"Global Warming (Climate Change) Inevitable? Then Terraform?" Topic

Sorry if the title sounds cryptic, but I was running out of room.

This is what I wish the title had been:

"What If It Were Impossible To Stop Or Slow Down Global Warming (Climate Change), Should We Begin Adapting To It Then?"

In other words, should we be preparing to "terraform" the areas that we know are going to thaw? Or, at lthe very east, shouldn't we start thinking about adapting to that eventuality? It's adapt or die, right?

There is very little in the way of real vegetation in Antarctica, or at least that's what I keep seeing in photos and shows. So it wouldn't be like introducing cane toads to a rich, full and diverse ecosystem like Australia, right?

Sooner or later the currents and birds are going to spread seeds and spores to Antarctica (if they haven't already done so). So why not plan for the spread of humans into thawed areas, which is what humans have done* for thousands of years? But instead of leaving it completely to chance, why not prepare now for an intentional transplantation of arctic tundra flora at some point in the future?

Thoughts?

Dan
* Such as when early humans moved north into areas of Northern Europe and North America once occupied by massive glaciers.

What if the day when things thaw out down there that the original vegetation and animals will partially come back on there own?

Some amphibians can be frozen solid and return to life when they thaw out.

I had a cherry tomatoes plant come up in the garden this year. I have not had cherry tomatoes planted in over 10 years.

People worry its getting to hot, never seemed to bother the dinosaurs and there world was all tropical jungle with no ice caps at all.

Exactly what I'm asking. If we can't beat the "heat", then why not start adapting to it?

Dan

The current thinking is that we will have to do both. Most Climatologists say (and I accept their evidence) that even if we stopped using our air as a free wast dump there is a lot of pain in our future. part of the reason for places like link is to give ourselves the material to work with in our adaptation (it has lots of other uses).

Antarctica and Greenland will not give us as much useful land as most think as much of both are below current sea levels and a lot of soil conditioning will be needed as the top soil has been scraped of by the ice.

x42

The arctic tundra has a lot of vegetation that might work for transplantation to Antarctica at some point, right?

And if the Arctic sounds too Alien and drastic a source for flora, why not consider some of the vegetation already native to the islands on the outskirts of the Antarctic circle, like the South Georgia and Falkland (Malvinas) islands?

link

Bird migration patterns might change a little too, once these areas become more hospitable to them. This could be the first step of that transformation, wouldn't you think?

To me trying to stop planetary cycles feels like trying to stop puberty or menopause. Why not accept the change and make the most of the new opportunities made open by the change?

Dan
PS. This is Northern Alaska:

These tuxedoed inhabitants of the Falklands (Malvinas) and South Georgia would love to have their range in Antarctica extended, I'm sure. :)

The other birds on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands would See it as a big bonus too.

Tierra del Fuego:

And, wherever these guys go, their natural predators (albatros, orcas, skuas) are sure to follow.

Dan

People worry its getting to hot, never seemed to bother the dinosaurs and there world was all tropical jungle with no ice caps at all.

That is a gross oversimplification.

The 3 periods of the dinosaurs were not all tropical jungles.

In the Triassic, all the land was in a single mass called Pangaea. More land was centred around the equator than any time since, and yes, it was on average hotter than now (mid to high 30's) with very little temperature fluctuations. The lands at the coasts were wet and muggy, but the interior was dry.

The Jurassic period sees Pangaea breaking up into two large land masses. These land masses drift away from the equator and we see some dramatic cooling. Also, we get more fluctuations in temperatures. The interiors of the large land masses are still dry.

By the Cretaceous, the land masses have broken up even further to represent the continents we know of today. The temperatures cool even more to almost today's levels (about 3 degrees warmer). As the continents begin to drift further away from the equatorial areas, we get much more fluctuations in temperature. Antarctica broke off of Africa and went south. By 20 million years ago it was a frozen forest and tundra. By 15 million years ago Antarctica looked pretty well as it does today.

