Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BenBurch]

This too is true. If the paleo record oes nothing it shows life's ability to overcome and adapt to almost anything. Absent an asteroid strike, life can adapt to anything. And has, for billions of years.

LIFE adapts. This does not mean that the total amount of life on the planet does not drop astoundingly while it does so. Because what is adapted to is the destruction of the ecological niche. Animals with a more intact niche survive the event and re-radiate into the empty niches over the course of deep time.

 

[aleCcowaN]

In science correlation does not equal causation, that much should be obvious to all.

First correlation, now causation. Either you changed subject or .... ?

I challenge you to find a time when it has been cold and the world did well however.

What does that pairing [to be cold; do well] mean? What operative definitions do you have in mind for that? Once you have defined it, do you have in mind "correlation"? "causation"? It would be nice that your multi-posting include some hints that you deal with the scientific method -from operational definitions to the reality checks you've done before being so sure of what you simply "assert"- and something about yo managing numbers, as it all has been too verbal to this point and it's still not clear if you have arrived to those conclusion on a method or you simply "feel" that they're right. Regrettably, it's so common the last way in these forae that we have to ask.

"Correlation does not equal causation" has sound to my ears more a buzz phrase than something really related to what you were discussing, unless you had used "inescapable correlation" as a way to suggest causation without having to provide an explanation for that, that is, to provide strength to your position without the need to add meat to the bone. Or as a way to say "not causation; just an inch away from it". That's why I think you could make clear what you meant by explaining your post #4123 and listing more elements behind that "once again" of yours, instead of "challenging" people.

Here's my understanding of your words: you seem just to have mixed up a "theme" with a variable that may relate to it, to me that's the only available explanation to your loose use of warmth, prosperity and correlation in the same sentence.

 

[Westwall]

LIFE adapts. This does not mean that the total amount of life on the planet does not drop astoundingly while it does so. Because what is adapted to is the destruction of the ecological niche. Animals with a more intact niche survive the event and re-radiate into the empty niches over the course of deep time.

If you look at the fossil tree it shows plainly the increasing diversity and complexity of life forms. Those critters that are able to survive in multiple areas and fill multiple niches are those that survive the best. Critters that exist in very limited areas or fill very limited niches are extinct, they just don't know it yet. The first problem to come along and they are toast.

Life is about energy and the efficient use of it. 600 million years ago some event occured that made it really important for critters to have hard parts. Before that time there were no shells, no bones etc. At the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary it became absolutely critical for animals to develop shells to defend themselves. From that point on you see the fossil tree explode.

 

[Westwall]

First correlation, now causation. Either you changed subject or .... ?



What does that pairing [to be cold; do well] mean? What operative definitions do you have in mind for that? Once you have defined it, do you have in mind "correlation"? "causation"? It would be nice that your multi-posting include some hints that you deal with the scientific method -from operational definitions to the reality checks you've done before being so sure of what you simply "assert"- and something about yo managing numbers, as it all has been too verbal to this point and it's still not clear if you have arrived to those conclusion on a method or you simply "feel" that they're right. Regrettably, it's so common the last way in these forae that we have to ask.

"Correlation does not equal causation" has sound to my ears more a buzz phrase than something really related to what you were discussing, unless you had used "inescapable correlation" as a way to suggest causation without having to provide an explanation for that, that is, to provide strength to your position without the need to add meat to the bone. Or as a way to say "not causation; just an inch away from it". That's why I think you could make clear what you meant by explaining your post #4123 and listing more elements behind that "once again" of yours, instead of "challenging" people.

Here's my understanding of your words: you seem just to have mixed up a "theme" with a variable that may relate to it, to me that's the only available explanation to your loose use of warmth, prosperity and correlation in the same sentence.

It is a scientific axiom that correlation does not equal causation. When I refer to the correlation of warmth to animal well being I am not claiming that the warmth is the REASON for the relatively prosperous outcomes for animals in general. It is no doubt a combination of many things that make warm times beneficial to life.

