, generalists and opportunists. Plant species for example with many pollinators. Dandelions for example over an orchid species that has a tight symbiotic relationship with only one pollinator. It is often the already rare and often specialized species that get squeezed out during extinction events and these are often the more interesting and fascinating. It is disheartening and sad that the correction of human overshoot will result in the loss of many species that are vulnerable to disruption.

The key to minimizing biodiversity loss is that there are refuge habitat and populations of species available out of which they can recolonize former habitat once human landscapes recede. My point that humans are more vulnerable and will be targeted disproportionately once climate change consequences unfold requires refuge habitat to still exist. Otherwise my point is mute.

We are heading to a major extinction event. If the glass is still 3/4 full or 1/2 or a 1/3 or a 1/10 depends on factors way beyond our ability to speculate. Any of these fractions still deserve that we do everything we can to conserve and mitigate their total extinction. That external consequences are now driving things does not mean we shouldn't still do what we can to conserve bio diversity. Terrestrial ecologists have done the field work identifying bio-diversity hot spots around the planet and many countries have acted on this when defining their conservation areas. Doesn't mean they act on it or follow through always with protection but in many cases they do.

The glass being totally empty is not an option from an emotional point of view (my view). A scientific possibility? Sure. But highly unlikely.

[Newfie]

Ibon,
These are possibilities we will never see realized. Not you and I.

Our job, if you accept the premis of our genetic programming, is simple. It is to see to our DNA's survival. That narrows the view to something more manageable, something one can actually work toward.

[Ibon]

Ibon,
These are possibilities we will never see realized. Not you and I.

Our job, if you accept the premis of our genetic programming, is simple. It is to see to our DNA's survival. That narrows the view to something more manageable, something one can actually work toward.

I agree . You ride your boat and manage what is within your power to control. I do the same on the top of a mountain. In those organic spaces the equation is pretty straight forward and enrichment comes from staying grounded in that reality.

This site is the place I park myself to ponder deeper and more existential questions regarding the big correction coming our way.

It is important for all reading this to somewhat compartmentalize this topic to maintain mental equilibrium.

[onlooker]

'It is important for all reading this to somewhat compartmentalize this topic to maintain mental equilibrium.' Agreed Ibon and others we should all not get caught up in all the implications that this "Doom" signifies. We still must live what remains of our lives and everyday strive to make our journey and the ones around us especially our loved ones as positive as possible. That to me means follow your heart and mind wherever it may take you but recognize if it is taking you in a negative direction. I enjoy these conversations because I enjoy sharing with others our existential crisis which we still would seep into our conscience regardless if none of this worldwide doom existed. This is because we are mortal beings doomed to die.

[ennui2]

But measuring the use of words like "Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expected."is not a valid way to determine the truth.

Yes it is, because they are being issued by scientists!

You've got to understand that human beings are very bad at mentally modeling complex systems like this.

This is why there is this constant attempt to simplify or reduce things (ETP being promoted by Whatever as a "grand unified theory, for instance").

My way of simplifying things is through sort of skim over the internet and gather an intuitive feel for things. That's why I cite Google Trends. The internet is like a collective consciousness. Yes, some of that consciousness is irrational or trivial, crap about Miley Cyrus, but not always. I think we're beyond the scientific community going down naive detours like "Global Cooling". I think they've got a pretty good handle on things that we're not going to wake up one day and have the community say "Gee, I guess we were all wrong. Everything's OK." It's really going the other direction, with scientists feeling resistant to accepting how doomy things really are and the data is kind of tugging and pulling at them to the point where they have to begrudgingly admit these corrections.

I think people who attempt to create some definitive mathematical "proof" are never going to find the markers that they're looking for. It's only ever going to be some form of fuzzy logic like this, with lots of seemingly plausible alternate explanations.

[ralfy]

During this whole dialogue we haven't been discussing yet those other clams you mention here, the climate change deniers. But their presence has always been here. They frame the polarity that still at this late date hold some of us hostage. It would seem. After all,, Cid accused me of using the same tactics as the climate change deniers, and there is this confusion by many here on my positions because I am obviously not a climate change denier and yet I have been politically incorrect in challenging a number of sacred cows that the extremists here hold so dear.

When I suggested external consequences will be the engine of cultural transition this was perceived as threatening to those who still hold on to using the social and environmental justice meme as the ideological fight required against the climate change deniers. My theory breaks the polarity and this is threatening to those who are still driven by ideology. My suggestion that there is a possibility that we may culturally adapt and persevere after human overshoot and self regulate was also met with vigorous opposition for the same reason.

When I suggested that humans in overshoot are more vulnerable at this point than the remaining natural ecosystems this also is taboo because our focus must remain singularly on the threats to our biosphere and biodiversity and suggesting that humans are at the moment less resilient is contrarian and does not serve the ideological struggle against the climate change deniers.


It has been very fascinating to observe the underlying narratives that still frame the thinking of even those most convinced that they are interpreting data from a purely objective place.

The fact that they are so certain of this and also so certain of our upcoming extinction should of course provide the most obvious clue.

These discussions have been most enjoyable and enlightening and I appreciate the lively discussion.

Regarding Dohboi's claim that I haven't produced any evidence to support my views, this is simply not true. I have from the beginning spoken of possibilities and explored pathways. Some of my ideas are admittedly unorthodox. Some of my ideas are original and do not come from copying and pasting links. Some of my ideas are most likely due for some revision and modification, partially from comments here refuting them and partially waiting for future events to fine tune some of these ideas. By the way, the onus is not on me to give evidence against certainty of extinction. The vast majority of climate change scientists who present alarming data regarding tipping points do not speak of extinction as a certainty.

