Stercutus wrote:Please show us all the evidence of how climate change has caused significant extinctions of species to date. Not like "maybe it will" or "threatened" or "at risk" due to climate change. Show us what percentage of species went extinct from climate change so far.
Where did I make that claim? Here's a clue: I didn't. That was a strawman brought to the thread by Supervisor42:
Supervisor42 wrote:i like how they just start off with "human-induced"; Like it's a given.
Well, it's global climate change from CO2 emissions! Any idiot can see that!
Is that clear enough? It wasn't a claim by me, by the authors of the paper, or the IPCC. It was a strawman claim from the denial side.
Stercutus wrote:even for East Anglia.
Pssst. Your "I get my science from right wing political blogs" is showing.
Stercutus wrote:If he can show the mass extinction it is related to climate change then it would be on topic. Since he won't shut up about it he should at least present some kind of evidence instead of a bunch of nothing.
What I did was object to people ranting about the IPCC as though they had one fucking clue about what it is, what it does, and what it says when they clearly don't. Is that clear enough?
Climate change, and specifically anthropogenic climate change is incredibly relevant to the issue of the Sixth Extinction going forward
, as other papers written by the authors of this study have written and as they mention in their discussion:
Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species and to alleviate pressures on their populations—notably habitat loss, overexploitation for economic gain, and climate change (31–33). All of these are related to human population size and growth, which increases consumption (especially among the rich), and economic inequity (6). However, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
What they're saying is that we're poised to cause a mass extinction rivaling those of the Big Five if we don't do some things differently, including how we deal with the issue of anthropogenic climate change. They're not blaming all or even most of the present extinction on climate change, they're talking about how future climate change is one of the things that will make it even worse. Is that clear enough?
The amount of climate change humans have already caused is detectable and has had negative consequences. But what we're really worried about is not the relatively modest increase in radiative forcing we've already caused, it's the much larger perturbation of the system in a world of "business as usual" GHG emissions. The magnitude of change we've already caused isn't huge, but the rate is geologically unprecedented and this is even more the case when discussing unchecked emission scenarios.
Climate change, specifically climate change associated with large pulses of carbon from large igneous provinces, has been implicated in other mass extinctions, including several of the Big Five, including the worst one of all, the Permian-Triassic.
Climate change is relevant to the Sixth Extinction.
That doesn't mean I or the authors or the IPCC or mainstream science blamed anthropogenic climate change for the totality or even much of the current extinction event.
If you want to civilly discuss how climate change will act as a threat multiplier to exacerbate the other anthropogenic stressors which have caused most of the biodiversity loss so far, we can do that. If you want to civilly discuss how climate change can directly lead to biodiversity loss (particularly in the oceans), we can do that. If you want to talk about what the mainstream predictions of science are and are not, we can do that.
Ball's in your court. Hope that brings things suitably back on topic.