But, they are beneficial. That is the point. That is historically proveable. That is the sole point I was attempting to make. You'll have to excuse the rambling nature of the post as I was a tad fatigued after a long couple of days.

 

[Trakar]

Pick any time you wish.

Here is the wikipedia page on the PETM which I am using for brevity due to it being past midnight and I'm tired! If you wish to look there are dozens of papers on Springerlink dealing with the profusion of life during the PETM.

Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM

This is a science board, those making scientific assertions should be prepared to support their assertions with compelling and scientifically reliable citation and reference. Your statement was: "On the other hand the paleo record is very clear that warmth equates to properity." - presumably "prosperity."
Please cite or refence valid scientific publications or references compellingly supporting this statement (or retract it) not a compendium of popular understanding and suspect authority/veracity.

And here is the link to Paleontology online with their take on the mammalian response to the warmth...

The assertion you were asked to provide support for stated was: "The PETM saw the greatest expansion of terrestrial species the world had seen up to that point according to the fossil record." Your offered link does not support this statement. Please provide compelling supporting citation or reference for this assertion, or retract it.

 

[Trakar]

Actually it's a pretty simple process. Volcanic activity releases enormous quantities of sulfer dioxide and particulate matter into the atmosphere. This cools the planet and reduces the growing time for the plants that are the bottom of the food chain. Starvation ensues.

It's not rocket science. It is the fundamental problem with subsistence level agriculture which has been then norm for most of human existence. You like to harp on about rate of change being the determiner and in a way you are correct, but in an accidental manner.

Rate of change kills because subsistence level agriculture can't prepare for a single years interuption. We can. Our farming technology has increased to the point that when Russia lost most of their wheat crop it wasn't that big a deal. Whaet prices peaked at I think it was 14 bucks for a bushel but that pales in comparison to the 1920's price of 22 dollars a bushel (equivalent) the last time there was a major loss of production.

We were discussing the ability of current flora and fauna to migrate, adapt and/or evolve to dramatically and rapidly changing climates, and you feel that diverging into a seemingly eristic monologue about human technological innovation and simplistic economic anecdotes is an appropriate response? Seriously?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the connection. Please explain.

 

[Trakar]

I will simply let the historical record do that for me. A couple of years ago there was a cold snap that hit the northern hemisphere and 1.6 million animals perished in Mongolia alone. Please show us a time when it was warmer and animals died in those numbers.

please cite or reference this assertion.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It is a scientific axiom that correlation does not equal causation. When I refer to the correlation of warmth to animal well being I am not claiming that the warmth is the REASON for the relatively prosperous outcomes for animals in general. It is no doubt a combination of many things that make warm times beneficial to life.

But, they are beneficial. That is the point. That is historically proveable. That is the sole point I was attempting to make. You'll have to excuse the rambling nature of the post as I was a tad fatigued after a long couple of days.

The problem is the loose definition of variables -they are not even variables to you-. For instance, you speak of "warmth" and "prosperity". On the side of "warmth" you seem to ignore that this very moment the temperatures on earth's surface ranges at least 90° (some 160 Fahrenheit), and that range widens to more than 200° if you think of the biosphere. About "prosperity", you linked it to the number of species, but it seems that you ignore that the number of species increases on the end of extremely long periods -what favours regional differentiation- of climates with a narrow and stable range of temperatures -what favours specialization-.

I'm sorry but it takes too long to comment about every point you are dealing with a wrong, incomplete or lack of methodology. It looks like you are departing from the notion of lush tropics and food decaying without refrigeration and automatically concluding some prosperous effects on the earth and those which/who inhabit it. Loosely using correlation, causation or axiom in a buzz term fashion, along with everyday terms like warmth and well being doesn't make your argument true nor backed, specially when the conclusions seems to precede the backing argumentation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I will simply let the historical record do that for me. A couple of years ago there was a cold snap that hit the northern hemisphere and 1.6 million animals perished in Mongolia alone. Please show us a time when it was warmer and animals died in those numbers.

Oh! C'mon! Not a variation of the Bolivian fishes tale, please!

