How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[a_unique_person]

A bit more fuel for the fire courtesy of our buddies down-under.

www theaustralian news com au/ story/ 0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
(sorry. I can't post links yet)




My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere.

Asking a biologist about climate science is like asking an obstetrician about about your prostate. She has no idea what she is talking about, and quite happily makes an ignorant remark about the state of the climate, that a few years of relatively steady climate (that is still consistent with a long term warming trend), indicates AGW is finished. As a scientist, she should know better. In her case she is paid to follow the party line, the IPA's only interest is in denying AGW, because it doesn't fit in with their 'free enterprise' model for how the world should work.

 

[mhaze]

Asking a biologist about climate science is like asking an obstetrician about about your prostate. She has no idea what she is talking about, and quite happily makes an ignorant remark about the state of the climate, that a few years of relatively steady climate (that is still consistent with a long term warming trend), indicates AGW is finished. As a scientist, she should know better. In her case she is paid to follow the party line, the IPA's only interest is in denying AGW, because it doesn't fit in with their 'free enterprise' model for how the world should work.

Well, let's ignore your smear on free enterprise, some of us believe in it and some don't. It's an international forum, after all.

Is a biologist not qualified to talk about climate science? I've got some problems with that concept - let's see...

• species migration
• species extinction/adaptation
• coral reefs
• polar bears
• mosquitos
• tropical diseases
• effect of changes in ocean acidity on ocean life

Looks awfully lot like biology...Hmm...

Reverse it, what qualification does a physicist (Hansen) have to talk of the effects of AGW on the above subjects?

None, that I can see.

 

[CapelDodger]

"Trees ain't"? I dunno ...

But in the words of New Zealand climate researcher David Lowe, “We now have the specter that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by being sinks for carbon dioxide.”

Hardly the most threatening spectre at the party. Loss of existing forest is much more in-your-face when it comes to screwing-up a long-establsihed balance. Forget about the "new forest" projects, that's a tick on the hide of the rhinoceros bearing down on you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes indeedy. Singer thinks that the science is settled.

I don't see how one can spin his words to mean anything other than what he said.

Right out loud, and it's on YouTube. "Give up all hope ye who enter YouTube."

 

[CapelDodger]

So. Why don't we make an effort to use only primary references. It would simplify the discussion greatly if we focus on the data and discussions of published papers.

Nah, let's focus on GWSceptic behaviour, which is what this thread is about. We're not talking to them, we're talking about them. TrueSceptic's gaff, TrueSceptic's rules . (There's never a shortage of active AGW threads that they can exercise their "science" in.)

What they don't get is that they're not here as contributors, they're here as examples to be remarked on and discussed. Think rats-in-a-maze and the people in white coats. The gulf is on that order.

Anyhoo, a common GWSceptic trait is that they make demands on others that they don't make on themselves or their ilk. They're a sadly transparent bunch.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Alric
So. Why don't we make an effort to use only primary references. It would simplify the discussion greatly if we focus on the data and discussions of published papers.
​

Nah, let's focus on GWSceptic behaviour, which is what this thread is about.

Of course Alric, you can do whatever you want. You can listen to unscientific people and their advice to play little games, or you can do exactly what you think is correct. If you do something inappropriate, some moderator will advise you of it.

But he ain't gonna slap you around for talking science on a science forum.

 

[CapelDodger]

Congrats... you've made a fool of yourself, once again... my color graphs have no trends. I know it's dificult to grasp, but well... you do need some kind of nervous system to achieve it...

Your graphs reveal the trends, and there's your heinous crime.

To the assembled frauds, narcissists, and dickheads we're "opposed" by, graphs are things to be incessantly picked over, not a visual means of data acquisition. Naturally they'll be tempted to assign this to false-pattern syndrome, but I doubt they'll get so deep as to argue the purpose of graphs.

Except as instruments of propaganda, of course. You bad person you!

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course Alric, you can do whatever you want. You can listen to unscientific people and their advice to play little games, or you can do exectly what you think is correct. If you do something inappropriate, some moderator will advise you of it.

But he ain't gonna slap you around for talking science on a science forum.