As for the dinosaurs, at the beginning of the Cretaceous, they had the greatest biodiversity ever. By the end of the same era, it now seems like most species of dinosaurs were in decline. Basically, extinction rates went up, and speciation rates went down. It may be that the K-P extinction meteor may have been unnecessary and was just the "coup de grace".

To say that dinosaurs preferred hot and muggy weather belies some of the more recent findings. New fossils suggest that some dinosaurs were endotherms (warm blooded) and that the evolution of the feathered dinosaurs were due to thermoregulation. It's not surprising that these findings belong to the Cretaceous period.

Something also new to the scientific findings are O2 levels during the Mesozoic era. During the early Triassic period it seems like there were low atmospheric O2 levels (about 10-15%). By the Cretaceous the O2 levels may have been as high as 30% (a good thing for the gigantic dinosaurs that evolved in this time). It has since dropped to the current 21%. This drop may have occurred towards the end of the Cretaceous thereby selecting for the smaller feathered therapods that eventually evolved into birds.

The arctic tundra has a lot of vegetation that might work for transplantation to Antarctica at some point, right?

Depends on the soil, and the biomass within.

In other words, should we be preparing to "terraform" the areas that we know are going to thaw?

Sure.

How do you terraform so the positive feedback cycle of CO2 release due to the tundra warming won't take effect?
What do you do for the temperate areas that will become hotter?
How do you terraform against greater droughts?
How do you terraform against topsoil erosion?
How do you terraform against the resulting ecosystem collapses?
How do you terraform against the acidification of the oceans?

There is a lot more to this than figuring if Artic blueberries can be transplanted to Antarctica.

Don't worry, be happy. Life adapts. It always has and it always will. And perhaps, the earth is moving back into balance and current conditions have been an "out of balance" planetary state for a long time.

We live in exciting times, enjoy the ride!

Ya, great attitude. Someone else can figure it out.

We live in exciting times, enjoy the ride!

Isn't that like the Chinese curse?

And perhaps, the earth is moving back into balance and current conditions have been an "out of balance" planetary state for a long time.

The Earth is never in balance, meaning it never remains the same. It changes all the time. However, it does so at geological time scales. That way animals can adapt and evolve. Scientists say that we are actuall throwing this out of balance, to use your phrase.

Again, check temperature changes during the Mesozoic (the era of the dinosaurs) . Average temperatures may have dropped 10 degrees C in those 200 million years or so. That's normal for the Earth. Average Earth temperature has risen .5 degrees C in the last 100 years. That is unlike geological changes.

And where did you get the average daily, monthly, yearly, etc. temperatures for the Mesozoic, Bowman???

AGW/CCC seems to have started with the invention of the thermometer and widespread daily temperature records.

Prior to that all there are are proxies with high granularity and a significant susceptibility to interpretation.

Get rid of thermometers and daily records and the problem is solved…

Cancer didn't exist until doctors started doing tests, if doctors stop doing tests the problem would be solved.

Well Gunfreak, give me the rise in cancer incidence and death rates over the last million years with fractional percent accuracy and a confidence level approaching certainty.

That is pretty much what the climatologists are doing and then predicting apocalyptic consequences if society doesn't quit burning carbon based fuels.

And not unlike that prescription, we can cut down the number of deaths due to cancer by just having people die before 50 as they did for so much of history (although there are those who want to make that age 65…).

Back to my previous comment – you nor any climatologist has any hard data on rates at which temperatures rose or declined 200 million years ago or even 1000 years ago. Before the thermometer and world wide record keeping it is all inferred from proxies.

Calculating a worldwide average to one hundredth of a degree and then proclaiming hottest day, week, month, or year ever is specious. And proclaiming fractional increases in atmospheric CO2 to be the culprit is even more so.

We need a "facepalm" emoticon.

We need a "facepalm" emoticon.

