Suppose Climate Change is real, but we can’t stop it (1 Viewer)

[samiam5211]

At some point even the Greatas of the world may have to admit that climate change is not something we can prevent. Whether or not it is human caused, there will be a point if no return.

Where is the point where humanity is better served by focusing resources on adaptation rather than prevention?

There is likely much overlap between prevention and adaptation.

One example of this might be the activists’ push against fossil fuels...

Maybe we should be trying use as much solar power as possible now to save fossil fuels for a time when we have a period of glaciation in an area where humans live today? Maybe we will need that oil and gas should there be a time when the Midwest is below freezing five months a year. This is not an uncommon situation in Earth’s relatively recent history.

I do believe that the climate is changing and that we will fail to stop it, and we are the ancestors of people who will have to grow their food in different regions from us and get their energy from different places.

The sooner humanity begins to diversify these necessities the better.

 

[Lapaz]

When phytoplankton ingest microplastics, it can interfere with their ability to photosynthesize effectively, reducing the amount of oxygen they produce and their role in absorbing carbon dioxide. Add to that that many types of microplastics often carry toxic chemicals such as pesticides, heavy metals, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which can harm or outright kill phytoplankton

So increasing CO2 helps phytoplanktons, while microplastics is the main problem for phytoplanktons? Are climate models adding microplastics to the effects? I only recently started hearing about microplastics. How long have we known about the effects of microplastics on phytoplankton and phytoplankton’s role in reducing CO2?

 

[Taurus]

So increasing CO2 helps phytoplanktons, while microplastics is the main problem for phytoplanktons? Are climate models adding microplastics to the effects? I only recently started hearing about microplastics. How long have we known about the effects of microplastics on phytoplankton and phytoplankton’s role in reducing CO2?

We've known about phytoplankton for a long time. Anything that photosynthesizes reduces CO2 because they use it up during the process.

As for microplastics, I don't know. We've known about macro-plastics for decades. See Pacific Garbage Patch, Great.

 

[Taurus]

So increasing CO2 helps phytoplanktons, while microplastics is the main problem for phytoplanktons? Are climate models adding microplastics to the effects? I only recently started hearing about microplastics. How long have we known about the effects of microplastics on phytoplankton and phytoplankton’s role in reducing CO2?

Gas and brakes at the same time.

How Jurassic Plankton Stole Control of the Ocean’s Chemistry | Quanta Magazine

Only 170 million years ago, new plankton evolved. Their demand for carbon and calcium permanently transformed the seas as homes for life.

www.quantamagazine.org

More CO2 means easier photosynthesis but it also makes their shells weak and/or simply dissolve. To exacerbate the situation, we're changing the ocean's PH much, much faster than evolution can keep up.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So increasing CO2 helps phytoplanktons, while microplastics is the main problem for phytoplanktons? Are climate models adding microplastics to the effects? I only recently started hearing about microplastics. How long have we known about the effects of microplastics on phytoplankton and phytoplankton’s role in reducing CO2?

You say that climate is a top concern of yours. It's easy to find detailed and in depth answers to the questions you've been asking.

We've known microplastics are everywhere, even in the rain, for around a decade or more. We've suspected that they were detrimental, so we've been conducting studies for a while now. It takes time to conduct sound and reliable studies. Over the last few years, the results of those studies have been coming in and it's bad news for every living thing on this planet.

Phytoplanktons aren't just getting extra CO2. Other changes to their environments are a life threat to them. If I put you in an acid bath or lock you in a 110°F room, no amount of extra oxygen is going to keep you alive.

Don't know if climate models are factoring microplastics or not. My guess is probably not yet or they are just starting to incorporate them. You first have to know how something effects the climate before you can factor it into a model. It takes years of studying to get just a general idea of how a newly discovered factor effects the climate. And then decades of refining that understanding through continual studying.

Don't take my word for any of the above answers. You should actively search for the answers from credible scientific sources yourself. One can't claim to be a high information person if they aren't actively seeking information for themself.

 

[Dragon]

Gas and brakes at the same time.

How Jurassic Plankton Stole Control of the Ocean’s Chemistry | Quanta Magazine

Only 170 million years ago, new plankton evolved. Their demand for carbon and calcium permanently transformed the seas as homes for life.

www.quantamagazine.org

More CO2 means easier photosynthesis but it also makes their shells weak and/or simply dissolve. To exacerbate the situation, we're changing the ocean's PH much, much faster than evolution can keep up.

