Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I'd endorse Hodj's opinion on peer review also, but he is debating Furry so it seems redundant to do so.
I really wasn't debating Furry. Just pointing out that he can't engage on this topic with any substance.

This conversation ended two nights ago, I dunno why its started back up today, but I'm not going to let him just strawman me without a response.
 

BrotherWu

MAGA
<Silver Donator>
3,259
6,502
A friend of mine, who is pretty far left in her politics (I'm more of a center person), mentioned the other day that someone we both know should visit the Florida Keys because the (the Keys) would be disappearing soon. It seems to me that politics is somehow inextricably linked to the whole discussion on climate change (which I am told is no longer open to debate) and I feel like you have to be an expert to really know what is actually going on.

So, I wonder if an expert can comment on the second chart in the following link. I'll post the image as well:

rrr_img_105531.jpg


Joe Bastardi: All This for .01 Degrees Celsius? - The Patriot Post

I must admit that when people start talking about anthropogenic global climate change, I tend to scoff just a little not because I doubt that it could be occurring but that when I look on the larger geological scale, our impact seems insignificant.
Between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, not all that long, my house was covered by a glacier. Not trying to be a smart ass, just genuinely trying to understand what is going on without the politics or earning a degree in the process. It seems like we are at the mercy of systems well beyond our influence.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Well, I'm not an expert in climatology, but the chemistry behind greenhouses gasses is sound, in that the carbon-oxygen double bond absolutely vibrates at the same frequency as photons of light which are reflected off the Earth, and converts that photonic energy to heat energy, which is then released back into the atmosphere, raising the temperature of the planet.

The fear is that raising the temperature and melting the ice caps will result in releasing ever higher quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, eventually creating a self reinforcing cycle that cannot be prevented, that will result in essentially turning Earth's atmosphere into a Venus style atmosphere.

To say we simply cannot effect it seems incorrect, but I'm not entirely sold on the premise that the sky is falling, either.

I also think there are probably solutions, such as potentially removing excess carbon from the atmosphere and placing it back underground in carbon sinks of our own, artifical creation.

However, we are seeing colony collapse in parts of the ocean where higher than average temperatures are being noted, the bee die off may be related to climate change as well.

Whether we result in a catastrophe of Venusian proportions may or may not be viable, but rapid climate change will most definitely result in radically altered environments and habitats, and more loss of animal life. We are seeing a mass extinction, much of which is related to human activity in a multitude of ways, not just climatically.

I dunno, man. Like I said, I'm not completely sold on the sky is falling in this regards, either. Higher CO2 levels might lead to more plant growth.

I think the question is less "Will anthropogenic climate change destroy the planet" and more "Can we survive the rapid changes in environment and temperature as a species if it occurs?"

Our evolutionary path is heavily linked with rapid climate change patterns in the past, we know this to be true. But there wasn't 7 billion of us all needing to eat and share the whole planet when that was happening. I could see a situation where we kill off a lot of life on the planet, kill ourselves off, temperatures dramatically rise, but life continues to perpetuate and the planet survives us. Not that that's ideal for us, but it might be for the planet.
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
I could see a situation where we kill off a lot of life on the planet, kill ourselves off, temperatures dramatically rise, but life continues to perpetuate and the planet survives us. Not that that's ideal for us, but it might be for the planet.
I dont see how this is not assumed to be an almost guaranteed outcome. Something like 95% of species have gone extinct? I doubt we are that much different.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I dont see how this is not assumed to be an almost guaranteed outcome. Something like 95% of species have gone extinct? I doubt we are that much different.
Yeah, if the dinosaurs can go extinct, we can too. Agree.

But yeah I mean the nature of existence over time is that species decline and go extinct, so it makes sense that 95%+ of all species that have been alive at some point in Earth's history have died off.

The difference is we're ostensibly intelligent enough we should be able to at minimum try to prevent making ourselves go extinct. Not that we can control all the variables. Big enough comet comes flying out of orbit at some point in the future, which is probably inevitable at some point, there's not a lot we could do about it.

IRT the climate change topic:

There is a good bit of evidence that during sharp increases in temperature, species go extinct. Now it may be that it affects larger species more than smaller species, or more specially adapted species more than less highly specialized species. But the case remains that it seems like when shit gets warmer, more shit dies off.