I want you to know that I'm aware that you didn't created that, but yours -and I going to substantiate this- is the kind of argument that resembles in any logical aspect to this one made by one of the posters in this thread that share your point of view.

But such categorical assertions on my part requires a thoroughly explanation. The 1.6 million livestock, 4 or 11 million Bolivian fishes and 50 human beings in Rio de Janeiro (imagine palm trees and a tropical music playing), all of it sharing the same cause: they are linked to global warming.

The case for Bolivian fishes dead during a "cold snap" is archetypical and I had the opportunity to discuss it thoroughly in another forum, a private one, so I can't link those posts -maybe I might cut&paste parts here if you want to learn it-. To summarize it (and oversimplify it), Bolivia has rivers tributaries of the Amazon and rivers tributaries of River Plate. There are a few indirect and temporary connexions between both basins (one, the size of Canada, the other one, the size of India) so there are river fishes that are related in both basins, thus, the northernmost -then subtropical- corner of Plata's basin has a fish called palometa criolla that is related to piranha, though much less aggressive and dangerous. When climate becomes warmer, like in recent decades, species from hotter climates abandon their niches in the northernmost part of Plata's basin and develop in a wider region to the south, even hundreds of kilometres south of Tropic of Capricorn, in former temperate regions. And then, cold winter weather, so common 40 years ago, remember that it hasn't paid us a visit in many years and knocks the door. In that regions, cold weather comes with La Niña, and that implies not only cold but drought. The last part of the drama is a couple of developings during the last 40 years: the boom of industrial and commercial cities like Santa Cruz de la Sierra with its environmental problems and the developing of fish farming, mainly using small and shallow concrete tanks alongside rivers and creeks. The disaster started when weather conditions cooled the now shallow -and in some areas contaminated- local rivers' waters and fishes belonging to species fostered by a warm climate started to die. The problem topping that was the cold snap killing fishes in farm ponds -some of them belonging to species not natural to the region-, and the farmers getting rid of the rotting fishes by "flushing" them into the shallow rivers. The result was a vicious cycle of contaminated waters killing fishes and dead fishes deteriorating further the quality of waters. As a result 4 to 11 million fishes died and the usual deniers claimed "UNPRECEDENTED COLD SNAP KILLED BOLIVIAN FISHES" (exactly your "Mongolian animals").

The other assertion was about yours epistemologically resembling the octopus' thread. Well, in both there is a lack of structural knowledge about the subject -how evolution works and how climate change impacts on distribution of species- and contain a poster hoc regarding the underlying conditions (in a negative way in the case of evolution) to promote jumping to a conclusion without even looking at the evidence (a manipulative technique of sorts): in your example, 'cold snap snapped animals so as they were alive before it must have been warmer ages'.

The fact is that I am not prepared now to the cold weather of my childhood and teen age so I could be "in danger" in case of a cold snap -one of those ones during the good ole times-. I used to have many sweaters (wool, angora wool, etc.) and I even wore one over another one a few times. The last time I used a sweater was in Winter 1986 when I was studying in the suburban home of a classmate and it was -6° there when I came back about 1 or 2 a.m. The fact is that when it snowed here in 2007 I no longer had a sweater -I still have none-, so I couldn't enjoy the snow because I was freezing. But the snow was another solid proof for the usual deniers, though in spite reality runs slower, it finally catches us up. Why don't I have sweaters? Well, this excerpt of a post of mine in other forum may explain:

Buenos Aires, July 9th: A snowstorm, first one since 1918, cover the city. The higher temperature is 1.2° (34°F), the "lowest high" since 1860's. Some photos: the Evita balcony, the park I used to play as a child, effect on fellow citizens, the postcard of the day.

Buenos Aires, September 8th, 3AM (60 days later): temperature is 22° (70°F) and I'm desperately looking for all the summer-anti-mosquito-equipment as I became suddenly attacked by these creatures tonight in these last days of WINTER. This weekend are expected temperatures up to 30° (86°F).

There's a name for this kind of climate: subtropical (short and dry winter, 8 months of summer) and is now 1,500 km. moved to South (or North) than it used to be.