See what I mean, Alric? A perfect example of GWSceptic behaviour, and so easily provoked. What does it tell us? Nothing we didn't know before.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, let's ignore your smear on free enterprise, some of us believe in it and some don't. It's an international forum, after all.

Is a biologist not qualified to talk about climate science? I've got some problems with that concept - let's see...

• species migration
• species extinction/adaptation
• coral reefs
• polar bears
• mosquitos
• tropical diseases
• effect of changes in ocean acidity on ocean life

Looks awfully lot like biology...Hmm...

Reverse it, what qualification does a physicist (Hansen) have to talk of the effects of AGW on the above subjects?

None, that I can see.

What does your biologist have to say about those bullet points? Biology is the science on the front-line, after all. Nobody woulld give a toss about CO2 if it didn't impact on biology (in which we're intimately involved). What does your pet biologist have to contribute in her specialist subject?

Hansen's a physicist, he's faced with projecting physical science onto actual events a propos the biosphere that we're part of. A biologist, on the other hand, can leave that step out. They're into the biosphere in the first place.

So do summon up the wisdom of your biologist, as it pertains to your bullet-points. She may well have something interesting to tell us about polar bears.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, let's ignore your smear on free enterprise, some of us believe in it and some don't. It's an international forum, after all.

Is a biologist not qualified to talk about climate science? I've got some problems with that concept - let's see...

• species migration
• species extinction/adaptation
• coral reefs
• polar bears
• mosquitos
• tropical diseases
• effect of changes in ocean acidity on ocean life

Looks awfully lot like biology...Hmm...

Reverse it, what qualification does a physicist (Hansen) have to talk of the effects of AGW on the above subjects?

None, that I can see.

I am sure she would be able to offer some expert insights into those aspects of global warming. The IPCC uses subject matter experts to cover those areas in their reports. Marohasy, however, is offering an opinion on the science of AGW itself.

 

[mhaze]

What does your biologist have to say about those bullet points? Biology is the science on the front-line, after all. Nobody woulld give a toss about CO2 if it didn't impact on biology (in which we're intimately involved). What does your pet biologist have to contribute in her specialist subject?

Hansen's a physicist, he's faced with projecting physical science onto actual events a propos the biosphere that we're part of. A biologist, on the other hand, can leave that step out. They're into the biosphere in the first place.

So do summon up the wisdom of your biologist, as it pertains to your bullet-points. She may well have something interesting to tell us about polar bears.

Oh, I get it. A physicist is sort of an all powerful seer standing in a long cape high on the mountain, and a biologist is a sort of low life who should limit her discussion to perhaps.... worms?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Alric
So. Why don't we make an effort to use only primary references. It would simplify the discussion greatly if we focus on the data and discussions of published papers.
​

Nah, let's focus on GWSceptic behaviour, which is what this thread is about.
​

Originally Posted by mhaze
Of course Alric, you can do whatever you want. You can listen to unscientific people and their advice to play little games, or you can do exectly what you think is correct. If you do something inappropriate, some moderator will advise you of it. But he ain't gonna slap you around for talking science on a science forum.
​

See what I mean, Alric? A perfect example of GWSceptic behaviour, and so easily provoked.....

Translated: We need to ignore the actual science because we just can't seem to win discussing science with these darn skeptics.

Real science.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Translated: We need to ignore the actual science because we just can't seem to win discussing science with these darn skeptics.

But you hardly ever discuss science, do you? Your "science" comprises arguing about the bias of climate scientists and the reliability of the data, IOW you have to politicise it every time.

When you actually do discuss science, you are exposed as a dogmatic ignoramus.

Anyway, there are countless threads for both the "science" and the science. Why not keep this one different? Heck, you could even have your own "How To Be An AGW Believer" thread.

 

[Megalodon]

Is a biologist not qualified to talk about climate science?

Yes, of course... as long as the biologist is working on the subject.