That is what is great about these discussions, there is exchange and learning going on. For some of us anyway...

My understanding is that "cultural transformation" includes "social and environmental justice." In fact, ideology is a vital component of culture.

As for extinction, I think many dying is as bad as extinction, especially when they will include loved ones.

[vtsnowedin]

But measuring the use of words like "Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expected."is not a valid way to determine the truth.

Yes it is, because they are being issued by scientists!
.........
............
It's only ever going to be some form of fuzzy logic like this, with lots of seemingly plausible alternate explanations.

I agree it is fuzzy logic. Regardless of the topic of discussion and it's merits you can't convince me of your points validity by saying "everybody else is doing it" or even "every scientist is doing it".
It didn't work with your mother when you were in grade school and it doesn't work with me now nor should it for anybody familiar with the scientific method.
So skip the consensus BS and move on to the facts and data of the research. There is where the truth lies.

[Ibon]

As for extinction, I think many dying is as bad as extinction, especially when they will include loved ones.

Work on this Ralfy, most of human history happened with mortality rates whereby most folks alive dealt with the untimely passing of their loved ones.

I know we have become soft as a culture in this regard and there really is no way to prep for this except in deeply understanding that we are moving into the corrective phase of human overshoot where even the most compassionate and enlightened ideology will not spare you the impacts of our species experiencing an accelerated die-off.

Know the deeper ecological movement behind this correction and understand its power to possibly guide ideology in a direction that improves the long term resiliency of our species.

[ennui2]

So skip the consensus BS and move on to the facts and data of the research. There is where the truth lies.

You're not interested in truth. You've got a history here of being an AGW skeptic. Why should I take this bait? If you saw fit to read every AGW-related article from scientists that is posted day in and day out you'd have little time left for anything else. The facts, data, and research is in to the point of overkill. (My intuition isn't meant for me to figure out whether AGW is real. That's incontrovertible. It's just my way of figuring out how fast and how bad it's going to get.)

In fact, I had already felt that the "let's study the problem" aspect of AGW had reached points of diminishing returns years ago when I signed off of this site. You know, back in the Live Earth, Weathermakers, Eaarth days. The data is out there already but because denialists will not pass go, we're permanently stuck trying to prove it's happening to people who can never be convinced and not being able to move on to mitigation and adaptation strategies.

[Cid_Yama]

It's not just the Deniers, it's also those that are just now starting the anticipatory grieving process. There are many stages they will have to go through before they reach acceptance.

[vtsnowedin]

So skip the consensus BS and move on to the facts and data of the research. There is where the truth lies.

You're not interested in truth. ....
......., we're permanently stuck trying to prove it's happening to people who can never be convinced and not being able to move on to mitigation and adaptation strategies.

There are no plausible or viable mitigation strategies and adaptation will vary widely from person to person based on their location and assets.
Don't worry about convincing me and move on to your own adaptation strategy.

[Newfie]

As much as I would like to see some mitigation strategy (I think?) I agree that it is high time to move on to personal adaptation.

Why "I think?" Well because any truly effects be mitigation stratagy would tackle over population and many of the most effectively be mitigations may hurt me or the ones I love. Be careful with what you ask for!

[ralfy]

Work on this Ralfy, most of human history happened with mortality rates whereby most folks alive dealt with the untimely passing of their loved ones.

I know we have become soft as a culture in this regard and there really is no way to prep for this except in deeply understanding that we are moving into the corrective phase of human overshoot where even the most compassionate and enlightened ideology will not spare you the impacts of our species experiencing an accelerated die-off.

Know the deeper ecological movement behind this correction and understand its power to possibly guide ideology in a direction that improves the long term resiliency of our species.

Most of human history involved combinations of "hard" and "soft," as "deeper ecological [movements]" appeared many times in the past. But "hard" dominated as human beings used technology and systems such as capitalism to improve their lot. Now, "soft" will have to dominate once more as limits to growth sets in. That's because the resiliency you hope to see involves the same "compassionate and enlightened ideology."

[ennui2]

...There are no plausible or viable mitigation strategies

You're probably right. I think we ran out the clock around Climategate/Nopenhagen. There's something to be said for at least acknowledging the situation, though. Living shoulder to shoulder with people who are clinging to their cluelessness even in the face of catastrophe is even harder to take than knowing we're screwed. At least if everyone were on the same page maybe we could kind of collectively grieve.

[clif]

We actually ran the clock out when the country decided to follow a failed hollywood actor instead of seeing the path that lead to a sustainable planet.

Everything since then has essentially been trying to undo that historical mistake.

Both economically and environmentally.

[dohboi]

+2

for the last two posts, and for much that came before.

I will only mostly have time to mostly lurk for a while (did I just use 'mostly' twice in one clause?), but I do appreciate the discussions.

[AgentR11]

Everything since then has essentially been trying to undo that historical mistake.
Both economically and environmentally.

If it was a mistake; there is no indication that anyone gives a flip more than lip service about undoing anything.

We are still hugely supply side, encourage and subsidize massive amounts of carbon use, our economy still measures growth by how much stuff it can consume and destroy. No, you're D's and our Bush's have all piled on the supply side train since, even if some like to TALK a responsible, sustainable world.

[ennui2]

Plus...this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-cl ... d=39331238