https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/octopus-dna-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-climate-scn/index.html

CNN has an article about how arctic octopus lend evidence to what has
been claimed about more ice melting during the last interglacial. Wiki
has up that the earth was warmer and more ice melted during the last
interglacial than now. Sea levels did rise to 20 meters higher than
they are now, and those islands and low lying countries did flood the
last interglacial.

These octopi are separated by the large antarctic ice sheet, but when
more ice melted last time the ice sheet disappeared and the two
populations were able to get together and produce hybrids. They looked
at how the hybrid bits of DNA have recombined over the last hundred
thousand years to estimate that the hybrids were formed during the
previous interglacial period.

What is screwy is that they are not using the information to wake people
up about how the same thing will happen in the current interglacial if
the global warming predictions hold out. Instead of crying about how
terrible things are going to be, we should be putting up substantial
efforts to figure out how life survived the last example. The extant
species obviously survived, but a lot of them likely didn't make it
through with viable population genetics. A lot of the ice age mega
fauna went extinct during the beginning of this interglacial period.
The last woolly rhino paper that I put up had genetic evidence that the
population did not recover after the last interglacial period and
remained an inbred population even after their population recovered to
over 100,000 individuals when the glaciers returned. It looks like not
enough animals survived the last interglacial to create a viable
population that could survive another.

We need to help the existing species most affected by global warming
have large enough populations so that purging deleterious genetics can
be accomplished. We know how this seems to have worked in the past. A
species exists as a large number of sub populations. The whole species
population doesn't evolve into a future, but just bits of it make it and
the rest seem to go extinct. You keep hearing about over 90% of the
species that have ever existed are extinct, and it makes it likely that
just a small fraction of 1% of the sub populations that have ever
existed evolved into new species or kept the old lineage going until new
species could evolve. Most populations are likely not genetically
healthy in that you might have to be pretty lucky to purge by founder
effects enough of the deleterious load to be the survivor of something
like the population reduction of the interglacials. If there are no
lottery winners the population goes extinct.

I've seen the current conservation efforts focusing on maintaining
genetic diversity to the point of mixing sub populations. This is a
stupid thing to do. Those subpopulations are adapted to their local
environment, and they have a deleterious load that they are managing to
cope with. Mixing populations could make a less fit population for
their environment, and also adds new deleterious variants into both
populations. All you have to do is look at the recombinant inbred
genetic mapping populations to understand that this is not a good thing
to do. What they did was interbreed 2 or more highly inbred lines, and
then backcross to each line, and full sib mate until you had 12.5% of
one genetic background dispersed into the other. You could produce
around 20 such lines and cover the entire genome of one line in 12%
portions. What they found was that even though the parent lines
survived and may have even produced more pups per litter than wild-type,
when they made the intercross many of the recombinant inbred lines
failed. A lot of them would have died out, but they would have to
increase the breeding population and start only mating cousins instead
of full-sib matings. Such lines never became as inbred as their parent
lines. There were obviously deleterious genetics in both lines, but
they were survivable as homozygous alleles in each line, but different
combinations of these deleterious alleles were lethal, and these
combinations were created among the inbred hybrids.

The same thing will occur if you start mixing genetically isolated
populations.

What conservation efforts should likely be focusing on is increasing
population sizes and identification of deleterious variants, and working
on removing them from the populations so that they do not become an
issue. We even have the technology to fix genetic defects once they are
identified. We know that there is a sperm trait in cheetahs that we
could fix and improve the reproductive capacity of that species. We
will soon have multiple genome sequences of all the endangered species,
and will have a better understanding of if they have a chance of making
it or not. Just using the human population should tell us a lot about
what variants are bad for existing protein genes.

