James Allison, can I save some time and just send you the comments here?

http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/06/yanomami.html

Do you have any notion of what is happening to the coral reefs thanks to warming and more acidified oceans? Do you know that the oceans provide us with oxygen, to breathe?

This was the pithy response to my question from DonExodus2 who posts excellent videos here: http://www.youtube.com/ view_play_list?p=EBDE4D7DB15BED77 and actually has a degree in evolutionary biology so I gather he knows whereof he speaks.

Highly recommend his videos about evolution and also those of potholer54, a geologist turned science reporter – you can search him on youtube and see his fascinating series, including History of the Universe Made Easy, The Story of the Earth Made Easy, plus others related to climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2008/ 10/ 081020171454.htm

[JR: Hunter, Gore never did that. Your just pushing out a denier talking point.]

Well, I think it’s impossible that the extinction event and climate change are not linked to one another (aside from being manmade); we have pretty solid evidence of numerous changes in habitats and migration patterns which are so far attributed to climate change. These should be expected to continue and get worse in the future, as the landscape continues to transform. The IPCC also describes landscape transformations as a source of climate change, so perhaps there could be a positive feedback there.

My background in environmental biology tells me the answer to your question is “not necessarily”, as it would depend on how rapidly species could either adapt or move to follow habitats they were adapted for. There are certain species which clearly will not be able to survive local climate changes, like the pika. Then others will simply change their routes or their timing, like the migration of birds in spring. As far as ecosystems collapsing, that would depend on your definition of such. If you think of an ecosystem as non-mobile, then under that definition, some will certainly collapse. But if it is just a collection of organisms interacting with abiotic factors in the environment, then the makeup of the ecosystem will change, but it would not collapse. This is probably why you get “yes” and “no” responses.

Regardless of that distinction, the ecosystems will become more fragile and more likely to collapse with climate change, as ecosystems lose biodiversity, and thus “rivets on the plane”. While this may not cause them to collapse, it would certainly make them less stable. With our currently limited knowledge of ecology, particularly keystone species, I would expect climate change to lead to some if not many ecosystem collapses.

My two cents, anyway.

Most people I speak with now are acutely aware of the strange weather patterns we are now seeing more clearly and the resulting extreme events. And they are feeling very uncomfortable about it all. (2008/09 was the year of enlightenment)

This has accelerated, what I call the tipping action. And now with the collapsing of the food stocks mention in my post above it looks like the Apocalypse is on us.

We should still try to get off coal though.

Really, it will be too late? Then why are you OK with reductions by 2050?

Why do you assume the first step will be the last step?

OK, it’s one of the denialist talking points going ’round and ’round, and repeating denialist talking points is all you’ve got … guess I answered my own question.