Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BobHaulk]

Dying in a starving world is so capitalist.

Is it? i don't think so but you climate doomers will stop the third world having access to the same lifestyle, people in the west enjoy.
3/4 of a degree of a rise in temperature for 400 years of the industrial revolution, i think we can live with it. Funny how the climate doomers predict that things will get really bad in a hundred years or so, just after any of us who don't buy into your "end times theory" won't be around to see you wrong

 

[BenBurch]

Is it? i don't think so but you climate doomers will stop the third world having access to the same lifestyle, people in the west enjoy.
3/4 of a degree of a rise in temperature for 400 years of the industrial revolution, i think we can live with it. Funny how the climate doomers predict that things will get really bad in a hundred years or so, just after any of us who don't buy into your "end times theory" won't be around to see you wrong

Then you don't comprehend the actual claims. Sorry, but do your research before you dismiss those who have.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, I don't condemn any research sight unseen.

I most certainly didn't intend to suggest that.[/quote]

As stated, "I will be interested in seeing their assessment, but I no longer have any hopes that it will even approach a rigorous and unbiased scientific analysis of the issue." I am more concerned that the statisticians will be tasked with a carefully designed manner that they should assess and evaluate the data, than that they will produce a blatant falsehood, especially since the only climatologist on the team is Curry. Lies, damn lies and statistics and such. We've already seen what statisticians can produce when they have an agenda,...re: Wegman. But, this is premature, and I will await the chance to review their product.[/quote]

Indeed. The more I read about BEST the more dubious I get, but if it's really bad it will be easy enough to demolish. And if it's going to give the deniers what they want it will have to be thoroughly egregious.

(An amusing outcome would be another confirmation of the "hockey-stick" which the deniers will have to condemn as part of the Grand Conspiracy ...)

Regarding Gil Compo (whose work the WSJ misrepresented), I mistakenly conflated the 20th Century Reanalysis Project with BEST.

http://www.lbl.gov/cs/CSnews/CSnews12511.html

There's a "Berkeley Lab Contact" listed but it's an entirely separate project. My bad .

 

[BobHaulk]

Then you don't comprehend the actual claims. Sorry, but do your research before you dismiss those who have.

The usual cries from the climate gloomers, if i don't agree to the climate change communist manifesto then it's i don't comprehend the claims. I don't know who they is to dismiss their claims.
How much has the earth heated up then? When will we all be boiled alive, when will Holland be under water? I'm sure London should be underwater by now, didn't Greenpeace predict in the early 90's that the Thames barriers wouldn't be enough to protect Londoners. Still waiting. I'm sure Professor LoveLock has gone into hiding since his predictions are worse than Mystic Megs. I could go on.

 

[BenBurch]

No, you misquoted what is predicted. Don't argue against straw men. Find out what is really said.

 

[BenBurch]

Northern Hemisphere February Sea Ice Extent Anomaly

To the extent I can measure the diagram, this appears to be a tie with the record 2005 February Sea Ice Anomaly.

 

[BenBurch]

Start here; http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[theprestige]

The current situation in oil-rich Libya highlights the need for energy independence.

I agree. Which is why I'm all for more coal-mining and oil drilling in regions of the world firmly under our own control. Gulf of Mexico, California coastal waters, ANWR, it's all good, as far as energy independence goes...

... Wait, what? Weren't you talking about climate change? Non sequitur much?

 

[Zeph]

There is a direct irrefutable correlation between cheap energy and economic stimulation.

Could you therefore provide, say, a graph of world petroleum prices in which the economic growth of China and India (who are massively building infrastructure requiring enormous energy) clearly tank as the price rises?

Yes, I've seen the broad graphs (often cited in regard to Peak Oil) which show increased energy usage and increased wealth over time. Of course there has also been increased global air pollution over time too - maybe air pollution is the driver of wealth? A correlation (even "irrefutable") is not the same as causation; a factor of which you seem cognizant when it suits your argument.