I've got some problems with that concept - let's see...

species migration

Upward migration of vascular plants following a climate warming trend in the Alps

Gilberto Parolo and Graziano Rossi,

Summary

The aim of this study was to understand (1) whether warmer climatic conditions affected the vascular plant species composition, (2) the magnitude and rate of altitudinal changes in species distributions, and (3) whether an upward migration of alpine plants is connected to wind dispersal of diaspores. We compared historical records (1954–1958) with results from recent plant surveys (2003–2005) from alpine to nival ecosystems in the Rhaetian Alps, N-Italy. The presence of all vascular plant species and their maximum altitude were recorded along a continuous altitudinal transect of 730 m. An increase in species richness from 153 to 166 species was observed. Moreover, 52 species were recorded from altitudes 30–430 m higher than their 1950s limits, which corresponds to a median migration rate of 23.9 m/decade. In order to explain the observed migrations, the species wind-dispersal ability (diaspore weight and morphology) and the air temperature variation from 1926 to 2003 were considered. Species with more pronounced altitudinal shifts possess lighter diaspores. The highest increase in species richness was found between 2800 and 3100 m a.s.l.; this appears to be related to an estimated shift of the permafrost limit by +240 m during the last 50 years. The mean air temperature in the region rose by +1.6 °C in summer and by +1.1 °C in winter within this period. Climate warming is therefore considered as a primary cause of the observed upward migration of high mountain plants. Calculated altitudinal migration rates, however, varied remarkably among species. This would imply differential abilities of species to persist in an increasingly warmer climate. Species-specific conservation measures, including ex situ conservation, may therefore be required.

The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives

Andy Jarvis, Annie Lane and Robert J. Hijmans

Abstract

Crop wild relatives are an important source of genetic diversity for crop improvement. However, the survival of some of these wild plant species could be threatened because of climate change. We used current and projected future climate data for 2055, and a climate envelope species distribution model to predict the impact of climate change on the wild relatives of peanut (Arachis), potato (Solanum) and cowpea (Vigna). We considered three migrational scenarios for modeling the range shifts (unlimited, limited, and no migration). Climate change strongly affected all taxa, with an estimated 16–22% (depending on migration scenario) of these species predicted to go extinct and most species losing over 50% of their range size. Moreover, for many species, the suitable areas become highly fragmented. Arachis were the most affected group, with 24–31 (depending on the migration scenario) of 51 species projected to go extinct and their distribution area on average reduced by 85–94%, depending on the migration scenario, over the next 50 years. The number of patches was predicted to decrease by 19% under the no migration scenario or increase by 4% assuming unlimited migration. Patch size decreased by 55–60%. For Solanum, 7 (no migration) to 13 (unlimited migration) of 108 species were predicted to go extinct, and their range sizes were reduced by approximately 38–69%. The number of patches was predicted to decrease by 34% (no migration) or increase 7% (unlimited migration) and patch size decreased by 20 (unlimited migration) to 37% (no migration). In terms of species extinction, Vigna was the least affected of the three groups, losing no species (unlimited migration) to 2 species (no migration) of the 48 species in the genus. The mean range size was predicted to decrease by 65% (no migration) or increase 8% (unlimited migration), with 8–41 of the 48 species losing more than 50% of their current geographic range. The number of Vigna patches increased by 12–115%, but the size of those patches shrunk by 51–59%. Our results suggest that there is an urgent need to identify and effectively conserve crop wild relatives that are at risk from climate change. While increased habitat conservation will be important to conserve most species, those that are predicted to undergo strong range size reductions should be a priority for collection and inclusion in genebanks.

species extinction/adaptation

Global change and marine communities: Alien species and climate change

Anna Occhipinti-Ambrogi

Abstract

Anthropogenic influences on the biosphere since the advent of the industrial age are increasingly causing global changes. Climatic change and the rising concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are ranking high in scientific and public agendas, and other components of global change are also frequently addressed, among which are the introductions of non indigenous species (NIS) in biogeographic regions well separated from the donor region, often followed by spectacular invasions. In the marine environment, both climatic change and spread of alien species have been studied extensively; this review is aimed at examining the main responses of ecosystems to climatic change, taking into account the increasing importance of biological invasions.