Ron Okimoto

On 12/23/23 7:30 AM, RonO wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/octopus-dna-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-climate-scn/index.html
>
> CNN has an article about how arctic octopus lend evidence to what has
> been claimed about more ice melting during the last interglacial.  Wiki
> has up that the earth was warmer and more ice melted during the last
> interglacial than now.  Sea levels did rise to 20 meters higher than
> they are now, and those islands and low lying countries did flood the
> last interglacial.
>
> These octopi are separated by the large antarctic ice sheet, but when
> more ice melted last time the ice sheet disappeared and the two
> populations were able to get together and produce hybrids.  They looked
> at how the hybrid bits of DNA have recombined over the last hundred
> thousand years to estimate that the hybrids were formed during the
> previous interglacial period.
>
> What is screwy is that they are not using the information to wake people
> up about how the same thing will happen in the current interglacial if
> the global warming predictions hold out.  Instead of crying about how
> terrible things are going to be, we should be putting up substantial
> efforts to figure out how life survived the last example.  The extant
> species obviously survived, but a lot of them likely didn't make it
> through with viable population genetics.  A lot of the ice age mega
> fauna went extinct during the beginning of this interglacial period. The
> last woolly rhino paper that I put up had genetic evidence that the
> population did not recover after the last interglacial period and
> remained an inbred population even after their population recovered to
> over 100,000 individuals when the glaciers returned.  It looks like not
> enough animals survived the last interglacial to create a viable
> population that could survive another.
>
> We need to help the existing species most affected by global warming
> have large enough populations so that purging deleterious genetics can
> be accomplished.  We know how this seems to have worked in the past.  A
> species exists as a large number of sub populations.  The whole species
> population doesn't evolve into a future, but just bits of it make it and
> the rest seem to go extinct.  You keep hearing about over 90% of the
> species that have ever existed are extinct, and it makes it likely that
> just a small fraction of 1% of the sub populations that have ever
> existed evolved into new species or kept the old lineage going until new
> species could evolve.  Most populations are likely not genetically
> healthy in that you might have to be pretty lucky to purge by founder
> effects enough of the deleterious load to be the survivor of something
> like the population reduction of the interglacials.  If there are no
> lottery winners the population goes extinct.
>
> I've seen the current conservation efforts focusing on maintaining
> genetic diversity to the point of mixing sub populations.  This is a
> stupid thing to do.  Those subpopulations are adapted to their local
> environment, and they have a deleterious load that they are managing to
> cope with.  Mixing populations could make a less fit population for
> their environment, and also adds new deleterious variants into both
> populations.  All you have to do is look at the recombinant inbred
> genetic mapping populations to understand that this is not a good thing
> to do.  What they did was interbreed 2 or more highly inbred lines, and
> then backcross to each line, and full sib mate until you had 12.5% of
> one genetic background dispersed into the other.  You could produce
> around 20 such lines and cover the entire genome of one line in 12%
> portions.  What they found was that even though the parent lines
> survived and may have even produced more pups per litter than wild-type,
> when they made the intercross many of the recombinant inbred lines
> failed.  A lot of them would have died out, but they would have to
> increase the breeding population and start only mating cousins instead
> of full-sib matings.  Such lines never became as inbred as their parent
> lines.  There were obviously deleterious genetics in both lines, but
> they were survivable as homozygous alleles in each line, but different
> combinations of these deleterious alleles were lethal, and these
> combinations were created among the inbred hybrids.
>
> The same thing will occur if you start mixing genetically isolated
> populations.
>
> What conservation efforts should likely be focusing on is increasing
> population sizes and identification of deleterious variants, and working
> on removing them from the populations so that they do not become an
> issue.  We even have the technology to fix genetic defects once they are
> identified.  We know that there is a sperm trait in cheetahs that we
> could fix and improve the reproductive capacity of that species.  We
> will soon have multiple genome sequences of all the endangered species,
> and will have a better understanding of if they have a chance of making
> it or not.  Just using the human population should tell us a lot about
> what variants are bad for existing protein genes.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
A lot of current thinking is about trying to keep things the way they
are (or were). Paleontology clearly tells us that things never stay the
way they are. Single "popular" threatened species with low biodiversity
are indeed threatened and will probably be extinct sooner rather than
later. Climate change is a fact, and is a driver of evolution. There
is no "balance of nature", and ecologically-minded people have to
recognize that. It would be more (at least temporarily) confortable for
us if we didn't hasten the progress of climate change we don't want, but
we're going to have to deal with it. That some are considering
geo-engineering solutions is scary. What could go wrong? It might slow
warming, speed it up or make it colder. Ice ages are much more
uncomfortable than warming.