...

With many harvests damaged by frosts, we are now importing potatoes from Canada. Parsley, a good that local greengrocers traditionally gave for free, is now as expensive as veal loin.

....

So, Westwall, you have already a lot of posts but, have you something to discuss?

 

[Furcifer]

The problem is the loose definition of variables -they are not even variables to you-. For instance, you speak of "warmth" and "prosperity". On the side of "warmth" you seem to ignore that this very moment the temperatures on earth's surface ranges at least 90° (some 160 Fahrenheit), and that range widens to more than 200° if you think of the biosphere. About "prosperity", you linked it to the number of species, but it seems that you ignore that the number of species increases on the end of extremely long periods -what favours regional differentiation- of climates with a narrow and stable range of temperatures -what favours specialization-.

I'm sorry but it takes too long to comment about every point you are dealing with a wrong, incomplete or lack of methodology. It looks like you are departing from the notion of lush tropics and food decaying without refrigeration and automatically concluding some prosperous effects on the earth and those which/who inhabit it. Loosely using correlation, causation or axiom in a buzz term fashion, along with everyday terms like warmth and well being doesn't make your argument true nor backed, specially when the conclusions seems to precede the backing argumentation.

Just look at biomes and the biodiversity as a function of average temperature. Or better yet look at something like the Holdridge vegetation classification system. It's clear that biodiversity and the frost line are closely related.
The real issue isn't temperature, as Trakar and others pointed out it's a matter of how fast the change is occurring. Early spring and late frost will have a negative impact of species that cannot adapt as fast as the change occurs. For the species that can adapt it will have a positive effect. It's easy to get caught up in the negative effect and overlook the positive. A classic example of which is the fighting of forest fires. In our infinite human wisdom we looked at forest fires, saw the "extreme" changes, dubbed ourselves the guardians of the planet, and tried to fight something that is not only beneficial, but in many cases essential.

 

[lomiller]

Yes, those of us that are familiar with statistical analysis are comfortable calling it an "educated guess".

Calling detailed statistical analysis an “educated guess” is comparable to calling Evolution “just a theory” but hey at least it lets us know where you stand

Neither post supports your false claim.

The you. should have no problem saying you agree with my post 4088 and that your objection to it was not valid, yet time and time you try to avoid doing so

Realclimate is run by actively publishing climate scientists reporting on their own peer reviewed work and other peer reviewed literature.

This is common knowledge.

And you persist in calling the site “RealCrapCliamte” and insisting their work is pseudoscience. Again, while your claims don’t have much substance, at least it lets us know how your belief system works.

This is a lie and if you read post #4103 for comprehension you will see why. I really don't know anyone who would claim the recent change isn't rapid.



Correct. These are based on model "approximations". They "confirm" nothing and claiming otherwise is to deliberately misrepresent the science.

Progress!

So the next step, are you willing to admit that claims of rapid climate change are not in fact “alarmist” and are in fact a justified reaction to the science?

These are based on model "approximations". They "confirm" nothing and claiming otherwise is to deliberately misrepresent the science.

Ah regression

Now you claim that all the detailed climate reconstructions published in Journals like Science, Nature, PNAS, etc are “approximations that confirm nothing”? Again, at least it lets us know where you stand, but the obvious question is if you don’t believe the peer reviewed climate reconstructions, what did you use as a source when you made claims about past climate?

 

[Furcifer]

Calling detailed statistical analysis an “educated guess” is comparable to calling Evolution “just a theory” but hey at least it lets us know where you stand

Incorrect. It's not remotely comparable.

The you. should have no problem saying you agree with my post 4088 and that your objection to it was not valid, yet time and time you try to avoid doing so

I don't know what you mean because you've failed to substantiate your claim.

And you persist in calling the site “RealCrapCliamte” and insisting their work is pseudoscience. Again, while your claims don’t have much substance, at least it lets us know how your belief system works.

Incorrect. RealCrapClimate is a website. It doesn't do "work" if by work you mean publishing scientific studies. This isn't a "claim", it's a well known fact.