Some general principles on NIS introductions in the marine environment are recalled, such as the importance of propagule pressure and of development stages during the time course of an invasion. Climatic change is known to affect many ecological properties; it interacts also with NIS in many possible ways. Direct (proximate) effects on individuals and populations of altered physical–chemical conditions are distinguished from indirect effects on emergent properties (species distribution, diversity, and production). Climatically driven changes may affect both local dispersal mechanisms, due to the alteration of current patterns, and competitive interactions between NIS and native species, due to the onset of new thermal optima and/or different carbonate chemistry.

As well as latitudinal range expansions of species correlated with changing temperature conditions, and effects on species richness and the correlated extinction of native species, some invasions may provoke multiple effects which involve overall ecosystem functioning (material flow between trophic groups, primary production, relative extent of organic material decomposition, extent of benthic-pelagic coupling). Some examples are given, including a special mention of the situation of the Mediterranean Sea, where so many species have been introduced recently, and where some have spread in very large quantities.

An increasing effort by marine scientists is required, not only to monitor the state of the environment, but also to help predicting future changes and finding ways to mitigate or manage them.

Range retractions and extinction in the face of climate warming

Chris D. Thomas, , Aldina M.A. Franco and Jane K. Hill

Available online 6 June 2006.


Until recently, published evidence for the responses of species to climate change had revealed more examples of species expanding than retracting their distributions. However, recent papers on butterflies and frogs now show that population-level and species-level extinctions are occurring. The relative lack of previous information about range retractions and extinctions appears to stem, at least partly, from a failure to survey the distributions of species at sufficiently fine resolution to detect declines, and from a failure to attribute such declines to climate change. The new evidence suggests that climate-driven extinctions and range retractions are already widespread.

coral reefs

Modelling susceptibility of coral reefs to environmental stress using remote sensing data and GIS models

Joseph Maina, Valentijn Venus, Timothy R. McClanahan and Mebrahtu Ateweberhan

Abstract

There is a need to develop methods and a decision support system to establish marine protected areas that harbour coral reefs that are resilient to climate change. This requires understanding patterns of coral's susceptibility to thermal stress and how coral communities will change with the environmental variables associated with climate change. This study combined surface currents, wind velocity, sea surface temperature (SST), UV radiation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and chlorophyll-a concentration for the western Indian Ocean and known relationships with coral bleaching and mortality to derive predictor variables that correlate with thermal stress. SST variability, UV, maximum temperature and wind speed had the highest influence on susceptibility estimates. Two susceptibility models were developed using Spatial Principal Component Analysis (SPCA) and cosine amplitude-AHP methods and a fuzzy logic technique for integrating environmental variables into a measure of susceptibility. Susceptibility models identified regional gradients in environmental stress, with the north-western Indian Ocean and some central Indian Ocean Islands as high and the southern African coastline and islands east of Madagascar as low vulnerability regions. Half of the strictly no take zones in the region are situated in locations with medium to high susceptibility. Future studies using high-resolution data can better estimate the vulnerability of specific locations and the establishment of marine protected areas where coral reef diversity is more likely to persist through climate change.

Global warming and coral reefs: Modelling the effect of temperature on Acropora palmata colony growth

M. James C. Crabbe,

Abstract

Data on colony growth of the branching coral Acropora palmata from fringing reefs off Discovery Bay on the north coast of Jamaica have been obtained over the period 2002–2007 using underwater photography and image analysis by both SCUBA and remotely using an ROV incorporating twin lasers. Growth modelling shows that while logarithmic growth is an approximate model for growth, a 3:3 rational polynomial function provides a significantly better fit to growth data for this coral species. Over the period 2002–2007, involving several cycles of sea surface temperature (SST) change, the rate of growth of A. palmata was largely proportional to rate of change of SST, with R2 = 0.935. These results have implications for the influence of global warming and climate change on coral reef ecosystems.

