What's new

So Long, Bugs....

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but strip away the loony, horse apple, nonsense (approximately 98% of his post), and I actually agree with babe.

I had planned on making similar comments (with my own brand of loony, horse apples, thank you very much) after reading almost the whole article, only to read the final paragraph and then intellectually wince:

“Sánchez-Bayo said he had recently witnessed an insect crash himself. A recent family holiday involved a 400-mile (700km) drive across rural Australia, but he had not once had to clean the windscreen, he said. “Years ago you had to do this constantly.”

You want proof? There you have it.

What exactly that proves is up for interpretation. I personally thought it was the icing on the cake for that ridiculous, fear mongering, sack of dung. What sucks is that there probably IS a big problem with insect decline, and it may very well have much to do with global warming/AG, but that cute little article did nothing but placate the people who are already on the GW bandwagon, push the detractors even farther away, and (in my case anyway) make people who are on the fence, or not sure if they’re comfortable with where the left has been going the last decade or so, actually lean further right.

In other words, it was trash. I’m going to go take a shower now. I feel super gross.
I bet counting the current bugs in existence and then comparing that number with the number of bugs in existence is pretty difficult to do.

I have noticed that there are a lot less bugs in my area than there used to be. I used just walk on a sidewalk in the summer and there would be grasshoppers jumping around.

Now I often go throughout the whole year without seeing a single one.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I still see a **** ton of bugs. Harsh winter's can cause numbers to fluctuate. Get a mild winter and you'll see high numbers again. More Urban development doesn't help.

Buuuuut part of job is killing bugs, so LOL LOSERS.
 
I think more people get their homes sprayed for bugs today than they did 50 years ago too. In fact I'm certain of it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I'm out in nature a majority of my days and if you ask me I see less bugs than I used to. Not too scientific but that's my observation.
Same for me when I go camping and fishing. It's nice to be honest lol.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
@babe, you choose to assume political motives for starting this thread.
Well, you choose to make these assumptions. Since we've often been at odds, I guess it is understandable. And I choose to assume you are consumed by a InfoWars-esque view of the world that makes your own assumptions of myself, and others here, inevitable.

But you are very mistaken. For 15 years, my wife and I, every Sept., visited a salt pond on the Atlantic coast here, where we could view monarch butterflies on their annual journey south. In my own case, I was a volunteer documenting the decline of these butterflies. Intitially, we would see hundreds per hour. There was a great deal of milkweed at this location, their preferred food, hence they stopped here on their migration. Two years ago, we saw less then a dozen per hour.

For the past 20 years, I have also been a volunteer documenting the health of Spring herring runs in Rhode Island. And their decline. There is no politics involved at all in any of this. There is a citizen volunteer's interest in science.

Now, I have a keen interest in extinction events. I have a large collection of fossils. I have several fossils of organisms that went extinct at a few of those extinction events. When the notion that the dinosaurs, and many other forms of life, became extinct during the event that marks the end of the Mesozoic Era, roughly 65 million years ago, as a result of a cometary or asteroidal impact, it dovetailed with still another long term interest of mine: meteoritics. I also have curated a meteorite collection since the early 80's. You really cannot collect meteorites, and actually appreciate them, without understanding the science. The chemistry is tough, but the petrology is not. And that science has become a leading edge in understanding both extinction events, and sudden alteration in the Earth's climate as well. For example, evidence has been developed that posits a asteroidal impact as the reason for the onset of what is known as the Younger Dryas, a return to glacial conditions beginning about 12,900 BP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Now, in turn, that dovetailed with my interest in North American prehistory, and archaeology. The onset of the Younger Dryas also marked the disappearance of the Clovis culture. I curate a very large collection of artifacts from that era.

All these things are of keen interest to me. Extinction events and the history of life on Earth, through a study of paleontology. Meteoritics, and the results of impact events on the history of life, and as a cause for some extinction events. The possible role of impact events in human history. For instance, very recently, a huge impact crater was discovered beneath the Greenland ice cap. This may turn out to be the site of the impact event that triggered the Younger Dryas cold snap.

https://bgr.com/2018/11/15/greenland-meteorite-impact-crater-ice-sheet/



All of these personal interests of mine dovetail, and can be related to each other in understanding the history of life on our planet. Paleontology. Meteoritics. Archaeology, and in particular understanding the Paleo era in North America. Extinction events, and their causes. Including the one we may be experience now, and which includes the decline of insects.

In none of this, will you find a political motivation on my part. Maybe it is my fault you feel this way. Is it all because I have so much antipathy toward Trump? I don't know. I have not always had kind words for you in the past, so I don't take this opinion of yours personal. Maybe it's inevitable. But, man, are you ever mistaken, and I hope these comments of mine demonstrate just how mistaken you are.
 