So the next step, are you willing to admit that claims of rapid climate change are not in fact “alarmist” and are in fact a justified reaction to the science?

Weren't we talking about the change in atmospheric chemistry? Anyways, I don't believe the statement of a scientific fact, in and of itself is "alarmist".

Now you claim that all the detailed climate reconstructions published in Journals like Science, Nature, PNAS, etc are “approximations that confirm nothing”?

I said nothing about this at all, you've fabricated this again.

Again, at least it lets us know where you stand, but the obvious question is if you don’t believe the peer reviewed climate reconstructions, what did you use as a source when you made claims about past climate?

What's this talk about "belief"? Is this the science forum or the religion forum? I know what the model reconstructions are, they're computer simulations. I don't "believe" or "not believe" this, I know it as fact.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Just look at biomes and the biodiversity as a function of average temperature. Or better yet look at something like the Holdridge vegetation classification system. It's clear that biodiversity and the frost line are closely related.

Cold climates generally have a great range of temperatures, and "all-terrain vehicles" are needed, so to speak. Glaciations and warming periods have geographically stretched and shrunk those areas, so a lesser number of species have survived. An omnivorous animal or a hundred specialized animals are the answer to different conditions and histories. An amoeba or your body with thousands of specialized cells are a similar example. Biodiversity is at most a variable that is difficult to work, and its "correlation" with average regional temperatures has to do with its definition and the recent biological story. The hundred species are the most fragile when challenged with environmental changes.

The real issue isn't temperature, as Trakar and others pointed out it's a matter of how fast the change is occurring.

So you have concede that since the times of 3bodyproblem. Good for you.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Please quote the posts to which you are responding.

Seconded. Not quoting posts makes it especially hard for those of us who rarely visit this thread.

Incorrect. RealCrapClimate is a website.

If RealCrapClimate is an actual website, and not some sort of childish pejorative, I'd appreciate the full URL for RealCrapClimate. My DNS couldn't find it, and a Google search on "RealCrapClimate" yielded naught but pejorative usage at JREF.

On the other hand the paleo record is very clear that warmth equates to properity. The PETM saw the greatest expansion of terrestrial species the world had seen up to that point according to the fossil record.

Here is the wikipedia page on the PETM which I am using for brevity due to it being past midnight and I'm tired! If you wish to look there are dozens of papers on Springerlink dealing with the profusion of life during the PETM.

Life

Edited by Gaspode: 

Snipped for compliance with rule 4.

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota.

One problem with citing Wikipedia as your source is that its articles tend to contradict themselves. The statement I highlighted, for example, appears to be contradicted by this sentence near the beginning of the article:

Many benthic foraminifera and terrestrial mammals went extinct, but numerous modern mammalian orders emerged

I'm sorry to be so species-centric, possibly even to the point of being one of those dreaded humanists, but I'm not really keen on pursuing a course of action that, according to the PETM precedent you cited, may result in the extinction of my species of terrestrial mammals.

It's some consolation to know that new mammalian orders may emerge as my species goes extinct, but are you sure that's the argument you want to defend here?

 

[CapelDodger]

A rather strange diversion into how AGW will turn out to have done the biosphere a favour long after we are dead and forgotten even by our descendants (if any). Antarctica will once more abound with life. I find myself picturing an apex predator in the Terror Bird mode, descended from penguins. Ten million years should be more than enough for that.

The AGW "debate" just gets weirder and weirder ...

 

[CapelDodger]

Nonsense.They've already begun to adjust. The adaptation to a changing environment is a continuous process.

Pine beetles would agree with that. The ecosystem they're colonising doesn't seem to be doing terribly well though.

History is an excellent guide. The fact that the climate may not have changed as fast in the past says absolutely nothing about the ability of organisms within that environment to adapt to the change.

The fact that ecosystems have adjusted to much slower change says nothing about how they'll adjust to unprecedentedly rapid change. So no, history isn't a good guide.

Just because something has never been done does not mean it can't be done.