I'm reaching for a belt of scotch.

goragrad

Calculating a worldwide average to one hundredth of a degree and then proclaiming hottest day, week, month, or year ever is specious. And proclaiming fractional increases in atmospheric CO2 to be the culprit is even more so.

For the Nth time, all of the "Records" are based on the modern instrument record . This might not filter down to the popular press (or conveniently ignored by people who want to argue in bad faith and then mindlessly repeated by the consumers of a hermetically sealed epistemological media environment).

We know that the world was much hotter in previous geological epochs. For example the Devonian(420mya-360mya) was about 6 degrees C hotter than today – on average. But understanding this also requires acceptance of a non-biblical genesis. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Speaking of records … if they are to be believed then we have yet to reach the high temperatures that typically follow a natural glacial cycle, with or without the presence of humans. If anything, the current inter-glacial seems to be one of the coolest ones on record.

So perhaps it is precisely our appearance on the planet that has brought on our unusually mild temperatures!*

Nah, I doubt it. Just like I doubt that we are contributing as much to the warming as our modern media and alarmist academia would have us believe. We never even hear them mention what percent of the change is due to natural cyclical causes, which I always find to be more than just a bit deceitful. They typically lead the public to believe that all of it is due to our existence on the planet.

Dan
* This clearly goes against current dogma, so I'm sure that simply suggesting such a thing will be judged as blasphemy by some of the really diehard and humorless AGW zealots, even if I said it as a joke. :)

Global warming denialist tactic 43:
Lie, or misrepresent reality. Than end with "this goes against dogma" so when I'm called on my lies/fantasies I can claim real science is domatic while I'm a free thinker.

In the end, creationists, anti vaxxers, flat earthers and anti global warming idiots are all just variations on a themes, same tacitcs, same faulty "logic" and same dishonesty.

Napthyme: "What if the day (comes) when things thaw out down there that the original vegetation and animals will partially come back on their own?"

That's always a possibility, though there's also the likelihood that they might have been frozen solid for much too long.

So, if we plan for that now, instead of whining about change and leaving any newly thawed ground bare, we might be able to introduce flora that could hold the Antarctic soil in place.

If we are proactive about it, the thawed areas of Antarctica could one day look as fabulous as the Gates of the Arctic National Park in Alaska. If we really believe that the rich arctic wildlife and flora are endangered, then we should be looking for ways to transplant some of it elsewhere, as these opportunities open up to us.

Dan

When it comes to recent climatic "statistics," we must remember that figures don't lie.

But liars do figure.

The word is warming, and has been since the middle of the 19th Century. Don't look at the statistics, look at the weather that influences battles/campaigns then, and look at the present.

No question of warming, but every question as to what extent human activity is involved.

And, for Heaven's sake, quit harping about CO2--if anything can seriously affect the atmosphere, it's the incalculable volume of methane thawing out of the taiga that has 100 times the affect per part over CO2.

Yes, as the world warms, more methane leaves the permafrost, so "global warming" may indeed tend to accelerate, but human activity would be the least of it.

Oh, and the permafrost--wherever it is--thaws out with every period of warming throughout time, and still the planet has kept on ticking.

And when someday the rains cease to fall in the Northern Hemisphere, they will in the South. So why not Australia as the bread basket of the world?

For some, "Climate Change" is the new religion of those who have little of any other.

Two cents, love it or leave it.

TVAG

There is no question of warming. Except in the 1960's and 1970's when I learned in school we were approaching a new ice age.

I don't buy any of it and I am not changing any of my lifestyle to accommodate some scientist theory of the climate.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Nope, it's the CO2.

Here's Richard Alley talking about CO2 being the control knob of earth's temperatures. As far as keynote lectures at the AGU, this is about as good as it gets.
YouTube link

Also, from the IPCC5 Chapter 8, figure 17:

Mostly due to residence time. Even though CH4 is more potent gram for gram, it has a very short residence time, and thus it's the hare to CO2's tortoise. The short residence time of atmospheric methane is also why planetary scientists are going gaga over trace measurements of methane on Mars – on the timescale we're talking about, the only source of methane we know of is bacterial…

More reason to populate any newly thawed ground with living things that will absorb the CO2, instead of trying to comparmentalize every single ecosystem.