However, I do believe that, all other things being equal, cheap resources make for faster economic growth. The problem is - all other things are not equal. Also, it's important to be quantitative in this - how much effect does a given change have. One of the key things to realize is that the effects of carbon taxes (or potential indirect effects of cap and trade) on the overall economy are virtually identical to rising source prices. So when oil was $40 / bbl and a proposed carbon tax might raise the effective price to $55 / bbl, economic alarmists predicted that would send the economy into a tail spin. However, if the tax would have done that, then the raw producer price rising to $55 / bbl would also.

Unlike questions of climate change, there has been more chance to observe the real world effects of petroleum price changes. Guess what? It turns out that while rising petroleum prices is not good for the economy, the economy is not NEARLY as sensitive as economic alarmists predicted.

While the broad economic effects of a carbon tax (or cap and trade) are quite similar to source price increases, one difference is where the extra money goes - to oil producing nations or to oil consuming nations. And with cap and trade, the market oriented folks believe that innovation and investment will be stimulated to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

I believe that your economics is faith based rather than evidence driven. Where is the peer reviewed science behind your economic alarmism? Sorry, you can't just say "it's so obvious that no weighing of evidence is needed" unless you will concede the same in regard to climate change alarmism.

 

[Trakar]

Office of Inspector General
US Department of Commerce
http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2011/001688.html

Audit / Evaluation

Response to Sen. James Inhofe's Request to OIG to Examine Issues Related to Internet Posting of Email Exchanges Taken from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, UK
Feb 18, 2011

Download Full PDF Report

 

[OMGturt1es]

That's okay as soon as someone figures out how to tie the uprising with Climate Change (heat makes people angry and rebellious, maybe?) then all will be well

This uprising is at least partially attributable to the increasing cost of food, especially grain-based food, like bread. The increasing cost is directly attributable to climate change, unless you believe that "biblical" fflooding and drought are products of natural cycles, which essentially no active climate scientists believe. While a strong la nina certainly aided extreme events, the already-record temperatures did as well.

See? Easy. Because it's true.

 

[Trakar]

Examining Climate Change Effects on Wheat
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2011/110224.htm

...The researchers measured growth, yield, and several other soil and plant physiological variables. As expected, the heaters accelerated growth, increased soil temperatures, reduced soil moisture, induced mild water stress on the crops, and had a nominal effect on photosynthesis. But effects on yields depended on when the wheat was planted. When heat was applied to wheat planted normally, in midwinter, its growth cycle was ahead by a week. There were no major differences in yield. Adding heat to wheat planted in March reduced yields by half. Most surprising, rather than reducing yields, adding heat to wheat planted in September protected the plants from damaging frosts between Christmas and New Year’s both years. Heated plots showed only moderate yield loss, whereas the wheat in the unheated control plots yielded nothing...

Replicating climate change to forecast its effects
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/091216.htm

...Preliminary results show just slightly higher levels of soil carbon in chambers with elevated carbon dioxide and in chambers with elevated levels of both carbon dioxide and ozone, but not in chambers with elevated ozone alone. Elevating carbon dioxide also reduced flour protein levels in wheat by 7 to 11 percent, but soybean protein concentrations were maintained because of soybeans' ability to acquire nitrogen from the air...

 

[geni]

The usual cries from the climate gloomers, if i don't agree to the climate change communist manifesto

I'm not aware of any such document. Certainly not one with any significant reach.

then it's i don't comprehend the claims. I don't know who they is to dismiss their claims.
How much has the earth heated up then?

Mean surface temperatures appear to have increase by about 0.7 degrees.

When will we all be boiled alive

Depends on a number of factors. However assuming that greenhouse gasses don't go completely insane you've a billion years or so before suface temperatures pass 100 degress.

when will Holland be under water?

Which bit?

I'm sure London should be underwater by now, didn't Greenpeace predict in the early 90's that the Thames barriers wouldn't be enough to protect Londoners.