On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 12:02:18 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On 12/23/23 7:30 AM, RonO wrote:
> > https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/octopus-dna-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-climate-scn/index.html
> >
> > CNN has an article about how arctic octopus lend evidence to what has
> > been claimed about more ice melting during the last interglacial. Wiki
> > has up that the earth was warmer and more ice melted during the last
> > interglacial than now. Sea levels did rise to 20 meters higher than
> > they are now, and those islands and low lying countries did flood the
> > last interglacial.
> >
> > These octopi are separated by the large antarctic ice sheet, but when
> > more ice melted last time the ice sheet disappeared and the two
> > populations were able to get together and produce hybrids. They looked
> > at how the hybrid bits of DNA have recombined over the last hundred
> > thousand years to estimate that the hybrids were formed during the
> > previous interglacial period.
> >
> > What is screwy is that they are not using the information to wake people
> > up about how the same thing will happen in the current interglacial if
> > the global warming predictions hold out. Instead of crying about how
> > terrible things are going to be, we should be putting up substantial
> > efforts to figure out how life survived the last example. The extant
> > species obviously survived, but a lot of them likely didn't make it
> > through with viable population genetics. A lot of the ice age mega
> > fauna went extinct during the beginning of this interglacial period. The
> > last woolly rhino paper that I put up had genetic evidence that the
> > population did not recover after the last interglacial period and
> > remained an inbred population even after their population recovered to
> > over 100,000 individuals when the glaciers returned. It looks like not
> > enough animals survived the last interglacial to create a viable
> > population that could survive another.
> >
> > We need to help the existing species most affected by global warming
> > have large enough populations so that purging deleterious genetics can
> > be accomplished. We know how this seems to have worked in the past. A
> > species exists as a large number of sub populations. The whole species
> > population doesn't evolve into a future, but just bits of it make it and
> > the rest seem to go extinct. You keep hearing about over 90% of the
> > species that have ever existed are extinct, and it makes it likely that
> > just a small fraction of 1% of the sub populations that have ever
> > existed evolved into new species or kept the old lineage going until new
> > species could evolve. Most populations are likely not genetically
> > healthy in that you might have to be pretty lucky to purge by founder
> > effects enough of the deleterious load to be the survivor of something
> > like the population reduction of the interglacials. If there are no
> > lottery winners the population goes extinct.
> >
> > I've seen the current conservation efforts focusing on maintaining
> > genetic diversity to the point of mixing sub populations. This is a
> > stupid thing to do. Those subpopulations are adapted to their local
> > environment, and they have a deleterious load that they are managing to
> > cope with. Mixing populations could make a less fit population for
> > their environment, and also adds new deleterious variants into both
> > populations. All you have to do is look at the recombinant inbred
> > genetic mapping populations to understand that this is not a good thing
> > to do. What they did was interbreed 2 or more highly inbred lines, and
> > then backcross to each line, and full sib mate until you had 12.5% of
> > one genetic background dispersed into the other. You could produce
> > around 20 such lines and cover the entire genome of one line in 12%
> > portions. What they found was that even though the parent lines
> > survived and may have even produced more pups per litter than wild-type,
> > when they made the intercross many of the recombinant inbred lines
> > failed. A lot of them would have died out, but they would have to
> > increase the breeding population and start only mating cousins instead
> > of full-sib matings. Such lines never became as inbred as their parent
> > lines. There were obviously deleterious genetics in both lines, but
> > they were survivable as homozygous alleles in each line, but different
> > combinations of these deleterious alleles were lethal, and these
> > combinations were created among the inbred hybrids.
> >
> > The same thing will occur if you start mixing genetically isolated
> > populations.
> >
> > What conservation efforts should likely be focusing on is increasing
> > population sizes and identification of deleterious variants, and working
> > on removing them from the populations so that they do not become an
> > issue. We even have the technology to fix genetic defects once they are
> > identified. We know that there is a sperm trait in cheetahs that we
> > could fix and improve the reproductive capacity of that species. We
> > will soon have multiple genome sequences of all the endangered species,
> > and will have a better understanding of if they have a chance of making
> > it or not. Just using the human population should tell us a lot about
> > what variants are bad for existing protein genes.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
> >
> A lot of current thinking is about trying to keep things the way they
> are (or were). Paleontology clearly tells us that things never stay the
> way they are. Single "popular" threatened species with low biodiversity
> are indeed threatened and will probably be extinct sooner rather than
> later. Climate change is a fact, and is a driver of evolution. There
> is no "balance of nature", and ecologically-minded people have to
> recognize that. It would be more (at least temporarily) confortable for
> us if we didn't hasten the progress of climate change we don't want, but
> we're going to have to deal with it. That some are considering
> geo-engineering solutions is scary. What could go wrong?

The most popular such schemes involve intercepting sunlight before
it reaches the surface. There are several problems with this.