Dan

As a friend who is originally from Denmark tells me, Greenland's towns and settlements are growing in number, crops are booming, and everyone who actually lives there sees great opportunities developing:

link
link

The tundra is spreading, caribou and musk oxen are multiplying, and even the rivers are filling up with fish, and creating a new fly fishing, game and wildlife tourism industry.

Instead of crying over lemons they see lots of potential for lemonade. The same could happen elsewhere, wherever the ice happens to recede.

Dan

You do realise that slightly more food for the few thousand people living on Greenland isn't going to compensate for the fact that billions of people will loose access to food?

Dan, if you are actually being serious, it is actually difficult to transplant plants to different latitudes. It's not just the temperature. It also depends on the degree of sunlight and the nature of the topsoil.

No matter how warm Greenland gets they will never be able to grow coffee, cotton, or (to borrow from your phrase) lemons. Latitude is the determining hurdle, not longitude. Something that grows well in Denmark could be transplanted successfully in Greenland as that is mostly a longitudinal translation.

For a better understanding of this I would refer you to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

Bowman

I meant helping the spread of tundra flora in Greenland, by using mosses, grasses and low shrubs that already grow in northern Canada and Iceland. Perhaps even those in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Findland).

I'm taking about helping to cover any ground that has been made bare.

By the way, my friend says that potatoes and other crops (including tulips) do seem to do very well in Greenland. With the slow spread of tundra flora inland, char and other river fish are also booming and bringing renewed growth to the fly fishing tourism industry. Musk oxen and caribou are fatter (healthier) and having more calves. More foxes and rabbits too. Wolves are spotted again by locals on occasion. Even the polar bear population* has grown since census figures from the 90s.

Spreading the cold weather flora North right now might help keep all those numbers up in the future. It's what Nature will do anyway, eventually. So why not help it along?

The point I'm making is that people there seem to be making amazing progress with the new opportunities the thawed ice has offered. They are even taking tourists to bathe in thermal springs that had been covered by glacial ice until now.

The same could be done in Antarctica, with hardy flora brought in from South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the Falklands (Malvinas). The penguins and seals seem to love it and make long trips to get to that flora already. Their numbers in Antarctica would certainly boom.

Dan
* He took pictures of polar bears that are having more cubs than usual.

Life is great if you only look at one side of the ledger.

Polar bear numbers are actually decreasing on both the Canadian side of the Arctic and in Greenland. The bear populations are increasing in the north of both areas, but not the total bear populations. The bears are moving northward as the melt continues. This is according to Erik W Born.

link

link

You will have to learn about the "positive feedback cycles" coming to bear. One is the destruction of the climate modulating effect Greenland has due to the Albedo effect. Another is the increased CO2 being released from the thawing permafrost. These positive feedback cycles are why the rate of temperature increase is greater in the Arctic than in the rest of the world.

link

Three newspaper articles to help explain this better:

link

link

link

Like Martin says, you are looking at one side of the ledger.

link

Ha! I love that one. The Inuit in Greenland say there are more than ever and travel guides are spotting more also. Local officials say the same thing.

It's funny how data from previous decades (in this case the 1990s) is considered flawed when they show that the population is increasing. When it shows a decrease, it's suddenly becomes the baseline that environmentalists prefer.

Anyway, the point of this discussion is to make the most of what is already happening. Plan and plant ahead.

Dan

Martin: "Life is great if you only look at one side of the ledger"

And always bleak when you only look at the other side. :)

Dan

Dan, so hearsay trumps the actual science? The bears are moving northward. That is where the Inuit see them. The bears are ranging less than they did before. Look at the Born articles. He is the guy counting the bears for the Danish government. But I guess your friend knows better.