Here is a list of very good UN Scientific research of the impact of Microplastic on everything in our environment.

https://www.unep.org/resources/filt...rt_by=publication_date/sort_order=desc/page=0

 

[MT15]

Gas and brakes at the same time.

How Jurassic Plankton Stole Control of the Ocean’s Chemistry | Quanta Magazine

Only 170 million years ago, new plankton evolved. Their demand for carbon and calcium permanently transformed the seas as homes for life.

www.quantamagazine.org

More CO2 means easier photosynthesis but it also makes their shells weak and/or simply dissolve. To exacerbate the situation, we're changing the ocean's PH much, much faster than evolution can keep up.

I think the pH change is potentially very damaging - IIRC.

 

[Lapaz]

You say that climate is a top concern of yours. It's easy to find detailed and in depth answers to the questions you've been asking.

We've known microplastics are everywhere, even in the rain, for around a decade or more. We've suspected that they were detrimental, so we've been conducting studies for a while now. It takes time to conduct sound and reliable studies. Over the last few years, the results of those studies have been coming in and it's bad news for every living thing on this planet.

Phytoplanktons aren't just getting extra CO2. Other changes to their environments are a life threat to them. If I put you in an acid bath or lock you in a 110°F room, no amount of extra oxygen is going to keep you alive.

Don't know if climate models are factoring microplastics or not. My guess is probably not yet or they are just starting to incorporate them. You first have to know how something effects the climate before you can factor it into a model. It takes years of studying to get just a general idea of how a newly discovered factor effects the climate. And then decades of refining that understanding through continual studying.

Don't take my word for any of the above answers. You should actively search for the answers from credible scientific sources yourself. One can't claim to be a high information person if they aren't actively seeking information for themself.

What is your problem with me asking a question before doing my own research? I asked some questions here, because reading some of the technical material is hard to understand, and it seems some people have expertise. I'm asking to learn from some here, but of course I will also do my own research. If no one can ask a question to learn, and must do all of their own research before posing questions, that diminishes the value of the board and its expertise. The climate is a top concern of mine, but not because I'm an expert, but because I have read enough to make it a top concern, and I trust that experts are certain that manmade CO2 is one of, it not, the most critical factor. That doesn't quantify how extreme our actions should be, because the climate is complex, and we're still learning about how it is adjusting and what affects it.

You acknowledge that microplastic is only recently being considered as a source of climate change, and there may not be enough information to model the effect. Part of the point I made earlier, which you responded to via another poster, was that those such uncertainties make it understandable for people to be skeptical, because it highlights that the climate is still not well understood. It could be that we're doomed or that we still have time to compensate, and I don't think anyone knows for sure. That's what causes resistance to some of the change proposals. If we are doomed, then people are going to give up and not act. If we can compensate, then the big unknown is how much do we have to do? I think honest experts disagree on the extent of the changes that we need to make. Do we need to stop using all fossil fuels, which is an extreme that is practically impossible? Do we need just to reduce our use to levels from a few years ago, and develop other compensation technologies? That is achievable. If our models are only adding factors that are tuning the climate models, then that won't add skepticism, but if we're finding factors that can alter the results drastically, that will add to skepticism. I assume microplastics are only a tuning factor. If they are a big factor that only makes matters far worse, then that starts to lead me to potentially being doomed. In the meantime, I try to do my part to reduce my carbon impact, because I can afford to do it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What is your problem with me asking a question before doing my own research?

I don't have a problem with you asking questions to learn. Sometimes after people make statements, you'll ask argumentative questions while admitting you don't know that what they said isn't true and then you make an argument against what they said, after you said you don't know. It seems like contrarian behavior to me.

I asked some questions here, because reading some of the technical material is hard to understand, and it seems some people have expertise.

I'm not a climatologist and I don't think anyone else on here is. We know what we know from reading technical material. That doesn't make someone an expert. It just makes them curious to learn and well read.

Do we need to stop using all fossil fuels, which is an extreme that is practically impossible?

This is an example of the argumentative nature of your questions. You're not just asking a question, you're making a declarative statement and you offer no explanation or justification for your statement. You think it's true, so to you it's true.

It is actually possible to eliminate nearly all fossil fuel usage with the multiple technologies we currently have available. It's an issue of will, not ability.

Do we need just to reduce our use to levels from a few years ago, and develop other compensation technologies? That is achievable.

Here's another example of argumentative questioning. There's nothing wrong with using questions to make an argument, but it's important for us to know when we are doing it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think the pH change is potentially very damaging - IIRC.

It doesn't take much pH change toward higher acidity or alkalinity to trigger a massive die off event that could turn into a mass extinction event.