Last edited:
2thiaj.jpg
 
Do you actually read the stuff you link?

Here are a few red flags....

Did you see fake news reporting the "research" article "proving" the Little Ice Age was caused by global warming that was caused by the mass extinction of Native Americans? So many glaring holes, aside from the more technical ones, but seems like these chicken little CNN and MSN fans will lap up just about anything these days.

Here, have your fun with this doozy:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weat...change-in-climate-study/ar-BBT4JKZ?li=BBr5KbJ
 
Did you see fake news reporting the "research" article "proving" the Little Ice Age was caused by global warming that was caused by the mass extinction of Native Americans? So many glaring holes, aside from the more technical ones, but seems like these chicken little CNN and MSN fans will lap up just about anything these days.

Here, have your fun with this doozy:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weat...change-in-climate-study/ar-BBT4JKZ?li=BBr5KbJ


Lol

The level these people will go to to push their agenda and ideology is astounding.

White people so racists and murderous that they caused global warming with how much murdering they do. SMH,....unreal
 
Did you see fake news reporting the "research" article "proving" the Little Ice Age was caused by global warming that was caused by the mass extinction of Native Americans?

Global warming caused an ice age? I think you mean cooling, lol....

White people so racists and murderous that they caused global warming with how much murdering they do. SMH,....unreal

The Little Ice Age implies global COOLING, not global warming. Think, for heaven's sake.

And why are you even bringing up racism?? Do you know how much effect European diseases alone had on the population decline?? Lack of immunity from disease implies racism?? Really?? Are you really making such an asinine claim?? And germ theory of disease was well known in the 17th century? Lol, you are a riot. When the Puritans landed in Boston, they found nobody living at all in the immediate villages, due to the dying in the 1616-1620 time frame, due to European diseases, which affected all the tribes in southeastern New England. Again, you feel that unknowingly spreading disease is racism??

Good grief, you guys are slow at times. You really examined that study closely I see.

I will be less inclined, in the future, to take anything you say seriously, when you make such glaring mistakes, and don't know the difference between cooling and warming.

I was unable to access the MSN article, so don't know if the mistake originated there. But, you both should still know better. A little thought goes a long way. You've given me far less reason to take you seriously on such climate related subjects in the future.

Perhaps based on your rejection of global warming in our present era. Your bias is being broadcast in neon lights.

I found this BBC article to be a good summary of the study's findings. Changes in land use has long been cited as one reason for the onset of what is known as the Little Ice Age. If we fail to look at the actual study, but instead reflexively plug it into our own political warfare involving "climate change", then we are not being very objective at all. Generally speaking, knee jerk reactions are the most biased. This study simply focused on one component of the causes behind the onset and duration of the Little Ice Age, namely the drop in atmospheric CO2. The study included examination of and estimation of agricultural use of land throughout the Americas, not just North America. (But, even here, in North America, there was agriculture on a larger scale then we might assume or imagine. When Verrazano spent 2 weeks anchored in Narragansett Bay, in 1524(he was an Italian explorer sailing for France), he reported the land was cleared from their western shore of Narragansett Bay all the way to at least the present border of Connecticut. Large scale clear cutting by use of fire was practiced by natives in my own region, in other words)

(Unfortunately, this link posts as an audio available at the link, and not the text, so I've posted some of the text directly beneath the link.)



"The team reviewed all the population data it could find on how many people were living in the Americas prior to first contact with Europeans in 1492.

It then assessed how the numbers changed in following decades as the continents were ravaged by introduced disease (smallpox, measles, etc), warfare, slavery and societal collapse.

It's the UCL group's estimate that 60 million people were living across the Americas at the end of the 15th Century (about 10% of the world's total population), and that this was reduced to just five or six million within a hundred years.

The scientists calculated how much land previously cultivated by indigenous civilisations would have fallen into disuse, and what the impact would be if this ground was then repossessed by forest and savannah.

The area is in the order of 56 million hectares, close in size to a country like modern France.

This scale of regrowth is figured to have drawn down sufficient CO₂ that the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere eventually fell by 7-10ppm (that is 7-10 molecules of CO₂ in every one million molecules in the air).

"To put that in the modern context - we basically burn (fossil fuels) and produce about 3ppm per year. So, we're talking a large amount of carbon that's being sucked out of the atmosphere," explained co-author Prof Mark Maslin.

"There is a marked cooling around that time (1500s/1600s) which is called the Little Ice Age, and what's interesting is that we can see natural processes giving a little bit of cooling, but actually to get the full cooling - double the natural processes - you have to have this genocide-generated drop in CO₂."

The drop in CO₂ at the time of the Great Dying is evident in the ice core records from Antarctica.

Air bubbles trapped in these frozen samples show a fall in their concentration of carbon dioxide.