And always bleak when you only look at the other side. :)

So you ignored the other links?

"We can see that the total prevalence of polar bears in Baffin Bay has been reduced considerably by about 30 percent," Born told Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq.

"The polar bears have move up northwards. They have become very isolated. We can also see that the bears are thinner and have a reduced reproduction capacity."

Born said the northern population in Kane Bassin has been reaping the rewards of global warming as the ice pack had broken up and provided the bears with more food sources.

This is the quote from the link both of us gave. Doesn't really look like "the baseline that environmentalists prefer".

If it's actually coming, I will join many others in welcoming whatever Climate Change happens, because I feel that we should adapt to Nature's cycles and mood swings. It's what the creatures and flora have done in Greenland and elsewhere for ages, many times over, long before polar bears developed as a separate species.

link

Nature doesn't isolate and compartmentalize ecosystems the way environmentalists seem to want to do. Weather/Climate Change Happens. Extinctions Happen.

As for whom I believe … that's really up to me. I believe my eyes and ears, and those of the people who have earned my trust. That doesn't necessarily include people with ulterior motives who only see grants "in them hills", and who want us to see the end of the world behind every little cloud.

I used to have a lot of faith* in the scientific community. I really did. But I dont get the feeling that environmentalists are looking to observe Nature objectively any longer. The researchers seem to go to sites only to prove their preconceived notions and, naturally, they see exactly what they want to see (and whatever gets them the acceptance of their peers, or course). And no, I don't need charts and figures to sense that. It's too obvious to deny at this stage.

Dan
* I've gone from believer to "agnostic" when it comes to alarmist environmentalism, though the fanatics would immediately lump me together with the deniers because of that.

"Actual science " nowadays seems to mean " this is what I say based on facts they way I interpreted them. I'm right, your wrong, and if you don't agree with me you're evil!" What we need is not a facepalm emoji, we need a tantrum emoji.

Captain of the Gate: "What we need is not a facepalm emoji, we need a tantrum emoji."

Lol. Or an Inquisition or a Pilgrim heretic or witch hunt emoji. :)

Dan

You do realize it's the climate change deniers that would burn Galileo, Galileo came with "uncomfortable facts" that the church didn't like.

Today it's the scientists that come with "uncomfortable facts" in both cases it's the conservatives that want nothing to change that want the old to stay forever.

"Actual science " nowadays seems to mean " this is what I say based on facts they way I interpreted them. I'm right, your wrong, and if you don't agree with me you're evil!"

Wow, just Wow. Project and Hyperbole much? Who is calling anyone evil? What witch hunt? Burning deniers at the stake? Bit of a martyr complex going on here. Can you show me who is having a tantrum? I think the facepalm emoji is all that is necessary.

As far as interpreting the data, that is what science actually does. If you don't agree with the interpretation don't attack the interpreter, find better data to support a new interpretation.

….only to prove their preconceived notions and, naturally, they see exactly what they want to see (and whatever gets them the acceptance of their peers, or course). And no, I don't need charts and figures to sense that. It's too obvious to deny at this stage.

You mean like you going on and on about how cool it is that someone is planting potatoes in Greenland. Yet when someone links to problems about the start of a thawing Greenland producing positive feedback cycles involving dropping albedo effects and releasing more CO2 from the permafrost…….nothing. See what you want to see.

Geesh. I'm talking about making the best of the thaw. What is so darn wrong about that? It's like I just blasphemed or did something equally horrific.

If I accept the possibility that man is partly to blame for some of the warming/change/whatever, consider that a win and stop the darn all-or-nothing inquisition attitude.

This zealot feedback, and how everything under the Sun is being blamed on the current climate dogma 24/7, is precisely why I now consider myself a skeptic instead of a believer. I didn't say denier, mind you, but I could be pushed there one day if the yet-unconvinced continued to be treated as if they were willful heretics who need to be either forced into full compliance or stamped out.