Abrupt warming events drove Late Pleistocene Holarctic megafaunal turnover

The mechanisms of Late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions remain fiercely contested, with human impact or climate change cited as principal drivers. Here, we compare ancient DNA and radiocarbon data from 31 detailed time series of regional megafaunal extinctions/replacements over the past 56,000 years with standard and new combined records of Northern Hemisphere climate in the Late Pleistocene.Unexpectedly, rapid climate changes associated with interstadial warming events are strongly associated with the regional replacement/extinction of major genetic clades or species of megafauna. The presence of many cryptic biotic transitions prior to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary revealed by ancient DNA confirms the importance of climate change in megafaunal population extinctions and suggests that metapopulation structures necessary to survive such repeated and rapid climatic shifts were susceptible to human impacts.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Yeah, if the dinosaurs can go extinct, we can too. Agree.
While I don't disagree with the "can" aspect of your statement, because if you kill all of us we will be extinct, I think it would be orders of magnitude more difficult to completely exterminate a technological race like us at this point, because we can adapt the environment to us and change our conditions in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. There's no possible way any life form on earth can out-adapt us at this point, because we're not waiting for biological adaptation like the dinosaurs or [next most intelligent life form on earth] are.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
While I don't disagree with the "can" aspect of your statement, because if you kill all of us we will be extinct, I think it would be orders of magnitude more difficult to completely exterminate a technological race like us at this point, because we can adapt the environment to us and change our conditions in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. There's no possible way any life form on earth can out-adapt us at this point, because we're not waiting for biological adaptation like the dinosaurs or [next most intelligent life form on earth] are.
I don't disagree. Dinosaurs were probably killed off by meteor impact, and hopefully before it happens again we would be able to avoid it due to our technological capabilities.

I guess my larger point was that since we are intelligent we should, ostensibly at least, do our best to avoid causing ourselves to die off, such as by turning our environment into a Venus clone that is not compatible with complex life forms (as far as we can tell at this point in time).
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
I could see a situation where we kill off a lot of life on the planet, kill ourselves off, temperatures dramatically rise, but life continues to perpetuate and the planet survives us. Not that that's ideal for us, but it might be for the planet.
Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet-or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet-or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves.
The only thing that would be in jeopardy would be our current standard of living/luxuries. The idea that the temperature goes up 5-10 degrees and we go extinct is ludicrous. We might all need to move to canada and our population might decrease but the idea that we are ALL going to die is just asinine.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
The only thing that would be in jeopardy would be our current standard of living/luxuries. The idea that the temperature goes up 5-10 degrees and we go extinct is ludicrous. We might all need to move to canada and our population might decrease but the idea that we are ALL going to die is just asinine.
 

gogusrl

Molten Core Raider
1,362
105
The only thing that would be in jeopardy would be our current standard of living/luxuries. The idea that the temperature goes up 5-10 degrees and we go extinct is ludicrous. We might all need to move to canada and our population might decrease but the idea that we are ALL going to die is just asinine.
It's not that we're ALL going to die, but think about how interconnected and reliant we are on each other. I can imagine multiple scenarios that can lead to the death of 80-90% of world population in 50 to 100 years after said event. The rest are back to medieval times more or less.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
The idea that the temperature goes up 5-10 degrees and we go extinct is ludicrous.
No, its not, for a variety of reasons you very well may not even be aware of.

For instance, I often like to make a tongue in cheek joke that climate change is great, because I want to homestead corn in Northern Nunavut.

But the thing is, part of what that's a joke is because the top soil in these regions isn't dense enough, or nutrient filled enough, to actually support intensive agriculture.

Global climatic change of 5-10 degrees across the whole planet would leave almost all complex living being dead, including in the oceans. Microbial life forms would still survive, and possibly will increase in complexity over time and refill the planet with new complex life forms, but almost all life as we know it on this planet would cease to exist completely in that scenario, ourselves included.

We couldn't just move to the colder regions, which would suddenly all become inhabitable as the tundra melts. It doesn't work that way.

Sorry Cad, but it just doesn't.

Most of those regions would require hundreds of thousands of years of plant growth, death, and decay, just to build enough top soil to sustain us.

It takes 100 years in a dense forest for 1 cm of topsoil to form, just to help you grasp the implications here. That's a known, stable fact that plays into archaeological research in soil sampling and excavation, survey, etc.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
There's no doubt that our population could decrease considerably.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
We've lost the knowledge to survive in the wild bro. Like we would have to relearn everything that was learned by humans as shared knowledge passed down from one generation to the next going back to when we first were great apes and shit. There's also a lot less biodiversity on the planet today, and less shit to hunt and eat. All due to human activity and climate changes, mind.