The atomic composition of the gas also suggests strongly that the decline is being driven by land processes somewhere on Earth.

In addition, the UCL team says the story fits with the records of charcoal and pollen deposits in the Americas.

These show the sort of perturbation expected from a decline in the use of fire to manage land, and a big grow-back of natural vegetation.

Ed Hawkins, professor of climate science at Reading University, was not involved in the study. He commented: "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity.

"This new study demonstrates that the drop in CO₂ is itself partly due the settlement of the Americas and resulting collapse of the indigenous population, allowing regrowth of natural vegetation. It demonstrates that human activities affected the climate well before the industrial revolution began."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One cause among several, in other words, large volcanic eruptions and a decline in solar activity are also known to have played into the onset of the Little Ice Age. The study concentrated on land use changes leading to a drop in CO2. At least report the conclusions accurately, and not through knee jerk political lenses.

And cooling is not the same as warming! The Little Ice Age involved cooling, for heaven's sake. You guys are not doing yourselves any favors mistaking cooling for warming!

It's also recommended that the actual study be examined, and judged on its scientific merits. And this will happen, because it was published in a peer review format. If mistakes in the scientific methodology are evident, they will be highlighted in any rebuttals that may be published in response to the study. And, rather then indulge in our own well established political warfare over what we think the study is saying, we can actually simply read the study and be our own judge, to the best of our ability and our knowledge of the science involved. So, it's open access, and here is the actual study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261

Abstract
Human impacts prior to the Industrial Revolution are not well constrained. We investigate whether the decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentration by 7–10 ppm in the late 1500s and early 1600s which globally lowered surface air temperatures by 0.15∘C, were generated by natural forcing or were a result of the large-scale depopulation of the Americasafter European arrival, subsequent land use change and secondary succession. We quantitatively review the evidence for (i) the pre-Columbian population size, (ii) their per capita land use, (iii) the post-1492 population loss, (iv) the resulting carbon uptake of the abandoned anthropogenic landscapes, and then compare these to potential natural drivers of global carbon declines of 7–10 ppm. From 119 published regional population estimates we calculate a pre-1492 CE population of 60.5 million (interquartile range, IQR 44.8–78.2 million), utilizing 1.04 ha land per capita (IQR 0.98–1.11). European epidemics removed 90% (IQR 87–92%) of the indigenous population over the next century. This resulted in secondary succession of 55.8 Mha (IQR 39.0–78.4 Mha) of abandoned land, sequestering 7.4 Pg C (IQR 4.9–10.8 Pg C), equivalent to a decline in atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 ppm (IQR 2.3–5.1 ppm CO2). Accounting for carbon cycle feedbacks plus LUC outside the Americas gives a total 5 ppm CO2 additional uptake into the land surface in the 1500s compared to the 1400s, 47–67% of the atmospheric CO2 decline. Furthermore, we show that the global carbon budget of the 1500s cannot be balanced until large-scale vegetation regeneration in the Americas is included. The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth System in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Lol

The level these people will go to to push their agenda and ideology is astounding.

White people so racists and murderous that they caused global warming with how much murdering they do. SMH,....unreal

Even if this could be taken seriously it actually would refute global warming theory and pretty much the laws of physics.

1. The Little Ice Age began about 200 years before Columbus was born and was nearly over before any alleged slaughter took place.

2. No academic in their right mind would take the guesstimated death count or carbon removal assumptions in this article seriously.

3. The authors are using a 56 million hectare vegetation carbon sink. There's 51 billion hectares of ocean surface, and that carbon sink is a whole lot deeper than a tree or weed is tall. The CO2 fixed by extra plants wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the extra carbon absorbed by the ocean due to lower temperature.

4. They calculated (somehow, lol) 9.9 Pecagrams of C removed from the atmosphere by extra vegetation. In comparrison, that's about as much as we put out every year. Stop burning fossil fuels for 1 years and we'll induce another Little Ice Age guys.

5. Atmospheric CO2 was pretty much unchanged for the 850 years preceding 1850. All that population growth did nothing but this did? Ok.

6. Where is the Black Plague's Little Ice Age?

7. 4 ppm (The authors claim 5 ppm, but math disagrees, sorry) caused the Little Ice Age? Yet we only get a couple degree bump from an increase 20 times that much? Sure.

8. The Little Ice Age was a regional phenomenon. For CO2 to cause that, chemicals would no longer be coming into a state of equilibrium. The authors have broke science, we need to trash it all and start from scratch. Tear down all memorials of Einstein and burn paintings of Newton.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more stupidity to be found. But, that's not going to stop the fake news lovers from lapping it up. I'm sure the ignored users folks are out trumpeting the article and calling us anti-science again.
 
Back
Top