polar bears

Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay

Ian Stirling, Andrew E. Derocher, William A. Gough and Karyn Rode

Abstract

The “viewpoint” article by Dyck et al. (2007) [Dyck. M.G., Soon, W., Baydack, R.K., Legates, D.R., Baliunas, S., Ball, T.F., Hancock, L.O., 2007. Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecol. Complexity 4, 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002.] suggest that factors other than climate warming are responsible for a decline in the polar bear population of Western Hudson Bay. They propose: (1) that there is no evidence that the climate has warmed significantly in western Hudson Bay, (2) that any negative effects on the polar bear population likely result from interactions with humans (such as research activities, management actions, or tourism), (3) that studies suggesting climate warming could influence polar bear populations are confounded by natural fluctuations and (4) that polar bears will adapt to climate warming by eating vegetation, hunting other marine mammal species, and evolving new physiological mechanisms. In our examination of their alternative explanations, and the data available to evaluate each, we found little support for any.

Research conducted since 1997 (when the last data were collected for the analyses in Stirling et al., 1999 [Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., Iacozza, J., 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52, 294–306.]) continues to be consistent with the thesis that climate warming in western Hudson Bay is the major factor causing the sea ice to breakup at progressively earlier dates, resulting in polar bears coming ashore to fast for several months in progressively poorer condition, resulting in negative affects on survival of young, subadult, and older (but not prime) adults and reproduction. When the population began to decline, the hunting quota for Inuit in Nunavut was no longer sustainable, which in turn probably resulted in the decline accelerating over time as a result of overharvesting (Regehr et al., 2007 [Regehr, E.V., Lunn, N.J., Amstrup, S.C., Stirling, I., 2007. Survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to earlier sea ice breakup. J. Wildl. Manage. 71, 2673–2683.]).

Spatial and temporal variation in size of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) sexual organs and its use in pollution and climate change studies

Christian Sonne, Rune Dietz, Erik W. Born, Frank F. Riget, Pall S. Leifsson, Thea Ø. Bechshøft and Maja Kirkegaard

Abstract

Sexual organs and their development are susceptible to atmospheric transported environmental xenoendocrine pollutants and climate change (food availability). We therefore investigated sexual organs from 55 male and 44 female East Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) to obtain information about growth/size and sexual maturity. Then, the genitalia size was compared with those previously reported from Canadian and Svalbard polar bears. Growth models showed that East Greenland male polar bears reached sexual maturity around 7 years of age and females around 4 years of age. When comparing East Greenland and Svalbard polar bears, the size of baculum and uterus were significantly lower in the East Greenland polar bears (ANOVA: all p < 0.05). Based on previously published baculum mean values from Canadian polar bears, a similar baculum pattern was found for East Greenland vs. Canadian polar bears. It is speculated whether this could be a result of the general high variation in polar bear body size, temporal distribution patterns of anthropogenic long-range transported persistent organic pollutants or climate change (decreasing food availability). The present investigation represents conservation and background data for future spatial and temporal assessments of hunting, pollution and climate change scenarios.

tropical diseases

Climate change and malaria: analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios

M. van Lieshout, R. S. Kovats, M. T. J. Livermore and P. Martens

Abstract

The distribution and seasonal transmission of malaria is affected by climate, as both vector and parasite are sensitive to temperature. A global model of malaria transmission has been developed to estimate the potential impact of climate change on seasonal transmission and populations at risk of the disease (MIASMA v.2.2). “Population at risk” is defined as the population living in areas where climate conditions are suitable for malaria transmission. This assessment describes model simulations driven by the latest scenarios from the IPCC. The climate scenarios were derived from the Hadley Centre model HadCM3 runs with four SRES emissions scenarios: A1FI, A2, B1 and B2. The additional population at risk was determined under each of the SRES population scenarios by downscaling national estimates to the 0.5×0.5° scale grid and re-aggregating by region. Additional population at risk due to climate change are projected in East Africa, central Asia, China and areas around the southern limit of the distribution in South America. Decreases in the transmission season are indicated in many areas where reductions in precipitation are projected by the Hadley Centre model, such as the Amazon and in Central America. The outcomes of the malaria model are sensitive to (1) spatial distribution of precipitation projections and (2) population growth in those areas where there is new risk due to climate change. This paper describes a new method for describing vulnerability to the potential impacts of climate change. Countries were classified according to their current vulnerability and malaria control status using expert judgement. This vulnerability incorporates both socio-economic status, as a measure for adaptive capacity, and climate as malaria at the fringes of its climate-determined distribution is easier to control than malaria in tropical endemic regions. Thus, current malaria control status is used as an indicator of adaptive capacity. For those countries that currently have a limited capacity to control the disease, the model estimates additional populations at risk by 2080s in the range of 90 m (A1FI) to 200 m (B2b). The greatest impact under B2 reflects population growth in risk areas in Eurasia and Africa. Climate-induced changes in the potential distribution of malaria is projected in the poor and vulnerable regions of the world. However, climate change is not likely to affect malaria transmission in the poorest countries where the climate is already highly favourable for transmission.