Almost no one would survive, and the population variation and density wouldn't be enough to perpetuate the species. The genetic variation alone would become so limited that extinction would be an inevitability.

Bone density and muscle mass of our skeletal structures, has declined so dramatically since the advent of agriculture and the end of hunting and gathering, that physically we would also be completely incompatible with that lifestyle.

With the Advent of Agriculture, Human Bones Dramatically Weakened

Early human ancestors spent eons testing their skeletons while jogging through untamed landscapes hunting and gathering food to survive. Life is significantly easier today, and evidence of a more leisurely lifestyle is showing up in our rested bones.

Since the invention of agriculture, new research shows, human bones have grown lighter and far less dense than those of early humans and closely related primates. Researchers believe sedentary lifestyles - made possible by agriculture and technology - are the root cause of human bone degradation over the past 1,000 years. Their findings reinforce the idea that exercise, not diet, is key to preventing fractures and osteoporosis.
Switching to Farming Made Human Joint Bones Lighter | Science | Smithsonian

pending more time sitting on our butts isn't just a problem for obesity and heart disease. The shift to a more sedentary lifestyle has probably been bad for our bones, too. A pair of papers published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that humans evolved lighter joint bones relatively recently in our evolutionary history as a response to changes in physical activity.

One study pinpoints the origin of these weaker bones at the beginning of the Holocene epoch roughly 12,000 years ago, when humans began adopting agriculture. "Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter-more fragile, if you like-bodies. It started when we adopted agriculture. Our diets changed. Our levels of activity changed," says study co-author Habiba Chirchir, an anthropologist in the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program.

The second study attributes joint bone weakness to different levels of physical activity in ancient human societies, also related to hunting versus farming. Both works have implications for modern human health and the importance of physical activity to bone strength.

"The lightly-built skeleton of modern humans has a direct and important impact on bone strength and stiffness," says Tim Ryan, an anthropologist at Penn State University and a co-author on the second study. That's because lightness can translate to weakness-more broken bones and a higher incidence of osteoporosis and age-related bone loss.

Scientists already knew that the modern human skeleton is longer, thinner and generally weaker than that of its hominin predecessors, but no one was sure what has been driving this "gracility." Previous studies suggested that walking upright put more pressure on joints to go long and lean, while others argued that a decrease in physical activity or changes in diet has been behind these skeletal changes.

Recently, scientists have zeroed in on trabecular bone, the sponge-like material that's found at the ends of the bones that form joints. "Think of the end of a chicken bone: If you cut through it, then you see this meshwork of bone that's interwoven," says Chirchir. Modern humans have lower trabecular bone density within specific bones than their ancestors.

Spongy bone responds to mechanical stress, so Chirchir and her colleagues decided to take CT scans of the hand bones of primates, including humans, to see if the bone differed based on how the animals moved. "We though that if an orangutan climbs, it should have a different structure of trabecular bone than knuckle-walkers like chimpanzees," says Chirchir.

The team noticed that scans of human hands looked drastically different than those of their primate relatives. In the CT scans, air bubbles appear dark against a white backdrop of bone. "The human hand had very little white compared to the other primate hand bones," says Chirchir, indicating that it might be incredibly airy and light. "So that was the striking thing." She and her colleagues wondered how the density of trabecular bone in the rest of the human skeleton compared to that in other primates and early human ancestors.
There are so many variables at play against a return, at this point, to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, combined with the drastic climatic changes that would result, that no, we would certainly go extinct. Technology certainly wouldn't survive a near total collapse of human society that required us all to move to the northern most regions of the world to survive it.

We already have plenty of evidence that even minor changes in temperature, 1-2 degrees, leads to massive die offs and exceedingly high extinction rates. We have our closest relatives, the neanderthals, as an example of how climate change can lead to extinction of a species almost identical to ourselves in virtually every significant way.

A 2 degree increase over preindustrial levels is the point beyond which all major climatologists and world wide authorities have declared would lead to unacceptable risks to life on this planet. Think about that, bro.

5-10 degrees would make Michigan pretty nice.
Yeah too bad New York would literally be underwater at that point.

Since temperatures have risen almost one degree already, three degrees "additional warming" here means about four degrees above pre-industrial levels in total.

Continued warming will at some stage trigger the Greenland ice sheet to gradually collapse, although scientists can't say precisely at what temperature this would occur, the IPCC report says:

"For sustained warming greater than some threshold, near-complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a millennium or more, contributing up to seven metres of global mean sea level rise."
What happens if we overshoot the two degree target for limiting global warming? | Carbon Brief