1)I'm don't think greenpeace are the be all and end all of sea level and Post-glacial rebound information
2)most predictions give the thames barrier at least a couple of decades. It has however seen a steady increase in use in the decades after it's construction.

 

[BobHaulk]

Mean surface temperatures appear to have increase by about 0.7 degrees.

handy figure, not enough to show any real effect but a tantalising glimpse of a hotter future. Impressive, better charge more for everything then, we'll save the planet if we just make most people poorer with climate taxes then we'll make every nation on the earth do the same, it'll be a communist dream, one earth, under climate tax, now all we need do is decide who we pay the money to.
All hail those who are gonna save us.

 

[geni]

handy figure, not enough to show any real effect but a tantalising glimpse of a hotter future.

You appear to be failing to grasp how this science thing works.

Impressive, better charge more for everything then, we'll save the planet if we just make most people poorer with climate taxes then we'll make every nation on the earth do the same, it'll be a communist dream, one earth, under climate tax, now all we need do is decide who we pay the money to.

I admit I haven't explored every version of communism going but I seem to recall that most had far more to do with the proletariat controlling the means of production than trying to leavy a single global tax.

In fact since communism tends towards a command economy if it felt that there was a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions it seems unlikely that it would try to do so through taxation.

All hail those who are gonna save us.

It must be nice living in your world. Unfortunataly some of us are stuck in the real one.

 

[macdoc]

Evolution races human impacts

Evolution races to keep up with climate change

* 16:00 02 March 2011 by Ferris Jabr
* For similar stories, visit the Climate Change and Evolution Topic Guides

Climate change may accelerate evolution in some species – but that doesn't guarantee that threatened populations will cope in the long run. That's the message of a study that suggests the changing environment is hitting fast forward on evolutionary adaptations.

Arild Husby of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and his team looked at data gathered from a wild population of great tits (Parus major) in the Netherlands that has been monitored since 1955.

Increasingly warm springs over the past four decades mean the songbirds' biological rhythms are out of sync with nature. Plants are blossoming, fruits are blushing and caterpillars are gorging themselves earlier. Great tit chicks that hatch too late in the season miss out on this unusually early peak in food – especially the abundance of caterpillars – resulting in fewer surviving youngsters and second clutches.

The researchers correlated average daily temperatures to egg-laying dates from more than 3800 visits to the nesting boxes of nearly 2400 females recorded between 1973 and 2007.

The analysis confirmed that rising temperatures have strongly selected for great tits that hatch earlier: chicks that enjoy spring's early-bird special went on to produce more chicks of their own.

more

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20190-evolution-races-to-keep-up-with-climate-change.html

 

[Dancing David]

Sounds like punctuated equilibria, changes lead to radiation.

Mountain species changes are the most likely to be catastrophic.

 

[BenBurch]

2010 warmest year ever, source http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Tvs.year+month.lrg.gif ;

 

[Dinwar]

Strong selective pressure+heritable variation=fast evolution. This really shouldn't surprise anyone. While the particulars are facinating from a biological standpoint (it pretty much conclusively demonstrates that evolution is in fact happening) I'm not sure it's something the general public would be interested in if it weren't for the global warming aspect.

That said, it's as much a hopeful as a bleak report. I mean, the organisms ARE addapting, which is probably a good thing ("probably" because ecosystems are complex, and sometimes saving one organism condems another).

Mountain species may get hit hardest, as would any strongly seasonal species (plants in particular). Of course, species that don't do well in the winter will have a field day.

 

[macdoc]

Sky islands in some regions will disappear as remaining ice age species can go no higher.

2-3 degrees C recaps the Holocene optimum but beyond that many narrow range species will not survive the warming on top of our other trespass.

Good thing is evo is fast in the tropics and tropics will be least affected - the band is already 200 km wider and growing.

Northern biome dwellers will and are being hammered.

Oceans with the possible exception of shallow reefs have some protection due to hysteresis.

So we will have a diverse planet, just different.

Many of the large mammals were and remain at risk for other reasons - warming may hasten their end in some places due to drought extremes.