> However, this is not the same as evolving to OFFSET climate change. The study itself suggests they may evolve rapidly enough for themselves, not for us. You also state that some species may propagate even faster because of this. While true, this argument is actually one of the more concerning ones among biologists who study algae: the same effect causes harmful blooms in cyanobacteria. As expected, then, harmful algal blooms are on the rise in both
intensity and
frequency.
The problem with that argument is the scientists focus on one species in one study. That's fine for understanding a principle. However, if the climate changed drastically, then every single species of plant, algae, insect, and lifeform would be fighting for survival. The rates for every species would drastically increase until a balance is achieved. It is impossible to know how every species would compete with each other for survive-ability in any given situation. All we know is that every species will do its best to adapt and survive. Thus, saying that rising temperatures will kill "x" many species, and sending the ecosystem into a deathward spiral in which there is no recovery is an extreme hypothetical argument. You could make the counter argument that changing the climate will evolve more species that are better capable of dealing with the climactic change. Humans will be fine regardless. Sure, civilization may take a step backwards in some parts of the world, but no more than a carrington event would cause.
> I did a little more digging. Not only is this false, it couldn’t
possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of
sampling stations around the globe.
I should have clarified that I meant a super volcano (caldera). That is the most extreme example, but it would release more debris into the upper atmosphere than all of our human activities combined. Although we do not have any current scientific data, we do have historical data. We have had several massive volcanic eruptions within human history that have seen global temperatures drop by 3-5 degrees.
" The
1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a
stratovolcano (which is smaller than a caldera) in
Indonesia caused what came to be known as the "
Year Without a Summer" of 1816. Europe, still recuperating from the
Napoleonic Wars, suffered from food shortages. Food riots broke out in the
United Kingdom and
France, and grain warehouses were looted. The violence was worst in landlocked
Switzerland, where
famine caused the government to declare a national emergency. Huge storms and abnormal rainfall with flooding of
Europe's major rivers (including the
Rhine) are attributed to the event, as is the August frost. A major
typhus epidemic occurred in Ireland between 1816 and 1819, precipitated by the famine. An estimated 100,000 Irish perished during this period. A BBC documentary, using figures compiled in Switzerland, estimated that the fatality rates in 1816 were twice that of average years, giving an approximate European fatality total of 200,000 deaths. The corn crop in Northeastern
North America failed, due to mid-summer frosts in
New York State and June snowfalls in
New England and
Newfoundland and Labrador The crop failures in New England, Canada, and parts of Europe also caused the price of wheat, grains, meat, vegetables, butter, milk, and flour to rise sharply. "
My point in talking about volcanoes is that one natural event has the ability to immediately alter global climate much quicker than any individual nation on earth. Yes, we should watch our pollution (China, India, I'm looking at you guys), but preparing doomsday scenarios for manmade climate change is ridiculous. Saying we have 12 years left is laughable. If humans continue to reproduce at the current rate, we will run out of clean fresh water long before the ecological effects of any carbon emissions would cause a problem.
Let's say every nation on earth completely cleans up all industrial pollution and we are all zero emission nations. Then multiple super volcanoes erupt and cause mass death, crop failure, sickness, etc... All of the lowering of emissions would be essentially worthless, because there are much bigger problems that can occur in nature that we didn't prepare for.
Like I said, clean water is the big one. Following that, I would say soil conditions. Then overpopulation. All of these could be solved within a decade or so without committing genocide, but the people in charge don't want to solve the real problems. They just want to create problems. Because when you create problems, then there's never a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.
