The thing about unforseen consequences is they're unforseen. The probable yearly die off should limit any unwanted damages to a few seasons...assuming Texas continues to freeze every year, which is far from certain.
I really hope this solution works without issues, because they clearly need one. I just fear that these kinds of species introductions often end badly, and once done they are irreversible. It seems likely that in a few years a colony of frost tolerant weevils could evolve and quickly spread on birds.

I hope this goes better than the introduction of nutria, which Texas did to combat other invasive water weeds. They are now a major problem, causing massive erosion problems and displacing naive species. It makes me wonder what problems these weevils are going to cause in 10 years....how many native plants will they eat to extinction?

Someone needs to get to the bottom of this! Are they are aren't they? I NEED TO KNOW!!

(edit)
Seems it depends on what you call a Daddy Longleg. "There is one "daddy-longlegs" that is a spider, and a couple of thousand species that are not spiders."
http://www.burkemuseum.org/blog/myth-daddy-longlegs-kind-spider

i really REALLY cannot stand idealogues.....
such a failed fucking species.

The human species measures elevation relative to sea level, as they are both a terrestrial and a single-planet species. So to adopt the common parlance of this species one must accept that Mount Everest is indeed the tallest mountain on Earth. To vocally argue against this point amongst the humans would either clue these clothed-primates to your extraterrestrial origins, or may otherwise cause them to view you as the most haughty of pedants, and cast aspersions on you who revels in the intentional abstrusity of abstract technicality.

Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Caniformia
Family: Procyonidae
Genus: Procyon
Species: D'aawww

So...by 2050 corals will bleach yearly, but they cannot recover with a bleaching event happening once every 10 years (a level we've already long ago passed in many areas). This means those bleached now have almost zero chance of survival/recovery.

As a main base food source for the oceans from gametes to polyps, as well as a habitat for over 25% of species (and probably a higher percentage of bio mass), the loss of reefs will be the death of the already struggling oceanic food web.

@newtboy
i like the 'failing liver" analogy.
appropriate and easily understood.

and i can understand where milkmandan is coming from,but my perspective is more aligned with yours newt.

what consistently baffles me,is how so many people are willing to simply accept this short term strategy from our politicians.

there is no surprise when corporations push for this,they are just focusing on their own interests and bottom line,which is short term profit.

or the politicians who bow to their neoliberal masters to receive those tasty campaign contributions.

or even the banks,who again focus on their short term gains.

these players are all behaving as they always have:for their own self interest.so there should be no shock or surprise when they act exactly as they have always acted.

but when i see everyday,normal people defend the behavior and actions of oliticians,financial institutions and multi-national corporations.it baffles me as to why they would choose to do such a thing.

we can understand why those players seek to retain a system which benefits them,their shareholders and their bottom line,but that system no longer serves the interests of the people,community and society as a whole.

so why make arguments defending it?

it is,quite frankly,killing us slowly as a species.

look at germany.
that country has slowly been recruiting,educating and now poised to corner the market in:new energy,renewable energy and are leading the world in breakthrough technologies in all energy fields.

germany has long played the long game.
they now dominate the entire EU in finance,and are now focusing on dominating the globe with new energy technology.

and what are we doing here in america?
pushing through more and more neoliberal policies that immiserate the working poor,both here and abroad.desperately continuing our destruction of entire ecosystems to exploit our natural resources for:oil and gas.military conflicts,which only make this country less safe,all to exploit other nations and extract THEIR oil and gas,and the cost in human lives is absolutely indefensible.

all of it.
every single bit of it for short term gains for an extremely small minority.

and here we are,with trump opening the flood gates to further exploit and destroy our natural resources with no thought or plan for the future.no investment in our communities,nor our society as a whole.

and for those who wish to make an argument that hillary would be better.i will only concede that on a domestic level this may have been true,but hillary is a neoliberal corporatist,and she would have pushed for even MORE military intervention in the middle east.MORE sanctions against countries unwilling to play ball,in order to politically squeeze them out,and even MORE of this countries policy of "regime change" to exploit and extract from those countries their precious resources.