(1) Warming by CO2 and other greenhouse gases has a pattern, more in the
polar regions than tropics, more in winter than summer, more at night
than in the day. Diminishing solar input has a very different, almost
opposite, pattern. Their sum will not be no change, but different
change. Climate change cannot be summarized by one number,
the global average temperature change. This number can be zero,
and the Earth still subject to disastrous (for us) climate change.

(2) Further to this, cooling by stratospheric aerosols cannot be done
without weakening the monsoon circulation. Rainfall in both
India and China diminishes considerably in their prime agricultural
districts. As both are nuclear powers, I would not recommend living
either near or downwind of any aerosol launching facility.

Perhaps we could build a multi-trillion dollar series of
satellites and shades, by, say 2100, to manipulate sunlight in
such a way as to avoid the aforesaid problems. But if such
a system would ever fail, as it might in a time of war, very rapid
warming could result - how much depending on how high we
have let CO2 climb.

And it wouldn't address the next problem:

(3) Such methods do not address the growing acidification of the
ocean.

It might slow
> warming, speed it up or make it colder. Ice ages are much more
> uncomfortable than warming.

Geoengineering to prevent ice ages is much less difficult, it
being easier to add GHGs to the atmosphere than to take
them out.

William Hyde

RonO wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/octopus-dna-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-climate-scn/index.html
>
> CNN has an article about how arctic octopus lend evidence to what has
> been claimed about more ice melting during the last interglacial.

As always, you rejected your brain in favor of sucking the teat of the
mainstream media...

Wiki
> has up that the earth was warmer and more ice melted during the last
> interglacial than now. Sea levels did rise to 20 meters higher than
> they are now, and those islands and low lying countries did flood the
> last interglacial.
>
> These octopi are separated by the large antarctic ice sheet, but when
> more ice melted last time the ice sheet disappeared and the two
> populations were able to get together and produce hybrids. They looked
> at how the hybrid bits of DNA have recombined over the last hundred
> thousand years to estimate that the hybrids were formed during the
> previous interglacial period.
>
> What is screwy is that they are not using the information to wake people
> up about how the same thing will happen in the current interglacial if
> the global warming predictions hold out.

You are legitimately insane.

DNA is not random. You can't look at the present population and know
what their DNA looked like 125 thousand years ago. It never works that
way. It can't work that way.

> We need to help the existing species most affected by global warming

Gwobull Warbling is literally impossible.

Our present interglacial is overdue to end -- starting long before
industrialization -- and fossil fuels possess COOLING properties,
not warming. The pollution literally darkens the skies, shading
the planet, and all the sulfur emissions reduce the amount of the
sun's energy even reaching the earth.

Fossil fuels COOL, they can't warm.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/737631335431241728

On 12/25/2023 7:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
> Gwobull Warbling is literally impossible.

I agree, Gwobull warbling is literally impossible. The Gwobull, a
mollusk-like creature found only on the shores of the Xanxthian sea on
the planet Zrttxsx, is not known to be able to make any communicative
signals that would approximate a 'warble'.

> Our present interglacial is overdue to end -- starting long before
> industrialization -- and fossil fuels possess COOLING properties,
> not warming. The pollution literally darkens the skies, shading
> the planet, and all the sulfur emissions reduce the amount of the
> sun's energy even reaching the earth.

yeah...._that's_ how it works.....(◔_◔)

> Fossil fuels COOL, they can't warm.

Hmmm, is that why my furnace keeps crapping out? I'm using #2 home
_heating_ oil. What should I be using to heat my home if fossil fuels
can only cool?

Let me guess...you're from floriduh.

Zen Cycle wrote:

> > Our present interglacial is overdue to end -- starting long before
> > industrialization -- and fossil fuels possess COOLING properties,
> > not warming. The pollution literally darkens the skies, shading
> > the planet, and all the sulfur emissions reduce the amount of the
> > sun's energy even reaching the earth.

> yeah....

Yeah, you mouth breathing, nose picking, snot eating imbecile. That
really is how it works. And we know this because SCIENCE is
consistent, even if you jackwads think it's a media headline.

If the fact that pollution darkens the sky is news to you -- or you're
just unfamiliar with the concept of "Shade" -- go wander back to
whatever Home left the door unlocked and ask for your
straitjacket back.

Or did you really not know that sulfur converts into an aerosol in the
atmosphere, reflecting the sun's energy back out into space so it
never even reaches us? Well, buttercup, stop commenting on the
climate... or anything more advanced than Barney the Dinosaur.

-- --

https://filmfreeway.com/BostonsScreamingOstrichFilmFestival