You mean like pigs taking to the air?

 

[CapelDodger]

My whole point is that real tenured environmental scientists came down here and held town meetings where they worked the crowds up into a froth with tales of complete devastation of the local ecosystem and seafood economy (with trips paid for by environmental orgs like The Sierra club) only to have the results of the oil spill be pretty much a drop in the bucket.

I was at the damn meetings!! I don't remember their names,(just as I don't remember the names of all the people i dealt with after Katrina). But this was stated and I know that their trips were paid for by environmental groups cuz I have a friend who works as a marine biologist down here who hung out with them during their stay here. She was told flat out that they were brought in to increase the public fury and put pressure on BP. They did it by making crap up.

That would work well in the Daily Torygraph letters-page, but I'm sceptical of people blurting out the truth of conspiracies they're engaged in to strangers.

I'm also sceptical of claims that the long-term impact of BP's contribution to the Gulf of Mexico's ecosystem is already established.

Frankly, I don't care enough about this issue to even argue. I'm not a denier that climate is changing (it's always changing and it will always change) nor am I a denier that people have had an impact on it. I am very skeptical,however, of the sky is falling claims made by groups based on the climatological data presented. I don't like state of fear propaganda.

Those are "sky is falling" predictions, until they actually come to pass, after which they become "no big deal really".

I too object to the much more publicised state of fear propaganda mounted by the right over a price being put on carbon, the overweening power of environmentalists and the UN, and all the other fears that conservatives are so prone to.

Not to mention that I will be dead by the time any of this matters.

That's a pessimistic view. Stuff is already happening, and some of it might come to matter to you.

 

[bit_pattern]

A rather strange diversion into how AGW will turn out to have done the biosphere a favour long after we are dead and forgotten even by our descendants (if any). Antarctica will once more abound with life. I find myself picturing an apex predator in the Terror Bird mode, descended from penguins. Ten million years should be more than enough for that.

The AGW "debate" just gets weirder and weirder ...

Yeah I've been itching to say something about that myself (been on a bit of an enforced holiday for the last few days ).

Sure, biodiversity might be more abundant on a hotter, wetter planet, which is great for all the species that will eventually develop niches in the world we inherit to them but it won't be so great for humans because by the time that abundant biodiversity re-establishes itself from the complete ecological collapse we cause humans will be long gone.

 

[Trakar]

Oh! C'mon! Not a variation of the Bolivian fishes tale, please!...

Interesting, I believe that Nature even had a write-up on it detailing the different stressor factors involved in the fish-kill. In such wildlife kills the issue is generally a quick and dramatic change (hot or cold) not just exposure to typical conditions. Likewise there are often complicating factors; an unusually hot previous summer and drought that prevent the growth of adequate forage to allow animals to survive a long or unusually harsh winter, an increase of opportunistic infectious agents and environmental stressors to make the species more susceptible to such agents, etc.,. Interesting read though!

(BTW - Participation on the boards seem to be enhancing and expanding your english, congrats and glad to see you back participating more regularly. Happy New Years)

 

[lomiller]

Incorrect. It's not remotely comparable.

No amount of assertion on your part will allow dismiss detailed statistical analyses showing current temperatures are warmer than any time in the last 2000 as “just an educated guess”

BTW you still haven’t answered my question, if you want to ignore the climate reconstructions what is you basis for you (incorrect) claim “over the last 5000 years, several times it's been higher than it is now”

I don't know what you mean because you've failed to substantiate your claim.

So you do disagree? Once again, do you or do you not admit climate scientists can calculated trends in the earth’s climate?

Incorrect. RealCrapClimate is a website.

As already pointed this does not appear to be a valid URL. It’s pretty obvious you are simply showing your disdain for the climate scientists who run the site http://www.realclimate.org/

Weren't we talking about the change in atmospheric chemistry?

Climate science is physics, not chemistry. Please try to familiarize yourself with the subject at hand.

What's this talk about "belief"?

Just calling you out for being someone who isn’t willing to discuss the science in favor of their own beliefs.