i strongly suspect Iran would have been next on her agenda.

so when are some of these people going to step up,and realize that both trump AND clinton are (or would have been) disasterous for us as a community,a nation and as a species?

because they both only offer short term solutions to long term problems.and those short term solutions only benefit a minority of the population.

we could turn this ship around TODAY,right now,if we so choose.
we need more politicians like elizabeth warren and tulsi gabbard.we need more integrity in our media and journalists willing to do their job and criticize power,not bow to it just for access.we need the people to become engaged and confront their representatives,and make them uncomfortable,not treat them as celebrities.

and we need to reject the system where rich people choose who we get to vote for,and begin to dismantle this two party duopoly.

because trump vs hillary?
this election cycle has just revealed that both these candidates are not the disease,but rather the symptom of a very broken,and dysfunctional political system.

we need to begin to invest in the future.
and reject the status quo as no longer being viable for the continued existence of the human species.

and with the newly energized american public,who are growing in numbers daily,and is a direct response to the unmitigated disaster that is trump.there may be hope for us yet.

because if we stay on this trajectory,we are fucking doomed.

It's like the doctors have given you second and third opinions and told you your liver is failing, you have to stop drinking or you'll die. You won't die the next time you have a beer, but every beer takes you farther over the edge. You can say the bartender who knows this is blameless for serving you, because others gave you the alcohol that destroyed your liver and it took longer than one night, or you can work from now and realize that he's intentionally killing you in hopes of a tip before you stumble outside and keel over.
Working from today, our planet's liver is failing, there no transplant, and Trump just reopened the bar and is serving everclear. Chances are he can't accelerate things so much that Florida submerges in the next 3 1/2 years, that doesn't mean he can't make things be far worse, beyond the point of possible mitigation.

You may hold that theory, but climatologists disagree. We are past, but still near the tipping point, and every ton of CO2 takes us farther from a survivable rise. It's ridiculous to think that we're already past holding at 3.5 degrees global rise (edit: the maximum assumed to be survivable by civilization), so we might as well make it 5 degrees.

Island nations, people who live South of New Orleans, and millions of others are already being displaced. It only takes one high tide (edit: or one extended drought) to wipe out low lying farmland permanently, and erosion has become an unstoppable force.

Trump is moving towards raising the level of multiple greenhouse gases we produce, Obama had us lowering those levels. Time can only tell what that actually means in tonnage, but 180 degree turnaround is awful enough. I agree, we also didn't do enough under Obama.

? Reversible means it can be reversed, not that it's easy. I don't know where you get that idea. Irreversible in this context means sending the temperature trend the other way before civilization becomes unsustainable. Eventually the planet should normalize unless we really follow Trump's lead wholeheartedly, then we might go full Venus. There WAS a magic bullet, being responsible with our atmosphere, but we argued over climate change until it was useless.

If, before it reverses (which it may not do at all, btw) the planet becomes inhospitable to humans, then for humans, it's irreversible. In 4 years we can do enough damage to 1) make the effects longer and harsher enough to make long term survivability impossible and or 2) go beyond the next tipping point where feedback loops reinforce each other, leading to a Venus like runaway greenhouse effect. We're damn close to massive methane releases (already happening) and if we don't avoid that, nothing will save civilization.
All that said, Clinton probably wouldn't do enough to avoid disaster either, but at least she accepted the science and agreed we should make efforts to mitigate the coming damages.

I'm definitely a pessimist, mostly because I understand the systems and human nature, and so I think we're totally hosed as a species.

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.

Displaced by sea level rise (which would be a gradual thing, but I agree very serious), combined with droughts/floods might potentially fall under "decimation". But only, I think, to the historical definition of 10% dead. Include wars resulting from territory and resource squabbles (should that count as fallout of climate change?), and it could be (much) worse. But still not on a 4-year timescale.

Second, if we're already "way past the tipping point", it logically follows that blame for that can't really be laid on Trump. His policies can certainly make things worse, but I think that 4 years of terrible climate policy in ONE country on Earth (granted, a country with a lot of influence) simply aren't going to be catastrophically, drastically worse than 4 years of magically ideal climate policy (even in a hypothetical scenario where Nader or Stein or Clinton or whatever ideal person was president and could dictate perfect climate policy without being filtered by congress).


