Mass Extinction!

[Shell B]

The fact seems to be that the current climatological fluctuation in the last 60,000 years is not severe compared to what repeated transpired in the last 2.8 million years. Yet there were no major global extinction events between 2.8 million - 60,000 years, but there is what appears to be a fairly severe global extinction level event starting 60,000 years ago and rapidly picking up pace in the last 12000 years. The spread of modern Homo Sapiens seems to be one major global scale influence that coincided with this latest extinction event. To remove human as the most important agent of interest, one needs to identify another.

Of course, humans shouldn't be removed as a suspect in this mass extinction. Nonetheless, I think it is the scale of the extinction that we are to blame for, not the extinction itself. "Climatological fluctuation" is not the only problem here, either. Invasive species, over-hunting, etc. all have their place among the ways humans wipe out species. I'm actually not as concerned about climate change as I am about habitat destruction.

[orogenicman]

The fact seems to be that the current climatological fluctuation in the last 60,000 years is not severe compared to what repeated transpired in the last 2.8 million years. Yet there were no major global extinction events between 2.8 million - 60,000 years, but there is what appears to be a fairly severe global extinction level event starting 60,000 years ago and rapidly picking up pace in the last 12000 years. The spread of modern Homo Sapiens seems to be one major global scale influence that coincided with this latest extinction event. To remove human as the most important agent of interest, one needs to identify another.

Of course, humans shouldn't be removed as a suspect in this mass extinction. Nonetheless, I think it is the scale of the extinction that we are to blame for, not the extinction itself. "Climatological fluctuation" is not the only problem here, either. Invasive species, over-hunting, etc. all have their place among the ways humans wipe out species. I'm actually not as concerned about climate change as I am about habitat destruction.

With regard to at least the current event, I think it would be a mistake to try to separate or else emphasis one thing over another (i.e., climate change from habitat destruction). It seems rather obvious that the two go hand in hand.

[downbeatplumb]

There is nowhere on earth that humans haven't in some way despoiled.

A few years ago I stood on the summit of a mountain, which was a magical majestic view, somewhat spoiled by the crisp packet that was caught in the updraughts and was circling peak continually.

In the mid pacific there is an area the size of texas where it is covered in floating plastic.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolon...2e8d7b0b4b

There is even polution in antartica now.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/protecting-...-and-waste

It used to be that humans only effected their immediate surroundings but now our influence encompasses the globe.

[Justtristo]

There is nowhere on earth that humans haven't in some way despoiled.

A few years ago I stood on the summit of a mountain, which was a magical majestic view, somewhat spoiled by the crisp packet that was caught in the updraughts and was circling peak continually.

In the mid pacific there is an area the size of texas where it is covered in floating plastic.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolon...2e8d7b0b4b

hock:

An plastic island the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific!

[Dotard]

The article said:

The buildup of plastics in the gyre is estimated to span 13 million square kilometres. That's the equivalent of the area of the United States -- plus India.

Yeah, right. I call bullshit.

[downbeatplumb]

The article said:

The buildup of plastics in the gyre is estimated to span 13 million square kilometres. That's the equivalent of the area of the United States -- plus India.

Yeah, right. I call bullshit.

Tell that to CNN

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-16/world...s=PM:WORLD

BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8225125.stm

Even fox

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518989,00.html

I could go on.

[Shell B]

Actually, they are unable to determine the actual size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Any article that says differently is full of shit. It is huge, but it is immeasurable for several reasons. One, some of the plastic is suspended below the surface and some floats on the surface. Two, it shifts around in the same area. All who have studied it say that, while it is big, at this point, there is no way of measuring it. The closest they can get is giving an estimate of pieces of plastic per square foot/yard/mile.

---

The fact seems to be that the current climatological fluctuation in the last 60,000 years is not severe compared to what repeated transpired in the last 2.8 million years. Yet there were no major global extinction events between 2.8 million - 60,000 years, but there is what appears to be a fairly severe global extinction level event starting 60,000 years ago and rapidly picking up pace in the last 12000 years. The spread of modern Homo Sapiens seems to be one major global scale influence that coincided with this latest extinction event. To remove human as the most important agent of interest, one needs to identify another.

Of course, humans shouldn't be removed as a suspect in this mass extinction. Nonetheless, I think it is the scale of the extinction that we are to blame for, not the extinction itself. "Climatological fluctuation" is not the only problem here, either. Invasive species, over-hunting, etc. all have their place among the ways humans wipe out species. I'm actually not as concerned about climate change as I am about habitat destruction.

With regard to at least the current event, I think it would be a mistake to try to separate or else emphasis one thing over another (i.e., climate change from habitat destruction). It seems rather obvious that the two go hand in hand.

No, they are two separate issues. I feel this way because habitat destruction is an immediate problem that aids extinction every day. Habitat destruction also aids climate change, but if we run out of fucking trees, I think it hardly matters if it gets hot here.

[Anomalocaris]

Climate change most certainly power major parts of habitat destruction by forcing habitats out of their established locations and seek substitutes further from equators, higher in elevation, or disappear. Coastal wetlands for example, established at areas leveled by 8000 years relatively stable sea levels, will essentially disappear as ocean level rise to new altitudes where there has been no time for erosion or deposition to establish comparable topology.

[Shell B]

Climate change most certainly power major parts of habitat destruction by forcing habitats out of their established locations and seek substitutes further from equators, higher in elevation, or disappear. Coastal wetlands for example, established at areas leveled by 8000 years relatively stable sea levels, will essentially disappear as ocean level rise to new altitudes where there has been no time for erosion or deposition to establish comparable topology.

This is like apples and oranges, but climate change is not even close to the number one cause of habitat loss on this planet. Therefore, I'm more concerned about other, more immediate, things. That is not to say that I am not concerned about climate change.

[Anomalocaris]

Except climate change attacks the habitats of the greatest value and importance to human economy.