Dan

Geesh. I'm talking about making the best of the thaw. What is so darn wrong about that? It's like I just blasphemed or did something equally horrific……..stop the darn all-or-nothing inquisition attitude.

Again, what's with the hyperbole? Blaspheming? Inquisition? Sheesh. Take the hyperbole down a few notches.

To answer your question. There is nothing wrong with Greenlanders being able to plant more foods due to the warming. But this warming comes at a cost. Ignoring that is simply "looking at one side of the ledger".

No one is attacking you, no one is calling you names, and no one is being persecuted or burned at any stake. Ignoring the downside is not the way to deal with a problem. Pointing that out is not the same as an Inquisition.

Unfortunately for the "true believers" there are so many examples of them changing, massaging, and mis-representing their "supporting science" that basically their arguments are facetious.

Hence, only the kool-aid drinkers still believe.

If I say donkeys is a kind berry, and scientist say no, donkeys are mammals.
It doesn't mean they are burning heretics, it doesn't mean scientists are fanatical true believers. It just makes them factually correct.

This might be a bit dry, but this is probably the best current look at the difference between 1.5C and 2C warming. PDF link CanbonBrief has a popular translation here link And to fill by quota of pictures and graphs:

But what you might find interesting is that it shows that some regions and crops have it better under warmer climates, the net effect is that the vast majority is worse off. It's like spending 200 bucks to win a 10$ bet.

As for caribou, they are in dire straights. From a Gov of Quebec report in 2012:
PDF link

1. Recruitment rates are declining across the region as a consequence of cumulative increases in range disturbance.
2. Overall adult (female) survival is also declining, and this condition is exacerbated by the subsistence harvest.
3. Current amounts of cumulative range disturbance are in excess of what is theoretically required in order to ensure population persistence (i.e. demographic tolerance thresholds).
4.At present all three populations (i.e. the Assinica, Nottaway and Temiscamie) are considered not self-­‐sustaining (NSS) and current declines are predicted to worsen in the coming years as critical habitat is further eroded.

I have no idea what the number of Caribou are or were in Canada.

The information I have is only about Greenland, from a friend who was born in Denmark but who has lived in Greenland for most of his adult life. He lives in a small town in the west called Sisimiut, but constantly crosses the arctic circle trail to the eastern coast and back.

He makes his life as a guide and can tell you exactly what he and the Inuit locals have observed and experienced all their lives. And he knows very well how the climate researchers conduct their count and how the data is interpreted. He has taken them everywhere, including the north, and knows how they only focus on what will support their conclusions*.

I trust him and his assessment of the fauna, flora and even the thermal pools that have been under the glacier for ages until now. I would put my life in his hands without a second thought. I can't really say the same about those who contradict the informed islanders, specially those who have already formed their opinions and conclusions long before setting foot there.

And that is all I have to say about the subject of trust.

Dan
* For example, some researchers say there are no longer any wolves in West Greenland, despite the fact that the locals have spotted them, heard them and seen their tracks and their kills on more than a few occasions. I trust the locals can tell the difference between a wolf and a fox.

And he knows very well how the climate researchers conduct their count and how the data is interpreted. He has taken them everywhere, including the north, and knows how they only focus on what will support their conclusions*.

I call BS, Dan. He conducts the "climate researchers" who do the count? You are conflating the biologists studying the wildlife, such as the bears , carbon, etc. and climate scientists who study the climate. Such a gaff indicates to me that neither you or he are in any position to criticize how the wildlife biologists go about their business.

And how would he know about their conclusions? Are you trying to tell us the biologists are writing up their publications right there in the field? So your friend can eavesdrop on their conclusions? The data collecting is done in the field, Dan. The collation, analysis and interpretation of the data takes place back at the university or institute, and happens quite a bit later.

Sorry, I don't believe you.