So to answer your question, basically no, I don't think that "raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity."

One, "exponentially" is an exaggeration. US emissions under Trump won't be an order of magnitude higher than they were under Obama, or would have been under Clinton. In the range of 10% to 50% higher seems well possible, but 100% higher (double) would be next to impossible. Worse, yes. Exponentially worse, no.

Two, "irreversible" is a word I would hesitate to use because it carries an implication that there is some magic bullet to immediately fix things. If a plague wiped humanity off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it would take some time for climate to adjust to pre-industrial levels. Like you said, it might take 25-50 years before things even could start getting better. But eventually, it could be mostly like we were never here. Some things about climate would never be the same, but in broad terms, things could get back to "normal" eventually.

On the other hand, if the plague wipes us all out on the last day of Trump's 4 years in office, it might take longer for that adjustment to happen. But not by a comparatively massive margin. So that's why I dislike "irreversible"; depending on what timescale you are referencing things are either already irreversible, or pretty close to a statistical wash (what's another 4 years in a recovery timeline of 250 years, or 100 in 10000?), or not worth worrying about at all (on a geological timescale that doesn't care 2 cents about things like species extinctions). Does that make sense?

Finally, "negative effect on the planet and humanity" is something that I totally agree with. And that negative effect will be real and significant. But I don't think that the walking disaster that is Trump will make things inescapably, horrifically worse. Not enough worse that it makes a persuasive argument to me that I should have voted for Clinton (again, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't vote for Clinton either).

I dunno. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist.

"I don't want to be a multi-planet species." Does this dork think Earth's going to last forever? What happened to, "Space, the final frontier." Bill?

I agree we take care of our planet, but there's no reason to give up on exploring the cosmos. Jeez!

No, I'm aware of the difference, and I meant patriotism.

From your article:
"Patriotism is fundamental to liberty because pride in one’s nation-state, and a willingness to defend it if necessary, is the basis of national independence. Patriotism is the courage of national self-determination."

If you believe national independence and national self-determination are good things, then yes.

But it's still just another form of tribalism.

I am happy for people to defend IDEAS, but the concept that there are "French values" or "American values" seems increasingly silly to me.

There are ideas I support and ideas I oppose and the nationality of those espousing them should be irrelevant. I don't blame all Americans for Trump (especially since most of them didn't vote for him) any more than I credit all Germans for Einstein.

Again, I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, since I'm not even really sure of my own position. I'm very proud of both my country of birth and my adopted homeland.

I just wonder if patriotism isn't something that's ultimately bad for us as a species.

One of these days we as a species will appreciate our scientific and intellectual achievements much the same as today we appreciate dance moves, sports highlights, and cat videos.

Let's be extremely optimistic and figure that these things work in a 25 meter radius, with 100% kill rate to any mosquito inside that zone for 30 seconds+. That's plenty to put in or near a house and drastically reduce the mosquito population in (and a little bit around) that area. But just a short distance away, the mosquito population will be completely unaffected.

Animals that prey on mosquitoes will find a small dead zone and move on.

Lets say they worked extremely well, and we decided to cover an entire city with a grid of these things. Maybe New York (800 km^2). Would the local ecosystem be affected? Sure. Some species of birds, bats, etc. would move upstate -- but overall there would probably be way less impact on the ecosystem than simply having a gigantic city there in general.

It would probably be better to set them up covering small villages in area with high risk of malaria, in which case any affects on ecosystems would be very small and contained. But on the other hand, first world people like New Yorkers with high population density and more $$$ to burn might be plenty happy to chip in (tax dollars?) for these things if they never got any mosquito bites again. And that would probably help the economy of scale kick in and make it much cheaper to set them up in places that would really benefit...

Things like wheat on a planet with no fauna gives the game away immediately, it has to have been placed there by an intelligent species.

I confidently predict it is going to be awful.