Looks awfully lot like biology...Hmm...

Yes, but is your biologist actually working on the subject? The name didn't show up in ScienceDirect...

Reverse it, what qualification does a physicist (Hansen) have to talk of the effects of AGW on the above subjects?

He actually works on the subject, you know...

None, that I can see.

Well, you're known for not seeing much

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, I get it. A physicist is sort of an all powerful seer standing in a long cape high on the mountain, and a biologist is a sort of low life who should limit her discussion to perhaps.... worms?

You should go into writing fiction, you have a good nack for it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes indeedy. Singer thinks that the science is settled.

I don't see how one can spin his words to mean anything other than what he said.

He also believes that correlation is not causation, except when he is looking for a 1500 year cycle for which he has no explanation.

 

[CapelDodger]

He also believes that correlation is not causation, except when he is looking for a 1500 year cycle for which he has no explanation.

That's 1500 years give or take 500. There's too much GWScepticism investment in a Medieval Warm period, nor would a 1500 year cycle fit a Roman Warm Period. So we have cycles of 1000 to 2000 years.

Given that these cycles also have varying amplitudes, isn't it possible to find such a "cycle" in any data with similar autocorrelation? By which I mean it contains no discontinuities, since climate evolves gradually whatever happens to it (short of the Sun going nova). This "cycle" is utterly meaningless, and Singer's clearly losing it. Which is hardly surprinsing at 83.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, I get it. A physicist is sort of an all powerful seer standing in a long cape high on the mountain, and a biologist is a sort of low life who should limit her discussion to perhaps.... worms?

So you're sticking with the "if you've got nothing to say, just say anything" strategy. Fair enough. I've given you my advice, and on consideration you've rejected it.

My point, of course, was that a biologist is far better placed to observe and predict the biological ramifications of climate change than a physicist. (Unless the physicist in question has some expertise in biology, that is. Heaven forfend that I pigeon-hole scientists.) And the biological ramifications are what's actually important. So anything your pet biologist has to say about the bullet-points you posted will be of interest. Whatever you can find would be good.

 

[CapelDodger]

You should go into writing fiction, you have a good nack for it.

mhaze has an amazing knack for self-satire. he actually prefixed that response with "Oh I get it", then proceeded to demonstrate that he didn't get a word of it. Except "Hansen". Set 'em up, knock 'em down. It's as simple as pushing a button.

 

[CapelDodger]

But you hardly ever discuss science, do you?

Aversion therapy works. It might even take on Slimething one day.

Your "science" comprises arguing about the bias of climate scientists and the reliability of the data, IOW you have to politicise it every time.

And/or personalise it. Al Gore, Hansen, Monbiot, IPCC, UN, Chinese, Europeans (especially Swedes), foreigners generally. Communists. Self-hating 'Murricans. The left-liberal media. Rupert Murdoch. Did I mention Al Gore?

When you actually do discuss science, you are exposed as a dogmatic ignoramus.

Hence the aversion.

Anyway, there are countless threads for both the "science" and the science. Why not keep this one different? Heck, you could even have your own "How To Be An AGW Believer" thread.

Lucy's thread didn't die for want of our support and attention. Nor, I'm sure, would mhaze's, should he choose to launch one.

This thread's dramatically superior robustness is down to its original premise, which has a great deal of substance. Unlike Lucy's. As to mhaze's, well, that's pure speculation.